As a result of my Dark Skies, less government option Editorial last week, I received a little blowback.
However, the objections are not factual. Facts, not just everyone’s relative moralistic opinion. It is funny that Liberals always preach, Science, Science and more Science, presumably because it is factual, but contradict themselves with all other issues by asserting that Opinion is more relevant than Facts.
But, the argument came back that Dark Skies, as proposed, is “voluntary.” That is nonsense.
Clearly, if Dark Skies is voluntary, it would not require massive new Ordinances (local laws) to legally Establishing New Lighting LAWS.
Laws are not voluntary, they are solely to be enforced.
Even if you assume that the Staff at Cave Creek always chooses to Not enforce it’s own laws, if a neighbor files a complaint against you for your “lighting violation,” YOU are REQUIRED to Follow the Law, so it’s not voluntary.
Also, a complaint driven IDA scenario, would necessarily pit one neighbor against another and cause community derision.
Under my proposal, it is completely voluntary and encourages neighborly community cooperation, not whining at ones neighbor about excessive lighting.
Yes, okay, I agree the Town Does Not enforce Lighting and Bike lanes statutes or Sound and Native Habitat ordinances, so, using that as the assumption, why would we bother doing more Ordinances which The town will ignore anyway?
Gary Schmitt
Founder “Friends of Spur Cross Coalition”
