This seems to be a popular question these days in light of the new US VP candidate. Those who would like to stress the decline in the quality of life in Minnesota post photos of homeless tents cropping up on vacant forty-foot lots in the city. The chaos, litter, and disorder represent a decline in street life since the summer of 2020 following the riots. The images are current. There is an ongoing whack-a-mole operation underway as neighbors have become tired of the issues around tents in their communities. The city moves them from one location only for them to relocate ten blocks away.
Those who like to stress the beauty of Minnesota post this type of image:
This portrait of a city framed in greenery, wildflowers, and water is not at all unusual or hard to come by. The Mississippi runs through the city, and twenty-two lakes lie within its boundaries. One hundred and eighty parks surround water features, old-growth trees, or grassy play fields, and fifty-five miles of walking and biking trails connect the system. The over seven thousand acres of public space started in 1856 with the donation of Murphy Square.
But here’s the argument that the recent unrest is unsettling. What people point to as the best features are those which were initiated over one hundred and fifty years ago. These whispers and aspirations took decades to initiate, then decades more to shape and form, then decades more to maintain and develop into a system for perpetual use. The photo exemplifies consistent and long-term commitment to this support.
Posting an image of an urban amenity that was decades in the making is an argument against the recent tolerance for civic destruction and unrest. There’s only so much public capacity. If it is drained in one area, then eventually, over time, other public amenities will fall to the wayside and deteriorate.
Home Economics 