No Looking@Lakewood Column for Olver

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

City Council Member Rich Olver’s column was not included in the latest Looking@Lakewood because he explained alternative facts for the Council-approved TABOR ballot issue. He did not advocate for a position either way but Lakewood is. Lakewood initiated the ballot issue and spent $74,000 for a study to craft the ballot language to gain approval.

Olver was told he wrote an opinion piece about a ballot issue so it couldn’t be printed. Olver then wrote a short piece to refer readers to his own website where he posts what the city won’t print.

The city refused with no explanation. Print deadlines may be to blame. There is no column from Councilor Olver this month.

Lakewood posted its own TABOR ballot piece in the newspaper, as it was designed and approved by the City to maximize voter approval (see pg 8). Under dispute is whether voters consider keeping rebates to be a new tax and if the new tax money will actually be spent as the ballot describes.

Lakewood also published a piece about the budget, including vague explanations about how TABOR funds have been and will be used. This also steers voters into thinking that TABOR funds did not impact general fund expenditures. Olver tried to expound on this point as well.

Councilor Olver did not advocate for or against the ballot issue. Instead, he explained things that might be misconstrued. Lakewood crafted this language, using tax dollars, before they approved it becoming a ballot issue. Today, Councilor Olver is not allowed to explain why those words may not mean what you think they mean.

This is all perfectly legal. However, unless Olver was advocating for a position, it would be perfectly legal to print the piece as well. This is strong evidence that the real intention is to silence dissenting voices about the TABOR issue.

Before the 2023 election, Looking@Lakewood had a column from every Councilor in every edition. That changed to be a rotating column so that only one ward was represented in each edition. That means that Councilors will have one chance a year to post a column in the city newsletter.

You can read more opinions for both sides of the ballot issue on the city website lakewoodspeaks.org

Read the full column from https://enrichlakewood.com/ below

By Rich Olver

The City Council recently voted 9-1 to place a TABOR termination question on our November ballot. If passed, Lakewood will no longer be subject to TABOR restrictions, ending TABOR refunds permanently. I was the sole dissenting vote.

I believe this qualifies as Shenanigans because voters might not fully understand the implications. The ballot claims, “Without increasing current taxes or adding any new tax,” which is technically true. However, the TABOR rebate will disappear. If you lose a rebate (or pay more ‘fees’) and end up paying more, haven’t your taxes effectively increased?  When is a tax increase not a tax increase? Never.

The ballot also states that funds will be earmarked for Police, Parks, and Public Works. While this is accurate, (Lakewood has a ‘Tabor Fund’ which contained $30 million at the end of 2022) these departments already consume nearly 80% of the city’s budget. In 2023, they spent $221 million out of a $287 million budget. The reality is that your rebate money will go into the Tabor Fund bucket, which will free up funds in the General Fund Bucket, potentially diverting money to other projects.

Council’s primary priorities has been the Homeless and Government Subsidized Housing (often termed Affordable Housing). This is where the money will actually go. This is not a secret, it is what the vast majority of Councilors favor. If you’re willing to give up your TABOR rights to fund these initiatives, that’s your choice. But you should be fully informed about what you’re voting for.

Lakewood to Censor “Misinformation”?

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

The Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) has proposed changing its ethics rules to allow penalties for misinformation. This rule change is a result of information posted by the Lakewood Informer. As discussed in the public LAC meetings, this change would allow Commissioners to be removed from the LAC if they are found to have violated the new ethics rules.

Lakewood Informer publisher, Karen Morgan, is also a volunteer Commissioner on the Lakewood Advisory Commission. Morgan posted an article by guest author Bill Foshag titled “A Review of Lakewood’s Proposed “Beneficial Home Electrification and Upgrade Program”.

This piece was not authored by Morgan and made no claims to be from Morgan in an official capacity. It was published under the Lakewood Informer banner, which makes no claims to speak for Lakewood or the Lakewood Advisory Commission in any way. Note: This current article, authored by Morgan, also does not speak for Lakewood, the LAC or Morgan in any official capacity.

