| |
Main
Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:09:41
From: Starlord
Subject: Killer Lights
|
I went down to the card player place and talked to the Gen.Manager about the
light they had put up, he siad he'd talk to the owner. As I left, I saw a
cherrypicker in the rear and I had an awefull feeling about it.
Tonight the lights came on, ALL 3 super bright QH 50,000watt bulbs are up
now.
Starting this weekend, I will get some poster board and park my car across
from there with signs painted on them, this is if they don't angle them
blasted lights downward.
Wish I had a bigger income, a lawsuit for "Light Trasspass" would be in the
works.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 09:09:11
From:
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Starlord wrote:
>> Wish I had a bigger income, a lawsuit for "Light Trasspass" would be in the
> works.
Such a notion, repeatedly promulgated by those who've never actually
tried it, is pure fantasy. BTDT
Most places have laws against things visually offensive, but it
remains legal to unnecessarily interfere with visual function.
IOW; The law in most places only addresses what you see, and refuses to
address issues affecting your actual ability to see.
Doug Kniffen
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 14:57:47
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Well, they have lighten the night sky by a full mag at lest, taking away
some objects that I can't see anymore. Used to be the south down low was not
seeable, but now here at home the sould is just plan AITA .
And I'm already mapping out my battle plans.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
<dk@usmo.com > wrote in message
news:1156954150.956798.147470@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Starlord wrote:
>>> Wish I had a bigger income, a lawsuit for "Light Trasspass" would be in
>>> the
>> works.
>
>
> Such a notion, repeatedly promulgated by those who've never actually
> tried it, is pure fantasy. BTDT
>
> Most places have laws against things visually offensive, but it
> remains legal to unnecessarily interfere with visual function.
>
> IOW; The law in most places only addresses what you see, and refuses to
> address issues affecting your actual ability to see.
>
>
> Doug Kniffen
>
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 15:29:43
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
I just fired the first shot, I have sent e-mail to my country Supervser to
ask the owner to either angle the lights downward or shield them so the
trailer park is no longer bathed in all the wasted light.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:eNadnYQFkdMpkWvZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@inreach.com...
> Well, they have lighten the night sky by a full mag at lest, taking away
> some objects that I can't see anymore. Used to be the south down low was
> not seeable, but now here at home the sould is just plan AITA .
>
> And I'm already mapping out my battle plans.
>
>
> --
> The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
>
> Telescope Buyers FAQ
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord
> Sidewalk Astronomy
> www.sidewalkastronomy.info
> Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
> http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
> In Garden Online Gift Shop
> http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
> Blast Off Online Gift Shop
> http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
> Astro Blog
> http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
>
>
>
>
> <dk@usmo.com> wrote in message
> news:1156954150.956798.147470@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Starlord wrote:
>>>> Wish I had a bigger income, a lawsuit for "Light Trasspass" would be in
>>>> the
>>> works.
>>
>>
>> Such a notion, repeatedly promulgated by those who've never actually
>> tried it, is pure fantasy. BTDT
>>
>> Most places have laws against things visually offensive, but it
>> remains legal to unnecessarily interfere with visual function.
>>
>> IOW; The law in most places only addresses what you see, and refuses to
>> address issues affecting your actual ability to see.
>>
>>
>> Doug Kniffen
>>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 10:23:27
From: whowell
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
dk@usmo.com wrote:
> Starlord wrote:
>>> Wish I had a bigger income, a lawsuit for "Light Trasspass" would be in the
>> works.
>
>
> Such a notion, repeatedly promulgated by those who've never actually
> tried it, is pure fantasy. BTDT
>
> Most places have laws against things visually offensive, but it
> remains legal to unnecessarily interfere with visual function.
>
> IOW; The law in most places only addresses what you see, and refuses to
> address issues affecting your actual ability to see.
>
>
> Doug Kniffen
>
Not quite right.....a group of homeowners in So. California went to
court over the lighting of a new auto dealership in about 1993. The car
lot lights were spilling over the cement block wall and hitting the back
of the houses. The court required the dealership to either shield or
re-position the lights so than the lights illuminated only their own
property.
I've heard of several other cases where residents had installed these
bright "yard lights" and a neighbor protested the bright lights shinning
into their yard.....and the courts required the placement of shielding.
