A multi national $20 Billion developer from Dallas Texas has proposed a metro district at the Federal Center development. Their counsel is one of the premier developer law firms who has led the way in creative ways to maximize developer control over resident metro districts and maximize developer profits.
Here is an evaluation of the proposed Service Plan – the charter which will create the district if adopted by Lakewood City Council. Also here is also an evaluation of the proposed resolution the developer asked GM to sign supporting the new metro district and creating an IGA to hook up with GM (Green Mountain Water and Sanitation Board).
Both the full Service Plan and the proposed pre IGA resolution with GM are attached below. References to the Service Plan are provided throughout the presentation.
The Jefferson County Commissioners met at 9 AM on, 9 July, 2024 in a public meeting to vote on a ballot proposal to allow them to keep all the excess funds they overcollected with our 2024 property tax billing. These excess funds would normally be refunded to us because of TABOR. I attended the meeting.
Why overcollected? For several years, the County Commissioners have failed to produce a sound budget. Instead, they spent more than their revenue and drained reserve funds to make it APPEAR they had a balanced budget. This year, they ran out of reserve funds and accounting tricks. The County Assessor did a reappraisal in 2023 as required by State law. Overall, the appraised value of all properties increased by about 37%. By State law, the commissioners were supposed to adjust the mill levy downward to adjust the overall revenue to equal the County budget. Governor Polis even sent a letter asking them to reduce the mill levy. They failed to do so. Instead, they intentionally kept the previous year’s mill levy knowing full well they would collect millions of excess dollars.
The Commissioners then contracted to spend $340,000 of our tax dollars with a politically connected company, The Bighorn Company – Democrat Brittany Pettersen’s husband’s company, to write a ballot proposal (read more about Jeffco and Lakewood lobbying).
I attended the 9AM meeting and it originally seemed all sides of the issue would be heard fairly. I was wrong. The commissioners gave no serious consideration to budget cuts and didn’t mention wasteful spending (such as the County Clerk’s holiday party). They politely listened to all public comments, then IGNORED all comments against or to improve the ballot proposal, and quickly voted to approve it with little discussion and no changes.
This proposal is sneaky and deceptively written:
“WITHOUT INCREASING ANY TAX RATE OR MILL LEVY RATE, AND TO FUND:
● TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE (BUILDING, MAINTAINING, AND REPAIRING ROADS, BRIDGES, POTHOLES, AND OTHER COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE); AND
● PUBLIC SAFETY (WILDFIRE AND FLOOD MITIGATION AND RESPONSE, ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS, CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES, AND OTHER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY FUNCTIONS);
SHALL JEFFERSON COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN, AND SPEND THE FULL REVENUES FROM AUTHORIZED REVENUE SOURCES BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND IN EACH FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER; AND SHALL RESULTING REVENUE AND EARNINGS BE TREATED AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW; AND SHALL RESULTING REVENUE AND EARNINGS BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE?”
Why is it deceptive? The ballot provision does away with ALL current and future TABOR protections – but doesn’t say so. It also does away with the annual 5.5% property tax cap. It implies there would be no tax increase. In fact, it’s a major tax increase. It says no increase in the tax rate or mill levy which is a half-truth. With the huge increase in the 2023 property appraisal, the mill levy was supposed to be reduced. Instead, they kept it at the previous high level resulting in a windfall increase in revenue. As a result, it allows the commissioners to INCREASE future tax rates without any taxpayer control.
Looking at and analyzing the facts and events that led to this ballot proposal, it certainly appears this is a deliberate, planned effort by the Commissioners and county to keep and spend the excess property tax revenue they collected this year (2024) and eliminate TABOR and all other legal restrictions on increasing property tax in the future.
Don’t be fooled. The commissioners want us to vote to approve a huge property tax increase now and into the future with a clear attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.
People who don’t own real estate in the County may think this won’t affect them, but it will. Landlords will pass along the tax increase in higher rental rates and businesses must pass along the tax as higher prices on their goods and services. This ballot proposal will increase inflation even more.
Guest Submission from Toni Riggio, sent to City of Lakewood Planning, Engineering, Traffic and Ward 1 members
This letter is in response to the Subdivision Notification Letter received by mail by the City of Lakewood on 5/3/24. There is a multi-family development that is proposed at 1515 Whippoorwill Dr (Ward 1) with the Ingress/Egress at Youngfield St, 15h Pl and Youngfield Dr and I am writing in opposition to that access point based on the following reasons:
Concerns and Comments for Case# FI23-0016 and S23-0025/1515 Whippoorwill Dr
Proposed Ingress/Egress is where 3 streets come together
1- Youngfield Street: is an increasingly busy corridor. Traveling South requires a full stop at the blind curve to see oncoming traffic before turning onto 15th Pl. Traveling North has low visibility as you turn right onto 15th Pl.
2- 15th Place: Per Aldridge Transportation Consultants recent memo in etrakit, is “a steep 10% grade” uphill as you turn in. This street is a no outlet/ not a thru street that serves 13 homes.
3- Youngfield Drive: is currently a narrow dirt road, not a through street with limited width to expand to the required 36’ for Mixed Use zoning. Lakewood has made an exception for 28’ which makes the entirety of the Road a fire lane per Metro West Fire Dept.
The neighbors have proposed the Ingress/Egress to be at Colfax Ave for a myriad of safety issues and concerns which are highlighted in this document. The ongoing meetings the neighbors and Applewood Valley Assoc have had with both the developer and the City of Lakewood to have access at Colfax Ave have yielded little results to date. This plot of land was originally zoned Residential (R-1A) and in 2012 rezoned to Mixed Use Suburban, because it backs Colfax Ave. We were given a few reasons why the entrance and exit can’t be on W. Colfax; however, the 2014 plans from the City of Lakewood mandated the access to the site to be at W. Colfax Ave, for the same developer and site. In 2023 the City of Lakewood allowed a Multi-family Residential unit to have access from W. Colfax. This site is across the street from this proposed Williams Point site. Further, based on the CDOT referral, it appears that CDOT is not opposed to the development to be accessed through W. Colfax Avenue as they note in their referral “No access is being proposed on Colfax. If access to Colfax is proposed in the future, the City of Lakewood is the Issuing Authority, so the discussion for access will need to begin with Lakewood.”
This 1.6-acre plot has challenging topography, is crammed with utilities; electric, gas, water, sewer and communications. It has been owned by the current Developer for over 20 yrs. It wasn’t until they received a 9% tax credit from CHFA that they were able to get green lit for max density housing. The CHFA funding was approved based on half-truths of being adjacent to a bus stop and community outreach and acceptance, both which were requirements. None of the immediate 13 homeowners to the proposed project were ever notified prior to this grant. Also, the bus stop, while adjacent to the property, has no direct access from the development without walking/biking .8 miles down a 10% grade on W. 15th Pl, without sidewalks or street lights, out to Youngfield St up to W Colfax Ave which has high traffic, steep grades and no sidewalk, creating safety, ADA concerns and other complexities. Further, employment opportunities, schools and parks are between 1 to 1.5 miles away There is a proposed retaining wall and infrastructure to hold up Colfax Ave which will prevent direct access to and from the public transportation from the proposed development site. (Note: Per CHFA requirements the access to public transportation needs to be within a half mile.)
A traffic study by Aldridge Transportation Consultants, estimates a daily 300+ car trips entering and exiting. The proposed project will have (44) 1- 3-bedroom units with 70 parking spaces. This will result in overflow parking on the fire lane and existing neighborhood, where little enforcement will be available or take even place. The Aldridge traffic study does not take into account the addition of Lutheran Hospital employing 2200 people and many other high-density housing going in nearby. Also, traffic is re-routed to Youngfield St whenever there is an accident on the parallel I-70 highway. This creates bumper to bumper traffic on Youngfield St. each time. The most recent memo from Aldridge fails to address traffic approaching 15th Pl travelling South on Youngfield St and turning left onto 15th Pl.
We are extremely concerned about emergency access back to our neighborhood, as we have had two fires within 10yrs. We are in a special high wind district, which was recently cited by Metro West Fire Dept to be the leading cause of dry brush fires, that is no longer seasonal, but year round.
