By Kate Callen
Amidst the 2024 election gloom, glimmers of hope have emerged. The brightest spot locally was the 79th Assembly District race, where educator LaShae Sharp-Collins beat attorney Colin Parent 53% to 47%. And both are Democrats.
It was an unexpected outcome in an unusual race. Parent, the CEO of Circulate San Diego and a La Mesa City Councilmember, won the March primary outright. Sharp-Collins edged out Lemon Grove Mayor Racquel Vasquez for second place. They both trailed Parent by 10 points.
Parent raised twice as much money as Sharp-Collins. Between January and June 1, he took in $687,600 to her $318,835. His donors included real estate developers. Hers included teachers and doctors.
A torrent of building industry money has established Parent and Circulate SD as political powerhouses. The scale of that corporate support has prompted local news outlets, including the OB Rag, to scrutinize the non-profit’s financial dealings.
In May 2023, the Union-Tribune’s Jeff McDonald reported that Parent, an elected official, raised $700,000 for Circulate in “behested payments,” mostly from the building industry. McDonald also found that Parent “was paid $141,000 in 2021, or about 14 percent of [Circulate’s] annual revenue.”
That same month, our own Geoff Page questioned why Circulate kept its 501(c)(3) tax exempt status while advocating for developers, including scores of registered instances of City Hall lobbying.
Parent has sailed through it all, working diligently to promote saturation density and enrich his patrons. The money has been good. The San Diego political world has been his oyster.
So how did he lose to newcomer Sharp-Collins by six points? Maybe the Parent double-speak that charms the powerbrokers who sway elections fell flat with the people who vote in them.
Parent is a master of ideological sophistry: More housing will solve the homelessness crisis. Bike lanes will reduce air pollution. Accessory dwelling units will boost the supply of affordable housing.
In his October 6th Union-Tribune candidate Q&A [subscriber only], he described himself as “an environmental attorney advocating for affordable homes and safe streets near schools.” (Translation: He lobbies for building more housing, nearly all market-rate, and for more bike lanes.)
On housing affordability, he said, “I’ll propose a bill to eliminate regulatory barriers that are preventing the construction of traditionally affordable for-sale housing types.” (Translation: He would eliminate regulatory barriers to any kind of development.)
Parent may have thought spin would smooth the road to victory. It’s worked that way for legions of San Diego politicians. It worked for him in the primary.
But he didn’t anticipate that his general election opponent would have a functioning moral compass and a gift for speaking the truth.
Sharp-Collins has deep roots in education, where you help people think critically, and community engagement, where you actively listen to people instead of telling them what’s best for them. In her October 6th U-T interview [subscriber only], she addressed the issue of housing with a candor rarely heard in regional politics.
“We must not throw around the phrase ‘build more housing’ because it’s way past being that simple,” she said. “Land is expensive, materials are expensive, labor is expensive … Anything new will be at market rate.”
“Market rate for a modest home in San Diego is hovering at $1 million,” she continued. “Most people will never qualify. San Diego is built out, so new housing will go where buildings already exist, pushing out tenants. … Even with some lower-income units added to new development, it won’t catch up to need soon enough.”
Sharp-Collins is the first local candidate in memory who has respected voters enough to say what we all know: Developers want to make as much money as possible. The private sector will never build truly affordable units.
Her honesty has appealed to people in neighborhoods with abrupt surges in new residents. Where more cars on surface streets emit more gas exhaust. Where community hubs are getting crowded. Where the infrastructure that must support this growth is straining under the weight of it.
Parent will now go back to shilling for developers. Sharp-Collins will go forward with a plan to build affordable housing on public land. It might be a hard lift. But she seems ready to work with land use and economic realities, and that could put her on a path to success.
One of the election results that gave me a big, wide smile.
I agree! Like Kate said in her article, Colin is a complete shill. He and Todd Gloria have each other on speed-dial. It continues to amaze me that Circulate keeps their non-profit status when they are nothing more than a lobbying group for development/developers.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Excellent work, Kate!
Thx much for this insightful commentary.
BANG! You absolutely nailed it Kate. Very well said, and I totally agree with Geoff. The 79th. truly dodged a bullet with this win.
OMG This made me happy on so many levels: self-enriching, YIMBY poster-child Parent’s big loss to candidate Sharp-Collins who’s willing to listen to people and promote truly affordable housing rather than force radical density down our throats to line the pockets of developers. And of course, Kate’s forthright assessment of what really happened here. Hallelujah.
