Lakewood City Council voted to opt-in to Proposition 123 to provide increased affordable housing. Lakewood has not yet announced what kind of programs it will be pursuing or whether it will tailor projects to Lakewood’s need or whether it will integrate the funding into a larger housing strategy.

Lakewood’s Strategic Growth Initiative has shown that developers in Lakewood are not interested in building low-income, affordable, and/or subsidized units. That option has always been available to anyone who would guarantee 20% affordable housing. Zero units were generated. However, with new Proposition 123 funding, land purchases could be subsidized as well as the rent/ownership.

For the purpose of Proposition 123 funding “affordable” means 70% of median income.

Projects eligible for Proposition 123 funding would have to be predominantly affordable. Individuals are eligible for rent assistance who make 70% of median income. Individuals making 120% of median income are also eligible for down-payment assistance.

For Lakewood, that means that the 42% of people residing in Lakewood who currently rent would be eligible for some kind of assistance.  

Advocates for opting-into Proposition 123 funding point out that it is free money. It should be noted that in the rush for free money, Lakewood has not integrated this money into an overall housing philosophy. Lakewood has not decided if the goal is to provide partial or fully funded housing to a target population, what population should most benefit, or if there are any conditions attached that will help people resolve any difficult non-economic problems. Lakewood could choose to focus on providing rental and home ownership assistance or just developing new units.

Opting-into Proposition 123 did not come with any guardrails against the development concerns that prompted the Strategic Growth Initiative. For example, in Lakewood, residents were concerned about high-density units so the initiative-mandated council review of complexes with over 40 units. Although Lakewood could impose such oversight, Prop 123 funding will give high-density projects priority.

In other words, there has been no unique local terms to this spending. Without this evaluation of how local and state needs intersect, Lakewood will be driven by state priorities to secure funding.

For example, Lakewood could choose to target only development of units for the extremely low-income, rather than units for incomes up to 70% of median. The extremely low-income are “the only population experiencing an absolute shortage of affordable housing.’ This fact is supported by Lakewood’s own data which shows that homes are available in other income ranges. Such a target would assist Lakewood’s homeless population but that development normally triggers resident concerns who would rather have more upscale development. So far, Lakewood has not had that public conversation.

“Affordable” housing is defined by individual or household income… “the [extremely low-income are the] only population experiencing an absolute shortage of affordable housing.’ – NLIHC

Lakewood is now obligated to build 625 affordable units. If those units are part of a mixed development, the total overall growth could be 1225 units (625 = 51% of 1225). Therefore, the commitment to more affordable housing may also come with more market-rate housing as well.

---

From the election Blue Book

Arguments For Proposition 123

1) The measure creates a source of funds to tackle housing issues without raising tax rates, and gives local communities the flexibility to respond to their specific needs. The state and local governments are not doing enough to keep Colorado affordable.

2) Colorado’s housing prices make it too hard for many households to afford rent or to buy their own home. The new programs help Coloradans participate in the housing market now and in the future. Creating more homes will allow residents and essential workers to remain in their communities.

 Arguments Against Proposition 123

1) Many of these programs do not address the underlying causes of high housing costs. Pumping money into the market may distort it further, and the real beneficiaries will be landlords and housing developers. This is neither the role of government nor the best use of public resources. 

2) The measure is unnecessary and will reduce Coloradans’ future TABOR refunds. The state already provides resources to support affordable housing, including over $1 billion in federal stimulus funds allocated in recent years. This measure diverts money away from the state’s budgeting process— money that goes toward priorities as determined by the legislature through deliberation and consultation with stakeholders and constituents—and instead sets aside money in a fund with fixed uses.

Guest Post from an anonymous resident

Here are some thoughts I have regarding the proposed 412-unit Belmar Park West multifamily project at 777 S Yarrow Street in Lakewood, Colorado.

This is a massive project that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to complete on just a 5-acre parcel.

Community members should keep in mind that the Belmar Park West multifamily project is not over.  So please continue investigating and researching venues of redress.  There may be levers that come to light to improve the project by reducing density, increasing setbacks, providing science-based tree replacements, moving to a more appropriate site, etc.

