By SHANI KLEINHAUS and KATJA IRVIN
The Urban Confluence project proposes a $150-million modern resurrection of the San Jose light tower. While this might seem attractive to some, San Jose leaders should recognize the harm that a 200-foot illuminated structure will cause to the environment and to residents. Science tells us that light pollution generators should be perceived as any other source of contamination due to pervasive and devastating effects on health and nature. Regressive projects such as this should be a thing of the past.
Death sentence to birds (and aircraft). Light pollution is emerging as a novel global threat to ecosystems, with widespread biological harm similar in scope to climate change. Among the victims of over-lighting are birds. Their migratory behavior is altered by light. Birds’ attraction to light should not come as a surprise to San Jose. Historical records show that birds were drawn to the original light tower: “Birds and insects came in violent contact with the tower and the electric wires and fell to the ground below dead” and locals “made money selling birds that collided with the tower to local restaurants.” Why recreate this horrific scene? Furthermore, airports discourage Illuminated attractions because interactions between birds and aircraft can be fatal to both. Is it wise to attract flocks of nocturnal migratory birds to the edge of the Airport Safety Zone?
Dark creek corridors are essential for wildlife. At the confluence of the Guadalupe River and Los Gatos Creek, Arena Green Park is a remnant of times where creek side ecosystems thrived. Despite the stresses of urban life in contemporary days, these creeks still support threatened fish species, migratory birds and the occasional beaver. All depend on darkness in their lives. Increased ambient light here will interfere with animal movement and with wildlife’s daily and seasonal behavior. Why rob our wildlife of their habitat?
Residents value nature in parks. Pre-COVID-19 surveys show that San Jose residents prioritize access to the wild even in the city’s core. Residents want clean, maintained parklands and ecologically viable creek corridors. Monuments and tourist attractions ranked lowest on the list. Why not give San Jose residents a butterfly garden, a clean creek and shaded park? Acknowledge the public’s post-pandemic hopes and aspirations and ask what residents value most?
Art is in the eye of the beholder. One cannot ignore a 200-foot illuminated structure on the valley floor. San Jose leaders can expect many people to have a strong aversion to it. It will dominate San Jose’s night sky and, like electronic billboards viewed at a similar distance, the view from the hills will be a blob of light pollution. Similar to the Los Angeles “Reef” project, which is visible from a great distance day and night. Resident’s dismay and complaints are sure to follow. Why increase public anxiety and consternation?
The pandemic sharpened our senses and helped us appreciate the value of nature, of birdsong, of dark starry nights and the beauty of the Milky Way. Why would San Jose willfully select an icon that obscures the sky and symbolizes a legacy of dead birds and enduring environmental harm? An illuminated tower anywhere in the city will be harmful to our environment and should not be promoted in the 21st century. It is time for San Jose to reconsider this project, and, hopefully, direct philanthropy in the city to better causes.
Shani Kleinhaus is the environmental advocate for the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. Katja Irvin is co-chair of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Water Committee.
Please take a moment to make a comment on the article here.
