Quantcast

Struggling Cities Turn Off the Lights: Ingenious or Dangerous?

SodaHead News 2012/01/02 02:02:25
You!
Add Photos & Videos
In tough economic times, cities have no choice but to cut costs everywhere they can. However, as a growing number of cities have decided to sacrifice streetlights, many residents feel that the budget tightening has gone way too far.

Highland Park, Michigan; Myrtle Creek, Oregon; Clintonville, Wisconsin; Brainerd, Minnesota; Santa Rosa, California; Rockford, Illinois: these are just a few of the many cities that have been pushed to do what was once unthinkable—turn off the streetlights in an attempt to stay afloat.

And unlike many other budget cuts, when things get dark people notice. In Highland Park, Michigan, which has removed all but 500 of the city’s 1,600 lights, many residents have felt the need to completely reorder their lives.

“When you come through at night, it’s scary; you have to wonder if anyone is lurking around waiting to catch you off your guard,” said 65-year-old Juanita Kennedy of Highland Park. “I don’t go out to get gas at night. I don’t run to any stores. I try to do everything in the daytime and to be back before night falls.”

Since the streetlight in front of her house was removed, Kennedy has also installed a security system and undergone training to carry a handgun. And she is not the only resident who’s concerned and making lifestyle changes.

Parents worry more about letting their children walk to school in the morning. Motorists complain that they can’t see pedestrians or potholes. And Greater St. Matthew Baptist Church had to move a Saturday evening bible study to 4 p.m. at the urging of congregants.

Yet, Highland Park officials say that they had no other choice; they had to remove the lights so that the DTE Energy company would forgive their accumulated debt of about $4 million.

We completely understand the residents' complaints, but sometimes, desperate times call for desperate measures.

What do you think about struggling cities turning off the lights? Ingenious or dangerous?

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/us/cities-cost-c...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • shadow76 2012/02/20 13:13:09
    Dangerous
    shadow76
    Bet the bad guys love that!
  • teigan 2012/01/14 05:43:05
    Dangerous
    teigan
    Here's an idea, why don't those city officials take a pay cut since they haven't managed the city budget very well.
  • Wolf 2012/01/09 13:32:08
    Ingenious
    Wolf
    The bloated public sector knows how to keep their excessive staffing and compensation going...maybe they should raise taxes and fess by more than double digits...
  • ndaye 2012/01/09 10:11:55
  • Cathy 2012/01/05 20:48:28
    Dangerous
    Cathy
    This is very dangerous! Please do everything that you have to do during the day time and keep your children in the house when it get dark. If you have to go out a night, never go alone and be safe. This is terrible!
  • Ms.Gamlieli 2012/01/05 03:20:53
    Dangerous
    Ms.Gamlieli
    that's dangerous. It seems that they always cut on the most basic thing but also the most important thing.
  • Starr 2012/01/04 03:27:57
    Dangerous
    Starr
    What kind of town has to turn off street lights? I mean either they are super small or huge. Either way, I think it's so dumb. Glad I live where I live. I Don't see FL listed.
  • carl 2012/01/03 23:46:21
    Dangerous
    carl
    dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
  • tdterry1999 2012/01/03 23:38:06 (edited)
    Dangerous
    tdterry1999
    It's all a con game.We turn the lights off because we don't have the money.Let us raise the taxes and we turn them back on.Then we can give ourself a raise
  • Grabitz 2012/01/03 23:25:26
    Dangerous
    Grabitz
    Should have went solar when Carter was telling them too .
    solar lamps CARTER
  • sjalan 2012/01/03 22:56:52
    Dangerous
    sjalan
    And foolhardy. The federal government Energy Dept has a program to remove OLD HPS and LPM bulbed lighting and replace it with LED lighting modules that use less than 1/10th the power of the older kinds. PLUSE, if converted to Solar it becomes even cheaper.

    Two summers ago I converted 100% of all my lighting to LED systems. The net decrease in power consumption was between 13% & 15%. On a farm/ranch which is off the grid that made the difference between adding 6 more $550 panels and 12 more batteries and not having to upgrade at all. Cost of the new bulbs was $1300. Less the roughly 80% rebates from the state and federal tax credits.

    Cities can do this too.
  • misterz 2012/01/03 22:21:33
    Dangerous
    misterz
  • Sister Jean 2012/01/03 22:07:51
    Dangerous
    Sister Jean
    we started it here 2 yrs ago
  • lee 2012/01/03 22:00:21
    Dangerous
    lee
    +1
    this is a bad idea.

    why do they always seem to reach for solutions that fall disporportionatly hard on women and poor?

    why not cut pay for those city adminstrators making over $50k/yr
  • **Bessie** 2012/01/03 20:32:03
    Dangerous
    **Bessie**
    +1
    They can cut back without turning off!
  • Sheila 2012/01/03 20:25:02
    Dangerous
    Sheila
    +2
    I would be willing to bet you good money that the cities in question started out by firing/laying off police. They are also (dollars to donuts) cities that have been liberal run for decades.

    The idea is not to actually make sound decisions that help the problem with as little as possible disruption in the lives of their citizens. They are trying to make their citizens as uncomfortable as possible (or as scared) so they will allow MORE TAXATION.
  • Zach Tool 2012/01/03 20:12:39
    Dangerous
    Zach Tool
    this is so looney. bad priority.
  • seathanaich 2012/01/03 19:43:31
    Ingenious
    seathanaich
    Good. I wish the streetlight in front of my house was turned off.

    There are WAY too many streetlights in most places, and there is NO need for them at all in urban areas where commercial lights are left on 24 hours per day.
  • Sheila seathan... 2012/01/03 20:54:20
    Sheila
    LOL, well in my neighborhood we like our lights. Light makes us safer. Especially in the "inner cities".
  • seathan... Sheila 2012/01/04 00:10:46
    seathanaich
    It's an enourmous waste of money and energy. At least half of the current lights could be removed or turned off with zero effect on safety; and, as I pointed out, all the ones in areas currently lit by commercial lighting could be turned off since they don't serve any purpose at all.
  • Sheila seathan... 2012/01/04 17:50:18
    Sheila
    LOL, let me guess....you live in a gated community? The rest of us who are stuck in the real world would prefer streetlights, thanks anyway!!
  • seathan... Sheila 2012/01/04 20:36:28
    seathanaich
    LOL, no I don't. Always with the assumptions.
  • Sheila seathan... 2012/01/04 20:50:05
    Sheila
    Oh well....you know how it is.
  • Tasine 2012/01/03 19:13:21
    Dangerous
    Tasine
    +1
    Actually, it is both ingenious AND dangerous. Sometimes safety has to take a back seat to necessity (lack of money to pay). The cities wouldn't BE struggling if they didn't act as though every wish by the whining left is law. Grants are given to cities - for ART work for goodness' sake. If the residents WANT more lighting, give it to them along with an increase in city taxes to pay for all those things citizens want. MAYBE, the city fathers would then learn where the citizens place their priorities. City fathers may soon come to see that sometimes one must say "NO", just like those mean old con Republicans!! Caveat: cities spend a lot of money on things the federal government mandates - any money coming from the feds MUST be spent by very strict "rules". I suggest every city drop fed's money and operate as a city instead of a stepchild of the witch, federal government.
  • Joyce Brand 2012/01/03 18:52:52
    Ingenious
    Joyce Brand
    +1
    Both ingenious and dangerous. When governments want to spend more money than they have, they cut costs that will hurt taxpayers the most, like the streetlights. Then they can argue that they need to raise taxes. The truth is that there are plenty of other things they could cut that not only would not hurt taxpayers but would actually DECREASE the harm that government always does. Firing one useless bureaucrat would save more money than turning off all the lights.
  • Sheila Joyce B... 2012/01/03 20:55:07
    Sheila
    You put that way better than I did!!! Good job!!
  • JasonKaas 2012/01/03 18:47:23
    Dangerous
    JasonKaas
    +1
    Woman sounds like there are vampires out after dusk.

