Why not just tear down the cabin?

It's really not a big deal, only a microcosm, a symptom, of costly government wheel-spinning that often occurs on a much grander scale. It's the kind of government thumb-twiddling that makes people scratch their heads and wonder how anything ever gets done inside a bureaucracy.

Our aim is not to pick on the good folks at Glacier National Park who do indeed get things done. The goal here is to point to the process involved with removing a run-down cabin from the shores of Lake McDonald, something that the park was obliged to do as a condition of buying the land from the cabin's last owner.

The Roberts Cabin, as it is known, was built around 1950 by Edna Graham, who passed it along to her daughter, Mary Agnes Roberts, who sold the property to the government in 1975, reserving a 25-year lease that expired in 2000. She sold the property, according to a park press release, "with the understanding that the building would be removed and the property restored to its natural state."

Sounds like a pretty clear understanding.

But the park didn't get around to thinking about it until 2003, when a formal environmental review was launched to remove the Roberts Cabin and two others that apparently were deserving of removal. The park conducted a "scoping" process to get public comment on the plan, but the whole process came to a halt when it was determined that there needed to be a study to see if the cabins might qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

That study was finished this year, with a conclusion that the Roberts Cabin is a "contributing historic resource within the Glacier Park Villa Sites Historic District."

Really now? So what would it take to be a "non-contributing historic resource"? And can't we just agree that some things have no particular lasting value and let them go?

"The cabin has been uninhabited for many years and is in poor condition," said Superintendent Mick Holm. "It presents a safety hazard to the public in its current state."

Seems simple, and fortunately park officials remain intent on fulfilling their obligation to Mary Agnes Roberts. Another environmental assessment has been launched, with the park again seeking public input on what to do about the cabin.

Our bet is that most practical folks probably think the Roberts Cabin should have been scraped away by park workers six years ago with no review whatsoever. It seems likely that is what's going to happen anyway, and who knows what the total price tag will be for all the careful consideration that has transpired so far.

This is the kind of government stuff that drives people crazy.