Thanks to Kate and Sharp-Collins for speaking the truth. It is noteworthy that Circulate appears to be more engaged in promoting housing than mobility. They spin it in their mission statement: “To create excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy neighborhoods.” I looked on their website, but couldn’t find their definition of “vibrant, healthy neighborhoods.” I would think that would be essential to evaluating whether or not they were accomplishing their mission.
I hope you found the page with all their corporate sponsors.
Out of curiosity, I ran the numbers on Circulate’s “Corporate Members.” Of the 92 members listed on the website, 67 (more than two-thirds) work in land use, development and real estate. They include builders, architects, engineers, planners, realtors, landscapers, and firms that provide ancillary services in land use law, finance, lobbying, and marketing.
Interesting note: Two regional universities are Circulate members. UC San Diego is one of three “Benefactor” members, the top tier that costs $10,000. San Diego State is one of seven “Gold” members, the third tier that costs $5,500. Why are public universities investing public funds in Circulate?
To follow up on your sleuthing: Per Circulate’s past newletters, as of August 2022, Voice of San Diego was a Platinum Corporate Member ($7,500 annual donation) of Circulate. Besides the obvious ethical conflict of interest of a so-called news org sponsoring a lobby shop, isn’t there a legal conflict of interest under which VoSD is organized, if not its own Funding Policy? And wouldn’t the former apply to some of Circulate’s other nonprofit org donors?
VoSD’s 990 for 2022 was filed on March 7 that year, but I didn’t see under Parts V or IX (or wherever it should be) that they paid for membership in any organization or otherwise accounted for this expense.
I suspect VoSD’s own “member supporters” questioning where their money was actually going was the reason they eventually stopped being a paying sponsor — as I doubt it was a crisis of conscience for Scott Lewis.
It’s a publicity trade. We don’t send them money. That’s the value of the trade. Happens a lot in media. You can send me questions before attacking me in public.
Whether or not any actual money changed hands, this “trade” had a monetary value — and would need to be declared as such to the IRS. Beyond that, the idea that any news organization would have a “publicity trade” with a lobby shop, especially one focused on a major news beat such as land use, is suspect at best. But for you to not only dismiss this concern but consider it a personal attack is damning.
Does VoSD accept money from (or “publicity trade” with) elected officials or PACs or other policy shops and sponsors that they cover? Has any news story regarding Circulate San Diego or that touches on its lobbying efforts or initiatives ever carried a disclaimer regarding this “trade”? Likewise, does this explain why it has become conspicuous to those who weren’t previously aware of this special relationship that VoSD favors Circulate and its fellow travelers over unaffiliated individuals and community groups?
C’mon Scott: just be honest. As the old tabloid slogan goes, “Enquiring minds want to know.”
How is a publicity trade valued at $7500?
What is the basis for that figure?
This publicity trade sounds like a barter, how is that handled? It is shown as dollars so how does the IRS see this?
Nailed it, Mat. I stopped making special contributions to VoSD because of their support of the YIMBY developer front group and Circulate. I still subscribe to keep tabs on their positions but I’m deeply disappointed in their efforts to ruin our neighborhoods without our involvement consent. I know plenty of other former supporters who feel the same way.
I don’t want to ruin your neighborhood. I live, volunteer and have raised my children in OB and Point Loma schools. Cheers.
Scott, I appreciate your warning on dealing with the screams of the homeless in 2025.
Did I miss the part where Sharp-Collins offered her solution to the housing crisis? Because there isn’t one in that quote.
If she’s anything like the folks here, she’s opposed to anything that isn’t exclusively affordable housing, while knowing we will never raise the funding required for the sheer number of affordable units required. Status quo and mission accomplished!
Of course we know from other opinion pieces and comments here that all-affordable projects will be opposed by this group for any number of reasons: parking, traffic, building heights, views, snob zoning, etc. What a bunch.
Thanks Paul Jamason for visiting and giving the Circulate SD side. Friend of developers and corporate entities. Sorry your buddy Colin got his due – which was one of the bright spots of Nov. 5.
Hey, Paul – maybe you should read the article?
Paul, yes, you missed the last paragraph, which says, “Sharp-Collins will go forward with a plan to build affordable housing on public land. … she seems ready to work with land use and economic realities.” Sharp-Collins went further in the U-T interview: “We must build on state-owned land and reduce the costs of floated building materials from the west by offloading them at Long Beach versus New Jersey.” The woman has done her homework.
Finally, San Diego has an elected official who isn’t peddling the tripe that lots more market-rate units will magically generate a significant number of low-cost units. That makes no sense. It hasn’t happened. And it never will. The only path to truly affordable housing runs through the public sector.