Sanctuary cities logo and graphic

Lakewood Does Provide Sanctuary

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on . Leave a Comment

Lakewood has reason to be concerned about being placed on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) list of sanctuary cities. Email records show they do not comply with federal immigration law, nor do they plan to. Sanctuary was not granted through official vote of City Council; however, sanctuary from federal immigration law was undertaken behind the scenes while using word games to muddy the issue. From the emails, it appears that some Lakewood City Council Members do not appear to know the full extent of Lakewood’s defiance of federal law. On the other hand, DHS knows more than is publicly apparent – which makes sense because they are the ones that have been stonewalled for years. So although Lakewood does not pay for migrant support, it is clear that there is good reason for Lakewood to be placed on a sanctuary list, no matter the word games Lakewood plays.

Lakewood City Council has repeatedly denied being a sanctuary city – which is true if defined by formal vote. However, it is not true that Lakewood does not provide sanctuary for illegals. Lakewood DOES provide sanctuary by not verifying immigration status or cooperating with DHS.

In the beginning of the sanctuary city debate, the general public understood that a sanctuary city was just that – a safe place where your immigration status wouldn’t be questioned or held against you. Lakewood never made a public motion or official policy stating that they are a sanctuary city but it is apparent that they fully embrace and enable the state’s sanctuary status rather than federal immigration enforcement.

No emails asking for removal

When Lakewood was placed on the sanctuary city list, Lakewood did not issue a denial. There are no emails to DHS asking to be removed. That would be the first, honest, response from a city that was NOT acting as a sanctuary and was complying with federal immigration law. That’s what Aurora did. There is no email evidence that occurred in Lakewood. There are no emails asking why Lakewood is on the list. This is despite the fact that there is email from Senator Bennet’s office showing that jurisdictions with questions should reach out via email to SanctuaryJurisdictions@hq.dhs.gov.

The official response to City Council was a bland email stating that Lakewood staff didn’t know why they were on the list or that they were concerned.

Again, parsing the words carefully, staff “didn’t know why they were on the list” is different than “we have no idea why we are on the list.” Lakewood management may not have known the exact reason DHS was citing, but Lakewood would have known what internal procedural changes have been made over the years. Or perhaps Lakewood assumed they wouldn’t be singled out from other cities in Colorado who may have adopted similar, pro-sanctuary polices. Probably, they could rely on not having an official vote cast for sanctuary, which appears to be the case for some Councilors.

Someone must have known there is a reason to be concerned, or they would have asked questions openly and honestly. Instead, Lakewood proceeded by investigating “delicately” (see email below).

Lakewood declined to comment to the Denver Gazette and Denver 7 inquiries. A quick Google search could find no comment in any press coverage on the subject although Mayor Strom did reply to an msn.com inquiry.

Official Response to City Council

From: Patrick Freeman <pfreeman@lakewoodco.org> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 10:47 AM To: City Council Members <CityCouncilMembers@lakewood.org> Cc: Kathy Hodgson <KatHod@lakewood.org>; Alison McKenney Brown <AliMcK@lakewood.org> Subject: Lakewood's inclusion on the Sanctuary Jurisdictions Defying Federal Immigration Law list Mayor and City Council, City staff and CAO are aware that the City of Lakewood has been included on a list issued by the Department of Homeland Security identifying “Sanctuary Jurisdictions Defying Federal Immigration Law.” We are not yet aware of the implications this may have for the city; among other potential ramifications, we are carefully determining if this will affect existing federal grants and funding sources. Furthermore, we are working to determine why the city was included on this list, again proceeding with that investigation delicately. I would note that the State of Colorado is itself included, as are 41 of 64 Colorado Counties, including nine of the ten most populous counties. The list also includes Dillion, Lafeyette, and Northglen as sanctuary jurisdictions. We will endeavor to answer any questions you may have as we navigate this issue, but at this point, this email contains all the information currently available about Lakewood's inclusion on this list. We will follow up when more information becomes available. Patrick T. Freeman Senior Police Legal Adviser

Don’t Draw Attention to Sanctuary Policies

Nowhere anywhere did our investigation turn up evidence that Lakewood cooperates with DHS and ICE on immigration matters. There was never a suggestion that the situation was a misunderstanding. There was no proof emailed to DHS that Lakewood is indeed cooperating with federal immigration. There was one email showing that a Lakewood employee signed up for e-verify for the first time on Monday, June 2, in what may be a coincidence or a panicked response.

In this case, Lakewood appears to have taken the approach that the less said the better because Lakewood cooperates with state law. Colorado sanctuary law is obviously intended to conflict with federal law. Lakewood’s cooperation with the state may be seen in multiple subversive actions, rather than one blanket vote by city council for “sanctuary”.

And in fact, Ben Goldstein wrote: “Overall, I think the best strategy is to keep our heads down on this one, but perhaps the cat is out of the bag now” (see below).

I will begin working with the communications team so we are prepared should we start receiving media inquiries or need to update information on our website. Overall, I think the best strategy is to keep our heads down on this one, but perhaps the cat is out of the bag now.

Lakewood Does Not Cooperate With Federal Immigration

Proof that Lakewood provides sanctuary by not cooperating with DHS is shown in several ways besides being unable to deny the charge:

  1. Lakewood insists that complying with Colorado’s sanctuary law is federally legal
  2. Does not use DHS database to identify people
  3. Lakewood will not certify that it cooperates with DHS policies
  4. Slow response to DHS request

There are also a couple things conspicuously missing:

  1. Email communications to DHS regarding the situation.
  2. Emails with explanations from City Manager Kathy Hodgson
  3. An official denial that Lakewood is a sanctuary
  4. Evidence that Lakewood is willing to comply with federal immigration law

Complying with Colorado Law Over Federal Law

As one example of City Council opinions, Councilor Jacob LaBure believes being placed on the sanctuary city list is “baseless” (see email below). LaBure’s response is the strong denial of an innocent man – which stands in stark contrast to the “keep your head down approach” from Lakewood management. However, strong beliefs or rewriting definitions of sanctuary does not change Lakewood’s support of migrant polices in 2024 or Lakewood’s vote to help Denver with its influx of migrants or Lakewood’s policy to lessen migrants deportation fears. As previously reported, such support is the original definition of a sanctuary city.

