Two Colorado bills were under scrutiny at the Lakewood legislative committee meeting April 3.
HB23-1190 Affordable Housing Right of First Refusal: Concerning a right of first refusal to purchase qualifying multifamily residential property by a local government.
This bill was first discussed at the last legislative committee meeting where votes were split on how to proceed. Councilors Stewart and Shahrezaei were leaning toward support, Janssen leaning to oppose and Vincent deliberating. At that time, Councilor Stewart had discussed the issue with city staff who said Lakewood did not need this tool right now, but Stewart said it might be good to have the tool available.
An official vote on 1190 was postponed until the next meeting. However, the next committee meeting was a special meeting called by Council Member and Legislative Committee Chair Rebekah Stewart. Her stated intention was to discuss SB23-213. Councilor Janssen stated that she had emailed about 1190, and noted the minute mark that the committee agreed in the last meeting to discuss 1190.
Janssen made a motion to oppose HB23-1190. The motion failed 3-2, with Janssen and Olver in favor (to oppose), and Stewart, Shahrezaei, and Vincent opposed. HB23-1190 is planned for Senate committee vote the following day (April 4). HB23-1190 has passed the House committee with Lakewood taking a “Monitor” position.
SB23-213 is Governor Polis’ Land Use bill seeks to implement statewide zoning and land use regulations. That power currently resides locally.
Lakewood typically allows the Colorado Municipal League (CML) to lobby for the city, except on select bills where they are in opposition. In this case, the CML is strongly opposed to this bill. Councilor Janssen made a motion to take a similar stance, to strongly oppose the bill. The motion failed 3-2, with Councilors Janssen and Olver in support (to oppose) and Stewart, Shahrezaei and Vincent opposed.
Reasons stated to oppose SB23-213 largely reflect the same concerns shown in the CML position paper; that it takes away local control, that it does not create affordable housing and that it ignores problems created such as parking and transit.
Lakewood’s delegate to the CML, Council Member Stewart, said that she communicated her desire to see amendments included for inclusionary zoning before moving forward. Overall, her main concern, which was repeated by everyone who is opposed to opposing the bill, was that the bill may pass and that Lakewood wants “a seat at the table”. However, there were no prepared amendments for Lakewood to discuss at any table, so at this point the majority opinion seemed to be to wait and hope there were amendments to make the legislation better.
Only one member offered supportive comments to SB23-213. Councilor Shahrezaei stated that “we are at the inflection point” for problems like affordable housing, that may now be a regional problem. In that context, only statewide control of the factors underlying the housing marketplace will work.
Both bills will continue in discussion at the next Legislative Committee meeting.
This is a continuation of the story entitled “Lakewoodspeaks: Solution or Problem?”
The software provider for the site Lakewoodspeaks is a company called Peoplespeak. When you search their website you will find a photo of Lakewood’s Planning Department Director Travis Parker featured as “Public-Private Innovations Advisor” next to pictures of the company’s executive team.
Once my article was printed in LakewoodInformer, I sent it to Mr. Parker for comments or questions. I am including highlights from these emails (full documentation of email exchanges available beginning March 3, 2023 available through download below).
Q: Mr. Parker asks why I sought out controversy regarding the Lakewoodspeaks site? He is also concerned that I didn’t look into metrics which show that the site is “actually succeeding” at improving “access to decision-making”.
A: “I welcome any metrics you want to provide to support your position.” None were provided. Additionally the implication that I sought out controversy is absolutely false.
“One [controversy] arose on Feb. 13, 2023 when an inappropriate posting appeared in the General Comment section of Lakewoodspeaks. This comment violated the platform’s moderation policy because the commenter used a false identity and the submission contained personal attacks.” The City decided to change their moderation policy rather than following established protocol of removing the offensive posting.
Q: Why didn’t I look into the cost of the city’s more expensive software programs if cost was my main concern?
A: Cost was not a main focus of the original article. It was one aspect of the complete story. It is interesting that Mr. Parker never references any monetary compensation the City pays to Peoplespeak, although he does mention “free upgrades”.
CONCERN: Mr. Parker points out errors/ inconsistencies regarding statements concerning Captcha technology and the moderation policy. The inaccuracies were acknowledged, explained and corrected with an apology.
