Uncategorized

Another Interest-Free Developer Loan

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 5, 2024Posted in Uncategorized

Lakewood agreed to an interest-free loan for up to $2.75 million, for Texas-based developer Artesia Real Estate Investments. The money will be used to demolish the old Sears buildings at 10785 W Colfax Ave. The Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) Executive Director Robert Smith says the rampant crime at this vacant property justifies using city funds for private property demolition. The number and cost of service calls could not be stated but apparently, Lakewood has desired to demolish these buildings for years. The developer was not present to answer any questions and Lakewood did not ask anything in return, such as affordable housing or even a credit check. Lakewood will spend about 67% of the available redevelopment funds on this project but high property taxes could refill the coffers soon. The loan could also be forgiven completely in return for something like affordable housing units later. LRA Executive Director Smith argues that this loan helps Lakewood because Lakewood will have lower crime due to being a vacant property, rather than a vacant building, for approximately 18 months that it otherwise wouldn’t have. The crime reportedly comes from homeless residents occupying the property. The justification seems to be that demolishing the building is a high-priced equivalent of sweeping a homeless camp. The loan also helps the developer. Smith reports that developers are hesitant to eliminate buildings on their own because it might lower the mortgage value of the property. There was no word on how a city loan will not lower the mortgage value but the developer of the Holiday Shopping Center accepted a similar deal to demolish that building in 2023. Smith argued that tearing the building down saves the private entity a potential loss through fire and the cost of private security. The funds for the Sears demolition will come from the LRA through the West Colfax Avenue Corridor Reinvestment Plan. These funds were planned in 2005 but not used until now since the owners would have to agree. Smith says Lakewood has been looking for owners to combine parcels, demolish, and work with the city for years. Smith also explained that the developer needed building permits, some from the city, which have not been granted yet. These permits cause delays in demolition. The previous loan for the Holiday Shopping Center demolition was advertised as a pilot project, however, the results are inconclusive as to whether the project was a success. Demolition did occur but no evidence of expedited development or repayment of the loan was offered. Lakewood is not letting that stop them from making the same kind of loan with the same kind of questions on whether Lakewood will get their loan repaid. This loan for vacant property comes on the heels of Lakewood approving a new fee on vacant properties, which was supposed to incentivize property owners to handle these problems on their own. Apparently, some owners will be able to get special deals to have the city pay for mitigation, although the legal department offered the opinion that Lakewood is not, in fact, paying for anything since it’s just a loan. This loan will allow the developer to save money on private security for the vacant property. No other spending alternatives were presented that would allow economic development and job creation in this struggling area. The proposed development would be market-rate apartments, with some mixed use. In Lakewood, “mixed use” has historically been solely market-rate apartments, rather than a true mixed commercial and residential use. Lakewood did not take the time to check the credit status or financial background of the developer, in order to expedite the process and maximize public safety. No city staff had to be dedicated to going through the steps a bank would take in order to lend money. Lakewood also did not have to run a business case to show how much money Lakewood was spending on service calls, versus how much money the developer was currently spending. The discussion also did not differentiate what was a public versus private threat, such as the building burning down. No mention was made of where the homeless residing in the building would be moving to. The city attorney present explained that it would be possible to forgive the loan later, in return for including some affordable units. The feeling was that the interest-free loan was not enough of an incentive for them to provide affordable units. See the BusinessDen’s coverage of this issue here. Councilor comments: Shahrezaei: Says she’s been looking forward to this since 2021. Asks for how many service calls there has been to this area but that number was not available. She is supportive of the West Colfax redevelopment plan in general. Wolfram: Seeks clarification of the lien process Cruz: Seeks clarification on how interest-free loans to private entities work. Executive Director Smith responds that Lakewood has always maintained a policy of not lending to private entities until last year’s loan for the Holiday Shopping Center so now there is a precedent. Nystrom: Was concerned with a zero-interest loan. Asks why Lakewood needs to step in since this was an anticipated part of development. Also has concerns that this loan contradicts the Colorado Constitution Article 11 prohibiting public indebtedness. Asks whether loan forgiveness is precluded (answer – no). Mayott-Guerrero: Says she’s focused on resident requests for public safety. Rein: Likes removing the vacant building. Asks whether the lien is for all the property parcels or just where the vacant building is. States that the developer could redevelop all around the demolished buildings and Lakewood would be on the hook. Low: Clarifies that the public benefit is the time without the public nuisance building. Clarifies that the loan would have to be repaid no matter what. Strom: Says this is about the benefit to the community, not a benefit to the developer. Scorecard: Provide developer loan for building demolition Unanimous Approval from all Present: Chair, Wendi Strom Cindy Baroway, CommissionerIsabel Cruz, Commissioner Andy Kerr, Commissioner Jacob LaBure, Commissioner Roger Low, Commissioner

There is NO housing shortage! Time for a re-think!

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 25, 2024Posted in Uncategorized

Cross-post from savebelmarpark.com Proof that there is already more than enough rental housing for everyone in the metro area and in the country! Decimating our environment and wildlife habitats to build unneeded high-rent housing is bad policy. Oft cited supply-and-demand slogans have minimal relevance because real estate is NOT a commodity. Read the Full Report – Denver has over 9 Vacant Homes per Unhoused Resident

Jeffco Schools “anticipates receiving an offer from Lakewood for Emory”

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 23, 2024Posted in Uncategorized

Lakewood still publicly denies any interest in purchasing Emory Elementary but that’s not stopping plans from moving forward. The plan still seems to be for Lakewood to act on behalf of the Action Center. The Action Center has not responded to repeated requests for comment. Lakewood residents know more about what Lakewood is doing from Jeffco Schools than from their representative government or the recipients of government efforts and/or funds. Given the amount of public interest in this process and the lack of transparency, the following seems to be a fair summary: The opaque City of Lakewood is working with the unaccountable Action Center to buy a closed public school without gathering resident support for their plans. According to the School Board, “Given where this is in the process, now would be an appropriate time to use that link” for community input. https://www.jeffcopublicschools.org/services/facilities/property-disposition Residents of Lakewood might appreciate a public comment period through Lakewood before Lakewood even makes the offer but that does not seem to be considered. From Jeffco Schools Property Disposition Update dated May 20: “Earlier this year Jeffco added a “municipal interest process” to its Property Disposition Process, following feedback from city leaders within the district. This additional step allows time for Jeffco and the city or county to discuss and evaluate the proposed use of the property before it is marketed for sale. The City of Arvada has expressed interest in the Parr property, and Jeffco will move forward with the municipal process to allow the city to prepare a formal proposal for its use or acquisition of the site. The Board of Education voted to surplus the Parr property on April 11. Additionally, the district anticipates receiving a proposal from the City of Lakewood for the Emory property. The Board of Education voted to surplus the Emory property in November 2023. Once concepts or plans have been received and evaluated, Jeffco will engage with the community to share information and gather feedback.” Resident Recommended Business: HotWorx – Green Mountain

Lakewood Named Among the Least Likely Cities People Would Move to for Romance (poll)

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 21, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged Colorado, lifestyle, love, real-estate, travel

