Lakewood

Lakewood Agrees to More Expensive Construction to Make Housing More Affordable

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 29, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged accessory-dwelling-units, adu, adus, Colorado, housing, Lakewood, news, real-estate

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

Will Lakewood Follow Denver into Lawsuits over Green Remodeling

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 7, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged climate-change, Colorado, energy, environment, Lakewood, news, sustainability

Denver and Colorado are being sued for rules on climate goals and greenhouse gas emission standards that the City of Lakewood is considering adopting. Denver and Colorado both approved a building performance standard that would force builders, landlords and homeowners to meet emission goals through green remodeling and electric appliance retrofits. Lakewood also has building performance standards through its Article 13. Lakewood takes four times as many climate mitigation and adoption steps as other cities, leading to Lakewood being named a leader in climate action. Lakewood is one of only 119 cities around globe to take steps like building standards. Rule 28 in Denver and Colorado goes even further by requiring “benchmarking” performance since 2021. Based on building performance, it is now time for required cuts, leading to a lawsuit by the Colorado Apartment Association, the Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association and others. The cuts will require costly remodeling. In August of 2023, Lakewood staff recommended the city join Denver and Colorado in the benchmarking program, described below, that only about 30 cities throughout the nation have adopted. However, these policies are not market-tested and they are extreme enough that Denver and Colorado are being sued. If Lakewood leadership adopts the additional staff recommendations, or agrees to recommendations from the LAC on Green Remodeling, the city may find also find itself in the news and in legal jeopardy. Colorado apartment landlords sue to block Denver, state greenhouse gas cuts that they find crushing State and local governments don’t have a right to require expensive renovations and appliance swaps to cut greenhouse gases, group suit says – by Michael Booth4:08 AM MDT on Apr 25, 2024 Is Being a Leader a Good Thing? In a “you say potato…” moment, the lawsuit in Denver shows that one person’s leader is another person’s extremist. Not everyone agrees that going where these climate policies lead is worth it. While the debate rages over climate science, policy makers rarely point out that there are two sides to the story, in order to promote their narrative. Climate policies have real-world economic consequences that could make housing even more expensive. Lakewood already has an Enhanced Development Menu that requires new development to meets a point scheme, based on the Menu options, that achieves climate goals of rolling back emissions in compliance with state goals. Development is thereby prohibited unless it meets climate goals. The policies Lakewood is currently advocating align with Colorado’s Rule 28 that monitors energy usage for buildings not already covered by the state. This process is called benchmarking, which Lakewood staff describe as “the regular monitoring and reporting of an individual building’s energy consumption to track changes over time and monitor progress towards increased efficiency and decreased GHG emissions.” While the process may sound routine and innocuous, this program must be put in place before the government can have access to private energy-use data. Once in place, the data can be used to set the bar and start imposing usage limits, incentives, conversions, etc. Lakewood is specifically talking about the switch from gas-powered to electrical tools and appliances. The Colorado and Denver rules currently only apply to commercial and multi-family units but the policy puts them to the left of cities like Boulder, as seen in the map below. In fact, Denver is second in the nation only to San Francisco. Being on the forefront of the climate change debate gets Denver in the news but it also attracts lawsuits. And Lakewood is recommending these same actions. Lakewood is taking things a step further and seeking similar solutions for residential homes, the details of which can be found at the city website, with more from the Lakewood Informer news site. Back in August, Lakewood staff were enthusiastic about Lakewood becoming another purple dot on the map below, which would show their leader/extremist tendencies, depending on your viewpoint. Will that change once the lawsuits start?

Give us your TABOR refunds, says Lakewood

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on April 28, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged city-council, Colorado, environment, infrastructure, Lakewood, news, sustainability

Guest Post by Alex Plotkin A city that for over a decade has not only refused to do economic development (in a true sense), but has lost jobs and is now planning to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize developers, under the guise of “economic development.” A city that, for over a decade, has done nothing to improve the path conditions along Alameda Avenue, in Ward 4. Nor have any improvements have been made to alleviate the traffic increases at Union and Alameda. To be fair, the city did spend an untold amount of money to add “roundabouts” on Green Mountain Drive. Perfectly placed to create a road hazard with any amount of snow. A city that has been lecturing the citizens about how the citizens should be planting trees, to cool the city, you know? The same city that is now allowing an-out-of-state developer to destroy a much-beloved park at Belmar, while chopping down dozens of decades-old trees. A city where for years now the recreational fields at Carmody Park are in an awful shape. Fields where parents actually pay a fee to have their children play. They “fixed it” this year: And this is a park that has favorable political sunshine on it. A city, where instead of maintaining the hiking and biking trails damaged by runoff, a sign is placed, telling you to be careful. You should see what the head of parks gets paid, though. A city, where the City Council goes in to executive sessions, to decide on even more perks for a City Manager, while the needs of thousands of residents are ignored and the city is millions over budget: A city, where the citizens are lectured about how they should not be driving, to save the environment and stuff. While the city has failed to champion any sort of real economic development, so that thousands of people would not have to drive out of the city for work. A city, where the citizens are told not to drive, while the aforementioned City Manager gets paid for mileage, just to go to work. A City Manager that lives in the city. Gets paid to drive to work. Do you? Here is an exert from City Manager’s contract: The taxpayers, it seems also get to pay for the privilege of the department heads using the medical benefits, after they leave. Do you get a perk such as that with your employer? The City Manager also has a retirement perk that seems more geared for a CEO than a “public servant”. In just one year, the city spends about $100,000,000 just on staff alone. To be fair, some of that is police, which the city’s council has been hamstringing from even enforcing the laws that exist. Here are the compensation numbers, just for the “department heads” (as of two years ago – you may want to see the updated ones for 2024): As you walk around the neglected parks and drive on Kipling where the road surface has been in need of repair for years and most of the lights are out on some of the sections, may be think about asking the city what has it done with the tens of millions it receives every year, before even getting to the TABOR refunds? Perhaps start off by looking at the expenditure trends of the planning and city manager’s departments? So when Lakewood asks for your TABOR refund (for parks and police of course), ask the city – why are millions spent on just the planning and the city manager’s offices alone and why is the city millions over budget every year? The cuts should have happened years ago, with money saved then be used for the parks, police, economic development and road and infrastructure maintenance. But, instead, the city is now spending thousands of dollars of your money for marketing research to see how to manipulate the residents in to allowing the city to keep millions more from the TABOR-mandated refunds.

Lakewood’s Slippery Slope of Not Prosecuting Crime

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on April 22, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged Crime, criminal-law, Lakewood, politics, prosecution

Guest Post by Chuck Bedard Lakewood citizens are becoming increasingly frustrated over the amount of shoplifting, vandalism, and “less important” crimes that are not being pursued by the police. And rightfully so! Not long ago, my wife and I watched a man, pushing a shopping cart full of items at Home Depot, breeze through the self-checkout area – bypassing the opportunity to pay for the items – and head to the parking lot. We looked at the cashier/attendant with stunned expressions on our faces, as we watched the Home Depot personnel do nothing. Her response was, “The police won’t do anything, so we just let them go.” For a fleeting moment, I thought about canceling my purchase and just loading the items in the cart and heading to my car… Remember, I said “for a fleeting moment.” I wonder if I would have been treated in the same manner as the thief who had the shopping cart full of items. Chances are good that Home Depot would have alerted the police if I tried to steal the same merchandise. If I had been pursued by the police and the other person wasn’t, it would be a case of “Selective Prosecution.” Selective prosecution should be distinguished from “Prosecutorial Discretion.” Historically, prosecutors have had broad discretion to pursue those cases where the facts support a conviction and elect not to pursue matters where the facts are less clear. However, as we read the news the lines between “Prosecutorial Discretion” and “Selective Prosecution” have become blurred – perhaps intentionally. “Prosecutorial Discretion” has been in the news recently when a federal prosecutor elected not to charge Mr. X in a matter relating to stolen classified documents. Mr. X kept those documents in his garage next to his Corvette. In electing not to indict Mr. X, the prosecutor noted that he was an elderly man with a poor memory and those facts made it problematic in obtaining a conviction. Many legal authorities believed this prosecutor’s decision was far more political than legal, thereby removing this case as a matter of traditional and historical “prosecutorial discretion.” After all, the prosecutor had the individual “dead to right.” The facts were indisputable. In reality, the results of this case amounted to “Selective Prosecution” rather than “Prosecutorial Discretion.” Don’t think for a minute that you or I would not be indicted if Top Secret documents were found in your garage next to your Ford station wagon… even if we were old and had a poor memory. The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals. Therein lies a big problem for the City of Lakewood (or any municipality). The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals. The City seems to rely on some form of “prosecutorial discretion” for its diversionary programs that elect not to charge certain classes of individuals with crimes even though the facts of the crime are indisputable. Or, in the alternative, dismissing or reducing charges for those classes of individuals. In reality, it is “Selective Prosecution,” and it is only a matter of time before Lakewood citizens decide they are fed up with being treated this way. Based on current practices ANYONE can load up their cart at any store, and exit the store with the cash still in their pockets, knowing they won’t be prosecuted. In other words, in the Home Depot scenario above, if the police elected not to charge the vagrant pushing the cart full of stolen property out of the Home Depot store, they cannot charge anyone pursuing the same activities. To do otherwise is “selective prosecution” which the courts have said violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. (The 14th Amendment is often referred to as the Equal Protection Clause.) Some might suggest that a law that isn’t enforced should be removed from the books, or in the alternative, in the case of shoplifting, making it legal if it is under a certain dollar threshold. The “theory” is that people who need items like food to survive would have this resource. There again, legal authorities have said that you cannot prosecute only certain classes of people. If a vagrant can’t or won’t be charged then no one can be charged. That is the essence of the prohibition of “selective prosecution.” Lakewood City Council seems to think that shoplifting by anyone who can say they need the items for food to survive, should not be prosecuted. Likewise, other “low-level” crimes like panhandling/washing your window at the stop light, and public urination/defecation are not worthy of attention by the police. But remember City of Lakewood – if you allow one group to get away with something, you must allow all. Most honorable citizens believe that all crimes should be pursued and pursued equally. As parents, we know that if you don’t enforce the small stuff, it becomes impossible to enforce the big stuff. This isn’t rocket science but it is a matter of fair treatment of all citizens and all businesses. If everyone started pushing their shopping carts out of Home Depot, King Soopers, or Walmart, without paying, those stores would be closed and Lakewood’s tax revenue would be in the toilet. Reader Recommended Business: Gabriela Couture

Secret Plans for Emory Elementary

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on April 18, 2024Posted in Development, HomelessTagged city-council, Colorado, Lakewood, migrants, news, real-estate, realtor, schools

New information shows that Lakewood has been planning on purchasing Emory Elementary, in partnership with the Action Center, since at least September 2023 as part of a homeless strategy. In December of 2023, Lakewood City Manager Cathy Hodgson stated that Lakewood would be working with the Jeffco Action Center to move the Center into a closed public school so that Lakewood would have another building for their solution to homelessness. There was a strong, negative public reaction to this news, which only increased when Lakewood started talking about welcoming migrants. In reaction to the public backlash, the city cried “misinformation”, and both Hodgson and Mayor Strom stated that Lakewood has no direct control over the schools. However, Hodgson did not explicitly deny that Lakewood has been working with the Action Center and Jeffco schools to move homeless services into a closed neighborhood school and increase housing for homeless. Instead, the manager or council called it “misinformation” in the news headlines, a statement solely aimed at migrant support (this claim was later also negated by discussions that homeless is homeless and Lakewood would support everyone possible.) Recently a local effort called Concerned Citizens in Lakewood, concernedcitizensinlakewood@gmail.com, submitted a CORA Request (Colorado Open Records Access request) which revealed planning meetings with the City of Lakewood, JeffCo Public Schools, and the JeffCo Action Center related to Emory Elementary School and a real estate transaction. These planning meetings have been going on since at least September 2023. According to emails, Lakewood’s City Manager Hodgson hosted an organizational meeting between Lakewood, the Action Center Executive Director Pam Brier and Jeff Gaitlin, Jefferson County School’s Chief Operating Officer. The email pictured below reveals that Lakewood and Jeffco Schools have held behind-the-scenes planning meetings for this school, while officials from both governments denied or stayed silent regarding any knowledge of future plans. The email appears to indicate that the purpose of this meeting was to define next steps on the partnership to buy Emory Elementary. Not only do the emails show the partnership being formed months ago, they show the plans were detailed enough to involve future meetings with real estate agents and school board attorneys. Notable in this email was that commercial real estate agents may not be needed. This was not the public process with ample notice the school board advertised. Gaitlin, from Jeffco Schools, said in February that Lakewood was in the early stages of using the municipal option. The municipal option seems to have come into being just for Lakewood, since it was unveiled just after Hodgson announced the plans for the school. Using the municipal option, no community involvement is necessary, and the city could get the property at a discount. There is no municipal option for a non-profit and there is no information on how the Action Center could afford to buy the property directly, although recent evidence shows there is ample money in grants from the state to provide housing. Officials from all organizations have had months to tell the public that these plans were being formed and to explain the public good they expected to achieve. Instead, they chose silence and a “misinformation” campaign. There has been no public disclosure of what the city and or the Action Center plans to do with the building, should the deal go through. There has been no public disclosure of any possible agreements Lakewood has with the Action Center in order to use the municipal option for the benefit of the non-profit. City Councilor Rich Olver explained in one Council meeting that he was told that Lakewood just wanted the use of the ballparks, they were not interested in the school building. He stated that by talking to city staff he believed Lakewood had no intention of buying Emory Elementary building. This statement, unfortunately, does not seem to be accurate or else Lakewood would not have to be involved with a meeting between Jeffco Schools and the Action Center, let alone hosting such a meeting. So even sitting City Council Members are not getting the whole story from the City Manager. Paying close attention to wording, all parties could be honestly portraying the information they want to portray: The Action Center has not replied to several requests for comment. Lakewood and Jeffco schools have gone out of their way to not talk about their plans when the opportunity arose. When will residents know what is going on with their taxpayer-funded infrastructure? As of April 11, the School Board voted to dispose of two more Lakewood elementary schools: Glennon Heights Elementary & Vivian Elementary. To receive JeffCo Public Schools updates on these and other school properties sign up on Jeffco’s Property Disposition Work: Community Distribution List & Jeffco Public Schools: Property Disposition Community Voice Form

Lakewood Supports City Planners Over Residents

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on March 28, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged affordable-housing, environment, Lakewood, news, politics, water

The development at 777 S Yarrow St, Lakewood, Colorado, has brought residents concerns over development to the forefront. Despite having ordinances and zoning codes, residents have identified concerns with traffic impacts, wildfire and emergency response, the loss of trees and questionable park fee implementations. Residents continue to act for this cause, at SaveBelmarPark.com, and there has been rumors of possible legal action. However, if Colorado House Bill 1107 gets passed, residents will have an even more difficult time bringing legal action against the city, because they will face legal fees if they lose the case. The bill is meant to decrease suits from residents, who don’t understand that the city has done research to show that the city is right, and therefore, resident concerns are generally unfounded and possibly frivolous. The Lakewood Legislative Committee, has taken a support position on this bill, meaning they support making it harder for residents to bring legal action against the city. This position provides an insight as to why so many resident complaints, like those of hundreds of people against the S Yarrow St development, are often given lip-service or outright ignored. The issue highlights an important dichotomy in government. Technically, in a representative democracy, the residents should be telling elected officials what they want in terms of legislation. The elected officials then vote on a policy and the city staff will implement it. But what happens when politicians use targeted words to get a policy through that means something other than what people think? What happens when words from last year can be reinterpreted to mean something different this year, so that policy can change without so much as a public discussion? These are the questions that residents ask when looking at the rules for developing S Yarrow St. How is it possible that a little street with a small building footprint can have no negative impact to traffic if you change it to high-density residential an add an extra couple hundred cars? Aren’t there rules to maintain a neighborhood in similar fashion? In Colorado Springs, residents have found the answer in taking legal action against the city. Springs residents’ often cite the same problems – and developers are tired of it. According to this article in The Gazette, developers cite the need for more housing while residents cite safety concerns. Reading this article, where they talk about the 7-story complexes going in that are causing traffic concerns for the residents, you may think you are reading about Lakewood. City Has the Experts Lakewood will often require a traffic impact study, or environmental study when necessary. This expert testimony is the basis for approving projects. As one quote from the Gazette article stated, “”When [neighborhoods] fight these projects, they are not agreeing with the experts. They are deciding for themselves that it’s not safe.” “In recent years, numerous political theorists and philosophers have argued that experts ought to be in charge of public policy and should manipulate, or contain, the policy preferences of the ignorant masses.” – Nicholas Tampio, aeon.co It is rare that cities will change their mind on project approval. Residents concerned with 777 S Yarrow have been told for months that nothing substantial can be done. So legal action brought by residents will typically delay a project, but will not cause any particular change. To limit these delays, developers and cities need a way to stop residents from pursuing legal action. One way to achieve that is through HB24-1107 which proposes that residents who legally challenge the city will have to pay legal fees if they lose. Passing HB24-1107 is sure to discourage residents, who already have less financial and legal resources than the city or developers they are facing. Lakewood Council Member David Rein pointed out that this legislation is very one sided because developers are still free to bring legal action with no increased risk to themselves, which will not be the case for the residents. However, with his “city hat” on, Rein supports the legislation. Councilor Glenda Sinks said that Lakewood should support this bill because it’s a way to support staff. No one publicly considered the increase in legal action as a cry for help from the residents, who have presumably asked for the ordinances to be enforced in the way residents commonly understood they would be (for example, open space would be park space, not including dumpster space.) Unanimous approval from the Legislative Committee: Council Members Sinks , Cruz, Stewart, Rein, LaBure (absent) Legislative positions are not posted anywhere or shared unless there is a “strong” position. But this signals to the residents that Lakewood considers resident appeals to be generally not worthy of support.

A Look at Crime Statistics in Lakewood

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on March 15, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged community, Crime, Lakewood, law, news, police, politics

Guest post from Bill Foshag During public comments at the February 26th Lakewood City Council meeting, Tom Gonzales, a Lakewood resident remarked that he was told by Lakewood Police Department (“LPD”) officers there was nothing they could do about the panhandling (window washers) on street corners – that the police “were handcuffed”. Later, Councilman Rich Olver posed a question based on these remarks to Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein – is it true that our officers are “handcuffed” or is there something they could do about panhandling on street corners? Mr. Goldstein answered that it depends on the circumstances (what safety issues are at play), that it’s a matter of resources (not having enough staff), and that “it is a complex issue”. Mr. Goldstein suggested that LPD could put together a report for Council that would address the issue. Under Lakewood Municipal Code 12.18.020, it would seem that window washing would be clearly prohibited: A. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind, or collect monies for the same, from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any street or highway when such solicitation or collection: 1. Causes the person performing the activity to enter onto the traveled portion of a street or highway; 2. Involves the person performing the activity to be located upon any median area which separates traffic lanes for vehicular travel in opposite directions; 3. Causes the traffic on the traveled portion of a street or highway to be delayed or impeded; or 4. The person performing the activity is located such that vehicles cannot move into a legal parking area to safely conduct the transaction B. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or attempt to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any controlled-access highway including any entrance to or exit from such highway. Why certain city codes are not being enforced is perplexing. Seeing window washers at Alameda and Wadsworth at mid-day, walking between the lanes of traffic and between cars while trying to return to the median when the light turns green is clearly not safe for those individuals or for the drivers who have to maneuver their cars to avoid hitting them. Common sense would dictate that it would not be difficult for an officer witnessing this activity to pull over and issue a citation – there should be nothing “complex” about this. This is not the fault of the officers, who are employed to serve the citizens of Lakewood, and put their lives on the line for us every day. They follow the instructions they are given by their managers and whatever guidelines the City has adopted concerning law enforcement. It appears that a decision has been made by someone in a leadership position within the city that certain laws will not be enforced. Reviewing the numbers A review of crime figures in Lakewood might help shed a little light on what seems to be happening. Lakewood publishes a couple of reports containing crime statistics each year, a Chief’s Report and a LPD Annual Report. Looking at these reports for the reporting years of 2019 thru 2022 (the latest year available), the reports typically include the number of criminal offenses for the report year, plus the figures for a couple of previous years for comparison. However, the crimes that are reported each year are not always the same. An example being the 2018 and 2019 LPD Annual reports do not include a number of property crimes (mostly fraud and some theft related crimes) that are included in reports for 2020 and later. There are also some unexplained differences in the annual totals that are reported. For instance, crimes for the year 2019 total 12,127 in the 2021 LPD Annual Report, 12,299 in the 2020 report, 11,877, in the 2019 report. Some of these differences may be due to newer reporting standards. Most law enforcement agencies across the US report crimes to the FBI using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which succeeds and expands on the earlier Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system that dates back to the 1920’s. However, not all agencies in the US report to NIBRS, as some have incomplete historical data and others are still working to convert their UCR data to NIBRS. Crime data thru 2023 for Lakewood is in NIBRS, but Lakewood yet to publish their LPD Annual Report for 2023. NIBRS breaks crimes in to two major groups, Group A Offenses and Group B Offenses. Group A Offenses, generally considered more serious offenses, are further broken down and grouped as Crimes Against Persons, Crimes Against Property, and Crimes Against Society. Group B Offenses are generally less serious offenses and include trespassing, disorderly conduct, DUI, liquor violations, and “other offenses”. Group B Offenses report actual arrests, whereas Group A Offenses only reflect the report of a crime whether or not an arrest is made. The NIBRS data lends itself better to analysis as it is more detailed, complete, and consistent compared to the data that is in the LPD Annual Reports and the Chief’s Reports. The NIBRS figures show normal fluctuations in reported offense totals from year to year. Three-year averaging was used to remove some of the statistical noise and establish a longer term trend. Looking at average number of crimes reported for 2017 thru 2019, compared to 2021 thru 2023, the NIBRS data is showing an overall increase of 13.5% in Group A Offenses. This includes in a 9.4% increase in Crimes Against Persons, a 12.4% increase in Crimes Against Property, and a 23.5% increase in Crimes Against Society. Some of the offenses that are driving this increase include assaults, car (and car parts) theft, and destruction of property. What Lakewood is not reporting Within Group A Offenses, reported incidences of Crimes Against Society (mostly including drug and weapon related violations) increased from 2,475 to 3,056 (+23.5%) on average for

An Opportunity to Connect Newcomers with Housing

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on March 11, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged illegal-immigrant, Lakewood, landlord, tenant