This is an absurd baseless claim

In 2024 Lakewood Informer filed CORAs regarding immigration policy and did not receive any answers as to enforcement actions. The responding supervisor said the public information officer would be reaching out – an action that didn’t happen. Verbal responses in public meetings align with Jeffco’s response. They say that checking immigration status, which used to be a routine practice, was not the job of local jurisdictions. There is no federal law that says a home rule police department must check immigration status. This was just a matter of routine, like checking to see if you had an out-of-state drivers license. Lakewood no longer regularly does these routine checks.

No Use of DHS Database

Colorado law requires Lakewood to NOT share personally identifiable information with DHS non-public databases. However, that’s the primary way of enforcing overriding federal immigration law. NOT accessing federal databases is also harmful to local police who are trying to solve crimes.

One email shows Lakewood police working through Aurora to get a person identified through the DHS database. Aurora successfully argued their case to get dropped from the sanctuary city list, perhaps because of proof like their ability to use the DHS database. It appears that without Aurora’s connection, Lakewood would be unable to identify the person involved in a shooting in Lakewood. Shootings are still a priority crime in Lakewood to be investigated, unlike many others that have been de-prioritized such as having drug paraphernalia. Coordination and cooperation with other agencies is a two-way street.

Remember that the DHS list of sanctuaries was removed because local governments accused the federal government of a breach in trust by not being consulted in the compilation of the list. These developments raise the question of if the federal government was consulted when local governments decided not to cooperate and if that was a breach of trust.

Will Not Certify Cooperation with DHS

Both state and federal grants now include clauses that Lakewood will not share data with DHS databases (Colorado) or that it will (federal). That stipulation illuminates the conflict with state and federal sanctuary polices.

Grants requiring cooperation with immigration enforcement are now problematic for Lakewood. Federal cooperation includes identifying aliens and holding them for ICE removal, both of which used to be standard practice but no longer take place.

Lakewood could previously apply for both sets of funds under the legal theory that there was no conflict. Now that legal theory is in jeopardy. As a result, Lakewood police staff have been advised to “be cautious” of any immigration enforcement or DEI certification language and not to apply for new grants unless essential.

Dear Team, I want to provide some interim guidance regarding questions about grant applications, particularly in light of recent developments at the state and federal levels. At present, we remain in compliance with both State and Federal immigration laws. While there has been some public discourse suggesting these laws are in conflict, our current legal assessment does not support that conclusion. However, our inclusion on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) list may complicate what would otherwise be a straightforward analysis. More critically, the federal government is now requiring certification that recipients of federal funds will not implement or support programs, policies, or practices related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Some existing language in the City’s Policies & Procedures could arguably be interpreted as aligning with DEI initiatives, and this creates potential challenges in certifying compliance with federal requirements. When it comes to state grants, we face separate but related challenges. Specifically, Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) §24-74-105 requires certain certifications regarding the sharing of information with federal immigration authorities and the use of non-public databases containing personally identifiable information (PII). Given these overlapping legal and operational uncertainties, I cannot provide blanket guidance at this time. The situation is evolving rapidly and remains complex. Effective immediately, I recommend the following approach: 1. Submit essential grant opportunities to me and the City’s Grant Manager for case-by- case review and approval. 2. Refrain from applying for or accepting new grants unless they are deemed critical to operations. 3. Be cautious of any certification language related to immigration enforcement or DEI commitments, as these could impact our eligibility and compliance. We will continue to monitor developments closely and provide updated guidance as we learn more. Thank you for your patience and diligence as we navigate these issues together. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Adrian Alderete, Commander Professional Standards Section Lakewood Police Department

Lakewood Slow to Respond to DHS Request

DHS reached out to help with immigration issues in March. From the emails it appears he repeated the request on May 28, the day before the DHS list was published. Lakewood Police would have to investigate such rumors for proof, which is outside their mandate but this may have been a test.

It is also apparent that DHS regularly emails for help and coordination. It is not clear whether Lakewood responds, which would require further investigation.

It is possible that a pattern of slow or non-response has been noted by DHS.

Lakewood Provides Sanctuary

The moral of the story is to not believe any statement that Lakewood is not a sanctuary city because Lakewood never formally defined such a term. That does not mean they they are in compliance with federal law. Instead, ask questions such as:

  • Does Lakewood cooperate with federal immigration, or
  • Does Lakewood routinely check immigration status (a 2 minute process that used to be routine)
  • Does Lakewood use non-public databases containing personally identifiable information (PII).
Lakewood eliminating single family zoning

Zoned Out: How Lakewood is Selling Out its Neighborhoods

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on . Leave a Comment

By Karen Gordey

You’d be forgiven if you missed it — after all, the City didn’t exactly roll out the red carpet for public input — but Lakewood is in the middle of completely rewriting its zoning code. And on May 21st, the Planning Commission passed 16 amendments in one night. Sixteen. Because who doesn’t want to restructure the entire city with the speed and clarity of a late-night city hall cram session?

Here’s the kicker: Lakewood is a home rule city, meaning we have the power to make our own land use decisions. But instead of using that power to protect neighborhoods or push back on one-size-fits-all state mandates, the City Council passed a resolution last year (Resolution 2024-62) that basically says, “Tell us what you want, Colorado — we’ll make it happen.” Meanwhile, six other cities are suing the state to protect their local control. Lakewood? We’re sending engraved invitations to the bulldozers.

