Lakewood Archives - Page 6 of 6

Lakewood Spends Taxpayer Money on Keeping Taxpayer Money

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on February 3, 2024.

In June 2023, the Lakewood Budget and Audit Board voted to recommend keeping future TABOR funds. To do that, they recommended finding a specialist to help find out what would make residents agree to this proposal. That decision seems to be proceeding, although requests for status have not yet been answered.

As this CBS News article points out, governments cannot spend money on political campaigns. Although keeping TABOR refunds will be a ballot issue, it is not now. Therefore, there is a loophole to be taken advantage of in order to craft a political message before announcing the ballot measure.

Jefferson County is doing the same so-called pre-campaigning for tax refunds. However, in the case of the county, they were very careful not to say that a decision had been made to keep the funds. Jeffco said they were just researching, which will include ways to craft ballot language.

Lakewood has already made the decision to keep the TABOR funds by a vote of the Budget and Audit Board. So a ballot issue is pending but is not yet announced. The Board discussed using the specialist to find out what residents would be willing to pay for so that they could use that language. Former Mayor Paul pointed out how successful that strategy was the last time.

Jefferson County was in the news for hiring a personal connection of Rep. Brittany Pettersen to research this TABOR issue.

Lakewood did not have to suffer this scrutiny because they reached out for three quotes that did not go over the limit which would require a public Request For Proposals. The decision did not come to Council as a separate policy decision that would require public discussion. The expense would have been included in the 2024 budget and approved at that time.

There is no word on the current status of this project. No Council Member responded to questions for status or where in the 2024 budget the funds were included.

Update 3 February 2024: Council Member Olver responded that the current Budget Board Council Members would be more likely to have answers. Currently that would be Councilors Rebekah Stewart, Jeslin Shahrezaei, Isabel Cruz.

Reader Recommended Business: Go With the Flow Plumbing

Lakewood Paying for RTD Lights

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 19, 2024.

Fixing the bridge lights for RTD on the 6^th Avenue overpass is an $800,000 budget item for Lakewood… to fix RTD property. The large line item caught the attention of Council Member Olver at the time. How did this get to be in the budget with no prior public discussion?

Why isn’t RTD paying for their own repairs?

A series of open-records requests reveal not a single communication in 2023 between RTD and any city official discussing the details of how the project came to be. Not who would pay or for what, not what they think the problem is, or why RTD cannot pay for it…. Nothing.

As seen in the highlighted screenshot below, open-records requests revealed an email between the RTD point of contact and Council Member Shahrezaei. Shahrezaei responded that she would speak over the phone. Phone conversations increase communication but cannot be provided through open records requests.

Email from RTD representative asking Counselor Shahrezaei how to proceed. Shahrezaei responds she will call.

As the Council representative to DRCOG, Councilor Shahrezaei is in frequent contact with regional boards like RTD.

The city shared that this project was submitted to the budget by the Public Works Department during the 2024 budget process. No communications came up between staff and RTD on this topic but the city says they have been in discussion about the project for years.

No Council Discussion but Presumed Permission

According to the city, this budget item aligns with City Council Goal 3, “Beautiful and Sustainable City.” Normally, setting goals is admirable but this statement reveals the public policy disparity with the City Council setting goals.

Council sets goals that could apply to many applications
Council is not allowed to direct staff so technically no Council Member can say “please do this project to fulfill this goal”
Council can claim credit for staff achieving specific goals even when there has been no apparent public decision. (For example, the Navigation Center was not a specific goal)
Throughout the year, staff can justify many new projects without public discussion thereby leading to conspiracy theories about Point #2. (Can you find RTD lights under the stated goals?)

Public and City Choose Different Bridges

These bridge lights will be beautiful – if they can stay lit. Unsubstantiated sources suggest that the lights cannot remain functional through the train vibrations that displace electrical wiring.

