Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Uncategorized

Lakewood Will Lower Speed Limits and is Looking at Cameras

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Uncategorized

Lakewood City Council agreed to lower residential speed limits on April 1, 2024, however what to lower them to is still in question. Council is reacting to a rash of complaints about speeding, however, Lakewood Police cited a lack of safety incidents. Lakewood Traffic Engineering cited studies that showed that lowering the speed limit 5 mph will turn into a 1 mph decrease, and sometimes there’s a overall speed increase, because drivers think that the new speed limit is unreasonable so they ignore it. Council relies on a report from the Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) to show the good intentions of speed reduction. Other programs that were discussed include automatic ticketing cameras and red-light cameras. All of these proposals will likely operate at a loss, as shown by recent experience in Aurora and other cities. The speed reduction concept started years ago, with an assignment to the LAC to study the issue, which was presented June 12, 2023. The LAC report showed several ways of slowing people down, but did not show the other side by fully reporting effectiveness or unintended consequences. They also assumed a low-level residential speeding problem was a safety problem. At that time, Lakewood Councilor Rich Olver sounded the alarm the issue was coming and was told he was a conspiracy theorist. The Lakewood Police Department and Public Works Department had a slightly different view from the LAC, as presented on April 1. Their experience in the city showed that speeding was more of a complaint issue than a safety issue. A lack of safety issues would present problems with being able to secure speed photo radar because those cameras require working with CDOT on establishing safety corridors. The corridor must show an existing pattern of safety incidents, such as accidents or reckless driving, which do not exist on the streets requested by City Council. Complaints alone may not be enough to justify the problem. Although the LAC proposal lists cities that lower speed limits, staff research shows that they are not effective or long-lasting without police enforcement. Changing the sign will do little to nothing, decreasing speeds only one to two miles per hour. Boulder showed an increase in speed as drivers got angry at the change and pushed back. Councilors such as Shahrezaei and Low argued that staff may not be as knowledgeable as the LAC on this issue. “It’s not good policy to make most of our residents outlaws” Staff response to “Why not go down to 20 mph” NOTE: It is important to note that the discussion did not differentiate between people going <10 mph over, versus aggressive drivers going >10 mph. The latter is more serious and those drivers are most apt to ignore all signs. Staff already cite lack of resources for dealing with other, more serious issues. On traffic concerns, they urge Council to look at red light cameras because running red lights presents an evidence-based safety concern. However, staff cite research to show no camera will generate enough revenue to cover the cost, meaning that Lakewood would lose money on any of these efforts with dubious return in safety. Aurora is stopping their pilot program and other cities who lowered speed limits to 20 mph had to raise them up to 25 mph due to public backlash. There was no report that residents were happier with the 25 mph ending.   Council seemed to prepared to stick to their preconceived notions that speed limits must be reduced based on the LAC report requested by Council. They agreed 10-1 that speed limits must be lowered, but debate continues on what to lower the limit too. Additional research on cameras will proceed. Notable Council Quotes and Position Statements: Stewart: Wants to lower limits to 20 mph and acknowledges that the result may only be one or two miles per hour less, but that one or two miles per hour less could save a pedestrian’s life. Not interested in red light cameras or enforcement in high-traffic areas. Shahrezaei: Says Golden and Denver have gone to 20 mph so it would make sense to match our neighbors. Argues that the police and staff don’t have enough data to draw conclusions but the LAC does. Interested in red light cameras. Olver: “I applaud the reality-based thinking [by the staff].” Would like to stay at 30 mph and look into red light cameras. Low: “Very much in favor of reducing the speed limit”. Argues with staff whether it is really necessary to work with CDOT to justify and set up safety corridors and would like to find a way to make it happen. Argues that the staff presentation is mostly conjecture. Summed up that what he heard staff say was that lowering to 25 would have no real effect and going to 20 mph made things worse but if he saw data that going to 20 saved lives then he’d agree. Interested in red light cameras. Labure: Favors 20 mph. Focuses on enforcement consequences. Raises concerns on major arterials. Interested in red light cameras and noise level monitoring. Mayott-Guerrero: Says that since Lakewood is in a region of 20 mph, touching Golden, that this a known best practice. Advocates for redesigning streets with tree medians and bike lanes, with more speed limit signs. Not interested in red light cameras Cruz: Would like to see the more expensive street redesign measure and lowering to 20 mph because it would be an important investment in pedestrian safety and climate goals. Not interested in red light cameras Rein: Asked questions about technology effectiveness and data collection. Favors 25 mph. Not interested in red light cameras Sinks: Favors 25 mph. Would like red light cameras but not one per ward, instead at targeted intersections. Advocates for noise meters for speeders (staff respond there is no law that would allow that). Nystrom: Favors 25 mph. Asks for more research. Interested in red light cameras Strom: Favors 25 mph. Not interested in red light cameras

