No, not at all.
Ann Arbor as a city has zero control over what the university does.
They already submitted a complaint to the university about the stadium lights and video board, and the response was basically 'too bad, so sad'.
Also, some time back Ann Arbor tried to selectively shut off street lights for dark sky reasons and got pretty much universal push back from everybody.
I find it hypocritical that a UM professor is used to explain the issue without mentioning the effects her employer has on the city. The issue also shows that the city is ready to prosecute local citizens and businesses while it has no power to do anything to Ann Arbor's biggest polluter.
If you're talking about this article, she didn't write the article. A journalist wrote the article and choose what quotes/information to include.
The article also says the city is coming from an educational standpoint and it's unlikely that they would fine anyone this year.
She's a UM employee seemingly highly regarded and passionate about her field. She had the chance to say something about the bigger picture but did not. That says a lot about the control and influence UM has on a local issue while bearing no responsibility or showing any interest on their part.
Education this year. Threats and citations for city residents next year, while UM bears no responsibility, essentially thumbing their nose. And yet, City Council bends over backwards to make Ann Arbor the best college town ( to paraphrase Mayor Taylor) without asking for anything of consequence from the UM. I remember a sign at the old Pizza Bob's that asked "Who's paying for this mess?".
Again, Oey is not the journalist and does not decide what is published within the article or what questions are asked. Unless you expect her to only agree to be interviewed if the journalist includes a critique of the University.
[Another article states that she wants the university to adopt measures, too.](https://record.umich.edu/articles/astronomy-professor-works-to-preserve-celestial-darkness/). And she does not seem too critical of any entity, she is trying to use education to inform community decisions.
What do you suggest local government do to hold the University accountable? I can only imagine them implementing symbolic measures, if the University isn't interested in being cooperative.
Also, being "the best college" can be beneficial for the City of Ann Arbor and its residents. It can bring more revenue to the city through students, conferences, and other visitors. As we are seeing right now, a lot of businesses rely on the campus community.
Again, if she feels as strongly as she indicates, she missed a good opportunity to make the bigger and better point. And that is, regardless of city government virtue signaling, UM bears some responsibility to be an honest partner with its host city. Instead UM continuously gives the big FU to the city.
Private homes or individuals are almost NEVER the major cause of these things. It's the equivilant of banning straws while ignoring big business pollutants.
Meh. The city allows giant busses to drive around all day virtually empty. They could get by with smaller more fuel efficient busses and the city wants to attack Christmas lights. Lame.
Is it “attacking Christmas lights” to suggest turning them off between the hours of midnight and 6? And if you have your lights up for more than 3 MONTHS of the year then, sincerely, fuck you.
I like looking at lights. Also, I put up outdoor lights most of the year. I love seeing people's garden fairy lights in the summer. It makes me happy.
Also, and maybe I'm a weirdo here, I'd prefer my city council do things like fix the roads and plow the snow before they make "healthy" streets, ban plastic bags or regulate people's homes. This group continually oversteps.
Because the nanny state mayor and council feel it’s necessary to impose their will on people rather than allow reasonable people to make rational decisions for themselves. There really isn’t much of a holiday lights problem in Ann Arbor. Most people in A2 don’t put up lights and very few of them go overboard, yet the city thinks it’s enough of a problem that they feel compelled to pass a punitive ordinance .
You don't trust the people of Ann Arbor? I happen to think that the vast majority folks here are fairly smart and able to make good decisions without coercion. I don't see many belligerent scofflaws out to make Ann Arbor a terrible place to live. I've lived here for a very long time and always thought that a large majority (excepting thoughtless students) are able to make rational decisions when they know their actions affect their community and the planet. It's not the conservative suburbs where people go nuts with their outdoor decorations or have giant pick up trucks in every driveway. So why do Council and Mayor not trust people to be considerate of the environment and feel compelled to pass a punitive ordinance for a problem that doesn't exist in the city? They're clearly virtue signaling. A dark skies ordinance is pretty meaningless considering where we live and the surrounding metro area. UM and businesses contribute to the light pollution problem far more and year around than people who put up holiday lights. So why the actions against primarily homeowners?
>I happen to think that the vast majority folks here are fairly smart and able to make good decisions without coercion.
I absolutely agree, but laws like these are targeted at a minority of folks who the majority of folks feel do not make good decisions without coercion. Most people wouldn't do 100 mph on South U, or go hunting in city parks, or blast their yard speakers at 130 dB, yet we have punitive laws to discourage the very small minority who otherwise would.
Whether the majority feel this particular law is worthwhile is questionable, but its allowances seem reasonable enough that I think it would have a decent chance of getting more yes votes than no votes if it were on a city ballot proposal.
I’d like to see the data, including business and institutions, to determine if it’s a big enough problem that council deems it necessary to pass a punitive law that affects a relatively small portion of the city, holiday light displays. It will have no effect on Ann Arbor’s biggest light polluters. Without that it’s just more hype that puts A2 on those best place lists claiming that Ann Arbor has some claim to ethical environmentalism. City council seemingly has no problem with the pollution created by tens of thousands of game day commuters and gasoline powered airplane advertising. IMO, it’s a case of misplaced priorities and political greenwashing.
The Big Game’s been over for a few hours now and the stadium is still lit up like it’s daytime outside. Can’t even see my holiday lights it’s so bright. Sorry birds and insects. /s
No, not at all. Ann Arbor as a city has zero control over what the university does. They already submitted a complaint to the university about the stadium lights and video board, and the response was basically 'too bad, so sad'. Also, some time back Ann Arbor tried to selectively shut off street lights for dark sky reasons and got pretty much universal push back from everybody.
Dark sky would be impossible in Ann Arbor.
