Hey all you people of my generation, remember that great TV series Columbo?
That’s right, the one starring Peter Falk as a homicide investigator with the Los Angeles Police Department.
I was reminded of the show and the character last week when I got easily baffled by a motion successfully brought before council by NPA Coun. Elizabeth Ball on how Vancouver should tone down all those bright lights in the big city.
Yep, Columbo meets city hall.
Weird connection, right?
Let me explain: Way back in my days at journalism school, I had a prof who referred to Columbo when teaching us young students how to ask questions. If you watch the show, he would say, you’ll see a puzzled Columbo (in a trenchcoat, of course) scratching his head and chomping on a stogie while slowly and deftly articulating a line of questioning that eventually helps him solve the case.
A clever and deceptive approach.
So there I was last week, scratching my head over Ball’s motion and wanting to go into full Columbo mode. The reason: In the councillor’s statement of disclosure, which each member of council is required to file every January, Ball lists she has one or more shares in Lightscene Ventures Inc. and Eos Lightmedia Corp.
In fact, Ball is the co-owner of Eos Lightmedia Corp.
So, I ask you my fellow detectives, doesn’t it seem odd that a person who moved a motion to tone down the lighting in the city also happens to have a lighting design company that has done work for Telus World of Science, the Southeast False Creek Energy Centre and B.C. Place Stadium?
Apparently, it’s not odd at all, according to Ball, whom I interviewed under the lights of the council chambers’ lobby. And, she added, there is no conflict in her moving such a motion.
“There is no way I could benefit in any way from not putting light in the sky,” she answered when I asked if this put her in a conflict. “I’ll benefit like the rest of the world. It’s not about fixtures, or selling fixtures or anything like that, it is about the correct use of light.”
I didn’t really understand Ball’s answer. Maybe it was my line of questioning. So I asked her if the companies could be consulted in city staff’s work to develop an outdoor light strategy. After all, Ball’s motion requests staff to consult with a variety of folks, including “lighting designers.”
“No, not unless they were invited by the city as one of the hundreds of designers in the city who deal in this aspect but — no,” she replied. “There couldn’t possibly be a conflict in suggesting that you shield lights.”
Right, I said, but then wouldn’t you need a company/consultant/expert to say how to shield lights?
“Actually, there are hundreds of thousands of them all over the world working towards the same thing that I’m talking about. So this is not any one specific company, person or anything. This is a universal need that has been expressed by medical professionals, as well as lighting professionals.”
I guess I should have been more specific. All I wanted to know is whether Lightscene Ventures — a company she has “a small share in” — and Eos, which she co-owns, could potentially gain from her motion.
I tried one more time.
Her answer: “I have no ability to influence or effect anyone who is hired at the city — and no councillor does or should.”
She emphasized the purpose of her motion was to develop a strategy to control “harmful” outdoor lighting which can have detrimental effects on humans, animals and birds.
Anyway, that’s what she said and that's all I’ve got.
You can read Ball’s lengthy motion on the city’s website by going to the Feb.3 council page. Scroll down to motions. Columbo re-runs, meanwhile, can be viewed on YouTube. Probably better viewing.
twitter.com/Howellings
