Fraser vs Carroll Electric

I bought a home in beautiful Bella Vista, Arkansas, only to discover that my front bedrooms, entry hall, and front yard were lit up like a vaping store parking lot at night. It turns out that the source is an overly bright dust-to-dawn fixture my neighbors have had Carroll Electric (CECC) install on one of its power poles located in the corner of my lot. It is on my property and lights my property, but CECC refused to remove it even though I was told I could not pay to have a light installed on someone else's property.

I sought help from the Arkansas Natural Sky Association, which provided me with some information and wrote up a report explaining all the things that were wrong with the fixture from a responsible lighting standpoint and the proper manner in which the neighbors could more effectively provide security lighting without impacting my property or the environment in general. CECC did, at that point, turn the light and shield it some, but it still shines on my property enough to create deep shadows, silhouette anyone approaching my front door from the street and shines in my front bedrooms.

Rather than being run over by CECC, I have filed a suit, asking the court to find the light a private nuisance and trespass and force its removal. I assumed this would be straightforward, but CECC has decided to bully me into submission by making the cases as complex and drawn out as possible. In spite of prodigious volunteer efforts to assist my attorney, who is discounting his normal rate, I am into the case for $10,000 with no end in sight. I can't sustain this alone, but CECC must not be able to get away with this outrageous abuse of my basic property rights or wanted abuse of the environment for no actual benefit to anyone other than itself.

CECC is not alone in shamelessly promoting dusk-to-dawn fixtures as "security" lighting when, in fact, they often undermine security, as in the case here, harm the environment and waste energy. The Illumination Engineering Society condemns such thoughtless use of artificial light outdoors at night due to the environmental harms, wildlife and human health risks. It has established five criteria to follow when using artificial light at night outdoors. The fixture in question violates at least four of these, the first of which is determining whether there is an actual need for a light. When asked about the lighting expertise of whomever was responsible for determining the need for this fixture, CECC replied: "CECC does not, and has no need, to make a determination of 'need' for the fixture." Tells you all you need to know really.

At its core, this case is about upholding principles. I firmly believe in the righteousness of my cause, and I am determined to prevail. However, I cannot do this alone. In recognition of the support I receive, I pledge that any recovery of costs, fees, or damages after I am reimbursed will be dedicated to a fund that promotes responsible lighting, a cause this experience has made me appreciate the significance of.