The Great Streetlight Debate of 2009 shines its way into inboxes

Neighborhood listserv readers who've found themselves hen-pecked in recent weeks with fervent debates over urban hens have found a new debate rising in their inboxes: the 0.4 footcandle illumination (or lack thereof) of residential streetlights.

Durham traditionalists who a few weeks ago clucked over fears of Durham "retrogressing" by allowing hens back in to the City limits -- a progressive and green-friendly idea that has little to do with the poverty- and agricultural tradition-laden impetus of such activities in the Bull City decades ago -- are likely rolling their eyes all the way back into the socket this time over the proposition raised by a Watts-Hillandale activist saying streetlights address primarily irrational fears or non-essential purposes and that many of them should go away.

Of course, traditionalists who've managed to roll their eyes that far back might think they'd have a good idea what Bull City streets would look like at night sans streetlights.

So what say you, dear readers? Are streetlights a waste of money and energy, a source of light pollution that don't help actual safety in any event? Or are they a public good in urban areas, something you expect in city limits (and you should figure to live in the country if you want their glare gone?)

Read on to see some of the debate taking place within local listservs.

Lighting has been an issue for Ned Kennington -- the author of the latest calls for streetlight review -- dating back at least to a decade-long battle with the North Carolina School of Science and Math (NCSSM) in Kennington's own neighborhood of Watts-Hillandale.

Kennington served as secretary of W-H's NCSSM negotiation committee, that put out the following statement in 2006 concerning lighting for the state school's athletic fields:

Over the past six months, WHHNA representatives spent hundreds of hours researching illumination engineering and developing creative proposals for solving the problems of glare and light trespass. They carried out extensive research in the engineering library at Duke and on the Internet. They developed a small library of lighting textbooks, technical reports and published standards. They discussed lighting issues raised by the stadium with national experts on lighting. They acquired software for lighting design and developed several fully elaborated designs for the NCSSM stadium themselves.  They purchased professional equipment for measuring light and did extensive field work at sites that currently use the type of lighting fixtures that NCSSM proposes to use.  They found three major suppliers of sports lighting and guided them through the process of creating fully developed lighting designs tailored specifically to the proposed NCSSM stadium. (To the best of our knowledge NCSSM simply accepted the proposal of a single vendor without seeking out any alternatives.)  

These efforts resulted in one formal alternative lighting system being proposed to the School. WHHNA representatives worked with their representative to the state legislature to find funds to cover half of the additional cost of this higher cost alternative.  This alternative might have provided major advantages for players and spectators, as well as the neighbors.  In spite of their preferences for this alternative, WHHNA representatives several times reiterated their willingness to work with the School's preferred vendor to find a way to make its system acceptable. 

In the end, W-H and NCSSM reached a compromise on the lighting matter, after ending up quarreling over an $80,000 gap between the lighting preferred by the neighborhood committee and the low-bid offer from Musco, Inc. (State Sen. Paul Luebke, Durham's progressive tax fighter and a W-H resident, noted in press accounts at the time that he thought the extra $80k was a drop in the bucket over a 20 year amortization and pressed the school to think through the importance of strong neighborhood relations; pressure from Luebke and City Councilman Mike Woodard may have helped in the public sphere in advance of the final compromise.)

One might say that researching lighting issues, therefore, is a passion of Kennington's; last summer, he helped raise anew the matter amidst learning of the City's plan to install more and brighter streetlights throughout Durham as part of a crime prevention program. 

Crime prevention and better visibility for cars, bikes and pedestrians have been frequently cited as key reasons for the increased streetlight installation -- leading to a flurry of back-and-forth emails over scientific studies and findings.

Last summer, Kennington and others worked with the City to request that a policy be created to govern the installation of new street lighting in neighborhoods, including a method by which neighborhoods would be able to give consent before such lighting found its way into streets and blocks.

City officials were ready to roll-out the new policy, but postponed doing so after W-H residents complained they had not had a chance to give input to the proposal; the new plan won't make its way before City Council until at least Mar. 5, the Herald-Sun reported this week.

The draft policy -- after noting that the installation of 457 streetlights has been on hold pending a decision by Council -- would put Neighborhood Improvement Services in the role of notifying neighborhoods and residents about the streetlight installations, and then forwarding concerns or worries from residents to the Durham Police Department for evaluation and response.

