For some years, Minneapolis city leaders have fretted about downtown retail (“Nicollet retail is sending an SOS,” Feb. 12). During the last 15 years, I have traveled to many of the large cities in Europe. They normally do not have long cement canyons like the Nicollet Mall. They have wide boulevards, green space, parks and restaurants. While there, why not shop and stroll in these inviting spacious places?
William D. Bieber, Maple Grove
• • •
Even really good ideas age out.
For years and years, Nicollet Avenue was a two-way traffic street like others and functioned well as such. In 1967, some really creative people decided to make it a walking street to retain retail shopping downtown. As the Feb. 12 article mentioned, so many things have changed that the brilliant idea may no longer meet anyone’s needs. In the face of those changes, has anyone seriously considered not spending millions to recreate something that doesn’t really meet anybody’s current needs? I’m trying to imagine anyone driving in from Plymouth to visit “temporary art installations and pop-up events.”
How about we straighten it back to the original street, pave it over, open it to cars, and find somewhere else to spend the money? Even good ideas become obsolete. Just a thought.
Carol Siegel, Minneapolis
• • •
I am continuously baffled as I walk the downtown Minneapolis area and see absolutely no activity on the Nicollet Mall renovation. Ironically, I notice that the site of the future Trader Joe’s store on Washington and Chicago Avenues is bustling with activity. I suspect that the Trader Joe’s will be up and running a light year before the Nicollet Mall is completed. (Is there even still a plan to complete it?) What a shame, and what a failure of governance by the city. Many citizens were drawn to the downtown area because of the beautiful Nicollet Mall. Now, it sits in disrepair, and fairly well discourages visitors. I personally am concerned because I moved downtown because of the beauty and vibrancy of this great city. But when I walk past the mall, I feel as if the downtown area has been given up for dead. It is a modern-day Chernobyl. There is no excuse for the time it is taking to renovate the city’s premier avenue. Mayor Betsy Hodges and her administration have really failed the city in this regard.
Stephan Patnode, Minneapolis
PLANNED PARENTHOOD
‘Abortion rallies’ headline mischaracterized the mission
The Feb. 12 print headline “Pink dominates dueling abortion rallies” was misleading and inflammatory. Planned Parenthood exists to provide low-income and uninsured people access to contraceptives and sexual health care. Abortion is a small fraction (3 percent) of the services provided. None of the federal money allotted to PP goes to abortion services.
In 2011, Mike Pence, then a U.S. representative from Indiana, sponsored a bill to ban federal funds to any organization that provides abortion services. The bill did not pass at that time, but the issue is again at stake as House Speaker Paul Ryan has stated he plans to defund PP as part of repealing the Affordable Care Act.
Take a look at the consequences of defunding PP: Needy families and individuals will lose access to reproductive and sexual health services. The obvious result is an increase in unplanned pregnancies, with no safe option for termination.
The debate over abortion is not a political issue, it is a moral one and will never be resolved. Wherever a person stands on the issue, it is an illogical decision to deny contraception services to those who seek it, as it prevents unwanted pregnancies and results in fewer abortions.
To label those of us who support Planned Parenthood as “pro-abortion” is misleading. We were there to advocate for those of us who need safe and affordable reproductive services.
Marilyn Ulrich, St. Paul
• • •
Jim Marti, a Planned Parenthood advocate, was quoted in the Feb. 12 article as saying that Planned Parenthood has been a leader in providing safe abortion services. “Abortion has to be safe and legal. If it is illegal, it could be deadly,” he said.
During a “safe legal” abortion, the procedure is always deadly. A small infant — a human being — always dies. Calling a child a fetus does not make him any less human. At what stage of development is this not a baby? At 20 weeks’ gestation? At 12 weeks? If you say that at 12 weeks it is not a baby, then what is that “fetus” one day before 12 weeks? Or even 60 seconds before that time? Is it not a growing human, solely in need of time in the womb to develop? But, of course, we Americans shamefully have the legal right to deny that child that time. We live in sad times.
Kristi Fluharty, Prior Lake
U.S. BANK STADIUM LEADERSHIP
Hardly helps to rebuild image when the fleecing continues
The Feb. 12 editorial relative to rebuilding “public trust in stadium leadership” is wishful thinking as long as there is a refusal to deal with the larger issues besetting U.S. Bank stadium: (1) Zygi Wilf’s shifting of his burden to the public, and (2) state and local governments’ spending on the stadium far in excess of the legal limits established by law. Minnesota statutes make it abundantly clear that the public participation in “stadium costs” would be limited to $498 million.
The cost of retiring the state-issued bonds alone will be some $600 million. And then we have well more than $8 million from the Metropolitan Council and the Department of Transportation for stadium improvements and another $65 million from the city leaders of Minneapolis for a “park” and the 1,418 parking spaces for the Vikings. This does not include the millions it will cost the taxpayers for ongoing operating costs and capital maintenance of the stadium.
Since both political parties participated in this deal, there has not been any investigation — no public hearings or compliance audits. The violations simply continue, and we pay. How can trust be restored when the public is not entitled to know the truth and public officials are not held accountable?
Arne H. Carlson, Minneapolis
The writer was governor of Minnesota from 1991 to 1999.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Need more women on Board of Regents? Yes. Easy? No.
The key to boosting female membership on the University of Minnesota Board of Regents is recruitment. If women aren’t persuaded to nominate themselves, they can’t be recommended (“Gender balance is still lacking on the Board of Regents,” Feb. 12).
As a former chair of the Regents Candidate Advisory Council, I faced the same criticism the RCAC is receiving now, from a good friend, a feminist, and it smarted. My fair response to her was: “And which women did you send us?” Then I recited the names of women I had tried, and failed, to recruit, and some I had succeeded with. That last group was a very short list.
It’s a huge job to find and persuade qualified people to nominate themselves to the board, and the most difficult to recruit are women. The RCAC needs help identifying and talking these women into putting put their names in contention. In fact, I’m still recruiting, as I encounter a prime candidate vacationing in San Diego, or touring a hospital as a fellow potential board member. The job never ends.
We should have enormous respect for, and extend our thanks to, those who serve on the RCAC. They don’t always get it precisely right, but sometimes that is beyond their control. It’s a flawed process, but not of their design. So, give them a break, and help them out. Recruit! We need more women to helm our University of Minnesota Board of Regents. And that’s the truth.
Mary McLeod, St. Paul
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
