[Vision2020] light pollution

[Jeff Harkins]

Mark,

Yes, there are numerous examples.  But the predominant case for local 
land use planning is the safety and health of the residents.

I am glad that you recognize that the nuisance suits are notoriously 
hard to pursue.  They should be - they are civil issues.  But that is 
exactly why the process for adjudication of the civil issue is 
there.  If the protagonist cannot demonstrate actual damage from the 
activity then how can the adjudication be remedied?  This lighting 
issue is frivolous and trivial - why?  Because it pits a "health and 
safety issue" against a "desire to be able to view dark skies."  Dark 
sky viewing is not a civil right; health and safety is.

In the anecdotal case that one neighbor's light is intruding on 
another neighbors property is a classic civil issue.  And unless the 
number of suits reaches some "high level", the government should stay 
out of it.

One lighting area that may warrant some regulation is neighbor 
proximity.  I would have only mild concern about an ordinance that 
specified when two resident buildings are located within a certain 
distance of each other, say 100 feet, that "down lighting" or "light 
directing" rules might be appropriate.  The benefit, however, should 
be to an ordinance that always provides for "health and safety" over 
personal preferences and inconvenience.

But I know that you recognize the science of lighting just as well as 
I do.  And I know that you know that light is invisible to the human 
eye until it refracts or reflects off of something.  You know, just 
as well as I do that the problem of "light pollution" stems from the 
various particulates in the atmosphere and not the incidence of local 
light.  I think you also know that down directed lighting will 
reflect back up and that that is an especially difficult problem with 
snow on the ground.  I am confident that you also know that the light 
hitting the earth's surface directly from solar objects (stars) and 
reflecting from planetary objects (planets and other orbital bodies) 
are far more responsible for "light pollution" than any amount of 
locally generated light sources.  The light reflected from the moon 
affects us for more than three weeks out of a year.  My night sky 
viewing is always planned around the quarter of the moon - isn't yours?

I think you know just as well as I do that if one wants to view an 
unobscured night sky that the best opportunity on the Palouse is to 
get out the night after a cleansing rain storm.  We also need to have 
the storm front blow through and leave no cloud cover.  The 
particulate is, for the most part, gone and the view of the night sky 
is spectacular.  And the local light sources are irrelevant.  I lived 
many years in Seattle.  There were many nights after rain that the 
night sky from Queen Anne hill was completely visible - irrespective 
of the fact that I was less than a mile from Seattle Center.  An even 
more enlightening view could be had from the deck of a sailboat in 
Puget Sound, with all the lights of Seattle as a backdrop - the night 
sky was filled with stars.

See, what puzzles me is - I know you know these things.  What I can't 
figure out is why you would support legislation that will make a 
handful of folks feel good about themselves and cost hundreds of 
folks a bunch of money.  And at the end of the day, the sky won't be 
any more visible than it is right now.

At 12:18 PM 1/22/2006, you wrote:
>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/20060122/74e752c3/attachment-0001.htm