Letters.

Electric Charge

Your Oct. 9 article, "Hybrids -- Going Half Green," did a good job conveying the excitement consumers are feeling about buying a hybrid car that is better for the environment, without sacrificing performance. But your article is incorrect in claiming that the public has stayed away from electric cars in droves. In fact, every electric car produced for the California market has been sold or leased, and there is a waiting list of individuals and fleets who are trying to buy or lease more electric vehicles, and will do so as soon as the automakers build them.

That's because electric cars have come a long way in the past 10 years. They are peppy, powerful, full-size vehicles, like the Toyota Rav-4 EV or the Honda EV-Plus. They have no transmission to break down, they require no oil changes, and no smog checks. You never have to go to a gas station again, and you can recharge them at night for far less than it costs to buy an equivalent amount of gasoline.

It is also incorrect to claim that electric cars (you cite the General Motors EV-1) have a relatively short range of 40-60 miles per charge. In fact, the second-generation EV-1, which GM has marketed most recently, has an estimated range of 75-130 miles per charge, and many EV-1 drivers report getting as much as 140 miles per charge on a regular basis.

Most importantly, electric cars have significantly lower air pollution emissions than the hybrid cars, even when so-called upstream emissions are factored in. California needs both hybrid cars and electric cars to help move us to a clean air future.

KEVIN S. FINNEY

Zero-Emission Vehicle Program

Coordinator

Coalition for Clean Air

Los Angeles 

Neon 39

I am very disappointed with your editorial position on Proposition 39 ("Majority Rules," Oct. 16).

You were perhaps too young to understand what was going on or may have forgotten what conditions were like that led to the taxpayer revolt and the passage of Proposition 13.

I personally knew several people who lost their homes, which caused me to get involved with Proposition 13.

The problem was that property taxes started to rapidly increase, resulting in many retired people having property tax bills that were greater than their gross incomes. If they appealed to the County Tax Assessor's Office and explained their predicament, they were told that nothing could be done about it and that it wasn't their problem.

One particularly sad case that I was very familiar with was of a nurse who was employed at the same company I was and had spent all of her life paying off her house so that she could retire there and raise flowers in her garden. The year before she retired, her property tax was raised so that it was greater than her gross income and as a result she ended up in an old folks home.

The reason for setting the passage requirement for bonds at two-thirds of voters was that about 50 percent of voters live in apartments. The vast majority of them feel (for some reason) that they don't pay property tax, so they don't pay for these property tax increases that result from passage of bonds and other spending measures.

Proposition 13 dramatically reduced the property tax increases that could occur while the original purchaser was alive and living in their house and set the property tax for homebuyers at an amount that was roughly equal to one monthly mortgage payment.

Proposition 39 has two flaws: The reduction in the requirements for passage from the present two-thirds toss percent, and there is no limit on the number of bond issues that could be passed.

CHARLES F. BANCROFT

Sherman Oaks

Misplaced Priorities

As a subscriber, avid reader and occasional contributor to the Los Angeles Business Journal, I want to commend you for publishing Mitch Albom's column, "Misplacing Our Presidential Priorities" (Oct. 23).

It should give the undecided, as well as those who have made up their minds, some food for thought. It is so true that being perceived as a nice guy is the criteria used by many to determine the capability to lead the most powerful country in the world.

Unfortunately, this column does not reach the vast population that does not read your paper (or any of the others where the column may have been published). Television does not offer this kind of commentary except on those stations that offer commentary that will make the listener think. The talk shows certainly do not.

I hope that in the short time remaining between now and Election Day a larger segment of the population could be exposed to insightful columns.

ROSEMARIE WOLFF

President

Royal Associates/Royal Staffing Services