Opinion editor's note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As best I can tell, the Minneapolis City Council is responsible for the future of George Floyd Square. Although many of their mistakes are commendable, they are still mistakes ("Fight over George Floyd Square continues," May 22).

  1. They have not given adequate attention to Voltaire's admonition that perfection is the enemy of good. Make a decision and go with it. Waiting for perfection is simply not an option. There is no such thing.
  2. They are hoping to achieve unanimity among the many groups involved. Make a decision and go with it. It is not possible to achieve unanimity, no matter how wonderful the decision is. Some will be offended. Some will think it silly. Some will think it stupid. Some will think it wonderful. They will never all believe the same thing.
  3. This is not etched in stone. For some reason, the council hasn't noticed that things change. The perfect monument today is not going to be the perfect monument tomorrow. (Look at Monument Avenue in Richmond, Va., if you don't understand.) Make a decision and go with it. If it changes in the future, so be it. That's not on you. Different councils will make different decisions, and that's OK.
  4. This isn't about you; it's about George Floyd Square. This isn't your opportunity to be enshrined in history. In the future, nobody will care who made the decision. And, see point #3, George Floyd Square is probably going to change over the years, anyway.

The future of George Floyd Square will start with your decision, if you decide to act. If you insist on perfection, if you insist that the future is etched in stone, if you insist that this is your legacy, then you are destined to disappoint.

Michael Hartenberg, Newport, Minn.

•••

As a result of our summer highway construction season, my daily commute includes Chicago Avenue through George Floyd Square. Many others on these pages have described the deplorable condition of the square and obvious damage to the local buildings and businesses. After five years, it's time to provide a solution.

Just a block away is the Phelps Recreation Center on Chicago between 39th and 40th streets. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board website suggests that the Phelps Community Center was named after Park Commissioner Edmund Phelps, who in the early 1900s was the longest-serving park commissioner. While I'm sure Phelps was a fine, deserving fellow, this park and community center would seem to provide a natural solution for appropriately recognizing George Floyd. We have plenty of precedent in renaming major Twin Cities landmarks, so why not rename Phelps as George Floyd Community Center and Fields?

Roger Norris, St. Paul

•••

I disagree with the ideas expressed in the June 1 letter "No, we can't just 'move on,'" especially the idea that "we Americans have a history of turning away around race issues." I submit that nowhere on earth have race issues been more vehemently confronted and acknowledged. The author seems troubled that anyone, anywhere, in the U.S. thinks about anything but George Floyd.

Further, I would ask the author this: If you had a friend who had experienced a terrible crime, would you counsel that friend that the crime constitutes his/her identity and is the only thing that matters in their life?

The idea that "many of us are so separate and disconnected from our Black neighbors that we do not and cannot let in the ongoing nature of their struggle" is problematic for multiple reasons. It's condescending to Black people, it accuses white people of thought crimes, and it smacks of sanctimony.

"Moving on" is a positive good under most conditions, such as suffering a loss. "MoveOn" is the name of a left-leaning political group. It's what we strive to do in our lives. It should be encouraged.

Mary Riley, Mendota Heights

TIM WALZ

Grow up, governor

Gov. Tim Walz needs to find a better choice of words when he is speaking in public ("Walz tells Democrats to get tough with Trump," June 1). What is with the profanity? Did he use these words when he was a teacher? The more he is in these large-media situations, the more he uses these words. Why lower your standards? I have a Webster's Dictionary I could send him, and maybe he could find some more appropriate words. Get over it!

Kathryn Schwartz, Slayton, Minn.

•••

Walz should either resign or keep his butt at home. If he wants to campaign for a run at the presidency, then he needs to leave the governorship. The recent legislative session was a disgrace. The Democrats didn't show up for weeks (but got paid). So the session was late getting started and now we will spend more money (which we don't have, thanks to the Democrats' spending in the last legislative session). Walz's appearance on national television make him look more like a fool than a serious politician.

Charles Richard Haugh, Rochester

•••

I wish to commend Walz for his recent efforts to galvanize Democratic opposition to President Donald Trump's Gestapo-like tactics. Before it's too late, Walz argues, Americans must stand up to this bully, "be a little meaner" and "push back."

Republican Sen. Margaret Chase Smith felt the same way on June 1, 1950. In the face of Sen. Joe McCarthy's vicious red-baiting campaign, Smith (and six Senate colleagues, including Minnesota's Republican Edward Thye) issued her now famous "Declaration of Conscience" in which she defended Americanism: "It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques — techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life."

We would be well advised to heed Walz and Smith before free speech, habeas corpus and the rule of law go the way of the dodo bird.

Alan Bray, St. Peter, Minn.

MENTAL HEALTH

An underappreciated resource: 988

Columnist Aaron Brown wrote about an important topic on June 1 — responding to mental health crises — but missed the opportunity to educate readers about our statewide mental health crisis system ("Cops alone can't fix this crisis," Strib Voices). First, people no longer need to call 911 in a crisis — they can call 988, whether it's about themselves or a family member who is struggling with their mental health. If they do call 911, these operators are supposed to connect people to a crisis team when appropriate (Travis' Law).

For over two decades, all 87 counties in Minnesota have been covered by mobile mental health crisis teams who can work with people over the phone, come out in person, connect people to resources and provide stabilization services in the person's home. While they cannot respond as quickly as police, especially in rural areas, that is due to the entire statewide budget being less than most major cities' police department budgets.

For years, NAMI Minnesota has encouraged police departments to contract with these teams instead of hiring their own social workers to ensure compliance with HIPAA and to create a shared understanding of what crisis teams can do. As is so often the case as we build our mental health system, we know what works, we just don't fund it.

Sue Abderholden, St. Paul

The writer is executive director of NAMI Minnesota.