Fence Saga  

            Here’s an entertaining story revealing the incompetence of the Bureau of Permits and Inspections, in the example of the fence at the intersection of three local streets.

            Before my fence was built, the fence contractor and I called the Bureau to inquire about any regulations. We were informed that there were no regulations regarding fences, that the county regulates buildings, not fences.

            After the fence was completed, I became the victim of harassment by both neighbors and Bureau, regarding whether a transparent fence (chain link) could somehow cause a sight problem at an intersection (ironic indeed, because I’d settled for a transparent fence in the first place to prevent this very problem, instead of the PVC-vinyl privacy fence that I would’ve preferred, for appearance). I immediately brought my attorneys into the issue. A man from the Bureau whom I will refer to as official #1 proposed a relatively minor readjustment to that corner of my fence. I hesitated to allow it, because of the receipt of prior approval from the county, and because there are many other chain link fences at intersections in this county with which the Bureau has not interfered. Naturally, I needed to ensure that I would not become a victim of discrimination just because of some nosy neighbors with their own agenda, or because of some county officials who are indifferent to potential violations unless self-appointed vigilantes complain.

            In the midst of my delay, in came official #2, who promptly rejected the proposal of official #1, and then raised an entirely irrelevant issue: whether or not the lengthier side of my fence was on the county-right-of-way (an issue which no one had bothered to mention when we’d made our thoughtful inquiring phone call to the county in the first place). His concern had absolutely nothing to do with the complaints that the neighbor-harassers had made, and its only solution (shift that entire side of the fence inward) would have completely negated the effect of official #1’s suggestion, had I followed it. Needless to say, I told my attorneys that until the Bureau informed me which of the two officials had superior authority over the other, I could consider cooperating with neither.

            Then came the next letter from official #2, informing me that he was not even sure if he was right about his secondary issue, and that he needed my help and permission in order to prove that I was in violation! The analogy that instantly popped into my mind was that here was this official holding a figurative unloaded gun to my head, and then asking me for bullets! When I finally stopped laughing well enough to coherently phone my attorneys, I denied permission, of course. Naturally, my attorneys were not one bit surprised.

            Months passed. Then along came official #3, wanting to know why I had made no change in my fence! Gee, could it be because no consistent request had ever even been made, and because I still had been given absolutely no answer regarding who it was that was really negotiating for the Bureau and who would therefore have final authority over the other discoordinated officials??? Official #3 didn’t even mention officials #1 and #2, nor send them copies of his letter to me!

            More months passed, until the Bureau finally decided to meet my attorneys in court, which is how these things routinely get settled. A date was set. I knew that I had an excellent case, and was looking forward to shutting down this nonsense. But then, a few weeks later, the Bureau’s attorney asked one of my attorneys if there weren’t some way that we could settle out of court. Reluctantly and rather generously I think, I offered to allow official #1’s original suggestion, provided that the Bureau would put official #2 on a leash regarding his extraneous side issue. Instead of wisely accepting, however, the Bureau rejected my kindness, and suggested an expansion of official #1’s idea, although it did indeed agree to drop the irrelevant side issue. I told my attorneys no, because I had no interest in an expansion of official #1’s idea; his original idea had irritated me enough, and I was already sorry that I’d gone along with the Bureau’s request to try to negotiate out of court.

But then I thought about it for a week. Ever since the harassment had begun, I had been planning to turn the longer side of the fence into a privacy fence after all, in response to all of the hassle. I’d long since regretfully realized that I couldn’t in good conscience also do so at the shorter end, because then it actually would pose an obstruction to view, since it would no longer be transparent. But now I suddenly realized that accepting the Bureau’s offer, including readjusting that corner, would give me a major advantage in that regard: I could responsibly switch the shorter end to privacy fence as well.

Without admitting my motives for changing my mind, I accepted the Bureau’s offer, and it sent three officials out to the property to meet with a representative from my fence contractor. She pointed out to the three that the entire issue was absurd in the extreme, because the fence was transparent; all three admitted that they knew that she was correct. She observed that none of the three had any difficulty seeing through my fence when they exited the intersection after the meeting. Naturally, I required that the Bureau put in writing its guarantee to put official #2 on a leash before I would sign the fence contract to make any changes. The Bureau agreed. Then, it delayed five weeks before it bothered to do so. Not really in much of a hurry to do the complainers’ bidding, I’d say. All of these facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that even the Bureau knows that all of this is a farce.

So, under the guise of cooperating with the Bureau of Permits and Inspections, I ended up with what I’d really wanted in the first place: a complete privacy fence. As an unexpected bonus, by having PVC-strip woven through the existing chain link, instead of having started with a PVC-vinyl fence in the first place, I had far more color choice, and was able to use that to make an eloquent statement in the process to the interfering neighbors and Bureau about American private property rights. My red, white, and blue fence will now stand indefinitely as an ironic example of the sharp contrast between what America is supposed to mean, and the tragic reality that we often endure due to the meddling of little tin gods.

            All in all, I feel as if I’ve lived through a superb reenactment of the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” (“But he’s not wearing anything!” But you can see right through a chain link fence!). Oh well, I guess that I could say that all of this has had its entertainment value, and that now I do have a very beautiful, “well-dressed” fence!

            Here is what the Bureau of Permits and Inspections needs to learn from this:

1.      Tell all of its employees its rules.

2.      Instruct the employees not to lie to the property-owners.

3.      Require all employees to work toward a single goal with the property-owner without contradicting each other.

4.      Require the employees to be consistent in their requests from one property-owner to the next, so that discrimination doesn’t result.

5.      Keep all area-contractors informed and up-to-date on its regulations.

6.      Remember that a contractor and/or a property-owner cannot obey any regulation that the Bureau deliberately, or through neglect, manages to conceal.

7.      Be aware that problems need to be prevented before the project begins, not dealt with messily after-the-fact.

In short, we citizens need to require our Bureau, which our taxes support, to follow the same simple, basic rules that we as teachers require of our grade school children.

<Return to the Fence Follies page>