As reported in today’s Sunday Globe, it looks like the town’s plans to turn off its street lights is back on the shelf. If you’ve been following this in the town paper and online, you know that Town Administrator Tom Younger worked up a plan to shut off street lights on most of the less traveled side streets in town, while keeping them on along main thoroughfares and busy intersections. The plan, as written, would have shut off around 1,600 street light, reduced energy consumption and saved money — around $178,000.
But the plan has been receiving steady criticism from residents since it was introduced. The biggest concern — voiced both by residents and the town’s police force — has been that the reduced lighting will increase crime. The idea here seems to be the “broken windows” argument — that dark streets signal reduced activity and invite criminals who want to strike without being observed. Given the recent spate of property crimes in the town, that’s not an unrealistic fear. As a jogger, I know that darkened streets also increase the dangers to pedestrians, so I can’t say I’m heartbroken about the reversal of plans on the streetlights.
The question now is: what next? In lieu of shutting street lights off, I wonder whether its time to replace the street lights with more energy efficient bulbs (compact florescent, anyone?) that will save the town money. And, while the town should do all it can to reduce energy use, the biggest savings will come from the Municipal Light Department encouraging more conservation at home — through peak use pricing and other incentives for residences to use energy efficient appliances, switch to solar and so on. My 2c.
A point of technical pickiness — like compact fluorescent lights, street lights use either ionized mercury vapor or sodium vapor, and are already relatively efficient. They might attain greater “efficiency” by using phosphors that direct more of the light energy into the colors we see best — this is what fluorescent lights do.
Apparently new LED street lamps are more efficient yet, but they are expensive. See http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/led-streetlights-anchorage-alaska-16000.php , for example. Each year LEDs get more efficient, and except for the expense and poor packaging, are superior to compact fluorescents — more efficient, longer life, more durable, no mercury, no penalty for on/off, better direction of the light, and better choice of light color.
A second point of technical picky-ness? This sentence in the Globe article:
“Selectmen said they still believe the town can come up with savings by turning off some lights and they are considering other options besides focusing on all the side streets.”
So, they are still shutting off “some” lights and will consider not “focusing on all the side streets” … Question: Does this mean they will focus on MAIN STREETS?! Remember: They have to come up with almost $200k and have brought no other options forward. I guess we’ll see what happens tonight.
Paul,
I have a revenue idea for the Town and a relevant role playing question for you… I enjoy the blog mainly because it’s interesting to hear alternative points of view.
Imagine you are the Mayor of Belmont this Spring. You have campaigned on fully funded FDK, Comprehensive Road Improvements, a new Wellington, a new Library,new Underwood Pool, and new Police Station. It is mid April and you have asked the Town to approve a $4.5m override that will not pay for any of these things above but rather will just cover existing services we have today. The vote comes back and it is defeated by 10%. You now have to cut $4.5m from the budget. What are you going to cut?
One caveat… you don’t enough have time to generate new commercial revenues be it Cushing/Waverly square development.
Revenue generating idea… Every political sign or landscaping/roofing sign placed on residential property requires a $50 license fee per month.
PJ
I love this question PJ – if for no other reason than that it could very well end up not being a hypothetical. In fact, I think I’m just going to copy/paste it as a blog entry and answer it there in the hopes of getting some other readers to chime in, OK?
10,000 homes times 1 sign per home (well more than we have now) times $50 equals $500,000 — only 11% of the hypothetical shortfall, never mind how it would cut down on signs, never mind that taxing political signs infringes free speech (hence could be challenged and would fail), never mind that I think there are limits on what the town can tax.
David,
The fee was a joke in regards to political signs all over Town.
I do have ideas like parking meters along Trapelo Road (for those all day T parkers) and in the Centers like Lexington does. Reality is we need significant cuts to balance the books. The point of the question to Paul is we need to cut so why wait till a failed override to know the costs and consequences of cutting. We need the real numbers… closing the skating rink will save x, open the library on weekends only in the winter will save x and so on. Cutting AP offerings in half will save x. We need more info and not to be told if you don’t do this we will institute a garbage collection fee or cancel the music and sports programs at the HS and MS.
Yes we have a spending problem and eventually I trust you will come to the same conclusion… when the major source of revenue tells you No more you need to cut spending.
PJ
[...] so interesting they deserve their own post (and follow on discussion). So it was with a comment the other day from PJ on the recent “Lights out on lights out” post. I’m reprinting PJ’s question/proposition here and will respond. I also welcome other [...]
Hey. I just posted your question as a separate post, PJ. Funny — parking meters were top on my list as well. Cutting AP classes and shuttering the public library during the weekdays during the winter? Gad. I think of all the kids I see in there working on homework and projects after school. Is that really the message we want to send to the next generation? “Your education is expendable”?
This is not a “spending” problem, at least not in the sense that wasteful or luxurious spending needs to be curtailed. Our school spending is clearly not wasteful (compare it to most other schools in the state — better results for less money), and many auxiliary school services (bus service, athletics, clubs) now have associated fees. Last year or so, the school nurse was asking parents for supplies (for example, ginger ale for students with queasy tummies). On the town side, we’ve cut services, and we’ve cut maintenance. This is “wasteful” only in the sense that deferred maintenance costs more in the future. Some years back, some members of the warrant committee (and some people not on the warrant committee) tried to figure out if there was inefficiency on the town side (it’s much harder than comparing schools, since there’s no standardized metrics for spending or performance), and (as I recall) there was nothing that was large and obvious. Clearly you trim fat when you find it, but basically the schools are lean, and the town is not obese.
I don’t know if people understand what is meant by “structural budget problem”. That means, if we wipe out every single scrap of waste in the town and schools, we buy a few years of budget slack — and then, with zero fat in the budget, we are right back to running out of money. Wage costs outrun inflation (3.3%, average). Inflation outruns Prop 2.5 levy limits. We cannot keep up — the largest growth rate (wages) will always win in the end. New development does not adequately fill the gap, especially because we are almost out of places to put it. Build the squares up as high as we can stand (or higher!), find someone to put offices on the Uplands, and we buy a few years of slack, and then we’re tight again, with even fewer development opportunities.
Furthermore, if we cut something, it’s gone for good — and then next year, we need to find something else to cut, which is also gone for good.
Within the constraints of Prop 2.5 revenues, unless you are continuously cutting, you have a “spending problem”. After we turn out the lights, after we let the peripheral roads go to potholes, after we close the pool and the ice rink, what do we cut next? Is there a student-teacher ratio at which we will draw a line and say “no more”? If we’re not planning to RAISE TAXES, we should be planning our future, PERMANENT, service cuts.
Prop 2.5 is a sham. It makes the false promise of limited property tax increases, and then pins the blame on town government “mismanagement” when the promise cannot be kept.
David, you rock.
Another expense that always grows faster than 2.5%: health care.
Hey, maybe we can put a Prop 2.5 repeal on the ballot next year. Wouldn’t pass on the first try, probably, but damn, we need it. Who wants to sign my petition?