Opinion

Friday, Aug. 15, 2008

Boo to state for burying ATV bill

Proposal would have required parents to supervise under-16 riders at Oceano Dunes

Comments (0) |

We’ve got a bucket of bashed-up brickbats for each and every state official who had a hand in burying a sensible bill that would have required certified safety training for all kids riding ATVs at the Oceano Dunes and on other public lands.

The proposal also would have required parents to supervise ATV riders younger than 16. That’s tougher than current law, which requires parental supervision of youths under 14. The bill also would have put age-related restrictions on the types of ATVs that kids could ride, to better ensure that they aren’t on vehicles that are too powerful for them.

We believe this bill was a good compromise. Unlike earlier proposals, it would not have banned young children from riding ATVs altogether, but it would have helped ensure that all kids have at least some training and supervision and are properly equipped with the right-sized ATVs. We frequently hear that the vast majority of off-roading parents are responsible people who already ensure their kids are well trained, well monitored and properly equipped. So why should anyone object to a bill if it’s simply formalizing what’s already taking place?

True, lack of money—rather than lack of will — was the main reason given for the bill’s demise in committee. State Parks estimated it would cost between $9 million and $12 million to implement, with the biggest chunk of that going to train young riders who don’t already have safety certificates. The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Abel Maldonado, quietly withdrew it after he learned about the cost.

We can understand why a state that’s struggling to backfill a $15 billion deficit can’t afford to spend millions of dollars on ATV safety courses for kids. But couldn’t parents be required to foot the bill?

We urge Maldonado to tweak the bill and try again.

Light-pollution reduction a boon

SLO city planners deserve a night-blooming bouquet for taking an illuminating stand against yet another urban blight: light pollution.

A proposed ordinance brought to the city Planning Commission this week sets standards for new outdoor lighting fixtures. Lights would have to be “fully shielded or recessed” and would have to focus illumination downward, rather than skyward. The new regulations would apply only to new development; existing property owners would not have to invest in new light fixtures.

We grew up believing that bright lights were synonymous with safety, but apparently we’ve been in the dark about the latest advances in lighting. If a new generation of light fixtures can provide enough illumination to deter crime and prevent us from tripping over garden hoses, skateboards and assorted junk in our driveways—without interfering with stargazing —we think that’s a pretty bright idea.

Supes take step in right direction

We’ve got an on-the-right-track bouquet for the county Board of Supervisors for backing away from a proposal to strip the Planning Commission of some of its powers and pass them off to county staff members.

There may be a need to lighten the load of the Planning Commission. Its agendas have become so packed with time-consuming hearings that it’s taking far too long for more routine items to be scheduled. But we don’t believe that reassigning hearings to county staff is the only solution. Apparently, neither do county supervisors.

They appointed a six-member panel to look for ways to make Planning Commission meetings more efficient, rather than endorse a staff proposal to transfer duties.