    If politicians were people who wanted to help people and NOT control them or make a ton of money maybe we wouldn't be so bad off.
  • TJ 2012/01/03 17:46:02
    Dangerous
    TJ
    +1
    Endangering citizens' lives just to save a little money? They've got their priorities all mixed up. And what about the unintended consequences? Will they have to pay for more law enforcement to protect the citizens at night? The local economies are already suffering because of all the revenue being lost after sundown. Lawmakers are so short-sighted these days.
  • Frank 2012/01/03 17:16:58
    Dangerous
    Frank
    +2
    Maybe the President and Congress can come up with something to help these cities, if they could it would be the first thing they've come up with to solve a problem....
  • lucky 2012/01/03 16:41:06
    Ingenious
    lucky
    +1
    Quick solution, everyone that wants to have the lights on can adopt a light for a price. If your willing to pay the bill for that light then you can have all the lights on you want.
  • TJ lucky 2012/01/03 17:49:31
    TJ
    +2
    They already do pay for those streetlights with their tax dollars. Not to mention, most people can barely afford to pay their OWN energy bills. Nice thought, but not realistic.
  • lucky TJ 2012/01/03 18:37:12
    lucky
    +1
    Apparently there isnt enough money and turning off the lights saves money and Im sure people do not want to pay more taxes, so while I agree with some people that other cuts also should be made, i also think people who dont care about the lights shouldnt have to pay for them for those who do.
  • Sheila lucky 2012/01/03 20:57:38
    Sheila
    LOL, so it goes like this----"Law abiding tax paying citizen if you want to be safe put the light in your own yard and pay for it yourself?" And "Criminals, just wait for a week and the lights will be off for you to carry on with your business!!"
  • lucky Sheila 2012/01/04 00:11:06
    lucky
    +1
    Rural residents often pay for security lights in their own yards, the cost when I lived in Indiana was $15 extra a month on my electric bill. What makes city residents any different? Considering the amount of crime committed in broad daylight, its obvious lighting does not deter a determined criminal.
  • Bill G53 ~PWCM~JLA 2012/01/03 16:03:07
    Ingenious
    Bill G53  ~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that turning lights off saves money.

    I just wish I could get my son to figure that out but he will real quick when he starts paying the bill himself.

    The problem is the politicians don't pay the bills themselves.... they are spending our money. I wonder if the majority of voters who are saying this is dangerous would change their mind if the government sent them a bill every month for $10 to cover the cost of not turning the lights off?
  • lee Bill G5... 2012/01/03 22:14:32
    lee
    you are not too clear on the representative democratic method of governing a civil society... are you, Bill?

    they may not have been "rocket scientists" but he city planners and citizens who voted for leaders in the past thought that paying for streetlights was worth it because it reduces crime...

    ... and now short sighted people like you who have benefited your whole life from those choices made in the past (bet you have never been mugged on your street) come in and second guess EVERYTHING...making stupid assertions like "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that turning lights off saves money"...

    you are an idiot Bill
  • Bill G5... lee 2012/01/04 12:24:59
    Bill G53  ~PWCM~JLA
    Well.... I guess we shouldn't expect much more than this kind of whining from a left wing bedwetter from California, should we Lee? You liberals out there can't balance a budget and your answer is to raise taxes while you hold the door open for all your business to leave. Way to go. I don't need any lecturing from the left coast.

    Mugging? No. Though crime does exist in Georgia, we take care of it unlike you Californians who gave a pass to the Bundy butcher. The reason you have such a crime problem out there is because of your liberalism. Hey! You made your bed and pissed in it. Now you get to sleep in it.

    And stop asking the rest of the country to pay for your screw-ups a&&hole.

    A typical Californian.....
    oj simpson
  • ♌βļąƈʞƦơșƐ3033♌ 2012/01/03 14:31:48
    Ingenious
    ♌βļąƈʞƦơșƐ3033♌
    +1
    It's a good idea. I hope it works because being in debt sucks. Cars have lights, use them and I don't see what the problem is.
  • TJ ♌βļąƈʞƦ... 2012/01/03 17:51:24
    TJ
    +1
    What about pedestrians? Or those who don't have cars because they rely on public transit? There's always more to a situation than meets the eye.
  • ♌βļąƈʞƦ... TJ 2012/01/03 17:56:53 (edited)
    ♌βļąƈʞƦơșƐ3033♌
    Reflective clothing. I live in the country and go on walks at night, I wear light colored clothes or the reflective shirts, they work. And if people are on sidewalks then they will be okay. I'm not worried. Cars have headlights.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/26 03:52:32

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals