Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Public comment from a Lakewood, Colorado local, Marge Callum, had over 45 million views as of March 5, 2024. The clip has been posted for 48 hours at this time. Great job making local and national news, Marge! Posted on @elonmusk.
Guest post by Lenore Herskovitz On March 1 and 2, 2024 City Council held its Annual Planning Meeting. Mayor Strom and Councilor Stewart organized the event. The City used the same facilitator as last year (Point b(e) Strategies) but unlike last year there was no recording of this meeting. Ironically, one of last year’s priorities was “Effective, accountable, transparent, and data-informed government”. This seems like an appropriate time to look back on how successful the Council has been in achieving its 2023 goals (3 of the 6 proposed goals will be discussed). The first: Secure, inclusive, and affordable neighborhoods. The focus regarding housing was provided by the Strategic Housing Plan which was discussed in a Study Session in the beginning of 2023 and then at the end of the year. This is an ongoing process. Additionally, the Housing Policy Commission was going to take up where the defunct Development Dialogue Committee left off in April, 2022 targeting, in part, affordability and inclusionary zoning. The Housing Policy Commission spent close to a year formulating Short Term Rental (STR) legislation. Once this passed in March 2023 the Commission was free to take on the other housing issues. Their first meeting was held in May of last year. Two following meetings occurred ending in July, then nothing for the remainder of the year. Two proposed meetings were cancelled. The second: Short and long-term solutions for the unhoused. There has been some progress in this area with the opening of RecoveryWorks Navigation Center and the establishment of an emergency cold weather sheltering program. This topic will also be an ongoing challenge for the future. The third: Effective, accountable, transparent, and data-informed government. Two positives can be noted. The City has hired a Communications Manager, Angela Ramirez, who has been reaching out on various social media platforms in an effort to keep the public informed about citywide issues. Additionally, the Lakewood Police Department has begun posting a weekly activity summary called “Snapshots of Police Work” which includes calls for service, arrests, traffic stops, etc. This has been promoted on Nextdoor, Facebook, and in the Friday Report mailing. In spite of these inroads, problems far outweigh any progress that has been made. It is still difficult to navigate websites with additions being made frequently. There is confusion between when and where notifications should be posted on Lakewood.org (the official city site) and Lakewoodspeaks. At last year’s annual meeting a “one stop shop” solution was suggested. It never went anywhere. Now “Looking at Lakewood” which is sent to every household in the city only features one Ward per issue. Previously all wards and Councilors had an entry in each mailing. This created a sense of connectivity between wards. Now that source of information has been removed. We must maintain our monthly Ward meetings. Coffee chats and office hours with our representatives should serve as a supplement not a replacement for community gatherings. We are constantly hearing from staff and our elected officials how much they value and desire our input ( the latest buzz phrase is “community engagement”) on surveys, the Strategic Housing Policy and most recently the Comprehensive Plan to name but a few. Yet when it comes to turning suggestions and requests into actionable policy many feel it is an exercise in futility. Even obtaining information regarding this year’s annual meeting was difficult. Councilor Stewart told the attendees at the most recent Ward 3 meeting that the agenda and meeting information were available on Lakewoodspeaks. Evidently she had not verified this because the posting was on Lakewood.org without the agenda. The agenda was finally available to the public 24 hours before the scheduled event (this is all that is required). For years the public has wanted this meeting to be more accessible and transparent. Who decided not to record the event this year? And why? Where is the accountability? At its peak, nine members of the community attended the March 2 meeting in person. I attended part of the first day event (this was conducted by the Mayor with no facilitator present). I was the only community member there. Communications between staff, council members and the public are insufficient especially when discussing controversial issues. The city is often reactive instead of proactive which leads to confusion, anger and resentment. Too many decisions are made behind the scene by “anonymous” staff which fuels the lack of trust. Misinformation runs rampant among community members and within our governing body. There is mixed messaging and omissions of pertinent information leading to blame-placing from both sides.Council members have been negligent on following up on goals set last year. The City Manager was asked to provide quarterly updates on the established goals. Originally it was suggested that this be done in person but that was ignored and replaced by videos. The last available video that was posted on the city dashboard was from July, the end of the 2nd quarter (there are written updates but no videos that I was able to locate). The Council needs to provide oversight and hold the City Manager accountable when she doesn’t fulfill her obligation. This would hold true for any job but especially for someone who is our highest paid city official. The Council can weigh in on this when the City Manager’s evaluation comes up next month. A broader look back shows there were only 7 study sessions last year. The calendar allows for an equal number of council meetings and study sessions each month. The Belmar Park West project highlighted many problems including the land dedication/fee in lieu process. There should have been annual reviews by Kit Newland, Director of Community Resources since 2019. NOT DONE! The City Council was suppose to review this policy by the end of last year. NOT DONE! This is now scheduled for a study session on April 15, 2024, 4 1/2 months after the deadline that had been set. Interestingly, it only took the Council 2 weeks this past summer to pass an emergency
Two, separate, eyewitnesses confirm that an extended bus of migrants was dropped at the Hometowne Studios at 6th and Kipling, in Lakewood, Colorado. The first report came in on Monday, February 26 during a City Council meeting where Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom would later say she feared a busload of migrants would show up without prior notice. The news was confirmed the next day by a second eyewitness near the motel. An extended bus is the same as two regular buses and has been described as an RTD-style bus that was painted white. Hotel management has not returned calls. Denver responded that they have no involvement in any hotel in Lakewood. Mayor Strom responded promptly on February 28 that she was not aware of such a bus. A high-ranking city official has said that a private group is paying for the hotel.
