Lakewood just became the first city in Colorado to change its development policies in response to pressure from Democrats in the state legislature — but not without an intense public debate.
A new state law forbids cities like Lakewood from enforcing what it calls “anti-growth” policies. Lakewood city leaders responded on Monday by starting to undo the “strategic growth” law that has dominated city politics and reshaped Lakewood’s growth in recent years.
The council voted 8-3 to put an expiration date on the city’s growth law, setting it to disappear in two years. The change appears to put the city in compliance with the new state law, but it leaves Lakewood with the question of how it will manage growth and development as a new chapter of city politics begins.
Another big foot of the federal government is stepping its way through Congress and may soon be heading to Lakewood. That foot belongs to the Telecom industry. Its name is H.R.3557 – the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2023. If passed by Congress, it will clear the way for the reckless deployment of future wireless infrastructure, usurping Lakewood’s current laws and stomping out our right to manage our public rights-of-way and our land use policies.
Its damage will be permanent; its only benefit will be to the Telecom industry. It will allow the wireless industry to ignore the critical environmental laws, historic protections, and aesthetic considerations that Lakewood has thoughtfully built into our city programs. And, contrary to what its promoters claim, it is not likely to close the digital divide.
The National League of Cities, in opposition to the bill, claims “There is no evidence that heavy-handed preemptive mandates, such as harsh permitting shot clocks, deemed granted policies, or restrictions on permitting fee arrangements or cable franchises, have expedited the deployment of broadband infrastructure”.
The Lakewood Broadband Task Force, a group of Lakewood citizens, wants to make our community aware of this bill. We urge each resident to tell their local, State and Federal elected representatives that H.R.3557 should be stopped. The US Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and many others have already spoken out in opposition to H.R. 3557.
Thank you for joining us in this important campaign.
Linnea Hauser
Lakewood Broadband Task Force Spokesperson
Read the letter sent to Lakewood Mayor and City Council…
On August 7, 2023, Lakewood City Council will decide on how the city will react to the state passage of HB23-1255, titled Regulating Local Housing Growth Restrictions. This state law would effectively overturn the votes of Lakewood’s residents.
The Strategic Growth Initiative, which Lakewood called Residential Growth Limitation, was adopted as Lakewood Municipal Code 14.27 in 2019.
Lakewood City Council Members have all acknowledged the deep feelings residents have for this issue, both for and against. Many Members have acknowledged a will to honor the votes of the residents, despite personal feelings. The question is, what can Lakewood do?
On July 24, 2023, City Council approved a first reading of proposed Ordinance:
“This Ordinance would readopt Lakewood Municipal Code 14.27 as a temporary, nonrenewable anti-growth law for the purpose of developing or amending land use plans or land use laws covering residential development or the residential component of a mixed-use development for a term not to exceed twenty-four months from the effective date of this Ordinance, with the intent that such new land use plans may be incrementally enacted, but will be fully enacted within twenty-four months from the effective date of this Ordinance, such temporary, nonrenewable anti-growth law attached hereto and incorporated herein, all in conformance with C.R.S. § 29-20-104.2, without waiving any Constitutional objections to C.R.S. § 29-20-104.2.“
There are multiple options Lakewood could take. Those options, as shared with City Council, include:
Source: Lakewood City Attorney, via City Council
Option 3 appears to be in line with the ordinance that passed first reading (above). Option 3 involved “action by ordinance” which requires time for posting and public notice, even as an emergency ordinance. That requirement is now satisfied.
Options 1 and 2 can be passed through a simple motion. In other words, they can be approved and take effect immediately after voting, without the first reading required by option 3.
With the requirements of option 3 completed, and other actions being simple, all three options are currently viable for action.
These options will be discussed and potentially voted on at a virtual Council meeting held August 7, 2023.
Unlike other cities with strong elected officials, Lakewood City Council is very limited in the actions it can initiate. Councilors set broad objectives at the annual retreat and they are able to bring forth “Requests for Legislative Modifications” to get items onto the agenda during the year. Other than that, they are limited to voting for policies developed by city staff.
Your job is to vote on the matters that are presented to you –Lakewood Deputy City Attorney, stated during City Council meeting
Besides acting on those regular business items throughout the year, Council Members can make their mark by getting things on the agenda. From July 2022 through July 2023, the following 14 Requests for Legislative Modifications were all added to the agenda. However, as indicated below, only seven of those items were approved for action:
Rule adjustment for Lakewood Advisory Committee (LAC) (approved and passed on to LAC)
Minority-owned business analysis (Shahrezaei, approved and passed to LAC)
Public safety committee (Janssen, deferred to annual retreat)
Bicycle connectivity map (Olver, denied due to claims it had been done)
Unblight properties (Olver, inactive due to sponsor absence at meeting)
Censure (Shahrezaei, approved for immediate Council workshop)
*Additional Dwelling Unit – ideas to expand use (Stewart, approved to Planning Commission) *corrected 7/31/23
Additional Dwelling Unit de-regulation (Stewart, approved to Planning Commission)
Pride month proclamation (Mayott-Guerrero, removed due to staff implementation)
One Book One Town (Vincent, approved for personal research)
Terumo education (Olver, approved for unspecified action)
Speed reduction (Shahrezaei, approved for existing LAC action)
Adding public safety committee (Olver, denied due to desire to keep action to annual retreat)
Council compensation (Olver, denied due to similar discussion two years ago)
There is a perception by some Councilors who were denied action that the Councilors getting action approved were getting preferred treatment. However, it might also be true that these Councilors work the process differently. For example, another trait common to almost all approved requests was that the work approved would NOT be done by City Council itself, but rather by other Lakewood agencies. For example, discussions regarding Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) will be conducted by the Planning Commission. Minority-owned business and speed reduction studies were moved to the Lakewood Advisory Committee (LAC).
Only two things were approved for Council to work on themselves:
Censure – moved to an immediate Council Workshop (completed May 1, 2023)
Education on environmental problems near Terumo – moved forward to unspecified time.
However, if we judge a City Council Members effectiveness and success by their ability to initiate work and get discussions going, Council Member Shahrezaei is by far the most effective Councilor. That leadership is further exemplified when you consider that many of the LAC Commissioners were recruited by Shahrezaei and that the LAC is now working on two of those approved projects.
In contrast to speedy approval, a request to take a closer look at public safety concerns was denied twice, or possibly three times, by City Council. The specific request was for a new Public Safety Committee. Such a committee would probably involve City Council Members who are already busy on several committees. Council Member Janssen was the first to request this, but it was delayed for later discussion during the annual retreat. During the retreat, there was some discussion about what public safety might mean but, ultimately, no action for Council itself was approved.
The third time discussion about a Public Safety Committee was raised, most Councilors agreed nothing could be done –unless it was approved at the next retreat. No other Request for Legislative Modification was required to wait until the annual retreat.
The objectives set at the annual retreat are city-wide objectives, some of which the City Council themselves take an active part in. For example, “Regular reports provided by the police” does not take Council action. Another item, “Provide a detailed review of the process and challenges associated with developing affordable housing projects during an upcoming Study Session” will involve a Council session, from which further action may be forthcoming.
The same Council Members who would not approve a discussion about a public safety committee seemed upset when denied an opportunity for discussion in executive session on July 17. In that case the issue will proceed anyway since the information can be distributed in other ways, but no executive level discussion occurred. In every case there are reasons why the discussion doesn’t happen, but the net result is the discussion doesn’t happen.
It might appear that Council Members get things done by having the right connections, by playing a superior game or by just having better ideas. In any case, over the past twelve months, the net effect of individual Councilor-initiated agenda items, not staff initiated, was that Council chose to spend time on only two items: number one was ways to censure each other. Other items, like public safety, were thrice denied.