I have not been involved in a community action for quite a few years.  The last one was in Douglas County.  Because that project years ago was under use-by-special-review, both the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners held public hearings.  County Commissioners ultimately rejected the project.  Each of these hearings were attended by up to four hundred Douglas County residents most of whom offered public comments.

The Private Investigator –

During this process, I was subjected to an email attack and followed by a private investigator for around 4-6 weeks! 

The investigator posed as a concerned citizen and often appeared out of nowhere while I was doing grocery shopping or other errands.  He even showed up at a private event I attended hosted by the Denver Bicycle Touring Club and posed as a club member.  He made various suggestions regarding the proposed project that were always off-base forms of misdirection.  It was apparent from the first encounter that something was ‘off’ with this person.

When I suggested he meet me in Castle Rock so we could jointly review campaign contribution disclosures of the county commissioners, he was somehow not interested in that particular chore.  Maybe he didn’t want that showing up on his hours billed report.

Eventually, the date arrived for the final vote by the Douglas County Commissioners.  Several hundred of us gathered in a large meeting hall after clearing the Sheriff’s security screening and metal detectors.  As we waited for the meeting to be called to order, this individual actually passed out a few business cards for his PI services.  He became quite embarrassed as he realized I was nearby and noticed his business cards. 

While I can’t prove who paid for his services, my point is that development projects including possibly local governmental bodies may have a budget category for opposition research.  Concerned citizens should be on alert for strange behavior.  And it does not hurt to be somewhat cautious about public exposure.

SLAPP!  Take That!  SLAPP

Another area of concern is that developers have been known to use SLAPP lawsuits to stifle free speech.  A SLAPP lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.  These types of lawsuits have been used to embroil public interest organizations and even local neighborhood activists in expensive legal action if they don’t desist from their free speech activities. 

A SLAPP lawsuit represents both intimidation and an abuse of the legal process. Thirty-three states including Colorado and the District of Columbia have passed laws to help defendants dispose of such claims relatively quickly.  However, it is much better for all stakeholders to avoid these disputes.

It Is Not About the Developer

A good way to lower the risk of such a lawsuit is to not disparage the developer.  Keep in mind that if Developer A were to exit the project, there could be a Developer B that comes in.  Would the issues be different under Developer B?  Aren’t the issues of public concern typically around the zoning, policies and regulations in place that allow a controversial project to be proposed? 

With all of this in mind, I am hesitant to do an interview and inadvertently go on record saying something that could be used as the basis of legal harassment. 

It is About City Zoning, Policies, Etc.

Likewise, community members are clearly not disparaging the developer when making public comments such as at city council meetings.  It is really not about the developer.  Rather, it is about the City of Lakewood setting the stage for this to happen.

There is quite a list of developer-friendly tactics the City of Lakewood has implemented over the years that have created the opening for this huge demolition and construction project adjacent to a legally unprotected and vulnerable bird sanctuary and wildlife habitat.

For example, the city allows over 80% of the tree canopy habitat adjacent to Belmar Park to be totally destroyed by the multifamily project. Less than 20% of the tree canopy is to be restored with science-based tree replacements.  Is that ethical or moral?  It is certainly egregious. 

The multifamily building does not have adequate snow storage nor does Lakewood even require a snow storage and removal plan.  Obviously, uncleared snow and ice could delay emergency response after a winter storm.

And there are serious fire safety, traffic safety and wildfire issues that have been previously raised in the Informer by Tom Dearth.

The study of future traffic was simply a lookup in a book of traffic averages because you can’t study traffic that isn’t there yet.  There are traffic safety issues that have not been fully considered including whether the extra vehicles parked on the street will delay emergency response or evacuation. 

Unfortunately, the Belmar Commons residents will have to deal with whatever eventuality afflicts their few blocks of South Yarrow Street when an 800,000 square foot building with more than 500 cars becomes their new neighbor. 

