ConsumerAffairs recently surveyed 30 most populated cities in Colorado. Lakewood ranked 23 out of 30 overall, and ranked as one of the most unsafe.
Author: Lakewood News from Karen
Another Lakewood misinformation campaign bites the dust.
For years Lakewood has been pushing high-density growth in the name of “affordable housing”. They market this narrative to schoolteachers and civil servants. See Lakewood’s recent resolution using these exact words. However, a development presentation to the Lakewood Planning Commission introduced a new term that exposes the lie: Workforce housing
Workforce Housing
The consultant Lakewood hired to evaluate blight and Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan pointed out that there was NO PLAN for increasing workforce housing in Lakewood. Workforce housing is for low and mi
The emphasis on “affordable housing”, despite what Lakewood says, is different from workforce housing. No matter how poorly teachers and civil servants get paid, they get paid more than anyone living on the streets.
Affordable housing in Lakewood will mean a government-run program, similar to what used to be called Section 8. That is not the same as an answer to inflated housing prices for low- to median-income levels.
Think about government-run affordable housing like a scholarship system for school. A person may need the financial assistance, and may not be able to go to college without it, but there are others who need it more and not enough to go around.
For decades, the people most in need are those with extremely low income. Not low. Not middle-low. Not teachers and civil servants. Extremely low income.
Ann Ricker, of Ricker Cunningham, is Lakewood’s blight consultant. She pointed out there was a gap in the Comprehensive Plan. She said the plan talked about affordable housing, and it talked about single-family housing, but she said there was the missing middle. She suggested removing “single-family” and just using the term “housing”.
Using the general term “housing” would allow more high-density, market rate apartments to be built in an effort to flood the market and lower prices. Lakewood is already proceeding with this plan. There is no guarantee the low-priced condos or townhomes will be built anywhere.
The term “workforce housing” is a more accurate description of how the public perceives the promises from Lakewood. This was an important acknowledgment that “workforce housing” is different than “affordable housing”. The public should be aware of the word games going on, similar to “illegal alien” versus “migrant”.
Watch Ann Ricker discuss the Comprehensive Plan here:
From Frank Lehnerz, Free State Colorado
“If the government tries to wage war against the laws of the market by price control, it undermines the working of the market mechanism and leads to conditions which, from the point of view of the government itself, are less desirable than the previous state of affairs it intended to alter.”
— Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action (1949)
History has repeatedly shown that price controls—whether on food, housing, or other essentials—create virtually no consumer benefits and only price distortions. By capping what producers or retailers can charge, these controls reduce supply, reduce product or service quality, discourage investment for new, improved, or cheaper products and services, and create market signal distortions.
Lakewood requires such high sustainability standards that they are almost impossible for large developments to meet. The standards are meant to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. For those developments, Lakewood accepts a fee in lieu of sustainability amenities. Lakewood is currently arguing that parkland dedication is illegal or amoral because it asks too much from developers. But Lakewood makes the same sort of demands to further its sustainability agenda. In both cases, the desire is to have development offset the environmental cost of development. The question is at what point is there so much development that the city says money is an acceptable substitute for direct environmental offsets.
Note that these city mandates will continue despite any possible changes to federal funding for climate change initiatives.
Achievable Goals or Ideology
Lowering emissions is expensive so most people have not done it or have only done it by using rebates and subsidies. Achieving net zero emissions is even more expensive and is sometimes not achievable. For example, the city of Lakewood admits its new maintenance facility will not meet LEED standards let alone be net zero. Lakewood has set its own standards and requires that new buildings meet those standards by earning sustainability points.
“net zero standards require reducing emissions to more than 90% and then only offsetting [with purchased carbon credits] the remaining 10% or less to fall in line with 1.5 °C targets.” –Wikipedia
For large developments, the city admits it is almost impossible to achieve enough points. Therefore, developers are forced to pay a fee so that Lakewood can fund other sustainability projects. This is similar to other carbon credit purchasing schemes but in this case, it is authorized, administered, and required by Lakewood. There is currently no discussion that Lakewood will require credits or fees from existing residents. Lakewood City Council was scheduled to discuss new ways to generate revenue, as well as how to spend the revenue generated from existing fees, at the February planning retreat. The planning retreat has historically been an in-person only meeting where staff takes direction from Council on items that do not require an official vote. No recording is available online for review.
“For some [developments] that the [sustainability] targets are just too high to meet, they pitch in so that the city can spend that money to further achieve our goals.” Travis Parker, Director of Sustainability and Community Development during staff sustainability update (min 1:17:52).
