The clock should move the file, not waive the inspection

To the Red Tape Council,

I support the Small Business Impact Standard. A person applying for a permit should not have to guess which office holds the file, how long a response will take, or whether a missing paper has stopped the process. I ask you to change one clause before the proposal goes further: “silence is consent.” In Mérida, that phrase could turn a useful deadline into an unsafe promise.

A file that did not move

On 2 February 2026, I went to the Ayuntamiento de Mérida to ask what municipal authorization I needed before beginning work from a small rented space. I was directed to the relevant municipal desks and told to submit the documents for the applicable process. I will not pretend that every permit follows one route: the answer depends on the activity and the premises. That is precisely why a clear route matters.

I submitted my papers on 9 February. I kept the receipt and wrote down the name of the office receiving the file, but I did not receive a date by which a decision would be made. On 17 February I returned to ask whether anything was missing. I was told that the file was still being reviewed and that I should check again. I was not given a written list of outstanding items or a named contact who could tell me what the next step was.

On 3 March I asked again. The answer had not changed. I had not been refused, but I could not plan as though permission had been granted. I did not want to start operating and later discover that a review or inspection had not taken place. At the same time, the space was costing me money while it remained unusable. By 16 March, rent and necessary trips to the municipal offices had cost me MXN 6,400. That sum did not include my own time or the work I had postponed.

I understand that municipal staff must apply the rules in force in Mérida and that different procedures can involve different offices. A permit connected to conditions at a premises cannot always be decided from a stack of papers alone. An inspection may be necessary. My complaint is not that the city should say yes to every application. It is that an applicant should be told what is happening, what remains to be done, and when the file will be acted on.

The clause I ask you to revise

A deadline with no consequence for the office is only a date on paper. But automatic approval after silence is not the right consequence for every kind of permit either. A person should not have to choose between waiting indefinitely and treating an uninspected premises as approved.

I ask the Council to replace the clause with wording along these lines:

“For permits that do not require a legally required inspection or affirmative safety, health, environmental or similar review, failure to issue a decision by the published deadline shall trigger the applicant’s right to proceed, subject to applicable law. Where such a review is required, silence shall not constitute approval. The authority shall instead provide a written status, identify any outstanding information or inspection, and refer the file to a supervisor for action within a published additional period. Any extension shall be explained to the applicant in writing.”

This is not an invitation for authorities to label every application “special” and escape the standard. The exceptions should be limited to reviews actually required by law, and the authority should say which review applies. The applicant should be able to see the date the file was received, the service time, any pause in that time, and the reason for it.

In my case, this change would not have forced the Ayuntamiento de Mérida to approve my application without the necessary review. It would have required the office to tell me whether an inspection was part of my process, what I needed to do, and when someone would act. If the file had stopped because a document was missing, I could

have supplied it. If an inspection was pending, I could have planned around a real date instead of making repeated trips and guessing.

My position

I support the Standard’s small-business impact test, one-stop digital process and published service times. I also support a real remedy when a deadline passes. My objection is to treating silence as consent in all cases. For permits that can lawfully be granted without an inspection, that rule may be fair and practical. Where the rules require an affirmative review, silence should compel an answer and an escalation—not create an approval that may put the applicant and others at risk.