These developer-friendly policies, regulations, etc. are all fair game to be criticized and alternative recommendations put forth.  If there is an attorney willing to invest some legal sweat-equity, that might also be helpful. 

The City Council and Planning Department will tell you they can’t do anything because it is a ‘use-by-right’ development.  But we are not talking about some inherent human right. They are referring to a right they themselves granted through their own planning, zoning, growth cap waiver and redevelopment process.  It is up to them to take responsibility for what they have done.  And up to the voters to hold them accountable.

Do not stand back.  Stand UP!

On November 28, Lakewood City Council was asked to designate a property on S Wadsworth Blvd as blighted.

Per Colorado Revised Statutes a “‘Blighted area’ means an area that… is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare”. This definition is included in statute as a way to target areas for urban renewal and perhaps increased funds.

But not in Lakewood.

“In your city, the purpose of a blight designation is to do housing”

“In your city, the purpose of a blight designation is to do housing,” says independent, redevelopment specialist, Anne Ricker. Ricker’s firm, Ricker | Cunningham, was hired to evaluate blight at 1000 to 1090 S Wadsworth Blvd. This specialist was accustomed to evaluating blight as a first step towards urban renewal, but in this case, Lakewood is not using blight for renewal, just for regulating a certain type of growth. In other words, using blight as a way to allow increased high-density residential growth.

City Council Member Able agrees with this assessment. He stated that the blight designation was used to get around Strategic Growth Initiative requirements that our community passed at the ballot box.

So when the council is asked to approve blight in instances like this, what they are really doing is considering approval of over 40 units of high-density, residential units.

To prove that we are talking about residential development, some Council Members talk about developing the existing commercial use. In response, the property owner responds that they really need all available options that the zoning allows for, in order to make the property economically viable.

“How many affordable housing units have been produced out of [blight provisions]?…. ZERO”

Councilor Able, November 28, 2022

Ironically, some of the problems noted in the blight study, such as limited access points, limited parking and crime, could all be exacerbated with higher-density use.

To make things more complicated, there appeared to be some confusion over City Council’s role. Several members seemed to suggest that Council should approve the request automatically, not because they agreed with the designation, but because the process had been followed. However, some followed up with the feeling that something was off.

Other council members had the idea that they could agree or disagree with the blight designation from the beginning. One member stated that you could blight anything if you wanted to. The problem was summarized, once again, by Councilor Able, when he suggested that the study appeared to be checking boxes without evaluating the deeper issue of a public menace, which is needed for blight.

In the end, the discussion turned to development rather than blight. Mayor Paul suggested that this blight designation go away so that applicants are not burdened with this process. The Mayor asked about using the new process of adding 20% affordable housing to a new development to bypass the blight designation. This discussion again reflects that “blight designation is used for development, not renewal, in Lakewood.” The 20% affordable housing provision also provides a “loophole” to the voter-approved Strategic Growth Initiative.

The designation was voted down. This was the second out of ten requests to be denied.

---

To review the new amendment authorizing the use of affordable housing to allow high-density growth, watch the video here.

Guest post by Alex…

Lakewood government, for over a decade, has been leading the city down the path of economic and environmental peril due to a seemingly intentional disregard for true economic development.

This became painfully obvious at the city council meeting on the 7^th of November, 2022.  An in-depth presentation by Elizabeth Garner from the Department of Local Affairs showed just how poorly positioned Lakewood has become from the perspective of generating local, well-paying jobs and attracting a vibrant pool of talent to fill them.  Of course, the council majority wasted no time in boiling everything down to “well, it’s the old people’s fault for not shopping more and we need more housing.”

Around 28:30 mark, an interesting point comes to the fore – not only are there no well-paying jobs in Lakewood (i.e. $100,000+) in significant numbers, but even for the jobs that are here, there is not enough local talent to fill those jobs.

Furthermore, younger, skilled people that do live in Lakewood are forced to join the tens of thousands of other residents who drive OUT of Lakewood on daily basis to DTC, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Aurora and other municipalities that wisely invested in massive, high-tech, quality, job creation for decades.  This amounts to hundreds of hours per person, per year, instead of spending that time exercising, taking care of choirs and spending time with loved ones.  Plus, the additional pollution.

This is not a surprise as Lakewood government has conflated economic development with haphazard development and sales tax revenue instead of working on attracting world-class companies and guiding the build-out of well-planned middle housing which would attract and help the younger generation.

Enter the Propaganda

The city publishes “Looking@Lakewood”, in which the city is never shy to twist the narrative in order to mask its failures.  But even in the propaganda, the truth slips through.

Looking at the November 2022 issue of “Looking@Lakewood” further confirms the decline of the city:

4.2% loss in the number of jobs from 2010-2020, while the city had added over 10,000 people.  How is it possible that during a decade of robust economic growth around the state and in the neighboring communities, Lakewood has actually lost jobs?

According to a presentation by Mr. Robert Smith (Director of Lakewood Office of Economic Development), on November 5^th, 2002, at the Ward 5 meeting, there are about 71,000 jobs in Lakewood, with tens of thousands driving every day in and out of Lakewood for work.  That would imply that Lakewood has actually lost about 2,900 jobs in the last decade.  While the neighboring communities have added thousands of localized, well-paying jobs.  During the same presentation, it became quickly obvious that Lakewood has no world-class companies present as the primary drivers of the economic activity in the city.

Another worrying sign is the slowing in the growth of the younger generation.  This bodes poorly for the future workforce, which is vital to keeping the local economy vibrant.  Combined with the city’s failure to establish a robust local high-tech economy, what few younger people are around will be apt to leave the area in the coming years, further intensifying the economic death spiral of the city.

The Affordable Housing Lie

$400/month.  $4,800/year.  Is the amount of metro district fees paid by a citizen in Solterra as was testified by a citizen at a Lakewood City council meeting a few years ago.  That is in addition to what they already pay in property taxes.  How does this make the housing in Lakewood more affordable?

$1,600-$2,000/month.  Is the cost of a one-bedroom rental in Lakewood.  So much for “affordable” housing.  Forcing more and more people into rental-only dwellings puts them on the path to financial servitude instead of providing an inventory of middle housing which would be an asset in attracting younger, well-educated potential talent in technical fields, thereby creating an incentive for high-tech world-class companies to consider Lakewood as a potential location for their offices.

So not only is the Lakewood city government destroying the economic potential of the city, they are also making sure that the housing is less and less attainable for people of all socio-economic levels.

Destroying the Economic Potential

in Rooney Valley in the early 2000s.

Jeffco envisions a Tech Center West

1,000,000+.  That is how many square feet of commercially designated space was wiped away by the vote of the joint Lakewood-Morrison committee in 2018 in the Red Rocks Ranch.  300+ acres that were originally planned to support the generation of thousands of well-paying, localized jobs – gone.  And a representative from the JeffCo EDO spoke in support of this, while the Lakewood EDO was nowhere to be found.   Take a guess how many well-paying, localized jobs are in Red Rocks Ranch now?

Here are some video captures of the joint Lakewood-Morrison commission voting to wipe away any chance of real economic development in Red Rocks Ranch:

and

https://youtu.be/cNNFyQJjnek

The same commission (and the town of Morrison) were presented with a document, by the developer, which clearly stated that:

“The cost of servicing residents for most Colorado communities exceeds the revenues those residents generate.” (Memo RE: The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Red Rocks Ranch Development – Page 7)

Yet, Lakewood government wanted to push through an annexation of the same area, to saddle the already economically struggling city with more municipal expenses.  Even the former city, attorney, Tim Cox, clearly stated that residential units are an expense to the city:

59 acres.  Is the amount of space adjacent to the Federal Center which could’ve been used, over a decade ago, to entice world-class companies, such as Google, Amazon/AWS, Arrow Electronics, Charles Schwab to locate hundreds, if not thousands of jobs which would’ve served as an economic engine of its own.  Instead, the city manager and some on the city council have been tripping over themselves to provide a sweet-heart deal to those looking to make a short-term profit instead of creating an economic engine for the city.

