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 alocal effort called Concerned Citizens in Lakewood, [email protected], 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:
Lakewood has no interest in the Emory Elementary building – but the Action Center does
Lakewood has no direct control over the school – unless they buy it
There is a public input period in the school disposal process – unless the municipal option is taken
Plans are not definite – but they are far enough along that at this point, trying to stop it is difficult since minds have been made up for months
Lakewood will not be housing people in the school – no, at that point it would be the Action Center, if they so choose. At the minimum they would continue with homeless services.
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?
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.
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 the 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 reporting periods respectively. Crimes Against Society figures are not included in the LPD Annual Reports.
The LPD Annual Report also excludes the less serious Group B Offenses. NIBRS figures show a decrease in Group B Offenses of 44.6% when comparing 2021-2023 to the 2017-2019 averages. The Group B Offenses contributing to this reduction are disorderly conduct (-53.0%), DUI (-15.5%), liquor law violations (-77.6%), trespassing (-14.7%), and “all other offenses” (-47.7%). The bulk of the drop in reported offenses occurred between 2019 and 2020, when total reported Group B Offenses dropped from 4,673 to 3,220. Since Group B Offenses reflect actual arrests, these figures can be viewed as actual drops in arrests.
Total incidence reports in the Crimes and Group B Offenses that are not reported in the LPD Annual Report vary from year to year, but in general amount to approximately 30% of the total crimes (Group A and Group B combined) in the NIBRS figures.
Incidences of total combined Group A and B Offenses averaged over 2017-2018 and 2022-2023 are virtually the same. This is because the increase in reported Group A Offenses is offset by the reduction in reported Group B Offenses.
One other statistic Lakewood does not include in their LPD Annual Reports are arrest numbers. Using the same 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 averaging periods, we see that arrests for Group A Offenses dropped by 12.1% (recall that these reported offenses increased 13.5 in this same period). Arrests for both Group A and B Offenses for this same period are down 29.3%, in large part due to the drop in Group B Offenses (which require an arrest).
One would generally think that crime trends would move in the same direction – if Group A Offenses increase then so should Group B Offenses. It is possible that LPD is not focusing as much on the less serious Group B Offenses (as seen in the larger drop in Group B Offense arrests). If this is the case, there may be a perception amongst criminals that if lesser crimes are not being enforced they can get away with committing serious crimes. That would possibly account for the increase in reported Group A Offenses. It is also possible that people involved in certain Group B Offenses are more likely to be diverted to various social programs addressing mental health, addiction, or homelessness issues, and those incidences are not being reported as crimes (but this would not necessarily account for the increase in Group A Offenses).
A sense of resignation
In a posting on the City of Lakewood’s website from February 2022, there is a comment attributed to a Lakewood Police sergeant concerning law enforcement in the city:
“Let’s be honest. If they (criminals) have had 30 tickets for shoplifting, trespassing, drinking in public, do we really think that the 31st ticket is going to be that magical step that solves the problem?… We recognize that is probably not the case. That’s why the city and our chief of police recognize the importance of trying new things, not being afraid to step out and say, ‘This isn’t working. The status quo is not working. Let’s try something new’.”
The tone of this remark reflects a sense of resignation on the part of Lakewood and LPD to enforce laws. The problem in this statement is, if someone has 30 outstanding tickets, they obviously are not being held accountable for their offenses. The problem is not that the tickets are not being paid. The problem is that laws are not being enforced. In cases of habitual offenders, they need to be put in jail until they can be brought before a judge.
In July of 2021, Lakewood adopted the LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or alternatively, Let Everyone Advance with Dignity) to assist people with “unmet mental needs, addiction and homelessness”. Instead of charging individuals identified as candidates for the LEAD program with certain crimes, they are diverted to social programs to address the issues they are struggling with in hopes they will recover and return to society, not to be repeat offenders. LEAD has been adopted by several other Colorado communities, as well as several large cities including Seattle, Portland, and Baltimore. The LEAD Support Bureau, which advises Lakewood in this program, and their affiliate P.D.A. (Purpose. Dignity. Action., formerly Public Defender Association of Seattle), are a group of people with background experience such as include public defenders and social justice activists. It is important to understand that the national LEAD program is run by advocates for criminals and they actively seek to divert people involved in certain crimes into social programs and away from the criminal justice system. It is possible that the drop in reported Crimes Against Society and Group B Offenses is in part due to persons being diverted via the LEAD initiative rather than being charged with a crime.
