White Rock Lake Neighbors Want to Know Whose Bright Idea It Was to Install Lights

A story about light poles? At least Julie Lyons had the good sense to go out to the pasture on her own. Time to send the other Gray Mare out. Bring back Grimes. Bring back Grimes. Bring back Grimes.

Is White Rock Lake turning into a 24-hours-a-day running facility? Do the planners believe that the lake will be safer at night if we can eliminate the dark and thereby attract enough people to run the track at night? Several years ago, gates were installed on the parking lots. The gates were supposed to be closed and padlocked between about 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. every day to discourage use of the park after dark. The gates were seldom closed, so we don't know how effective they would have been. Certainly, the number of newly dropped beer bottles to be found every morning didn't seem to diminish. Then automobile barriers were scattered along the road on the east side of the lake to discourage weekend traffic through there, especially at night. That seems to have worked. But now the philosophy seems to have changed. This wide, hardtop runway is being laid down all along the west side, and apparently a streetlight is to illuminate the surface every 100 feet or so. If the job of city parks is to provide escape from the city's overdevelopment, perhaps all the paving and lighting need to be rethought a little bit.

I wonder if the City has done an enviromental impact study on who it will effect migratory bird habitat, night herons (which hunt at night), etc.

I recently returned to north texas after forty years in the hill country, and I want to share my fantasy/memory of White Rock Lake from the days of my childhood when I visited my grandparents in Dallas. The place to go for ice cream was Ashburn's, and it was the only place I could always get raspberry sherbet. White Rock Lake was a small park with golf course and dance pavilion where nearby residents could dance with their sweethearts after sunset. There were about 50 incandescent household lightbulbs to light up the pavilion, and space for about 50 cars to park. It had the atmosphere of a country club,
and was a very pleasant place to be in the summertime.

What is the problem with urban developers who all seem to believe that all public facilities must accommodate the entire population of a city? That makes everything megahuge, and not particularly inviting to any. White Rock Lake and many other neighborhood places should be scaled down, not up. They have been overbuilt already.
Dallasites should start thinking of their parks again as 'country clubs' for nearby residents, and stop worrying about crime, and stop criminalizing the environment.

Planning at White Rock Lake Park might be described as "feudal" - meaning each interest group has their own "fiefdom" - and they often feud.

So they tend to go off on tangents of their own - loosely within the context of an antiquated "master plan".

The White Rock Lake Task Force was established to oversee such proposals and make recommendations to the Park Board.

Some years ago, White Rock Lake Foundation (WRLF) proposed putting lights around the lakefront to the Task Force.

Obviously the park requires some unobtrusive lighting - at the entrance to parking lots, etc. - as anticipated in the "master plan".

The City did not want to pay for it - neither the light poles nor the cost of the utilities.

Members of the Task Force panned the proposal - based on the aesthetics and the lack of evidence that it would reduce crime.

So WRLF took it upon themselves to raise the money and do it themselves - as quoted in the Advocate, February 2005 =

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

WRLF was unable to raise funds for its pet project = http://www.whiterocklakefoundation.org/lighting.html

(Their website shows a rendering of light poles during the day . . . which is not the issue )

So WRLF got Parks to find money in the spillway repair project and got an earmark in a bond issue.

Hossley Lighting Associates was brought in as a "consultant" by WRLF and Parks - to design the plan http://www.hlalighting.com/

And the final plan was done by Hossley, WRLF, Parks (Willis Winters), and a DPD patrol officer.

Only Hossley knows anything about lighting - the WRLF are laymen, Willis Winters is an architect, and the DPD officer was a beat cop.

Parks and WRLF rubber stamped the final plan - with no input from the neighbors or neighborhoods.

And the contractor started putting in the light poles - until the neighbors started to notice.

The cover story on this escapade is "security".

From a security standpoint, the need this much lakeside lighting has never been demonstrated.

What we have instead are anecdotal comments - that this is a "proactive preventative measure"

Most crime in the park is burglary of motor vehicles - during the day

Lighting lake front lots won't prevent that. They will just enable burglars to see into parked cars - and burglarize them at night.

Lakeside lighting will attract more people to the park after the midnight curfew - to loiter and commit crimes.

So on balance, over-lighting the lake shore could make crime go up in the park - not down.

Security cameras would be a better deterrent - they work day and night.

And won't make the lakeside look like a string of motels at night.

Fact is this park is paid for by all the citizens of Dallas and some of us only have time at night and weekends to use the park. It is not fair to ask us to pay for a major Dallas park and then have our ability to use it curtailed by a minority of people who live near by and can easily use it any time they choose.

Agree no one wants light pollution put up appropriate lighting but light our trail so we can use it.

Anyone can use the park now at night - up until park curfew at midnight

Plenty of ambient light already. Some parts of the park are over-lit at night = T&P Hill , Bath House, etc.