If you’re not paying attention yet, you should be. Because staff expects these changes to take effect in September and if residents don’t start showing up and speaking up, we’ll be stuck with zoning we didn’t ask for, can’t undo, and won’t recognize.

“Home Rule vs Statutory Rule”

Before we go any further, it is important to understand the difference between statutory rule and home rule.  So that there is no confusion, I went to the Colorado Municipal League’s website (www.cml.org).  The following is their explanation of the two:  “Colorado cities and towns operate under provisions of Colorado state statutes (and are referred to as “statutory” cities and towns) unless voters adopt a municipal charter to become a “home rule” city or town.

Home rule is based on the theory that the citizens of a municipality should have the right to decide how their local government is to be organized and how their local problems should be solved. Municipal home rule derives its authority directly from the Colorado Constitution. It affords residents of cities and towns that adopt a local charter freedom from the need for state-enabling legislation and protection from state interference in “both local and municipal matters.”  The Lakewood City Charter was established on November 1, 1983.  While it has been modified by the voters 5 times (the latest on November 2, 2004, we are still a home rule city. 

Lakewood City Charter and Lakewood Together

Page 27 of the City Charter talks about planning and zoning.  According to the charter, the city council could have established Ward Advisory Committees to try to corral all these changes but instead are using Lakewood Together for community input.  In fact, I attended the Ward 5 meeting on June 14th and Councilman LaBure said that he tried to create committees last year and did not have support for this. 

Let’s take a look at the Lakewood Together site.  On the front page of the zoning updates section (Lakewood Together Zoning Updates), it clearly references the state law requirements and again we are a home rule city so we are allowed to do what is best for our community. This will be important to remember when I talk about the 16 amendments.

The 2024 City Council Resolution: Pre-Commitment to State Zoning Goals

The City Council passed a resolution Resolution 2024-62 that sounds harmless — values like affordability, walkability, and sustainability — but when you read the details, it’s a blueprint for surrendering home rule. The resolution adopts state-level zoning goals before zoning code revisions or public feedback were complete. That includes:

  • Eliminating single-family zoning
  • Legalizing zero-lot line housing
  • Codifying 90-day approvals for affordable housing
  • Committing to Proposition 123 (as modified by HB 23-1304) requirements
  • Requiring compliance with parking minimum elimination

Bottom line: Lakewood didn’t just “revise” its zoning goals; it absorbed the state’s playbook wholesale.  This was covered briefly by the Lakewood Informer: Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good

Why Didn’t Lakewood Join the Lawsuit with Other Home Rule Cities?  Good question!

Recently, six Colorado cities banded together to sue the state over its new zoning mandates — arguing that the laws violate their constitutional rights as home rule municipalities. (6 Front Range cities sue over housing laws, governor’s threat to withhold state funds) Lakewood? We sat that one out.

At the Ward 5 meeting on Saturday, June 14th, I asked our Councilors a simple question: Was our absence because of Resolution 2024-62, which essentially pre-commits Lakewood to implementing state zoning goals? And if the lawsuit is successful, meaning those cities win back their rights to local control, won’t we be stuck with sweeping zoning changes we didn’t have to make?

Councilman LaBure responded:

“We are a home ruled city but we are also a state entity. The state passes things all the time that encroach on local control. The argument has been historically well zoning and parking issues and all those things are matters of local concern and not the state concern. And Judiciary had tended to draw a line there. However, the state has increasingly been making the argument that there is a housing crisis statewide so we need more and more control over local zoning issues because it is actually a matter of state concern. I would have been happy to have jumped on that lawsuit however, other cities already did it and we are part of the Colorado Municipal League (CML). And CML has supported that lawsuit and in that sense we are member and if not the largest so in some sense we are part of that because of our CML affiliation. And it is a fair question to ask about if the lawsuit is successful, then we would be stuck with zoning changes that were not needed.”

Translation: we could have stood up for home rule; but we’ll just let other cities take the heat and hope our dues to the Colorado Municipal League somehow cover us by association.

Councilor Nystrom added that she did ask the City Attorney the same question but didn’t get a clear answer. She also pointed out that HOAs aren’t safe from this zoning overhaul either. While HOA covenants are seen as contracts between homeowners and their associations, local zoning ordinances will override those agreements. So yes, if you live in an HOA and thought you were protected, think again.

The bottom line? There is still no clear reason why Lakewood didn’t join the lawsuit, especially when we had the opportunity and the legal standing. In the words of Councilman LaBure, we’re “essentially deregulating zoning.” Deregulation is one thing. Doing it blindly and permanently, without any legal backstop or flexibility, is another; and it’s not necessarily a good thing for current residents or future housing stability.

The 16 Amendments Passed on May 21st

Let’s talk about transparency or the lack thereof. As of this writing on June 16th, the Lakewood Together website still links to the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting, but not the May 21st meeting where 16 amendments were introduced and passed. You read that right: the most significant zoning overhaul in years, and they can’t be bothered to upload the meeting where it happened. The most recent version of the proposed zoning code amendments? Dated May 19th, which doesn’t even reflect what was voted on.

The May 21st meeting video is available on lakewood.org, which makes it difficult to miss important updates since they aren’t keeping everything together, as originally portrayed. Amendments are still possible but this isn’t up for public discussion on the latest revisions yet.

At the Ward 5 meeting on June 14th, I asked when the public could expect a clean, updated version of the zoning ordinance. Councilor Nystrom responded that Planning Director Travis Parker and his team were “supposed to be” updating it and she will check on that. Spoiler alert: they haven’t. It’s been nearly four weeks, and residents still don’t have access to a finalized copy of the changes that are supposedly going into effect in September.

