Almost two decades ago, I wrote an essay, Bright Lights, Little Sky, lamenting the disappearance of dark skies in Montana, and with the darkness, the opportunity to stand beneath the Big Sky at midnight and reach out and touch the stars. I thought back to that essay after reading these paragraphs in a letter that HD-4 candidate Derek Skees sent to rural voters in his district last week:
The “Dark Skies Ordinance” telling people what kind of lights they can use will just be the beginning.
I call it the “Dark Porch Mandate”!
This ordinance would force folks to cover any outside lights, set up draconian restrictions on wattage and allow for massive fines for those refusing to comply.
Even if the folks living within the city limits think this is a good idea, what about folks in rural areas who need larger lights to bring light to bigger areas?
What about folks who have livestock to protect?
Does the anti-light bulb crowd just want people to have to trek outside their front stoop armed with only a flashlight every night to make sure their livelihood — and their family — remains safe?
The sad news is, I’m afraid some want these rules to apply to rural areas just so they can keep money coming in from fines levied.
This is a red herring, intended to divert attention from Skees’ screwball ideas and ultra-right wing political philosophy. It’s a radical approach to property rights. And, it’s factually wrong.
Here’s what Whitefish’s dark sky ordinance actually does:
The ordinance requires light fixtures to block light from shining upward and sets stricter rules for commercial lighting.
Residents will be required to install light fixtures that shine downward. Lights without any type of shielding will be limited to 45-watt bulbs while lights with partial shielding can use bulbs up to 60 watts.
Commercial exterior lighting must be on poles no taller than 30 feet, mercury vapor lights cannot be used and canopy lights, such as those at service stations, must be fully shielded.
Whitefish’s dark sky ordinance follows the philosophy of the International Dark Sky Association, which wants to reduce the energy used in lighting and leave the sky darker so more stars can be seen. Flathead Beacon, 16 August 2009.
These requirements are far from onerous. Shielded light fixtures reduce glare, eliminate or at least greatly reduce light trespass, and save money because smaller lamps can be used. Preventing light from escaping skyward reduces skyglow, or light pollution.
Having lived in cities, I know from personal experience how rare it is to live in, or near, a community where the stars still shine brightly at night, and the green and red curtains of the aurora borealis wave above the northern horizon. One need only travel a few miles outside Montana’s cities to find skies dark enough for a star party.
Preserving those opportunities for experiencing the Big Sky as Lewis and Clark did requires that citizens work together to govern and protect the commons. We do that through dark sky ordinances, which are in effect in Kalispell and Whitefish, and a few other areas in Montana.
And this community effort to protect is what Skees rejects. He does not recognize the commons, let alone our collective responsibility to preserve the commons. To his libertarian wired mind, dark sky ordinances curtail his freedom to install the lights of his choice, up to and including military searchlights to sweep the night for black helicopters.
That argument is consistent with an philosophy of property rights holding that a man can do whatever he wants with his property as long as no harm is done. Given that some men are completely blind or indifferent to harm, this approach, were it to become law, would confer the blessing of the state on hammer forging metalworks next to sleep therapy centers, pig farms next to perfume shops, and gunpowder factories next to day care centers. Electric lights, always on, would be everywhere, and the brilliant fields of stars that entranced Lewis and Clark would be visible only in our mind’s eye.
Skees’ letter, dated 20 October, was written on one of the clearest October days I’ve experienced. That night, atmospheric turbulence didn’t cause the stars to twinkle. The air was clear and still, the constellations bright down to the horizon, the almost full moon etched in fine relief, and Jupiter’s Galilean moons visible in a small telescope or long telephoto lens. Around 0400, I mounted a DSLR with a 450mm lens on a tripod and photographed the moon. It’s what Skees should have been doing instead of denouncing efforts to keep our skies dark.
From: Derek Skees
To: derekskees@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:04 PM
Subject: More confusion from Mike Jopek
Hello Folks,
It looks like Mike is back from his break from the computer carrying the attack water for Mr. Hammerquist, and has tried desperately to find fault with me again. As usual for the personal attack mantra he is so famous for, he is commenting on a letter I sent to the donut residents. He is unable to refute any of the details presented in it, so he cooks up some UFO stories, attacks my eligibility, and just slanders me…again. I will try and be short in my analysis of his errors. At least he has learned not to reference any of his bogus facts this time, for me to easily refute. please join me in emailing this to as many as we can to help end the lies of the Will Hammerquist campaign.
1) He references as his source of info a radical leftist blog/entertainment site famous for character assassination without any proof. It is a shame that Mr. Connors[sic] and Mr.Jopek can not defend their positions logically, so they must resort to the shallow and very tired tactic of name calling, and paraphrasing my words to draw their very predictable conclusions. Therefore, I disregard the web site cited as any type of news source. I sent over 1200 mailers, and if you want to see the letter in its entirety, just let me know and I will send it.
I quoted Skees directly, with attribution, and provided a link to the full 20 October 2010 Skees letter. James Conner, Flathead Memo.
2) Mr. Jopek has once again broadcast his ignorance on this subject; one that his boss Mr. Hammerquist calls “a local issue, and therefore one he doesn’t want to comment on”. It seems his attack dogs want to talk about it.The Dark Skies reference was to the Ordinance adopted by the City, which works incredibly well in the urban environment of Whitefish City, yet does not in the rural areas. The Ordinance could easily be fine enforced in the donut where it makes no sense to residents that want to have the freedom to illuminate their yards, approaches and porches as they see fit. Being the very petty dictator wanna-be I described, he once again shows us he has no concept of individual rights. All the people want is to decide what level of lighting they can have on their own property in the rural areas. It just is “common sense” for him to tell you what to do by couching it in emotional feel good sentiments to cloud the fact that he wants to mandate by law what you can do.
Point two above underscores my observation that while most see dark sky ordinances as an exercise in protecting the commons, Skees sees them as an infringement on his “right” to install any kind of lighting that he chooses. The difference is one of philosophy. James Conner, Flathead Memo.
3)The bottom line is that these leftists (which seem more radical with each day they spew their rhetoric) just can’t seem to understand that the real issue about the donut is lack of representation.These rural folks just want a say in what they are told they can not do. That simple fact, and the truth that its understanding is lost on the Connors,[sic] Jopeks and Hammerquists of the world just proves how out of touch they really are with the average voter in HD4. The simple fact that they continually call it “the Whitefish seat”, and want to disenfranchise people not in the city limits proves my point better than I could. To them, it is all about control. Their control to tell you what is good, and therefore what you should do. I just want you to have the freedom to decide for your self. They obviously don’t have confidence that you will be able to do the right thing so they want it in law, to force you.
Referring to HD-4 as the Whitefish district is shorthand, not proof of a wish to disenfranchise people who live in the rural precincts of HD-4. In fact, as a resident of the Kalispell doughnut, I’m sympathetic to the concerns of doughnut dwellers — including their concern that creeping urbanization might bring with it more lights that threaten dark skies. James Conner, Flathead Memo.
I know the people of House District 4, and they are smart enough to police themselves without layers of mandates, fines and regulations that the left wants to impose. I want their voice to be heard, not the so called elite of the Democrat party drowning out what they want by saying they speak for you.
It is a great joy of mine that in attacking me, they prove my point better than anything I could say or write: They want to tell us what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and why we should listen to them in their superior understanding for what is good for us. We can’t argue with them and we can’t ask them why. If one of us does, they label us a “hate based extremist”, or someone who wants to destroy the government, or other such nonsense. They never answer the question, they just attack the one who asks.
I will never stop asking, regardless of the slander heaped upon my name. I will always fight to secure our individual rights, and the encroachment of government into more and more aspects of our lives. I hope you will find common cause with me, and support my effort to represent you.
Thank you.
Derek Skees
HD4 Republican Candidate
PO Box 5331
Whitefish, MT. 59937
Phone: 212-5493