Wayne Howell
Photon Phlats Observatory
Port Townsend, WA
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 12:07:00
From: Tim Killian
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
whowell wrote:
> dk@usmo.com wrote:
>
>> Starlord wrote:
>>
>>>> Wish I had a bigger income, a lawsuit for "Light Trasspass" would be
>>>> in the
>>>
>>> works.
>>
>>
>>
>> Such a notion, repeatedly promulgated by those who've never actually
>> tried it, is pure fantasy. BTDT
>>
>> Most places have laws against things visually offensive, but it
>> remains legal to unnecessarily interfere with visual function.
>>
>> IOW; The law in most places only addresses what you see, and refuses to
>> address issues affecting your actual ability to see.
>>
>> Doug Kniffen
>>
> Not quite right.....a group of homeowners in So. California went to
> court over the lighting of a new auto dealership in about 1993. The car
> lot lights were spilling over the cement block wall and hitting the back
> of the houses. The court required the dealership to either shield or
> re-position the lights so than the lights illuminated only their own
> property.
>
> I've heard of several other cases where residents had installed these
> bright "yard lights" and a neighbor protested the bright lights shinning
> into their yard.....and the courts required the placement of shielding.
>
> Wayne Howell
> Photon Phlats Observatory
> Port Townsend, WA
Under common law, the term "trespass" means unauthorized intrusion or
invasion of private premises or land that deprives an owner the use of
his property. If the owner is engaged in looking at the night sky on his
property, then a poorly shielded light can certainly be a trespass if it
degrades or deprives him of that view.
Most municipalities have easements/exemptions for agriculture and public
safety. If you try to get one of those mercury vapor lights on a farm
turned off, the farmer can legally tell you to buzz off.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 18:26:21
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:07:00 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com >
wrote:
>Most municipalities have easements/exemptions for agriculture and public
>safety. If you try to get one of those mercury vapor lights on a farm
>turned off, the farmer can legally tell you to buzz off.
Fortunately, you don't need to turn off the light source to eliminate
light trespass, you only need to shield it so the light remains of the
owner's property. Therefore, it isn't clear that such an easement gives
the farmer the right to operate the light in any fashion he chooses.
Even in the absence of explicit light trespass laws, it is possible to
get code enforcement agencies to take action against light polluters
using existing nuisance regulations. It isn't hard to draw a parallel
between light pollution and stink pollution (such as having a large
manure pile or compost heap). Neither causes any actual obvious harm,
but the latter is often regulated.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 16:51:58
From: Tim Killian
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:07:00 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Most municipalities have easements/exemptions for agriculture and public
>>safety. If you try to get one of those mercury vapor lights on a farm
>>turned off, the farmer can legally tell you to buzz off.
>
>
> Fortunately, you don't need to turn off the light source to eliminate
> light trespass, you only need to shield it so the light remains of the
> owner's property. Therefore, it isn't clear that such an easement gives
> the farmer the right to operate the light in any fashion he chooses.
>
> Even in the absence of explicit light trespass laws, it is possible to
> get code enforcement agencies to take action against light polluters
> using existing nuisance regulations. It isn't hard to draw a parallel
> between light pollution and stink pollution (such as having a large
> manure pile or compost heap). Neither causes any actual obvious harm,
> but the latter is often regulated.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
We have a state law here (CO) that requires full cutoff fixtures on
highways and a decent county ordinance that regulates outdoor lighting.
Lights not attached to homes have to be off by 10 PM and all pole
mounted fixtures are supposed to be full cutoff. The problem is in
enforcement. The county doesn't actively look for offenders and relies
solely on complaints to generate enforcement actions. So far my
neighbors have been very understanding and cooperative and I haven't had
to file any formal complaints.
Agricultural operations and lights installed by utilities as ballast
load are exempt from state and local regulations. Most of the time folks
with those lights let us install a shield on the fixture, but if they
refuse, there really isn't any legal recourse.
A bigger problem down the road for western states is the aerosols and
particulates that are being dumped into the air from massively increased
oil and gas drilling, compressor stations, unpaved road traffic, etc.
This haze often drifts hundreds of miles and pools in valleys,
scattering and reflecting ambient light, leading to increased sky glow.
