[Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution

[Mark Solomon]

Phil,

Thanks for your reply. As you know, I've never 
assumed all mining operations are bad or 
irresponsible to the community in which they 
operate. Although I think some rock pit 
owner/operators would take exception to the idea 
they have deep pockets.

But that gets us to the point: is the discussion 
that's happening on the light pollution ordinance 
about any of the issues raised (light 
diffusion/refraction, safety, predators, right to 
annoy your neighbors, etc) or is it about cost?

Anyone?

Mark

At 11:02 AM -0800 1/23/06, Phil Nisbet wrote:
>Mark
>
>I would chip in on this one.
>
>Yes.
>
>If the pit is in proximity to other person's 
>dwellings, the operation may impact health 
>through excessive noise.  It is not unreasonable 
>for the government to control such activity 
>since it creates a number of factors that can 
>impact far more than the simply visual.
>
>Hours of operations may also impact safety, in 
>that if the pit works at night, it may require 
>movement of traffic at night or at some hour 
>that can cause safety conflicts with other uses 
>on public roads.
>
>As one of the regulated on this subject, good 
>regulation is not inappropriate, since the 
>activity is commercial in nature and the pit 
>operator should be charging sufficiently for his 
>product to see that sound practices are carried 
>out.
>
>I would say that if we were talking about 
>commercial lighting, requiring commercial 
>enterprise with deep pockets to carry out good 
>lighting practice is not a bad idea.  The 
>question is not one of commercial lighting in 
>the Ordinance, but is inclusive of all rural use 
>of lighting, including lights for folks who may 
>not have the deep pockets that a commercial 
>enterprise has.
>
>As a matter of record, the commercial and 
>industrial portions of the code that is working 
>its way through have provisions for lighting and 
>for carrying out the requirements of the 
>separate lighting ordinance.  All of those uses 
>are required to submit lighting plans as part of 
>their CUPs.
>
>I hope that explains mining’s attitude toward the issues you raise, Mark.
>
>Phil Nisbet
>
>
>>From: Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com>
>>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
>>Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:43:10 -0800
>>
>>Jeff,
>>
>>Let me be more specific then. Would you 
>>consider regulating of a business operation, 
>>such as a rock pit, a matter of public health 
>>and safety on the issues of hours of operation, 
>>noise and lights?
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>At 10:33 AM -0800 1/23/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>>>Mark,
>>>
>>>I think I answered your question quite clearly:
>>>
>>>Yes, there are numerous examples.  But the predominant case for local
>>>land use planning is the safety and health of the residents.
>>>
>>>But you raise one of my major points of 
>>>concern about our local planning commission 
>>>and that is their fulfillment of the primary 
>>>duty to:
>>>
>>>to conduct a comprehensive planning process 
>>>designed to prepare, implement, and review and 
>>>update a comprehensive plan, hereafter 
>>>referred to as the plan..
>>>
>>>The primary components of the planning process are, as you properly cite:
>>>
>>>	 a)  Property Rights -- An analysis of 
>>>provisions which may be necessary
>>>to insure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do not
>>>violate private property rights, adversely impact property values or create
>>>unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property and analysis as
>>>prescribed under the declarations of purpose in chapter 80, title 67, Idaho
>>>Code.
>>>     (b)  Population -- A population analysis of past, present, and future
>>>trends in population including such 
>>>characteristics as total population, age,
>>>sex, and income.
>>>     (c)  School Facilities and Transportation 
>>>-- An analysis of public school
>>>capacity and transportation considerations 
>>>associated with future development.
>>>     (d)  Economic Development -- An analysis 
>>>of the economic base of the area
>>>including employment, industries, economies, jobs, and income levels.
>>>     (e)  Land Use -- An analysis of natural land types, existing land covers
>>>and uses, and the intrinsic suitability of 
>>>lands for uses such as agriculture,
>>>forestry, mineral exploration and extraction, preservation, recreation,
>>>housing, commerce, industry, and public facilities. A map shall be prepared
>>>indicating suitable projected land uses for the jurisdiction.
>>>     (f)  Natural Resource -- An analysis of the uses of rivers and other
>>>waters, forests, range, soils, harbors, 
>>>fisheries, wildlife, minerals, thermal
>>>waters, beaches, watersheds, and shorelines.
>>>     (g)  Hazardous Areas -- An analysis of known hazards as may result from
>>>susceptibility to surface ruptures from faulting, ground shaking, ground
>>>failure, landslides or mudslides; avalanche 
>>>hazards resulting from development
>>>in the known or probable path of snowslides and avalanches, and floodplain
>>>hazards.
>>>     (h)  Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities -- An analysis showing
>>>general plans for sewage, drainage, power plant sites, utility transmission
>>>corridors, water supply, fire stations and 
>>>fire fighting equipment, health and
>>>welfare facilities, libraries, solid waste disposal sites, schools, public
>>>safety facilities and related services. The plan may also show locations of
>>>civic centers and public buildings.
>>>     (i)  Transportation -- An analysis, prepared in coordination with the
>>>local jurisdiction(s) having authority over the public highways and streets,
>>>showing the general locations and widths of a system of major traffic
>>>thoroughfares and other traffic ways, and of streets and the recommended
>>>treatment thereof. This component may also make recommendations on building
>>>line setbacks, control of access, street 
>>>naming and numbering, and a proposed
>>>system of public or other transit lines and related facilities including
>>>rights-of-way, terminals, future corridors, viaducts and grade separations.
>>>The component may also include port, harbor, aviation, and other related
>>>transportation facilities.
>>>     (j)  Recreation -- An analysis showing a system of recreation areas,
>>>including parks, parkways, trailways, river bank greenbelts, beaches,
>>>playgrounds, and other recreation areas and programs.
>>>     (k)  Special Areas or Sites -- An analysis 
>>>of areas, sites, or structures
>>>of historical, archeological, architectural, ecological, wildlife, or scenic
>>>significance.
>>>     (l)  Housing -- An analysis of housing conditions and needs; plans for
>>>improvement of housing standards; and plans for the provision of safe,
>>>sanitary, and adequate housing, including the provision for low-cost
>>>conventional housing, the siting of manufactured housing and mobile homes in
>>>subdivisions and parks and on individual lots 
>>>which are sufficient to maintain
>>>a competitive market for each of those housing 
>>>types and to address the needs
>>>of the community.
>>>     (m)  Community Design -- An analysis of needs for governing landscaping,
>>>building design, tree planting, signs, and suggested patterns and standards
>>>for community design, development, and beautification.
>>>     (n)  Implementation -- An analysis to determine actions, programs,
>>>budgets, ordinances, or other methods including scheduling of public
>>>expenditures to provide for the timely 
>>>execution of the various components of
>>>the plan.
>>>
>>>I have been attending Planning Commission 
>>>meetings for over a year now as they have 
>>>plodded through the proposed changes to the 
>>>Comprehensive Long Range Plan.  In virtually 
>>>every meeting, one or more attendees have 
>>>raised the question - why are you doing this? 
>>>what is your objective? what is the problem 
>>>you are trying to resolve.  In not one single 
>>>meeting has a planning commission member 
>>>reached into a file, briefcase or drawer to 
>>>produce a copy of an analysis of any kind. 
>>>Not once.  This group has not provided 
>>>evidence of an analysis that includes any of 
>>>the required analysis units - despite repeated 
>>>requests.  This would seem to be in conflict 
>>>with the requirements of 67.6508.
>>>
>>>I think that this is the primary reason that 
>>>this particular proposed ordinance has met 
>>>with such resistance.  The Planning Commission 
>>>has taken several positions on issues, 
>>>presumably based on their personal knowledge, 
>>>experience and beliefs, instead of providing 
>>>an analysis of issues, with the results 
>>>available in writing for review.  And they 
>>>have certainly not reduced their findings to 
>>>writing to allow review or dialogue about 
>>>their analyses supporting their findings.
>>>
>>>Coincidentally, the makeup of the committee 
>>>did not have a representative for the farming 
>>>sector for the full year. The group that would 
>>>be most impacted by the proposed ordinance was 
>>>not even represented on the Commission.
>>>
>>>I would very much like to know what their 
>>>population analysis is and the assumptions 
>>>they made about it and drew from it.
>>>
>>>I would very much like to know what their 
>>>assessment of school needs is and what it is 
>>>based on.
>>>
>>>I would very much like to know what their 
>>>conclusions for economic development are and 
>>>what they are based on.
>>>
>>>I would very much like to know what their 
>>>conclusions for land use are and what they are 
>>>based on ....
>>>
>>>... and on and on and on.
>>>
>>>As an example of how the process has worked, 
>>>when asked on direct questioning why they took 
>>>the particular approach they did to regulate 
>>>an activity, their response was, "Well we 
>>>received a letter stating that we should do 
>>>this"  They talked about it and thought it was 
>>>a "good idea" and drafted that provision of 
>>>the ordinance.  For example, by their own 
>>>statements, they acknowledge that the lighting 
>>>ordinance was the result of input from one 
>>>citizen - Mr Stu Goldstein.  If there was an 
>>>analysis of the neede for the lighting 
>>>ordinance, they have not made it available to 
>>>the public.
>>>
>>>During my participation at the planning 
>>>commission meetings, there have been no 
>>>charts, no maps, no population demographics, 
>>>no economic demographics, no studies or 
>>>reports of any kind made available to the 
>>>public.
>>>
>>>Mark - Thank you for bringing the elements of 
>>>the planning process to light.  This may 
>>>provide a means by which future proposals for 
>>>changes to the Long-Range Comprehensive Plan 
>>>are conducted in accordance with all the 
>>>applicable provisions of the planning process. 
>>>It may also help to refocus everyone on the 
>>>appropriate elements to consider as we 
>>>conclude consideration of the changes pending 
>>>now.
>
>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>  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
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer 
>virus scan from McAfee® Security. 
>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963