This sounds too rational and democratic... are you sure this is the City of Dallas we're talking about, here?

First they're going to take away the Trinity River bottoms now this?!?!? Oh well, Guess we'll have to find a new place to hide the bodies. Howse the lighting at Bachman?

Wylie, its only becoming rational and democratic because the DO reported about it. Had the crazy vigilantes that write for the DO not reported on it... do you think it would be happening?

Now, how to I send my PayPal donation to the DO?

A better solution for this would be tree 'moonlighting'. But maybe I should shut up since it is 'the other side of the lake'.

Another issue is the problem of wiring thefts that have darkened street lights acvross the City, even in the middle of freeways. ONCOR does a good job, but somehow there are great lengths of roads that are dark. It would be particularly foolish to spend the money on the lights then not be able to keep them on.

I agree with the comment above that "moonlighting" the trees would be much more attractive approach. There are good companies in town that do great work.

Gee, the next thing you know they (city council) might consider unblocking roads and actually having access to the lake and parks around it like it was before every consideration was given to thieves and other criminals and vandals ahead of the majority - law abiding citzens who have respect for others and shared property ( thank you -whoever came up with pay at the pump). Now, what can we name the lighted walkway ? (ref: Industrial Blvd.)

Had the DO not done the story, Parks would have ringed the lake with streetlights.

Nobody but the DO / Glenna Whitley picked up on this story - and it was a long time in the making - but all behind the scenes, which is how Parks operates.

Some years ago, the White Rock Lake Foundation (WRLF) proposed putting hundreds of streetlights around the lakefront. The WRLF website shows a rendering of the lights along a lakeside trail – conveniently during the day. http://www.whiterocklakefoundation.org/lighting.html

Obviously the park requires some lighting - at the entrance to parking lots, etc. - provided they are unobtrusive. The City did not want to pay for the project. It was not considered a priority for the park - way down the list behind trail repair, dock repair, etc.

The White Rock Lake Task Force - that vets such proposals for the Parks Board - panned it as light pollution, unnecessary, etc.

So WRLF took it upon themselves to raise the funds - $1,000,000 worth of streetlights to light up the lakeside - as quoted in the Advocate, February 2005:

http://www.advocatemag.com/uploads/pdf/ED_02_05.pdf?PHPSESSID=4ca1bc9ba447bbbdea7ee86fb05761b6

WRLF was unable to raise private funds for its project. So WRLF got Parks to find money in the spillway repair project and got an earmark in a bond issue. As reported in the DO on May 1st

http://news.dallasobserver.com/2008-05-01/news/white-rock-lake-neighbors-want-to-know-whose-bright-idea-it-was-to-install-lights/

Hossley Lighting Associates, a lighting vendor, was brought in as a "consultant" by WRLF and Parks http://www.hlalighting.com/

Hossley, WRLF, Parks (Willis Winters), and a DPD patrol officer did the lighting plan. Only Hossley knew anything about lighting - the WRLF are laymen, Willis Winters is an architect, and the DPD officer was a beat cop. Parks approved the final plan with no input from the neighbors or neighborhoods.

There is no money in the project to repair or replace existing lights in the park - just add new ones.

The contractor started putting in light poles in parking lots on W. Lawther Drive - until the neighbors started to complain. Councilman Sheffie Kadane suspended the project, and a called a meeting for May 22 at 7:30 at Winfrey Point.

The lights on West Lawther south of Fisher Road will be powered up by generator at 8:00 on May 22nd. Ya'll come.

The City's cover story on this scheme is the need for "more security". Which is simply a rationalization after the fact. But from a security standpoint, the need for this much lakeside lighting has never been demonstrated.

Most crime in the park is burglary of motor vehicles (BMV) - during the day - approximately 8 BMVs per year on W. Lawther Drive. Lighting lake front lots won't prevent daytime BMVs (duh) Over-lighting would just enable burglars to see into parked cars and burglarize them at night.

Lakeside lighting would attract more people to the park after the midnight curfew. So on balance, over-lighting the lakeshore could make crime go up in the park - not down. (Security cameras would be a better deterrent - they work day and night.)

The real crime here is the amount of lighting proposed around the lake: a $500,000 contract to spoil the lakeside views every night for everyone. And make the lake front look like a string of motel parking lots from dusk 'till dawn.

See ya on the 22nd.
Bring an open mind. Plus some tomatoes.

I also agree about the benefits of tree "moonlighting" vs. the lights that are being proposed. The whole thing smacks of bad business..the lack of neighborhood investment, either vocally or financially, and the PUSH to get this done so that the issue would eventually be "Do we UNdo what's been done?" rather than "Is this a good idea to start with?". Negative consequences are the reward for apathy, but this habit of sliding things under the door...well, I think that residents of White Rock are better than that! Come on, people! SPEAK UP! Couldn't some of the local companies that do tree "moonlighting" get together with the city to do the work and maybe get some free advertising out of the deal for a discount on the bill to the city? Seems like it could be a win-win for all concerned...

The City could have specified "moon light" bulbs.

The could have chosen fixtures that shine the light down - not out across the lake.

And they could have made a public presentation of the plan

Since they did none of the above, come to the meeting or email Sheffie Kadane and let them know what you think about putting 150 street lights along the shoreline . . .