[Vision2020] Next Posting on Proposed Latah County Land Ordinance

Mon Jan 31 10:00:13 PST 2005

Thank you for your kind and "illuminating" comments.  Now I fully understand.

At 11:20 PM 1/30/2005, you wrote:

>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
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>