Progress in the Park

Category: Letters to the Editor

  • What will Flock cost SLP residents?

    —

    in

    To the Editor: On April 6, the City Council voted to keep St. Louis Park’s Flock license plate cameras running, with new limits: quarterly audits, denied immigration-purpose requests, and a promise of independent, non-police review. Ward 2 Councilmember Jim Engelking called the privacy answers “reassuring.” I appreciate that our council members made strides in starting…

  • Local Law Enforcement Should Never Provide Assistance to ICE

    —

    in

    To the Editor: Since Operation Metro Surge began, Minnesotans have regularly seen local law enforcement use their resources to provide security for federal agents against their own peaceful residents. The Hennepin County Sheriff ’s Office has functioned as an extension of the federal government at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, continuously relieving U.S. Immigration…

  • A Flock Camera Compromise?

    —

    in

    To The Editor: I share many of the concerns from recent letters to the editor about how SLP Flock camera data could be misused. At the same time, I believe that automated license plate readers (ALPRs) can make us safer. I am disappointed in the St. Louis Park City Council for refusing to bring up…

  • There is no opt-out button for ALPRs in St Louis Park

    —

    in

    To the Editor: On April 6, the St. Louis Park City Council considered oversight requirements for the Police Department’s use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). In light of Operation Metro Surge, increased federal prosecution of protestors and activists, and growing skepticism toward private surveillance firms like Ring and Flock, our city chose to leave…

  • Progress in the Park in the Minnesota Star Tribune

    —

    in

    To the Editor: It’s nice to see Aaron Brown asking questions about the use of Flock cameras across the state (“Brown: With Flock cameras, you’re never alone on Minnesota Roads”), but it misses the point about how security of this data and how it may be used by federal agencies. While the quote from John…

  • Separation ordinances — why ‘informal policies’ aren’t enough

    —

    in

    To the Editor: Even now, we have neighbors fearing going to work, dropping their children off at school, accessing medical care, or calling 911 because our local government lacks clear boundaries with federal immigration enforcement and unjustified deportations are still happening. St. Louis Park’s City Council, in its April 6 study session, stated our police…

  • Reeling back Flock

    —

    in

    To the Editor: I am disappointed but not surprised by the St. Louis Park City Council’s support for the police department and their use of automatic license plate readers (ALPR) as discussed at the council’s April 6 special work group session. I understand that the need for oversight of how the police department uses and…

  • Protect SLP with a separation ordinance

    —

    in

    To the Editor: I am very disappointed with the St. Louis Park City Council’s decision to abandon the creation of a separation ordinance at its study session on April 6. Our community has seen firsthand the terror that our federal government can wield during Operation Metro Surge, and we must use every tool at hand…

  • SLP needs a separation ordinance

    —

    in

    It was deeply disappointing to hear what our City Council had to say about a separation ordinance in St. Louis Park. I am disheartened to know that, despite the last few months and an escalating state of crisis throughout the world, our council feels comfortable with the status quo.