<html>
<body>
Mark, <br><br>
Yes, there are numerous examples. But the predominant case for
local land use planning is the safety and health of the
residents.<br><br>
I am glad that you recognize that the nuisance suits are notoriously hard
to pursue. They should be - they are civil issues. But that
is exactly why the process for adjudication of the civil issue is
there. If the protagonist cannot demonstrate actual damage from the
activity then how can the adjudication be remedied? This lighting
issue is frivolous and trivial - why? Because it pits a
"health and safety issue" against a "desire to be able to
view dark skies." Dark sky viewing is not a civil right;
health and safety is.<br><br>
In the anecdotal case that one neighbor's light is intruding on another
neighbors property is a classic civil issue. And unless the number
of suits reaches some "high level", the government should stay
out of it. <br><br>
One lighting area that may warrant some regulation is neighbor
proximity. I would have only mild concern about an ordinance that
specified when two resident buildings are located within a certain
distance of each other, say 100 feet, that "down lighting" or
"light directing" rules might be appropriate. The
benefit, however, should be to an ordinance that always provides for
"health and safety" over personal preferences and
inconvenience.<br><br>
But I know that you recognize the science of lighting just as well as I
do. And I know that you know that light is invisible to the human
eye until it refracts or reflects off of something. You know, just
as well as I do that the problem of "light pollution" stems
from the various particulates in the atmosphere and not the incidence of
local light. I think you also know that down directed lighting will
reflect back up and that that is an especially difficult problem with
snow on the ground. I am confident that you also know that the
light hitting the earth's surface directly from solar objects (stars) and
reflecting from planetary objects (planets and other orbital bodies) are
far more responsible for "light pollution" than any amount of
locally generated light sources. The light reflected from the moon
affects us for more than three weeks out of a year. My night sky
viewing is always planned around the quarter of the moon - isn't
yours?<br><br>
I think you know just as well as I do that if one wants to view an
unobscured night sky that the best opportunity on the Palouse is to get
out the night after a cleansing rain storm. We also need to have
the storm front blow through and leave no cloud cover. The
particulate is, for the most part, gone and the view of the night sky is
spectacular. And the local light sources are irrelevant. I
lived many years in Seattle. There were many nights after rain that
the night sky from Queen Anne hill was completely visible - irrespective
of the fact that I was less than a mile from Seattle Center. An
even more enlightening view could be had from the deck of a sailboat in
Puget Sound, with all the lights of Seattle as a backdrop - the night sky
was filled with stars.<br><br>
See, what puzzles me is - I know you know these things. What I
can't figure out is why you would support legislation that will make a
handful of folks feel good about themselves and cost hundreds of folks a
bunch of money. And at the end of the day, the sky won't be any
more visible than it is right now.<br><br>
At 12:18 PM 1/22/2006, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Jeff,<br><br>
Are there any instances in which you consider it appropriate for local
government to use the authorities granted under the state Local Land Use
Planning Act to regulate land use activities? Please tell us where the
line is that you would draw.<br><br>
Sometimes, it seems, one person's "common sense" is another's
"Mother, get me the rifle". Nuisance suits are notoriously hard
to pursue unless one can prove actual monetary damages and given your
general ideological drift, resorting to lawyers and courts would hardly
appear to be the path you would choose.<br><br>
Mark Solomon<br><br>
At 11:46 AM -0800 1/22/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thank you for your post Mr.
Basoa,<br><br>
Some neighbors can be difficult to work with, but you don't solve the
problem by imposing costs on everyone to solve such a local proximity
problem. Perhaps there are other ways to deal with it. For
instance, if a house is in a certain proximity to another house (say 100
feet), then a light control standard might be useful. Of course,
there is always civil court to deal with conflict between neighbors - it
is a very localized problem, use a very local control.<br><br>
The fact is, from a science point of view, the use of a light shield will
concentrate the downward effect of light and on bright surfaces, like
snow, will "reflect" more concentrated light vertically.
When there is particulate in the air (e.g. water vapor, snow, dust), this
concentrated reflection will create an intensified "refractive"
effect, which will actually increase the amount of "light
pollution" in a given area. Sort of like the effect we
experience when the moon is bright and there is snow on the
ground.<br><br>
Then, as a consequence of the reduced area lighting from the shielded
light, the resident may very well add additional lights to cover the
ground area desired - thus adding to the concentrated reflective and
refractive impacts.<br><br>
Speaking of costs, Clearwater Power suggested that the cost of upgrading
the lights to "shielded" type lighting would run about
$200 per fixture. Perhaps asking the folks that are impacted by the
current lighting scheme of a neighbor to cover that cost would be
appropriate. This is especially relevant in those circumstances
when someone has just bought rural property (the newcomer!) and placed
their home in the light circle of a neighbor, then sets about to complain
about it. Common sense would suggest that a different location
might have been the best solution.<br><br>
Some local veterinarians have testified that the more dangerous predators
will cruise just outside the reflective light circle - thus converting a
"flood type" light to a "spot light" will compromise
the integrity of a specific light for its purpose. This will
necessitate increasing the number and/or or intensity of the lighting
devices to maintain the surface area lighting.<br><br>
Another problem to be considered is the impact of the major source of
light pollution in Latah County. The greatest concentration of
light reflection and refraction comes from Moscow. Pullman,
Lewiston and Clarkstown are also problematic. Just take a drive out
in the rural area and look west or south. You will see that for yourself.
<br><br>
The second major source of light energy in the county is nighttime
vehicle traffic. Calculate the lumens and you will see how much
light energy is generated by the headlights. And this light
source is mobile and intense. And because it is all relatively
horizontal - it refracts very quickly. Most of the roads in the
County are gravel and travel on them stirs up a great amount of
particulate - add a car and your now have a corridor of
"refracted" light. Just stand near a county road and
watch. The impact can be seen for great distances. What should be
done about that? <br><br>
The proposed ordinance is, at best, an ineffective effort to address a
trivial problem. Just consider the requirement that all outdoor
lighting should be controlled by a photo-sensitive device. Most of
us in the county have enough sense to turn off a light in the daytime -
how we accomplish that is really not a matter that the government needs
to address. As to "nighttime" control of lighting, motion
detection, sound detection and heat sensing are far more important to
me. But should the government decide that, and as a resident of
Latah County, do you think you should be able to dictate, the actual
devices needed to turn on and turn off lighting on private
property?<br><br>
Seriously, Mr Basoa - do you really think this is an appropriate solution
to the "light shining in a bedroom window" problem?
- an average light per two square miles problem?<br><br>
At 10:45 AM 1/22/2006, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Mr. Harkins,<br><br>
Please do your homework about neighbors before you post.<br><br>
It's wonderful that you, as a rural property owner, "respect the
concept of light pollution and manage my light use to be as unobtrusive
as possible." It is to be applauded that you and your
neighbors are able to work out problems such as light pollution. I,
too, am a rural property owner and have enjoyed good working relations
with my neighbors. <br><br>
However, some neighbors simply don't give a crap. They do what they
do and don't consider anything but their own amusements. If their
night lights are pointed directly into your living room, it's your
problem, not theirs ('put up heavier curtains' they might say).
Some neighbors will be understanding and listen to reason. Others
will go out and increase the wattage. It's a crapshoot. You
and I, we're lucky to have good neighbors. Many others are not so
fortunate. And with the current trend of building a house on top of
every hill in the county, light pollution is bound to get
worse.<br><br>
I support the draft ordinance requiring shielded lights. This shows
consideration for neighbors and still allows excellent visibility for
property owners. I fail to see how this requirement will
cause more "damage and injury to property and persons" or cause
more "damages to animals and crops harmed by predators and
foragers". My unshielded lights (granted, they are not high
wattage mercury vapor lights) do not keep the deer and moose away nor do
they stop the coyotes from their nightly prowls. As to
"damages resulting from burglary, trespass and general
mischief", well, shielded or not, lights alone will not deter a
determined burglar or general mischief-maker.<br><br>
I take great pleasure in viewing the night sky, unobstructed from most
neighbors lights. I am very fortunate in that regard and wish to
remain so. This proposed ordinance is a positive step towards
preserving one aspect of this wonderful quality of life we currently
enjoy here in Latah County while causing few, if any, real
problems.<br><br>
-Steven<br><br>
On Jan 21, 2006, at 11:46 PM, Jeff Harkins wrote:<br><br>
Mr. Evans,<br><br>
Please do your homework about the physics of light before you
post.<br><br>
For the rest of you interested in this topic, consider that with a bit
over 1000 square miles of land in Latah County, there are 500 rural farm
lights (yard lights). That is<b><i> 1 light per 2 square
miles</i></b>. Since many of the lights are clustered in areas
around the urban centers, the average number of light units per square
mile drops considerably. It is dark in the rural parts of this
county.<br><br>
As a rural property owner, let me assure you that I do respect the
concept of light pollution and manage my light use to be as unobtrusive
as possible. All of us in our "neighborhood" work
together to not impose on each other on most issues, including
lighting. If there was a problem, we would find a way to work it
out. I don't recognize your name and I am rather confident that you
don't live near me. So why, exactly, are you attempting to dictate
lighting issues to me and my neighbors. <br><br>
If you, Mr. Evans, would be willing to demand that the County accept all
liability for damage and injury to property and persons that result from
reduced lighting on rural property, would support a fair compensation to
me (or my neighbors) for damages to animals and crops harmed by predators
and foragers, would support public funds be raised to reimburse me (or
rural residents) for damages resulting from burglary, trespass and
general mischief, we can pursue a dialogue. Frankly, I would rather
invest such scarce public dollars in county infrastructure and schools
....<br><br>
Until then, I will not compromise my responsibility for the health and
safety of my family, my neighbors or my friends for your dark sky agenda.
<br><br>
Until you support full financial responsibility by Latah County for the
consequences for what you are asking me and my neighbors to do in our
neighborhood, why don't you work with your neighbors to deal with the
light pollution in your neighborhood? I assume that you live in
Moscow.</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>