Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood

Park Land Ordinance Battle Continues – Legal Intervenors

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in DevelopmentTagged , , , , , ,

Over the last month, Lakewood has been sued over the new park land dedication ordinance, has hired outside counsel and is now trying to quickly amend or repeal the ordinance. Lakewood staff and City Council say they are trying to make the ordinance legal. Others say Lakewood has an obligation to fight for the citizen-led ordinance, a belief summarized below. Also below is an article detailing how residents are getting involved in the legal fight as intervenors, hoping to fight for the ordinance they believe the city is leaving behind. On February 3, 2025, there was a City Council executive session and workshop on the subject. Second and third readings of possible changes are scheduled for February 10 and 24. From LakewoodSpeaks public comment: The City of Lakewood is legally responsible to defend the Parkland Dedication law our citizens brought forth by petition and City Council subsequently voted to incorporate into our laws. The right to this democratic petition process is protected by our National Constitution and passed down by our City’s upper tier documents. It is disrespectful and dangerous to attack this revered democratic process (or bully those citizens in need of utilizing it) that has been created and implemented by our democratic leaders to provide a voice to downtrodden citizens who feel their Government is not listening to all people. There is concern by many residents that the City will protect their long-standing history of favoring developers over citizens, by putting forward a weak, unprofessional and half-hearted defense of this law that requires parkland dedication to the community by developers. Now the reality of this concern that the City will ignore their responsibility to 100% defend our law has been cast in broad daylight. When the contractor filed for an injunction to ignore this new law initially set in motion by the people of Lakewood, the motion did not even receive a public hearing before it was granted. A public hearing on the request for an injunction was not convened BECAUSE NO ONE (READ LAKEWOOD ) OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION. This is the first glaring proof of the City turning their back on performing their assigned judicial responsibilities. Can the next example be far behind? From Save Open Space – Lakewood Judge orders injunction against Lakewood Green Initiative, allowing monstrosity at Belmar Park to proceed: Citizens cry foul Wednesday, January 29, 2025 – On January 14, District Court Judge Jason Carrithers granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Lakewood Green Initiative, which means the Kairoi Residential project adjacent to Belmar Park can proceed as if the citizen initiative petition had never existed. The judge’s decision was predictable because the City offered no opposition to the developer’s desire for an injunction. In response to the Unopposed Injunction, two Motions to “Intervene” were filed on behalf of the Initiative. In the Motion filed Friday, January 17, “Proposed intervenor Save Belmar Park, Inc., (“SBP”) seeks intervention to defend the O-2024-28 ordinance as adopted and the requirements it imposes on the City and the Plaintiffs to protect the interests of SBP’s members in maintaining the character and aesthetic of Belmar Park from profit-driven unreasonable and unsustainable developer overreach. The City Council’s public statements and its actions so far in this litigation indicate that it cannot be relied on to protect SBP’s members’ interests.  The preliminary injunctive relief granted to Plaintiffs is a litigation tactic sought to circumvent a robust and thorough evaluation of all parties’ rights. A preliminary injunction in this matter only benefits Plaintiffs to the degree they could seek approval of their proposed plans under the old municipal code without the disputed ordinance’s provisions. Once that approval is obtained and building permits are issued the provisions of O-2024-28 would no longer apply and the need for any further pursuit of this litigation would be moot. Plaintiffs’ Complaint also fails to address that the relief postured by Plaintiffs to apply only to them would affect all developments city Un-wide, where other developers could rely on the findings of this declaratory action to avoid complying with the Lakewood Municipal Code as currently adopted. The City would then also have the political cover to attribute to the Court the need to make city-wide changes in the disputed ordinance rather than take up the issue with its electorate in an open and public debate.” In the Motion to Intervene filed Tuesday, January 21, petition representative Cathy Kentner claims, “The mere fact that the City of Lakewood did not oppose the Motion for Temporary Injunction, and at the same time states they plan to oppose this Motion to Intervene on their behalf, is evidence that the City does not intend to adequately defend… In fact, it appears that both the Plaintiff and Defendant are attempting to moot this action by allowing irreparable harm to happen while this action is in court process.” Kentner further points out that the City of Lakewood has a history of not adequately defending citizen positions.  For example, “In the case of Colorado Christian University v. City of Lakewood (2021CV30629), District Court Judge Russell B. Klein granted intervention stating: ‘The proposed intervenors in this case argue that the City of Lakewood did not oppose a temporary restraining order and that the temporary restraining order filings contained false information – as a result their interests are not being adequately represented…Here the Court finds that the interests of the City of Lakewood and the two proposed intervenors are different, and that difference is not reduced to a disagreement as to trial strategy. The City of Lakewood has an interest in defending the constitutionality and application of its ordinances, whereas the proposed intervenors have an interest in the impact of the ordinances on their neighborhood and residences. Thus, the Court finds that the unique interest that each party maintains (the City of Lakewood vis-a-vis the two proposed intervenors) do not sufficiently overlap, and the Court finds that the interests of the two proposed intervenors are not adequately represented.’” Lakewood surely is celebrating the

Read More

Council Passes Metro District Ordinance

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Vote TallyTagged , , , ,

Lakewood voted unanimously to pass a new ordinance for metropolitan districts on January 13, 2025. The overwhelming feeling was that Council truly believes that this ordinance is better at regulating metro districts than the basic state law. Almost every City Council Member spoke of the multiple meetings they held to work on the ordinance, which was started years earlier when a metro district was expected. In fact, former City Council Member Dave Skilling was apparently advising current Council Members, according to publicly made comments.   The new ordinance included an underlying assumption that cities had to allow metro districts. This belief was voiced by city attorneys and Councilor Rein. Several other Councilors deferred to Rein’s contributions on crafting this ordinance. Only Councilor Cruz voiced the opinion that Council could still vote “no” on a metro district application, but even she voted to approve this new ordinance. Councilor Rein led the charge to prove Lakewood was not able to “ban” metro districts. He started the discussion by asking city attorney Lauren Stanek about banning metro districts. Although Stanek said that it couldn’t be done, there are several mechanisms other cities have used to “ban” metro districts.  Any of these mechanisms below, or none of them, allow the city to vote against metro district creation. Lakewood staff never presented any of these options, or even just the option of voting no, to City Council. However, Councilor Cruz pointed out that this ordinance does not bind Council to approving new metro districts. As attorney Stanek* advocated, the Lakewood ordinance has some extra provisions that Lakewood hopes will provide extra safety to future residents. However, as Lakewood Informer news pointed out previously, many of those protections are limited. *It is difficult to confirm any Lakewood staff title. In response to a request for an org chart, Lakewood Informer was told that the city didn’t have one because “it is all embedded into our HRIS system and doesn’t print out in a org chart manner“. No substitute was offered. Very few names, titles or phone numbers are located on the website. Most Council Members agreed that these extra provisions made passing the ordinance worthwhile. They all seemed very cognizant of the dangers that metro districts pose. The hope is that future residents will do their own homework and discover anything they might object to before purchasing a home (ex. terms of extra taxes). This is more difficult than Lakewood disallowing objectionable items, but the information will be there. Councilors Shahrezaei and Rein offered changes for additional transparency including: Mayor Strom said she is very supportive of this new ordinance. She says, “This is really an opportunity for the city to make sure that development is paying their own way so that our newer residents are paying and it’s through a financing mechanism that allows a developer to not have to sell a house with an extra $30,000 on top because of the sidewalks that they had to put in.” Strom’s base assumption – that metro district housing is more affordable – has been proved untrue overall by the Anderson Economic Group. They “found that issuing bonds to finance metropolitan district infrastructure costs reduces the typical home buyer’s down payment by an average of 4% relative to a scenario in which that same home is built outside of a metropolitan district. We further projected that a homeowner’s long-term housing costs will be 2% higher over the course of a 30-year mortgage due to the debt service property taxes levied in metropolitan districts. Additionally, we found that a metropolitan district’s housing costs may be even higher…” So they found that a metro district adds at least 2% more total costs than traditional development but developers can say the cost is 4% lower at time of sale. Someone has to pay for the sidewalks but that will ultimately be the homeowners, not the developer. This metro district bill has nothing to do with making developers “pay their own way.” A cheaper alternative would be for the city not to demand improvements like extensive sidewalks and bike lanes. There may be people who would like to have homes with fewer infrastructure amenities in exchange for a lower cost. Or if tens of thousands is the true cost and extensive infrastructure is universally desired, telling people upfront what the cost of total home package is might allow them to finance it themselves at more favorable prices. But those options were not presented either. Councilor LaBure echoed the “affordable housing” narrative by saying that without metro districts, Lakewood would not have any development. Other Councilors have made similar statements in past meetings. This is the official talking point of the developer-run Metro District Education Coalition (MDEC). MDEC was the only outside expert invited to City Council study sessions last year.  Competing grassroots organizations who know the dangers of metro districts were not involved. These statements show that at its base, metro districts help developers and all Lakewood can do is try to minimize the harm to residents. Public comment online was unanimously against the creation of metro districts. Scorecard: Regulating Metropolitan Districts Strom: Aye Shahrezaei: Aye Sinks: Aye Mayott-Guerrero: Aye Cruz: Aye Low: Aye Rein: Aye LaBure: Aye Nystrom: Aye

