Tag: news

$$$ Financing Deals

The Bend: A Government Financing Trade Deal

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on . Leave a Comment

Lakewood may be forcing a property owner to blight their own land in a backroom trade deal wherein staff pledged a positive vote from City Council for a metro district. The deal would give The Bend development city financing in exchange for metro district status.

In January 2025, a representative for The Bend developer made the following public comment:

“The city is actually only allowing a Metro District to be put in place if the URA (Urban Renewal Area) passes so that it is a vehicle for this infrastructure and tax increment financing. They actually would not pass our Metro District standalone. They’ve made that very clear.” – Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, at Green Mountain Water Board Meeting, min 40:13.

This deal illuminates why Lakewood is rushing through a URA and metro district public hearing on the same night. Staff presentations have repeatedly touted the advantages of doing both the URA and the metro district at the same time. They claim these are complementary structures.

But they are not complementary. Rather, these are essentially overlapping structures that could finance the same set of infrastructures. Apparently, financing public infrastructure is a profit center.

Overlapping financing is duplicative. Even worse, for The Bend, neither metro district nor URA is appropriate. The Bend is not a “serious and growing menace” to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare, which is the statutory reason for Urban Renewal. The Bend does not provide public services, which is necessary for a metro district. The metro district will only be used for financing. Therefore, the most appropriate government assistance, if any, would be a Business Improvement District (BID).  BIDs are the more accountable, less powerful, way to achieve development financing but no one is advocating for its use.

Instead, developers prefer to form metro districts. This initially involves the developer loaning money to the new metro district.  Then the metro district issues a bond, with interest, to pay back the loan. Since the developer and the metro district are the same people (different legal entity), the developer has now gained itself government immunity, as well as millions of dollars of interest payments. In many cases, the interest payments never end – they only continue to grow. This outcome isn’t possible with a BID.

(See Denver Post series “Metro Districts: Debt & Democracy” by David Migoya for more in-depth information on metro district abuses)

Therefore, developers generally want that metro district as a profit center, rather than as a way to finance development, since they front the funds in either case.

A URA is also meant to fund public infrastructure. Much of the public infrastructure was repeated under both the URA and metro district justification. Only one method is needed to finance infrastructure, and, as noted, the developer will provide the base funds in any event. As Karen Gordey reported in the Lakewood Informer, there was no required financial gap analysis completed to show that city funding was required. Therefore, with a metro district there is no need for a URA. This conclusion is also shared by a report from the Independence Institute. A URA has not required a metro district in the past.

However, Lakewood can trade URA financing for affordable housing. Lakewood is not allowed to pay for housing directly. Lakewood is not even supposed to demand any percentage of affordable housing. There is no zoning or ordinance that requires it.  The irony is that Lakewood City Council itself sunset the Strategic Growth Initiative ordinance. Under that ordinance, this development would have fallen under the allocation review system wherein Lakewood could have asked for affordable housing to permit this many units in a TRANSPARENT process. Instead, the city is now working behind the scenes to make this same thing happen.

So, through the URA, Lakewood will gain affordable housing, aka government housing or government-subsidized housing. Those units can be used to qualify for state grants for even more development in Lakewood.

“Without the Urban Renewal plan, in our case, we wouldn’t be able to deliver kind of what they want to see or their vision for this piece of land which includes housing retail and affordable housing they you know both the state and the city and the county do have a desire to have a portion of the site have affordable housing in it.“ Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, Jan 28 2025, min 35:57

Lakewood residents will pay for The Bend development by giving the developer financing. The new taxes from that development are diverted out of the general fund, which pays for Lakewood resident services like police, and instead will pay for The Bend development responsibilities like streets and pipes.

The decision for an Urban Renewal Area is very separate from the decision to approve a metro district. The developer did not originally desire to be in an Urban Renewal Area and Lakewood may not approve a metro district as a standalone decision. But, operating together, the developer and city can trade financial incentives that residents throughout Lakewood will pay for.  The developer offers blight and gets metro district status and financing. The city offers URA financing to indirectly offset affordable housing units and gets a basis for more state grant funding.

“Municipalities are using a tool (URA) meant only for serious threats to the public as a tool for gaining a competitive advantage in economic development. Which, essentially, is a way to financially reward development partners and a method to force the public into a future desired by government planners.” -From The Empty Promise and Untold Cost of Urban Renewal in Colorado

Just like Lakewood’s deal to buy Emory Elementary, residents should know the full plan to leverage this deal for more high-density development using state grant funds from the affordable housing units. Without that knowledge, which has not been disclosed, neither the URA nor the metro district decision makes any sense.

There will be a City Council vote on the metro district and URA on Monday, May 12 that is open to public comment.

The representative from Lincoln Properties, Allie Meister, did not reply to requests for comment.

This article is written as the personal beliefs of Karen Morgan under the Lakewood Informer banner.

National Motorist Association logo

Mandy Connell podcast website

Kentner on Mandy Connell for Belmar

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

From Mandy Connell’s blog

WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN GOVERNMENT WON’T LISTEN? That is the situation that many Lakewood residents find themselves in when it comes to the conflict over green space vs. development. This time it’s Belmar Park, where developers want to build right up the boundaries and pay dispensation money instead of actually honoring green space that is required. I’ve got Cathy Kentner with Save Belmar Park on at 1 to chat about it. Find out more about their cause by clicking here.

Lakewood’s Cathy Kentner did a great job of explaining how this goes beyond growth arguments and into honoring plans to maintain community standards.

Thank you Cathy and Mandy for highlighting this issue!

Listen to the interview here

No Workforce Housing for Lakewood

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on . 1 Comment

Another Lakewood misinformation campaign bites the dust.

For years Lakewood has been pushing high-density growth in the name of “affordable housing”. They market this narrative to schoolteachers and civil servants. See Lakewood’s recent resolution using these exact words. However, a development presentation to the Lakewood Planning Commission introduced a new term that exposes the lie: Workforce housing

Workforce Housing

The consultant Lakewood hired to evaluate blight and Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan pointed out that there was NO PLAN for increasing workforce housing in Lakewood.

The emphasis on “affordable housing”, despite what Lakewood says, is different from workforce housing. No matter how poorly teachers and civil servants get paid, they get paid more than anyone living on the streets.

Affordable housing in Lakewood will mean a government-run program, similar to what used to be called Section 8. That is not the same as an answer to inflated housing prices for low- to median-income levels.

Think about government-run affordable housing like a scholarship system for school. A person may need the financial assistance, and may not be able to go to college without it, but there are others who need it more and not enough to go around.

For decades, the people most in need are those with extremely low income. Not low. Not middle-low. Not teachers and civil servants. Extremely low income.

6.8 million more affordable housing units needed for extremely low income housing families
From the National Low Income Housing Coalition

Ann Ricker, of Ricker Cunningham, is Lakewood’s blight consultant. She pointed out there was a gap in the Comprehensive Plan. She said the plan talked about affordable housing, and it talked about single-family housing, but she said there was the missing middle. She suggested removing “single-family” and just using the term “housing”.

Using the general term “housing” would allow more high-density, market rate apartments to be built in an effort to flood the market and lower prices. Lakewood is already proceeding with this plan. There is no guarantee the low-priced condos or townhomes will be built anywhere.

The term “workforce housing” is a more accurate description of how the public perceives the promises from Lakewood. This was an important acknowledgment that “workforce housing” is different than “affordable housing”. The public should be aware of the word games going on, similar to “illegal alien” versus “migrant”.

Watch Ann Ricker discuss the Comprehensive Plan here:

From Frank Lehnerz, Free State Colorado

“If the government tries to wage war against the laws of the market by price control, it undermines the working of the market mechanism and leads to conditions which, from the point of view of the government itself, are less desirable than the previous state of affairs it intended to alter.”

— Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action (1949)

History has repeatedly shown that price controls—whether on food, housing, or other essentials—create virtually no consumer benefits and only price distortions. By capping what producers or retailers can charge, these controls reduce supply, reduce product or service quality, discourage investment for new, improved, or cheaper products and services, and create market signal distortions.

How Expensive is Lakewood Electrification?

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Lakewood has a sustainability agenda to push electrification in order to decrease fossil fuel emissions. Electrification means changing your gas appliance to an electric one. Xcel is asking for an extra $5 billion to upgrade infrastructure that is needed for this change. Xcel will fund this by charging all customers more on top of an ever-increasing bill. A recent podcast from PowerGab called “Heat Pump Surprise”, pondered whether our elected officials know the total cost of their agenda. This was a good question so LakewoodInformer news asked Lakewood City Council if they knew the total cost for Lakewood residents. We got two responses and zero answers. All Lakewood residents are paying for electrification efforts through these additional fees. It’s not just the cost of a new appliance.

“Xcel Energy, seeking to meet an increasing demand for electric vehicles, rooftop solar arrays and heat pumps and general growth in electricity use, is proposing a $5 billion plan to improve the links between the grid and homes and businesses.” – Colorado Sun

The possible new fee is a result of the Fenberg Rider, passed by Colorado legislators in 2024.  This fee will improve only one leg of an overloaded distribution center. Electrification is one of, if not the most, expensive ways to decarbonize energy.

“Whether or not you actually convert to a heat pump you’re still gonna pay for this…. It’s even more perverse than that because what the PUC actually did was tack on a fee for existing natural gas customers to pay to subsidize folks to switch” – PowerGab

Does Lakewood know how much it will cost to switch to electric appliances?

Only two out of eleven Council Members responded to an emailed question. Neither answer included total costs. All Councilors affirmed their commitment to sustainability as a worthy goal. Sustainability, including any electrification, is a city priority.

Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero provided a swift response, saying she previously worked in climate justice and clean energy policy. She points out the “current rate structures that Xcel uses is actually very beneficial to most customers as more electric appliances come online. As you know, heat pumps are most used in the night, and are also statistically more likely in homes where at least one person is home in the day, meaning continued use (on average) in the none-surge pricing hours. This all results in something often referred to as “flattening the curve”.

Flattening the curve does not stop the overall line increasing. The experts at PowerGab estimate (min 12) that the total necessary infrastructure upgrades total about to $695 billion for the necessary 82 gigawatts of power. The question remains, are climate justice warriors aware of the total cost?

Councilor Paula Nystrom says, “The concern is air quality, not just the cost… we [Lakewood] have deadlines to meet.” She says that it’s important to think of the global problem and how people suffer with air quality while trying to enjoy the summer outside. She did not know of any specific fees or sources of funding, but did say that there was enough tax credits and grants that residents wanting to switch to electric appliances could do so at about half the sticker cost.

Is $695 billion in new statewide spending possible? And is it worth it to achieve decarbonization goals?

Lakewood Council, Sustainability Committee and staff have been running a recurring false narrative that electrification is cheap because it uses “free money” like tax credits or subsidies when the reality is that everyone pays to make this money available. Lakewood will require that new buildings have electric heat pumps versus gas furnaces, relying on the fact that residents will believe the free money narrative over the total cost narrative. This change is likely to happen in spring of 2025.

Lakewood will also spend more on city buildings to meet these sustainability goals through increased taxpayer funding.

“This means you writing a check with a comma in it to pay your utility bill every single month. So $1,000 plus monthly utility bills.” – Amy Cooke, PowerGab

This informal survey of Lakewood City Council seems to prove PowerGab’s theory that legislators championing electrification have not added all these numbers up.

“This is a regressive tax. If you want to hurt poor people, you drive up the cost of keeping lights on… Affordable housing won’t matter. We are literally bankrupting the state.” Amy Cooke, PowerGab, min 7:30 mark)

“We need to account for the fact that increased load does have a cost,” Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat and cosponsor of the bill, told a Senate Finance Committee hearing. “There are investments that need to be made.” –  Colorado Sun

The Council responses also shows that only two out of eleven Councilors were willing to explain their beliefs in the face of a competing cost narrative. All beliefs are worth consideration, and their answers showed true respect for all their constituents. Thank you!

Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIExE1OlL-4

Park Land Ordinance Battle Continues – Legal Intervenors

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Over the last month, Lakewood has been sued over the new park land dedication ordinance, has hired outside counsel and is now trying to quickly amend or repeal the ordinance. Lakewood staff and City Council say they are trying to make the ordinance legal. Others say Lakewood has an obligation to fight for the citizen-led ordinance, a belief summarized below. Also below is an article detailing how residents are getting involved in the legal fight as intervenors, hoping to fight for the ordinance they believe the city is leaving behind.

