So this morning 2/8/24, I went to the Lakewood City Council Building to attend the Lakewood City Council legislative meeting. I made an error as to the time so I showed up at 8:30 and the meeting had started at 8:00 am. I am not my best at early hours.
The legislative committee is made up of one member of each ward and they look at bills from the 2024 legislature that is considering issues/consequences that would impact the city of Lakewood.
2024 Committee Members Council member Glenda Sinks – Ward 1 Council member Isabel Cruz – Ward 2 Council member Rebekah Stewart – Ward 3 Council member David Rein – Ward 4 Council member Jacob LaBure – Ward 5
Rebekah Stewart (Ward 3) is the chair of the legislative committee.
When I walked in there was a discussion about a bill about occupancy. I believe it was HB24-1007. But could not confirm that was the bill they were discussing. They decided not to put it on the list because the target city was Ft. Collins and college towns and did not apply to Lakewood so they would just watch it and add it to the list later.
There was a little discussion lead by Councilman LaBure as to the need to define the role of the legislative committee.
And then Councilwoman Stewart asked if there was any other business and Adjourned the meeting.
I arrived at 8:30 and the meeting was adjourned at 8:36.
I went to speak to the Deputy City Manager about how they had not stated when the next meeting would be and he said “in two weeks if it was not canceled.”
So stay tuned.
Meanwhile ColoradoTaxpayer.org is a great resource for what is happening at the Legislature
When Lakewood voted to take the first step in helping with Denver’s migrant crisis, residents interpreted that as Lakewood becoming a sanctuary city. Lakewood immediately cried misinformation. At the emergency citizens’ townhall of February 6, 2024, several speakers addressed concerns over Lakewood’s sanctuary status, saying that Lakewood is not using the word “sanctuary” and is not discussing that issue. However, by a show of hands at the meeting, attendees thought the current role of Lakewood Police and Lakewood’s offer to support migrants would match both the proposed support and the definition of a sanctuary city. Both set of words applied to the same actions. Yet Lakewood still spent tax dollars and energy on a campaign to cry “misinformation.” Resident comments show that the meeting was useful to talk to each other, as much as it was useful for gathering information.
Lakewood has a taxpayer funded PR department that can respond instantly to crises. In this case, the crisis was the residents’ concern over the possible “sanctuary” status of our city. Within a couple days, Lakewood had a new website that included a public statement which was also widely circulated (see below).
(above) Lakewood also had a flyer circulating on social media sites that most residents would not even know existed so would have a hard time advertising on. At the same time, residents had difficulty on Nextdoor.com, which kept stripping posts of the meeting and discussion on the matter.
Despite the problems, residents came by the hundreds to learn about Lakewood’s plans to support migrants. Speaker Karen Morgan (disclosure: this author is Karen Morgan) said,
“We all operate with different ears. I might say one thing and you hear another. For example, it’s absolutely true that Council is not discussing anything using the word “sanctuary”. They use words like good neighbor, welcoming, inclusive, supporting, sheltering…”
The audience laughed as they recognized that all these words meant the same thing. One resident commented after the meeting, “thank you for making that point, I was going to say the same thing.”
An interesting note is that in the city’s flyer above, “sanctuary city” and “being a good neighbor” are in quotes, as though even Lakewood recognizes these are just words with fluid meaning. At the same time, they imply one is right and the other is wrong.
Other resident comments:
One resident said they understood Lakewood was just taking the first step, but this was opening the door and the time to stop it was now.
Yet another resident said he will be at the February 12 Council meeting to show support. He said that the Citizens’ Meeting was a great way to reconnect with some old friends.
Another asked for the address to City Hall. He has never participated before but he will be there.
Several people commented that the problem was the lack of accountability of the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson who has the ability to work behind the scenes.
At least a dozen residents told this author personally that the meeting was needed, they wished the city had done something like this.
Other residents were interested in information and the Citizens’ Meeting was an opportunity to find answers.
Did the Mayor really go to Harvard?
What’s really happening since the City says misinformation?
