A liberal arts education is a terrible things to waste, so I was happy with the title of a profile on my work for Smart Growth Seattle headlined, Sharp Tongued Philosopher a Provocateur for Urban Density. But if you read through the piece you’d come away either with the impression that I am a lobbyist or that at least the major issue in my work is who pays my wages. This has always been an annoying distraction to what I do, even more than criticism about the way I do it. So I figured I would take this issue on here for the record: I am not a lobbyist! What am I? For the sake of anyone interested, I consider myself to be an advocate for the idea of more housing supply, choice and opportunity for people who want to live in our city, regardless of their income and the people who share and live that idea. And I defend builders and developers from unfair and unwarranted characterization and criticism. It doesn’t fit cozily onto a business card but that’s what I do.

Why is this an issue? Well, there are two reasons the “lobbyist” moniker is problematic and incorrect. Right away I should say there is nothing wrong or immoral about being a lobbyist. Lobbying comes from the lobby, essentially waiting around outside where decision makers are making a decision and hoping to get in to see those people to persuade them on a vote or decision they might be taking on a key issue.  There are lobbyists that represent giant oil companies and little old ladies, corporations and small non-profit agencies serving the poor, and railroads that want to transport oil and environmental groups that oppose them. Lobbying is simply a term of art that means, essentially, making the case that one decision is better than another. That’s it.

I worked as a lobbyist in Olympia of a quasi-state agency called the Washington State School Directors Association in the 1990s. My work entailed spending lots of time during legislative sessions traking bills, talking with fellow lobbyists, going to hearings, testifying, writing letters, taking calls from school board members across the state, and sometimes meeting with state legislators, yes, in the lobby of the House or the Senate. I remember those days fondly. 

Some people do that kind of work then open up their own business that operate by charging clients an hourly fee for this kind of work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, since, as I pointed out, it is essentially a skill that can be developed and sold for a price. I suppose that there are for hire lobbyists out in the world that, like defense attorneys, will take any client with the belief that anyone or any group—even something like an oil company—deserves due process; no matter how “good” or “bad” a cause or interest might be it should have a shot at the process and to rise and fall on its merits.

Some have broadly take the mistaken view that a lobbyist is a person who, by definition, represents interests that have no popular support and are immoral and therefore nobody would advocate for unless they were paid; hence the sobriquet often attached to me, prostitute or whore. I take money, they say, for what Keynes called marginal disutility, the discomfort of being intimate with someone who has more money than affection. 

However, I am sure the same was said of John Adams when he represented the soldiers who fired on the crowd at the Boston Massacre; Adams felt that as a matter of legal and moral principle, even British soldiers firing on a crowd needed a good lawyer. But even that sense of being a principled participant in the process is denyed the “lobbyist” who does what he does for only one reason: compensation. 

I suppose there are people like that. In my almost 25 years working in government at various levels I have yet to meet a person that didn’t have some valance or general orientation about their clients or the agency they worked for. Everyone who is an advocate, say for a membership organization, sometimes has an eye roll or two over some issue that the membership deems important. Sometimes there are differences in strategy or emphasis, but I’ve never met a lobbyist who simply has no emotional or principled relationship to who or what they are advocating for.

Having said all that in defense of lobbyists—sadly the term is being abused by my opponents—why would I say I am not among their numbers? Well, much of what I do every day and each week is what could be called, in the best sense, lobbying. I do meet with Councilmembers and others who are making critical decisions trying to change their minds or trying to persuade them to keep doing the right thing.

But I don’t charge by the hour. And I represent an organization that was formed to represent an idea, not a client for pay. The idea I represent each and every day is that if we are worried about how to handle increased population growth, the best thing we can do is create more jobs and more housing for new people, whether they are being born or moving into our city. Policies that reflect that idea are more “right” than “wrong” for me and for people and organizations that support Smart Growth Seattle. I also look out for the interests of the hard working people who make housing happen. 

So I do everything I can every day to advance that idea and defend those people, in interviews with media, in discussions with people I meet, in communications with members and staff of our funding organizations, on social media, with friends, and everywhere and anytime I have the opportunity. I do what I do because I love to do it and because I believe in it and the people who build our housing. The fact that I earn money doing it is a blessing. And, by the way, the money that I do earn I raise from people and organizations that share my big idea. 

Some have called me an evangelist. I suppose I like that the best. The term refers back to a Greek word that describes, as Merriam-Webster defines the word, “a person and especially a preacher who tries to convince people to become Christian: someone who talks about something with great enthusiasm.” That’s what I do; try to convince people, including decision makers, that our idea is the best idea for dealing with growth. And I think I do it with great enthusiasm.

I find the characterization of what I do as “lobbying” or representing “monied interests” dismissive of the idea many of us who share the big idea and personally insulting especially because I believe so deeply in that idea. As I pointed out to Bob Young who wrote the Seattle Times story (well written, researched, fair, and balanced), I don’t so much mind when this is used by opponents of the big idea and the people who share it; after all they don’t like us or the idea. But when supposed allies wave their hands at me and dismiss me because of who pays my salary that is annoying and frustrating. They’d rather invest in broad based community efforts, whatever that is. 

It feels good to get this all out, but I realize simply explaining all this won’t really make much of a difference. What will make the difference is when our idea, that we need more housing and to welcome everyone and anyone who wants to join us in our prospering and beautiful city, is the one that orients policy and attitudes in our city. That day will come. Until then, we’ll keep doing what we’re doing, enthusiastically promoting, defending, and advancing our good idea and the people that believe it and live it each and every day.