On February 3, 2025, there was a City Council executive session and workshop on the subject. Second and third readings of possible changes are scheduled for February 10 and 24.

From LakewoodSpeaks public comment:

The City of Lakewood is legally responsible to defend the Parkland Dedication law our citizens brought forth by petition and City Council subsequently voted to incorporate into our laws. The right to this democratic petition process is protected by our National Constitution and passed down by our City’s upper tier documents. It is disrespectful and dangerous to attack this revered democratic process (or bully those citizens in need of utilizing it) that has been created and implemented by our democratic leaders to provide a voice to downtrodden citizens who feel their Government is not listening to all people.

There is concern by many residents that the City will protect their long-standing history of favoring developers over citizens, by putting forward a weak, unprofessional and half-hearted defense of this law that requires parkland dedication to the community by developers.

Now the reality of this concern that the City will ignore their responsibility to 100% defend our law has been cast in broad daylight. When the contractor filed for an injunction to ignore this new law initially set in motion by the people of Lakewood, the motion did not even receive a public hearing before it was granted. A public hearing on the request for an injunction was not convened BECAUSE NO ONE (READ LAKEWOOD ) OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION. This is the first glaring proof of the City turning their back on performing their assigned judicial responsibilities. Can the next example be far behind?

From Save Open Space – Lakewood

Judge orders injunction against Lakewood Green Initiative, allowing monstrosity at Belmar Park to proceed: Citizens cry foul

Wednesday, January 29, 2025 – On January 14, District Court Judge Jason Carrithers granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Lakewood Green Initiative, which means the Kairoi Residential project adjacent to Belmar Park can proceed as if the citizen initiative petition had never existed.

The judge’s decision was predictable because the City offered no opposition to the developer’s desire for an injunction.

In response to the Unopposed Injunction, two Motions to “Intervene” were filed on behalf of the Initiative. In the Motion filed Friday, January 17, “Proposed intervenor Save Belmar Park, Inc., (“SBP”) seeks intervention to defend the O-2024-28 ordinance as adopted and the requirements it imposes on the City and the Plaintiffs to protect the interests of SBP’s members in maintaining the character and aesthetic of Belmar Park from profit-driven unreasonable and unsustainable developer overreach. The City Council’s public statements and its actions so far in this litigation indicate that it cannot be relied on to protect SBP’s members’ interests.  The preliminary injunctive relief granted to Plaintiffs is a litigation tactic sought to circumvent a robust and thorough evaluation of all parties’ rights. A preliminary injunction in this matter only benefits Plaintiffs to the degree they could seek approval of their proposed plans under the old municipal code without the disputed ordinance’s provisions. Once that approval is obtained and building permits are issued the provisions of O-2024-28 would no longer apply and the need for any further pursuit of this litigation would be moot. Plaintiffs’ Complaint also fails to address that the relief postured by Plaintiffs to apply only to them would affect all developments city Un-wide, where other developers could rely on the findings of this declaratory action to avoid complying with the Lakewood Municipal Code as currently adopted.

The City would then also have the political cover to attribute to the Court the need to make city-wide changes in the disputed ordinance rather than take up the issue with its electorate in an open and public debate.”

In the Motion to Intervene filed Tuesday, January 21, petition representative Cathy Kentner claims, “The mere fact that the City of Lakewood did not oppose the Motion for Temporary Injunction, and at the same time states they plan to oppose this Motion to Intervene on their behalf, is evidence that the City does not intend to adequately defend… In fact, it appears that both the Plaintiff and Defendant are attempting to moot this action by allowing irreparable harm to happen while this action is in court process.”

Kentner further points out that the City of Lakewood has a history of not adequately defending citizen positions.  For example, “In the case of Colorado Christian University v. City of Lakewood (2021CV30629), District Court Judge Russell B. Klein granted intervention stating:

‘The proposed intervenors in this case argue that the City of Lakewood did not oppose a temporary restraining order and that the temporary restraining order filings contained false information – as a result their interests are not being adequately represented…Here the Court finds that the interests of the City of Lakewood and the two proposed intervenors are different, and that difference is not reduced to a disagreement as to trial strategy. The City of Lakewood has an interest in defending the constitutionality and application of its ordinances, whereas the proposed intervenors have an interest in the impact of the ordinances on their neighborhood and residences. Thus, the Court finds that the unique interest that each party maintains (the City of Lakewood vis-a-vis the two proposed intervenors) do not sufficiently overlap, and the Court finds that the interests of the two proposed intervenors are not adequately represented.’”