It is noticeable now below 5000 foot elevations and the way trends are
going, it will likely get worse.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 16:35:01
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Starlord wrote:
> I went down to the card player place and talked to the Gen.Manager about the
> light they had put up, he siad he'd talk to the owner. As I left, I saw a
> cherrypicker in the rear and I had an awefull feeling about it.
>
> Tonight the lights came on, ALL 3 super bright QH 50,000watt bulbs are up
> now.
>
> Starting this weekend, I will get some poster board and park my car across
> from there with signs painted on them, this is if they don't angle them
> blasted lights downward.
>
> Wish I had a bigger income, a lawsuit for "Light Trasspass" would be in the
> works.
Do you have a .22?
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 16:01:31
From:
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> However, the IDA newsletter regularly reports similar "local" success
> stories all around the country.
Most of the claimed success I've heard involve getting a business or
municipality (state) to act purely in their own economic interest. Even
then, only when the economic considerations have been both primary and
significant.
Such "successes" don't count because they do not address the situations
where the primary considerations are not purely economic and
significant. Further many of these claimed successes have usually been
with new *additional* lighting that didn't previously exist.
Unless these other light problems are addressed it's delusional to
claim progress. What's needed is an approach to address existing
problems, not one that only moderates some future problems.
> It appears to me that light pollution _is_ becoming a national issue and
> that things are improving.
Until visually disruptive lighting problems are widely recognized as
negative by people who could care less about the sky, there won't be
any significant improvement.
Doug Kniffen
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 23:33:06
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
On 30 Aug 2006 16:01:31 -0700, dk@usmo.com wrote:
>Most of the claimed success I've heard involve getting a business or
>municipality (state) to act purely in their own economic interest. Even
>then, only when the economic considerations have been both primary and
>significant.
>
>Such "successes" don't count because they do not address the situations
>where the primary considerations are not purely economic and
>significant. Further many of these claimed successes have usually been
>with new *additional* lighting that didn't previously exist.
I think that's a silly position to take. A success is a success,
regardless of what the motivation was. Reducing light pollution is
_always_ of economic benefit, and that can be the strongest argument for
it.
If I had a business next door that was all lit up and ruining my night
sky, and I convinced the owner that it was in his own economic interest
to change his lighting, I'd jolly well consider that a success! You
think that "wouldn't count"?
>Unless these other light problems are addressed it's delusional to
>claim progress. What's needed is an approach to address existing
>problems, not one that only moderates some future problems.
While we might prefer more, simply addressing future problems is a big
step forward. It might take longer, but we'll still get there.
>Until visually disruptive lighting problems are widely recognized as
>negative by people who could care less about the sky, there won't be
>any significant improvement.
The improvement I spoke of stems in part from the fact that more people
_do_ care about the sky than did a few years ago. Disruptive lighting
will never be seen as negative to people who don't care about the sky,
except as an economic problem.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 15:35:32
From:
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
whowell wrote:
> Lighten (no pun intended) up Doug, especially when you don't know what
> you're talking about!
Five examples, out of who knows how many situations where somebody
couldn't get anything done about some light unnecessarily interfering
their vision and activities. It's human nature to repeatedly advertise
success, and put even greater effort toward avoiding acknowledgement of
failure.
You mention four states out of fifty, a very low percentage of success.
Even if you found multiple examples for every state, compare that to
the number of observers in those states. Non-observers should count
too.
Do the math. You're presenting very rare successes as common
occurances. Bet you've mentioned those five examples a lot more than
five times.
> Contrary to your earlier assertion, getting the system to work for you
> is not a fantasy.
Again, you mention the exception, not the rule.
Doug Kniffen
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 18:16:34
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
I can give you another one, over on Oahu the C&C of Honolulu put lights on
the guard rail of one of the northshore roads, people there hated them, and
they got the C&C of Honolulu to remove them totaly.
Plus on the Big Island of Hawaii out door lighting if Forbdden too.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
<dk@usmo.com > wrote in message
news:1156977332.029907.251310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> whowell wrote:
>
>> Lighten (no pun intended) up Doug, especially when you don't know what
>> you're talking about!
>
> Five examples, out of who knows how many situations where somebody
> couldn't get anything done about some light unnecessarily interfering
> their vision and activities. It's human nature to repeatedly advertise
> success, and put even greater effort toward avoiding acknowledgement of
> failure.
