Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

housing

City Not Disclosing Where New Units for Homeless Going

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

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. 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

Read More

Increased Housing Density Coming to Your Neighborhood

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

The City of Lakewood is looking for a consultant to write new zoning codes to: Current efforts to density have caused Lakewood to develop problems with traffic, stormwater drainage, parking and more. Existing developments have not been designed for high-density. The city has not offered any solutions to these problems. In fact, parking is such a problem that Lakewood is studying requiring parking permits for residents – paid for by residents – rather than mandating increased parking in development plans. This proposal will intensify that problem and increase the amount of resident-funded parking permits throughout Lakewood. Lakewood appears intent on exacerbating existing problems by allowing more densification to solve another problem… affordable housing. It must be noted that parking, traffic and stormwater management are key functions of the city government, whereas housing is traditionally regarded as a market-based function. There are two citizen-led initiatives in Lakewood news demonstrating that current densification is not in line with the city’s existing ordinance to maintain the existing characteristics of existing neighborhoods: a new development near Belmar Park and on Whippoorwill near Youngfield. City ordinances are a series of laws that rule Lakewood’s development. However, Lakewood staff can interpret these rules through the lens of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The existing Comprehensive Plan states (pg 3-12): “The City will continue to support the diverse image and character of the community by maintaining the existing characteristics of neighborhoods with existing single-family residential zoning; creating appropriate transitions between commercial, multi-family, and mixed-use development and single-family zoned areas; and encouraging contextually appropriate infill and redevelopment projects.” For the last several years, Lakewood has de-emphasized the existing characteristics of neighborhoods and transition zones in favor of other factors, which has caused conflict with resident groups, such as those mentioned above. Lakewood is currently developing a new Comprehensive Plan to show the direction of the city for the next fifteen years. The densification proposal coming out before the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is finalized shows that Lakewood anticipates knowing what the results will be, regardless of any input the community provides. The proposal reads: “The Contractor will identify goals, recommendations, and implementation strategies, to ensure the new code is consistent with the 2040 [Comprehensive] Plan.“ Since this proposal calls strictly for plans to densify, it appears that the Comprehensive Plan may have to be adjusted to match densification, rather than vice versa. The Planning Commission will serve as the community input for this project. See the full proposal here:

Read More

Lakewood Agrees to More Expensive Construction to Make Housing More Affordable

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

Lakewood has approved construction of Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) that are up to 1400 square feet large, bigger than the original house in some areas, in an effort to “remove barriers” to affordability. ADUs are sometimes known as “mother-in-law” suites, a separate apartment that can be rented out on your primary residence. Councilor Stewart made the original request to research increasing ADU use in Lakewood, over a year before the motion passed on June 10, 2024. The two main barriers are the concept of single-family zoning (R1 vs R2) and infrastructure costs. By passing these revisions, Lakewood has densified single-family zoning into dual-family zoning, for every property that can fit an additional dwelling unit onto the land. According to research conducted by the Planning Commission, most people say they do not build an ADU after they find out they would need to pay more for additional water and sewer infrastructure. There seems to be a common belief that because there is room on the land, there should be extra room in the pipes, which is not true. Rather than acknowledge that water districts set those infrastructure fees, Planning Commissioner and Chair Kolkmeier suggested doubling the size of an allowable ADU, from 700 sq. ft. to 1400 sq. ft., so that the infrastructure cost would be a lesser percentage. So overall costs would go up in the name of affordability. Custom-built ADUs are already expensive compared to commercial apartment buildings that are mass produced. However, an economic analysis of construction costs or rental profits was not researched. Among the ADU proponents, including Councilor Stewart and Shahrezaei, there seemed to be an understanding that someone who went to the expense of building an ADU would be happy to rent the unit at- or below-market price, to a family member or friend. Others, including Councilor Nystrom and Olver, questioned whether these units would be available for investors, therefore not guaranteeing it would be “affordable”. Nystrom said she was in favor of creating more ownership situations, not rental situations. Olver quoted the real estate mantra “Location location location” and said that creating more supply will not lower housing prices in a desirable location such as Lakewood. Olver’s point has been proved because Lakewood has excess supply yet housing costs have not come down. Councilor David Rein proposed an amendment to make owner-occupancy required. The motion failed on a 5-5 vote, with the ayes being Councilors Rein, Olver, Nystrom, LaBure and Mayor Strom. The nays were Councilors: Shahrezaei, Low, Mayott-Guerrero, and Sinks. (Councilor Cruz absent).   Without this amendment, the ADU and property can be used for two, full-time rental properties, making them attractive to investors. Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier explained that even though these revisions might not increase ADU construction, our current ordinance strangles growth and our residential development is in a death spiral but did not offer evidence. He argues the changes are one way to bring back families and possibly schools but he did not explain how if he believes the changes would be largely ineffective. No one offered evidence, just beliefs that some kind of change by someone was necessary. Even though housing may be more expensive with these changes, the goal of “liberalizing” the code was achieved. Councilor Sinks pointed out that these revisions seem like a work around to getting a property subdivided. The property could not be subdivided for separate ownership. A property with two houses would be much more expensive to sell. If these changes are successful in increasing ADUs, the Councilors who voted for ADUs will be responsible for increasing property prices. The other barrier, infrastructure costs, was discussed at some length during Planning Commission and Council meetings. The infrastructure fees are set by water districts individually and are not under city control. Rather than acknowledging this fact, Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier and Councilor Roger Low enlisted the help of State Representative Chris DeGruy-Kennedy to change state law, asking to restrict a district’s ability to set infrastructure costs. This would make existing customers responsible for paying for necessary capacity increases to accommodate new building. That proposed legislation, HB24-1463, was largely defeated. No one at the state or city level explained, or even seemed to know, what the infrastructure fee would pay for, despite explanations available from resident water districts (see below). Councilor Jacob LaBure picked up the gauntlet of problematic costs by suggesting the creation of a housing fund that the city can use to pay for people’s infrastructure costs. This suggestion was heard before during meetings on Strategic Housing. Lakewood has already subsidized tap fees before through the Community Grant Program. The State of Colorado also passed new legislation regarding ADUs this year. That bill, HB24-1152, will require that Lakewood remove owner-occupancy provisions. However, as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to challenge state law for the right to local government.  As Lakewood attorney Lauren Stanec said, “if the city decided they wanted to comply with the state ADU bill….”, presumably meaning that as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to fight for its right to local government. The city could remove the owner-occupancy provision now. Lakewood did not, and passed all changes as originally proposed by the Planning commission. Scorecard: Expanding Additional Dwelling Unit Possibilities in all R1 zones Strom: Aye Olver: Nay Mayott-Guerrero: Aye Stewart: Aye Rein: Aye Shahrezaei: Aye Labure: Aye Nystrom: Nay Low: Aye Cruz: absent Sinks: Aye

Read More

Lakewood Shelter May Be a Magnet

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

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: 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.

Read More

Lakewood City Council approves housing plan and Navigation Center, but residents still have questions and concerns

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

Guest Post by Bill Foshag 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

Read More

A Poisoned Pill Passed: The Strategic Housing Plan

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

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

Read More

Survey Results for Homeless or Migrant Assistance

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

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 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. Reader Recommended Business: Karen M Sweat, Certified Public Accountant

Read More

No Policy Discussion to Become the Homeless Center of Jeffco

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

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:   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.

Read More

Lakewood Dismissing Low-Level Offenses

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

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: 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: There is opportunity for discussion here. 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. Reader Recommended Business: a SAFE HOME Gas Fireplace Service

Read More

Fees for Park Land Static Since 2018

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

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:  Begin forwarded message: From: Lenore Herskovitz <lenoreherskovitz@gmail.com>Date: December 31, 2023 at 2:56:12 PM MSTTo: Wendi Strom <WenStr@lakewood.org>, CityCouncilMembers@lakewood.org, Kathy Hodgson <KatHod@lakewood.org>, Travis Parker <TraPar@lakewood.org>, abrown@lakewood.org, kitnew@lakewood.orgSubject: Fwd: land dedication fee in lieu “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.” See ordinance and policy letter below:

Read More
Scroll to top