To the Editor:

A number of years ago, I took a class in college on writing about science for the public.  The professor told us research showed that, when people didn't understand what they were reading, (readers being either scientists or the general public) they tended to think that the writer was more intelligent than if they easily understood the material, i.e. smarter than the reader.  The instructor encouraged us not to go that route and befuddle with jargon, and instead write as clearly as we could.

Last night at the Knox Town Hall, at the meeting about the proposed lighting and noise ordinances, it seemed that that thinking has changed.  People clearly (except for a few exceptions) didn't understand the proposed noise ordinance, mainly written by Dan Driscoll of the Knox Planning Board.  It was complicated, but some technical issues don't lend themselves to simplification; to be precise, they have to be technical.

What I found surprising was that, instead of admiring a person who could deal with complex issues, Supervisor [Vasilios] Lefkaditis and many of the audience were rude to Mr. Driscoll, Lefkaditis going so far as to claim that Mr. Driscoll had a "vendetta."  (Against who or what, he didn't make clear.  How proposing rules to keep a rural town quiet is a vendetta, I don't understand.)

I think that Mr. Lefkaditis and members of the public might do well to remember that the State of New York used to pay for Mr. Driscoll's expertise on issues relating to noise.  He volunteered his time in writing the proposal, and it appeared to be clear and detailed.

Whether the members of the public and the  supervisor and board felt it was over-detailed doesn't excuse the fact that some were unbelievably rude.  Civility keeps being mentioned in regard to the board meetings not because we have it, but because we need it.

There were other incidents that seemed a bit outlandish.  I believe it was Anna Wolfe who said that the rural background noise can be 35 to 45 decibels.  Anyone who has listened to a course of spring peepers knows it may be even louder.

While we might welcome that sound as a sign of spring I wouldn't like to listen to them at close range all through the year.  And often, as I can speak from experience, I hear nothing but birdsong from our property in Knox.  So, although "rural noise" can reach that level, and neighbors sometimes run a tractor or a chainsaw, it is often very quiet.  (Something to remember when reading about decibels is that every time the number goes up 10, the sound level doubles.  So 40 decibels is 10 times louder than 30, and 50 is 100 times louder than 30.)

l have to mention a few other points.  Virtually none of the questions asked of the planning board members could be answered without interruption.  Questions were asked, not to learn, but to make points.

Sneering at the very idea of wanting to star-gaze — thus needing dark skies — wasn't really productive.  People have different tastes.  As far as  affecting other people, star-gazing doesn't have an impact on anyone else but the observer  And it can give a sometimes necessary perspective on our place in the universe.

Noise, on the other hand or very bright lights, have an impact far beyond their immediate area.  One point made repeatedly (and repeatedly and repeatedly) was that very bright lights were needed for family security.  Security lights were exempted from the ordinance.  If I were worried about intruders, I would rather have a motion-detecting light that would draw my attention, rather than a constant bright light that I needed to monitor.

I have a final question, and I'd love to hear an good answer.  Why do people blame the lack of business in town on the planning board or the town board?  If it's the lack of regulation that makes a town attractive to a business, what sort of business would be attracted to a town with no regulation?  A dump?  Nuclear waste storage?  A 24-hour factory that bangs out metal parts?  What do you want here and what are you willing to give up to get it?

Dee Woessner

Knox

Editor’s note: Woessner is a member of the Knox Conservation Advisory Council, which endorsed the proposed amendments. See related story.