Increasing UNAFFORDABLE Housing
Since 2019 Lakewood has demanded buildings meet climate sustainability goals. This was estimated to add 2-3% to building costs but actual costs have not been collected or analyzed. Building costs are passed on to the consumer, which makes Lakewood even more expensive to live and work in than in the surrounding areas.
The additional sustainability measures will add 1-10% to building costs for things like EV charging stations. Would you like all new apartments to have a few charging stations at an increased overall cost for everyone or would you like some buildings to not have those amenities at a lower cost?
Lakewood’s demands have resulted in a reduction in emissions to meet a target of 20% less than 2007 levels. With the new demands of 2022, some large construction projects cannot meet Lakewood’s demands, resulting in the project paying a fee to Lakewood that will be used for other climate goals. Lakewood city staff acknowledged that it was almost impossible for large projects to meet demands, making the fee-in-lieu necessary.
Money Making Machine
Lakewood has already generated $221,000 from various sustainability fees. They anticipate generating over $250,000 per year on these fees. Lakewood made over $600,000 on the statewide plastic bag mandate. One could say Lakewood is getting into the business of selling emission offsets.
For more information on what Lakewood’s sustainability measures have achieved so far, watch the full video update at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYbpkr1Gm24&t=150s
Consequences
The extra expense of building in Lakewood limits the possibility of new businesses coming into Lakewood. Even sustainability businesses, whose goals align with Lakewood’s, find it difficult to make a profit when required to meet high sustainability standards. Councilor Rein specifically remarked that he would like Lakewood to attract new businesses that would develop sustainability technologies. At the same time, businesses nationwide are rethinking their sustainability goals amidst high demands such as Lakewood’s.
The enhanced development fee was first approved in 2019. Now the city is asking for more and some projects are not even possible to achieve what Lakewood wants. All projects must meet a base emission efficiency level. After meeting that base level, projects are eligible to pay a fee because even Lakewood staff admit it is not possible to achieve what they are asking for.
“Fee-in-lieu is for those super large projects that have really large point totals that may not even be able to find enough points in the [standards] list to meet their point total, they still have to achieve at least 50 [base level efficiency] and they can achieve the rest as well or they can pay a fee in lieu for some of those higher points.” – Travis Parker, sustainability update (min 1:34), emphasis added
What do the fees go towards? They could go towards every basic city service besides police. Per Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero, these fees could be used for sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. Councilors asked about tree preservation and housing. Public art was part of the original goal. Tree canopy health. Food access. Household wages. Even subscriptions to city communications and trips to the rec center count towards “sustainability goals”. Other people have to fight to earn business advantages like that.
The dates below are from the staff presentation, detailing future meetings where Lakewood will be implementing more robust sustainability measures for Lakewood.
City Council Members Jacob Labure and Paula Nystrom asked for equal representation on the Budget and Audit Board, January 27, 2025. They were denied. Only three wards will be represented on the Board.
The Budget and Audit Board is vitally important for accountability. Many policies and programs that staff originate are never disclosed to the public. They only show up in funding requests. And as evidenced by the 2024 vote to de-TABOR, city staff is not often turned down.
Councilor LaBure was involved in the last rewrite of the Budget Board. LaBure fought hard to get each ward representation on the Board, saying it was common practice to not only have five Councilors on the Board but to allow any Council Member to come and make comments.
Now the current Board doesn’t even allow comments.
Councilors Shahrezaei and Mayott-Guerrero both said that allowing that many Councilors, as worked for years, would now be unmanageable. Shahrezaei pointed out that at one point, a single councilor made 37 questions to staff and that amount of work was too hard.
There is no general rule for how many questions the paid city staff should answer as part of being publicly accountable for a multi-million-dollar budget.
In 2024, when Mayor Strom downsized committee sizes, then-Councilor Rich Olver was upset to be removed. Strom explained that she thought she was doing him a favor because he often didn’t have time. Olver was not present at the meeting for the initial appointments to protest. But his argument resonated with Councilor Dave Rein who supported increasing representation.
Councilor Low also supported the proposal saying, “Budget is one of the most important things we do. Ward 3 should have representation.”
