As a small business owner, I am pleased to read about the need for state and federal help for small businesses in the editorial section of the Star Tribune. However, while I strongly believe that government assistance is a critical piece of the puzzle as the pandemic continues, I would like to remind readers that they themselves are the best help to our local businesses.
There are hundreds of small businesses in Minneapolis that need our support. As COVID continues to disrupt the way customers shop and interact with businesses, we must remember to uplift our community. This means making simple changes to our routine, like visiting the corner store before heading to the big online retailers.
If you’re not comfortable with shopping in person yet, most small businesses have transformed to include online shopping as well. Many have personal websites and even more have social media profiles. As a small business owner, I really love interacting with my customers in my physical store. But as the pandemic continues, seeing customers share my Instagram Reels with products, leave positive reviews on my social media pages, or make purchases from my online store is the next best thing. Sharing business social profiles with your friends is another great way to support local businesses if you’re not ready to make a purchase yet.
Consider taking the extra step to shop locally. Our neighbors need our support more than the big online retailers.
Roseline Friedrich, Minneapolis
CRIME
In 2021, the number of homicides in Minneapolis doubled compared to 2019 and armed carjackings skyrocketed. We are all unsettled by this rise in crime and looking for ways to feel safe in our communities. Republicans in the Minnesota Senate are proposing “tough on crime” legislation. While it is tempting to go back to traditional approaches to dealing with crime, these approaches got us to where we are today. Evidence shows that time spent behind bars increases the likelihood that an offender will commit another crime. In addition, the cost to the public of keeping people in prison must be weighed against more cost-effective ways to decrease recidivism, such as offender treatment programs that address substance use problems, mental health, and behavior change. behaviour. Even a small increase in incarceration can drain resources from important education and health programs.
In the short term, we can make our communities safer by developing closer connections with our neighbors. People in safe communities thrive because their basic housing, education, and health needs are met, including access to substance use treatment. In the Twin Cities, we need more programs that bring together health and social service agencies to work with activists and community leaders to directly confront the minority of people responsible for the majority of the violence. Restorative justice programs that support victims of violent crime and bring the offender face to face with those harmed are also important. Instead of going back to the costly and failed approach of locking people up, let’s use evidence-based approaches that lead to the result we seek: a safer city where everyone thrives.
Lisa Franchett, Minneapolis
MENTAL HEALTH TEAM
While walking my dog through downtown’s Gold Medal Park one recent night, I saw a young woman sobbing against a tree. She had no gloves or hat despite a minus 15 wind chill. I stopped to ask if she could help. She was reluctant, but she finally took my gloves and agreed to walk with me and warm up in the lobby of our building. We talk on the way. I learned that she was my daughter’s age, worked, owned a home, was being abused by her boyfriend, and had filed a restraining order. Once in our lobby, I called 911 as a non-emergency call. Within 10 minutes, two members of the Minneapolis Behavioral Crisis Response Team arrived. They were professional, courteous, and most importantly, caring and nonjudgmental. They both exuded exceptional competence and compassion. He agreed to work with them to find a safe place for the night and look for possible resources in the future. We walk together to his truck, marked only “Canopy.” Who knows what might happen to her, but when I fired them, my gratitude was overwhelming… to the city of Minneapolis, this all-star crisis team, and the much-needed hope in our world.
Cindy Case, Minneapolis
CONGRESS
Patting oneself on the back inevitably results in awkward posture, and DJ Tice places himself in that position early on in his Jan. 24 essay, “Breaking the Grid: A Brief History.” As he predicted seven months ago, he writes, less of President Joe Biden’s broad agenda has been enacted than “all the sound and fury” might have led us to expect. it’s fine. Mark one for Tice. Any factual story on Opinion Exchange, by “brief”, is welcome.
But his main point about the predictability of gridlock when a president has only a slim majority in Congress looks quite different on closer scrutiny of the numbers. For example, Tice reminds us that Lyndon B. Johnson approved Medicare in 1965 when the Senate included 68 Democrats; Biden, of course, has just 50 Democratic senators, plus Vice President Kamala Harris to cast a tiebreaker vote. In 1965, that same Congress, it is worth noting, also passed the Voting Rights Act.
These legislative victories were not achieved because Congress was dominated by one party, as might be deduced from the content of Tice’s article. The Voting Rights Act, for example, passed with majority support from both parties: 112 Republicans joined 221 Democrats in supporting the bill in the House; 30 Republicans voted “yes” along with 47 Democrats in the Senate. The vast majority supporting LBJ was not a partisan monolith; it was truly bipartisan.
A similar bipartisanship was evident the year before when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. That landmark legislation passed the Senate 73-27 and the House 290-130. Of those 27 “no” votes in the Senate, 21 were cast by Democrats, only six by Republicans. The 290 “yes” votes in the House included 138 Republicans. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts are a major step forward for American democracy. These laws were not passed with incidental and grudging Republican support; they were approved with Republican champions. Different party, different time. To borrow the title of Dave Durenberger and Lori Sturdevant’s recent book, it was an era “when Republicans were progressive.”
The hardening of partisanship in both parties occurred after LBJ, largely due to the Republican “Southern strategy” of eliminating the “Dixiecrats” in the Democratic Party, with a push in the 1990s from the tactician of politics as war , Newt Gingrich. Look, for example, at the votes on the 2021 infrastructure bill that Tice sees as the most feasible basic legislation with a narrow partisan majority. It barely became law by a 228-206 margin in the House, with 200 Republicans voting against it and just 13 for it. There was no bipartisanship at home: all four Minnesota Republicans voted “no.”
It can be concluded that current Republican obstinacy constitutes a noble defense against Democratic overreach. Some accuse the Republican monolith of being concerned only with power with no underlying principles. Those are opinions. They must be based on historical facts.
David Miller, Minneapolis
PHOTOGRAPHY
Thank you for the collection of photographs of your talented staff. I lived in the Minneapolis area for almost 20 years, but now I live in the state of Virginia. Seeing how images sometimes speak powerfully more than words, I couldn’t help but compare the Star Tribune to my local newspaper. The few photographers on their staff are very talented, but they tried too hard to cover this huge area. The Twin Cities are lucky to have such a talented group of photographers and I look forward to seeing more of their work.
Penny A. Parrish, Fredericksburg, Virginia
We want to hear from you. send us your thoughts here.
