| Fort Bend County Precinct 1 Commissioner Tom Stavinoha said he still supports the proposed lighting ordinance for Fort Bend County Monday night, even after some residents voiced their opposition to the measure at a town hall-style meeting.
Stavinoha organized Monday's meeting, which included discussions by himself, Fort Bend County resident Phil Inderwiesen, who helped write the ordinance, and a number of opponents to the ordinance, including Needville resident George Isleib and Richmond resident Charles M. "Sonny" Harris.
Commissioners Court was scheduled to vote on the measure at 1 p.m. Tuesday in the Travis Building in Richmond.
Stavinoha told the meeting the passage of 2001's House Bill 164, introduced by District 27 State Rep. Dora Olivo, gives Fort Bend and Brazoria counties the ability to pass the ordinance.
Stavinoha said mercury vapor lights, which are popular in Fort Bend County "put out probably as much light sideways as they do going down."
Stavinoha said more and more lighting fixtures are advertised as "neighbor friendly," meaning they offer the shielding to protect others from light pollution. Stavinoha said mercury vapor lighting will phase itself out over the next few years, and that high pressure sodium lighting saves money over a year.
Stavinoha also stressed the greater target of the lighting ordinance will be new developments, and said he received much support from Greatwood and other neighborhoods.
Inderwiesen, a geophysicist with Chevron/Texaco, said a lot of misinformation had been spread on the ordinance.
Inderwiesen said the ordinance targets the unincorporated areas of the county because those are undergoing the greatest growth and will see the greatest increase of lighting.
Inderwiesen said the ordinance looks to allow Fort Bend County regulate the shielding and level of lighting in Fort Bend County.
"Without either, that represents a public safety hazard," he said.
Overlighting can result in wasted electricity and compounds glare, said Inderwiesen.
The push for lighting regulation actually began in 1999, said Inderwiesen, when the Texas Legislature passed a law regulating all lighting at outdoor facilities. Next came the 2001 House Bill pushed by Olivo, which Inderwiesen said was prompted by the proposed Grand Parkway, which would run through an area near the George Observatory.
Inderwiesen said he formed a committee, including opponents of the measure, to study the lighting ordinance and sought the review of national lighting experts.
Lighting ordinances have been implemented all over the country, including in Texas cities.
"It's not like we're doing ground-breaking stuff here," he said.
Inderwiesen argued the lighting ordinance will have a positive effect on property values, and said despite talk to the contrary, permits will not be required for lighting. Inderwiesen also said most homeowners will go unaffected.
Inderwiesen also explained why the lighting ordinance includes lighting zones, which ranks among the most controversial aspects of the ordinance.
Lighting Zone One, which contains the strictest lighting measures, lies in an area surrounding the Brazos Bend State Park, and extends miles beyond the George Observatory. Inderwiesen said this zone was created to preserve the park-like atmosphere in the Brazos Bend State Park and George Observatory, saying the park ranks as a major attraction and that land values will be preserved with the lighting ordinance.
Also, Zone One includes the proposed Long Point Landfill, and Inderwiesen said the lighting ordinance could hinder the operation of that facility.
Isleib, speaking against the ordinance, said the George Observatory users have been pushing the measure to take credit for creating the first such lighting ordinance in a Texas county. Stavinoha, said Isleib, has been pushing the ordinance only for the purpose of shutting down the Long Point Landfill and for no other reason.
Isleib said Inderwiesen is not a lighting engineer or lighting expert and criticized Stavinoha for changing positions on the matter, as he previously said he looked to push a lighting resolution rather than an ordinance.
"If this is such a great idea, why is support that weak?"
Isleib also criticized Stavinoha for relying on Inderwiesen and the George Observatory users in drafting the regulation, rather than his own staff or the county attorney's staff to develop the law.
Isleib noted that the Lighting Zone One ends just to the west of the proposed landfill.
"He's trying to use this as a zoning ordinance, and it's going to blow up in his face. He doesn't care how much it's going to cost you and me; he doesn't care how much it cost the county; he doesn't care that the county's going to end up in litigation on this thing."
Harris said District 27 lacks proper representation, and noted that Dora Olivo, a major player in the ordinance, did not attend the meeting. Harris said Olivo did not include cities in her law because that would bring too many problems.
Harris also said the city of Rosenberg prohibited him from speaking about it at a meeting, but let Inderwiesen and observatory users talk. Harris said claims by the proponents that Rosenberg's extraterritorial jurisdiction would not be affected represents misinformation, as the ETJ lies in the county's unincorporated zone.
Harris also criticized the county for their timing of the Feb. 24 vote, saying if he and Isleib did not speak out then, the ordinance would have passed.
"This law is not going to be the only law, either. This law is going to be added to as years go by," he said.
Harris also read a passage of the ordinance which said a stricter law may be passed in Lighting Zone One by agreement of the county commissioner of the precinct and the county judge.
Harris noted a portion of those speaking for the ordinance on Feb. 24 represent outsiders to Fort Bend County.
"This thing is a bad law," he said. "They can talk about light trespass, whatever. This is not only about the light."
Stavinoha, before the meeting ended, told the crowd he will change the passage criticized by Harris, saying he will change the wording such that the vote of the entire Commissioners Court will be required for changes to the ordinance.
A number of individuals speaking against the ordinance, said it infringes on individual freedoms.
"These people seeking to take away these God-given rights of liberty are abusers of liberty, and that, my friends, is tyranny," said John Seitz.
Proponents of the measure, however, countered the infringement of light from neighbors represents an infringement of freedom.
Other attendees against the measure expressed concern with the enforcement of the law, with some of them referring to a previous article in which Stavinoha said he will not pursue individuals so much as large businesses.
R.L. "Tiny" Gaston, a former law enforcement officer, said the law would be impossible to investigate and that "you can't do selective enforcement."
Stavinoha said after the meeting a large portion of the enforcement could be performed by the county's engineering office, as developers must seek plats through them.
Stavinoha said despite the opposition shown at the meeting, all the calls he received over the past few days on the measure have been supportive. He said he did not originally intend the lighting ordinance to be a measure to stop the Long Point Landfill, but since drafting the lighting zones, he does hope to take advantage of the regulations to prevent the facility from operating.
|
