My Elder Buddya compassionate companion for your older loved one
When you need someone to help with a parent or older loved one, please consider calling me for help. I can take them to appointments, on fun outings, or walks, or stop in for an hour or two, for those in need of companionship.
I am known as the Mama Henster, due to my caring and engaging nature. I am happy to run errands, cook dinners, do meal prep, light housekeeping, or just visit for a few hours (I’m a good listener and I give good hugs).
The first hour is free, to see if we are compatible and comfortable with each other.
In response to news about the letter from the Metro Mayors (see explanation here) Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom said she was passionate about the issue and grateful for the opportunity to be a part of this letter. At the February 26 Council meeting, Strom said she hopes it amplifies the voices of the Denver Metro area since we have seen so many migrants. She did not mention the voices of Lakewood, Colorado residents who have also been vocal about the issue. Strom went on to talk about the importance of planning, rather than the perception that this migrant crisis might be used as an opportunity to push for reform at the expense of border security.
Strom acknowledged all the problems coming to the city, including overwhelmed non-profits and the conflicts between homeless and migrants. However, she said those problems are here and the city must deal with them while also addressing the needs of our residents.
Again, Strom did not address solutions involving border security or removing sanctuary status, showing that although the letter might be bipartisan, it is not comprehensive and may not represent Lakewood resident viewpoints.
The dialogue once again skirted the issue of who pays. The Metro Mayors letter asked for federal funding while Lakewood Mayor Strom said this was something Lakewood could do that didn’t cost money. However, Lakewood residents still pay federal taxes and removing state sanctuary status would also cost no money.
This package of federal funding, new laws and fast track work authorizations have been part of nationwide immigration reform efforts. Mayor Strom says that amplifying voices for these measures is good planning. It could also be construed as “never let a crisis go to waste.”
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Lakewood City Council held a regular business meeting on February 12, 2024 to discuss a number of items including a resolution on the Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan and adopting an ordinance to accept a DOLA (Department of Local Affairs) grant to purchase and renovate a property on West Colfax that will house a Navigation Center. The meeting was well attended by a number of residents who were interested and concerned about these two issues.
Migrant Concerns
One of the main concerns that many expressed during the public comments, as well as an earlier town hall meeting on February 6th, was that recently closed public schools, the Navigation Center, and possibly city facilities would be used to house migrants being relocated to Denver, which would make Lakewood a de-facto sanctuary city. The basis for these concerns stemmed partly from the City Council meeting in January in which the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson, was instructed to meet with leaders of the City and County of Denver to “discuss all feasible options for Lakewood to do more to support our region’s response to the growing migrant crisis and influx of our new neighbors, and to report back to us (City Council) with options”. Language used by council members during the meeting, words such as “our new migrant neighbors” and “welcoming”, seemed to indicate sanctuary status for Lakewood was the direction in which council was headed. At the February 12th meeting, Ms. Hodgson reported that she and her staff had met with Denver officials, and no request was made of Lakewood for hotel, motel, or congregate facility support for the migrants. She also noted that “Denver is actually winding down the program related specifically to housing migrant newcomers”. Some suggestions for assistance from her meeting with Denver officials include hosting migrant families in willing resident’s homes, donating food, clothing, and cash to the organizations in Denver that are providing assistance, and volunteering with organizations in Denver that are providing aid.
Strategic Housing Plan
The resolution on the Strategic Housing Plan and the ordinance on the Navigation Center were both approved, with Ward 4 Councilman Rich Olver casting the lone “no” votes on both. Although both measures passed, there are still questions and concerns that remain.
The resolution to adopt the Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan calls for the plan “to (be) use(d) as a framework for future housing policy and for the development of strategies and action steps for increasing affordable housing options in Lakewood into the future”. The plan was prepared with input from City Council, City Planning staff, the 2023 Housing Advisory Policy Commission, a number of housing professionals, and Gruen Gruen + Associates, a consulting firm compensated with funds from a DOLA grant. Under “housing professionals”, the plan’s acknowledgements list a number of other individuals not affiliated with City government, two of whom are identified as “active citizens”. No homeowner associations are noted in the acknowledgements of the plan. The plan includes selected comments from members of the community.
