Delay the rent vote
The St. Paul City Council is considering a permanent exemption to the rent stabilization law voters approved just five years ago. On April 8, the City took public comment on this motion. Billion-dollar developers like Ryan Construction support this permanent exemption. We oppose it, and further request that action on this be postponed at least until the fall, both to gather accurate data and evidence and to democratically elect a new city councilor from Ward 4.
Supporters argue that this permanent exemption is needed because housing development in St. Paul has fallen over the last five years. However, speakers on April 8 pointed out that Minneapolis, with no rent stabilization, has experienced exactly the same reduction in development as St. Paul. On April 8, Sczepanski and Hoang published a letter to the editor with solid research showing rent stabilization has not affected housing development in other cities; Sczepanski testified at the hearing, presenting some of that same research evidence. But the Council appears to be ignoring the data in a rush to vote on May 7. This rush to offer developers permanent exemptions for new builds must not amplify a pattern already occurring here — naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) is being torn down in order to build new housing that is not affordable to working people. Surely any permanent exemption to rent stabilization should exclude new higher-priced construction that destroys affordable housing.
Of course St. Paul needs more housing for a range of incomes, but the Ccty needs to be more thoughtful and creative in producing housing specifically for low-income residents. Please delay the vote on exemption, and use the time to consider alternatives.
John Slade and Elaine Tarone, St Paul
The writers are members of the St. Paul Chapter of MICAH (Metropolitan Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing)
Don’t sacrifice worker safety
We will remember all workers in the U.S. on April 28, who were killed, disabled, injured, or made unwell by their work. The day marks the legislative anniversary of OSHA (occupational safety and health act) of 1970. On average, 344 workers a day die on the job or from occupational diseases. Let that sink in and let us remember all the families that are affected.
In this time of chaos in Washington, D.C, let us not sacrifice worker safety in the name of streamlining or cost-cutting.
Bernie Hesse, St. Paul
A great disconnect
In his opinion piece, “It’s Time for a Civic Uprising,” David Brooks sets the terms for a non-violent civil war, though he may not call it that. He insists that President Donald Trump cares nothing about the strictures of our Constitution and rule of law; that his goal is power.
Remarkably, millions of those who elected President Trump argued the same about Presidents Obama and Biden. In many ways, it’s what motivated them to vote for Donald Trump.
We have a great disconnect here. Brooks urges that residents unite against the president in a series of peaceful moves, a powerful alliance of those who fear him. He especially urges us to use lawsuits to stifle the president’s actions; lawfare, that is a term we’ve heard repeatedly in the last few years.
Thankfully, he does not urge violence, but it is sure to come. A massive civil movement rising up against the wishes of the 77 million who voted for Trump will not end well, that is, unless our civil and legal institutions right themselves and reduce the tension.
Dave Racer, Woodbury
Correct, violence has no place
The letter writer from Owatonna is correct in saying that violence has no place in our disagreements and political differences.
When he asked, “What could be more anti-democratic than that?” — I immediately wondered what he thought of the riot at the capitol on Jan 6, 2021, influenced by Donald J Trump. I still cannot understand anyone who could vote for him after he sat, watching the violence unfold and escalate. It was an attempt to disrupt one of the most important processes in our democracy. Trump had every means to stop the attack, but obviously preferred to watch from the sidelines for several hours. And then, after becoming elected, President Trump let these people off the hook, maybe giving the country and the world the impression that there is an acceptable place for violence, which is a terrible thing.
Colleen Flaherty Hocking, Hugo
Where is the evidence?
The column by David Brooks (“It’s time for a civic uprising”, April 19) didn’t disappoint. And I’m sorry my newspaper wasted a half-page of ink on this screed. Everything isn’t about President Trump. He dared to address the financial and philosophical excesses of our society. He dared to represent half of the population of our country — as attested to by the last national election.
Mr. Brooks labels what he calls “Trumpism” as evil. And he accuses President Trump of being “… primarily about the acquisition of power — power for its own sake.” Where is the evidence?
The present administration is facing a bureaucracy that was and is out of control. There has apparently been nobody leading the country for four years, and Mr. Brooks, by his silence, was part of that coverup. Laws were not being enforced even when the police did their job. Limits were set on when they were allowed to pursue investigations or even provide safety. Hundreds of thousands of children are unaccounted for. Immigration was not just allowed but encouraged — with accommodations not heretofore offered. Election security laws and rules were relaxed. Those last two were for the acquisition of ongoing power — there could be no other reason.