It is not as if some of us did not try to plead with the city about the need for true economic development:

And the City Keeps on Spending

Despite the numerous failures to build up a localized high-tech economic engine, which would boost the city in other areas, the city is not slowing down in its spending habits.

$203,000/year.  Is the salary of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  A person who can induce trillion dollar market movements by uttering a few sentences.  Guess who makes more than that?  Lakewood City Manager.  The same person, whose office alone is costing the taxpayers millions of dollars per year, while Lakewood is rapidly heading for economic stagnation.  In addition to the compensation, the Manager was also recently given a $10,000 bonus by the City Council majority.

And now, the city is planning to spend an additional $17,000,000 per year to hire more staff.  While the country is potentially heading into a recession.  Instead of working on bolstering the local economic engine, the city wants to spend additional millions of dollars at a time when the local businesses have been closing, more retail locations are about to close and tens of thousands of residents have to waste hundreds of hours per year driving elsewhere for better job opportunities.  Corruption, incompetence or both?  The budget alone deserves a whole separate discussion.

Economic Destruction Continues

Lakewood City Council intentionally omitted Economic Development from the list of priorities for this year.  Judging by the numbers and the voting record of the majority of City Council, even prior to this year, the Council has never been that interested in true economic development.  So as the city continues its economic decline (along with the inevitable increase in crime, and other side effects), remember who has brought our community to the brink, under the guise of “affordable” housing and fake sustainability.

On October 1 there was a Lakewood townhall meeting on affordable housing. Ward 5 Councilors Janssen and Strom hosted the meeting but representatives of all wards were present. Speakers at the meeting were representatives from Metro West Housing Solutions (MWHS).

MWHS is a developer active in Lakewood since 2008, before that they were active in the market by a different name since 1974. They work to develop and manage properties for households with income that is 30-60% of the median household income level (ie <30% of the population).

The question was asked, what about affordable housing for residents that don’t meet the income requirements. The answer was that it’s a question for Lakewood City Council and they are looking into options.

Options for what any government can do to intercede in market pricing has many precedents, but few working solutions. Rent control and price fixing are failed examples of government intervention.

Metro West Housing Solutions provide modern-day examples of problems with trying to be affordable. Example 1: MWHS only rents property. By their own admission, they could not sell properties they develop because even at cost the price would not be affordable. If they do sell the property to one entity, that entity can (and does) sell the property at a higher price because that’s what the market will bear.

Example 2: One of the target demographics for MWHS is seniors on Social Security income, income which is often not enough to afford to move out of their large houses into a more manageable-sized unit. Allowing a senior to move into MWHS property may result in a larger home being sold. For affordable rates? Generally not, since said senior will have to get the most out of the property they can.

Government favoring low-income, or affordable, housing is sometimes done by allowing developers who include affordable housing to build more than others. This is called inclusionary zoning. Once again, there is enough data to show that these policies have not worked in the past.

Bigger picture, the city meeting did not and could not address the problem for those people who do not qualify for affordable housing. Most rents and mortgages will remain the same and those rates are rising. The reason for this is easy: Colorado is a desirable place to live and Lakewood is a prime location for work and recreation alike.

The solution to high prices is generally to increase supply. In this case, build more homes. Since rental units are exempt from the Strategic Growth Initiative, building more apartments is an easy answer. That is good for the individual but is it good for the community?

High residential communities have an increased burden of infrastructure, including traffic and police. Without the increased sales taxes from retail and commercial properties, high-density residential can have a hard time paying for increased infrastructure. For example, when asked about crime, a Sergeant from the Community Action Team said that low-income housing does not have more crime than other units, but that any place that has a large parking lot was a target. However, no solution has been offered on how to provide enough security so that people feel safe.

There were also conflicting stories offered on how new high-density growth will affect surrounding home prices. MHWS representatives claim that studies show home prices in the area go up. A local resident that was present argued she personally knew people whose home prices went down drastically after high-density apartments were built in place of the originally planned strip mall.

The meeting had some ideas for the future, including adding MWHS as a line item to the city budget and holding a future meeting on economic development.