[Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution

[Jeff Harkins]

Sure, there are a number of factors that come in to play:

Private property rights
Population shifts
Infrastructure needs
Economic development
Land use
Natural resources
Hazardous areas
Public services, facilities and utilities
Transportation
Recreation
Special areas or sites
Housing
Community design
Implementation issues (takings in particular)

Here are some issues that I would consider relevant to the business:

Is the business in a properly designated zone?
Has the business use changed?
Have the business processes changed?
Is it following the standards imposed on it when it initiated operations?
Is their activity in conformity with the local land use planning ordinance?

If the answers to those questions are Yes, No, 
No, Yes, Yes, then the "burden of proof" now rests with the plaintiff.

So, the next question becomes:  Can the plaintiff 
demonstrate harm from the business activity?  If 
so, how, how much, what are the circumstances?

But let me be clear - should health and safety 
concerns be trumped by someone who wants lighting 
to be reduced so that they can enjoy a dark sky?  No.

At 01:18 PM 1/23/2006, you wrote:
>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/20060123/97ecb1db/attachment.htm