[Spam] RE: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Mon Jan 23 12:00:21 PST 2006
Mark
It is about all of the items you mentioned plus property rights. Cost may also play a part. To be a good neighbor one should not intentionally annoy them.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Mark Solomon msolomon at moscow.com
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:24:47 -0800
To: "Phil Nisbet" pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
Subject: [Spam] RE: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
> 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
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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