2025 Council Members on the Budget Board are:
- Jeslin Shahrezaei, Ward 1
- Isabel Cruz, Ward 2
- Dave Rein, Ward 4
Scorecard: Allow Equal Representation
Strom: Nay
Shahrezaei: Nay
Sinks: Nay
Mayott-Guerrero: Nay
Cruz: Nay
Low: Aye
Rein: Aye
LaBure: Aye
Nystrom: Aye
As reported by CBS News, a fire in an abandoned gas station on February 3 endangered 20-30 homeless people who were using the building as a shelter. The situation underscores the need to re-examine several ongoing strategies, such as:
- West Metro Fire unofficial policy of not enforcing fire safety standards in homeless encampments. West Metro officials have said these fires are a matter of life and death so encampment fires are typically allowed or deprioritized for enforcement activity.
- Lakewood police official policy of deprioritizing drug paraphernalia and trespassing
- Lakewood code enforcement for occupancy standards
- Lakewood’s penalty fee on vacant property
Which of these policies were effective in de-escalating the ongoing safety situation?
From CBS News, by Karen Morfitt
Fire in vacant Colorado gas station doubling as shelter for unhoused highlights concerns of neighbors
At around 10 p.m. on Monday night a fire tore through a vacant Colorado building that was once used as a gas station. The building at the corner of Alameda Avenue and Harlan Street in Lakewood was being used as a shelter.
A resident of the apartment building next door captured video of flames shooting out of the building’s windows.
“Thank God the response was quick,” Victor Garibay said.
Garibay didn’t take the video, but he lives in the same apartment building. He and his neighbors raised concerns about people coming and going from the building several times.
“A lot of people have gone to the police have gone to the fire department and told them about the issues here — people coming in and out. The drug use, of course. The police have come, the fire department has come but they never seem to really be able to do anything about it,” he said.
A special election to fill vacancies left by Rebekah Stewart (Ward 3) and Rich Olver (Ward 4) will be held March 25. This election has generated more candidates than recent elections, giving residents the benefit of choice.
Below is the list of candidates and their respective websites. It will be updated as new information becomes available.
Ward 3
Ken Cruz: https://www.cruzforlakewood.com
Patrick Flaherty: https://votepatflaherty.com/
Pete Roybal
Ward 4
Bill Furman: https://www.billfurman4lakewood.com
Desiree Gonzales
Nicholas Munden
Diane Rhodes: https://rhodes4lakewood.com
Thank you to everyone stepping up to serve! Even campaigning is hard work!
From the Jeffco Transcript, by Suzie Glassman, February 5, 2025
The fight over a controversial proposed apartment complex near Belmar Park is escalating as frustrated residents have reached out to the city council, and parkland advocate Cathy Kentner has moved to formally intervene in a lawsuit filed by developers against the city last December.
Members of Save Belmar Park, a citizen-led group advocating for the preservation of open space, argue the City of Lakewood has failed to defend a citizen-led ordinance the council adopted after the group submitted the required number of signatures, leaving residents in opposition to the move no choice but to step in.
The lawsuit began when Kairoi Residential, developers of a planned 412-unit luxury apartment building at Belmar Park, sued the city, claiming the 2024 ordinance, which prevents developers from paying fees instead of dedicating land for parks, violates state law.
On Jan. 14, a Jefferson County judge granted Kairoi a preliminary injunction, allowing the apartment project to proceed while the case progresses.
Lakewood didn’t oppose Kairoi’s request for the injunction, leading some residents to believe this inaction signaled to the court that the ordinance had little legal standing.
Read more including the backlash over Lakewood’s legal strategy
Lakewood is using every tool at its disposal, and then some, to aid development at 4th and Union, known as The Bend. The latest proposal is to blight the property in order to include it in an Urban Renewal Project so that the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority can fund the development. The Lakewood Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the first step of this process on January 22, 2025. However, despite a presentation on blight, there was no consideration of blight status for this vote and other developments in the area, like St. Anthony’s, did not receive financial assistance. Since the blight finding relies on environmental contamination, Lakewood should get involved in cleaning up a toxic landfill to make this legal, which is also not being proposed. This vote concentrated on whether the new development conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was written by Lakewood to include this high-density development, which has been in the works since 2013. There was no examination of whether the residential units being built were needed per the provisions of urban renewal, such as mitigating slums.
Examples of Games
- Eliminate slum and blight – will not, develops around it
- Comprehensive Plan baked in – a new plan is up for approval any time now
- Shortage of safe housing – meant to eliminate slums but city is using for affordable housing
- Playing favorites – Same conditions as St. Anthony’s that didn’t get funding
- But For – Development would happen without city assistance
None of these factors were discussed or by the Planning Commission but one approval leads to another in this process.
