The White Rock Lake Light Controversy
Submitted by Allen Gwinn on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 20:07.
Thursday night at Winfrey Point
7:00 - We arrived a little late, but the city's electrical engineer was giving an overview of the lighting systems and how/why they were chosen.
A little background: the lights in question are 20-foot tall, 60-foot spaced (thanks for the correction on this, Chip) lights that are designed to provide lighting to low-light areas around White Rock Lake. Residents, and other interested parties are concerned that there are too many lights and that the "light pollution" will destroy the nighttime beauty of the lake.
The engineer is explaining that there is a 1-foot-candle requirement for lighting at the lake. There is also, apparently, a security issue driving the lights. Exactly what security issue there is, has not been defined.
All the press is here. So this is going to be well covered at 10:00 tonight.
One resident noted: "there is a nationwide movement against putting lights" in certain areas. As to the security issue, he noted "lights don't make me feel any safer."
Up now: Chief Easterling who is "committed to safety" around White Rock Lake.
"The lake is a very safe place to come, by and large."
As far as the lighting goes, "lighting does help with increasing safety."
One person asked "what crime are we seeing late at night that these lights are going to change."
Easterling admitted that the crimes occurred mainly during daylight hours and were primarily vehicle burglaries.
We asked what metrics were used to determine why these lights needed to be placed. Easterling referred us to the city's enginners who, apparently, made the decisions to buy and deploy expensive lights.
"I don't think that anyone has said that the lighting would reduce crime," added Easterling.
We haven't even been able to ask the question as to whether there is a less-expensive alternative to the solution being proposed.
One man noted that there have been recent studies from the Department of Justice saying that lighting is inconclusive with respect to crime-fighting value. "Some cities are even turning off lights." (more information at this link)
"It didn't help Northpark," added one woman, "and it's fully lit."
But, as one of the engineers noted, if you choose to light a parking lot, there are standards to which the city must adhere.
One resident (an expert) is talking about putting up thermal imaging to video the park in lieu of lighting.
The issues really boil down to:
- Light pollution - What will the lighting actually do to the lake?
- Environmental impact - Has there been a study?
- Crime - Do lights really reduce crime, and what supporting evidence is there?
- Alternatives - Are there any?
So are there going to be lights in places other than the parking lots such as on the trails?
"Not after tonight, I don't think so," answered one of the city staffers.
It ended with Sheffie Kadane agreeing to work on a master plan for the lighting around White Rock Lake.
But this story is still developing!
Original story:
For neighbors living around White Rock Lake, their nighttime view of the lake (as well as a quiet moonlit evening) may soon be history.
Dallas has begun installing security lights in parking lots and on the East side of the lake.
So, who pushed the new security lights to soon ring White Rock Lake? Turns out, it may be a slick sales job by a lighting contractor and may cost millions after new wiring is run to power the 90-100 lights planned for installation in the next couple of years.
According to Chip Northrup, this is basically "a case of a consultant to Parks writing themselves into a bond issue - as a vendor."
White Rock Lake and Common Sense
Simple solutions demand simple minds! Being the proud owner of just such a simple mind, lets look at crime, White Rock Lake, Lights, and traffic patterns.
When the city of Dallas, the City Parks Dept. , or who ever, closed White Rock as a thorough fare,
ie cant drive around the entire lake on a sunday afternoon any more, what happened ? Dead ends into unlit areas! Bottlenecks into dead ends that make it difficult and time consuming for DPD to patrol!
Making areas of the lake, remote venues.
Now the Parks Dept. and a really good salesman have convinced the city to add LIGHTING as a way to make the lake safer, while ignoring the truly obvious thing that would once again make the lake safer for all at ZERO expense. While pedestrians, joggers and bicycle riders have complete access to the entire perimeter of the lake, drivers and the police have bottlenecks and dead ends. Seems pretty obvious that the city has made it real easy for people who break into vehicles at places like the Bathhouse, etc. where you end up at a dead end. With an open roadway, like smart people designed it to be, and a steady traffic flow for all around the lake, how likely is it that the perps who commit these crimes at the lake, would go unseen by some one?
How about if the folks who created this silly problem, fess up, and lets go back to what used to work! Then again, simple things dont seem to work for the duly elected who wish to govern, not represent!
White Rock Lake And Common Sense
The common sense approach would have started with the White Rock Lake Master Plan - which calls for no trail lighting at all
And very discrete lighting in the parking lots - as pointed out by the President of the Peninsula Neighborhood Association.
The Master Plan’s section on Lighting Design Guidelines states that “lighting should be carefully planned so that it appears to take a very minor role in the Park environment.”
Not, as Councilman Kadane pointed out, for a parking lot to be “lit up like a ball diamond”.
To accomplish this, the Master Plan requires the following:
1. Fixtures should be shielded to minimize light pollution
2. The number of fixtures should be minimal
3. Use concealed light sources – including placement in trees
4. Locate power supplies, ballasts, etc. underground
5. Metal halide or mercury vapor bulbs
Lights for parking lots are required to be “down lights” whose “fixture should . . . minimize light pollution near residential areas.”
Simply put, the fixtures should not pollute horizontally – sideways – across the lake or into the neighborhoods.
And lights along the lakeside “should be located near existing or newly planted trees to minimize the fixture profile along the lake shore” .
None of these guidelines were observed by the Parks Department Architect. Or the salesman that sold him the wrong fixtures.
White Rock Crime Lights
Once word got out on this, Sheffie Kadane called a neighborhood meeting
May 22 7:30 at Winfrey Point -
So that neighbors and neighborhoods can finally get their word in on.
Parks will turn on the lot south of Fisher Road on W Lawther at 8:00 on the 22nd
So that neighbors can get an idea of what 150 + crime lots will look like = a bunch of motel parking lots
http://news.dallasobserver.com/2008-05-01/news/white-rock-lake-neighbors...
Environmental Study?
Did the City do an environmental study to examine the effect of light on protected bird species.ie herons, egrets, warblers, etc?
[Ed Note: Hey Paul! Good to hear from you again! Hope you're doing well.]
Environmental Study
Birds are very sensitive to any change in environment, and an environmental study would surely be required, I would think.
White Rock Lighting
I live in the white rock area and can't believe this is happening. What can we do to help?
[Ed Note: Just show up at the meeting, and calmly voice concerns.]
White Rock Crime Lights
Good question.
The group "For the Love of the Lake" specifically asked about this when the scheme was first proposed.
Short answer is that Parks never took wildlife into consideration, much less the natural beauty of the lakeside.
This is simply a case of a lighting contractor and some complicit Parks staffers pushing the maximum number of lights possible as close to the lakeside as possible. With money taken from the spillway project and some bond funds.
For the benefit of the contractor and the aggrandizement of a handful of advocates + Park's staff.
Since the most common crime at the lake is BMV, these lights would simply enable a burglar to see into cars at night to burglarize them. So totally counterproductive. (Security cameras a better deterrent)
There is no justification for putting lights along the lake front trails = it harms the environment and the views.
Since I have been back in
Since I have been back in Dallas, the people of Lakewood and White Rock Lake have always felt that they are superior and that when things begin to change that they didn't propose there is some type of conspiracy theory out there.
If/when women start getting raped in the park because it's dark and the perfect location for crime...But it's White Rock and nothing bad ever happens there right?
[Ed Note: This doesn't have anything to do with the lighting or lack thereof. This has to do with a slick sales job by a lighting vendor.]
Since I Have Been Back
Since you have been back - "JTF" - you might want to do some more homework on this.
The last rape at WRL was during the day.
The last murder was in a well-lit parking lot.
So much for anecdotal evidence.
Crime at WRL is predominately BMV - during the day - per the police at the meeting, per the stats.
Put out enough lights - and BMV will become a night time crime - in the lakeside parking lots
As someone asked at the meeting - "If you put in these lights and crime goes up at night, would you remove them ?"
Parks was dumbfounded by this - could not answer.
As Allen points out - this was a slick sales job by some lighting vendors - who sold it playing on "insecurities"
Then got the contract for "special" fixtures - from one supplier. Halliburton comes to White Rock.
That's what went on here. Allen was the only person in the room to ask about how this project got bid . . . .
What Others Say About Lights
The other people say that their concerns is that the wildlife would be effected.
[Ed Note: I think people are worried more about "light pollution" -- but the real issue is the sales job.]
White Rock Lights Sales Job
The real issue is the sales job done by the lighting company as chronicled here =
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/05/bad_lights_at_white_r...
The comments about lighting the trails, etc. are moot = there won't be any trail lights
The Big Lie about "security "was part of the sales pitch = lights won't reduce crime in the park.
hief Easterling admitted as much at the meeting
At the end of the meeting, Parks could not offer any plausible justifications for lighting up the shoreline
If you want to be involved in the new revised plan - email Sheffie
If District 9 doesn't want
If District 9 doesn't want the lights, we'll take them in Oak Cliff.
Michael Davis
Dallas Progress
If District 9 Doesn't Want Them
Michael - your Councilman came to the meeting.
And said he would like these lights in Oak Cliff - and we said in unison - "they're yours"
They are classic street corner lights - intended for high traffic, urban street corners - like Jefferson Blvd. etc.
So would look great over there. Put out a lot of light. Way lot of light.
Paid for. Ready to install. Real beauties. Fresh out of the box. "Like new"
Tell Councilman Neuman you want them. He can make a deal with Sheffie and Parks.
We'll all be better off for it.
Good luck.
Light = Better Aim
More light in Oak Cliff will only lead to better aim. I am sure that the area is pretty safe without the light. If I was to drive to a public park in the middle of the night. Which I do not do, but I am guessing it is to get drunk, high, or depressed.
Let it be dark. There are enough other well lit venues for folks that are not choosing to hang out in dark public parks in the middle of night.
I can barely sleep at night for all the light here in my neck of Oak Cliff. If folks are going to steal my stuff, the tend to do it in the broad daylight when I am at work.
Save cash and have cops sweep through the park on 30 to 90 minute rotations, shine the spot and move every body out.
We do want them in District 9
We do want the lights at White Rock Lake. Unfortunately, there is always a select few who feel change is not good and feel they "own" the lake. For example, I won't mention any names, but one person feels its necessary to only voice negativity regarding the lights at White Rock Lake. Interestingly, he mentioned the effects on the environment when he felt it necessary to cut down a large tree in White Rock Lake park (across from his home)on New Years Day last year. When the workers cutting the large tree down were questioned about the tree and who they were employeed by, they pointed to this persons home. When the city paid a visit to him regarding the removal of the tree from the park he slammed the door in their face. So he believes the lights are harming the environment, he harmed it when he cut down the tree in the park. Lights will deter crime. They will deter the constant tagging at the lake. Runners will no longer fall while running because we can see (yes, we do run in the morning before the sun comes up). The park is public property and belongs to the entire city. Thank you to Sheffie, the police and the parks department for implementing all tools available to them to make 'OUR' lake a safer place for everyone.
Nancy Wilson
Lighting increases crime
Read your studies on line, lighting increases crime. Drug dealers to not want to show up with flashlights, they look obvious, but put a lighted parking lot on the lake, and they blend in. Just doing business. By the way, if you jog in the park in the dark, chances are you are violating the 6 am curfew.
The park is one of the only natural spaces that all can treasure in Dallas. All of Dallas is attracted by the beauty. Putting 152 orange lights around this park with poles that are 20 feet tall is not a green idea. It will not make it safer. Police make the park safer. The beauty of the shoreline at night with the stars and wildlife should be preserved. Those who live near this park perhaps understand how light pollution will ruin one of the few refuges left for city folk!
[Ed Note: I'm beginning to become intrigued with the (seemingly substantial) notion that lighting, under certain conditions, seems to increase crime by attracting those who otherwise wouldn't be there. There seems to be quite a bit of substance to the argument.
As the parks people noted, they're going to turn the lights off anyway after a certain time. Given that there's virtually no night-time crime in the park, we need to ask ourselves what problem we're actually trying to solve here.
For instance, it might make a really good study to compare the next 2-3 years crime with crime stats before lighting was installed. I wonder if we're going to be surprised?]
Lighting increases Crime
Anonymous is on the right track about this.
The few controlled studies indicate that static street lighting (not motion detectors or security cameras) can actually increases crime
Since Bad Guys have to see to burglarize a car, sell drugs, etc.
So crime lights could be particularly inappropriate for WR Lake Park - where BMV is the most prevalent crime - during the day
Here's the only conclusive study done on the subject
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Chicago%20Alley%...
And reduces school vandalism - when campuses go dark
http://www.peninsula.wednet.edu/conservation/Energy/dark%20campus.HTM
And a list of other studies - which indicate that at best, lights give a false sense of security
http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/crime.html?0O#aid
[Ed Note: It's also interesting to note that cameras, in and of themselves, do not reduce crime. But signs that say "video surveillance in progress" do! Go figure.]
Lighting at White Rock Lake
Chip, Yes, I was not at the meeting. My voice is not one of negativity. The only thing I have read from your posts is constant complaining and negativity. I am not the most versed person when it comes to crime, but in my last 4 years of running Lakewood Crime Watch with an extended neighborhood patrol, one of the most publicized deterrents for crime at night is to turn on your exterior lights. Do I think lights at WRL are the best? Who knows. Many people complained about the AA Center when it was built, too and now look at the area. I do think attractive lighting at WRL would be a benefit to many. Please look at the long range plan in Chicago for the Chicago Park district for 2008-2012. www.chicagoparkdistrict.com. You will note it includes a large amount of lighting on their paths and parks. The recent improvements at WRL have been a blessing. From the paths to the new bridge on the north side of the lake, WRL is finally getting some much needed attention. You fail to mention all the great things happening. I am so thankful for the organizations like FTLOTL, the parks department and Sheffie. You fail to thank Sheffie and Jan Easterling for bringing back the dedicated bike unit to WRL. You seem to mention the playground for children and how colorful it is and not wanting anymore. Let me remind you that Dallas does not have enough parks for the children and when the children are playing at the park it is encouraging outdoor family time. There is nothing more special than the laughter of a child. WRL park is not just for those of us who live on and around the lake, but for all those in Dallas. I believe with your energy you could channel it in a positive way. I love your passion for the lake and think you could do great things with a positive voice.
[Ed Note: Folks, I think we're getting away from a baseline premise. The lighting at WRL seems to have come from a slick sales job--not from what anyone really wanted. That is the thing that sticks in my mind the most. All these other things are great, but I'm still wondering what a light salesman was doing making decisions for the City with respect to light sales!]
Dear Lakewood Crime Watch Pro
What in the world are you talking about, much less are you thinking? As a member of the committee that nixed this hairball scheme a few years ago, Chip performed a service to the community by informing us of this lame brain action by the parks dept against the wishes of the community! The only way that could be perceived as "NEGATIVITY" is if he had kept his mouth shut and said nothing!
While, one of the most publicized deterrents for crime at night is to turn on your exterior lights, that action is totally useless when every light in the house is on and every blind, shade, and curtain is wide open after dark and late into the night so anyone and everyone passing by can see everything in the house! Thats the point, and you and the neighborhood association in my neighborhood dont get it.
WRL has curfew rules, that actually if enforced, would negate this frivolous expenditure.
Maybe a better use of Chips time would be spent reinventing the wheel or changing the earths orbit so that a full moon hung over WRL and Lakewood 365 nights out of the year and kept the boogie men at bay. And right now I am laughing just like a child, push me on the swing daddy!
Light Study
So I relented and decided to review the study that was quoted for this discussion. (The one conducted by Illinois Criminal Justice Authority)
The numbers that are being quoted as an increase in crime are those REPORTED violations. The majority of the increase show to be in the substance abuse violations.
In fact the violent crimes went up by a total of 15 reported offenses during the reporting period. Property crimes went up a total of 6 offenses and the non-index offenses went up 68 total.
Percentage wise the non-index crimes went up 24%. The study broke down the non-index crimes which showed prostitution went DOWN, damage/trespass to property went DOWN and other offenses went DOWN. While damage to vehicles went up (0 to 1) and substance abuse violations went up 82 reported offenses.
So according to the study those offenses that really prosper in the darkness (prostitution, criminal mischief, etc) actually went DOWN with the installation of the new lighting.
However, reported drug offenses skyrocketed during the study period. But the question that is raised is if this increase was because there were more actual offenses OR were there more reported offenses because of the better lighting.
Also, mind you, the study utilized a "control" area. While the test areas reflected a 60 percent increase in drug related offenses the control area had a 73 percent increase.
The study also notes that the percentage of reported offenses during day time hours as opposed to night time hours dropped while they increased during the night.
So of course crime "increased" with the installation of lights. The more that you can see the more things that are reported. So to use this study as an excuse to not install lights does not seem to be a responsible one.
To quote my father, I guess it's one of those things where you get to pick your poison. Do you want rapes to go down, and increase the number of reported drug offenses? Do we simply bury our head in out moon lit, beautiful lake shore sand or do we actually explore alternatives?
[Ed Note: As I say, the police pointed out that there's very little nighttime crime. That being the case, I'm still scratching my head over why Parks has decided to fix something that doesn't appear to be broken.]
Light Study
There's lies, damn lies and statistics.
Most of the crime reported in the Chicago study does not show up on WRL crime stats.
So have to address the type of crime that is prevalent at WRL - BMV and tagging.
The predominate crime at WRL Is BMV - as per City crime stats on their crime map.
Most of the BMVs occur during the day per DPD.
This is not a reporting phenomena - since the victim does the reporting.
It is not clear from NE how many BMVs occur at night - they have not indicated any. It may in fact be zero.
BMV requires a minimum light level = so adding lights will clearly facilitate it.
A darkened car in a dark lot is a perfect deterrent to nocturnal BMV = BG has no clue what's in the car / truck.
The Deputy Chief of the Dallas Police Department said that adding lights to parking lots will not deter crime.
She's honest and does not have to split hairs to make the point
Decrease of vandalism (tagging) at schools when they went dark is not a controlled study, but common sensical.
Note that many studies show that what lighting does do is create a false sense of security - to the detriment of better deterrents.
