(Recently Remodeled and Upgraded at Taxpayer Expense)
Guest Post by Chuck Bedard
I happened to be “in the neighborhood” of the palatial palace which is home to the Jefferson County Schools Administration Building – more on that later – or jump to the end to read what Jeffco should do. I decided to poke my head into the School Board’s Study Session. The portion most intriguing to me dealt with the disposition of the first 5 of the now-closed elementary schools.
It appeared that the two District employees giving the presentation to the School Board had both drawn the “short straw.” Neither seemed to be particularly prepared to answer the Board’s questions beyond the specific slides provided in the presentation.
The slide presentation followed a similar format for each of the five schools. The first school discussed was Glennon Heights Elementary. I have some familiarity with Glennon Heights – at least I know where it is located. The presenters acted like they had no real idea where the school was. But, since it was the first school on the list I’ll continue to use it as the example .
For example, the lead presenter noted that students who had attended Glennon Heights and were now at Belmar Elementary had access to public, RTD transportation to Belmar. True, RTD runs along Alameda with stops near Quail (Glennon Heights is about a half mile from Alameda) and Garrison (Belmar Elementary is a little over three/quarters of a mile from the Alameda bus stop). The K-5 grade students taking the RTD transportation would have quite the hike – probably doable for the fifth-grade student. I’m wondering if the Jeffco Staff would feel comfortable putting their kindergarten students on the RTD bus and having them walk 3/4 of a mile down the busy Garrison Street. However, the presenter made sure that the Board knew that public transportation was available to each school. Why is the availability of RTD even a factor for consideration in the closure/sale of elementary schools?
The presenter also suggested that Jeffco Schools will never have any real increase in student population – at least in the neighborhoods serviced by the five schools. While the student population may not be at peak levels now, that isn’t to say the numbers will not be increasing in the very near future. Many of the Jeffco neighborhoods are starting to have new, young families move in – replacing the “old, white, rich people” a designator so eloquently used by the City of Lakewood.
In the Glennon Heights neighborhood, 29 new rental homes are close to being on the market and given the average number of children per household of 1.93, nearly 56 children will be looking for a school. However, the Jeffco staff seems confident that the number of new students in these areas will be small and temporary structures at some of the schools will be more than adequate. BUT, keep this in mind: once those schools are permanently eliminated, there’s no going back. The schools will be gone and there is precious little space available to build new schools to replace what Jeffco wants to squander. And rest assured that the voters in Jeffco are not going to be eager to pass any bond seeking to build new schools.
To their credit, some of the Board members asked thoughtful and probing questions. One Board member questioned the already over-crowing at one of the schools filling the gap from a closed school. She noted that space was so tight that teachers had to put filing cabinets in the hallway to make room for more desks. In response, the Jeffco staff quickly noted that those teachers just didn’t know how to appropriately use their space… hopefully, the teachers at the impacted school got the message and will start being more space-conscious. Or, maybe the staffer should visit that school and really see what’s happening.
Another Board member expressed concern over how to respond to her constituents about the more than $8,000,000 of taxpayer dollars recently spent to renovate these 5 schools. The Jeffco staffers responded like deer in the headlights.
Jeffco’s dire financial status is not debatable. Jeffco does not have a good track record of making wise decisions when it comes to its finances. Even selling the 5 schools will not get Jeffco out of the financial hole it has dug. But, here is something that might help… I wish I could take credit for this ingenious idea, but I overheard it from a group of people talking in the hallway after the Study Session: Why doesn’t Jeffco Administration unload the palace that they reside in and strategically place various departments in the closed schools? Why shouldn’t the administration staff be willing to “live” like the people they govern? Jeffco Administration could save a ton of money and save the schools for future students. WOW! What a thought!!
“In the first three months after the City of Denver converted a hotel in Denver’s Central Park neighborhood to a shelter for the homeless, calls for police and first responders rose 2,900% compared to the previous three months when it served as a hotel, according to city data obtained by CBS News Colorado.” Read more…
An important note is the Denver article is that Cole Chandler, Denver Mayor Michael Johnston’s senior adviser on homelessness, said that “residents are also being educated on relying less on calling 911 for various issues.”
Lakewood police have already encouraged local food banks to manage trespassing calls on their own. Deprioritizing crimes associated with homelessness is a policy defended by Lakewood officials.
If crime does rise around the navigation center, Lakewood residents may be on their own.
However, the new Lakewood shelter is in an area with historically high crime so it is unlikely a rise in crime will be noticed, especially since it will have been operating as an “emergency” shelter on and off throughout the winter.
PARKER, CO – April 5, 2025 – Junction Of American Hockey Matches (JAHM) proudly announces the inaugural Red, White and JAHM Hockey Memorial Day Weekend Tournament, set to take place from May 24th to 26th, 2024 at Parker Fieldhouse in Parker, Colorado.
Founded with a vision to promote roller hockey as a widely recognized and respected sport, JAHM strives to provide a platform for talented players to showcase their abilities, foster camaraderie among teams, and nurture a sense of community within the roller hockey world. The Red, White and JAHM Hockey Memorial Day Weekend Tournament is an all-new series designed to bridge the gap between the typical roller hockey competitive season and the competitive ice season, ensuring teams keep their skills sharp and legs fresh while having a blast on the rink.
Jacob Harrison, Founder and President of JAHM, expressed his enthusiasm about the upcoming tournament, stating, “We are thrilled to introduce the Red, White and JAHM Hockey Memorial Day Weekend Tournament to the Colorado roller hockey community. This event represents a significant step towards our goal of elevating roller hockey to new heights and fostering its growth both locally and nationally.”
Adult and youth teams alike are invited to participate in this exciting event. Adult team registration opens on January 12, 2024, at 12:00 PM MST and closes on May 10, 2024, at 5:00 PM MDT, with only 8 spots remaining. Youth team registration follows the same timeline, with 18 spots available. The registration fee is $625.00 USD for adult teams and $575.00 USD for youth teams.
Highlighting the tournament are the all-star games, where the best players from each division will compete against each other for glory. Selected all-star players will receive a custom exclusive hat, adding an extra layer of excitement to the event.
Join JAHM Hockey for the inaugural Mountain Regional roller hockey matches hosted by Colorado’s very own. This thrilling tournament promises to captivate both players and spectators alike, offering an unforgettable experience for all involved.
“We are dedicated to fostering the growth of roller hockey in Colorado and beyond,” stated Harrison. “With your support, we aim to make this tournament the premier event in the region. Come be a part of this new chapter for Colorado roller hockey and celebrate with us. Bring your A-game and join in the excitement!”
For more information and to register your team, visit jahmhockey.com.
About Junction Of American Hockey Matches (JAHM)
Junction Of American Hockey Matches (JAHM) is committed to promoting roller hockey as a widely recognized and respected sport. Through tournaments, leagues, and community engagement, JAHM aims to elevate the status of roller hockey while fostering camaraderie and sportsmanship among players. Founded in [year], JAHM continues to lead the way in advancing roller hockey across Colorado and beyond.
While Saying They Won’t Remove the Consequences to Crime
Disclosure: The author, Karen Morgan, is a member of the Lakewood Advisory Commission. All views and research are her own and do not represent Lakewood nor the Commission.
Have you wondered why people are allowed to come wash your windshield and solicit money in the middle of the street? Have you heard there is a law against that?
Have you seen evidence of lax enforcement, like the comments below from nextdoor.com?
All of the situations quoted above have complicating factors and reasons for the law not being enforced. Some of the most popular reasons are:
These people are just trying to survive; “crimes of survival”
These are low-level crimes that don’t really matter; they are all misdemeanors
Police don’t have time or staff
For these reasons, there are a number of crimes that Lakewood routinely forgives through various programs.
The LEAD program diverts offenders (which means does not penalize)
The Outreach Court diverts offenders (which means does not penalize)
Police de-prioritize low-level crime enforcement
Following this thought process, a person might think:
What’s the point of having a law that is not enforced?
A recent proposal from the Lakewood Advisory Commission aimed to research unenforced or partially enforced laws to see if it would make sense to remove them.
City Council came out strongly against the proposal. Listening to some Council comments, a person may think Lakewood supported enforcing and penalizing all crimes.
Mayor Strom: “I can’t imagine telling a voter that we said we’re going to get rid of the consequences to crime. “
But that is NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
In fact, nine Councilors, the Mayor and the City Manager defended the current practice of removing the consequences to crime for all the reasons listed above.
