[Vision2020] Follow-up on the Lighting Ordinance

[Bruce and Jean Livingston]

Jeff,

I am not sure that you are considering alternative measures.  Sure, there 
are lighting needs, but the question that seems reasonable to engage debate 
on this particular issue is more one of how are those lighting needs best 
addressed without effecting other people's private property rights by 
emitting light beyond the property of the individual with the lights.

If it were truly an all or nothing option for lighting your property and 
protecting your animals, that might be one reason to consider allowing the 
unregulated use that you propose, but it seems there are many other options 
that could decrease the "leakage" from an individual's private property onto 
the property of others, which I would also define to include our jointly 
held community sky.  Certainly, it is most important to address the 
"leakage" onto an adjacent neighbor, and it seems reasonable to me, and 
consistent with Libertarian doctrine, to preclude one property owner from 
shining a spotlight onto a neighbor's bedroom window (to assume a most 
egregious example for illustrative purposes).

But to the extent that lights may be designed to shed light downward, and 
not up at the sky, what is wrong with that, too?  The free market economy 
will quickly fill the void in supply that may make these lights temporarily 
more expensive, and that will lead to greatly decreased costs for these 
kinds of lights.    There has been relatively little demand for these kinds 
of lights up to this time mainly because society has ignored the private 
property rights involving light leakage; basically, nobody has thought of 
the external social costs of the ambient light leakage and the entrepreneurs 
have not stepped in to fill the need.

Much of Libertarian doctrine is very appealing to me.  Many of us can agree 
on areas in which the government ought not to  be regulating our personal 
decisions.  But what many Libertarians forget in simplifying that doctrine 
to one of "all government or government regulation is bad" (less whatever 
common governmental need you accept as being necessary, whether it be 
limited to a common defense, police and fire, or not), is that the essence 
of the theory is one of protecting private property rights.

Pollution by whatever means -- light, smoke and noxious odors in our air, 
sullied aquifers, rivers and streams, tailing piles and heavy metal 
contamination in our lands, etc. -- necessarily, or at least typically, 
exacts a toll on the private property rights of others when that pollution 
leaves the private property where it originated.

It seems to me that the City of Moscow and Latah County have both begun to 
address this problem of light leakage onto the property of others with 
proposed ordinances, and that seems like a reasonable use of government to 
protect the rights of private property owners and allow them to use their 
property to its fullest and best use, so long as that use does not intrude 
on the rest of us private property owners.

Bruce Livingston

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Harkins" <jeffh at moscow.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:39 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Follow-up on the Lighting Ordinance


> As a followup to the thread dealing with the lighting ordinance provision 
> of the Omnibus Latah County Land Ordinance, I want to redirect attention 
> back to the ordinance itself.  For me the fundamental question is whether 
> the local, state or federal level bureaucracies should be in the business 
> of regulating light bulbs - stated another way, does government have a 
> comparative advantage in solving my issues for specific lighting needs.
>
> I am somewhat surprised that the ordinance didn't address the questions 
> related to health and safety of Latah Citizens and its relationship to 
> lighting needs.
>
> Decisions at the UI and at the local malls have acknowledged that there 
> are security issues associated with the spaces for which they are 
> responsible for managing.  Lighting at UI has increased exponentially as 
> one means of dealing with the attacks on campus.  I have not heard a 
> single complaint about lighting used for that purpose.
>
> Rural residents also confront health and safety issues and several posters 
> have noted their concerns about lighting and health and safety.  While I 
> do recognize that light pollution can be a problem for those wishing to 
> enjoy a "dark sky", those "wants" are not as important to me as providing 
> for a safe environment for my family, friends and neighbors who visit me. 
> I enjoy a night sky as much as anyone else, but I am more interested in 
> protecting my animals from predators.  Light is one tool I use to 
> discourage those predators from getting too close.  And, my wife and I 
> have used good judgment in selecting our lighting devices to deal with our 
> problems. In most cases, a 60 watt bulb is not going to do the job for us. 
> We have exerted considerable effort to provide for our lighting needs in a 
> responsible manner while making similar efforts at not imposing a cost on 
> my neighbors.  It has been my experience in the rural area that my 
> neighbors approach their problem solving in much the same way.
>
> When laws and ordinances are adopted, there should be a clear recognition 
> that there are priorities that we as people must address.  Sorry - 
> protecting folks from attacks in public places are more important to me 
> than dark skies; providing safety for my family, friends and neighbors is 
> more important to me that dark skies.  These priorities are not reflected 
> in the ordinance.  This ordinance is simply far too intrusive into the 
> role and responsibility of individuals and is not necessary.
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.   http://www.fsr.net 
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