Community Meeting March 12

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Two flyers are circulating for a community meeting on March 12, 2024. One flyer lists a speaker and suggests the topic of the meeting is immigration. The other flyer suggests the meeting is being called because City Council cancelled the March 11 Council meeting. The Council meeting was cancelled so that Councilors might attend the previously scheduled National League of Cities meeting in Washington DC. It is unclear when city officials were invited to the community meeting or if any can attend. Although discussion topics are not listed, the growing number of migrants is a concern to Lakewood residents – a concern that did not make it to the City Council 2024 priority list. These community meetings may offer residents an opportunity for discussion that is not otherwise available.

The community meeting is open to all, at Emory Elementary, March 12 at 6:30 pm.

community meeting at Emory Elementary, March 12 at 6:30 pm.
community meeting at Emory Elementary, March 12 at 6:30 pm.

An Opportunity to Connect Newcomers with Housing

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Guest Post from a Lakewood Resident and former Denver Landlord

This activity by Denver City/County needs be known by all. Whatever your perspective or opinion, you should at least be aware of what city governments are now doing in general, the new vocabulary by which they are now framing it,  and with information they demand of you. Specifically by Denver…..

Below is an actual email received by a Denver landlord with an active Single Family Home listing.

Receipt of this letter from the City/Cty of Denver represents them trolling active rental listings (even long-term rental landlords in Denver now must be licensed, in case you did not know), & applicants for long-term rentals.

The subject line of the email from the City and County of Denver is: “An Opportunity to Connect NEWCOMERS* with Housing”*

For as long as I have ever been alive, a property owner or landlord could face legal consequences if they ever leased to an undocumented foreigner– someone without a green card or legal residency status.  In Denver itself, specific neighborhoods have been harmed by those who rented as 2-4 people then brought  10,11, 12+ illegals in to live in  one 1-2 br home.

Now it seems, Denver City/County are going the opposite direction.  Denver is actually encouraging a type of discrimination against locals by asking landlords/property owners to rent instead to ‘newcomers’. (the new nomenclature*).  Already in short-supply, especially at the lower end of the rate spectrum, this effectively takes away long-term rentals  from local workers and citizens.

Remember, not too long ago Denver decided that anyone renting residentially in Denver must REGISTER.  So, all Denver landlords are now required to get licenses, identifying themselves, providing all sorts of detailed info.  One realtor told me it took four hours to comply with this bureaucracy.

Now, Denver is using the info gathered from those registrations and  ´asking’ landlords of the most affordable housing available (already in short supply) to lease to illegals with no docs—oops, I mean ‘newcomers’. The property owner has NO  ability to know the background of such persons as they would per standard practices, have no way of being assured  such persons are not criminals, violent, drug runners, terrorists or simply don’t have a bad rental history. The ‘newcomers’ on the other hand know there are no consequences for any damages they cause the landlord.

Of concern aka Shortsighted ‘feelgood’ decisions by Denver City Council:

  1. As the recipient of this letter asked, “Is the next step to make leasing to ‘newcomers’ mandatory” ?
  2. Does Denver NOT see the  supreme irony & hypocrisy here? American property owners must register all sorts of personal information, be on the record with government entities and pay for licenses just to let out their residential property (long-term), so that the city can use that info to troll them to request that they lease to people with absolutely NO LEGAL DOCUMENTATION or BACKGROUND CHECKS, no legal residency status, perhaps no income and cannot be background checked once the city/state creates documents for them!  Local taxpayers/citizens must be background checked, registered, screened, pay, to lease to foreigners who have no background checks, no screening, no financial qualifications.  Would you call that irony or hypocrisy—or maybe just cognitive dissonance?
  3. Who pays if the illegal parties that move in damage the property, move additional unknown people in, perhaps over the safe occupancy limit,  conduct illegal activities in the unit, cause a landlord to be cited and/or sued by anyone for what these undocumented, non-background checked newcomers do? 
  4. This takes away what little affordable housing remains from legal residents, legal immigrants and USA citizens.
  5. This will LEAD TO FURTHER and PERMANENT LOSS of residential rental inventory managed by independent, local, mom+pop Landlords, resulting in a long-term impact of even higher rent rates upon the very people that are struggling most. Already, independent landlords who remain in Denver despite recent encroachments on their rights,  are talking about divesting/selling off their properties, never again to invest under all the risks this Denver initiated behavior brings with it. 