>
> You mention four states out of fifty, a very low percentage of success.
> Even if you found multiple examples for every state, compare that to
> the number of observers in those states. Non-observers should count
> too.
>
> Do the math. You're presenting very rare successes as common
> occurances. Bet you've mentioned those five examples a lot more than
> five times.
>
>> Contrary to your earlier assertion, getting the system to work for you
>> is not a fantasy.
>
> Again, you mention the exception, not the rule.
>
>
>
>
> Doug Kniffen
>
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 20:54:31
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
I just got back from walking down to the back of the place, the lights ARE
pointed downward, but they are so big and bright that they still flood the
area with light, they will have to be shielded to cut down the light. I took
some shots of what they are like, it'll be awhile before I get the slide
film done, that'll be about another week.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:o96dnWqiE_M_p2vZnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@inreach.com...
>I can give you another one, over on Oahu the C&C of Honolulu put lights on
>the guard rail of one of the northshore roads, people there hated them, and
>they got the C&C of Honolulu to remove them totaly.
>
> Plus on the Big Island of Hawaii out door lighting if Forbdden too.
>
>
> --
> The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
>
> Telescope Buyers FAQ
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord
> Sidewalk Astronomy
> www.sidewalkastronomy.info
> Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
> http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
> In Garden Online Gift Shop
> http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
> Blast Off Online Gift Shop
> http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
> Astro Blog
> http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
>
>
>
>
> <dk@usmo.com> wrote in message
> news:1156977332.029907.251310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> whowell wrote:
>>
>>> Lighten (no pun intended) up Doug, especially when you don't know what
>>> you're talking about!
>>
>> Five examples, out of who knows how many situations where somebody
>> couldn't get anything done about some light unnecessarily interfering
>> their vision and activities. It's human nature to repeatedly advertise
>> success, and put even greater effort toward avoiding acknowledgement of
>> failure.
>>
>> You mention four states out of fifty, a very low percentage of success.
>> Even if you found multiple examples for every state, compare that to
>> the number of observers in those states. Non-observers should count
>> too.
>>
>> Do the math. You're presenting very rare successes as common
>> occurances. Bet you've mentioned those five examples a lot more than
>> five times.
>>
>>> Contrary to your earlier assertion, getting the system to work for you
>>> is not a fantasy.
>>
>> Again, you mention the exception, not the rule.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Doug Kniffen
>>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 00:07:00
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Tonight starting at 11pm, I used my Topcon Super D camera to take photos of
their lights. First I shot the back side of the trailers from the paved
driveway. then from out by my garden, then I walked down the road and 1/2
the way there I shot again, then standing in the field right behind their
parking lot, I shot pointing towards the homes and trailer park. Then I
walked to the Ave A overpass and took a shot of Rosamond, if the nighttime
I-14 with billboards and of Diamond jims too.
I got back home and I looked up and I can't even see the milkyway anymore
because of those lights. The lights case is made so the flat top sits level
and the glass front points about 45 degs down, BUT the bulb which is a good
1 to 2inch wide and goes across the inside of the case is in about the
middle of the whole thing and the light floods out without any control at
all. I found out from one of his guards, he'll be putting more of them on
the front of the building. Right now he's got them facing West, North, East.
A guy came in to talk to another guy here in the park and he comes in from
way out west of rosamond, and he says that he sees the lights from that
place as far as 60th street west.
His lights where out shining the moon tonight, come full moon the moon might
be brighter, but I'll not bet on it.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 01:30:56
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
>Plus on the Big Island of Hawaii out door lighting if Forbdden too.
Although the skies were relatively dark compared to southern Calif, i =
was surprised how much outdoor lighting and street lighting there was in =
Hilo when we were there a couple weeks ago. Not many bright neon type =
advertising but plenty of streetlights.
.Florian
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 01:37:37
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Regarding Hilo, Hawai'i... There were some neon signs but i didn't see =
any large billboards with upward pointing halogen lights. Those are the =
worse. [Example of neon sign here... =
http://www.pbase.com/fboyd/image/65535863 We had dinner at Ken's. Good =
fun popular local place.] There were lots of street lights however. The =
orange type. I forget if that's high or low pressure sodium.