Lakewood surely is celebrating the ruling that allows them to continue their 13-year tradition of taking money for large developments while they claim to care for residents, their safety, their quality of life, the environment, huh global warming, wildlife and declining bird population.

Citizens are justified in feeling this “temporary” injunction could become permanent. If delayed long enough, Kairoi could be issued a building permit effectively mooting any issues.

The City’s response to Kairoi’s initial complaint is due to be filed this week. Both the City and Kairoi have 21 days to respond to the Motions to Intervene.

Order_re Unopposed Motion for Preliminary InjunctionDownload
1.0 Motion to Intervene – FinalDownload
Exhibit B – Complaint – FinalDownload
Kentner Motion to Intervene ExhibitsDownload

Council Passes Metro District Ordinance

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

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.

  1. Commerce City passed a moratorium on metro districts.
  2. Longmont passed a bill limiting metro districts to non-residential development (the vast majority of metro districts are for residential development)
  3. Westminster passed a policy of opposition.

Lakewood staff never presented any of these options, or even just the option of voting no, to City Council. However, Councilor Cruz pointed out that this ordinance does not bind Council to approving new metro districts.

As attorney Stanek* advocated, the Lakewood ordinance has some extra provisions that Lakewood hopes will provide extra safety to future residents. However, as Lakewood Informer news pointed out previously, many of those protections are limited.

*It is difficult to confirm any Lakewood staff title. In response to a request for an org chart, Lakewood Informer was told that the city didn’t have one because “it is all embedded into our HRIS system and doesn’t print out in a org chart manner“. No substitute was offered. Very few names, titles or phone numbers are located on the website.

Most Council Members agreed that these extra provisions made passing the ordinance worthwhile. They all seemed very cognizant of the dangers that metro districts pose. The hope is that future residents will do their own homework and discover anything they might object to before purchasing a home (ex. terms of extra taxes). This is more difficult than Lakewood disallowing objectionable items, but the information will be there.

Councilors Shahrezaei and Rein offered changes for additional transparency including:

  1. Hosting copies of annual reports on the city website
  2. Eliminating the possibility of a study session before approving a metro district
  3. Disclosure requirements for any board candidate that has ties to the developer

Mayor Strom said she is very supportive of this new ordinance. She says, “This is really an opportunity for the city to make sure that development is paying their own way so that our newer residents are paying and it’s through a financing mechanism that allows a developer to not have to sell a house with an extra $30,000 on top because of the sidewalks that they had to put in.”

Strom’s base assumption – that metro district housing is more affordable – has been proved untrue overall by the Anderson Economic Group. They “found that issuing bonds to finance metropolitan district infrastructure costs reduces the typical home buyer’s down payment by an average of 4% relative to a scenario in which that same home is built outside of a metropolitan district. We further projected that a homeowner’s long-term housing costs will be 2% higher over the course of a 30-year mortgage due to the debt service property taxes levied in metropolitan districts. Additionally, we found that a metropolitan district’s housing costs may be even higher…”

So they found that a metro district adds at least 2% more total costs than traditional development but developers can say the cost is 4% lower at time of sale. Someone has to pay for the sidewalks but that will ultimately be the homeowners, not the developer. This metro district bill has nothing to do with making developers “pay their own way.”

A cheaper alternative would be for the city not to demand improvements like extensive sidewalks and bike lanes. There may be people who would like to have homes with fewer infrastructure amenities in exchange for a lower cost. Or if tens of thousands is the true cost and extensive infrastructure is universally desired, telling people upfront what the cost of total home package is might allow them to finance it themselves at more favorable prices. But those options were not presented either.

Councilor LaBure echoed the “affordable housing” narrative by saying that without metro districts, Lakewood would not have any development. Other Councilors have made similar statements in past meetings. This is the official talking point of the developer-run Metro District Education Coalition (MDEC). MDEC was the only outside expert invited to City Council study sessions last year.  Competing grassroots organizations who know the dangers of metro districts were not involved.

