Uncategorized

Guest post from Joan from Lakewood So the progressive Leadership of Lakewood maintained its position after the November 7 election. Congratulations Mayor Strom. But there is a crack in the smooth surface in Lakewood. An unknown politically naive man with no name recognition or political history came in second with 30 percent of the vote. This was dismissed by the winning party as an awful MAGA uprise and not to be considered. But I contend it is the symptom of the growing anger of the citizens of Lakewood over policies that have ignored public input (see the Save Belmar Park people) But consider this, Arvada has recently rejected the monies from the county to open a negotiation center in the city. And is not developing policies and programs that will attract the unhoused into their community. Meanwhile Lakewood takes 7 million of Jefferson County funds (funds from the Federal Infrastructure Act) to open a recovery/navigation center And makes itself more welcoming to unhoused individuals by opening and celebrating new programs.  Editor’s note: It is unconfirmed if County/Federal money will be filtered through Lakewood or go directly to RecoveryWorks. On November 29, there was a church/community meeting to roll out a “Safe to Park” program in the parking lot of Phillips United Methodist church at 1450 S Pierce St, This program will allow people living in their cars to have permission to park in 4 spaces on the church parking lot.  This program is designed to work with the services of Lakewood and there is an MOU that was referred to by the church leadership.(This is similar to a program operated by Lakewood United Methodist Church) My main concern was the cars (no RVs or trailers) are required to spend 4 nights a week in their parking spaces. But must leave between 8am to 6pm and there is no access to running water. Where will they go during the day? And When I asked where would these people would shower, the church leadership stated they are working out an arrangement with the Lakewood Link Recreation center.  This policy was developed by a church homeless committee that passed its approval by a 4 to 3 vote. It is being put in place without a congregational vote. The reasoning is that the homeless are already here so we must do something.  I think the most profound statement during this meeting was from a young father with two young children that stated that he was worried that this would lure more people to come into the neighborhood and park and sleep in their cars on public streets around Lasley Park.  The next night, November 30, I attended an open house of the navigation center, located at 8000 West Colfax Avenue (Allison St and Colfax). This building is being developed in partnership with Recovery Works (a rent to own program) and will house 100 beds for those in need of housing. There were several government officials there and it was a general celebration of the opening of this the First Navigation Center in Lakewood. The mission would be supported by government services. There would be the DMV coming in once a month to help people get driver’s licenses. And medical services.  As well as job counseling. But I came to realize that this was more than a celebration. It actually was a fundraiser for Recovery Works. There was a long speech of how great this is but it is going to take money.  Lots of money. And because the legislature in 2022 passed a bill (that allows 25 percent of private donations to homeless non profits to be used for a tax credit and one could donate up to $100,000 which would create a tax credit of $25,000 which could be used over a 5 year period.  This explained the crowd of lawyers and retired members of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. And the trays of Sushi.  And when asked to vote on the new name for the Center with the West Colfax Community Navigation Center being one of the suggestions. I wrote on a sticky “The Lakewood Lure”

Guest post from Joan from Lakewood So the progressive Leadership of Lakewood maintained its position after the November 7 election. Congratulations Mayor Strom. But there is a crack in the smooth surface in Lakewood. An unknown politically naive man with no name recognition or political history came in second with 30 percent of the vote. This was dismissed by the winning party as an awful MAGA uprise and not to be considered. But I contend it is the symptom of the growing anger of the citizens of Lakewood over policies that have ignored public input (see the Save Belmar Park people) But consider this, Arvada has recently rejected the monies from the county to open a negotiation center in the city. And is not developing policies and programs that will attract the unhoused into their community. Meanwhile Lakewood takes 7 million of Jefferson County funds (funds from the Federal Infrastructure Act) to open a recovery/navigation center And makes itself more welcoming to unhoused individuals by opening and celebrating new programs.  Editor’s note: It is unconfirmed if County/Federal money will be filtered through Lakewood or go directly to RecoveryWorks. On November 29, there was a church/community meeting to roll out a “Safe to Park” program in the parking lot of Phillips United Methodist church at 1450 S Pierce St, This program will allow people living in their cars to have permission to park in 4 spaces on the church parking lot.  This program is designed to work with the services of Lakewood and there is an MOU that was referred to by the church leadership.