Dark skies are all that I see

I can see the argument that says Kyle residents have the right to see for themselves if, indeed, the stars at night are big and bright deep in the heart of Texas.

And that’s the idea behind a proposed ordinance discussed at the most superficial level this evening by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The proposal, according to the City’s staff, addressed five objectives:

!. Permit the use of outdoor lighting that does not exceed the minimum levels specified in the illuminating Engineering Society recommended practices for nighttime safety, utility, security, productivity, enjoyment and commerce.

2. Minimize adverse offsite impacts of lighting such as light trespass, and obtrusive light.

3. Curtail light pollution, reduce skyglow and improve the nighttime environment for astronomy.

4. Help protect the natural environment from the adverse effects of night lighting from gas or electric sources.

5. Conserve energy and resources to the greatest extent possible.

All that’s fine as far as it goes, but as there’s also the "one man’s meat is another man’s poison" adage.

Let me give you just one example. I was leafing through the materials the staff distributed to the P&Z commissioners when I came to page 13 and discovered a picture of an outdoor lighting fixture that was labeled "prohibited," but one that was actually required to be installed by residents by the Homeowners Association that set the rules for my previous domicile. And the reason the HOA required this type of mercury vapor fixture was exactly the same as the reason the Kyle City staff wants to prohibit it: because it emits a lot of light.

The argument for the comparatively high intensity light is the same reason you’ll hear from a lot of folks for whom public safety is higher on their priority scale than stargazing. Now the stargazers will point to studies that indicate brightly lit areas don’t deter crime, but those studies don’t address the type of crime most homeowners are concerned about, namely breaking and entering. The studies the stargazers point to are ones in which the victims and the perps are both exposed to the same light, but what HOAs are interested in protecting are those homes where burglars much prefer ro operate under the cover of darkness.

I’m not taking sides one way or the other on this ordinance. I’m just saying there are two legitimate sides to the argument over lighting and when it comes to safety I’m betting an overwhelming number of Kyle residents feel more safe in well-lit areas than in dark ones.

That’s all I’m saying.

One other bone to pick. I’m betting staff knew prior to Friday it planned to bring this proposed dark skies ordinance to the attention of the Planning & Zoning Commission and I find it mystifying the agenda for tonight’s workshop simply listed "Discussion regarding potential text revisions and amendments to the Code of Ordinance" instead of the more specific "Discussion regarding proposed regulations for outdoor lighting." The City is often being accused of not being transparent and this is one of those instances where that accusation is painfully accurate and embarrassingly right on the mark.

In other action this evening, the Planning and Zoning recommended 4-1 (commissioners Mike Rubsam and Allison Wilson were absent) the Council approve amending an ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and vendors with the notation that the commissioners could not come to an agreement over how long a mobile food vendor can remain in one location. Community Development Director Howard Koontz went to great lengths to point out that the proposed changes had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with food truck parks that may or may not be established in Kyle.

The purpose of the ordinance in question, Koontz said, was to regulate "temporary and mobile and non-permanent and short-term (food vendiors) and not necessarily anything that facilitates the idea of somebody developing something at as temporary standard used in a permanent manner."

Koontz said he envisions that he will be returning to P&Z to take up the discussion of permanent food truck parks in the city.

"I think it’s eventually going to happen that we’re going to enable food parks," he told the commissioners. "We’ll have a series of metrics prescribed — the minimum size of the lot, the density of vendors, requirements for bathrooms and utilities. That’s going to take a little more introspection and investigation to write that all up."

Commissioner Brad Growt was the one "no" vote on the commission, which he cast, he said, "because I didn’t like how the ordinance was written. I didn’t like the way it was organized. I thought it was unclear. I think it’s going to end up causing confusion."

He did not say, however, why he didn’t offer changes to the ordinance to make it better written and organized with increased clarity that might possibly eliminate or at least reduce confusion.

But you can’t have everything.