Readers Write: Mining, ‘snirt,’ nursing home staffing, ‘Barbie’ snubs

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As a born-and-bred Iron Ranger, I read state Rep. Spencer Igo’s assurances about the proposed Tamarak mine with incredulity (”This isn’t our great-great grandparents’ mining debate,” Opinion Exchange, Jan. 25). Taconite mining put food on my family’s table for three generations. I’m acutely aware of its economic benefits and the allure copper-nickel mining holds for the region. As president of the Eveleth Taconite Co. (EVTAC) in the 1990s, my grandfather, David DeLeo, often spoke of a day he would oversee the extraction of those base metals.

Where I grow perplexed is Igo’s understanding of the time continuum. He states “anti-mining advocates ... continue to live in an 1890s mindset.” In 1986, Reserve Mining declared bankruptcy following the longstanding dispute over dumping their tailings into Lake Superior. My grandfather (not great-great-grandfather) oversaw the sale of Reserve Mining’s assets during that period. If my math and memory are correct, 1986 is nearly 100 years after 1890.

Igo also asserts that the days when “permitting and regulatory structures were inadequate” reside firmly in the past. In August 2023, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended another key permit for the PolyMet/NorthMet copper-nickel mine, remanding it back to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency due to its inadequate enforcement of the law. Is an event from five months ago truly to be relegated to the dustbins of history?

People create fictional timelines to manipulate others into questioning their own perception of reality. I lived the reality of the Iron Range’s mining industry until my dad retired from Northshore mining in 2011. No amount of gaslighting will succeed in painting me as anti-mining, nor antiquated in my belief that our state agencies are not up to the task of regulating this new type of mining.

It turns out my Iron Range public school education has held up well: I can do math.

The writer is a board member at WaterLegacy.

Spencer Igo, a Republican member of the Minnesota House, makes what appears to be a good-faith argument that new mining projects could be made safe by “the most rigorous permitting and regulatory process in the history of our state” and “standards that the mine will be required to maintain by the state of Minnesota [that] will go beyond any standards from the past.”

I don’t claim the scientific expertise to know what is and isn’t possible for safely regulating a mine. But it’s difficult to trust that the state of Minnesota, whether under a Republican governor or only in facing pressure from Republican legislators, would be able to rigorously regulate to an unprecedented standard. Not when Republicans for decades have campaigned on animosity toward government regulation, which in the current iteration promotes hatred of government regulators as self-interested bureaucrats, if not part of some conspiracy — in the national context maligned as the “deep state.”

Only after Igo demonstrates that he can shift the rhetoric of his own party toward generally supporting strong governmental regulation for the benefit of labor and the environment, and campaign for appropriate resources and appreciation for the civil servants who will be entrusted to maintain unprecedented high standards, can today’s opponents of new mines reasonably engage in good-faith cooperative discussions about the treaty-abiding environmental parameters in which new Minnesota projects may be considered.

Michael Friedman, Minneapolis

A more acceptable name for this displaced soil may be “snoil” as a combination of “snow” and “soil” that shows proper respect for soil that is the farmers’ and our lifeblood, supporting 95-98% of our food production. New stresses imposed by climate and other global changes now demand a reassessment and reconfiguration of the traditional soil conservation practices in many regions of the world. Conventional agriculture is confronted with the pressure of expanding global population, depleting and degrading natural resources of soil, water and biodiversity, manpower shortages and limited availability of new critical technology understanding ecological systems. There have been increased calls for a transformation of conventional agriculture to modern, carbon-centric agricultural-production systems with minimum soil disturbance, continuous plant biomass soil cover and increased biodiversity in crop rotations and cover crop mixes already being employed by a few innovative farmers. Knowing the importance of soil in our food production systems should require everyone understand, respect and preserve soil to maintain soil, water, air and environmental quality and our food security for future generations.

Don Reicosky, Morris, Minn.

The writer is a retired soil scientist.

I was struck by the recent article by Therese Mondembe, a certified nursing assistant in Plymouth, who so effectively captured the turmoil of an essential profession that is becoming increasingly fragile (”Minnesota’s out of time on nursing home staff crisis,” Opinion Exchange, Jan. 22). The growing threat of the caregiver shortage will impact all of us — if not now, then soon.

Like Therese, I am a caregiver who works hard to serve Minnesota’s elderly each day. I love what I do. However, low wages make it very difficult to stay in this field. Back-to-back shifts and high turnover are exhausting and unsustainable.

Already, the caregiver shortage has limited access to long-term care in communities across Minnesota. It’s heartbreaking to hear stories of seniors turned away from care because of lack of staff or forced to relocate hours away from their communities. This isn’t who we are as a state. Older adults and their families deserve better.

As Therese points out in her article, “Minnesota has run out of time.” The state must act now to help raise caregiver wages, build the caregiving workforce and protect access to long-term care.

Amanda LaChance, North St. Paul

Regarding “Oscar honors Ken, overlooks Barbie” (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 26): How can not including Margot Robbie in the five finalists for Best Actress be a sexist snub? If she had been one of the five nominees, another woman would have been excluded. Perhaps what is sexist is that there are actually separate categories for “actors” and “actresses.” I thought that the current custom is to refer to both women and men as “actors.”