What others are doing about crime
Some cities struggling with severe social and criminal problems are finally starting to take action by getting tough on crime. In San Francisco, residents recently approved Proposition F which requires drug testing for locally-funded welfare recipients. They also approved Proposition E, which eases restrictions on the police and allows stepped-up enforcement actions to reduce crime. The Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, has ordered the National Guard to the subway system in New York City to combat an uptick in crime. Washington D.C. recently passed the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, which makes certain crimes easier to prosecute and steps up punishment guidelines. Leaders are beginning to see the failure of go-soft-on-crime policies and are finally responding to the cries of their constituents by taking a harder stance on crime.
Expectations and Accountability
Considering other cities have abandoned their years-long soft-on-crime policies, we should not expect to go soft on crime in Lakewood in hopes of success where others have failed. Laws are put in place to protect us and our property. When laws are not enforced we are no longer safe and secure in our communities. These are some expectations that we should adopt to ensure the leaders within the City of Lakewood are accountable for their policies and focused on keeping our community safe:
Lakewood residents have a right to know, and need to know, how laws are being enforced in the city. We clearly have ordinances against street-side panhandling that are not being enforced. The City needs share the news and let us know who is making the decisions which laws are enforced and which ones are not enforced.
The LPD Annual Reports should be complete and consistent year to year. A good standard for reporting would be the NIBRS categorization with annual crime figures from all Group A and B offenses.
The City needs to explain why they believe a group that has roots in defending criminals and social justice should be advising Lakewood on how to handle crime in our community especially in light of other cities having failed undertaking similar soft-on-crime policies.
The City needs to be forthright with us concerning which violations are turned over to social services (diverted via LEAD protocols, referrals to the Navigation Center, etc.), and how the determination is made to divert versus prosecute. Annual figures for offenses that are deferred can be included in the LPD Annual Report.
For offenders who are diverted into social help programs, tough standards and accountability expectations within these programs need to be met. If the individuals fail to meet their requirements, they need to be held accountable for their offenses within the justice system.
We should expect LPD fully complies with ICE detainer requests.
We need to know if the City has the resources (staffing, equipment, etc.) to sufficiently enforce ordinances. If we don’t have the necessary resources, the City needs to actively secure what is needed to protect the citizens of our community.
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:
As the recipient of this letter asked, “Is the next step to make leasing to ‘newcomers’ mandatory” ?
Does Denver NOT see the supreme irony & hypocrisy here? American property owners must register all sorts of personal information, be on the record with government entities and pay for licenses just to let out their residential property (long-term), so that the city can use that info to troll them to request that they lease to people with absolutely NO LEGAL DOCUMENTATION or BACKGROUND CHECKS, no legal residency status, perhaps no income and cannot be background checked once the city/state creates documents for them! Local taxpayers/citizens must be background checked, registered, screened, pay, to lease to foreigners who have no background checks, no screening, no financial qualifications. Would you call that irony or hypocrisy—or maybe just cognitive dissonance?
Who pays if the illegal parties that move in damage the property, move additional unknown people in, perhaps over the safe occupancy limit, conduct illegal activities in the unit, cause a landlord to be cited and/or sued by anyone for what these undocumented, non-background checked newcomers do?
This takes away what little affordable housing remains from legal residents, legal immigrants and USA citizens.
This will LEAD TO FURTHER and PERMANENT LOSS of residential rental inventory managed by independent, local, mom+pop Landlords, resulting in a long-term impact of even higher rent rates upon the very people that are struggling most. Already, independent landlords who remain in Denver despite recent encroachments on their rights, are talking about divesting/selling off their properties, never again to invest under all the risks this Denver initiated behavior brings with it.
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.
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 residents really want more high-density housing? The plan also states “the city could deploy local funds to supplement down payment assistance programs”. City Council needs to consider that someone needing a subsidy for a down payment may not have sufficient income to support the mortgage, and perhaps those funds would be better used to subsidize rent until the individual can afford the down payment and mortgage (while home ownership and building equity, is a generally a good thing, it may not be the best solution for everyone). We should also consider what kind of housing do we want – how do we arrive at a comfortable balance of rental units versus privately owned condos/townhomes and houses?
To what extent should governments be subsidizing housing in Lakewood? Are there any instances that demonstrate that government subsidies have actually decreased the cost of anything, or do government funded subsidies actually increase costs for everybody? These are some questions that community members raised that City Council has not yet fully addressed. More community input and participation from neighborhood associations is necessary before moving forward with the housing plan.
Navigation Center
The second major news topic discussed at the February 12th City Council meeting concerns accepting and moving forward with the $9.5 million funding to purchase, renovate, and operate a Navigation Center on West Colfax. The funding in large part comes from a DOLA grant, with a smaller amount funded from other sources. According to Lakewood’s website, “the city will serve as a pass-through agency for this grant to allow RecoveryWorks to provide increased and immediate access to services for those without stable housing in a central location at 8000 W. Colfax Ave.” RecoveryWorks was founded in 2019 and had been operating for a couple of years at 7011 West Colfax before moving to the 8000 West Colfax location late last year. According to RecoveryWorks website, “we provide and facilitate access to comprehensive and integrated medical respite, recovery, housing and employment services for those who have few or no resources”. James Ginsburg, executive director of RecoveryWorks, was present at the City Council meeting and provided additional information about the center and how the funds from the grant will be spent. According to Mr. Ginsburg, approximately $5 million of the grant will go towards the purchase of the building at 8000 West Colfax, Lakewood, Colorado (currently, the space is being rented). An additional $4 million of the grant will go towards significant rehab of the building, including building out office space, and adding shower and restroom facilities. He also mentioned the facility would ideally provide 100 beds as a 24/7 transitional housing shelter, with no time limits on how long those being sheltered could remain at the facility. Annual operating expenses are estimated to be in the $2 million range. Responding to comments from a council member, Mr. Ginsburg said that the target groups for the center are the elderly, veterans, disabled, and the medically frail. In addressing the concerns that migrants will take advantage of the facility, he stated that of the 350 individuals they have served in the last 2-1/2 years, only 9 have identified themselves as immigrants, and they were referred to immigration services. He also commented that 95% of the people they serve are Jefferson County residents, and 80% grew up in Lakewood.
Resident comment on the navigation center
A number of citizens came forward during public comment with questions and concerns they feel have not been addressed by City Council on this ordinance. Many remarked the city should be spending funds on what they see as more pressing needs. They said that the services in Lakewood are already stretched thin and the city should not be taking on more obligations, but needs to focus first of those in need already in Lakewood, particularly the elderly, poor, and veterans. Others expressed fears the Navigation Center would become a magnet for other municipalities, including Denver, to send people in need from their communities. Several others suggested the police department needs to strengthened, and focus on enforcing existing ordinances, particularly laws dealing with vagrancy, sex and drug trafficking, street side soliciting (panhandling), and compliance with Federal ICE protocols. Concerns about personal safety and a general feeling of lawlessness in the city were expressed by a couple of residents. One person mentioned cost overruns at other similar service centers that were in the news and questioned how Lakewood would be able to handle such a situation if and when it arises here. Another resident suggested RecoveryWorks be accountable to the City, providing information on success rates on substance abuse recovery and getting people placed in permanent housing. Most of these pressing concerns were not addressed during City Council’s discussion following public comment.
The role of other governments
During City Council’s discussion, there were some brief mentions of other municipalities (Jefferson County and some neighboring cities) providing support for the annual operating expense of the Navigation Center if they refer their residents to Lakewood. There was no additional discussion at the meeting on details of any cost sharing proposals. Because it was briefly mentioned (and in the context in which it was mentioned), this is something that apparently has been previously discussed among City Council members and others. Lakewood needs to know what to expect in terms of people coming in from outside of Lakewood seeking services provided by the Navigation Center. Are they residents of Arvada, Littleton, unincorporated Jefferson County, or elsewhere? What kind of services will they be seeking at the Navigation Center in Lakewood – mental health, addiction recovery, housing assistance, or something else? How much will the referring municipalities reimburse the city for the cost of the people they send here? These are questions that should have been addressed and answered before moving forward with accepting the DOLA grant.
Is there a pattern of success?
The question of efficacy is essential to understanding the degree of success of any program like what the Navigation Center is undertaking. Some additional questions to help with this are “what are the success rates of other similar programs in similar metropolitan areas” and “where have programs like this succeeded (and failed) in the past, and why”. Programs in cities like San Francisco, Portland, Baltimore, and elsewhere, have not been successful and those cities are now struggling with serious homeless and substance addition issues. We would not want to model our programs based on programs that have not worked in other cities. City Council should ensure the RecoveryWorks program is actually following the pattern of successful programs and is achieving its goal of preventing homelessness and getting people into stable and permanent housing. Progress should be monitored at least quarterly and reviewed to see if changes are necessary to improve efficacy. Residents should be informed of the success rates quarterly and apprised major changes to the program that would affect the city or the communities in the vicinity of the facility.
Not a solution, only a first step
One other comment Mr. Ginsburg made which was repeated by a supporter during the public comments, was that the Navigation Center is not a solution to the city’s housing problems, but only a first step. Obviously, the challenges of homelessness, substance addiction, physical and mental health currently facing Lakewood are complex, and will require more resources than the Navigation Center can currently provide. A couple of residents touched on this in their public comments. The concern here is if the Navigation Center is only a stepping stone to solving the housing problem in Lakewood, what is the solution (or what are the solutions)? Is City Council planning to expand the Navigation Center in the future? Is City Council planning to bring in other programs and organizations to supplement the work of RecoveryWorks? To arrive at a final solution for homelessness, what will the impact be on our neighborhoods, what will the costs be, and where will the funding come from? The Strategic Housing Plan does not address problems of substance abuse and mental illness, both of which impact Lakewood’s housing needs. So simply following the Strategic Housing Plan is not sufficient to fill in the gaps to eliminate the housing problem – something more is still needed. City Council will need to address this and let the community know what their plan is and ease the concerns of residents and assure us they are moving the right direction.
Were existing non-profits considered?
During the public comments and the discussions of the City Council members during the meeting, a number of other non-profit organizations operating within Lakewood were named. These include the Jeffco Action Center, Jefferson Center for Mental Health, Mean Street Ministries, as well as several others. These are all organizations that are trying to help people in need, including homeless, in our community. Has City Council considered if partnering with one or more of these organizations could possibly achieve a lot of the same goals of easing the homelessness problems in Lakewood? Or, possibly, do we have overlap of efforts among any of these organizations that could provide more assistance to those in need if they share or combine their resources (staff and facilities)? These question were not posed during the meeting, but are things that City Council should consider.
Law enforcement considerations
Finally, City Council needs to consider the roll of law enforcement plays in this. As pointed out by several residents in the public comments, there are valid concerns that laws governing sex and drug trafficking, drug possession and use, vagrancy, street side solicitation, and ICE compliance are not being enforced. As a republic, we are governed not by people but by laws. The laws are in place to protect people’s safety, property and well-being as a base for a stable society. A number of residents in their public comments noted concerns for their own personal safety – some people no longer feel safe living and working in Lakewood. Certainly panhandling and washing windows from the medians at Colfax and Wadsworth (or any other intersection) is not safe and should not be (and by statutes is not) allowed. It is not up to City Council, law enforcement, judges, or prosecutors to decide which laws will be enforced and which ones won’t, especially laws that affect the safety and well-being of the community. City Council needs to review the needs of the Lakewood Police Department to see if additional officers are needed to ensure laws are properly enforced. If additional funding is needed, perhaps DOLA (or other) grants are available to provide the needed funds.
An informed government
Lakewood citizens need to continue using the City of Lakewood website to keep themselves informed about what is going on at City Hall. We also need to clearly communicate our concerns back to City Council by email, the LakewoodSpeaks website, telephone, at informal meetings the ward representatives periodically host, and at public comment at City Council meetings. City Council and those working on these large scope plans need to consider all options with the resources currently available with more consideration of the concerns of the residents and neighborhood associations than went into the measures that were approved at the February 12th City Council meeting. The city needs to carefully consider the impact (and possible unintended consequences) their decisions have on our communities and neighborhoods as a result of the plans they make. It is also important that the City clearly communicate their plans and avoid wording that obfuscates their intentions. These issues currently facing Lakewood are no doubt complex. We want to ensure the voices of the residents are heard, their concerns are addressed, and that future programs and plans undertaken by the City are effective, beneficial to all the members of the community, and are run in a fiscally sound manner.
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:
According to the article below, Recovery Works has completed the purchase of a motel in Lakewood. The motel will be an additional Jefferson County shelter and service center for the unhoused. Recovery Works is the same organization that will be running the new Navigation Center in Lakewood. Lakewood Council will vote on appropriating funds for the project on February 12, 2024.
IMPACT Commercial Real Estate has announced the recent sale of a former motel that will now serve as the future home for a nonprofit organization, Recovery Works. This was not only a significant milestone for the community but a testament that commercial properties can transform into something that will make a positive impact on the community as well.
The newly purchased 10,000-square-foot building is strategically located at 14825 W Colfax in Lakewood and will serve as a bridge center and resource for the unhoused in Jefferson County by referral. It will help people get back on their feet and find permanent housing for those in need. Recovery Works locations provide additional services, including meals, laundry capabilities and job programs for employment placement.
Recent park land dedication discussions show that the policy is used for more than just adding parks for new residents. The policy could be used to extract fees from developers for other park services. The policy could also be used as a tool for preferential development. Or the policy can determine whether the city increases the number of parks or level of services. The review for this policy is overdue, but thanks to a motion from Council Member David Rein, it may be discussed soon.
The new development at 777 S Yarrow St did not require any land dedicated for parks for the new residents. The land dedication would have been of particular public interest since it is near Belmar Park. Instead of land, the city accepted a fee that will be used for undisclosed park services. The fee was set in 2018 so it may seem low in todays market. This so-called “fee-in-lieu” of park land dedication is the policy under discussion.
See more at savebelmarpark.com, including how this property does not pay taxes on full acreage
Paying a fee in lieu of dedicating land was made possible in a time of slow growth for Lakewood, when Lakewood officials decided there was enough park land. That is no longer the case but developers are accustomed to being able to pay a fee in order to maximize their land development. This pushes new residents into existing parks, putting strain on those resources. Ironically, fees collected today are supposedly going to buy parkland.
During periods of slow-growth, cities try to incentivize growth by setting fees that are more palatable to developers who want to maximize the small, in-fill projects that occur after the initial urban sprawl. The next phase, the one that Lakewood is currently in, is where the city returns to high-growth, except this time the growth is high-density. Dense growth still requires the same amount of park land, including parks close to home. This is especially true of dog parks for apartment residents.
Does the city repeal fee-in-lieu of land that was meant for slow-growth times of incentivizing development? Not usually, as shown in this article of park policy over time.
Discussions have not evolved to making land dedication easier for high-density developments. The fear is that returning to land dedication would slow development. However, land dedication may be the only way to serve neighborhoods. As Council Member Mayott-Guerrero points out, the city has had problems purchasing land in high-density areas.
Neighborhood Parks versus Other Parks
The problem is partially of public perception. Providing open-space for a new development has historically included a neighborhood park within the development. That way of thinking also aligns with the modern-day vision of a 15-minute city, with everything in walking distance. Clearly neighborhood parks are still highly desired but that is no longer being considered for high-density growth, as the public would define park space.
High-density growth packs more people into less space, meaning there is less space for parks as well. “Open space” does mean green space or park space. In fact, “open space” requirements can be fulfilled by garbage dumpster areas, or in a pinch, access to the roof.
Park land dedication is intended to provide park services to the new residents of the development. Courts have upheld passing these costs through developers to new residents. This is different than if a city would demand land or fees to pay for unrelated costs or services, which would constitute a “taking”.
A taking is “is when the government seizes private property for public use.” For example, when former Mayor Paul stated that he wanted to use the fee in lieu of land for equity, to look at parks in other neighborhoods, there is no longer a direct link to services for the new residents and could constitute a taking. (see more about the Westword article at savebelmarpark.com)
“Realizing that there’s a lot of other parts of our city that don’t have a lot of parkland, especially in some of our lower-income areas, it was really an equity thing for me,” Paul says.
However, it gets tricky. It is only taking if the city admits they are using the fee for other residents or the developer can prove intent. It is not taking if the city says the policy is to use fees to increase parks in some other space for new residents to drive to. Lakewood’s official policy is that dedications “shall be reasonably related to the needs of the residents of the proposed development.”
Development Tool
Council Member Jacob LeBure pointed out that past park dedication policies involved leveraging the policy to control or incentivize development.
For example, if Lakewood enforced the policy of neighborhood parks, the Yarrow Street project would have required 3 acres of land dedicated to parks. Enforcing land dedication might cause this development to stop.
Councilor Mayott-Guerrero says these fees are “barriers and leverages for how to better encourage affordable housing.” For that reason, she encourages the park discussion to be part of the Strategic Housing Plan.
Is the Government Providing Parks or Controlling Housing?
The question is, is this policy about providing parks for new residents or affordable housing.
History shows that when government officials try to leverage their power for outside purposes, they may be outclassed. As pointed out by parks expert Dr. John L Crompton, “Developers frequently are represented by specialist lawyers and consultants whose expertise typically far exceeds that of local city planners, so taxpayers are disadvantaged.”
As LeBure says, evaluating different developments is a cumbersome process and you don’t always get the outcome you want.
If City Council’s priority is to enable housing development, they would necessarily have to sacrifice some neighborhood open space and endure the fall out of the new residents asking for more parks.
Council Member Rein explains his motion is actually simpler than all this. He would like to listen to staff suggestions, not discuss or make Council decisions, which will come later.
Correction: The Denver7 article said that migrants were causing enrollment to go up and enrollment at Slater went up by 50 students. The two statements were apparently unrelated to migrant enrollment. 12 February, 2024
Several new migrant families have started attending Foothills Elementary school in Lakewood. This information comes after the Denver7 report that 50 migrant students were attending Slater Elementary in Lakewood, indicating that the migrant influx continues. Jefferson County Schools have not yet replied to official requests for information (made only late on 2/9/24). An accurate head count may not be possible as the number of migrants attending school continues to change.
A large, sudden influx of students this late in the year will present challenges for the entire school community. Denver is currently dealing with the issues inherent with a large influx of non-english speaking students this late in the year. According to the Denver Post:
“DPS, which has a $1.3 billion budget, also has drawn from reserves to help make up the difference, district spokesman Bill Good said. The district is now working to hire more Spanish-speaking teachers and other support staff.”
“Our system was never built to handle this kind of challenge,” said Rob Gould, President of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. “You’re taking an already stressed system and applying more stress to it.”
According to the article, Denver has needed more bus routes, more furniture, more teachers, and more classrooms. New York schools ran special classes for processing and assimilation.
There is no indication that Jefferson County Schools have enough licensed teachers or had public assimilation workshops. However, teachers are generally dedicated professionals who do their best in challenging situations. The children are in good hands.
Jefferson County is listed on some sites as being an official sanctuary county. Records show that Jefferson County has not detained a single person for ICE in over a year.
Migrants find access to Lakewood resources through the non-profit network set up to help homeless. This at a time when Lakewood is set to approve the largest homeless assistance appropriation in it’s history, on Feb 12, 2024. Almost all homeless resources are available without an ID required.
When Lakewood voted to take the first step in helping with Denver’s migrant crisis, residents interpreted that as Lakewood becoming a sanctuary city. Lakewood immediately cried misinformation. At the emergency citizens’ townhall of February 6, 2024, several speakers addressed concerns over Lakewood’s sanctuary status, saying that Lakewood is not using the word “sanctuary” and is not discussing that issue. However, by a show of hands at the meeting, attendees thought the current role of Lakewood Police and Lakewood’s offer to support migrants would match both the proposed support and the definition of a sanctuary city. Both set of words applied to the same actions. Yet Lakewood still spent tax dollars and energy on a campaign to cry “misinformation.” Resident comments show that the meeting was useful to talk to each other, as much as it was useful for gathering information.
Lakewood has a taxpayer funded PR department that can respond instantly to crises. In this case, the crisis was the residents’ concern over the possible “sanctuary” status of our city. Within a couple days, Lakewood had a new website that included a public statement which was also widely circulated (see below).
(above) Lakewood also had a flyer circulating on social media sites that most residents would not even know existed so would have a hard time advertising on. At the same time, residents had difficulty on Nextdoor.com, which kept stripping posts of the meeting and discussion on the matter.
Despite the problems, residents came by the hundreds to learn about Lakewood’s plans to support migrants. Speaker Karen Morgan (disclosure: this author is Karen Morgan) said,
“We all operate with different ears. I might say one thing and you hear another. For example, it’s absolutely true that Council is not discussing anything using the word “sanctuary”. They use words like good neighbor, welcoming, inclusive, supporting, sheltering…”
The audience laughed as they recognized that all these words meant the same thing. One resident commented after the meeting, “thank you for making that point, I was going to say the same thing.”
An interesting note is that in the city’s flyer above, “sanctuary city” and “being a good neighbor” are in quotes, as though even Lakewood recognizes these are just words with fluid meaning. At the same time, they imply one is right and the other is wrong.
Other resident comments:
One resident said they understood Lakewood was just taking the first step, but this was opening the door and the time to stop it was now.
Yet another resident said he will be at the February 12 Council meeting to show support. He said that the Citizens’ Meeting was a great way to reconnect with some old friends.
Another asked for the address to City Hall. He has never participated before but he will be there.
Several people commented that the problem was the lack of accountability of the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson who has the ability to work behind the scenes.
At least a dozen residents told this author personally that the meeting was needed, they wished the city had done something like this.
Other residents were interested in information and the Citizens’ Meeting was an opportunity to find answers.
Did the Mayor really go to Harvard?
What’s really happening since the City says misinformation?
What can we do to stop this?
Was there misinformation?
In today’s world, one persons misinformation is another persons’ fact. No matter what, an important discussion is taking place and residents are participating in their government. Council Member Isabel Cruz stated in the January 8 meeting that “This is important to step up to our responsibility as good neighbors…This [approved motion] is only the first step.” And now, more Lakewood residents are engaged in discussions about what, if any, steps will follow.
One meeting organizer said, “This was about the citizens. They all pulled together, it wasn’t about the organizers. This was about everyone.”
![To: Pam Brier; Kathy Hodgson
Cc: Gatlin Jeff; Donna Repp; Tolleson Julie
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Emory Elementary Next Steps Meeting
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:40:36 PM
Attachments: image001.png
# EXTERNAL – USE CAUTION #
Kathy and Pam, Jeff and I are very excited to meet with you next week! Pam, I know you had been
talking with JLL, our commercial real estate agent. We’re not sure we’ll need an agent for this
transaction, but we will be using an outside real estate attorney. We believe it will be helpful (and
expeditious) for the attorney to be present early on in our conversations. Our attorney is Blair
Lichtenfels with Brownstein.
We would like to proceed with our meeting next week without counsel to do introductions and
talk timeline and next steps. At the next meeting we set, we would like to have our counsel and your
counsels present so that we can begin to move forward.
My rough thoughts on an agenda are as follows. Please feel free to suggest content:
Introductions
Catch-up on current context – Action Center, Lakewood, and Jeffco
Discuss Jeffco surplus process and timeline
Identify next steps, including to set a meeting with counsel present
Thank you both!
Lisa
Lisa Relou
Chief of Strategy & Communications](https://g51.e2b.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/lakewoodplanningmeeting.png?w=434)