No elimination of slum or blight
Per Colorado State Statute 31-25-102 (1), the purpose of a blight designation and urban renewal is to eliminate blight or slums. In a typical blight situation, there has been deterioration of structures that now need repaired. That’s not the case here.
Raw land is not suitable for a blight designation. Adding infrastructure is just development. The problem, as Lakewood seems to see it, is that they want to enable the developer’s goal of 2000 units of high-density residential in an area that wasn’t designed for that many units. A smaller development may work. Lakewood wants to change the standards from when 6th Avenue and Union were constructed to today’s goals of high-density and walkability.
That’s not blight. That’s development. And per Lakewood’s own presentation, it is illegal to use blight designations for the sake of development for its own sake.
The only problem with the land is that there is a toxic landfill on the north end. Neither Lakewood nor the developer is currently proposing mitigating that risk so there is no elimination of blight conditions in this proposal. Merely finding blight, if it even exists, is not enough to comply with statute.
Lakewood points at projects like a landfill in Castle Rock that underwent a similar blight process. During that process, the landfill was cleaned. Cleanup is not proposed for The Bend site which is not a city landfill but a toxic munitions dump. So the underlying blight condition, if any, will remain in place.
Comprehensive Plan Baked in
A new Comprehensive Plan will be approved in February. There was no pause on The Bend blight vote to see if it would meet any revisions that arise during the vote. Both the current and upcoming plan are written in such a way that city staff can interpret Comprehensive Plan goals to mean just about anything. And this area has been targeted by developers (not necessarily residents) for high-density residential for more than 10 years.
In fact, the Comprehensive Plan details what Lakewood would want to see built on that land so this whole argument is circular. It is just the city writing what it wants in multiple places and then using those multiple places as justification.
Shortage of SAFE housing
According toC.R.S. 31-25-107 (5), if residential housing is to be developed, there must be a demonstrated lack of decent, safe and sanitary housing. Remember that this statute is designed to eliminate slums.
“(5) In case the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land which, under the urban renewal plan, is to be developed for residential uses, the governing body shall comply with the applicable provisions of this section and shall also determine that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe, and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas (including other portions of the urban renewal area); that the conditions of blight in the urban renewal area and the shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality.”
Lakewood will not be eliminating slums and there was no consideration of safe and sanitary housing. Instead, Lakewood points to a “shortage” of housing that is in dispute (see “the Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”). Lakewood also points to the need for “affordable housing”, which is not considered in statute.
Playing Favorites
St. Anthony’s did not get financial assistance through the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority and it has the same sort of environmental conditions that the land being developed further north has – that is it is technically clean for development. Again, the new development will not be developing or mitigating the toxic landfill that forms the base of the environmental concerns there.
But For
The need for Lakewood to provide this tax incentive is the “But for” argument. “But for” the urban renewal designation, development may not happen. This is patently false since the developers have been planning on funding the project for years without the blight designation.
Arvada is selling the building they purchased to run a homeless shelter and navigation center. Just like what happened in Lakewood, these centers were sprung on residents with little notice about actual details. People who may support the unhoused as a general conception may not support millions of dollars in spending in a previously undisclosed location.
It turns out, residents did not like the concept as much as officials thought they would.
Arvada officials listened to resident opposition and are now selling the building, unused. Completely opposite to Lakewood, who is expanding their program already.
Read original article: City of Arvada to sell proposed homeless resource site following community pushback
Dodging a Bullet
By listening to residents, Arvada might have dodged a funding bullet. Lakewood’s homeless shelter is budgeted to spend almost $4 million per year, almost all from outside sources. Lakewood, on its own, cannot support this level of services.
With federal funding now in question, which funnels to state grants, future funding is not looking so rosy. Colorado is already facing a $1 billion budget shortfall. And funding was never guaranteed in the first place.
Arvada may prove to be twice wise by divesting an investment that cannot be funded.
One little formatting problem on our website was the tip of the iceberg.
I’ve been putting off some backend changes on the website and while trying to fix one problem, I ended up trying for too much. So Lakewood Informer is live again and we’ll continue to work out the kinks.
Please remember that all input is welcome. This site is for all of us who have stood up and asked City Council for common sense measures, accountability, and upholding the social contract between long-term residents and city government. There are a lot of us out there and more every day!
Thank you all for your patience and support. I’m surprised by how much the site was missed. You are the best audience! You give hope that together we can make a difference.
Thank you!
Karen