[Spam] RE: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
Pat Kraut
pkraut at moscow.com
Mon Jan 23 17:40:01 PST 2006
Well done!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai Eiselein, LatahEagle Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>
To: "Vision2020 at Moscow. Com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:34 PM
Subject: FW: [Spam] RE: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
-----Original Message-----
From: Kai Eiselein, LatahEagle Editor [mailto:editor at lataheagle.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:34 PM
To: lfalen
Subject: RE: [Spam] RE: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
I don't know, intentionally annoying one's neighbor can have a positive
effect.
Several years ago, while living in another city, we had a neighbor who had a
teenage son. This boy would come home late at night with his stereo thumping
at full volume. To make matters worse, his friends would show up and they
would see who's stereo was the loudest.
Repeated complaints to the parents (He was just enjoying his hobby) and the
police resulted in no action. So after talking with some of the others in
the neighborhood, a plan was devised.
One Sunday, about 5:30 a.m. I rolled my 1981 Suziki dragbike out of the shop
and onto the lawn between our houses. The neighbor's bedroom window was
about 10 feet away, I kicked the starter over and 650cc's screamed to life
through the straight pipes. I revved it to 10,000 rpms repeatedly. The
neighbor was out the door in his bathroom screaming at me saying, "What the
hell are you doing?!!" "Just enjoying my hobby", I replied, "And I'm going
to enjoy it every morning."
We never had another problem with the teenager or his friends.
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of lfalen
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:00 PM
To: Mark Solomon; Phil Nisbet
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Spam] RE: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
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 minings 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
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
_____________________________________________________
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
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
__________ NOD32 1.1375 (20060123) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list