Guest Post from a Lakewood Resident and former Denver Landlord This activity by Denver City/County needs be known by all. Whatever your perspective or opinion, you should at least be aware of what city governments are now doing in general, the new vocabulary by which they are now framing it, and with information they demand of you. Specifically by Denver….. Below is an actual email received by a Denver landlord with an active Single Family Home listing. Receipt of this letter from the City/Cty of Denver represents them trolling active rental listings (even long-term rental landlords in Denver now must be licensed, in case you did not know), & applicants for long-term rentals. The subject line of the email from the City and County of Denver is: “An Opportunity to Connect NEWCOMERS* with Housing”* For as long as I have ever been alive, a property owner or landlord could face legal consequences if they ever leased to an undocumented foreigner– someone without a green card or legal residency status. In Denver itself, specific neighborhoods have been harmed by those who rented as 2-4 people then brought 10,11, 12+ illegals in to live in one 1-2 br home. Now it seems, Denver City/County are going the opposite direction. Denver is actually encouraging a type of discrimination against locals by asking landlords/property owners to rent instead to ‘newcomers’. (the new nomenclature*). Already in short-supply, especially at the lower end of the rate spectrum, this effectively takes away long-term rentals from local workers and citizens. Remember, not too long ago Denver decided that anyone renting residentially in Denver must REGISTER. So, all Denver landlords are now required to get licenses, identifying themselves, providing all sorts of detailed info. One realtor told me it took four hours to comply with this bureaucracy. Now, Denver is using the info gathered from those registrations and ´asking’ landlords of the most affordable housing available (already in short supply) to lease to illegals with no docs—oops, I mean ‘newcomers’. The property owner has NO ability to know the background of such persons as they would per standard practices, have no way of being assured such persons are not criminals, violent, drug runners, terrorists or simply don’t have a bad rental history. The ‘newcomers’ on the other hand know there are no consequences for any damages they cause the landlord. Of concern aka Shortsighted ‘feelgood’ decisions by Denver City Council: Does this relate to Lakewood? One cannot but wonder, observing current Lakewood council comments and recent decisions, is Lakewood next to adopt this Denver behavior? Such would be no surprise, would it? The letter evokes the same tone that Lakewood City Manager Hodgson brought back from her meeting with Denver city/Adam Paul about Lakewood being a welcoming and a good neighbor. Such desire was loudly echoed by most of the current Council. *File this under FROG IN THE POT syndrome. The no longer allowed vocabulary of “Illegal Aliens” became “Aliens” became “Undocumented Residents/Persons” became “Immigrants” (an insult to those who followed the rules), this year became “Migrants” (an insult to much needed legal migrant workers and farmers growing our food) and is now being presented as ‘newcomers’—most likely so they can deny and accuse if we share their actions publicly. “When you take from legal, taxpaying, working citizens, themselves stressed financially, to give to those who do not respect the rule of law and live off those working citizens of that community against whom you are discriminating, you create prejudice, discord and ultimately violence from both sides.” THE LETTER DENVER CITY/COUNTY IS SENDING TO LANDLORDS: Subject: An opportunity to connect newcomers with housing March 5, 2024 Dear stakeholders in our local residential rental property industry, You are receiving this email because you have an active or pending residential rental property license with the City and County of Denver. The City and County of Denver has long prided itself on being a welcoming city, coming together and supporting one another in times of crises, and supporting each other as much as needed. With almost 40,000 migrants arriving in the Mile High City since 2022, the city’s ongoing efforts include working closely with the community to find solutions that would more efficiently and effectively support our newcomers. To this end, we are working to assess how many licensed rental property owners and those with pending applications are interested in assisting the city in connecting newcomers with stable housing. Read the whole letter here

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

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on February 27, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged city-council, Colorado, election, government, housing, Lakewood, politics

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

A Poisoned Pill Passed: The Strategic Housing Plan

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on February 19, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged city-council, Colorado, Homeless, housing, Lakewood, news, zoning

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