Guest Post by J.T. Johnson – Lakewood Ward 4 If you missed the last two Lakewood City Council meetings, you missed… Well, let’s put it this way, if my Mom had caught me doing what I saw at the meeting, I would have been sent to my room without any dinner. Let’s start with the February 12 meeting: Perhaps the most disconcerting and substantive financial part of the meeting came about as a result of questions posed by Councilor Rein to the City Planning Office and the State’s representative providing the grant. According to the City Planning Office, the taxpayers are on the hook for $2M – $2.5 of operating expenses each year. (The City’s own financial documentation indicates the operating costs will be much higher, but let’s use the Planning Office numbers for now.) He went on to say that any decision of the Council to accept the $9M grant would “not be binding on future Councils.” I believe most legal scholars would disagree with the City Planner and state that future Councils will be bound by grant conditions and the “strings” attached to the grant. A future Council could elect to breach – but that always comes with a price tag. Query: Where was the City Attorney while the City Planning Office was providing legal advice to the Council? She sat there and didn’t say a word. Following the Planning Office comments, the grant representative from the State said that a contract would be negotiated with the City identifying the City’s obligations. This contract would only be negotiated AFTER the City accepts the $9M grant. She pointed out that the contact obligations would be for a 30-year period of time. YIKES! The City will not know its contractual obligations with the State until AFTER it accepts the money. What entity takes $9M without knowing what “strings” are attached?? The answer to that probing question is, your City Council. A simple remedy to this problem would have been to negotiate the terms of the grant contract PRIOR to accepting the money. Finalization of the contract could have been contingent on the City accepting the grant. At least the citizens of Lakewood would have known what their City Council had signed them up for if the terms had been negotiated in advance. But, No! The councilors were so eager to get their hands on more of your money that they apparently didn’t even want to know what the additional strings would be. And don’t forget, “he who controls the purse controls the “strings.” Other than the two councilors from Ward 4 (Olver and Rein), no councilor expressed ANY concern over the uncertainty of the “strings” attached to accepting the $9M. Now, fast forward to the February 26 Council meeting. The issue consuming the most time at this meeting dealt with the Head Start program in Lakewood. Due to possible overlapping resources and the very high per capita cost of the program, Lakewood wants to eliminate the Head Start program from its provided resources. The City favors passing this opportunity to Jefferson County or a private entity. All of the councilors seemed to agree with eliminating the program from the City’s budget. However, there was some uncertainty over which entity (if any) might take on the Head Start responsibilities so as not to have a disruption of services. NOW, here’s the dichotomy – because of the “uncertainty” the Council would not move forward to allow the City to notify the Federal Government (DOE) that the City of Lakewood would no longer be responsible for the Head Start program. The councilors wanted the City to informally probe other Head Start providers (private entities and Jefferson County) to ascertain their interest. Here’s the problem: the councilors were told by the City representatives that the Federal Government cannot seek other providers UNTIL the City removes itself as the Head Start provider. Only one of the councilors expressed an opinion that acquiring another provider would not be a problem, given the City’s support for the program. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty (though likely small), the Council voted to delay notifying the Federal Government. Apparently, the councilors – even if they are well-intended – have little knowledge about Federal Government contracting. They may think that the Federal Government can move at light speed and such delay would have no impact on continuing the Head Start program. In reality, the timeframe between now and the City’s proposed schedule to withdraw from the Head Start program may be insufficient to allow the Federal Government to meet its contracting requirements. Council’s failure to allow the City to give timely notice to the Federal Government may result in contracting deadlines being missed. Later in the meeting, one of the councilors recounted some of the events from the February 12 meeting. He specifically stated that the February 12 meeting included a “robust” discussion relating to the finances at the Navigation Center and the $9M grant. I must have attended a different City Council meeting because I heard no “robust” discussion about funding. Unfortunately, he misses the bigger issue. While there were brief comments about the current finances and how a portion of the grant could fund some of the operating expenses, there was no discussion about how the City would fund the long-term operating costs and no discussion about how to fund any of the “strings” the State will attach to the grant… and how could there be any discussion about those “stings” since the City Council has no idea what they will be. We heard no discussion about contents of the thirty-year contract required by the State, when those contract negotiations would occur and whether the Council would even review/approve the contract. Bottom line – Uncertainty over “strings” attached to $9M and saddling taxpayers with $60M – $100M+ of future obligations is not a problem for this council. ($60M if you use the Planning Office low number and likely more than $100M if you use the City’s internal numbers.)
Does the Lakewood Police Department (LPD) check the ICE database when making arrests, as was common practice before Colorado became a sanctuary state? Would Lakewood Police release a person charged with a crime before Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE could file a detainer, as happened in Georgia with Laken Riley? What does Lakewood PD do if they find someone with uncertain immigration status? What are the processes and policies for Lakewood to cooperate with ICE? From January 17 to February 7, a series of questions and open records requests were submitted to Lakewood PD to answer these questions. The intent was to establish whether Lakewood was cooperating with ICE or acting as a sanctuary city. After almost a full month, on Feb 12 at 5:15, right before the big City Council meeting at 7pm, Patrick Freeman, the Senior Police Legal Advisor for the Lakewood PD, called to say they couldn’t understand what was being requested. He said policies were online and could be found there – exact page unspecified. So after emails dated January 17, 24, Feb 7, registered mail and phone calls, the answer was to find the answer yourself on an unindexed website. Can you find the answers to these questions in one of the links, sub-links, etc. below. Yes, this is a list of approximately 600 links that is the self-service method to answering citizen requests regarding policy. Freeman repeatedly stressed that he was not trying to be difficult, he just couldn’t understand the request. This is absolutely possible but it is also true that many communication problems can be solved through discussion and questions. However, Freeman said it was not necessary for him to answer any questions. He quoted the open records statute to show there was no requirement for questions to be answered. Does this mean a state statute needs to be cited in order for Lakewood to answer resident questions? An exhaustive search of these policies is often impossible for many Lakewood residents and information overload is an effective deterrent. However, a cursory search did not reveal any polices regarding cooperation with any federal agency, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) or the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Where are the policies for cooperating with federal agencies? Since the Lakewood Police Department could not produce any relevant documents in response to the document request, and will not answer questions, how can Lakewood residents know what is going on with their city? One Lakewood resident says, “I was present at the City Council meeting that Adam Paul declared that Lakewood would never arrest anyone for being an illegal, nor would our police ever refer anyone to ICE —even if arrested. Nor was ID required by the police.” The resident recalls Paul made the statement years ago when Denver declared its sanctuary status. This meeting would be captured on video but is hard to locate after all this time. Any city that offers sanctuary would not have a policy or procedure since it would not cooperate with ICE. If Lakewood is not a sanctuary, why do its leaders resist providing substantive policy or procedural information on how they cooperate with ICE? Why does their attorney find it difficult to understand lawful open record requests? Read more Read more here about how Lakewood is trying to build trust in the community, including increasing transparency: New Police Philosophy for Lakewood
Promoted Post My Elder Buddy a 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. Call or email me Amy Kauffman 303-564-5013 myelderbuddy@gmail.com for references and costs.
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.” Rahm Emanuel
Guest Post by Bill Foshag 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
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.
Cross Post from SaveBelmarPark.com Comments from Lakewood Attorney Kenley Brunsdale regarding the Belmar Park West major site plan review process: I spent my life as a lawyer working in administrative law arena. And so some thoughts come to mind. These negotiations took place in secret and quiet. Who knows what the city gave away for nothing. But this has been a really classic case of of that game that developers play and that should be eliminated. Click/Tap to read the rest of his comments