Nevertheless, Morgan was asked to censor the Foshag article by changing the content.

The Foshag article is a well written, thorough rebuttal of the information presented by the LAC in their report to the Lakewood City Council. Foshag presents clear facts and tells the side of the story not presented by the LAC. The LAC proposal makes several one-sided claims about climate change, the benefits of electrification through elimination of gas-powered appliances, and the need for government mandates and incentives.

The LAC proposal includes no balance and no drawbacks to their recommendations.

The Foshag article states:

“Traditionally, governing bodies have found it easier to regulate individuals, as corporations and larger organizations have lobbying groups and funding, and are better equipped to fight back and litigate if necessary.”

According to Morgan, LAC Commissioner Glenn Weadock asked Morgan to remove or alter this sentence because he felt Morgan should know it was not his intention or the intention of the LAC to go after single-family homeowners just because they are vulnerable.

Morgan refused.

It is true that there was no public discussion regarding single-family homeowners being easy targets. But the point is moot since Foshag’s post did not say “Glenn Weadock thinks….” Or “Lakewood thinks…”. The statement in and of itself is not untrue.

Moreover, the LAC proposal does, in fact, recommend targeting existing single-family homes (from pg 10, Recommendation 2):

“Expand to target existing single family homes without square footage restrictions, including benchmarking (baseline energy performance) and free comprehensive home energy audits. Audits can be revenue neutral to Lakewood with IRA/BIL grants.”

The proposal outlines the specific ways it would like Lakewood to affect residences: “Innovative beneficial electrification technology (such as heat pumps) and weatherization are best practices to reduce fossil fuel emission sources from homes under such future programs.”

The proposal goes so far as to cite examples of full gas elimination (from pg 5): “San Jose, CA, like numerous other cities, is outlawing natural gas into new single family homes through their Reach Codes.”

The LAC proposal is not unbiased research; it is a carefully curated set of facts to support an agenda. The agenda, in this case, appears to be to force existing and new single-family homes to eliminate or reduce gas powered appliances, reducing fossil fuel usage and reducing the energy choices for homeowners.

The Informer sentence “Traditionally, governing bodies have found it easier to regulate individuals…” is a fact that was called misinformation because it gave someone the wrong impression.

As a comparison, the LAC gives the impression that the actions presented in their proposal will reduce greenhouse gases, that the action is needed urgently, and that residents will suffer no performance loss when they write: “action to reduce greenhouse gasses must be undertaken urgently. Working to transition Lakewood homes to electricity will move the city in the right direction.”

All of their statement is debatable.

“Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. Misinformation can exist without specific malicious intent; disinformation is distinct in that it is deliberately deceptive and propagated. Misinformation can include inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information as well as selective or half-truths.” – Wikipedia

Karen Morgan, in her official role of Commissioner, is often the sole no-vote to LAC actions, always voting no for the same reason – because the report is incomplete without presenting the other side. Without full information, policy decisions are made that are regretted in the future.

There is not a clear line between misinformation and things people don’t want to hear. As one Lakewood resident said,

“Misinformation is true facts the government doesn’t want you to hear because it will change your perception of what you know is truth”

During the City Council discussion on reducing speed limits, Lakewood Police and Transportation departments did not concur with recommendations from the LAC that reducing speed limits would decrease accidents. Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei said she’d like to highlight the LAC research that did not include any dissenting information. Such an act shows how the LAC proposals are used to justify the actions specific people want to see, rather than unbiased research. As such, the entire green remodel proposal, or speed limit proposal, etc., could be deemed misinformation.

The LAC is scheduled to vote on the new code of ethics in the September meeting. The code is not available for review online. Although no hearing or appeal process is actually included in the proposed rules, Commissioners can be removed on the basis of a misinformation ethics violation.