Does this relate to Lakewood? One cannot but wonder, observing current Lakewood council comments and recent decisions,  is Lakewood next to adopt this Denver behavior? Such would be no surprise, would it? The letter evokes the same tone that Lakewood City Manager Hodgson brought back from her meeting with Denver city/Adam Paul about Lakewood being  a welcoming and a good neighbor.  Such desire was loudly echoed by most of the current Council.

*File this under FROG IN THE POT syndrome. The no longer allowed vocabulary of “Illegal Aliens” became “Aliens” became “Undocumented Residents/Persons” became “Immigrants” (an insult to those who followed the rules), this year became “Migrants” (an insult to much needed legal migrant workers and farmers growing our food) and is now being presented as ‘newcomers’—most likely so they can deny and accuse if we share their actions publicly.

“When you take from legal, taxpaying, working citizens, themselves stressed financially, to give to those who do not respect the rule of law and live off those working citizens of that community against whom you are discriminating, you create prejudice, discord and ultimately violence from both sides.”

THE LETTER DENVER CITY/COUNTY IS SENDING TO LANDLORDS:


Subject: An opportunity to connect newcomers with housing

March 5, 2024

Dear stakeholders in our local residential rental property industry, 

You are receiving this email because you have an active or pending residential rental property license with the City and County of Denver.

The City and County of Denver has long prided itself on being a welcoming city, coming together and supporting one another in times of crises, and supporting each other as much as needed. With almost 40,000 migrants arriving in the Mile High City since 2022, the city’s ongoing efforts include working closely with the community to find solutions that would more efficiently and effectively support our newcomers. 

To this end, we are working to assess how many licensed rental property owners and those with pending applications are interested in assisting the city in connecting newcomers with stable housing. 

Read the whole letter here

An update on the CORA request bill HB24-1296

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Cross post from the Colorado Accountability Project

…the issue here isn’t one along party lines.  It’s one where an arrogant group of politicians have no compunctions about limiting the public’s ability to see what they’re doing.  And they do this in direct defiance of voters saying they want more transparency.

I take this CORA vote the same way.  This is legislators thumbing their nose at everyday Coloradans like you and me. 

Read more at the Colorado Accountability Project

Editor’s Note: Lakewood has taken no position on this or any other legislative item, including:

prohibiting residential occupancy limits,

higher density construction ,

more statewide land use control,

allowing local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE

The Lakewood Legislative Committee meets March 7 at 3 pm.

An explanation of HB 24-1296 from the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

The introduced version of House Bill 24-1296 had given records custodians the power to consider anyone — except a journalist — as vexatious if that person demonstrated “an intent to annoy or harass a custodian,” limiting their access to public records under CORA for 30 working days and making them go to court to challenge that designation.

Read more…

An update on the CORA request bill HB24-1296

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Cross post from the Colorado Accountability Project

…the issue here isn’t one along party lines.  It’s one where an arrogant group of politicians have no compunctions about limiting the public’s ability to see what they’re doing.  And they do this in direct defiance of voters saying they want more transparency.

I take this CORA vote the same way.  This is legislators thumbing their nose at everyday Coloradans like you and me. 

Read more at the Colorado Accountability Project

Editor’s Note: Lakewood has taken no position on this or any other legislative item, including:

prohibiting residential occupancy limits,

higher density construction ,

more statewide land use control,

allowing local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE

The Lakewood Legislative Committee meets March 7 at 3 pm.

An explanation of HB 24-1296 from the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

The introduced version of House Bill 24-1296 had given records custodians the power to consider anyone — except a journalist — as vexatious if that person demonstrated “an intent to annoy or harass a custodian,” limiting their access to public records under CORA for 30 working days and making them go to court to challenge that designation.

Read more…

Look Back on 2023 Goals

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Guest post by Lenore Herskovitz

On March 1 and 2, 2024 City Council held its Annual Planning Meeting. Mayor Strom and Councilor Stewart organized the event. The City used the same facilitator as last year (Point b(e) Strategies) but unlike last year there was no recording of this meeting. Ironically, one of last year’s priorities was “Effective, accountable, transparent, and data-informed government”. This seems like an appropriate time to look back on how successful the Council has been in achieving its 2023 goals (3 of the 6 proposed goals will be discussed).


The first: Secure, inclusive, and affordable neighborhoods. The focus regarding housing was provided by the Strategic Housing Plan which was discussed in a Study Session in the beginning of 2023 and then at the end of the year. This is an ongoing process. Additionally, the Housing Policy Commission was going to take up where the defunct Development Dialogue Committee left off in April, 2022 targeting, in part, affordability and inclusionary zoning. The Housing Policy Commission spent close to a year formulating Short Term Rental (STR) legislation. Once this passed in March 2023 the Commission was free to take on the other housing issues. Their first meeting was held in May of last year. Two following meetings occurred ending in July, then nothing for the remainder of the year. Two proposed meetings were cancelled.