So what gives? Is the Planning Department deliberately withholding information from the public or are we just witnessing yet another performance of Lakewood’s Greatest Hits: Bureaucratic Incompetence, Volume 23?

Below is a chart of the 16 amendments passed. The most recent redline version of the zoning code? A casual 409 pages. And yes, buried in that bureaucratic brick are more than a few red flags.

Let’s start with 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).

Then there’s section 17.1.7 – General Provisions, which now reads:

“Except as hereinafter provided, no building, structure, property, or land shall be used or occupied and no building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, moved, or structurally altered except in conformance with this Zoning Code.”

Sounds straightforward, right? Except it’s not. Take Article 5, for example  it limits the square footage of homes above grade. Basements are exempt (for now), but let’s say your 4,000 sq. ft. above-grade home burns down. Under the new code? You may not be able to rebuild it to the same size above ground. Goodbye, replacement value.

And then, scattered throughout this 409-page monster, are things like:

  • Building re-use allowances, perfect if you’re excited to see old office parks or shuttered schools converted into multi-unit housing or whatever else they deem appropriate. (Spoiler: I’m writing about Emory Elementary next.)
  • Subdivision of residential land, your neighbor could sell, split the lot, and slap up a quadplex or a village of tiny homes right next to you.
  • Zero parking requirements and lot line-to-lot line construction, great for density, not so great for your driveway, your view, or your sanity.
  • Up to 750 sq ft of commercial space allowed in any home, in any neighborhood — for so-called “personal services,” with no parking required. Think hair salons, spa treatments, dry cleaners and even coffee shops… in what used to be a quiet cul-de-sac.
  • Horse property? That charming acreage you paid a premium for? It could be surrounded, subdivided, or rezoned into oblivion.
  • Commercial creep into residential zones, yes, more blending of use types with less notice and less input from the people actually living there.

In short: this isn’t a “minor update.” This is a wholesale rewrite of how Lakewood builds, lives, and grows  and it’s happening fast, without your input.

Final Call to Action: Speak Now or Get Steamrolled

This zoning overhaul is tentatively scheduled for first reading on July 28th, with the second reading and public comment set for Monday, August 11th. Mark your calendars, but don’t wait until then.

The time to speak up is NOW. Choose any upcoming City Council meeting and use the General Public Comment period to voice your concerns. Demand a town hall. Ask for transparency. Hold them accountable.

Then on Monday, August 11th, we need to pack the room and show up in force. Sign up to speak on the zoning ordinance agenda item and make it clear that these changes are not welcome without real public involvement.

Let’s be honest, this City Council has a long history of ignoring the will of its constituents, and we should be prepared for them to pass this anyway. If that happens, the work doesn’t stop, it begins. We’ll have 30 days to gather petition signatures to either force Council to reverse their vote or take the issue to the ballot as a referendum.

We’re actively looking for team leaders to help organize signature collection across the city. If you’re interested in helping coordinate efforts in your ward or neighborhood, email me at KarenBGordey@gmail.com and include your name, contact information and ward.

This isn’t a drill. It’s your driveway, your street, and your city. Pick a meeting. Grab the mic. Let’s save our Lakewood!

Upcoming City Council Meetings (note: there are no additional meetings in June)

July 14th, 7 pm

July 28th, 7pm

Link to City Council contact information:  https://www.lakewood.org/Government/City-Council/City-Council-Members

Link to determine what Ward you live in: https://www.lakewood.org/My-Neighborhood

Note: the conversation on zoning is still ongoing. There will be more changes coming

Sanctuary cities logo and graphic

Lakewood and Jeffco Called a Sanctuary

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on . Leave a Comment

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a list of sanctuary cities on Thursday, May 29. Lakewood and Jefferson County were on the list. By Sunday, DHS had taken the list down because of objections by the named jurisdictions. Cities like Lakewood never voted on the issue, just quickly enacted deprioritization policies behind the scenes and then told residents that the increased migrant population is not their problem. Now, DHS is calling out places like Lakewood and Jeffco that hide behind an unofficial policy of not cooperating, while other places do their best to balance a state law that acts against federal law.

Lakewood has been through these word games with its residents already. No – Lakewood never formally voted to be a sanctuary city – but only because the state approved sanctuary status so Lakewood politicians didn’t have to take the political risk. At the time, it was apparent that Council would have approved sanctuary status if needed.

At that time, around 2018, sanctuary meant being welcoming, resisting ICE cooperation and providing cover for migrant activity. Today, it seems to mean paying for housing and benefits…

Because the bar has already been raised! People EXPECT welcoming and resistance to federal immigration.

However, DHS is working from the original definition of any jurisdiction not cooperating with ICE. According to the original statement, DHS defined these sanctuary cities as:

“deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws and endangering American citizens.” – DHS

NOTE: This author seems to remember former Mayor Adam Paul talking about migrants taking refuge in a Lakewood church basement and the need for more placements. Does that sound right to anyone else?

Lakewood has still been playing these word games, using “migrant” or “newcomer” instead of “illegal alien”.  They would not guarantee that new homeless shelters would not be used for migrants. Instead, some Councilors insisted that all would be welcome.

According to an article in The Guardian, the president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff Kieran Donahue, “said the list was created without input from sheriffs and ‘violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement’”.

Lakewood still “deprioritizes” crime instead of admitting they will not enforce certain crimes or cooperate with certain agencies. Both Lakewood and Jeffco claim that immigration enforcement is not their jurisdiction so no cooperation is necessary. Neither government has any problem cooperating with other federal agencies, such as the FBI. Therefore, according to Lakewood and Jeffco principles, the National Sheriffs’ Association’s objection is without merit because local jurisdictions shouldn’t be cooperating anyway.

