Editor,

This letter is in response to two letters to the editor published Dec. 9 opposing the Langley funicular, which were responding to Eric Levine’s published viewpoint the week before.

In his Dec. 6 viewpoint advocating for the funicular, Mr. Levine has not claimed that there is a majority either pro or con. He stated that he had talked “to many in favor” and that the opponents at the Dec 1. Langley City Council meeting were “few but very vocal—who may not have all the facts.” His point was that although the main topic that night was the city budget, the entire post-meeting article and headline were devoted to opposition to the funicular by three people, and that a false perception could be created that more people agree with them than with the supporters.  No matter how good the idea, there is a tendency for the more vocal to speak out against it than for it anyway, but  Mr. Levine, who spoke for it at that same meeting, wasn’t even mentioned in the article.

One of the letter writers states that the Dubuque funicular is “basically an amusement ride … with a $3 charge” and an elevator operator. Mr. Levine made no mention of charges nor of the car needing an operator if it runs like most elevators do, by riders pushing buttons.

And, what is so wrong about an “amusement ride” (witness the Ferris wheels strategically placed in major cities around the world, including Seattle) providing a unique access to the beautiful view that could become, as stated in Mr. Levine’s article, a big draw for the downtown and “an icon for the city?”

Let’s take a more considered and, yes, factual, look at the funicular. I support this researched, constructive, and positive approach to the low-impact enhancement of Langley’s waterfront and downtown. Let’s put the fun back into the funicular!

CLAUDIA MITCHELL

Freeland