Q: Mr. Parker asks: What is the goal of my article? He objects to my position that Golden has a more effective policy He asks are my goals lower costs, easier participation and more transparency?
A: Yes! Yes! and Yes!
The following are my set of questions sent to Mr. Parker on March 10, 2023 and his complete response dated March 22, 2023.
The following are questions I have for you: 1. Regarding the timeline you provided, you said Lakewood became Peoplespeak’s first customer in 2017. Since the company wasn’t established until 2018, how did you locate these individuals? Did you have a previous relationship of any kind with any of the co-founders? 2. The Peoplespeak site claims an 800% increase in public participation. What time period does this cover? Can you provide specific numbers of people for a before and after comparison (before software introduced and after it had been operating)? There are claims that data from 2018 and 2019 showed significant numbers of people watching videos on the site and leaving public comments. How many? What figures are available between 2020 and the present? I would expect numbers to grow during the pandemic, did they? To what extent did participation change? What is the present numbers for Lakewood for in person participation vs. online when important issues such as STRs or Save Bear Creek are on the agenda? Presently, there is greater participation on Lakewoodspeaks because Nextdoor , councilors and word of mouth are directing people to go to that site to post comments about STRs. If Lakewood.org had been the only site, everyone would have flocked there. 3. Was there any cost to the City of Lakewood for Peoplespeak/Lakewoodspeaks services prior to 2018? If so, specify. 4. What is the difference between online software for town hall meetings and other public hearings? You stated there were many legal considerations around open meeting laws. Could you elaborate on this? 5. Your photo has a prominent place on the Peoplespeak website describing you as the Public/Private Innovations Advisor. What exactly does that position entail? Do you provide any services as an advisor? Do you receive any form of compensation or perks from your association with this company? Your many credentials including your position as Planning Director for Lakewood are noted and you said these lend credibility to the service. To downplay the importance of your photo, you mentioned that the Mayor and your Wheatridge counterpart were also pictured on the page. However, the Mayor and Wheatridge Planning Director are featured to provide brief testimonials about Peoplespeak. Why did you try to equate their roles in relation to the company with yours? 6. You have stated that you along with Lakewood staff have maintained an informal relationship with Peoplespeak. Which staff members are you referring to? Are you or any of these staff members aware of the many problems that have occurred on this site? Has anyone discussed these issues with the company? Is there anyone who serves as a liaison between the company and the city? If so, who? Should it be acceptable that a problem persists even after the provider has been notified? I recognize that there are a lot of questions here but you basically provided me with a cherry picked document that extolled the many virtues of the company. Perhaps you just weren’t aware of the difficulties constituents experience with the site. Consider yourself informed.
From: Travis Parker Date: March 22, 2023 at 7:12:09 PM MDT To: Lenore Herskovitz Subject:RE: Article from the Lakewood Informer
Lenore,
I am sorry, but I don’t agree with the premise of your position or the spirit of the questions you are asking.
In discussions I’ve had with other local communities about Lakewood Speaks, do you know the most common comment I hear? They say that it is a fantastic idea and that every community should be using it, but that they probably won’t start using it. The reason is that any innovation, no matter how well intentioned or successful, will be attacked by members of the community who (for unrelated reasons) don’t like the current city government. It is far safer for local government employees to do nothing at all and play it safe than to make improvements to the government for the benefit of the community.
I’ve dedicated my entire career to public service and I contributed a lot of my time and knowledge and energy to helping create Lakewood Speaks; not for recognition or pay (of course I’ve never received nor asked for compensation beyond my job), but because it was the right thing to do to make government decision making more accessible. Attacking something like that, something clearly intended to increase access and transparency, only exemplifies and exacerbates the problem of working in local government. Attacks like this are the reason local government employees have been conditioned to do as little as possible.
The path to real improvement in any field (government, education, business, etc.) is positive reinforcement. If you want to improve Lakewood’s government write an article praising someone doing something that you agree with. Submit a bonus recommendation for an employee taking initiative. Do anything to encourage positive action and going beyond the minimum job expectations. Throwing stones stifles initiative and is never the path to a better world.
As always, I’d be happy to have a real conversation by phone or in person. If you want to quote me, please quote this entire email.
Best,
Travis
There were many questions presented to Mr. Parker. Unfortunately he chose not to answer them but rather to deflect and create a diversion from the issues at hand. Problems can only be fixed when they are acknowledged.
For further information, the following download contains a more complete set of communications with Mr. Parker beginning March 2, 2023. There is an overlap and repetition of my questions to Mr. Parker (dated March 10, 2023) and his subsequent reply.
The March 13th Lakewood City Council meeting included 3 hours of public comment, mostly regarding short-term rentals (STRs). People spoke both for and against STRs. However, the biggest reveal was that ALL sides spoke about the lack of enforcement of current ordinances, which leads to speculation of how new measures, like censure, may be implemented.
Public comment shows residents perplexed at the city allowing illegal STRs for years. However, the city argues STRs are not illegal because the words “short-term rental” cannot be found in ordinance, so they have never stopped the activity. Residents argue that STRs are commercial lodging, like hotels, that has long been banned in Lakewood through zoning.
At one point, “The [Lakewood] Planning Department determined that short term rentals are most closely related to Bed and Breakfast, which is only allowed in certain residential zone districts, with a Special Use Permit. This action banned short-term rentals in the City of Lakewood, unless reviewed and approved via the Special Use Permit Process, which requires a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission.“ (see pg 4 of the 2018 memo for more details)
The STR ban was never enforced.
No member of the public spoke with confidence that the city will enforce these new ordinances either.
It is important to remember that there are advantages to STRs. However, when you start so far below the trust curve, at the first sign of a problem, people will not be patient while waiting for a resolution. They will know there is no resolution for them.
Parking
Many residents spoke about the parking problem that has been worsening in Lakewood. Where streets used to have one big family with extra cars or one long-term rental with extra neighbors, now people are having to deal with student housing, group homes with unlimited residents and overflow from apartments with limited parking. These are not enforcement issues per se. The city will correctly point out that there is nothing illegal with extra parking used by students or apartments. Residents will point out that the city changed zoning to allow student housing and decreased apartment parking, thereby causing the parking problem. They are afraid STRs will be a similar situation of the city causing problems it cannot fix later.
Other Issues
Speakers raised other enforcement issues such as crime at light-rail stations and local stores. One spoke of neighbors who are hoarders, creating neighborhood annoyances and safety concerns. One spoke of long-term owners who didn’t maintain their homes. Another spoke of long-term renters growing marijuana. Speakers repeatedly expressed concern over problems they see, and the lack of action to make things better.
A rough tally of speakers shows that:
11 addressed enforcement problems;
8 wanted the original committee compromise of a primary residence STR;
7 residents were dissatisfied with the Council enforcing Council process
6 wanted STRs issues put on the ballot for voters to decide;
6 were supportive of business- owned STRs;
4 were against all STRs
Residents seemed to be asking why the city doesn’t enforce its laws, or why the city changes laws that cause problems for certain segments of the population.
Censure
At the end of the meeting, Lakewood Council decided to study censuring fellow Council Members. Members speaking in favor of the measure are concerned about the use of non-politically correct language in Council dialogue, and it is this issue which is the suspected trigger for censure.
Council has a duty to self-police and censure could be a useful tool if applied equally. However, this seems to be another rule that would be implemented selectively. In fact, one of the reasons censure was removed from Council procedures was that it was a tool used by the majority for political purposes only. (See the full discussion at 4 hour 27 min mark)
As a basis for implementation standards, Council Member Springsteen inquired about other alleged, censurable actions. The Mayor muted her – not once, but twice.
These types of behaviors do not indicate that Council is committed to self-policing, but rather that they may use a new rule to selectively mute opposition thinking and ideas.
Lakewood residents gave example after example of how bending ordinances for selective purposes led to a breakdown in trust that makes governing harder, not easier. For people to understand the government is working for them, for ALL OF THEM, they must see that actions are not intended for political purposes.
LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL, STUDY SESSION, MAY 21, 2018
ITEM 4 – PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION – SHORT TERM RENTALS
Lakewood City Council meeting on March 13th included 3 hours of public comment, mostly regarding short-term rentals. Rather than summarizing the arguments, this post links to a representative video for the various arguments.
Argument AGAINST ALL STRs. Comments by Mr Josh (?), starting at the 1:19 mark…
Argument IN FAVOR of OWNER-OCCUPIED STRs. Comments by unknown starting at 1:58 mark…
IN FAVOR of COUNCIL/COMMUNITY process. Comments by Imara at 2 hr mark….
IN FAVOR of INVESTOR-OWNED STRs. Comments by Mr. Smith at 2:42 mark
To see the resulting short-term rental ordinance, see the city’s website.
Any person who does not want to be highlighted on LakewoodInformer can email us for removal. Thank you all for your public involvement.
“The City of Lakewood is one of the many Colorado communities where a debate about the future of short-term rentals has been taking place. As the popularity of such rentals grows, concerns surrounding the impact to the communities around them have also grown.
The Lakewood City Council on Monday voted to allow licensed short-term rentals for primary residents of a home. They had previously considered that property owners who didn’t live at the residence would be allowed to do short-term rentals and that was written out of the proposed ordinance.”
The Board of Directors for West Metro Fire Rescue had three openings this year. Since there were only three candidates for three seats, the election was canceled and the results certified.
The 2023-2027 Board Directors are:
Amira Watters
Mike Williams
Bill Clayton
For Mike Williams and Bill Clayton, this will be a continuation of service. Amira Watters will be starting fresh but is familiar as the Executive Director of the Jefferson County Business Resource Center until it closed in 2021.
The canceled election will save approximately $30,000 for a polling place election. The 2023 budget did not include a mail-in ballot election. Voter turnout was low in 2022 and the idea of changing to a mail-in ballot was raised again as recently as November with no change in plans.
The Colorado Attorney General’s office is asking the public for input on what this merger of Kroger (King Soopers)/ Safeway would mean for them.
“My office is already hearing from shoppers, retail workers, farmers, food manufacturers, and others from around our state who are directly affected by the proposed merger.”
Attorney General Phil Weiser, via The Denver Post
Colorado residents can weigh in with opinions at forums or through a survey at
Lakewoodspeaks is touted by city staff and its platform provider Peoplespeak as a place to make hearings “Inclusive. Transparent. Easy. Convenient.” Theoretically, this sounds very impressive but in reality, this costly site has been plagued with numerous problems.
Between 5/10/2018 and 12/21/2022 the City paid Peoplespeak a total of $270,800.00. According to the financial ledger we are presently spending $4,400 a month for this service. Unfortunately, there are many problems that have persisted over the years including which city website to use to locate information, how to successfully phone in a comment, how to post comments on Lakewoodspeaks, what are the specific rules pertaining to public comments, and the technical difficulties when viewing meetings from home.
Recently there has been an issue when completing submission of a written comment. The CAPTCHA function which verifies valid users indicates “failed” but when you press submit it goes through anyway. The city clerk and provider are aware of the problem, but it has remained unresolved for weeks now.
On February 13th, the City posted a comment by an individual claiming to be “Terrified in Ward 1”, clearly a violation of the rule prohibiting using a false identity. The commenter began with a criticism of the way a city councilor had handled an interaction with an attendee at the February Ward 1 meeting then veered off topic into a personal attack on the councilor and a planning commissioner referring to them as “dangerous ghouls”. Through an open records search, the true identity of the commenter was discovered. That individual had not even been present at the Ward meeting. The city clerk had wanted to deny a posting based on the false identity violation and also suggested citing the policy against personal attack. His recommendation was overruled after several days of deliberation and the inciteful post appeared on Lakewoodspeaks. The city responded to several citizen complaints about this by removing the recommended moderation policy. The new one is vague and weaker regarding what can be printed. Instead of removing comments that violate the guidelines which is the protocol for other Peoplespeak cities (including Wheatridge and Grand Junction), Lakewood requests citizens “to please refrain from the practices”.
There is an addition to the policy which states “Comments that are not protected by the 1st amendment will be redacted or removed”. When the city clerk was contacted for a clarification of specific comments that would not be protected by the 1st amendment, the response was sending the link to the moderation policy.
