Lakewood Rewriting Zoning Around Race

Some Lakewood City Council Members once again framed zoning decisions through the lens of historic racial injustices. During the October 13, 2025 meeting, Councilors returned to the same narrative seen throughout this rezoning process — that Lakewood must address equity and right racial wrongs through land use. What remains missing is evidence of any current racial barrier or any clear problem residents are actually experiencing under the existing zoning.

The August 25, 2025 meeting was even more explicit. Residents heard lengthy references to racism, equity, and climate change, with little connection to practical planning issues such as traffic, infrastructure, or neighborhood character. On October 13, Council singled out Morse Park for a zoning compromise based on the grounds that it once had racial covenants. No evidence was provided that any current residents are engaging in discrimination.

This is not new. A previous Council decision tied to a different neighborhood refused to fully honor a historic landmark petition unless the applicant accepted public labeling about past racist covenants unrelated to the current property owners.

Which raises the question:

Is Lakewood City Council making de facto reparations without ever saying so, and without consulting the people impacted today?

Redress Movement’s Influence

One major supporter of rezoning is the organization Redress. Their central claim is that “large lot, single family zoning and homeowners associations are simply the most recent version of what began as explicit housing segregation laws.”

That framing goes unchallenged. Yet Redress offers no proof that large lots or single family living today are preventing access to people of color. The argument relies entirely on implication and historic association.

Redress’ public comment to Council was similar to statements on their website such as, “The districts in Lakewood where single family zoning predominates are still the whitest areas of the city.”

The leap is immediate: past segregation existed, therefore every current land use preference must be suspect.

Councilor Sophia Mayott Guerrero echoed this, stating that she recognizes rural character was established at a time when Lakewood wrote in racial charters to prevent people of color from moving in. She said “that is in fact what we are talking about,  whether or not we want to admit it or know it.” Her comments suggested that residents speaking in favor of rural character are effectively speaking in code.

Councilor Isabel Cruz agreed with Mayott Guerrero’s framing. She also agreed with the compromise to shift Morse Park from R-L-C to R-L-B (not R-L-A) despite its similarity to other neighborhoods that were zoned R-L-A. She further justified the moved by saying she had heard from residents who wanted a more suburban feel to the neighborhood,rather than a rural feel. Those residents were not in evidence at the time.

There was no zoning-based justification. The difference appears purely philosophical and tied to historic guilt. In point of fact, some public comment pointed out how racially diverse these neighborhoods are.

In effect, Morse Park was politically adjusted not because of present day land use needs, but because of what former residents once did.

Citywide Pattern

This pattern extends beyond zoning. Redress itself boasts that it is actively working with the Jefferson County Food Policy Council on a “Justice and Resilience Legislative Plan” which includes policies to fund community land trusts and expand supportive housing. In other words, this ideology is shaping multiple arenas of Lakewood governance.

Opponents of the rezoning have no equivalent structure — no nonprofit machine, no funded organizing strategy showing up on demand. Nonprofit partners are repeated from the August 25 meeting to the Redress website.

Council Member Dave Rein said every ward needed rezoning for equity. By this logic, concentrating density near transit corridors — something councils previously celebrated as good planning — now becomes inequitable if it is not imposed everywhere.

So which is it?

Is density a benefit, or is it a burden Lakewood must now “share”?

The Glens and the 1801 Glen Dale Landmark

A similar approach was taken in the historic landmark process for 1801 Glen Dale Drive in the Glens, designated on January 27, 2025. Rather than simply honoring the exceptional preservation of a 1938 Tudor home, Council insisted it carry messaging about the area’s past racial covenants. No Councilor suggested creating a separate educational marker for the neighborhood at large. Only the current homeowner was made to carry the burden.

Public opposition to the landmark was entirely about racial covenants that no longer exist. Those same opponents are leading voices for citywide rezoning and densification.