Lakewood Will Sunset Voter-Passed Strategic Growth

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on August 9, 2023. Posted in Uncategorized.

In a contentious meeting rife with head-shaking, eye-rolling and looks of disgust, Lakewood City Council voted to overturn the will of the voters and sunset the Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI) aka Lakewood’s Growth Cap. The sunset will occur in 24 months, ostensibly to bring the city in line with Colorado’s new law to preempt “Local Regulations Limiting the Number of Building Permits“, Colorado HB23-1255. This decision will allow Lakewood 24 months to discuss next steps and work towards compliance, without waiving any Constitutional rights. The discussion allowed residents to see if and how each City Council Member would fight for Lakewood’s local rights as well as voters rights.

Debate seemed divided between those citing affordable concerns and/or wanted time to find a solution and the people who wanted to uphold local control and/or the will of the people.

Of those who discussed the need for affordable housing as a reason to overturn SGI:

None of these Councilors addressed the charge that this council has been able to add low-income affordable housing under existing statute
Of those who addressed the voter-passed initiative as a “will of the people” question, one Counselor said that was a different time, two said they understand but there are others who didn’t vote for it; one Councilor said they would honor it but needs time.
Some of these Councilors thought they could do Strategic Growth better.
If there was any mention of local control it was in reference to regional problems that would necessitate giving up local control. (Note: This begs the question of what Lakewood City Council can do regarding affordable housing at all.)
A majority or all of these Councilors lamented the lack of an executive session at least once. None of these Councilors mentioned seeking legal counsel prior to this meeting, in the time since the last executive session did not proceed.

Councilors who voted against the sunset and/or in support of keeping SGI intact argued:

Half stated their belief that the existing SGI ordinance could have helped affordable housing, if used properly.
All mentioned wanting to uphold the citizen-led initiative.
All mentioned local control. (Note: there is no real debate here, “preemption” is in the state law title)
Most voiced transparency concerns. Did not require additional legal advice.

What did your Councilor say about it?

Mayor Paul: Said options are limited without an executive session.

Able: Fought against the notion that we needed to overturn SGI for affordability reasons. Before SGI we weren’t getting “the housing types that were called for in our housing studies, we didn’t have any move towards affordability and as far as I can see we still haven’t made a move towards affordability. The committee that was going to deal with affordability had its knees chopped off… The housing committee has not had the discussion yet.”

Shahrezaei: When [the original referendum was] passed it was a different time. Now, she has a hard time supporting the proposed ordinance because “We give ourselves two more years of living through this bad policy. … We need to support our community by working with [affordable housing needs.]” (Note: made motion to call the question of keeping SGI intact after only 4 minutes of debate saying it was on the agenda, although the City Attorney made repeated references to all these options and others being available to Council.)

Vincent: says neither she nor her ward were a fan of SGI, but she has to uphold the votes of the city as a whole. She supported the new ordinance as way to get time to discuss.

Mayott-Guerrero: Wants to figure out ways to do smart local growth that the city has more control over. Wants increased affordable housing. Votes for new ordinance to have time for discussion but still complies with law. Advocates for increased affordable and mid-range housing and sustainability measures and believes SGI is inadequate for that purpose.

Springsteen: “All of you who vote to override our local law are voting for those corporate interests and many of you were very much supported by them.” She believes in SGI as a way to stop gentrification. (Note: Made motion to get SGI language into the recitals of new ordinance)

“The rights of the local community’s self-government serve as the foundation for the American system of law and is a central tenant of our Declaration of Independence and state and federal constitutions. The people’s right to government have been routinely ignored by our elected representatives and over-ridden by the courts in favor of corporate rights.”
-Thomas Lindsay via Council Member Anita Springsteen

Stewart: Would have like the new ordinance with a 12-month sunset, rather than a 24-month timeframe. She acknowledges the need for income-based housing but also greenspace and accountability. (Councilor Stewart claimed to have led the Legislative Committee against HB23-1255. Meeting videos will show that Janssen and Olver were strongest against 1255 and that Lakewood entered the fight too late, with no visible action).

Franks: Made repeated remarks lamenting the lack of an executive session.

Olver: Voted to keep local law in place and will look into why Lakewood didn’t make more of an effort to fight against 1255. (Note: Made motion to change language of proposed language to retain SGI titles. Voted to keep SGI intact and for new ordinance also)

Strom: “We have complex community needs” on both sides of SGI and we need to figure out a path forward … Two years gives opportunity to work it out … this is a significant shift. We have people begging for more affordable units [to be developed]. (Made motion for new ordinance)

Janssen: Said 1255 was a gross overreach by the state of Colorado and Governor Polis. The problem extends beyond SGI. The excuses that politicians at the capitol use reflects that they don’t care about local control or voter’s voice. “As City Councilors, our residents need us to stand up” (Note: Made a motion to keep local law in place)