Prop 13 is also in Florida as Homesteading, and works the same way...... They need to 86 these archaic taw laws and equalize the responsibility of the tax burden to all home owners!

Pretty sure FL "Homestead" exemptions are a tax credit applied against the current property value. It doesn't keep the taxable value from being increased.

Without a link to the text of the law, it's hard to comment meaningfully on Mr. Del Colliano's column. However, I think he needs to edit his argument a little more thoughtfully or risk, through his hyperbole, being dismissed as a crank. My issues with this column include:

What parts of the law are responsible for this? I've read the text of this column pretty thoroughly, and have yet to find a single word quoted from the law. Heck, even a link to the law would be nice so that we could check the veracity of Mr. Del Colliano's claims against the actual text of the document he's railing against.

I have no doubt that Mr. Del Colliano's statements (which he makes a number of times) regarding the improvements made to the energy efficiency of HDTVs are true, but he doesn't really provide us with any sort of figures so that we can see just how much progress HDTV manufacturers have made in improving their products' energy efficiency. Some statistics here would be nice. Statistics that show how the product lines of two or three sales leaders have improved their energy efficiency over the past several years would go a long way toward giving his argument some credibility.

Mr. Del Colliano says “Yet this legislation aims to make them even harder to sell to customers who are willing to pay more for their energy bills to get a better picture.“ Just how does this new legislation do that? I don’t live in California, but I’d be interested to see that so that if similar legislation comes up in my state, I can be on the lookout for that kind of language, and can then contact my state representative or senators and urge them to strike that part of the bill.

But I find Mr. Del Colliano stretches the boundaries of credulity when he says, “There was no need to legislate an early demise in the middle of a deep national recession.”

First, he should re-read this sentence. While we can presume we know that the demise he’s talking about is the demise of the HDTV industry, it would be nice if his sentence was clear about this.

But, I think he’s getting a little carried away here. What part of this legislation mandates the demise of an industry? Are the sets now illegal? I wasn’t aware that anyone manufactured HDTVs in California. Does the law actually ban the manufacture, sale, and ownership of HDTVs?

Granted, California is a big market for HDTVs, but the companies that manufacture them are global enterprises. The rest of the world can still get their HDTVs. So I have to wonder, when Mr. Del Colliano says, “Southern California is without question the biggest market for home theater in the world. There are more installers, retailers and design firms in the area than anywhere else.” Prove it. Where’s some sort of data to support this claim? A bigger market than the greater New York City market? A bigger market than Tokyo and its surrounding area? A bigger market than Beijing? Europe?

Finally, while clearly this is important to Mr. Del Colliano , a statement like, “our legislators have found another way to keep people from buying high performance video equipment,” won’t get you much sympathy in the Rust Belt. It’s hard to really get upset about this considering all the other issues we face.

Take a breath, next time, Mr. Del Colliano, and compose a better argument. Then we might take you a little more seriously.

As a retired environmental regulator who also happens to appreciate HDTV, I was all set to write a response suggesting that Mr. Del Colliano's column comes across as a bit of a tirade, if not singularly narrow minded, regarding the complexity of regulating consumer products in order to protect real people from adverse outcomes and/or the overall health of the environment including conservation of energy. I guess it still holds true that where people stand on matters of public policy pretty much depends on where they sit.

Then I read Chris Wall's response and I decided to simply say, "What Chris said".

I also have not read the text of the law, and I agree with Chris Wall that the article does have a high "crank" factor.

We've really become a nation of people who produce less and less, complain more and more about everything and keep the TV on all the time.

I am especially amazed at the complaining -- as if we didn't have enough actual problems (mostly due to our collective failure to police basic human instincts in the aggregate) we have turned the political spectrum into two hard boiled camps that tend to complain about imagined and hypothetical concerns...

There be dragons here.

I am __ALL__ for reducing America's total energy consumption as I fully understand that each and every dollar wasted on energy impacts the National Security of the nation -- either directly by sending it to the Middle East or indirectly by burning it away when a little conservation and better engineering could make a huge collective difference. As I understand it, this law will reduce the need to build one additional power plant of the size to power both Oakland and Anaheim. Think about that. On the one hand we have those who condone senseless waste, on the other hand we have an opportunity to reduce waste on an ongoing basis.

No, I'm not a tree hugger, liberal or communist. I am rational.

If we keep eating this green nonesense, the only person able to buy new electronics will be Algore.

Although I agree that the article is short on important details, I think Mr. Del Colliano made it pretty clear he was not speaking about the demise of the HDTV industry (upon which Mr. Wall spent a large portion of his response) but was speaking instead about the forced demise of plasma technology. And I think that is a legitimate concern. Plasma might, in another ten years, use significantly less energy than it does now. However, if the technology is killed, it is highly unlikely it will be revived later. As a plasma fan, this bothers me. I have no problem with mandating minimum standards for this technology once it matures, but it strikes me that this legislation may be slightly ahead of its time. In two years, every set in California will have to meet these new standards. I would be interested to know upon what existing technology or estimates of anticipated technology this legislation was based.

My understanding is some of the latest displays do indeed use less energy. Some may already meet CA's guidelines, although I don't know that for a fact.
While no one likes to have any government body dictate what they can buy, I see this latest proposal as a sign of the times.
I am not even sure the HDTV market is that big overall, but it will certainly grow and creating products that operate with less power consumption as part of that evolution seems wise.
My understanding is CA makes up 11% of the American HDTV market. While not huge, it is big enough that manufacturers are certainly paying heed. And they are smart enough to know California is only the beginning.
Maybe there will be some relief offered early on if valid arguments on specific parts of the bill can be demonstrated, but you can not legislate from too low a number to start,and offer no wiggle room at all.
As bad as it may seem initially, I don't see any reasonable alternative. If only the energy use of our appliances were the toughest obstacles we face on a daily basis as a country.
I agree with Mr. Del Colliano that the problems faced with energy cuts with little or no compensation for the end user, is a growing problem.
However, I also know there are long term solar leases that give automatic 15% cuts on your electric bill every month, and save you the scary cost of installation, That 15% is on top of any savings you get from the solar advantage. It is taking a while for all these things to come into play. At this point we have to take what we can get even if they are not in the order we would like them or just not happening fast enough.

"...back when the White House was more of a pawn for big oil and the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia" Come on now. You reduce your credibility and tip your political hand by making that assertion.

"Both pumped vast volumes of new income into the state treasury and these same legislators failed to invest it into a new power grid..." Unless California is very different than other areas of our country, the state does not own the power grid and therefore is not responsible for investing money back into it. Power companies own the power grid, regulated by the government, and are responsible for updating their own infrastructure.

..back when the White House was more of a pawn for big oil and the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia"

Mr. Colliano is not very good at sighting sources and is always subject to hyperbole so I'll offer my own. The California Initiative process as well as Democratic lawmakers are killing California. Please stop with the narrow minded nonsense.

Guys,

On 9/12/2001 - other than military planes - who was flying around in the skies of the good old USA? The Bin Laden Family and the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. Starting in Tampa and ping ponging up the East Coast the plane met a Royal Family 747 (they have 4 of them) where the left the country with the blessings of our White House. Source: Vanity Fair who cited first hand accounts of body guards on the plane.

The relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud is well documented. The Royal Family has invested in (some say bailed out) the Bush Family many times over the generations via their oil exploration business.

The Saudis are KEY partners for us - let me make my point clear - as they control our largest source of oil. I suggest that more than make-believe WMDs in Iraq perhaps we were after the second largest supply of oil which is untapped under the ground in Iraq? Perhaps a few Haliburton contracts would help out some cronies while securing oil for Americans? Its not the worst thing we've done but the administration was never clear about our goal because of the Royal Family every got taken over in a coup - we'd have $20 a gallon gas and the Bush White House might start to regret those "farm vehicle" one-year tax credits that sold volumes of big American SUVs that got 6 MPG.

Jerry, I refuse to be drawn into an argument about Bush, oil, Saudis and who was flying on 9/12/2001. The point here is that a unproven reference to the White House of 2001 bowing to alleged pressure by the Saudi government is rediculous in an article about HDTVs being banned in California in 2009. The reference is divisive in a forum devoted to our love of high quality audio and video.

As usual you shoot yourself in the foot by replying with subject matter that has nothing to do with the original subject. How can you be taken seriously when you can't be relied on to give a fair and accurate accounting of the issue. Silly man.

Jake,

Consider this a personal invitation to read another AV site.

Look for the type of insight we provide from TAS, Stereophile, Home Theater or elsewhere.

Good bye.

Jerry

I like the insight that your writers provide, just not yours.

Jake,

Name me one person on my staff that doesn't think that the United States has been run (at least for 8 years) by oil interests and the House of Saud? Ken? Andrew? Who?

The fact is - you are missing the WHOLE POINT....

This story is about the state of CA using "GREEN" as a way to kill off one of its best business. As someone who lives as "green" as I can (within reason) attacking the movie, home theater, porn, movie download and other strong CA businesses is downright foolish especially when the HDTV makers are reducing their power consumption on their own. The CEA reports that power consumption for HDTVs was down 57% in the past two years. The fact that flat HDTVs are less than 10 years old and have gone through plasma, LCD and now have made it to LED backlit LCDs en route to seemingly OLED in less than a decade - can the geniuses in my home state leave well enough alone? Clearly not.

Jerry, when you stick to a thoughtful point of view like the last paragraph of your reply, I have no argument with you pro or con. But when you start off with the "name one person on my staff" crap, I have no idea what you're talking about. What does it have to do with the article you put forth. This is where you lose me and others. And when your ego takes over it becomes even more intolerable. That's why I needle you. I read your newsletter for the reviews, period! I'm not interested in your politics unless you want to talk politics for the sake of politics.

I'll just say this when you refer to the State of California. I'm sure you're talking about the elected representatives of that State. Who and what kind of person makes up that green coalition? What political party best represents that position? What party would "kill off" one of it's best businesses and others for that matter? If "Big oil" is out of the picture now, who or what is going to run the United States for the next 4 to 8 years. The green coalition?

In spite of the ugly face of recession showing up in the world market, it has not been able to dampen the sales of LCD TVs. Studies show an overall rise in sales over the current year. LCD TV reviews are an eye-opener in this direction. HDTV reviews are thus the windows to a world of technological know-how. Based on these reviews, you can decide whether to purchase a Sony, Vizio or Samsung HDTV. If you are entirely taken by the review of a particular brand, then you will not hesitate to loosen your purse strings to spend a little bit more. HDTV reviews will give you the inner satisfaction that you have bought the best.