The point of any penalty — in this case, fines assessed for building without a permit — is supposed to be deterrence. A potential offender thinks twice about committing a violation if it means a hefty bill will come due in short order.

The city seems willing to relinquish that leverage over contractors, based on what’s happened with controversial Date Street construction that continued without a permit, regardless of the mountain of fines that piled up, week after week. The total amounted to nearly a quarter-million dollars in fines.

The builder, Brilliant Construction Co., had every reason to think that, in the end, the company might not have to pay the piper, at least not the full amount. And that’s what needs to change. The city’s operational maxim must be: No permit until the fines are paid.

But about six months after the city had issued its notice of violation and stop-work order against the two-family residence at 2930 Date St., the city Department of Planning and Permitting issued the permit.

That essentially means the structure is no longer unpermitted, said Acting Director Kathy Sokugawa. It also moots conditions of a resolution before the City Council that seeks the demolition of the residence as an illegal structure.

Finally, it raises the inevitable question: Why does the city handle egregious violations in this way?

Department officials offer assurances that the fines, which reached a grand total of $218,700, will be paid through one of the options the city can exercise. This could include placing a lien against the property, or even forcing a claim on the property through foreclosure, said DPP spokesman Curtis Lum. But it would be more sensible to compel payment before issuing the permit, rather than chasing after it later.

The project, a 6,000 square-foot property, entails a two-family detached dwelling, a concrete brick wall and a vinyl fence with gates, 6 feet high.

It is massive, which is suggestive of the current uproar over “monster houses,” the term applied to houses built on lots that accommodate more people and put more strain on roads, water and sewer capacity than the residential-zoned neighborhood should handle.

The Council has moved to restrict those, but this one does not fall within that category, as it is apartment zoned. The violation occurred simply because, while waiting for the permit application to be processed, the builder went ahead and started construction. Hence, the daily fines.

Of course, Brilliant Construction is not the first contractor to despair over the long wait that building permits often seem to require. Bill 64, proposed to expedite building permits for one- and two-bedroom homes through a streamlined review, has passed second reading.

This measure should move to a final vote, since it’s reasonable to expect a routine project to move on a timely basis.

But there’s another part to the deal: Builders need to respect the process and await the permit before starting work. They also should have the expectation that with a violation, especially one as egregious as this, the city would mandate payment before issuing the permit.

There are, as the city asserts, other decision points at which officials could force payment — before the building passes inspection and is given an occupancy certificate, for example. And yes, there are legal processes to demand payment after the fact.

However, that means the construction proceeds without oversight. Inspection would follow — at a stage nearing the building’s completion. Inspectors might not as easily detect a critical flaw.

The city should simply mandate paying of project-related fines before a permit is issued, as the logical way to do business; the Council could craft such an amendment to the city ordinance, if necessary. Honolulu needs a process that’s both fair to builders and thorough — with fines paid up front.