Fight brews over tab for highway lights (Atlanta: credit card, live in)

[anadyr21]

It's bad enough we have to cut the budget for fire and police services, but are they seriously considering skimping on lighting the highway!?! In Atlanta!?! With no actual research to determine whether or not this is really safe to do?

Fight brews over cost of lights on interstates | ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/01/12/interstate_lights_Atlanta.html - broken link)

[cityrover]

No, they are just wanting to cut the lights within city territory, creating a nice rainbow pattern as one drives across. They have been doing this on I75 in cobb for a while and it is maddening. Either turn it all on or all off.

I would support all off before a random/timed/selective shut down.

[DeaconJ]

Other cities have had this exact problem...every government wants the other to foot the bill. I know in Charlotte there has been an ongoing problem with replacing broken or burned-out lights on the highways there. I personally have more important issues to concentrate on and I'm sure there are higher priority city of Atlanta issues we can discuss.

[atlantagreg30127]

Personally I would like to see a law in place on a Federal level that would forbid Cities from cutting certain things in order to balance a budget and/or save money. Such as, NO police officers or fire personnel could be laid off, no safety lighting in key road areas can be shut off, no reduction of staffing for 911 call centers, etc. If cities want to save money, they can cut the paychecks of the City leaders, and cut expense accounts and City employee credit cards, cell phones, and car use. Leave the police, fire, and lighting alone.

[blondandfun]

I agree with the city on this issue. The state built and maintains those highways and the "connector".

Why should I who lives in city pay for people who are just driving through from another state or county/town? That's the state's job.

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by blondandfun

I agree with the city on this issue. The state built and maintains those highways and the "connector".

Why should I who lives in city pay for people who are just driving through from another state or county/town? That's the state's job.

But you do that with other services anyways right now (see the MARTA debate, as an example). I hear what you are saying though.

[neil0311]

I'm not sure my opinion on this, but I would ask the question why no one from the city complained or raised this issue before, such as when the lights went in years ago? Why do these kinds of disputes only arise when people want to go back on previous agreements or change the rules?

Did the city just figure out it pays the light bill, similar to how they woke up one day and discovered they had a $100 million deficit?

[blondandfun]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I'm not sure my opinion on this, but I would ask the question why no one from the city complained or raised this issue before, such as when the lights went in years ago? Why do these kinds of disputes only arise when people want to go back on previous agreements or change the rules?

Did the city just figure out it pays the light bill, similar to how they woke up one day and discovered they had a $100 million deficit?

Good point. One thing that bothers me about the city's stance on this issue is that they are willing to not just fight the issue with the state, but they are willing to shut the lights off and danger everyone including those of use who live in the city.

This whole "We are King" attitude by them is displayed here.

[coolyfett]

All of the highways should be well lit at nighttime, The people here already can not drive, not they are taking lights off of the expressway?

[blondandfun]

I don't think the stretch of I-85 up around N. Druid hills has good lighting at all, and there are almost as many lanes there. SO, I don't think it's a requirement.