Good Home Wanted - Lights Available
Ms. Nancy Wilson, you must have missed the meeting.
There aren't going to be any trail lights.
That's off the table. No funding. Won't happen per Parks.
So you best bring a flashlight or wear a headset if you want to jog in the dark.
Bicyclists are required by state law to carry lights at night.
Not a bad practice - even for nocturnal joggers.
The proposed lights won't deter crime - Chief Easterling admitted that - and two studies presented at the meeting prove it.
The "big lie" about security was used to sell some pricey fixtures = which may now find a good home in more appropriate locations.
Majority?
Wow Chip..glad you are there for the people of White Rock Lake.
Who are you and why do you speak for the "majority"?
[Ed Note: I believe that Chip has been on the WRL Task Force and thought they had put the lighting issue "to rest" before it was resurrected. I'll let Chip answer it though.]
Majority Report
"JTF" must not have made it to the meeting either. . . .
About 100 people attended - lake users and lake area residents + all TV stations, DMN, LW People, Dallas.org, etc.
Plus neighborhood associations. Dog Park. 3 City Councilman. Deputy Chief Easterling.
Pretty much everyone that cares/ matters.
Allen's live blog summarizes the meeting accurately - might take a look at that sometime.
Had "JFT" been there, he/she would have seen the show of hands of the majority against this misbegotten project
That even Sheffie Kadane and Jeannie Terelli admits it's a mess.
So much for the pervasive sentiment - as evidenced by those that bothered to show up.
The lighting sales/con job was based on "increased" security - for the parking lots (not the trails as some think)
Over-lighting the lake side parking lots could be entirely counter-productive to crime prevention -
Since it could easily facilitate BMV at night.
As presented by members of the audience, there are landmark studies that indicate that increased lighting simply makes it easier for bad guys to commit crimes at night.
And that crime goes up in urban areas when they are lit. Studies were cited in New Jersey, Australia and Chicago.
The Chicago studied concluded that crime went up 21% after street lights were added in alleys =
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Chicago%20Alley%...
"These findings indicate that, during the study period, there did not appear to be a suppression effect on crime as a result of increased alley lighting.
In fact, it appears that with the increased lighting came an increase in the number of crimes reported to the Chicago Police Department."
This was not a reporting phenomenon - similar studies have concluded that turning lights off decreases crime - notably vandalism at school yards
http://www.peninsula.wednet.edu/conservation/Energy/dark%20campus.HTM
"According to school district experience, vandalism has been cut by simply turning off the lights.
Experience shows that . . . many districts had less vandalism once they've instituted a dark campus policy to save energy dollars.
At White Rock Lake Park, it is likely that lighting the parking lots would simply facilitate BMV at night and increase curfew violations.
Clearly there is no better deterrent for the lots than a patrol car with a searchlight.
Clarification
Ok.....allow me to modify the question slightly..
Is Chip the president of a homeowners association or something? How do the homeowners in that area feel about it?
Lake users, the media, and all of these other people should fall secondary to the people who live on or near the lake. We have seen that at least one person liked the idea.
In reference to the studies that you are quoting. I would be interested in seeing what types of crimes went up and down. I'm willing to bet that anyone would prefer Burglaries to go up if rapes, and homicides went down. I've learned that these studies can be made to represent whatever someone wants.
By the way its "JTF" not "JFT"
Clarification
Was on the White Rock Lake Task Force when the lighting scheme was originally presented - so saw it from the outset
Was also on the board of the White Rock Lake Foundation -the primary advocates for the light
A founder/ director of the White Rock Boathouse
And opposed the idea as royally ill-conceived.
Since it is completely out of line with the lighting guidelines in the Master Plan
Which call for down lights, no "horizontal" pollution, unobtrusive placement of fixtures, metal halide bulbs, etc.
Parks Dept completely ignored their own guidelines = with predictable results. Even Councilman Kadane was shocked.
The Peninsula Neighborhood Association had two reps at the meeting - current and past presidents = totally opposed
White Rock Neighborhood, Lakewood, and Forest Hills NA presidents have all questioned the plan and support the new committee
Read the studies - to be cited here - what went up the most was drug deals - dealers have to see.
What would certainly go up the most here would be BMV - burglars have to see in cars.
Chicago was a controlled study - meaning some control areas were kept dark, the others lit up.
Spare Light Poles
Parks is going to need to find a place to put these poles
Councilman from Oak Cliff was there - and asked for them in Kiest Park
As did the Dog Park lady - they have 2 'pod' lights
So go for it
They will be available soon
Won't do anyone a bit of good = http://amper.ped.muni.cz/light/crime/lp040_1h.html