Joe B wrote:

Thanks for the report, Kurt! After my latest experience at Little Mountain, I decided to give up going there because of the light pollution. I had waited until the moon set, but then the seeing was barely any better. I think the light pollution is much worse than it was 20 years ago. -- Best wishes, Joe

I also have mixed results at Little Mtn depending on the season and (as you noted in your post a few weeks ago) the considerable public "bozo" factor from the Friday to Sunday night drinking and make-out kid crowd. But I still find Little Mtn a useful and enjoyable site for a quick evening insomnic drive during the week and after 1am on the weekends. In recent summers, that observing point has been more degradged due to pollutant aersols, e.g. photochemical smog from the valley and California wildfire particulants. The aersols reflect more of the light pollution from Salt Lake. When the aersols clear, the limiting magnitude drops to the east and northeast back to something closer to what you remember when the Salt Lake Valley had a population of 700,000 in 1987 or 550,000 in 1977. In 2007, the Salt Lake Valley had a population of about 1,000,000 that has sprawled due to westside freeway expansion. Sprawl development disproportionately increases per capita urban center light pollution. Aersols are a topic that is discussed in the new August issue of S&T and that I am in the process of drafting a note-post on. - Kurt Soapbox P.S. - IMHO, the club developing a relationship with the City Water District in order to obtain a club gate key and to develop a formal star party site past the water plant remains something to consider for the near and long-term future when the valley's population increases to 1.5 million in 2030. At that point, Little Mtn will be your Harmons-like urban astronomy site. That's something perhaps left for next year after the current test assocation with This-Is-the-Place urban astronomy site passes.