LETTERS: Juvenile facility cost unfairly criticized

Regarding the article on the juvenile residential facility ("Officials question cost of project," Dec. 28 Review Journal) and the subsequent editorial ("Luxury home," Dec. 29 Review-Journal), I would respond: While comparing the county's proposed 5,000-square-foot juvenile residential facility, with an estimated cost of $2.9 million, to a multimillion dollar luxury home aids in portraying government excess and waste, such comparisons are simply not fair.

What has been lost in this discussion is that the proposed juvenile residential facility is a detention facility and will be designed accordingly. While the proposed juvenile residential facility will be far from luxurious, it does come with costly features not found in your typical home. A brief explanation of some of those features will help better explain the $2.9 million cost estimate.

Unlike your typical home, the proposed juvenile residential facility will require masonry block exterior wall framing, steel stud interior wall framing, electrical conduit throughout the facility, a correctional-grade security system along with an electronic card key access system throughout the facility, and an emergency power supply. Additionally, unlike residential structures, building and health codes will require that the proposed facility be furnished with commercial-grade kitchen and laundry facilities.

I understand the skepticism the public has regarding the cost of public projects; I've heard it all over the past 28 years of working on public projects. However, characterizing the estimated cost of this proposed facility as "beyond wasteful" is unfair. Real Property Management, an agency of Clark County, always strives to design facilities as economically as possible without compromising the long-term operation and maintenance of the facility.

Ultimately, it will be the competitive bidding process that determines the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for this project, and I would expect the low bid to come in under the county's estimate. In the meantime, we should all be given an opportunity to design and bid the project before reaching conclusions that are unfair and not based in reality.

Jerome A. Stueve

— The author is director of Clark County Real Property Management.

Net metering decision

I purchased a photovoltaic solar system to reduce pollution, save money and because I should have freedom of choice. Las Vegas is one of the best locations for rooftop solar in the country.

NV Energy is a regulated company that should not have the ability to hide from the public the rationale for the increases ("PUC OKs new solar rates," Dec. 23 Review-Journal). Nor should Gov. Brian Sandoval's office continue to distance itself from any part in the Public Utilities Commission's decision-making process and the rulings made by commissioners appointed by the governor.

NV Energy does not want to invest in rooftop solar. If the company were truly a free enterprise, then it would have that right. NV Energy is a business that is guaranteed a rate of profit, generated from the public. Not many businesses have that luxury. I make a point to minimize the amount I pollute. I have choice in the Internet access I purchase, the TV I watch, the cellphone company I choose. I have freedom of choice.

I am sure the kerosene distributors struggled when the first electric light bulbs came out, just as much as the carriage and buggy companies had to adjust as the automobile entered the picture. We will continue to be at the mercy of companies such as NV Energy until we ask questions and expect our legislative bodies and regulators to do the same.

I want the deal I struck with NV Energy when I put solar panels on my roof to be honored, and I want net metering and the concept of local production and local choice to be honored. If members of the Public Utilities Commission cannot do their jobs, perhaps those who appointed them will have the integrity to act.

Tom Williams

Las Vegas

Comical comments

Back in the 1950s and early '60s, there was a very funny man named Shelley Berman. He could really make me laugh. Now it seems we have an equally gifted comedian in our midst. Coincidentally, he is also named Shelley — Sheldon Adelson, that is.

Mr. Adelson has been quoted as saying that his purchase of the Review-Journal was a financial investment, implying there is no political agenda or ulterior motive behind it. In fact, he stated that he will probably never even speak to the editor. Good one, Mr. Adelson. Keep 'em coming. We can all use a "wonderfoul larf," as John Lennon used to say.

Nancy Karr

Las Vegas