Author : Lakewood News from Karen

Guest post from Joan from Lakewood So the progressive Leadership of Lakewood maintained its position after the November 7 election. Congratulations Mayor Strom. But there is a crack in the smooth surface in Lakewood. An unknown politically naive man with no name recognition or political history came in second with 30 percent of the vote. This was dismissed by the winning party as an awful MAGA uprise and not to be considered. But I contend it is the symptom of the growing anger of the citizens of Lakewood over policies that have ignored public input (see the Save Belmar Park people) But consider this, Arvada has recently rejected the monies from the county to open a negotiation center in the city. And is not developing policies and programs that will attract the unhoused into their community. Meanwhile Lakewood takes 7 million of Jefferson County funds (funds from the Federal Infrastructure Act) to open a recovery/navigation center And makes itself more welcoming to unhoused individuals by opening and celebrating new programs.  Editor’s note: It is unconfirmed if County/Federal money will be filtered through Lakewood or go directly to RecoveryWorks. On November 29, there was a church/community meeting to roll out a “Safe to Park” program in the parking lot of Phillips United Methodist church at 1450 S Pierce St, This program will allow people living in their cars to have permission to park in 4 spaces on the church parking lot.  This program is designed to work with the services of Lakewood and there is an MOU that was referred to by the church leadership.(This is similar to a program operated by Lakewood United Methodist Church) My main concern was the cars (no RVs or trailers) are required to spend 4 nights a week in their parking spaces. But must leave between 8am to 6pm and there is no access to running water. Where will they go during the day? And When I asked where would these people would shower, the church leadership stated they are working out an arrangement with the Lakewood Link Recreation center.  This policy was developed by a church homeless committee that passed its approval by a 4 to 3 vote. It is being put in place without a congregational vote. The reasoning is that the homeless are already here so we must do something.  I think the most profound statement during this meeting was from a young father with two young children that stated that he was worried that this would lure more people to come into the neighborhood and park and sleep in their cars on public streets around Lasley Park.  The next night, November 30, I attended an open house of the navigation center, located at 8000 West Colfax Avenue (Allison St and Colfax). This building is being developed in partnership with Recovery Works (a rent to own program) and will house 100 beds for those in need of housing. There were several government officials there and it was a general celebration of the opening of this the First Navigation Center in Lakewood. The mission would be supported by government services. There would be the DMV coming in once a month to help people get driver’s licenses. And medical services.  As well as job counseling. But I came to realize that this was more than a celebration. It actually was a fundraiser for Recovery Works. There was a long speech of how great this is but it is going to take money.  Lots of money. And because the legislature in 2022 passed a bill (that allows 25 percent of private donations to homeless non profits to be used for a tax credit and one could donate up to $100,000 which would create a tax credit of $25,000 which could be used over a 5 year period.  This explained the crowd of lawyers and retired members of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. And the trays of Sushi.  And when asked to vote on the new name for the Center with the West Colfax Community Navigation Center being one of the suggestions. I wrote on a sticky “The Lakewood Lure”

Guest post from Rocky Mountain How many of us are concerned that about 80% of the posts on Nextdoor are about crime? Crimes that are committed against themselves, relatives, neighbors, etc. Most of these posts are about how to protect ourselves like installing lights, cameras, security systems or “call the cops”. I’m sure many crimes have been prevented by these actions, but how many crimes have been solved and more importantly, what happened to the perpetrators? Did they receive appropriate punishment for their crime or are they simply given a slap on the wrist, made to promise not to do that again and put right back on the streets? Our police force is underfunded and under staffed. They are restricted from performing their duties to arrest and detain criminals. And really, why bother anyway, they will just be let go anyway Many of these crimes are not just about lost or damaged property. My brother’s truck was stolen. He lost much more than his truck. He lost all of his tools and materials he needed to make a living! They really have stolen the livelihood of himself and his entire family! What should the adequate punishment be for the scumbags that ruined the lives of an honest hard-working family? We are more concerned about the proper treatment of the criminals than their victims! Shame on us! Who is to blame? Look in the mirror.  