Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Development

Your Homework: Zoning Text

Questions abound about what exactly changed in the zoning. Although we have written several articles, typically about negative side effects, there is so much more in the newly passed zoning code.

IT IS INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!

If you are interested in signing the referendum to repeal zoning, you will be asked if you have read the full code before you sign. After you sign, your name will be checked, and city officials, including City Councilors, will know you signed and may try to get you to recant your signature.

Referendum Petition to Repeal Zoning Approved

Lakewood residents have a city-approved petition for a referendum to repeal the first zoning code change. This news offers hope to the increasing number of residents who have raised their voices against the zoning changes the city has made.

Lakewood residents have officially taken the first step toward repealing recent city-approved zoning code changes. A petition for referendum has cleared the city’s approval process, giving residents the right to gather signatures. People signing the petition agree that they want to repeal the zoning changes, as if they were never approved.

To succeed, petitioners must collect at least 3,517 valid signatures by October 30, 2025. Organizers say they are aiming for 5,000 to 6,000 signatures, knowing that the city frequently rejects a portion of those submitted. If successful, Council can either repeal the zoning themselves or refer the measure to a ballot vote.

Dismantling the NEW Zoning FAQ Lies

Repost from Regina Hopkins

Lakewood’s leaders keep telling us everything is fine: “No elimination of single-family zones.” “Protecting neighborhoods while planning responsibly for the future.” “No threat to infrastructure.” Sounds nice, right? Too bad it’s all a scrambled spin of words, designed to trick you into thinking there’s no problem while they hand the city to developers. Here’s the truth:

 The Single-Family Lie. Yes, you can still build a single-family house. But the exclusive protection for single-family neighborhoods is gone. No other Front Range city has done this — not even Denver. Developers now have free rein to drop duplexes, triplexes, apartments, warehouses, and more right next door. For all intents and purposes, this is the elimination of single-family zoning as we’ve known it. Don’t let their dressed-up words fool you.

 The McMansion Distraction. The City waves around “new limits on McMansions” like it’s a gift to residents. It’s a classic bait-and-switch: distract you with something that sounds good while quietly removing the rules that keep neighborhood character and open space intact. Meanwhile, developers are encouraged to pack density into every block.

Hearing Dates Changed for Zoning

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.

Special Zoning Treatment for The Action Center at Emory

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.

It’s Not Just a Housing Shortage. It’s a Rigged System

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

Stop the Lakewood Zoning Code Fiasco

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

Why shouldn’t we pave over Graham Park?

From Eve S Build! Build! Build! That is the priority of the Ward 1 Council members. I live within a mile of Graham Park and this is the first I have heard of this new Build project. Who asked them to build at Graham Park? Have they done any environmental impact studies? How many trees will they cut down?   Graham Park is located at 2345 Routt St. in Ward 1. See Graham Park Improvements | Lakewood Together.      Before ruining this park, Lakewood should be required to study the impact of redevelopment on the native and migrating species that have been surviving on this small green space. This research should be done across all seasons so migrating species of insects and birds are not excluded. The existing trees should be examined and their uses should be included. The Lakewood forestry experts do NOT value old growth trees, but these are essential to many insects. Chickadees and raccoons build nests in the rotten spots of old trees, but Lakewood regards big, old trees as worthless. The city removes them and replaces them with non-native saplings. At Belmar Park Lake, the city ignored the requests of many residents to consider our wildlife and our ordinances. Among other negative decisions, they declared that roof tops fulfill the “open space” requirements. The Council members love concrete and asphalt and they hate all natural creatures and plants.     Lakewood said: “2025: Funding is allocated in the 2025-2026 budget for the removal of the Graham House and to incorporate passive-use park improvements at Graham Park.” Why do Jeslin and Glenda hate our natural areas so much? Why do they want to pave over every square foot that can be used by wildlife?  Ward 1 meeting is scheduled for August 9 at 9:30 am at Holy Shepherd Church at 920 Kipling. 