In the bigger picture, there was public outcry in 2023 for a different bridge. Public wanted to keep the use of a pedestrian bridge in Ravines Open Space park. 290 residents signed a petition to keep a bridge that will now be lost. For the price of the lights that are RTD property, the city could have kept the city beautiful a different way. Now those park users will have an unusable pipe-hanger while RTD gets bridge lights that will, certainly, be enjoyed by all.

Picture of existing bridge compared to possible trestle design replacement with no walkable surface

Footnote: then-Counselor Janssen did not receive any answers to her questions before Council voted to approve this budget.

Lakewood Dismissing Low-Level Offenses

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 5, 2024.

Putting someone in jail for a low-level municipal offense is an unsatisfactory answer for people who believe jail is ineffective or harsh. Since jail is often the mandated penalty, Lakewood may take the “compassionate” route and dismiss the case if the alleged offender visits Community Outreach Court. The de facto penalty is then talking to housing and job providers, which isn’t a penalty but a helping hand. The result is dismissing all warrants for Failure To Appear in court, and often dismissing the original charge as well.

Charges that are often dismissed:

Having an open container
Sleeping in a public park
Shoplifting
Trespassing
Simple assault
Possession of drug paraphernalia
Indecent exposure (public urination)
Failure to Appear in court

Lakewood is working to reach out to the homeless community to bring them to Outreach Court. Lakewood homeless navigators and community members spread the word that if you come to court your warrants will be forgiven and your original case may be dismissed.

Is the law effective if Lakewood forgives all the cases?

Having a law that everyone knows will be dismissed is not an effective deterrent. In one case, an offender admitted to ongoing trespassing but because she talked to resource providers, thereby fulfilling the terms of the original trespass case, everything was dismissed.

Jail may be viewed as unreasonably harsh for unhoused individuals because they could lose their meager possessions with one overnight stay. There are arguments that jail is ineffective for anyone and low-level offenses are not worthy of jail. Another argument is that if you are trespassing (for example) because you are homeless, are you really committing a crime or being punished because you are homeless?

Being homeless is not a crime but dismissing these “crimes of homelessness” has consequences such as:

Effectively making the city a homeless sanctuary
Changing the public perception of how Lakewood enforces its own laws
Lowering effectiveness of law enforcement and justice system, as judged by cutting crime

There is opportunity for discussion here.

Do Lakewood residents believe that low-level offenses should not be punished? – Repeal the law
Is jail too harsh? – Modify for alternatives (For example, community service)
Is community service too hard to find? – Extend opportunities outside of non-profit service

Whether penalized with jail or having the case dismissed, the court is not responsible for an individuals housing. However, that is a role the court is taking on by acting as resource coordinator. The Court continues to work for grants for homeless and housing.

Community Outreach Court is presided over by Municipal Judge Nicole Bozarth, who was the only candidate for Municipal Judge on the 2023 ballot. She was previously appointed to the position in June 2022.

Reader Recommended Business: a SAFE HOME Gas Fireplace Service

Fees for Park Land Static Since 2018

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 1, 2024.

The development near Belmar Park, on 777 S Yarrow, has brought into focus the “fee in lieu” provision of Lakewood, Colorado’s Municipal Code L.M.C. 14.16.010. These fees have not been reviewed, or changed, since 2018, resulting in potential under-compensation to the city. Historically developers have had to provide park land for their residents to use. The fee was instead of park land. Existing Lakewood parks would provide park services for the new development.

In light of the confusion regarding the fee in lieu of land dedication/policy the following was sent out to Council and staff on Dec. 31, 2023:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lenore Herskovitz <[email protected]>
Date: December 31, 2023 at 2:56:12 PM MST
To: Wendi Strom <[email protected]>, [email protected], Kathy Hodgson <[email protected]>, Travis Parker <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: land dedication fee in lieu

