$951K for "green" streetlights in Detroit

[Ray1936]

It's wonderful. Now the tree huggers can hug a light pole when they can't find a tree.

[old guy]

Well Ray, I guess I could be considered the ultimate tree hugger. I spent most of my life working as a carpenter/wood carver and the last 11 years running a newspaper. So I've had a pretty close relationship with trees for a long time. I don't just hug them, I fondle them.

[HazenPingree]

What does a new municipal-quality "green" street light cost? $10,000? You guys are grousing over 100 street lights?

Let's talk about how Detroit has a 50% illiteracy rate, 25% unemployment rate, how we have a 25% dropout rate in our schools, or how we lose 2,000 residents per month.

[old guy]

What does a new municipal-quality "green" street light cost? $10,000? You guys are grousing over 100 street lights?

Let's talk about how Detroit has a 50% illiteracy rate, 25% unemployment rate, how we have a 25% dropout rate in our schools, or how we lose 2,000 residents per month.

Sounds like a great subject for a new thread. Go for it.

[Det_ard]

Not that it matters when spending taxpayer money, but what's the payback period for switching over to LED streetlights?

Detroit's already pretty far down the road to reduced public lighting energy consumption. What's greener than miles and miles of streetlights that never turn on?

[wolverine]

Bottom line, it's wasted Federal money IMHO. Unemployment benefits are finished for many in this state and the government is worried about LED lights in Detroit. That money will never be used for the purpose it was intended, mark my words.

I'd just like to ask [[people here in general). But why is it I see alot of these types of posts on the forum.

"This is stupid because the money spent on X should be used for Y"

I bet you could sit here, and name one million things money should be spent on. But why bother. What may not be an interest to you is in the interests to someone else. For those that are employed and may consider moving to Detroit, it would be nice to have modern working streetlights.

[lilpup]

LED streetlights are not only energy efficient and require less maintenance but just having the lights ON, which normally so many on this forum WANT, might go a long way to easing other city issues so many complain about.

[wolverine]

LED streetlights are not only energy efficient and require less maintenance but just having the lights ON, which normally so many on this forum WANT, might go a long way to easing other city issues so many complain about.

Also there are a few test lights in Ann Arbor that generate their own energy during the day and get just enough to power them all night. Imagine that. Even if the scrappers get to the wires at the base, the lights still work!

[laphoque]

Updated lighting would go a long way to making Detroit look functional. And because the federal government is providing money for the updates, the city's budget will feel the love from the energy savings.

Hope it happens.

[JBMcB]

What does a new municipal-quality "green" street light cost? $10,000? You guys are grousing over 100 street lights?

*EXACTLY* Welcome to the joys of centralized economic planning:

Detroit: Yeah, our schools are falling apart and...
Federal Government: Here, have some LED streetlights

Detroit: Our EMS ambulances really need repair and...
Federal Government: Here's money for a new park

Detroit: Our regional bus system is fundamentally broken and it's nearly impossible to take mass transit from the suburbs to the city...
Federal Government: Here's a grant for a train that ends at the city limits

[NorthofNormal]

Ahem:

Random Quicken/BCBS/GM/WhateverCo Employee: Hey, these new streetlights are nifty, and the well-lit streets make me feel much safer in Detroit...and I can jog through this new park...and I can hop on the train and head up to Midtown for dinner after work. Maybe Detroit is turning around--why am I commuting 45 minutes each way? That sucks. I'm moving into Detroit.

City of Detroit: SWEET. More $$ on the tax roles that we can spend on fixing the schools or buying new ambulances or improving the transit system...

[Ray1936]

Well Ray, I guess I could be considered the ultimate tree hugger. I spent most of my life working as a carpenter/wood carver and the last 11 years running a newspaper. So I've had a pretty close relationship with trees for a long time. I don't just hug them, I fondle them.

In your case, I fully understand and approve, OG!!! But be aware I live in the desert. We ain't got any trees. Well, we had one in Area 51, but some alien snatched it.

[JBMcB]

Maybe Detroit is turning around--why am I commuting 45 minutes each way? That sucks. I'm moving into Detroit.

Really? A park and streetlights make up for the problems with basic city services? Why doesn't the city just hand out free sparklers to every resident? Clawson might have one of the best school districts in the area, homes at very reasonable prices, and a short bike ride to both Birmingham and Royal Oak downtowns, but crap, *free sparklers*! I'm movin' to the D!

