Some in Neighborhood wanting Street lights

[Zigner]

The problem is that you can't force somebody to vote. You wish to assume a non-vote = a no vote. They want to assume a non-vote = a yes vote. Personally, I would remove the non-voter from the equation entirely (ie: if there are 30 houses and only 19 vote, then you would need 10 or more "yes" votes in order to move forward with it)

 

[rlsebring]

The problem is that you can't force somebody to vote. You wish to assume a non-vote = a no vote. They want to assume a non-vote = a yes vote. Personally, I would remove the non-voter from the equation entirely (ie: if there are 30 houses and only 19 vote, then you would need 10 or more "yes" votes in order to move forward with it)

I'm not surprised by how little info is out there. I know most neighborhoods the developer does all this and you either buy into it or not. For existing neighborhoods it seems to be fairly fresh ground, at least around here. I own other property where the development had fancy lighting, special matching mailboxes, etc... And I knew that going in. I live in this neighborhood for a reason...

I guess on the percentages I'll have to look at the Philosophy of the numbers. There are already 9 or 10 out of the 40 homes that are in favor. Now how hard will it be to get another 10 or 12 is anyone’s guess at the moment. The ones showing up at the meetings may be all the support there is. Naturally I like for the absentee homeowner to count as a NO vote or at least get a proxy to vote for them.

Robert

 

[FarmerJ]

Robert I feel for you about the not wanting to pay , personally it took a bit of getting used to moving from MPLS and all the lighting there to a rural area far enough north that I can easily see so called urban glow in the southern skies at night. I like it dark at night, I like having a full view of the stars dang near every night. BUT even if this doesnt pass you risk that others will add evil dawn to dusk lighting yes at their own expense. SO heres another approach to learn how many of the street lights will have to have underground lines to serve them and learn how much the average is per ft to install underground wire. Dont even bring up overhead wire cost in meetings see my thinking is so many areas now require underground install of service lines to homes I cant help but wonder if the same rule would apply street lighting wich could shoot the cost way up. If you offer enough information to other owners as to why the cost of this is just not a good thing at this time ( remind them by asking `with economy the way it is can they really afford special assessments right now`) you may be able to stall it until the future if not totally kill it. (well lit areas at night dont stop day time break ins either when so many areas have no one home during work -school hours)

 

[rlsebring]

Well the neighbors managed to get the minimum required signatures to move this item to the County commisioners meeting on Nov 17th. Can't say just how appropriate the voting was but according to the county doesn't matter to them as long as they have the signatures and they indicated that unless there is legal precedent to the contray they most likely will approve the project.

These same neighbors are talking getting an HOA started again. The old ones been expired for close to 15 years.

 

[154NH773]

they indicated that unless there is legal precedent to the contray they most likely will approve the project.

If you really don't want the streetlights, make it more difficult for the commissioners to make their decision.

There are a number of sources for material to raise questions on the matter of light polution, lack of safety outcomes, etc.

You will have to make a presentation to the commissioners, calling into question the reasonableness of the lighting request, and the detriment to those opposed.

Try the sights at: and [url=http://www.darkskysociety.org] to begin. Search the web for additional backup information.

 

[rlsebring]

If you really don't want the streetlights, make it more difficult for the commissioners to make their decision.

There are a number of sources for material to raise questions on the matter of light polution, lack of safety outcomes, etc.

You will have to make a presentation to the commissioners, calling into question the reasonableness of the lighting request, and the detriment to those opposed.

Try the sights at: and [url=http://www.darkskysociety.org] to begin. Search the web for additional backup information.

Thanks for the links. I am going to look into this further. Others had mentioned the light pollute angle and at first I thought is was kinda of hokie but is seeming more and more a viable approach.

 

[154NH773]

These same neighbors are talking getting an HOA started again. The old ones been expired for close to 15 years.

I'm not sure how an HOA can "expire". There is either a deed requirement for membership and participation, or there isn't. The fact that an existing requirement for an HOA is not currently being exercised doesn't mean that the requirement doesn't exist. Check your deed to see if you have a requirement to support an HOA.

If the HOA is voluntary, then you are not obligated to join, participate, or pay any dues or assessment.

 

[rlsebring]

I'm not sure how an HOA can "expire". There is either a deed requirement for membership and participation, or there isn't. The fact that an existing requirement for an HOA is not currently being exercised doesn't mean that the requirement doesn't exist. Check your deed to see if you have a requirement to support an HOA.

If the HOA is voluntary, then you are not obligated to join, participate, or pay any dues or assessment.

Here at least the HOA along with the restrictive covenants were good for 20 years. It expired with no attempt to renew. It's in the HOA/Covenant book at the County records. The other subdivision properties I own have the same provisions. Maybe it a state statute thing.

There was a big stink when the last newest house was built and they didn't have to abide by the old covenant.

 

[rlsebring]

If you really don't want the streetlights, make it more difficult for the commissioners to make their decision.

There are a number of sources for material to raise questions on the matter of light polution, lack of safety outcomes, etc.

You will have to make a presentation to the commissioners, calling into question the reasonableness of the lighting request, and the detriment to those opposed.

Try the sights at: and [url=http://www.darkskysociety.org] to begin. Search the web for additional backup information.

Well they installed the street lighting today. 9 days prior to the county commissioners hearing to hear our objections to the lighting and to decide whether to accept the street lighting proposal. I guess that kicks Due Process in the head.

 

[Silverplum]

There's nothing about your story or your neighbors' actions that are socialistic in nature.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

Some owners in my neighborhood are trying to get street lights throughout the neighborhood. These owners are taking the approach of trying to get the required 55% of the neighbors sign a petition to take to the County Board to get an MSBU district formed.

My concern is if they are sucessful in getting 55%, 45% of the owners that did not want the lights are going to be forced to pay for something they don't want and to top it off will show up on their property tax bills.

As you may have guessed I don not want the lights. I've lived in this neighborhood for 16 years. It really chafes me to be forced to pay for something I do not want.

As a foot note, If the 55% want street lights they can pay for them OR if any individual wants them, fine.

I am trying to draw out any of the other neighbors that don't want them to make their voice heard but is there any recourse if they are sucessful or am I now a member of a socialist neighborhood?

 

[154NH773]

Well they installed the street lighting today. 9 days prior to the county commissioners hearing to hear our objections to the lighting and to decide whether to accept the street lighting proposal. I guess that kicks Due Process in the head.

Not necessarily. There may be no requirement for public input into the installation of streetlights. That may be a public safety matter that can be decided by elected officials, or delegated to a public department.
If you feel that public input was required, find the law that states so and file an appeal with the proper court or other body that has jurisdiction.

In my neighboring town the councilmen decided which streetlights would be installed after receiving public comment. They were not bound by the comments and made the decision by themselves.

 

[rlsebring]

Not necessarily. There may be no requirement for public input into the installation of streetlights. That may be a public safety matter that can be decided by elected officials, or delegated to a public department.
If you feel that public input was required, find the law that states so and file an appeal with the proper court or other body that has jurisdiction.

In my neighboring town the councilmen decided which streetlights would be installed after receiving public comment. They were not bound by the comments and made the decision by themselves.

I see what you mean. They did invite public input but certainly not bound by it. Pretty much stated in the county ordinaces that they usually approve 99% of the lighting projects based soley on the 55% vote of the neighbors. Doesn't matter how the petition made it to them though...

After raising so much hell yesterday the power company came out and are removing the poles as I type. Said it was a mistake on their part. But did say they'll see me in a couple of weeks.

 

[!CuriousGeorge!]

You should lobby your commissioners prior to the 17th. Lights are nothing, where I am they wanted to install the dreaded red light cameras.

I discovered that the person who wanted the cameras said he was only worried about his little girl walking down the street. I would say that getting hit by a car would only be one concern of his and rapists, child abductors etc may be a bigger concern for the guy.

Anyway, all the insurance crap was shown at the hearing and I presented a better alternative to solving collisions at intersections...roundabouts which are 400% more effective than red light cameras.

Since I had exposed the members to this fact and spoke to many of them before the public meeting they then addressed this possibility with the use of roundabouts v. cameras. Then he started talking about the $$ the cameras would bring in, showing his true colors. The cameras were not approved.

So look for alternatives to lighting. Know what the proponents see as the advantages of the system and look not only for issues with the lighting but also of alternatives that may be possible to achieve the same goals.

It could be that more police patrols would have a greater affect for less cost.

 

[rlsebring]

Good response! I hadn't thought about the other 5 or so commissioners. Out district rep won't just openly talk to me about it prior to the hearing although his staff has worked very close with the person in the neighborhood is getting the MSBU project this far.

I'll at least email the other commissioners so they have my opinion in advance even if they won't discuss it.

I've made notes from the first neighborhood watch meeting about the concerns of theneighbors wanting the lights. They vary wildly but all are in their on interest and not in the interest of the neighborhood as a whole.

I'm really down to the individual reasons as an angle to approach. I've looked at the crime aspect and their seems to be as many studies saying it helps, is neutral or encourages more crime.

I would think that the neighbors having their own lights installed to address their own concerns would be the better good than causing this friction within the neighborhood. They can get the exact smae lighting for about 3.00 more per month individually and actually have more lighting in the neighborhood.

You should lobby your commissioners prior to the 17th. Lights are nothing, where I am they wanted to install the dreaded red light cameras.

I discovered that the person who wanted the cameras said he was only worried about his little girl walking down the street. I would say that getting hit by a car would only be one concern of his and rapists, child abductors etc may be a bigger concern for the guy.

Anyway, all the insurance crap was shown at the hearing and I presented a better alternative to solving collisions at intersections...roundabouts which are 400% more effective than red light cameras.

Since I had exposed the members to this fact and spoke to many of them before the public meeting they then addressed this possibility with the use of roundabouts v. cameras. Then he started talking about the $$ the cameras would bring in, showing his true colors. The cameras were not approved.

So look for alternatives to lighting. Know what the proponents see as the advantages of the system and look not only for issues with the lighting but also of alternatives that may be possible to achieve the same goals.

It could be that more police patrols would have a greater affect for less cost.

 

[FarmerJ]

Living in a rural area I can say lighting does not do much to deter break ins since many happen in day times with homes that have one heck of alot of space between them and are more likely to be broken into simply because no one is home and no nbrs. Same deal with lots of houses in burbs , NO ONE is home in day time so in some areas day time break ins are bigger problem. as far as night time and things like intersections signage with extra reflective material may be better choice and as far as things like people walking at night old fashion common sense (light color or white jacket improves visibility , working nights i see folks walking and riding bike all the time after dark while on way to work on roads that are 55 mph and wear nothing to help them be seen) by chance any areas near you that you can use actual statistics as comparison like towns or citys with little to no street lighting ?