Tag: Homeless

Lakewood City Council amended the building code to allow transitional housing for homeless on September 9. There were no defined programs, no defined projects, no defined locations, no operational guidelines and no defined structures. City Council Members spent most of their comments defending the lack of specificity by saying this is just the first step. They pointed to the housing crisis as evidence of need. Council positions are summarized below. The vote was 10-1, with Councilor Olver being the sole no vote. Programs can start as soon as the city acquires land, which was not approved in the 2025 budget.

Councilor Rein proposed a contentious amendment that would require the city to own or control the housing programs. There was push back from Council Members Shahrezaei, Mayott-Guerrero, Stewart, Cruz, Low, Nystrom, and Sinks. The feeling seemed to be that Lakewood should buy the land with taxpayer money and allow the programs but essentially give it to private actors to use for the homeless. An interesting note is that many Council Members frequently mention their work for non-profits while advocating like they are soliciting donations, rather than legislating from a government responsibility standpoint.

There is a homelessness crisis and if we don’t do anything we are complicit…. People have a right to shelter. – Public Comment, Amber Varwig

Rein eventually removed his owned or control language. That means any non-profit can control the program. As Council Member Shahrezaei pointed out, this includes faith-based programs. Once approved, the city will have no control over the program.

“It is irresponsible to change this ordinance for plans that you are not willing to be transparent about.” – Public Comment, Wendy Shrader


There is no defined project, policy or process for a city approved project so staff was unable to answer many of the City Council questions, which was awkward because City Council obviously had specific things in mind and they struggled to figure out how to get their base assumptions resolved.

“How far from the usual do you want to go in amending this building code” …Transitional housing is not within in the purview of the building code to begin with. – City staff response upon being questioned on whether it is even possible to put “own or control” definitions into the building code.

Without a defined “City of Lakewood Transitional Housing Program” , and without a defined approval process, this discussion could morph into anything in future.


Council Member Comments and Positions

Stewart: Asked questions so that staff can reiterate that these units are safe. Clarifies that City Council asked for this ordinance before other pieces come forward. She says that when they tried to do safe parking they had a vendor lined up and then had to wait because the city hadn’t changed the ordinance first. She clarifies with staff that the word control and approved is not defined in the ordinance as passed, which she agrees to.

Mayott-Guerrero: Says we’ve been working on getting this housing ability for two years. Now that there is a code they can work on a specific project. She says there are already homeless here and so taking care of them prevents problems later on. This is a local solution to a national problem. Rejects using the building code to try and control a program and does not try to define what a program means in the ordinance.

LaBure: Questions if garage door mechanisms are included in the amendment. Sees the need to address the affordable housing crisis but half the city is zoned R1 so we need to change the building code.

Low: The city needs to provide housing so that people can get the help they need. Says LA and Denver crime went down around pallet homes. Reiterates that the proposal is a result of council request, not a specific project and asks how the specific project would be approved. Answer is that the approval process has not been set but there have been conversations about what is needed. There may need to be a permit review involving public hearing.

Sinks: Clarifies that these new units will not be going into parks or open space.

Cruz: Asks whether a non-profit could partner in these projects. The answer is that it is only city approved, does not need to be city controlled. She says there is a human cost in not taking action.

Rein: Next step is for staff to provide a framework to answer all these questions, such as does it need a special use permit, which is an option but not certain. Rein motions to add language “owns (in whole or in part), or controls, or both” to the projects. so that the city always has “skin in the game”. He later removes this language.

Shahrezaei: As to the amendment, she approves the subcontractor relationship, (rather than the having the city own or control). City staff answers that this is a policy decision and that control could come from the permitting process.

Nystrom: Strongly states that City Council has nothing specific planned, they are just getting ready. Lakewood has a homelessness problem. People who are living on the streets need our help. Naysayers should consider being more compassionate.

Strom: Thank you to everyone working on this for the last couple years. This aligns with our priorities.


Scorecard: Amend Building Code for Transitional Housing

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Low: Aye

Olver: Nay

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye


City Council Member Rich Olver was the only nay vote for the Strategic Housing Plan, which passed on February 12, 2024. He claimed it was a poisoned pill because it contained provisions that did not have public support, such as using abandoned school buildings for homeless services. Neighborhood associations came to voice their concern that stakeholders were not included. The associations were more concerned about the development strategies than the unhoused strategies. The associations’ comments show that although the plan was billed as affordable housing, there were two distinct pieces: more high-density development and plans for the homeless. Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero said the Housing Plan will work “hand-in-hand” with the Navigation Center. These items are all interconnected to give Lakewood the same framework that cities like Denver use to deal with the unhoused.

The message from February 12 was that a majority of Council want the plan passed; however, there was no clear consensus as to what the plan means.

Councilor Sinks said it would be good to have a roadmap to follow. Others spoke of discussions still to come. Councilor Low promoted strategies for eviction protection, Additional Dwelling Unit expansion and directly funding housing.

Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei said, “The action at this point is to adopt this framework. Nobody is agreeing tonight to all these strategies.  We are agreeing that there is a need for affordable housing.”

Agreeing to a need for affordable housing does not require even one page. The Strategic Housing Plan is 156 pages of strategies. Which strategies Council did not agree to was not discussed.  Instead of approving all strategies in one motion, each strategy could be adopted by separate motion after further discussion. In fact, many strategies will need to be adopted by modifying ordinance to implement.

Olver said this plan is not making more affordable housing, it is not stopping corporate land speculation, or increasing home ownership possibilities. He asked for more time to study, but no other Councilor agreed. Other Council Members had agreed to pass the plan at a previous study session.

Shahrezaei pointed out that the Strategic Housing Plan was funded by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the same department that funded the navigation center, and that Lakewood could not even change the name of the product DOLA had paid for.

How much of Lakewood’s policy does DOLA fund?

Is accepting all this “free money” from DOLA leading Lakewood to take the steps the state wants, rather than the steps the local residents are asking for?

Olver went on to explain that housing migrants in the schools would not happen because that requires a public process to rezone an abandoned school into a residential area. Just like operating a shelter requires a special use permit that requires a public process, unless there is a very good reason. In the case of the navigation center, the city planned for it to be used as an emergency shelter but didn’t get a permit because it was an “emergency”. Now the city has accepted a grant requiring the land to be used as a shelter so there is an argument that there the city cannot NOT approve a shelter permit, regardless of how many people show up during public process. Experiences like these may have been in the minds of the people laughing at the words “public process” during the meeting.


Scorecard: Approve Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Low: Aye

Olver: Nay

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye


Read previous articles about the Strategic Housing Plan:

Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan Update

Residents Will Pay for Development

Migrants and Housing

Not Affordable: More Market-Rate Housing Coming to Lakewood

Correction: Services, not shelter, to Move to Jeffco School


According to the article below, Recovery Works has completed the purchase of a motel in Lakewood. The motel will be an additional Jefferson County shelter and service center for the unhoused. Recovery Works is the same organization that will be running the new Navigation Center in Lakewood. Lakewood Council will vote on appropriating funds for the project on February 12, 2024.


Cross post from Mile High CRE

IMPACT Commercial Real Estate has announced the recent sale of a former motel that will now serve as the future home for a nonprofit organization, Recovery Works. This was not only a significant milestone for the community but a testament that commercial properties can transform into something that will make a positive impact on the community as well. 

The newly purchased 10,000-square-foot building is strategically located at 14825 W Colfax in Lakewood and will serve as a bridge center and resource for the unhoused in Jefferson County by referral. It will help people get back on their feet and find permanent housing for those in need. Recovery Works locations provide additional services, including meals, laundry capabilities and job programs for employment placement.

Read more….


Two weeks ago, Lakewood Informer opened a survey to find out what residents were thinking about supporting the homeless and migrants. Lakewood doesn’t ask IF or HOW you want to support these communities. Residents are generally presented with fully implementable plans. See the Navigation Center for an example. This survey was an attempt to bridge the gap in asking the residents what they thought. It had as much turnout as many city surveys (100-200 respondents).

Thank you for your feedback!

Key Findings

  1. Most respondents did not agree with the cities current plan for a low-barrier shelter
  2. If people were to provide homeless assistance, the most favored alternative was a shelter that would require sobriety, self-help or responsibilities (there was no survey option for doing nothing)
  3. Most respondents don’t want “free money” assistance
  4. Homeless and migrant assistance are intertwined, or at least support by the same people
  5. There were more people interested in answering a survey if anonymity was possible

Perhaps the most interesting finding was the strong correlation between free-money advocates and their personal spending. In simple terms, a person who would use free money, would also pay the most themselves (over $500). And exactly the opposite was also true, a person who wouldn’t use free money also wouldn’t pay it for themselves (0-$100).

So some people would take any amount of money or pay any price for homeless or migrant assistance.

Does this indicate that there are big spenders out there who could finance this project through their own philanthropy? Or does it suggest that the people who support the use of free money think it’s WORTH that much but really don’t expect to pay for it? Does it suggest that one group understands that free money isn’t free while the other does?

There is an apparent disconnect between the need for free money and the availability of funds.

Results:

Note: This survey was closed before the emergency citizens’ meeting which includes about 100 respondents.

31% of respondents support Lakewood's current plan for a low barrier shelter
If they didn't support a low-barrier shelter, 44% supported a shelter with contingencies, 29% supported more economic development, 27% supported mental health services
65% of people would pay 0-$100 for HOMELESS (no option for spending $0
65% of people would pay 0-$100 for HOMELESS (no option for spending $0
57% would not vote for assistance if it was free
of the 43% would would use free money, 46% would spend over $500, 26% would spend $100-$500
Of the 57% who would not vote for free money, 93% would only pay 0-$100 for assistance themselves

Reader Recommended Business:Karen M Sweat, Certified Public Accountant

Karen Sweat, CPA
720-316-3115

City Council passed up another opportunity for an open discussion on a homeless policy for Lakewood. Instead, on January 22 Council approved a “supplemental appropriation” to the budget which will implement the strategy they decided on internally. Accepting this grant for a Navigation Center represents a multi-year fiscal obligation about how to serve the unhoused and Lakewood has not so much as set a committee or a study session to talk about best practices. Final vote to accept the grant will happen on second reading.

City staff have let you know they received a grant.  Council has taken no other public vote but brief mentions throughout the year indicated something was being researched by staff, not Council. It seems reasonable that if the city is researching something for a year, that maybe the public be brought into that conversation at some point before the final vote.

The public may want to contribute or may be interested to see how Council will represent them on questions such as:  

  1. Does Lakewood want to serve as the only Navigation Center in Jefferson County?
  2. What type of shelter would residents support (i.e. low barrier or self-help based)?
  3. Should migrants be integrated into the shelter system?
  4. Are there other ways to help that are more government-appropriate?

Definition: Navigation Center is “This is a centralized location that provides residents easy access to a variety of supportive services to help with basic needs, medical and behavioral services and housing resources for residents without stable housing. The facility serves as a “one stop shop” for anyone in need of resources and provides a day shelter to our unhoused residents.” – Lakewood.org


There are many options to solve this problem and Lakewood seems to assume it has the answer with the most public support. Lakewood also assumes it knows the problem when even the problem is controversial.

For example, the Director of RecoveryWorks, James Ginsberg, says this is absolutely an economic problem. His non-profit, RecoveryWorks, will be running the Navigation Center.  He says that people just need a place to stay, housing first. Housing first is a “low barrier” strategy that does not require people to address their problems to receive help. He says that although you want people to be able to be responsible for their own payments, “around 90% of the unhoused have suffered trauma.”

Experts from cities with longer histories of homelessness disagree and say homelessness is mostly an open-air drug use problem.

“Homeless is a propaganda word” because it also describes the open-drug scene. Because when you say homeless you think it’s a housing problem and people who only have housing problems are the easiest populations to help. The overwhelming problem with the homeless is street addition and untreated mental health crises.  – Michael Shellenberger

Is Lakewood ignoring the lessons learned by other cities? Perhaps. But what are the options?

“How do we protect our society while at the same time showing compassion to those sick and struggling…. We can’t ignore or arrest our way out” –Dr. Jennifer Clark during KOMO News Documentary.

One option found in Rhode Island was to strictly enforce all laws, with a specialized, voluntary, medical treatment program in jail to impose physical stability. This approach has pros and cons.

Aurora (Colorado) just found another option, which was a work-first shelter, including sobriety testing for guests. They too reject the Denver “housing first” model that Lakewood embraces.

Lakewood may have the right answer, but did residents know this discussion was held since it wasn’t public? Do they know what values their City Council member was standing for? How can residents vote for public officials with no public discussion on policy?

If you have been listening very carefully to City Council meetings over the last year, you would have heard several mentions that a Navigation Center was being researched by staff. But even as of August 2023 it was unclear to the public and Jefferson County what was going on. What role did City Council play?

There will be discussion and a public vote on second reading to receive the grant, presumably February 12, 2024.


Please contact us if you are interested in being a contributor. Take a survey on the issue here.

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.


  • 1
  • 2

Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Subscribe


© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs