Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

home rule

Kinney: Interview with Mayor Strom

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Kinney: Interview with Mayor Strom Lakewood Informer contributor Jim Kinney interviewed Mayor Strom on the new zoning changes. The changes are sweeping and, as Kinney points out, they are “bold” and “imaginative”. Just eliminating single-family housing will impact 75%-95% of Lakewood property, and that’s just one provision. Kinney examines the consequences of these changes. Thanks, Jim, for your participation in local news and thank you, Mayor Strom, for your willingness to go on the record with Jim. Bold and Imaginative – Eliminating Single-Family Per State Law Starting the conversation with “why make these changes now?”, Strom answers that the time is right. “We just finished with our Comprehensive Plan process, that was the vision…. The zoning code is the tool.” Kinney says Lakewood’s zoning resolution uses words like “bold” and “imaginative” when he was thinking “slow” and “careful.” Lakewood is currently the only city in the state eliminating single-family throughout the entire city. Strom says Lakewood got an early start because of the comprehensive plan (passed unanimously July 28) and the resolution to change zoning (approved 10-1 by resolution using “bold” and “imaginative” in December, 2024). Strom says, “The elimination of single-family housing is tricky because it wasn’t necessarily actively eliminated, so much as the state eliminated the cap and by virtue of that, the other zone categories were not as accurate.” She continues, “It wasn’t an intentional removal of anything, it was purely ‘How do we address state law.’” Single-Family Housing in Name Only When Kinney asks if eliminating single-family housing will eliminate a wealth-building mechanism, Strom replies that single-family housing is “in name only”. She says this zoning change just matches what people are doing anyway. She then segues into the process for zoning changes, including developing a comprehensive plan and incorporating state law.   Strom says that the biggest concern right now is not single-family but limiting the number of people that can live in a home by limiting square footage.  Currently, Lakewood allows an 18,000 square foot house in some places. Lakewood is trying to get that number down to 4,000 square feet across Lakewood, rather than per unique neighborhood. The current zoning code does not allow 18,000 sq ft, 30-bedroom homes for MULTIPLE FAMILIES because they were zoned single-family. The 30-bedroom McMansion problem is a creation of the new zoning code. Strom says she doesn’t know if people will want to buy property in Lakewood under the new zoning code yet, but feels addressing the square footage problems puts Lakewood ahead of challenges. Real Estate Effects Kinney notes that realtors have already lost contracts because Lakewood is eliminating single-family. People shopping for homes know that the house next door could now be turned into a multi-family home. Strom was unable to reply directly but said that if other cities decide to eliminate single-family in future, those cities may not consider the 10,000 square foot problem. She says the zones should keep buildings similar in size to what’s there now, if not in usage. The current zoning code and comprehensive plan also claim to maintain neighborhood character. This argument was made and dismissed in the Belmar Park case. What Makes Lakewood Different Than Other Failed Zoning? Kinney asked how Lakewood will be different from all the other cities that failed to produce more housing through zoning. He cites a study by the Urban Institute that examined the results of zoning changes implemented in 1,136 cities over the last seven years. From the Urban Institute As a former City Council Member of the first city to try this said, the study “showed zoning changes across 1,136 cities resulted in less than a 1% increase in [cheap and abundant] housing supply.” Housing supply is the reason for the proposed zoning changes in Lakewood. Strom replies that the zoning changes themselves will not move the needle on “affordable housing”, which is a legal term. She says this will help “attainable housing” or “workforce housing.” NOTE: See “Lakewood Commits to More Housing Under Prop 123” for more information on “affordable housing” and the only defined housing crisis in existence. Home Rule On standing up for home rule, Strom expects cities to lose the home rule cases pending in court. She points out that the Governor has said for over three years that housing is a statewide concern, not a local issue. She also says that Lakewood already incorporated all the high-density elements the state asked for in HB24-1313 so that’s not a consideration. Only the new state parking requirements in HB24-1304 are an issue for Lakewood. As for the parking, she feels Lakewood can sacrifice required parking because banks will ask for it anyway. Strom feels Lakewood is “letting the market decide on parking.” This issue remains confusing because in previous discussion, Strom says the city is accommodating state law by eliminating single-family zones. She references following state law several times in general, but during this discussion on state law, it sounds like Lakewood has decided independently to take action on parking outside of state law, in order to follow state law. No further clarification was possible in the time allowed. When Kinney asked about the funding tied to state law compliance, Strom claimed she did not know any details. Oversight Kinney asks what oversight provisions there are in the code in case staff do not implement as envisioned. Kinney says there are a lot of places in the code where the decision gets made by the Director. Strom replied that there is a limited amount of staff discretion built into the code. The larger decisions already go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. City Council will not be a part of that oversight, but can change the code when necessary, like when they changed the parkland dedication provision. The explicit duties of each party in the new zoning code are provided below. Note that there are many more discretionary items explicitly defined in each zone section. Public Funding Kinney says that research shows that the biggest