The plan, as described by several council members, is a framework or pathway for future planning to provide more affordable housing to Lakewood residents to help alleviate the problems of increasing housing costs and homelessness. According to the final report, “The foundation of this Plan is to strengthen policies that assist Lakewood’s most vulnerable residents, including low-income households, working families and individuals, older adults, and Lakewood’s unhoused population; and improve the functioning of the housing market to meet a diverse range of housing needs”.
A common remark from the neighborhood associations was a feeling they were not included in the preparation of the Strategic Housing Plan.
At the Lakewood City Council meeting, several people spoke up during the public comments, representing themselves or neighborhood associations. A common remark from the neighborhood associations was a feeling they were not included in the preparation of the Strategic Housing Plan. They believe that community associations need to be included and recognized as stakeholders in the planning process. One of the representatives also listed off a number of non-governmental organizations in their community that are already providing services to the needy and homeless. The implication being that perhaps we already have the resources in the community to address the housing issues. Of particular note along these lines is that aside from the two “active citizens:” noted in the acknowledgements of the plan, are nine others who are associated with non-governmental (i.e. for-profit) real-estate development or brokerage firms. This raises serious questions about whose interests this report represents, the residents of Lakewood or the real estate businesses that possibly stand to profit from the plan. While the importance of input from real estate professionals is not being entirely dismissed, more representation from residents and neighborhood associations whose communities will be impacted by actions taken from this report must be considered and should receive at least equal representation.
Implications taxpayer money would be paid to developers
The plan includes four strategies and action items: invest in affordable housing, expand overall affordable housing supply, expand housing choices and services for residents, and keep residents stably housed. Under “invest in affordable housing”, wording is included “would provide financial support for housing programs and incentives to encourage the production of more affordable housing units”, and “voluntary program that encourages private developments to build affordable units by offering a range of incentives”. This wording implies taxpayer money would, in some way, be paid to developers as an incentive to build affordable housing. What other options did the preparers of this plan consider to encourage development of affordable housing without the use of taxpayer funds? The plan also includes discussion of small lot zoning, smaller housing units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Does this mean the city will consider allowing developers to purchase existing homes, remove the existing structure, subdivide the property, and build small homes on the subdivided lots? What is the impact on the community of increasing population density resulting from small lot zoning? Do our residents really want more high-density housing? The plan also states “the city could deploy local funds to supplement down payment assistance programs”. City Council needs to consider that someone needing a subsidy for a down payment may not have sufficient income to support the mortgage, and perhaps those funds would be better used to subsidize rent until the individual can afford the down payment and mortgage (while home ownership and building equity, is a generally a good thing, it may not be the best solution for everyone). We should also consider what kind of housing do we want – how do we arrive at a comfortable balance of rental units versus privately owned condos/townhomes and houses?
To what extent should governments be subsidizing housing in Lakewood? Are there any instances that demonstrate that government subsidies have actually decreased the cost of anything, or do government funded subsidies actually increase costs for everybody? These are some questions that community members raised that City Council has not yet fully addressed. More community input and participation from neighborhood associations is necessary before moving forward with the housing plan.
Navigation Center
The second major news topic discussed at the February 12th City Council meeting concerns accepting and moving forward with the $9.5 million funding to purchase, renovate, and operate a Navigation Center on West Colfax. The funding in large part comes from a DOLA grant, with a smaller amount funded from other sources. According to Lakewood’s website, “the city will serve as a pass-through agency for this grant to allow RecoveryWorks to provide increased and immediate access to services for those without stable housing in a central location at 8000 W. Colfax Ave.” RecoveryWorks was founded in 2019 and had been operating for a couple of years at 7011 West Colfax before moving to the 8000 West Colfax location late last year. According to RecoveryWorks website, “we provide and facilitate access to comprehensive and integrated medical respite, recovery, housing and employment services for those who have few or no resources”. James Ginsburg, executive director of RecoveryWorks, was present at the City Council meeting and provided additional information about the center and how the funds from the grant will be spent. According to Mr. Ginsburg, approximately $5 million of the grant will go towards the purchase of the building at 8000 West Colfax, Lakewood, Colorado (currently, the space is being rented). An additional $4 million of the grant will go towards significant rehab of the building, including building out office space, and adding shower and restroom facilities. He also mentioned the facility would ideally provide 100 beds as a 24/7 transitional housing shelter, with no time limits on how long those being sheltered could remain at the facility. Annual operating expenses are estimated to be in the $2 million range. Responding to comments from a council member, Mr. Ginsburg said that the target groups for the center are the elderly, veterans, disabled, and the medically frail. In addressing the concerns that migrants will take advantage of the facility, he stated that of the 350 individuals they have served in the last 2-1/2 years, only 9 have identified themselves as immigrants, and they were referred to immigration services. He also commented that 95% of the people they serve are Jefferson County residents, and 80% grew up in Lakewood.
Resident comment on the navigation center
A number of citizens came forward during public comment with questions and concerns they feel have not been addressed by City Council on this ordinance. Many remarked the city should be spending funds on what they see as more pressing needs. They said that the services in Lakewood are already stretched thin and the city should not be taking on more obligations, but needs to focus first of those in need already in Lakewood, particularly the elderly, poor, and veterans. Others expressed fears the Navigation Center would become a magnet for other municipalities, including Denver, to send people in need from their communities. Several others suggested the police department needs to strengthened, and focus on enforcing existing ordinances, particularly laws dealing with vagrancy, sex and drug trafficking, street side soliciting (panhandling), and compliance with Federal ICE protocols. Concerns about personal safety and a general feeling of lawlessness in the city were expressed by a couple of residents. One person mentioned cost overruns at other similar service centers that were in the news and questioned how Lakewood would be able to handle such a situation if and when it arises here. Another resident suggested RecoveryWorks be accountable to the City, providing information on success rates on substance abuse recovery and getting people placed in permanent housing. Most of these pressing concerns were not addressed during City Council’s discussion following public comment.
The role of other governments
During City Council’s discussion, there were some brief mentions of other municipalities (Jefferson County and some neighboring cities) providing support for the annual operating expense of the Navigation Center if they refer their residents to Lakewood. There was no additional discussion at the meeting on details of any cost sharing proposals. Because it was briefly mentioned (and in the context in which it was mentioned), this is something that apparently has been previously discussed among City Council members and others. Lakewood needs to know what to expect in terms of people coming in from outside of Lakewood seeking services provided by the Navigation Center. Are they residents of Arvada, Littleton, unincorporated Jefferson County, or elsewhere? What kind of services will they be seeking at the Navigation Center in Lakewood – mental health, addiction recovery, housing assistance, or something else? How much will the referring municipalities reimburse the city for the cost of the people they send here? These are questions that should have been addressed and answered before moving forward with accepting the DOLA grant.
Is there a pattern of success?
The question of efficacy is essential to understanding the degree of success of any program like what the Navigation Center is undertaking. Some additional questions to help with this are “what are the success rates of other similar programs in similar metropolitan areas” and “where have programs like this succeeded (and failed) in the past, and why”. Programs in cities like San Francisco, Portland, Baltimore, and elsewhere, have not been successful and those cities are now struggling with serious homeless and substance addition issues. We would not want to model our programs based on programs that have not worked in other cities. City Council should ensure the RecoveryWorks program is actually following the pattern of successful programs and is achieving its goal of preventing homelessness and getting people into stable and permanent housing. Progress should be monitored at least quarterly and reviewed to see if changes are necessary to improve efficacy. Residents should be informed of the success rates quarterly and apprised major changes to the program that would affect the city or the communities in the vicinity of the facility.
Not a solution, only a first step
One other comment Mr. Ginsburg made which was repeated by a supporter during the public comments, was that the Navigation Center is not a solution to the city’s housing problems, but only a first step. Obviously, the challenges of homelessness, substance addiction, physical and mental health currently facing Lakewood are complex, and will require more resources than the Navigation Center can currently provide. A couple of residents touched on this in their public comments. The concern here is if the Navigation Center is only a stepping stone to solving the housing problem in Lakewood, what is the solution (or what are the solutions)? Is City Council planning to expand the Navigation Center in the future? Is City Council planning to bring in other programs and organizations to supplement the work of RecoveryWorks? To arrive at a final solution for homelessness, what will the impact be on our neighborhoods, what will the costs be, and where will the funding come from? The Strategic Housing Plan does not address problems of substance abuse and mental illness, both of which impact Lakewood’s housing needs. So simply following the Strategic Housing Plan is not sufficient to fill in the gaps to eliminate the housing problem – something more is still needed. City Council will need to address this and let the community know what their plan is and ease the concerns of residents and assure us they are moving the right direction.
Were existing non-profits considered?
During the public comments and the discussions of the City Council members during the meeting, a number of other non-profit organizations operating within Lakewood were named. These include the Jeffco Action Center, Jefferson Center for Mental Health, Mean Street Ministries, as well as several others. These are all organizations that are trying to help people in need, including homeless, in our community. Has City Council considered if partnering with one or more of these organizations could possibly achieve a lot of the same goals of easing the homelessness problems in Lakewood? Or, possibly, do we have overlap of efforts among any of these organizations that could provide more assistance to those in need if they share or combine their resources (staff and facilities)? These question were not posed during the meeting, but are things that City Council should consider.
Law enforcement considerations
Finally, City Council needs to consider the roll of law enforcement plays in this. As pointed out by several residents in the public comments, there are valid concerns that laws governing sex and drug trafficking, drug possession and use, vagrancy, street side solicitation, and ICE compliance are not being enforced. As a republic, we are governed not by people but by laws. The laws are in place to protect people’s safety, property and well-being as a base for a stable society. A number of residents in their public comments noted concerns for their own personal safety – some people no longer feel safe living and working in Lakewood. Certainly panhandling and washing windows from the medians at Colfax and Wadsworth (or any other intersection) is not safe and should not be (and by statutes is not) allowed. It is not up to City Council, law enforcement, judges, or prosecutors to decide which laws will be enforced and which ones won’t, especially laws that affect the safety and well-being of the community. City Council needs to review the needs of the Lakewood Police Department to see if additional officers are needed to ensure laws are properly enforced. If additional funding is needed, perhaps DOLA (or other) grants are available to provide the needed funds.
An informed government
Lakewood citizens need to continue using the City of Lakewood website to keep themselves informed about what is going on at City Hall. We also need to clearly communicate our concerns back to City Council by email, the LakewoodSpeaks website, telephone, at informal meetings the ward representatives periodically host, and at public comment at City Council meetings. City Council and those working on these large scope plans need to consider all options with the resources currently available with more consideration of the concerns of the residents and neighborhood associations than went into the measures that were approved at the February 12th City Council meeting. The city needs to carefully consider the impact (and possible unintended consequences) their decisions have on our communities and neighborhoods as a result of the plans they make. It is also important that the City clearly communicate their plans and avoid wording that obfuscates their intentions. These issues currently facing Lakewood are no doubt complex. We want to ensure the voices of the residents are heard, their concerns are addressed, and that future programs and plans undertaken by the City are effective, beneficial to all the members of the community, and are run in a fiscally sound manner.
The recent purchase of the Mountain View Inn by RecoveryWorks caused some readers to question where the money came from.
The Director of RecoveryWorks, James Ginsberg, responded that the “funds came from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) through the State Division of Housing’s Transformational Affordable Housing Grant. RecoveryWorks applied for the funds through a statewide competitive process.”
These funds are completely separate from the recent Navigation Center purchase.
Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom supported new migrants becoming “proud workers and residents of Colorado” byapproving a letter from the Metro Mayors Caucus. A copy of the letter itself was provided by the Caucus, not by Lakewood, and is shown below. Unlike other legislative positions, this letter was not discussed in public and was not subject to Council committee vote. However, the letter does specifically state that it represents community members, not just the Mayor’s personal opinion. The letter requests three things: fast-tracked work permits, legal services, and federal funding. Border enforcement is not mentioned, nor is removing Colorado’s sanctuary status. Read the letter below.
Work authorizations and federal funding are parts of what people know as “immigration reform” rather than what people know as “border security”.
Recent community meetings show that Lakewood residents are very interested in the migrant issue and would like a say in these decisions. However, instead of publicly discussing the issue, Mayor Strom approved the letter while residents were conducting their own community meetings in preparation to hear what actions Lakewood planned on taking on February 12.
Resident voices are being signed in support of this federal issue, whether they approve or not, with no public explanation from their local representative.
The letter itself is not available on the Metro Mayors Caucus nor Lakewood’s website. When asked for the letter, Lakewood responded that the letter and associated emails would cost $134 to provide. Fortunately, the Metro Mayors Caucus released the letter to Kim Monson, host of the Kim Monson Show, who heard about the letter directly from Strom.
The letter is only signed by the Mayor of Golden, as representative of the Metro Mayor Caucus. Only 26 of the 38 member communities needed to approve the letter on behalf of them all. Which communities voted yea or nay is not listed but Mayor Strom’s email shows that she joined in “signing on to the letter…. in support” of these actions on behalf of Lakewood.
Note: If you are not in Lakewood, ask your representative if they voted in favor of these measures
This letter of support was not mentioned on Lakewood’s website regarding migrant misinformation. There is no other webpage on migrant information. The letter was not mentioned during the February 12 meeting when residents were assembled to hear news about Lakewood, Colorado migrant actions.
“They purchased the former motel- as they work to build a continuum of services in the area and is just a piece of the strategic plan the county has been shaping for years.
“When people are left languishing on the street, they are kind of in survival mode. It’s hard to pull yourself out of that homelessness,” Ginsburg said.
The location, which is close to RTD, and other services is why many already struggling to find affordable housing were paying weekly to live in the motel.
Amos Apencer has a month or so before it will no longer be an option.”
After the February 12 City Council meeting, Lakewood City Council Member Rebekah Stewart sent out a campaign email, saying “Despite extremist attempts to bully and intimidate us out of investing in this critical resource, I stood up with my colleagues for our community and our shared values.”
Who are these extremists who would bully and intimidate Lakewood City Council? Does she mean the hundreds of residents who came to the meeting and the many who spoke?
Is everyone who disagrees with Council decisions extreme? Which ones are not?
Are all these Lakewood residents bullies?
Can we assume these people are not extremists since they are included in her email:
Photo from https://rebekahforcolorado.com/endorsementsAbove: Council Members Stewart, Shahrezaei, Mayott-Guerrero, Sinks, Low and Cruz wearing butterflies to stand in solidarity with migrants. These same Councilors are also pictured in Stewart’s campaign photo above, along with Mayor Strom.
City Council Member Rich Olver was the only nay vote for the Strategic Housing Plan, which passed on February 12, 2024. He claimed it was a poisoned pill because it contained provisions that did not have public support, such as using abandoned school buildings for homeless services. Neighborhood associations came to voice their concern that stakeholders were not included. The associations were more concerned about the development strategies than the unhoused strategies. The associations’ comments show that although the plan was billed as affordable housing, there were two distinct pieces: more high-density development and plans for the homeless. Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero said the Housing Plan will work “hand-in-hand” with the Navigation Center. These items are all interconnected to give Lakewood the same framework that cities like Denver use to deal with the unhoused.
The message from February 12 was that a majority of Council want the plan passed; however, there was no clear consensus as to what the plan means.
Councilor Sinks said it would be good to have a roadmap to follow. Others spoke of discussions still to come. Councilor Low promoted strategies for eviction protection, Additional Dwelling Unit expansion and directly funding housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei said, “The action at this point is to adopt this framework. Nobody is agreeing tonight to all these strategies. We are agreeing that there is a need for affordable housing.”
Agreeing to a need for affordable housing does not require even one page. The Strategic Housing Plan is 156 pages of strategies. Which strategies Council did not agree to was not discussed. Instead of approving all strategies in one motion, each strategy could be adopted by separate motion after further discussion. In fact, many strategies will need to be adopted by modifying ordinance to implement.
Olver said this plan is not making more affordable housing, it is not stopping corporate land speculation, or increasing home ownership possibilities. He asked for more time to study, but no other Councilor agreed. Other Council Members had agreed to pass the plan at a previous study session.
Shahrezaei pointed out that the Strategic Housing Plan was funded by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the same department that funded the navigation center, and that Lakewood could not even change the name of the product DOLA had paid for.
How much of Lakewood’s policy does DOLA fund?
Is accepting all this “free money” from DOLA leading Lakewood to take the steps the state wants, rather than the steps the local residents are asking for?
Olver went on to explain that housing migrants in the schools would not happen because that requires a public process to rezone an abandoned school into a residential area. Just like operating a shelter requires a special use permit that requires a public process, unless there is a very good reason. In the case of the navigation center, the city planned for it to be used as an emergency shelter but didn’t get a permit because it was an “emergency”. Now the city has accepted a grant requiring the land to be used as a shelter so there is an argument that there the city cannot NOT approve a shelter permit, regardless of how many people show up during public process. Experiences like these may have been in the minds of the people laughing at the words “public process” during the meeting.
Scorecard: Approve Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan
Strom: Aye
Shahrezaei: Aye
Sinks: Aye
Mayott-Guerrero: Aye
Cruz: Aye
Stewart: Aye
Low: Aye
Olver: Nay
Rein: Aye
LaBure: Aye
Nystrom: Aye
Read previous articles about the Strategic Housing Plan:
**URGENT CALL FOR ACTION** Your presence and voice are urgently needed at this week’s upcoming Planning Commission meeting. We ask all local community members to attend in person, as this is the only way you can verbally express your public comments. The meeting is scheduled for Wed.Feb. 21 at 7:00pm at 480 S. Allison Parkway (Lakewood City Council Chambers).
Recent developments have brought to light profound concerns about the handling of certain processes within our community, notably concerning the proposed development at 777 S. Yarrow St. This development,which includes plans for a monster apartment building adjacent to Belmar Park and the bird sanctuary, has sparked alarm among residents. The current approach, largely driven by decisions made by staff without any public engagement process, has resulted in many community members feeling blind sided and voiceless in a decision that directly impacts our cherished crown jewel park.
We have conveyed our concerns to City Council, and now we turn to the planning commissioners – who hold a pivotal role in zoning he land in our city, among other duties. The upcoming Planning Commission meeting will provide us with a crucial opportunity to voice our opinions,express our concerns, and advocate for a more transparent and inclusive process.
During the meeting, each attendee will have 3 minutes to address the planning commissioners. This is our chance to articulate why we believe they play a vital role in reviewing unilateral decisions made by administrative staff for the entire Lakewood community. Planning commissioners serve as an essential part of the checks and balances process within our community, and we look to them for oversight and improvement.
We’ve seen examples from other communities in Colorado where processes have been enhanced to be more inclusive and transparent. It’s time for Lakewood to follow suit.
One of the primary topics of discussion will be the preservation of Belmar Park and the planning decisions surrounding 777 S.Yarrow St. Your presence and advocacy are critical in safeguarding this essential community asset.
I urge each and every one of you to prioritize attending this important Planning Commission meeting. Together, we can ensure that our community’s concerns are heard and addressed, fostering a more inclusive and transparent decision-making process.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter,and I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.