Read More

Lakewood’s Takeover of Water District Authority

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Uncategorized

For years, the City of Lakewood has been asking water districts to lower their fees on new development. Water districts have understandably said no to this request. The water board sets tap fees, not the city.  Well, Lakewood had enough of asking. New state legislation was introduced by Representative Chris deGruy Kennedy, forcing water districts to be “reasonable”.  His jurisdiction covers Lakewood. His wife is now running for his house seat. He worked with at least one member of the Lakewood Planning Commission and City Council to write this bill on behalf of special interests that will restrict authority of water boards throughout the state to set responsible fees. http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1463 Kennedy has bipartisan support. There is little time left for water districts to oppose the bill. The Special District Association (SDA) helped write this bill, without letting its members know. They remain silent on a position but Kennedy has repeatedly stated he has their support. In fact, one member of the SDA was referenced in the bill itself, in the form of a Colorado Supreme Court decision in which his district won. He was not notified or consulted. He had to explain to the SDA that the legislative interpretation cited in the bill was wrong. Both Representative deGruy Kennedy and the bill authors cite a supposed difference in fees between different districts as justification for this bill. We can show a variation from $2,000 to $47,000. These fees are tied to infrastructure costs in each district. Asking one district to artificially lower fees because of another district is like asking Colorado to lower income tax because another state doesn’t have it. Sounds “reasonable”, right? There is no problem with tap fees except that people don’t like fees. If you give developers a break on fees, do you really think they will lower housing prices? Lakewood gave exceptions to developers for affordable housing for the last five years and got NOT ONE affordable unit. This bill will only be transferring costs to existing customers because SOMEONE will have to pay. Ironically, the bill’s Lakewood sponsors and authors will not have their rates raised because they get service from a private company that is not subject to this legislation – a private company that charges more tap fees than many special districts.

Read More

Lakewood Residents Petition to Save Their Parks

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , ,

Guest Post from Save Open Space Lakewood Lakewood residents petition to save their parks and open space which the City likes to give away to developers. On April 27th they were at Lakewood’s Belmar Park with petitions. Background Local environment advocates will circulate a petition at Lakewood’s Earth Day, on Saturday, April 27, that would force the City from its arrogant behind-the-scenes approval of out-of-control developments to provide significant environmental stewardship for Lakewood. Once certified with 6,000 required signatures, the petition becomes an initiative which Lakewood is required to vote for. If it doesn’t, it will be placed on a citywide ballot. Over one thousand signatures have already been collected in less than a month. When: Saturday, April 27Time: 11 AM -7 PMWhere: Heritage Lakewood Belmar Park, 801 S. Yarrow St., Lakewood 80226 “It’s become clear that nothing short of this petition is going to change complacent City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission to be responsive to citizen concerns and also supportive of preserving our parks and open space,” said Cathy Kentner, who co-created the petition with fellow longtime community activist Rhonda Peters. Both founded Save Open Space Lakewood which is organizing this all-volunteer petition effort. The petition, titled the Lakewood Green Initiative, was inspired after the public learned Lakewood staff had worked for several years to preliminarily approve and advance the plans of Kairoi Residential, a Texas developer, for a 412-unit, 83 unit per floor, 6 story luxury apartment building with a footprint the size of two football fields which would share the eastern boundary of Belmar Park. Belmar Park is a 132 acre beloved park in the middle of Lakewood’s growing concrete jungle. It is a peaceful haven for over 230 bird species (many protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), abundant wildlife and innumerable human visitors. In preliminarily approving the Kairoi plan, the City ignored its own ordinances on protecting parkland and wildlife, improving tree canopy, fighting climate change and providing affordable housing. Instead it supported the gigantic 800,000 square foot design with no buffer with the park, the elimination of 69 mature trees, and lack of serious analysis of the development’s effects on the environment and on the safety of nearby residents who can only exit on a narrow street. The public was notified very late as if it was an afterthought. Now the City claims many elements of the project are a done deal and they lack the power to correct this. Since this deal was initially revealed, the City has placed numerous obstacles in the way of citizen attempts to have input on the development’soutcome. Likewise, Lakewood staff has been actively attempting to thwart approval of the petition. The latest effort was an unprecedented five-day delay. Interestingly, a few hours after a local TV reporter submitted questions to the City, the petition was promptly approved and released to Kentner. The Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments. Longer version: See soslakewood.org Several years ago Kentner, who ran as an independent candidate for Mayor and has served on the Lakewood Planning Commission, successfully authored and helped pass a petition to limit population growth in Lakewood; it was subsequently approved in a citywide election. By not following its own standards, Lakewood has effectively sold what should have been more than a dozen acres of parkland in the last decade. According to information provided by the city, Lakewood has not required land from developers since the Solterra development in 2007 and 2013. Kentner said there appears to be a gentleman’s agreement between Lakewood and all of its developments so they are allowed to pay the City instead of providing open space. Although citizens have long felt powerless as Lakewood approved large apartment buildings in charming neighborhoods and at the perimeter of parks, the Kairoi monolith at Belmar Park inspired several groups to work to either limit the size of the building or eliminate it entirely. SaveBelmarPark.com is a comprehensive website that includes a petition to declare eminent domain on the land between the building and the park in order to create a buffer zone. Save Belmar Park, Inc. has been organizing, educating and fundraising to pursue legal channels to protect the park. Save Open Space Lakewood (SOS Lakewood) created a petition to bring these groups together to work toward a common goal of protecting Lakewood’s natural environment.

