FixTheMLO.org

Three years ago the IDA announced its intention to draw up a new model ordinance to assist communities that wish to regulate outdoor lighting. Some of the dark-sky advocates whose names appear at the end of this letter served on the Working Group that was formed to develop this model. We found to our dismay that comments from those not affiliated with the lighting industry were rarely heeded or even acknowledged during the drafting process. A number of us have communicated individually with IDA officers, directors, or staff but have found that expressions of concern have fallen largely on deaf ears. All of us have concluded that the document released for "public review" as Draft 2004.1 indicates a direction for the Model Lighting Ordinance that will fail to serve its intended purpose.

We believe this draft is so severely flawed as to require major overhaul and that IDA should cease promoting it until there is broader agreement on its content. IDA has said that the MLO is to be a "living" document, which seems somewhat at odds with the supposed intent to have identical ordinances in many communities. More important, the kinds of incidental revisions that term suggests are, we believe, beside the point. We are convinced that much more fundamental change is needed.

We are aware of the complex and cumbersome process that has been instituted for offering detailed comment on v2004.1. This letter addresses more generally some of the basic problems with the current draft and, we hope, makes clear that dissatisfaction with it is not limited to a few isolated and "unqualified" individuals.

We are distressed at the prospect of having to actively oppose an IDA document, but if the MLO persists in its present form or similar, many of us see no alternative. Here are three of the principal changes we believe are required to make this MLO worthy of IDA, acceptable to the undersigned, and we believe, acceptable to the broader membership of IDA.

1. Make it user friendly
   We believe a model lighting ordinance should be as simple and easy to understand as possible. It should be written for the intelligent layman, not for "lighting professionals." Lighting ordinances need to be understood by the people who must enact, implement, and enforce them. Many of us have been intimately involved in the writing, enactment, and implementation of lighting codes in our communities. Probably the most consistent problem we face is that communities have considered lighting codes too complicated. This MLO is much more complicated than the most complex code we have ever worked with.
   
   Much has been made of the fact that many local lighting laws are not "technically correct," but the significance of this seems to have been missed. To the extent that this is true of existing laws, it demonstrates that with rare exception lighting professionals are not the ones that get codes enacted. Though the lighting professionals involved in the drafting of the MLO have contributed great value to the effort by assuring it is technically correct from their standpoint, we believe the vital practical perspective gained in our many collective years of working with communities to enact and implement lighting codes has been lost. A model must be written for all of the people who will be using it, including not only lighting professionals but also electricians, lighting retailers and manufacturers, architects, municipal planners, small-business owners, and the general public. In fact, in nearly all communities concerned with the preservation of dark skies, lighting professionals are involved with only a tiny fraction of lighting projects
   
   We believe a model ordinance that addresses as a first priority dark-sky preservation can be technically correct yet still written in plain English. To cite but one example, the shielding definitions in MLO 2004.1 refer to "luminous flux." This will communicate nothing to the layman, and the present definitions do little to help. Why not just "light"? Or perhaps "lumens" (clearly defined!)? How would that be incorrect?
   
   The current MLO goes considerably beyond simple dark-sky preservation, moving into the realm of detailed lighting design with specifications on pole heights, luminaire photometrics, maximum wattage limits, and myriad lighting use types with associated power density and area calculations. To accomplish all of this, the MLO has become much too complex. Dark-sky protection can be accomplished with a much simpler document than this.
    
2. Use the right "metric"
   We believe the metric used to address outdoor lighting should be a measure of light. A watt is a measure not of light but of power. With efficacies (mean lumens per watt) ranging from 8 for 25-watt incandescent to 183 for 180-watt LPS, using power as a surrogate for light must inevitably result in limits too high to most effectively curtail excess light. This problem will only worsen with the adoption of emerging and not-yet-invented technologies. We are aware that watts-per-square-foot has a place in some energy codes, but we do not believe it has been demonstrated to be successful in controlling light pollution to the degree we feel necessary. Using lumens and/or footcandles as the measure of light entirely eliminates this problem, and such standards have already been shown to be effective in many lighting codes.
    
3. Stay focused on dark skies
   Since this model is to be promulgated by the International Dark-Sky Association, it should establish criteria that will be the "gold standard" of night-sky protection. If a community finds the MLO overly strict, it can simply loosen the requirements as it sees fit for local application. But the aim of this MLO should be to provide guidance for minimizing light pollution to the greatest degree possible consistent with safety, security, and utility.
   
   The present MLO draft fails this standard in many ways in addition to the watts-per-square-foot flaw. A few examples:
   
   • It fails to prohibit light trespass.
   • It fails to prohibit upward-directed sign lighting--a huge source of light pollution in many communities.
   • It fails to require curfews. (Reducing power 50% is not the same as turning it off.)
   • It excludes public lighting of every sort. Guidance for streetlighting is essential even if some communities choose to place it in a separate document, and we see no reason to exempt municipal lighting for building exteriors, parking lots, sports facilities, etc.
   • It permits lighting in Zone Zero of five zones. There needs to be a zone where no permanent lighting is permitted.
   • It fails to address pre-existing non-conforming lighting. Guidance needs to be provided, in supplementary materials if not in the model itself, for communities wishing to establish sunsets.

In sum

IDA's stated purpose is "to protect and restore...mankind's heritage of dark skies." We do not feel the MLO in anything like its present form will be helpful to those working "on the ground" to establish regulations that will achieve this objective; in fact, we believe it will substantially undermine such efforts.

A number of us are questioning whether we will be able to continue supporting IDA if it adopts this MLO. We will certainly not support its enactment in our communities. We implore you not to sabotage the work we are doing to advance IDA's goals.

We would appreciate a written response to this letter from the Board.

Respectfully,

Lee Altenberg, PhD
Karolyn Beebe, IDA
Mike Best, IDA
Gary Citro, IDA
Barry A.J. Clark
Gail Clyma, IDA/IESNA
Bob Crelin, IDA
Kevin Fleming, Chairman, ICOLE
Bonnie Garrity, IDA
John Alan Gilkison, National Public Observatory
Dan Green, IDA
Scott Griswold
Cliff Haas, CRL/IESNA/NELPAG
Susan Harder, IDA/IESNA
Missy Holohan, IDA
Chris Luginbuhl, IDA/IESNA
John McMahon, PhD
George Nickas, ICOLE
Johnny Noles, IDA
David Oesper, IDA/IESNA
Francis Parnell, IDA
Stephen M. Pauley MD, IDA/IESNA
Tim Poulsen, IDA
Julie Schaar, IDA
Mark Schuyler LC, IDA/IESNA
Leo Smith, IDA
Stan Stubbe, IDA/IESNA;
Hazel Thompson, IDA.