The existing neighborhood was built in the 50’s. The 2 roads 15th Pl a cul-de-sac and Whippoorwill Dr. a dead end. In most sections, the widths are 21-22’ no curb and gutter and drainage ditches on both sides and each with roadside mail delivery and trash pickup. This is where overflow parking will occur but is not adequate to receive the additional cars and would make it very difficult for emergency or fire crews to reach the existing neighborhood.
The neighbors in this area have witnessed pedestrians falling in the street while walking out of Youndfield Dr onto 15th Pl steep grade next to Youngfield St in winter conditions. There have been a multitude of cars getting stuck and/or sliding down 15th Pl to Youngfield St with snow and ice conditions. This has also included delivery/mail trucks, City of Lakewood snow plows getting stuck in the ditches at the intersection of 15th Pl and Youngfield St When approaching entrance to 15th Pl in the snow, you need momentum and speed to get up the 10% grade requiring 4-wheel drive vehicles to be successful. While having this grade may not be uncommon in our mountainous State, this is a contentious intersection with the convergence of these three streets. 2 with steep grades, 1 an increasingly busy street with questionable visibility in both directions.
We have documented the above stated events with videos and photos over the recent 2 years, some but not all are attached here, which have been shared and or provided to City Planning/ Engineers/Commission, City Council members, Developer, AVA, and many residents. I would add that as a resident of this neighborhood for 30 years, I have witnessed these occurrences many times over each and every year, including a head-on-collision at the Youngfield St curve a decade ago. These incidents and accidents will only rise with the addition of this Subdivision development.
Reference Lakewood Title 16.3.1, 16.3.2 Subdivision Standards, 16.3.8 1-4Street andtransportation patterns and connectivity and 16.3.9, this Subdivision does not meet the City’s own Ordinances unless many exceptions, variances or different interpretations are made.
While this only represents a partial detail of concerns, my hope is you will strongly consider these life, safety and ADA issues and concerns brought forth in regards to the Access point for this Subdivision Plat going forward and require the Ingress/Egress to be at Colfax Ave.
Safety First!
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Toni Riggio
Applewood Heights Resident
Photos and Videos below to account for the issues brought to your attention regarding the Subdivision Plat Case # FI23-0016/ D23-0025
15th place demonstrating our narrow roads are not equipped to handle overflow parking and hampering the ability of emergency and other vehicles to access our neighborhood. West Metro Fire Dept responding to a Fire on Whippoorwill Dr. 2yrs ago. Thankfully no cars parked on either side of the street.raffic jam on Youngfield St. and 15th Pl intersection, when traffic is rerouted due to accidents on I-70. A common occurrence.City of Lakewood Snow plow stuck at intersection of Youngfield Dr. and 15th Pl.
Links to vehicles without 4WD trying and failing to get up the 15th Pl steep grade in the snow. (Copy and paste link to view)
Link to Prime driver unable to come up the 15th Pl grade, parked at the blind curve to deliver packages, forcing cars to go around into oncoming traffic.https://photos.app.goo.gl/o2TRfw9B8UYMkMWm6
Maps clipped from Community Crime Map for the month of June, 2024, in Lakewood, Colorado.
Community Crime Map displaying 500 of 718 crimes in Lakewood, CO, June, 2024Community Crime Map – Density analysis showing 500 of 864 crimes in Lakewood, CO
Note: Statistics seem to vary slightly per application (density map versus event map). This website is very user friendly and can be zoomed in for better detail although exact locations are changed for privacy.
Compare to June of 2023 below. Note that comparison is done visually since numbers for “Lakewood” include parts of of Denver, which doubles the number of crimes.
One of the fundamental jobs that a government has is to ensure that businesses act ethically. In theory, the government, local, state or federal will pass regulations which keep corporations from exposing thousands of residents to cancer-causing chemicals. In theory, having learned just how abusive metro districts can be, a government would, maybe, outlaw them? Some cities, such as Longmont and Westminster, have taken such a stand but Lakewood is still working on ways to enable formation of metro districts.
Metro Districts are a type of special district especially for developers. It is not a government of the people, by the people for the people, because THERE ARE NO PEOPLE. There is only a developer, making deals with himself to have future people pay increasing amounts of taxes and fees. Not surprisingly, granting governmental immunity and taxing abilities to a developer who is only accountable to himself, has caused problems (see this district with toxic sludge for a recent example.)
On May 6th 2024, Lakewood City Council had a workshop to study a proposed ordinance on Metro Districts in Lakewood. The ordinance was first proposed in 2021 and it was immediately obvious that it’s more of a “see, we did something for the good of the public”, while allowing the big money they shill for to continue to make profit, at any cost.
City Council Members seemed very aware of all the pitfalls of metro districts, asking pertinent questions about how Lakewood could possibly limit some of the abuses, while at the same time neglecting limiting districts altogether.
Allegedly, according the Director of Planning, Travis Parker, the need to implement “something” was due to the recently passed Senate Bills 21-262 and 23-110:
In reality, it would be better to do nothing and simply follow the state’s statutes, instead of crafting a faulty ordinance, designed to offer the developers a plethora of loopholes to perpetuate further financial abuses (at least, in Lakewood).
There is a narrative, pushed by Metro District lobbyists, that metro districts make housing more affordable. We are still waiting for a logical, three sentence (or less) explanation, as to how a house that costs $500,000 and has $8,000 worth of mill levies is more affordable than a house that costs $530,000 and has $4000 worth of mill levies per year. In this situation, the $500,000 house has extra mill levies in a metro district, rather than the upfront cost of the infrastructure. The $30,000 decrease in cost is financed through the developer, who earns interest. If the resident bought the house for $530,000, their mortgage would pay that cost off in 8 years of equivalent mill levy payments, but the resident will be paying that levy forever. Decades of $4,000 per year, per house, in extra fees that go directly to the developer.
The extra mill levies do not go toward schools, fire departments and other services normally paid for by taxes. Instead, they go towards the basic infrastructure that usually comes with your house but you pay for decades to come. And those mill levies could go up even more, without residents having a say, because there are no residents involved from the beginning to be fairly represented. Only the developer will vote for the mill levy other people will pay.
The reality is that paying the total house cost through a mortgage is more affordable for residents.
One of the many claims is that the metro districts make development possible (and affordable). For who? For those who need the housing or for those who will profit, immensely, from selling it? Most other states in the U.S. do not utilize metro districts to finance development. A developer, well, develops the land. A builder purchases the developed land from the developer. A builder builds the house and sells it to a buyer for a profit. End of transaction. They do not continue to collect cash from the buyer for decades to come.
Metro districts are not mandated to provide affordable housing as a condition to receiving government status. Developers do not pretend to provide affordable housing. Instead, some claim that metro districts make housing more affordable than traditional development. The financial difference is upfront costs versus costs stretched out over time and what interest rate you are getting. Typical mill rates levied are the equivalent of 18% interest, which is more than the average home loan.
Lakewood City Council, who recently has moved general public comment to the “back of line” to make it even harder for the public to speak up during the city council meetings, DID NOT invite anyone to represent the public concerns to the workshop. Stories of flat-out financial abuse are well-documented but experts known to the city were not invited. The city did, however, invite the Metro District top lobbyist, Kristy Pollard from the Metro District Education Coalition. She was the sole outsider to answer questions MDEC’s hypocrisy was covered by Mr. Henderson as well.
One of the city councilors, Rich Olver, did voice a concern of “who invited this person, while not having anyone in the room to represent the other side of the argument.” One. The rest of the councilors proceeded under the forgone conclusion of “well, we gotta pass something.” The truth is – you don’t. You could, simply, make metro districts illegal.
Councilor Nystrom ardently kept stating that more disclosure was always better, while Councilor Shahrezaei kept saying that the city will most likely not be able to enforce the failures to properly disclose and notify the potential buyers of a property within a Metro District. While Councilor Sinks stopped short of calling the prospective buyers idiots and that the onus was on them.
