Letters to the Editor
To the Editor:
How fortunate we are to live on an island that (still) has relatively dark skies! If you’ve not taken a pair of binoculars and looked up on a clear night I urge you to do so. You will be astounded by what you can see.
Of course, there are very large, fabulous telescopes, such as those on the orbiting Hubble and in Chile’s Atacama Desert that provide us, via the Internet, previously unimaginable views of the universe. However, there’s nothing quite like seeing for yourself the myriad stars in the Milky Way, the many stars that comprise the Seven Sisters (Pleiades) cluster, or the bright Orion nebula (glowing gas cloud) — only 1,344 light-years away! With a small telescope you can see that Saturn really does have rings, bright Venus is sometimes crescent-shaped, and Mars is indeed red. You can confirm that Jupiter is banded and has four large moons, first discovered by Galileo in 1610, and make many of your own “discoveries.” Of particular note, coming much later this year, is a sun-grazing comet that some believe will be the “comet of the century.”
As a physicist and amateur astronomer with a small telescope that I sometimes set up right outside our house, I am dismayed that our Shelter Island night sky has lightened quite noticeably over the 31 years that my family and I have lived here. Thus, I am pleased that the Town Board has proposed a lighting code in an attempt to prevent any further decrease in our night-sky viewing conditions. I believe that the code, as most recently drafted, will not prove burdensome to anyone and will, at least, alert residents to the problem and prompt remediation of particularly annoying lighting.
What I would like to point out is that each of us, no matter how much acreage we might own or how far we are from our neighbors’ houses, contributes to a general lightening of our Island’s night sky if we leave outside lights on needlessly. With everyone’s cooperation in keeping the level of nighttime illumination under control, you will, as I sometimes do, be able to take your kids and grandkids outside and show them firsthand some of the wonders of the universe.
DONALD P. D’AMATO
Shelter Island
Let the town pay
To the Editor:
Move over the “Housewives of NY”! We have the Town Board of Shelter Island, and on Channel 22, it’s getting very entertaining, but in a sad way. I’ve seen a resident attacked because he asked a simple question. He was met with profanity and was given a warning about asking something like that again. Wow, how dare he question a board member! After all, they’re only elected officials and took an oath to protect the Constitution.
As for Ms. Harder and her assertion that she used to “give her shields away,” that’s great. Mrs Fields did the same thing with her cookies! So, how about giving every Shelter Islander enough “free shields,” as well as backups for all of their lighting needs? After all, this was her idea and although she’s not a taxpaying resident of the Island, she seems to have a keen interest as to whether or not this becomes law here.
Now as for the shields, I did a little research on them as I’m fascinated by this entire situation. You see, only the people who live in their homes can ascertain what their lighting needs are. Some folks have visual problems such as macular degeneration, cataracts, etc., and there’s also a little detail called age. According to my ophthalmologist, the 20-year-old eye needs one-third the light as a 60-year-old does to process surroundings. Construction, as well as topography, has a major impact as to how the house and property are illuminated.
The proposed law stipulates that you have full “cutoff” fixtures on your home when you replace. Great, because full cutoff (no light above the horizontal plane) can make energy use less efficient. The light is not radiated laterally, which illuminates a significantly smaller area of the ground. So, you may need many more lights than you actually have now, so that the ground area such as stairways, etc., can be illuminated for safety. Even full cutoff fixtures will not eliminate all sky glow, because light bounces off the ground, water, objects, etc.
Mr. Dougherty says that safety isn’t an issue, because so many folks have burglar alarms. These alarms impose a substantial burden on the community, because the majority of the alarms are false, so the police and fire resources are wasted. The National Crime Prevention Council concludes that lighting has a crime deterrent effect!
If the town feels that we desperately need this new law, then it’s for the public good and the town should pay to have every fixture on your home replaced. It’s wrong for a government to take someone’s land without compensation, as well as require a person to eliminate his lawful lighting, without compensation, if it benefits the public’s dark sky. I would think the town would be more interested in protecting its residents than to impose a mandate that would be financially as well as physically detrimental. We have the right to determine what needs to be illuminated on our own property!
G. CHRISTENSEN
Shelter Island
Common sense
To the Editor:
A simple issue with a simple solution — a law on dark skies — has been sidetracked by some people to fit their own ideology and conspiracy theories. What it is all about is an adjustment to our outdoor lighting so it is safer for drivers to avoid glaring lights, saves money and energy on lower lumen light bulbs, treats neighbors with courtesy by not shining lights on their property and into their houses, stops illuminating upwards and uselessly the night skies. Under the law drafted by the Town Board, this can be achieved in essence by directing lighting downwards and using less intense lighting.
As a resident of Shelter Island since 1957, I am dismayed to see the level of public discourse sink to such a level. Is common sense and civility something of the past? I do hope that all of us on Shelter Island can focus on the benefits of the law for the safety and tranquility of this Island for future generation to enjoy as we have.
The law deserves our support.
YIOULA VAN RYNBACH
Shelter Island
Due diligence
To the Editor:
Dark skies? It was a dark day for democracy on Shelter Island after last week’s work session. Our Town Board decided that they must protect themselves from the citizens that they represent. They circled the wagons around one of their own, board member Chris Lewis. They agreed that she had every right to intimidate and threaten a citizen. In doing so, they ignored the town ethics code and our Constitution. All because she was angered and insulted by a question asked at a public meeting.
I asked her, several times, to explain what she meant when she told citizen Dick Kelly to be “careful” and later stating that he was “treading on dangerous ground.” I was astounded by her non-answers. At one point she agreed with our own attorney that Mr. Kelly’s question was assumed slanderous and libelous. It doesn’t take a lawyer to realize that his question doesn’t meet any criteria to be considered libel or slander, at all, especially when posed to a public official. It wasn’t a trick question and there was no malicious intent. He politely and simply asked what her relationship is with the person who owns the patent for the light fixture shields that Ms. Lewis has written into the proposed law.
Ms. Lewis somehow concluded that this question was an accusation of graft. I assumed that there is more to this story and that it should be investigated. My first thought was that Ms. Lewis might have been used, duped, by some Dark Skies activist/lobbyist. Previous work sessions shown on the government access channel 22 looked like an infomercial. Ms Lewis’s dark skies supporters touted how the mandated light fixture shields are available right now at Home Depot at the very low price of $25. They repeated this several times and it seemed odd then. The Town Board needs to do their due diligence.
But the most fundamental element of our democracy, a first amendment constitutional right, cannot be had within our town government. The idea: the law that we can question those in power without fear of regress or retaliation is not available to us. This low bar has been set by our supervisor years ago. It is a question of leadership and direction, or lack thereof.
It is both sad and frightening that this serious violation of our liberty is somehow acceptable with our elected officials. Is it also acceptable with the people and the veterans here? Or are they just too terrified to speak up?
VINNIE NOVAK
Shelter Island
Takes me back
To the Editor:
The light-hearted reminiscences of Peter Waldner and Joanne Sherman in your 10K supplement (see “The 10K Journal,” June 13) knocked my socks off! And so, I’m taking my hat (as well as my socks) off in tribute to their fine work.
I heartily recommend their delightful spread (pages 22 and 23) to all Shelter Islanders, part-time or full-time, who remember the good old days here.
ROLF HAAG
Shelter Island