Note that the DHS list is more granular than others that just highlight the entire state as a sanctuary. DHS did not respond to requests for more information on how the list was compiled, but there were clearly some cities and counties singled out around the state.

Lakewood’s Police Chief has described Venezuelan gang activity in Lakewood in a rare Ward 4 appearance.

Lakewood thinks residents are so ignorant that they can’t see the deteriorating conditions brought on by “de-prioritizing” crimes. They seem to think that if they don’t use the word “sanctuary,” they can act defy federal law and be fine. And so far, they are right. During the last discussion about Lakewood’s sanctuary city status, Lakewood Informer news noted that the word games continued with a change from “sanctuary” to “being a good neighbor”.

2025 City Council voting record as of May 2025

The Illusion of Debate: How Lakewood’s City Council Rubber-Stamps Policy

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

By Karen Gordey

As you may or may not have heard, Kairoi—the Texas developer behind the 777 S Yarrow Street project—cut down more than 60 mature trees on May 12th. The community response was swift and emotional. That evening, a large group from the Save Belmar Park movement filled the back of Lakewood City Council chambers and voiced their outrage during public comment. Many echoed the same call: every sitting councilor—save perhaps one—needs to be voted out.

The next day, I drove to Belmar Park to see the damage for myself. As I pulled up, I noticed two current council members chatting nearby. I spoke with one of them off the record for about 25 minutes. When I said, “Isn’t this what you voted for?” the councilor quickly replied, “No, I didn’t vote for this.”

Skeptical, I went home and reviewed voting records for the past two years. And they were right—technically. The 777 S Yarrow project didn’t come before City Council. It went through the Planning Commission and the City’s Planning Department.

But that wasn’t the end of the story.

When I tried to dig deeper, it became clear how inaccessible the City’s meeting records really are. Minutes from meetings are supposed to be approved during the Consent Agenda at every regular council meeting. But finding the actual minutes? Nearly impossible. For instance, during the May 12, 2025 meeting, Council approved minutes from March 24, April 14, and May 5—but none were linked or attached. On February 24, they approved minutes from December 9, 2024. Again, no actual documents.

You can technically find every ordinance and resolution passed by council here: https://www.lakewood.org/Government/Departments/City-Clerks-Office/City-Council-Ordinances-Resolutions. But it’s a list, making it difficult for residents to hold individual councilors accountable.

The Consent Agenda, meant for quick approvals of non-controversial items like meeting minutes, ordinances on first reading, or ceremonial resolutions, is often a catch-all for measures that go unscrutinized. Councilors can ask to remove items for discussion—and did so multiple times in 2024. But here’s something you may not know: residents can request that items be removed too. Once passed, the items removed from the consent agenda are discussed and voted on, then the rest of the agenda is addressed in order.,

And while the Consent Agenda script claims that first-reading ordinances are published in the Denver Post—none have appeared in the last two years. Don’t take my word for it. You can search the Denver Post’s legal notices here: https://marketplace.denverpost.com/marketplace-denver/category/Miscellaneous/Legal%20Notices

and on the state’s required public notice database: https://colorado.column.us/search/

(which is moving to: https://www.publicnoticecolorado.com).

So how did your councilor vote?

Here’s a breakdown of every vote not passed via the Consent Agenda

City Council Voting24_25Download
2024 voting record
2024 City Council voting record shows mostly agreement (in green)

Here’s what I found:

  • Nearly every vote over the last two years has been unanimous or nearly so.
  • Even when councilors express opposition during public comment or in off-the-record conversations, their votes often say otherwise.
  • In 2024, five councilors voted against a one-year moratorium on raising the business and occupation tax.
  • When it came to putting a TABOR refund question on the ballot, only one—Councilor Rich Olver (who has since resigned)—voted no. Another councilor didn’t even show up.

Also included in that spreadsheet is a tab for study sessions and workshops. These are arguably more important than council meetings themselves. That’s where councilors hear presentations on major issues—always from city staff or invited parties that support the city’s position. No opposing views. No residents. By the time a topic comes up for public hearing (on second reading), the council has already made up its mind.

Is it any wonder residents feel ignored and angry?

City Council workshop session date and topic
City Council workshop session date and topic

Let’s talk transparency. The Budget & Audit Committee—tasked with overseeing your tax dollars—hasn’t met once in 2025. Back in January, Ward 5 councilors proposed expanding the committee to represent all five wards. That proposal was shot down. Only three wards are represented. Two wards remain unheard.

And all this under a City Manager pulling in over $400,000 a year.

When government struggles with the basics—recordkeeping, transparency, fair representation—it often fails on the big things too.

Isn’t it time for a better way? If you’re tired of a council that listens to developers more than residents, tired of unanimous votes that ignore dissent, and tired of a system where transparency feels like an afterthought—then do something. Start asking questions. Email your councilor. Demand meeting minutes be posted, ordinances be published, and your ward be represented. Government works best when it’s held accountable. And in Lakewood, it’s time we started holding ours to a higher standard.

Radiant Painting and Lighting https://paintwithradiant.com/
Grading permit, applied for and granted within one day of complaint

Lakewood is Laughing At Us

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

The May 7th Planning Commission meeting was a travesty of a public hearing. Lakewood cared enough to give residents an outlet for their grievances. No one cared enough to enact a single change. And sometimes they outright laughed at us.

Watch the video below from the end of public comment, starting at min 2:58:25. One resident got up and publicly read an article from the Lakewood Informer. Watch the city staffer seated in the background unsuccessfully hiding her laughter during this reading. All of which was proved to be true. All of which city staff ignored and the entire Planning Commission dismissed — just like so many other valid resident points.

