Monday afternoon on April 28 at the Lincoln City Police Department Community Room Dawn Nilson, a “dark skies” expert hired by Explore Lincoln City presented her pitch to half a dozen “stakeholders” as to how artificial lights create crime, kill birds and basically ruin life for every living creature.
Stephanie Hull of Explore Lincoln City informed the group that “Our objective is we’re going to inform businesses about the merits of dark skies stewardship by (sic) responsible lighting and why city officials have decided to consider an International Dark Skies Certification (IDSC).”
Explore Lincoln City contends that “Dark skies drive tourism.” Hull also claims that “Lincoln City has significant Dark skies community and civic support and momentum.” though she did not list any sources for that claim.
Nilson began her presentation by making a curious comparison of a painting of a fictional Boston street scene with a few people walking on a sidewalk at twilight illuminated by gas lights from the 1800’s to a photograph of current day Boston. “You see people out in their Victorian dress and they’re out on the promenade. They’re out at night.” Continuing to describe the painting, “People are out at night with just minimal lighting.” Nilson then turned to the present day photo showing a lighted cityscape that showed not only lighting around a park but many office buildings with interior lights. “Somehow we’ve come to this place where we think we need tons of light, an excessive amount of light to be safe at night, to be able to walk the streets.” No current demographics or crime statistics were offered to frame the point.
“What we have now is light pollution.” She then said that children in urbanized areas will see ten percent less stars every ten years because of lighting around them at night.
“We’re adding more and more light because it’s interesting and cheaper.” she said without giving supporting details. In fact, unfortunately, most of the presentation was either opinions or strawmen created to support her narrative. She mentioned on more than one occasion how Lincoln City is actually not overwhelmed with “light pollution” and even mentioned how “really dark” East Devils Lake Road was on her trip to an evening event at Regatta Park.
“Studies” were repeatedly mentioned but none were actually cited. Moral equivalencies were drawn between those who support her vision (“Good people.”), and those who either don’t or haven’t made a decision (“Bad people.”). When asked about this moral distinction she replied, “Well, I didn’t mean ‘bad’; they’re just ignorant.”
She continued, “We’re really not conserving with energy efficient lights because people are just going out and buying more leaving them on more and have them brighter.” Again, no information was given to support this claim.
She showed an image from a satellite that purportedly gathered “radiance” data coming from Lincoln City. In what is now just becoming a tiresome trope in environmental data dissemination, the red/orange/green satellite maps used by environmental acolytes showed the heinous red light of certain destruction over Northern Lincoln City. She presented the image without a source file so it can’t be posted here at this time.
What was curious was that she said that Lincoln City was actually trending downward but the undeveloped sections of the city (think Cascade Head) was actually increasing in “radiance.” and highlighted in a glowing red light. Talking about the image and noting the area of Cascade Head, she said “These are in the forests and in the wetlands. There are no sources of light there. That means that all the light from the other parts of the city that’s going up in that “sky glow” is worsening the conditions under those super, super dark skies where there is no light.”
From there she listed “remedies” for light pollution. Basically telling the audience that the solution is letting people only use the light they “need.” This is detailed as making businesses and homes install motion activated light switches and “all lighting should have a clear purpose.” But again, the details were thin on who would determine what that clear purpose was. Is it the homeowner that wants to secure or decorate their home or light a patio? Is it a business owner seeking to protect and area at night?
Curiously, Nilson cited another “study” that shows that more lighting actually increases crime because criminals can see what they want to steal better when an area is well lit.
She then showed a photo of a double car garage with typical lighting illuminating the driveway. She then asked the audience if they could see the person hiding around the corner of building. They could not because of the glare from the light. She then showed an altered photo with the lights darkened and then the figure was more obvious. Her conclusion was that darkness equals less opportunity for crime.
At one point Nilson claimed that a study showed that women were only afraid to go out at night, not because it was dark, but because men exist. Which prompted a male from the audience to bemoan “being a white male and alive.”Â
The presentation seemed more of a sales pitch than a truly informative venture. From the sound of the approving voices in the small group, the die is already cast and “dark skies” ordinances and plans are coming our way. Not that that is a wholly undesirable thing. But it would be more palatable if facts were more plentiful than platitudes.
“Studies” on “dark skies” and artificial lighting’s effect on migratory birds are few and thin at best. A few minutes spent reading the Gauthreaux & Belser (2006) study or Allen, (1880); Cooke, (1915) about the effect of lights on migrating birds show they don’t stand up well against scrutiny and a point is being stretched to secure affirmation.Â
In particular, claims that lighting increases crime is arrogantly foolish on face value and only diminishes the already thin credibility of the movement.
Lincoln City mayor Susan Wahlke said she is in favor of lowering light impact in Lincoln City and said that she was hoping for voluntary efforts (rather than ordinances which Nilson claimed is the only way to make a change) from businesses and in particular ocean front hotels and motels to lower their lighting footprint on the beaches adjacent to their businesses. She said that there have also been efforts to work with the State of Oregon to take on ownership of the lighting on Highway 101 throughout the city.
For more information go to Explore Lincoln City. There is a You Tube video of the presentation with low sound quality and all questions to the speaker omitted.
My first thought was that if the State of Oregon takes on ownership of the lights along 101, there will certainly be a gradual ‘dark skies’ iniative as the lights slowly die off from lack of maintenance.
I’m so old school that I believe that well lit streets at night prevent even larger numbers of accidents than we have now. It’s much easier to avoid a pedestrian, bike or a car when there’s light on the streets.
I don’t trust people who want to take away modern convenience or necessity to give us something that might be ‘nice’ for a select few of us. If you want a dark sky, drive, or better yet, walk a couple of miles inland from Lincoln City. Nature has graced us with a rich bounty of night time darkness in the forest lands that nearly engulf our city.
This lady Sounds ridiculous..
This is a prime example of what the old timers called, yellow journalism. It’s cheap, it’s very biased and one-sided and attacks all areas from an opposing viewpoint
“Yellow journalism refers to a sensationalized and often exaggerated style of newspaper reporting that gained prominence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It’s characterized by its focus on attracting readers through lurid headlines, exaggerated stories, and sometimes false information.” Every claim is on record. There is nothing lurid, there is no exaggeration (other than by the speaker) and no claims were made by the reporter.