What can we do to stop this?
Was there misinformation?
In today’s world, one persons misinformation is another persons’ fact. No matter what, an important discussion is taking place and residents are participating in their government. Council Member Isabel Cruz stated in the January 8 meeting that “This is important to step up to our responsibility as good neighbors…This [approved motion] is only the first step.” And now, more Lakewood residents are engaged in discussions about what, if any, steps will follow.
One meeting organizer said, “This was about the citizens. They all pulled together, it wasn’t about the organizers. This was about everyone.”
In June 2023, the Lakewood Budget and Audit Board voted to recommend keeping future TABOR funds. To do that, they recommended finding a specialist to help find out what would make residents agree to this proposal. That decision seems to be proceeding, although requests for status have not yet been answered.
As this CBS News article points out, governments cannot spend money on political campaigns. Although keeping TABOR refunds will be a ballot issue, it is not now. Therefore, there is a loophole to be taken advantage of in order to craft a political message before announcing the ballot measure.
Jefferson County is doing the same so-called pre-campaigning for tax refunds. However, in the case of the county, they were very careful not to say that a decision had been made to keep the funds. Jeffco said they were just researching, which will include ways to craft ballot language.
Lakewood has already made the decision to keep the TABOR funds by a vote of the Budget and Audit Board. So a ballot issue is pending but is not yet announced. The Board discussed using the specialist to find out what residents would be willing to pay for so that they could use that language. Former Mayor Paul pointed out how successful that strategy was the last time.
Lakewood did not have to suffer this scrutiny because they reached out for three quotes that did not go over the limit which would require a public Request For Proposals. The decision did not come to Council as a separate policy decision that would require public discussion. The expense would have been included in the 2024 budget and approved at that time.
There is no word on the current status of this project. No Council Member responded to questions for status or where in the 2024 budget the funds were included.
Update 3 February 2024: Council Member Olver responded that the current Budget Board Council Members would be more likely to have answers. Currently that would be Councilors Rebekah Stewart, Jeslin Shahrezaei, Isabel Cruz.
Reader Recommended Business: Go With the Flow Plumbing
Despite cities across America seeking to reduce the flow of migrants, Lakewood is moving ahead to officially welcome more. On January 8, 2024, Lakewood City Council voted unanimously to move as quickly as possible to figure out how to help with Denver migrants (Note: Councilor Olver absent). A separate motion was passed for a study session on increasing service of the extreme weather shelter for the homeless, acknowledging that this will serve the migrant community as well.
Unless the recommended actions impact the municipal code, further actions could be taken as soon as February 12. For example, mention was made of Lakewood being a “good neighbor”. Denver is seeking to make “good neighbor” agreements with surrounding cities to agree to take their migrant population. Lakewood’s former Mayor, Adam Paul, plays a key role in these agreements with Denver.
These are unusually speedy decisions for Lakewood City Council. Generally, Council Requests for Legislative Action generate discussion and get deferred to another committee. It’s rare to have to direct action scheduled at all, let alone so quickly. Residents supporting Save Belmar Park have been asking City Council to take action for months with no results. One City Council Legislative Request was denied by the Council majority because no action was possible until new objectives were set at the annual retreat. In this case, the Council has not set ANY objectives for the year and it already has major policy decisions scheduled to be made in the February 12 meeting. The quick passage shows Council can act, direct staff, and schedule study sessions, when it wants to.
As a result of these motions, the February 12 meeting will include a study session at 5:30 pm on increasing shelter options. During the Executive Report in regular meeting on the same night, Lakewood City Manager Hodgson will relate what immediate actions can be taken to help migrants, and what actions may need further study.
Council Members expressed their belief that the majority of Lakewood residents would support both of these measures. Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said she believes “…progress is possible now in a way that it wasn’t even three years ago.”
Lakewood city staff report they can find no proclamation that Lakewood is a sanctuary city. However, Jefferson County is a sanctuary, so an official offer to help or house people, would increase the migrant population, as seen in other cities like Denver.
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.
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.
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.”
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