Read More

Mayor Suspends Rules for Parkland Dedication Issue

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , , , , ,

Mayor Wendi Strom suspended normal City Council procedures to have an emergency discussion on January 13, 2025 regarding issues resulting from the new parkland dedication ordinance. Strom says this was time sensitive so it couldn’t wait until the next meeting and most of Council agreed with her. However, even with the suspension of city policies, Lakewood is still bound by the Colorado Open Meetings laws that require public notice for agenda items. Without that notice, there was no public comment regarding the discussion because no one knew it was happening. One issue Strom initially raised was concern that single-family homeowners are being required to dedicate part of their land to parks. However, other Councilors showed that the real issue was overall development. Strom says the city has not issued any permits since December 7, 2024, when the ordinance was approved. Council Member Nystrom, the only Councilor to sound positive about the new ordinance, pointed out that there may be inaccuracies on how the ordinance is being applied. Nystrom’s point of view was echoed by the author of the ordinance, Cathy Kentner.    Mayor Strom did not say how many people were adversely affected by the new ordinance, but this move is extraordinary.  Even in other time-sensitive circumstances, such as when hundreds of Belmar Park residents were begging for emergency intervention, Strom did not suspend the rules. In fact, with her inauguration, she has moved public comment to the end of the meeting in a move that guarantees most people do not stay for comment. The parkland ordinance itself was time sensitive due to the ballot initiative deadlines. Council chose not to address the issue at all. Strom asked for a vote to direct staff to present some amendments to the ordinance at the January 27 meeting. She also later agreed with Councilor Roger Low’s statement that “it would be incumbent on members of council to proactively draft those amendments and work with the city attorney’s office, presumably to draft those amendments and circulate them [we] will be authoring the amendments and staff merely writing them up.” It is evident that many processes will still be decided over the next month. No data was presented to demonstrate the problem, but Mayor Strom says that will be coming as staff present real life stories of the harm the ordinance is doing to residents and staff. No one mentioned the residents who were positively affected by the ordinance except for Councilor Nystrom. Accusations of Bait N Switch Strom says she does not believe residents knew what they were signing or the unintended consequences of the original petition. This narrative was espoused by several Councilors at previous meetings, including multiple times by Council Member Roger Low. It’s an ironic stance to take coming from the council who approved official ballot language to de-TABOR the city without ever mentioning TABOR. Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem Shaharezaei went so far as to accuse the resident petition gatherers of pulling a bait and switch. She says they touted the initiative as a way to get more parkland but really it was about reducing density. She says these unintended consequences are something that needs a response. Shahrezaei did not acknowledge that the parkland dedication initiative was a result of unintended consequences of City Council not being accountable for adequate oversight of the existing ordinance. That issue has been ongoing for over a decade. But Councilor Low ran through some math to acknowledge that resident density and parkland should have some sort of equilibrium. Parks Versus Development The ordinance is not about development per se. It is about the fact that more people need more parks in order to sustain the equilibrium Councilor Low spoke of. For decades people have moved to Lakewood for the plentiful parks. So much so that Lakewood Council recently pushed a bill to de-TABOR, partly to fund park expansion. Many Councilors returned to the original argument from months ago that there was no way to mandate reasonable parkland dedication and still allow development. Those Councilors just want the development. Urban versus suburban development. Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said that she hears the frustration of residents but there are several projects in her ward that are underway and are affected by this ordinance. She says that she has not heard any objection to developing several large lots in her ward. “Whatever your motivation and your impetus is, I believe that the way that this was written is going to result in a level of cost to the people of Lakewood and to the community that is really irresponsible for us to allow to continue.” Council Member Cruz pointed out that this is impacting affordable housing developers. Affordable housing developers include Metro West Housing (MWH). Cruz did not discuss the MWH attempt to put 44 units on 1.6 acres, without including enough parking or a wide street, let alone neighborhood parkland for these new residents. Councilor Sinks clarified that there was not a ordinance rewrite. Councilor LaBure agreed, stating that this would not be a rewrite, but rather tweaking some words. Willful Misinterpretation Councilor Nystrom says there are inconsistencies and, in her opinion, inaccuracies around the way the new ordinance has been applied. She also pointed out that there are many positive emails from residents, it’s not all negative as the other Councilors state. Nystrom’s comments hint that the ordinance interpretation may be being used as a political football. She is the only Councilor to bring up a contrarian view and sound supportive of the resident-sponsored initiative. Normal City Council procedure requires Councilors to submit a Request for Council Action to start a discussion. In other governments, elected officials can introduce legislation and call for a vote. In Lakewood, instead of Council Members authoring legislation, they must gain agreement from a majority of Members to hold a study session to generate ideas. Alternatively, they can assign staff or a committee to find solutions. No Time to Think It Through City Attorney McKinney-Brown says this move is

