June 25, 2019 — Nextdoor comment by Djloco79:
“Those two photos are deceiving as the first one has a flash and the second one does not. Secondly, these lights are to light up the street and sidewalk not your home. If you can see, the street is lit much brighter than the first photo.”
We thank you kindly for your remarks about the new LED street lighting, and we also thank you for your astute observation that the “before” and “after” lighting photos we published yesterday did not accurately depict what we had intended, i.e., to show that illumination from new FPL LED fixtures is decidedly less in certain directions than it was with the previously installed sodium fixtures.
Upon close examination of the cell phone camera which shot the “after” picture, we discovered that the flash had inadvertently been switched off. With the flash properly turned on, the lighting in the “after” photo turns out to be brighter than it was in the no-flash shoot. We apologize for this error made by someone who is still getting familiar with his new smart phone. The phone is very smart; this writer is not!
It has been our wish all along that some responsible, technically qualified media organization would undertake the responsibility of doing comparative photography on this lighting subject, and we are now promised that there will be a newspaper item published on it in the next few days.
We also now challenge FPL to take comparative photography and prove to the public, if it can, that safe, adequate illumination, comparable to what we once had, is really going to be provided to all our neighborhoods.
The correct comparison of before/after pix should look like this:
For certain, the depletion in illumination – before to after– was not as severe as depicted in the two originally posted photos, but significant depletion is still apparent. And, we agree that if you stand right directly under the new light, it may possibly be brighter than the one provided before.
However, when we compared “before” and “after” photos of illumination between light poles 300 feet apart, the “dark spot” phenomena is readily apparent in the “after” photo looking down the street just past the white mailbox on the right:
As to the matter of what illumination should be expected to shine back onto one’s property, that issue seems quite controversial. Some are highly desirous of that lighting being on their property, some not at all. In the past, back shields have been provided for those with the latter wish. We see nothing written down, in records that may go back 50+ years, that would cause one to assume that light thrown onto one’s yard by up-to-now current sodium lights was some sort of a magic, decades-old GIFT that could just be arbitrarily, suddenly withdrawn without any discussion.
And indeed in all of these recent dealings and mailings, what we as residents have been asking for, is just what we believed was already agreed on by all parties on June 4 and June 18 at the Miami-Dade County Commission Meetings – that this street lighting conversion matter is an extremely complex one that requires a lot more discussion, study, and buy-in than has heretofore taken place. That is the reason that we were given to believe that LED installations would be suspended until a plan was formulated/initiated to address as many citizen concerns as possible.
It seems quite obvious, however, that that the “suspension pledge” has been seriously violated, and the violator of same has some real explaining to do!