(This is similar to a program operated by Lakewood United Methodist Church) My main concern was the cars (no RVs or trailers) are required to spend 4 nights a week in their parking spaces. But must leave between 8am to 6pm and there is no access to running water. Where will they go during the day? And When I asked where would these people would shower, the church leadership stated they are working out an arrangement with the Lakewood Link Recreation center.  This policy was developed by a church homeless committee that passed its approval by a 4 to 3 vote. It is being put in place without a congregational vote. The reasoning is that the homeless are already here so we must do something.  I think the most profound statement during this meeting was from a young father with two young children that stated that he was worried that this would lure more people to come into the neighborhood and park and sleep in their cars on public streets around Lasley Park.  The next night, November 30, I attended an open house of the navigation center, located at 8000 West Colfax Avenue (Allison St and Colfax). This building is being developed in partnership with Recovery Works (a rent to own program) and will house 100 beds for those in need of housing. There were several government officials there and it was a general celebration of the opening of this the First Navigation Center in Lakewood. The mission would be supported by government services. There would be the DMV coming in once a month to help people get driver’s licenses. And medical services.  As well as job counseling. But I came to realize that this was more than a celebration. It actually was a fundraiser for Recovery Works. There was a long speech of how great this is but it is going to take money.  Lots of money. And because the legislature in 2022 passed a bill (that allows 25 percent of private donations to homeless non profits to be used for a tax credit and one could donate up to $100,000 which would create a tax credit of $25,000 which could be used over a 5 year period.  This explained the crowd of lawyers and retired members of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. And the trays of Sushi.  And when asked to vote on the new name for the Center with the West Colfax Community Navigation Center being one of the suggestions. I wrote on a sticky “The Lakewood Lure”

Guest post from Rocky Mountain How many of us are concerned that about 80% of the posts on Nextdoor are about crime? Crimes that are committed against themselves, relatives, neighbors, etc. Most of these posts are about how to protect ourselves like installing lights, cameras, security systems or “call the cops”. I’m sure many crimes have been prevented by these actions, but how many crimes have been solved and more importantly, what happened to the perpetrators? Did they receive appropriate punishment for their crime or are they simply given a slap on the wrist, made to promise not to do that again and put right back on the streets? Our police force is underfunded and under staffed. They are restricted from performing their duties to arrest and detain criminals. And really, why bother anyway, they will just be let go anyway Many of these crimes are not just about lost or damaged property. My brother’s truck was stolen. He lost much more than his truck. He lost all of his tools and materials he needed to make a living! They really have stolen the livelihood of himself and his entire family! What should the adequate punishment be for the scumbags that ruined the lives of an honest hard-working family? We are more concerned about the proper treatment of the criminals than their victims! Shame on us! Who is to blame? Look in the mirror.  Editor’s Note: Nextdoor users understand the phenomena of posts like these getting flagged or disappearing, while posts that encourage sympathy for the alleged criminal can proliferate. Lakewood Informer would like both sides present at the table so that sympathy for the victims is not lost. I am 79 years old and have seen my nation, my city and my neighborhood steadily deteriorating.  We used to have a relatively safe and crime free community. For the most part, we were honest, respectful and God-fearing people. We didn’t have to worry about locking our homes, cars etc. I could ride my bike anywhere and leave it without fear of it being stolen. We were taught certain values that are rapidly disappearing today. One of the most important one to me was, ‘If you don’t work, you don’t eat’. I went without supper a few times, but I learned that value pretty quick. Another one that I learned when I was quite young was the responsibility of safely owning and using firearms. Of course, crimes were committed, but there were repercussions for them. Criminals were quickly and adequately punished for their crimes. It sickens me to see crime running rampant. Seeing people so afraid. Afraid of just walking alone even from a parking lot to a store. People feeling that they must carry a defensive device of some kind just in case. People that feel they must live in a fortress with security systems to be relatively safe. Seeing criminals running free without conscience or fear of capture. People who don’t have much hope that ‘calling the cops’ will result in solving the problem. Police being restrained from doing their job. People that care more about the criminal than the victim. The result has changed from, ‘Crime doesn’t pay’ to ‘Crime does pay’. I don’t think that many people who use Nextdoor realize how devastating many of these crimes are to the victims. We are not even a nation anymore because a ‘nation that doesn’t control its borders is not a nation’.