“I don’t know if you’ve seen this before but this is the fee that was set by Director of Community Resources in 2018. The fee is determined by the Director. The ordinance was supposed to have been reviewed by Council no later than Dec. 31, 2023. Also, the fee is due at the time of site plan approval or can be delayed by the Director (Kit Newland) until building permit issuance. The amount to be paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of payment (although it is interesting to note that the fee mentioned in the document expired on Dec. 31, 2019). As far as I know, the fee has not yet been paid. There has been misinformation sent out by the planning department stating “the city staff cannot change this valuation without an act of Council”. However, 14.16.07B of the 2018 document says that the Director shall set the fee equal to fair market value…The only job of Council right now is to review this ordinance. Why was this not placed on the agenda months ago? Staff should have been well aware that this needed to be addressed before the end of the year and it should have been posted. Former Councilor Springsteen mentioned this in October and no action was taken. Why are we updating fees so rarely? Prior to 2018, the only ordinance addressing this was passed in 1983. Obviously, property values fluctuate greatly and fair market values should reflect that. How much potential revenue have we lost over the years due to this antiquated system of determining fees? Council should review this ordinance at the next scheduled meeting and alter the terms as needed.”

See ordinance and policy letter below:

parkland-dedications-final Download

Lakewood to Propose a Homeless Shelter in Public School Building

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on December 29, 2023.

Correction, Jan 18, 2024: The unnamed, closed Jefferson County school was not proposed as a homeless shelter but as a new location for the Jeffco Action Center which offers hardship services. Increased housing for the homeless would then be available and Lakewood would have a presence in two Action Center buildings. Plans are not final, but discussions have been started. More details have not been brought before Council yet.

Correction: Services, Not Shelter, to Move to Jeffco School

Lakewood’s Strategic Housing Plan (SHP) researched the possibilities of redeveloping vacant or underutilized land for affordable housing. For example, there are many vacant commercial sites that could be used for new affordable units. The SHP currently does not have details, rather the plan is ready for further research and public discussion. However, Lakewood City Manager Hodgson says that by listening carefully to City Councilors, city staff could anticipate that this item was of particular interest so staff has started work.

Towards that goal, Lakewood staff already has a proposal to work collaboratively to house homeless in a closed Jeffco school in Lakewood. That project includes working with the Jeffco Action Center to provide shelter in these already controversial neighborhood sites. Financial incentives may be available from the city.

This proposal will be coming to Council for approval soon, with no other details provided by Hodgson, as announced in the December 18 study session.

Public comment shows people want further discussion regarding sheltering the unhoused in a school, but city staff believe they have enough tacit approval from City Council that they have proceeded with their plans. Under the option for repurposing existing buildings for affordable housing, the city will not require a separate discussion for this topic, outside of plan adoption, although public comment would be available if there is a separate proposal.

Although the people who live in those highly residential areas may not want a homeless shelter next door, the city has an answer to that: Public comment is over-represented by affluent long-term homeowners (link added 2/11/24). The argument that owners of single-family residences are generally rich, white people who are over-represented in their city council meetings is laid out in the Harvard Law Review paper to show affordable housing is a right.

Sidenote: City Manager Kathy Hodgson and Mayor Wendi Strom have studied government at Harvard University.

The city survey correlated how long residents have lived in Lakewood with survey responses in order to pit residents against each other, in what seems to be a continuing conversation of older residents versus younger residents. For example, it has been suggested during the demographic study that residents “ageing in place” contribute to taking up valuable housing stock that would otherwise be “affordable.”

From Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan presentation

Destabilizing neighborhoods by changing their use or density may prove a base assumption of the plan. The SHP depends on residents that have enough money moving out of their existing homes and moving into the newly created market-rate apartments. The move would allow for the existing housing stock that was vacated to be used for those less fortunate. Housing migration is a critical component to a successful market-rate overstock policy implementation. (Hattip Ditson)

Correction: Study date changed from Dec 19th to 18th

Not Affordable: More Market-Rate Housing Coming to Lakewood

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on December 29, 2023.

Newly elected Lakewood City Council Member Isabel Cruz says increasing housing supply has led to higher rents and gentrification of her area, Ward 2. However, Lakewood’s Strategic Housing Plan (SHP) says the opposite will happen in the future, that increasing overall supply will decrease rents, especially in areas of high homeless population such as Ward 2. The plan depends on the theory that more market-rate housing will create affordable housing in an indirect way that has not been proven in Lakewood. This discrepancy between theory and observable experience was not resolved before Lakewood City Council agreed to move forward with the plan as proposed on December 18, 2023.

