Editor,

If we don’t build a funicular/elevator, would we have to return the money? One of the grant’s original purposes was to widen Wharf Street and make the bluff safer. After all, improvements to the marina will be wasted if Wharf Street is damaged or destroyed. Private property owners might be reluctant to invest in new development if Wharf Street is not improved to accommodate more traffic and reduce the likelihood a slide will occur.

One critical improvement that remains undone is barriers to trap slide debris before it hits the road or homes, as recommended by engineers in 2013. The system would help protect the public from “shallow slides that will be difficult to control over the long term.” A “shallow slide” means that less than 5 feet of the bluff face collapses. That can still be a heck of a lot of dirt — very destructive and dangerous. The report recommends either a retaining wall or special mesh fencing.

When you think about it, it’s a miracle that no one was hurt in the 2013 slide. With the city’s intention to increase marina use, the risk will only grow. If someone were injured by slide debris and it were known that the city had ignored advice to install a debris trapping system, how would the family, council, and all of us feel? What would be the liability implications?

Additionally, the mayor has stated that at least $90,000 has been spent so far to improve the drainage on Cascade Avenue. This was what the original grant was supposed to pay for. Couldn’t the city ask for the grant to repay the citizens for that cost?

No doubt there are other good appropriate uses for the grant, but returning some of the money wouldn’t be the end of the world.

SHARON EMERSON

Langley