This was a “have your cake and eat it too” moment for the city.
Picking up on the quote above…
Mayor Strom continued with praise for the “innovative” new city programs that are “very much on the side of addressing the homelessness challenge.” The programs she referred to do, in fact, remove the consequences to crime, by diverting offenders into receiving resources instead of penalties.
Lakewood Programs that Remove Penalties to Crime
Outreach Court is a special court that will connect a person to resources, rather than impose penalties. Council spent a majority of their speaking time defending this growing program.
For example, Councilor Sinks says this program works to bring people to [Outreach] Court so they can be forgiven and then get an ID while there. Councilor Stewart defended the Court with the idea that moving the court to a less intimidating place helps people “mitigate” their failure to appear. Councilor Low also believes that low-level offenses are “how we get people in front of Outreach Court”.
Note: Failure to Appear is cleared (i.e. forgiven) 99.999% of the time
City Manager Kathy Hodgson provided a litany of resources that are provided at Lakewood Outreach Court, including everything from blankets to food to housing assistance. The number of people served at the Outreach Court increases every month, which the city counts as a success. The measure of success does not include recidivism rates nor overall crime rates.
Providing people help and resources rather than proceeding with criminal charges is what’s known as “diversion”. The pros and cons of diversion is a whole topic unto itself. Some people love it, such as the ACLU who is known to sue governments who do not make diversion known to those who qualify. Others are still looking for evidence of any benefit.
Getting an ID is not a consequence to crime. Forgiving (i.e. clearing or mitigating) is not a consequence to crime.
The city’s fierce defense of Outreach Court shows the city is very much in favor of removing the consequences to crime, at least for some crimes, for some people. Non-enforcement also happens routinely, with full Council support.
For example, Council Member LaBure said “I think we’re not gonna be able to police our way out of a lot of the problems and the challenges that we’re facing, so we gotta find new strategies to help our police department to make sure that, they’re not spending their time on sort of low-level crimes and that are really focusing on the real, important challenges.”
Council Member Shahrezaei supported “the creative ways that we’re serving some of our most vulnerable in the community” and said these programs have a “positive impact on us.” She feared people who might want “want to eliminate programs that don’t impact everyone.”
Another “creative way” of serving the community is through the LEAD program. This program diverts crimes associated with homelessness by “providing resources to those committing low-level crimes.” Low-level crimes named by the police include trespassing, drug paraphernalia, and public intoxication. Explanations for non-enforcement include lack of time, lack of resources, and the low-level nature of the crime.
The rest of Council supported the track Lakewood is on, that is lessening enforcement, for a variety of reasons.
Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said “our police force is doing an incredible job balancing really difficult changing circumstances within our city and our working very hard to recommend and figure out their staffing challenges to figure out how to again address some of these crimes.”
Read more here about current police philosophy of treating the individual, not the crime, in Lakewood news.
Taking Lakewood at it’s word, non-enforcement and consequence-removal programs are already in place. That it not the question. The question is if it might make sense to research alternative programs that do the same thing. One alternative is law removal.
For example:
Lakewood has already removed some panhandling ordinances, so Lakewood retaining the provision allowing window washing at intersections is somewhat outmoded, allowing for easy removal.
Cities like Washington D.C. are decriminalizing possession of drug paraphernalia for personal use. This might make sense in Lakewood where paraphernalia is handed out by the County government.
California changed shoplifting from a felony to a misdemeanor. Although Lakewood only handles misdemeanors, the same downgrading principle applies.
In New Jersey, shoplifting at its lowest levels has been removed and changed to disorderly conduct with mandatory community service and optional jail time.
These kinds of policies seem the natural progression of the track Lakewood is on. It is similar to suggestions from the city to “lessen deportation fears”.
Are Current Practices Working
Councilor Olver was the only one to suggest that current practices are not working. Speaking to the manager of the Walmart on Wadsworth, he has confirmed that the self-checkout lanes in both stores have been closed due to rampant shoplifting. He suggested that research go forward, not to remove laws but to find out what other cities are doing to reduce crime.
Olver asked if research could continue on best practices. Staff responded with examples of how the Council has put limits on projects before or guided projects into certain areas. So yes, research into some safety practices, and Olver’s proposal specifically, could have continued but Council chose not to.
Council turned down an opportunity to research crime enforcement by answering with examples of social work the city is doing.
The dialogue between Olver asking about escalating crime and the rest of Council answering with examples of social work highlights a huge communication disconnect. This would seem to be an area ripe for increased public dialogue.
Public Perception
75% of public comment were opposed to any research that could lead to decreasing enforcement. One comment said: “We further oppose any current practice which waives these laws such that violations are dismissed. We see how much once great cities have deteriorated once they adopt policies that eliminate these violations as crimes. Crime escalates, as does drug addiction. You don’t have to look far. Denver is one.”
The remaining public comments did not ask for increased enforcement, just maintaing current levels, sometimes with the same justification of using the court system for social services. One comment said: “The court has the right to fine or jail someone who gets a ticket. This may not happen often but this could happen. The Outreach Court is doing a service to those who show up. They get assistance in dealing with IDs, housing, food, etc.”
In the end, no action was taken on any research-related activity. However, we did get a good sense that City Council and city staff are focused on programs that provide resources to individuals, rather than consequences to crime. Combined with a de-prioritization strategy for low-level crimes, Lakewood seems to be decreasing enforcement activities or using laws as entry to social work.
Council defending programs that do not enforce or penalize crimes, while refusing research into the same could be seen as disingenuous. This could also be seen as a cry for help. Council is clearly concerned with the plight of individuals committing these low-level offenses. Council also clearly does not want any research into public safety options, this proposal being the third one to be turned down in the last year.
Can programs for enforcement and social work be integrated more effectively? Or does it make sense to increase enforcement and add completely separate social programs to provide resources? Is there a way to reduce confusion over having laws that are not enforced while at the same time reducing the fear of involving the law for social work? Will the public be a stakeholder in these discussions moving forward?
In the last week, Lakewood citizens launched a petition, started gathering signatures, and had the petition stalled by the city.
From Save Open Space Lakewood
Today Lakewood citizens start to take back their parks and open spaces from developers
Thursday, March 21, 2024—Today Save Open Space Lakewood launches a petition requiring the City of Lakewood to strengthen and adhere to its ordinances to preserve land and open space.
Once the petition reaches a requisite 6,000 Lakewood citizen signatures, it qualifies to become a ballot issue.
Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk:
Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments.
For the full initiative text and to learn where Lakewood registered voters can sign the petition, go to SOSLakewood.org or contact Cathy Kentner at (303) 349-2434.
Gross ineptitude or sabotage? City of Lakewood’s actions last week and in the past show loyalty to developers over citizens
Citizens’ petition to save Lakewood’s parks from developers deemed invalid due to City error, robbing petitioners of time to secure enough signatures for citywide vote
Is this gross ineptitude or sabotage by Lakewood, which has thwarted dozens of citizen-led efforts, many to combat large developments next to parks and open space
The development at 777 S Yarrow St, Lakewood, Colorado, has brought residents concerns over development to the forefront. Despite having ordinances and zoning codes, residents have identified concerns with traffic impacts, wildfire and emergency response, the loss of trees and questionable park fee implementations. Residents continue to act for this cause, at SaveBelmarPark.com, and there has been rumors of possible legal action. However, if Colorado House Bill 1107 gets passed, residents will have an even more difficult time bringing legal action against the city, because they will face legal fees if they lose the case. The bill is meant to decrease suits from residents, who don’t understand that the city has done research to show that the city is right, and therefore, resident concerns are generally unfounded and possibly frivolous. The Lakewood Legislative Committee, has taken a support position on this bill, meaning they support making it harder for residents to bring legal action against the city. This position provides an insight as to why so many resident complaints, like those of hundreds of people against the S Yarrow St development, are often given lip-service or outright ignored.
The issue highlights an important dichotomy in government. Technically, in a representative democracy, the residents should be telling elected officials what they want in terms of legislation. The elected officials then vote on a policy and the city staff will implement it. But what happens when politicians use targeted words to get a policy through that means something other than what people think? What happens when words from last year can be reinterpreted to mean something different this year, so that policy can change without so much as a public discussion?
These are the questions that residents ask when looking at the rules for developing S Yarrow St. How is it possible that a little street with a small building footprint can have no negative impact to traffic if you change it to high-density residential an add an extra couple hundred cars? Aren’t there rules to maintain a neighborhood in similar fashion?
In Colorado Springs, residents have found the answer in taking legal action against the city. Springs residents’ often cite the same problems – and developers are tired of it. According to this article in The Gazette, developers cite the need for more housing while residents cite safety concerns. Reading this article, where they talk about the 7-story complexes going in that are causing traffic concerns for the residents, you may think you are reading about Lakewood.
City Has the Experts
Lakewood will often require a traffic impact study, or environmental study when necessary. This expert testimony is the basis for approving projects. As one quote from the Gazette article stated, “”When [neighborhoods] fight these projects, they are not agreeing with the experts. They are deciding for themselves that it’s not safe.”
“In recent years, numerous political theorists and philosophers have argued that experts ought to be in charge of public policy and should manipulate, or contain, the policy preferences of the ignorant masses.” – Nicholas Tampio, aeon.co
It is rare that cities will change their mind on project approval. Residents concerned with 777 S Yarrow have been told for months that nothing substantial can be done. So legal action brought by residents will typically delay a project, but will not cause any particular change.
To limit these delays, developers and cities need a way to stop residents from pursuing legal action. One way to achieve that is through HB24-1107 which proposes that residents who legally challenge the city will have to pay legal fees if they lose.
Passing HB24-1107 is sure to discourage residents, who already have less financial and legal resources than the city or developers they are facing.
Lakewood Council Member David Rein pointed out that this legislation is very one sided because developers are still free to bring legal action with no increased risk to themselves, which will not be the case for the residents. However, with his “city hat” on, Rein supports the legislation.
Councilor Glenda Sinks said that Lakewood should support this bill because it’s a way to support staff.
No one publicly considered the increase in legal action as a cry for help from the residents, who have presumably asked for the ordinances to be enforced in the way residents commonly understood they would be (for example, open space would be park space, not including dumpster space.)
Unanimous approval from the Legislative Committee: Council Members Sinks , Cruz, Stewart, Rein, LaBure (absent)
Legislative positions are not posted anywhere or shared unless there is a “strong” position. But this signals to the residents that Lakewood considers resident appeals to be generally not worthy of support.
Residents have been submitting Lakewood news and public comment on the issue and it came to the attention of Lakewood City Councilor Rich Olver. Olver made a request on May 4, 2023 to hold a study session on the topic, inviting the EPA and Terumo to discuss. The motion was approved on May 22, 2023, but no study session ever occurred.
Council Member Olver reports that he has renewed his request for a study session.
The EPA press release does not provide any outside scientific references for how or why this the new rule is necessary but does predict a 90% reduction in emissions.
The Community Meeting held on March 12 got mixed reviews, with some residents giving the speakers rave reviews while others left early. Although one resident cited a lack of Lakewood specific information as the reason for dissatisfaction, others were glad for regional information that is now pertinent, given the local ramifications. The main speaker was John Fabbricatore, a subject matter expert, talking about statewide immigration policy. He explained how federal immigration laws would work if they were equally enforced. Kim Monson, of the Kim Monson Show, spoke about holding elected representatives accountable. Local resident and X star Marge Collum spoke about her experience with a video going viral and why people were grateful that she spoke out. Videos of some of the speeches are available below.
Marge Collum started the evening, giving an inspirational speech about how her speech at City Council went viral and how many people appreciated hearing from her. She ends with, “Why do I speak? Because I am more afraid of what will happen if I don’t.” She speaks about becoming a citizen journalist and standing together as Americans. See her whole speech here on Rumble, or see the highlights here on YouTube.
Fabbricatore is a subject matter expert on border issues. He discussed the history of ICE and how our laws would work if they would just be enforced.
He says, “You will hear this argument that everyone who is here was let in and they are legal. That is not true. … They are here illegally and they were let in to see an immigration judge because they made a claim to asylum.”
Fabbricatore also talked about the role of state law in blocking ICE cooperation. His advice is to whittle the state laws back to allow federal law cooperation. Fabbricatore’s full speech is available by clicking here.
“I am not the only one on the stage tonight to say we are for LEGAL immigration!”
-John Fabbricatore
Meeting organizer Ramey Johnson says, ““This community came together once again for a Town Hall regarding our legitimate concerns about illegal immigration in Lakewood and how illegal immigration is affecting this city. Financial and safety issues are real regardless of what you hear. The more I know, the more I understand that elections have consequences. We will continue to meet until our voices are heard”
Lakewood City Council has set new penalty fees for vacant property owners in Lakewood. Some vacant land has been elevated to the level of a public nuisance because of the homeless encampments on them. However, camps on private property are a relatively new and lesser phenomenon than camps on public property. Public homeless camps have been increasing in Lakewood news for years, as Denver homeless have been expanding into Lakewood. Public encampments are so prevalent that they are increasingly being found on private property. The increased crime and poor economy has led to a downward spiral of vacant properties. So Lakewood has instituted fines on a property owner for having vacant land. Did Lakewood focus on the lesser private problem instead of addressing the larger public problem and is this an adequate alternative to hiring more police officers?
In 2020, Lakewood first started posting notices for private property. As shown below, they made a significant number of private property notices over two months, but it was still not as common as public camps. The temptation for Lakewood will now be to pursue these private properties to bring in revenue from fines at the expense of cleaning up the larger public property problem.
Many properties in Lakewood have been vacant for years, with no crime problem, but since economic development has stagnated, these owners are left with property the owners would like to have in productive use but that option isn’t available at this time. So now property owners will be fined for a condition that is already not of their choosing, making it harder to sell the property as well.
As of January 22, 2024, each vacant property owner must pay the city $700 every six months if the property is vacant and $800 for every emergency service call. The purpose of the fines is to incentivize property owners to find a renter faster or take their own security precautions.
It is important to note that these taxpayers already pay for city and emergency services but the city is now charging extra. This may disincentivize new buyers from investing in Lakewood for long-term buy and hold strategies.
At the City Council retreat on March 2, Mayor Wendi Strom commented that using city funds to demolish vacant private property was better than pursuing more police hires when Lakewood has still not hired to full staff capacity.
In the end, if the city cannot control the larger issue of camps on public property, what are private owners to do differently?
During public comments at the February 26th Lakewood City Council meeting, Tom Gonzales, a Lakewood resident remarked that he was told by Lakewood Police Department (“LPD”) officers there was nothing they could do about the panhandling (window washers) on street corners – that the police “were handcuffed”. Later, Councilman Rich Olver posed a question based on these remarks to Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein – is it true that our officers are “handcuffed” or is there something they could do about panhandling on street corners? Mr. Goldstein answered that it depends on the circumstances (what safety issues are at play), that it’s a matter of resources (not having enough staff), and that “it is a complex issue”. Mr. Goldstein suggested that LPD could put together a report for Council that would address the issue.
Under Lakewood Municipal Code 12.18.020, it would seem that window washing would be clearly prohibited:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind, or collect monies for the same, from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any street or highway when such solicitation or collection:
1. Causes the person performing the activity to enter onto the traveled portion of a street or highway;
2. Involves the person performing the activity to be located upon any median area which separates traffic lanes for vehicular travel in opposite directions;
3. Causes the traffic on the traveled portion of a street or highway to be delayed or impeded;
or 4. The person performing the activity is located such that vehicles cannot move into a legal parking area to safely conduct the transaction
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or attempt to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any controlled-access highway including any entrance to or exit from such highway.
Why certain city codes are not being enforced is perplexing.
Seeing window washers at Alameda and Wadsworth at mid-day, walking between the lanes of traffic and between cars while trying to return to the median when the light turns green is clearly not safe for those individuals or for the drivers who have to maneuver their cars to avoid hitting them. Common sense would dictate that it would not be difficult for an officer witnessing this activity to pull over and issue a citation – there should be nothing “complex” about this. This is not the fault of the officers, who are employed to serve the citizens of Lakewood, and put their lives on the line for us every day. They follow the instructions they are given by their managers and whatever guidelines the City has adopted concerning law enforcement. It appears that a decision has been made by someone in a leadership position within the city that certain laws will not be enforced.
Reviewing the numbers
A review of crime figures in Lakewood might help shed a little light on what seems to be happening.
Lakewood publishes a couple of reports containing crime statistics each year, a Chief’s Report and a LPD Annual Report. Looking at these reports for the reporting years of 2019 thru 2022 (the latest year available), the reports typically include the number of criminal offenses for the report year, plus the figures for a couple of previous years for comparison. However, the crimes that are reported each year are not always the same. An example being the 2018 and 2019 LPD Annual reports do not include a number of property crimes (mostly fraud and some theft related crimes) that are included in reports for 2020 and later. There are also some unexplained differences in the annual totals that are reported. For instance, crimes for the year 2019 total 12,127 in the 2021 LPD Annual Report, 12,299 in the 2020 report, 11,877, in the 2019 report. Some of these differences may be due to newer reporting standards.
Most law enforcement agencies across the US report crimes to the FBI using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which succeeds and expands on the earlier Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system that dates back to the 1920’s. However, not all agencies in the US report to NIBRS, as some have incomplete historical data and others are still working to convert their UCR data to NIBRS. Crime data thru 2023 for Lakewood is in NIBRS, but Lakewood yet to publish their LPD Annual Report for 2023. NIBRS breaks crimes in to two major groups, Group A Offenses and Group B Offenses. Group A Offenses, generally considered more serious offenses, are further broken down and grouped as Crimes Against Persons, Crimes Against Property, and Crimes Against Society. Group B Offenses are generally less serious offenses and include trespassing, disorderly conduct, DUI, liquor violations, and “other offenses”. Group B Offenses report actual arrests, whereas Group A Offenses only reflect the report of a crime whether or not an arrest is made. The NIBRS data lends itself better to analysis as it is more detailed, complete, and consistent compared to the data that is in the LPD Annual Reports and the Chief’s Reports.
The NIBRS figures show normal fluctuations in reported offense totals from year to year. Three-year averaging was used to remove some of the statistical noise and establish a longer term trend. Looking at average number of crimes reported for 2017 thru 2019, compared to 2021 thru 2023, the NIBRS data is showing an overall increase of 13.5% in Group A Offenses. This includes in a 9.4% increase in Crimes Against Persons, a 12.4% increase in Crimes Against Property, and a 23.5% increase in Crimes Against Society. Some of the offenses that are driving this increase include assaults, car (and car parts) theft, and destruction of property.
What Lakewood is not reporting
Within Group A Offenses, reported incidences of Crimes Against Society (mostly including drug and weapon related violations) increased from 2,475 to 3,056 (+23.5%) on average for the 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 reporting periods respectively. Crimes Against Society figures are not included in the LPD Annual Reports.
The LPD Annual Report also excludes the less serious Group B Offenses. NIBRS figures show a decrease in Group B Offenses of 44.6% when comparing 2021-2023 to the 2017-2019 averages. The Group B Offenses contributing to this reduction are disorderly conduct (-53.0%), DUI (-15.5%), liquor law violations (-77.6%), trespassing (-14.7%), and “all other offenses” (-47.7%). The bulk of the drop in reported offenses occurred between 2019 and 2020, when total reported Group B Offenses dropped from 4,673 to 3,220. Since Group B Offenses reflect actual arrests, these figures can be viewed as actual drops in arrests.
Total incidence reports in the Crimes and Group B Offenses that are not reported in the LPD Annual Report vary from year to year, but in general amount to approximately 30% of the total crimes (Group A and Group B combined) in the NIBRS figures.
Incidences of total combined Group A and B Offenses averaged over 2017-2018 and 2022-2023 are virtually the same. This is because the increase in reported Group A Offenses is offset by the reduction in reported Group B Offenses.
One other statistic Lakewood does not include in their LPD Annual Reports are arrest numbers. Using the same 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 averaging periods, we see that arrests for Group A Offenses dropped by 12.1% (recall that these reported offenses increased 13.5 in this same period). Arrests for both Group A and B Offenses for this same period are down 29.3%, in large part due to the drop in Group B Offenses (which require an arrest).
One would generally think that crime trends would move in the same direction – if Group A Offenses increase then so should Group B Offenses. It is possible that LPD is not focusing as much on the less serious Group B Offenses (as seen in the larger drop in Group B Offense arrests). If this is the case, there may be a perception amongst criminals that if lesser crimes are not being enforced they can get away with committing serious crimes. That would possibly account for the increase in reported Group A Offenses. It is also possible that people involved in certain Group B Offenses are more likely to be diverted to various social programs addressing mental health, addiction, or homelessness issues, and those incidences are not being reported as crimes (but this would not necessarily account for the increase in Group A Offenses).
A sense of resignation
In a posting on the City of Lakewood’s website from February 2022, there is a comment attributed to a Lakewood Police sergeant concerning law enforcement in the city:
“Let’s be honest. If they (criminals) have had 30 tickets for shoplifting, trespassing, drinking in public, do we really think that the 31st ticket is going to be that magical step that solves the problem?… We recognize that is probably not the case. That’s why the city and our chief of police recognize the importance of trying new things, not being afraid to step out and say, ‘This isn’t working. The status quo is not working. Let’s try something new’.”
The tone of this remark reflects a sense of resignation on the part of Lakewood and LPD to enforce laws. The problem in this statement is, if someone has 30 outstanding tickets, they obviously are not being held accountable for their offenses. The problem is not that the tickets are not being paid. The problem is that laws are not being enforced. In cases of habitual offenders, they need to be put in jail until they can be brought before a judge.
In July of 2021, Lakewood adopted the LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or alternatively, Let Everyone Advance with Dignity) to assist people with “unmet mental needs, addiction and homelessness”. Instead of charging individuals identified as candidates for the LEAD program with certain crimes, they are diverted to social programs to address the issues they are struggling with in hopes they will recover and return to society, not to be repeat offenders. LEAD has been adopted by several other Colorado communities, as well as several large cities including Seattle, Portland, and Baltimore. The LEAD Support Bureau, which advises Lakewood in this program, and their affiliate P.D.A. (Purpose. Dignity. Action., formerly Public Defender Association of Seattle), are a group of people with background experience such as include public defenders and social justice activists. It is important to understand that the national LEAD program is run by advocates for criminals and they actively seek to divert people involved in certain crimes into social programs and away from the criminal justice system. It is possible that the drop in reported Crimes Against Society and Group B Offenses is in part due to persons being diverted via the LEAD initiative rather than being charged with a crime.
What others are doing about crime
Some cities struggling with severe social and criminal problems are finally starting to take action by getting tough on crime. In San Francisco, residents recently approved Proposition F which requires drug testing for locally-funded welfare recipients. They also approved Proposition E, which eases restrictions on the police and allows stepped-up enforcement actions to reduce crime. The Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, has ordered the National Guard to the subway system in New York City to combat an uptick in crime. Washington D.C. recently passed the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, which makes certain crimes easier to prosecute and steps up punishment guidelines. Leaders are beginning to see the failure of go-soft-on-crime policies and are finally responding to the cries of their constituents by taking a harder stance on crime.
Expectations and Accountability
Considering other cities have abandoned their years-long soft-on-crime policies, we should not expect to go soft on crime in Lakewood in hopes of success where others have failed. Laws are put in place to protect us and our property. When laws are not enforced we are no longer safe and secure in our communities. These are some expectations that we should adopt to ensure the leaders within the City of Lakewood are accountable for their policies and focused on keeping our community safe:
Lakewood residents have a right to know, and need to know, how laws are being enforced in the city. We clearly have ordinances against street-side panhandling that are not being enforced. The City needs share the news and let us know who is making the decisions which laws are enforced and which ones are not enforced.
The LPD Annual Reports should be complete and consistent year to year. A good standard for reporting would be the NIBRS categorization with annual crime figures from all Group A and B offenses.
The City needs to explain why they believe a group that has roots in defending criminals and social justice should be advising Lakewood on how to handle crime in our community especially in light of other cities having failed undertaking similar soft-on-crime policies.
The City needs to be forthright with us concerning which violations are turned over to social services (diverted via LEAD protocols, referrals to the Navigation Center, etc.), and how the determination is made to divert versus prosecute. Annual figures for offenses that are deferred can be included in the LPD Annual Report.
For offenders who are diverted into social help programs, tough standards and accountability expectations within these programs need to be met. If the individuals fail to meet their requirements, they need to be held accountable for their offenses within the justice system.
We should expect LPD fully complies with ICE detainer requests.
We need to know if the City has the resources (staffing, equipment, etc.) to sufficiently enforce ordinances. If we don’t have the necessary resources, the City needs to actively secure what is needed to protect the citizens of our community.