Following SHP recommendations will:

Incentivize market-rate, high-density, low-parking apartments for middle- to higher-income residents
Enable pallet homes and create homeless shelters, possibly in a closed Jeffco school, for very-low income residents
Fund these programs with city tax dollars
Enable housing opportunities for low- to middle-income residents when residents vacate existing housing

This plan to recommend more development was created by a group largely comprised of developers, along with city staff. Only one “active resident” is listed (Hattip Hasfjord – see SHP pg 3)

Many of the details needed to understand how the plan will impact Lakewood are missing from the plan. Council Member Mayott-Guerrero explained in the very beginning that passing the plan is just the first step for being able to really dig into the details and research this plan. City Manager Hodgson apparently disagrees. She says that staff has been listening to what Council wants and has been acting on those desires by developing project specific proposals.

The detailed project proposals were developed without public input or vote by Council on what their priorities will be. The proposals will be ready for Council approval as soon as the plan can be passed.

The goal would be to move quickly. Hodgson already has a specific bank and funding options researched to start incentivizing development as soon as first quarter 2024.

That seemed to be exactly what Councilor Stewart wanted to hear. As current chair of the Budget and Audit Board, she asked for options to begin adding to the budget immediately (normal budget procedure would be to pass new options in fourth quarter 2024). She also pointed out that her proposals for the Lakewood Planning Commission to research loosening Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations would help move the SHP forward.

These are big changes that the public has been told will have the opportunity for further discussion. However, having proposals ready to be approved is different than ready for public participation. Several mentions of the “housing emergency” and “needing to move quickly” suggests the rubber stamp process may be implied with the passing of the plan.

For example, combining current ADU research, zoning code rewrites that are almost completed by staff (not publicly available) and past precedent for using city funds, Lakewood could start accelerating ADU development within first quarter 2024 by directly paying for water tap fees.

Although the word “subsidy” is rarely used, Lakewood has paid in the past for public infrastructure “gap funding” for water tap fees through the Lakewood Community Block Grant. These tap fees are the biggest hurdle for ADU development so increased funding or subsidizes could greatly increase development.

Just the change in ADU development, effectively changing all R1 into R2 zoning, would double the housing density of Lakewood.

As the Strategic Housing Study found, it is not possible at today’s construction costs to develop new housing at less than market rate. Lakewood will not and cannot develop apartments that are more affordable – the government is not a developer. The Strategic Housing Plan does not guarantee new affordable housing but rather makes new market-rate housing available for higher income residents to move into, thereby increasing housing migration, with the hope that older affordable units will open up (Hattip Ditson).

This plan will increase market-rate housing by offering incentives including:

Public funding for developers and housing assistance for individuals
Relaxed regulations such as decreased parking requirements and the ability for pallet homes
An easier permit process and expedited assistance

Correction: Study date changed from Dec 19th to 18th

It’s Not the Affordable Housing

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on December 9, 2023.

Guest post from Alex Plotkin

A recent article by RMPBS calls out the effects of the failed policies of the Colorado local and state politicians, but it incorrectly singles out the cause of the issue. It’s not just the affordable housing, but a whole slew of factors which have set up some of the Colorado communities for the failures that are starting to manifest. As is often the case, the local and state politicians are behind the curve on seeing the true cause of the problem, which they, in part might have created due to their short-sighted (and, in some cases, dubious) policies.

Instead of creating zoning and building standards which would have dictated the build out of diverse communities where localized, well-paying employment opportunities would be collocated with a variety of housing and educational opportunities, public transit and amenities which would attract a variety of skilled professionals at various stages of life, a number of communities in Colorado will be passed over on the way to locales which are proactively working on setting up their communities for the challenges that are rapidly coming our way.

In Lakewood, specifically, the government has chosen to foster the build out of metro districts and rentals, focusing on the means of extracting profit from those who live there, instead of creating well-paying, localized employment opportunities for the high-skill professionals, who, instead have moved on to other areas for employment, resulting in large parts of Lakewood being economically stagnant. This, in turn is already resulting in death spiral of fewer families, businesses struggling or closing and the schools having to be closed due to fewer children being in the area (see this article for more)

Lakewood is not unique in their failures – as pointed out in the RMPBS article, whole swaths of the state are now setup to tumble down the road of losing out on more and more skilled/educated workers, younger families and a stable base of employment to enable a healthy and diverse economy.

The problem is not just about the housing – it is a lot more complicated than that. For one, more desirable locales usually result in higher cost of housing. The question then becomes – how do you make housing more attainable?

One of the ways is to enable more economic opportunity which would enable higher wages for those trying to secure housing. Furthermore, once a local economic engine is firing, that creates a positive knock-on effect, whereby the surplus tax revenue might be used to subsidize housing for those who are vital to the community (i.e. janitors, nurses, teaches, etc.), but may not have the market-dictated wages to pay for the housing.

The RMPBS article points out that in Denver one now needs a $160,000 income to be able to semi-comfortably afford a home. So, what are the local politicians in the aforementioned counties doing to bring in jobs which provide such income?

This is one of many areas in which Jefferson County in particular has been failing, miserably. Their officials have been proactively rezoning properties originally slated for economic-and-education-oriented development in to residential (largely, rental and metro district to boot). This not only destroys the economic potential, but also further stresses the county finances as residential units generally cost money to provide services to Colorado (as has been stated by Lakewood former city attorney and the documents provided by the developer for the Red Rocks Ranch). Yet, over and over again, JeffCo officials have supported such rezoning and development, instead of figuring out a way to bring in higher paying, localized employment. (see this article for more)

The failures of the past are now leading to more failures in real time. The federal government has recently announced that it will be providing billions of dollars to invest in high-tech development.

Yet, since JeffCo, at large has failed to champion any meaningful high-tech development to begin with, guess where those billions are not going to be invested? Golden may catch some loose change, due to the School of Mines presence, but the rest of JeffCo (especially, Lakewood) – not likely. Hence, in some parts of Colorado, one might argue, the economic death spiral is already in motion.

To add an insult to the injury, JeffCo has largely failed to champion a development of functional public transit. To be fair, so has Colorado at large. RTD is a massive failure, compared to even the relatively less well-off countries such as Czech Republic. No, RTD is nowhere close to being a remotely good value for the dollars spent, if one actually looks at data. Some politicians in Colorado love to drone on about data, yet, they frequently fail to look at metrics from world-renowned sources such as OECD and IPCC, instead falling back on the talking points fed to them by their campaign backers.

Otherwise, why would Colorado have such abysmal rates of public transit ridership?

We get ever more traffic, more pollution, and more and more cookie-cutter rentals, which were never meant for families to live in, a lot of which are owned by corporations, which may or may not have been engaging in collusion to set the rent prices and some of which are already embroiled in a lawsuit.

“RealPage’s clients include some of the largest property managers in the country. Many favor cities where rent has been rising rapidly, according to a ProPublica analysis of five of the country’s top 10 property managers as of 2020. All five use RealPage pricing software in at least some buildings, and together they control thousands of apartments in metro areas such as Denver, Nashville, Atlanta and Seattle, where rents for a typical two-bedroom apartment rose 30% or more between 2014 and 2019.”

Meanwhile, failing to creating conditions to drive the success of more people. Not working on ways for those who would think of starting a family, to be able to do so without drowning financially.

And here is another thing to consider for those constantly claiming that work from home is a savior. It’s not.

And those are just the short term effects to consider. Longer term, it may get far worse:

“Artificial intelligence also is expected to eliminate some positions entirely. Mr. Krishna, of IBM, has said in recent weeks that he could see 30% of IBM’s roughly 26,000 non-customer-facing roles being replaced by automation or AI over a 5-year period.”

We are just starting to see the failures resulting from the shortsighted policies of last couple of decades. Instead of engaging in truly open conversation with the public to see how the public should be helped to succeed in the even more adverse economic and environmental events to come, the local and state politicians are doubling down on enabling the last vestiges of profits for the big money interests at further detriment to the citizens at various socioeconomic levels.

Perhaps, sooner than later, a majority of the citizens will start to realize who put them in the dire straits they are in. Some already are.

The next step would be for the citizens to realize that it is their elected officials who have enabled the types of development, for over a decade now, which have enabled the backsliding of thousands (or is it now millions?) of people in to becoming de-facto rent (and metro-district) financial serfs. Instead of having more economic opportunities and more equitable conditions which may enable those wanting a family, to start one.

Lakewood Sacrifices Future Economic Development for Residential

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on December 11, 2022. 1 Comment

Guest post from Alex

“The general formula is that it costs more to provide services to residential… Than [they] bring in tax revenue.” (15th of May, 2017, Mr. Tim Cox, former city attorney for Lakewood).

(15th of May, 2017, Mr. Tim Cox, City of Lakewood meeting)

Although Lakewood should know this basic planning fact, the city continues to replace commercially zoned properties with high-density residential development.

Picture of apartments being built on Union — Lakewood has been sanctioning the rezoning of commercial properties to “mixed use”, which in Lakewood parlance means “rentals.” This is along Union Boulevard, which used to be a heavily-commercial area serving the neighboring communities.

The current administration is continuing down the route of seemingly intentional avoidance of doing real economic development. Real is the key here, since, to Lakewood “economic development” seems to mean car washes, pot shops, failing retail, and storage units.

Not world-class companies and world-class education opportunities to ensure a supply of highly-skilled workers who would then have much better economic opportunities available to them within the community.

Lakewood does not even bother to enforce the spirit of mixed use development.

Picture of King Soopers with apartments on top — This is what an actual “mixed use” development might look like.

City administration has been doubling down on high-priced rentals and metro districts, while claiming “affordability” and that this, somehow, replaces actual economic development. Perhaps, they missed the recent story about a price fixing scheme by a company which advises the corporate rental owners (think, large scale apartments, such as the ones been built in Lakewood, instead of “middle” housing):

https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/26/23479034/doj-investigating-rent-setting-software-company-realpage

It is as if those talking about “affordability” actually want to ensure that more people are locked into perpetual financial servitude, instead of working on bringing in local, well-paying jobs into the city.

More often, than not, Lakewood makes it in the news for these types of stories:

https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/two-firefighters-taken-to-hospital-after-ambulance-struck-by-suspected-stolen-vehicle

Unsurprisingly, some of the Lakewood City Council and city staff are failing to understand (or intentionally avoid?) the link between the failure in economic development and the unfortunate consequences this leads to when it comes to the increase in crime. A “rising tide lifts all the boats” indeed and if the city had a robust economic engine (which it does not), other economic opportunities would follow.

Lakewood Continues to Setup for Economic Failure

Residential properties, generally, are a net negative to the municipality as they cost more to provide services to, while not bringing enough revenue in to cover those costs. Furthermore, Lakewood has completely failed to properly scale up and maintain the needed infrastructure and amenities (such as parks, grocery stores, public spaces and playgrounds, collocated with the high density developments). Nor are there well-paying employment opportunities within walking distance.

By “well-paying employment opportunities”, we mean:

Google Campus in Boulder (https://www.trybaarchitects.com/portfolio/google-boulder-campus)

And Google is expanding their presence in Boulder (https://www.builtincolorado.com/2021/09/21/google-new-boulder-office-hiring)

Not another car wash, storage unit, or a quick food joint.

So as Lakewood doubles down on destroying the commercial potential of the city and adding bedrooms which will likely cause more expense to the city, we just ask ourselves if the city administration and planning staff understand the importance of maintaining a balance between residential and commercial development.

Tag: Lakewood