The mid-year report on Lakewood’s homeless shelter showed some progress and some new problems. The April 15, 2024, Council Study Session highlighted the 50-person capacity of the new “emergency” cold weather shelter at the location of the new Navigation Center on West Colfax. This was a planned shelter, used on an emergency basis because the building is not ready or approved to act as a shelter. As a new venture, the shelter encountered problems that Lakewood is learning from, such as determining the capacity of the building in-transition. Other problems that will be more difficult to solve are becoming apparent. For example:
Lakewood may in fact be turning into a magnet for homeless due to its shelter
Other cities are not stepping up to help as Lakewood anticipated
Scope creep is already occurring including funds being spent for transportation to facilities and requests for food services.
The success of the shelter was evidenced by the number of people using the program. The Navigation Center can currently support 50 people, and it exceeded that limit several nights. Guests who exceeded capacity were offered vouchers for hotels, paid for by Jefferson County. This has led to some policy changes so that people are not incentivized to wait for a hotel opportunity. Lakewood has started providing transportation services to and from these hotels for the people who want to use a hotel voucher in another city but want to remain in Lakewood. Transportation includes coordinating volunteer efforts and paying Bayaud Enterprises.
City Council Members pointed out that problems would be decreased if other cities made the same switch Lakewood has, with the government taking on the work of what was previously non-profit domain.
“It was never envisioned that Lakewood would be the sole provider of navigation services. So we really need to see that so that Lakewood doesn’t become a magnet for those in need.”Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein (24 min mark)
Despite not having the current emergency operation under control, City Council is already pushing for more services.
Councilors Mayott-Guerro and Cruz asked for city resources to set up a food network. Staff respond that having food service is difficult without some consistency.
Councilor Shahrezaei advocated for being open more nights. Staff say changing the opening requirements makes it hard for staff to anticipate what is needed and may lead to being open for most of the winter.
According to Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein, it will be a couple of years until the Navigation Center is fully operational as a shelter. The city is still in the acquisition phase for the shelter property.
“We all want to figure out how to not let people die from weather, right? And that’s such a cool shared value because it’s actually just not that radical, but it was five years ago.” Council Member Mayott-Guerrero on Lakewood’s switch in city philosophy (30 min mark)
The idea of shelters is not radical for an individual or a charitable institution, but it is more so for a government. The Lakewood Informer reported in August, 2023, that local governments hoped someone else would step up to serve, without themselves committing to take responsibility. Previous letters of support to Lakewood made no promises of financial support.
“At this time, Arvada does not have a plan for a navigation center, such as the one in Lakewood. Like other cities in the metropolitan area, we are evaluating a number of ideas that might help address the unhoused population. Arvada intends to observe what happens at the Lakewood navigation center with their implementation.” Arvada email dated December 7, 2023
Council is concerned about reaching the limit of shelter capacity next year. Goldstein says Lakewood cannot open another shelter without becoming an even greater attractant (58 min mark). Many of the area’s unhoused are now counting on the Navigation Center for shelter, as opposed to the local non-profits that fill up. This will especially be a problem when the center is closed for renovations next winter. Retrofits are now expected to go into 2026, rather than being completed in 2025 as expected.
Council Member Low praised the program for saving lives during the cold winter nights. When asked how much the number of deaths decreased, staff responded that they never tracked deaths, and if they did, it would be impossible to tell whether the death was from cold or not.
Life-saving or not, 50 people were provided shelter over about 20 nights. According to the staff memo, this could be a total of over 887 individuals, or the same 50 people multiple times. Another measure of success was the 52 Facebook posts the city made, which received over 150,000 impressions on social media.
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.
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:
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
Most respondents did not agree with the cities current plan for a low-barrier shelter
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)
Most respondents don’t want “free money” assistance
Homeless and migrant assistance are intertwined, or at least support by the same people
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.
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:
Does Lakewood want to serve as the only Navigation Center in Jefferson County?
What type of shelter would residents support (i.e. low barrier or self-help based)?
Should migrants be integrated into the shelter system?
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.
Putting someone in jail for a low-level municipal offense is an unsatisfactory answer for people who believe jail is ineffective or harsh. Since jail is often the mandated penalty, Lakewood may take the “compassionate” route and dismiss the case if the alleged offender visits Community Outreach Court. The de facto penalty is then talking to housing and job providers, which isn’t a penalty but a helping hand. The result is dismissing all warrants for Failure To Appear in court, and often dismissing the original charge as well.
