Guest Post by Alex Plotkin

One of the fundamental jobs that a government has is to ensure that businesses act ethically.  In theory, the government, local, state or federal will pass regulations which keep corporations from exposing thousands of residents to cancer-causing chemicals.  In theory, having learned just how abusive metro districts can be, a government would, maybe, outlaw them? Some cities, such as Longmont and Westminster, have taken such a stand but Lakewood is still working on ways to enable formation of metro districts.

Metro Districts are a type of special district especially for developers. It is not a government of the people, by the people for the people, because THERE ARE NO PEOPLE. There is only a developer, making deals with himself to have future people pay increasing amounts of taxes and fees. Not surprisingly, granting governmental immunity and taxing abilities to a developer who is only accountable to himself, has caused problems  (see this district with toxic sludge for a recent example.)

On May 6th 2024, Lakewood City Council had a workshop to study a proposed ordinance on Metro Districts in Lakewood.  The ordinance was first proposed in 2021 and it was immediately obvious that it’s more of a “see, we did something for the good of the public”, while allowing the big money they shill for to continue to make profit, at any cost.

City Council Members seemed very aware of all the pitfalls of metro districts, asking pertinent questions about how Lakewood could possibly limit some of the abuses, while at the same time neglecting limiting districts altogether.

Allegedly, according the Director of Planning, Travis Parker, the need to implement “something” was due to the recently passed Senate Bills 21-262 and 23-110:

https://www.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2021a_262_signed.pdf

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023A/bills/2023a_110_enr.pdf

In reality, it would be better to do nothing and simply follow the state’s statutes, instead of crafting a faulty ordinance, designed to offer the developers a plethora of loopholes to perpetuate further financial abuses (at least, in Lakewood).

Furthermore, when the Lakewood City Council tried to push through the same, flawed, piece of legislature in 2021, its numerous flaws were covered in great detail by Mr. John Henderson, who, for years, has been leading the fight against Metro District abuse in Colorado.  Mr. Henderson sent a detailed analysis of the proposed ordinance with specific areas of concern pointed out to the Council.

There is a narrative, pushed by Metro District lobbyists, that metro districts make housing more affordable.  We are still waiting for a logical, three sentence (or less) explanation, as to how a house that costs $500,000 and has $8,000 worth of mill levies is more affordable than a house that costs $530,000 and has $4000 worth of mill levies per year.  In this situation, the $500,000 house has extra mill levies in a metro district, rather than the upfront cost of the infrastructure. The $30,000 decrease in cost is financed through the developer, who earns interest. If the resident bought the house for $530,000, their mortgage would pay that cost off in 8 years of equivalent mill levy payments, but the resident will be paying that levy forever. Decades of $4,000 per year, per house, in extra fees that go directly to the developer.

The extra mill levies do not go toward schools, fire departments and other services normally paid for by taxes. Instead, they go towards the basic infrastructure that usually comes with your house but you pay for decades to come.  And those mill levies could go up even more, without residents having a say, because there are no residents involved from the beginning to be fairly represented. Only the developer will vote for the mill levy other people will pay.

The reality is that paying the total house cost through a mortgage is more affordable for residents.

One of the many claims is that the metro districts make development possible (and affordable).  For who?  For those who need the housing or for those who will profit, immensely, from selling it?  Most other states in the U.S. do not utilize metro districts to finance development.  A developer, well, develops the land.  A builder purchases the developed land from the developer.  A builder builds the house and sells it to a buyer for a profit.  End of transaction.  They do not continue to collect cash from the buyer for decades to come.

Metro districts are not mandated to provide affordable housing as a condition to receiving government status. Developers do not pretend to provide affordable housing. Instead, some claim that metro districts make housing more affordable than traditional development. The financial difference is upfront costs versus costs stretched out over time and what interest rate you are getting. Typical mill rates levied are the equivalent of 18% interest, which is more than the average home loan.

Lakewood City Council, who recently has moved general public comment to the “back of line” to make it even harder for the public to speak up during the city council meetings, DID NOT invite anyone to represent the public concerns to the workshop.  Stories of flat-out financial abuse are well-documented but experts known to the city were not invited. The city did, however, invite the Metro District top lobbyist, Kristy Pollard from the Metro District Education Coalition.  She was the sole outsider to answer questions  MDEC’s hypocrisy was covered by Mr. Henderson as well.

One of the city councilors, Rich Olver, did voice a concern of “who invited this person, while not having anyone in the room to represent the other side of the argument.” One.  The rest of the councilors proceeded under the forgone conclusion of “well, we gotta pass something.”  The truth is – you don’t.  You could, simply, make metro districts illegal.

Councilor Nystrom ardently kept stating that more disclosure was always better, while Councilor Shahrezaei kept saying that the city will most likely not be able to enforce the failures to properly disclose and notify the potential buyers of a property within a Metro District.  While Councilor Sinks stopped short of calling the prospective buyers idiots and that the onus was on them.

So, as your eyes glaze over after flipping through the first four pages of a hundred page contract (or whatever it is up to in Colorado now), remember – it is your fault that you get financially screwed by an army of lobbyists, lawyers and government representatives who enable the passing of policies designed to extract cash flow from the thousands (millions?) of buyers who just happened not to be a lawyer, or a financial wizard, or… well pretty much any other occupation vital to our communities.

Conveniently, the lobbyist kept bringing up the Service Plan Templates from other cities (such as Aurora, Colorado Springs and Fort Collins) as something that the Council should be looking at.  Conveniently, she forgot to mention that some of those templates were written by developers, with hardly any concessions to the public input. 

Longmont passed a responsible alternative in 2020:

https://www.longmontleader.com/local-news/divided-longmont-city-council-reinstates-ordinance-limiting-creation-of-metro-districts-2632380

that says:

“C. Residential districts. The city council will not approve the formation of districts to fund capital improvements in developments containing residential uses, except mixed-use residential districts, for the following reasons:

1. All existing Longmont residential development was funded without districts, so the lack of these districts will not adversely affect Longmont residential development.

• Creation of a residential district creates a differential property tax structure among similar residential developments, and the district resident would pay significantly more property tax without any commensurate public benefit.

1. The higher mill levy in district projects may make these residents less inclined to support other city property tax increases.

• Buyers of homes in district projects are often unaware of the higher property taxes in their development and may become upset when property taxes increase. Residents may be surprised to find out the price of their homes did not include the price of streets and utilities in their development and that they must pay for this over a 30 or more year period through their property taxes.”

https://library.municode.com/co/longmont/codes/code_of_ordinances/326720?nodeId=PTIICOOR_TIT4REFI_CH4.10SPDIPOPR_4.10.010PUPOPR

This ordinance is easily understood by most residents and non-lawyers.  Longmont city council has listened to their constituents and has decided to step in, despite at times contentious exchanges on the topic, and did what a government body should do – and that is to ensure that a business interest is kept in check, instead of making excuses under the guise of “affordable housing” or “property rights.”

Longmont was not the only municipality who listened to their constituents.  City of Westminster also found that (according to their Policies and Procedures for Title 32 District Formation):

“Residential MSDs: In general the City is opposed to the creation of MSD’s to fund capital construction of residential developments for the following reasons:

1. Virtually all existing Westminster residential development was funded without MSD’s. So the lack of these districts has not adversely affected Westminster residential development.

2. Creation of a residential MSD creates a differential property tax structure among similar residential developments where the MSD resident is paying significantly more property tax without any commensurate public benefit.

3. The higher mill levy in MSD projects may make these residents less inclined to support property tax increases.

4. Buyers of homes in MSD projects are generally unaware of the higher property taxes in their development but can become upset when they later discover this. Residents may be surprised to find out the price of their home did not include the price of streets and utilities in their development which they repay over a 30 or more year period through their property taxes versus the vast majority of Westminster homes where this is not the case.

5. There would be an arguable public benefit if home prices were lower in MSD projects, reflecting the developers lower capital cost. Studies have shown that this is not the case.

In summary, there is generally not a compelling public purpose and benefit to form residential districts…”

Lakewood City Council majority is moving full speed ahead to ensure that large business interests can continue to profit, instead of working on actual economic development to enable more Lakewood residents to prosper and be able to actually afford a place to live.

Cross-post from By Jeffrey A. Roberts, Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

A judge Friday ordered the Lakewood Police Department to release blurred body-worn camera footage of officers shooting and killing a 17-year-old crime suspect in March 2023.

The city withheld the video from Scripps News journalist Lori Jane Gliha, contending it was required to do so by the Colorado Childrens Code — which restricts the disclosure of most juvenile records — and privacy provisions in the Law Enforcement Integrity Act, passed by the legislature in 2020 following the killing of George Floyd.

But Jefferson County District Court Judge Chantel Contiguglia found that the footage must be released under the four-year-old statute.

“I don’t see that there is a choice,” Contiguglia said, ruling from the bench during a morning hearing. “I see that it has to be disclosed with a plain reading of the law.”

Read more from CFOIC…

---

Mayor Strom’s explanation during the May 15^th Council meeting demonstrated first-class political spin for why the April 22 meeting was adjourned early. For those active citizens who have shown up to protest at City Council meetings and have been told they “must refrain from audible support”, Mayor Strom and Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei issued a slap in the face. They threatened people for clapping between speakers but allowed interruptions to a speaking Councilor. Then they both claimed that security concerns led the Mayor to adjourn the meeting early on April 22, rather than the active heckling that they allowed. The reality is that no safety concerns were cited at the time and there were no efforts to tame the crowd. Instead, there were people interrupting the Councilors they disagreed with.

Councilor Shahrezaei made the motion to adjourn the meeting and said “We’re done with you, Councilor Olver.” No matter the explanation offered by Mayor Strom, Strom was not the leader of this drama. Instead, she followed Shahrezaei. Neither of them asked the people who were heckling and questioning Olver to please quiet down.

Mayor Strom explains at the beginning of each public comment session that there should be no “audible support” from the public. In the past, one or two people clapping between speakers has been enough for Mayor Strom to threaten to recess the meeting.

“We will be recessing if  we continue to have clapping.  Let’s please make sure that we can respect everybody’s ability to listen.” – Mayor Strom, November 27, 2023

On April 22^nd, neither Strom nor Shahrezaei threatened to recess the meeting due to disruptions. Instead, the meeting was shut down because one Councilor was making a contradictory opinion on a nationally divisive issue and another Councilor disagreed.

See the video showing the two different examples.

Strom argues that the security concerns weren’t visible on video. That may be true, but a call for order would have been visible and that was conspicuously absent. Not one mention of safety, security or order was made at the time. Watch the video to see for yourself.

The safety claim was pure political spin, first reported by a resident who questioned Shahrezaei at a ward meeting.

The claim is a insult to residents who have had to endure the condescending attitude towards “audible support” in past meetings.

Not only was it an insulting, false claim, it was a step backwards for women. Women are better than having to resort to hysterical claims of safety to justify their actions. Women can be strong leaders and competently run meetings, even when their counterparts have opinions they disagree with. Lakewood residents deserve that strength in their elected officials.

“You wanna keep arguing here or are you going to listen?” Olver responds to multiple comments from the crowd, April 22, 2024.

Losing control of the meeting may be forgivable; it was an unusual situation. Spinning the story later was a disservice to everyone, especially to Councilor Olver, who did not get an apology for being rudely cut off. The Councilors who did not get an opportunity to speak and all the community members who want a transparent and accountable government deserve an apology they did not get.

We all deserved an apology, not spin.

---

Cross-post from Justin Wingerter, BusinessDen

A $60 million blunder along Wadsworth Boulevard that was all but abandoned in January is now a stable, $117 million apartment project and two-thirds complete, its receiver said.

Aspen Heights Partners, a Texas developer, broke ground in 2020 on a 352-unit apartment complex at 1225 Wadsworth in Lakewood, with plans to finish it by the end of 2022. Amenities were to include a heated pool, dog park, bike repair shop and golf simulator.

That didn’t happen. Instead, millions of dollars in mechanic’s liens piled up and Truist Bank, which loaned $59.9 million to the project, tried suing to get its money back.

“Truist has become aware of significant cost overruns, scheduling delays and defects in the course of construction of the project,” the Atlanta-based bank wrote in a lawsuit that it filed in Golden in January. “Additionally, work on the project has come to a standstill due to infighting between the two primary members” of Aspen Heights’ development team.

Read more from BusinessDen…

---

Guest Post from Joan from Lakewood

Week of June 1 – personal update on homelessness and immigration housing.

So this week I was invited to two different meetings with two different perspectives on homelessness, immigration, and affordable housing. This is my perception of both meetings.

Meeting number one 6/4 was the Common Sense Institute (CSI) meeting, titled Egg and the Economy. The CSI is a non-partisan issues researching group that has been on the scene of Colorado politics for the last year. Their breakfast was held at the AMG Dome in Greenwood Village. There was a presentation on CSI latest research on migrants and homelessness by CSI’s Director of Policy & Research, DJ Summers and then he moderated a fascinating panel with Adam Paul (Denver Mayors Office), Paul Scudo (Step Denver) & Heidi Williams with (Metro Mayors Caucus). The panel presented two diffing views on homelessness. Step Denver stated that 70 percent of homeless are substance addiction victims. There were other  fun facts from a report that CSI had released. You can see this report at Common Sense Institutehttps://commonsenseinstituteco.orgCommon Sense Institute and then go to the menu and choose local issues. Look for the report “A Snapshot of the Metro Denver Homeless Ecosystem in 2023”. and the fact that stood out to me was that between 2021 and 2023 the amount spent on a homeless person grew from $30,000 per year to $60,000 per year. And that in fall of 2023, Denver was ranked #5 in the nation with fifth largest homeless population.

The panel was quite lively and one point that came out was Adam Paul statement that there was a plan to house 3000 more homeless within the next year and half.  And because the funding for Housing First came from the Federal Government there can not be any stipulations on the housing like job training, or chores like bed making which is the accountability piece of the Step Denver program. 

The Breakfast Wrap was the worst part of the meeting but the very real question and answer session after the panel and presentation was exceptional. I can recommend following this group and attending their next meeting Thursday June 27 on the Fentanyl crisis. 

The second meeting 6/6 was the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and Municipalities’ Quarterly Breakfast. This meeting was the County Commissioners, Mayors, and City Council members. There was no interaction with the public and we were asked to move to seats next to wall and I suspect we were not supposed to eat breakfast. But we did anyway. The bagel sandwich was much better fare than what I had at the CSI meeting. 

The main topic of the meeting was the JeffCo Housing Advocacy Blueprint. Although Sara Reynolds did not share the plan there was a presentation by the Colorado Gives Foundation about how they had done a survey (most people contacted were in favor of affordable housing), created jeffcoadvocacynetwork.org, and training a group of 15 advocates. They also requested if anyone was running for an office that they contact them for education on affordable housing as there was a lot misunderstanding on this issue. It appears that the City of Lakewood donated to this foundation. 

They had homeless updates, ballot initiatives, and individual city reports. I am sorry that I do not have names with all the reports but no introductions were   made at the beginning of the meeting. 

Arvada is still looking at building a navigation center similar to the center in Lakewood. 

WheatRidge the opening of a 50 units facility on June 14 with mental health services for youth. 

There is a new project Lutheran Campus Renovation. And with this is a ballot initiative in November to raise the building height  levels that can be constructed (not exactly sure what this was about)

Lakewood had the largest number of city council members and City Manager Kathy Hodgson present. Wendy Strom gave a few sentences about the Navigation Center and mentioned that Prop 123 would be on the ballot as Lakewood was trying to DeBruce TABOR. There was a 20 million dollar grant given to the City of Lakewood to do a restructuring of the Highway at 6th and Wadsworth. There is a housing advocacy committee and Wendy Strom and Kathy Hodgson are on the committee. And the City of Lakewood is a finalist for the All American City Contest. Congratulations. 

Westminster noted they had a pothole Palooza and filed 3000 potholes. 

Golden talked about the new dorm Colorado Mines was building and all the construction that is going on with Golden. 

Mountain View is having a proposition on the November ballot to make the city a strong manager model over the strong mayor model that they have now. 

Edgewater bragged about last weekend’s annual Pride Month parade. 

Littleton was absent. 

The last report was an update from the county commissioners. They were grateful for the regional outlook and called for more cooperation within the county on housing. There was a mention that they are still up in the air about asking for keeping the Tabor refund to fill the holes in the budget. They are talking about what they would have to do to have a balanced budget next year. Raise taxes. Cut services. This is still up in the air as it is rumored the survey shows the win on this is too close to call. 

The next quarterly breakfast is September 5, 2023. Check the calendar for details closer to the event. 

Lakewood agreed to an interest-free loan for up to $2.75 million, for Texas-based developer Artesia Real Estate Investments. The money will be used to demolish the old Sears buildings at 10785 W Colfax Ave. The Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) Executive Director Robert Smith says the rampant crime at this vacant property justifies using city funds for private property demolition. The number and cost of service calls could not be stated but apparently, Lakewood has desired to demolish these buildings for years. The developer was not present to answer any questions and Lakewood did not ask anything in return, such as affordable housing or even a credit check. Lakewood will spend about 67% of the available redevelopment funds on this project but high property taxes could refill the coffers soon. The loan could also be forgiven completely in return for something like affordable housing units later.

LRA Executive Director Smith argues that this loan helps Lakewood because Lakewood will have lower crime due to being a vacant property, rather than a vacant building, for approximately 18 months that it otherwise wouldn’t have. The crime reportedly comes from homeless residents occupying the property.

The justification seems to be that demolishing the building is a high-priced equivalent of sweeping a homeless camp.

The loan also helps the developer. Smith reports that developers are hesitant to eliminate buildings on their own because it might lower the mortgage value of the property.  There was no word on how a city loan will not lower the mortgage value but the developer of the Holiday Shopping Center accepted a similar deal to demolish that building in 2023.  Smith argued that tearing the building down saves the private entity a potential loss through fire and the cost of private security.

The funds for the Sears demolition will come from the LRA through the West Colfax Avenue Corridor Reinvestment Plan. These funds were planned in 2005 but not used until now since the owners would have to agree. Smith says Lakewood has been looking for owners to combine parcels, demolish, and work with the city for years.

Smith also explained that the developer needed building permits, some from the city, which have not been granted yet. These permits cause delays in demolition.

The previous loan for the Holiday Shopping Center demolition was advertised as a pilot project, however, the results are inconclusive as to whether the project was a success. Demolition did occur but no evidence of expedited development or repayment of the loan was offered. Lakewood is not letting that stop them from making the same kind of loan with the same kind of questions on whether Lakewood will get their loan repaid.

This loan for vacant property comes on the heels of Lakewood approving a new fee on vacant properties, which was supposed to incentivize property owners to handle these problems on their own. Apparently, some owners will be able to get special deals to have the city pay for mitigation, although the legal department offered the opinion that Lakewood is not, in fact, paying for anything since it’s just a loan. This loan will allow the developer to save money on private security for the vacant property.

No other spending alternatives were presented that would allow economic development and job creation in this struggling area. The proposed development would be market-rate apartments, with some mixed use. In Lakewood, “mixed use” has historically been solely market-rate apartments, rather than a true mixed commercial and residential use.

Lakewood did not take the time to check the credit status or financial background of the developer, in order to expedite the process and maximize public safety. No city staff had to be dedicated to going through the steps a bank would take in order to lend money.

Lakewood also did not have to run a business case to show how much money Lakewood was spending on service calls, versus how much money the developer was currently spending. The discussion also did not differentiate what was a public versus private threat, such as the building burning down. No mention was made of where the homeless residing in the building would be moving to.

The city attorney present explained that it would be possible to forgive the loan later, in return for including some affordable units. The feeling was that the interest-free loan was not enough of an incentive for them to provide affordable units.

See the BusinessDen’s coverage of this issue here.

Councilor comments:

Shahrezaei: Says she’s been looking forward to this since 2021. Asks for how many service calls there has been to this area but that number was not available. She is supportive of the West Colfax redevelopment plan in general.

Wolfram: Seeks clarification of the lien process

Cruz: Seeks clarification on how interest-free loans to private entities work. Executive Director Smith responds that Lakewood has always maintained a policy of not lending to private entities until last year’s loan for the Holiday Shopping Center so now there is a precedent.

Nystrom: Was concerned with a zero-interest loan. Asks why Lakewood needs to step in since this was an anticipated part of development. Also has concerns that this loan contradicts the Colorado Constitution Article 11 prohibiting public indebtedness. Asks whether loan forgiveness is precluded (answer – no).

Mayott-Guerrero: Says she’s focused on resident requests for public safety.

Rein: Likes removing the vacant building. Asks whether the lien is for all the property parcels or just where the vacant building is. States that the developer could redevelop all around the demolished buildings and Lakewood would be on the hook. 

Low: Clarifies that the public benefit is the time without the public nuisance building. Clarifies that the loan would have to be repaid no matter what.

Strom: Says this is about the benefit to the community, not a benefit to the developer.

Scorecard: Provide developer loan for building demolition

Unanimous Approval from all Present:

Chair, Wendi Strom

Cindy Baroway, Commissioner
Isabel Cruz, Commissioner

Andy Kerr, Commissioner

Jacob LaBure, Commissioner 
Roger Low, Commissioner

Sophia Mayott-Guerrero, Commissioner

David Rein, Commissioner

Jeslin Shahrezaei, Commissioner
Glenda Sinks, Commissioner
Rebekah Stewart, Commissioner
Carolyn Wolfrum, Commissioner

---

Cross-post from savebelmarpark.com

Proof that there is already more than enough rental housing for everyone in the metro area and in the country!

Decimating our environment and wildlife habitats to build unneeded high-rent housing is bad policy.

Oft cited supply-and-demand slogans have minimal relevance because real estate is NOT a commodity.

Read the Full Report – Denver has over 9 Vacant Homes per Unhoused Resident

Lakewood still publicly denies any interest in purchasing Emory Elementary but that’s not stopping plans from moving forward. The plan still seems to be for Lakewood to act on behalf of the Action Center. The Action Center has not responded to repeated requests for comment. Lakewood residents know more about what Lakewood is doing from Jeffco Schools than from their representative government or the recipients of government efforts and/or funds. Given the amount of public interest in this process and the lack of transparency, the following seems to be a fair summary:

The opaque City of Lakewood is working with the unaccountable Action Center to buy a closed public school without gathering resident support for their plans.

According to the School Board, “Given where this is in the process, now would be an appropriate time to use that link” for community input.

https://www.jeffcopublicschools.org/services/facilities/property-disposition

Residents of Lakewood might appreciate a public comment period through Lakewood before Lakewood even makes the offer but that does not seem to be considered.

---

From Jeffco Schools Property Disposition Update dated May 20:

“Earlier this year Jeffco added a “municipal interest process” to its Property Disposition Process, following feedback from city leaders within the district. This additional step allows time for Jeffco and the city or county to discuss and evaluate the proposed use of the property before it is marketed for sale.

The City of Arvada has expressed interest in the Parr property, and Jeffco will move forward with the municipal process to allow the city to prepare a formal proposal for its use or acquisition of the site. The Board of Education voted to surplus the Parr property on April 11.

Additionally, the district anticipates receiving a proposal from the City of Lakewood for the Emory property. The Board of Education voted to surplus the Emory property in November 2023.

Once concepts or plans have been received and evaluated, Jeffco will engage with the community to share information and gather feedback.”

---

Resident Recommended Business: HotWorx – Green Mountain