From DatingAdvice.com, Written by: Amber Brooks, Edited by: Lillian Castro Ranking of the most and least appealing cities if moving for love. You’re head-over-heels in love, and the thrill of a long-distance romance has been both sweet and exhilarating. But as time goes by, the prospect of uniting with your beloved in the same zip code becomes not just a dream, but a necessity. However, does the allure of your significant other’s city sway your decision to make the leap? What if love calls from the sun-kissed beaches of Miami or the bustling streets of New York City? Would the affection be as strong to draw you to McDowell County, West Virginia, a place fighting valiantly against economic setbacks, or to Gary, Indiana, a city trying to rise again from its industrial past? Through a comprehensive survey of 3,000 people in long distance relationships, DatingAdvice.com sought to find out whether the city in which their partner resides is a factor when deciding whether to move. They therefore created a ranking of cities considered the most and least appealing if moving for love, with some very interesting results… The top five cities people would move to for love are: #1 San Francisco, California.San Francisco was voted as the most appealing city, with its tech-forward streets and cultural mix pulling at the heartstrings of lovers nationwide. It’s where innovation meets inclusivity, offering new transplants the promise of progressive values and a community that’s as varied as it is vibrant. The Golden Gate City promises a treasure trove of parks, coastal views, and artistic pursuits, perfect for those in pursuit of a life painted with shared experiences. #2 New York City, New York.In second place came the magnetic allure of New York City — every district beating with its own rhythm, offering a variety of experiences that range from gastronomic quests in Queens to the artistic soul of Brooklyn. It’s a city where the world connects, and diversity is the cornerstone of every block, making it a haven for lovebirds looking to build a nest in the world’s capital. #3 Buffalo, New York.Buffalo’s warmth and welcoming community spirit make it an inviting destination for those relocating for love. For someone new to Buffalo, the sense of belonging and ease of making connections stand out, making it easier to transition into a new life. The city’s affordability and proximity to natural wonders like Niagara Falls also mean that couples can enjoy a high quality of life and shared adventures without breaking the bank. #4 Fresno, California.Fresno is a gem for those seeking a blend of urban culture and outdoor living. Newcomers are drawn to its laid-back atmosphere, diverse community, and the beauty of its surrounding landscapes. Fresno also serves as a gateway to some of the nation’s most treasured national parks, offering couples an escape into nature at a moment’s notice. For partners looking to lay down roots and explore California’s natural and cultural offerings, Fresno is an attractive and affordable choice. #5 Jackson, Mississippi.For those moving to Jackson, the city offers a deep dive into the heart and soul of the South. Its rich musical heritage and culinary scene provide a sensory feast for newcomers, with blues clubs, galleries, and restaurants waiting to be explored together. Jackson’s community-focused vibe means that newcomers quickly feel at home, supported by a network of friendly locals and fellow transplants. When it came to Colorado cities specifically, 2 were identified as appealing for those willing to relocate to live with their partner. The top pick was Thornton, in #69 nationally: #69 Thornton Thornton, part of the Denver metropolitan area, provides residents with a balance of suburban living and access to the great outdoors, including the Rocky Mountains. An appealing choice for young lovers looking to forge their future together. Another top ranked Colorado city was: #146 Denver. However, 5 Colorado cities were cited as locations that people would not be prepared to move to for love. The least appealing was Lakewood, in #245 place nationally: #245 Lakewood Lakewood offers scenic beauty and outdoor recreational opportunities near the Rocky Mountains. However, moving here might involve addressing concerns about wildfires and seasonal weather extremes, as Colorado experiences droughts and snowstorms. While Lakewood boasts access to hiking trails and ski resorts, some may find the high cost of living and traffic congestion a consideration. Other Colorado cities considered to be unappealing were: #176 Arvada #221 Fort Collins #238 Aurora #240 Colorado Springs. Infographic showing which cities people are most willing to relocate to for love. The survey queried respondents who had moved to be with their partners, probing into the significant concessions they made. A striking 57% identified parting with family as the most substantial sacrifice, while 18% pointed to a shift in lifestyle as a primary concern, which encompasses forging new friendships, seeking out new gyms to join, and discovering new favorite drinking hangouts. An additional 15% felt that leaving behind friends was the hardest part, with 10% citing the job hunt as a formidable challenge. About 23% of couples who closed the gap from long-distance to cohabitation conceded that there were heated arguments over who should relocate. Nonetheless, most couples reported that the move fortified their bond, though 16% admitted it introduced new hurdles. Eleven percent observed that their relationships terminated post-relocation. Finally, in recognizing that long-distance relationships cannot be sustained indefinitely and must eventually transition to being close-distance to survive, respondents were quizzed about the duration they believe a long-distance relationship can endure before the couple must choose to cohabitate or conclude the relationship. The collective average from the responses indicated that the maximum sustainable period for a long-distance relationship is 1 year and 11 months.

A Look at Proposed Changes to Traffic Control in Lakewood

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 21, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged news, politics, speed-limits, traffic, transport

Guest Post from Bill Foshag Editor’s Note: Lakewood has a survey about changing the speed limit. However, the introductory information is incomplete and misleading. The concept of lowering the speed limit has supporting research from the Lakewood Advisory Commission, as they say, but also information showing it will be ineffective from police and traffic control. The survey does not link to that opposing research. Lakewood Informer is grateful for this resident article to bring you the news that Lakewood is not highlighting. Lakewood City Council is considering proposals from the Lakewood Advisory Committee to increase safety and reduce traffic speeds throughout the city. The plans include reducing speed limits on residential streets from 30 mph to 25 or 20 mph, and the use of red-light and speed monitoring cameras. While well intentioned, the approach taken and comments made by Council members at a recent meeting seem to question if the recommended solutions will actually be effective. The actions being considered originate from a request by Council Member (now Mayor) Wendi Strom in August, 2022. The request cites areas of concern in Ward 5, particularly the vicinity of Kendrick’s Lake Elementary school, and the Jewell/Kipling area. The request notes that she has received complaints from Ward 5 residents about speeding traffic in these areas. The Lakewood Advisory Committee (LAC) prepared a report addressing the request, presenting their findings to Council in June, 2023. In their report, the LAC recommends re-striping and repaving to narrow lanes and reduce speeds, use of funding to increase the use of multi-use off-street paths, reducing speed limits city-wide, and installing cameras. Lakewood’s Public Works department also looked into the matter, and has formulated some solutions of their own, although they have yet to publish a final report. This was taken up again on April 1, 2024 at a City Council Virtual Study Meeting. Although the original request was intended for specific areas within Ward 5, Council is considering implementing the findings on a city-wide basis. Mike Whittaker, a traffic engineer with the Public Works Division, presented comments from the department’s staff discussions and recommendations based on the LAC report. Lower speed limits do not result in slower driving There are a couple items that stood out from the Public Works presentation. First, they note that in cities where speeds have been reduced from 30 to 25 mph, or even 30 to 20 mph on residential streets, the average speed drivers actually drive is reduced by only 1 or 2 mph. Drivers choose to exceed the new lower speed limit and continue to drive at or near the speeds they are used to driving. This was noted in a study from Minnesota when some of their residential speed limits were reduced. The City of Boulder saw similar results, but on some streets, driving speeds actually increased. Another concern by Public Works is that lower speed limits might actually irritate some drivers who will respond by driving more aggressively. A third point of concern deals with the use of red-light cameras. When drivers know that a red-light camera might catch them running the light at an intersection, they are likely to err on the side of caution and brake suddenly to avoid a ticket, catching the driver behind off-guard, resulting in a rear-end collision. This subject actually came up a couple times during the meeting and is always an issue wherever red-light cameras are installed. What are the costs? Notably absent from the discussion was the mention of any firm costs associated with implementing these plans. For changing speed limits city-wide, new speed limit signs need to be painted and installed to replace all existing signs on residential streets, at some unspecified cost to taxpayers. Red-light and speed control cameras require additional studies of where to install and where to aim the cameras to be effective. The city would be dealing with a contractor who operates the cameras, and that involves a monthly rental cost ($8,500 per month for one unit was cited in the meeting), plus additional costs for installing the cameras, city personnel to monitor them, and costs to administer and collect fines. A city-wide solution is not the answer One puzzling thing that comes to mind after listening to the Study Meeting is this. The streets cited as being in most need of control (Alameda, Wadsworth, Colfax, Mississippi, and Jewell were mentioned several times) are not residential streets. The Public Works presentation, and the LAC recommendations, do not have any discussion on how reducing speed limits on residential streets will impact the areas of greatest concern. If I have to drive 20 mph on South Quail Street (a residential street), is that likely to reduce accidents at Alameda and Wadsworth? The obvious answer is no. Many residential streets in Lakewood, and particularly the older streets that are a bit wider, are safe to drive at 30 mph. Instead of replacing all of Lakewood’s “Speed Limit 30” signs and mandating a lower 20 or 25 mph limit, the practical solution is to reduce speed limits in the areas that are most troublesome and increase enforcement efforts in those areas. If that means allowing police officers the opportunity to earn a little overtime pay, those costs would certainly be less than what it would cost to replacing all the residential speed limit signage. One of the Council members remarked the drivers who are most dangerous are the ones egregiously speeding – the ones going 40 and 50 mph on residential streets. Those violators are particularly dangerous and need to be targeted, not the ones going one or two miles an hour over the limit. Unintended consequences Another puzzling item that was not fully discussed in the Study Meeting deals with how drivers react to reduced speed limits. If drivers only reduce their speeds by 1 or 2 miles per hour when speed limits are lowered, is there really any benefit to reducing speed limits at all, or are you out to make the residents “criminals”?

“We’re Done with You, Councilor Olver” – Ceasefire Advocates Only at City Council

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 9, 2024Posted in Uncategorized

The April 22 Lakewood City Council meeting had two hours of public comment, most of which were advocates of a ceasefire in Gaza. This seemed to be a scheduled appearance, with some Council Members in possession of prepared statements on the subject and one member, Councilor Olver, wearing a T-shirt in support for Israel. In this case, that sign of support was all he was allowed to demonstrate because his comments were interrupted by a motion to adjourn by Councilor Shahrezaei, who followed the motion with the words “We’re done with you, Councilor Olver.” The early adjournment not only cut off Olver’s comments but deprived three Councilors of their ability to make a ward report. This motion came after Shahrezaei herself made a statement in favor of a ceasefire, so the motion seems intended to stop Olver’s pro-Israeli sentiment. The motion passed by a vote of 6-5. Councilor Comments: Shahrezaei: Thanks everyone that came out and shared in public comment. She says “there’s some of us who’ve had the opportunity to connect with leadership in your group quite frequently” and she continues to offer her small sphere of influence to support this cause. She wants to continue this conversation Mayott-Guerrero: “Thank you all for your energy and sharing your frustration and continuing to care when it is very, very easy to stop caring. And I absolutely feel aligned with you all.” Signals her willingness to talk about bringing a motion to a future meeting on this topic. Cruz: Thanks the group for bringing stories to shed light on how the tragedy unfolding every day in Gaza is deeply connected to our lives here in Lakewood. “I have been publicly standing as an individual and calling for a bilateral and permanent ceasefire for months… It pains me that with the limited power I have as a member of this body that we have not done more to listen to all of you and send this message more formally, but I do commit to continuing to listen” and says she will do what she can to “pave the path forward towards a free Palestine.” Stewart: Thanks everyone for coming and says this humanitarian crisis is incredibly dire and “I am up here today, urging our federal government to do absolutely everything in our power to ensure that aid is getting to the people who desperately need it and that we are working towards peace.” Low: “Hamas is a terrorist organization in a region with a complicated and long history…. The violence the Netanyahu government has unleashed in response has been horrifyingly disproportionate…. We do need a ceasefire and we need it now.” He is not planning on addressing this topic again as a Lakewood City Councilor. Olver: “Isn’t it great that we can do this? You know where you can come in and speak and I can take the other side and we have a conversation. That’s one of the advantages of living in America.” Olver wears a t-shirt saying “I stand with Israel”. Starts to explain the meaning of “From the river to the sea”. Could not complete his comments. Council Member Shahrezaei defended her actions when questioned at the Ward 1 meeting. Shahrezaei said that a meeting can be ended at any time. However, interrupting the current speaker to make a motion is not allowed by either Robert’s Rules, Bob’s Rules, or Council policies. Scorecard: Adjourn the Meeting Rather Than Finish Council Comments Strom: Aye Shahrezaei: Aye Sinks: Aye Mayott-Guerrero: Aye Cruz: Nay Stewart: Aye Low: Nay Olver: Nay Rein: Nay LaBure: Aye Nystrom: Nay

Lakewood Shelter May Be a Magnet

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 8, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged commentary, community, housing, news, water

The mid-year report on Lakewood’s homeless shelter showed some progress and some new problems. The April 15, 2024, Council Study Session highlighted the 50-person capacity of the new “emergency” cold weather shelter at the location of the new Navigation Center on West Colfax. This was a planned shelter, used on an emergency basis because the building is not ready or approved to act as a shelter. As a new venture, the shelter encountered problems that Lakewood is learning from, such as determining the capacity of the building in-transition. Other problems that will be more difficult to solve are becoming apparent. For example: The success of the shelter was evidenced by the number of people using the program. The Navigation Center can currently support 50 people, and it exceeded that limit several nights. Guests who exceeded capacity were offered vouchers for hotels, paid for by Jefferson County. This has led to some policy changes so that people are not incentivized to wait for a hotel opportunity. Lakewood has started providing transportation services to and from these hotels for the people who want to use a hotel voucher in another city but want to remain in Lakewood. Transportation includes coordinating volunteer efforts and paying Bayaud Enterprises. City Council Members pointed out that problems would be decreased if other cities made the same switch Lakewood has, with the government taking on the work of what was previously non-profit domain. “It was never envisioned that Lakewood would be the sole provider of navigation services. So we really need to see that so that Lakewood doesn’t become a magnet for those in need.” Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein (24 min mark) Despite not having the current emergency operation under control, City Council is already pushing for more services. Councilors Mayott-Guerro and Cruz asked for city resources to set up a food network. Staff respond that having food service is difficult without some consistency. Councilor Shahrezaei advocated for being open more nights. Staff say changing the opening requirements makes it hard for staff to anticipate what is needed and may lead to being open for most of the winter. According to Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein, it will be a couple of years until the Navigation Center is fully operational as a shelter. The city is still in the acquisition phase for the shelter property. “We all want to figure out how to not let people die from weather, right? And that’s such a cool shared value because it’s actually just not that radical, but it was five years ago.” Council Member Mayott-Guerrero on Lakewood’s switch in city philosophy (30 min mark) The idea of shelters is not radical for an individual or a charitable institution, but it is more so for a government. The Lakewood Informer reported in August, 2023, that local governments hoped someone else would step up to serve, without themselves committing to take responsibility. Previous letters of support to Lakewood made no promises of financial support. “At this time, Arvada does not have a plan for a navigation center, such as the one in Lakewood. Like other cities in the metropolitan area, we are evaluating a number of ideas that might help address the unhoused population. Arvada intends to observe what happens at the Lakewood navigation center with their implementation.” Arvada email dated December 7, 2023 Council is concerned about reaching the limit of shelter capacity next year. Goldstein says Lakewood cannot open another shelter without becoming an even greater attractant (58 min mark). Many of the area’s unhoused are now counting on the Navigation Center for shelter, as opposed to the local non-profits that fill up. This will especially be a problem when the center is closed for renovations next winter. Retrofits are now expected to go into 2026, rather than being completed in 2025 as expected. Council Member Low praised the program for saving lives during the cold winter nights. When asked how much the number of deaths decreased, staff responded that they never tracked deaths, and if they did, it would be impossible to tell whether the death was from cold or not. Life-saving or not, 50 people were provided shelter over about 20 nights. According to the staff memo, this could be a total of over 887 individuals, or the same 50 people multiple times. Another measure of success was the 52 Facebook posts the city made, which received over 150,000 impressions on social media.

Will Lakewood Follow Denver into Lawsuits over Green Remodeling

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 7, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged climate-change, Colorado, energy, environment, Lakewood, news, sustainability

Denver and Colorado are being sued for rules on climate goals and greenhouse gas emission standards that the City of Lakewood is considering adopting. Denver and Colorado both approved a building performance standard that would force builders, landlords and homeowners to meet emission goals through green remodeling and electric appliance retrofits. Lakewood also has building performance standards through its Article 13. Lakewood takes four times as many climate mitigation and adoption steps as other cities, leading to Lakewood being named a leader in climate action. Lakewood is one of only 119 cities around globe to take steps like building standards. Rule 28 in Denver and Colorado goes even further by requiring “benchmarking” performance since 2021. Based on building performance, it is now time for required cuts, leading to a lawsuit by the Colorado Apartment Association, the Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association and others. The cuts will require costly remodeling. In August of 2023, Lakewood staff recommended the city join Denver and Colorado in the benchmarking program, described below, that only about 30 cities throughout the nation have adopted. However, these policies are not market-tested and they are extreme enough that Denver and Colorado are being sued. If Lakewood leadership adopts the additional staff recommendations, or agrees to recommendations from the LAC on Green Remodeling, the city may find also find itself in the news and in legal jeopardy. Colorado apartment landlords sue to block Denver, state greenhouse gas cuts that they find crushing State and local governments don’t have a right to require expensive renovations and appliance swaps to cut greenhouse gases, group suit says – by Michael Booth4:08 AM MDT on Apr 25, 2024 Is Being a Leader a Good Thing? In a “you say potato…” moment, the lawsuit in Denver shows that one person’s leader is another person’s extremist. Not everyone agrees that going where these climate policies lead is worth it. While the debate rages over climate science, policy makers rarely point out that there are two sides to the story, in order to promote their narrative. Climate policies have real-world economic consequences that could make housing even more expensive. Lakewood already has an Enhanced Development Menu that requires new development to meets a point scheme, based on the Menu options, that achieves climate goals of rolling back emissions in compliance with state goals. Development is thereby prohibited unless it meets climate goals. The policies Lakewood is currently advocating align with Colorado’s Rule 28 that monitors energy usage for buildings not already covered by the state. This process is called benchmarking, which Lakewood staff describe as “the regular monitoring and reporting of an individual building’s energy consumption to track changes over time and monitor progress towards increased efficiency and decreased GHG emissions.” While the process may sound routine and innocuous, this program must be put in place before the government can have access to private energy-use data. Once in place, the data can be used to set the bar and start imposing usage limits, incentives, conversions, etc. Lakewood is specifically talking about the switch from gas-powered to electrical tools and appliances. The Colorado and Denver rules currently only apply to commercial and multi-family units but the policy puts them to the left of cities like Boulder, as seen in the map below. In fact, Denver is second in the nation only to San Francisco. Being on the forefront of the climate change debate gets Denver in the news but it also attracts lawsuits. And Lakewood is recommending these same actions. Lakewood is taking things a step further and seeking similar solutions for residential homes, the details of which can be found at the city website, with more from the Lakewood Informer news site. Back in August, Lakewood staff were enthusiastic about Lakewood becoming another purple dot on the map below, which would show their leader/extremist tendencies, depending on your viewpoint. Will that change once the lawsuits start?