Update: Crime prevention was the number one concern of 88% of the respondents in the Lakewood Community Survey (pg4).
Support this author and Lakewood teacher: Angela Chirila
Lakewood Mayor Adam Paul received the Community Leadership Award from the Community Investment Alliance for his personal involvement with the Lakewood launch of an Extreme Weather Overflow Shelter. (news release here; link removed from lakewood.org) This was the first year for the shelter, which operated out of the Whitlock recreational enter. During the Feb 27 Lakewood City Council meeting, the City Manager reported that 11 guests used the shelter the first night, and 33 guests were there the second.
There is no doubt that Mayor Paul works tirelessly for the City of Lakewood. However, other Council Members would like to work tirelessly on the issues they care about and are often stymied as to how to do that. Councilor Springsteen says information is withheld. Councilor Olver is famous working towards a new dog park but cannot talk to staff about it for fear of undue influence. When Olver tried to offer opinions and discussion points on bike paths, there appeared to be a Council protest. What is the difference between Olver asking to help on bike lanes or dog parks and the Mayor lending leadership to the weather shelter and “helping resolve issues that arose during its operation”?
Perhaps after Mayor Paul’s long tenure in Lakewood he has figured out a way to get into a leadership position in city operations. This may be something worth sharing because Lakewood Council Members seem to be continuously reminded that such a thing is not possible.
Following up on resident concerns raised in a recent interview discussing the newly approved “Green Remodeling” project, Lakewood Mayor Pro Tem Wendi Strom and the Sustainability Committee Chair, Glenn Weadock, responded that this was just research, that outcomes had yet to be determined and no policies have been set. The implication of project approval is that City Council and the Sustainability Committee agree that green remodeling is a worthy city goal to be sustainable and reduce greenhouse emissions. In this case, research may involve electrification, i.e., replacing gas with electricity in places such as your stove.
Weadock writes: “The Lakewood Advisory Council is a research entity, not a policy entity. Our job is to provide relevant facts to policymakers so that they can make informed decisions. The “green remodeling” project is essentially an extension of work that the LAC has already done in prior years via the Renewable Energy Mitigation Proposal (REMP). The LAC sustainability committee will be studying the pros and cons of several types of electrification in the context of home renovation and remodeling. What the city council chooses to do with the information we provide, in terms of policy changes, will be up to them as elected officials, but it is certainly appropriate for Lakewood city government to evaluate the possibilities for making the city more sustainable for all its residents, and important to do so in a well-informed manner.”
In the past, project researchers often interpret research approval as a mandate for recommendations to “do something”. In many cases, “pros and cons” are presented only for certain recommendations, but the pros and cons are not necessarily considered for the original base assumption. For example, in the Green Remodeling Project, there may be pros and cons presented for a certain type of electrification, but the original base assumption, that electrification is good, is likely to be considered “a given” and will go unchallenged. Home chefs who enjoy their gas stove may not want to switch to an electric stove, but somehow the question of “is it necessary?” is not discussed, but rather “how much is necessary?” (no such discussion has yet occurred on this project)
Disclosure statement: This author is a member of the Lakewood Advisory Committee (LAC) and admittedly has personal biases on most of these issues since witnessing the debates firsthand.
Mayor Pro Tem Strom clarifies: “Procedurally, the Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) needs City Council’s approval to move forward on study projects that the LAC volunteer members deem to be of interest and/or benefit to the city. Members of the LAC approached us because they would like to research opportunities and other impacts of policy that may be considered by City Council that could help our residents increase energy efficiency through home remodeling projects, as well as efforts that could help reduce reliance on our electrical grid and consider emissions of greenhouse gasses. The LAC members also mentioned that there are funds available at both the State and Federal level that may be available for some of this work. “
She continued, “No specifics were voted on, and this research is likely a project that we will not hear back on for quite some time due to the scope of the research. However, the Council’s approval was both necessary and required for the LAC to move forward gathering information. To date, I’m not aware of any Council conversations around gas stoves specifically.”
Strom notes, “For anyone that would like to see the full conversation, it can be found at minute 49:13 of the 07/10/2023 Lakewood City Council meeting at this Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKcqTgSiI1o . The staff memo referenced in the video of the City Council meeting can be found and reviewed here: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/items/3091.”
Residents will have a chance to make their voices heard about any new policy when the final report is presented to City Council. This research is just the first step towards the city taking any action. It also may result in no action. This project idea was not petitioned by an overwhelming number of residents making their voices heard through Council; it is the result of a few individuals. Historically, there are relatively few new actions or policies resulting from LAC research, which is its own frustration to LAC members.
The Lakewood Advisory Commission also recently gained approval for noise pollution research. This will include research into gas-powered outdoor equipment, such as leaf-blowers and lawn mowers, that are noisier than their electric counterparts.
Anita Springsteen discusses the latest on Lakewood City Council.
Brother Jeff expresses surprise that Lakewood is seeing increased homelessness.
They discuss Aurora’s outstanding fireworks show and Aurora’s policy of discouraging residents from giving money to panhandlers.
Brother Jeff’s policy is “housing first” – give people housing first and then address their issues.
Springsteen sees a problem with criminalizing people who go to county jail over and over again who can’t make a bond and that doesn’t solve the problem.
Springsteen highlights the case of Angela Selvage who died in a hit and run in May. Springsteen feels that people in her situation, down on her luck, do not have their cases investigated the same as others.
They discuss the “hierarchy of handouts” – bailouts and scholarships seem ok but not giving to panhandlers.
Brother Jeff gets a text inquiring if Springsteen knows about Jumbos Bar and Grill losing their license. She will look into it.
(see the end of Joan’s interview where she notices an uptick in permitting issues on Nextdoor)
An update on the death of Patricia Dilworth: She went missing in January, and her body was found a month later. Her death was ruled not a homicide. However, there is video surveillance showing Ms. Dilworth talking to someone when a car pulls up and Ms. Dilworth disappears. The owner of the video has been harassed regarding it and the video itself appears missing from the tablet that was given to the police, leading to questions. The autopsy also raised questions: the timing changed, hypothermia may or may not have been involved. The body was reported Jan 24 but it wasn’t found by the police for another week.
Ms. Springsteen is looking for members and organizing members of a new chapter of the NAACP. She hopes they may help in certain criminal cases. For instance, there was a story about a young girl being shot in Lakewood. In the beginning, the story was that two girls were involved in an armed robbery, pulling a gun and shooting a police officer. The next day, apparently the story changed to the girl pulling a gun but not shooting it. The story changed again to the officer being hit by friendly fire, which is unconfirmed at this point. Springsteen has asked for information and feels Lakewood PD is unresponsive to her requests.
Springsteen reports that Lakewood PD has not been keeping her informed of litigation actions involving the police department, which is a decision made by the Lakewood Attorney’s office, not Lakewood City Council.
Brother Jeff asks if other City Council Members are upset about these cases or are they afraid of not rocking the boat. Springsteen responds that there are six members who go along to get along, some of whom have political ambitions so may be afraid of pushback from the establishment.
Springsteen highlights the need for more information so that City Council can make sound policy decisions to fix existing problems.
Springsteen has lost a two year battle to gain information with the Colorado Department of Health. The lawsuit was dismissed to gain a copy of the waiver allowing use of ketamine. The Attorney General’s Office defended the Colorado Department of Health withholding the information. However, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office is currently prosecuting paramedics for administering ketamine in the Elijah McClain case, which appears to be a conflict of interest. Springsteen personally witnessed someone getting involuntary dosed with ketamine.
