Question: Which of the two mentioned in this scenario has a higher priority in the overall scheme of living?
A couple in Thurston County - an area at the very south end of the Puget Sound region of Washington State - spend years working and saving to buy their "spot of heaven on earth" in the countryside, miles from any developed community. They spend a part of those years carefully working with a real estate agent to find a section of acreage that fits their criteria for their "spot of heaven" and conduct the transaction to purchase it once it's found. Although the property prices are reasonable compared to areas closer to more developed communities, they pay their hard earned funds gladly; knowing it will be a good investment.
They spend a few years determining the building plans for the type of home to build on the area where they've had a heavy equipment grader has been paid to cut an access road into that spot and get it surfaced with the proper rock materials for the vehicles which will need to come in to begin building their home on the site. Every step has been painfully processed through their county planning office for permits and approval.
A letter received from the E.P.A. in the mail a few weeks before the construction is to begin informs them that an inspector has visited the site and discovered a small mound of dirt within the area of the building site and that no construction should begin until further communication provides them information about what they will be allowed to do regarding their project.
The couple is not only confused, but begin to worry and wonder whether their plans to build and raise their children in their new "paradise". Some evenings, when he arrives home in their temporary residence, he finds his wife in emotional distress and frustration that their family plans and dreams may be in jeopardy. He's not been emotionless either. There were a few times when he called the E.P.A. contact number, only to be treated in the typical bureaucratic style of "menu hell" and conflicting statements from an assortment of bureaucrats he finally manages to consult regarding their circumstance. It's becoming obvious that their relationship is becoming strained and loosing sleep much more than before.
Another letter from the E.P.A. arrives and it informs them that the inspector and team of bioligists have determined that a particular species of gopher which lives in the Pacific Northwest region resides in the dirt of their property and they are an endangered species - just like the American Bald Eagle had been for decades - and can not be disturbed. After some time consulting legal counsel, a counter letter from their lawyer - who is charging them $150/hour to represent them in this situation - informs the E.P.A. that the couple is willing to re-locate their home site to another area of their eight acre portion of land where there are no gophers to be found.
While waiting for a response from the E.P.A. their marriage, under stress from their situation, deteriorates under that strain. Desperate to keep it from leading to divorce, they seek marriage counseling with a therapist for another exorbitant fee; further draining their financial resources. They now find themselves in a living hell brought about by a bureaucracy that is more concerned about a rodent's well being.
While the above scenario is not an actual story of any one particular family, many parts shared have some basis in truth and fact regarding what's currently going on in this county.
Answer: Clearly, the gopher, in the agency's view, has a higher priority than the younger couple attempting to take advantage of the opportunities afforded them in our modern world of ever imposing government. Does this situation sound like a modern government that was originally intended to look out for the working people? Perhaps this scenario is one example of many, why Trump won the last election and Hillary Clinton lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment