Avoiding glaring error

Baker County’s Planning Commission acted wisely in rejecting a proposed ordinance that would have outlawed mercury vapor lights in areas of the county outside city boundaries.

Although its putative goal is valid — reducing light pollution — the ordinance is so draconian in its details that planning commissioners could not in good faith have endorsed it.

The ordinance also would have mandated that residents who already have such lights — and there are many dozens — would have to remove them within five years.

Making the ban on mercury vapor lights retroactive is simply not fair.

Property owners who installed such lights followed the rules at the time; they don’t deserve to be burdened with the expense of replacing lights years or decades later.

The farmers and ranchers who testified during a planning commission hearing earlier this month laid out a compelling case for why lights are vital to their businesses.

Potato growers, for instance, sometimes work at night during the harvest.

Tractors and other equipment don’t break down only during daylight, nor do calves and lambs wait until day breaks to be born.

The proposed ordinance also could have caused problems for industrial concerns such as Ash Grove Cement.

Even without the farmers’ and ranchers’ anecdotes, though, the importance of lights is obvious — certainly no business owner would spend money on fixtures and on electricity to power them if the lights served no purpose.

Then too, we wonder how the county could afford to enforce an outdoor lighting ordinance. The rejected version of the law is silent on that crucial question.

We’re skeptical as well that the ordinance, even if rigorously enforced, would significantly curb light pollution.

After all, about 60 percent of the homes in the county are within the Baker City limits, and all would be exempt from a county ordinance.

And Baker City emits a much more noticeable glow than any rural property.

Our complaints notwithstanding, the concern about light pollution is both real and valid.

And we think it’s possible that the combination of technology and the generosity of county residents will achieve, at least partially, the objective stated in the ill-fated outdoor lighting ordinance.

As for technology, a local electrician, Kevin Kommer, told the planning commission that mercury vapor lights might over time be replaced by more efficient and cheaper types of fixtures.

The rejected ordinance would have required that outdoor lights “have directed shielding as to prevent direct light from the fixture from shining beyond the property limits where the fixture is installed.”

Although we oppose making shielding a legal requirement, the notion does make sense.

Property owners, after all, don’t intentionally “pollute” the sky with excess candlepower — they just need to see what they’re doing.

It seems to us reasonable for the county to encourage residents to consider cheap and easy ways to confine light where it’s needed. We suspect property owners will make those changes when feasible.

But mandating that they do so is a glaring example of the government exceeding its legitimate duties.