Editor’s Note: Nextdoor users understand the phenomena of posts like these getting flagged or disappearing, while posts that encourage sympathy for the alleged criminal can proliferate. Lakewood Informer would like both sides present at the table so that sympathy for the victims is not lost. I am 79 years old and have seen my nation, my city and my neighborhood steadily deteriorating.  We used to have a relatively safe and crime free community. For the most part, we were honest, respectful and God-fearing people. We didn’t have to worry about locking our homes, cars etc. I could ride my bike anywhere and leave it without fear of it being stolen. We were taught certain values that are rapidly disappearing today. One of the most important one to me was, ‘If you don’t work, you don’t eat’. I went without supper a few times, but I learned that value pretty quick. Another one that I learned when I was quite young was the responsibility of safely owning and using firearms. Of course, crimes were committed, but there were repercussions for them. Criminals were quickly and adequately punished for their crimes. It sickens me to see crime running rampant. Seeing people so afraid. Afraid of just walking alone even from a parking lot to a store. People feeling that they must carry a defensive device of some kind just in case. People that feel they must live in a fortress with security systems to be relatively safe. Seeing criminals running free without conscience or fear of capture. People who don’t have much hope that ‘calling the cops’ will result in solving the problem. Police being restrained from doing their job. People that care more about the criminal than the victim. The result has changed from, ‘Crime doesn’t pay’ to ‘Crime does pay’. I don’t think that many people who use Nextdoor realize how devastating many of these crimes are to the victims. We are not even a nation anymore because a ‘nation that doesn’t control its borders is not a nation’.

The Lakewood Planning Commission was asked by City Council to investigate ways to expand use of Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) to increase affordable housing in Lakewood.  In a series of increasingly acrimonious meetings, the Commission developed a series of recommendations that have residents concerned the city would turn all R1 zones into R2 zones while having no impact on affordable housing. The main barrier to building ADUs are the high water and sewer tap fees, which the city has no control over. Rather than acknowledging the barrier is out of city control, some Commissioners pushed to “liberalize” the code while arguing with other Commissioners over the basics, such as what “primary residence” means. The theory behind the original request was that people with large lots could easily add an ADU, such as a mother-in-law suite or garage apartment, to make easy affordable housing. As the Planning Commission quickly found out, ADUs are extremely uncommon. The reason for that is the cost of the water and sewer taps. These fees are set by the respective water and sanitation districts to cover the cost for infrastructure and cannot be changed by Lakewood. After determining the cause of limited ADU development, the Planning Commission faced a decision: The Commission chose the later option, interpreting the assignment as a mandate for action no matter what the research revealed. Dialogue from the Commissioners revealed the reason for this stance. Commissioner Kolkmeier stated: ““We have, without question, an affordability problem, and it’s not just Lakewood. What would be a change for ADUs that would be reasonable that would help the problem that is pretty well documented?” In fact, Lakewood’s own housing study shows that Lakewood has excess housing for units over $800 a month. Lakewood is currently developing more housing so that within 10 years a glut of housing is expected. The affordability crisis is for extremely-low-income housing, which is a need that an ADU cannot fill. Commissioner Animosity As Commissioner Kentner pointed out, another problem with ADUs is that they do not increase the opportunity for home ownership, there are only opportunities for rental units. Following Kentner advocating for home ownership opportunities, Commissioner Kip Kolkmeier chastised Commissioner Kentner for two minutes in the middle of the November 15 Planning Commission meeting and refused to immediately allow her to clarify her comments, which she says were misinterpreted. Commissioner Kolkmeier said with some apparent animosity, “This notion that people are concerned about rentals… this is a real problem…. Merely because someone has different economics, it does not make them a bad neighbor. It does not make them someone that you do not want to have more of…. We have a clear majority in this city that understands that we should not choose between renters and owners.” Kentner did not, in fact, say anything against renters, but rather advocated for ownership opportunities. She also spoke of listening to the people who came for public comment., including the Eiber neighborhood which put out a call to action regarding these changes. When Kolkmeier did allow Kentner to speak and defend herself, he took the last word in the acrimonious exchange. FACT CHECK: Commissioner Kentner made the claim that under the proposed rules, there could be two Short-Term Rentals (STRs) on a