[Vision2020] light pollution

[Mark Solomon]

Jeff,

Are there any instances in which you consider it appropriate for 
local government to use the authorities granted under the state Local 
Land Use Planning Act to regulate land use activities? Please tell us 
where the line is that you would draw.

Sometimes, it seems, one person's "common sense" is another's 
"Mother, get me the rifle". Nuisance suits are notoriously hard to 
pursue unless one can prove actual monetary damages and given your 
general ideological drift, resorting to lawyers and courts would 
hardly appear to be the path you would choose.

Mark Solomon

At 11:46 AM -0800 1/22/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>Thank you for your post Mr. Basoa,
>
>Some neighbors can be difficult to work with, but you don't solve 
>the problem by imposing costs on everyone to solve such a local 
>proximity problem.  Perhaps there are other ways to deal with it. 
>For instance, if a house is in a certain proximity to another house 
>(say 100 feet), then a light control standard might be useful.  Of 
>course, there is always civil court to deal with conflict between 
>neighbors - it is a very localized problem, use a very local control.
>
>The fact is, from a science point of view, the use of a light shield 
>will concentrate the downward effect of light and on bright 
>surfaces, like snow, will "reflect" more concentrated light 
>vertically.  When there is particulate in the air (e.g. water vapor, 
>snow, dust), this concentrated reflection will create an intensified 
>"refractive" effect, which will actually increase the amount of 
>"light pollution" in a given area.  Sort of like the effect we 
>experience when the moon is bright and there is snow on the ground.
>
>Then, as a consequence of the reduced area lighting from the 
>shielded light, the resident may very well add additional lights to 
>cover the ground area desired - thus adding to the concentrated 
>reflective and refractive impacts.
>
>Speaking of costs, Clearwater Power suggested that the cost of 
>upgrading the lights to "shielded" type  lighting would run about 
>$200 per fixture.  Perhaps asking the folks that are impacted by the 
>current lighting scheme of a neighbor to cover that cost would be 
>appropriate.  This is especially relevant in those circumstances 
>when someone has just bought rural property (the newcomer!) and 
>placed their home in the light circle of a neighbor, then sets about 
>to complain about it.  Common sense would suggest that a different 
>location might have been the best solution.
>
>Some local veterinarians have testified that the more dangerous 
>predators will cruise just outside the reflective light circle - 
>thus converting a "flood type" light to a "spot light" will 
>compromise the integrity of a specific light for its purpose.  This 
>will necessitate increasing the number and/or or intensity of the 
>lighting devices to maintain the surface area lighting.
>
>Another problem to be considered is the impact of the major source 
>of light pollution in Latah County.  The greatest concentration of 
>light reflection and refraction comes from Moscow.  Pullman, 
>Lewiston and Clarkstown are also problematic.  Just take a drive out 
>in the rural area and look west or south. You will see that for 
>yourself. 
>
>The second major source of light energy in the county is nighttime 
>vehicle traffic.  Calculate the lumens and you will see how much 
>light  energy is generated by the headlights.  And this light source 
>is mobile and intense.  And because it is all relatively horizontal 
>- it refracts very quickly.  Most of the roads in the County are 
>gravel and travel on them stirs up a great amount of particulate - 
>add a car and your now have a corridor of "refracted" light.  Just 
>stand near a county road and watch. The impact can be seen for great 
>distances.  What should be done about that? 
>
>The proposed ordinance is, at best, an ineffective effort to address 
>a trivial problem.  Just consider the requirement that all outdoor 
>lighting should be controlled by a photo-sensitive device.  Most of 
>us in the county have enough sense to turn off a light in the 
>daytime - how we accomplish that is really not a matter that the 
>government needs to address.  As to "nighttime" control of lighting, 
>motion detection, sound detection and heat sensing are far more 
>important to me.  But should the government decide that, and as a 
>resident of Latah County, do you think you should be able to 
>dictate, the actual devices needed to turn on and turn off lighting 
>on private property?
>
