Mitchell Park West Neighbors

Basketball lighting

Posted in: Mitchell Park West

Yes, the idea is to come to a point where everyone gets something, maybe even most of what they want.  An extreme solution - either removal of park lighting or doing nothing - is not going to be acceptable.  The issue has always been unilateral modifications to the Park and a "Mr. Wizard" approach to its management (let's do this or that and see what happens).  These "experiments" sometimes resulted in considerable controversy and other failures.  MPWNA is trying to foster a dialog among the neighbors, Park users and the Parks and Recreation Department that will prevent bad decisions from being made - ones that detract from the value of the Park to the people who use it, adversely affect the people living near Park or the neighborhood, or all of the above.

One of the problems is that a lot of assumptions are being made without any understanding about the facts or the history.  Many of the folks living next to the Park bought their houses when it was still a school property.  When it was made a park, the City said it was designed to be a neighborhood park; not a regional park complete with rest rooms and parking lots - a draw for people from all over the area and venue for City sponsored sports leagues, like Clark, Daley and Jaycee parks.  If you look at the designs of those parks, there are either large buffers between heavily lit areas and adjacent houses, or lighting that is directed away from housing.  That's not at all what happened here. 

There are other things we need to know, like: What are the lighting standards for various types parks and spaces withing parks?  How do other cities design and manage park lights to minimize costs of operation, glare, sky-glow and light tresspass?  The manual on-off switch is one of many options.

The ulitmate question (not to life, the universe and everything, but for this issue) is what can we do that makes the Park a more friendly environment and encourage its use in such a way that the Park is of both of value to the City and the neighborhood and does not create serious adverse impacts; like 8,000 Watts of light shining directly from the bulbs into someone's windows.   So, if you are going to go to the meeting on Wed., bring, first, the willingness to listen and learn and, second, ideas on how to keep the lights on the basketball court and not everywhere else they are not supposed to be shining.  Then, everybody can win.

Yes, the idea is to come to a point where everyone gets something, maybe even most of what they want.  ....

...

... So, if you are going to  go to the meeting on Wed., bring, first, the willingness to listen and learn and, second, ideas on how to keep the lights on the basketball court and not everywhere else they are not supposed to be shining.  Then, everybody can win.

Ira, this is the best synopsis of the problem and its possible solution I have read yet.  Couldn't say it better.  (Tried.) 

Thanks, Pat

For those interested in knowing more about light pollution, take a look at these links:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/klinkenborg-text

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/richardson-photography

Wouldn't it be great of our neighborhood could be part of the solution?

  • Stock
  • 809w11th
  • Respected Neighbor
  • USA
  • 11 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

The airport analogy would be a good one exept that the airport was built AFTER the people moved in. Most of these people moved into their homes when it was still a school, as was pointed out. It should be noted as well, that if not for the efforts of some of those people living next to the park, after the school closed, THE PARK WOULD NOT EVEN BE THERE AT ALL, but a condominium complex would be there in its place.

The big problem here is that the whole process went awry. When Bruce asked the city for a simple solution to his original problem, he was assured the probelm would get fixed, got the runaround from the city for two years, was told nothing about the new lighting scheme, then BAM. Instead of a shade on the existing lighting, new, brighter lights were installed.

The city has misrepresented itself here. I understand how the new lights are a boon to those who like to use the courts, but they are all benefitting from a huge error in the city's handling of a resident's concerns and a beligerent misuse of authority.

As far as I know, nobody ever asked the city to put those lights in, instead somebody did ask for a shade to be put on the existing lights. Perhaps a better analogy would be, a person moves into a house next to a field. The city assures the resident a park will be built there. instead, the city decides to build an airport.

Scott

 

 

Advertise Here!

Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo

istockphoto_12477899-big-head.jpg

For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!

Buynow