David Wall and Donna Smith both contacted the Otago Daily Times this week to voice concern at what they said was the overlooked impact of the pending change in city street lighting.
The Dunedin City Council is about to replace 15,000 ageing and failing high-pressure sodium streetlights across the city with new 3000-Kelvin LED lights.
The new LEDs would be whiter and brighter than the city's existing amber lights, but would be shielded to reduce light spill.
The project has already prompted concerns about
the potential impact of the
new LED lights on human health, wildlife and the night sky, amid calls for warmer, 2400-Kelvin lights to be installed instead.
However, Mr Wall told the ODT the project would also rob thousands of hill suburb residents of "stunning" vistas of amber streetlights across the city.
The new LEDs being trialled in several South Dunedin streets meant those streets now resembled a "black hole" when viewed from surrounding hill areas, he said.
No-one he had talked to was aware of the imminent change to the city's night views, but "without exception, everyone I've talked to has been shocked that the DCC would want to do this".
The change would hurt property owners who had "paid a premium" for city views, or invested in alterations to make more of their views, he said.
The council has consulted on the project as part of its 10-year plan, but Mr Wall said the failure to identify the impact on existing night views might mean the council was in breach of the Local Government Act.
His views were echoed by Ms Smith, who also had "major concerns" about the project.
"This decision affects all of Dunedin's homeowners. The view of our beautiful city at night is going to be completely changed.
"There will be no streetlights reflecting on our harbour, the soft orange glow over the city will be gone, [and] in its place will be a dark city."
She wanted the council to consider a further trial in a more public location - such as Stuart St - before the city-wide upgrade went ahead.
However, council transport group manager Richard Saunders said feedback from the existing South Dunedin trial had been "positive" and there was no need for another one.
He remained confident the proper process had been followed and that LEDs were the right choice for the city, but the change would "take a bit of getting used to", Mr Saunders said.
The impact on the city's night views was not raised by many people during the 10-year plan hearing, so "wasn't something that had been on our radar", he said.
Staff had focused on making the best choice for the city's lighting network, he said.
He could not comment on any impact on property prices, or say whether the new lights would still reflect off the harbour, but there would still be other light sources coming from the city at night.
"There will be a change to the view across Dunedin with a change in streetlights ... We're still comfortable that what we're proposing to go ahead with is the best product we will get for Dunedin.
"But we certainly acknowledge it will change the cityscape at night."
Related Stories
Comments
Totally agree. I was in the Coromandel recently and had to walk down a hill (which was just outside town) in near shear blackness until a few metres before the first LED lightpole. Good for star gazing but it will cause accidents for walkers who rely on ambient light.
It is more about 'saving money' for the DCC (electricity & maintenance). But the DCC blows so much more; on bridges to nowhere, South Dunedin HUB, empty buses, illogical cycle lanes, sparsely patronised libraries & more.....
I have been dreading the loss of my lovely nighttime city views since I first heard about this proposed change. We removed the cable cars (a major tourist attraction in SF), we replaced the lovely old stock exchange building with John Wickliffe House, we replaced quiet fume-free electric trolley buses with petrol-guzzling noisy buses, and now we will replace our gorgeous nighttime views with cold industrial lighting. ...and don't mention that awful clam shell proposal for the waterfront.
Is the night orange glow really better than being able to see the stars in the sky and the pale trail of the Milky Way? We could have views similar to Tekapo and these few residents prefer to see the man-made light pollution instead?
I know which I would prefer to see.
Dunedin will never ever have star views like Tekapo. Dark sky places have the following characteristics - 1/ inland, 2/ dry climate, 3/ low cloud cover, 4/ high altitude, 5/ remote from large populations, 6/ away from coast.
Dunedin has none of these factors - not one.
I'd rather see our stunning city night vistas EVERY night of the week, than giving that up, and spending millions of ratepayer dollars, to see slightly more starry skies just a couple of times a month. The reason there is sometimes a glow above the city is because of the moisture and clouds in the atmosphere. Spending millions to lower the lights does not make that moisture go away. It is still between us and the stars (unlike remote dry climate high altitude places)
Because that still won't be nearly as good as driving 5 minutes of of town, and will never ever match places like Tekapo.
While Dunedin might never have the absolutely ideal atmospheric conditions of Tekapo, is this really a reason to throw our hands up in the air and do absolutely nothing to reduce the light pollution caused directly by us? If this is the case for light pollution then why stop there? Why bother recycling anything in Dunedin considering the city of Dunedin will never be the cleanest city in the world? Why not allow unfettered use of single-use plastic bags around the city considering there is already plastic pollution around the city? Why bother maintaining or improving the fences around Orokonui sanctuary considering the area's not big enough to support self-sustaining populations?
The streetlights need to be changed anyway. The council has a choice between using the old, inefficient, and expensive sodium vapour lamps or using new, efficient, and cheaper LEDs. Why not make the choice to do what we can to reduce the impact we have on our environment so that not only us but our children and grandchildren can experience more of the natural environment for themselves?
Between climate change and rising sea levels, plastic continents in the ocean, nuclear bombs and waste, over fishing, racism, terrorism and war and famine, these people think this is important!!!
This story is a classic example of gross stupidity coupled with selfishness. Honestly, humans are disgusting creatures and here is the proof.
I have an awesome view of the city and can’t wait to get rid of the orange glow.
Suck it up snowflakes, the world is changing.
The point is you won't actually see the city. Looking down on the test area it's like a black hole in the middle of the city - you can't see any street lights at all. So any night vistas of the city will be virtually black