By Barbara Millman During two upcoming Lakewood City Council meetings Save Belmar Park supporters will continue to testify against multibillion dollar developer Kairoi Residential that has planned and pushed through with the full cooperation of the City of Lakewood a gigantic 412 unit, 5 story luxury apartment building sharing the eastern boundary of the city’s treasured  Belmar Park. Gigantic: It has a footprint of two football fields, is 5 stories high, most with 83 apartments on each floor. Secretive: The Lakewood City Council only notified a small neighborhood HOA, Belmar Commons, about the planned development a year ago. The two month pause declared by Karoi to meet with the community concludes December 20. Kairoi has not responded to SBP’s inquiry about a meeting date.  Bits and pieces have come through to SBP only after Kairoi talked to City officials.   Smoke and mirrors? The latest “bit” is that Kairoi, in collaboration with the City, last week defined the terms of the community meeting they had pledged to hold.  They will limit attendance to a very few residents of Belmar Commons where the primary, legitimate concern is safety on S. Yarrow Street.  This will not reflect the many different reasons for concern expressed by park users SBP has talked to regarding the mammoth Kairoi building. Kairoi has hired attorney Carolynne White of the prestigious and powerful Brownstein firm to represent them.  Records show she contributed to the campaign of outgoing Lakewood mayor Adam Paul.   The Brownstein firm has been hired by Lakewood on numerous occasions. SBP has used the expertise of its core group to double down on Kairoi, which is a multibillion dollar company based in San Antonio with offices in Denver and elsewhere in the U.S.  The grassroots group includes a therapist, lawyer, teacher, city planner, sociologist, media relations specialist, wildlife conservationist and former geologist for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Belmar Park is unique.  An unofficial bird and wildlife sanctuary, it is home to 200 plus species of birds as well as turtles, beaver, fish, foxes, and more.  It has miles of walking and bicycle trails and open range horseback riding.  Many hundreds of park goers have expressed concern over the impact of the building on the park’s environment, including the removal of 69 mature trees, which will further contribute to climate change and also the destruction of already diminishing habitat for birds at a time when a third of the bird population has already been lost. The US Fish and Wildlife Service notes, “The best way to avoid habitat impacts is to avoid placing development and energy projects in or near important bird habitat.” To stay informed or become involved, write SaveBelmarPark@gmail.com. To donate for legal and associated fees to help protect the park, go to:   https://www.gofundme.com/f/save-belmar-park/donate

The Lakewood Planning Commission was asked by City Council to investigate ways to expand use of Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) to increase affordable housing in Lakewood.  In a series of increasingly acrimonious meetings, the Commission developed a series of recommendations that have residents concerned the city would turn all R1 zones into R2 zones while having no impact on affordable housing. The main barrier to building ADUs are the high water and sewer tap fees, which the city has no control over. Rather than acknowledging the barrier is out of city control, some Commissioners pushed to “liberalize” the code while arguing with other Commissioners over the basics, such as what “primary residence” means. The theory behind the original request was that people with large lots could easily add an ADU, such as a mother-in-law suite or garage apartment, to make easy affordable housing. As the Planning Commission quickly found out, ADUs are extremely uncommon. The reason for that is the cost of the water and sewer taps. These fees are set by the respective water and sanitation districts to cover the cost for infrastructure and cannot be changed by Lakewood. After determining the cause of limited ADU development, the Planning Commission faced a decision: The Commission chose the later option, interpreting the assignment as a mandate for action no matter what the research