November 20, 2009
Those who would send us back to the caves...
That's my favorite line and it is a footnote to a footnote (I kid you not) in Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies."
But Dr. P saw the nexus of environmentalism and totalitarianism long before Rachel Carson or Vice President Gore. Brother AC is driven mad by the Freegans -- I am driven mad by the (I don't know, can we call them "darkies?" Better not.)
Karen O'Connor, a Barrington Hills homeowner, is a lawyer who specializes in technology and an organizer of the anti-ordinance group. She thinks that residents would be happy to move toward environmentally friendly and aesthetically pleasing exterior lighting if given the choice. They're just tired of government regulations creeping into every detail of their lives.But letting people choose for themselves wouldn't win praise from the International Dark-Sky Association, which encourages cities to adopt strict lighting ordinances, and rewards those that do with the designation International Dark-Sky Community. Ms. O'Connor suspects that the desire for praise has made some elected officials more interested in the opinions of dark-sky advocates than in the druthers of the people they represent.
The power utility is running commercials for a candlelight lunch movement. Wrong on so many levels, guys: how about you just make the power and we buy it?
I did go to a mining school in the late 70s: the preferred bumper sticker was "Let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark!"
I'm a "darkie."
The issue isn't outdoor illumination, but glare. Properly designed outdoor luminaires (the lighting engineering term for "light fixture") direct 100% of their light downward to eliminate glare and dramatically reduce urban light pollution. It used to be that the IDSA advocated only the use of such luminaires. I wouldn't be surprised though if someone told me they've "evolved" the way that Greenpeace and GASP have - toward greater and greater infringement.
Should local laws restrict light glare? I think its in the same category as disturbing the peace. If you support regulation of one you should support the other.
And yes, nighttime glare does drive me mad. My outdoor enjoyment is decreased by blazing halide lights that are miles from our farm (but take on characteristics of a searchlight in comparison to the rural darkness.)
Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2009 4:44 PMLike JG, The Refugee lives in the rural hinterlands. He has a neighbor who lights up his yard with multiple mercury vapor lights that shine into The Refugee's windows and ruin night sky viewing. However, The Refugee has also dealt with Boulder County's onerous light fixture regulations to great expense (actually at a rural church parking lot). He would rather tolerate the irritation of fugitive light than see the fist of government intrustion in his neighborhood.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 20, 2009 5:38 PMI will rethink my position vis-a-vis IDSA. A classic "tragedy of the commons" and a classic opportunity for nanny-statism.
But, in deference to my Weld County neighbors, I will no longer conflate the operation with the moronic desire to roll back the advances of the Indistrial Revolution. I'm sure they share rides, but as to a nobler underlying purpose, safe to say I have seen the light (mwahaha).
Posted by: jk at November 20, 2009 6:49 PMThe true lack of judgement here seems to be the enterprising young WSJ reporter eager to whip up some more anti-regulation frenzy.
Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2009 7:52 PMOn second reading, I meant to say "over-eager."
Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2009 8:59 PM | What do you think? [5]