[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[OL-Forum] Digest Number 440
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/mcTolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
OutdoorLighting-Forum "The largest uncensored and most active non-geographic based forum on light pollution."
To unsubscribe from a Yahoo list send a blank email to listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Lighting Reform and Education
From: rlgent1@aol...
2. Re: Lighting Reform and Education
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:46:15 EST
From: rlgent1@aol...
Subject: Lighting Reform and Education
Hi Kevin,
You have brought up some important points. Thanks for sharing these with the
members of the Outdoor Lighting Forum.
Everyone at IDA shares in the disappointment with the NY veto. Is it all
bad news? Probably not. You made the point that the law DID receive very
strong support despite Governor Pataki's veto. This is all part of the
"education" process. One Senator began publishing flyers about light
pollution, and he distributed them to every voter in his district! Maybe
others will follow suit. This can only help raise awareness.
We were very involved in the NY activities. A great multitude of IDA e-mail
messages were sent to members and friends in NY answering questions and
asking them to get active. Could we at IDA have done more? I can tell you
that given the very small staff at IDA, we were giving it considerable time.
We did not hear about the letters of opposition until very late in the
session. One "opposition letter" was sent to us after the veto. We did
discuss this situation at the recent IDA board meeting, and as we mentioned
before, a reply about the benefits of FCO lighting will be written.
We will continue to work with lighting companies to encourage them to develop
better outdoor lighting. It is important for them to understand the market
trends and the explosion of new zoning laws to control of light pollution. So
far, this has been mostly successful. There are some companies who are slow
to act, but in the long term, they too will begin developing better fixtures.
For others considering state laws, be prepared. It takes time and
persistence. You will need strong allies in the house and senate to face up
to potential lobbyists and others. Very few laws pass at the state level on
the first try. One of my friends who is an aide to a US Congressman says,
"First you must pass the laugh test." Most state laws fail, sometimes many
times, before they are ever successfully passed.
We would like to thank all of you VERY much for your memberships and support
of IDA. We need you now more than ever. Believe me. We are giving this our
very best.
I regret the delay in this reply, but our message bin is overflowing. IDA
is now receiving hundreds of daily requests for help, all of them important.
To build momentum, we are currently working to bring many new IDA sections up
to speed, to publish a backlog of IDA information sheets, to work on new
membership drives, to publish a new Model Lighting Code, to help coordinate
regional and international meetings, to work with the press, and so much
more. Life at IDA continues to be most exciting and rewarding. Thanks
again to everyone.
Sincerely,
Bob Gent
Just an IDA Volunteer
----------------------------------------
<< Message: 3 OLF Daily Summaries
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
From: kgfleming@att...
Subject: Re: Lighting Reform and Education
Bob,
Thanks for taking time to address a matter that has
generated a good deal of concern with many lighting
reform activists. Gov. Pataki's veto of the New York
lighting bill gave many pause for reflection on what
was done right, wrong, or not done.
I believe NY's saga can be boiled down to a few
essential points and one basic question. I've seen
comments that suggested different tactics by bill
proponents would have helped. Another commented that
the bill's provisions should have been different. I
recently read a second-hand account of comments
suggesting more homework on technical issues should be
done in the future by local proponents.
I find none of these points valid. That's not to say
tactics couldn't have been improved upon and more
agreeable provisions could not have been crafted.
And who among dark sky advocates knows it all when it
comes to the science of illumination, be they layman or
pro. But none of these points recognize a most telling
reality. The NY legislature ADOPTED the bill -- by a
good margin if my facts are on target. Accordingly,
whatever was done by local proponents, some of the rest
of us might do well to follow suit.
This bill was of course shot down by a Gov.'s veto. In
the interim bodies were mighty busy trying to ensure
the Gov. would take the right action. Unfortunately it
appears an organized effort was mounted which was
ultimately successful in convincing the Gov. to veto
the bill. The revelation that's been so disturbing is
that representatives of Lithonia Lighting and the LRC
at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute wrote to the Gov.
urging his veto. But I believe the real disappointment
is that IDA, the organization so many have done so much
to create and support did not respond to these letters
and counter the undue concerns raised to preserve the
status quo.
Help was requested last summer, long before the matter
wound down to a choice by the Governor. I'm mystified
why anyone would not see the unique value of succeeding
in New York. NYC is the media and financial capital of
the world and art and cultural capital of the U.S.
Hosting the United Nations makes it a gateway to the
world.
You may recall my comments characterizing IDA focus as
on working within the industry to incorporate light
pollution concerns in products and standards, as
opposed to involvement with local ordinance.
Parenthetically Bob I should note I failed to mention
your extensive participation with state and local
efforts. But notwithstanding that oversight, my remarks
about IDA focusing on the industry drew applause from a
board member. When I repeated them in a later posting
that board member took humbridge and has since gone
silent -- but that's neither here nor there.
Regardless, given the above with respect to NY, I don't
understand priorities not requiring IDA involvement. I
do understand and believe there is wisdom in "make
friends not enemies" and "keep enemies close."
Certainly there's wisdom is acquiring needed resources.
But is this resulting in an entanglement and conflict
of purpose? If so I believe it's essential that a
mechanism be found for responding to opposition
campaigns such as appeared in NY.