Mayor Paul talks about decorum at the beginning of public meetings. Because Lakewoodspeaks has changed their guidelines regarding written comment submissions the gates to misinterpretation have been opened. Will decorum requirements be the same for written, in person and phone in comments? Hopefully, the confusion will not lead to more divisiveness or discourage people from participating in hearings.
There is also confusion because the city has several websites. The greatest problems are with Lakewoodspeaks.org and Lakewood.org. At times there seems to be overlap and at other times conflicting information is posted. At the Annual Council Planning session this year, Mayor Paul suggested a “one stop shop” approach. Since Lakewood.org is the official City website all information could be filtered through this platform. We could adopt a policy similar to the one in Golden, Colorado where comments are reviewed by the City clerk’s office and posted on the city’s website (see image below).
So, is Lakewoodspeaks a problem or a solution? While the aspirational concept is promising, the reality for Lakewood has been less than stellar. Peoplespeak is expensive and riddled with unresolved problems. Now Lakewood doesn’t even follow the moderation guidelines used by other cities with the same platform. Let’s apply the “one stop shop” approach by consolidating our many sites into Lakewood.org. This would eliminate the need for Lakewoodspeaks. Encourage accessibility by simplifying rather than complicating. It can be done, and it should be done.
One last thought, platforms are only meaningful when citizens want to be involved. That desire quickly dissipates when the decision-makers, including staff and elected representatives, disrespect their constituents by not responding to their concerns with action.
Corrected 3/10/2023 to remove information regarding moderation policies found to be incorrect.
A legal conundrum underlying the Short-Term Rental (STR) discussion is whether STRs (like Airbnb and Vrbo) are home businesses or not.
The answer is:
Yes – for licensing, insurance, incorporation and taxing
No – for zoning, building codes, and public hearings
And definitely don’t ask how they differ from hotels for any of the above.
The issue was raised in the February 13 City Council meeting. Per Lakewood Zoning Ordinance Article 14, the definition of a home business is “any occupation of a service character which is clearly accessory to the main use of the premises as a dwelling unit, and which does not change the residential character.”
Citing the zoning definition, City of Lakewood attorneys advise that STRs are not a home business at all, because the business in question is dwelling.
Business: “the activity of making, buying, or selling of goods or providing services in exchange for money.”
The convoluted argument is summed up in the proposed, “Business and License Regulations for Short-Term Rentals” wherein it states: “due to the residential nature associated with operating an STR, the use of a primary residence as a Short-Term Rental shall not be considered either a major or minor home business as those terms are defined within the Zoning Ordinance.”
So in the business regulations for STRs, it states STRs are not a home business.
Regardless of what you may think of that legal argument, it has been rendered moot by the recently passed amendment to allow short-term rentals in a non-owner-occupied residence (you don’t live there, you just rent it out).
Reside: to dwell permanently or for a considerable time
Per zoning ordinance definitions, the main difference between a home/residence and a hotel/motel is the transitory nature of the stay. It seems logical to assume that with no one residing at the home, it is no longer a residence.
Another indication of a change in purpose is when property is owned by a business. Many rental owners form a business and register with the Secretary of State as legal protection. In that scenario, the business owns the property.
The purpose of the building has now shifted into a transitory-stay, business nature, rather than residential. It is lodging, just like a hotel. Hotels are required to have a lodging facility license and follow certain rules.
Jefferson County also considers short-term rentals to be a residential use. They only allow STRs on properties over one acre in size, with adequate parking, and special exception approval.
Jeffco’s definition also neglects to address the difference between long-term residential use, and the transitory lodging use that characterizes hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts. Advocates of de-regulation will point out that all of these businesses may benefit from being zoned residential, with residential building codes, and/or no public hearing for a lodging license.
It may be necessary for Lakewood to revisit the decision that STRs are not a lodging business, even a home business, with the inclusion of non-owner-occupied rentals. These houses will not be serving their primary purpose of being a residence. They will be transitory lodging for visitors – with all the associated pros and cons.
This is one example of the items that may be reviewed before the March 13 meeting.
