An Open Letter to State Farm, Brookings, Oregon
It doesn't impact the value of her home and is voluntary.
Why are insurance companies, like State Farm, spending thousands to defend homeowners like Tiffany Berg in Brookings, Oregon over issues that do not affect their property value and are entirely within their control, such as turning a light on or off when so many in California are losing their insurance due to wildfire risks not under their control? Evan Aronson of Portland, Preg O'Donnell & Gillett represents Tiffany Berg, a man profiting from this absurdity and my hardship as I work daily at my expense as the person damaged.
The Issue
My neighbor, Tiffany Berg, has an intrusive light that illuminates my property and illuminates my house, I purchased for its view. Yet, she refuses to install a motion sensor or cover the light. The property line is at my new 6-foot fence. My Galaxy phone did not capture the full impact of Tiffany’s light.
I paid a lot for essentially a 1-bedroom home with a loft and no garage. Therefore, I had to file lawsuit. I have no choice since Tiffany’s response was not to be a good neighbor but to defame me online accusing me of tax fraud and more. Then, I offered to settle for no money if she would cover her light and make it a motion, but she refused. But why compromise when an expensive law firm, funded by insurance, is footing the bill?
Every night, my home is flooded with light—every window displays a large white glare visible from every room. A representative from the Dark Sky Initiative confirmed that most of their clients, like me, live uphill from intrusive lighting.
Tiffany’s light, mounted 14 feet high on her garage, is positioned right next to my property, 15 feet away, far from the main road, used for a small section of her driveway (approx. 15’ x 30’). I tried to block the light with no success.
This setup has turned my property into a bowl of artificial brightness because her light is essentially at the apex of a bowl that comprises my property, which directly faces her light. In contrast, the back and front of her home are dark so the Berg’s can star gaze at night, something Brookings, Oregon is known for.
Tiffany’s light is brighter than a full moon on a clear night. In the picture below, the moon is the top light and Tiffany’s light is below it.
My one-bedroom home with a loft never gets dark. In fact, I had to hang curtains in the loft to make it dark enough to sleep, negating my, or tenants, ability to dream of falling asleep while stargazing.
The health risks of artificial lighting on humans and vegetation are well-documented. I put up a 6-foot deer fence around an area to garden, but since this area never gets dark, I don’t know how it will affect my ability to garden like I expected.
Through discovery, I learned that the city of Brookings stated in an email that no one else complained even though my neighbors are at least 200 feet away from the light, where my property is only 15 feet, and the neighbor’s property does not face her light like mine does.
The Soft Lights Foundation even provided supporting information. Yet, both the Brookings City Council and Planning Commission refuse to act to protect innocent home purchasers with common and simple legislation. California has a ban against such lights in the entire state, so I guess California does do some things right.
The Larger Issue: Insurance Industry Bias
Despite this issue affecting my home’s value, my homeowner’s insurance offers no protection because I am the plaintiff. In contrast, insurance companies freely cover defendants like Tiffany even though her decision to turn this light on or off does not affect her property value. This bias against buyers' fuels dishonesty in real estate.
Brookings, Oregon is a good old boy small remote city filled with more realtors than good properties to sell and as a result, my property has changed hands five times in ten years because owners probably only discover these issues after purchasing and then resell instead of litigating because the Curry County courts are against outsiders.
I did not know that five owners owned the property in the past 10 years. As a buyer, I was only given 10 days to discover ALOT of things in Curry County that has the nick name “No Hurry In Curry.” I suspect that city officials work with well-connected realtors to disenfranchise buyers, especially us from California.
The Real Cost to Homeowners
The more claims filed in an area, the higher the risk of insurance companies pulling out—just as they are doing in California due to catastrophic fires. But shouldn’t insurance resources be preserved for genuine emergencies, such as fire prevention and water infrastructure, rather than defend avoidable disputes over personal choices, such as making a light a motion light - simple?
I implore that insurance companies stop funding legal representation for homeowners whose issues stem from voluntary actions that do not impact their property value. It is outrageous that my insurance dollars contribute to Tiffany’s defense while I, as a buyer, am left unprotected. As an older, single, retired woman on a fixed income, I am already at a disadvantage in this system in Oregon.
See www.tiffanybergbrookingsoregon.com where I am keeping track of assets for my legal case.
#EvanAronson #TiffanyBerg #BrookingsOregon #lightpollution #StateFarm #insurance #homeownersinsurance #californiafires #lightpollution #PregO'Donnell&Gillett #SoftLightFoundation #DarkSkyInitiative #Brookings #Outdoorlightstatute