Energy-efficient TVs, please

Re "State wants to curb appetite of energy-gulping televisions" (Business, Nov. 4): TVs are fast becoming the Hummer of the home, guzzling more electricity than any other appliance. The California Energy Commission's proposed efficiency standards for plasma and high- definition TVs will save California families $1 billion per year while also preventing more than 3 billion tons of global warming pollution.

Energy efficiency is a no-brainer solution to rising energy costs and the threat of global climate change. We applaud the commission's proposed decision and urge it to adopt the standards right away so that California can continue its long tradition of leading the nation on clean-energy solutions.

– Bernadette Del Chiaro, Sacramento clean energy advocate for Environment California

No mundane projects, please

Re: "Curtis Park Village is on track" (Our Region, Nov. 1): There is nothing wrong with a fantasy plan as opposed to look-alike, hard, cold suburban designs with no heart-warming spirituality. Wisely, fantasy always comes before pragmatism. The city of Davis, where architect Michael Corbett's vision comes from, is not suburban, nor is Curtis Park or Land Park. Those neighborhoods are unique, and so are the predominately cultured, educated people who reside there.

As for the novelty of parking in the rear of grocery stores, we should move into a newer time period by having the newest technology in lighting, LED lighting, installed to combat women's viable fear of the dark – with the added benefit of energy conservation.

Developer Paul Petrovich's previous commercial sites are attractive, but trite. Coercing traditional, cultured neighborhood people like only a skilled hustler can do, in addition to threats telling them he will turn the railroad into an unappealing industrial site if blocked, is not the way to do business with educated professionals.

– Cecelia Calmes, Sacramento

Bee editorial 'makes no sense'

Re "Sac County must usher in new era" (Editorials, Nov. 3): The editorial asserts: "Sacramento County cannot continue to supply municipal-level services, primarily garbage collection and police protection, to the 40 percent or so of county residents who don't live in cities."

I am no expert on police services, but I retired some 10 years ago after 20 years of service with the county's Waste Management and Recycling Department. Since then I have been a city of Folsom representative on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and currently serve as SWAC's chair.

The county continues to provide high-quality waste management and recycling services to about 160,000 unincorporated area residents using a "refuse enterprise fund" that is independent of the county's general fund. County service fees are comparable or below those paid by the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova.

When those three cities incorporated, no proponents argued that privatizing county waste management services was a motivation for cityhood, yet The Bee editorial now gives garbage collection first billing for elimination – even above police protection!

This editorial makes no sense.

– Patrick Maxfield, Folsom

Regional public transit's weak

Sacramento has always had questionable public transportation services, and I have always wondered why, particularly given the size of this city.

Since I was a child, the long waits in between buses, usually an hour, have caused me to decide to walk to where I am going rather than cool my heels at a bus stop with no bench. Of course there's the light-rail system, a boondoggle that Sacramento had originally hoped would bring it into the "real world" of big-city transportation systems.

Now I see Regional Transit no longer allows one to transfer from the bus to the light rail without paying an entirely new fare. That is $2.50 to get on the bus, and then another $2.50 to grab the connecting train. Folks, you receive money from the public to subsidize your operation. You pay big dollars to the RT director and to so many others at the expense of myself and others. We taxpayers and citizens are the people who already support RT and its inability to make a system work with the money it has.