It seems that ADOT and the pro-lights advocates on the City Council have created a political ploy to define the options about streetlights along 89A.  It’s either lights along the strip or no lights and ADOT turns over road maintenance to the city at a cost of millions.  They’ve done this to scare residents into supporting the lights – which will also cost millions. But what about a third option, which is not only feasible but sensible?  No lights and ADOT still maintains the road.  Why do ADOT and certain council members want to foist the lights upon the city? 

They first tried to justify the lights as a safety issue, but they were proved wrong.  Others demonstrated that streetlights were the most ineffectual way of improving safety (only by 2%).  So now they are trying to couch this issue in terms of money and the cost to taxpayers.  Unfortunately this has not been their primary concern on other issues, as the council has mismanaged funds over the years and has gotten the city deeper in debt.  I would really like to know who truly benefits from the installation of the streetlights, because it surely isn’t us residents.  I would love to see the local media follow the money and see where that leads.  Maybe this would explain why so few are imposing the lights onto so many.

Henry Twombly