So, as your eyes glaze over after flipping through the first four pages of a hundred page contract (or whatever it is up to in Colorado now), remember – it is your fault that you get financially screwed by an army of lobbyists, lawyers and government representatives who enable the passing of policies designed to extract cash flow from the thousands (millions?) of buyers who just happened not to be a lawyer, or a financial wizard, or… well pretty much any other occupation vital to our communities.
Conveniently, the lobbyist kept bringing up the Service Plan Templates from other cities (such as Aurora, Colorado Springs and Fort Collins) as something that the Council should be looking at. Conveniently, she forgot to mention that some of those templates were written by developers, with hardly any concessions to the public input.
Longmont passed a responsible alternative in 2020:
“C. Residential districts.The city council will not approve the formation of districts to fund capital improvements in developments containing residential uses, except mixed-use residential districts, for the following reasons:
All existing Longmont residential development was funded without districts, so the lack of these districts will not adversely affect Longmont residential development.
Creation of a residential district creates a differential property tax structure among similar residential developments, and the district resident would pay significantly more property tax without any commensurate public benefit.
The higher mill levy in district projects may make these residents less inclined to support other city property tax increases.
Buyers of homes in district projects are often unaware of the higher property taxes in their development and may become upset when property taxes increase. Residents may be surprised to find out the price of their homes did not include the price of streets and utilities in their development and that they must pay for this over a 30 or more year period through their property taxes.”
This ordinance is easily understood by most residents and non-lawyers. Longmont city council has listened to their constituents and has decided to step in, despite at times contentious exchanges on the topic, and did what a government body should do – and that is to ensure that a business interest is kept in check, instead of making excuses under the guise of “affordable housing” or “property rights.”
Longmont was not the only municipality who listened to their constituents. City of Westminster also found that (according to their Policies and Procedures for Title 32 District Formation):
“Residential MSDs: In general the City is opposed to the creation of MSD’s to fund capital construction of residential developments for the following reasons:
1. Virtually all existing Westminster residential development was funded without MSD’s. So the lack of these districts has not adversely affected Westminster residential development.
2. Creation of a residential MSD creates a differential property tax structure among similar residential developments where the MSD resident is paying significantly more property tax without any commensurate public benefit.
3. The higher mill levy in MSD projects may make these residents less inclined to support property tax increases.
4. Buyers of homes in MSD projects are generally unaware of the higher property taxes in their development but can become upset when they later discover this. Residents may be surprised to find out the price of their home did not include the price of streets and utilities in their development which they repay over a 30 or more year period through their property taxes versus the vast majority of Westminster homes where this is not the case.
5. There would be an arguable public benefit if home prices were lower in MSD projects, reflecting the developers lower capital cost. Studies have shown that this is not the case.
In summary, there is generally not a compelling public purpose and benefit to formresidential districts…”
Lakewood City Council majority is moving full speed ahead to ensure that large business interests can continue to profit, instead of working on actual economic development to enable more Lakewood residents to prosper and be able to actually afford a place to live.
A $60 million blunder along Wadsworth Boulevard that was all but abandoned in January is now a stable, $117 million apartment project and two-thirds complete, its receiver said.
Aspen Heights Partners, a Texas developer, broke ground in 2020 on a 352-unit apartment complex at 1225 Wadsworth in Lakewood, with plans to finish it by the end of 2022. Amenities were to include a heated pool, dog park, bike repair shop and golf simulator.
That didn’t happen. Instead, millions of dollars in mechanic’s liens piled up and Truist Bank, which loaned $59.9 million to the project, tried suing to get its money back.
“Truist has become aware of significant cost overruns, scheduling delays and defects in the course of construction of the project,” the Atlanta-based bank wrote in a lawsuit that it filed in Golden in January. “Additionally, work on the project has come to a standstill due to infighting between the two primary members” of Aspen Heights’ development team.
Week of June 1 – personal update on homelessness and immigration housing.
So this week I was invited to two different meetings with two different perspectives on homelessness, immigration, and affordable housing. This is my perception of both meetings.
Meeting number one 6/4 was the Common Sense Institute (CSI) meeting, titled Egg and the Economy. The CSI is a non-partisan issues researching group that has been on the scene of Colorado politics for the last year. Their breakfast was held at the AMG Dome in Greenwood Village. There was a presentation on CSI latest research on migrants and homelessness by CSI’s Director of Policy & Research, DJ Summers and then he moderated a fascinating panel with Adam Paul (Denver Mayors Office), Paul Scudo (Step Denver) & Heidi Williams with (Metro Mayors Caucus). The panel presented two diffing views on homelessness. Step Denver stated that 70 percent of homeless are substance addiction victims. There were other fun facts from a report that CSI had released. You can see this report at Common Sense Institutehttps://commonsenseinstituteco.orgCommon Sense Institute and then go to the menu and choose local issues. Look for the report “A Snapshot of the Metro Denver Homeless Ecosystem in 2023”. and the fact that stood out to me was that between 2021 and 2023 the amount spent on a homeless person grew from $30,000 per year to $60,000 per year. And that in fall of 2023, Denver was ranked #5 in the nation with fifth largest homeless population.
The panel was quite lively and one point that came out was Adam Paul statement that there was a plan to house 3000 more homeless within the next year and half. And because the funding for Housing First came from the Federal Government there can not be any stipulations on the housing like job training, or chores like bed making which is the accountability piece of the Step Denver program.
The Breakfast Wrap was the worst part of the meeting but the very real question and answer session after the panel and presentation was exceptional. I can recommend following this group and attending their next meeting Thursday June 27 on the Fentanyl crisis.
The second meeting 6/6 was the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and Municipalities’ Quarterly Breakfast. This meeting was the County Commissioners, Mayors, and City Council members. There was no interaction with the public and we were asked to move to seats next to wall and I suspect we were not supposed to eat breakfast. But we did anyway. The bagel sandwich was much better fare than what I had at the CSI meeting.
The main topic of the meeting was the JeffCo Housing Advocacy Blueprint. Although Sara Reynolds did not share the plan there was a presentation by the Colorado Gives Foundation about how they had done a survey (most people contacted were in favor of affordable housing), created jeffcoadvocacynetwork.org, and training a group of 15 advocates. They also requested if anyone was running for an office that they contact them for education on affordable housing as there was a lot misunderstanding on this issue. It appears that the City of Lakewood donated to this foundation.
They had homeless updates, ballot initiatives, and individual city reports. I am sorry that I do not have names with all the reports but no introductions were made at the beginning of the meeting.
Arvada is still looking at building a navigation center similar to the center in Lakewood.
WheatRidge the opening of a 50 units facility on June 14 with mental health services for youth.
There is a new project Lutheran Campus Renovation. And with this is a ballot initiative in November to raise the building height levels that can be constructed (not exactly sure what this was about)
Lakewood had the largest number of city council members and City Manager Kathy Hodgson present. Wendy Strom gave a few sentences about the Navigation Center and mentioned that Prop 123 would be on the ballot as Lakewood was trying to DeBruce TABOR. There was a 20 million dollar grant given to the City of Lakewood to do a restructuring of the Highway at 6th and Wadsworth. There is a housing advocacy committee and Wendy Strom and Kathy Hodgson are on the committee. And the City of Lakewood is a finalist for the All American City Contest. Congratulations.
Westminster noted they had a pothole Palooza and filed 3000 potholes.
Golden talked about the new dorm Colorado Mines was building and all the construction that is going on with Golden.
Mountain View is having a proposition on the November ballot to make the city a strong manager model over the strong mayor model that they have now.
Edgewater bragged about last weekend’s annual Pride Month parade.
Littleton was absent.
The last report was an update from the county commissioners. They were grateful for the regional outlook and called for more cooperation within the county on housing. There was a mention that they are still up in the air about asking for keeping the Tabor refund to fill the holes in the budget. They are talking about what they would have to do to have a balanced budget next year. Raise taxes. Cut services. This is still up in the air as it is rumored the survey shows the win on this is too close to call.
The next quarterly breakfast is September 5, 2023. Check the calendar for details closer to the event.
You’re head-over-heels in love, and the thrill of a long-distance romance has been both sweet and exhilarating. But as time goes by, the prospect of uniting with your beloved in the same zip code becomes not just a dream, but a necessity. However, does the allure of your significant other’s city sway your decision to make the leap? What if love calls from the sun-kissed beaches of Miami or the bustling streets of New York City? Would the affection be as strong to draw you to McDowell County, West Virginia, a place fighting valiantly against economic setbacks, or to Gary, Indiana, a city trying to rise again from its industrial past?
Through a comprehensive survey of 3,000 people in long distance relationships, DatingAdvice.com sought to find out whether the city in which their partner resides is a factor when deciding whether to move.
They therefore created a ranking of cities considered the most and least appealing if moving for love, with some very interesting results…
The top five cities people would move to for love are:
#1 San Francisco, California. San Francisco was voted as the most appealing city, with its tech-forward streets and cultural mix pulling at the heartstrings of lovers nationwide. It’s where innovation meets inclusivity, offering new transplants the promise of progressive values and a community that’s as varied as it is vibrant. The Golden Gate City promises a treasure trove of parks, coastal views, and artistic pursuits, perfect for those in pursuit of a life painted with shared experiences.
#2 New York City, New York. In second place came the magnetic allure of New York City — every district beating with its own rhythm, offering a variety of experiences that range from gastronomic quests in Queens to the artistic soul of Brooklyn. It’s a city where the world connects, and diversity is the cornerstone of every block, making it a haven for lovebirds looking to build a nest in the world’s capital.
#3 Buffalo, New York. Buffalo’s warmth and welcoming community spirit make it an inviting destination for those relocating for love. For someone new to Buffalo, the sense of belonging and ease of making connections stand out, making it easier to transition into a new life. The city’s affordability and proximity to natural wonders like Niagara Falls also mean that couples can enjoy a high quality of life and shared adventures without breaking the bank.
#4 Fresno, California. Fresno is a gem for those seeking a blend of urban culture and outdoor living. Newcomers are drawn to its laid-back atmosphere, diverse community, and the beauty of its surrounding landscapes. Fresno also serves as a gateway to some of the nation’s most treasured national parks, offering couples an escape into nature at a moment’s notice. For partners looking to lay down roots and explore California’s natural and cultural offerings, Fresno is an attractive and affordable choice.
#5 Jackson, Mississippi. For those moving to Jackson, the city offers a deep dive into the heart and soul of the South. Its rich musical heritage and culinary scene provide a sensory feast for newcomers, with blues clubs, galleries, and restaurants waiting to be explored together. Jackson’s community-focused vibe means that newcomers quickly feel at home, supported by a network of friendly locals and fellow transplants.
When it came to Colorado cities specifically, 2 were identified as appealing for those willing to relocate to live with their partner. The top pick was Thornton, in #69 nationally:
#69 Thornton
Thornton, part of the Denver metropolitan area, provides residents with a balance of suburban living and access to the great outdoors, including the Rocky Mountains. An appealing choice for young lovers looking to forge their future together.
Another top ranked Colorado city was:
#146 Denver.
However, 5 Colorado cities were cited as locations that people would not be prepared to move to for love. The least appealing was Lakewood, in #245 place nationally:
#245 Lakewood
Lakewood offers scenic beauty and outdoor recreational opportunities near the Rocky Mountains. However, moving here might involve addressing concerns about wildfires and seasonal weather extremes, as Colorado experiences droughts and snowstorms. While Lakewood boasts access to hiking trails and ski resorts, some may find the high cost of living and traffic congestion a consideration.
Other Colorado cities considered to be unappealing were:
#176 Arvada #221 Fort Collins #238 Aurora #240 Colorado Springs.
The survey queried respondents who had moved to be with their partners, probing into the significant concessions they made. A striking 57% identified parting with family as the most substantial sacrifice, while 18% pointed to a shift in lifestyle as a primary concern, which encompasses forging new friendships, seeking out new gyms to join, and discovering new favorite drinking hangouts. An additional 15% felt that leaving behind friends was the hardest part, with 10% citing the job hunt as a formidable challenge.
About 23% of couples who closed the gap from long-distance to cohabitation conceded that there were heated arguments over who should relocate. Nonetheless, most couples reported that the move fortified their bond, though 16% admitted it introduced new hurdles. Eleven percent observed that their relationships terminated post-relocation.
Finally, in recognizing that long-distance relationships cannot be sustained indefinitely and must eventually transition to being close-distance to survive, respondents were quizzed about the duration they believe a long-distance relationship can endure before the couple must choose to cohabitate or conclude the relationship. The collective average from the responses indicated that the maximum sustainable period for a long-distance relationship is 1 year and 11 months.
The mid-year report on Lakewood’s homeless shelter showed some progress and some new problems. The April 15, 2024, Council Study Session highlighted the 50-person capacity of the new “emergency” cold weather shelter at the location of the new Navigation Center on West Colfax. This was a planned shelter, used on an emergency basis because the building is not ready or approved to act as a shelter. As a new venture, the shelter encountered problems that Lakewood is learning from, such as determining the capacity of the building in-transition. Other problems that will be more difficult to solve are becoming apparent. For example:
Lakewood may in fact be turning into a magnet for homeless due to its shelter
Other cities are not stepping up to help as Lakewood anticipated
Scope creep is already occurring including funds being spent for transportation to facilities and requests for food services.
The success of the shelter was evidenced by the number of people using the program. The Navigation Center can currently support 50 people, and it exceeded that limit several nights. Guests who exceeded capacity were offered vouchers for hotels, paid for by Jefferson County. This has led to some policy changes so that people are not incentivized to wait for a hotel opportunity. Lakewood has started providing transportation services to and from these hotels for the people who want to use a hotel voucher in another city but want to remain in Lakewood. Transportation includes coordinating volunteer efforts and paying Bayaud Enterprises.
City Council Members pointed out that problems would be decreased if other cities made the same switch Lakewood has, with the government taking on the work of what was previously non-profit domain.
“It was never envisioned that Lakewood would be the sole provider of navigation services. So we really need to see that so that Lakewood doesn’t become a magnet for those in need.”Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein (24 min mark)
Despite not having the current emergency operation under control, City Council is already pushing for more services.
Councilors Mayott-Guerro and Cruz asked for city resources to set up a food network. Staff respond that having food service is difficult without some consistency.
Councilor Shahrezaei advocated for being open more nights. Staff say changing the opening requirements makes it hard for staff to anticipate what is needed and may lead to being open for most of the winter.
According to Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein, it will be a couple of years until the Navigation Center is fully operational as a shelter. The city is still in the acquisition phase for the shelter property.
“We all want to figure out how to not let people die from weather, right? And that’s such a cool shared value because it’s actually just not that radical, but it was five years ago.” Council Member Mayott-Guerrero on Lakewood’s switch in city philosophy (30 min mark)
The idea of shelters is not radical for an individual or a charitable institution, but it is more so for a government. The Lakewood Informer reported in August, 2023, that local governments hoped someone else would step up to serve, without themselves committing to take responsibility. Previous letters of support to Lakewood made no promises of financial support.
“At this time, Arvada does not have a plan for a navigation center, such as the one in Lakewood. Like other cities in the metropolitan area, we are evaluating a number of ideas that might help address the unhoused population. Arvada intends to observe what happens at the Lakewood navigation center with their implementation.” Arvada email dated December 7, 2023
Council is concerned about reaching the limit of shelter capacity next year. Goldstein says Lakewood cannot open another shelter without becoming an even greater attractant (58 min mark). Many of the area’s unhoused are now counting on the Navigation Center for shelter, as opposed to the local non-profits that fill up. This will especially be a problem when the center is closed for renovations next winter. Retrofits are now expected to go into 2026, rather than being completed in 2025 as expected.
Council Member Low praised the program for saving lives during the cold winter nights. When asked how much the number of deaths decreased, staff responded that they never tracked deaths, and if they did, it would be impossible to tell whether the death was from cold or not.
Life-saving or not, 50 people were provided shelter over about 20 nights. According to the staff memo, this could be a total of over 887 individuals, or the same 50 people multiple times. Another measure of success was the 52 Facebook posts the city made, which received over 150,000 impressions on social media.
