[Vision2020] Outdoor lights
Jeff Harkins
jeffh at moscow.com
Mon Jan 31 10:37:47 PST 2005
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your post - it provides some illumination of the issues.
Not to be fussy, but the quote I provided was not an excerpt, but the full
text for the lighting ordinance. Since there was no exception provided,
the ordinance as written would apply to all outdoor lighting devices -
permanent and mobile.
Couple of additional points. Moscow, I am told, recently adopted a
lighting ordinance. This would address the lighting issues for a large
segment of Latah County population. Other incorporated areas are also
eligible to adopt municipal codes for lighting, but from what I have been
told by some folks in those towns - they don't have enough light to provide
basic neighborhood security so it is unlikely to be a problem for them in
the near term.
However, in rural residence and ag/forest zones, people must be vigilant
for predators, for breakdowns, for driveway obstacles, for equipment that
was misplaced inadvertently, for newly appearing rodent holes, etc - I
know with my barn and hay shed - I am in and out frequently during the
evenings and late nights - attending to new foal, checking mare, etc. I
have motion sensitive flood lights on both structures to provide the light
I need to navigate around the area. I originally had 75 watt floods, but
found that was not enough lumens, so moved to 150 watt bulbs. Also, tried
the flourescent flood, but it takes too long to warm up enough to provide
immediate light. I think the point here is that the rural operation is
considerably different from the urban situation.
And I will be candid - I have every confidence that the rural resident is
fully able to determine for themselves their light needs - and will pay for
their choices. Coincidentally, I also trust that the urban resident is
fully capable of selecting the appropriate lighting solution for their
needs. But I have no stake in the Moscow solution as I am not a resident
of that jurisdiction. Out here in the rural area, if there is a problem of
lights shining too brightly, more often that not a simple conversation with
neighbor will resolve the problem.
The illogical belief that requiring a max 60W bulb per fixture will save
anything is inexplicable to me. If the light need is for 150 watts of
light and the corresponding lumens, an ordinance that requires someone to
buy three fixtures instead of one is ludicrous.
Also, there is at least one citizen that doesn't seem to understand that a
watt by any other color is still a watt - doesn't matter to the utility
meter that it passes through a sodium light, a metal halide light or a
halogen light. And basic economic theory would rely upon the price system
to allocate the resources (electricity) accordingly.
Again - thanks for your post and your input. And you confirm that indeed,
there are some deficiencies with the proposed ordinance.
At 07:24 AM 1/31/2005, you wrote:
>All,
>Part of living in a community is being at least a little tolerant of your
>neighbors. That means we all should exhibit some courtesy to one another.
>For instance, if my neighbors have a party until 2:00 in the morning and
>there was more light and noise than I would like, then I would let it go
>unless the light and noise was beyond merely irritating and crossed over to
>being extreme. In a similar manner, I hope that if I had a broken car, and
>could only fix it at night when I wasn't working, and I used two 150 watt
>halogen lights to see what I was doing, then I hope my neighbors would be
>tolerant of that as well.
>
>Jeff-- I didn't see any differentiation between stationary and movable
>lights in your law excerpt. That in mind, I can see a big difference between
>a 150 watt halogen permanently mounted on a garage, and my temporary usage
>of a mobile halogen fixture totaling 300 watts that I might use to fix my
>car. Like you, I don't think it should be illegal to fix my car. However, I
>don't mind having my permanent fixtures be somewhat restricted.
>
>Donovan--You have some points but you need to get your facts straight,
>because truly wrong facts tend to dilute your message.
>The following is a comparison between the wattage of commonly available
>incandescent lamps and the wattage of a CFL that will provide similar light
>levels:
>
>25 Watt Incandescent = 5 Watt CFL
>(http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/ef2.html)
>50 = 9
>60 = 15
>75 = 20
>100 = 25
>120 = 28
>150 = 39
>
>Donovan, your comment that ".....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.."
>is obviously wrong and dilutes your argument. .
>
>In summary, to be fair, the law should address the difference between
>stationary permanent lights and temporary movable lights.
>
>Jim Meyer
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <vision2020-request at moscow.com>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:21 PM
>Subject: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 8, Issue 190
>
>
> > Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
> > vision2020 at moscow.com
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > vision2020-request at moscow.com
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > vision2020-owner at moscow.com
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Next Posting on Proposed Latah County Land Ordinance
> > (Jeff Harkins)
> > 2. Re: inclusive justice (Donovan Arnold)
> > 3. Re: The Auntie Establishment and Brother Carl Show forJanuary
> > 30, 2 (Joan Opyr)
> > 4. RE: Next Posting on Proposed Latah County Land Ordinance
> > (Donovan Arnold)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:04:53 -0800
> > From: Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com>
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Next Posting on Proposed Latah County Land
> > Ordinance
> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050130180507.057f4190 at mail.uidaho.edu>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
>http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050130/d86c1aae/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:06:16 -0800
> > From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] inclusive justice
> > To: london at moscow.com, citizenx at rock.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Message-ID: <BAY101-F272DB74232860297A7B54CA67C0 at phx.gbl>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
> >
> > How do we know that NSA or the owner of the building didn't apply for the
> > permit?
> >
> > And second, unless it was a great hindrance to the public health, why on
> > God's Earth would anyone give a damn if the zoning administrator gave him
>a
> > piece of paper?
> >
> > I am more concerned about snow removal and dog poo at the park.
> >
> > Donovan J Arnold
> >
> > >From: "Bill London" <london at moscow.com>
> > >To: "stigmatta x" <citizenx at rock.com>, <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] inclusive justice
> > >Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:36:45 -0800
> > >
> > >I think your example is off the mark. In this downtown Moscow zoning
>case,
> > >the NSA did not apply for the necessary permit. And as I understand the
> > >law, the city is not responsible for making sure the NSA gets that
>permit.
> > >It is NSA's responsibility.
> > >BL
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >If you wanted to build a nice wooded fence in your yard And applied for a
> > >permit and it was granted. would you, should you, Have to tear it down
> > >after it was built. Just because someone in the city goofed.
> > >_____________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:10:22 -0800
> > From: "Joan Opyr" <auntiestablishment at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Auntie Establishment and Brother Carl
> > Show forJanuary 30, 2
> > To: "Vision2020 Moscow" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Message-ID: <BAY10-DAV22A9A8E1A9BD87FFC980F4C57C0 at phx.gbl>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > Oh, come on, Tom -- weren't you even remotely interested in my theory that
>Colfax doesn't actually exist? It's a Potemkin Village made entirely of
>cardboard; just two miles of empty, pointless road with a cop stationed at
>either end. The speed limit is 25 for no reason other than to enrich the
>Whitman County coffers at the expense of drivers who happen to have Idaho
>plates.
> >
> > BTW, I would like to take this opportunity to thank those listeners who
>bore with us tonight during our plague of technical difficulties. Nothing
>was working right -- for the first five minutes, neither Carl's mic nor his
>headphones were functional -- and later, well, I wasn't functional. We had
>a run of CD screw-ups, all of which were entirely my fault. Carl is hereby
>completely exonerated. He had nothing to do with it; in fact, he was in
>Colfax.
> >
> > We're still ironing out the wrinkles on the show, but it's getting to be
>quite fun. For me, and Carl, and Tom, anyway. Viva Intoleristas!
> >
> > (Intolerista. Why does that word make me want to sing the Nicaraguan
>national anthem? Does anybody here know the lyrics? Doug, Stigmatta -- do
>one you have a copy of the 'Little Red Songbook?' I feel sure you must; so
>many of your public pronouncements of late seem to have "borrowed" from it
>freely. That and 'Civilization and Its Discontents.')
> >
> > Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
> > www.auntie-establishment.com
> >
> > PS: Let me explain what I mean by "borrowed." To quote from the great Tom
>Lehrer, "Plagiarize, plagiarize, let no one's work escape your eyes, but
>please . . . call it research."
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tom Hansen
> > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 7:56 PM
> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: [Vision2020] The Auntie Establishment and Brother Carl Show
>forJanuary 30, 2005
> >
> > Greetings Visionaires -
> >
> > If you were unable to tune in to the "Auntie Establishment and Brother
>Carl
> > Show" today, you missed out on a major treat.
> >
> > Although it may have started out somewhat slow, centering on a discussion
> > concerning Auntie Establishment's (mis)adventures in Spokane on Saturday
> > night, it quickly go into gear as they blasted away at:
> >
> > 1) Our two new trolls on the V2020 listserve (Faul Ottomaticks and
> > Stigmatta X)
> >
> > 2) Ben Merkle and his article in Volume 16, Issue 2 of the Credenda
>Agenda,
> > "Arrows in the Hand of a Limp-Wristed Man"
> > (http://www.credenda.org/issues/16-2recipio.php)
> >
> > 3) The religious right's attack on the cartoon series "Sponge Bob Square
> > Pants".
> >
> > One item of interest that caught my attention was that Carl Westberg Jr.
>was
> > a DJ in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco during the summer of
> > '69.
> >
> > So, in closing I would like to state that although this group that I am
> > proud to call friends may be referred to as Intoleristas, liberal
>elitists,
> > and wackos (among a multitude of other labels) we have all come from a
> > rather diverse range of backgrounds and have experienced an even more
> > diverse range of cultures, more so than the dark corners of Moscow, Idaho
> > and the dark underbelly of Monroe, Louisiana.
> >
> > Take care, Moscow.
> >
> > Tom Hansen
> > Just Doing What Comes Natural
> >
> > We could learn a lot from crayons: some are sharp, some are pretty, some
>are
> > dull, some have weird names, and all are different colors....but they all
> > exist very nicely in the same box.
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > 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
> > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////Get more from the
>Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
>http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050130/b2799e4a/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:20:01 -0800
> > From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Next Posting on Proposed Latah County Land
> > Ordinance
> > To: jeffh at moscow.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Message-ID: <BAY101-F73FE30D164AE61537E64EA67C0 at phx.gbl>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
> >
> > 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
> > >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > 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
> > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >
> > End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 8, Issue 190
> > ******************************************
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list