>Seriously, Mr Basoa - do you really think this is an appropriate 
>solution to the "light shining in a bedroom window" problem?   - an 
>average light per two square miles problem?
>
>At 10:45 AM 1/22/2006, you wrote:
>
>>Mr. Harkins,
>>
>>Please do your homework about neighbors before you post.
>>
>>It's wonderful that you, as a rural property owner, "respect the 
>>concept of light pollution and manage my light use to be as 
>>unobtrusive as possible."  It is to be applauded that you and your 
>>neighbors are able to work out problems such as light pollution. 
>>I, too, am a rural property owner and have enjoyed good working 
>>relations with my neighbors. 
>>
>>However, some neighbors simply don't give a crap.  They do what 
>>they do and don't consider anything but their own amusements.  If 
>>their night lights are pointed directly into your living room, it's 
>>your problem, not theirs ('put up heavier curtains' they might 
>>say).  Some neighbors will be understanding and listen to reason. 
>>Others will go out and increase the wattage.  It's a crapshoot. 
>>You and I, we're lucky to have good neighbors.  Many others are not 
>>so fortunate.  And with the current trend of building a house on 
>>top of every hill in the county,  light pollution is bound to get 
>>worse.
>>
>>I support the draft ordinance requiring shielded lights.  This 
>>shows consideration for neighbors and still allows excellent 
>>visibility for property owners.  I fail to  see how this 
>>requirement will cause more "damage and injury to property and 
>>persons" or cause more "damages to animals and crops harmed by 
>>predators and foragers".  My unshielded lights (granted, they are 
>>not high wattage mercury vapor lights) do not keep the deer and 
>>moose away nor do they stop the coyotes from their nightly prowls. 
>>As to "damages resulting from burglary, trespass and general 
>>mischief", well, shielded or not, lights alone will not deter a 
>>determined burglar or general mischief-maker.
>>
>>I take great pleasure in viewing the night sky, unobstructed from 
>>most neighbors lights.  I am very fortunate in that regard and wish 
>>to remain so.  This proposed ordinance is a positive step towards 
>>preserving one aspect of this wonderful quality of life we 
>>currently enjoy here in Latah County while causing few, if any, 
>>real problems.
>>
>>-Steven
>>
>>On Jan 21, 2006, at 11:46 PM, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>>
>>Mr. Evans,
>>
>>Please do your homework about the physics of light before you post.
>>
>>For the rest of you interested in this topic, consider that with a 
>>bit over 1000 square miles of land in Latah County, there are 500 
>>rural farm lights (yard lights).  That is 1 light per 2 square 
>>miles.  Since many of the lights are clustered in areas around the 
>>urban centers, the average number of light units per square mile 
>>drops considerably.  It is dark in the rural parts of this county.
>>
>>As a rural property owner, let me assure you that I do respect the 
>>concept of light pollution and manage my light use to be as 
>>unobtrusive as possible.  All of us in our "neighborhood" work 
>>together to not impose on each other on most issues, including 
>>lighting.  If there was a problem, we would find a way to work it 
>>out.  I don't recognize your name and I am rather confident that 
>>you don't live near me.  So why, exactly, are you attempting to 
>>dictate lighting issues to me and my neighbors. 
>>
>>If you, Mr. Evans, would be willing to demand that the County 
>>accept all liability for damage and injury to property and persons 
>>that result from reduced lighting on rural property, would support 
>>a fair compensation to me (or my neighbors) for damages to animals 
>>and crops harmed by predators and foragers, would support public 
>>funds be raised to reimburse me (or rural residents) for damages 
>>resulting from burglary, trespass and general mischief, we can 
>>pursue a dialogue.  Frankly, I would rather invest such scarce 
>>public dollars in county infrastructure and schools ....
>>
>>Until then, I will not compromise my responsibility for the health 
>>and safety of my family, my neighbors or my friends for your dark 
>>sky agenda. 
>>
>>Until you support full financial responsibility by Latah County for 
>>the consequences for what you are asking me and my neighbors to do 
>>in our neighborhood, why don't you work with your neighbors to deal 
>>with the light pollution in your neighborhood?  I assume that you 
>>live in Moscow.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060122/8f825e43/attachment.htm