List of related news articles continuously updated
Kairoi Properties L.L.C., developer of a planned 412-unit luxury apartment building at Belmar Park, sues Lakewood for enacting an environmentally friendly green initiative
The citywide citizen sponsored initiative requires all developments to dedicate green space in lieu of its 13-year tradition of adding to the City’s coffers
If Kairoi loses the lawsuit, monstrous buildings planned at Belmar Park and at Quail and Colfax will need to be drastically reduced in size
Lakewood, December 26, 2024—This week we present the latest episode of the 13 year-long soap opera, “Lakewood’s Big Lie,” which depicts the dramatic twists and turns of a city that prioritizes large scale developments over nature and its own residents. During those years, Lakewood has given developments carte blanche to ignore as many of its codes as they desire, including tree canopy, climate change goals, seamless architecture in a neighborhood, and affordable housing.
On Monday, December 23, it became public that Kairoi Properties LLC had sued the city over the Green Initiative that its city council had passed but doesn’t really want.
An explanation of the bizarre turn of events including the political motives behind this unnecessary legal action, is best summed up in the following excerpts from resident Steve Farthing’s email to the savebelmarpark.com group:
“Most city council reps took the position [at the November 4 City Council meeting] that the ordinance, as written, would be ruled illegal if a legal challenge were raised in front of a judge.
“They actually discussed that adopting the ordinance and then inviting the city to be sued would be a prudent course of action! This was after one of their members even advised they could simply adopt and repeal the problematic ordinance. That comment fell on deaf ears.
“Is it any wonder our valuable parks and habitats are managed by ignoring science such as the science regarding wildlife buffer zones? By gosh and by golly, if our council members don’t grasp that they are legislators, we are in trouble. And so are our parks and natural areas.
“Litigation should be the last resort after best efforts are made at an effective and legal legislative solution or at least a reasoned decision to repeal.
“And don’t forget how much some councilors talked about not allowing the Lakewood voters to weigh in on this ordinance due to the cost of a mail ballot election but they are perfectly OK with the cost of litigation which could be more than an election.
“In reality, the concern about letting voters vote could be that the open space issue in Lakewood would get much more attention once you mail a ballot out to every single voter in the city.
“If you are trying to get re-elected, you might not want too much attention paid by voters to the open space issue. When you combine that with the Belmar Park fiasco, it could be political Kryptonite on election day. Or maybe Mentos and cola. You pick.
But a mail ballot open space-related election could be a ‘no-no’ to some councilors seeking re-election later in the year.”
Farthing’s comments are supported by the facts that (1) the City rushed the signature counting process and (2) scheduled the special meeting on November 4, the day before elections, and (3) filed a lawsuit after hours on Friday, December 20. Both dates were likely chosen to avoid media scrutiny. The lawsuit was submitted so it wouldn’t become public until Monday, December 23, two days before Christmas.
Lakewood’s Big Lie became apparent to many in the spring of 2023 when residents learned that for more than two years the City had secretly planned to approve Kairoi Residential’s massive luxury apartment building that would tower over much beloved Belmar Park. The five and six story building would have more than 80 units per floor, a two football field footprint, and require the removal of 65 mature trees. It would extend its boundaries right up to the existing park sidewalk. No environmental study was performed in a park known to be uniquely rich with 240 bird species and treasured for its tranquility.
Hundreds of residents pleaded with the City Council for months to do something about how devastating the monstrous building would be for them, wildlife and birds. Council responded by feigning support, falsely claiming they were powerless to act, and later saying but never demonstrating that they had been working on the issue for months.
Kairoi Residential, a billion dollar developer based in San Antonio, Texas, and with an office in Denver, has another project in the works in Lakewood consisting of 850 luxury units that would replace a King Soopers grocery store and create a food desert at Quail Street and West Colfax Avenue.
Cathy Kentner, a Jeffco school teacher and community activist, who spear-headed Save Open Space – Lakewood (SOS – Lakewood) and the petition, opined, “When elected officials fail to respond to the public’s wishes, the people have no other avenue than to exercise our constitutional right to direct democracy and the ballot box.”
SOS – Lakewood was formed to petition the city council to eliminate the practice of accepting a fee instead of following Lakewood’s land dedication requirements.
The initiative petition, through an historic all-volunteer effort, garnered 6,492 valid signatures — far more than the required 5,862 — to force City Council to either enact the legislation or send it to the voters.
It should be noted that the volunteer signature gatherers began their work months before the State Legislature added wording to HB24-1313 requiring a “fee-in-lieu” option. Lakewood’s city officials were well aware early on of the specifics of the people’s initiative. At no time did they attempt to collaborate with community advocates to develop a compromise for an ordinance that would address the concerns of all parties. Instead, they waited until the November 4 special meeting to air their harsh criticisms.
Councilor Paula Nystrom sought to provide constructive advice to her fellow councilors at the November 4 meeting. She said, “Citizens shouldn’t have to protest, gather signatures, hire lawyers, or jump through hoops just to have their voices heard. The question isn’t whether this petition is perfect; it’s about understanding how we got here and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.”
As the lawsuit progresses, it will be interesting to see if the City presents a strong defense of its new law or continues Lakewood’s Big Lie by creating the illusion of support while allowing the developer to be victorious in the end.
Lakewood has hired Magellan Strategies to conduct a ballot measure survey intended to help pass a ballot measure allowing the city to keep your TABOR refunds. Residents are already receiving the first part of that survey by cell phone message. The intent is to use the survey to find out what question residents respond positively to, and use that language on the ballot. The survey will also allow weighing responses by demographic group and information targeted to specific demographics. The city will spend up to $74,000 figuring out how to convince residents to give up their refund. Opposing groups will not have this advantage.
This survey is a one-sided informational campaign aimed at allowing the city to keep TABOR refunds because the Budget and Audit Board has already identified the need to keep the funds. According to Magellan, a cold ballot measure, one without prior information, does not have a good chance of passing. Through the survey, the city can spread the information that the city needs money.
In other words, the survey is a way to get around the prohibition against government ballot campaigns.
“A ballot measure survey is more than just measuring voter support and opposition for a sales or property tax increase. The ballot measure survey is the single best way a government organization can educate and inform their resident and voters about the reasons why new revenue is needed for core services, capital projects, an other needs.
From years of experience, we believe a ballot measure asking voters to approve a tax increase for any purpose is more likely to pass if a survey is conducted. One primary reason being, informed voters, who trust their local government’s leadership, appreciate the information and can better rationalize the financial contribution they are making.”
Well…. everything. The city does not know and cannot say specifically. Spending levels for all city departments have gone up over the years and that level is now expected to be maintained.
The survey attempts to find out what residents would be willing to spend money on so that the city can justify keeping refunds.
The Budget Board had not identified possible specific cuts prior to the survey. If the ballot measure fails, City Manager Hodgson told the Board the city will default to across the board spending cuts. In other words, reverting to previous levels.
The survey takes about 10 minutes to complete and is composed of general interest and demographic questions. This will help gauge the mood of the residents. The demographic questions will help the surveyors weigh your response. For example, respondents who are homeowners over 65 will have their answers downplayed, while Hispanic renters will have their answers amplified. This artificial weighing allows the consultant to mimic the demographics of Lakewood, rather than the demographics of actual respondents or voters.
There will be a second survey in June to refine the actual ballot language. This first survey is just gauging community interest.
Residents question the use of city funds in an effort to gain resident money, as demonstrated in the Nextdoor post below. According this post, the average income in Lakewood is $45,000, almost $30,000 less than what Lakewood may spend on this survey.
Lakewood City Council held a regular business meeting on February 12, 2024 to discuss a number of items including a resolution on the Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan and adopting an ordinance to accept a DOLA (Department of Local Affairs) grant to purchase and renovate a property on West Colfax that will house a Navigation Center. The meeting was well attended by a number of residents who were interested and concerned about these two issues.
