By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
OCEAN CITY — And the citizens spoke: “Let there be … no light.”
On at least one issue, the citizens who offered their views at public comment during the Ocean City Council meeting Thursday evening didn’t have to wait long for a response. The mayor granted their request as soon as public comment finished.
A trio of citizens appeared before council Sept. 24 and presented a petition to fight the plan for additional street lights along the Haven Avenue bike path in their neighborhood between 25th and 29th streets. They cited concerns about increased activity at night, especially from teenagers, the negative impact on the Stainton Wildlife Refuge that runs along the bike path, and the fact they were not consulted about the project.
“I visited 29 homeowners on Haven Avenue between 25th and 29th last Sunday and not one of them was in favor of having lighting installed,” said Bill Long, a retired teacher who lives at 2621 Haven Ave. He added that the 27 who were home signed a petition that he brought to council.
“We oppose the plan to install additional lighting for the following reasons: It is unnecessary and not a good use of taxpayer money,” Long said. “There are 13 streetlights in this four-block stretch of Haven Avenue. The path is well illuminated by these lights. Those who choose to ride along the path in the dark should have bicycle lights as required by law. It is not desirable to have large numbers of people on the bike path after dark.
“We have requested and are waiting for the city to provide us with a list of any and all complaints about the safety of the bike path, which is claimed to be the origination of this proposal,” he added.
Long claimed more than 90 percent of the people on the bike path are teenagers and better lighting “would just bring more teenagers.”
His second point was that the path runs along the Stainton Wildlife Refuge, a 16-acre preserve meant to remain pristine and protect migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, mammals and turtles.
“It is one of the last remaining wild areas on the island,” he said, adding a neighbor contacted the state Department of Environmental Protection and was told the lighting would be detrimental to the wildlife there.
Long’s final point was “there was no consultation with the homeowners who live along the bike path.” He said that was unlike past proposals in his neighborhood, which he applauded.
Sandra Finsel, who lives at the corner of 29th Street and Haven Avenue, said she had the same concerns as Long.
“No matter how subtle new lights may be, lights on all night would invite activity all night long, making what is now a quiet neighborhood a potential location for people leaving the boardwalk, particularly teens,” she said. “It makes no sense to encourage the riding of bikes at night because it is inherently dangerous, lights or not. There are already streetlights along this section of Haven Avenue that illuminate the bike path very well.”
She said although the lighting would have an adverse effect on the homeowners there, they were not given the chance to have input on the plan.
“As our petition shows, 100 percent of the homeowners we were able to contact in a few days’ time are opposed to the plan. And 100 percent of them had heard nothing about it,” Finsel said.
“I’m asking council to discard this plan in view of the widespread opposition to it among those most affected by it,” she said. “There is just no justification for this project.”
Bill O’Neill, of 2419 Bay Ave., was short and to the point.
He wanted to “throw in my two cents about this lighting along Haven Avenue. I think it is a bad idea, a waste of money and intrusive. If you guys want to talk about public safety, how about doing something about the bikes on the boardwalk? I think that’s ludicrous. OK. That’s all I have to say. Bye.”
As soon as the public comment section finished, Mayor Jay Gillian spoke up.
“We will kill the lights on the bike path,” he said. “There’s your answer.”
Two council members spoke up later in the meeting.
Keith Hartzell said he and Bob Barr had been planning to visit the neighborhood and talk to the residents there but that the mayor ended the need for that.
Hartzell said the reasons for the opposition “seem plausible,” but he did not agree about the teenagers, saying he wanted to stick up for them because they use the bike path to get back and forth from their jobs. He also said as a frequent bike path user, he saw more families on the path rather than mostly teens.
Barr, the council president, said there should have been citizen input.
“I’ll be honest, when it comes to lighting that may shine into a home, if someone wants a light, we normally do a survey and knock on doors. This just fell through the cracks. I didn’t feel this would upset many folks. That’s my fault. My bad. Lesson learned.”
