Moral dilemma

Some of you may think I have nothing better to do than ride my bike around all day and think about stuff.  While that sounds like an ideal life, it does run the risk of being somewhat one-dimensional.  So to hedge against that risk, and to support my [cycling] habit, I work at a government regulatory agency.  It’s bliss. 

Life at the agency was moving along bureaucratically until last week when I was confronted with a moral dilemma.   I had just parked my bike in my cubicle one morning when I saw on my desk a paper with Wal-Mart letterhead.   It was a request for a type of operating permit.  It was assigned to me. 

I hate Wal-Mart.  I’ve said it before and I’m sure you’ll read it here again.  I see Wal-Mart as a microcosm of everything Americans have to be ashamed of, namely over-consumption of land, food, oil and cheap plastic crap from China.  Perhaps I should have recused myself from this project on the grounds of pre-conceived biases, but I am a professional and believed I could handle this accordingly. 

Last year, residents of the City of Sandy, Utah voted to allow development on an old gravel pit within the city limits.  Sandy is a suburb of Salt Lake City, so when I say ‘development’ I mean ‘building big-box stores’.  Now I had the permit application for that Wal-Mart store on my desk.  Was this my chance to slay the giant? 

The first thing I did was call Ryan, my moral compass.  He happens to be a resident of Sandy, but he won’t tell me how he voted on last year’s proposition, citing the sanctity of the secret ballot, among other nonsense. Let’s just say he never takes Sunbelt Brand granola bars when we ride together. 

Ryan is a pragmatic guy.  That’s why he works for Corporate America instead of the Bureaucratic Sow like me; something about needing to earn enough to support a family.  Anyway, pragmatic Ryan said I have to grant Wal-Mart the permit if they qualify, which they do, but he suggested a few conditions I should put in the permit to offset some of their emissions. 

So I this is an excerpt from the permit I wrote for Wal-Mart:

[We have] determined that this source of emissions meets the requirements for a [permit] as long as the following conditions are met:

1. The above referenced equipment and associated processes are operated as specified in your Registration Request.



2. A spur to the store from the existing light rail line in Sandy City shall be constructed.



3. All goods sold at the store must be produced in Utah or a bordering state.



4. The sale of NASCAR paraphernalia is expressly prohibited.



5. All employees are required to bathe semi-weekly to prevent significant deterioration of indoor air quality.



6. Covered bicycle racks shall be provided within in 30 feet of each entrance to the store.

So my question for you, loyal reader, is should I submit this permit to peer review with these conditions included? Or should I take them out?  Understand that there is no way it would ever make it all the way out our door and into Wal-Mart’s grubby hands with all of those conditions, so submitting it would only be a personal statement of my deep-felt convictions.   Best case scenario is that the career bureaucrats above me think a bit about the consequences of some of the permits we write.  Worst case scenario is that I get canned and have a lot more time to ride my bike.   

So what would you do if you were in my shoes?   I’m worried sick over this whole thing.  Please help me so I can get back to bureaucrating.