[Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
Bruce and Jean Livingston
jeanlivingston at turbonet.com
Mon Jan 23 15:30:30 PST 2006
Jeff, my sense of all this discussion is that it misses the point. The lighting ordinance should not require reduction of lighting in areas on your own property that affect your health and safety. It should reduce the light that escapes to areas where it ought not go and has no effect on health and safety -- the night sky, i.e., upwards, and neighbors' property.
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Harkins
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________
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/eca60f7d/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list