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:
West Metro Fire unofficial policy of not enforcing fire safety standards in homeless encampments. West Metro officials have said these fires are a matter of life and death so encampment fires are typically allowed or deprioritized for enforcement activity.
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.
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
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.
Examples of Games
Eliminate slum and blight – will not, develops around it
Comprehensive Plan baked in – a new plan is up for approval any time now
Shortage of safe housing – meant to eliminate slums but city is using for affordable housing
Playing favorites – Same conditions as St. Anthony’s that didn’t get funding
But For – Development would happen without city assistance
None of these factors were discussed or by the Planning Commission but one approval leads to another in this process.
No elimination of slum or blight
Slide 16 of Lakewood presentation March 4, 2024 https://lakewoodspeaks.org/items/3419. Lakewood is not planning on eliminating slum or blight, just developing.
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.
Shortage of SAFE housing
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.
Playing Favorites
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.
But For
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.
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.
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.
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
Does Lakewood know how much it will cost to switch to electric appliances?
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 informal survey of Lakewood City Council seems to prove PowerGab’s theory that legislators championing electrification have not added all these numbers up.
“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
The Council responses also shows that only two out of eleven Councilors were willing to explain their beliefs in the face of a competing cost narrative. All beliefs are worth consideration, and their answers showed true respect for all their constituents. Thank you!
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.
Lakewood voted unanimously to pass a new ordinance for metropolitan districts on January 13, 2025. The overwhelming feeling was that Council truly believes that this ordinance is better at regulating metro districts than the basic state law. Almost every City Council Member spoke of the multiple meetings they held to work on the ordinance, which was started years earlier when a metro district was expected. In fact, former City Council Member Dave Skilling was apparently advising current Council Members, according to publicly made comments. The new ordinance included an underlying assumption that cities had to allow metro districts. This belief was voiced by city attorneys and Councilor Rein. Several other Councilors deferred to Rein’s contributions on crafting this ordinance. Only Councilor Cruz voiced the opinion that Council could still vote “no” on a metro district application, but even she voted to approve this new ordinance.
Councilor Rein led the charge to prove Lakewood was not able to “ban” metro districts. He started the discussion by asking city attorney Lauren Stanek about banning metro districts. Although Stanek said that it couldn’t be done, there are several mechanisms other cities have used to “ban” metro districts. Any of these mechanisms below, or none of them, allow the city to vote against metro district creation.
Commerce City passed a moratorium on metro districts.
Longmont passed a bill limiting metro districts to non-residential development (the vast majority of metro districts are for residential development)
Westminster passed a policy of opposition.
Lakewood staff never presented any of these options, or even just the option of voting no, to City Council. However, Councilor Cruz pointed out that this ordinance does not bind Council to approving new metro districts.
As attorney Stanek* advocated, the Lakewood ordinance has some extra provisions that Lakewood hopes will provide extra safety to future residents. However, as Lakewood Informer news pointed out previously, many of those protections are limited.
*It is difficult to confirm any Lakewood staff title. In response to a request for an org chart, Lakewood Informer was told that the city didn’t have one because “it is all embedded into our HRIS system and doesn’t print out in a org chart manner“. No substitute was offered. Very few names, titles or phone numbers are located on the website.
Most Council Members agreed that these extra provisions made passing the ordinance worthwhile. They all seemed very cognizant of the dangers that metro districts pose. The hope is that future residents will do their own homework and discover anything they might object to before purchasing a home (ex. terms of extra taxes). This is more difficult than Lakewood disallowing objectionable items, but the information will be there.
Councilors Shahrezaei and Rein offered changes for additional transparency including:
Hosting copies of annual reports on the city website
Eliminating the possibility of a study session before approving a metro district
Disclosure requirements for any board candidate that has ties to the developer
Mayor Strom said she is very supportive of this new ordinance. She says, “This is really an opportunity for the city to make sure that development is paying their own way so that our newer residents are paying and it’s through a financing mechanism that allows a developer to not have to sell a house with an extra $30,000 on top because of the sidewalks that they had to put in.”
Strom’s base assumption – that metro district housing is more affordable – has been proved untrue overall by the Anderson Economic Group. They “found that issuing bonds to finance metropolitan district infrastructure costs reduces the typical home buyer’s down payment by an average of 4% relative to a scenario in which that same home is built outside of a metropolitan district. We further projected that a homeowner’s long-term housing costs will be 2% higher over the course of a 30-year mortgage due to the debt service property taxes levied in metropolitan districts. Additionally, we found that a metropolitan district’s housing costs may be even higher…”
So they found that a metro district adds at least 2% more total costs than traditional development but developers can say the cost is 4% lower at time of sale. Someone has to pay for the sidewalks but that will ultimately be the homeowners, not the developer. This metro district bill has nothing to do with making developers “pay their own way.”