In the end, though, the draft policy notes that the "Police Department will make the final determination on whether the street lighting service request will be beneficial to the neighborhood and provide such determination to the neighborhood," a rule whose only appeal is to the City Manager (in writing) for a final decision.

.....

Which brings us to Kennington's latest argument, which has been widely disseminated throughout neighborhood listservs. 

Not without a battle, mind you: Duke Park listserv keeper Barry Ragin (BCR's partner on the "Shooting the Bull" radio program) asked Kennington to refrain from further mass-blasts to his 'hood's list, directing him to the Partners Against Crime lists instead. Newman Aguiar, who's long been involved in crime and public safety issues around Durham, responded to Kennington's submission to the PAC2 list, in turn, by noting concern over the broadside's content and encouraging new PAC2 listserv poster Kennington to consult the list archives over past streetlight requests and discussions.

In any event, here's the crux of Kennington's argument as it has been appearing on mailing lists:

[City staff have] cited two national standards as the justification for the City's practice of placing streetlights only 150 feet apart on residential streets.  (Using the fixtures and lamps that Durham prefers, roughly 150-foot spacing is needed to provide 0.4 footcandles of approximately uniform horizontal illuminance on roadway surfaces.) [...]

[T]he 0.4 footcandle light level is called for in order to provide sufficient lighting to carry out the following purposes.  Please note that all these purposes are NON-ESSENTIAL: 

- The standard makes it clear that there is NO need for lighting on residential streets to aid motor vehicle traffic.  (The standard says elsewhere that there IS a need for lighting to aid motor vehicle traffic on larger collector streets and major roadways.)

- The standard says that streetlights are useful for pedestrian and bicycling activities (such as to help them avoid stumbling into potholes in the dark)  (If the streets are that bad, pedestrians and bicyclists can carry flashlights or travel on larger streets that are better lit.)

- The standard says that streetlights can assist homeowners in activities in and around the home.  (This is clearly not an essential government service.  If the homeowner cannot provide lighting on his own property, he can generally wait until daylight for outdoor activities.)

- The standard says that streetlights can enhance personal security.  (The City government might want to cater to residents' irrational belief that streetlights make them more secure, but this is not an essential government service.)

- The standard says that streetlights can enhance the neighborhood.  (Again, neighborhood beautification through streetlights is not an essential government service.) [...]

It might be possible to provide justification for SOME level of residential street lighting, but the City of Durham has not specified those levels or justified them.  The City has certainly NOT justified the extremely high density of streetlights that they are in the process of installing on all residential streets throughout the City.

Kennington's argument? Given the $9 per month lease that Durham pays Duke Energy for running these lights, the City could save $120,000 next year by adding no new streetlights, and if it reduced the number of streetlights overall, could "substantially reduce the $2,000,000 annual cost of streetlights" paid for by the City.

The argument has at its root cost savings, but also light pollution and energy waste -- and opportunity costs, too. As Kennington put it in a follow-up to BCR:

The City should also rethink its entire residential street lighting program.  Even though they don't reduce crime, streetlights serve many other purposes on residential streets.  The City should list all the purposes that have been served by its residential street lighting program, decide how much money it is willing to spend to serve those purposes, and whether some level of street lighting is the best way to serve those purposes.  If street lighting is the best way to serve one of those purposes, the City should justify how densely streetlights need to be spaced to serve that purpose. 

On the other hand, perhaps some of those purposes could best be served by spending the money on something other than street lights.  Perhaps emergency personnel could more quickly and inexpensively find addresses if the City stenciled house numbers on the curbs.  Perhaps bicyclists would rather spend the money marking bicycle lanes on streets than lighting streets at night.  Perhaps pedestrians would rather have sidewalks fixed and potholes filled than merely having them well-lighted at night.

It is inexcusable for the City to continue wasting money on a zombie program like the "crime lighting" program that has no justification any more.

Some residents have been sympathetic to Kennington's arguments; others, though, have shown some opposition. Jonathan Tarr objected to the claim that residents can fend for themselves with lights:

I'm not willing to go along with a plan that classifies me as "non-essential" because I walk rather than drive most places.  But thanks for suggesting that buying a flashlight and moving my home and residence to "a larger street" will get me by, and also that I can wait until daylight for outdoor activities in my yard. 

Trinity Park's Ron Butters also took exception to the question of the non-essential nature of lighting:

What Durham does about [street] lighting is quite different from what one sees on the Las Vegas strip. And the question of what Durham can "afford" varies depending on what level of lighting one deems "appropriate." In your previous post you seemed to be suggesting that there really was no justification for lighting whatever ("[lights do not reduce crime, lights are not needed for walking and biking, lights are maybe useful for automobiles, maybe not]." This is an extreme position that very few people would agree with, I feel sure.

This comes from someone--me--who likes the dark enough to have asked a neighboring church to remove a streetlight from their parking lot because it made my backyard like a cheap nightclub's dance floor (they were nice enough to agree). When I was in high school I hated daylight savings time so much that I petitioned that I petitioned the city council for daylight losing time instead (they did not agree to follow my wishes in that may). On the other hand, I pressed the city very hard to replace a broken street light in front of my house on Lamond Avenue because it made it much easier for me to see whether there were guys sitting on the wall in front of the abandoned house across the street who were planning to mug me when I brought in my groceries. Maybe the light didn't reduce crime in my end of the block, but it sure as heck raised my comfort level. And I never did get mugged, either. And I didn't have to carry a flashlight when I brought in the groceries or went up the block to mail a letter after sundown.

Perhaps the most amusing contretemps for Kennington's argument, however, has come from N&O columnist Barry Saunders, who had some fun with the idea yesterday -- and who, to my opinion, hits the nail on the head at least in so far as predicting the traditionalist/progressivist divide that seems very likely on this matter:

Man, if you live in a neighborhood where the worst thing you have to worry about is not being able to see fireflies -- we called them lightning bugs -- I'd gladly trade places with you. So would residents in other neighborhoods where darkness provides a comforting cover for people who are up to no good.

Other residents who oppose lights in a couple of Durham neighborhoods -- the Watts-Hillandale section and Tyler Court -- pointed to a study that they claim indicates street lights cause cancer. I'll bet you there's also a study, one which I'm more inclined to believe, that shows your chances of getting whomped upside the head by night-crawling nogoodniks increase when there are no streetlights.

Expect the matter to come back before elected officials soon -- after at least one neighborhood has had a chance to look into the matter further, natch.

Comments

[J S]

If you need light at your house, install one and pay for the power yourself.
If you're not safe in your neighborhood, move.
If you can't move, get your concealed carry permit and a weapon which, coincidentally, should be able to take a tactical light.

$2M out of the public coffers to pollute the sky is inexcusable when some personal responsibility would cover most everything. The money could be much better spent fixing sidewalks for bikes/peds. Or, let's go with smarter lights that run at 100% from dusk til 2300 and 0500 til dawn. If you're walking, unpacking groceries, or mowing at 3am, sorry, you deserve to lose. Carry a light.

[Visconti]

I am in favor of lights although it depends on what lights you are using and where you place them. Sometimes, when you are visiting someone, it is really difficult to find a home and the street number in the night without proper lights and we don't want to run with flashlights, in the dark, into people like JS carrying weapons when you step upon their yard by mistake.

The lack of streetlights is also dangerous for pedestrians, not in the sense of danger from criminals, but the danger of tripping with tree branches or cracked sidewalks. Having lived in larger cities that are well lit, I find this love of street darkness downright bizarre.

If lights bother you, install blinds or shutters. I never understood why the Watts-Hillandale homes on Club Boulevard have to display their rooms in the night for the public. Seems ostentatious.

Finally, I am in favor of attractive and energy efficient streetlights that shine down and do not pollute the sky.

[SteveG]

Ned really hurt his cause by spamming so many listservs with his manifesto, regardless of how legitimate his concerns are. He has also done a poor job of communicating what he wants the city do do. He also seems really angry, which is off putting.

After being bombarded by dozens of emails in my Inbox, I've done a little reading up on the effectiveness of street lighting in reducing crime and there do in fact appear to be studies that show that it really doesn't do much to help, and in some instances hurt efforts to reduce crime. There are, of course, other reasons for lighting besides reducing crime including safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

Some ideas that I've seen that have merit include using "cobra head" light heads to direct light where it's needed and reduce light pollution, turning off streetlights late at night (say, between midnight and 5 am) to save energy, etc. It also makes sense to try to get consensus of the neighbors affected when installing new street lights.

Maybe Ned should start a blog. He can post regular, brief, easily digestible articles that help to explain the history of streetlights, when they are in fact useful, when they aren't, and what citizens and the city can do to make changes to effectively provide for safety, reduce crime, all the while being fiscally responsible.

[GreenLantern]

I think the city should put all new streetlights in high-crime areas of East Durham, instead of the ingrates living in Watts-Hillandale, Trinity Park, etc., who constantly gripe about getting sidewalks and speed humps, but are now so confident about their safety they hold fireflies in higher regard.

BTW, it would be interesting to poll ALL the residents of these neighborhoods who aren't on some listserv, what they think of the proposal, rather than expect the city to once again acceed to the demands of a few powerful neighborhood groups that come to the trough on far too many occaisions. I have a feeling the vast majority want better lighting over counting fireflies.

Saying that better lighting has no link to crime prevention is a pretty weak argument. I'd like to see the data that refutes years of law enforcement and crime prevention programs that find the opposite is true.

[Michael Bacon]

While I agree Ned's communications strategy wasn't the best, I think he makes some powerful arguments. At the very least, it seems like the residents on the street should have right of refusal when it comes to streetlights.

It also drives me just a little bonkers how portions of Durham's governments (which I suppose isn't unique to them) can be absolute sticklers for pushing some particular standard all the way to an absurd conclusion -- in this case, streetlights every 150 feet -- while letting other parts of public duties effectively rot. I realize the cost is higher, but as a cyclist, I would far rather Durham actually, you know FIX THE POTHOLES in the roads, rather than making sure I could see them as if under a noonday sun.

[Ned Kennington]

Kevin,

Thank you for writing on the streetlight issue. I am afraid that you have overstated my role both in regard to streetlights and NCSSM, perhaps to make the piece more readable. Many other people have been involved in both efforts.

I was disappointed that you did not have space to summarize the extensive argument I have made that there is no good evidence that streetlights reduce crime. Also, that the City has acknowledged this for more than 7 months, while continuing to promote a lighting program based on the premise that streetlights reduce crime.

I pointed out that the definitive studies on streetlights and crime have been carried out over many years by the U.S. Department of Justice, and its English counterpart, the British Home Office. These papers are reviews of all the studies that have ever been done on streetlights to determine the current state of knowledge in that area. The Department of Justice studies conclude that there is no good evidence that streetlights reduce crime. The Home Office study concludes that investing in streetlights can reduce crime, but only in the same way that any investment in an impoverished community such as improved landscaping, paving or signage can increase community pride and cohesion. They conclude that that the light cast by streetlights does not reduce crime.

The idea that streetlights reduce crime is a superstition--It is NOT a fact.

Ned Kennington

[Joshua Allen]

To me, the question is not whether we should have streetlights at all, but whether the current strategy of a 250-watt streetlight every 150 feet throughout the city is appropriate. I dare say that it is too much. Something WHHNA has asked for is that the City take neighbor input into account with their policy... not that a neighborhood association could exclude all street lights from the neighborhood, but that neighbors within a certain distance from one another (say a block), would have some form of democratic input about whether new lights are installed along their block. Most streets in Durham already have street lights. This effort the City is undertaking now is to increase the density and intensity of the lights in order to prevent crime. The scientific evidence concludes that lighting does NOT prevent crime, but simply makes people "feel" safer. Case in point: the rash of burglaries experienced in many of the in town neighborhoods last December were committed during the day, when it was light outside.

Personally, I do not want a 250 Watt street light powered by Duke Energy in front of my house. However, I would be much more amenable to lamp post style street light that put out 60 Watts and used solar power. I'm not sure why the City doesn't consider more aesthetic options, energy efficient, and cheaper options.

[Toby]

I think Mr. Kennington made some cogent points in his messages to neighborhood listservs. But I also think he drowns out his own message, by posting at great length and greater frequency on multiple lists.

In my opinion, a good listserv is like a good party: a wide variety of people talking about and doing interesting things. But we've all had the unfortunate experience of being shanghai'ed at a soiree by the "worlds foremost authority" on some topic. After 15 minutes or so, you'll agree to anything, just to get away.

As they say in show biz, "Always leave 'em wanting more!"

[JJA]

Streetlights give the perception of reducing crime. They make people feel safer. This in itself is a legitimate argument for having streetlights as a crime deterrent (Walker: Sense & Nonsense about Crime and Drugs)

[NotATrustFundBaby]

Think I'll get my comment in now as I sense another discussion thread inching toward being closed due to a relentless and, apparently, at great leisure central figure.. I just want to say that this thread illustrates what makes me want to rip the heads off the affluent activists in this town and breathe fire down their selfish, stupid necks. Here we go again with an issue where a bunch of entitled self-proclaimed do-gooders are preceding full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, and once again are proving themselves incapable of envisioning the needs of people that are not like them (because, gosh who knew there were iother peope in the world besides them?)

