[Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution

[Phil Nisbet]

Jeff and Mark

Actually the two of you are closer than you think though from very different 
backgrounds and political ideologies.  The reason is that the facts matter 
both to You Mark and to Jeff.

Jeff, Mark has been willing in the past to go with ideas that Bruce Smith 
and I devised for what we termed ownership of issues with regards wildlife 
up to and including things related to species habitat under ESA.  His 
concerns are those of a person who has had to deal with bad actors and I 
know that he views regulation as a means of keeping bad actors in check.

Mark, Jeff is not for no regulation, he is asking that we regulate wisely 
and not so clutter ordinances that there is no way to enforce them and so 
many that all people become scofflaws.

I was thinking this morning that the two of you are complimentary and it’s a 
shame that the commissioners can not appoint you both to the Planning 
Commission.

Phil Nisbet



>From: Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com>
>To: Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com>;, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
>Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:32:49 -0800
>
>Mark,
>
>Of course, for an industrial mining operation, one would be foolish not to 
>consider the tradeoffs (benefits and costs to be more precise) of the 
>business operation.  All of the elements of planning as cited in 67.6508 
>should be considered and analyzed.  And analysis requires more than 
>conjecture, opinion and feelings as a basis for judgment.  Fundamentally, 
>it requires knowledge.
>
>For example, I have been very impressed with the degree of knowledge and 
>reason that Phil Nesbitt brings to the table - particularly on questions 
>pertaining to the extractive industry.  While I have questions about the 
>application of some of his findings (just some), I know that he has done 
>his homework on the science of the issues.  He looks at issues from reason 
>and knowledge and bases his recommendations and conclusions on those 
>findings.  Our local planning process would benefit greatly from the 
>application of that concept.
>
>Is is possible that we are in agreement on this?
>
>At 10:43 AM 1/23/2006, you wrote:
>>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
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


>_____________________________________________________
>  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