Migrant Concerns
One of the main concerns that many expressed during the public comments, as well as an earlier town hall meeting on February 6th, was that recently closed public schools, the Navigation Center, and possibly city facilities would be used to house migrants being relocated to Denver, which would make Lakewood a de-facto sanctuary city. The basis for these concerns stemmed partly from the City Council meeting in January in which the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson, was instructed to meet with leaders of the City and County of Denver to “discuss all feasible options for Lakewood to do more to support our region’s response to the growing migrant crisis and influx of our new neighbors, and to report back to us (City Council) with options”. Language used by council members during the meeting, words such as “our new migrant neighbors” and “welcoming”, seemed to indicate sanctuary status for Lakewood was the direction in which council was headed. At the February 12th meeting, Ms. Hodgson reported that she and her staff had met with Denver officials, and no request was made of Lakewood for hotel, motel, or congregate facility support for the migrants. She also noted that “Denver is actually winding down the program related specifically to housing migrant newcomers”. Some suggestions for assistance from her meeting with Denver officials include hosting migrant families in willing resident’s homes, donating food, clothing, and cash to the organizations in Denver that are providing assistance, and volunteering with organizations in Denver that are providing aid.
Strategic Housing Plan
The resolution on the Strategic Housing Plan and the ordinance on the Navigation Center were both approved, with Ward 4 Councilman Rich Olver casting the lone “no” votes on both. Although both measures passed, there are still questions and concerns that remain.
The resolution to adopt the Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan calls for the plan “to (be) use(d) as a framework for future housing policy and for the development of strategies and action steps for increasing affordable housing options in Lakewood into the future”. The plan was prepared with input from City Council, City Planning staff, the 2023 Housing Advisory Policy Commission, a number of housing professionals, and Gruen Gruen + Associates, a consulting firm compensated with funds from a DOLA grant. Under “housing professionals”, the plan’s acknowledgements list a number of other individuals not affiliated with City government, two of whom are identified as “active citizens”. No homeowner associations are noted in the acknowledgements of the plan. The plan includes selected comments from members of the community.
The plan, as described by several council members, is a framework or pathway for future planning to provide more affordable housing to Lakewood residents to help alleviate the problems of increasing housing costs and homelessness. According to the final report, “The foundation of this Plan is to strengthen policies that assist Lakewood’s most vulnerable residents, including low-income households, working families and individuals, older adults, and Lakewood’s unhoused population; and improve the functioning of the housing market to meet a diverse range of housing needs”.
A common remark from the neighborhood associations was a feeling they were not included in the preparation of the Strategic Housing Plan.
At the Lakewood City Council meeting, several people spoke up during the public comments, representing themselves or neighborhood associations. A common remark from the neighborhood associations was a feeling they were not included in the preparation of the Strategic Housing Plan. They believe that community associations need to be included and recognized as stakeholders in the planning process. One of the representatives also listed off a number of non-governmental organizations in their community that are already providing services to the needy and homeless. The implication being that perhaps we already have the resources in the community to address the housing issues. Of particular note along these lines is that aside from the two “active citizens:” noted in the acknowledgements of the plan, are nine others who are associated with non-governmental (i.e. for-profit) real-estate development or brokerage firms. This raises serious questions about whose interests this report represents, the residents of Lakewood or the real estate businesses that possibly stand to profit from the plan. While the importance of input from real estate professionals is not being entirely dismissed, more representation from residents and neighborhood associations whose communities will be impacted by actions taken from this report must be considered and should receive at least equal representation.
Implications taxpayer money would be paid to developers
The plan includes four strategies and action items: invest in affordable housing, expand overall affordable housing supply, expand housing choices and services for residents, and keep residents stably housed. Under “invest in affordable housing”, wording is included “would provide financial support for housing programs and incentives to encourage the production of more affordable housing units”, and “voluntary program that encourages private developments to build affordable units by offering a range of incentives”. This wording implies taxpayer money would, in some way, be paid to developers as an incentive to build affordable housing. What other options did the preparers of this plan consider to encourage development of affordable housing without the use of taxpayer funds? The plan also includes discussion of small lot zoning, smaller housing units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Does this mean the city will consider allowing developers to purchase existing homes, remove the existing structure, subdivide the property, and build small homes on the subdivided lots? What is the impact on the community of increasing population density resulting from small lot zoning? Do our residents really want more high-density housing? The plan also states “the city could deploy local funds to supplement down payment assistance programs”. City Council needs to consider that someone needing a subsidy for a down payment may not have sufficient income to support the mortgage, and perhaps those funds would be better used to subsidize rent until the individual can afford the down payment and mortgage (while home ownership and building equity, is a generally a good thing, it may not be the best solution for everyone). We should also consider what kind of housing do we want – how do we arrive at a comfortable balance of rental units versus privately owned condos/townhomes and houses?
To what extent should governments be subsidizing housing in Lakewood? Are there any instances that demonstrate that government subsidies have actually decreased the cost of anything, or do government funded subsidies actually increase costs for everybody? These are some questions that community members raised that City Council has not yet fully addressed. More community input and participation from neighborhood associations is necessary before moving forward with the housing plan.
Navigation Center
The second major news topic discussed at the February 12th City Council meeting concerns accepting and moving forward with the $9.5 million funding to purchase, renovate, and operate a Navigation Center on West Colfax. The funding in large part comes from a DOLA grant, with a smaller amount funded from other sources. According to Lakewood’s website, “the city will serve as a pass-through agency for this grant to allow RecoveryWorks to provide increased and immediate access to services for those without stable housing in a central location at 8000 W. Colfax Ave.” RecoveryWorks was founded in 2019 and had been operating for a couple of years at 7011 West Colfax before moving to the 8000 West Colfax location late last year. According to RecoveryWorks website, “we provide and facilitate access to comprehensive and integrated medical respite, recovery, housing and employment services for those who have few or no resources”. James Ginsburg, executive director of RecoveryWorks, was present at the City Council meeting and provided additional information about the center and how the funds from the grant will be spent. According to Mr. Ginsburg, approximately $5 million of the grant will go towards the purchase of the building at 8000 West Colfax, Lakewood, Colorado (currently, the space is being rented). An additional $4 million of the grant will go towards significant rehab of the building, including building out office space, and adding shower and restroom facilities. He also mentioned the facility would ideally provide 100 beds as a 24/7 transitional housing shelter, with no time limits on how long those being sheltered could remain at the facility. Annual operating expenses are estimated to be in the $2 million range. Responding to comments from a council member, Mr. Ginsburg said that the target groups for the center are the elderly, veterans, disabled, and the medically frail. In addressing the concerns that migrants will take advantage of the facility, he stated that of the 350 individuals they have served in the last 2-1/2 years, only 9 have identified themselves as immigrants, and they were referred to immigration services. He also commented that 95% of the people they serve are Jefferson County residents, and 80% grew up in Lakewood.
Resident comment on the navigation center
A number of citizens came forward during public comment with questions and concerns they feel have not been addressed by City Council on this ordinance. Many remarked the city should be spending funds on what they see as more pressing needs. They said that the services in Lakewood are already stretched thin and the city should not be taking on more obligations, but needs to focus first of those in need already in Lakewood, particularly the elderly, poor, and veterans. Others expressed fears the Navigation Center would become a magnet for other municipalities, including Denver, to send people in need from their communities. Several others suggested the police department needs to strengthened, and focus on enforcing existing ordinances, particularly laws dealing with vagrancy, sex and drug trafficking, street side soliciting (panhandling), and compliance with Federal ICE protocols. Concerns about personal safety and a general feeling of lawlessness in the city were expressed by a couple of residents. One person mentioned cost overruns at other similar service centers that were in the news and questioned how Lakewood would be able to handle such a situation if and when it arises here. Another resident suggested RecoveryWorks be accountable to the City, providing information on success rates on substance abuse recovery and getting people placed in permanent housing. Most of these pressing concerns were not addressed during City Council’s discussion following public comment.
The role of other governments
During City Council’s discussion, there were some brief mentions of other municipalities (Jefferson County and some neighboring cities) providing support for the annual operating expense of the Navigation Center if they refer their residents to Lakewood. There was no additional discussion at the meeting on details of any cost sharing proposals. Because it was briefly mentioned (and in the context in which it was mentioned), this is something that apparently has been previously discussed among City Council members and others. Lakewood needs to know what to expect in terms of people coming in from outside of Lakewood seeking services provided by the Navigation Center. Are they residents of Arvada, Littleton, unincorporated Jefferson County, or elsewhere? What kind of services will they be seeking at the Navigation Center in Lakewood – mental health, addiction recovery, housing assistance, or something else? How much will the referring municipalities reimburse the city for the cost of the people they send here? These are questions that should have been addressed and answered before moving forward with accepting the DOLA grant.
Is there a pattern of success?
The question of efficacy is essential to understanding the degree of success of any program like what the Navigation Center is undertaking. Some additional questions to help with this are “what are the success rates of other similar programs in similar metropolitan areas” and “where have programs like this succeeded (and failed) in the past, and why”. Programs in cities like San Francisco, Portland, Baltimore, and elsewhere, have not been successful and those cities are now struggling with serious homeless and substance addition issues. We would not want to model our programs based on programs that have not worked in other cities. City Council should ensure the RecoveryWorks program is actually following the pattern of successful programs and is achieving its goal of preventing homelessness and getting people into stable and permanent housing. Progress should be monitored at least quarterly and reviewed to see if changes are necessary to improve efficacy. Residents should be informed of the success rates quarterly and apprised major changes to the program that would affect the city or the communities in the vicinity of the facility.
Not a solution, only a first step
One other comment Mr. Ginsburg made which was repeated by a supporter during the public comments, was that the Navigation Center is not a solution to the city’s housing problems, but only a first step. Obviously, the challenges of homelessness, substance addiction, physical and mental health currently facing Lakewood are complex, and will require more resources than the Navigation Center can currently provide. A couple of residents touched on this in their public comments. The concern here is if the Navigation Center is only a stepping stone to solving the housing problem in Lakewood, what is the solution (or what are the solutions)? Is City Council planning to expand the Navigation Center in the future? Is City Council planning to bring in other programs and organizations to supplement the work of RecoveryWorks? To arrive at a final solution for homelessness, what will the impact be on our neighborhoods, what will the costs be, and where will the funding come from? The Strategic Housing Plan does not address problems of substance abuse and mental illness, both of which impact Lakewood’s housing needs. So simply following the Strategic Housing Plan is not sufficient to fill in the gaps to eliminate the housing problem – something more is still needed. City Council will need to address this and let the community know what their plan is and ease the concerns of residents and assure us they are moving the right direction.
Were existing non-profits considered?
During the public comments and the discussions of the City Council members during the meeting, a number of other non-profit organizations operating within Lakewood were named. These include the Jeffco Action Center, Jefferson Center for Mental Health, Mean Street Ministries, as well as several others. These are all organizations that are trying to help people in need, including homeless, in our community. Has City Council considered if partnering with one or more of these organizations could possibly achieve a lot of the same goals of easing the homelessness problems in Lakewood? Or, possibly, do we have overlap of efforts among any of these organizations that could provide more assistance to those in need if they share or combine their resources (staff and facilities)? These question were not posed during the meeting, but are things that City Council should consider.
Law enforcement considerations
Finally, City Council needs to consider the roll of law enforcement plays in this. As pointed out by several residents in the public comments, there are valid concerns that laws governing sex and drug trafficking, drug possession and use, vagrancy, street side solicitation, and ICE compliance are not being enforced. As a republic, we are governed not by people but by laws. The laws are in place to protect people’s safety, property and well-being as a base for a stable society. A number of residents in their public comments noted concerns for their own personal safety – some people no longer feel safe living and working in Lakewood. Certainly panhandling and washing windows from the medians at Colfax and Wadsworth (or any other intersection) is not safe and should not be (and by statutes is not) allowed. It is not up to City Council, law enforcement, judges, or prosecutors to decide which laws will be enforced and which ones won’t, especially laws that affect the safety and well-being of the community. City Council needs to review the needs of the Lakewood Police Department to see if additional officers are needed to ensure laws are properly enforced. If additional funding is needed, perhaps DOLA (or other) grants are available to provide the needed funds.
An informed government
Lakewood citizens need to continue using the City of Lakewood website to keep themselves informed about what is going on at City Hall. We also need to clearly communicate our concerns back to City Council by email, the LakewoodSpeaks website, telephone, at informal meetings the ward representatives periodically host, and at public comment at City Council meetings. City Council and those working on these large scope plans need to consider all options with the resources currently available with more consideration of the concerns of the residents and neighborhood associations than went into the measures that were approved at the February 12th City Council meeting. The city needs to carefully consider the impact (and possible unintended consequences) their decisions have on our communities and neighborhoods as a result of the plans they make. It is also important that the City clearly communicate their plans and avoid wording that obfuscates their intentions. These issues currently facing Lakewood are no doubt complex. We want to ensure the voices of the residents are heard, their concerns are addressed, and that future programs and plans undertaken by the City are effective, beneficial to all the members of the community, and are run in a fiscally sound manner.