revealed. Dialogue from the Commissioners revealed the reason for this stance. Commissioner Kolkmeier stated: ““We have, without question, an affordability problem, and it’s not just Lakewood. What would be a change for ADUs that would be reasonable that would help the problem that is pretty well documented?” In fact, Lakewood’s own housing study shows that Lakewood has excess housing for units over $800 a month. Lakewood is currently developing more housing so that within 10 years a glut of housing is expected. The affordability crisis is for extremely-low-income housing, which is a need that an ADU cannot fill. Commissioner Animosity As Commissioner Kentner pointed out, another problem with ADUs is that they do not increase the opportunity for home ownership, there are only opportunities for rental units. Following Kentner advocating for home ownership opportunities, Commissioner Kip Kolkmeier chastised Commissioner Kentner for two minutes in the middle of the November 15 Planning Commission meeting and refused to immediately allow her to clarify her comments, which she says were misinterpreted. Commissioner Kolkmeier said with some apparent animosity, “This notion that people are concerned about rentals… this is a real problem…. Merely because someone has different economics, it does not make them a bad neighbor. It does not make them someone that you do not want to have more of…. We have a clear majority in this city that understands that we should not choose between renters and owners.” Kentner did not, in fact, say anything against renters, but rather advocated for ownership opportunities. She also spoke of listening to the people who came for public comment., including the Eiber neighborhood which put out a call to action regarding these changes. When Kolkmeier did allow Kentner to speak and defend herself, he took the last word in the acrimonious exchange. FACT CHECK: Commissioner Kentner made the claim that under the proposed rules, there could be two Short-Term Rentals (STRs) on a property. Commissioner Kolkmeier claimed that was inaccurate because one unit would have to be a primary residence. Kentner returned that primary residence did not mean owner occupied, therefore when the owner is not at the primary residence, there could be two STRs. Although Kolkmeier did not say Kentner was right, he did agree that removing the owner-occupied provision would be the result of the Planning Commission having the votes. Public comment Commissioner Kentner also stood up for the number of residents who provided public comment against the proposed zoning code changes during the November 5 meeting. Kenter pointed out that given the low attendance at these meetings, the number of comments received was surprising and should be listened to. Residents pointed out that there was robust public comment on this issue during the 2012 zoning rewrite and that many of the regulations that the Planning Commission is trying to relax, were intended to keep the impact to neighbors to a minimum. The proposed regulations regarding height, floor area, and ubiquitous zoning, when taken together, constitute nothing less than a second full-scale structure, which compromises the very purpose of an R-1 zone, effectively replacing it with R-2 zoning. As such, R-1 zoning will become RINO, and altogether irrelevant, which is a violation of the public trust. Paul Ditson, Lakewoodspeaks.org Public comment in favor of the changes advocated for any type of increased housing and typically did not address neighborhood suitability or specific changes. No research was presented that ADUs would fill a need that an apartment complex in an area zoned for multi-family would not. Summary: Kolkmeier summarized the issue by saying that Lakewood essentially outlaws ADUs and they are necessary for the affordability problem. However, he says, “It may be possible to dramatically liberalize the ability for ADUs… and yet there may not be any more ADUs” due to the cost of tap fees. The vote passed, with all Commissioners present voting to pass the recommendations to City Council (Kentner and Peters absent). Recommendations: It remains to be seen if Council will be presented with information on how the true barrier is water tap fees and the proposed code changes are expected to be ineffective.

The following is a transcription of public comment from the November 27 City Council meeting. It provides an update on a case the city fully expected to lose. The City, and the people, won first in trial court, and now again in the Court of Appeals. Congratulations and thank you! By Lenore Herskovitz I don’t know how many of you presently sitting on City Council are aware of a lawsuit filed in 2021 by Colorado Christian University against the City of Lakewood regarding an ordinance pertaining to Student Living Units. Two years ago some of the new Council members expressed an interest in learning about this but never followed up. I am bringing this up because last Wednesday the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on this lawsuit. They affirmed the District Court decision in favor of the City (and the Intervenors who stood up for their neighborhood) and permits the City to prohibit certain uses (in this case Student Living Units) in their zoning. CCU was claiming discrimination and violation of their constitutional rights. Both the District and Appellate Court disagreed. The timing of this ruling is serendipitous occurring the day before Thanksgiving. Also tonight marks Councilors LaBure’s return to the dais. He was a sitting Councilor in April, 2021 and voted with the majority of the Council to reinstate with modifications the Student Living Unit definition that had been removed without notification from the 2012 revised Lakewood Municipal Code. Although this was an issue that directly affected the neighborhood surrounding CCU, it should be of interest to everyone because of the way the City handled it. This is part of a pattern of procedures and behaviors that tend to favor big money interests over those of city residents. CCU has been attempting to use properties in low density neighborhoods for student housing for two decades. In 2003 concerned citizens convinced their representatives to pass legislation which prohibited university uses such as student living units in R-1, R-2 zones. However, in 2012, the LMC was revised without redlining changes, so it was not noted till years later that the Student Living Unit definition had been removed. Before this rewrite began various straw buyers and later the University itself started buying up all the duplexes on Cedar and the west side of S. Cody Ct. The neighborhood was unaware of this until it was too late to prevent the school from applying for and receiving a zoning change which allowed them to incorporate these homes into the CCU campus. The neighborhood’s goal was to block further university incursions but the school continued to buy up homes on the east side of S. Cody Ct. At present, they own all but one duplex on the street. Although the ordinance prohibiting university use was in existence before CCU began their takeover of S. Cody Ct. in 2017 school representatives decided to remove their regular tenants and replace them with their students. This set off a fire storm among residents. Community members frequently appeared before Council to voice their concerns. For two years quarterly forums were held with CCU , residents and city representatives in an attempt to resolve the problems of traffic congestion, safety, parking, encroachment, etc. Not once did the University give us an answer about their future plans for our neighborhood. After the reinstatement of the Student Living Unit definition in April 2021, CCU decided to test the ordinance by placing six students in the duplex next-door to me. This house had been sitting vacant for two years and had never housed students since CCU took ownership of the property. Because too many unrelated people were living in this duplex, I spent one month attempting to work with the University to resolve the issue without filing a formal complaint with the city. School representatives felt they weren’t doing anything wrong, so they never adhered to the code. I then filed a complaint with Code Enforcement who referred me to the City’s Planning Director Travis Parker. That was an odd turn of events. This led to a conference call between myself, Mr. Parker and Robert Baker (then president of the MidLakewood Civic Association). Through the conversation, we learned that CCU had filed a lawsuit in response to the City’s cease and desist order. We were told that the city staff had decided to allow CCU to continue housing students in the disputed duplexes until a court ruling was reached. Basically, the city was ignoring their own ordinance and acting as if CCU had already won the case. Early on the city decided there would be no mention of the lawsuit, even when inquiries were made during public comment. Former Councilor Able had difficulty getting information from the city attorney about the status of filings. As a result of this stonewalling, Mr. Baker and myself did some independent research. Through a free consultation with a lawyer, we were able to obtain several of the initial pleadings. This included a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by CCU to allow students to remain in the disputed properties. This was unopposed by the city. This motion contained misrepresentation of facts to support their request, yet it was unchallenged by the City’s legal team. The dilemma was how to get the Judge to know the truth. A friend remembered a case in which the neighborhood filed a Motion to Intervene. The rest is history. Two ordinary citizens, without legal representation, filed Motions to Intervene. We were granted intervenor status and moving forward we had to be notified about every pleading and every hearing. We were now parties to the lawsuit and were no longer kept in the dark. It is fitting that I share this story with a room full of concerned citizens who are facing their own challenges with this city. Although as intervenors we were on the same side as the City, we entered the case because we feared the Lakewood legal representatives were doing an inadequate job of defending our neighborhood.