Residents Feel Unsafe Around Navigation Center Crime Increase

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

A Lakewood resident gave an impassioned speech about how crime has dramatically increased around the Lakewood Navigation Center. She spoke immediately after City Council passed their new ordinance to allow more transitional housing for homeless. This resident lives near the new Navigation Center shelter and has had her life threatened multiple times. Council members, like Council Member Low in Monday’s meeting, like to point out studies where crime has decreased around pallet homes or shelters in Los Angeles. What they don’t say is that crime first dramatically increases due to the city’s policy of enabling crime through compassionate non-enforcement and enabling of unhoused activities.

“Today is the third time in less than three months that my life has been threatened…. These people told me they would knock me off my bike, beat me to death and kill me.”

“They go back there and smoke their crack and smoke their meth.”

“When we call the police, WE become the criminals.”

See this Lakewood resident speak at video minute marker 2:05:30

Transcript:

I live [in Ward 1]. The Garrison station’s there, the James Richie park is there, the action Center’s there, and just a few blocks from that is your Recovery Center.

I can’t walk to the grocery store. I can’t ride my bike around my neighborhood from all the drugs and you all sit here with all this enthusiasm to help the homeless.

I’m not an uncompassionate person. I have compassion to help those that want to help themselves.

Drug addicts are not housing insecure.

Yes, they live on my street and they endanger me every single day. I can’t go and dump my garbage without this, okay (holds up can of mace). I can’t dump my garbage. It’s literally 20 feet from my house because I have to carry mace.

Today marks the third time, not the second, I was a little upset when I called you today, the third time in less than three months my life has been threatened. Three times! Do you guys get threatened every day in your neighborhood? Do you have to carry mace just to dump your garbage? I doubt it.

The police are familiar with this.

Every time myself and my other neighbors contact [the police] we’re the criminals.

Those of us that have worked hard all of our lives and paid for a place and pay our taxes and we’re the criminal. Oh but they’re homeless! Today the police officer when I called dispatch they said do you want to press charges and I said absolutely!

These people, five of them, said they were going to knock me off my bike, beat me to death and then kill me, which was both the same thing.

They asked if I wanted to press charges. I said yes.

No one came.

They told me to wait in the Action Center in the parking lot. I did for 15 minutes while they all dispersed and harassed me on their way out of town or wherever they were headed and then, when the cops finally got there after I called 911 the second time, three officers show up in three different $250,000 vehicles and go,

“What do you expect us to do?”

That was the response after they interrogated me, the victim. It was what do you want us to do. This is crap. You guys know it.

The police aren’t doing anything.

You guys have an ordinance sign ordinance 9.66.10. It’s got the City of Lakewood written on it and it says no trespassing in giant letters. It’s down to a ravine it also backs up to a derelict property that has drug dens on it. That’s all they do. They go back there and smoke their crack and smoke their meth. That’s what they do. I know it for a fact. I’m not just making it up to be mean to homeless people.

This is a dangerous little corridor. It’s a simple fix folks and it doesn’t take $250,000 SUVs to fix it. How about you put a couple of e-bike cops out there. They could ride between Garrison and Carr Street and 13th and 14th and be busy 24 hours a day.

24 hours a day they would be dealing with crime

City Not Disclosing Where New Units for Homeless Going

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Lakewood City Council amended the building code to allow transitional housing for homeless on September 9. There were no defined programs, no defined projects, no defined locations, no operational guidelines and no defined structures. City Council Members spent most of their comments defending the lack of specificity by saying this is just the first step. They pointed to the housing crisis as evidence of need. Council positions are summarized below. The vote was 10-1, with Councilor Olver being the sole no vote. Programs can start as soon as the city acquires land, which was not approved in the 2025 budget.

Councilor Rein proposed a contentious amendment that would require the city to own or control the housing programs. There was push back from Council Members Shahrezaei, Mayott-Guerrero, Stewart, Cruz, Low, Nystrom, and Sinks. The feeling seemed to be that Lakewood should buy the land with taxpayer money and allow the programs but essentially give it to private actors to use for the homeless. An interesting note is that many Council Members frequently mention their work for non-profits while advocating like they are soliciting donations, rather than legislating from a government responsibility standpoint.

