Lighting proposal worthy of implementation

Story ran on Sunday, November 04 2001 in the Columbia Daily Tribune

Hank Waters, in panning the recommendations of both the Environment and Energy Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission for a reasonable city lighting policy, seemed to suggest that the proposal was unnecessary, void of historical discussion, without much public support and even intrusive on the part of local government. In the interest of throwing some light on the subject and furthering an informed and temperate debate, I offer some historical perspectives, state the case for modern, up-to-date lighting standards and propose a tour of "good" and "bad" examples of different types of lighting - commercial and street - so interested citizens might see both the problem and the solution for themselves.

Public discussion about the need to lessen glare, "light trespass" and energy consumption through a reasonable lighting policy goes back to at least 1992. During my nine years on the city council, I remember numerous instances when commercial development proposals were resisted, in part, because of neighborhood concerns about excessive lighting.

In fact, I do not recall any commercial development proposal being resisted with any degree of intensity where concerns about lighting were not expressed. Along with concerns about traffic congestion, density, loss of tree cover and signage, concerns about excessive lighting were always expressed. It was for this reason that council members generally agreed that a set of minimum standards for lighting would be useful, would save developers and taxpayers time and money and, in the end, would be good for Columbia.

I consider Columbia to be a relatively "evolved" city. By this I mean that Columbia, through its democratically elected, volunteer city council and other leaders, has taken responsibility for its quality of life. Columbia always, especially in the past 10 to 15 years, has both enjoyed the benefits and struggled with the problems of growth. We have seen how growth can compromise quality of life and have taken steps to ensure that our city’s unique character and sense of place are protected. Many cities have done more. Many have done less. Columbia has, in my view, adopted reasonable sign control, landscaping, tree preservation, storm-water management and open-space preservation/parks development strategies.

I can’t imagine that anyone, except perhaps the most reactionary among us, seriously believes these steps have in any way been detrimental to public safety or economic vitality.

Who among us would want to see another barren, treeless Osco Drug or Biscayne Mall parking lot or another ugly, cluttered Business Loop or return to a treeless, overhead-wire-disfigured downtown? Can anyone imagine Columbia without Cosmo Park or the MKT Trail? Even the Chamber of Commerce, a cautious and moderate group if there ever was one, implies support for these policies in its promotional literature: "You can come to Columbia, but don’t cut our trees!"

A commercial lighting ordinance is simply another step in Columbia’s evolution as a community that treasures its quality of life. Although the original proposal goes much further, the city council, with customary wisdom and moderation, has suggested that an ordinance first apply only to service station sites and canopies. This was done not arbitrarily but because recent service station canopy lighting has clearly been excessive and generated the most citizen complaints. Whether Columbia’s policy eventually applies to other commercial sites and to city streetlights remains to be seen. Many cities have done more. Many have done less. As usual, Columbia will probably end up somewhere in between.

Now, for those interested enough to take the time to go see for themselves, I would like to provide some examples of appropriate and effective lighting, as well as some of excessive and inappropriate lighting:

Appropriate lighting - would comply with proposed policy

MFA grounds and parking lot on Stadium Boulevard west of Highway 63.

● Sinclair station on Stadium Boulevard at Rollins Street.

● All businesses and streetlights at and near the intersection of Chapel Hill Road and Forum Boulevard.

● Schlotzsky’s Deli on Clark Lane near Home Depot.

● MU Sports Park buildings on the southwest corner of Stadium Boulevard and Providence Road.

● Streetlights on Chapel Hill Road west of Grant Lane.

Excessive Lighting - would not comply with proposed policy

Phillips 66 stations on Nifong Boulevard east and west of Providence Road.

● Texaco station at Interstate 70 and Lake of the Woods Road.

● Texaco station at College Avenue and Paris Road.

● Forum Shopping Center.

● Streetlights on Bethel Road south of Green Meadows.

I hope readers will take a drive some beautiful moonlit night and look at the above examples of "good" and "bad" lighting. I believe those who do will see that most commercial sites already comply, that effective and attractive lighting does not compromise public safety and that the proposal before the city council is a reasonable addition to Columbia’s tool kit of quality-of-life-enhancing policies.