Historic preservation in Saint Paul deserves scrutiny, and the city should take a hard look at whom it benefits.

Recently, a group called Save Historic Saint Andrew’s (SHSA) has been working to force historic designation on a building where my children attend school, a move you covered in your 11/5 article, “St. Paul panel wants preservation of Como church building that charter school wants to raze.” In your coverage you quote one SHSA member saying, “Churches have been our most famous landmarks. In a time of increasing urban change, churches give us a sense of pride and permanence.” This language reminded me immediately of verbiage we heard during the mayoral election that we must preserve what’s “special” about Saint Paul, in reference to ball fields where one candidate played as a child.

When I moved to Mac-Groveland I initially had a positive impression of historic preservation; I saw it as a mechanism for maintaining the beauty of a neighborhood. However, I increasingly see a resistance to change and growth that prioritizes the nostalgia of affluent white people over the needs of other city residents, in ways that not only make me sense dog whistles of what is “ours” but also seem to inhibit this city’s ability to sustain itself financially and ecologically. We can’t build denser housing or better school buildings because doing so destroys what is “special” and what is “ours.”

SHSA aims to force historic designation on a school that is trying to more responsibly use land and serve the needs of children. The Historic Preservation Committee’s current criteria for recommending historic designation reflect insular priorities that do not, by design, take into account any human cost. I think community history is important, and I think beauty matters, but I have also seen the ways that historic preservation undeniably is used to uphold the preferences of some at the expense of others.

Carrie Nelson, St. Paul

MORE DOLLARS OUT THAN IN

Edward Lotterman’s column in the Sunday Pioneer Press on Nov 25, 2018 “Let’s end the fallacy of trade deficits” was informative and yet puzzling. Apparently, he thinks that trade deficits are insignificant, and Trump’s trade policy is entirely foolish. He gives reasons to support his opinion, and they are probably true, but not the whole story either.

Macroeconomics is complicated, and economists constantly disagree. Sometimes a simpler analysis might be helpful. From a head-of-household perspective, if more money is going out than in, the situation is not sustainable. For decades, our country has had a net trade deficit of about one half of a “trillion” dollars per year. Can this be sustainable, without creating serious problems?

The deficit is not measured in rice or beans, it is measured in dollars, and every year more dollars are going out than coming in. We make up for this by printing more money or selling U.S. Treasury bonds. Countries that have large trading surpluses are buying U.S. Treasury bonds, and China already owns about $1.18 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds and Japan owns $1.06 trillion. Past administrations did not appear to be concerned about this overall situation, but maybe we should be.

The trade deficit is partly due to a “tariff deficit,” although no one calls it that. Most countries charge much higher tariffs than we do, so sales of U.S. products abroad are suppressed. Fair trade could be achieved if all countries had the same tariff rate … not necessarily zero, but equal. Trump’s tariff war could help the situation, but there will probably be “short term pain before long term gain.” Time will tell.

Dennis A. Helander, White Bear Lake