Charges that are often dismissed:
Having an open container
Sleeping in a public park
Shoplifting
Trespassing
Simple assault
Possession of drug paraphernalia
Indecent exposure (public urination)
Failure to Appear in court
Lakewood is working to reach out to the homeless community to bring them to Outreach Court. Lakewood homeless navigators and community members spread the word that if you come to court your warrants will be forgiven and your original case may be dismissed.
Is the law effective if Lakewood forgives all the cases?
Having a law that everyone knows will be dismissed is not an effective deterrent. In one case, an offender admitted to ongoing trespassing but because she talked to resource providers, thereby fulfilling the terms of the original trespass case, everything was dismissed.
Jail may be viewed as unreasonably harsh for unhoused individuals because they could lose their meager possessions with one overnight stay. There are arguments that jail is ineffective for anyone and low-level offenses are not worthy of jail. Another argument is that if you are trespassing (for example) because you are homeless, are you really committing a crime or being punished because you are homeless?
Being homeless is not a crime but dismissing these “crimes of homelessness” has consequences such as:
Effectively making the city a homeless sanctuary
Changing the public perception of how Lakewood enforces its own laws
Lowering effectiveness of law enforcement and justice system, as judged by cutting crime
There is opportunity for discussion here.
Do Lakewood residents believe that low-level offenses should not be punished? – Repeal the law
Is jail too harsh? – Modify for alternatives (For example, community service)
Is community service too hard to find? – Extend opportunities outside of non-profit service
Whether penalized with jail or having the case dismissed, the court is not responsible for an individuals housing. However, that is a role the court is taking on by acting as resource coordinator. The Court continues to work for grants for homeless and housing.
Community Outreach Court is presided over by Municipal Judge Nicole Bozarth, who was the only candidate for Municipal Judge on the 2023 ballot. She was previously appointed to the position in June 2022.
The development near Belmar Park, on 777 S Yarrow, has brought into focus the “fee in lieu” provision of Lakewood, Colorado’s Municipal Code L.M.C. 14.16.010. These fees have not been reviewed, or changed, since 2018, resulting in potential under-compensation to the city. Historically developers have had to provide park land for their residents to use. The fee was instead of park land. Existing Lakewood parks would provide park services for the new development.
In light of the confusion regarding the fee in lieu of land dedication/policy the following was sent out to Council and staff on Dec. 31, 2023:
“I don’t know if you’ve seen this before but this is the fee that was set by Director of Community Resources in 2018. The fee is determined by the Director. The ordinance was supposed to have been reviewed by Council no later than Dec. 31, 2023. Also, the fee is due at the time of site plan approval or can be delayed by the Director (Kit Newland) until building permit issuance. The amount to be paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of payment (although it is interesting to note that the fee mentioned in the document expired on Dec. 31, 2019). As far as I know, the fee has not yet been paid. There has been misinformation sent out by the planning department stating “the city staff cannot change this valuation without an act of Council”. However, 14.16.07B of the 2018 document says that the Director shall set the fee equal to fair market value…The only job of Council right now is to review this ordinance. Why was this not placed on the agenda months ago? Staff should have been well aware that this needed to be addressed before the end of the year and it should have been posted. Former Councilor Springsteen mentioned this in October and no action was taken. Why are we updating fees so rarely? Prior to 2018, the only ordinance addressing this was passed in 1983. Obviously, property values fluctuate greatly and fair market values should reflect that. How much potential revenue have we lost over the years due to this antiquated system of determining fees? Council should review this ordinance at the next scheduled meeting and alter the terms as needed.”
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
Newly elected Lakewood City Council Member Isabel Cruz says increasing housing supply has led to higher rents and gentrification of her area, Ward 2. However, Lakewood’s Strategic Housing Plan (SHP) says the opposite will happen in the future, that increasing overall supply will decrease rents, especially in areas of high homeless population such as Ward 2. The plan depends on the theory that more market-rate housing will create affordable housing in an indirect way that has not been proven in Lakewood. This discrepancy between theory and observable experience was not resolved before Lakewood City Council agreed to move forward with the plan as proposed on December 18, 2023.