There is a homelessness crisis and if we don’t do anything we are complicit…. People have a right to shelter. – Public Comment, Amber Varwig

Rein eventually removed his owned or control language. That means any non-profit can control the program. As Council Member Shahrezaei pointed out, this includes faith-based programs. Once approved, the city will have no control over the program.

“It is irresponsible to change this ordinance for plans that you are not willing to be transparent about.” – Public Comment, Wendy Shrader

There is no defined project, policy or process for a city approved project so staff was unable to answer many of the City Council questions, which was awkward because City Council obviously had specific things in mind and they struggled to figure out how to get their base assumptions resolved.

“How far from the usual do you want to go in amending this building code” …Transitional housing is not within in the purview of the building code to begin with. – City staff response upon being questioned on whether it is even possible to put “own or control” definitions into the building code.

Without a defined “City of Lakewood Transitional Housing Program” , and without a defined approval process, this discussion could morph into anything in future.

Council Member Comments and Positions

Stewart: Asked questions so that staff can reiterate that these units are safe. Clarifies that City Council asked for this ordinance before other pieces come forward. She says that when they tried to do safe parking they had a vendor lined up and then had to wait because the city hadn’t changed the ordinance first. She clarifies with staff that the word control and approved is not defined in the ordinance as passed, which she agrees to.

Mayott-Guerrero: Says we’ve been working on getting this housing ability for two years. Now that there is a code they can work on a specific project. She says there are already homeless here and so taking care of them prevents problems later on. This is a local solution to a national problem. Rejects using the building code to try and control a program and does not try to define what a program means in the ordinance.

LaBure: Questions if garage door mechanisms are included in the amendment. Sees the need to address the affordable housing crisis but half the city is zoned R1 so we need to change the building code.

Low: The city needs to provide housing so that people can get the help they need. Says LA and Denver crime went down around pallet homes. Reiterates that the proposal is a result of council request, not a specific project and asks how the specific project would be approved. Answer is that the approval process has not been set but there have been conversations about what is needed. There may need to be a permit review involving public hearing.

Sinks: Clarifies that these new units will not be going into parks or open space.

Cruz: Asks whether a non-profit could partner in these projects. The answer is that it is only city approved, does not need to be city controlled. She says there is a human cost in not taking action.

Rein: Next step is for staff to provide a framework to answer all these questions, such as does it need a special use permit, which is an option but not certain. Rein motions to add language “owns (in whole or in part), or controls, or both” to the projects. so that the city always has “skin in the game”. He later removes this language.

Shahrezaei: As to the amendment, she approves the subcontractor relationship, (rather than the having the city own or control). City staff answers that this is a policy decision and that control could come from the permitting process.

Nystrom: Strongly states that City Council has nothing specific planned, they are just getting ready. Lakewood has a homelessness problem. People who are living on the streets need our help. Naysayers should consider being more compassionate.

Strom: Thank you to everyone working on this for the last couple years. This aligns with our priorities.

Scorecard: Amend Building Code for Transitional Housing

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Low: Aye

Olver: Nay

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye

New Local Substack Author

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Local author started a substack newsletter to talk about things bigger than just Lakewood. Check it out when you have time.

Time to Sue Colorado?

From Somebody Should Do Something

A group of young plaintiffs recently won a suit against the state of Hawaii. The suit centered around the failure of the Hawaii DOT to reduce transportation-related emissions. Now, someone should do Colorado.

Colorado might claim that they are trying to cut down on people having to drive. While failing to mention that it is due to the state’s and municipal failures of planning that so many people have to drive to their jobs.

Regional Transportation District (RTD) has been in existence since 1969 (so, since before many of us were born) and it (along with CDOT) has failed to implement, maintain and adapt a transportation system comprehensive enough to eliminate the need for most to drive on a daily basis. Why did the RTD and Denver, and Colorado state legislature fail to secure the rights of way for future transit build-out decades ago, when the land cost the proverbial pennies on the dollar?

Read more…

BACK TO THE 50s!  LAKEWOOD COMMISSIONERS DECIDE THAT PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT MAKES IT TOO HARD ON DEVELOPERS.

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Press Release

A Resolution drafted by the Lakewood Planning Commission sought to address inadequacies in the process for Major Site Plans.  The request for a Resolution came from Rebekah Stewart on City Council and was in direct response to the 6-story apartment complex planned directly adjacent to Belmar Park, its lakes, and established natural habitats.  The Resolution notably promoted a paragraph recommending there be “an evaluation of the potential effects of a park adjacent development on habitats with the park, including any demonstrable effects on park flora and fauna”.  In the Sep 4 discussion of the Resolution, Commissioner Kolkmeier mentioned that this was not a new concept and that Ft. Collins has an ordinance exactly on this topic, so that there were models available to draw from.  However, Commissioner Buckley stated that he did not know what Ft. Collins experienced from this ordinance, and therefore recommended striking the paragraph from the Resolution.  After a half-hearted round robin where other commissioners stated “perhaps we could recommend that City Council review the Ft. Collins ordinance”  and “it’s unfortunate not to address the ecology at all”, the commission voted 4 to 1 to remove the paragraph and not consider protecting the environment in a review of Major Site Plans, even when they might be located adjacent to a park.

There is well documented peer-reviewed research of the adverse impacts of adjacent development on wildlife from increased noise, light pollution, pets – especially cats, bird strikes on window glass, and general human-caused disturbance.  An industry as vilified as Oil and Gas is required to perform environmental assessments before beginning projects.  However , the Lakewood Planning Commission has decided that in our human-centric  world, protecting the environment should not be a factor that developers need to bother with.  From developers to Lakewood:  “Thanks!”.

Aerial view of Belmar Park and 777 S Yarrow St

History. Belmar Park was voted into existence in 1973, after a long-contested struggle of what the original Bonfils Stanton estate should become: a development that would provide a tax base for the newly incorporated City of Lakewood or a large, centrally located park.  The outcome, Belmar Park, is described on the city website as one of the “true jewels of the city park system, a peaceful enclave in the center of town” that comprises 132 acres of natural area.  It is valued for its wildlife (avidly photographed) and also for the serenity and tranquility it provides to park visitors.

Threats to the Park.  In the 50 years since the inception of Belmar Park, the city of  Lakewood has inevitably seen much growth.  One recent proposed development at 777 S. Yarrow St., which currently contains the two-story Irongate office building, threatens the integrity of the park by adding 412 luxury apartment units in a six-story complex on 5 acres immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the park.  Sixty-five mature trees would be removed.  The project is legally zoned for this density after a zoning change in 2012. Done as a city-wide “legislative rezoning”, the change did not require neighborhood notification that most rezoning involves.  The 2015 Comprehensive Plan further exacerbated the problem by designating  Belmar Park and the adjacent land as a “growth area”, which allows for dense multi-storied structures.  Also, with the designation of a Major Site Plan, the project to date has been reviewed only by city staff, with no input from City Council or the public.  Residents of Belmar Commons townhomes, located within 300 ft of the project, were notified in 2023, 2 years after the project plans had been submitted to Lakewood. 

Impacts to the Park.  How would Belmar Park be affected by such development on its periphery?  Over 240 species of birds have been catalogued at Belmar Park, according to Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird.org,  including resident, breeding, and migratory birds.  There is written authority on the detrimental effects of noise and night lighting on bird mating, nesting, and reproductive success.  There is wide documentation of the threats to birds from collision with buildings and glass, a danger that the nearby multi-story building would present as birds fly eastward across the lake with afternoon sun reflected on the windows. The mature trees on the project site provide nesting and foraging sites for songbirds and raptors.  As far as more people experiencing nature, there have been articles about our public spaces being loved to death.  As a frequent visitor to Belmar Park, I have watched people fishing near the No Fishing signs, and social media has reported turtles being taken from the lake.  With the addition of 412 apartment units encroaching on the park, degradation is inevitable.

Public outcry and City of Lakewood Position.  When the public became aware of the project in August 2023, people filled City Council chambers to protest in each meeting from September into January 2024.  Most City Council members and Mayors Adam Paul and Wendi Strom contended there was nothing that could be done to change the proposal due to the “right to build”.  This raises the question, why does development supersede the wishes of the community and Lakewood’s own ordinances and plans, such as The Existing Tree Preservation ordinance, which requires protection of mature trees and design plans that minimize disturbance to such trees; the Lakewood Sustainability Plan, with a goal to achieve a 30 percent tree canopy by 2025; and The Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, which reads that new developments should be compatible and seamlessly integrate with existing neighborhoods (in this case the park and 1and 2-story townhouses.)

Additionally, according to the Lakewood Municipal Code, the calculation of land dedication requirements for park and open space, the developer owed the City 3.3 acres of parkland, which would have created a buffer with the park.  However, the City opted to accept an “in lieu of” cash offer from the developer with no land donation, and intends to use the funds for a parking lot south of the library, effectively removing more trees and green space.

Where we are now.  It is clear that the deteriorating Irongate office building should be demolished. The City declined to bid on the property when it became available in 2019, as reported by Westword.  Development that is more appropriate in scale for the site, that adheres to the Lakewood ordinances, would be considered acceptable to much of the community. Any recent negotiations between the City Planning Staff and the developer are unknown at this time.  However, for the first time in 12 years, the Planning Director has recommended a Major Site Plan to the Planning Commission for review.  Years ago City Council ceded their authority to review such projects because of the time involved, and since then, Major Site Plans have been reviewed by staff with no public interaction with the developer. The review date is to be determined, but the meeting will be an opportunity for those concerned to once again voice their opinions. A decision by the Planning Commission that favors the developer over the needs of the park and the community will be challenged in court.

Lakewood Considering Red Light and Speeding Cameras

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Red light and speeding traffic cameras are a contentious and well known issue. Lakewood specifics from the staff memo:

  • Cameras would have to be installed on arterial streets, not residential.
  • The city is looking at vendors who are confident the city will make money from citations, not lose money on cost of cameras
  • Would require two additional staff positions with salary/benefits of approximately adequately staff the program, the addition of an FTE AVIS program supervisor with an approximate salary/benefits of $221,000
  • Recommendation deploying 11 cameras would incur a monthly cost of $55,000-$60,000

Lakewood Changing Code to Allow Transitional Housing Units for Unhoused

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Lakewood is following Denver’s lead on allowing micro-communities, or pallet homes, to be built in Lakewood. This program would provide transitional housing for the unhoused. According to Denver7, Lakewood is considering building these housing units themselves. Lakewood remains opaque as to their intentions and where these communities might be built. The vote to change the municipal code is Monday, September 9.

Micro-communities are the kind of affordable housing that city officials have been talking about for years. Residents have been interpreting “affordable housing” to mean housing that teachers could easily afford. In reality, studies have shown that the only the homeless and extremely low-income need additional housing units. Micro-communities would fill this need, especially since they are generally subsidized by taxpayers. As one Lakewood resident points out on LakewoodSpeaks, Denver is spending $7 million on 200 pallet homes, a cost of $35,000 each.

Sleeping units as shown by City of Lakewood presentation

The new Lakewood municipal codes and pallet homes do not address long-term solutions. Denver has been spending increasing amount without seeing a decrease in homeless.

Denver receives first batch of tiny homes as it looks to house 1,000 homeless by the end of the year

Lakewood is already seeing the new navigation center acting as a magnet to attract homeless to Lakewood.

As reported in the Lakewood Informer news, Lakewood hired a consultant to change the zoning codes to densify neighborhoods. This was done without finalizing the comprehensive plan and without alleviating the problems that high-density brings, like increased parking problems. The proposed changes eliminates the need for parking spaces here.

This means that as residents diligently work together on building a comprehensive plan that fits their vision, Lakewood is already doing what it wants. Pallet homes.

Whippoorwill Development Appeal Denied

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

The residents lost their appeal on the Whippoorwill development. At the Planning Commission meeting on August 21, residents brought up the numerous problems with the development. One of the main complaints was that Lakewood does not have jurisdiction to merge these parcels, which should be done through Jefferson County. The meeting lasted five and half hours and ended in a 4-2 vote against the residents. There is no further public review scheduled.

Most of the commissioners that voted against the appeal stated that this wasn’t a site plan review so the concerns raised were not relevant. This was an appeal of the subdivision, which wasn’t a subdivision but a merger.

The master site plan will have no public review. The approval will be made exclusively by city staff.

City staff, Travis Parker and Max Kirshbaum, are the ones allowing the problems to happen. They could require the entrance and exit to be moved to Colfax.

Commissioner Steven Buckley made an impassioned plea at the end of the meeting. He said:

“I have become convinced tonight that it does meet the [subdivision] standards. And equally and firmly convinced that this project as it is currently proposed doesn’t meet, most likely, some of the  site plan approval standards.

If it was my driveway, it was in that configuration, it was in that slope, I would be  scared as hell of what is proposed.

“It is my hope, and it is my plea that the staff who is listening to my appeal and who heard that the residents came out and speak tonight …. I have seen the ingenuity and ability of engineers and architects time and again…. And I appreciate that it is a challenge to design a good roadway intersection there and a good driveway intersection at that location…. In my opinion, Y’all have missed the mark. You haven’t done it.”

“In my opinion, Y’all have missed the mark. You haven’t done it.” Watch the full appeal from Commissioner Buckley here.

SCORECARD: Whippoorwill Appeal

Elisa “Emo” Overall: Yes
Eric Grebliunas: Yes
Steven Buckley: Yes
William Furman: Yes
Jenny O’Neill: No
Kip Kolkmeier: Recused
Rhonda Peters: No

Proposed Speed Limit Change is Ineffective

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Due to the number of complaints the City and Council receive about people speeding, Council is driven to do something – anything. Therefore, the first reading of a proposed speed limit change to residential streets will be heard on Monday, September 9. This change is intended to decrease accidents and fatalities. However, evidence shows lowering speed limits does not change driving habits. Lakewood has not presented the number of speeding tickets, range of speeds those are given for, nor number of accidents related to speeding. This proposed change will cost Lakewood an estimated $75,000.

“It is important to note that just changing the number on the signs doesn’t significantly change driver behavior.” –Lakewood staff memo

People who drive significantly over the speed limit will continue to do so.

Is speeding causing any problems besides complaints? Will complaints go down after giving residents more reason to complain?

Lakewood staff point out that there has only been one fatality, due to a speed so much over 30 mph, that it went up the berm into a house on the second story.  That driver would not be obeying any speed limit sign posted.

Where are Lakewood accident fatalities, per city staff presentation
From Lakewood City Staff presentation

Staff showed that Lakewood has the same amount of accidents as other cities statewide. This data included cities with lower speed limits so the Lakewood speed limit is not causing more accidents.

Are the drivers involved in accidents on cell phones? Are they driving under the influence? None of these factors are being presented. Most of the crashes involving pedestrians occur along Colfax, a street that would not be affected by the proposed change.

Heat map showing where accidents occur in Lakewood, mostly along Colfax from Wadsworth to Sheridan
From Lakewood City Staff presentation

Staff is asking that if lowered, the speed limit should only go down to 25 mph now but possibly decrease to 20 mph in the future.

Indications from a prior meeting, are that all City Council Members except for Rich Olver, are in favor of lowering the speed limit.

National Motorists Association

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info

Subscribe

© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs