Yesterday I was talking to our ex-Mayor (she helped with the submission about light reduction in our town when she was Mayor).
The current news is that next month, council is having a meeting about our Snake Valley Streetlight Plan
Apparently, the quotes are in to replace the 16 streetlights (that's about all we have) with full cut-off lights
Thank you to all the folks that sent their emails of support through to help with this submission (you all know who you are) and to Ian (gaa-ian) for the information he sent through.
Once the lights are changed, we will be registering with the 'Dark Sky Town' register
Our little dark town of Snake Valley is going to get darker
It has taken about a year, but we are nearly there
That is fantastic news. If other councils could just follow suit, especially if it could be shown that less energy is required to light a particular area they may eventually come to the party.
Snake Valley would appear to have an advantage - "security" isn't a significant issue, thankfully. I know that is one argument for lighting in larger centres.
That is fantastic news. If other councils could just follow suit, especially if it could be shown that less energy is required to light a particular area they may eventually come to the party.
Councils tend to do what other council do. Especially if it makes them look good in publicity.
We will be getting our town mentioned on the news. Hopefully it may pressure other councils to follow.
But the trick is, never say 'Light Pollution' or say it is for Astronomy.
It is for the environment and energy saving! And call it Obtrusive lighting.
Good onyer Snake Valley! Its good to hear of a success with reducing unneccessary lights.
Not much chance of that happening in Coota though, as I'm beginning to think I'm the only astronomer in town and it wouldn't be a priority for our council, unless someone was going to make a quid out of it. (Sorry, my cynisism re politicians is showing again)
But the trick is, never say 'Light Pollution' or say it is for Astronomy.
It is for the environment and energy saving! And call it Obtrusive lighting.
My thoughts exactly. If you mention "light pollution" most people will think you are just doing it for yourself as they don't even know that light pollution exists. If the main argument is to save energy, and it can be backed up with figures, you would be more likely to succeed! Or if the lighting produces less glare, making it safer for driving you are also on a winner. Darker skies is just a side effect...
Good onyer Snake Valley! Its good to hear of a success with reducing unneccessary lights.
Not much chance of that happening in Coota though, as I'm beginning to think I'm the only astronomer in town and it wouldn't be a priority for our council, unless someone was going to make a quid out of it. (Sorry, my cynisism re politicians is showing again)
Bill
If you have any Greenies in town, they'll will help you.
Get them to help you with a submission. They can use the environment side of the story, how Obtrusive lighting affects wildlife. Get energy conscious people to hit the 'Energy' side (Full cut-off lights use less power!).
And use the Astronomy side also (but not as the 'Main' benefit). "While saving energy and restoring the Eco-system, we will also regain the night sky in all its beauty".
Push the road safety angle (our council liked that one!). Full cut-off lights reduce streetlight glare for drivers, especially on rainy nights.
Use samples like these to show them:
1. Close lights are Normal, far lights are 'Full Cut-off',
2. No Glare from 'Full Cut-off' compared to Glare from Normal.
and it wouldn't be a priority for our council, unless someone was going to make a quid out of it. (Sorry, my cynisism re politicians is showing again) 
