Editorial: Efficiency, not egos, should drive Portland’s permitting reform

At a Portland City Council work session last week, a consultant listed a number of ways that city policies increase the cost of housing construction. Requiring bike parking in housing developments, for instance, adds about $11,000 per unit. Mandating that ground-floor space be reserved for retail, adds $3,000 to $10,000 a unit. And system development charges – fees imposed for sewer, transportation and other infrastructural needs – increase the price tag by about $33,000 a unit.

While policymakers may argue the pros and cons of those requirements, there’s one obstacle that lacks any justification: the delays and unpredictability posed by Portland’s famously convoluted permitting system. Recounting interviews with developers, Matt Fairris of BAE Urban Economics told city commissioners about situations in which developers were forced to redraw designs or pay unexpected tree mitigation fees due to new or different information from the city as part of its slow-moving permitting process. That’s not entirely surprising considering as many as seven bureaus weigh in on building permits with priorities and requirements that can, at times, conflict. But delays and surprise fees add to the already surging cost of building housing.

Permitting travails are not new. In fact, city commissioners past and present have for more than two decades declared the need to untangle Portland’s permitting process and put to rest the inter-bureau turf war that drags out approval of even basic permits. But a new statewide push to boost cities’ housing construction numbers may provide the best chance to finally fix the city’s permitting process.

That is, of course, assuming more turf wars don’t get in the way.

City Commissioner Carmen Rubio, who oversees the housing and development services bureaus, is leading an effort to consolidate the sprawling permitting process. After several months of study, she is now calling on city leaders to work together to map out funding, organizational changes and code revisions that unify permitting functions under a single entity in time for the start of the next fiscal year. While the ultimate proposal remains to be seen, the underlying idea is entirely reasonable: Rather than force developers, builders and homeowners to go through permitting processes with multiple bureaus that give conflicting information and show little urgency, Rubio wants to establish one efficient, customer-focused place where employees can give consistent information and are empowered to resolve conflicts.

City Commissioner Mingus Mapps, however, is arguing that the permitting staff in the various bureaus should stay where they are, as Willamette Week’s Sophie Peel reported. He notes that a pilot program that has created a cross-agency team to tackle permitting obstacles shows promise in reducing delays and resolving problems. Instead of consolidation, he contends the city should focus on fixing conflicts in city code – an area that Rubio’s office has already been working on.

And on cue, directors of four of the key bureaus – transportation, water, environmental services and parks – sent a letter last week to city commissioners attesting to the importance of keeping their fingers in the permitting pie. (Three of the four bureau directors report to Mapps; while the fourth bureau, parks and recreation, reports to City Commissioner Dan Ryan).

The letter, however, is unserious. It provides no compelling argument for why maintaining the multi-bureau circus act offers greater efficiency than centralizing employees with the knowledge and authority in one bureau. It makes suggestions that are already in place or underway. It highlights progress in cutting permitting red tape, but some achievements are notable only because it took so long for the city to adopt them. For example, the letter crows about “hard-won victories” including a decision to add installation fees to the Water Bureau’s permit. The change makes the process consistent with other city bureaus’ and gives applicants such information up front, rather than surprising them later, the letter states. The directors question whether such an idea would occur to a bureau that has to consider multiple infrastructural priorities. The bigger question is why it took the water bureau so long in the first place to make such a simple improvement.

Perhaps most telling was a sentence in the letter warning that “a consolidation process, including new reporting structures, organizational charts, authority, expectation setting, staff supervising, etc. would take time away from” existing efforts to improve the permitting process. Such an assertion reveals that the real focus is on keeping bureaus’ supervisory and employee ranks intact – not on serving the public. Because why prioritize efficiency when there are fiefdoms to protect and egos to be fed?

Portland has been in a housing emergency since 2015. The city needs thousands more housing units a year to help dig out of its shortage. The existing permitting process is undeniably outmatched and unable to operate with the speed, efficiency and clarity that builders need to make a dent in our housing crisis.

This is no time for pointless battles. We need our city leaders to work together and collaborate on developing a single, unified permitting process that serves Portlanders – not bureau directors, change-resistant employees or commissioners. Mapps should abandon his plan to submit a competing proposal and work with Rubio to help develop – finally – a solution that truly meets the need.

-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board