Tag: affordable-housing

Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

The widespread zoning changes Lakewood made in 2013 resulted in a resident-initiated movement known as “strategic growth.” Residents were unhappy with the increased, high-density residential units being built that unbalanced the economic growth of the city. Ten years later, city leaders are still not listening to residents. On December 9, 2024, Lakewood City Council passed a resolution stating the city will have a “zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood.“

This resolution is not normal procedure. Normally, there is a proposal presented to the public that will show specific plans on promoting homes for the unhoused, increased density, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. This is not that.

Rather, it is a declaration that the city already has its mind made up to implement these changes. And because they seek to be “bold”, the Council will approve whatever the contractor recommends, whether or not the public likes it.

It’s like Lakewood is playing a Jedi mind trick. Lakewood leaders want a zoning code to accomplish a bold new agenda and they are saying: you can’t see the code but it will be good for you. You will like it.

Residents are waking up to the fact that the “anti-growth” narrative was just a way to belittle those who disagreed with the establishment. Look at how residents react to the proposed developments at Whippoorwill and Belmar for proof that no one is asking to stop all development. They just want it done reasonably and in line with existing neighborhoods.

Residents are also waking up to the fact that the “affordable housing” narrative is false because Lakewood doesn’t have a housing shortage. These two narratives are how Lakewood justifies the need for this zoning code change. Lakewood needs to pass this resolution and zoning code before more residents wake up. Going through proper public discussion took years for a short-term rental policy and the zoning code is much more significant.

Being “bold” seems to be a new political buzzword meaning leaders are crossing a line. Bold is fast-moving, which could be dangerous in government designed to work slowly through public discussion.

In this case, as you can see below, the new zoning code will potentially destabilize neighborhoods by extensively changing the rules to densify development in every code. The zoning code was established to keep neighborhoods stable, so residents know the type of neighborhood they are moving into. With these proposed changes, the zoning code can even be used to expedite spending for the homeless, which is a budgetary process normally outside the scope of zoning.

The resolution cites the new comprehensive plan as proof that residents approve of this zoning code change. This is disingenuous at best because:

  1. The comprehensive plan doesn’t mention specific action, just “feel-good” goals. Think in terms of everyone agreeing on world peace except that for one person peace means the peace that comes after world war.
  2. Lakewood hired a consultant to rewrite the zoning code BEFORE the results of the comprehensive plan were finalized, substantiating that the game was rigged.

Read the resolution below and see how wonderful it sounds. For each bulleted objective from the resolution, there is an example (in white italics) that shows how it could be twisted into something that residents would not like, most of which have been mentioned by city and state leadership.

The revised Zoning Code will:

  • Be a zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood, including:
    • Strategies that target the full range of housing needs compatible in scale and form with existing neighborhoods;
    • Increase flexibility in all zoning districts where appropriate to provide needed additional density;
      • (A pertinent example of this in the Belmar Park development fiasco where a new mega-apartment complex will be built that does not match the existing neighborhood. And that’s within existing zoning! Imagine an apartment building in place of your next-door neighbor’s house or the gas station on the corner.)
    • Lead to an increased supply of housing that is more affordable and attainable for individuals below 100% AMI, including for seniors, teachers, first responders, frontline workers, artists, and younger families.
      • (Since there is no way to guarantee new housing goes to seniors, new housing will likely go to investors just like it goes to investors now. This point is just emotional blackmail.)
  • Eliminate minimum lot sizes while maintaining reasonable setback and other dimensional standards;
    • (Buildings are now being built within a few feet of the sidewalk, as opposed to having ten feet of grass and a parking lot in front. This change increases wildfire hazard. It could also mean eliminating the original house to put four tiny houses on one lot – as discussed during a planning commission meeting. Or putting 15 units per acre, as per state suggestions.)
  • Improve connected lighting, sidewalks and bike paths;
    • (More bike lanes and less car lanes. Think of the separated lanes on Garrison or narrow lanes in Belmar.)
  • Improve mixed-use development;
    • (the 2013 rezoning already “improved” mixed use, resulting in replacement of promised commercial units with purely residential. This will eliminate even more business space.)
  • Codify a 90-day deadline to approve affordable housing projects;
  • Adopt a meaningful inclusionary zoning policy, either as part of, or as an accompaniment to, a zoning rewrite, which creates below market sale and rental units.
    • (inclusionary zoning is a market manipulation. It is modern day rent control, demanding all other units have high prices to subsidize around 10-20% of units being below market rate.)
  • Promote strategies and policies that will meaningfully and measurably reduce Lakewood greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water, and incentivize sustainability, each with timely goals and implementation;
    • (This includes eliminating parking requirements, even less gas stations or bringing back the fee-in-lieu option for parkland.)
  • Lead to Lakewood* meets the requirements of Proposition 123 (as modified by HB 23-1304) regarding Affordable Housing Programs;
    • (assuming this means fully adopting the state agenda and giving up the fight on local zoning rights that other cities are picking up.) *-”Lead to Lakewood” is in the original resolution. No idea what this means
  • Put fewer constraints on homeowners and renters, give Lakewood residents more choice, raise property values over time, and promote naturally occurring affordable and attainable housing;
    • (For example, there have been several suggestions to remove occupancy limits which could lead to overcrowding, health and fire hazards. Group homes in the middle of R1 neighborhoods have already caused problems in Lakewood. There are also suggestions to eliminate emergency staircase standards.)
  • Expedite the site selection and procurement of temporary sleeping units and shelters, and promoting and prioritizing permanent supportive housing;
    • (Give less notice that a homeless shelter is moving into your neighborhood – there are too many things wrong with this to list. And procurement has no place in a zoning code.)
  • Require that the construction, maintenance, and improvements of buildings owned or leased by the city will, where reasonably appropriate, minimize emissions, maximize sustainable design   principles, and be built, maintained, and improved with a view towards also serving as a community asset beyond their utilitarian function.
    • (Some City Councilors are concerned that the city is not getting LEED certified or have net zero emissions, both of which are EXTREMELY expensive.)

The Lakewood resolution was written at the direction of the City Manager, thus by-passing public input. This allowed City Council to “signal” residents that this bold change was coming. That way there is nothing for residents to oppose until it’s too late to make changes.

The reality is Lakewood does not have a shortage of housing. Changing the zoning code in the name of affordable housing is misleading. Read “The Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”.

An Unused Strategy to Housing Affordability

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

From SaveBelmarPark.com

Have you noticed that Lakewood City Council has dug in pretty deep on their pretend parkland ordinance crisis and their related commitment to litigation and media manipulation over their job which is legislation to address the issues they created?  We hope a more constructive attitude eventually emerges on city council.

In fact, we noticed the other day a Lakewood resident and attorney popped up on TV news with an issue that Lakewood wants 1,300 square feet of parkland dedication to allow her ranch home to be leveled and a new home built.

While this nice lady made some excellent points, the news reporting seemed to implicate the thousands of good citizens of Lakewood who brought forward the fee-in-lieu removal ordinance for causing the problem as if City Council has no authority or responsibility to consider any useful changes to the ordinance they adopted.

I did take the liberty of contacting her architect from their public email address and suggesting that City Council is authorized to address her concerns.  I had previously communicated that information to the reporter but apparently some facts are not news.

Read the full email here…

And read more about the housing design strategy already used in Europe here…to learn about

  • Suitable for multifamily infill development on small lots or even half lots.
  • Less land needed means lower land acquisition costs.
  • Lower construction cost.
  • Financially feasible for smaller, local developers to participate.
  • And more!

An Unused Strategy to Housing Affordability

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

From SaveBelmarPark.com

Have you noticed that Lakewood City Council has dug in pretty deep on their pretend parkland ordinance crisis and their related commitment to litigation and media manipulation over their job which is legislation to address the issues they created?  We hope a more constructive attitude eventually emerges on city council.

In fact, we noticed the other day a Lakewood resident and attorney popped up on TV news with an issue that Lakewood wants 1,300 square feet of parkland dedication to allow her ranch home to be leveled and a new home built.

While this nice lady made some excellent points, the news reporting seemed to implicate the thousands of good citizens of Lakewood who brought forward the fee-in-lieu removal ordinance for causing the problem as if City Council has no authority or responsibility to consider any useful changes to the ordinance they adopted.

I did take the liberty of contacting her architect from their public email address and suggesting that City Council is authorized to address her concerns.  I had previously communicated that information to the reporter but apparently some facts are not news.

Read the full email here…

And read more about the housing design strategy already used in Europe here…to learn about

  • Suitable for multifamily infill development on small lots or even half lots.
  • Less land needed means lower land acquisition costs.
  • Lower construction cost.
  • Financially feasible for smaller, local developers to participate.
  • And more!

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

Lakewood Supports City Planners Over Residents

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

The development at 777 S Yarrow St, Lakewood, Colorado, has brought residents concerns over development to the forefront. Despite having ordinances and zoning codes, residents have identified concerns with traffic impacts, wildfire and emergency response, the loss of trees and questionable park fee implementations. Residents continue to act for this cause, at SaveBelmarPark.com, and there has been rumors of possible legal action. However, if Colorado House Bill 1107 gets passed, residents will have an even more difficult time bringing legal action against the city, because they will face legal fees if they lose the case. The bill is meant to decrease suits from residents, who don’t understand that the city has done research to show that the city is right, and therefore, resident concerns are generally unfounded and possibly frivolous. The Lakewood Legislative Committee, has taken a support position on this bill, meaning they support making it harder for residents to bring legal action against the city. This position provides an insight as to why so many resident complaints, like those of hundreds of people against the S Yarrow St development, are often given lip-service or outright ignored.

The issue highlights an important dichotomy in government. Technically, in a representative democracy, the residents should be telling elected officials what they want in terms of legislation. The elected officials then vote on a policy and the city staff will implement it. But what happens when politicians use targeted words to get a policy through that means something other than what people think? What happens when words from last year can be reinterpreted to mean something different this year, so that policy can change without so much as a public discussion?

These are the questions that residents ask when looking at the rules for developing S Yarrow St. How is it possible that a little street with a small building footprint can have no negative impact to traffic if you change it to high-density residential an add an extra couple hundred cars? Aren’t there rules to maintain a neighborhood in similar fashion?

In Colorado Springs, residents have found the answer in taking legal action against the city. Springs residents’ often cite the same problems – and developers are tired of it. According to this article in The Gazette, developers cite the need for more housing while residents cite safety concerns. Reading this article, where they talk about the 7-story complexes going in that are causing traffic concerns for the residents, you may think you are reading about Lakewood.

City Has the Experts

Lakewood will often require a traffic impact study, or environmental study when necessary. This expert testimony is the basis for approving projects. As one quote from the Gazette article stated, “”When [neighborhoods] fight these projects, they are not agreeing with the experts. They are deciding for themselves that it’s not safe.”

“In recent years, numerous political theorists and philosophers have argued that experts ought to be in charge of public policy and should manipulate, or contain, the policy preferences of the ignorant masses.”  – Nicholas Tampio, aeon.co

It is rare that cities will change their mind on project approval. Residents concerned with 777 S Yarrow have been told for months that nothing substantial can be done. So legal action brought by residents will typically delay a project, but will not cause any particular change.

To limit these delays, developers and cities need a way to stop residents from pursuing legal action. One way to achieve that is through HB24-1107 which proposes that residents who legally challenge the city will have to pay legal fees if they lose.

Passing HB24-1107 is sure to discourage residents, who already have less financial and legal resources than the city or developers they are facing.

Lakewood Council Member David Rein pointed out that this legislation is very one sided because developers are still free to bring legal action with no increased risk to themselves, which will not be the case for the residents. However, with his “city hat” on, Rein supports the legislation.

Councilor Glenda Sinks said that Lakewood should support this bill because it’s a way to support staff.

No one publicly considered the increase in legal action as a cry for help from the residents, who have presumably asked for the ordinances to be enforced in the way residents commonly understood they would be (for example, open space would be park space, not including dumpster space.)

Unanimous approval from the Legislative Committee: Council Members Sinks , Cruz, Stewart, Rein, LaBure (absent)

Legislative positions are not posted anywhere or shared unless there is a “strong” position. But this signals to the residents that Lakewood considers resident appeals to be generally not worthy of support.

Lakewood to Propose a Homeless Shelter in Public School Building

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Correction, Jan 18, 2024: The unnamed, closed Jefferson County school was not proposed as a homeless shelter but as a new location for the Jeffco Action Center which offers hardship services. Increased housing for the homeless would then be available and Lakewood would have a presence in two Action Center buildings. Plans are not final, but discussions have been started. More details have not been brought before Council yet. 

Correction: Services, Not Shelter, to Move to Jeffco School

Lakewood’s Strategic Housing Plan (SHP) researched the possibilities of redeveloping vacant or underutilized land for affordable housing. For example, there are many vacant commercial sites that could be used for new affordable units. The SHP currently does not have details, rather the plan is ready for further research and public discussion. However, Lakewood City Manager Hodgson says that by listening carefully to City Councilors, city staff could anticipate that this item was of particular interest so staff has started work.

Towards that goal, Lakewood staff already has a proposal to work collaboratively to house homeless in a closed Jeffco school in Lakewood. That project includes working with the Jeffco Action Center to provide shelter in these already controversial neighborhood sites. Financial incentives may be available from the city.

This proposal will be coming to Council for approval soon, with no other details provided by Hodgson, as announced in the December 18 study session.

Public comment shows people want further discussion regarding sheltering the unhoused in a school, but city staff believe they have enough tacit approval from City Council that they have proceeded with their plans.  Under the option for repurposing existing buildings for affordable housing, the city will not require a separate discussion for this topic, outside of plan adoption, although public comment would be available if there is a separate proposal.

Although the people who live in those highly residential areas may not want a homeless shelter next door, the city has an answer to that: Public comment is over-represented by affluent long-term homeowners (link added 2/11/24). The argument that owners of single-family residences are generally rich, white people who are over-represented in their city council meetings is laid out  in the Harvard Law Review paper to show affordable housing is a right. 

Sidenote: City Manager Kathy Hodgson and Mayor Wendi Strom have studied government at Harvard University.

The city survey correlated how long residents have lived in Lakewood with survey responses in order to pit residents against each other, in what seems to be a continuing conversation of older residents versus younger residents. For example, it has been suggested during the demographic study that residents “ageing in place” contribute to taking up valuable housing stock that would otherwise be “affordable.”

From Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan presentation

Destabilizing neighborhoods by changing their use or density may prove a base assumption of the plan. The SHP depends on residents that have enough money moving out of their existing homes and moving into the newly created market-rate apartments. The move would allow for the existing housing stock that was vacated to be used for those less fortunate. Housing migration is a critical component to a successful market-rate overstock policy implementation.  (Hattip Ditson)

Correction: Study date changed from Dec 19th to 18th

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info

Subscribe

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