.Florian
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 18:44:44
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
"Florian" wrote
We had dinner at Ken's. Good fun popular local place.] There were lots of
street lights however. The orange type. I forget if that's high or low
pressure sodium.
They're low pressure if they're really orange. High pressure lamps are much
more yellow, and brighter. Astronomers like the LPS lamps because they can
easily be filtered out.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 07:09:25
From: Dan Mckenna
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Florian wrote:
> Regarding Hilo, Hawai'i... There were some neon signs but i didn't see any large billboards with upward pointing halogen lights. Those are the worse. [Example of neon sign here... http://www.pbase.com/fboyd/image/65535863 We had dinner at Ken's. Good fun popular local place.] There were lots of street lights however. The orange type. I forget if that's high or low pressure sodium.
>
> .Florian
>
>
The brightest sources in Hilo are the car lots, same here in Tucson.
d.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 22:42:40
From: Scoop
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Quoth dk@usmo.com:
: whowell wrote:
: > Lighten (no pun intended) up Doug, especially when you don't know what
: > you're talking about!
: Five examples, out of who knows how many situations where somebody
: couldn't get anything done about some light unnecessarily interfering
: their vision and activities.
If no one knows, how do you support your assertion? Can you provide
examples?
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 22:53:03
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
<d > wrote
>
> whowell wrote:
>
>> Lighten (no pun intended) up Doug, especially when you don't know what
>> you're talking about!
>
> Five examples, out of who knows how many situations where somebody
> couldn't get anything done about some light unnecessarily interfering
> their vision and activities. It's human nature to repeatedly advertise
> success, and put even greater effort toward avoiding acknowledgement of
> failure.
>
Failure? Here's an example: Over the past 5 or 6 years a Bill has 3 times
passed the New York Legislature explicitly establishing a right of light
trespass for property owners, in addition to other anti light pollution
measures, only to be vetoed by our Governor. Last year he had to use a
'pocket veto' (veto while legislature is not in session) to avoid a passage
over his veto. This year the same bill got bottled up in the NY Senate. The
big objectors are New York City (doesn't want State control over their
street lighting) and local Governments who don't want to pay for the
enforcement costs.
However, there are always success stories, like the State of Vermont paying
local businesses to shield and remove enough outdoor lighting to not just
off-set the lights from the State Prison near Stellafane, but to actually
measurably reduce sky brightness in the area. The prison itself has shielded
lights.
I was also recently surprised to see State sponsored posters put up in NYS
parks that provide ideas on reducing lighting (shielding, etc) for the
purpose of not interfering with nurnal animals and the general nighttime
environment.
George N
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 23:02:24
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:53:03 GMT, "George Normandin"
<georgepn@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>Failure? Here's an example: Over the past 5 or 6 years a Bill has 3 times
>passed the New York Legislature explicitly establishing a right of light
>trespass for property owners, in addition to other anti light pollution
>measures, only to be vetoed by our Governor. Last year he had to use a
>'pocket veto' (veto while legislature is not in session) to avoid a passage
>over his veto. This year the same bill got bottled up in the NY Senate. The
>big objectors are New York City (doesn't want State control over their
>street lighting) and local Governments who don't want to pay for the
>enforcement costs.
At this relatively early stage, the fact that three bills have been
introduced could actually be taken as a success. If it takes a veto to
kill the idea, it's only a matter of time before things change.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 16:12:44
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
"Chris L Peterson" wrote
> At this relatively early stage, the fact that three bills have been
> introduced could actually be taken as a success. If it takes a veto to
> kill the idea, it's only a matter of time before things change.
Right, like elect a better governor.
Howard (potential future neighbor of NYS)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 00:49:22
From: Alan French
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
"Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net > wrote in message
news:12fk3vkm2caur5f@corp.supernews.com...
> "Chris L Peterson" wrote
>
> > At this relatively early stage, the fact that three bills have been
> > introduced could actually be taken as a success. If it takes a veto to
> > kill the idea, it's only a matter of time before things change.
>
> Right, like elect a better governor.
>
> Howard (potential future neighbor of NYS)
Howard,
Let's hope that works. We will certainly have a different governor, and, I
hope, one who understands that using unshielded lights is like building
without insulation - something that everyone would oppose today.
It's odd that Governor Pataki, who seems to mention "energy efficiency" a
lot in his news releases, didn't really seem to understand the benefits of
shielded, directed lighting. (My wife thinks we'd be better off calling it
"directed" lighting because shielded seems to be taken as "reduced" by some
folks.)
Clear, darker NY skies, Alan
Clear skies, Alan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 08:07:25
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
"Alan French" wrote
> Let's hope that works. We will certainly have a different governor, and,
> I
> hope, one who understands that using unshielded lights is like building
> without insulation - something that everyone would oppose today.
>
> It's odd that Governor Pataki, who seems to mention "energy efficiency" a
> lot in his news releases, didn't really seem to understand the benefits of
> shielded, directed lighting. (My wife thinks we'd be better off calling
> it
> "directed" lighting because shielded seems to be taken as "reduced" by
> some
> folks.)
Hi Alan,
How about "direction-specific lighting?" I know that's too cumbersome,
but....
Howard
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 08:19:20
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
I have been told that the owner of the place is going to have his maint.
crew turn down the lights sometime this next week, that he didn't know just
how much they where lighting up the area. As a side note, I went out before
sunup and I noticed one of the lights had already burned out.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net > wrote in message
news:12flrtqlg5cot90@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Alan French" wrote
>
>> Let's hope that works. We will certainly have a different governor, and,
>> I
>> hope, one who understands that using unshielded lights is like building
>> without insulation - something that everyone would oppose today.
>>
>> It's odd that Governor Pataki, who seems to mention "energy efficiency" a
>> lot in his news releases, didn't really seem to understand the benefits
>> of
>> shielded, directed lighting. (My wife thinks we'd be better off calling
>> it
>> "directed" lighting because shielded seems to be taken as "reduced" by
>> some
>> folks.)
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> How about "direction-specific lighting?" I know that's too cumbersome,
> but....
>
> Howard
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 20:39:28
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Starlord wrote:
> I have been told that the owner of the place is going to have his maint.
> crew turn down the lights sometime this next week, that he didn't know just
> how much they where lighting up the area. As a side note, I went out before
> sunup and I noticed one of the lights had already burned out.
>
>
heh heh: now Dennis....... ;-)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 15:15:43
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Well, since he's got them on TOP of his building and I don't have any kind
of long range gun and anyone closeup would be seen by his cameras, no way I
could do anything, BUT a 12 day(night) light up at FULL POWER somethings got
to burn and it looks like one light did, it was the first to to light up.
Now if I could have had a 50cal MG set for single shot with a sound/flash
surpresser on it, there wouldn't be 3 lights facing this way at all.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"gobbletwo" <gobble-two@yahow.org > wrote in message
news:44HKg.33700$8j3.11822@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Starlord wrote:
>> I have been told that the owner of the place is going to have his maint.
>> crew turn down the lights sometime this next week, that he didn't know
>> just how much they where lighting up the area. As a side note, I went out
>> before sunup and I noticed one of the lights had already burned out.
>>
>>
> heh heh: now Dennis....... ;-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 00:34:23
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Starlord wrote:
> Well, since he's got them on TOP of his building and I don't have any kind
> of long range gun and anyone closeup would be seen by his cameras, no way I
> could do anything, BUT a 12 day(night) light up at FULL POWER somethings got
> to burn and it looks like one light did, it was the first to to light up.
> Now if I could have had a 50cal MG set for single shot with a sound/flash
> surpresser on it, there wouldn't be 3 lights facing this way at all.
>
>
Now Dennis, that Troll Ritch (suggested a .22). I did not. ;-) It seems
that to map the trajectories of a BB gun shot is a very difficult thing
to do.
jon
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 21:59:55
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
I was at a outpost in Nam, where they had just the set up I wanted, it
overlooked the Hochiman trail and they used to take care of things with it.
Didn't use the belt ammo at all, loaded one shot at a time. And all 3 are
lite up tonight, there's 9 total buning all that power.
Ofcourse a tube, a rock, and a bit of C4 could do it too.
While I was asigned as a Radio open, I did a good amount of Demo work over
there too.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"gobbletwo" <gobble-two@yahow.org > wrote in message
news:jwKKg.4667$xV.1177@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Now Dennis, that Troll Ritch (suggested a .22). I did not. ;-) It seems
> that to map the trajectories of a BB gun shot is a very difficult thing to
> do.
