Show us the math, please.

Here you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41358952

I am not saying costly in direct “money being spent” terms. I mean costly in “adversely affecting project investment profile.”

This is not the same as costing a bunch of money.

No, it's worse because the costs are diffuse and so harder to predict and manage.

The delay induced costs are not the only negative impact. During permitting the muni will often make varrious cost adding demands that they have no basis in law or good engineering to make, but unless you're willing and able to take on more years of delay (and potential litigation costs) you have to go along with them to appease them.

And, of course, every opportunity for a subjective call allowing a disruption is a opportunity for corruption.

Maybe! But it still does not comport with the original post that I replied to which said that permitting etc are the major driver of cost of any construction project. It is not.

The point being made is that if you consider permitting holistically by attributing to it all costs that wouldn't exist if permitting didn't exist-- the cost is much greater.

When people complain about the costs of permitting they mean the these total costs, not e.g. some 1% of total project costs filing fee or whatnot.

Okay then, please demonstrate it and/or provide evidence.

Otherwise you're on a thread where someone is pooh-poohing an effort to improve costs where we know they exist (labor) and suggesting it is meaningless compared to costs that you can't substantiate.