[Vision2020] light pollution

[Jeff Harkins]

That is the problem with parody - the parodied 
generally don't appreciate the humor - they are 
often blind to it.  In this case, the members of 
the electric coop didn't much appreciate the 
accusations about their coop either.  The fact is 
Bill, the electric coop members asked for the 
lights - just like the members of the Food coop 
ask for organic foods.  Both lights and food 
serve to advance the health and safety challenges 
facing humans.  Both member organizations exist 
to serve their members' interests.

I would have expected a "philospher" to get that 
much out of the parody - even though I would have 
no reason to expect them to admit it.

As to "shields" or "down lights" - I would have 
only minor concerns about light intrusion rules 
when houses are in "close proximity" to each 
other - say 100 feet or so.  Also, the standard 
would have to define an allowable amount of 
lumens (or some other measure of light volume) so 
that we are not relying on someone's anecdoctal 
"feelings" about the light intrusion issue.  Of 
course, the proposed ordinance does not address 
light intrusion - only light pollution and energy 
"conservation".  It's a bad ordinance, whether you recognize it or not.


At 05:20 PM 1/22/2006, you wrote:
>J-
>your effort to draw a comparison between light 
>pollution and options in food purchases is 
>merely grasping at some pretty thin 
>straws.  sorry, but it just doesn't work.  except as feeble humor.
>Light pollution is trespass.  There is no 
>trespass relevant in organic food options.
>BL
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jeffh at moscow.com>Jeff Harkins
>To: <mailto:london at moscow.com>Bill London ; 
><mailto:vision202 at moscow.com>vision202 at moscow.com
>Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 3:46 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] light pollution
>
>To further amplify the myopic views being 
>expressed on this subject, let's do a bit of 
>word substitution to see if that might help to clarify the subject.
>
>>Mercury vapor yard lights are good business for 
>>the power companies that promote them.  To the 
>>power companies it means money but to many of 
>>us it means a despoiling of our night sky and 
>>light trespass onto our properties and into 
>>homes by unwitting neighbors.  In Latah County 
>>today, Clearwater Power has some 500 mercury 
>>vapor yard lights installed on rural 
>>properties.  The numbers are increasing and our 
>>night sky is fading.  Placing shields on these 
>>lights to avoid light going up or laterally is 
>>not an option according to Clearwater Power as 
>>these lights are an older model and cannot be shielded.
>>
>>The basic fact with these bright mercury vapor 
>>yard lights is that the glare reduces the 
>>owners ability to see properly and in effect 
>>reduces the owners safety and 
>>security.  Shielding these lights not only 
>>makes them more effective for the owners but 
>>reduces light trespass and hence conflicts between neighbors.
>>
>>The Planning and Building Commission of Latah 
>>County has drafted a good outdoor lighting 
>>ordinance which will require all yard lights to 
>>be shielded.  Clearwater Power is opposed as 
>>they will have to change out all of their older 
>>model mercury vapor lights for something more 
>>modern with shields.  To them it’s all about 
>>money but this is our county and our quality of 
>>life that we must work to maintain.  There is 
>>also a vociferous group of rural land owners 
>>who have no respect for their neighbors and 
>>believe that they should have the right to put 
>>up as many mercury vapor yard lights as they 
>>desire.  Surely this group of people who would 
>>not know the difference between a planet and a 
>>star are in the minority – count the lights – 
>>500 to date.  The majority of rural land owners 
>>as well as all concerned residents of Latah 
>>County now have an opportunity to demand that 
>>all these bright obnoxious lights are fitted 
>>with shields.  The Planning Commission has done 
>>the work and they now need to hear from all of 
>>us.  They need our support to pass this ordinance.
>
>Now read this:
>
>High priced organic fools are good business for 
>the foodstores that promote them.  To the 
>foodstores it means money but to many of us it 
>means a despoiling of our budgets as consumers 
>and leads to higher prices for shoppers that 
>don't want organic foods.  In Latah County 
>today, the Moscow Food CoOp has many varieties 
>and flavors of organic foods.  The numbers are 
>increasing and prices of other foods are 
>rising.  Placing price controls on organic 
>foods  is not an option according to the Moscow 
>Food CoOp as these foods are what we sell and we can't change that.
>
>The basic fact with these organic foods is that 
>the sale of these foods prevents non organic 
>foods to be sold in sufficient quantities to 
>keep the prices low  and in effect reduces the 
>amount of food that these folks can buy - hence 
>it is a health and safety issue.  But selling 
>organic foods not only makes them more healthy 
>but the eaters weigh less and use less water and 
>sewer services while reducing their weight and 
>hence their travel costs.  This leads to less conflict between neighbors.
>
>The Planning and Building Commission of Latah 
>County has drafted a good non-organic food 
>ordinance which will require all food  to be 
>non-organic.  Moscow Food CoOp  is opposed as 
>they will have to change out all of their older 
>food inventory for something non-organic.  To 
>them it’s all about money but this is our county 
>and our quality of life that we must work to 
>maintain.  There is also a vociferous group of 
>CoOp Customers who have no respect for their 
>neighbors and believe that they should have the 
>right to demand as much organic food as they 
>desire.  Surely this group of people who would 
>not know the difference between a natural 
>meal  and an artificial meal are in the minority 
>– count the shoppers– 500 to date.  The majority 
>of food eaters as well as all concerned 
>residents of Latah County now have an 
>opportunity to demand that all these organic 
>foods are banned from the market.  The Planning 
>Commission has done the work and they now need 
>to hear from all of us.  They need our support to pass this ordinance.
>
>
>As a foundation for understanding the argument 
>and just for the record and clarification of the context, assume that:
>
>1. Clearwater Power is an electric power 
>cooperative - owned by its members to serve its members.
>2. Moscow Food CoOp is a food cooperative - 
>owned by its members to serve its members.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060122/10cd795f/attachment.htm