Read More

Metro Districts of No Benefit to Taxpayers

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , , , ,

January 13, 2025, Lakewood City Council will vote in a new ordinance regulating metropolitan districts. The Denver Post has done deep investigations into metro districts, exposing them as mechanisms that bury taxpayers in debt with no accountability. Other cities are starting to pay attention and not allowing metro districts. Lakewood, on the other hand, is still supporting developer-sponsored metro districts. Staff has been bringing forward this ordinance since 2021 and backing down against resident pushback in Lakewood and across the state. Now the time has come. The new ordinance has language attempting to fix some existing problems with metro districts. However, a city ordinance cannot fix the problems that exist within state law. Lakewood is passing the ordinance now to enable the developers of The Bend to apply for metro district status, which is anticipated in February. Metro districts are critical for developers to make money from bonds without a vote from residents – because there are no residents to vote yet. Research shows this debt does not benefit residents. “…developers issue a small tranche of debt on the bond market with unfavorable terms (above-market interest) and then buy the debt themselves so future homeowners will end up paying the developer for decades through their property taxes for a completely unnecessary load of bad debt.” -Denver Post “Metro district financing is the opposite of affordable housing.” – Rooney Valley News Will Lakewood have a “safe” metro district ordinance? Not if state law prevails. They can only make baby improvements. “[metro districts] all lead to the same result – taxing residents without representation based upon single party agreements by a developer with a confessed conflict of interest to pay themselves profits by issuing taxes with no accountability for how the money is spent.” – Rooney Valley News “…debt is often intentionally hidden and getting true control of metro districts can be hard if not impossible.” – Denver Post For example, one of the improvements Lakewood attempts is to reveal home cost differentials showing that residents will not be over-paying for homes. Except there is no way to audit the costs, get company financials, or hold the developers accountable if they are overcharged. “The Service Plan shall include a cost estimate of what an individual property within the District would cost an End-user with and without the establishment of the District.“ – proposed ordinance Once the metro district status is granted, Lakewood has little authority to make sure the developer governs fairly, a point that several Council Members brought up in past meetings. As the quotes above show, metro districts are historically problematic and more expensive for the end-residents. Lakewood hopes it will be different this time. “This time” includes The Bend development at 6th and Union. As of fall 2024, the developer anticipated applying for metro district status in February. Then they would have the advantages of being a government entity, while being blighted and thereby partially funded by Lakewood. All opinions in this or any post are the personal opinions of the author

Read More

Lakewood to help fund major development at 6th and Union

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , , , , , ,

On January 22, 2025, the Lakewood Planning Commission will vote on designating a new development area as an Urban Renewal. This designation will allow the city to fund part of the development. The development in question is called “The Bend” and is located on what used to be the Denver Federal Center, southeast of the 6th and Union intersection. The property includes an ex-Superfund site that has not been remediated. However, the property was not blighted before the property sale, when all buyers could plan for city assistance. Instead, the area was deemed a prime location for commercial activity, according to comprehensive and special studies. Once again, Lakewood has contracted a study to prove to the residents that they have no choice except to do what is really a discretionary action. The study by Ricker Cunningham shows that “the survey concluded that nine (9) of the 11 total possible factors [for blight] are present at varying degrees of intensity, but all at levels considered adverse to properties, businesses, and persons living, working, and traveling through the area.” Read the study: The study is some research but more justification for what the city apparently wants to do. There is no explanation from anyone about why it wasn’t blighted anytime in the last 30-50 years since the site was decommissioned. An earlier designation would have created a more equal playing field for those bidding on the property, in the name of full disclosure. As it stands, it seems that one developer is getting a special deal. The study even documents that the Planning Commission meeting is a foregone conclusion: “… in addition to the public hearing (February 24, 2025), were scheduled, noticed, and conducted. Specifically, the Authority considered the Plan on XXXXXXX at a duly noticed meeting, and the Planning Commission reviewed the same on January 22, 2025, where they determined it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.“ – Study, pg 8 Jefferson County, City of Lakewood, Jefferson County School District R-1, West Metro Fire Protection District, and Mile High Flood District have already negotiated tax assessment and revenue agreements, prior to the public hearing. “It is the intention of City Council in adopting this Urban Renewal Plan that the [Lakewood Reinvestment] Authority has available to it any and all powers authorized in the Act and considered necessary and appropriate to implement this Plan.  Because powers conferred by the Act include facilitating the completion of improvements for which public money may be expended, the intentions of this Plan are considered to be in the public interest and a necessity, such finding being a matter of legislative determination by City Council with its adoption.” – Study, pg 9 Lakewood May Pay for Site De-Contamination Is this prime location for commercial activity really an area of blight? Debatable since it is called both prime and deteriorated in city documents but without this blight designation, Lakewood cannot fund the development. “Union Boulevard has grown over the years and has achieved recognition as a prime location for business” – Union Boulevard Corridor Plan To qualify for a blight designation, the site has been deemed deteriorated. This property was a federal military site that contains a toxic landfill. The study says the city may pay for old infrastructure and decontamination. Is the city signing up to pay for environmental remediation? Or is that only useful for designation purposes. So far no one has suggested actually decontaminating the site. Instead, the proposal is silent with respect to current plans but in the past the intention was to build over the hard parts. In the quote below, the bold is the blight condition, and the suggested city contribution follows. “Deterioration of site or other improvements – removal of trash, remnant infrastructure, weeds, and contaminants;” – Study, pg 11 Many of the conditions of so-called “blight” mean that the property is undeveloped. For example, to read this report, any property without a water line, or a street without curbs should be blighted. “Existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes – fire protection equipment, water lines, and storage facilities to ensure adequate flow;” – Study, pg 11 Since these are all conditions of an undeveloped property, and the developer bought the property knowing this and is now asking for the property to be blighted so the city can contribute, the question is: how much did the city promise the developer before purchase? How much did the developer plan on receiving? Did they ever plan on doing this on their own? The primary purpose of the plan is to allow the city to spend money “the first objectives of any and all urban renewal plans is to provide the municipality with a workable program for expending available resources to mitigate and prevent the spread of blight, foster needed rehabilitation of improvements within designated locations, and advance community priorities expressed in adopted policy and planning documents.”-  Study, pg 9 Contrary to what may sound like an innocuous renewal area recommendation, this is a major commitment to develop an environmentally sensitive area, with contentious high-density homes in an already congested traffic area. The plan aims to “advance community priorities,” which is a very subjective statement. The plans refer to designs started in 2008. Think of how much traffic has increased since then. The 2017 traffic study says traffic allowances will be needed and makes several recommendations, see below, which the city will also pay for. Current plans for the Union corridor are based on the layout of Portland, Oregon to increase density and walkability (see page 30). The new walkability plan completely rewrites the original city plan and block layout of a previous generation. The current plan also claims to be written for the next 50 years but is evidence that 50-year planning is difficult at best. This plan is a complete overhaul and urbanization of the Lakewood people here love. Do residents want to partner with developers to build 2000 units near an unremediated toxic

Read More

Lakewood Still Ignoring Window Washers

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , , , , , , ,

When Lakewood City Council had the opportunity to study the effects of repealing laws like those that govern panhandling in the street, Council voted no. Council Members said they, “can’t imagine telling a voter that we said we’re going to get rid of the consequences to crime.” What residents heard was “we want our laws to stay.” What Council meant was literally, “we can’t tell people what we are doing.” Nobody used false words, but a year later, Lakewood is still not enforcing its own laws and has not acknowledged the effects of removing the consequences. Since that time, Lakewood has doubled down on permitting window washing by deciding not to put up new signs to deter window washers, while voting to put up new signs to change the speed limit, both of which carry the same traffic risk. Residents are still voicing concerns and noting the lack of enforcement. A new thread on nextdoor.com appeared January 6, 2025. It disappeared within a day because Lakewood has vocal supporters on nextdoor who get people canceled (A big reason to support independent media!). Before it was removed, the post had over 200 comments, most of which agreed that panhandling and window washing on street medians was dangerous. Residents want Lakewood to do something about it. Original post: Complaints: Most neighbors said they felt threatened by the activity, especially females. Others felt endangered due to the high risk of accidents. Still more expressed frustration with Lakewood for not taking action the way other cities, like Arvada, are doing. Some people disagreed that window washing was a problem at all. They didn’t seem to argue about its legality or status as a traffic hazard. Rather than addressing those issues, they argued that residents should be more compassionate. To those that feel threatened or endangered, the overwhelming response was to tell people to deal with it. That is, it was your fault for feeling threatened, not the fault of the window washers or the situation. Misinformation: More troubling is the amount of misinformation out there. For instance, one resident said this wasn’t a Lakewood issue. She advised people to call the state. During this process she agreed with Lakewood’s strategy of unofficially repealing crimes without resident consent. Lakewood Informer reached out the CDOT and the Colorado State Patrol and confirmed that Lakewood are indeed the responders to this situation, if they so choose. Lakewood should have time to police all its laws. One resident said he reached out to Lakewood City Council and was told there was no law against panhandling. Does City Council really not know the laws that have been brought to their attention numerous times? According to another resident, Mayor Wendi Strom specifically called these “crimes of survival” – a concept Council denied defending when refusing to research repealing the law. Are Council or staff interpreting Lakewood laws are illegal and so are unofficially repealing them without a proper vote? Or are they playing word games to say “panhandling is not illegal” while not addressing the fact that there are laws that address the issue? According to staff, Lakewood has repealed several panhandling laws. However, there are others still active for roadside solicitation (LMC 12.18.020). City Council has refused to research effective policing strategies or to take action to enforce Lakewood laws. They have also not officially repealed any laws. But Lakewood residents seem to have no doubt that Lakewood is not enforcing its laws and they are noticing the detrimental effects.

Read More

Lakewood Abuses Emergency Declaration Power

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , , , , , , ,

Cold weather has been an accepted fact of Colorado life for thousands of years. That is, except in Lakewood, where normal winter weather has been declared an emergency for the last two years. The city’s seasonal emergency declaration allows Lakewood to bypass its own procedures and operate a homeless shelter — without a required permit. Did Lakewood lack planning, or did the city plan to use an emergency declaration to purposely operate without official votes? Another emergency declaration will be made, if it hasn’t already been, for 2025, the third year in a row. “Any time there is forecast to be an extraordinary emergency/extreme weather event involving sustained temperatures at or below twenty (20) degrees Fahrenheit I have determined that a local extreme weather emergency exists requiring and authorizing me to exercise any or all of the emergency powers vested in me as City Manager…” Extraordinary weather event? Meaning natural Colorado winter weather? Sustained cold? Like, overnight? How is this extraordinary? “In Lakewood, the summers are warm, the winters are very cold and snowy, and it is partly cloudy year-round. Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from 23°F to 87°F and is rarely below 7°F or above 95°F.” –Weatherspark.com The weather itself is not the emergency. Rather, Lakewood leadership wanted to start a homeless shelter but did not want to go through the normal process of public hearings to decide on a homeless policy.  This public process would be open for community comment but the establishment of homeless shelters is a contentious issue that could lead to unfavorable attention. So, to avoid this prickly issue, it appears that Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson issued an emergency proclamation declaring that normal weather is an emergency, completely bypassing public policy processes, presumably with City Council’s full approval. With this emergency mechanism in place, Lakewood could immediately start operating a homeless shelter.  Interestingly, Lakewood had already applied for state funds, assuring the State that it would get the required permit when necessary.  Unfortunately for the citizens, by the time the permit hearing is held (still in future), Lakewood leadership could claim the emergency process has been historically in place for the past few years, with funding appropriated – thus automatically approving the required permits.   A permit is necessary by code to operate a homeless shelter.  Lakewood had to write a new law in 2023 to operate a temporary shelter. The emergency shelter mechanism appears to be a carefully constructed misinformation tactic that abuses the public trust.  Most significantly, Lakewood has completely bypassed important public policy discussions which resulted in citizens in cities like Arvada to vehemently oppose proposals for getting into the homelessness industry. From Lakewood City Council Study Session, November 18, 2024: “Our hope is that we can ribbon cut this address as a 24/7 shelter in 2025,” said Chris Conner, Manager Housing and Thriving Communities.  He assumes the shelter permit will be approved. Still, there was no mention of public policy debate of homeless response in Lakewood and no response to public criticism of the current shelter. City Council has made it clear during study sessions that they approve of staff policy. Study sessions have no public comment or votes. The only vote so far has been to approve the fund appropriations. There will also be the anticipated vote from the Planning Commission for a shelter that everyone seems to think is guaranteed. Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson continues to get annual bonuses and salary increases, while Council approves of finding legal loopholes to make policies materialize without official Council votes. That keeps the policy power within the City Manager’s office and allows those involved to blame others for the lack of proper public process.   Read the 2024 emergency declarations yourself…

Read More

An Unused Strategy to Housing Affordability

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , ,

From SaveBelmarPark.com Have you noticed that Lakewood City Council has dug in pretty deep on their pretend parkland ordinance crisis and their related commitment to litigation and media manipulation over their job which is legislation to address the issues they created?  We hope a more constructive attitude eventually emerges on city council. In fact, we noticed the other day a Lakewood resident and attorney popped up on TV news with an issue that Lakewood wants 1,300 square feet of parkland dedication to allow her ranch home to be leveled and a new home built. While this nice lady made some excellent points, the news reporting seemed to implicate the thousands of good citizens of Lakewood who brought forward the fee-in-lieu removal ordinance for causing the problem as if City Council has no authority or responsibility to consider any useful changes to the ordinance they adopted. I did take the liberty of contacting her architect from their public email address and suggesting that City Council is authorized to address her concerns.  I had previously communicated that information to the reporter but apparently some facts are not news. Read the full email here… And read more about the housing design strategy already used in Europe here…to learn about

Read More

An Unused Strategy to Housing Affordability

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , ,

From SaveBelmarPark.com Have you noticed that Lakewood City Council has dug in pretty deep on their pretend parkland ordinance crisis and their related commitment to litigation and media manipulation over their job which is legislation to address the issues they created?  We hope a more constructive attitude eventually emerges on city council. In fact, we noticed the other day a Lakewood resident and attorney popped up on TV news with an issue that Lakewood wants 1,300 square feet of parkland dedication to allow her ranch home to be leveled and a new home built. While this nice lady made some excellent points, the news reporting seemed to implicate the thousands of good citizens of Lakewood who brought forward the fee-in-lieu removal ordinance for causing the problem as if City Council has no authority or responsibility to consider any useful changes to the ordinance they adopted. I did take the liberty of contacting her architect from their public email address and suggesting that City Council is authorized to address her concerns.  I had previously communicated that information to the reporter but apparently some facts are not news. Read the full email here… And read more about the housing design strategy already used in Europe here…to learn about

Read More

Some Coloradans in Lakewood concerned about voter turnout in upcoming special election

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , , , , ,

 By Andrew Haubner, CBS News Note: Thank you Andrew Haubner for shining a light on Lakewood in time for people to learn about the special election! The election will be held before March 25, 2025. Some residents of the municipality of Lakewood are concerned about the possibility of low turnout in an upcoming special election. There are two city council seats, Ward 3 and Ward 4 — two of the largest wards in Lakewood — that are up for grabs this year. Council member Rich Olver, who was known as a dissenting voice on the council, resigned and moved to Arizona. Resident Karen Morgan said his voice was needed in the face of a council that typically is in lockstep.  “[There are] little details that Rich would bring up and that was great,” she told CBS Colorado, “and we won’t have that.” Some of the largest issues in Lakewood persist; crime, homelessness, and housing. In Ward 3, in particular, the continuing fight over property development in Belmar Park will be an important part of the voters’ decision. Read more and watch video…

Read More
Scroll to top