The meeting started with Lakewood Chief of Sustainability and Community Developer Travis Parker explaining that he didn’t think this meeting wouldn’t change anything. He said that there were “pretty significant misunderstandings” of what staff could do. He said that “attacks on staff for being, you know, incompetent or malfeasant or acting in bad faith, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the good and hard work that’s done by people that are experts.”

No one doubts city staff work hard. They all deserve thanks. But we also can’t assume they are always right and the residents are wrong about everything. We can’t assume that there is no other way to evaluate base assumptions. But that’s exactly what the Planning Commission decided to do.

Ironically, one of the main points of the Belmar Park battle was about cutting down all the trees that could have formed an expanded buffer. Mr Parker himself has been educating residents on new zoning codes from Lakewood that will not increase the setbacks to what they were pre-2012, but will now require RESIDENTS to get a permit to cut down their trees.

So the meeting was a pretty show that started and ended with all the well-researched points the residents brought forward being dismissed. Sadly, the best thing to be said is that being dismissed was more respectful than being laughed at.

Required Grading Permit – Evidence not reported by city staff

The permit pictured above is from Lakewood’s eTRAKit system, showing the grading permit that was applied for and received within one day of the complaint, just as reported by Steve at savebelmarpark.com

The permit below is for demolition, which was applied for a month earlier. No malicious intent was implied and the problem was quickly corrected. Thanks to residents who apparently know less than city staff.

demolition permit

Grading permit requirements below

Actual permit that must be displayed before construction:

Lakewood Permit Grading 777 S YarrowDownload

Save Belmar Park Inc logo

UPDATE: Disappointing but Not Surprising – We Need Your Help Now More Than Ever!

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

From Save Belmar Park, Inc., – a Colorado non-profit

What happened at the May 7th Lakewood Planning Commission hearing was deeply disappointing—though sadly, not unexpected. After several speakers delivered well-researched, thoughtful, and heartfelt presentations, the audience erupted in applause. The public’s support for protecting Belmar Park was undeniable.


So how does a small group of City officials override the will of the residents?

Despite an overwhelming outpouring of public opposition—including emails, social media comments, and a nearly 10-to-1 ratio of anti-this-development comments on Lakewood Speaks—the Commission still voted 5–0 in favor of the 411-unit Kairoi apartment building. And they did so even after being presented with a powerful, evidence-based case showing that the proposed development directly contradicts Lakewood’s own zoning code, comprehensive plan, and parks master plan.

This vote was a slap in the face to the community. It disregarded common sense, environmental preservation, and the very planning documents the city is supposed to uphold. The proposed zero-lot-line, six-story building is incompatible with the surrounding two-story Belmar Commons townhomes, overwhelms local infrastructure, and threatens the ecological balance of Belmar Park.

The city has rolled out the red carpet for billionaire developers—again—ignoring the public and prioritizing profit over people, parks, and trees. Dozens of mature, century-old trees will be clearcut. Wildlife will be displaced. Belmar Park’s peace and beauty will be irreversibly damaged (if we don’t stop them).

But, we have NOT given up—and we’re not stopping now!

Our next step is filing a lawsuit under a 106A appeal, which will go before a Jefferson County district court rather than more city insiders. We believe we still have a strong chance at a different outcome—despite the city’s push to bulldoze trees—because the proposed development blatantly contradicts Lakewood’s own zoning laws, comprehensive plan, and parks master plan, giving us solid legal ground to challenge it in court.

This is our last real chance to stop this destructive project, and we’re counting on supporters like you to help us make it happen. Legal fees are significant, and this is a fight the community should not have to fund—but we must because the City of Lakewood refuses to listen.

Please stand with us—again. If this park means something to you, dig deep—and give as generously as possible (then smile knowing you’re helping to save something irreplaceable). Every dollar helps us hold the line against this destructive plan. Then share our campaign and spread the word. We’re fighting for what’s right: environmental integrity, community character, and the future of Belmar Park.

👉 Donate now: https://www.gofundme.com/f/save-belmar-park

Directors

Save Belmar Park, Inc. 

$$$ Financing Deals

The Bend: A Government Financing Trade Deal

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Lakewood may be forcing a property owner to blight their own land in a backroom trade deal wherein staff pledged a positive vote from City Council for a metro district. The deal would give The Bend development city financing in exchange for metro district status.

In January 2025, a representative for The Bend developer made the following public comment:

“The city is actually only allowing a Metro District to be put in place if the URA (Urban Renewal Area) passes so that it is a vehicle for this infrastructure and tax increment financing. They actually would not pass our Metro District standalone. They’ve made that very clear.” – Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, at Green Mountain Water Board Meeting, min 40:13.

This deal illuminates why Lakewood is rushing through a URA and metro district public hearing on the same night. Staff presentations have repeatedly touted the advantages of doing both the URA and the metro district at the same time. They claim these are complementary structures.

But they are not complementary. Rather, these are essentially overlapping structures that could finance the same set of infrastructures. Apparently, financing public infrastructure is a profit center.

Overlapping financing is duplicative. Even worse, for The Bend, neither metro district nor URA is appropriate. The Bend is not a “serious and growing menace” to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare, which is the statutory reason for Urban Renewal. The Bend does not provide public services, which is necessary for a metro district. The metro district will only be used for financing. Therefore, the most appropriate government assistance, if any, would be a Business Improvement District (BID).  BIDs are the more accountable, less powerful, way to achieve development financing but no one is advocating for its use.

Instead, developers prefer to form metro districts. This initially involves the developer loaning money to the new metro district.  Then the metro district issues a bond, with interest, to pay back the loan. Since the developer and the metro district are the same people (different legal entity), the developer has now gained itself government immunity, as well as millions of dollars of interest payments. In many cases, the interest payments never end – they only continue to grow. This outcome isn’t possible with a BID.

(See Denver Post series “Metro Districts: Debt & Democracy” by David Migoya for more in-depth information on metro district abuses)

Therefore, developers generally want that metro district as a profit center, rather than as a way to finance development, since they front the funds in either case.

A URA is also meant to fund public infrastructure. Much of the public infrastructure was repeated under both the URA and metro district justification. Only one method is needed to finance infrastructure, and, as noted, the developer will provide the base funds in any event. As Karen Gordey reported in the Lakewood Informer, there was no required financial gap analysis completed to show that city funding was required. Therefore, with a metro district there is no need for a URA. This conclusion is also shared by a report from the Independence Institute. A URA has not required a metro district in the past.

However, Lakewood can trade URA financing for affordable housing. Lakewood is not allowed to pay for housing directly. Lakewood is not even supposed to demand any percentage of affordable housing. There is no zoning or ordinance that requires it.  The irony is that Lakewood City Council itself sunset the Strategic Growth Initiative ordinance. Under that ordinance, this development would have fallen under the allocation review system wherein Lakewood could have asked for affordable housing to permit this many units in a TRANSPARENT process. Instead, the city is now working behind the scenes to make this same thing happen.

So, through the URA, Lakewood will gain affordable housing, aka government housing or government-subsidized housing. Those units can be used to qualify for state grants for even more development in Lakewood.

“Without the Urban Renewal plan, in our case, we wouldn’t be able to deliver kind of what they want to see or their vision for this piece of land which includes housing retail and affordable housing they you know both the state and the city and the county do have a desire to have a portion of the site have affordable housing in it.“ Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, Jan 28 2025, min 35:57

Lakewood residents will pay for The Bend development by giving the developer financing. The new taxes from that development are diverted out of the general fund, which pays for Lakewood resident services like police, and instead will pay for The Bend development responsibilities like streets and pipes.

The decision for an Urban Renewal Area is very separate from the decision to approve a metro district. The developer did not originally desire to be in an Urban Renewal Area and Lakewood may not approve a metro district as a standalone decision. But, operating together, the developer and city can trade financial incentives that residents throughout Lakewood will pay for.  The developer offers blight and gets metro district status and financing. The city offers URA financing to indirectly offset affordable housing units and gets a basis for more state grant funding.

“Municipalities are using a tool (URA) meant only for serious threats to the public as a tool for gaining a competitive advantage in economic development. Which, essentially, is a way to financially reward development partners and a method to force the public into a future desired by government planners.” -From The Empty Promise and Untold Cost of Urban Renewal in Colorado

Just like Lakewood’s deal to buy Emory Elementary, residents should know the full plan to leverage this deal for more high-density development using state grant funds from the affordable housing units. Without that knowledge, which has not been disclosed, neither the URA nor the metro district decision makes any sense.

There will be a City Council vote on the metro district and URA on Monday, May 12 that is open to public comment.

The representative from Lincoln Properties, Allie Meister, did not reply to requests for comment.

This article is written as the personal beliefs of Karen Morgan under the Lakewood Informer banner.

National Motorist Association logo

Picture of Belmar Park

Likely Defect Identified in Planning Commission Software

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

From savebelmarpark.com

The 777 S Yarrow public hearing is very close on:

May 7th at 7:00 PM at 480 S Alison Parkway, Lakewood, CO

You may now enter public comments online at: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/meetings/869. You may have to click on item 3.

Unfortunately, a likely defect in the Planning Commission’s online file upload process has been identified and was reported via a follow-up public comment.  However, that public comment was rejected by Lakewood for violating comment policy.

It appears the comment was rejected out of an assumption that the Planning Commission software could not possibly be broken.

The city clerk was also very helpful in providing examples of other comments with attachments that were publicly posted as proof that the upload process is not broken.

Notably, NONE of the examples provided by the clerk included the .doc file extension.

Therefore, because Lakewood was obviously not going to investigate a reported defect that could potentially have been suppressing public comment file attachments for a long time, perhaps years, I investigated.

It turns out that the Planning Commission does NOT accept all of the file extensions specified on the file upload dialogue (which is shown in the image at the top of page).

Once I converted the .doc file to a .pdf file, then the upload process was successful!

If you upload a file with a supported  .doc file extension, for example, it appears to work properly. However, if your comment is approved for publication, the attachment is never displayed.

This is a material error because members of the public may reasonably assume their upload was successful since no error message is ever produced at any point in time during this process.  

Nor does the moderation process capture file upload errors and notify users.  

Nor are members of the public ever advised that the software may be unreliable and may silently dispose of file uploads.

Upon reviewing public comments just this morning, one person who supports approving the Kairoi project referenced his attached letter.  But no attached letter was displayed.  So his attachment may also have been lost by the software.

Therefore, members of the public or any parties with a matter to be heard by a quasi-judicial panel could upload files for the official hearing record and discover after the hearing record is closed that their file uploads were rejected.  Then it is too late to re-submit their files.

This problem is also complicated by a significant conflict of interest due to the fact that Mr. Parker, Lakewood’s executive in charge of making development recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, is also and incredibly an advisor on the executive team of the same software company that is at the crux of possibly suppressing public comment by silently rejecting documents intended for quasi-judicial hearings.

We suggest the city is indifferent both to the public perception and the risks of this conflict of interest.

We also suggest that as a result of enabling this conflict of interest, the city is also indifferent to the requirement for software quality control.

Please consider that a quasi-judicial hearing is a legal proceeding.  What if the clerk of a court periodically discarded or lost documents delivered by litigants without telling anyone?  What do you think would happen to that court clerk if this malfeasance came to light after years of discarding court documents?

We are not suggesting any Lakewood employees are disposing of these files.  The comparison is being made to the apparently inconsistent software vs what if an employee hypothetically did the same thing?  We doubt that an employee would get off so easily. But in Lakewood, the software does get off easily.

And consequences can be significant if a court is not diligent regarding management of important technology used in processing court documents or evidence.

Consider the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the fiasco over their DNA tests.  It was recently revealed that hundreds of DNA tests were allegedly ‘manipulated’ over a 30-year time period and as a result material facts were omitted from official records even though no DNA matches were falsified.  The CBI Director stated: ““Our actions in rectifying this unprecedented breach of trust will be thorough and transparent.”  

Will Lakewood be as forthcoming regarding ignored software defects that potentially corrupted public hearing records?

Has this defect been suppressing relevant files for years?  It is possible.  Especially considering Lakewood does not seem responsive to any report that the software does not work properly.  Anyone who has previously reported a problem may have received a similar response that it was user error because other people can upload files – but of a different file type.

Therefore, we strongly urge that Mr. Parker be required to recuse from any matter that may eventually involve the Planning Commission or City Council where the PeopleSpeak software is used to accept public comments for any quasi-judicial hearings or city council meetings.

In the meantime, any past decisions made by the Planning Commission or City Council where online public comments were accepted from the public should be reviewed and new hearings potentially announced once the software is fixed.

Stay tuned and thanks for listening,

Steve

Profile picture of Anita

Springsteen Files Injunction Regarding Emory

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Former Lakewood City Councilor and attorney Anita Springsteen is no stranger to Lakewood’s backroom dealing and use of executive sessions. Springsteen has filed two lawsuits against the city for using “negotiations” as the context for an executive session. Allegedly, those meetings were open meetings violations because they didn’t provide enough detail on the “negotiations” involved. Those allegations are playing out about the purchase of Emory school. Even residents living next to Emory had no idea the city was trying to purchase the school for the Action Center.  Springsteen filed an injunction to prevent the city from voting on the property purchase April 28 but Springsteen says “the Court held that the issue was moot when Council held the vote despite being on notice of the request for injunction.” She plans to refile the motion to prevent further actions by the city. She is also communicating with the Jefferson County Schools so they are on notice of breach of fiduciary duty.

Councilor Mayott-Guerrero asked for an attorney to explain why residents have not seen open conversations about purchasing Emory before. The attorney for the city said negotiations are protected by executive sessions so there has been no public notice until now. The April 28 meeting, during which this conversation and vote took place, was duly noticed, he advised.

Unfortunately, that still left many residents in Lakewood feeling like they were unprepared, not informed and left in the dark. Which is entirely reasonable since, as Lakewood just admitted, they did not tell residents they were working on this until now. Lakewood did not put the address of the property on which they were negotiating in the notice for executive sessions.

City Council and staff were very clear that this was only the first step and that the city needed to proceed in this matter so they could progress to formal negotiations. But then what were they doing in previous executive sessions?

Lakewood could have been transparent and told residents in September of 2023 that they were interested in buying the school on behalf of the Action Center, as documents show. Instead of fully explaining the plans for Emory, Lakewood cried “misinformation” and only addressed limited misunderstandings. There are also allegations that Jeffco was hiding talks because they were involved in negotiations to sell the property four months before it was officially disposed of.

Council and staff still say that no decisions have been made and that they will listen to resident input at future meetings. Of course, that’s a variation of what they have said for the past year and a half while decisions were being made. There is no indication that plans will change based on resident input at the city level but that may be different at the school district level. There is also the possibility that the expanded interests of the Action Center will persuade people that this is the best use of Emory.

The purchase of Emory for the Action Center was a priority for Lakewood since the school’s closing. It was the first and only one on the municipal option list to begin in January of 2024.

Springsteen was one of four Councilors who demanded transparency before allowing an executive session to proceed. The session involved the City Manager’s contract renegotiation. The four Councilors calling for transparency prevented a super majority vote, which is required for an Executive Session to proceed.  This forced the contract renewal to take place at a public meeting so that the public could see who voted to renew the City Manager’s contract, which increased her benefits.

Springsteen has filed three lawsuits regarding open meetings violations, two of which pertain to property negotiations. Springsteen says “the third case was for an Executive Session involving ‘legal advice’ on a CCU issue that had already been resolved upon appeal a year prior, which calls into question the purpose of the meeting.”

Headline from Denver Gazette with author photo

Lakewood’s shady Jeffco Schools business deal

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

By Jimmy Sengenberger, in the Denver Gazette

The backroom deal I warned about last year is now playing out in broad daylight.

In February 2024, I asked whether Lakewood was eyeing a bargain on the closed Emory Elementary — a deal that could dodge public input and leave Jeffco taxpayers holding the bag.

Fifteen months later, the answer is a resounding yes.

On Monday, Lakewood’s City Council authorized a $4 million below-market purchase of the school — a site that got $2.6 million in taxpayer-funded upgrades before Jeffco closed it in 2023. It’s now on track to become the new home of the nonprofit Action Center — courtesy of a taxpayer-funded workaround.

The Action Center’s mission may be noble, serving vulnerable families and individuals. But the process? Not so much. It reeks of an almost theatrical disregard for transparency and taxpayer interests — with a straight face.

In January 2024, Jeffco Schools quietly introduced a new “Municipal Interest” process giving municipalities like Lakewood first dibs on shuttered schools — without competitive bidding or public input. COO Jeff Gatlin confirmed Lakewood’s “interest in the Emory property,” revealing they were already “working through the municipal interest route.”

Translation? A backdoor sale — letting Jeffco Schools unload taxpayer-funded property at a loss. A consultant even advised this process empowered the district to skip community feedback entirely.

Read the rest of the article….

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Subscribe

© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs