Cities Turn Off Street Lights to Save Money
In an effort to save money Highland Park, Michigan took some dramatic steps. They actually turned off the street lights! Their monthly electric bill was $60,000. Sixty thousand dollars per month. Yikes! The town owed about $4 million to the electric company which had accumulated over the past 10 years. Removing most of the street lights saved the city $50,000 per month and they can now afford to pay their electric bill.
The problem stems from the fact that the city has been losing population, and therefore tax revenues. The current population stands at about 11,700 residents down from 38,000. It all began in the 1990′s when Chrysler moved out of the city to Oakland County. Chrysler’s move cost the city $6 million in tax revenue and sent businesses falling like dominoes around the city.
That’s a pretty big step for a city to take, but I guess they felt they had no choice. The craziest part to me is that they didn’t just shut off the street lights, they actually removed the poles. I’m not sure why that is. Do cities rent the poles from the electric company? I don’t see why the electric company would go through the expense of removing the poles. Maybe someone out there can answer that.
But, you know, they aren’t the only ones. Myrtle Creek , OR turned off about a third of their lights back in 2010 and residents can adopt a light for $160 per year to have a light near them turned back on. Brainerd, MN got in on the act by shutting off 400 streetlights saving $90,000 per year. Rochester, MN tried to add a $2 per month fee per household to keep their streetlights on but the bill didn’t have enough support. In 2009 Santa Rosa, CA, Dennis, MA, and Montgomery, PA and South Portland, ME all turned off about a third of their street lights as well.
But perhaps not all hope is lost for those towns who are currently in the dark. In 2010, Concord, MA decided to turn off about a quarter of their streetlights and saved $22,000. This summer they decided to reinstate the removed lamps. A town meeting was held for residents to decide if they want their new energy-efficient street lights 300 or 400 feet apart. Also in 2010, Colorado Springs, CO decided they too would turn off about 9,000 of their 24,500 streetlights. They saved $1.2 million. This year they passed a bill that turned the lights back on and 100 people signed a petition to keep them off! They liked the darkness once they got used to it and said they didn’t notice an increase in crime.
Every city that I found (and I’m sure there are plenty of others) had residents complaining about how dark the streets are now. It’s funny how us city dwellers just don’t realize how dark it is without lights. Everyone cited safety issues for those out after dark. Some business owners complained that the darkened streets cut down on their nighttime business. But almost all the missing street lights are in residential areas. In general, intersections and industrial sections kept their lighting.
What do you think about this strategy to save money? I think it’s a good compromise. It’s certainly better than reducing services like fire or police. I also like the idea of allowing residents to adopt the lights near their house for a fee. Have you been affected by lights out?
Ashley
Hi, I'm primary author and founder of Money Talks. My passion in life is to help you make the most of your money. If you enjoy this site I encourage you to sign up for our newsletter.
Follow Me:
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
A better alternative would’ve been to move to LEDs. Sure the initial expense is more, but I’m guessing moving poles is not free either and might’ve actually cost a bit in labor.
I live in the Metro Detroit area, so I was familiar with the Highland Park story. I guess the poles could be re-used or sold for scrap or something, and the utility company was willing to accept the actual poles as payment toward the balance that had been built up that the city couldn’t afford to pay. It’s crazy and I had a hard time believing it, but it’s the truth!
I can see why they wanted to cut their energy bill, but I’d be concerned about safety as well. It’s pretty darn dark at night without street lights!
@Money Beagle: Ahh.. so the city sold the poles to the electric company. Interesting. That seemed to be the trend in all the cities.
In theory ‘adopting’ a street lamp sounds like a good idea but it has one intrinsic flaw. Those who cannot afford to do so then must be resigned to no light, therefor diminishing their safety. It seems unfair to have to pay for safety.
It’s refreshing to hear that we have elected officials somewhere in the country that can actually make a decision. Removing the poless seems a bit extreme! I suippose they are making this a permanent change.
This reminds me of one city I lived in. They had a trash / litter problem. Their solution: remove all public trash cans. It worked. No trash cans, no trash…and it saved a lot of money too.
It makes sense to try to save money particularly in these tough times, but it has to be balanced with crime too. These tough times are making criminals out of some people.
We use landscape lighting – BRIGHT landscape lighting – to make sure our house is well lit. The city hasn’t made any cutbacks to the lighting (yet) but we are between two poles anyway, and our section of the street was pretty dark.
In addition, my employer has turned off a good portion of the lights in the parking lot. It’s a BIG parking lot, and I normally arrive in the dark. I don’t really like it, but I suppose as long as I can see where I’m walking (and I can), then maybe the guards would come if I yelled real loud 
Yes, but it’s not just about money. Indeed, city dwellers take night living as a natural entitlement, but that is a very recent (last 150 years) idea. Exterior lighting at nght enabled commerce, increased safety and was (still is) key to urban life. Turning lights out is a step backward. Savings from light removal is minimal compared to the losses that can occur when people retreat from activity during evenng and nightime hours. Eliminating lights is a show horse for the failure of city managers to act responsibly, and a demonstration of their contempt for their citizens.
Very interesting. It is something that I really hadn’t thought about but would have thought that crime might be a consideration. I suppose if crime does not end up being a factor, then it is a decent compromise to save money.