[wolverine]

Let the schools and ambulances get their funding elsewhere. I just see this on the list of one of many improvements Detroit needs to make. No need to prioritize them since everyone has a different opinion. Take it as a good thing.

Really? A park and streetlights make up for the problems with basic city services?

Well at least it's one "thing" added to the city made in the 21st century.

[laphoque]

I thought streetlights were basic city services. Apparently the reason the city's been having so much trouble keeping them up is because they're made out of wood and contain copper. They're actually fixing the problem instead of jerry rigging the things for the seventieth time and it's welcomed on here by a bitchfest. It's not like the less than one million dollars they're using to address lighting would've fixed the schools or the ambulances anyway.

[CLAUDE G]

Lets get the lights we have all working first!

I had a line come down infront of my building for our street lights. I called public lighting and their soluton was instead of fixing the line, simple wrap it up at the top of the street post and now none of the lights work on the street at all

[detmsp]

Really? A park and streetlights make up for the problems with basic city services?

The park and the streetlights are part of the basic city services! Basically what you're saying is that the city services suck, so they shouldn't be improved... yeah, that makes sense!

[NorthofNormal]

Clawson might have one of the best school districts in the area, homes at very reasonable prices, and a short bike ride to both Birmingham and Royal Oak downtowns, but crap, *free sparklers*! I'm movin' to the D!

With all compassion and support for the children of Detroit, and without denigrating the need to improve city schools...I don't have kids. Lots of people don't have kids. There's lots of talk about the importance of attracting "young professionals" to the city and this demographic doesn't have kids. If we can do small things to encourage people to move in to the city, then they can contribute tax dollars to fixing other issues.

Lots of people want to live in an urban setting. Some don't, and that's fine. Nobody is being frog-marched into midtown lofts. But the decline of Detroit hurts the entire region--yes, even shiny, shiny Clawson.

[Wesley Mouch]

Agreed: LED's save operating dollars, and last far longer than metal halide and sodium vapor fixtures.

Not agreed: The current manufacturers, which mostly are new companies, are making/distributing products that are reliable, durable, right for the application.

Known: They are about several times the cost of current lights. A parking fixture that might be $125 runs about $350-600. Typical LED 'bulbs' run about $30 vs. $0.65.

Not Known: Can Detroit's barely functional public lighting department make the right choices. I just barely trust Ann Arbor & Toronto. But at least its their money, I hope, not mine.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

I can't stand it when people refer to tax dollars as "my money." The money isn't "yours," it is "ours".

Various government bodies spend money on programs I don't agree with. They also spend some on programs that I do agree with and value greatly. In a large representative democracy like ours, this is how things work. You take the good with the bad. If you don't like how the money is being spent, then vote the guys out of office who you feel are misrepresenting your interests. BUT, please don't pretend like you are somehow being trampled over and robbed of your hard-earned cash or freedom. Our tax rates are unbelievably low for the stand or living we enjoy, and regardless of who is in office, you are never going to agree with all of their decisions.

[DetroitPole]

$951k? We spend that in what, every five seconds in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yet the compassionate conservatives here feign outrage when a poor, crime-ridden American city with antiquated and malfuctioning streetlights gets a shot in the arm from the Feds?

[Mikeg]

Known: They are about several times the cost of current lights. A parking fixture that might be $125 runs about $350-600. Typical LED 'bulbs' run about $30 vs. $0.65.

Please let me know where I can find non-LED street light bulbs for $0.65.

I'm on our condo board and I know that we're paying around $25.00 each for our metal halide bulbs and around $100 for the ballast.

Here's a chart from the University of Pittsburgh comparing the current and emerging street lighting technologies. It gives a range of $9 to $322 for the cost of a LED "bulb", which presumably includes both the LED array and the drivers [[ballast equivalent) . LED "bulbs" are not commodities like the existing metal halide and high pressure sodium bulbs - they are proprietary designs that usually require you to purchase a new housing for a retrofit. Once you select a LED "bulb" supplier, you better hope they are around 16 years from now when their lighting output has dropped to the point where they need to be replaced, otherwise you will have to pay for another entire retrofitting project.

[Mikeg]

.....In a large representative democracy like ours, this is how things work......

I don't know where you live, but here in the USA, we have a constitutional republic form of government. The federal government is supposed to have only the powers and responsibilities that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution and everything else is reserved to the states and local units of government.

Over the past decade, the amount of federal dollars going to the states and local governments has increased at a rate 2.3 times the rate of inflation - and they always have numerous strings attached to them. In this case, you can be sure that one of the "strings" attached to the $915k is a prohibition against using any of it for maintenance on existing DPL streetlights and distribution circuits.

Voters need to finance and hold their state and local elected officials accountable for their solutions to local problems and needs. They also need to insist that they will finance and hold their federal elected officials accountable for their actions and solutions to problems that are only within the scope of the federal government's enumerated powers - and let me assure you, the purchase of municipal streetlights cannot be construed to be one of them.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

Mikeg,

How is this a problem if the money that the fed government is giving back to States and local gov't is increasing? Doesn't this imply that the $ would be left in the hands of the fed. gov't if they didn't give it back, to be spent as it sees fit? Isn't money with strings attached better than no money at all? There is no doubt that tax rates have dropped dramatically over the last 50 years. I doubt that any group of people in human history have every enjoyed such a high standard of living for such a low price. This is probably because we are enjoying the infrastructure built by the previous 3-4 generations. They paid taxes to build this stuff. Now, we lower our taxes and let it all crumble into oblivion.

You say that people need to hold their local officials responsible for their local problems, but can we hold the people that weren't willing to pay for infrastructure maintenance 20 years ago responsible for the current condition of that infrastructure? What if they moved somewhere else to avoid having to pay higher taxes? It is too easy for people to avoid paying the long-term costs for everything to be strictly locally funded with local taxes.Is it fair if I vote to build a new police station, nicer schools, and a fancy ballpark [[all financed with bonds) and then a few years later move to a suburb 10 miles away to avoid having to pay off those bonds?

Also, isn't there a role for the federal government to address energy security, access and efficiency? Energy is a matter of national security. This is the same reason why there are tax breaks for installing energy star appliances in your home. Some of the benefits that some from energy efficiency accrue to the society as a whole, not just to the direct user. These tax breaks and appropriations help people and local governments pay for these improvements that benefit everyone.

If you are arguing that the fed. government should be prevented from spending on anything that isn't specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution [[in other words, that the commerce clause should be very strictly interpreted), then be clear about that. Should we have federal student loans? Interstate highways? Medicare? I don't see a huge difference between the constitutional authority to provide these services and an appropriation to provide energy-efficient lighting systems.

[Mikeg]

Mikeg,

How is this a problem if the money that the fed government is giving back to States and local gov't is increasing?

Ignoring the Constitutional issues, it's a problem because they don't have enough money to be giving it back. They have to borrow it. And even if they did have enough money to avoid borrowing, why should we have to send money to Washington DC to get streetlights, allowing the federal government to first take a cut of it to run the bureaucracy before sending some of it back to the local governments with strings attached?

There is no doubt that tax rates have dropped dramatically over the last 50 years.

Over that time, regardless of the legislated tax rates, federal tax revenues have averaged 18.5% of GDP and until recently have never strayed out of the 16 to 21% range. However, during the current recession, they have dropped to about 14.9% of GDP, a percentage that should rise when/if the economy recovers. Since 2000, federal spending has steadily risen from 18.2% of GDP to its current 25%, a level not seen since WW II [chart]. We primarily have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

This is probably because we are enjoying the infrastructure built by the previous 3-4 generations. They paid taxes to build this stuff. Now, we lower our taxes and let it all crumble into oblivion.

They paid local taxes to build most of that stuff. Local tax rates have not been reduced. The infrastructure is crumbling because local and state governments have reduced/stopped budgeting for maintenance so they can fund their rapidly escalating labor costs.
The federal government enables their lack of maintenance by providing local and state governments with funds for new projects to replace portions of their poorly maintained infrastructure in a piecemeal fashion. For example, federal funds have been used improve and enlarge the Detroit sewage treatment plant over the past 40 years. Since the federal funds cannot be used to maintain the existing equipment and processes, the game that is played involves using federal funds to totally replace nearly-new but non-maintained equipment with similar but slightly different equipment in order to qualify for the federal grants.

Also, isn't there a role for the federal government to address energy security, access and efficiency? Energy is a matter of national security......If you are arguing that the fed. government should be prevented from spending on anything that isn't specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution [[in other words, that the commerce clause should be very strictly interpreted), then be clear about that.

Since the days of the Founding Fathers, there has been continual pressure to expand the role of the federal government by reinterpreting the Constitution. When the federal government gets to the point where it is now - having to borrow and print money to bail out the states, Wall Street and the European Union - isn't it kind of pointless to try and make the national security argument that it is therefore a federal responsibility to go further in debt so they can buy us some new streetlights?