>
> jon
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 12:26:05
From:
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> Locally, I don't think anybody with a yard light has fought an attempt
> to have it shielded.
You said "locally". That certainly precludes the *vast majority* of
areas. Don't claim otherwise unless you can demonstrate validity
beyond your "local" experience.
Doug Kniffen
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 21:28:31
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
On 30 Aug 2006 12:26:05 -0700, dk@usmo.com wrote:
>You said "locally". That certainly precludes the *vast majority* of
>areas. Don't claim otherwise unless you can demonstrate validity
>beyond your "local" experience.
I made no such claim. You asked for a first hand example and I provided
one (well, two).
However, the IDA newsletter regularly reports similar "local" success
stories all around the country.
It appears to me that light pollution _is_ becoming a national issue and
that things are improving. More cities, counties, and states are
incorporating lighting control ordinances into their codes. However,
existing lighting is nearly always grandfathered, so we can expect
visible change on a large scale to take a long time- many years.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 12:00:26
From:
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
whowell wrote:
> >
> Not quite right.....
Interesting that you took exception to what I said, rather than post a
comment about some lights being a problem.
> I've heard of several other cases where residents had installed these
> bright "yard lights" and a neighbor protested the bright lights shinning
> into their yard.....and the courts required the placement of shielding.
You say "heard", but have you seen? Everybody hears about the
exception to the rule.
I know first hand that this doesn't work.
Doug Kniffen
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 13:46:11
From: whowell
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
dk@usmo.com wrote:
> Interesting that you took exception to what I said, rather than post a
> comment about some lights being a problem.
>
> You say "heard", but have you seen? Everybody hears about the
> exception to the rule.
> I know first hand that this doesn't work.
Lighten (no pun intended) up Doug, especially when you don't know what
you're talking about!
1st example: The auto agency mentioned in my earlier post was on Beach
Blvd in Huntington Beach, CA. The homeowners that forced them to change
their lighting lived on Joyful Lane, one block west of Beach Blvd.
2nd example: About 1993, three ardent observers had an observing site
on the high desert off of Pole Line Rd. on Copper Mountain Mesa between
Joshua Tree and 29 Palms, in California. Several adults started
squatting on a site about half a mile from the observing site. After a
few months they put up several tall poles with bright spotlights on
them, pointing out across the surrounding desert. After complaints, the
County ordered them to reposition the lights so that they were not
shinning at the observing site. Finally, after several tries, the
County threatened to take them to court and the lights were finally
changed. Two years later the place was shut down because they were
running a pot farm. How do I know about this...? I was one of the
three observers.
3rd example: An acquaintance of mine, living in Pahrump, NV, had an
observatory with an 22" scope. Some folks set up a mobile home near him
and lit their place up so that it was like day around it. He complained
to the authorities and eventually the offenders were forced to put in
shielded lights, pointing only at the ground.
4th example: Similar to #3, but in Flushing, Ohio
5th example: Again similar, in Jacksonville Beach, FL
Contrary to your earlier assertion, getting the system to work for you
is not a fantasy.
Wayne Howell
Photon Phlats Observatory
Port Townsend, WA
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 19:06:39
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
On 30 Aug 2006 12:00:26 -0700, dk@usmo.com wrote:
>You say "heard", but have you seen? Everybody hears about the
>exception to the rule.
>I know first hand that this doesn't work.
I am aware of two cases where my county required yard lights to be
shielded (both were mercury vapor, one on a ranch and one in the parking
lot of a tiny business). Neither case went to court; the owners complied
with the code enforcement requests.
Locally, I don't think anybody with a yard light has fought an attempt
to have it shielded.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 11:51:01
From:
Subject: Re: Killer Lights
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> Fortunately, you don't need to turn off the light source to eliminate
> light trespass, you only need to shield it so the light remains of the
> owner's property.
Yes this would be reasonable. So why is this usually so vigorously
opposed?
> Even in the absence of explicit light trespass laws, it is possible to
> get code enforcement agencies to take action against light polluters
> using existing nuisance regulations.
This may be true, but far more often than not such an option is not
available to most people.
If it were widely available........
Doug Kniffen
|
|
