How to Sell a Lighting Ordinance
To a
Municipality
Municipal trustees don’t like complaints from their citizens. It
means that they have to be in a re-active mode, and use
problem-solving skills. If the complaint is lodged by a citizen
against another citizen of the same municipality, the municipal
trustees see a big “Lose-lose situation” coming up, where no one
will be happy. To make matters worse, by not having a clear-cut
ordinance to fall back upon, the trustees are made to feel like
they are “taking sides” with one of the parties, instead of taking
sides with a municipal ordinance.
This is what municipalities face when they don’t have a lighting
ordinance. This is actually worse than not having a sign
ordinance, because bad-looking, or oversized signs seldom draw
the vocal complaints that “lights in my bedroom window”
generate. The municipalities without a sign ordinance are far
and few between indeed.
The problem of an inadequate lighting ordinance is similar to no
ordinance at all, because the inadequate ordinance either:
1.
Doesn’t address the problem brought out by the
complaints. (The objectionable light in the bedroom
window doesn’t exceed the horizontal footcandle
limit stated in the inadequate ordinance)
2.
Or doesn’t have a way of enforcing or measuring the
light levels stated in the ordinance. (No municipal
department has a light meter, or no person or
department is assigned to take readings, or they are
ill-trained and don’t arrive at the correct reading)
3.
Or doesn’t address the problem in an
understandable, consistent way.
The process of creating a lighting ordinance is similar to the way
municipalities look at any future planning. The question of
“what do we want to be in the future” is only translated into
“what do we want our town to look like at night, ten years from
now?” This is a different question that is most often considered
“what do we want our outdoor lighting fixture to look like in the
future?” Many towns and villages only consider the daytime
appearance of the lighting equipment, and don’t see the
nighttime results of what the “cute” fixture can cause in the way
of glare, light pollution and light trespass. This can also be a
signal to private property owners as to what they may be allowed
to do.
A well-written lighting ordinance should result in the following:
a. Good night vision, with the quantity of light appropriate
for the use of the property
b. The confinement of light to the property being lighted
c. Enough light in the Retail / Commercial district to
attract customers during the night.
d. Enough light for security of property without becoming a
nuisance to adjoining properties.
e. Efficient usage of electricity
f. Efficient use of light, where it’s determined that an area
should be lighted
g. An ambiance of attractive looking streets, sidewalks and
buildings
While lighting ordinances mainly deal with the downwarddirected (or downward reflected) light, it is relatively easy to
insert some language that deals with the light emitted from the
horizontal to zenith. The spirit of the ordinance-writing process
lends itself to this, which is an easy and low-controversy subject.
Subjects that are commonly missed, or understated in lighting
ordinances are:
1. Residential outdoor lighting. This is where many of the
neighbor vs. neighbor quarrels originate. The outdoor
tennis court, basketball hoop, or “trophy-house” lighting
can be well-managed by a lighting ordinance, if
considered during the process. Large-scale residential
developments can have devastating effects on our night
sky, but quality lighting designs can help the developer
sell out faster.
2. Streetlighting. Strangely, streetlighting is ignored in most
lighting ordinances. While streets are 24/7 types of
environments, there can be some sensible controls on
mounting height and light control.
3. Grandfathering. This is where the city fathers develop
weak spines, because it can cost property owners money.
But there are low-cost solutions to some of the biggest
problem-lights: the ubiquitous “security light”, aka
“barnyard beacon” aka “Dusk-to-Dawn” aka “Mercury
light” does not have to be a light pollution / light
trespass problem. General Electric Lighting Systems has
developed an alternative product that is Full Cutoff.
They also sell the reflector/shield as a retro-fit item that
costs as little as $25. You don’t know if your Security
Light is a GE product? No problem, it fits 80% of the
products currently installed. There have been
developments in the period-streetlight known as the
“Acorn”. Most Acorn fixtures used a plastic enclosure
that was either “stippled”, “wavy” or “translucent white”
to diffuse the source somewhat. What is resulted in was
loss of light control. Light went in all directions, so
manufacturers started putting glass refractors inside of
the acorns. The refractors were designed similar to the
very efficient Fresnel lenses used in lighthouses. But they
were molded, not ground and polished, resulting in poor
performance. The new products now on the market are
“Optic” Acorns, injection-molded with precise prisms
that direct the light away from the houses and toward
the street . . . and many include an internal reflector that
directs most of the light downward.
Municipal leaders who start on a lighting ordinance campaign
need to realize that the process will involve “learning more about
lighting than they really wanted to know”. It may also force
them to look at their municipality in a way they had not yet
done. It may also be an opportunity for them to look at things in
a different light.
DarkSkyWisconsin
February 5, 2003
DWP