Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Lakewood residents questioned why an offender was out on parole after a burgerly turned homocide in Lakewood on December 6, 2025. In fact, more residents commented on parole than offered congratulations to police for a speedy resolution. Comments such as “Another parolee that never should have been released!!” were common to Lakewood Police Department’s (LPD) Facebook post on the issue.
The City of Lakewood has effectively pulled the rug out from under the people by imposing impossible deadlines on the citizen referendum process, making meaningful participation nearly impossible.
There are several updates to the zoning referendum, including sufficiency, new legal challenges and the city staff writing new campaign finance law.
Zoning petition #3 has passed the count for initial sufficiency. Petition #3 was to repeal Ordinance O-2025-29, replacing Article 3 of the zoning code concerning a lot of single-family zoning provisions. Petition #3 will join 1 and 2 in waiting for final approval before going to City Council.
Zoning Petition #4 has been submitted to Lakewood. That completes the signature gathering process to repeal all parts of the newly passed zoning code.
There are rumors that all petition signatures have been challenged and will require a new hearing and costly legal defense. Details pending.
Campaign Finance Challenge
Recent meetings from the Jeffco School Board Partnership for Fiscal Sustainability discussed raising the mill levy and how to market that decision to residents. This demonstrates yet another government body shaping propaganda to support a future ballot measure. Jeffco Schools, like Lakewood and Jefferson County, hired a consultant to help with a mill levy question. At this point, a community survey has asked about revenue generation. Budget presentations show data about raising the levy. Budget reductions are discussed as a part of the solution.
The point of these meetings was to “prepare and involve the community to support future revenue generation,” as seen in the slide below. This is using district resources to get resident support in what will likely be a ballot question on the mill levy. School communications are also a tool to discuss any upcoming cuts or revenue changes.
From savebelmarpark.com
Homelessness, and especially people who are unhoused, is a growing concern in the US. Upzoning advocates have pointed to the high cost of housing as a key driver of homelessness and that upzoning would make housing more affordable and therefore would reduce the number of unhoused persons in a city.
‘Upzoning’ is a city planning strategy to increase housing density and therefore housing supply via related zoning changes to support the strategy.
The new zoning rewrite drastically changed the very definition of a residential dwelling unit. Residents may be accustomed to using words like single-family, duplex, or even shelter. All that has now gone away. All of them are now considered the same. They are all “residential dwelling.”
That means that any of them, including a homeless shelter, can be your new nextdoor neighbor and there’s nothing to stop it.
The 2012 zoning code broke out 9 categories for uses and permitted them per zone, depending on suitability.
The same table in the 2025 rewrite shows only three categories. The highlighted categories from 2012 have all been compressed into one category, “residential dwelling”.
City Council decided to break up the zoning code into four separate public hearings. There will now be 4 separate ordinances that will have second readings on separate dates. Council expressed the strong desire to have voting completed BEFORE the November elections. These changes are big enough to be an election issue, but City Council is taking that off the table by guaranteeing that residents’ votes will not matter for zoning changes. The new dates for second reading are: The original motion was to delay the second reading and also break up the code into digestible pieces. There was more talk of making the code easier to understand than there was of making changes, but the break-up was mostly agreeable. However, with some Councilors disagreeing with the delay, that was changed to maintain a second reading on the Aug 25 date for the first piece. It is unclear if Council is hearing opposition from residents or whether Council believes people just don’t understand what’s going on. “Education” was mentioned several times. Councilor Low read off many city “touchpoints” that would indicate everyone had been informed enough, and any delay was unjustified. About half the council, including Councilors Mayott-Guerrero and Shahrezaei, argued that people were expecting the second reading on August 25 and may not understand that the dates had changed so that wasn’t an option. In reality, even this first reading was delayed due to pressure against these sweeping changes, so that argument was unconvincing. Several Councilors mentioned that they had to have the final vote before elections. So the final opportunity to vote would be a special meeting November 3. No one seemed willing to let this issue be settled as an election matter or be voted on by new councilors. Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein said that new maps will be available as of Tuesday, August 12, 2025, on https://www.lakewoodtogether.org/zoningupdates. Until now, there was no map that was clear enough to see individual neighborhoods for people to see how changes would affect them.
