<!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: lighting pollution</title></head><body>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">Jeff,</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"><br></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">Excuse me, but where in my post is
there ANY indication of my position on the lighting ordinance? I will
say from my somewhat unique vantage point that the number of yard
lights visible from the highest point in the county has grown
dramatically over the past 20 years. As to predators, I have never
seen even so much as a track in the snow of anything more vicious than
an ermine within 50 yards of our house and we have no outdoor
lighting. Or a dog, for that matter. And yes, I have seen many
instances of predator taking prey, but never by the house. Must be my
haircut.</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"><br></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">But what I want to focus on is my post
and your response where it was relevant: what use of the planning and
zoning laws do you support using for regulating land use. Your reply
is for the "safety and health of the
residents."</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"><br></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">Does this mean you don't support the
sections of the law that require planning to consider property rights,
historical, cultural, transportation and environmental issues among
others? Or that only when you consider those issues to effect the
safety and health of the residents that they should be considered and
that development can adversely effect anything else and it should be
allowed?</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"><br></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">Mark</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"><br></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"> 67-6508. PLANNING
DUTIES. It shall be the duty of the planning or</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">planning and zoning commission to
conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare,
implement, and review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter
referred to as the plan. The plan shall include all land within the
jurisdiction of the governing board. The plan shall consider previous
and existing conditions, trends, desirable goals and objectives, or
desirable future situations for each planning component. The plan with
maps, charts, and reports shall be based on the following components
as they may apply to land use regulations and actions unless the plan
specifies reasons why a particular component is unneeded.<br>
(a) Property Rights -- An analysis of
provisions which may be necessary<br>
to insure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do
not<br>
violate private property rights, adversely impact property values or
create<br>
unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property and analysis
as<br>
prescribed under the declarations of purpose in chapter 80, title 67,
Idaho<br>
Code.<br>
(b) Population -- A population analysis of
past, present, and future<br>
trends in population including such characteristics as total
population, age,<br>
sex, and income.<br>
(c) School Facilities and Transportation --
An analysis of public school<br>
capacity and transportation considerations associated with future
development.<br>
(d) Economic Development -- An analysis of
the economic base of the area<br>
including employment, industries, economies, jobs, and income
levels.<br>
(e) Land Use -- An analysis of natural land
types, existing land covers<br>
and uses, and the intrinsic suitability of lands for uses such as
agriculture,<br>
forestry, mineral exploration and extraction, preservation,
recreation,<br>
housing, commerce, industry, and public facilities. A map shall be
prepared<br>
indicating suitable projected land uses for the jurisdiction.<br>
(f) Natural Resource -- An analysis of the
uses of rivers and other<br>
waters, forests, range, soils, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals,
thermal<br>
waters, beaches, watersheds, and shorelines.<br>
(g) Hazardous Areas -- An analysis of known
hazards as may result from<br>
susceptibility to surface ruptures from faulting, ground shaking,
ground<br>
failure, landslides or mudslides; avalanche hazards resulting from
development<br>
in the known or probable path of snowslides and avalanches, and
floodplain<br>
hazards.<br>
(h) Public Services, Facilities, and
Utilities -- An analysis showing<br>
general plans for sewage, drainage, power plant sites, utility
transmission<br>
corridors, water supply, fire stations and fire fighting equipment,
health and<br>
welfare facilities, libraries, solid waste disposal sites, schools,
public</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">safety facilities and related services.
