ConsumerAffairs recently surveyed 30 most populated cities in Colorado. Lakewood ranked 23 out of 30 overall, and ranked as one of the most unsafe.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9611c/9611cb951b00fa6f175776fd543813a9ce292418" alt="Lakewood ranks 27 out of 30 for safety"
ConsumerAffairs recently surveyed 30 most populated cities in Colorado. Lakewood ranked 23 out of 30 overall, and ranked as one of the most unsafe.
Written by Lakewood News from Karen on . Leave a Comment
Another Lakewood misinformation campaign bites the dust.
For years Lakewood has been pushing high-density growth in the name of “affordable housing”. They market this narrative to schoolteachers and civil servants. See Lakewood’s recent resolution using these exact words. However, a development presentation to the Lakewood Planning Commission introduced a new term that exposes the lie: Workforce housing
The consultant Lakewood hired to evaluate blight and Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan pointed out that there was NO PLAN for increasing workforce housing in Lakewood. Workforce housing is for low and mi
The emphasis on “affordable housing”, despite what Lakewood says, is different from workforce housing. No matter how poorly teachers and civil servants get paid, they get paid more than anyone living on the streets.
Affordable housing in Lakewood will mean a government-run program, similar to what used to be called Section 8. That is not the same as an answer to inflated housing prices for low- to median-income levels.
Think about government-run affordable housing like a scholarship system for school. A person may need the financial assistance, and may not be able to go to college without it, but there are others who need it more and not enough to go around.
For decades, the people most in need are those with extremely low income. Not low. Not middle-low. Not teachers and civil servants. Extremely low income.
Ann Ricker, of Ricker Cunningham, is Lakewood’s blight consultant. She pointed out there was a gap in the Comprehensive Plan. She said the plan talked about affordable housing, and it talked about single-family housing, but she said there was the missing middle. She suggested removing “single-family” and just using the term “housing”.
Using the general term “housing” would allow more high-density, market rate apartments to be built in an effort to flood the market and lower prices. Lakewood is already proceeding with this plan. There is no guarantee the low-priced condos or townhomes will be built anywhere.
The term “workforce housing” is a more accurate description of how the public perceives the promises from Lakewood. This was an important acknowledgment that “workforce housing” is different than “affordable housing”. The public should be aware of the word games going on, similar to “illegal alien” versus “migrant”.
Watch Ann Ricker discuss the Comprehensive Plan here:
“If the government tries to wage war against the laws of the market by price control, it undermines the working of the market mechanism and leads to conditions which, from the point of view of the government itself, are less desirable than the previous state of affairs it intended to alter.”
— Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action (1949)
History has repeatedly shown that price controls—whether on food, housing, or other essentials—create virtually no consumer benefits and only price distortions. By capping what producers or retailers can charge, these controls reduce supply, reduce product or service quality, discourage investment for new, improved, or cheaper products and services, and create market signal distortions.
Written by Lakewood News from Karen on . Leave a Comment
Lakewood requires such high sustainability standards that they are almost impossible for large developments to meet. The standards are meant to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. For those developments, Lakewood accepts a fee in lieu of sustainability amenities. Lakewood is currently arguing that parkland dedication is illegal or amoral because it asks too much from developers. But Lakewood makes the same sort of demands to further its sustainability agenda. In both cases, the desire is to have development offset the environmental cost of development. The question is at what point is there so much development that the city says money is an acceptable substitute for direct environmental offsets.
Note that these city mandates will continue despite any possible changes to federal funding for climate change initiatives.
Lowering emissions is expensive so most people have not done it or have only done it by using rebates and subsidies. Achieving net zero emissions is even more expensive and is sometimes not achievable. For example, the city of Lakewood admits its new maintenance facility will not meet LEED standards let alone be net zero. Lakewood has set its own standards and requires that new buildings meet those standards by earning sustainability points.
