Handbill kerfuffle inflames Langley conveyance dispute

Community discord over a proposed conveyance project in Langley reached new heights this week following the distribution of handbills that appear to encourage residents to highjack the agenda of Tuesday’s charrette with an unplanned vote.

Community discord over a proposed conveyance project in Langley reached new heights this week following the distribution of handbills that appear to encourage residents to highjack the agenda of Tuesday’s charrette with an unplanned vote.

Despite city officials having made it clear that a popular consensus on various designs would not be taken, the handbills read, “It’s your chance to vote on the funicular/elevator” with the word “vote” underlined and highlighted in red.

City Hall remains resolute that there will be no vote, and both project proponents and undecideds are in a huff over what they calling a purposeful misinformation campaign. The handbill’s characterization of those designs as an “expensive circus attraction” further inflamed their objections.

“My issue is this is not civics,” said Neil Colburn, in a telephone interview Thursday. “This is not neighborly. For a town of a thousand people we should not have this kind of crap put on our doorknob.”

Colburn, a former city mayor, said he agrees with some of the critics’ questions and concerns — just not their methods.

The handbills and their distribution are the work of Sharon Emerson, a vocal critic who has consistently questioned the city’s process and challenged the purported merits of a funicular.

In an email, she took credit for designing the handbill and, with help from a friend, delivering them to nearly every door in Langley.

“Our objective, pure and simple, is to get people to come to the meeting,” she said, adding that she believed the catchall distribution meant an equal crowd of “pro-funicular” and “anti-funicular.”

“If the people who come to the meeting are mostly pro-funicular, I will figure, ‘The people have spoken,’ and I’ll stop my anti-funicular campaign,” she said.

She was also quite clear about her plans concerning a public consensus.

“Another intention I have is to force a vote at the meeting, whether the city wants one or not,” she wrote.

The handbill’s warning of the city possibly building “an expensive circus attraction” had Langley resident Eric Levine crying foul. He, along with several others in recent city council meetings, cited the negative discourse around the project as a possible deterrent to public participation. An ardent supporter of a funicular, Levine said “scare tactics” and “intimidation” have been used to keep away people who may otherwise have voiced their support at the meeting.

Levine cited some reader comments made on The Record’s website that suggested he leave Langley and “join the circus” as just one example of the personal attacks he and others supporting the bluff-side tram have endured.

“Many people I’ve talked to personally won’t even attend the meeting because of the scare tactics used, including that handbill, … and even personal attacks,” Levine said in an interview Friday.

One flyer sent to The Record, which appears to have information about the upcoming public workshop on marina access between Cascade Avenue and South Whidbey Harbor was found by Second Street resident Tim Callison. He brought up the sheet during the city council’s April 6 meeting and said he was initially pleased to find it on his front yard gate.

At the top of the sheet are details about the upcoming charrette to inform people about project options that move people between the city’s commercial core and the marina. But for Callison, the handbill’s call for a vote and negative language went too far.

“Political speech is one thing,” he said in a phone interview Thursday. “… For me, that took it out of merely civic duty.”

Callison cited a pair of city codes that deal with littering and advertising at the council meeting. The advertising materials code, 9.04.090, states that someone must be legally authorized to “locate in any way, any showcard, poster or other advertising device on public property in the city.” He said he wanted the Langley Police Department to follow up on the matter.

The rule does not specifically prohibit such postings on private property, however, so it’s unclear whether a crime actually occurred.

Police Chief Dave Marks was away on vacation and declined to comment via text message.

Emerson’s pamphlet is not the only literature being spread. Levine and the Citizens in Support of a Langley Funicular took out an advertisement in The Record to announce their four-minute video showing the benefits of the funicular option.

Early in the charrette’s development, the city’s planning director considered conducting a sticker poll or popular vote to determine which projects were favored. That decision was dropped after a meeting of the Langley Planning Advisory Board members, because they feared it would give the perception that the city was bound to the popular choice from that single meeting.

The planning board met in a special workshop session April 8 to further cement the meeting’s format and purpose. Planning board member Aaron Simpson said gathering “informed feedback” about what functions an alternative should or shouldn’t have is more important information for the planning department and city to gather than a popular vote. Knowing if promoting tourism is a top priority over mobility-impaired access better informs the city as to which options are preferred than a yes/no tally on each option.

The handbill includes a link to the website langleytram.com, which is managed by Emerson, a vocal critic of the project. Emerson has questioned the city’s lack of information about why the project is necessary, what costs may be incurred from construction and ongoing maintenance, and how to measure which options best suit the city’s needs.

The website appears to be designed as an information source for project critics. Posts about the costs cover the funicular based on past city estimates and a funicular in Dana Point, Calif., the lack of city estimates for an elevator, between $15,000 and $28,000 for an ADA-compliant electric shuttle, and $5,000-$10,000 for an electric golf cart.

While the city has been hesitant to conduct a poll or vote of the public, the langleytram.com site has an informal and confidential vote. To date, 23 votes have been cast with 19 in favor of golf carts or a van. Four votes were for none of the three options listed on the site.

Levine said that if indeed any vote were to be taken at the charrette, he hoped that the planner and planning board would not give too much weight to it.

“I think that it’s not a fair way to conduct a vote and it should not be allowed to have that much weight in the decision making,” Levine said, adding that people leery of attending won’t be counted.

As a means of gathering feedback about the project alternatives, sheets will be available at the meeting and from the city afterward. Director of Community Planning Michael Davolio said he will compile the data from those sheets and present it to the PAB at its next meeting with a recommendation based on that feedback.

A silver lining of this issue for Callison was potentially increased public participation.

“It’s funny, but it’s going to get people involved a little bit more,” he said.