August 06, 2015
Asked and Answered
For over two years a local
business has tried to secure a special use permit for a gravel pit in the county.
The first application was rejected and the land owner returned with a new
application that addressed the previous concerns. There is at least one more
public meeting to be held before a final decision is made to approve or reject
the application. All the questions have been asked and answered. It’s now just
a matter of each side, the business community vs the environmental community, presenting
closing arguments and the county commissioners making a decision. Yesterday in a letter-to-the-editor
a writer noted his objections and posed questions. He said, “Until these
questions have been answered completely this application should not be
approved.” I was reminded of the ruler who ask Jesus what he must do, besides keeping
the commandments, to inherit eternal life. Jesus answered the question and told
him to sell everything he had and to give to the poor. The rich man didn’t like
the answer and I always pictured this being the end of the discussion. However,
I now have an image of the man going back to Jesus, or the disciples, and
asking the same question over and over again. “At this the man’s face fell. He
went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around
and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the
kingdom of God” (Mark 10:22-23 NIV)!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Gail;
-----We forget that everything costs. Once man has built up a system of interaction supplying his needs abundantly, like we experience in our land, the fact that everything costs becomes less apparent. If folks can’t earn enough, or won’t earn enough to pay their rent, then no problem, the government will pick up the tab. It will throw in some food money, too. And if you know how to present your request just right, it’ll even fix your car. What did all this cost the recipient?
-----That depends upon what the recipient decides to pay for it. The monetary cost is picked up by the taxpayer. Aside from that, the recipient could choose the cost of increased effort. When my sister’s children were beginning school, she quit her job, went on welfare, and went back to college. She chose to work hard on an education as the cost of her welfare. She’s been off welfare for decades, now, being employed as a registered nurse. Good payment. She could have chosen a different cost. She could have enjoyed the lax life, laying back in ease, paying her price in character and integrity, not to mention the high price of no education or economic development, and the higher price of disrespect from those monetarily paying her tab, and from her family. But she was too wise for that. She paid with education.
-----Are all the questions really answered? What’s it going to cost the community for denying the land owner the economic value of his property? Yes, environmental questions can be raised, and environmental solutions, other than denial, will be found through the integrity of honest research. Same with safety issues. The annoyance of the unsightly operations can be partially alleviated with berms, which also partially alleviates noise issues.
-----The truth is, annoyance is the real issue. Not safety. Not environmentalism. Those issues are addressable. If the community successfully denies the man the economic value of his property, the community has incurred the cost of its integrity and honesty for having couched its comfort concerns in the crises of environmental and safety issues. If it projects itself more honestly and denies him based upon annoyances alone, it will have cost the community a portion of its civility fashioned from forbearance. We become quite nasty people when everything about us must meet our specifications to an exacting T. We pay with diminished love when we can not forbear a little annoyance caused by another’s good fortune. And at the end of the matter, the entirety of the neighbors’ problems might be nothing more than jealousy, a very high cost indeed.
-----So. Let money talk cost where it can be given voice. If the man alleviates all the environmental and safety concerns with affective procedures, and as much of the annoying issues as can be, too, then let him pay the property owners around him a negotiated amount for any decline in their property values caused by the annoyances he can not alleviate. Then everyone retains their integrity and society its forbearance. If they succeed in denying his reaping the economic value of his property so they can enjoy the full comfort of theirs, then let them pay to him the increase they deny him to enjoy. Everything costs, even denial. All of us doing our best to pay the costs of our own benefits buys a priceless civil integrity much akin to love.
Love you all,
Steve Corey
Post a Comment