A cheaper alternative would be for the city not to demand improvements like extensive sidewalks and bike lanes. There may be people who would like to have homes with fewer infrastructure amenities in exchange for a lower cost. Or if tens of thousands is the true cost and extensive infrastructure is universally desired, telling people upfront what the cost of total home package is might allow them to finance it themselves at more favorable prices. But those options were not presented either.
Councilor LaBure echoed the “affordable housing” narrative by saying that without metro districts, Lakewood would not have any development. Other Councilors have made similar statements in past meetings. This is the official talking point of the developer-run Metro District Education Coalition (MDEC). MDEC was the only outside expert invited to City Council study sessions last year. Competing grassroots organizations who know the dangers of metro districts were not involved.
These statements show that at its base, metro districts help developers and all Lakewood can do is try to minimize the harm to residents. Public comment online was unanimously against the creation of metro districts.
Mayor Wendi Strom suspended normal City Council procedures to have an emergency discussion on January 13, 2025 regarding issues resulting from the new parkland dedication ordinance. Strom says this was time sensitive so it couldn’t wait until the next meeting and most of Council agreed with her. However, even with the suspension of city policies, Lakewood is still bound by the Colorado Open Meetings laws that require public notice for agenda items. Without that notice, there was no public comment regarding the discussion because no one knew it was happening. One issue Strom initially raised was concern that single-family homeowners are being required to dedicate part of their land to parks. However, other Councilors showed that the real issue was overall development. Strom says the city has not issued any permits since December 7, 2024, when the ordinance was approved. Council Member Nystrom, the only Councilor to sound positive about the new ordinance, pointed out that there may be inaccuracies on how the ordinance is being applied. Nystrom’s point of view was echoed by the author of the ordinance, Cathy Kentner.
Mayor Strom did not say how many people were adversely affected by the new ordinance, but this move is extraordinary. Even in other time-sensitive circumstances, such as when hundreds of Belmar Park residents were begging for emergency intervention, Strom did not suspend the rules. In fact, with her inauguration, she has moved public comment to the end of the meeting in a move that guarantees most people do not stay for comment. The parkland ordinance itself was time sensitive due to the ballot initiative deadlines. Council chose not to address the issue at all.
Strom asked for a vote to direct staff to present some amendments to the ordinance at the January 27 meeting. She also later agreed with Councilor Roger Low’s statement that “it would be incumbent on members of council to proactively draft those amendments and work with the city attorney’s office, presumably to draft those amendments and circulate them [we] will be authoring the amendments and staff merely writing them up.”
It is evident that many processes will still be decided over the next month. No data was presented to demonstrate the problem, but Mayor Strom says that will be coming as staff present real life stories of the harm the ordinance is doing to residents and staff. No one mentioned the residents who were positively affected by the ordinance except for Councilor Nystrom.
Accusations of Bait N Switch
Strom says she does not believe residents knew what they were signing or the unintended consequences of the original petition. This narrative was espoused by several Councilors at previous meetings, including multiple times by Council Member Roger Low. It’s an ironic stance to take coming from the council who approved official ballot language to de-TABOR the city without ever mentioning TABOR.
Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem Shaharezaei went so far as to accuse the resident petition gatherers of pulling a bait and switch. She says they touted the initiative as a way to get more parkland but really it was about reducing density. She says these unintended consequences are something that needs a response.
Shahrezaei did not acknowledge that the parkland dedication initiative was a result of unintended consequences of City Council not being accountable for adequate oversight of the existing ordinance. That issue has been ongoing for over a decade. But Councilor Low ran through some math to acknowledge that resident density and parkland should have some sort of equilibrium.
Parks Versus Development
The ordinance is not about development per se. It is about the fact that more people need more parks in order to sustain the equilibrium Councilor Low spoke of. For decades people have moved to Lakewood for the plentiful parks. So much so that Lakewood Council recently pushed a bill to de-TABOR, partly to fund park expansion.
Many Councilors returned to the original argument from months ago that there was no way to mandate reasonable parkland dedication and still allow development. Those Councilors just want the development. Urban versus suburban development.
Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said that she hears the frustration of residents but there are several projects in her ward that are underway and are affected by this ordinance. She says that she has not heard any objection to developing several large lots in her ward. “Whatever your motivation and your impetus is, I believe that the way that this was written is going to result in a level of cost to the people of Lakewood and to the community that is really irresponsible for us to allow to continue.”
Council Member Cruz pointed out that this is impacting affordable housing developers. Affordable housing developers include Metro West Housing (MWH). Cruz did not discuss the MWH attempt to put 44 units on 1.6 acres, without including enough parking or a wide street, let alone neighborhood parkland for these new residents.
Councilor Sinks clarified that there was not a ordinance rewrite. Councilor LaBure agreed, stating that this would not be a rewrite, but rather tweaking some words.
Willful Misinterpretation
Councilor Nystrom says there are inconsistencies and, in her opinion, inaccuracies around the way the new ordinance has been applied. She also pointed out that there are many positive emails from residents, it’s not all negative as the other Councilors state.
Nystrom’s comments hint that the ordinance interpretation may be being used as a political football. She is the only Councilor to bring up a contrarian view and sound supportive of the resident-sponsored initiative.
Normal City Council procedure requires Councilors to submit a Request for Council Action to start a discussion. In other governments, elected officials can introduce legislation and call for a vote. In Lakewood, instead of Council Members authoring legislation, they must gain agreement from a majority of Members to hold a study session to generate ideas. Alternatively, they can assign staff or a committee to find solutions.
No Time to Think It Through
City Attorney McKinney-Brown says this move is “unusual but nothing illegal.” City Council must work by passing ordinances. She continues, “If the City Council believes they have plenty of time to workshop this and think their way through it, then you can start from a, a less intensive jumping off place.”
Her statement seems to suggest that Council may be acting off gut reactions and hasty conclusions. However, Council Member Low “signaled” that a third reading may be used to add additional time due to the amount of public interest in the topic and Councilor Rein agreed.
Council voted unanimously for the motion to have a first reading January 27.
January 13, 2025, Lakewood City Council will vote in a new ordinance regulating metropolitan districts. The Denver Post has done deep investigations into metro districts, exposing them as mechanisms that bury taxpayers in debt with no accountability. Other cities are starting to pay attention and not allowing metro districts. Lakewood, on the other hand, is still supporting developer-sponsored metro districts. Staff has been bringing forward this ordinance since 2021 and backing down against resident pushback in Lakewood and across the state. Now the time has come.
The new ordinance has language attempting to fix some existing problems with metro districts. However, a city ordinance cannot fix the problems that exist within state law. Lakewood is passing the ordinance now to enable the developers of The Bend to apply for metro district status, which is anticipated in February.
Metro districts are critical for developers to make money from bonds without a vote from residents – because there are no residents to vote yet. Research shows this debt does not benefit residents.
“…developers issue a small tranche of debt on the bond market with unfavorable terms (above-market interest) and then buy the debt themselves so future homeowners will end up paying the developer for decades through their property taxes for a completely unnecessary load of bad debt.” -Denver Post
“Metro district financing is the opposite of affordable housing.” – Rooney Valley News
Will Lakewood have a “safe” metro district ordinance? Not if state law prevails. They can only make baby improvements.
“[metro districts] all lead to the same result – taxing residents without representation based upon single party agreements by a developer with a confessed conflict of interest to pay themselves profits by issuing taxes with no accountability for how the money is spent.” – Rooney Valley News
“…debt is often intentionally hidden and getting true control of metro districts can be hard if not impossible.” – Denver Post
For example, one of the improvements Lakewood attempts is to reveal home cost differentials showing that residents will not be over-paying for homes. Except there is no way to audit the costs, get company financials, or hold the developers accountable if they are overcharged.
“The Service Plan shall include a cost estimate of what an individual property within the District would cost an End-user with and without the establishment of the District.“ – proposed ordinance
Once the metro district status is granted, Lakewood has little authority to make sure the developer governs fairly, a point that several Council Members brought up in past meetings. As the quotes above show, metro districts are historically problematic and more expensive for the end-residents. Lakewood hopes it will be different this time.
“This time” includes The Bend development at 6th and Union. As of fall 2024, the developer anticipated applying for metro district status in February. Then they would have the advantages of being a government entity, while being blighted and thereby partially funded by Lakewood.
All opinions in this or any post are the personal opinions of the author
Votes seem cemented due to prior planning with developer
Property not blighted prior to sale
On January 22, 2025, the Lakewood Planning Commission will vote on designating a new development area as an Urban Renewal. This designation will allow the city to fund part of the development. The development in question is called “The Bend” and is located on what used to be the Denver Federal Center, southeast of the 6th and Union intersection. The property includes an ex-Superfund site that has not been remediated. However, the property was not blighted before the property sale, when all buyers could plan for city assistance. Instead, the area was deemed a prime location for commercial activity, according to comprehensive and special studies.
Site boundaries from the Union Blvd Corridor Plan, 2011, pg 2
Once again, Lakewood has contracted a study to prove to the residents that they have no choice except to do what is really a discretionary action. The study by Ricker Cunningham shows that “the survey concluded that nine (9) of the 11 total possible factors [for blight] are present at varying degrees of intensity, but all at levels considered adverse to properties, businesses, and persons living, working, and traveling through the area.”
The study is some research but more justification for what the city apparently wants to do. There is no explanation from anyone about why it wasn’t blighted anytime in the last 30-50 years since the site was decommissioned. An earlier designation would have created a more equal playing field for those bidding on the property, in the name of full disclosure. As it stands, it seems that one developer is getting a special deal.
The study even documents that the Planning Commission meeting is a foregone conclusion:
“… in addition to the public hearing (February 24, 2025), were scheduled, noticed, and conducted. Specifically, the Authority considered the Plan on XXXXXXX at a duly noticed meeting, and the Planning Commission reviewed the same on January 22, 2025, where they determined it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.“ – Study, pg 8
Jefferson County, City of Lakewood, Jefferson County School District R-1, West Metro Fire Protection District, and Mile High Flood District have already negotiated tax assessment and revenue agreements, prior to the public hearing.
“It is the intention of City Council in adopting this Urban Renewal Plan that the [Lakewood Reinvestment] Authority has available to it any and all powers authorized in the Act and considered necessary and appropriate to implement this Plan. Because powers conferred by the Act include facilitating the completion of improvements for which public money may be expended, the intentions of this Plan are considered to be in the public interest and a necessity, such finding being a matter of legislative determination by City Council with its adoption.” – Study, pg 9
Lakewood May Pay for Site De-Contamination
Is this prime location for commercial activity really an area of blight? Debatable since it is called both prime and deteriorated in city documents but without this blight designation, Lakewood cannot fund the development.
“Union Boulevard has grown over the years and has achieved recognition as a prime location for business” – Union Boulevard Corridor Plan
To qualify for a blight designation, the site has been deemed deteriorated. This property was a federal military site that contains a toxic landfill. The study says the city may pay for old infrastructure and decontamination. Is the city signing up to pay for environmental remediation? Or is that only useful for designation purposes. So far no one has suggested actually decontaminating the site. Instead, the proposal is silent with respect to current plans but in the past the intention was to build over the hard parts.
In the quote below, the bold is the blight condition, and the suggested city contribution follows.
“Deterioration of site or other improvements – removal of trash, remnant infrastructure, weeds, and contaminants;” – Study, pg 11
Many of the conditions of so-called “blight” mean that the property is undeveloped. For example, to read this report, any property without a water line, or a street without curbs should be blighted.
“Existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes – fire protection equipment, water lines, and storage facilities to ensure adequate flow;” – Study, pg 11
Since these are all conditions of an undeveloped property, and the developer bought the property knowing this and is now asking for the property to be blighted so the city can contribute, the question is: how much did the city promise the developer before purchase?
How much did the developer plan on receiving? Did they ever plan on doing this on their own?
The primary purpose of the plan is to allow the city to spend money
“the first objectives of any and all urban renewal plans is to provide the municipality with a workable program for expending available resources to mitigate and prevent the spread of blight, foster needed rehabilitation of improvements within designated locations, and advance community priorities expressed in adopted policy and planning documents.”- Study, pg 9
Contrary to what may sound like an innocuous renewal area recommendation, this is a major commitment to develop an environmentally sensitive area, with contentious high-density homes in an already congested traffic area.
The plan aims to “advance community priorities,” which is a very subjective statement. The plans refer to designs started in 2008. Think of how much traffic has increased since then. The 2017 traffic study says traffic allowances will be needed and makes several recommendations, see below, which the city will also pay for.
Current plans for the Union corridor are based on the layout of Portland, Oregon to increase density and walkability (see page 30). The new walkability plan completely rewrites the original city plan and block layout of a previous generation. The current plan also claims to be written for the next 50 years but is evidence that 50-year planning is difficult at best. This plan is a complete overhaul and urbanization of the Lakewood people here love.
Do residents want to partner with developers to build 2000 units near an unremediated toxic landfill?
The plan is to “use financial resources available to the [Lakewood Reinvestment] Authority for the express purpose of the same; and to actively promote and partner with private investment and reinvestment interests.” – Study, pg 10
The vote to approve the blight is January 22, 2025 with the Lakewood Planning Commission.
*All opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author