<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Vision2020] light
pollution</title></head><body>
<div>Jeff,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Mark Solomon</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 11:46 AM -0800 1/22/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="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?</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><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" 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<i><b> 1 light per 2 square
miles</b></i>. 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>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>