[Vision2020] Next Posting on Proposed Latah County Land Ordinance

Sun Jan 30 23:20:01 PST 2005

Jeff,

I want to thank you for illustrating to the public and surrounding counties 
your incompetence in such matters as reviewing laws concerning land use.

First let me start by saying, "SECTION 9.03 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL OUTDOOR 
LIGHTING In order to conserve energy and reduce light pollution" Is a very 
GOOD idea for several reasons.

It reduces usage of energy. You want to know why your utility bill is so 
damn high? It is because people are doing things like using incandescent 
light bulbs. I know T. Edison was a smart man, but we have made some 
improvements to the light bulb since the 1901 Pan-American World Fair 
Exhibit in Buffalo.

A smart government would outlaw incandescent light bulbs completely. 90% of 
the energy produced from a incandescent light bulb is wasted on heat. Less 
than 10% of electricity you are using is being used for light. An energy 
saving light bulb, which costs about $2.50 at your local friendly thrift 
store and lasts 5 years, versus 6 months or less with a incandescent, can 
produce the same amount of light as the $1 light bulb at about one tenth the 
wattage and cost. So this idea is saving money for land users and helping 
the environment. I replaced all the lights in my place and my utility bill 
has gone down on average $20 a month and I never have to change the bulb 
except once every 5 years. Sure, the extra $1.50 per bulb is expensive at 
first, but I made up the difference in about a month on the utility bill.

You write,

"In Idaho, to save energy  residents are required to purchase 60 watt 
luminaire fixtures (as many as it takes) to get the light they need for a 
task."

Yes, it does take a great deal of bulbs when you use incandescent. Not to 
mention they break easily, are really hot and can burn you, waste energy, 
have a high malfunction rate, easily start fires, and are not very bright. 
It would take 11  incandescent bulbs to do what just one 60 watt energy 
saving bulb can do. In fact, if you had one soft light energy saving bulb at 
60 watts it would be so bright (650 watts of an incandescent) you would 
probably go blind if you looked right at it, or at least cause some 
permenent eye damage.

You continue with speculation about others will say,

"In Idaho, apparently folks there aren't smart enough to know to turn off 
their lights in the daytime because County Officials have required everyone 
to install photo sensor lights to turn them off during daylight."

I doubt this. Part of the reason that our utility bills are so high is 
because people leave their lights on, increasing demand for lighting. Much 
of this lighting is wasted on nothing other than letting the cows see the 
grass or the rocks see the trees. People should not be forced to pay higher 
utility bills because someone forgot to turn their lights off. Further, not 
all people are stupid for leaving their light on during the day. Some cannot 
turn them off because they are gone for the weekend, and don't want anyone 
thinking they are not home. Others forget to turn them off at night when 
they go to bed. Still others turn the light on in the afternoon so they can 
see when they get home in the dark. You add all this up, and it increases 
energy usage significantly.

As for light population. This is mostly because many animals get confused by 
the lights. They use the sun and/or stars for navigation. The light confuses 
them and their mating, eating, and sleeping patterns. It may seem silly, but 
it is impacting the environment negatively, and we know that farmers very 
much need to have a strong environment because they rely on the land. It is 
needless to have lights shining brightly upward. I suggest to the farmer or 
land owner trying to install a snow blower, or fix a tractor tire, to do it 
in the morning, not at midnight. But I am willing to bet that most Farmers 
are smarter than Mr. Harkins and could figure that one out.

Mr. Harkins, if anymore light bulbs go off in your head, please make sure 
they are efficient ones that save the farmer and land owner money. Because 
so far, they have all been pretty dim or malfunctioning only leaving people 
burned.

Take care,

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Next Posting on Proposed Latah County Land Ordinance
>Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:04:53 -0800
>
>I am dedicating this post to Section 9.03 of the Proposed Ordinance.  This 
>section is entitled "Design Standards for all Outdoor Lighting".  I am 
>moving over Sections 3. 02 to 8 because I have exhausted all the hours 
>available to me for preparing commentary before the Tuesday Planning 
>Commission Meeting.
>
>I will return to the skipped Sections after that meeting.
>
>Section 9.03 is rather short and may best be digested if read in full - so 
>here it is:
>
>SECTION 9.03 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL OUTDOOR LIGHTING
>9.03.01 APPLICABILITY
>In order to conserve energy and reduce light pollution, all outdoor lights, 
>including lights
>attached to any type of building or structure shall be:
>
>    * 1. Equipped with a photo-sensor so they are automatically turned off 
>during daylight hours; and
>    * 2. Of a design that does not allow light to travel up or 
>horizontally; and
>    * 3. Lamped with high pressure sodium, metal halide, or compact 
>fluorescent lamps, or incandescent bulbs of 60 watts or less.
>
>9.03.02 CHANGE IN USE
>When application for a change of use or for a conditional use permit is 
>made, all existing lighting
>must be brought into compliance with Section 9.03.01 of this ordinance.
>
>9.03.03 QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS
>The Zoning Commission or the Board of Latah County Commissioners may set 
>stricter
>conditions than are set in Section 9.03.01 of this ordinance for any type 
>of permit that comes
>before them.
>
>Now just sit back and reflect on this proposed County Wide standard.  
>Imagine changing a tire or repairing a combine or field tractor, installing 
>your snow blower under a 60 watt incandescent bulb.  I can see the next 
>line of jokes about Idaho - How many 60 watt bulbs does it take to change a 
>tire in Idaho?  OR In Idaho, to save energy - residents are required to 
>purchase 60 watt luminaire fixtures (as many as it takes) to get the light 
>they need for a task.  Or try this - In Idaho, apparently folks there 
>aren't smart enough to know to turn off their lights in the daytime because 
>County Officials have required everyone to install photo sensor lights to 
>turn them off during daylight.
>
>I can also imagine the headlines later this summer.  Remember the "breast 
>exposure" issue raised in Moscow a few summers ago.  Well apparently all 
>those folks who geared up with their protractors and compasses to determine 
>whether or not the breast was legally or illegally exposed will now have a 
>new task for their investment in equipment - then can go out and find 
>lights that are beaming rays out between 90 degrees and 270 degrees.  
>Sigh!!!
>
>Come on folks - we have a lot of serious issues to be resolved in this 
>county.  The last thing we need is designation of the "Illumination 
>Police".
>
>Just so that you are fully informed, here are some price quotes for 
>replacement bulbs using the various options required by the proposed 
>ordinance - the price of the fixtures varies considerably.
>
>Price is cost per each
>
>23W outdoor flood flourescent BR 38     $ 28.04
>12W NanoLux Spot                        $ 21.20
>50W High Pressure Sodium                $ 10.88
>50W Mercury Vapor                       $ 10.50
>50W Metal Halide                        $ 10.88
>50W BR 30 Flood Incandescent    $  3.74
>
>I guess I trust the price system and the judgment of Latah's citizens to be 
>able to decide for themselves how much candlepower and lumens they need and 
>the means by which they provide it.
>
>Again, please keep your comments coming - they have been helpful.
>
>And try to attend the next meeting of the Latah Planning Commission on 
>Tuesday, February 1 at the Latah Courthouse at 5:30 pm,'
>
>While no public testimony is scheduled to be allowed, the Commissioners are 
>expected to discuss their findings following the previous public hearing.
>
>I urge you to draft a short letter to the Planning Commission requesting 
>that they table this ordinance until the public has had a chance to provide 
>full comment on the draft.
>
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