Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here . ••• It is good to see that Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders are attempting to resolve the issues raised by rideshare companies threatening to leave Minneapolis. Beyond retaining their services, I see two goals that need to be pursued in the broader public interest. First, a solution should be sought that reinstates real competition, not just including
Uber and Lyft but also making it possible for the fixed-rate-and-mileage traditional cabs to come back. A monopoly only for the newer rideshare enterprises is not in the broader community interest. Secondly, whatever agreement is reached should put reasonable restraints on rideshare companies' pricing. A recent Star Tribune article ( "What to watch as the face-off looms," March 24) reports that only 14 traditional taxi cabs are currently licensed in the city of Minneapolis, population about 430,000. There can be little argument that this constitutes a monopoly. And this monopoly has a huge downside for us residents. To illustrate: In the last month or so, on a frigid and early evening, without my car, I needed to get from downtown St. Paul to a spot across the river. With no cabs in sight, I checked Uber availability. I was astounded to find that among the eight or 10 drivers cruising nearby, the lowest fare on offer was $76. What? I checked my map app and the distance was a half mile. For $76?! There was next to no traffic, no reason that the ride would take more than five minutes or so. Pure and simple, this is predatory pricing. I pulled on my stocking cap and walked, thank you. Anyone whose condition meant they could not have hiked the short distance would have been hugely exploited. An agreement needs to prevent the rideshare services from engaging in robber baron-era pricing. Thriving taxis of the old-fashioned variety — true competition — would certainly help. And perhaps upper restraints on pricing by rideshare also would ensure that the broader community interest is served. Michael O'Keefe, Minneapolis ••• In the debate on how to move forward with the Uber/Lyft debacle there has been one thing missing: how Metro Transit can help solve this problem. All Metro Transit vehicles and facilities are handicap accessible. Many drivers know some
American Sign Language and a smattering of other languages. You can ride guilt-free knowing that all the drivers operate under union contract with a fair wage, benefits and pensions. While the environmental benefits of taking an Uber or Lyft over driving your own cars are minimal, the environmental benefits of taking public transit are huge. The fares will save you lots of money. As a senior and with the 2.5-hour transfer, I get to my appointments and home again for $1. If you remember the days of hanging on the phone to find out how to get somewhere, consulting a shoe box full of bus schedules, or searching the piggy bank for exact change, times have changed. Download the Metro Transit app on your phone to see in real time when your bus will be there using NexTrip. Find out how to get to wherever using the Trip Planner, which picks up your current location. Buy tickets and use your phone to pay. Or get a GoTo card that refills magically from your bank account and never worry about having money to go somewhere. Imagine a community without traffic congestion, noise, air pollution or expansive parking lots. Imagine a community where people know who lives in their community and what their needs are. Just imagine. Betty Anne Lotterman, St. Paul ••• As far as I can tell, an important stakeholder is being ignored in the controversy over ride sharing: the paying public. We have had a system that works quite well. Lyft and Uber created a service that is fast and efficient. The price for a ride fell significantly from the old-fashioned taxi service and became more reliable in the process. Where is the justification to restructure a service that is certain to cost the traveling public more and add to inflation? The majority of these drivers have full- or part-time employment elsewhere. They pick up extra money by driving for Uber/Lyft in their free time, if and when they choose. If they are not making enough money to satisfy their needs, they can leave and look elsewhere. Other jobs are available. We have a significant labor shortage in Minnesota. Because the Uber/Lyft driver
Job is employment by convenience, a minimum wage is not justified. The Minneapolis City Council may be trying to do the "right thing," but its position makes no business sense. Its actions will place additional financial burdens on the public and are certain to degrade the existing service. There is no justification for this. Leave it alone. James D. Herrick, St. Paul As someone with Christian heritage, I deeply appreciated the March 26 commentary "How we as Christians have contributed over the ages to Mideast violence." I'm moved to see the kind of faith that speaks truth to power, is mature and accountable and provides courage for loving action rather than cover for empire. I was talking to a wise young adult recently who was raised in the church but has stopped going. She pointed out that, among her peers, there is no lack of faith or hunger for spiritual life. What there is is disillusionment with mainline church institutions. She and her peers feel a disconnect between what she was taught in church growing up — to love your neighbor as yourself, to act with courage as the hands of God in the world, to listen to and believe those on the margins — and what she sees from mainline denominations who prefer silence, safety and "not rocking the boat" over action. Amen to that. There is a truly horrific amount of human-caused suffering happening in
Gaza right now, and silence is a morally indefensible option. These faith leaders are setting an example of what courageous and accountable faith looks like, and I am grateful. Katie Kosseff, Minneapolis ••• The authors of "How we as Christians have contributed over the ages to Mideast violence" claim that 30,000 people have been "murder[ed]" during the violence in Gaza. This claim is false and overlooks important facts. Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Hamas murdered 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7 in an unprovoked attack. That was an act of war, and Israel responded as any nation would. It is trying to eliminate as many Hamas terrorists as it can. So far, it has killed between 6,000 and 12,000 terrorists. Counting those terrorists who died in a war they started as having been murdered is outrageous. Between 18,000 and 24,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed during this war. Those people are casualties of war, not murder victims. Only if Israel were found guilty of war crimes would some fraction of those deaths be considered murders. Israel has not been convicted of any war crimes during this conflict. It is possible that it will be in the future, but, at this point, it is grossly unfair to accuse Israel of having committed murders. Its soldiers are simply trying to defend their country against terrorists who have vowed to eliminate Israel. The organization responsible for all of the deaths during this conflict is the group that started the war, Hamas. By murdering 1,200 Israelis and then using Palestinian civilians as shields, Hamas is responsible for the terrible carnage during this conflict. That group, not Israel, deserves our condemnation. James Brandt, New Brighton ••• I appreciate the introspection of the faith leaders who wrote "How we as Christians have contributed over the ages to Mideast violence" in acknowledging their previous antisemitism and Islamophobia. But the fact that they didn't call for the release of the
Israeli hostages along with a cease-fire makes me think there's more work to be done regarding their antisemitism. Julia Carpenter, Plymouth