[Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution

[Mark Solomon]

Jeff,

We are both in agreement that Phil knows more 
about the mining industry than you and I ever 
will. But you're still avoiding answering the 
question: is it appropriate or not appropriate to 
regulate a business for effects off-site that may 
not have identifiable safety or health issues 
such as noise or lighting?

Mark

At 12:32 PM -0800 1/23/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>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
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060123/85dc22c1/attachment-0001.htm