property. Commissioner Kolkmeier claimed that was inaccurate because one unit would have to be a primary residence. Kentner returned that primary residence did not mean owner occupied, therefore when the owner is not at the primary residence, there could be two STRs. Although Kolkmeier did not say Kentner was right, he did agree that removing the owner-occupied provision would be the result of the Planning Commission having the votes. Public comment Commissioner Kentner also stood up for the number of residents who provided public comment against the proposed zoning code changes during the November 5 meeting. Kenter pointed out that given the low attendance at these meetings, the number of comments received was surprising and should be listened to. Residents pointed out that there was robust public comment on this issue during the 2012 zoning rewrite and that many of the regulations that the Planning Commission is trying to relax, were intended to keep the impact to neighbors to a minimum. The proposed regulations regarding height, floor area, and ubiquitous zoning, when taken together, constitute nothing less than a second full-scale structure, which compromises the very purpose of an R-1 zone, effectively replacing it with R-2 zoning. As such, R-1 zoning will become RINO, and altogether irrelevant, which is a violation of the public trust. Paul Ditson, Lakewoodspeaks.org Public comment in favor of the changes advocated for any type of increased housing and typically did not address neighborhood suitability or specific changes. No research was presented that ADUs would fill a need that an apartment complex in an area zoned for multi-family would not. Summary: Kolkmeier summarized the issue by saying that Lakewood essentially outlaws ADUs and they are necessary for the affordability problem. However, he says, “It may be possible to dramatically liberalize the ability for ADUs… and yet there may not be any more ADUs” due to the cost of tap fees. The vote passed, with all Commissioners present voting to pass the recommendations to City Council (Kentner and Peters absent). Recommendations: It remains to be seen if Council will be presented with information on how the true barrier is water tap fees and the proposed code changes are expected to be ineffective.

To find the answers, please go to https://thraemoor2.com/save-belmarpark/

Lakewood residents urged City Council to uphold City rules that developments must fit in with the existing neighborhood. Citing the City’s own Municipal Code, residents helped write a resolution that would enforce both Lakewood’s long-term planning and zoning and the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. The majority of City Council rejected the resolution, citing legal interpretations, while acknowledging the efforts of residents. The meeting started in an unusual fashion, with public comment being moved until after a long budget session. The mayor warned repeatedly that he would enforce decorum and he had police officers standing by if residents continued clapping. Claims that moving public comment is normal for budget meetings have been proved false (see 2022 and 2021). However, it is normal procedure to have comment close to the relevant agenda item, which in this case was after the budget. This simple move, set the stage for misunderstandings and hard feelings after residents had to wait hours to speak. The issue involves developing private land adjacent to Belmar Park. Due to a zoning change in 2012, the land can be developed as a much higher-density multi-family development than the street was originally intended for.  In combination with Lakewood’s decreased parking requirement (1.5 parking spots per unit), residents expressed worries that this is a perfect storm of congestion (see Lakewood’s parking study where residents cite similar parking problems caused by inadequate parking near Abrusci’s, Manning’s and Colorado Christian University). In response, Lakewood has said that the development plans are legal. Although some residents continued to argue that legal doesn’t make it right, others turned to areas where use of City discretion was involved. For example, developers have had the option to pay a fee instead of dedicating land to parks. According to L.M.C. 14.16.010, fees are “…at the discretion of the Community Resources Director (Director).” “If the Director determines that a land dedication in accordance with this chapter would not serve the public interest, the Director may require payment of a fee in lieu of the dedication” L.M.C. 14.16.070 L.M.C. 14.16.050 shows that land adjacent to existing parks is eligible for park dedication. According to Denver7, a Lakewood spokesperson has said that fee-in-lieu “is particularly allowed for developments that are less than 15 acres.” Lakewood codes have examples of land dedication for 10 acres. The option is particularly useful for smaller developments, if the Director found that a land dedication would not serve the public interest. Legal counsel for the City advised that accepting a land dedication would require rewriting the ordinance. (Note: legal advice being offered during the meeting is also not typical.) No specifics as to what was against ordinance were offered. Legal counsel also advised that City Council could not direct the City Manager in any actions, which the resident resolution proposed. The City has previously published an article that only with a vote of the majority of Council can the City act on Council actions. The mayor did not allow a vote on the motion. Several Council Members briefly rallied around a proclamation of support for the residents. However, the majority of Council did not support any discussion or action by Council in the future on this issue. In the end, there was 1 hour and 40 minutes of public comment. There was 1 hour and 30 minutes of speeches by City Council explaining their positions on the resolution but no minds appeared to be changed. Related lessons residents learned:

Discussing the recent budget proposal, Lakewood Police Chief Smith went through his policing philosophy to explain changes to the budget. The base of this philosophy was enacted by President Obama, called 21st Century Policing. At its core, the policy is about building trust in police. Crime is addressed more indirectly, not as the crime itself (i.e. shoplifting) but by addressing the root cause of the crime (i.e. what made a person shoplift). In Lakewood, there are more conversations about crime than trust in police. Evidence suggests these may be two different conversations. It is now eight years since the Obama-era policy was issued. This author could find zero studies to show crime reduction as a result of these policies. The National Policing Institute issued a 5-year report that showed limited success in select areas, not including crime. For example, police departments that started reporting data via an online dashboard showed some success in increased transparency. This type of dashboard is a national trend; see Tucson, Arizona for an example. Other cities showed increased trust, as defined by positive feeling for, or lack of being threatened by police, after a brief visit. There were not many departments still using the policing report guidelines after five years so the effects were not able to be studied further. There was one notable outcome in Louisville, Kentucky, which implemented the strategy early and gained accolades from the White House. However, an incident in later years, caused the approval to be rescinded. Follow-up research found that it was not the fault of the White House policy, but rather it was the fault of the police department which did not implement the strategy correctly. The Louisville study results concluded that the police could not be relied upon to correctly implement the required police reform.  The 5-year report also came to a similar conclusion, finding that improper implementation by the police was the fault, not the policy.  Lakewood has not had a public conversation about what it will be doing differently than places like Louisville or Tucson that may result in success. How can Lakewood be the first police department to successfully implement these reforms to achieve trust and lower crime? Under the new Lakewood guidelines, five police officer positions will be transitioned to civilian positions (ex. behavioral health staff). Filling five less police officer positions also decreases the time needed for recruiting, which is an ongoing challenge in today’s environment. Another Lakewood goal is to have officers spend 33% of their time on proactive policing, i.e. knocking on doors in a friendly way, to increase resident trust. According to Police Chief Smith, these proactive measures will help stop crime before it starts. Following 21st Century practices, the theory is that “crime reduction will happen through engagement.” As to the problems already occurring, this approach may be less effective. In problem areas, the Chief suggests saturated, targeted patrols, with police presence acting as a deterrent. Lakewood residents have already noticed the decreased effectiveness of patrols, claiming the police pass by problem areas without stopping. Police reform measures will be a new policy for Lakewood. Although policy in Lakewood is set by City Council, department heads are allowed broad leeway in operational strategies. By implementing the policy through the budget, a public discussion format was bypassed. A public discussion about police reform would have alerted many residents to the change. As it stands, Council Members will vote on the budget, rather than the important discussion of police policy. (Note: Read here to see how the majority of council turned down multiple requests for public safety discussions.) Lakewood has the opportunity to learn from other cities which have had the same problem and have tried some of these policies. Even without an official study, there is plenty of evidence that this is a complicated subject. For example, in this video from Philadelphia, people discuss the effects these policies have had in other areas (select quotes below). “People are shooting up on corners [the police] drive right by.” … “People are arrested for buying drugs, they just take you downtown and let you go. Talk to you about rehab and stuff and let you go.” The next problem cities like Philadelphia and San Diego have is when public perception switches from the city being part of the solution to being part of the problem. “[the city] enables it. They feed them, they clothe them. They aren’t hitting their rock bottom.” Unfortunately, this circles right around to the building of trust that Chief Smith is trying to solve.