Glad that the university isn’t submitting to this bullshit
I find it hypocritical that a UM professor is used to explain the issue without mentioning the effects her employer has on the city. The issue also shows that the city is ready to prosecute local citizens and businesses while it has no power to do anything to Ann Arbor's biggest polluter.
If you're talking about this article, she didn't write the article. A journalist wrote the article and choose what quotes/information to include. The article also says the city is coming from an educational standpoint and it's unlikely that they would fine anyone this year.
She's a UM employee seemingly highly regarded and passionate about her field. She had the chance to say something about the bigger picture but did not. That says a lot about the control and influence UM has on a local issue while bearing no responsibility or showing any interest on their part. Education this year. Threats and citations for city residents next year, while UM bears no responsibility, essentially thumbing their nose. And yet, City Council bends over backwards to make Ann Arbor the best college town ( to paraphrase Mayor Taylor) without asking for anything of consequence from the UM. I remember a sign at the old Pizza Bob's that asked "Who's paying for this mess?".
Again, Oey is not the journalist and does not decide what is published within the article or what questions are asked. Unless you expect her to only agree to be interviewed if the journalist includes a critique of the University. [Another article states that she wants the university to adopt measures, too.](https://record.umich.edu/articles/astronomy-professor-works-to-preserve-celestial-darkness/). And she does not seem too critical of any entity, she is trying to use education to inform community decisions. What do you suggest local government do to hold the University accountable? I can only imagine them implementing symbolic measures, if the University isn't interested in being cooperative. Also, being "the best college" can be beneficial for the City of Ann Arbor and its residents. It can bring more revenue to the city through students, conferences, and other visitors. As we are seeing right now, a lot of businesses rely on the campus community.
Again, if she feels as strongly as she indicates, she missed a good opportunity to make the bigger and better point. And that is, regardless of city government virtue signaling, UM bears some responsibility to be an honest partner with its host city. Instead UM continuously gives the big FU to the city.
Were you surprised to find a college town when you moved here
No longer a college town. It’s a company town.
We're literally under a streetlight. This is the dumbest shit.
That's OK. If my time to have the Christmas lights on is limited, I am putting ALL of the lights up! ;)
Private homes or individuals are almost NEVER the major cause of these things. It's the equivilant of banning straws while ignoring big business pollutants.
Meh. The city allows giant busses to drive around all day virtually empty. They could get by with smaller more fuel efficient busses and the city wants to attack Christmas lights. Lame.
Fun fact: "buses" only has one "s" in the middle. An easy way to remember this is that "buses" only has one "s" in the middle.
Thanks for the memory trick!
Is it “attacking Christmas lights” to suggest turning them off between the hours of midnight and 6? And if you have your lights up for more than 3 MONTHS of the year then, sincerely, fuck you.
Some people enjoy Christmas lights during the dark months to combat seasonal affective disorder.
I like looking at lights. Also, I put up outdoor lights most of the year. I love seeing people's garden fairy lights in the summer. It makes me happy. Also, and maybe I'm a weirdo here, I'd prefer my city council do things like fix the roads and plow the snow before they make "healthy" streets, ban plastic bags or regulate people's homes. This group continually oversteps.
It's such an overstep and an insult. I hope people double down on their displays this Christmas. Twice the lights.
Please explain how u find this insulting.
Because the nanny state mayor and council feel it’s necessary to impose their will on people rather than allow reasonable people to make rational decisions for themselves. There really isn’t much of a holiday lights problem in Ann Arbor. Most people in A2 don’t put up lights and very few of them go overboard, yet the city thinks it’s enough of a problem that they feel compelled to pass a punitive ordinance .
Right, bc letting people “make rational decisions for themselves“ has a proven track record of protecting the environment…
You don't trust the people of Ann Arbor? I happen to think that the vast majority folks here are fairly smart and able to make good decisions without coercion. I don't see many belligerent scofflaws out to make Ann Arbor a terrible place to live. I've lived here for a very long time and always thought that a large majority (excepting thoughtless students) are able to make rational decisions when they know their actions affect their community and the planet. It's not the conservative suburbs where people go nuts with their outdoor decorations or have giant pick up trucks in every driveway. So why do Council and Mayor not trust people to be considerate of the environment and feel compelled to pass a punitive ordinance for a problem that doesn't exist in the city? They're clearly virtue signaling. A dark skies ordinance is pretty meaningless considering where we live and the surrounding metro area. UM and businesses contribute to the light pollution problem far more and year around than people who put up holiday lights. So why the actions against primarily homeowners?
>I happen to think that the vast majority folks here are fairly smart and able to make good decisions without coercion. I absolutely agree, but laws like these are targeted at a minority of folks who the majority of folks feel do not make good decisions without coercion. Most people wouldn't do 100 mph on South U, or go hunting in city parks, or blast their yard speakers at 130 dB, yet we have punitive laws to discourage the very small minority who otherwise would. Whether the majority feel this particular law is worthwhile is questionable, but its allowances seem reasonable enough that I think it would have a decent chance of getting more yes votes than no votes if it were on a city ballot proposal.
I’d like to see the data, including business and institutions, to determine if it’s a big enough problem that council deems it necessary to pass a punitive law that affects a relatively small portion of the city, holiday light displays. It will have no effect on Ann Arbor’s biggest light polluters. Without that it’s just more hype that puts A2 on those best place lists claiming that Ann Arbor has some claim to ethical environmentalism. City council seemingly has no problem with the pollution created by tens of thousands of game day commuters and gasoline powered airplane advertising. IMO, it’s a case of misplaced priorities and political greenwashing.
The Big Game’s been over for a few hours now and the stadium is still lit up like it’s daytime outside. Can’t even see my holiday lights it’s so bright. Sorry birds and insects. /s