Above all a voice must be heard loud and clear carrying
the message of lighting reform's benefits. It must
expose and debunk misperceptions create by those who
seek to guard the status quo. Work with them at first,
yes. But in the end the priority must be standing up
and speaking out for lighting reform, whether with them
or in contradiction to them.
The Gov. may well have decided on a veto without the
late opposition lobbying. But by going unchallenged,
the opposition gave him cover. Debunking it would've
put more public pressure on the Gov. not to veto. And
possibly the Gov. remained open-minded for a time.
Would a side trip to Albany, NY during [or instead of]
travel to the American Astronomical Society convention
in Maryland have made a difference?
The opposition brought to bear in NY will undoubtedly
reappear elsewhere. I believe the IDA must address the
misperceptions contained in the opposition's arguments
in a public -- not private -- statement in order to
pursue its mission to preserve dark skies.
Respectfully,
Kevin Fleming >>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:43:19 -0500
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Re: Lighting Reform and Education
Dear Bob and OLFers ...
I speak only for myself and not for SELENE, bur I did want
to make a few comments.
rlgent1@aol... wrote:
>
> Everyone at IDA shares in the disappointment with the NY veto. Is it all
> bad news? Probably not. You made the point that the law DID receive very
> strong support despite Governor Pataki's veto.
True enough on the face of it, but I need to remind folks
that when the chips were down during the last weeks of the
legislative session, neither the Senate sponsor nor any of
the ten Senate cosponsors (all Republicans in the
R-controlled State Senate) could be found to support the
bill. All MIA, including being absent from the press
conference in late December. I spoke (again) to my two local
cosponsors' offices personally in mid-Dec to encourage their
support for the bill, only to be told that that was the task
of the sponsor and that they had their own bills to promote.
In addition, I spoke with one of those cosponsors via a
call-in radio show the day before the veto, and she barely
admitted that she knew of the bill or even of the issue,
muttering something about roadside lights and car
headlights. This from a senator who had twice (!)
cosponsored the Senate version of the lp bill.
The fix was in as far as I'm concerned, and the vested
energy and lighting interests made it clear that they would
have none of this lp regulation stuff from the governor *or*
the members of his party. Like it or not, this is an
ideologically driven opposition: "market forces rule, so
don't interfere with our 'development tool' campaign" (a la
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.) to illuminate every dying little
village and crossroads with the promise of the "moth
effect".
> This is all part of the
> "education" process. One Senator began publishing flyers about light
> pollution, and he distributed them to every voter in his district! Maybe
> others will follow suit. This can only help raise awareness.
The sponsor's brochures went out to only half of his
constitutents. Yes, that is a good thing, but my suggestion
to local cosponsors to consider the same was met with the
usual rhetoric (see above) as well as the "we can't afford
it" litany.
> We will continue to work with lighting companies to encourage them to develop
> better outdoor lighting. It is important for them to understand the market
> trends and the explosion of new zoning laws to control of light pollution. So
> far, this has been mostly successful. There are some companies who are slow
> to act, but in the long term, they too will begin developing better fixtures.
And there are companies and industry associations who are
still actively working against the trend. While it is
worthwhile to work with companies to convince them of the
wisdom of making better lighting, it should be based on the
inherent benefits of that lighting and *not* by trying to
convince them that they'll be rewarded in a marketplace that
they are actually using their resources to manipulate. Sure,
profit is a good way to make the case for better lighting,
but let's be realistic here: in NY a few well-worded letters
to a R governor already being criticized by the conservative
wing of his own party and by property rights groups (in the
Adirondacks, for example) -- for being too
environmentally-friendly with state purchases of land and
with various set-asides and land-use restrictions -- is all
that it took to get him to veto a bill that was supported by
a host of preservationist organizations. (In fact, it has
been suggested from some quarters that the close ties to
environmental groups that were developed to support the bill
were actually detrimental to our cause.)
> For others considering state laws, be prepared. It takes time and
> persistence. You will need strong allies in the house and senate to face up
> to potential lobbyists and others. Very few laws pass at the state level on
> the first try. One of my friends who is an aide to a US Congressman says,
> "First you must pass the laugh test." Most state laws fail, sometimes many
> times, before they are ever successfully passed.
The problem is now that the opposition is in the driver's
seat and future legislative efforts will be influenced if
not downright dictated by the very interests whose advances
against the dark skies of NY (such as they are) we have been
trying to halt. Weakening subsequent efforts is never a good
thing when one had such overwhelming support in the
legislature for a more comprehensive bill.
>
> We would like to thank all of you VERY much for your memberships and support
> of IDA. We need you now more than ever. Believe me. We are giving this our
> very best.
>
> I regret the delay in this reply, but our message bin is overflowing. IDA
> is now receiving hundreds of daily requests for help, all of them important.
> To build momentum, we are currently working to bring many new IDA sections up
> to speed, to publish a backlog of IDA information sheets, to work on new
> membership drives, to publish a new Model Lighting Code, to help coordinate
> regional and international meetings, to work with the press, and so much
> more. Life at IDA continues to be most exciting and rewarding. Thanks
> again to everyone.
Let me just say that the IDA is a great educational
resource, and I appreciate the enormous effort that has been
going on under very trying circumstances; but it needs to
acknowledge the political side of the lp issue and not be
afraid to come out more forcefully in that arena.
John McMahon
Tully, NY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/