From Lenore Herskovitz
In Lakewood, do we have a housing crisis or an affordability crisis? These terms are often used interchangeably, but there is a difference. A housing crisis refers to a broad situation where there is a systemic shortage of available housing. An affordability crisis focuses on the financial strain of housing costs regardless of the overall availability of housing units. The latter seems the most applicable to our city. A Zillow tabulation posted on June 30, 2025 for Lakewood indicated that there were 768 available rental units with a price range of $0-$1800 a month. This increased to 1098 units when the price range was expanded to $1600-$3000 a month. Additionally, there were 568 houses for sale. These figures would seem to indicate that there is not a supply shortage. Demand is low, at least in part, because of a lack of affordability. Even with rent reductions and other enticements, vacancies continue.
So, what exactly is the definition of affordable housing? As defined by HB-1304, rental housing is affordable to a household with an annual income of at or below 60% of the area median income (AMI) and that costs a household less than 30% of its monthly income. Affordable housing also means for-sale housing that could be purchased by a household with an annual income of at or below 100% of the AMI, for which the mortgage payment costs the household 30% or less of its monthly income.
Because the state has determined that there is a ”housing crisis” any new construction should help mitigate the problem, so higher density is promoted. Increase the supply, decrease the price, increase the demand. The theory of supply and demand. Yet that is not what is happening. According to a property manager with 25 years of experience, Lakewood does not have a supply deficit but demand is low. The 2012 zoning code rewrite removed density limitations, which caused concerns years before the Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI) appeared. Community members, more than a decade ago, worried about the effects of increased development on the environment, traffic and infrastructure.
Has progress been made or does the City keep blaming others for the affordability crisis without providing any substantial solutions? There are certainly a lot of meetings, conversations, and consultants but what has actually changed? We continue to offer enhancement menus and perks to entice developers to build more affordable units without any guarantee that they will follow through. We have an abundance of market/luxury rate, high-density apartment projects with more planned for the future. The Bend proposal would consist of over 2000 units at the federal center site with 200 designated as ”affordable” and 1800 added to the market rate housing pool. HB 24-1313 had targeted increasing density in transit zones, yet nothing in the bill addresses affordability requirements for the buildings. As a result, the 300+ apartment building at 12th and Wadsworth (plagued with problems and still a work in progress) will not have any affordable units, although it is adjacent to the light rail and blocks away from Colfax. The Kairoi development in Belmar is within a transit area, yet none of its 400+ units will be affordable. And there are more to come. If they proceed with plans for an 800-unit development on W. Colfax, a food desert will be added to the mix that creates more luxury apartments.
What are the tools being used to fix our affordability problem and how effective are they? There is no doubt that the challenge is complex and difficult. According to Councilor Sinks at the June Ward 1 meeting, Jefferson County has a shortage of 22,000 affordable units. One of many suggested solutions is inclusionary zoning which would require a developer to incorporate a certain percentage of affordable units in a proposed project. During the June 18, 2025 Housing Policy Commission meeting, the participating councilors decided on a 6% requirement. The consultant hired by the City had recommended a 5% starting point. Would that mean that the developers of The Bend could reduce the number of affordable units from 10% to 6%?
Sources to fund affordable housing are needed. These include fees-in-lieu and revenues from the lodging tax, the marijuana tax and sales tax. Government subsidies are another part of the equation. (See memo from June 18 meeting). Additionally, the City is supporting aligning the zoning code with inclusionary zoning by increasing density and reducing lot size and parking to offset any increased cost to developers.
The public has been told that ADUs (accessory dwelling units) and STRs (short-term rentals) could help address affordability. STRs would provide extra income so a single parent could afford to stay in their home and ADUs would provide a home for aging parents. It has evolved into something quite different since the laws were passed. For ADUs, you can rent out the ADU and even the main home as long as it remains the primary but not necessarily only residence. STRs no longer require the owner to be on the property. At times, ADUs are being used as STRs if the owner has difficulty finding long-term renters. Great moneymakers for established homeowners, while lower earners continue to struggle to find a path to affordable ownership.
In December of last year, Travis Parker, the Chief of Sustainability and Community Development, introduced the idea of a Housing Credit program to the Housing Policy Commission. This program is presently in place in Aspen and Basalt. This year a consultant was brought in to further the discussion on this complex idea.
Several beneficial ideas were part of the soon to be sundowned SGI. Because of a severability clause in the document these suggestions are still viable. One is a means of expediting the permitting process. Another provides for oversight for developments greater than 40 units. This would require developers for larger projects to come before Council and justify the community need for their project. This would impede the continued proliferation of unwanted market-rate/luxury apartments. There will be Council members who will immediately reject this idea because they don’t want to create any barriers for developers. Where is the proof that bestowing endless perks to developers is alleviating our affordability problems at all? There are builders of affordable housing, such as Archway, that do work with the community and are truly dedicated to addressing the problems at hand. Unfortunately, they are too few in number.
Many of the solution proposals presented have been topics of discussion for years.
The City has been catering to developers while trying to convince the constituents that they are prioritizing the community’s concerns. The reality is we have a surplus of rentals and homes that are out of financial reach to most people. As a result, Lakewood is losing population. Many older homes that could provide “naturally occurring” affordable residences are being destroyed in favor of gentrification. Investors will replace individual ownership, altering the character of close-knit neighborhoods. There are empty buildings that could be suitable for adaptive re-use. This has been mentioned by Council in passing but not seriously pursued. Right now, we are planning for a non-existent population influx. Schools are closing and businesses are leaving (look at W. Colfax west of Kipling). Where are the economic opportunities to draw people to Lakewood? Who is going to live in all these new, expensive buildings? Changes need to be made but are our elected representatives making the right ones?
We are a Home Rule city. Our vision of the future should determine our zoning policies so we can preserve all the things that initially drew us to Lakewood.