Springsteen reports that one of her supporters in the battle to get information out was arrested in December, 2022, and has been in jail since that time on a $250,000 cash bond. She continues, “To put that in perspective, Derek Chauvin, who murdered George Floyd, had a $100,000 bond.” This woman was accused of threatening City Council by email. Four City Council Members did not feel threatened, “but she got on the wrong side of some very important people.”
Springsteen reports on a viral video wherein a Lakewood woman went on a racist rant at the Green Mountain Swim Club. Springsteen believes this is a systemic problem that is perpetuated by Lakewood’s form of government.
Please email anita@springsteenlaw.com if you’d like to help with organizing the new Jeffco chapter of the NAACP.
Joan From Lakewood brings attention to gas stoves and possible changes in Lakewood in this video interview.
Joan highlights state and federal laws that impact us and shows how other localities are reversing gas stove bans.
Joan also talks about permitting issues she has seen on Nextdoor wherein businesses are having trouble getting their permits.
*Joan wishes to correct her video statement regarding copper – she meant cobalt, mined in the Congo with negative health effects.
Background: The Sustainability Committee of the Lakewood Advisory Commission received approval to research “green remodeling” during the July 10, 2023 Lakewood City Council meeting.
Project Proposal Regarding Green Remodeling: “To identify and research possible policies and actions by the City to expedite “green renovation” in Lakewood’s residential buildings, for example through benchmarking of electrification; legislation; leveraging state and federal funds; and code enhancement to the existing Article 13, Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) and the Enhanced Development Menu (EDM).”
Since this project has just been approved, there are no current results so that status of any recommendations, including gas stoves, is unknown.
LakewoodInformer will be reaching out to those mentioned in the video for reaction and will update if necessary. Please reach out to highlight news you are watching..
Independence Day is the number 1 or number 2 holiday for driving fatalities, usually involving drinking or drugs. An estimated 620 people nationwide may die this year. In contrast, from 2005-2020 there were an average of 8.5 deaths per year nationwide from fireworks-related injuries. Most injuries are from common fireworks such as sparklers.
Neighborhood conversations will often reflect worries over fireworks, not drunk driving over the holiday, if not for personal safety then for concerns over fire.
West Metro Fire only had three calls involving “fireworks” codes in 2020. However, there may be other calls in a non-searchable field. A housefire will be called a housefire, not a fireworks fire. Callers may believe a firework started a fire but investigators ultimately find no evidence. This was the case for one fire in Lakewood, started in a shed that spread to the house.
According to the National Fire Protection Association, local fire departments responded to 1,353,500 fires in 2021. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports fireworks caused approximately 12,000 fires in 2021. That’s about 1% of the reported fires in 2021.
Noisy fireworks are an extreme nuisance to pets and anti-noise advocates but are not statistically not the most dangerous activity in any category.
In 2020, the City of Lakewood received 1666 call for services related to fireworks. Only 68 of those were agent initiated. Only 3 of those 68 resulted in a summons, due to the difficulty in tracking down a noise source after it’s over.
Lakewood Municipal Court numbers from 2019-2020 indicate that 90% of violators plead guilty and paid in full, an unusually high rate that leaves no reason to seek alternative forms of sentencing.
The number of fatalities and injuries over July 4th has caused Colorado State Patrol, Colorado Department of Transportation and others to increase enforcement activities. This year, they are even offering discounts for Uber rides.
Time and money for enforcement are prioritized, generally based on safety factors. Public pressure may shift priorities to a statistically less-hazardous focus, i.e. fireworks, rather than the more deadly risk of drunk driving over the holiday.
The calculated risk posed by fireworks has been acceptable and memorable way for people to enjoy a political and military victory over the past 200 years.
“We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.” – – William Faulkner
In the last paragraph of my article on HB 23-1255 I commented that Lakewood was M.I.A. in media coverage. A newly discovered article from CBS reporter Alan Gionet that was first published on April 11, 2023 does include a statement from Mayor Adam Paul. It is interesting to note that the Mayor comments that”…the City Council Legislative Committee voted to oppose this bill….” In actuality, this committee didn’t vote on this bill until April 24, 2023. Apologies for not finding this article sooner. On July 17, 2023 there will be a Lakewood City Council Executive Session to discuss the legal issues arising from the passage of HB 23-1255 that may overturn the voters’ passage of the Strategic Growth Initiative in July, 2019.
On June 7, 2023 Governor Polis signed HB23-1255 into law. This bill, when it takes effect in August, 2023, may repeal Lakewood’s Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI). Boulder, Golden and the rarely mentioned Pitkin County are also affected by this legislation. Moving forward, Colorado cities and counties will be prohibited from imposing population and residential growth limits. A precedent will be set permitting our state government to override the vote of the people. Colorado Municipal League (CML), a non-profit, non- partisan organization that represents the interests of 97% of the cities and towns in the state said it best in their April 7, 2023 newsletter:
“SB23-213 and HB23-1255 reflect a desire to disempower municipal voters from exercising their initiative and referendum rights. The bills would replace local voters’ choices with the policy preferences of the General Assembly.” (See pg 6 of the CML newsletter).
It should be noted that SB23-213 was defeated. However, it is very frustrating to watch the demise of the Strategic Growth Initiative which originated as a grassroots effort and survived lengthy and costly legal battles before even making it to the ballot box where it was victorious. This was never a growth cap ordinance. It was only portrayed as such by the those who wanted to defeat it and even renamed it as the Residential Growth Limitation Ordinance. In actuality, the SGI presented a strategic housing allocation plan to better meet the needs of the community while exempting “blighted” and affordable units from any restrictions.
HB23-1255 was first introduced in the House on March 24, 2023. Lakewood’s Legislative Committee addressed the bill on April 24, 2023 after it had passed the third reading in the House (no link on city website to this meeting but the video was received through an open records request). This committee consists of one councilor from each ward (Jeslin Shahrezaei, Sharon Vincent, Rebekah Stewart, Rich Olver, and Mary Janssen) with Councilor Stewart as chair and Ben Goldstein, the Deputy City Manager as staff liaison/advisor. Although this bill holds great significance for our community, the committee spent less than 10 minutes discussing it before voting unanimously to take a “strong” oppose position (Councilor Shahrezaei was absent). The video of this meeting may be the only available evidence of the city’s stance on this bill. But what exactly does a “strong” oppose vs. just an “oppose” mean? Towards the end of the April 10, 2023 legislative meaning, Mr. Goldstein explained that without a “strong” position the staff would not actively work the bill. They would not write it up and no one would be sent to the state house to testify. (see Apr 10 video clip of the discussion of different positions)
So now the legislative committee gave staff the direction for a strong oppose position.
In contrast, the CML’s position was “oppose unless amended”. Lakewood often takes the same position as CML, relying on CML to lobby for Lakewood at the same time it lobbies for its own position. So what did the individual committee members think would happen next, now that the committee took a strong position and also one that is different from CML? Their responses to this question varied. Councilor Vincent felt: “When it is a strong oppose or support there is someone assigned to speak on behalf of the city on the position that we took.” Vincent is the most experienced Councilor on the committee.
Councilor Olver stated: “This year it seems if we strongly oppose or support then we send someone, otherwise we don’t”. Councilor Janssen wrote: “Since I have been on the legislative committee I was told and understood that if this committee has a strong support or a strong oppose, Lakewood staff (not sure who that is) would go or write a paper to lobby the state legislators. CML could have the same stance but I did not think that they lobby for each municipality. This is my understanding.”
These 3 council members have similar expectations moving forward.
The website titled FastDemocracy.com tracks bills and provides a list of the lobbyists working specific legislation. For HB23-1255 well over 200 organizations, cities and counties are represented with no mention of Lakewood. Councilor Stewart is the Lakewood delegate to the CML Policy Committee. She explains:
“I believe that the reason our city is missing from the lobby list is that we do not retain a registered lobbyist and so no one would be registered as a representative of the city on bills we had taken a position on. We use staff and typically the mayor or the chair of the legislative committee depending on the bill to testify if and when there are opportunities, and we all draft position papers and send them to our state delegations as well as working strategically with CML. I know we did pretty much all those things on bills that we took strong positions on this session, but I will gather further clarification to ensure everything I am telling you is accurate”.
A later communication added “we don’t always have time to write up a white paper because things move so fast.”
In a follow-up email she stated: “The collaboration with CML is key because they have the full-time lobbyists and our membership as a city essentially is how we pay for lobbying vs. retaining our own lobbyist.”
Councilor Shahrezaei reinforces the importance of CML: “Action taken by staff is to communicate with CML, the lobbyists we pay at the City of Lakewood. Staff will collaborate and support as needed with CML staff to communicate with our elected representatives and also support with white paper production.” A follow-up question: Does Lakewood employ CML to be our lobbyist? Response: “Not employ. Contracts as other municipalities do.”
Additional question: Are you saying we contract with CML to be our lobbyist for our specific positions? Clarifying answer from Shahrezaei:
“I am saying we don’t employ CML. As members we expect them to support our positions on issues. I misrepresented that with the use of “contract”. That is part of the membership package. When we moved to strong oppose it is my understanding we would update them and then work with CML staff to understand best strategies to reinforce that position…”
After a lengthy phone conversation with Mr. Goldstein, he sent the following email: “Thank you for our conversation this afternoon. As we discussed, after the City Council Legislative Committee took a strong oppose position on HB23-1255, staff began actively working the bill. The city utilizes targeted strategy to advocate a strong oppose position working closely with the Colorado Municipal League (CML) to identify amendments that Lakewood needs to ensure the bill wasn’t passed. Though the ultimate goal was to have the bill fail in its entirety, staff worked with CML on an amendment that would, at a minimum, have removed Lakewood from the bill. That said, a similar legislative strategy was utilized with SB23-213 with great success. Understand the inner workings of the legislature and the politics behind individual bill can be challenging but once direction is given by the Legislative Committee, staff works diligently on each and every bill by utilizing a specific strategy tailored to that bill.”
A copy of this amendment was requested but the city responded it was not available. In any case, any amendment would have aided CMLs “oppose unless amended” position, not Lakewood’s “strong oppose” position.
When reviewing the statements from all the committee members, it is interesting to note the divide between those councilors who placed the emphasis on staff to take action and those who placed greater reliance on the role of CML.
Pitkin County would also be directly affected by HB23-1255 but unlike Lakewood they were able to successfully testify and have their similar ordinance exempted. An “Aspen” amendment was added to the final bill that “would still allow a governmental entity to regulate growth so long as that regulation enforces affordability requirements. Inclusionary zoning or impact fees are potential real-life examples of this amendment.” (Aspen Times article dated May 8, 2023).
Although we are the fifth largest city in the state and the third largest in the metro area, we did not hire our own lobbyist as did much smaller communities such as Trinidad, Fountain, Firestone and Monument (all CML members like us). Because HB23-1255 directly targeted our voter approved ordinance our voice needed to be stronger and louder. There is no documentation of any testimony by Lakewood staff whether written or verbal. Golden submitted a written statement and several Lakewood residents called into the hearings on the bill. (See House and Senate testimony). In newspaper articles and media coverage Lakewood is again M.I.A. Perhaps our city did more than collaborate with CML on a failed amendment, but the proof is lacking. Any evidence of staff advocacy would have been welcomed. If Lakewood was relying on back-room dealings rather than public statements, their efforts will remain unknown. Shouldn’t we have used every tactic available to fight this bill? Would a more eclectic strategy have succeeded? We’ll never know. The bill passed the Senate on May 4, 2023.