Lakewood Sacrifices Home Rule For No Reason

Lakewood seems to be giving up local control through home rule: The sacrifice is being made in order to gain state funding for local initiatives that ALSO have not been transparent and do not have resident support. Lakewood City Council is throwing away the bedrock of local representation – home rule – in a bid to win political support for zoning changes. New Colorado statutes preempt local zoning code, a move other cities are fighting. But Lakewood is using Colorado’s preemption to show: The majority of Lakewood City Council agree with the proposed zoning changes and have already voted by resolution to accept the proposal (only Councilor Olver dissenting – Ken Cruz and Bill Furman not yet on Council).   No Reason With the majority of Council in favor of the proposed code, Council should not have to worry that the changes will pass. There is no need to sacrifice home rule in order to pass the new code. Lakewood could fight for the principle of home rule – a principle Lakewood was FOUNDED ON over 50 years ago – and still enact the zoning code changes that Council feels are necessary. Instead, Lakewood will change its code so that for the first time state statutes will override local zoning (see highlighted insert from the version 3 redline proposal below). No Transparency According to resident Karen Gordey in Lakewood Informer news, the authority for  the zoning came from home rule itself. She wrote: “… the Authority section (17.1.5). It originally cited “the city home rule charter” — a key phrase affirming Lakewood’s autonomy. That language? Now redlined. Gone. Instead, we’re left wondering whether the City is scrubbing references to home rule on purpose… or just by accident (which, frankly, would be just as troubling).” There has been no public policy discussion nor vote on whether to yield home rule. Instead, it’s just being quietly edited out. This language may be extended next year because City Council has engaged a City Charter Committee to discuss changes. Note: cities zone to keep order and make sure there is a good balance between residents (cost burden) and businesses (fund providers). But in order to do that, property rights had to be violated to tell people what they could and couldn’t do with their property. Now Lakewood is saying they are “de-regulating” to give property owners more choices, but they are still picking the choices. An owner cannot go back to agriculture property, for example. State Preemption Governor Jared Polis signed an Executive Order forcing states to comply with housing laws in order to receive state funding. From ColoradoPolitics.com, the laws include those listed below: Colorado also passed TEN new laws in 2025 that the Colorado Municipal League determined preempted local control. Instead of fighting against any of these, Lakewood supported key legislation, such as HB25-1093, which reversed a vote of Lakewood residents. Lakewood Council Will Not Fight for Rights Lakewood did not take the opportunity to join the lawsuit that six cities are bringing against Colorado for overstepping home rule boundaries.  Thornton recently passed a resolution backing the lawsuit of those six cities. So far, no member of Lakewood City Council has brought something similar forward as a Council initiative. Most Council Members have made comments that Lakewood must comply with the state law. False Argument The argument that Lakewood has no choice but to comply with state law is completely false, as proven by history, other active lawsuits, and a legal opinion provided by the Colorado Municipal League (CML). The Colorado Sun reports that “the Colorado Municipal League this month advised cities in an email that it views the governor’s executive order as illegal. ‘It is CML’s position that this order exceeds the governor’s authority … and promotes arbitrary and capricious agency action.’” State Perspective Lakewood resident Lenore Herskovitz voiced concerns over home rule to a panel of Colorado Democrat leaders. She pointed out: Colorado Representative Rebekah Stewart responded by: Watch the video below: Local Support Lacking Ms. Lenore Herskovitz is one of many residents to bring up mountains of evidence about the abundant housing availability, such as her article titled “Affordable v Housing Crisis” or an article by savebelmarpark.com on Debunking the Supply and Demand Myth. These alternative points of view are not part of official presentations and are routinely dismissed. There doesn’t seem to be an answer to the question of how can a statewide, or even nationwide, affordable housing problem only be solved by changing multiple, unique, local zoning codes. What is known is that Lakewood already has the authority to change its zoning code if the residents support it. Lakewood officials seem to be using the state law as a crutch to win local support, but in the meantime, they are sacrificing home rule control without even bringing it to the attention of residents. As previously reported, Lakewood seems more concerned with getting state funding than gaining resident support for zoning changes. The state deadline for funding is in October 2025. That funding is used for other initiatives that don’t get resident support. Does Lakewood need a City Council if the only concern is what the state would do?

“Rooted In Littleton” Provides Blue Ribbon Example

Littleton residents claim to be amateurs in the political sphere but you won’t believe it when you see how they have successfully organized against density-driven zoning changes. Rooted in Littleton got density changes postponed in January and kept fighting to recently gather enough signatures for a petition. Their website reads: “We are passionate about preserving the small-town charm and beauty of Littleton. Our deep roots inform the perspective that good things grow slowly and knee-jerk responses to large social issues don’t produce lasting results. Let’s not let increased density usher in a new era of increased traffic, crime and big city-problems in our little town.” Does that sound familiar? They have many of the same objections to densification as Lakewood residents, such as the attempt to “to erode our home-rule rights with a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach that could strip our community of its uniqueness.” Check out their website for excellent material that could be used as a blueprint for others fighting this issue: Survey Have you ever felt that Lakewood presents data on “housing density and housing shortages in 2024 [that] was insufficient and skewed toward City Council insiders”? That’s what Rooted in Littleton wrote but Lakewood residents have also been making that point for months. The argument really gained traction after the Belmar Park fiasco. (See these articles from savebelmarpark.com: Lakewood’s Housing Affordable Surplus, Lakewood’s 10-year Housing Surplus, Denver Has Enough Housing.) Instead of just complaining about it, Rooted in Littleton organized a survey of their own and provided it for the public. Unsurprisingly, they found that 45% of Littleton residents felt that densification is NOT the best solution The survey they conducted showed that “76% of the survey participants said they want a voice in all major housing legislation, especially as it relates to adding duplexes, triplexes and multiplexes in currently zoned single family residential neighborhoods.” They also found that a majority of people DO NOT believe in the “benefits” of the proposed densification, as shown below: This group is truly inspiring. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard Lakewood residents share the same sentiments that Rooted in Littleton share: Lakewood residents love Lakewood for the existing characteristics. Just like Rooted in Littleton likes their city. Check out their website and spread the word if you know people in Littleton.

Scroll to top