In other words: not everyone drives to get around, for godsakes. There are actually people in this town who WALK, either for environmental or economic reasons, or who take public transportation and then walk. They deserve to be able to see when they are walking along a sidewalk at night, period, case closed. Never mind the safety issue. If it's a public thoroughfare like a sidewalk, then let's all kindly remember the original purpose of streetlights: so people walking in the dark can see here they are going.

IS THAT SO HARD TO FIGURE OUT???!!!

[I Live in WH-H, but Don't Support Ned or the NA Board]

All lights the city installs now are cobra-head and use a 150-watt bulb. So there's no need to debate that point.

It's unfair to lump everyone who lives in Watts Hospital-Hillandale with Ned. Many of us like our lights. And some people on Ned's street do too, since they requested them. (You think some of them might have felt intimidated by Ned's tactics?)

And not all of us buy Ned's 20- and 15-year-old reports. And some of us are scientists and statisticians who understand research methodology.

Take the light up in front of the neighbor's house who complained b/c it keeps the frogs in his frog pond awake, and let the rest of us have our lights.

[Erik]

This is going to go WAY beyond just traditionalists vs. progressives. I do not envy the uphill battle Mr. Kennington and others are facing.

Unfortunately, from what I've read thus far, Mr. Kennington and others seem to be off to a bad start - inundating listservs and telling pedestrians they should carry a flashlight if the sidewalk is in bad shape is not going to help your cause.

Not that you solicited my advice, but you're going to need as many friends as possible in this fight, so you might want to be careful about alienating potential allies.

Couple questions, just because I'm curious. First, are streetlights not related to ALL types of crime or is that just an overall average? Not all crimes are created equal. Secondly, are there any studies that correlate streetlights and pedestrian activity? I work in the public transportation industry, so I know all about the effects of perception, but I have to wonder if perception isn't pretty important in this case.

[I live there too, and I do support our neighborhood board.]

Look, not all streets in Durham are equal. Some probably should have street lights every 150 feet. But all of them?

On our block (yes, in Watts Hospital) we had one streetlight. It burned out, and no one bothered to report it for two years. Then the crime prevention officer for PAC2 drove down the street, and now we have five streetlights on one block. I'm pretty amazed that our virtually crime-free block rates so much of our fair city's resources when there is only a limited number of new lights installed each year.

We have had one break-in on the block--AFTER the lights were installed, and during the day. We've had numerous break-ins in the neighborhood and they've all occurred during daylight hours. We don't have sidewalks, and even with five streetlights you can't read the house numbers.

As for the studies--I tend to believe the people who take the time to read and cite studies, and roll my eyes at the folks who don't bother to do any research.

[Localyocal]

Ned's emails read like rantings of a deranged lunatic. I've spam-filtered his address after receiving more emails from him on several listservs than I could possibly care to read. He may be right about the crime issue but his other arguments are full of gross hyperbole and he ignores any merit of counter-arguments (e.g. ped safety). I was almost hit by a speeding car while out for a walk the other night. The nearest streetlight was inoperative.

[Seth Vidal]

Kevin,
I'm confused why you seem to want to make this issue about Ned. Ned cares about these things, he's verbose about these things. But it's not about Ned. It's about the problems with the lights:

1. the lights don't deter crime.
2. the lights are not universally desirable.
3. the lights are use a lot of energy.
4. powering the lights costs a lot of money.
5. the lights pollute the night sky.
6. the lights pollute the environment b/c of the power they consume.

These issues need to be addressed. It's not about Ned. It's about these issues.

[Jamie Gruener]

I agree, the issue isn't about Ned. But he's making his points in such a way that it's hard to focus on the message and not the messenger.

And to be frank, I'm not interested in having him represent my opinions, even if I do agree with him.

If someone else wants to pick up the torch on this issue (unlit, of course), I'd be far more likely to join the cause.

[Todd]

Installing streetlights every 150 feet on every street in Durham seems pretty excessive. The City simply does not do a very good job of prioritizing its needs. Paving 24 miles of unpaved dirt streets would seem like a higher priority project than all these lights. Or repaving the 300 miles of streets that are already paved, but are rated in poor condition, would be more important. Or maybe renovating parks so that the bathrooms work would be more important. And if you just consider lights, major and minor thoroughfares should get lights before neighborhood streets.

This is similar to the County's decision to spend $8 million revamping County Stadium, while complaining that there is too much debt service to pay for the hundreds of millions of dollars of building needs for DPS. That $8 million could have built a new wing of classrooms on a school, eliminating some of the County's 124 trailer classrooms.

Regardless of the "need" for streetlights or traffic calming in neighborhoods, there are a lot of more important things not getting done in Durham due to a lack of money and/or poorly spent money.

[S Gwaltney]

I believe street lights are a necessary part of keeping the city safe, which is one of two basic duties of government. In my opinion, Durham needs more street lights in a lot of neighborhoods. However, I am not sure that this budget year is the year to upgrade the street light infrastructure in Durham.

[Joshua Allen]

The proposal from the WHHNA Board is NOT to prevent streetlights from being installed, but to allow neighbors on the block to have democratic input as to whether the lighting is increased. Currently, one neighbor can request more lighting and get lighting installed on their whole block, even if the rest of the neighbors on the block oppose the increase in lighting.

[A]

It's too bad this has already turned into an either/or issue, when there are lots of proposals around for "smart" streetlights. There was a piece on NPR recently about a city that had streetlights which could be turned on with a cellphone--so if you're walking home from the bus stop, you can turn them on to feel safer and illuminate your way. There are also proposals for motion-sensitive streetlights, which I find kind of creepy, but it still might be better than a constant beam finding its way through the blinds of my house. Just sayin--this is an issue on which we could stand to do some creative thinking. Here's a blog post about the cellphone option: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/smart-streetlights-hit-the-streets/

[Seth Vidal]

To see an example of excessive streetlights, come to woodrow st between oakland and alabama ave after dark.

Then count the streetlights.

It's mind-boggling.

[RWE]

Let's get rid of all the traffic signals in Durham too while we're at it. They cost a lot of money to install and maintain, they waste a lot of energy, and my "research" indicates that drivers would be more cautious and hence safer without them.

And trash collection - we don't really need that either because landfills are not sustainable, and we should all be recycling and composting 100% of our waste.

This topic is ridiculous. There are plenty of ways to make local government more efficient without compromising basic public safety. It's possible to find a study supporting almost any point of view, but anyone with a grain of common sense knows that our streets and sidewalks would be less safe without some minimal level of lighting.

[Shady]

We want Ned to go away.

[Thomas]

Beauty, or excess, is in the eyes of the beholder. Seth thinks the lights on his block are excessive. I live nearby and think the amount of light is adequate for a variety of reasons. A friend of mine lives on that block and is pleased to have the lights.

[GreenLantern]

@Todd: Let's not forget the Durham County Sheriff is proposing laying off FORTY deputies to save $3 million, while $8 million is being proposed for the county stadium. Meanwhile, the new courthouse is taking a back seat to the new human services center which means more criminals on the street (a clear example of misplaced priorities). To make matters worse, I just dodged a nearly 2-ft deep pothole on Ellis Road at the rail crossing, and I'm thinking it won't get fixed soon because of cutbacks.

[David McMullen]

Let's set aside for the moment the issue of whether or not streetlights actually reduce crime. It's possible that Ned Kennington is right. But he's not going to gain many converts to his cause with the tactics he is employing. Mr. Kennington's tactic of spamming all of the neighborhood listservs is going to get him labeled "crank" by most people.

I've been using the Internet a long time, long enough to see fanatics of various stripes post their favorite single-issue crusades in too many places. So now, whenever I see one of these Don Quioxtes start tilting at their personal windmills, my BS filter activates and I simply ignore whatever they're saying. Even if I might agree with it, the tone of the communication puts me off.

So yeah, the issue is about Ned, actually, because too many people never get past his personality to address the root issue.

[Colonial Villager]

I am very sad that Ned's aggressive tactics have colored this issue to such an extreme degree. I'm also very sad to see how many trolls can't let go of their anger long enough to have a decent, rational discussion on the matter.

There are lots of valid points on all "sides" here. While many more recent studies DO show that immediate crime isn't prevented by streetlights, other studies show that *perception* of increased safety (whether actual or not) by residents can change how they behave, which can change long-term neighborhood conditions by encouraging what Jane Jacobs called "eyes on the street" behavior - people being outside, watching, talking to their neighbors, paying attention, CARING. But that's a whole different kind of "crime prevention" than glaring illumination, and one that is but a subtle part of a larger process.

The short of it is, I don't think anyone wants NO streetlights (even Ned!). BUT many people if they took the time to think rationally would agree that selective placement and thoughtful use of technology is smarter AND CHEAPER than "blanketing" neighborhoods with lights. Especially those neighborhoods that have not had a demonstrated crime problem, and in which the majority of the residents do not want more lighting.

I think there DOES need to be some mechanism for citizen residents to block the installation of lights they don't want. I think installing costly lights in places where people don't want them during a budget crunch/recession is a waste of taxpayer dollars. I want more play equipment in our park, striped bike lanes, filled potholes, better sidewalks and crosswalks WAY more than I want more lights.

I agree there are undoubtedly places in Durham that NEED more lights. However, given our recent trends in enforcement and improvement (e.g. some neighborhoods get everything while others get shafted), does anyone really believe the installed lights will actually be installed in the places that NEED them?

[Seth Vidal]

Thomas,
You're exactly right. This is why the proposal is solely to have a way to poll neighbors nearby to where the light is proposed to go and/or is currently placed to see if a majority of them wish the light to be there or to not be there.

That's it, exactly.

Ignore what the lights do or don't do. The issue is making it possible for those directly impacted by the lights to make a democratic decision on whether or not they should be there.

[Jennifer]

I think the follow-up question, then, is who is "directly impacted" by the lights (or lack thereof)? I am a runner and because of my busy schedule, I have to hit the pavement around 5:15am to get in a good run before work. Especially in the winter, this means that I am usually home before the sun comes up.

I don't live in W-H, but I live close enough that a decent run usually puts me in that neighborhood. And frankly, I like running in W-H because it is a more-pleasant experience than running through other neighborhoods that have few paved roads or more broken sidewalks.

So as a tax-paying resident of Durham that lives outside of W-H, would I have a say in new lights that went up in that neighborhood? From these posts and the emails I have read from my neighborhood listserve, it doesn't sound like it. I'm not saying that I am opposed to citizens having some input in the process, but I just hope that "those directly impacted" is defined to be a wider group than the people that live on the street. I think that seeing other people out, getting in a morning run, walking dogs and children, is an important factor in sustaining a neighborhood.

[Seth Vidal]

Jennifer,
It's impossible to know who the people are who sometimes walk/run through where the lights would be. We're working on what's possible here. It's possible to know that the people who live immediately around the light will be impacted by it.

In an ideal world we would be able to poll everyone who could ever possibly be impacted by the light. But we're making do with what is possible and what seems most fair.

Do you disagree that the folks living immediately around the light getting some input seems most fair?

[Bulloney]

@Thomas: " I live nearby and think the amount of light is adequate for a variety of reasons. A friend of mine lives on that block and is pleased to have the lights." Sure, but why should your friend's pleasure trump everyone else's? Why should the city pay for lights just to make her/him happy? Shouldn't there be a higher threshold for city expenditures?

@Jennifer: I'm sorry, but I don't think that we need to light all the streets in Watts Hospital just so you have a place to run in the early morning. Maybe you could come up with a more creative plan.

@RWE: "There are plenty of ways to make local government more efficient without compromising basic public safety." The whole point is that street lights only make you FEEL safer--they do NOTHING to add to basic public safety.

@Greenlantern: "the new courthouse is taking a back seat to the new human services center which means more criminals on the street" Huh? Could you maybe tell us a few facts about HOW the courthouse in use effects the justice dispensed?

Dislike Ned as much as you want (and I'm right there on that issue) but dang--he's actually researched his position and put the facts out there for everyone to see. I don't like getting spammed, but I also don't like the position of "I want it, so it must be true!"

[GreenLantern]

@Bulloney: Having a new courthouse, with presumably more courts and judges, plus an expanded jail, would go a long way to keeping probation violators and criminals off the streets. But perhaps I'm being naieve, because Durham can't seem to get it's fair share of judges. They have to assign them to far flung rural areas instead, because that's where the legislative power is located. In fact, Durham has been, and still is as far as I know, sharing a judge with Wake County. With crime rising, the priority for the county should be with the courts and law enforcement instead of building a new palace for handouts.

[GreenLantern]

@Bulloney: Having a bigger courthouse, with presumably, more courtroom, judges, and prosecutors, plus and expanded jail, would go a long way in keeping probation violators and other criminals from getting early release to free up space. Perhaps I'm being a bit naieve to think that Durham will ever get its fair share of judges, since powerful rural legislators have decided that far-flung parts of our state have higher crime rates. We had been sharing a judge from Wake County, and as far as I know we still are. With rising crime, the county's priority should be the new courthouse and jail expansion over a beautiful new place for government handouts.

[GreenLantern]

Oops!

Always copy your post before posting, just in case there's a hiccup...that way ya won't need to remember what ya wrote!

[Thomas]

@Seth: You vote "no" and your neighbor votes "yes." Or 5 neighbors vote "no" and 5 vote "yes." Who resolves the tie?

What happens when it's a block where the 3 homeowners vote "yes" and the thugs who rent the 4 other houses vote "no" so they can keep up their illegal activity? There are plenty of places in Durham where that could happen. Majority rules?

@Bulloney: Not "pleased" as in enjoying a good meal or a movie. Pleased that she's safer.

[Erik]

"The whole point is that street lights only make you FEEL safer--they do NOTHING to add to basic public safety."

Let's be clear here - crime does not equal public safety. Public safety includes things like pedestrian and bicyclist accidents and I have yet to read that streetlights have no correlation with traffic safety. The only thing I've read (according to a man named Ned) is that there is no correlation between streetlights and crime itself. Does this include being able to identify a person who is committing a crime or identifying a license plate number? Public safety is a very large umbrella and no one has convinced me that streetlights have no correlation with public safety as a whole.

[Jennifer]

Seth: as i mentioned in my post, "some" input by those immediately affected by the lights is certainly fair. but I also think that the City Council should also consider "some" input from others also affected. That's why we elect district-based and at-large representatives I suppose.

Bulloney: I challenge you to get up one morning at 5:00 am "be creative" in finding a well-lit path for running in Durham. I am not sure what "creativity" had to do with it. Is running on a treadmill more creative? How about people that have to walk through our urban city to catch a bus? I'll gladly stop running and driving through your neighborhood if I am not welcome!

[RunningWithScissors]

I disagree with the idea that "democratic input" should be defined by those who live in the neighborhood. Those sidewalks are public property and they are kept up and repaired using taxpayer dollars.They are open to the public and every person has the right to walk along them -- and the right to have their way lit regardless of the time of day. Plenty of people use those sidewalks who do not live in the neighborhood.In fact, probably more non-residents use them when they are just passing through. So encourage democratic input if you will, but don't limit it to people who live in the neighborhood -- that's just a thinly disguised euphemism for residents thinking their opinions matters more than people who don't have as much money and/or a different color skin from them.

[Todd P]

Allowing nearby residents to veto public improvements is one of the reasons so many streets in Durham have no sidewalks, no curb & gutter, or are not even paved at all. Allowing residents the last word on these things is a bad idea, and bad public policy.

This is the very reason the residents of Harvard Ave used for their end run around the City process for getting dirt streets paved. Not enough property owners on the street would go along with the improvements, so they found another way to make it happen.

[Bulloney]

@Jennifer: Of course you're welcome here. I still don't feel like we need to keep five streetlights burning all night on the block in case you decide to run down this street. Creative (to me) means figuring out a way to create a running environment in a smaller segment of the community--perhaps along major thoroughfares with sidewalks, for example. Or, has been suggested, streetlights that you could turn on so that you could run down the street, and that would turn off after you've gone on to someone else's block.

@RunningWithScissors: I'm ok with everyone voting, but let's have the vote be based on the number of hours each person spends within 200 yards of the light in question. Or maybe we should let everyone in NC vote on each streetlight, since they may one day decide to venture down our street.

@ToddP: I'm wondering if you would favor any checks on what city staff decides should be accomplished in our city. Doing away with public hearings would sure speed up the "democratic process." Personally I'd like to have some say in my environment.

@Erik: No need to rely on Ned; the studies are public record. Help yourself! And reading a license plate by streetlight isn't really feasible unless the car stops and lets you get very close--even on our very well lit block.

@GreenLantern: I agree with you that we need more judges and better probation supervision. It amazes me, though, that lots of people will happily pay for more police and jails to deal with the aftermath of crime, but cry "entitlements!" when dealing with the root cause of crime. I prefer to stop crimes BEFORE my house is broken into.

Thanks, Kevin, for getting this going. It's fun!