The plan may also show locations of</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">civic centers and public buildings.<br>
(i) Transportation -- An analysis, prepared
in coordination with the<br>
local jurisdiction(s) having authority over the public highways and
streets,<br>
showing the general locations and widths of a system of major
traffic<br>
thoroughfares and other traffic ways, and of streets and the
recommended<br>
treatment thereof. This component may also make recommendations on
building<br>
line setbacks, control of access, street naming and numbering, and a
proposed<br>
system of public or other transit lines and related facilities
including<br>
rights-of-way, terminals, future corridors, viaducts and grade
separations.<br>
The component may also include port, harbor, aviation, and other
related<br>
transportation facilities.<br>
(j) Recreation -- An analysis showing a
system of recreation areas,<br>
including parks, parkways, trailways, river bank greenbelts,
beaches,<br>
playgrounds, and other recreation areas and programs.<br>
(k) Special Areas or Sites -- An analysis of
areas, sites, or structures<br>
of historical, archeological, architectural, ecological, wildlife, or
scenic<br>
significance.<br>
(l) Housing -- An analysis of housing
conditions and needs; plans for<br>
improvement of housing standards; and plans for the provision of
safe,<br>
sanitary, and adequate housing, including the provision for
low-cost<br>
conventional housing, the siting of manufactured housing and mobile
homes in<br>
subdivisions and parks and on individual lots which are sufficient to
maintain<br>
a competitive market for each of those housing types and to address
the needs<br>
of the community.<br>
(m) Community Design -- An analysis of needs
for governing landscaping,<br>
building design, tree planting, signs, and suggested patterns and
standards<br>
for community design, development, and beautification.<br>
(n) Implementation -- An analysis to
determine actions, programs,<br>
budgets, ordinances, or other methods including scheduling of
public<br>
expenditures to provide for the timely execution of the various
components of<br>
the plan.<br>
Nothing herein shall preclude the consideration of
additional planning<br>
components or subject matter.</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"><br></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">Mark,<br>
<br>
Yes, there are numerous examples. But the predominant case for
local<br>
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<br>
hard to pursue. They should be - they are civil issues.
But that is<br>
exactly why the process for adjudication of the civil issue is<br>
there. If the protagonist cannot demonstrate actual damage from
the<br>
activity then how can the adjudication be remedied? This
lighting<br>
issue is frivolous and trivial - why? Because it pits a
"health and<br>
safety issue" against a "desire to be able to view dark
skies." Dark<br>
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<br>
another neighbors property is a classic civil issue. And unless
the<br>
number of suits reaches some "high level", the government
should stay<br>
out of it.<br>
<br>
One lighting area that may warrant some regulation is neighbor<br>
proximity. I would have only mild concern about an ordinance
that<br>
specified when two resident buildings are located within a certain<br>
distance of each other, say 100 feet, that "down lighting"
or "light<br>
directing" rules might be appropriate. The benefit,
however, should<br>
be to an ordinance that always provides for "health and safety"
over<br>
personal preferences and inconvenience.<br>
<br>
But I know that you recognize the science of lighting just as well
as<br>
I do. And I know that you know that light is invisible to the
human<br>
eye until it refracts or reflects off of something. You know,
just<br>
as well as I do that the problem of "light pollution" stems
from the<br>
various particulates in the atmosphere and not the incidence of
local<br>
light. I think you also know that down directed lighting
will<br>
reflect back up and that that is an especially difficult problem
with<br>
snow on the ground. I am confident that you also know that the
light<br>
hitting the earth's surface directly from solar objects (stars)
and</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">reflecting from planetary objects
(planets and other orbital bodies)</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">are far more responsible for
"light pollution" than any amount of<br>
locally generated light sources. The light reflected from the
moon<br>
affects us for more than three weeks out of a year. My night
sky<br>
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<br>
unobscured night sky that the best opportunity on the Palouse is
to<br>
get out the night after a cleansing rain storm. We also need to
have<br>
the storm front blow through and leave no cloud cover. The<br>
particulate is, for the most part, gone and the view of the night
sky<br>
is spectacular. And the local light sources are irrelevant.
I lived<br>
many years in Seattle. There were many nights after rain that
the<br>
night sky from Queen Anne hill was completely visible -
irrespective<br>
of the fact that I was less than a mile from Seattle Center. An
even<br>
more enlightening view could be had from the deck of a sailboat in<br>
Puget Sound, with all the lights of Seattle as a backdrop - the
night<br>
sky was filled with stars.<br>
<br>
See, what puzzles me is - I know you know these things. What I
can't<br>
figure out is why you would support legislation that will make a<br>
handful of folks feel good about themselves and cost hundreds of<br>
folks a bunch of money. And at the end of the day, the sky won't
be<br>
any more visible than it is right now.<br>
<br>
At 12:18 PM 1/22/2006, you wrote:<br>
>Jeff,<br>
><br>
>Are there any instances in which you consider it appropriate
for<br>
>local government to use the authorities granted under the
state<br>
>Local Land Use Planning Act to regulate land use activities?
Please<br>
>tell us where the line is that you would draw.<br>
><br>
>Sometimes, it seems, one person's "common sense" is
another's<br>
>"Mother, get me the rifle". Nuisance suits are
notoriously hard to<br>
>pursue unless one can prove actual monetary damages and given
your<br>
>general ideological drift, resorting to lawyers and courts
would<br>
>hardly appear to be the path you would choose.<br>
></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">>Mark Solomon</font></tt></div>
</body>
</html>