In her May 22 letter to the editor (“Democrats offered plenty of compromise on gun bills”), Jo Haugen criticized Senate Majority Leader Gazelka for killing the DFL’s gun control bills, because “a vast majority of Minnesotans as well as law enforcement support these bills.”

If this “mandate” were real, then Speaker Hortman and Majority Leader Winkler should have had no trouble passing the measures — “Red Flag” confiscation and “Universal” registration bills — as standalone measures, confident that they would be greeted with hosannas from that “vast majority” at election time.

Curiously, they could not. Winkler didn’t have the votes to do that, and snuck them into the omnibus Public Safety bills against bipartisan opposition.

Either the House DFL leadership are cowards for ignoring Ms. Haugen’s supposed mandate, or the “vast majority” of Minnesotans support nothing of the sort, and the polling to which Ms. Haugen refers was a bogus piece of propaganda.

Minnesota’s gun control movement: The few, trying to control the many with the acquiescence of the gullible.

Mitch Berg, St. Paul

Dividends

Thank you John Farrell, for bringing it to my attention, in your column May 23, that as an Xcel Energy shareholder I am about to profit handsomely due to their actions to shut down coal-powered plants. I started buying stock in NSP/XCEL in 1973 after I received my first monthly electric bill, $6, after graduating from college and moving to an apartment in Minneapolis. I continued to purchase more during the years, and now the yearly dividends more than pay my yearly electric/gas bill.

John, I suggest you start buying some Xcel stock. It’s been berry, berry, good to me.

Jer Bader, Mendota Heights

We have concerns about closing Totem Town

We are writing in response to the article about Boys Totem Town closing. We have both worked in Community Corrections, one of us at Totem Town and both of us at the Ramsey County Juvenile Detention Center, among other Community Corrections positions (now retired). We have watched the populations at both institutions dwindle since JDAI (Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative) was initiated a number of years ago.

JDAI was initiated, in part, because of the disproportionate number of juveniles of color being sent to these institutions. The thinking appears to be that community services (social workers, mental health counselors, probation officers, etc) could work adequately to deter criminal behavior among juveniles. That is a noble idea, but the reality, at least anecdotally, is not living up to this idea. We ride the Green Line often, and the behavior among many juveniles using the train is appalling. We live downtown and there has been a noticeable uptick in instances of juveniles harassing neighbors and visitors, and of causing property damage. Gardens, planted by volunteers, have been damaged, sidewalks are full of broken glass (making walking our dog and playing with our grandchildren treacherous) and trees have been destroyed. Thousands of dollars worth of bicycles have been stolen from our locked, underground parking garage. For the most part, we love living here, but it is distressing to find these incidents increasing.

Word travels quickly among juveniles that there will be minimal consequences for this criminal damage to property, theft or for harassing or hurting individuals. This has emboldened juveniles so inclined, to continue and to escalate this behavior. We have talked to police officers who are frustrated because they can do nothing to stop kids who are a nuisance or an actual menace to our community. We have been followed and threatened, spit upon, and generally harassed when confronting these behaviors. Juveniles were not placed in these institutions because of petty crimes. Car theft, burglary, personal injury and even murder could have warranted a stay. These are crimes that may have dictated jail time or prison had they been committed by an adult. We have observed kids we worked with in these institutions, where they have structure, a school program and counseling services for them and their families, make remarkable turnarounds in their thinking and/or behavior. Often, their stay in these institutions was the first time these juveniles had to follow rules or were exposed to a non-criminal lifestyle. Sometimes it was the first time they had regular meals. Many asked not to be sent home after their stay, knowing that they would be going back to the environment that allowed their behavior and provided no safe place for them.

We know there are a myriad number of reasons kids have adopted criminal actions. We make a point to speak to kids we run into on the street, singly or in groups, because we know one issue is their feeling of disconnection from the larger community. Often, these kids are very polite; sometimes they are incredibly rude and threatening. We meet now-adult people who we have worked with in a juvenile institution, who thank us for sticking with them to turn their lives around, and who are eager to relay their successes. Related Articles Letters: Bad laws led to Breonna Taylor’s death

Letters: They stalled the Supreme Court appointment 4 years ago but want to rush this one through?

Letters: Here’s why we need ‘Black Lives Matter’ signs

If trespassing, stealing and shutting down speech is what you stand for … Tainted.

Letters: Sure, the ‘U’ needs money, but at what price?

The pendulum has swung from placing kids who commit crimes into a juvenile facility, for community safety and to attempt to change their behavior, to allowing their criminal behavior to continue almost unabated. We are sensitive to the fact that kids of color were over-represented in juvenile institutions, and that caution must be used in making sure each kid is treated fairly. But we also believe that “if you do the crime, you do the time” as a consequence for criminal behavior, regardless of color, race or ethnicity. We have talked to people of color who are as disgusted by this behavior as we are. We are saddened by the closing of Boys Totem Town, a place where many, many children had an opportunity to make a real change in their lives. We are fearful for our city should juvenile criminal behavior be allowed to continue without much consequence. The pendulum will swing more toward the middle when a tipping point is reached, but how many citizens will be the victims of juvenile criminal behavior in the meantime? And where will we attempt to change that behavior if Totem Town is gone?

Debbie R. Kenney and Michael Kenney, St. Paul