Bicyclists are required by state law to carry lights.

Pedestrians and jogger can do the same

Carrying a light equals zero light pollution - at no cost to the taxpayers.

Fixtures proposed by Parks are "acorn" style - intended for urban street corners = to light up the street

They put all their light out horizontally = not down

So exactly the wrong fixture for a lakeside parking lot.

Not 150+ crime lights left on all night - past curfew - for nothing.

Park curfew is at midnight, so a complete waste after that - and Parks does not turn off the existing light.

I run, bike, and live at White Rock Lake, and especially as the days get shorter, run at night. While it is not an inviting proposition for most to run in the dark by themselves, I enjoy it and appreciate running by moonlight and acknowledging the other runners venturing in the dark. Adding light is unlikely to eliminate the threats and will detract from the lake's aesthetic.

Waaah, spoiled rich people cry like little babies when they don't get "their way".

It's a PUBLIC place, and if you don't want lights there, don't live near PUBLIC PLACES IDIOTS.

No one that comes to the lake wants it to look like a string of motel parking lots at night.

No walker, no stroller, no biker, no jogger.

So Park Dept is going to rethink the plan

And have an alternative by Thursday night.

I live a couple of miles from the lake, and enjoy visiting it often. One thing that's beautiful about it is the absence of lighting. There's nothing quite as beautiful and quiet as a mild, dark night on the lake. In fact, there's plenty of light from the houses rimming the lake, more than enough to see anything you'd want to see there.

City folks need a place to go to get away from lighting at night. If you don't appreciate the darkness, there are plenty of places to go in Dallas that have obnoxious lighting at night.

One thing I really hate about the current plan is the old-timey style chosen. These are the absolute worst kind of lights for any natural setting because they project so much light up into the clouds, and the ugliest that you could possibly choose for any setting because most of the light from them is glare, which serves to shut down the iris of the eye so it's harder to see in the shadows. At least the lights on the foot/bike bridge near Mockingbird are sky friendly.

If there's an organization formed to resist excessive lighting at White Rock Lake, I'd like to join that.

Of the 100 that were at the meeting, overwhelming opposition to what was transparently a good sales job by a lighting vendor

All TV stations, most press

The DPD could not justify the lights based on "security" In fact they said it would not make the lake more secure.

See the blog on this http://www.dallas.org/node/423

Studies presented that indicated lights don't reduce crime - http://amper.ped.muni.cz/light/crime/lp040_1h.html

Parks admitted there is no "ordinance" that requires these lights

Demo of lights at Fisher Road load clearly showed they glare across the lake - like a motel parking lot

Because the fixtures are not "down lights", they are the wrong color, so they pollute - big time.

If you want to get involved in the "revised plan" - to use the lights somewhere else - contact Sheffie Kadane

sheffield.kadane@dallascityhall.com - and tell a friend

I first want to say that the meeting went well and did address the issues of the environmental and light pollution impact on White Rock Lake. I truly feel that the parks department as well as the engineers did not go any further in thought than what was drawn on their plans. There has not been any environmental studies done and the city does not do such studies as of this point when making such decisions. The Spillway project has been planned the same way without any thought on the environmental impact on White Rock Lake. Kadane did agree that the amount of lights were to many and will form a Steering Committee to address both issues. Perhaps with this in place there might be a combined plan that will satisfy all parties without having any negative impact the fragile balance of White Rock Lake. Just a quick note: The White Rock Master Plan has a bond amount of 70 million dollars. That does make one wonder what will the finished Bond Project will look like with the already careless decisions the city has made thus far.

I first want to say that the meeting went well and did address the issues of the environmental and light pollution impact on White Rock Lake. I truly feel that the parks department as well as the engineers did not go any further in thought than what was drawn on their plans. There has not been any environmental studies done and the city does not do such studies as of this point when making such decisions. The Spillway project has been planned the same way without any thought on the environmental impact on White Rock Lake. Kadane did agree that the amount of lights were to many and will form a Steering Committee to address both issues. Perhaps with this in place there might be a combined plan that will satisfy all parties without having any negative impact the fragile balance of White Rock Lake. Just a quick note: The White Rock Master Plan has a bond amount of 70 million dollars. That does make one wonder what will the finished Bond Project will look like with the already careless decisions the city has made thus far.

Last comment expresses a concern of most people at the meeting

There was clearly considerable sentiment for not turning the lake into a "theme park"

Meaning don't overdue the paving, the lights, the statuary, etc.

Keep it simple, keep it accessible, safe and natural.

Parks needs to start showing what ad hoc "features" is is planning for the park - like the "Spillway Light Show", etc.

Before another snafu like the light show on W Lawther

Follow the blogs on this - and sign up for Sheffie Kadane's committee http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/05/bad_lights_at_white_rock.php

http://www.dallas.org/node/423

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/may/06/providing-context-white-rock-lake-crime-lights-pro/