Lots of resentment about  special taxes being presented as “fees”.

Even more a tangent than the parent comment here, but at some point there should be citizen discussion of a stop sign at 110th and Hwy 246. CR 1 (110th east of the intersection) and MN 246 have about the same amount of traffic, but CR 81 (west of the intersection) has a tiny fraction — that is, most traffic is turning. With the added complication of the fifth road and the need to calm traffic entering town, it seems a four-way stop would be beneficial. (Rice County’s long-term plan for the intersection is a roundabout, but with an emphasis on long-term.)

The only streets I’m aware of that are significantly lit up midblock are Highway 3 (especially necessary where bike lanes are present) and Division Street (an obviously pedestrian-oriented area).

Ditto what William wrote.  This is not something that keeps me awake at night, though I would imagine excessive ambient light from outside might actually keep some people awake at night.  Undies are not bunched up here.

I’m not saying some lighting isn’t necessary, but I would argue that lighting is not as effective as we (or Clarkson or Carleton or etc… pretty much all colleges have the same things in their student handbooks) would believe in reducing crime and accidents.  A friend of mine posited that a criminal is far more noticeable if he has to carry a flashlight to break into a business than if he simply uses the light being conveniently provided by the establishment itself.

You are also assuming that whoever stole from your family’s farm all those years ago would not have been able to do so had there been lights.  That would presume that some member of the family was awake watching for thieves every night.  I grew up (mostly) in the country too, and darkness is a prized rural characteristic.  One that should be preserved.

No one is suggesting that some amount of safety and/or security lighting is appropriate.  But suggesting that those who question “how much”  are somehow silly, simply reflects your lack of knowledge regarding the issue.

William- I grew up in the country because my family farmed. It really upset my father when someone came on the farm at night and stole something. Where I grew up, a good watch dog was a must. The only problem was if the dog decided to go on a nocturnal hunting expedition. The advent of the mercury lights was a real godsend for security. I really don’t care what the urbanites use as a reason to move to the country. There are some realities of living there that need to be considered.

Brandon- I lifted this quote from the 2009 handbook for Clarkson university. I think it is some good advice.
? Don’t walk alone at night. Walk in well-lighted areas and avoid shortcuts through deserted streets,

wooded areas, dark alleys or parking lots.
You can read the whole handbook at this site.
http://www.clarkson.edu/campussafety/pdf/safety_brochure.pdf

It is often amusing over what issues people get their undies in a bunch, but I must admit, this street light issue takes the cake for me. The whole world is going to the hot place in a handbasket, and were honestly wringing our hands over streetlights? Sorry if I offended anyone with that opinion, but I have a hard time taking some of this seriously. 

I think the argument some folks were making a few years back here at Carleton -- apart from the light pollution complaints -- was that well-lit areas and buildings do not necessarily experience less crime than dark areas and buildings.   I do not know if that’s true, but it’s the argument I remember some people making about lighting issues on campus.

John…I’m aware of your world view…but in this case, you don’t have to worry about the ‘darknesss’. 
As to mercury vapor lights on farms:  I thought one reason people lived in the country was to be close to nature???  Isn’t darkness natural?  If you have people lurking around the farm at night…get a couple junkyard dogs.

I’m wondering what happens if folks just refuse to pay the streetlight fee?  The City shuts off the light nearest your residence?  Hooray!

I like it!  All politics is local, after all, and it doesn’t get any local-er than that!

That’s a win/win/win situation: the City cuts energy and maintenance costs / we cut light pollution / and I don’t pay the fee!

How about a movement to save energy, cut city budgets, and beautify the city night by turning off street lights?

I am not particularly upset about a streetlight fee -- given the cuts in state aid, and the need to preserve city services.

However, I completely agree with the goal of minimizing the installation/use of city lights.   The night sky is beautiful, and eyes adjust quite well to the relative darkness of the night -- unless, of course, they’ve been repeatedly exposed to the pools of light under the streetlights.

When I’m driving in town, the slanting light from overhead lamps often causes excessive windshield glare and temporarily makes it harder to see the road or pedestrians.  I’m assuming that happens to many drivers.  The constant transitions from light to dark also plays with my eyes.  Adjust, readjust, adjust…

Just my observations of the difficulties that street lighting causes when I’m driving.  I’d much rather drive in darkness using only headlights.

As one who runs at night, apart from the random morons who shout things at you from passing cars, I worry every time as I’m entering a pool of light that an oncoming car is being partially blinded by that same light.

It seems to me that if the city wants to charge me for a streetlight next to or near my house, I, along with my neighbors, should have the right to tell the city to turn the damn thing off. 

What is not understandable, is once again, the lack of  underlying POLICY discussion when a staff suggestion comes to the Council… and if I may say so, “trust” only in the Staff, and a lack of “candor”  with the citizenry, as least as exhibited by their lack of discussion of differing opinions  at council meetings, when a controversial subject arises.

Here’s an example of an outcome:

At the  regular monthly Tuesday AM NDDC Forum, Dr. David Anderson (Pres of StO) was the speaker. He carefully , thoroughly explained  the St Olaf financing structure. He emphasized, repeatedly, that 70 cents of every 1.00 of revenue that StOlaf receives comes from the revenues from students, tuition, etc. And that 70 cents FROM the STUDENTS is why he feels such a deep responsibility to consider THEIR return on investment.

At the very end of his presentation, when an audience member asked him about further facilitating the relationship between the college and the city, Dr. Anderson replied that he values “…Trust and candor”.

He then recounted being invited to lunch last summer by the City  Administrator and the Mayor, where there was general “happy talk” (my shorthand; not his words). The very next morning, the article about the streetlight utility fees appeared on the NFNews front page.

The “trust and candor”  verbiage he had just stated was not lost on anyone.

Well, maybe it was, because Councilor Pownell said:  Oh, but Dr. Anderson, Mr. Walinski and Mayor Rossing did not know that was going to be on the newspaper’s front page, and I was assured they apologized to you… ( by whom, I personally wonder? )

Dr. Anderson leaned on the front row chair, looked pointedly at  Ms. Pownell, and said “If they did,  it has not yet reached me”.

Trust and candor… valuable principles to be included in any relationship.