“net zero standards require reducing emissions to more than 90% and then only offsetting [with purchased carbon credits] the remaining 10% or less to fall in line with 1.5 °C targets.” –Wikipedia
For large developments, the city admits it is almost impossible to achieve enough points. Therefore, developers are forced to pay a fee so that Lakewood can fund other sustainability projects. This is similar to other carbon credit purchasing schemes but in this case, it is authorized, administered, and required by Lakewood. There is currently no discussion that Lakewood will require credits or fees from existing residents. Lakewood City Council was scheduled to discuss new ways to generate revenue, as well as how to spend the revenue generated from existing fees, at the February planning retreat. The planning retreat has historically been an in-person only meeting where staff takes direction from Council on items that do not require an official vote. No recording is available online for review.
“For some [developments] that the [sustainability] targets are just too high to meet, they pitch in so that the city can spend that money to further achieve our goals.” Travis Parker, Director of Sustainability and Community Development during staff sustainability update (min 1:17:52).
Since 2019 Lakewood has demanded buildings meet climate sustainability goals. This was estimated to add 2-3% to building costs but actual costs have not been collected or analyzed. Building costs are passed on to the consumer, which makes Lakewood even more expensive to live and work in than in the surrounding areas.
The additional sustainability measures will add 1-10% to building costs for things like EV charging stations. Would you like all new apartments to have a few charging stations at an increased overall cost for everyone or would you like some buildings to not have those amenities at a lower cost?
Lakewood’s demands have resulted in a reduction in emissions to meet a target of 20% less than 2007 levels. With the new demands of 2022, some large construction projects cannot meet Lakewood’s demands, resulting in the project paying a fee to Lakewood that will be used for other climate goals. Lakewood city staff acknowledged that it was almost impossible for large projects to meet demands, making the fee-in-lieu necessary.
Lakewood has already generated $221,000 from various sustainability fees. They anticipate generating over $250,000 per year on these fees. Lakewood made over $600,000 on the statewide plastic bag mandate. One could say Lakewood is getting into the business of selling emission offsets.
For more information on what Lakewood’s sustainability measures have achieved so far, watch the full video update at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYbpkr1Gm24&t=150s
The extra expense of building in Lakewood limits the possibility of new businesses coming into Lakewood. Even sustainability businesses, whose goals align with Lakewood’s, find it difficult to make a profit when required to meet high sustainability standards. Councilor Rein specifically remarked that he would like Lakewood to attract new businesses that would develop sustainability technologies. At the same time, businesses nationwide are rethinking their sustainability goals amidst high demands such as Lakewood’s.
The enhanced development fee was first approved in 2019. Now the city is asking for more and some projects are not even possible to achieve what Lakewood wants. All projects must meet a base emission efficiency level. After meeting that base level, projects are eligible to pay a fee because even Lakewood staff admit it is not possible to achieve what they are asking for.
“Fee-in-lieu is for those super large projects that have really large point totals that may not even be able to find enough points in the [standards] list to meet their point total, they still have to achieve at least 50 [base level efficiency] and they can achieve the rest as well or they can pay a fee in lieu for some of those higher points.” – Travis Parker, sustainability update (min 1:34), emphasis added
What do the fees go towards? They could go towards every basic city service besides police. Per Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero, these fees could be used for sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. Councilors asked about tree preservation and housing. Public art was part of the original goal. Tree canopy health. Food access. Household wages. Even subscriptions to city communications and trips to the rec center count towards “sustainability goals”. Other people have to fight to earn business advantages like that.
The dates below are from the staff presentation, detailing future meetings where Lakewood will be implementing more robust sustainability measures for Lakewood.
Written by Lakewood News from Karen on . Leave a Comment
City Council Members Jacob Labure and Paula Nystrom asked for equal representation on the Budget and Audit Board, January 27, 2025. They were denied. Only three wards will be represented on the Board.
The Budget and Audit Board is vitally important for accountability. Many policies and programs that staff originate are never disclosed to the public. They only show up in funding requests. And as evidenced by the 2024 vote to de-TABOR, city staff is not often turned down.
Councilor LaBure was involved in the last rewrite of the Budget Board. LaBure fought hard to get each ward representation on the Board, saying it was common practice to not only have five Councilors on the Board but to allow any Council Member to come and make comments.
Now the current Board doesn’t even allow comments.
Councilors Shahrezaei and Mayott-Guerrero both said that allowing that many Councilors, as worked for years, would now be unmanageable. Shahrezaei pointed out that at one point, a single councilor made 37 questions to staff and that amount of work was too hard.
There is no general rule for how many questions the paid city staff should answer as part of being publicly accountable for a multi-million-dollar budget.
In 2024, when Mayor Strom downsized committee sizes, then-Councilor Rich Olver was upset to be removed. Strom explained that she thought she was doing him a favor because he often didn’t have time. Olver was not present at the meeting for the initial appointments to protest. But his argument resonated with Councilor Dave Rein who supported increasing representation.
Councilor Low also supported the proposal saying, “Budget is one of the most important things we do. Ward 3 should have representation.”
2025 Council Members on the Budget Board are:
Strom: Nay
Shahrezaei: Nay
Sinks: Nay
Mayott-Guerrero: Nay
Cruz: Nay
Low: Aye
Rein: Aye
LaBure: Aye
Nystrom: Aye
Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .
As reported by CBS News, a fire in an abandoned gas station on February 3 endangered 20-30 homeless people who were using the building as a shelter. The situation underscores the need to re-examine several ongoing strategies, such as:
Which of these policies were effective in de-escalating the ongoing safety situation?
From CBS News, by Karen Morfitt
At around 10 p.m. on Monday night a fire tore through a vacant Colorado building that was once used as a gas station. The building at the corner of Alameda Avenue and Harlan Street in Lakewood was being used as a shelter.
A resident of the apartment building next door captured video of flames shooting out of the building’s windows.
“Thank God the response was quick,” Victor Garibay said.
Garibay didn’t take the video, but he lives in the same apartment building. He and his neighbors raised concerns about people coming and going from the building several times.
“A lot of people have gone to the police have gone to the fire department and told them about the issues here — people coming in and out. The drug use, of course. The police have come, the fire department has come but they never seem to really be able to do anything about it,” he said.
Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .
From the Jeffco Transcript, by Suzie Glassman, February 5, 2025
The fight over a controversial proposed apartment complex near Belmar Park is escalating as frustrated residents have reached out to the city council, and parkland advocate Cathy Kentner has moved to formally intervene in a lawsuit filed by developers against the city last December.
Members of Save Belmar Park, a citizen-led group advocating for the preservation of open space, argue the City of Lakewood has failed to defend a citizen-led ordinance the council adopted after the group submitted the required number of signatures, leaving residents in opposition to the move no choice but to step in.
The lawsuit began when Kairoi Residential, developers of a planned 412-unit luxury apartment building at Belmar Park, sued the city, claiming the 2024 ordinance, which prevents developers from paying fees instead of dedicating land for parks, violates state law.
On Jan. 14, a Jefferson County judge granted Kairoi a preliminary injunction, allowing the apartment project to proceed while the case progresses.
Lakewood didn’t oppose Kairoi’s request for the injunction, leading some residents to believe this inaction signaled to the court that the ordinance had little legal standing.
Read more including the backlash over Lakewood’s legal strategy
Written by Lakewood News from Karen on . 1 Comment
Lakewood is using every tool at its disposal, and then some, to aid development at 4th and Union, known as The Bend. The latest proposal is to blight the property in order to include it in an Urban Renewal Project so that the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority can fund the development. The Lakewood Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the first step of this process on January 22, 2025. However, despite a presentation on blight, there was no consideration of blight status for this vote and other developments in the area, like St. Anthony’s, did not receive financial assistance. Since the blight finding relies on environmental contamination, Lakewood should get involved in cleaning up a toxic landfill to make this legal, which is also not being proposed. This vote concentrated on whether the new development conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was written by Lakewood to include this high-density development, which has been in the works since 2013. There was no examination of whether the residential units being built were needed per the provisions of urban renewal, such as mitigating slums.
None of these factors were discussed or by the Planning Commission but one approval leads to another in this process.
Per Colorado State Statute 31-25-102 (1), the purpose of a blight designation and urban renewal is to eliminate blight or slums. In a typical blight situation, there has been deterioration of structures that now need repaired. That’s not the case here.
Raw land is not suitable for a blight designation. Adding infrastructure is just development. The problem, as Lakewood seems to see it, is that they want to enable the developer’s goal of 2000 units of high-density residential in an area that wasn’t designed for that many units. A smaller development may work. Lakewood wants to change the standards from when 6th Avenue and Union were constructed to today’s goals of high-density and walkability.
That’s not blight. That’s development. And per Lakewood’s own presentation, it is illegal to use blight designations for the sake of development for its own sake.
The only problem with the land is that there is a toxic landfill on the north end. Neither Lakewood nor the developer is currently proposing mitigating that risk so there is no elimination of blight conditions in this proposal. Merely finding blight, if it even exists, is not enough to comply with statute.
Lakewood points at projects like a landfill in Castle Rock that underwent a similar blight process. During that process, the landfill was cleaned. Cleanup is not proposed for The Bend site which is not a city landfill but a toxic munitions dump. So the underlying blight condition, if any, will remain in place.
A new Comprehensive Plan will be approved in February. There was no pause on The Bend blight vote to see if it would meet any revisions that arise during the vote. Both the current and upcoming plan are written in such a way that city staff can interpret Comprehensive Plan goals to mean just about anything. And this area has been targeted by developers (not necessarily residents) for high-density residential for more than 10 years.
In fact, the Comprehensive Plan details what Lakewood would want to see built on that land so this whole argument is circular. It is just the city writing what it wants in multiple places and then using those multiple places as justification.
According toC.R.S. 31-25-107 (5), if residential housing is to be developed, there must be a demonstrated lack of decent, safe and sanitary housing. Remember that this statute is designed to eliminate slums.
“(5) In case the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land which, under the urban renewal plan, is to be developed for residential uses, the governing body shall comply with the applicable provisions of this section and shall also determine that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe, and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas (including other portions of the urban renewal area); that the conditions of blight in the urban renewal area and the shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality.”
Lakewood will not be eliminating slums and there was no consideration of safe and sanitary housing. Instead, Lakewood points to a “shortage” of housing that is in dispute (see “the Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”). Lakewood also points to the need for “affordable housing”, which is not considered in statute.
St. Anthony’s did not get financial assistance through the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority and it has the same sort of environmental conditions that the land being developed further north has – that is it is technically clean for development. Again, the new development will not be developing or mitigating the toxic landfill that forms the base of the environmental concerns there.
The need for Lakewood to provide this tax incentive is the “But for” argument. “But for” the urban renewal designation, development may not happen. This is patently false since the developers have been planning on funding the project for years without the blight designation.
Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .
Arvada is selling the building they purchased to run a homeless shelter and navigation center. Just like what happened in Lakewood, these centers were sprung on residents with little notice about actual details. People who may support the unhoused as a general conception may not support millions of dollars in spending in a previously undisclosed location.
It turns out, residents did not like the concept as much as officials thought they would.
Arvada officials listened to resident opposition and are now selling the building, unused. Completely opposite to Lakewood, who is expanding their program already.
Read original article: City of Arvada to sell proposed homeless resource site following community pushback
By listening to residents, Arvada might have dodged a funding bullet. Lakewood’s homeless shelter is budgeted to spend almost $4 million per year, almost all from outside sources. Lakewood, on its own, cannot support this level of services.
With federal funding now in question, which funnels to state grants, future funding is not looking so rosy. Colorado is already facing a $1 billion budget shortfall. And funding was never guaranteed in the first place.
Arvada may prove to be twice wise by divesting an investment that cannot be funded.
Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .
Lakewood has a sustainability agenda to push electrification in order to decrease fossil fuel emissions. Electrification means changing your gas appliance to an electric one. Xcel is asking for an extra $5 billion to upgrade infrastructure that is needed for this change. Xcel will fund this by charging all customers more on top of an ever-increasing bill. A recent podcast from PowerGab called “Heat Pump Surprise”, pondered whether our elected officials know the total cost of their agenda. This was a good question so LakewoodInformer news asked Lakewood City Council if they knew the total cost for Lakewood residents. We got two responses and zero answers. All Lakewood residents are paying for electrification efforts through these additional fees. It’s not just the cost of a new appliance.
“Xcel Energy, seeking to meet an increasing demand for electric vehicles, rooftop solar arrays and heat pumps and general growth in electricity use, is proposing a $5 billion plan to improve the links between the grid and homes and businesses.” – Colorado Sun
The possible new fee is a result of the Fenberg Rider, passed by Colorado legislators in 2024. This fee will improve only one leg of an overloaded distribution center. Electrification is one of, if not the most, expensive ways to decarbonize energy.
“Whether or not you actually convert to a heat pump you’re still gonna pay for this…. It’s even more perverse than that because what the PUC actually did was tack on a fee for existing natural gas customers to pay to subsidize folks to switch” – PowerGab
Only two out of eleven Council Members responded to an emailed question. Neither answer included total costs. All Councilors affirmed their commitment to sustainability as a worthy goal. Sustainability, including any electrification, is a city priority.
Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero provided a swift response, saying she previously worked in climate justice and clean energy policy. She points out the “current rate structures that Xcel uses is actually very beneficial to most customers as more electric appliances come online. As you know, heat pumps are most used in the night, and are also statistically more likely in homes where at least one person is home in the day, meaning continued use (on average) in the none-surge pricing hours. This all results in something often referred to as “flattening the curve”.
Flattening the curve does not stop the overall line increasing. The experts at PowerGab estimate (min 12) that the total necessary infrastructure upgrades total about to $695 billion for the necessary 82 gigawatts of power. The question remains, are climate justice warriors aware of the total cost?
Councilor Paula Nystrom says, “The concern is air quality, not just the cost… we [Lakewood] have deadlines to meet.” She says that it’s important to think of the global problem and how people suffer with air quality while trying to enjoy the summer outside. She did not know of any specific fees or sources of funding, but did say that there was enough tax credits and grants that residents wanting to switch to electric appliances could do so at about half the sticker cost.
Is $695 billion in new statewide spending possible? And is it worth it to achieve decarbonization goals?
Lakewood Council, Sustainability Committee and staff have been running a recurring false narrative that electrification is cheap because it uses “free money” like tax credits or subsidies when the reality is that everyone pays to make this money available. Lakewood will require that new buildings have electric heat pumps versus gas furnaces, relying on the fact that residents will believe the free money narrative over the total cost narrative. This change is likely to happen in spring of 2025.
Lakewood will also spend more on city buildings to meet these sustainability goals through increased taxpayer funding.
“This means you writing a check with a comma in it to pay your utility bill every single month. So $1,000 plus monthly utility bills.” – Amy Cooke, PowerGab
“This is a regressive tax. If you want to hurt poor people, you drive up the cost of keeping lights on… Affordable housing won’t matter. We are literally bankrupting the state.” Amy Cooke, PowerGab, min 7:30 mark)
“We need to account for the fact that increased load does have a cost,” Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat and cosponsor of the bill, told a Senate Finance Committee hearing. “There are investments that need to be made.” – Colorado Sun
Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIExE1OlL-4
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.
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?
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.
Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.
© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs