Residents Win Again In Colorado Christian Student Housing Case
The following is a transcription of public comment from the November 27 City Council meeting. It provides an update on a case the city fully expected to lose. The City, and the people, won first in trial court, and now again in the Court of Appeals. Congratulations and thank you!
By Lenore Herskovitz
I don’t know how many of you presently sitting on City Council are aware of a lawsuit filed in 2021 by Colorado Christian University against the City of Lakewood regarding an ordinance pertaining to Student Living Units. Two years ago some of the new Council members expressed an interest in learning about this but never followed up.
I am bringing this up because last Wednesday the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on this lawsuit.
They affirmed the District Court decision in favor of the City (and the Intervenors who stood up for their neighborhood) and permits the City to prohibit certain uses (in this case Student Living Units) in their zoning.
CCU was claiming discrimination and violation of their constitutional rights. Both the District and Appellate Court disagreed. The timing of this ruling is serendipitous occurring the day before Thanksgiving. Also tonight marks Councilors LaBure’s return to the dais. He was a sitting Councilor in April, 2021 and voted with the majority of the Council to reinstate with modifications the Student Living Unit definition that had been removed without notification from the 2012 revised Lakewood Municipal Code.
Although this was an issue that directly affected the neighborhood surrounding CCU, it should be of interest to everyone because of the way the City handled it. This is part of a pattern of procedures and behaviors that tend to favor big money interests over those of city residents. CCU has been attempting to use properties in low density neighborhoods for student housing for two decades. In 2003 concerned citizens convinced their representatives to pass legislation which prohibited university uses such as student living units in R-1, R-2 zones. However, in 2012, the LMC was revised without redlining changes, so it was not noted till years later that the Student Living Unit definition had been removed.
Before this rewrite began various straw buyers and later the University itself started buying up all the duplexes on Cedar and the west side of S. Cody Ct. The neighborhood was unaware of this until it was too late to prevent the school from applying for and receiving a zoning change which allowed them to incorporate these homes into the CCU campus. The neighborhood’s goal was to block further university incursions but the school continued to buy up homes on the east side of S. Cody Ct. At present, they own all but one duplex on the street. Although the ordinance prohibiting university use was in existence before CCU began their takeover of S. Cody Ct. in 2017 school representatives decided to remove their regular tenants and replace them with their students.
This set off a fire storm among residents. Community members frequently appeared before Council to voice their concerns. For two years quarterly forums were held with CCU , residents and city representatives in an attempt to resolve the problems of traffic congestion, safety, parking, encroachment, etc.
Not once did the University give us an answer about their future plans for our neighborhood.
After the reinstatement of the Student Living Unit definition in April 2021, CCU decided to test the ordinance by placing six students in the duplex next-door to me. This house had been sitting vacant for two years and had never housed students since CCU took ownership of the property. Because too many unrelated people were living in this duplex,
I spent one month attempting to work with the University to resolve the issue without filing a formal complaint with the city.
School representatives felt they weren’t doing anything wrong, so they never adhered to the code. I then filed a complaint with Code Enforcement who referred me to the City’s Planning Director Travis Parker. That was an odd turn of events. This led to a conference call between myself, Mr. Parker and Robert Baker (then president of the MidLakewood Civic Association). Through the conversation, we learned that CCU had filed a lawsuit in response to the City’s cease and desist order.
We were told that the city staff had decided to allow CCU to continue housing students in the disputed duplexes until a court ruling was reached. Basically, the city was ignoring their own ordinance and acting as if CCU had already won the case.
Early on the city decided there would be no mention of the lawsuit, even when inquiries were made during public comment. Former Councilor Able had difficulty getting information from the city attorney about the status of filings. As a result of this stonewalling, Mr. Baker and myself did some independent research. Through a free consultation with a lawyer, we were able to obtain several of the initial pleadings. This included a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by CCU to allow students to remain in the disputed properties. This was unopposed by the city.
This motion contained misrepresentation of facts to support their request, yet it was unchallenged by the City’s legal team. The dilemma was how to get the Judge to know the truth.
A friend remembered a case in which the neighborhood filed a Motion to Intervene. The rest is history.
Two ordinary citizens, without legal representation, filed Motions to Intervene.
We were granted intervenor status and moving forward we had to be notified about every pleading and every hearing. We were now parties to the lawsuit and were no longer kept in the dark.
It is fitting that I share this story with a room full of concerned citizens who are facing their own challenges with this city. Although as intervenors we were on the same side as the City, we entered the case because we feared the Lakewood legal representatives were doing an inadequate job of defending our neighborhood. We were facing a powerful and wealthy university who was used to getting what they wanted, often with the help of the City.
For 10 years our city staff and attorneys told us that our ordinance was unconstitutional and would not stand up to a legal challenge.
You were told at the last council meeting that former Councilor Springsteen’s resolution was illegal. That wasn’t true but it provided justification for Council’s position that there was nothing they could do.
To appease the Belmar advocates, the developer agreed to an in person meeting with community members and a two month pause. Well, six weeks will have expired before the unrequested meeting takes place. I wonder how much will be accomplished with a gathering of a select few community members, the developer and perhaps city staff and Councilors. What is the expected outcome? According to Matt Post, the city planner for this project, this meeting will not be recorded although notes will be taken. Who will be assigned this task and what biases will come into play when deciding what is significant?
Communication between our representatives, the staff and residents is insufficient. The constituents are denied accountability for the decisions made by department heads, including Kit Newland, Director of Community Resources and Travis Parker, Planning Director. For example, who decided it was in the public’s best interest to accept a fee in lieu instead of designated open space? Why were no explanations offered? There is no operational system of checks and balances, no oversight, no transparency.
The council sits back acting helpless. Why don’t you represent the people instead of regurgitating staff’s messaging. Please explain why staff consistently ignores the standards they create in their own comprehensive plan and you as council members don’t question it?
I have such great respect for the people who attend these council meetings -who educate themselves and speak passionately about their concerns. Often they are categorized as the “loud” people or sometimes “disruptors”, but they care enough to show up in spite of the frustrations that await them in these Chambers. They persevere.
I leave you with a Margaret Meade quote that some may already know:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Margaret Meade
Read below for the full Opinion for the Court of Appeals