Lakewood is adding a new word to the dictionary — an innocuous move that covers up a dedicated zoning change for the Emory-Action Center swap while also shutting down future resident protests. Lakewood is planning on adding a new “Community Resource Facility” use to the zoning code to enable an “Amazon” warehouse-type low-income distribution center to operate anywhere in Lakewood. This new use is necessary for changes to the Emory Elementary property that Lakewood proposes to sell or exchange with the Action Center, which will convert it into a “Community Resource Facility”. That swap is not mentioned in the May 19th meeting on the zoning code change, even though the swap is what prompted the change in the first place. To listen to that meeting, one would think that there has just been a glaring oversight for the past 50 years, and no non-profits have been able to operate food pantries. Taken in isolation, residents could be forgiven for thinking that Lakewood didn’t have the ability to allow what is clearly already allowed in multiple places. Therefore, once again, residents must dig deeper to understand what is going on. In this case, allowing high populations of low-income support services in every zone in the city, including those previously reserved for schools. (For background, read Lakewood news at https://lakewoodinformer.com/springsteen-files-injunction-regarding-emory/) Travis Parker, Chief of Planning and Community Development, says Lakewood hasn’t had a request for something like this during his time with Lakewood, which may give residents an idea of the scale of the facility that is envisioned. The Action Center currently operates in a commercial area and sometimes has customers lined up down the block. The new “Facility” will be much larger. Envision the difference between the local retail shop and the Amazon warehouse. Are residents prepared for the warehouse of low-income services anywhere in the city? *Another word game warning: since places like the Action Center and Recovery Works are paid for by donations, Lakewood claims they are different from commercial activities, so they use the word “guests” instead of “customers”. They say this is a “distribution of goods and services” instead of commercial activity. The medium of exchange might be different, but the underlying intent is the same. The new code discriminates against for-profit businesses that are not eligible to operate everywhere in the city. Lakewood is a government, not a charity, and this type of special treatment drives out other commercial businesses who cannot compete with special favors granted by the government. It also discriminates against smaller non-profits that currently operate throughout the city but are not getting financial favors from the city to host a “facility” — like the one envisioned by Lakewood for the Action Center. In a city where small businesses are closing everywhere, why give special treatment to organizations that don’t pay taxes? When a City Council member asked how existing operations were allowed, the answer was that they were in a mixed-use zone, but it was unknown under what technical use definition. Historical precedence seems to be pertinent to the discussion. Is it possible the man in charge doesn’t know how this could have been accomplished in the past? Or is the change specific to something that could be pertinent only to the Emory property swap Councilor Isabel Cruz asked what this change would look like outside of the school disposition process. Her question suggests an understanding that the change is driven specifically by the Action Center swap, even if that is not communicated directly. Councilor I. Cruz asks about smaller non-profits, but they are already allowed under existing rules. This change is necessary only to allow the Action Center’s mega-warehouse tied to land swap. Lakewood is making changes behind the scenes to preempt resident objections. Under current zoning, residents would have a chance to protest the Emory Elementary use change later. Adding this definition makes the change happen now, without specific public notice.
From Crash Davis You’ll hear it all the time, especially from pundits and politicians: “The solution to the housing crisis is simple. Just build more.” It sounds nice. It fits on a bumper sticker. But it’s not the full story. Not even close. We’re not just short on homes. We’ve built an entire system where housing has become the best way to build wealth, and where insiders control access to that wealth. I was talking to a friend the other day, and he mentioned a few people he knew who were doing very well financially. Every single one of them had made their money in real estate. That says a lot. Here in Colorado, you see the distortion everywhere. In Lakewood, homes are sitting on the market. The “supply” is technically there, but prices still start around $500,000 and go well past $1.4 million. That’s not a starter home. That’s not attainable for most working families. And it’s not just because we didn’t build enough. It’s because we’ve flooded the system with easy money for decades. It didn’t start with the pandemic. That just poured fuel on a fire that had already been burning since the financial crisis, the dot-com bust, and even before. Every time the economy hiccups, we inject liquidity, drop interest rates, and do whatever it takes to prop up asset values. The result is a distorted market where real estate becomes a magnet for cash, speculation, and institutional investment. Now we’re sitting on the flip side. High mortgage rates were needed to fight the very inflation we created, and a generation has been locked out of homeownership. And let’s talk about access. Realtors and brokers often have first shot at listings. Many flip properties before they ever reach the public. Investors buy homes in bulk with cash offers and zero contingencies. It’s not a level playing field. It’s insider baseball, and everyday buyers are the ones striking out. Some might say, “Well, you could become a Realtor too.” Maybe. But that’s not the point. I’m not asking to join the club. I’m asking whether the club should be allowed to set the rules for the entire market. Housing isn’t just another asset class. It’s