The second: Short and long-term solutions for the unhoused. There has been some progress in this area with the opening of RecoveryWorks Navigation Center and the establishment of an emergency cold weather sheltering program. This topic will also be an ongoing challenge for the future.


The third: Effective, accountable, transparent, and data-informed government. Two positives can be noted. The City has hired a Communications Manager, Angela Ramirez, who has been reaching out on various social media platforms in an effort to keep the public informed about citywide issues. Additionally, the Lakewood Police Department has begun posting a weekly activity summary called “Snapshots of Police Work” which includes calls for service, arrests, traffic stops, etc. This has been promoted on Nextdoor, Facebook, and in the Friday Report mailing.


In spite of these inroads, problems far outweigh any progress that has been made. It is still difficult to navigate websites with additions being made frequently. There is confusion between when and where notifications should be posted on Lakewood.org (the official city site) and Lakewoodspeaks. At last year’s annual meeting a “one stop shop” solution was suggested. It never went anywhere. Now “Looking at Lakewood” which is sent to every household in the city only features one Ward per issue. Previously all wards and Councilors had an entry in each mailing. This created a sense of connectivity between wards. Now that source of information has been removed. We must maintain our monthly Ward meetings. Coffee chats and office hours with our representatives should serve as a supplement not a replacement for community gatherings.


We are constantly hearing from staff and our elected officials how much they value and desire our input ( the latest buzz phrase is “community engagement”) on surveys, the Strategic Housing Policy and most recently the Comprehensive Plan to name but a few. Yet when it comes to turning suggestions and requests into actionable policy many feel it is an exercise in futility. Even obtaining information regarding this year’s annual meeting was difficult. Councilor Stewart told the attendees at the most recent Ward 3 meeting that the agenda and meeting information were available on Lakewoodspeaks. Evidently she had not verified this because the posting was on Lakewood.org without the agenda. The agenda was finally available to the public 24 hours before the scheduled event (this is all that is required). For years the public has wanted this meeting to be more accessible and transparent. Who decided not to record the event this year? And why? Where is the accountability? At its peak, nine members of the community attended the March 2 meeting in person. I attended part of the first day event (this was conducted by the Mayor with no facilitator present). I was the only community member there.


Communications between staff, council members and the public are insufficient especially when discussing controversial issues. The city is often reactive instead of proactive which leads to confusion, anger and resentment. Too many decisions are made behind the scene by “anonymous” staff which fuels the lack of trust. Misinformation runs rampant among community members and within our governing body. There is mixed messaging and omissions of pertinent information leading to blame-placing from both sides.
Council members have been negligent on following up on goals set last year. The City Manager was asked to provide quarterly updates on the established goals. Originally it was suggested that this be done in person but that was ignored and replaced by videos. The last available video that was posted on the city dashboard was from July, the end of the 2nd quarter (there are written updates but no videos that I was able to locate). The Council needs to provide oversight and hold the City Manager accountable when she doesn’t fulfill her obligation. This would hold true for any job but especially for someone who is our highest paid city official. The Council can weigh in on this when the City Manager’s evaluation comes up next month.


A broader look back shows there were only 7 study sessions last year. The calendar allows for an equal number of council meetings and study sessions each month. The Belmar Park West project highlighted many problems including the land dedication/fee in lieu process. There should have been annual reviews by Kit Newland, Director of Community Resources since 2019. NOT DONE! The City Council was suppose to review this policy by the end of last year. NOT DONE! This is now scheduled for a study session on April 15, 2024, 4 1/2 months after the deadline that had been set. Interestingly, it only took the Council 2 weeks this past summer to pass an emergency ordinance to sunset the Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI) in 2025. This was in response to HB 23-1255 which prohibited growth limitations. Although cities were given 24 months to comply, Lakewood passed their ordinance on August 7, 2023 the day before the bill became law. Neither Boulder nor Golden have taken such drastic action. Lakewood could have simply removed the 1% growth cap and retained the all important oversight portion of the Initiative thereby satisfying both the state requirement and honoring the voters who supported it. To reiterate, this took place within a 2 week period when 24 months were allotted before a change was required. Yet the “fee in lieu” which had a specific immediate deadline was placed on the back burner for 4 1/2 months.