And that is only the beginning. This country cannot afford to continue on the path on which we live. We have exceeded most, if not all economists’ published estimates of how much debt the United States can safely carry. With our debt load accompanied by increasing ongoing spending and increasing borrowing rates, we are one hiccup from financial disaster. All we need is one major power to boycott our bonds.
Mr. Brooks and those in his camp apparently have no counterarguments to the efforts to reduce the bloat caused by our out-of-control grant system, so this is the language they employ. Attack and vilify and dehumanize the person. And this isn’t about President Trump. It wouldn’t make any difference what his name is. The actions of the present administration threaten the entrenched system of spending and anarchy. This with the most open administration of my nearly 80 years of following the news (my opinion).
Art Thell, West St. Paul
Where we would be? Well …
“Just imagine where this country would be had Trump not won last November,” says an April 20 letter writer. Oh my.
Well, I know that we wouldn’t have to get up every morning with a sense of dread, wondering what he’d destroyed THIS time. I know that we wouldn’t have thrown our foreign allies to the wolves. I know that Canada, Denmark, and Panama would still be our friends. I know that those in charge of our military, our law enforcement and cybersecurity would still be competent people with the knowledge and experience to keep us safe. I know that any other president would not have fired anyone with brains and replaced them with his boot-licking cronies. I know we wouldn’t have a president who turned his best bud Musk loose to run amok in our federal agencies. I know that we would not have a president obsessed with illegally throwing immigrants out of the country to be incarcerated in some hellhole in a foreign land (even those here legally, who have committed no crimes). I know that our president would not be talking about doing the same to U.S. citizens. I know our president would not be hellbent on taking down our major universities and law firms. I know that we would not have a president who hates our judicial system — and flaunted his disobedience of a Supreme Court ruling. I know that our president’s only goals would not be retribution, chaos and destruction. I know we wouldn’t have a toddler in the White House.
Carol Turnbull, Woodbury
If he’d been at the office …
I’ve been seeing some stories about the man in Minneapolis who “allegedly” was caught on camera vandalizing six privately owned Teslas. A guy who the DA over there refuses to charge. I’m surprised she didn’t charge the cops for arresting him. Turns out the vandal is a state employee. That in itself is ironic. My thought is: If he had been working at the office instead of out walking his dog, he might not have found the time to be such a mindless, heartless and cowardly piece of humanity.
Mark Ruecker, Roseville
Privilege
A white, middle-class professional, who is an employee of the State of Minnesota, gets off with a wrist slap after vandalizing several Tesla vehicles around downtown Minneapolis. This sounds like the very definition of white privilege. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? I guess that if you are the correct color, and you work for the State, and you have the correct politics, you can get away with writing a check and avoiding jail time.
Gregory A. Beckstrom, Minneapolis
A slap on the wrist
Mighty Mary Moriarty strikes again. Yep, just when you think the Hennepin County attorney’s office can’t be laxer about crime, Moriarty sides with Tesla felony vandal and Minnesota state employee Dylan Brian Adams with the “diversion” program. We know Adams vandalized at least six Teslas and got a slap on the wrist. What incentives does this signal to Minneapolis Police investigators to do their job so diligently when you pull these political stunts? I can only imagine if this suspect were not a state employee, but a conservative who vandalized a vehicle, the book would be thrown at them with jail time.
Bobby Reardon, Pelican Lake Township
Where is the sense of humility and integrity?
I don’t say this lightly, but I’m writing in response to all the tired lecturing and petty grievances that I hear on a daily basis from individuals who have too much time on their hands, defending scam artists who don’t care about them one bit, as well as lectures from individuals who have their own indiscretions, Bill Cosby style. Where is the general public’s own sense of humility and integrity? And why use wokeism as an excuse to compensate for your own fragility and lack of self-esteem?
Dana W. Carlson, Woodbury
People, not pawns
Prophetic words of Pope Francis:
Refugees are not pawns on the chessboard of life.