where people live. And when those licensed to facilitate transactions also get first crack at the inventory, sometimes before the public even knows it exists, we’ve blurred the line between broker and player. In most financial markets, we call that insider trading. It’s illegal. But in real estate, it’s not only legal, it’s standard practice. Realtors can access private “pocket listings,” buy before a home is ever made public, and flip it, all within the rules. There’s no regulation that stops it. No disclosure requirement. No cap. It’s an advantage built into the structure, not earned through risk or innovation. This isn’t about more government control. It’s about a market that actually behaves like one. And here’s where it ties into something even bigger. We protect systems like this because we’re afraid to let them fail. When cracks appear, whether it’s the housing market, the student loan industry, or some part of the financial sector, we inject money, cut rates, float bailouts, or push subsidies to keep it all from collapsing. The result is inflated assets, moral hazard, and even more consolidation of advantage. We say we want affordability. But we prop up prices. We say we support markets. But we rig them to protect insiders. We’re not just creating housing problems. We’re institutionalizing them. Data shows this isn’t fringe theory. In markets like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Miami, researchers have shown that speculative investor behavior directly drove price spikes and increased default risk during boom cycles. And it’s not just Wall Street firms. Small-scale investors now account for nearly 30 percent of all single-family home purchases nationwide. In California, nearly one in five homes is investor-owned. In some mountain and resort regions, it’s far higher. That’s not building community. That’s extracting profit and boxing out would-be homeowners. You can see it in housing. You can see it in student loans. We’ve created a culture where financial risk is absorbed by the system instead of the individual. Yes, many student loans were predatory, with poor disclosure and complex repayment terms that borrowers barely understood. And here’s the part no one talks about. More student loan debt is held by people over 50 than under 25. That’s not just a youth issue. It’s a long-term debt trap. And when people are carrying that kind of burden, along with auto loans and other monthly obligations, homeownership gets pushed further out of reach. Some expenses are personal choices, sure. But the bottom line is this. Housing affordability depends on more than home prices. It depends on what’s left after the system takes its cut. We’ve also created a generational split. Asset-holders benefit while asset-seekers fall behind. The longer we ignore that, the more brittle the system becomes. Meanwhile, the “just build more” crowd ignores a basic reality. Places like Colorado aren’t limitless. Buildable land is inherently scarce. Water is limited. Infrastructure can only stretch so far. And people want to live here, which means demand is high and growing. When you combine that kind of demand with natural constraints on supply, prices are going to rise. That’s not politics. That’s economics. And when people point out that only high-income households can afford to live in Boulder, the response is usually to push “affordable housing” into surrounding communities like Lakewood. That’s where things like ADUs, lot splits, and small infill units come in. The idea is to add supply by allowing people to subdivide their lots, build small houses, and either rent them out or sell them. On paper, it sounds practical. In reality, it often erodes the very character of the neighborhoods that make these places livable to begin with. Density without planning isn’t affordability. It’s just chaos with good intentions. And here’s another truth we rarely say out loud. Not everyone can or
From Jim Kinney Friends and neighbors, I hope you all have had a chance to study the draft City of Lakewood Zoning Code being pushed forward by what appears to be the majority of City Council, the Mayor, and the City Manager and the Director of Planning. The new code is being “sold” as the answer to fix the problem that our City needs affordable housing. Minneapolis was the first city in the nation to abandon the single family zoning category, in about 2018, thinking that action was the answer to magically have the city filled with affordable housing. The article, Counterpoint: Upending Single-family Zoning Isn’t the Answer: Like many zombie ideas, the idea that zoning changes will magically provide abundant affordable housing just doesn’t die, was written by Linda McDonald, of Minneapolis, who is a former City Council member and is one of the founding members of the citizen group Minneapolis For Everyone. The following quote is taken from her article (my highlighting). “In addition, the Urban Institute found no evidence that more low-cost housing was built, or that lower-cost housing became less expensive when zoning was reduced. This isn’t surprising. The real reason new housing is so expensive is that the costs to build — lumber, copper, labor, etc. — have been increasing much faster than inflation. The private marketplace simply cannot produce deeply affordable housing, the housing critical for truly low-income persons. In Minneapolis, there has been an increase in deeply affordable housing, but only because the city has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.” The draft Lakewood zoning codes proposes abandoning single-family zoning to solve the City’s lack of affordable housing. It has already been shown this approach has very little effect producing affordable housing. Tell City Council, the City Manager and the Director of Planning to abandon these draft new zoning codes, that abandoning single-family zoning is not the answer. If there is a reason to rewrite our current City Zoning codes, it is not to remove single-family zoning as the answer to magically adding abundant affordable housing. Educate yourself. Stand up and speak up. Council is planning on voting to make these disastrous draft codes our City law on August 25, 2025. In democracy,Jim Kinney
