affordable housing Archives - Lakewood Informer

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

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on March 20, 2025.

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.

People catching onto the “affordable housing” scam

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on March 16, 2025.

A pair of articles in the Denver Post show that Colorado residents are catching onto the fact that “affordable housing” isn’t the universal panacea that is being promised. New housing is not affordable, unless it’s government-backed, while higher densities are killing the very reason that people enjoyed their city in the first place.

Pro-development progressives in Boulder won’t solve the housing crisis

“Building a lot more housing won’t reduce prices because there’s an unlimited supply of people nationwide who’ll pay whatever it takes to live here. Boulder is a unique blend of access to culture and nature in a small city. There are plenty of people who want to move here and have the means to do so.”

This sentiment also applies to Lakewood, revealing the lie to all the promises that more housing will solve problems.

Denser housing vs. the ’burbs

“While Colorado lawmakers require upzoning and offer incentives in their push for denser housing concentrated at Regional Transportation District bus and train hubs, thousands of metro Denver residents like the Wellners are migrating to suburbs. They give multiple reasons for their moves: affordability, elbow room, quietness, safety and parks — things that transit-oriented development (TOD) often lacks.”

Many people moved to Lakewood for exactly this reason – wanting elbow room and safety. But Lakewood aspires to become more like urban Denver, in the name of affordability. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who will pay “whatever it takes to live here.”

Lakewood is planning on changing the zoning code to increase density even more. The Planning Director is already out talking about the change. It was baked into the results of the latest comprehensive plan, whether residents wanted it or not. Those people who do not want increased densification have until the new code is adopted to object.

No Workforce Housing for Lakewood

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on February 13, 2025. 1 Comment

Another Lakewood misinformation campaign bites the dust.

For years Lakewood has been pushing high-density growth in the name of “affordable housing”. They market this narrative to schoolteachers and civil servants. See Lakewood’s recent resolution using these exact words. However, a development presentation to the Lakewood Planning Commission introduced a new term that exposes the lie: Workforce housing

Workforce Housing

The consultant Lakewood hired to evaluate blight and Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan pointed out that there was NO PLAN for increasing workforce housing in Lakewood.

The emphasis on “affordable housing”, despite what Lakewood says, is different from workforce housing. No matter how poorly teachers and civil servants get paid, they get paid more than anyone living on the streets.

Affordable housing in Lakewood will mean a government-run program, similar to what used to be called Section 8. That is not the same as an answer to inflated housing prices for low- to median-income levels.

Think about government-run affordable housing like a scholarship system for school. A person may need the financial assistance, and may not be able to go to college without it, but there are others who need it more and not enough to go around.

For decades, the people most in need are those with extremely low income. Not low. Not middle-low. Not teachers and civil servants. Extremely low income.

6.8 million more affordable housing units needed for extremely low income housing families — From the National Low Income Housing Coalition

Ann Ricker, of Ricker Cunningham, is Lakewood’s blight consultant. She pointed out there was a gap in the Comprehensive Plan. She said the plan talked about affordable housing, and it talked about single-family housing, but she said there was the missing middle. She suggested removing “single-family” and just using the term “housing”.

Using the general term “housing” would allow more high-density, market rate apartments to be built in an effort to flood the market and lower prices. Lakewood is already proceeding with this plan. There is no guarantee the low-priced condos or townhomes will be built anywhere.

The term “workforce housing” is a more accurate description of how the public perceives the promises from Lakewood. This was an important acknowledgment that “workforce housing” is different than “affordable housing”. The public should be aware of the word games going on, similar to “illegal alien” versus “migrant”.

Watch Ann Ricker discuss the Comprehensive Plan here:

From Frank Lehnerz, Free State Colorado

“If the government tries to wage war against the laws of the market by price control, it undermines the working of the market mechanism and leads to conditions which, from the point of view of the government itself, are less desirable than the previous state of affairs it intended to alter.”

— Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action (1949)

History has repeatedly shown that price controls—whether on food, housing, or other essentials—create virtually no consumer benefits and only price distortions. By capping what producers or retailers can charge, these controls reduce supply, reduce product or service quality, discourage investment for new, improved, or cheaper products and services, and create market signal distortions.

Lakewood Demands Fee for Impossible Sustainability Goals

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on February 9, 2025.

Lakewood requires such high sustainability standards that they are almost impossible for large developments to meet. The standards are meant to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. For those developments, Lakewood accepts a fee in lieu of sustainability amenities. Lakewood is currently arguing that parkland dedication is illegal or amoral because it asks too much from developers. But Lakewood makes the same sort of demands to further its sustainability agenda. In both cases, the desire is to have development offset the environmental cost of development. The question is at what point is there so much development that the city says money is an acceptable substitute for direct environmental offsets.

Note that these city mandates will continue despite any possible changes to federal funding for climate change initiatives.

Achievable Goals or Ideology

Lowering emissions is expensive so most people have not done it or have only done it by using rebates and subsidies. Achieving net zero emissions is even more expensive and is sometimes not achievable. For example, the city of Lakewood admits its new maintenance facility will not meet LEED standards let alone be net zero. Lakewood has set its own standards and requires that new buildings meet those standards by earning sustainability points.

“net zero standards require reducing emissions to more than 90% and then only offsetting [with purchased carbon credits] the remaining 10% or less to fall in line with 1.5 °C targets.” –Wikipedia

For large developments, the city admits it is almost impossible to achieve enough points. Therefore, developers are forced to pay a fee so that Lakewood can fund other sustainability projects. This is similar to other carbon credit purchasing schemes but in this case, it is authorized, administered, and required by Lakewood. There is currently no discussion that Lakewood will require credits or fees from existing residents. Lakewood City Council was scheduled to discuss new ways to generate revenue, as well as how to spend the revenue generated from existing fees, at the February planning retreat. The planning retreat has historically been an in-person only meeting where staff takes direction from Council on items that do not require an official vote. No recording is available online for review.

“For some [developments] that the [sustainability] targets are just too high to meet, they pitch in so that the city can spend that money to further achieve our goals.” Travis Parker, Director of Sustainability and Community Development during staff sustainability update (min 1:17:52).

Increasing UNAFFORDABLE Housing

Since 2019 Lakewood has demanded buildings meet climate sustainability goals. This was estimated to add 2-3% to building costs but actual costs have not been collected or analyzed. Building costs are passed on to the consumer, which makes Lakewood even more expensive to live and work in than in the surrounding areas.

The additional sustainability measures will add 1-10% to building costs for things like EV charging stations. Would you like all new apartments to have a few charging stations at an increased overall cost for everyone or would you like some buildings to not have those amenities at a lower cost?

Lakewood’s demands have resulted in a reduction in emissions to meet a target of 20% less than 2007 levels. With the new demands of 2022, some large construction projects cannot meet Lakewood’s demands, resulting in the project paying a fee to Lakewood that will be used for other climate goals. Lakewood city staff acknowledged that it was almost impossible for large projects to meet demands, making the fee-in-lieu necessary.

Money Making Machine

Lakewood has already generated $221,000 from various sustainability fees. They anticipate generating over $250,000 per year on these fees. Lakewood made over $600,000 on the statewide plastic bag mandate. One could say Lakewood is getting into the business of selling emission offsets.

For more information on what Lakewood’s sustainability measures have achieved so far, watch the full video update at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYbpkr1Gm24&t=150s

Greenhouse Gas Emissions over Time — https://lakewoodspeaks.org/items/3959

Consequences

The extra expense of building in Lakewood limits the possibility of new businesses coming into Lakewood. Even sustainability businesses, whose goals align with Lakewood’s, find it difficult to make a profit when required to meet high sustainability standards. Councilor Rein specifically remarked that he would like Lakewood to attract new businesses that would develop sustainability technologies. At the same time, businesses nationwide are rethinking their sustainability goals amidst high demands such as Lakewood’s.

The enhanced development fee was first approved in 2019. Now the city is asking for more and some projects are not even possible to achieve what Lakewood wants. All projects must meet a base emission efficiency level. After meeting that base level, projects are eligible to pay a fee because even Lakewood staff admit it is not possible to achieve what they are asking for.

“Fee-in-lieu is for those super large projects that have really large point totals that may not even be able to find enough points in the [standards] list to meet their point total, they still have to achieve at least 50 [base level efficiency] and they can achieve the rest as well or they can pay a fee in lieu for some of those higher points.” – Travis Parker, sustainability update (min 1:34), emphasis added

What do the fees go towards? They could go towards every basic city service besides police. Per Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero, these fees could be used for sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. Councilors asked about tree preservation and housing. Public art was part of the original goal. Tree canopy health. Food access. Household wages. Even subscriptions to city communications and trips to the rec center count towards “sustainability goals”. Other people have to fight to earn business advantages like that.

The dates below are from the staff presentation, detailing future meetings where Lakewood will be implementing more robust sustainability measures for Lakewood.

Tag: affordable housing