Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

lakewood-news

Developer Influence on CO Representative from Lakewood

From Revolving Door Project, Meet Corporate Landlords’ New Favorite Caucus The Revolving Door Project reports on a new caucus that favors real estate and landlord lobbying groups. Caucus founders include Representative Brittany Pettersen, a Lakewood resident. “…the Congressional Real Estate Caucus. Launched in May by two Republicans and two Democrats, the caucus’ stated aim is to “ensure that congressional debates […] include a concern for real estate and serves as a forum for members of Congress and real estate professionals to discuss federal policy and its impact on the nation’s real estate industry.” The real estate industry’s financial success is the priority of the group: the Caucus promised to work to “support policies that allow this industry to prosper. “Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D, CO-07): Pettersen, a freshman member of Congress and former state legislator, has received a combined $56,500 in PAC contributions from industry supporters of the Real Estate Caucus in just two years. She also co-owns a single-family property in Lakewood, CO that generates rental income.” Read the full article… Meet Corporate Landlords’ New Favorite Caucus

Survey Results for Homeless or Migrant Assistance

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

Scroll to top