A lot of people are confused by the label. It's such econ jargon. Maybe Sam would understand better if we called 'em "privilege seekers" or "favor seekers."
He seemed confused because he sent me the message, "your depiction of greedy corporate taskmasters manipulatively tugging on the strings of elected-official-puppets is a grim one no doubt.
I have never seen our local government or local elected officials operate that way. It sounds like something out of an Orwellian stage play."
Sam's reply made me realize "rent seeker" confused him because, for years and years, he's been at the heart of that group locally who lobby and manipulate policy to gain favors and privileges, to get rich at the publics expense.
The group referred to themselves, somewhat proudly, as "The Roundtable" like they were some bunch of knights. They have been with us for decades, quietly, behind the scenes, planning Whatcom county for us long before the Growth Management Act.
In fact, the Act was something of an inconvenience for them, as it suddenly opened the process to public involvement and played havoc with many of the investments they had scheduled to pay off for themselves, and elected officials, as time went by.
The model was simple, and conveniently the real estate bubble made it seem foolproof. These knights went on a crusade to buy up farmland and forest near Bellingham, convince the city to grow that direction, and, wallah, you got rich. The taxpayers could provide the roads, sewers, waterlines, sidewalks, street lamps, you name it, later.
If you had your feet under the table, you were privy to the plan, who would see the plan through, and could place your bets on the winning numbers (and of course invest a little in making sure the right people made the decisions) while those not in the club were left in the dark.
The Roundtable included most of the land speculator/developers, cronies in construction and supply, the usual suspects in land abuse law, political operatives from the Wise Use cult and the local Keystone Co-opts, some prominent realtors, and a number of past and present elected and appointed officials with a hand in local politics.
Of course, way back when, young Sam was just a lowly lumber salesman; yet to matriculate into the consultancy business under the tutelage of Bruce Ayers, or be anointed by the Roundtable to become a county councilman himself.
In those days, Sam was blissfully enamored with secession, and maybe joining a militia to protect us from a Canadian invasion, or the socialist utopia being planned in the north Cascades under the guise of a park; visions of sugar plums didn't dance in his head.
And so, you could often find these characters gathered at Goldies Cafe, the real Whatcom county planning department, brainstorming for the common good.
If you were privileged to sit at the Roundtable (or worked with someone who did) and needed a little help with city or county government, there were always the "consultants" to help, fraternity brothers so to speak, you could pay to intercede without actually having to make your "contribution" public record.
Well, believe it or not, according to Crawford's message to me, he now feels, "Unethical behavior is intolerable," and claims, "I'm with you in spirit in pointing out that we must all be diligent to prevent corruption."
Crawford went on to write, "I still hear your lingering concern, not so much about whether that sort of thing IS happening, but whether that sort of thing COULD happen. And I think that is a very legitimate question to ask."
And finally he repeated, "I am and will remain very receptive and openly discuss any aspect of my business in a general nature that does not compromise my client's appropriate entitlement to privacy."
So I wrote back suggesting a format for the discussion and a way to protect the privacy of any of his clients who didn't want the public to know they were paying Sam. And I waited.
And I waited, and I am still waiting, but no reply. So I guess I am on my own in trying to tell how the Roundtable has been operating, how they have benefited from their close relationship to the representatives they elect, and their plan for our future.
I am willing to give Sam the benefit of the doubt, and even discount the worst suspicions one could form, given the opportunity for mischief he has created. But think about it.
If you were a politician who wanted to take a little on the side for favors, and were faced with the Public Disclosure Law, what's a guy to do?
Well, a big loophole in the law allows you to keep secret a bank account if it's not in your name; say in the name of a fictional entity you own like an LLC. And you needn't report any payments made to your LLC if nobody gives you more than $10,000 in a twelve month period.
Is there room for a little hanky-panky here?
So, why would you use a LLC or a corporation if you're just running a chickey-pokey little land consulting business? Seems like a lot of extra effort, and an invitation for suspicion, for little or no reason. Making so much money you've got a tax reason? Exposed to a lot of risk; more than insurance can cover? Like to do the extra tax return every year?
Maybe the anonymity is worth it. Maybe it's a law of the Roundtable.
But just consider how easy it would be for someone less scrupulous than Sam, say someone who wanted to get ahead and wasn't so concerned about his community or as interested in the law and ethics.
You hookup with a bunch of people willing to pay for favors that will gain them government cooperation, privileges, like little zoning changes, exemptions, lot line adjustments, vesting densities that circumvent state law, or get the county to designate your land for urban growth and make it eligible for services from the city at its taxpayers expense.
Use you imagination. It's a possibility, OK? Whose to say where your official duties end and your special favors begin. Hey, whose to know or even ask?
You manage your billings for these services so nobody has to find out so-and-so paid you nine grand last year; maybe so-and-so's brother-in-law paid you nine grand too. Hey, maybe there were 10, 20, 30 so-and-sos.
A guy could do real well. $150-250 grand a year going into the old LLC and nobody'd be the wiser.
Now, a lot of folks say I'm pickin' on Sam. I don't have any evidence. They say he's as honest as the day is long; stands tall! May be. Probably. But why can't we find out?
Do we have to find his DNA on some county employees dress. Do we have to wait for his bank account to be subpoenaed, if he's such a tall stander?
Frankly, given Sam's peculiar circumstances, running his land use consulting business out of the county council chambers, seems he should feel a duty, not stick us with it while he hides behind technicalities.
So when we gonna have this "open discussion" of his business arrangements? It's great to be "with you in spirit." How about joining us in reality, Sam, and actually take steps that could "prevent corruption."
Sam seems to be able to get the votes to pass all kinds of things these days. How about a simple ordinance requiring disclosure of all payments made to officials or fictional entities they control?
Or are you just playing us, Sam.
I hear, when you're sittin' at the Roundtable, what goes around, do come around.