Read More

Lakewood Sacrifices Home Rule For No Reason

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Sustainability, TransparencyTagged , , , , ,

Lakewood seems to be giving up local control through home rule: The sacrifice is being made in order to gain state funding for local initiatives that ALSO have not been transparent and do not have resident support. Lakewood City Council is throwing away the bedrock of local representation – home rule – in a bid to win political support for zoning changes. New Colorado statutes preempt local zoning code, a move other cities are fighting. But Lakewood is using Colorado’s preemption to show: The majority of Lakewood City Council agree with the proposed zoning changes and have already voted by resolution to accept the proposal (only Councilor Olver dissenting – Ken Cruz and Bill Furman not yet on Council).   No Reason With the majority of Council in favor of the proposed code, Council should not have to worry that the changes will pass. There is no need to sacrifice home rule in order to pass the new code. Lakewood could fight for the principle of home rule – a principle Lakewood was FOUNDED ON over 50 years ago – and still enact the zoning code changes that Council feels are necessary. Instead, Lakewood will change its code so that for the first time state statutes will override local zoning (see highlighted insert from the version 3 redline proposal below). No Transparency According to resident Karen Gordey in Lakewood Informer news, the authority for  the zoning came from home rule itself. She wrote: “… the Authority section (17.1.5). It originally cited “the city home rule charter” — a key phrase affirming Lakewood’s autonomy. That language? Now redlined. Gone. Instead, we’re left wondering whether the City is scrubbing references to home rule on purpose… or just by accident (which, frankly, would be just as troubling).” There has been no public policy discussion nor vote on whether to yield home rule. Instead, it’s just being quietly edited out. This language may be extended next year because City Council has engaged a City Charter Committee to discuss changes. Note: cities zone to keep order and make sure there is a good balance between residents (cost burden) and businesses (fund providers). But in order to do that, property rights had to be violated to tell people what they could and couldn’t do with their property. Now Lakewood is saying they are “de-regulating” to give property owners more choices, but they are still picking the choices. An owner cannot go back to agriculture property, for example. State Preemption Governor Jared Polis signed an Executive Order forcing states to comply with housing laws in order to receive state funding. From ColoradoPolitics.com, the laws include those listed below: Colorado also passed TEN new laws in 2025 that the Colorado Municipal League determined preempted local control. Instead of fighting against any of these, Lakewood supported key legislation, such as HB25-1093, which reversed a vote of Lakewood residents. Lakewood Council Will Not Fight for Rights Lakewood did not take the opportunity to join the lawsuit that six cities are bringing against Colorado for overstepping home rule boundaries.  Thornton recently passed a resolution backing the lawsuit of those six cities. So far, no member of Lakewood City Council has brought something similar forward as a Council initiative. Most Council Members have made comments that Lakewood must comply with the state law. False Argument The argument that Lakewood has no choice but to comply with state law is completely false, as proven by history, other active lawsuits, and a legal opinion provided by the Colorado Municipal League (CML). The Colorado Sun reports that “the Colorado Municipal League this month advised cities in an email that it views the governor’s executive order as illegal. ‘It is CML’s position that this order exceeds the governor’s authority … and promotes arbitrary and capricious agency action.’” State Perspective Lakewood resident Lenore Herskovitz voiced concerns over home rule to a panel of Colorado Democrat leaders. She pointed out: Colorado Representative Rebekah Stewart responded by: Watch the video below: Local Support Lacking Ms. Lenore Herskovitz is one of many residents to bring up mountains of evidence about the abundant housing availability, such as her article titled “Affordable v Housing Crisis” or an article by savebelmarpark.com on Debunking the Supply and Demand Myth. These alternative points of view are not part of official presentations and are routinely dismissed. There doesn’t seem to be an answer to the question of how can a statewide, or even nationwide, affordable housing problem only be solved by changing multiple, unique, local zoning codes. What is known is that Lakewood already has the authority to change its zoning code if the residents support it. Lakewood officials seem to be using the state law as a crutch to win local support, but in the meantime, they are sacrificing home rule control without even bringing it to the attention of residents. As previously reported, Lakewood seems more concerned with getting state funding than gaining resident support for zoning changes. The state deadline for funding is in October 2025. That funding is used for other initiatives that don’t get resident support. Does Lakewood need a City Council if the only concern is what the state would do?

Read More

Sacrificing Neighborhoods Allows Homeless Funding

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Budget, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Homeless, Statewide, SustainabilityTagged , , , , , ,

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.

Read More

Zoned Out: How Lakewood is Selling Out its Neighborhoods

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, TransparencyTagged , , , , , , 1 Comment on Zoned Out: How Lakewood is Selling Out its Neighborhoods

By Karen Gordey You’d be forgiven if you missed it — after all, the City didn’t exactly roll out the red carpet for public input — but Lakewood is in the middle of completely rewriting its zoning code. And on May 21st, the Planning Commission passed 16 amendments in one night. Sixteen. Because who doesn’t want to restructure the entire city with the speed and clarity of a late-night city hall cram session? Here’s the kicker: Lakewood is a home rule city, meaning we have the power to make our own land use decisions. But instead of using that power to protect neighborhoods or push back on one-size-fits-all state mandates, the City Council passed a resolution last year (Resolution 2024-62) that basically says, “Tell us what you want, Colorado — we’ll make it happen.” Meanwhile, six other cities are suing the state to protect their local control. Lakewood? We’re sending engraved invitations to the bulldozers. If you’re not paying attention yet, you should be. Because staff expects these changes to take effect in September and if residents don’t start showing up and speaking up, we’ll be stuck with zoning we didn’t ask for, can’t undo, and won’t recognize. “Home Rule vs Statutory Rule” Before we go any further, it is important to understand the difference between statutory rule and home rule.  So that there is no confusion, I went to the Colorado Municipal League’s website (www.cml.org).  The following is their explanation of the two:  “Colorado cities and towns operate under provisions of Colorado state statutes (and are referred to as “statutory” cities and towns) unless voters adopt a municipal charter to become a “home rule” city or town. Home rule is based on the theory that the citizens of a municipality should have the right to decide how their local government is to be organized and how their local problems should be solved. Municipal home rule derives its authority directly from the Colorado Constitution. It affords residents of cities and towns that adopt a local charter freedom from the need for state-enabling legislation and protection from state interference in “both local and municipal matters.”  The Lakewood City Charter was established on November 1, 1983.  While it has been modified by the voters 5 times (the latest on November 2, 2004, we are still a home rule city.  Lakewood City Charter and Lakewood Together Page 27 of the City Charter talks about planning and zoning.  According to the charter, the city council could have established Ward Advisory Committees to try to corral all these changes but instead are using Lakewood Together for community input.  In fact, I attended the Ward 5 meeting on June 14th and Councilman LaBure said that he tried to create committees last year and did not have support for this.  Let’s take a look at the Lakewood Together site.  On the front page of the zoning updates section (Lakewood Together Zoning Updates), it clearly references the state law requirements and again we are a home rule city so we are allowed to do what is best for our community. This will be important to remember when I talk about the 16 amendments. The 2024 City Council Resolution: Pre-Commitment to State Zoning Goals The City Council passed a resolution Resolution 2024-62 that sounds harmless — values like affordability, walkability, and sustainability — but when you read the details, it’s a blueprint for surrendering home rule. The resolution adopts state-level zoning goals before zoning code revisions or public feedback were complete. That includes: Bottom line: Lakewood didn’t just “revise” its zoning goals; it absorbed the state’s playbook wholesale.  This was covered briefly by the Lakewood Informer: Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good Why Didn’t Lakewood Join the Lawsuit with Other Home Rule Cities?  Good question! Recently, six Colorado cities banded together to sue the state over its new zoning mandates — arguing that the laws violate their constitutional rights as home rule municipalities. (6 Front Range cities sue over housing laws, governor’s threat to withhold state funds) Lakewood? We sat that one out. At the Ward 5 meeting on Saturday, June 14th, I asked our Councilors a simple question: Was our absence because of Resolution 2024-62, which essentially pre-commits Lakewood to implementing state zoning goals? And if the lawsuit is successful, meaning those cities win back their rights to local control, won’t we be stuck with sweeping zoning changes we didn’t have to make? Councilman LaBure responded: “We are a home ruled city but we are also a state entity. The state passes things all the time that encroach on local control. The argument has been historically well zoning and parking issues and all those things are matters of local concern and not the state concern. And Judiciary had tended to draw a line there. However, the state has increasingly been making the argument that there is a housing crisis statewide so we need more and more control over local zoning issues because it is actually a matter of state concern. I would have been happy to have jumped on that lawsuit however, other cities already did it and we are part of the Colorado Municipal League (CML). And CML has supported that lawsuit and in that sense we are member and if not the largest so in some sense we are part of that because of our CML affiliation. And it is a fair question to ask about if the lawsuit is successful, then we would be stuck with zoning changes that were not needed.” Translation: we could have stood up for home rule; but we’ll just let other cities take the heat and hope our dues to the Colorado Municipal League somehow cover us by association. Councilor Nystrom added that she did ask the City Attorney the same question but didn’t get a clear answer. She also pointed out that HOAs aren’t safe from this zoning overhaul either. While HOA covenants are seen as contracts between homeowners and their associations, local

Read More
Scroll to top