Following SHP recommendations will:
Incentivize market-rate, high-density, low-parking apartments for middle- to higher-income residents
Enable pallet homes and create homeless shelters, possibly in a closed Jeffco school, for very-low income residents
Fund these programs with city tax dollars
Enable housing opportunities for low- to middle-income residents when residents vacate existing housing
This plan to recommend more development was created by a group largely comprised of developers, along with city staff. Only one “active resident” is listed (Hattip Hasfjord – see SHP pg 3)
Many of the details needed to understand how the plan will impact Lakewood are missing from the plan. Council Member Mayott-Guerrero explained in the very beginning that passing the plan is just the first step for being able to really dig into the details and research this plan. City Manager Hodgson apparently disagrees. She says that staff has been listening to what Council wants and has been acting on those desires by developing project specific proposals.
The detailed project proposals were developed without public input or vote by Council on what their priorities will be. The proposals will be ready for Council approval as soon as the plan can be passed.
The goal would be to move quickly. Hodgson already has a specific bank and funding options researched to start incentivizing development as soon as first quarter 2024.
That seemed to be exactly what Councilor Stewart wanted to hear. As current chair of the Budget and Audit Board, she asked for options to begin adding to the budget immediately (normal budget procedure would be to pass new options in fourth quarter 2024). She also pointed out that her proposals for the Lakewood Planning Commission to research loosening Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations would help move the SHP forward.
These are big changes that the public has been told will have the opportunity for further discussion. However, having proposals ready to be approved is different than ready for public participation. Several mentions of the “housing emergency” and “needing to move quickly” suggests the rubber stamp process may be implied with the passing of the plan.
For example, combining current ADU research, zoning code rewrites that are almost completed by staff (not publicly available) and past precedent for using city funds, Lakewood could start accelerating ADU development within first quarter 2024 by directly paying for water tap fees.
Although the word “subsidy” is rarely used, Lakewood has paid in the past for public infrastructure “gap funding” for water tap fees through the Lakewood Community Block Grant. These tap fees are the biggest hurdle for ADU development so increased funding or subsidizes could greatly increase development.
Just the change in ADU development, effectively changing all R1 into R2 zoning, would double the housing density of Lakewood.
As the Strategic Housing Study found, it is not possible at today’s construction costs to develop new housing at less than market rate. Lakewood will not and cannot develop apartments that are more affordable – the government is not a developer. The Strategic Housing Plan does not guarantee new affordable housing but rather makes new market-rate housing available for higher income residents to move into, thereby increasing housing migration, with the hope that older affordable units will open up (Hattip Ditson).
This plan will increase market-rate housing by offering incentives including:
Public funding for developers and housing assistance for individuals
Relaxed regulations such as decreased parking requirements and the ability for pallet homes
An easier permit process and expedited assistance
Correction: Study date changed from Dec 19th to 18th
One recommendation from Lakewood’s Strategic Housing Plan (SHP) is to incentivize development with city funds. A variety of costs and methods are discussed. Specific spending decisions have not been made but City Manager Hodgson says staff is ready with a proposal to work with the Community First Foundation in a donor-advised fund. Funds could be ready as early as first quarter 2024. Hodgson suggested a starting amount of $500,000.
In most cases, direct funding would not be economical so available funds could be used to leverage other funds. For example, city funds could match against other government grants for development.
There are significant other costs proposed:
Increased staff costs
Increased administrative costs
Rebating city property taxes
Waiving permit costs
Paying for property damage
Increasing city funds for direct housing vouchers
Utilizing resident TABOR refunds
Non-direct costs such as impacts of loosened parking requirements
The other favored source of proposed funding would be from an increase to the Accommodation Tax (currently 3%). This hidden tax increase would have far-reaching effects:
Proposed changes would almost double the tax
Increased taxing makes it less economical for hotels, so would therefore decreases hotel viability. Hotels drive other tourism-based businesses.
Increased hotel fees make Short-Term Rentals (STRs) more attractive since they are immune to the tax.
Increased STRs contributes to needing more housing which will need more financial housing incentives while driving down the business that is providing the funding.
The reason for the accommodation tax in the first place was to fuel economic development but that purpose has been modified for public safety by Lakewood City Council.
The city has previously made funds available through the Community Block Grant Fund to pay for infrastructure costs for development. One benefit of having a new fund with the Community First Foundation would be that funds would be immediately available on the developers’ schedule, rather than waiting until grant approval time.
The indirect costs of increased residential services and decreased business opportunities cannot be directly calculated so are not considered.