Read More

Lakewood Residents Petition to Save Their Parks

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , ,

Guest Post from Save Open Space Lakewood Lakewood residents petition to save their parks and open space which the City likes to give away to developers. On April 27th they were at Lakewood’s Belmar Park with petitions. Background Local environment advocates will circulate a petition at Lakewood’s Earth Day, on Saturday, April 27, that would force the City from its arrogant behind-the-scenes approval of out-of-control developments to provide significant environmental stewardship for Lakewood. Once certified with 6,000 required signatures, the petition becomes an initiative which Lakewood is required to vote for. If it doesn’t, it will be placed on a citywide ballot. Over one thousand signatures have already been collected in less than a month. When: Saturday, April 27Time: 11 AM -7 PMWhere: Heritage Lakewood Belmar Park, 801 S. Yarrow St., Lakewood 80226 “It’s become clear that nothing short of this petition is going to change complacent City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission to be responsive to citizen concerns and also supportive of preserving our parks and open space,” said Cathy Kentner, who co-created the petition with fellow longtime community activist Rhonda Peters. Both founded Save Open Space Lakewood which is organizing this all-volunteer petition effort. The petition, titled the Lakewood Green Initiative, was inspired after the public learned Lakewood staff had worked for several years to preliminarily approve and advance the plans of Kairoi Residential, a Texas developer, for a 412-unit, 83 unit per floor, 6 story luxury apartment building with a footprint the size of two football fields which would share the eastern boundary of Belmar Park. Belmar Park is a 132 acre beloved park in the middle of Lakewood’s growing concrete jungle. It is a peaceful haven for over 230 bird species (many protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), abundant wildlife and innumerable human visitors. In preliminarily approving the Kairoi plan, the City ignored its own ordinances on protecting parkland and wildlife, improving tree canopy, fighting climate change and providing affordable housing. Instead it supported the gigantic 800,000 square foot design with no buffer with the park, the elimination of 69 mature trees, and lack of serious analysis of the development’s effects on the environment and on the safety of nearby residents who can only exit on a narrow street. The public was notified very late as if it was an afterthought. Now the City claims many elements of the project are a done deal and they lack the power to correct this. Since this deal was initially revealed, the City has placed numerous obstacles in the way of citizen attempts to have input on the development’soutcome. Likewise, Lakewood staff has been actively attempting to thwart approval of the petition. The latest effort was an unprecedented five-day delay. Interestingly, a few hours after a local TV reporter submitted questions to the City, the petition was promptly approved and released to Kentner. The Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments. Longer version: See soslakewood.org Several years ago Kentner, who ran as an independent candidate for Mayor and has served on the Lakewood Planning Commission, successfully authored and helped pass a petition to limit population growth in Lakewood; it was subsequently approved in a citywide election. By not following its own standards, Lakewood has effectively sold what should have been more than a dozen acres of parkland in the last decade. According to information provided by the city, Lakewood has not required land from developers since the Solterra development in 2007 and 2013. Kentner said there appears to be a gentleman’s agreement between Lakewood and all of its developments so they are allowed to pay the City instead of providing open space. Although citizens have long felt powerless as Lakewood approved large apartment buildings in charming neighborhoods and at the perimeter of parks, the Kairoi monolith at Belmar Park inspired several groups to work to either limit the size of the building or eliminate it entirely. SaveBelmarPark.com is a comprehensive website that includes a petition to declare eminent domain on the land between the building and the park in order to create a buffer zone. Save Belmar Park, Inc. has been organizing, educating and fundraising to pursue legal channels to protect the park. Save Open Space Lakewood (SOS Lakewood) created a petition to bring these groups together to work toward a common goal of protecting Lakewood’s natural environment.

Read More

City Seeks to De-Tabor but Over Collects Property Tax

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , ,

Guest Post by Mary Janssen Here we are again! The city of Lakewood is sending out a $73k survey to test the waters if the public is ready to De Tabor again and give up your over paid tax refunds so the city can spend it on their pet projects that they deem important. After asking how things are going… snow plowing, police response, pot holes, the money spent on new parks (a new majority in Ward 5). They ask you if you would reject them taking more of your money. One of the questions made me laugh. The one about the Mill levy. If you didn’t know I made a motion last October to decrease the mill levy from 4.7% to 3.85%. This would have decreased the revenue collected by the city to within the charter rule (12.12) which says clearly that property tax revenue must be below 7% growth from previous year. At a budget meeting I attended The city financial officer Holly Bjorklund was projecting a valuation number that she guessed was going to be the new property valuations. We do property taxes in arrears. After doing some research on what the city was collecting on previous years since the last De Tabor we found the city was over collecting property taxes one year alone was 18%. Based on this information I thought the citizens deserved a real decrease so that’s how my team and I came up with 3.85. It would have decreased the revenue to around 5%. The city would still be collecting a fair amount and provide the citizens the relief so desperately needed since the other districts i.e. school, Fire, etc. did not decrease their mills. My team did some calculations and found that based on Holly’s projected valuation number the city would be increasing property tax revenue by 12%. After getting the real certified valuation number from the Jefferson County Assessors in August the city would have made a whopping 24.5% increase in revenue. That new certified number was never brought up, so I made some papers to inform the rest of council, the mayor and the city manager and the budget committee about the new certified valuation numbers and why we must decrease the mill levy to provide relief to our Lakewood citizens. The only other councilor that contacted me about this was Rich Olver and he decided that based on the research and the facts he would co-sponsor my motion. I had to announce my motion by council request and was denied the first time so I had to wait till the end of October at the budget approval council meeting, when I was allowed to bring my motion forward, as reported in Lakewood news. I had already provided the other councilors the mayor, the budget committee city manager and staff my findings and why we need to decrease the mill. I put my motion forward and councilor Olver seconded my motion, when out of the blue councilor Barb Franks made an amendment to my original motion to raise my mill levy number of 3.85 to 4.28% in an appearance to make it look like the revenue was neutral. I have an email from Holly Bjorklund the chief financial officer admitting that the city will be indeed increasing the revenue by 12.5% , not neutral. During discussion about the amendment I cited the charter 12.12 and was told by the city attorney that we were talking about the mill levy reduction not the charter rule about the revenue cap. I was told that in order for the city to go back and look at the interpretation of 12.12 the city would have to be sued. The 4.28% mill levy amendment was voted on 10-1. I declined to vote for the amendment because #1 it was based on an estimated valuation number not the certified valuation number and #2 I knew that the increased revenue would be above the charter cap. So based on facts do you think its safe to let the city take your TABOR Refunds? Mary Janssen Previous Lakewood City Councilor Ward 5

Read More

Give us your TABOR refunds, says Lakewood

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , , , ,

Guest Post by Alex Plotkin A city that for over a decade has not only refused to do economic development (in a true sense), but has lost jobs and is now planning to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize developers, under the guise of “economic development.” A city that, for over a decade, has done nothing to improve the path conditions along Alameda Avenue, in Ward 4.  Nor have any improvements have been made to alleviate the traffic increases at Union and Alameda. To be fair, the city did spend an untold amount of money to add “roundabouts” on Green Mountain Drive.  Perfectly placed to create a road hazard with any amount of snow. A city that has been lecturing the citizens about how the citizens should be planting trees, to cool the city, you know?  The same city that is now allowing an-out-of-state developer to destroy a much-beloved park at Belmar, while chopping down dozens of decades-old trees. A city where for years now the recreational fields at Carmody Park are in an awful shape.  Fields where parents actually pay a fee to have their children play. They “fixed it” this year: And this is a park that has favorable political sunshine on it. A city, where instead of maintaining the hiking and biking trails damaged by runoff, a sign is placed, telling you to be careful.  You should see what the head of parks gets paid, though. A city, where the City Council goes in to executive sessions, to decide on even more perks for a City Manager, while the needs of thousands of residents are ignored and the city is millions over budget: A city, where the citizens are lectured about how they should not be driving, to save the environment and stuff.  While the city has failed to champion any sort of real economic development, so that thousands of people would not have to drive out of the city for work. A city, where the citizens are told not to drive, while the aforementioned City Manager gets paid for mileage, just to go to work.  A City Manager that lives in the city.  Gets paid to drive to work.  Do you? Here is an exert from City Manager’s contract: The taxpayers, it seems also get to pay for the privilege of the department heads using the medical benefits, after they leave.  Do you get a perk such as that with your employer? The City Manager also has a retirement perk that seems more geared for a CEO than a “public servant”. In just one year, the city spends about $100,000,000 just on staff alone.  To be fair, some of that is police, which the city’s council has been hamstringing from even enforcing the laws that exist. Here are the compensation numbers, just for the “department heads” (as of two years ago – you may want to see the updated ones for 2024): As you walk around the neglected parks and drive on Kipling where the road surface has been in need of repair for years and most of the lights are out on some of the sections, may be think about asking the city what has it done with the tens of millions it receives every year, before even getting to the TABOR refunds?  Perhaps start off by looking at the expenditure trends of the planning and city manager’s departments? So when Lakewood asks for your TABOR refund (for parks and police of course), ask the city – why are millions spent on just the planning and the city manager’s offices alone and why is the city millions over budget every year?  The cuts should have happened years ago, with money saved then be used for the parks, police, economic development and road and infrastructure maintenance.  But, instead, the city is now spending thousands of dollars of your money for marketing research to see how to manipulate the residents in to allowing the city to keep millions more from the TABOR-mandated refunds.

Read More

Local Staffing Agency Under New Ownership – Community Gains Await!

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Uncategorized

Press Release The Express Employment Professionals of Lakewood will formally recognize an ownership transition via a ribbon cutting this coming Wednesday. This office has been a staple in the community since 1998 and has provided thousands of locals with jobs in the Light Industrial, Skilled Trades, and Office Professional fields. The office is being bought by Troy McLeland, the current owner of Express Employment Professionals in Downtown Denver. He has been an owner of the Express Franchise for almost seven years, and we’re so excited to watch him bring his expertise to Lakewood’s community. We would love to see the community there to raise awareness of our staffing agency’s FREE services. We help people in the community find jobs at no cost to them, and we’re so excited to be a part of this community. Wednesdays details: Wednesday, April 24th at 4:40pm 651 Garrison Street, Ste. 100, Lakewood, Colorado 80215

Read More

Sale of Lakewood Motel leaves some Coloradans searching for new housing

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Uncategorized

Cross-post by Karen Morfitt, CBS News Room 110 at the Mountain View Inn has everything Joyce Gonzales needs. “It’s small, but it serves the purpose, you know, for me,” she said. Over the last three years, she has worked at a nearby gas station to pay $425 a week needed to live here. From the pots and pans on the wall of her kitchen to the small couch and TV in her living space, she has made it a home. “Don’t have much but it’s all I have. I don’t want to lose it,” Gonzales said. The reality is she will likely have to leave. The motel was sold to Recovery Works earlier this year, which informed long-term guests they would need to vacate. “I said ‘So you guys are going to make someone homeless to help someone who is homeless?’ What is the purpose here?” Read the full story at CBS news…

Read More

Jeffco Missed Opportunities for Sunlight on Emory

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Uncategorized

Tip from Robert Greenawalt, https://improvejeffcoschools.org/ Here is an example of how much Jeffco schools’ staff wanted to keep quiet the talks about Emory and the City of Lakewood/Action Center. The conversation in this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWRI8v0vpl8 occurred at the very end of the November 1, 2023 Board of Ed study session. Staff was directly asked why they wanted the property declared surplus and their answer was that it was big and potentially costly to maintain. There was no mention that they had most likely been approached by, and had discussions with, Lakewood and possibly others. That was deceptive at best and lying by omission at worst. This deprived the Board, and community, of very important information. There is something very wrong with what transpired that evening. Note: Read more of Robert’s reporting on Jeffco fiscal issues at https://improvejeffcoschools.org/ Thank you, Robert!

Read More

Lakewood’s Slippery Slope of Not Prosecuting Crime

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , ,

Guest Post by Chuck Bedard Lakewood citizens are becoming increasingly frustrated over the amount of shoplifting, vandalism, and “less important” crimes that are not being pursued by the police.  And rightfully so! Not long ago, my wife and I watched a man, pushing a shopping cart full of items at Home Depot, breeze through the self-checkout area – bypassing the opportunity to pay for the items – and head to the parking lot.  We looked at the cashier/attendant with stunned expressions on our faces, as we watched the Home Depot personnel do nothing.  Her response was, “The police won’t do anything, so we just let them go.” For a fleeting moment, I thought about canceling my purchase and just loading the items in the cart and heading to my car… Remember, I said “for a fleeting moment.”  I wonder if I would have been treated in the same manner as the thief who had the shopping cart full of items.  Chances are good that Home Depot would have alerted the police if I tried to steal the same merchandise. If I had been pursued by the police and the other person wasn’t, it would be a case of “Selective Prosecution.”  Selective prosecution should be distinguished from “Prosecutorial Discretion.”  Historically, prosecutors have had broad discretion to pursue those cases where the facts support a conviction and elect not to pursue matters where the facts are less clear.  However, as we read the news the lines between “Prosecutorial Discretion” and “Selective Prosecution”  have become blurred – perhaps intentionally. “Prosecutorial Discretion” has been in the news recently when a federal prosecutor elected not to charge Mr. X in a matter relating to stolen classified documents.  Mr. X kept those documents in his garage next to his Corvette.  In electing not to indict Mr. X, the prosecutor noted that he was an elderly man with a poor memory and those facts made it problematic in obtaining a conviction.  Many legal authorities believed this prosecutor’s decision was far more political than legal, thereby removing this case as a matter of traditional and historical “prosecutorial discretion.”  After all, the prosecutor had the individual “dead to right.”  The facts were indisputable.  In reality, the results of this case amounted to “Selective Prosecution” rather than “Prosecutorial Discretion.”  Don’t think for a minute that you or I would not be indicted if Top Secret documents were found in your garage next to your Ford station wagon… even if we were old and had a poor memory. The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals. Therein lies a big problem for the City of Lakewood (or any municipality).  The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals.  The City seems to rely on some form of “prosecutorial discretion” for its diversionary programs that elect not to charge certain classes of individuals with crimes even though the facts of the crime are indisputable. Or, in the alternative, dismissing or reducing charges for those classes of individuals.  In reality, it is “Selective Prosecution,” and it is only a matter of time before Lakewood citizens decide they are fed up with being treated this way.  Based on current practices ANYONE can load up their cart at any store, and exit the store with the cash still in their pockets, knowing they won’t be prosecuted. In other words, in the Home Depot scenario above, if the police elected not to charge the vagrant pushing the cart full of stolen property out of the Home Depot store, they cannot charge anyone pursuing the same activities.  To do otherwise is “selective prosecution” which the courts have said violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.  (The 14th Amendment is often referred to as the Equal Protection Clause.) Some might suggest that a law that isn’t enforced should be removed from the books, or in the alternative, in the case of shoplifting, making it legal if it is under a certain dollar threshold.  The “theory” is that people who need items like food to survive would have this resource.  There again, legal authorities have said that you cannot prosecute only certain classes of people.  If a vagrant can’t or won’t be charged then no one can be charged. That is the essence of  the prohibition of “selective prosecution.” Lakewood City Council seems to think that shoplifting by anyone who can say they need the items for food to survive, should not be prosecuted.  Likewise, other “low-level” crimes like panhandling/washing your window at the stop light, and public urination/defecation are not worthy of attention by the police.  But remember City of Lakewood – if you allow one group to get away with something, you must allow all. Most honorable citizens believe that all crimes should be pursued and pursued equally.  As parents, we know that if you don’t enforce the small stuff, it becomes impossible to enforce the big stuff.  This isn’t rocket science but it is a matter of fair treatment of all citizens and all businesses.  If everyone started pushing their shopping carts out of Home Depot, King Soopers, or Walmart, without paying, those stores would be closed and Lakewood’s tax revenue would be in the toilet. Reader Recommended Business: Gabriela Couture

Read More
Scroll to top