Transparency

Why shouldn’t we pave over Graham Park?

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on August 4, 2025Posted in Community, Development, Sustainability, TransparencyTagged Graham Park, historic, open space, Shahrezaei, Sinks

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

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on August 4, 2025Posted in Development, Sustainability, TransparencyTagged home rule, lakewood colorado, local support, preemption, state control, zoning

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?

Lakewood Loses Appeal in Body Cam Case

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 25, 2025Posted in Crime, Entrenched Bureaucracy, TransparencyTagged Alexis King, Anita Springsteen, appeal, body cam, Crime, fatality, juvenile, robbery

Lakewood spent two years fighting against releasing body cam footage in a fatal shooting case but has now lost in the Court of Appeals. The issue was first raised by then-City Councilor Anita Springsteen. The original story can be found at Fox31: 17-year-old’s killing by police raises questions for councilor. After turning down multiple requests for the video release, Scripps News filed a lawsuit, naming Springsteen as the requesting official. Lakewood lost in lower court, then appealed and has now lost the appeal. The ruling was made July 10. The footage has not yet been released. By Jeffrey A. Roberts, Executive Director, Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition Appeals court: Children’s Code does not bar public disclosure of blurred body-cam footage showing Lakewood officers killing 17-year-old robbery suspect Colorado’s Children’s Code does not prohibit the public disclosure of blurred body-worn camera footage of Lakewood police shooting and killing a 17-year-old robbery suspect in 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. Affirming a district court decision, a three-judge appellate panel rejected the city of Lakewood’s argument that the statute which protects the confidentiality of juvenile records trumps the footage-release provisions in the 2020 Law Enforcement Integrity Act. The statute, the judges concluded, “unambiguously required the court to release” the video. The body camera footage is not a “juvenile record” under the Children’s Code, the opinion says. Rather, “it is a conduit through which information from a juvenile record might be disclosed absent blurring of the video. And even in that circumstance — where the BWC footage might reveal a juvenile record — the statute does not bar release of the footage. The court must still release the footage, but it must blur the video to account for the juvenile’s privacy interest.” The case concerns the shooting of Mariana Martinez by Lakewood police on March 27, 2023. According to a news story, the department initially said Martinez fired at officers but clarified the next day that she pointed a gun at them. First Judicial District Attorney Alexis King found that the officers’ use of deadly force against Martinez “was legally justified to defend themselves and others from the threat posed by Miss Martinez.” Read the full article at CFOIC…

“Rooted In Littleton” Provides Blue Ribbon Example

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 20, 2025Posted in Community, Development, Transparency, Word GamesTagged Colorado, densification, densify, denver, desnity, Lakewood, littleton, Rooted in Littleton, survey, zoning

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.

Council Finally Votes on RTD Bridge Spending

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 8, 2025Posted in Budget, TransparencyTagged bridge, budget, RTD, Shahrezaei

Lakewood City Council will finally vote to spend money on fixing the bridge lights for RTD on July 14. This controversial measure was delayed twice before because of the high price tag for fixtures that do not belong to Lakewood. Now, City Council is scheduled to vote on a resolution to fund this measure through an Intergovernmental Agreement with RTD. It will be on the consent agenda so it doesn’t get discussed, just agreed to, unless someone pulls it for special consideration. As reported in “Shahrezaei’s Bridge Lights“, there are issues to consider, such as why Lakewood would pay for property not owned by Lakewood. Lakewood has recently de-TABORed because they cannot stay within budget without extra money and is looking at eliminating printed newsletters to save money. These measures are evidence that Lakewood does not have money to waste on RTD issues. The staff memo states, “Public outreach for the funding associated with the current IGA amendment was included in the public budget adoption process last year.” At that time, public sentiment was so against the measure that it was not approved, just like it was NOT approved the year before. But now, with little fanfare and no regular agenda discussion session, it’s back. The budget for the lights has come down since it was initially proposed. Originally budgeted for $800,000, which covers the full cost of the lighting, the new agreement splits the costs evenly with RTD, with each party capped at $500,000. In exchange for funding the lighting, Lakewood will be able to help choose the display color.

Residents Accused of Spreading “Misinformation”

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 8, 2025Posted in Entrenched Bureaucracy, Sustainability, Transparency, Word GamesTagged Colorado, digital, edition, Lakewood, Looking@Lakewood, misinformation

Word games and a lack of trust have led city staff to accuse residents of “misinformation.” This time, the issue involves the plans to eliminate or reduce physical printed editions of the Lakewood newspaper, Looking@Lakewood. The plans for this switch are still being formed and testing is currently underway — starting with the July edition, which is digital only. Although Lakewood says this is only a test, the city will only commit to one future, printed edition, which substantiates concerns for a permanent elimination. Full elimination may only be conjecture, but according to a response from Lakewood, some city staff believes that mistake is purposeful “misinformation.” This situation is a good example of the word games Lakewood plays and demonstrates the reason that residents continually struggle to make sense of changing policy. The May edition of Looking@Lakewood (below) announced that the July edition would be digital only. When asked about future plans for printed editions, the city responded that the October election edition will be printed and distributed to everyone. This edition is important not only to voters, but to the City Council members campaigning. However, the city response shows no commitment to future printed editions. Rather, they reiterate the cost and sustainability issues the city is concerned about. As the response shows, not even Lakewood can say that printed editions will stay; they can only say they “understand that some residents prefer” a physical copy. They have also said there is no CURRENT plan to FULLY stop mailing. Both of those statements are political word games that make no commitments. Given that evidence, it is easy to see why some residents may mistakenly believe Lakewood has already decided to stop printing completely. Sharing that belief is not “misinformation” but rather “speculation” or, at worst, an honest error. It may also be based on actual experience dealing with Lakewood because historically, the first step Lakewood takes when making a change has been to form a tentative plan, then take a resident survey, and very often to then proceed with the original plan. As long as a printed version is possible in the future, the city can rightly say “Any information you’ve seen or shared that Looking@Lakewood is going completely digital and won’t be mailed ever again is misinformation,” (bold added). Meanwhile, if you are interested in receiving news from the city, you should sign up for the electronic version because, for good or bad, you may not receive a printed version. Resident input is still being taken through the signup below.

The Comprehensive Plan Bait and Switch

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 2, 2025Posted in Community, Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Transparency, Word GamesTagged 15 minute, 15-minute, bait and switch, community input, comprehensive plan, word games, zoning

Comprehensive plans are easily readable documents that explain a vision for the future of the city in a moment of time. It speaks in plain English to what the zoning code describes in technical detail. The problem is that the zoning code details are what carry the force of law and because technical details are harder to read, it is easy for residents to overlook inconsistencies in proposed zoning compared to plans. This is otherwise known as a bait and switch. For instance, in the comprehensive plan, Lakewood promises to maintain neighborhood character; while in the zoning code, Lakewood implements high-density urbanization which resulted in the destruction of Belmar Park-adjacent property. Pieces of Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan were used as evidence to fight against the Belmar Park development. Lakewood officials discounted all such arguments. Now that residents have caught on to the inconsistencies, Lakewood staff argues against using the Comprehensive Plan to guide zoning. Instead, Lakewood proposes changing the ordinance so that the zoning code is no longer tied to the comprehensive plan. With this change, residents could not form legal challenges based on compliance with the comprehensive plan and there is less room to fight against maximum buildout in adjacent properties. Do Residents Need a “Vision” Document Why have a comprehensive plan at all? This is a long-term plan that locks in the vision for this moment in time. It includes aspirational goals with no implementation details. Therefore, the details are filled in by staff using their discretion to interpret the zoning code. Technically, one government cannot bind future governments to its decisions. If tomorrow’s City Council wanted to change the vision of Lakewood, it could choose to do so. However, having a long-range plan laid down by yesterday’s Council is a roadblock that is not easily overcome. Residents would better understand the zoning code if each change had to be justified with open debate. Instead, as is currently occurring, the entire zoning code can be changed by saying the code matches the ambiguous goals of the comprehensive plan. For example, the as-yet unapproved Comprehensive Plan seeks affordable housing. Therefore, City Council reasons that ANY CHANGE to the zoning code will be acceptable as long as affordable housing is the intent, not necessarily the outcome. There is no need for an updated 100-page vision plan document to update 300 pages of zoning code. Why not just introduce one little change at a time that is easily understood by the residents, and easily tested for effectiveness? The proposed zoning changes are still being discussed and changed. City Council have taken months to understand these detailed changes. Residents will have a couple weeks. However, residents did spend months providing input into the comprehensive plan, that will no longer have much meaning. The Proposed Change Lakewood intends to remove the binding zoning code connection to the Comprehensive Plan. As first noted by savebelmarpark.com: Lakewood zoning code currently states that the Comprehensive Plan is the foundation for the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed redline removes the “consistency with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan”. When the new zoning passes, all the aspirational goals laid out in the plan can be disregarded at will. Which really is no different than today, as shown by the Belmar Park debate except that today such a decision could be legally challenged and tomorrow it can’t. This specific change to the zoning code was not discussed at any public meeting. Comprehensive Plan Goals Not Followed The Comprehensive Plan states (pg 4-10): “Through the site plan review process and design guidelines, ensure that new multifamily, mixed use, and commercial developments adjacent to single-family neighborhoods are compatible by incorporating appropriate design, scale, height transition, and connectivity to seamlessly integrate with the neighborhood.” Residents compiled argument after argument to show that 777 S Yarrow St does not integrate with the neighborhood and does not meet environmental goals from the plan. Residents can clearly see that the Comprehensive Plan promises integration with the neighborhood. Residents can also clearly see that is not what staff implemented be allowing trees cut down to develop to the lot line near Belmar Park and new high-density apartments that don’t match the nearby buildings. . 15-minute Cities In other communities, residents are also waking up to this bait and switch. An opinion piece in the Boulder Daily Camera highlights this problem by examining Boulder’s 15-minute cities. This is particularly relevant since Lakewood leadership constantly mentions their desire for 15-minute city amenities. The proposed zoning code allows retail in residential zones for 15-minute planning. Steve Pomerance, in the Boulder Daily Camera, addresses this issue: “The underlying problem with this whole conceptual framework is the self-contradictory assumption that we can have commercial centers in neighborhoods that provide an adequate variety of goods, services and transit, all within 15 minutes of where people live, but still keep our relatively low-density neighborhoods intact. This is simply not supported by the economics or the geography.” – Steve Pomerance Read the rest of that article to understand the same sense of contrasting values Lakewood is “selling” to residents. The new development at The Bend is promising 15-minute city amenities. “Selling” is the appropriate term used here because the zoning was contracted before the comprehensive plan was finalized. In another eerie coincidence with Boulder, Pomerance wrote, “It’s as if those who wrote these objectives had already decided that the results of the cost/benefit study would support implementing this concept, and thus support the massive densification required to create such neighborhoods. Community Input Into Zoning Up to this point, residents have had no input. It was not a resident-driven development. Lakewood’s Chief of Sustainability and Community Development, Travis Parker, has been attending ward meetings to educate and also to promote the good points of the new zoning code — as if there are no other options. No one has addressed the dissatisfaction with the current densification in Lakewood. Does a desire for affordable housing mean automatic agreement to sacrifice current neighborhoods? More

Save the Land at the Old Lutheran Hospital

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 30, 2025Posted in Community, Development, TransparencyTagged high-density, historic, lutheran, urban, wheat ridge

Wheat Ridge is facing the same pressures as Lakewood. Both cities want to turn established neighborhoods and properties into something completely different with little public input. Does any of this sound like the Belmar Park problem to you? High-density, no setback, no parking… a big change that the city has to make big changes for while not listening to big public pushback. Update: A quick count of the days shows that Wheat Ridge is giving residents 9 days to petition instead of 10 because July 4 is a holiday. There’s always another challenge. Let your Wheat Ridge friends know to get over to sign soon! From Stop Zoning of High Density Housing in old Lutheran Hospital Save the land at the Old Lutheran Hospital from becoming a high-density housing project! 1,200 Signatures needed. Wheat Ridge residents: Meet at The Historic Blue House @ Old Lutheran Hospital to sign June 24-July 3 , 7am-7pm What’s up with the new zoning of the old Lutheran campus?Here’s what people are saying: A change of this magnitude should be voted on by all citizens of Wheat Ridge. Allows the creation of a crowded urban environment on much of the property: More than 2,000 housing units can be built, according to the developer. [Sec. 26-1404]Maximal building coverage. [Sec. 26-211, 26-1405] No setbacks. [Sec 26-1405] Minimal landscaping and open space [Sec. 26-1405; 26-1409, 26-502]. No parkland dedication to the City is required. [Sec. 26-414] Minimal parking [Sec. 26-1407, wheatridgespeaks.org/items/1522] Variances from even these minimal standards are allowed, including variances of morethan 50%. [Sec 26-1416] No Historic Designation or Registry of the Blue House, Chapel or Tuberculosis Tent. Nothing about affordable homeownership. [It’s not found anywhere in MU-LLC regs.] No limit on the number of units that can be rentals. [It’s not in the MU-LLC regulations.] NO traffic studies have been done. Read more about this issue on their facebook page And find time to sign their petition at one of the meeting times: at The Historic Blue House @ Old Lutheran Hospital to sign June 24-july 3 , 7am-7pm

Zoned Out: How Lakewood is Selling Out its Neighborhoods

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 17, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, TransparencyTagged Colorado, eliminate, high-density, home rule, Lakewood, single family, zoning code1 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: 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

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

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 3, 2025Posted in Entrenched Bureaucracy, Transparency, Vote TallyTagged Accountability, Lakewood City Council, rubber stamp, transparency, unanimous, voting record

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 Here’s what I found: 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? 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.