Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
From savebelmarpark.com
Homelessness, and especially people who are unhoused, is a growing concern in the US. Upzoning advocates have pointed to the high cost of housing as a key driver of homelessness and that upzoning would make housing more affordable and therefore would reduce the number of unhoused persons in a city.
‘Upzoning’ is a city planning strategy to increase housing density and therefore housing supply via related zoning changes to support the strategy.
From Crash Davis You’ll hear it all the time, especially from pundits and politicians: “The solution to the housing crisis is simple. Just build more.” It sounds nice. It fits on a bumper sticker. But it’s not the full story. Not even close. We’re not just short on homes. We’ve built an entire system where housing has become the best way to build wealth, and where insiders control access to that wealth. I was talking to a friend the other day, and he mentioned a few people he knew who were doing very well financially. Every single one of them had made their money in real estate. That says a lot. Here in Colorado, you see the distortion everywhere. In Lakewood, homes are sitting on the market. The “supply” is technically there, but prices still start around $500,000 and go well past $1.4 million. That’s not a starter home. That’s not attainable for most working families. And it’s not just because we didn’t build enough. It’s because we’ve flooded the system with easy money for decades. It didn’t start with the pandemic. That just poured fuel on a fire that had already been burning since the financial crisis, the dot-com bust, and even before. Every time the economy hiccups, we inject liquidity, drop interest rates, and do whatever it takes to prop up asset values. The result is a distorted market where real estate becomes a magnet for cash, speculation, and institutional investment. Now we’re sitting on the flip side. High mortgage rates were needed to fight the very inflation we created, and a generation has been locked out of homeownership. And let’s talk about access. Realtors and brokers often have first shot at listings. Many flip properties before they ever reach the public. Investors buy homes in bulk with cash offers and zero contingencies. It’s not a level playing field. It’s insider baseball, and everyday buyers are the ones striking out. Some might say, “Well, you could become a Realtor too.” Maybe. But that’s not the point. I’m not asking to join the club. I’m asking whether the club should be allowed to set the rules for the entire market. Housing isn’t just another asset class. It’s where people live. And when those licensed to facilitate transactions also get first crack at the inventory, sometimes before the public even knows it exists, we’ve blurred the line between broker and player. In most financial markets, we call that insider trading. It’s illegal. But in real estate, it’s not only legal, it’s standard practice. Realtors can access private “pocket listings,” buy before a home is ever made public, and flip it, all within the rules. There’s no regulation that stops it. No disclosure requirement. No cap. It’s an advantage built into the structure, not earned through risk or innovation. This isn’t about more government control. It’s about a market that actually behaves like one. And here’s where it ties into something even bigger. We protect systems like this because we’re afraid to let them fail. When cracks appear, whether it’s the housing market, the student loan industry, or some part of the financial sector, we inject money, cut rates, float bailouts, or push subsidies to keep it all from collapsing. The result is inflated assets, moral hazard, and even more consolidation of advantage. We say we want affordability. But we prop up prices. We say we support markets. But we rig them to protect insiders. We’re not just creating housing problems. We’re institutionalizing them. Data shows this isn’t fringe theory. In markets like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Miami, researchers have shown that speculative investor behavior directly drove price spikes and increased default risk during boom cycles. And it’s not just Wall Street firms. Small-scale investors now account for nearly 30 percent of all single-family home purchases nationwide. In California, nearly one in five homes is investor-owned. In some mountain and resort regions, it’s far higher. That’s not building community. That’s extracting profit and boxing out would-be homeowners. You can see it in housing. You can see it in student loans. We’ve created a culture where financial risk is absorbed by the system instead of the individual. Yes, many student loans were predatory, with poor disclosure and complex repayment terms that borrowers barely understood. And here’s the part no one talks about. More student loan debt is held by people over 50 than under 25. That’s not just a youth issue. It’s a long-term debt trap. And when people are carrying that kind of burden, along with auto loans and other monthly obligations, homeownership gets pushed further out of reach. Some expenses are personal choices, sure. But the bottom line is this. Housing affordability depends on more than home prices. It depends on what’s left after the system takes its cut. We’ve also created a generational split. Asset-holders benefit while asset-seekers fall behind. The longer we ignore that, the more brittle the system becomes. Meanwhile, the “just build more” crowd ignores a basic reality. Places like Colorado aren’t limitless. Buildable land is inherently scarce. Water is limited. Infrastructure can only stretch so far. And people want to live here, which means demand is high and growing. When you combine that kind of demand with natural constraints on supply, prices are going to rise. That’s not politics. That’s economics. And when people point out that only high-income households can afford to live in Boulder, the response is usually to push “affordable housing” into surrounding communities like Lakewood. That’s where things like ADUs, lot splits, and small infill units come in. The idea is to add supply by allowing people to subdivide their lots, build small houses, and either rent them out or sell them. On paper, it sounds practical. In reality, it often erodes the very character of the neighborhoods that make these places livable to begin with. Density without planning isn’t affordability. It’s just chaos with good intentions. And here’s another truth we rarely say out loud. Not everyone can or
From Jim Kinney Friends and neighbors, I hope you all have had a chance to study the draft City of Lakewood Zoning Code being pushed forward by what appears to be the majority of City Council, the Mayor, and the City Manager and the Director of Planning. The new code is being “sold” as the answer to fix the problem that our City needs affordable housing. Minneapolis was the first city in the nation to abandon the single family zoning category, in about 2018, thinking that action was the answer to magically have the city filled with affordable housing. The article, Counterpoint: Upending Single-family Zoning Isn’t the Answer: Like many zombie ideas, the idea that zoning changes will magically provide abundant affordable housing just doesn’t die, was written by Linda McDonald, of Minneapolis, who is a former City Council member and is one of the founding members of the citizen group Minneapolis For Everyone. The following quote is taken from her article (my highlighting). “In addition, the Urban Institute found no evidence that more low-cost housing was built, or that lower-cost housing became less expensive when zoning was reduced. This isn’t surprising. The real reason new housing is so expensive is that the costs to build — lumber, copper, labor, etc. — have been increasing much faster than inflation. The private marketplace simply cannot produce deeply affordable housing, the housing critical for truly low-income persons. In Minneapolis, there has been an increase in deeply affordable housing, but only because the city has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.” The draft Lakewood zoning codes proposes abandoning single-family zoning to solve the City’s lack of affordable housing. It has already been shown this approach has very little effect producing affordable housing. Tell City Council, the City Manager and the Director of Planning to abandon these draft new zoning codes, that abandoning single-family zoning is not the answer. If there is a reason to rewrite our current City Zoning codes, it is not to remove single-family zoning as the answer to magically adding abundant affordable housing. Educate yourself. Stand up and speak up. Council is planning on voting to make these disastrous draft codes our City law on August 25, 2025. In democracy,Jim Kinney
Councilor Ken Cruz announced that the first reading of the proposed zoning code has been pushed from July 28 to August 11. From Councilor Ken Cruz’s newsletter: “Lakewood Zoning Code Timeline Extended A Real Opportunity to Engage “The City of Lakewood is extending its zoning code update timeline to allow for deeper review and stronger community engagement. 🔹 Final Draft Release: Monday, July 14🔹 First Reading at City Council: August 11🔹 Public Hearing (Second Reading): August 25 “This update isn’t just about timing, it’s about trust. With this additional time, we have a real chance to dig in, ask questions, and have meaningful conversations before any votes are cast. “💬 In the coming weeks, I’ll be hosting a series of roundtable conversations here in Ward 3. These won’t be presentations or lectures. They’ll be real, two-way conversations grounded in the actual text of the proposed zoning code and the realities of housing and land use in Lakewood.” As of the last public meeting on zoning, City Manager Hodgson argued that the meeting schedule was full so keeping to the July 28 first reading made the most sense. Council agreed. However, as of the Lakewood Informer Community Potluck on June 26, the new redlined draft was still not available. At that time, inquiries to the city revealed the redline was due out the first week of July. The new redline was not produced the first week of July but was also pushed back to coincide with the new first reading date. Residents will have a month to review the document before first reading. The roundtable discussions by Councilor Ken Cruz is a new format by a Council Member. Some other Councilors have expressed the opinion that their constituents overwhelmingly support affordable housing solutions, and therefore they assume that means any zoning code changes will be accepted.
Why the big rush to change the zoning code? Follow the money. The money trail leads to state grant funding, which primarily supports homeless and sustainability initiatives. Without that agenda, Lakewood could decide for itself which, if any, of the state initiatives make sense locally. Colorado has decided to override local zoning in a power grab against local home rule. Other cities are fighting back against Colorado with legal cases. But Lakewood will not fight for home rule. They are not only implementing the state law but going further in densification, all while citing the need to comply with state law Lakewood receives millions of dollars in state grants for initiatives like sustainability and the new navigation center. The purchase and renovation of the old Harley Davidson building was done using state grants. To continue funding sustainability and homeless initiatives, Lakewood must either fund it internally (a political impossibility) or comply with state zoning codes. And if the state zoning codes are not what Lakewood residents had in mind when they discussed “affordable housing” solutions, that’s a sacrifice Lakewood is willing to make on your behalf. Note: For the purposes of this article, “Lakewood” means the majority opinion of city officials. It is hard to tell who is speaking in public workshops, there is a lot of backroom personal communications, as well as conflicting explanations given in ward meetings. To establish personal beliefs, please contact your city official with detailed questions that are beyond the scope of this article. Lakewood’s proposed zoning code sacrifices existing neighborhood stability in the hopes of creating affordable housing. Occupancy limits everywhere are eliminated so there can be 20, unrelated, non-owner residents in a house. The house nextdoor may be torn down and replaced with a duplex or a cottage court*. Small retail is now allowed, mixing business with residential. Every property in Lakewood is now a transition zone. *Cottage Court: According to a 2022 report from AARP, cottage courts are defined as a small collection of bungalow-style homes that are “typically 1 to 1½ stories tall and are oriented around a courtyard that serves as an outdoor community space in lieu of rear yards.” – HousingWIre There is no guarantee that any of these changes will achieve their desired goals. Studies abound on both sides. However, Lakewood has already been promised affordable housing since the 2012 zoning rewrite that spawned the term “Soviet-style apartment blocks” with zero new “affordable” units created. Is there any reason to think this big change will be different? Lakewood’s proposed zoning code is not ready for first reading yet, so residents don’t know all the details. The latest redline is from May 19. However, residents do know that know matter what is in there, it is good and necessary because City Council passed a resolution saying so in December of 2024. Lakewood’s navigation center is a contentious issue that hinged largely on the ability to get “free money” from the state. Many homeless and sustainability measures that were supported by the state did not go through a full public policy debate because that wasn’t necessary if Lakewood wasn’t spending its own money. Now that decision is coming back to haunt Lakewood residents, who will be paying for that money by sacrificing their neighborhood stability.
Lakewood Informer wants to hear from you at a community potluck Is Lakewood on the right track? What events triggered you to get involved in Lakewood politics? Do you think Lakewood city management listens to you? And the big question – can you MAKE THEM listen? Join us for a potluck dinner at Addenbrooke Park on June 26, 5:30-9 pm and meet others who are concerned about the city. Bring your stories to share through the Lakewood Informer. Meet Lakewood Informer authors to get the latest information and meet your fellow residents. Discuss actions to get Lakewood’s attention on critical issues. –Karen Gordey on selling out neighborhoods–Lenore Herskovitz on affordable housing–Nancy Pallozi on Emory Elementary–Issues like sanctuary cities, The Bend, home rule, and getting organized–We don’t all agree on any of these items but it’s a starting point for discussion Tickets are free but a $10 donation would help defray costs for shelter rental and make future events possible. Hot dogs provided. Bring shareable food dishes at 5:30 for a meeting start time of 6 pm.Small group discussions start at 7 pmWrap up with solutions at 8 pmCapture your stories with video for sharing all night!Must be vacated at 9 pmWill be held rain or shine Tickets are limited, so please reserve asap. Maximum 2 tickets per person. Ticketing will be enforced to ensure park capacity limits do not prevent the meeting from happening. Summaries and videos of the event will be posted to the Lakewood Informer afterwards. There is a $10 suggested donation to cover costs (like park permit). Get a ticket with $10 donation here: https://checkout.page/s/R7jzvq1NxJ8Bu or scan: Free tickets are also available Due to a bad actor with a penchant for using false names, free ticketing is not available at this time. Please email me directly for a free registration with confirmed email and phone number. Karen at thedesk@lakewoodinformer.com These free tickets will not be honored because they didn’t follow the rules. If you have suggestions for discussion topics or would like to be a discussion leader, please let me know!
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.
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.
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. 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 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 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.