Council members have a great responsibility to their constituents. Trust, truth, and transparency are in short supply. Councilors should represent the best interests of their community not their own interpretation of them. Questions need to be answered by Councilors and staff alike. Codes and ordinances need to be followed and enforced. If changes are made, they must be redlined. Appointed city officials should be available for in person town halls or open forums where they can explain and answer questions about their decisions that have a direct effect on the community. Goals are meaningless without oversight and follow through actions. Within a few weeks the official copy of new goals should be available. Only time will tell if progress is made.

Buses of Migrants at Lakewood Hotel

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Two, separate, eyewitnesses confirm that an extended bus of migrants was dropped at the Hometowne Studios at 6th and Kipling, in Lakewood, Colorado. The first report came in on Monday, February 26 during a City Council meeting where Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom would later say she feared a busload of migrants would show up without prior notice. The news was confirmed the next day by a second eyewitness near the motel. An extended bus is the same as two regular buses and has been described as an RTD-style bus that was painted white.

Hotel management has not returned calls. Denver responded that they have no involvement in any hotel in Lakewood. Mayor Strom responded promptly on February 28 that she was not aware of such a bus.

A high-ranking city official has said that a private group is paying for the hotel.

A $9 Million Grant with Unknown “Strings” Attached

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Guest Post by J.T. Johnson – Lakewood Ward 4

If you missed the last two Lakewood City Council meetings, you missed… Well, let’s put it this way, if my Mom had caught me doing what I saw at the meeting, I would have been sent to my room without any dinner.   Let’s start with the February 12 meeting: 

Perhaps the most disconcerting and substantive financial part of the meeting came about as a result of questions posed by Councilor Rein to the City Planning Office and the State’s representative providing the grant.  According to the City Planning Office, the taxpayers are on the hook for $2M – $2.5 of operating expenses each year.  (The City’s own financial documentation indicates the operating costs will be much higher, but let’s use the Planning Office numbers for now.)  He went on to say that any decision of the Council to accept the $9M grant would “not be binding on future Councils.”  I believe most legal scholars would disagree with the City Planner and state that future Councils will be bound by grant conditions and the “strings” attached to the grant.  A future Council could elect to breach – but that always comes with a price tag.  Query:  Where was the City Attorney while the City Planning Office was providing legal advice to the Council?  She sat there and didn’t say a word.

Following the Planning Office comments, the grant representative from the State said that a contract would be negotiated with the City identifying the City’s obligations.  This contract would only be negotiated AFTER the City accepts the $9M grant.  She pointed out that the contact obligations would be for a 30-year period of time.

YIKES!  The City will not know its contractual obligations with the State until AFTER it accepts the money. 

What entity takes $9M without knowing what “strings” are attached??  The answer to that probing question is, your City Council.  A simple remedy to this problem would have been to negotiate the terms of the grant contract PRIOR to accepting the money.  Finalization of the contract could have been contingent on the City accepting the grant.   At least the citizens of Lakewood would have known what their City Council had signed them up for if the terms had been negotiated in advance.  But, No!  The councilors were so eager to get their hands on more of your money that they apparently didn’t even want to know what the additional strings would be.  And don’t forget, “he who controls the purse controls the “strings.”   Other than the two councilors from Ward 4 (Olver and Rein), no councilor expressed ANY concern over the uncertainty of the “strings” attached to accepting the $9M. 

Now, fast forward to the February 26 Council meeting.  The issue consuming the most time at this meeting dealt with the Head Start program in Lakewood.  Due to possible overlapping resources and the very high per capita cost of the program, Lakewood wants to eliminate the Head Start program from its provided resources. The City favors passing this opportunity to Jefferson County or a private entity.  All of the councilors seemed to agree with eliminating the program from the City’s budget.  However, there was some uncertainty over which entity (if any) might take on the Head Start responsibilities so as not to have a disruption of services. 

NOW, here’s the dichotomy – because of the “uncertainty” the Council would not move forward to allow the City to notify the Federal Government (DOE) that the City of Lakewood would no longer be responsible for the Head Start program.  The councilors wanted the City to informally probe other Head Start providers (private entities and Jefferson County) to ascertain their interest. 

Here’s the problem:  the councilors were told by the City representatives that the Federal Government cannot seek other providers UNTIL the City removes itself as the Head Start provider. 

Only one of the councilors expressed an opinion that acquiring another provider would not be a problem, given the City’s support for the program.  Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty (though likely small), the Council voted to delay notifying the Federal Government.  Apparently, the councilors – even if they are well-intended – have little knowledge about Federal Government contracting.  They may think that the Federal Government can move at light speed and such delay would have no impact on continuing the Head Start program.  In reality, the timeframe between now and the City’s proposed schedule to withdraw from the Head Start program may be insufficient to allow the Federal Government to meet its contracting requirements.  Council’s failure to allow the City to give timely notice to the Federal Government may result in contracting deadlines being missed.

Later in the meeting, one of the councilors recounted some of the events from the February 12 meeting.  He specifically stated that the February 12 meeting included a “robust” discussion relating to the finances at the Navigation Center and the $9M grant.  I must have attended a different City Council meeting because I heard no “robust” discussion about funding.  Unfortunately, he misses the bigger issue.  While there were brief comments about the current finances and how a portion of the grant could fund some of the operating expenses, there was no discussion about how the City would fund the long-term operating costs and no discussion about how to fund any of the “strings” the State will attach to the grant… and how could there be any discussion about those “stings” since the City Council has no idea what they will be.  We heard no discussion about contents of the thirty-year contract required by the State, when those contract negotiations would occur and whether the Council would even review/approve the contract.

Editor’s note: Email received 2/29/2024 from Lakewood states “The contract you are referring to has not been drafted or finalized at this point.  Planning expects that this will take place over the next couple of weeks.  Thank you.“

Bottom line – Uncertainty over “strings” attached to $9M and saddling taxpayers with $60M – $100M+ of future obligations is not a problem for this council.  ($60M if you use the Planning Office low number and likely more than $100M if you use the City’s internal numbers.)  But a bit of uncertainty over the Head Start program caused the Council to delay timely, Federal notification and potentially destroying the Head Start program. 

Even if you assume the Councilors are all well-intended, both meetings were a display of naivety and inexperience.  In fact, Councilor Olver may have made the most poignant and accurate observation:  He said the Council is suffering from “self-inflicted” wounds.  That statement is indisputable!  With the exception of Councilor Olver, maybe they should all be sent to their rooms without any dinner.

Lakewood Police Department Policy for ICE Cooperation

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Does the Lakewood Police Department (LPD) check the ICE database when making arrests, as was common practice before Colorado became a sanctuary state? Would Lakewood Police release a person charged with a crime before Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE could file a detainer, as happened in Georgia with Laken Riley? What does Lakewood PD do if they find someone with uncertain immigration status? What are the processes and policies for Lakewood to cooperate with ICE?

From January 17 to February 7, a series of questions and open records requests were submitted to Lakewood PD to answer these questions. The intent was to establish whether Lakewood was cooperating with ICE or acting as a sanctuary city.

After almost a full month, on Feb 12 at 5:15, right before the big City Council meeting at 7pm, Patrick Freeman, the Senior Police Legal Advisor for the Lakewood PD, called to say they couldn’t understand what was being requested. He said policies were online and could be found there – exact page unspecified. So after emails dated January 17, 24, Feb 7, registered mail and phone calls, the answer was to find the answer yourself on an unindexed website. 

Can you find the answers to these questions in one of the links, sub-links, etc. below.  Yes, this is a list of approximately 600 links that is the self-service method to answering citizen requests regarding policy.

Compilation of hundreds of links from the police policy website with the words "where to start"

Freeman repeatedly stressed that he was not trying to be difficult, he just couldn’t understand the request. This is absolutely possible but it is also true that many communication problems can be solved through discussion and questions. However, Freeman said it was not necessary for him to answer any questions. He quoted the open records statute to show there was no requirement for questions to be answered.

Does this mean a state statute needs to be cited in order for Lakewood to answer resident questions?

An exhaustive search of these policies is often impossible for many Lakewood residents and information overload is an effective deterrent. However, a cursory search did not reveal any polices regarding cooperation with any federal agency, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) or the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Where are the policies for cooperating with federal agencies?

Since the Lakewood Police Department could not produce any relevant documents in response to the document request, and will not answer questions, how can Lakewood residents know what is going on with their city?

One Lakewood resident says, “I was present at the City Council meeting that Adam Paul declared that Lakewood would never arrest anyone for being an illegal, nor would our police ever refer anyone to ICE —even if arrested. Nor was  ID required by  the police.” The resident recalls Paul made the statement years ago when Denver declared its sanctuary status. This meeting would be captured on video but is hard to locate after all this time.

Any city that offers sanctuary would not have a policy or procedure since it would not cooperate with ICE.

If Lakewood is not a sanctuary, why do its leaders resist providing substantive policy or procedural information on how they cooperate with ICE? Why does their attorney find it difficult to understand lawful open record requests?

Read more

Read more here about how Lakewood is trying to build trust in the community, including increasing transparency: New Police Philosophy for Lakewood

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info

Subscribe

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