Of all the pollutions we face, light pollution is perhaps the most easily remedied. Simple changes in lighting design and installation yield immediate changes in the amount of light spilled into the atmosphere and, often, immediate energy savings.  [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/klinkenborg-text/3]

The personal story

It seemed like only moments after we took possession of our new home that I got a phone call from someone at the SCRD asking if it was okay with me to have a street light installed at the corner of Eureka Place and Redrooffs Road.  No, I said.

I had learned that the previous owners had been saying no, and I understood why.  There already was serious light trespass problem from a neighbour’s yard light which then and to this day lights up the back of our 1/2 acre property, and throws light over the top of our house to the top of the hedges on the Redrooffs Road side of our property.  It was plain to see that a street light was going to add to the light already trespassing on our property and fully light up the front of our property.

I asked the SCRD person if my saying no was going to be the end of this question.  I was assured that because of the proposed location of the street light, my disagreement with its being installed was sufficient to keep that from happening.  This was in May 2004.

Imagine our surprise when we were asked by neighbours down the road when we went for a holiday drink in December how we felt about the new street light that was going to be installed.  Jaw-dropping might come closest to describing our reaction.  It turned out that the neighbour who had long been asking for a light to be installed had gone to a committee meeting at the SCRD, made a case by saying that some older neighbours had trouble locating the intersection on dark winter nights, that she feared for the safety of children waiting at the intersection for their school busses, and that she had a petition representing neighbours and their agreement with the proposed street light.  Even on the shortest days of winter, children do not arrive at the intersection until after it is light.  We had not been asked in this round of campaigning whether we agreed to have the light installed.  Unfortunately, the SCRD didn’t tell us that they had decided to order a street light installation from BC Hydro.  We found out by accident. And apparently, because the committee had made a decision on the information presented, of which there are no minutes or copies on record, we were not able to stop the process.  It was a done deal.

The street light installed in January 2005 could have been a full-cut off fixture, which would have limited its pollution.  It was not.  We had no course of action.  Now both sides of our property are well lit.  In the winter when the leaves are off the trees in our garden, it’s possible to read a newspaper in the rooms on the east side of our house without a light on at 3 in the morning.

Our neighbour may have felt the light would increase her security.  In fact, the brilliance of the light makes a dark wall at the edge, which reduces the area of visibility.  A full cut off fixture would reduce the pollution and trespass of this light, and would be the neighbourly thing to do.  But neighbourliness isn’t what this is about.  A full cut off fixture would also focus the light emitted downward, where any human trespass, bears, deer, or other wildlife would be visible.  Wouldn’t that be a better security enhancement?

The other outcome is that because of the height of the neighbour’s yard light flooding our property, we cannot see the dark skies we had anticipated as one of the benefits of moving to a rural community. I’d lived in the city for more than four decades, and my partner had lived in a rural area for many years. Darkness was what we expected.  What we wanted.  But not what we have.

The politics of light trespass and light pollution.  Full cut off light fixtures are not about special interests, astronomers, or nuts.

In the 26 September 2008 issue of the Coast Reporter, there is a brief story in the SCRD Briefs, by Greg Amos headlined “Bright skies, dim wits.”  The text follows:

The board held a 15-minute discussion over whether to spend $12,000 to replace near-new light fixtures on the outside of the Sechelt Aquatic Centre as they don’t comply with the SCRD’s dark skies policy.  However, general manager of community services Paul Fenwick noted the policy was not in place when the lights were installed, and no motion was made to spend the money.[1]

My story and the story above tells us that things are going in the right direction, but that sometimes it’s very important to look after the process as well as keeping eyes on the goal ahead.

Light which is trespassing on the property of neighbours, whether in residential or business/industrial areas, is wasted light.  In many cases, residents light with unshielded high wattage fixtures, which throw wasted, glaring, expensive, light energy across property lines.  In other locations light is wasted as it is thrown onto roadways, causing glare and sometimes momentary loss of effective vision.

In these times of increasing costs for energy purchase and use of all kinds, it makes sense to cut down on wasting light energy, not only in big cities where the savings might be quite significant, as they were proven to be in Calgary where a retrofit was done to reduce light pollution from the city’s light fixtures.  Here on the Sunshine Coast residents and large electricity consumers could see a dip in their utility bills with more effective, efficient full cut off fixtures.

The greatest changes will be in the more effective use of downward focussed light, the increase in security from non-glare and efficient lighting by full cut off fixtures, and the reduction of neighbourhood, both local and regional] tensions.

A resident of Halfmoon Bay told me about a recent experience involving the Sunshine Coast Credit Union building.  The resident has an interest in light pollution and light trespass, which has led him to attend to development permit processes in the District of Sechelt and the Sunshine Coast Regional District.  In the planning phase which resulted in the building of the new Sunshine Coast Credit Union in Sechelt, Mr Resident inquired of the architect about whether full cut off lighting fixtures were going to be used in the project.  He was assured that full cut off fixtures were a part of the plans.  However, when the lighting was installed in the parking lot, it was immediately apparent that something had gone awry.  The parking lot on the water side of the SCCU building is lit by fixtures which throw light upwards, onto the side of the multi-unit residence and into the hallways.   The District of Sechelt has guidelines for the use of full cut off light fixtures.  What happened?

The Sechelt Aquatic Centre does not have full cut off light fixtures on the outside of the building.  The short news article above doesn’t reveal the conversations and work done to try to ensure that this important regional building would have full cut off light fixtures.  For over a year, one of the SCRD Development planners has had on his plate the drafting of guidelines for the use of full cut off fixtures in the SCRD.  How did it happen that guidelines could be worked on in one part of the buildng, and the opportunity to model the potential good of using such guidelines could be overlooked in another part of the building.

• I will work with the staff of the SCRD, and with the assistance of citizens in the community, to ensure that full cut off fixtures are used in any building project which belongs to the SCRD.
• I will advocate for the inclusion of guidelines for the use of full cut off light fixtures in all development documents provided to permit seekers.

[1] Greg Amos, SCRD – Coming to a playground near you:  wheelchair access, Coast Reporter, 26 September 2008.