Dim savings, strategy on streetlights
Editor, Townsman:
To be honest, for the first few weeks I was a bit neutral about the lack of lighting in town. Now, like many other residents, I'm growing concerned and agitated.
The decision to turn off 626 lights in Andover (over 30 percent of the lights in town) is, to say the least, questionable. Given the "cost savings" being generated versus the increased risks the taxpayers of Andover are faced with (particularly when there were other options that could have been taken to save money), this option is not something we should have considered in the first place.
If we were a poor community, we might understand this decision. If money wasn't being spent on unnecessary accessories like inserting bricks into street crossings instead of painting, we might understand how pinched our budgets are. Yes, this recession has had an impact on the town's available funding, but let's use our common sense. Please, don't help us understand how we're reducing our carbon footprint or should be enjoying the night sky with a "Dark Skies" initiative - that's naĆØve and demonstrates how dimly lit this idea is.
Do we really understand what the cost per year per light is in savings? Here's the math:
Selectmen would like us to believe there's major savings available by turning the lights off by projecting a two-year cost saving of $198,000 (Board of Selectmen meeting notes, Aug. 3, 2009). That equates to $99,000 per year / 626 lights = $158 per light. Divide that by 365 days and it saves $0.43 per day per light.
Turning the lights back on will cost $100 per light and there's a $50 cost per light for shut off by the power company (Selectmen meeting notes, Aug. 17, 2009). So let's assume this experiment is left in place for two years and someone wakes up and turns the lights back on. Here's the final math:
Two-year cost "savings" per light of $316 - $100 - $50 surcharge per light = $166 savings x 626 lights = $103,916 in two-year savings. That's a savings of $51,958 per year (not $99,000 town management would like us to believe) or $83 per light per year. Divide that by 365 days = $0.23 per day per light. What genius thought this was a good idea?
I don't remember being asked if we'd chip in to keep our lights on and would've gladly paid that in extra taxes. Did anyone consider simply turning the lights down, or switching to more energy-efficient light bulbs? Can someone please help us understand what rational town manager thinks that removing the light fixtures that were turned off is a good idea? Can you imagine that?
We live in one of the most affluent towns in Massachusetts, pay a hefty tax bill, which by the way is increasing next year, and we're being told that something as basic as street lighting is going be diminished permanently. Have we lost our minds? We don't live in a third world country.
Harry Miller
12 Standish Circle
[Ed. note: In response to the letter, which was sent to town management, Town Manager Buzz Stapczynski wrote, in part: "As far as the Main Street project and the brick cross walks, there was a lot of discussion by the Main Street Committee and staff about every aspect of the design. With a project that big and visible it is easy to pick out one or two elements and criticize them. Everything in the project was examined in terms of cost, maintenance and how it 'fit' into the big picture - the look we wanted to achieve in our downtown now and for years to come." Mr. Miller plans another letter on this subject next week.]s
