DN Editorial: Whoa, Mr. Clarke

PHILADELPHIA has rarely been accused of having a streamlined, efficient government.

In fact, if you've been in the unfortunate position of needing a license, permit, variance or other official document in the past few decades, good luck. Our bureaucratic boondoggles have become legend - and not in a good way.

But a funny thing has happened in the past few years: Many of these boondoggles have been cleared, and departments streamlined.

For example, a four-year process that included civic participation resulted in a new zoning code with a commission to execute it. And it took years, but bureaucratic nightmares that confronted anyone interested in buying one of the city's vacant properties were finally addressed, by consolidating the efforts of many departments under a newly created land bank.

And, perhaps most critical of all, a broken Board of Revision of Taxes was restructured, and a new property-tax system put into place that went far in eliminating the arbitrary and unfair practices that had been allowed to develop over the years.

These changes have made dealing with the city a little less onerous, a little less like the trials of Job.

Council President Darrell Clarke would like to make another change in the way the city government is organized, this time around planning and development.

A few months ago, Clarke introduced a proposal to create a cabinet-level Department of Planning and Development that would consolidate and manage the functions of seven departments, including Licenses and Inspections, the Planning Commission and the Housing Authority. The idea would require a charter change. Presumably, the idea was driven by the need for serious reform at L&I, especially following the fatal building collapse, in 2013, at 22nd and Market streets.

Clarke's proposal has generated much pushback, particularly the parts that would give Council approval powers over the mayor's pick to head the new department, and a change that would shift the focus of L& I toward development; many feel it should remain under the public-safety umbrella.

The main outcry, which we join, is, "What's the rush?"

Clarke had been pushing to get the charter change on the May ballot. The issues that the proposal seems designed to address are complex, even for those, like us, who pay attention to them. This does seem to comply with Clarke's usual M.O., which is to introduce a big and complicated idea, then try to rush it through with little input from the outside - especially from the public.

We question why a legislative body would try to create a new, powerful city department without input from the city's chief executive - either present or future mayor.

During a hearing on Clarke's proposal yesterday, a number of people expressed the need for more time and thought. Already, the L&I change is off the table.

The proposal is still in committee, so the city will have more time to move more thoughtfully on this. And that's just what a complicated change like this needs.