By Regina Hopkins At the Lakewood City Council meeting on Monday, November 4, 2024, council members spent three hours deliberating a new ordinance, O-2024-28, and whether to approve it or send it to a special election, which was expected to cost Lakewood between $175,000 and $350,000. Despite expectations that the council would send it to an election, in an unexpected turn of events, the Council enacted the ordinance itself, arguing that doing so would save taxpayer money and expedite an inevitable legal battle related to the Colorado Legislature’s recently enacted HB 24-1313. While Lakewood cries foul over the supposed legality of the newly passed ordinance, its longstanding failure to enforce Lakewood’s own ordinances reveals the hypocrisy of the City’s stance. Ordinance O-2024-28, introduced by the grassroots group “Save Open Space Lakewood,” was sparked by the plan to build a massive zero-lot-line luxury apartment complex next to Belmar Park, the city’s crown jewel. This development became the final straw, igniting widespread outrage and drawing attention to the even larger issue of ignoring open space requirements throughout Lakewood and unchecked overdevelopment. Councilor Paula Nystrom highlighted the issue, saying, “We’re in an untenable situation, but there’s a reason we ended up here. Citizens shouldn’t have to protest, gather signatures, hire lawyers, or jump through hoops just to have their voices heard.” She continued, “The question isn’t whether this petition is perfect; it’s about understanding how we got here and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.” For the past 13 years developers have exploited loopholes in Lakewood’s ordinances without facing any repercussions, as the City repeatedly sides with developers at the expense of green space. The City’s prior ordinance, which required 5.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for new developments, had been ignored every single time. This raises the question: Since 1983, when Lakewood’s first Park and Open Space Dedication ordinance was adopted as part of the first Municipal Code, and included a “fee in lieu” option, how many acres of land have been sacrificed to development rather than preserved through park dedication? Arguably, a significant amount. The City’s consistent approval of the “in lieu of” fee has undermined the intended balance of the original ordinance, leading to a significant loss of green spaces amid ongoing development. We are losing more and more places every day for plants and animals to thrive without human impact. Lakewood’s sudden focus on the legality of the new ordinance is a diversion, as the City tries to portray the citizen-led initiative as unlawful. This focus overlooks the fact that, for years, the City allowed developers to use the fee in lieu option without exception, failing to exercise thoughtful discretion in its widespread application across the city. Had the City exercised better foresight and applied reasonable common sense in enforcing the ordinances already on the books, it wouldn’t be facing this situation today. Instead, by allowing developers to contribute to the City’s coffers while avoiding actual land dedications and now hoping that the newly passed citizen-led initiative gets challenged in court, Lakewood is revealing its true priorities: supporting unchecked development that benefits developers while disregarding the needs of residents, the environment, and escalating larger concerns about global warming. Councilor Nystrom emphasized, “From all the studies done post-COVID, we know that nature is essential for people’s well-being.” She added, “Every apartment building should include green space… These are fundamental human needs, as well as environmental needs.” Nystrom’s perspective highlights an understanding of both human and ecological needs that is sorely lacking among many of her pro-development colleagues on the Council. Councilor Roger Low’s claim that Ordinance O-2024-28 would eliminate affordable housing is simply false. In fact, it would likely benefit those residents in affordable housing the most by ensuring access to green space, which is often overlooked in favor of prioritizing density. The real affordable housing issue lies with Lakewood’s failure to meet the urgent demand it has identified. The City has already overdeveloped much of its available land with luxury and market-rate units, leaving little room for affordable housing. Let’s be clear about where the responsibility lies—with the City itself. Lakewood’s overdevelopment has already created a barrier to meeting the community’s needs, limiting its options, while attempting to deflect attention by blaming O-2024-28. When the petition was initially drafted, it fully complied with existing ordinances and laws. However, the ballot initiative process takes several months, including time for gathering signatures, to move forward with a petition of this kind. As citizens gathered signatures in April and May 2024, their grassroots group gained significant momentum. In response, state lawmakers introduced a last-minute change to pending legislation. A paragraph provision slipped into HB 24-1313, a 62-page bill addressing Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities, in the final days of the Senate legislative session mandated that municipalities offer a “fee in lieu” option to bypass preserving open spaces. It’s no coincidence that the fee in lieu “amendment” passed as the ballot initiative was gaining traction—its success threatened the development industry’s profits by closing a longstanding loophole. This is a pattern of behavior we’ve seen before from the Lakewood City Council, driven by their ties to state representatives and developers, and it’s this pattern that has raised significant public awareness of the City’s disregard for community concerns. The City seems to believe Lakewood residents will happily and willingly sacrifice their green spaces in favor of overcrowded, high-density developments that prioritize profit over quality of life. But Lakewood residents love their open spaces, and for many, it’s why they choose to live here. They don’t want it to become just another extension of Denver’s metropolitan sprawl. The City’s push for new development, prioritizing growth over the well-being of residents, has failed to balance the needs of both current and future residents it claims to serve. The ballot initiative sends a clear message: Lakewood residents have had enough of overdevelopment and will no longer stand for it. This petition is a victory for preserving open space, reflecting the community’s desire to protect
