Word Games

Dismantling the NEW Zoning FAQ Lies

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on October 3, 2025Posted in Development, Transparency, Word GamesTagged FAQ, Hopkins, infrastructure, misinformation, parks, Regina, single-family, zoning

Repost from Regina Hopkins

Lakewood’s leaders keep telling us everything is fine: “No elimination of single-family zones.” “Protecting neighborhoods while planning responsibly for the future.” “No threat to infrastructure.” Sounds nice, right? Too bad it’s all a scrambled spin of words, designed to trick you into thinking there’s no problem while they hand the city to developers. Here’s the truth:

The Single-Family Lie. Yes, you can still build a single-family house. But the exclusive protection for single-family neighborhoods is gone. No other Front Range city has done this — not even Denver. Developers now have free rein to drop duplexes, triplexes, apartments, warehouses, and more right next door. For all intents and purposes, this is the elimination of single-family zoning as we’ve known it. Don’t let their dressed-up words fool you.

The McMansion Distraction. The City waves around “new limits on McMansions” like it’s a gift to residents. It’s a classic bait-and-switch: distract you with something that sounds good while quietly removing the rules that keep neighborhood character and open space intact. Meanwhile, developers are encouraged to pack density into every block.

Special Zoning Treatment for The Action Center at Emory

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on August 12, 2025Posted in Development, Jeffco, Transparency, Word GamesTagged action center, Colorado, Emory, jeffco, Lakewood, schools, zoning

Lakewood is adding a new word to the dictionary — an innocuous move that covers up a dedicated zoning change for the Emory-Action Center swap while also shutting down future resident protests. Lakewood is planning on adding a new “Community Resource Facility” use to the zoning code to enable an “Amazon” warehouse-type low-income distribution center to operate anywhere in Lakewood. This new use is necessary for changes to the Emory Elementary property that Lakewood proposes to sell or exchange with the Action Center, which will convert it into a “Community Resource Facility”. That swap is not mentioned in the May 19th meeting on the zoning code change, even though the swap is what prompted the change in the first place. To listen to that meeting, one would think that there has just been a glaring oversight for the past 50 years, and no non-profits have been able to operate food pantries. Taken in isolation, residents could be forgiven for thinking that Lakewood didn’t have the ability to allow what is clearly already allowed in multiple places. Therefore, once again, residents must dig deeper to understand what is going on. In this case, allowing high populations of low-income support services in every zone in the city, including those previously reserved for schools. (For background, read Lakewood news at https://lakewoodinformer.com/springsteen-files-injunction-regarding-emory/) Travis Parker, Chief of Planning and Community Development, says Lakewood hasn’t had a request for something like this during his time with Lakewood, which may give residents an idea of the scale of the facility that is envisioned. The Action Center currently operates in a commercial area and sometimes has customers lined up down the block. The new “Facility” will be much larger. Envision the difference between the local retail shop and the Amazon warehouse. Are residents prepared for the warehouse of low-income services anywhere in the city? *Another word game warning: since places like the Action Center and Recovery Works are paid for by donations, Lakewood claims they are different from commercial activities, so they use the word “guests” instead of “customers”. They say this is a “distribution of goods and services” instead of commercial activity. The medium of exchange might be different, but the underlying intent is the same. The new code discriminates against for-profit businesses that are not eligible to operate everywhere in the city. Lakewood is a government, not a charity, and this type of special treatment drives out other commercial businesses who cannot compete with special favors granted by the government. It also discriminates against smaller non-profits that currently operate throughout the city but are not getting financial favors from the city to host a “facility” — like the one envisioned by Lakewood for the Action Center. In a city where small businesses are closing everywhere, why give special treatment to organizations that don’t pay taxes? When a City Council member asked how existing operations were allowed, the answer was that they were in a mixed-use zone, but it was unknown under what technical use definition. Historical precedence seems to be pertinent to the discussion. Is it possible the man in charge doesn’t know how this could have been accomplished in the past? Or is the change specific to something that could be pertinent only to the Emory property swap Councilor Isabel Cruz asked what this change would look like outside of the school disposition process. Her question suggests an understanding that the change is driven specifically by the Action Center swap, even if that is not communicated directly. Councilor I. Cruz asks about smaller non-profits, but they are already allowed under existing rules. This change is necessary only to allow the Action Center’s mega-warehouse tied to land swap. Lakewood is making changes behind the scenes to preempt resident objections. Under current zoning, residents would have a chance to protest the Emory Elementary use change later. Adding this definition makes the change happen now, without specific public notice.

“Rooted In Littleton” Provides Blue Ribbon Example

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 20, 2025Posted in Community, Development, Transparency, Word GamesTagged Colorado, densification, densify, denver, desnity, Lakewood, littleton, Rooted in Littleton, survey, zoning

Littleton residents claim to be amateurs in the political sphere but you won’t believe it when you see how they have successfully organized against density-driven zoning changes. Rooted in Littleton got density changes postponed in January and kept fighting to recently gather enough signatures for a petition. Their website reads: “We are passionate about preserving the small-town charm and beauty of Littleton. Our deep roots inform the perspective that good things grow slowly and knee-jerk responses to large social issues don’t produce lasting results. Let’s not let increased density usher in a new era of increased traffic, crime and big city-problems in our little town.” Does that sound familiar? They have many of the same objections to densification as Lakewood residents, such as the attempt to “to erode our home-rule rights with a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach that could strip our community of its uniqueness.” Check out their website for excellent material that could be used as a blueprint for others fighting this issue: Survey Have you ever felt that Lakewood presents data on “housing density and housing shortages in 2024 [that] was insufficient and skewed toward City Council insiders”? That’s what Rooted in Littleton wrote but Lakewood residents have also been making that point for months. The argument really gained traction after the Belmar Park fiasco. (See these articles from savebelmarpark.com: Lakewood’s Housing Affordable Surplus, Lakewood’s 10-year Housing Surplus, Denver Has Enough Housing.) Instead of just complaining about it, Rooted in Littleton organized a survey of their own and provided it for the public. Unsurprisingly, they found that 45% of Littleton residents felt that densification is NOT the best solution The survey they conducted showed that “76% of the survey participants said they want a voice in all major housing legislation, especially as it relates to adding duplexes, triplexes and multiplexes in currently zoned single family residential neighborhoods.” They also found that a majority of people DO NOT believe in the “benefits” of the proposed densification, as shown below: This group is truly inspiring. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard Lakewood residents share the same sentiments that Rooted in Littleton share: Lakewood residents love Lakewood for the existing characteristics. Just like Rooted in Littleton likes their city. Check out their website and spread the word if you know people in Littleton.

Residents Accused of Spreading “Misinformation”

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 8, 2025Posted in Entrenched Bureaucracy, Sustainability, Transparency, Word GamesTagged Colorado, digital, edition, Lakewood, Looking@Lakewood, misinformation

Word games and a lack of trust have led city staff to accuse residents of “misinformation.” This time, the issue involves the plans to eliminate or reduce physical printed editions of the Lakewood newspaper, Looking@Lakewood. The plans for this switch are still being formed and testing is currently underway — starting with the July edition, which is digital only. Although Lakewood says this is only a test, the city will only commit to one future, printed edition, which substantiates concerns for a permanent elimination. Full elimination may only be conjecture, but according to a response from Lakewood, some city staff believes that mistake is purposeful “misinformation.” This situation is a good example of the word games Lakewood plays and demonstrates the reason that residents continually struggle to make sense of changing policy. The May edition of Looking@Lakewood (below) announced that the July edition would be digital only. When asked about future plans for printed editions, the city responded that the October election edition will be printed and distributed to everyone. This edition is important not only to voters, but to the City Council members campaigning. However, the city response shows no commitment to future printed editions. Rather, they reiterate the cost and sustainability issues the city is concerned about. As the response shows, not even Lakewood can say that printed editions will stay; they can only say they “understand that some residents prefer” a physical copy. They have also said there is no CURRENT plan to FULLY stop mailing. Both of those statements are political word games that make no commitments. Given that evidence, it is easy to see why some residents may mistakenly believe Lakewood has already decided to stop printing completely. Sharing that belief is not “misinformation” but rather “speculation” or, at worst, an honest error. It may also be based on actual experience dealing with Lakewood because historically, the first step Lakewood takes when making a change has been to form a tentative plan, then take a resident survey, and very often to then proceed with the original plan. As long as a printed version is possible in the future, the city can rightly say “Any information you’ve seen or shared that Looking@Lakewood is going completely digital and won’t be mailed ever again is misinformation,” (bold added). Meanwhile, if you are interested in receiving news from the city, you should sign up for the electronic version because, for good or bad, you may not receive a printed version. Resident input is still being taken through the signup below.

The Comprehensive Plan Bait and Switch

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 2, 2025Posted in Community, Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Transparency, Word GamesTagged 15 minute, 15-minute, bait and switch, community input, comprehensive plan, word games, zoning

Comprehensive plans are easily readable documents that explain a vision for the future of the city in a moment of time. It speaks in plain English to what the zoning code describes in technical detail. The problem is that the zoning code details are what carry the force of law and because technical details are harder to read, it is easy for residents to overlook inconsistencies in proposed zoning compared to plans. This is otherwise known as a bait and switch. For instance, in the comprehensive plan, Lakewood promises to maintain neighborhood character; while in the zoning code, Lakewood implements high-density urbanization which resulted in the destruction of Belmar Park-adjacent property. Pieces of Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan were used as evidence to fight against the Belmar Park development. Lakewood officials discounted all such arguments. Now that residents have caught on to the inconsistencies, Lakewood staff argues against using the Comprehensive Plan to guide zoning. Instead, Lakewood proposes changing the ordinance so that the zoning code is no longer tied to the comprehensive plan. With this change, residents could not form legal challenges based on compliance with the comprehensive plan and there is less room to fight against maximum buildout in adjacent properties. Do Residents Need a “Vision” Document Why have a comprehensive plan at all? This is a long-term plan that locks in the vision for this moment in time. It includes aspirational goals with no implementation details. Therefore, the details are filled in by staff using their discretion to interpret the zoning code. Technically, one government cannot bind future governments to its decisions. If tomorrow’s City Council wanted to change the vision of Lakewood, it could choose to do so. However, having a long-range plan laid down by yesterday’s Council is a roadblock that is not easily overcome. Residents would better understand the zoning code if each change had to be justified with open debate. Instead, as is currently occurring, the entire zoning code can be changed by saying the code matches the ambiguous goals of the comprehensive plan. For example, the as-yet unapproved Comprehensive Plan seeks affordable housing. Therefore, City Council reasons that ANY CHANGE to the zoning code will be acceptable as long as affordable housing is the intent, not necessarily the outcome. There is no need for an updated 100-page vision plan document to update 300 pages of zoning code. Why not just introduce one little change at a time that is easily understood by the residents, and easily tested for effectiveness? The proposed zoning changes are still being discussed and changed. City Council have taken months to understand these detailed changes. Residents will have a couple weeks. However, residents did spend months providing input into the comprehensive plan, that will no longer have much meaning. The Proposed Change Lakewood intends to remove the binding zoning code connection to the Comprehensive Plan. As first noted by savebelmarpark.com: Lakewood zoning code currently states that the Comprehensive Plan is the foundation for the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed redline removes the “consistency with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan”. When the new zoning passes, all the aspirational goals laid out in the plan can be disregarded at will. Which really is no different than today, as shown by the Belmar Park debate except that today such a decision could be legally challenged and tomorrow it can’t. This specific change to the zoning code was not discussed at any public meeting. Comprehensive Plan Goals Not Followed The Comprehensive Plan states (pg 4-10): “Through the site plan review process and design guidelines, ensure that new multifamily, mixed use, and commercial developments adjacent to single-family neighborhoods are compatible by incorporating appropriate design, scale, height transition, and connectivity to seamlessly integrate with the neighborhood.” Residents compiled argument after argument to show that 777 S Yarrow St does not integrate with the neighborhood and does not meet environmental goals from the plan. Residents can clearly see that the Comprehensive Plan promises integration with the neighborhood. Residents can also clearly see that is not what staff implemented be allowing trees cut down to develop to the lot line near Belmar Park and new high-density apartments that don’t match the nearby buildings. . 15-minute Cities In other communities, residents are also waking up to this bait and switch. An opinion piece in the Boulder Daily Camera highlights this problem by examining Boulder’s 15-minute cities. This is particularly relevant since Lakewood leadership constantly mentions their desire for 15-minute city amenities. The proposed zoning code allows retail in residential zones for 15-minute planning. Steve Pomerance, in the Boulder Daily Camera, addresses this issue: “The underlying problem with this whole conceptual framework is the self-contradictory assumption that we can have commercial centers in neighborhoods that provide an adequate variety of goods, services and transit, all within 15 minutes of where people live, but still keep our relatively low-density neighborhoods intact. This is simply not supported by the economics or the geography.” – Steve Pomerance Read the rest of that article to understand the same sense of contrasting values Lakewood is “selling” to residents. The new development at The Bend is promising 15-minute city amenities. “Selling” is the appropriate term used here because the zoning was contracted before the comprehensive plan was finalized. In another eerie coincidence with Boulder, Pomerance wrote, “It’s as if those who wrote these objectives had already decided that the results of the cost/benefit study would support implementing this concept, and thus support the massive densification required to create such neighborhoods. Community Input Into Zoning Up to this point, residents have had no input. It was not a resident-driven development. Lakewood’s Chief of Sustainability and Community Development, Travis Parker, has been attending ward meetings to educate and also to promote the good points of the new zoning code — as if there are no other options. No one has addressed the dissatisfaction with the current densification in Lakewood. Does a desire for affordable housing mean automatic agreement to sacrifice current neighborhoods? More

Lakewood Does Provide Sanctuary

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 23, 2025Posted in Crime, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Word GamesTagged alien, Colorado, DHS, enforcement, immigrant, Lakewood, list, migrant, PII, sanctuary city

Lakewood has reason to be concerned about being placed on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) list of sanctuary cities. Email records show they do not comply with federal immigration law, nor do they plan to. Sanctuary was not granted through official vote of City Council; however, sanctuary from federal immigration law was undertaken behind the scenes while using word games to muddy the issue. From the emails, it appears that some Lakewood City Council Members do not appear to know the full extent of Lakewood’s defiance of federal law. On the other hand, DHS knows more than is publicly apparent – which makes sense because they are the ones that have been stonewalled for years. So although Lakewood does not pay for migrant support, it is clear that there is good reason for Lakewood to be placed on a sanctuary list, no matter the word games Lakewood plays. Lakewood City Council has repeatedly denied being a sanctuary city – which is true if defined by formal vote. However, it is not true that Lakewood does not provide sanctuary for illegals. Lakewood DOES provide sanctuary by not verifying immigration status or cooperating with DHS. In the beginning of the sanctuary city debate, the general public understood that a sanctuary city was just that – a safe place where your immigration status wouldn’t be questioned or held against you. Lakewood never made a public motion or official policy stating that they are a sanctuary city but it is apparent that they fully embrace and enable the state’s sanctuary status rather than federal immigration enforcement. No emails asking for removal When Lakewood was placed on the sanctuary city list, Lakewood did not issue a denial. There are no emails to DHS asking to be removed. That would be the first, honest, response from a city that was NOT acting as a sanctuary and was complying with federal immigration law. That’s what Aurora did. There is no email evidence that occurred in Lakewood. There are no emails asking why Lakewood is on the list. This is despite the fact that there is email from Senator Bennet’s office showing that jurisdictions with questions should reach out via email to SanctuaryJurisdictions@hq.dhs.gov. The official response to City Council was a bland email stating that Lakewood staff didn’t know why they were on the list or that they were concerned. Again, parsing the words carefully, staff “didn’t know why they were on the list” is different than “we have no idea why we are on the list.” Lakewood management may not have known the exact reason DHS was citing, but Lakewood would have known what internal procedural changes have been made over the years. Or perhaps Lakewood assumed they wouldn’t be singled out from other cities in Colorado who may have adopted similar, pro-sanctuary polices. Probably, they could rely on not having an official vote cast for sanctuary, which appears to be the case for some Councilors. Someone must have known there is a reason to be concerned, or they would have asked questions openly and honestly. Instead, Lakewood proceeded by investigating “delicately” (see email below). Lakewood declined to comment to the Denver Gazette and Denver 7 inquiries. A quick Google search could find no comment in any press coverage on the subject although Mayor Strom did reply to an msn.com inquiry. Official Response to City Council Don’t Draw Attention to Sanctuary Policies Nowhere anywhere did our investigation turn up evidence that Lakewood cooperates with DHS and ICE on immigration matters. There was never a suggestion that the situation was a misunderstanding. There was no proof emailed to DHS that Lakewood is indeed cooperating with federal immigration. There was one email showing that a Lakewood employee signed up for e-verify for the first time on Monday, June 2, in what may be a coincidence or a panicked response. In this case, Lakewood appears to have taken the approach that the less said the better because Lakewood cooperates with state law. Colorado sanctuary law is obviously intended to conflict with federal law. Lakewood’s cooperation with the state may be seen in multiple subversive actions, rather than one blanket vote by city council for “sanctuary”. And in fact, Ben Goldstein wrote: “Overall, I think the best strategy is to keep our heads down on this one, but perhaps the cat is out of the bag now” (see below). Lakewood Does Not Cooperate With Federal Immigration Proof that Lakewood provides sanctuary by not cooperating with DHS is shown in several ways besides being unable to deny the charge: There are also a couple things conspicuously missing: Complying with Colorado Law Over Federal Law As one example of City Council opinions, Councilor Jacob LaBure believes being placed on the sanctuary city list is “baseless” (see email below). LaBure’s response is the strong denial of an innocent man – which stands in stark contrast to the “keep your head down approach” from Lakewood management. However, strong beliefs or rewriting definitions of sanctuary does not change Lakewood’s support of migrant polices in 2024 or Lakewood’s vote to help Denver with its influx of migrants or Lakewood’s policy to lessen migrants deportation fears. As previously reported, such support is the original definition of a sanctuary city. In 2024 Lakewood Informer filed CORAs regarding immigration policy and did not receive any answers as to enforcement actions. The responding supervisor said the public information officer would be reaching out – an action that didn’t happen. Verbal responses in public meetings align with Jeffco’s response. They say that checking immigration status, which used to be a routine practice, was not the job of local jurisdictions. There is no federal law that says a home rule police department must check immigration status. This was just a matter of routine, like checking to see if you had an out-of-state drivers license. Lakewood no longer regularly does these routine checks. No Use of DHS Database Colorado law requires Lakewood to NOT share personally identifiable information with DHS non-public databases.

Lakewood and Jeffco Called a Sanctuary

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 13, 2025Posted in Crime, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Word GamesTagged Colorado, Crime, DHS, enforcement, federal immigration, homeland security, illegal alien, Lakewood, migrant, nullification, sanctuary city

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a list of sanctuary cities on Thursday, May 29. Lakewood and Jefferson County were on the list. By Sunday, DHS had taken the list down because of objections by the named jurisdictions. Cities like Lakewood never voted on the issue, just quickly enacted deprioritization policies behind the scenes and then told residents that the increased migrant population is not their problem. Now, DHS is calling out places like Lakewood and Jeffco that hide behind an unofficial policy of not cooperating, while other places do their best to balance a state law that acts against federal law. Lakewood has been through these word games with its residents already. No – Lakewood never formally voted to be a sanctuary city – but only because the state approved sanctuary status so Lakewood politicians didn’t have to take the political risk. At the time, it was apparent that Council would have approved sanctuary status if needed. At that time, around 2018, sanctuary meant being welcoming, resisting ICE cooperation and providing cover for migrant activity. Today, it seems to mean paying for housing and benefits… Because the bar has already been raised! People EXPECT welcoming and resistance to federal immigration. However, DHS is working from the original definition of any jurisdiction not cooperating with ICE. According to the original statement, DHS defined these sanctuary cities as: NOTE: This author seems to remember former Mayor Adam Paul talking about migrants taking refuge in a Lakewood church basement and the need for more placements. Does that sound right to anyone else? Lakewood has still been playing these word games, using “migrant” or “newcomer” instead of “illegal alien”. They would not guarantee that new homeless shelters would not be used for migrants. Instead, some Councilors insisted that all would be welcome. According to an article in The Guardian, the president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff Kieran Donahue, “said the list was created without input from sheriffs and ‘violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement’”. Lakewood still “deprioritizes” crime instead of admitting they will not enforce certain crimes or cooperate with certain agencies. Both Lakewood and Jeffco claim that immigration enforcement is not their jurisdiction so no cooperation is necessary. Neither government has any problem cooperating with other federal agencies, such as the FBI. Therefore, according to Lakewood and Jeffco principles, the National Sheriffs’ Association’s objection is without merit because local jurisdictions shouldn’t be cooperating anyway. Note that the DHS list is more granular than others that just highlight the entire state as a sanctuary. DHS did not respond to requests for more information on how the list was compiled, but there were clearly some cities and counties singled out around the state. Lakewood’s Police Chief has described Venezuelan gang activity in Lakewood in a rare Ward 4 appearance. Lakewood thinks residents are so ignorant that they can’t see the deteriorating conditions brought on by “de-prioritizing” crimes. They seem to think that if they don’t use the word “sanctuary,” they can act defy federal law and be fine. And so far, they are right. During the last discussion about Lakewood’s sanctuary city status, Lakewood Informer news noted that the word games continued with a change from “sanctuary” to “being a good neighbor”.

The Bend: A Government Financing Trade Deal

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 10, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Word GamesTagged backroom deal, Colorado, Lakewood, Lincoln Properties, metro district, news, The Bend, trade, URA

Lakewood may be forcing a property owner to blight their own land in a backroom trade deal wherein staff pledged a positive vote from City Council for a metro district. The deal would give The Bend development city financing in exchange for metro district status. In January 2025, a representative for The Bend developer made the following public comment: “The city is actually only allowing a Metro District to be put in place if the URA (Urban Renewal Area) passes so that it is a vehicle for this infrastructure and tax increment financing. They actually would not pass our Metro District standalone. They’ve made that very clear.” – Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, at Green Mountain Water Board Meeting, min 40:13. This deal illuminates why Lakewood is rushing through a URA and metro district public hearing on the same night. Staff presentations have repeatedly touted the advantages of doing both the URA and the metro district at the same time. They claim these are complementary structures. But they are not complementary. Rather, these are essentially overlapping structures that could finance the same set of infrastructures. Apparently, financing public infrastructure is a profit center. Overlapping financing is duplicative. Even worse, for The Bend, neither metro district nor URA is appropriate. The Bend is not a “serious and growing menace” to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare, which is the statutory reason for Urban Renewal. The Bend does not provide public services, which is necessary for a metro district. The metro district will only be used for financing. Therefore, the most appropriate government assistance, if any, would be a Business Improvement District (BID). BIDs are the more accountable, less powerful, way to achieve development financing but no one is advocating for its use. Instead, developers prefer to form metro districts. This initially involves the developer loaning money to the new metro district. Then the metro district issues a bond, with interest, to pay back the loan. Since the developer and the metro district are the same people (different legal entity), the developer has now gained itself government immunity, as well as millions of dollars of interest payments. In many cases, the interest payments never end – they only continue to grow. This outcome isn’t possible with a BID. (See Denver Post series “Metro Districts: Debt & Democracy” by David Migoya for more in-depth information on metro district abuses) Therefore, developers generally want that metro district as a profit center, rather than as a way to finance development, since they front the funds in either case. A URA is also meant to fund public infrastructure. Much of the public infrastructure was repeated under both the URA and metro district justification. Only one method is needed to finance infrastructure, and, as noted, the developer will provide the base funds in any event. As Karen Gordey reported in the Lakewood Informer, there was no required financial gap analysis completed to show that city funding was required. Therefore, with a metro district there is no need for a URA. This conclusion is also shared by a report from the Independence Institute. A URA has not required a metro district in the past. However, Lakewood can trade URA financing for affordable housing. Lakewood is not allowed to pay for housing directly. Lakewood is not even supposed to demand any percentage of affordable housing. There is no zoning or ordinance that requires it. The irony is that Lakewood City Council itself sunset the Strategic Growth Initiative ordinance. Under that ordinance, this development would have fallen under the allocation review system wherein Lakewood could have asked for affordable housing to permit this many units in a TRANSPARENT process. Instead, the city is now working behind the scenes to make this same thing happen. So, through the URA, Lakewood will gain affordable housing, aka government housing or government-subsidized housing. Those units can be used to qualify for state grants for even more development in Lakewood. “Without the Urban Renewal plan, in our case, we wouldn’t be able to deliver kind of what they want to see or their vision for this piece of land which includes housing retail and affordable housing they you know both the state and the city and the county do have a desire to have a portion of the site have affordable housing in it.“ Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, Jan 28 2025, min 35:57 Lakewood residents will pay for The Bend development by giving the developer financing. The new taxes from that development are diverted out of the general fund, which pays for Lakewood resident services like police, and instead will pay for The Bend development responsibilities like streets and pipes. The decision for an Urban Renewal Area is very separate from the decision to approve a metro district. The developer did not originally desire to be in an Urban Renewal Area and Lakewood may not approve a metro district as a standalone decision. But, operating together, the developer and city can trade financial incentives that residents throughout Lakewood will pay for. The developer offers blight and gets metro district status and financing. The city offers URA financing to indirectly offset affordable housing units and gets a basis for more state grant funding. “Municipalities are using a tool (URA) meant only for serious threats to the public as a tool for gaining a competitive advantage in economic development. Which, essentially, is a way to financially reward development partners and a method to force the public into a future desired by government planners.” -From The Empty Promise and Untold Cost of Urban Renewal in Colorado Just like Lakewood’s deal to buy Emory Elementary, residents should know the full plan to leverage this deal for more high-density development using state grant funds from the affordable housing units. Without that knowledge, which has not been disclosed, neither the URA nor the metro district decision makes any sense. There will be a City Council vote on the metro district and URA on Monday, May 12 that is open to

Lakewood’s shady Jeffco Schools business deal

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 4, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Word GamesTagged action center, backroom deal, Emory, jeffco, schools

By Jimmy Sengenberger, in the Denver Gazette The backroom deal I warned about last year is now playing out in broad daylight. In February 2024, I asked whether Lakewood was eyeing a bargain on the closed Emory Elementary — a deal that could dodge public input and leave Jeffco taxpayers holding the bag. Fifteen months later, the answer is a resounding yes. On Monday, Lakewood’s City Council authorized a $4 million below-market purchase of the school — a site that got $2.6 million in taxpayer-funded upgrades before Jeffco closed it in 2023. It’s now on track to become the new home of the nonprofit Action Center — courtesy of a taxpayer-funded workaround. The Action Center’s mission may be noble, serving vulnerable families and individuals. But the process? Not so much. It reeks of an almost theatrical disregard for transparency and taxpayer interests — with a straight face. In January 2024, Jeffco Schools quietly introduced a new “Municipal Interest” process giving municipalities like Lakewood first dibs on shuttered schools — without competitive bidding or public input. COO Jeff Gatlin confirmed Lakewood’s “interest in the Emory property,” revealing they were already “working through the municipal interest route.” Translation? A backdoor sale — letting Jeffco Schools unload taxpayer-funded property at a loss. A consultant even advised this process empowered the district to skip community feedback entirely. Read the rest of the article….

New zoning rules propose to take Lakewood back to “bedroom” community concept

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on March 20, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Word GamesTagged affordable housing, bedroom community, comprehensive plan, mixed use, population density, zoning code

Repost from Dave Weichman On top of everything else going on these days, the Lakewood establishment is planning to change the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning codes to allow for more population density and cheaper housing. As usual there is way too much devil in the details to wrap one’s head around. However, there is one area that gives me a deja vu. Back when I was on City Council (in 2012) there was a major change in zoning. One of the innovations was the concept of “mixed-use” zones. We on Council bought into the idea there could be buildings with multiple uses. The example we were sold on was a vision where the first floor of the building could have commercial uses like restaurants or shops. The second floor could be offices for businesses. The third and fourth floors could be apartments or condos for residential use. Therefore there could be three different types of uses within the same building. This would reduce the need for traveling to different zones for a range of uses – i.e. one could work, shop, play and live all within a single building. So city zoning was changed to create “mixed-use” zones that would allow for several different types of uses within the same structure. However, when it came time to actually build this type of zoning ALL these buildings were 100% housing. Commercial uses and offices remained located in other parts of the metro area. The City argued mixed-use did not mean there actually had to be more than one use going on in a building but rather there was a range of possible uses to choose from. According to this line of reasoning, the builder could choose to either build all housing, or all commercial or all offices. When voters complained about this bait and switch tactic, there was an effort to require that mixed-use buildings actually have more than one use going on. There was a major City Council effort led by Ward 4’s David Skilling to change the zoning rules for properties in Mixed-Use Employment (MU-E) districts. Mr. Skilling was able to pass an ordinance that changed MU-E zones to prohibit more than 50% of the building being used for housing. However, since developers never had any intention of building mixed use projects but rather were just interested in finding a way to build housing in zones previously limited to commercial or office use, not a single project was eventually build using this model. After these zoning rules went into effect, developers with properties zoned as MU-Employment came back to the city and requested permission to re-zone these properties into a category that would allow them to build 100% housing. Fast forward to 2025. The current proposed “reform” of the City’s zoning codes seeks to just get rid of the 50% limit on housing in MU-E zones. That way developers could continue to just focus on building more housing. As for commercial and office uses, the proposed zoning would go back to the old scheme of making Lakewood the “bedroom” community for metro Denver. So this new zoning is essentially a GOING BACK to the glory days of multi-family residential housing and riding the train into Denver for work or shopping.