Editor,

Langley government has justified the funicular by focusing on tourism to expand waterfront access. In doing so, they have ignored other city policies and regulations that exist to protect the environment and assure public safety. Building infrastructure on unstable bluffs with a frequent history of slides is not being environmentally or socially responsible.

The city’s comprehensive plan, the policy plan for future growth, states that critical areas like the bluffs above the marina should be protected and that development should move to more appropriate areas. The plan says that critical areas should be developed only as a last resort. Other transport options exist for improved waterfront access so mechanical assist is not a last resort scenario.

The Langley Shoreline Master Program, a regulatory document, contains numerous policies for environmental protection and public safety in Section 4.3, Environmental Protection and Critical Areas. Island County and Washington State shoreline regulations consistently replicate the city’s, making it clear a device like a funicular is an unviable option on hazardous bluffs. Langley’s shoreline master program was often cited during the Langley Lift assessment period as guaranteeing the public’s right to waterfront views on Cascade Avenue. City officials believed that building a high-profile elevator and station that blocked the view was fine as long as they built a deck that provided the vista while standing upon it. They ignored the regulatory document.

City leaders should not pick and choose what they like from planning guidelines and shoreline regulations to justify their transport preference. In their pursuit of mechanical assist devices, Langley government has disregarded numerous regulations of the Langley Shoreline Master Program, Island County Shoreline Master Program, and the Washington State Shoreline Management Act. Perhaps, city officials are unaware of these documents and laws. Maybe, they do not respect the Shoreline Master Program or the fragile environments that it is mandated to protect.

Shoreline regulations state that when a conflict in requirements exists (for example, improved access versus environmental protection), then the standard more protective of natural resources shall govern. Complete environmental protection is often unrealistic but mechanical assist options do not reasonably balance conflicting goals.

The fragile and hazardous bluffs above the marina should be left alone. Common sense says so. Engineering experts say so. And the law says so.

NELL ANDERS

Langley