Gerry Del Fiacco, Eagan
It all goes into the river
In the spirit of Earth Day let’s go to the store. Walk the aisles of bodywash, shampoo and conditioner, laundry soap, dish soap, all the superdooper cleansers, then tell yourself, “Everything in these containers is going into the Twin Cities sewer systems and will eventually end up in the Gulf of Mexico.” And the shelves will be restocked again and again. Folks, at the very least, use less of these. Please. Experiment to learn what is the smallest amount you actually need to use.
Linda Bryan, Maplewood
Sainted
A big thank you to all the individuals who recently picked up trash along West Seventh Street, St. Paul Avenue and Davern Street. Your many hours of hard work have not gone unnoticed and are much appreciated. You are truly Saints!
Kay Reich, St. Paul
Demonization and dehumanization, evil twins
“What we should demonize is people like Elon Musk,” declared former vice-presidential candidate and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz at a recent Ohio town hall. Just days later, Cody Balmer allegedly set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s home — a chilling reminder of where escalating political hostility can lead.
Increasing political violence germinates in a climate where demonizing opponents has been normalized. Walz’s rhetoric reflects a perilous and disturbing trend: the weaponization of the Us-vs-Them divide that sets us on a diabolical collision course because demonization and dehumanization are evil twins.
The Us-vs-Them divide dictates our perceptions, trust and even moral judgments. We extend generosity, the benefit of the doubt, and leniency to Us while scrutinizing, distrusting, and shaming Them. Us-vs-Them divisions and conflicts seep into every aspect of our lives but now are on full display in politics and acts of violence.
Gov. Walz could hardly contain his glee on stage over the decline of Tesla’s stock price. Tesla cars were set on fire, and its dealerships were vandalized. Meanwhile, over 48% of people on the left believe that murdering Elon Musk is justifiable, according to a new report from Rutgers University. It makes you wonder: Which direction are we steering into?
The roots of this Us-vs-Them divide run deep. Our brains are wired to categorize people into Us and Them primarily based on similarity. Such judgments come at lightning speed. Studies show that 6-month-old babies already prefer those who share something in common. Ask a 4-year-old boy to choose a playmate. His preferences center on the similarities in age, gender, language and accent.
The consequences of this unconscious divide are profound. Brain-imaging studies reveal that when we see images of Us, areas for social bonding activate, but when we see Them, our brain’s fear centers switch on. Worse, extreme Them groups — such as marginalized communities — trigger strong emotions such as disgust, as if you just swallowed a nasty bug. The brain has a built-in mechanism to dehumanize Them.
Once we stop acknowledging that our opponents are humans, there is only one rule left for the game: those identified as Them are fair game.
Aggression toward Them is part of unflattering human nature. Studies show that toddlers want to bond with those who are similar to them but punish those who are different. This tendency gets worse with age. In Jane Elliott’s classic 1960s experiment, third-grade children separated by eye color quickly began bullying those deemed inferior, showing how readily arbitrary distinctions foster division.
History offers chilling reminders of how demonization and dehumanization have been exploited to fuel atrocities. Nazi propaganda labeled Jews as “rats” during the Holocaust. During the Rwanda civil war, Hutus called Tutsis “cockroaches” before slaughtering 800,000 of them.
But do we even know who is Us and who is Them? Not long ago, Elon Musk was one of Us who would save our planet. Now, to many, he is one of Them. Not long ago, Gov. Walz promoted the adoption of electric vehicles. Now, he gets a boost when Tesla’s stock price plunges. Not long ago, more than 1 million Minnesotans owned Tesla stock through the state retirement plan. Today, they still do.
The fast-changing line between Us and Them can easily turn today’s hero into tomorrow’s villain. Then, who is safe and who won’t get demonized and dehumanized next?
Related Articles
Francois Nguyen: 50 years since the fall of Saigon: a reflection
Other voices: Muck up the tax code to control tariff damage? Bad idea
James Stavridis: My old warship is caught up in the battle over DEI
Joe Soucheray: Was politics a factor in Mary Moriarty’s charity to Tesla vandal?
F.D. Flam: Geoengineering’s risks need to be studied more
Criticizing Musk is healthy in a democracy. Publicly calling for demonizing people like him by a former vice-presidential candidate is against what our democracy stands for. The exploitation of Us vs. Them always starts at the top and will never get old.
When we recognize that today’s Them might fight tomorrow’s disease alongside Us or help after a natural disaster, we can see our shared humanity.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together like fools.”
Terry Wu, Plymouth
Leave a Reply