LAKEWOOD INFORMER

Crime prevention is a leading concern in Lakewood and yet there was at least triple the amount of public discussion over bike and pedestrian infrastructure than there was over crime. Why? As resident-generated news, the Lakewood Informer tries to find out, starting with an examination of the new police philosophy that residents heard about for the first time in a budgeting meeting. Do you trust in the police? Is lack of trust the root of all crime? Can we have effective crime prevention by increased trust initiatives? Who do you need trust? to do what? when? Who do police need to trust? It turns out, all those questions are on the table once residents start thinking about it so we should start thinking about what we, as a community, want to see. Guest panelists: Zane Gordon, Anita Springsteen, Alex Plotkin Discussion Topics: – Is there a link between trust and crime? – Does the City council reject what citizens think? (approx minute 6) – Does improving trust address the root problem? – Is lack of transparency the root problem? (approx minute 4) – Should police handle mental health and/or drug related issues? – Should the handling of mental health/drug related issues be integrated into police work? – Or should mental health/drug issues be handled by a separate professional? – Is transparency an important part of trust? – Does transparency build trust? – Is there a leadership deficiency at City Council? (which is causing police related issues) – Council vs Police? Is there or...

To find the answers, please go to https://thraemoor2.com/save-belmarpark/

The following is a brief synopsis of some projects highlighted in Lakewood, Colorado’s 2024 budget discussions, including some apparent policies and assumptions residents may not know about. Mill levy: Council Member Janssen motioned for a reduction in the mill levy, a unique local government solution which would counteract some of the increase in Jefferson County property valuations. The Council majority agreed with city plans for the “windfall” of increased funds and argued that an individual resident’s return was not worth enough to consider. A counter-proposal for lesser reduction eventually passed that proponents lauded as revenue neutral. However, the revenue analysis was new information for Council and residents presented at the meeting. The result was misunderstandings in what revenue neutral meant; in this case, it meant budget neutral, or enough revenue to cover increased spending. Revenue still increased over the limit set in charter (see section 12.12). There was also some debate regarding the accuracy of the projected revenues. Lakewood’s budget reflected an 11% increase in property valuations, although the actual increase was anticipated to be about double that. The city did not adjust that number so the revenue to the city may be greater than the budget reflected at the time of budget and mil levy certification. The Finance Department reported that Lakewood is no longer following City Charter but rather they are following TABOR in relation to revenue caps. If true, this presents an opportunity for Lakewood to clean up existing conflicts. RTD Bridge: Council Member Olver highlighted an...

Lakewood residents urged City Council to uphold City rules that developments must fit in with the existing neighborhood. Citing the City’s own Municipal Code, residents helped write a resolution that would enforce both Lakewood’s long-term planning and zoning and the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. The majority of City Council rejected the resolution, citing legal interpretations, while acknowledging the efforts of residents. The meeting started in an unusual fashion, with public comment being moved until after a long budget session. The mayor warned repeatedly that he would enforce decorum and he had police officers standing by if residents continued clapping. Claims that moving public comment is normal for budget meetings have been proved false (see 2022 and 2021). However, it is normal procedure to have comment close to the relevant agenda item, which in this case was after the budget. This simple move, set the stage for misunderstandings and hard feelings after residents had to wait hours to speak. The issue involves developing private land adjacent to Belmar Park. Due to a zoning change in 2012, the land can be developed as a much higher-density multi-family development than the street was originally intended for.  In combination with Lakewood’s decreased parking requirement (1.5 parking spots per unit), residents expressed worries that this is a perfect storm of congestion (see Lakewood’s parking study where residents cite similar parking problems caused by inadequate parking near Abrusci’s, Manning’s and Colorado Christian University). In response, Lakewood has said that the development plans are legal. Although...

My eyes have been opened to how many times city officials said there was robust public engagement to justify projects and spending. As someone who has organized public input, and just this week saw a massive outpouring of public engagement on the Belmar Park development, I wondered how the city defined ‘robust engagement’. It turns out, resident engagement numbers are not much different from City engagement numbers. Why this should matter to you?  Because resident-backed projects are not considered for approval even when they clearly have support. Let’s look at the example of Wright Street Park, which was lauded for its public engagement. According to the city, “Outreach for these meetings included a postcard to any resident residing within 1,000 feet of the park and door to door engagement with the nearby apartment complex managers. We [Lakewood] also share all of our projects on Lakewood city channels including the Friday Report, Lakewood 8, social media, our e-newsletters and Nextdoor.” The survey for Wright St included about 210 respondents. There is no record of how many came to an in-person meeting but about 50 watched the video and 23 submitted ideas so 200 is a good estimate. Lakewood residents have whipped up the support of 100s of people, even without money to spend or dedicated staff. However, they don’t get the same results. Why does Lakewood’s engagement process take priority and resident engagement doesn’t? How many times have residents heard, “We [the city] hear you but we also have to listen...

Discussing the recent budget proposal, Lakewood Police Chief Smith went through his policing philosophy to explain changes to the budget. The base of this philosophy was enacted by President Obama, called 21st Century Policing. At its core, the policy is about building trust in police. Crime is addressed more indirectly, not as the crime itself (i.e. shoplifting) but by addressing the root cause of the crime (i.e. what made a person shoplift). In Lakewood, there are more conversations about crime than trust in police. Evidence suggests these may be two different conversations. It is now eight years since the Obama-era policy was issued. This author could find zero studies to show crime reduction as a result of these policies. The National Policing Institute issued a 5-year report that showed limited success in select areas, not including crime. For example, police departments that started reporting data via an online dashboard showed some success in increased transparency. This type of dashboard is a national trend; see Tucson, Arizona for an example. Other cities showed increased trust, as defined by positive feeling for, or lack of being threatened by police, after a brief visit. There were not many departments still using the policing report guidelines after five years so the effects were not able to be studied further. There was one notable outcome in Louisville, Kentucky, which implemented the strategy early and gained accolades from the White House. However, an incident in later years, caused the approval to be rescinded. Follow-up research found...