These statements show that at its base, metro districts help developers and all Lakewood can do is try to minimize the harm to residents. Public comment online was unanimously against the creation of metro districts.

Scorecard: Regulating Metropolitan Districts

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Low: Aye

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye

Mayor Suspends Rules for Parkland Dedication Issue

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

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.   

    Mile High Web Designs

Mayor Strom did not say how many people were adversely affected by the new ordinance, but this move is extraordinary.  Even in other time-sensitive circumstances, such as when hundreds of Belmar Park residents were begging for emergency intervention, Strom did not suspend the rules. In fact, with her inauguration, she has moved public comment to the end of the meeting in a move that guarantees most people do not stay for comment. The parkland ordinance itself was time sensitive due to the ballot initiative deadlines. Council chose not to address the issue at all.

Strom asked for a vote to direct staff to present some amendments to the ordinance at the January 27 meeting. She also later agreed with Councilor Roger Low’s statement that “it would be incumbent on members of council to proactively draft those amendments and work with the city attorney’s office, presumably to draft those amendments and circulate them [we] will be authoring the amendments and staff merely writing them up.”

It is evident that many processes will still be decided over the next month. No data was presented to demonstrate the problem, but Mayor Strom says that will be coming as staff present real life stories of the harm the ordinance is doing to residents and staff. No one mentioned the residents who were positively affected by the ordinance except for Councilor Nystrom.

Accusations of Bait N Switch

Strom says she does not believe residents knew what they were signing or the unintended consequences of the original petition. This narrative was espoused by several Councilors at previous meetings, including multiple times by Council Member Roger Low. It’s an ironic stance to take coming from the council who approved official ballot language to de-TABOR the city without ever mentioning TABOR.

Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem Shaharezaei went so far as to accuse the resident petition gatherers of pulling a bait and switch. She says they touted the initiative as a way to get more parkland but really it was about reducing density. She says these unintended consequences are something that needs a response.

Shahrezaei did not acknowledge that the parkland dedication initiative was a result of unintended consequences of City Council not being accountable for adequate oversight of the existing ordinance. That issue has been ongoing for over a decade. But Councilor Low ran through some math to acknowledge that resident density and parkland should have some sort of equilibrium.

Parks Versus Development

The ordinance is not about development per se. It is about the fact that more people need more parks in order to sustain the equilibrium Councilor Low spoke of. For decades people have moved to Lakewood for the plentiful parks. So much so that Lakewood Council recently pushed a bill to de-TABOR, partly to fund park expansion.

Many Councilors returned to the original argument from months ago that there was no way to mandate reasonable parkland dedication and still allow development. Those Councilors just want the development. Urban versus suburban development.

Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said that she hears the frustration of residents but there are several projects in her ward that are underway and are affected by this ordinance. She says that she has not heard any objection to developing several large lots in her ward. “Whatever your motivation and your impetus is, I believe that the way that this was written is going to result in a level of cost to the people of Lakewood and to the community that is really irresponsible for us to allow to continue.”

Council Member Cruz pointed out that this is impacting affordable housing developers. Affordable housing developers include Metro West Housing (MWH). Cruz did not discuss the MWH attempt to put 44 units on 1.6 acres, without including enough parking or a wide street, let alone neighborhood parkland for these new residents.

Councilor Sinks clarified that there was not a ordinance rewrite. Councilor LaBure agreed, stating that this would not be a rewrite, but rather tweaking some words.

Willful Misinterpretation

Councilor Nystrom says there are inconsistencies and, in her opinion, inaccuracies around the way the new ordinance has been applied. She also pointed out that there are many positive emails from residents, it’s not all negative as the other Councilors state.

Nystrom’s comments hint that the ordinance interpretation may be being used as a political football. She is the only Councilor to bring up a contrarian view and sound supportive of the resident-sponsored initiative.

Normal City Council procedure requires Councilors to submit a Request for Council Action to start a discussion. In other governments, elected officials can introduce legislation and call for a vote. In Lakewood, instead of Council Members authoring legislation, they must gain agreement from a majority of Members to hold a study session to generate ideas. Alternatively, they can assign staff or a committee to find solutions.

No Time to Think It Through

City Attorney McKinney-Brown says this move is “unusual but nothing illegal.” City Council must work by passing ordinances. She continues, “If the City Council believes they have plenty of time to workshop this and think their way through it, then you can start from a, a less intensive jumping off place.”

Her statement seems to suggest that Council may be acting off gut reactions and hasty conclusions. However, Council Member Low “signaled” that a third reading may be used to add additional time due to the amount of public interest in the topic and Councilor Rein agreed.

Council voted unanimously for the motion to have a first reading January 27.

https://agelesssalonandspa.com/

Council to Tour New Housing Facility

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Solid Ground Apartments opened in Lakewood in 2024. It is a Jefferson Center facility that is located in the Two Creeks neighborhood. Lakewood was a community supporter. City Council members voted to tour the facility in order to learn more about any future facilities that Lakewood would own, operate or support, which is a Council initiative.

Solid Ground appears to be the first permanent supportive project for the unhoused from the Jefferson Center and they found a home in Lakewood. The funds came from a federal grant. According to HUD, permanent supportive housing is “permanent housing in which housing assistance (e.g., long-term leasing or rental assistance) and supportive services are provided to assist households with at least one member (adult or child) with a disability in achieving housing stability.”

During the time that the Jefferson Center was working on this supportive housing, the Center was forced to close the mental health program for kids. There is no evidence that the Center could have used federal grants to sustain the mental health program with or without housing. Federal grants for affordable housing are paid for by printing money which leads to inflation of consumer prices, including higher housing prices.

From jcmh.org: “Jefferson Center proudly manages over 420 housing vouchers that range from Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly Section 8) through Permanent Supportive Housing Vouchers.”

By jcmh.org statistics, there are about 453 people counted living on the streets.

Lakewood Council may also tour other facilities as part of researching future opportunities.

The Jefferson Center is a non-profit who has provided Jefferson County with mental health services for 66 years. It was previously known as the Jefferson Center for Mental Health. Their stated missions is “To inspire hope, improve lives, and strengthen our community by providing mental health and related solutions for individuals and families.”

Photo from Jefferson Center website

Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

The widespread zoning changes Lakewood made in 2013 resulted in a resident-initiated movement known as “strategic growth.” Residents were unhappy with the increased, high-density residential units being built that unbalanced the economic growth of the city. Ten years later, city leaders are still not listening to residents. On December 9, 2024, Lakewood City Council passed a resolution stating the city will have a “zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood.“

This resolution is not normal procedure. Normally, there is a proposal presented to the public that will show specific plans on promoting homes for the unhoused, increased density, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. This is not that.

Rather, it is a declaration that the city already has its mind made up to implement these changes. And because they seek to be “bold”, the Council will approve whatever the contractor recommends, whether or not the public likes it.

It’s like Lakewood is playing a Jedi mind trick. Lakewood leaders want a zoning code to accomplish a bold new agenda and they are saying: you can’t see the code but it will be good for you. You will like it.

Residents are waking up to the fact that the “anti-growth” narrative was just a way to belittle those who disagreed with the establishment. Look at how residents react to the proposed developments at Whippoorwill and Belmar for proof that no one is asking to stop all development. They just want it done reasonably and in line with existing neighborhoods.

Residents are also waking up to the fact that the “affordable housing” narrative is false because Lakewood doesn’t have a housing shortage. These two narratives are how Lakewood justifies the need for this zoning code change. Lakewood needs to pass this resolution and zoning code before more residents wake up. Going through proper public discussion took years for a short-term rental policy and the zoning code is much more significant.

Being “bold” seems to be a new political buzzword meaning leaders are crossing a line. Bold is fast-moving, which could be dangerous in government designed to work slowly through public discussion.

In this case, as you can see below, the new zoning code will potentially destabilize neighborhoods by extensively changing the rules to densify development in every code. The zoning code was established to keep neighborhoods stable, so residents know the type of neighborhood they are moving into. With these proposed changes, the zoning code can even be used to expedite spending for the homeless, which is a budgetary process normally outside the scope of zoning.

The resolution cites the new comprehensive plan as proof that residents approve of this zoning code change. This is disingenuous at best because:

  1. The comprehensive plan doesn’t mention specific action, just “feel-good” goals. Think in terms of everyone agreeing on world peace except that for one person peace means the peace that comes after world war.
  2. Lakewood hired a consultant to rewrite the zoning code BEFORE the results of the comprehensive plan were finalized, substantiating that the game was rigged.

Read the resolution below and see how wonderful it sounds. For each bulleted objective from the resolution, there is an example (in white italics) that shows how it could be twisted into something that residents would not like, most of which have been mentioned by city and state leadership.

The revised Zoning Code will:

  • Be a zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood, including:
    • Strategies that target the full range of housing needs compatible in scale and form with existing neighborhoods;
    • Increase flexibility in all zoning districts where appropriate to provide needed additional density;
      • (A pertinent example of this in the Belmar Park development fiasco where a new mega-apartment complex will be built that does not match the existing neighborhood. And that’s within existing zoning! Imagine an apartment building in place of your next-door neighbor’s house or the gas station on the corner.)
    • Lead to an increased supply of housing that is more affordable and attainable for individuals below 100% AMI, including for seniors, teachers, first responders, frontline workers, artists, and younger families.
      • (Since there is no way to guarantee new housing goes to seniors, new housing will likely go to investors just like it goes to investors now. This point is just emotional blackmail.)
  • Eliminate minimum lot sizes while maintaining reasonable setback and other dimensional standards;
    • (Buildings are now being built within a few feet of the sidewalk, as opposed to having ten feet of grass and a parking lot in front. This change increases wildfire hazard. It could also mean eliminating the original house to put four tiny houses on one lot – as discussed during a planning commission meeting. Or putting 15 units per acre, as per state suggestions.)
  • Improve connected lighting, sidewalks and bike paths;
    • (More bike lanes and less car lanes. Think of the separated lanes on Garrison or narrow lanes in Belmar.)
  • Improve mixed-use development;
    • (the 2013 rezoning already “improved” mixed use, resulting in replacement of promised commercial units with purely residential. This will eliminate even more business space.)
  • Codify a 90-day deadline to approve affordable housing projects;
  • Adopt a meaningful inclusionary zoning policy, either as part of, or as an accompaniment to, a zoning rewrite, which creates below market sale and rental units.
    • (inclusionary zoning is a market manipulation. It is modern day rent control, demanding all other units have high prices to subsidize around 10-20% of units being below market rate.)
  • Promote strategies and policies that will meaningfully and measurably reduce Lakewood greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water, and incentivize sustainability, each with timely goals and implementation;
    • (This includes eliminating parking requirements, even less gas stations or bringing back the fee-in-lieu option for parkland.)
  • Lead to Lakewood* meets the requirements of Proposition 123 (as modified by HB 23-1304) regarding Affordable Housing Programs;
    • (assuming this means fully adopting the state agenda and giving up the fight on local zoning rights that other cities are picking up.) *-”Lead to Lakewood” is in the original resolution. No idea what this means
  • Put fewer constraints on homeowners and renters, give Lakewood residents more choice, raise property values over time, and promote naturally occurring affordable and attainable housing;
    • (For example, there have been several suggestions to remove occupancy limits which could lead to overcrowding, health and fire hazards. Group homes in the middle of R1 neighborhoods have already caused problems in Lakewood. There are also suggestions to eliminate emergency staircase standards.)
  • Expedite the site selection and procurement of temporary sleeping units and shelters, and promoting and prioritizing permanent supportive housing;
    • (Give less notice that a homeless shelter is moving into your neighborhood – there are too many things wrong with this to list. And procurement has no place in a zoning code.)
  • Require that the construction, maintenance, and improvements of buildings owned or leased by the city will, where reasonably appropriate, minimize emissions, maximize sustainable design   principles, and be built, maintained, and improved with a view towards also serving as a community asset beyond their utilitarian function.
    • (Some City Councilors are concerned that the city is not getting LEED certified or have net zero emissions, both of which are EXTREMELY expensive.)

The Lakewood resolution was written at the direction of the City Manager, thus by-passing public input. This allowed City Council to “signal” residents that this bold change was coming. That way there is nothing for residents to oppose until it’s too late to make changes.

The reality is Lakewood does not have a shortage of housing. Changing the zoning code in the name of affordable housing is misleading. Read “The Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”.

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Links

Contact Info

Subscribe

© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs