Land isn't free, neither are permits

A class-action lawsuit challenging building and land-use permit fees charged by King County's Department of Development and Environmental Services ought not lead to a change in the agency's fee structure.

Acquiring a building permit or land-use permit in the county can be expensive but that is not without reason. The department charged with enforcing the county's environmental and zoning codes, DDES, doesn't receive taxpayer subsidies like other government agencies. Rather, it passes on to users the cost of rent and the expertise of a staff of land-use attorneys, engineers, geologists and county planners. If the costs of this agency were shifted to the county's general fund, it would place an unfair burden on all citizens. Let those who use the permit system pay for it.

DDES' unique structure isn't a license to turn the agency into a cash cow. The department's billings need to be reasonable and transparent.

The courts ought to give careful consideration to improvements made at DDES since the lawsuit was filed three years ago. Binding fee estimates are given at the start of the permit process, allowing customers to know how much their application and review will cost. Because the estimate is binding, the county bears the burden of cost overruns.

Also, large or complex projects are handled by a single manager, reducing the red tape customers previously encountered.

Some will always chafe under the county's land-use codes. The rules are seen as inflexible barriers to building. But this dilemma highlights the importance of the permit-review process, by which qualified experts sort out rules and grant exceptions.

It is a delicate dance, balancing the rights of property owners with safeguards that protect people and the environment.

Perhaps hiking into this thorny thicket could be Task No.1 for David Spohr, the new King County rural ombudsman. He begins his duties on June 5.