Over the last month, Lakewood has been sued over the new park land dedication ordinance, has hired outside counsel and is now trying to quickly amend or repeal the ordinance. Lakewood staff and City Council say they are trying to make the ordinance legal. Others say Lakewood has an obligation to fight for the citizen-led ordinance, a belief summarized below. Also below is an article detailing how residents are getting involved in the legal fight as intervenors, hoping to fight for the ordinance they believe the city is leaving behind.

On February 3, 2025, there was a City Council executive session and workshop on the subject. Second and third readings of possible changes are scheduled for February 10 and 24.

From LakewoodSpeaks public comment:

The City of Lakewood is legally responsible to defend the Parkland Dedication law our citizens brought forth by petition and City Council subsequently voted to incorporate into our laws. The right to this democratic petition process is protected by our National Constitution and passed down by our City’s upper tier documents. It is disrespectful and dangerous to attack this revered democratic process (or bully those citizens in need of utilizing it) that has been created and implemented by our democratic leaders to provide a voice to downtrodden citizens who feel their Government is not listening to all people.

There is concern by many residents that the City will protect their long-standing history of favoring developers over citizens, by putting forward a weak, unprofessional and half-hearted defense of this law that requires parkland dedication to the community by developers.

Now the reality of this concern that the City will ignore their responsibility to 100% defend our law has been cast in broad daylight. When the contractor filed for an injunction to ignore this new law initially set in motion by the people of Lakewood, the motion did not even receive a public hearing before it was granted. A public hearing on the request for an injunction was not convened BECAUSE NO ONE (READ LAKEWOOD ) OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION. This is the first glaring proof of the City turning their back on performing their assigned judicial responsibilities. Can the next example be far behind?

From Save Open Space – Lakewood

Judge orders injunction against Lakewood Green Initiative, allowing monstrosity at Belmar Park to proceed: Citizens cry foul

Wednesday, January 29, 2025 – On January 14, District Court Judge Jason Carrithers granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Lakewood Green Initiative, which means the Kairoi Residential project adjacent to Belmar Park can proceed as if the citizen initiative petition had never existed.

The judge’s decision was predictable because the City offered no opposition to the developer’s desire for an injunction.

In response to the Unopposed Injunction, two Motions to “Intervene” were filed on behalf of the Initiative. In the Motion filed Friday, January 17, “Proposed intervenor Save Belmar Park, Inc., (“SBP”) seeks intervention to defend the O-2024-28 ordinance as adopted and the requirements it imposes on the City and the Plaintiffs to protect the interests of SBP’s members in maintaining the character and aesthetic of Belmar Park from profit-driven unreasonable and unsustainable developer overreach. The City Council’s public statements and its actions so far in this litigation indicate that it cannot be relied on to protect SBP’s members’ interests.  The preliminary injunctive relief granted to Plaintiffs is a litigation tactic sought to circumvent a robust and thorough evaluation of all parties’ rights. A preliminary injunction in this matter only benefits Plaintiffs to the degree they could seek approval of their proposed plans under the old municipal code without the disputed ordinance’s provisions. Once that approval is obtained and building permits are issued the provisions of O-2024-28 would no longer apply and the need for any further pursuit of this litigation would be moot. Plaintiffs’ Complaint also fails to address that the relief postured by Plaintiffs to apply only to them would affect all developments city Un-wide, where other developers could rely on the findings of this declaratory action to avoid complying with the Lakewood Municipal Code as currently adopted.

The City would then also have the political cover to attribute to the Court the need to make city-wide changes in the disputed ordinance rather than take up the issue with its electorate in an open and public debate.”

In the Motion to Intervene filed Tuesday, January 21, petition representative Cathy Kentner claims, “The mere fact that the City of Lakewood did not oppose the Motion for Temporary Injunction, and at the same time states they plan to oppose this Motion to Intervene on their behalf, is evidence that the City does not intend to adequately defend… In fact, it appears that both the Plaintiff and Defendant are attempting to moot this action by allowing irreparable harm to happen while this action is in court process.”

Kentner further points out that the City of Lakewood has a history of not adequately defending citizen positions.  For example, “In the case of Colorado Christian University v. City of Lakewood (2021CV30629), District Court Judge Russell B. Klein granted intervention stating:

‘The proposed intervenors in this case argue that the City of Lakewood did not oppose a temporary restraining order and that the temporary restraining order filings contained false information – as a result their interests are not being adequately represented…Here the Court finds that the interests of the City of Lakewood and the two proposed intervenors are different, and that difference is not reduced to a disagreement as to trial strategy. The City of Lakewood has an interest in defending the constitutionality and application of its ordinances, whereas the proposed intervenors have an interest in the impact of the ordinances on their neighborhood and residences. Thus, the Court finds that the unique interest that each party maintains (the City of Lakewood vis-a-vis the two proposed intervenors) do not sufficiently overlap, and the Court finds that the interests of the two proposed intervenors are not adequately represented.’”

Lakewood surely is celebrating the ruling that allows them to continue their 13-year tradition of taking money for large developments while they claim to care for residents, their safety, their quality of life, the environment, huh global warming, wildlife and declining bird population.

Citizens are justified in feeling this “temporary” injunction could become permanent. If delayed long enough, Kairoi could be issued a building permit effectively mooting any issues.

The City’s response to Kairoi’s initial complaint is due to be filed this week. Both the City and Kairoi have 21 days to respond to the Motions to Intervene.