Lakewood Being Considered for All-America City

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 2, 2024Posted in Uncategorized

Letter from Celia Greenman regarding The All-America City Award – National Civic League I am writing because I have heard that Lakewood is being considered for the All American City award. According to your website, some of the areas of focus for this year’s theme are: Removing barriers to participation in civic lifeImproving public meetings through innovative practicesUndertaking reforms that give people a meaningful say in public decision-makingCreating a stronger sense of belonging and communityPromoting deliberative forms of public decision-makingAdvancing equity and inclusion In the above six categories I would say the City has failed. Since the election of the new mayor in November, public comment has been pushed to the end of the agenda, whereas it had been historically in the beginning after the opening ceremony. Mayor Strom has said this is to allow Council to complete their business, whereas a former City councilman once responded, “The people’s voice is the City’s business”. The change in schedule means that people who work, have families, and/or who rely on public transportation can be excluded from in-person comment. Remote Call-ins have been restricted because of recent hate speech. Comments submitted on a web forum are often unread by City Council (a notation at the end of a comment signifies the number of council people who have read the comment. At the April 22 Council meeting, a motion to adjourn was passed, leaving three councilors without an opportunity to give a report that might have provided diversity of thought. Therefore, I conclude that the City has not removed barriers to participation in civic life or improved public meetings. Also, whereas planning departments in Greeley, Ft. Collins, Colorado Springs and Golden are extremely helpful, in my experience, returning calls and emails the same day I left a message and sending out requested information immediately, Lakewood has a convoluted process where instead of being able to contact staff directly by email the message goes through Lakewood requests with a 3 – 5 day response period. (The legal department does not respond to the public). Although the city has hired a communications manager we now are getting more on social media sites like Facebook and Instagram but less regarding publication of upcoming Council meetings and their proposed agenda. The report on the City Council Annual Planning Retreat was available two weeks after the meeting (this states the priorities and goals that Council has set for the upcoming year) but has not been mentioned in any city mailing. Another city publication (Looking @ Lakewood) formerly included reports from the City Councilors in all the wards in each issue which kept the public informed about the city as a whole. Now one ward is highlighted in each issue. In addition the City, while proclaiming in City Council meetings that the schools that have been closed are not under the purview of Lakewood but rather Jefferson County, has held private meetings with the Jefferson County School district’s COO and a non-profit organization for the homeless community regarding the next steps for one of the elementary schools. The meetings have been held with no public input. This does not align with the City removing barriers to participation in civic life or undertaking reforms that give people a meaningful say in public decision making. In 2019 Lakewood voters approved a Strategic Growth Initiative to limit the growth of development in the City. Despite this support from the people, Lakewood continued to find exemptions and ways to continue to construct large non-descript apartment buildings. Some of these projects allowed no input from the public. One such project, under consideration, is located directly adjacent to a park that Lakewood describes on its website as “the crown jewel in Lakewood’s park system”. The six-story 412- unit luxury apartment building went through 2 years of process in the planning department before notice was given to surrounding residents and the public. Decisions were made by the Planning Director and Community Resources Department to allow the developer to pay a fee in lieu of donating the parkland acreage that is required by City ordinance, and which could have buffered the development and saved mature trees, of which 65 are scheduled for removal. People opposing this project have repeatedly been told there is nothing the City can do. Development projects are not reviewed by City Council and have not been referred to the City Planning Commission in over 12 years. Therefore, I conclude that this does not create a stronger sense of belonging and community, and does not promote deliberative forms of decision making. For years a local university has been purchasing property for university use, which is against the City zoning code. In spite of the fact that the City (with contributions from two Citizen Interveners) won a lawsuit against the university in Jefferson County District Court and the decision was affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals, city staff still refuses to enforce an ordinance pertaining to the prohibition of university uses in low density residential neighborhoods. This is an equity issue and an illustration of how the City is willing to set aside a court ruling that favored neighborhoods to support big money interests, in this case a university. Therefore, I conclude that the City is not advancing equity and inclusion. In summary I do not know the qualifications of the other finalists for this award, but I hope other cities are not as dismissive of citizens’ desires to be included in the civic process as Lakewood has been. The pervasive feeling of constituents is a lack of trust, transparency and accountability for our local government. That shouldn’t be characteristics of an All Star City and I urge you not to consider Lakewood for this award. However, if the award is based on just political conditions, the qualifications really do not matter. Sincerely, Celia Greenman Lakewood, CO

Support Lakewood Informer!