Letters

I, and several of my neighbors have had our Harris/Walz signs and American flags stolen. Clearly the few Trump supporters who are doing this are afraid of those of us who support the opposing candidate. The last time I checked, we still live in a democracy where EVERYONE, regardless of political affiliation, has the right to display their preference. Mature adults would never steal the signs of folks who support a candidate they object to because we all should have freedom to express that support. If you are threatened by a mere sign and remove it, then you obviously don’t respect our democracy! Let’s also respect our neighbors here in Cook County and stop this juvenile behavior. I will keep replacing my sign along the highway until the election. Those doing this cannot stop our beliefs OR our vote. Nice try.

I went back to work 6 days after my son was born because my husband had a low paying job and my income was needed. I had no income during the time I gave birth and started recovering from that birth. That was years ago. Now, in Minnesota, we have paid family leave so that Mothers can recover from the birth and both Mom and Dad can spend some quality time with their new child. We do not have that overall in the U.S. even though most industrialized countries provide paid family leave. Additionally, the GOP, as written in their plan Project 2025, page 486, is discouraging day care centers and supporting only home-based childcare. How could I bring in the income to help support our family if I had to stay home with our child? It is imperative to vote for Democrats since they support paid family leave and childcare centers as well as providing a $6,000 tax deduction to support the needs of that young child.

I live in Gem Lake, MN, yet am a subscriber and faithful reader of the great community newspaper The Cook County News Herald. I am writing out of concern for the passage of the MN Great Outdoors amendment which will be on the front of every voter’s ballot.

After reading your Cook County Connections article about the commissioners trying to figure out the new cannabis law in Minnesota, I thought I should inform you and your readers of the federal implications of cannabis in the United States.

As part of Minnesota's cannabis legalization movement, counties can establish ordinances to further regulate its use. In Cook County, the sheriff and county attorney requested that county commissioners form a commission, which they would co-chair, to discuss and draft such an ordinance. The result of their work is now before us in Cook County Ordinance 66. If adopted as drafted, this ordinance would allow minors to be charged with cannabis possession as a misdemeanor. Here's the alarming part: The county attorney confirmed to Commissioner Mills that if a judge orders a minor into a chemical dependence treatment program, the lack of such programs in our county could result in the minor being removed not only from their home but also from the county entirely. Consider this: If county commissioners vote for this draft, their decision could tear children from their families due to a legalization action taken in St. Paul. Removing kids from their homes because the state made something legal seems like the wrong approach for our community,violates the spirit of the state law, and is frankly bewildering. Fortunately, there's a simple solution. The commissioners could either eliminate this language and allow parents to handle discipline, or they could modify the ordinance so that minors face only a petty misdemeanor - akin to a traffic ticket - rather than a criminal misdemeanor charge like prostitution or driving under the influence. This change would protect our children from potentially being forced out of their homes and out of Cook County by a judge's order. If you believe this draft ordinance is misguided, I urge you to contact the commissioners, county attorney, and county sheriff. Tell them not to risk displacing our youth from the county over something their parents' generation has made legal. Thank you, Bryan Hansel, Grand Marais

I just wanted to say thank you to the guy on County Road 7 that waves at every car that goes by. It reminds me of BJ Muus who was always out for a walk did the same thing for many many years. What a simple act of kindness.

For those of you who have been following coverage of the planned housing development which has been proposed for a quiet, green and dark neighborhood in Grand Marais, with Little Birch Mountain at its heart, this may be the first time you've heard the word 'condominium' in the title of this project. I had to read to page 72 in the over 100 page plan to come across that legal description of what has been purported to address housing needs of our community. If you're concerned about a precedent that could be set through approval of this plan I urge you to learn more about it, and express your concerns. This in no way addresses our housing needs, unless we need $400,000 + per unit row houses that do not require residents to live & work here full time, and allows owners to rent their units month to month to different renters. Only 5 of the 21 units are earmarked to be 'affordable' and even there, when you read the proposal carefully you can calculate that it will take a 2 income household with wages well above the average worker to be able to afford a unit. There is little transparency in the nuts & bolts reality of this project, e.g. 1) Little Birch Mountain provides considerable challenges (steep hill, deep bedrock, considerable storm run-off, and no current city services - water, sewer, storm drainage - connected to this development) which Petters et al claim they have addressed. READ CAREFULLY! Drainage, etc is addressed only on the land they plan to 'develop': half of which they currently own; half still in negotiation. The lion's share of the bill for city services will no doubt be left to neighbors as assessments against their properties; with risk of long term damage to their houses and land. 2) Plan claims to be in compliance with the city's Comprehensive Plan - again READ CAREFULLY - use is not at all compatible with the existing neighborhood.

A Republican friend asked, “How can you be 100% behind Biden last week and now be 100% behind Harris this week?” At first this question confused me, but I think the answer lies with that for many Republicans the choice of which candidate to vote for is based on the appeal of the one person who most boldly “takes strong and loud positions against those that believe differently than the voter” and most aggressively “advocates actions or threats to others that are threatening to the voter’s held values and concerns”. Maybe they seek someone to speak loudly and act aggressively addressing their fears, values and concerns. I can understand that, when I was a lot younger, I decided based on who I thought was the “best person”.