New information shows that Lakewood has been planning on purchasing Emory Elementary, in partnership with the Action Center, since at least September 2023 as part of a homeless strategy.
In December of 2023, Lakewood City Manager Cathy Hodgson stated that Lakewood would be working with the Jeffco Action Center to move the Center into a closed public school so that Lakewood would have another building for their solution to homelessness. There was a strong, negative public reaction to this news, which only increased when Lakewood started talking about welcoming migrants. In reaction to the public backlash, the city cried “misinformation”, and both Hodgson and Mayor Strom stated that Lakewood has no direct control over the schools.
However, Hodgson did not explicitly deny that Lakewood has been working with the Action Center and Jeffco schools to move homeless services into a closed neighborhood school and increase housing for homeless. Instead, the manager or council called it “misinformation” in the news headlines, a statement solely aimed at migrant support (this claim was later also negated by discussions that homeless is homeless and Lakewood would support everyone possible.)
Recently alocal effort called Concerned Citizens in Lakewood, [email protected], submitted a CORA Request (Colorado Open Records Access request) which revealed planning meetings with the City of Lakewood, JeffCo Public Schools, and the JeffCo Action Center related to Emory Elementary School and a real estate transaction.
These planning meetings have been going on since at least September 2023.
According to emails, Lakewood’s City Manager Hodgson hosted an organizational meeting between Lakewood, the Action Center Executive Director Pam Brier and Jeff Gaitlin, Jefferson County School’s Chief Operating Officer. The email pictured below reveals that Lakewood and Jeffco Schools have held behind-the-scenes planning meetings for this school, while officials from both governments denied or stayed silent regarding any knowledge of future plans. The email appears to indicate that the purpose of this meeting was to define next steps on the partnership to buy Emory Elementary.
Not only do the emails show the partnership being formed months ago, they show the plans were detailed enough to involve future meetings with real estate agents and school board attorneys. Notable in this email was that commercial real estate agents may not be needed. This was not the public process with ample notice the school board advertised.
Gaitlin, from Jeffco Schools, said in February that Lakewood was in the early stages of using the municipal option. The municipal option seems to have come into being just for Lakewood, since it was unveiled just after Hodgson announced the plans for the school.
Using the municipal option, no community involvement is necessary, and the city could get the property at a discount. There is no municipal option for a non-profit and there is no information on how the Action Center could afford to buy the property directly, although recent evidence shows there is ample money in grants from the state to provide housing.
Officials from all organizations have had months to tell the public that these plans were being formed and to explain the public good they expected to achieve. Instead, they chose silence and a “misinformation” campaign.
There has been no public disclosure of what the city and or the Action Center plans to do with the building, should the deal go through.
There has been no public disclosure of any possible agreements Lakewood has with the Action Center in order to use the municipal option for the benefit of the non-profit.
City Councilor Rich Olver explained in one Council meeting that he was told that Lakewood just wanted the use of the ballparks, they were not interested in the school building. He stated that by talking to city staff he believed Lakewood had no intention of buying Emory Elementary building.
This statement, unfortunately, does not seem to be accurate or else Lakewood would not have to be involved with a meeting between Jeffco Schools and the Action Center, let alone hosting such a meeting. So even sitting City Council Members are not getting the whole story from the City Manager.
Paying close attention to wording, all parties could be honestly portraying the information they want to portray:
Lakewood has no interest in the Emory Elementary building – but the Action Center does
Lakewood has no direct control over the school – unless they buy it
There is a public input period in the school disposal process – unless the municipal option is taken
Plans are not definite – but they are far enough along that at this point, trying to stop it is difficult since minds have been made up for months
Lakewood will not be housing people in the school – no, at that point it would be the Action Center, if they so choose. At the minimum they would continue with homeless services.
The Action Center has not replied to several requests for comment. Lakewood and Jeffco schools have gone out of their way to not talk about their plans when the opportunity arose.
When will residents know what is going on with their taxpayer-funded infrastructure?
The development at 777 S Yarrow St, Lakewood, Colorado, has brought residents concerns over development to the forefront. Despite having ordinances and zoning codes, residents have identified concerns with traffic impacts, wildfire and emergency response, the loss of trees and questionable park fee implementations. Residents continue to act for this cause, at SaveBelmarPark.com, and there has been rumors of possible legal action. However, if Colorado House Bill 1107 gets passed, residents will have an even more difficult time bringing legal action against the city, because they will face legal fees if they lose the case. The bill is meant to decrease suits from residents, who don’t understand that the city has done research to show that the city is right, and therefore, resident concerns are generally unfounded and possibly frivolous. The Lakewood Legislative Committee, has taken a support position on this bill, meaning they support making it harder for residents to bring legal action against the city. This position provides an insight as to why so many resident complaints, like those of hundreds of people against the S Yarrow St development, are often given lip-service or outright ignored.
The issue highlights an important dichotomy in government. Technically, in a representative democracy, the residents should be telling elected officials what they want in terms of legislation. The elected officials then vote on a policy and the city staff will implement it. But what happens when politicians use targeted words to get a policy through that means something other than what people think? What happens when words from last year can be reinterpreted to mean something different this year, so that policy can change without so much as a public discussion?
These are the questions that residents ask when looking at the rules for developing S Yarrow St. How is it possible that a little street with a small building footprint can have no negative impact to traffic if you change it to high-density residential an add an extra couple hundred cars? Aren’t there rules to maintain a neighborhood in similar fashion?
In Colorado Springs, residents have found the answer in taking legal action against the city. Springs residents’ often cite the same problems – and developers are tired of it. According to this article in The Gazette, developers cite the need for more housing while residents cite safety concerns. Reading this article, where they talk about the 7-story complexes going in that are causing traffic concerns for the residents, you may think you are reading about Lakewood.
City Has the Experts
Lakewood will often require a traffic impact study, or environmental study when necessary. This expert testimony is the basis for approving projects. As one quote from the Gazette article stated, “”When [neighborhoods] fight these projects, they are not agreeing with the experts. They are deciding for themselves that it’s not safe.”
“In recent years, numerous political theorists and philosophers have argued that experts ought to be in charge of public policy and should manipulate, or contain, the policy preferences of the ignorant masses.” – Nicholas Tampio, aeon.co
It is rare that cities will change their mind on project approval. Residents concerned with 777 S Yarrow have been told for months that nothing substantial can be done. So legal action brought by residents will typically delay a project, but will not cause any particular change.
To limit these delays, developers and cities need a way to stop residents from pursuing legal action. One way to achieve that is through HB24-1107 which proposes that residents who legally challenge the city will have to pay legal fees if they lose.
Passing HB24-1107 is sure to discourage residents, who already have less financial and legal resources than the city or developers they are facing.
Lakewood Council Member David Rein pointed out that this legislation is very one sided because developers are still free to bring legal action with no increased risk to themselves, which will not be the case for the residents. However, with his “city hat” on, Rein supports the legislation.
Councilor Glenda Sinks said that Lakewood should support this bill because it’s a way to support staff.
No one publicly considered the increase in legal action as a cry for help from the residents, who have presumably asked for the ordinances to be enforced in the way residents commonly understood they would be (for example, open space would be park space, not including dumpster space.)
Unanimous approval from the Legislative Committee: Council Members Sinks , Cruz, Stewart, Rein, LaBure (absent)
Legislative positions are not posted anywhere or shared unless there is a “strong” position. But this signals to the residents that Lakewood considers resident appeals to be generally not worthy of support.
During public comments at the February 26th Lakewood City Council meeting, Tom Gonzales, a Lakewood resident remarked that he was told by Lakewood Police Department (“LPD”) officers there was nothing they could do about the panhandling (window washers) on street corners – that the police “were handcuffed”. Later, Councilman Rich Olver posed a question based on these remarks to Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein – is it true that our officers are “handcuffed” or is there something they could do about panhandling on street corners? Mr. Goldstein answered that it depends on the circumstances (what safety issues are at play), that it’s a matter of resources (not having enough staff), and that “it is a complex issue”. Mr. Goldstein suggested that LPD could put together a report for Council that would address the issue.
Under Lakewood Municipal Code 12.18.020, it would seem that window washing would be clearly prohibited:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind, or collect monies for the same, from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any street or highway when such solicitation or collection:
1. Causes the person performing the activity to enter onto the traveled portion of a street or highway;
2. Involves the person performing the activity to be located upon any median area which separates traffic lanes for vehicular travel in opposite directions;
3. Causes the traffic on the traveled portion of a street or highway to be delayed or impeded;
or 4. The person performing the activity is located such that vehicles cannot move into a legal parking area to safely conduct the transaction
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or attempt to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any controlled-access highway including any entrance to or exit from such highway.
Why certain city codes are not being enforced is perplexing.
Seeing window washers at Alameda and Wadsworth at mid-day, walking between the lanes of traffic and between cars while trying to return to the median when the light turns green is clearly not safe for those individuals or for the drivers who have to maneuver their cars to avoid hitting them. Common sense would dictate that it would not be difficult for an officer witnessing this activity to pull over and issue a citation – there should be nothing “complex” about this. This is not the fault of the officers, who are employed to serve the citizens of Lakewood, and put their lives on the line for us every day. They follow the instructions they are given by their managers and whatever guidelines the City has adopted concerning law enforcement. It appears that a decision has been made by someone in a leadership position within the city that certain laws will not be enforced.
Reviewing the numbers
A review of crime figures in Lakewood might help shed a little light on what seems to be happening.
Lakewood publishes a couple of reports containing crime statistics each year, a Chief’s Report and a LPD Annual Report. Looking at these reports for the reporting years of 2019 thru 2022 (the latest year available), the reports typically include the number of criminal offenses for the report year, plus the figures for a couple of previous years for comparison. However, the crimes that are reported each year are not always the same. An example being the 2018 and 2019 LPD Annual reports do not include a number of property crimes (mostly fraud and some theft related crimes) that are included in reports for 2020 and later. There are also some unexplained differences in the annual totals that are reported. For instance, crimes for the year 2019 total 12,127 in the 2021 LPD Annual Report, 12,299 in the 2020 report, 11,877, in the 2019 report. Some of these differences may be due to newer reporting standards.
Most law enforcement agencies across the US report crimes to the FBI using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which succeeds and expands on the earlier Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system that dates back to the 1920’s. However, not all agencies in the US report to NIBRS, as some have incomplete historical data and others are still working to convert their UCR data to NIBRS. Crime data thru 2023 for Lakewood is in NIBRS, but Lakewood yet to publish their LPD Annual Report for 2023. NIBRS breaks crimes in to two major groups, Group A Offenses and Group B Offenses. Group A Offenses, generally considered more serious offenses, are further broken down and grouped as Crimes Against Persons, Crimes Against Property, and Crimes Against Society. Group B Offenses are generally less serious offenses and include trespassing, disorderly conduct, DUI, liquor violations, and “other offenses”. Group B Offenses report actual arrests, whereas Group A Offenses only reflect the report of a crime whether or not an arrest is made. The NIBRS data lends itself better to analysis as it is more detailed, complete, and consistent compared to the data that is in the LPD Annual Reports and the Chief’s Reports.
The NIBRS figures show normal fluctuations in reported offense totals from year to year. Three-year averaging was used to remove some of the statistical noise and establish a longer term trend. Looking at average number of crimes reported for 2017 thru 2019, compared to 2021 thru 2023, the NIBRS data is showing an overall increase of 13.5% in Group A Offenses. This includes in a 9.4% increase in Crimes Against Persons, a 12.4% increase in Crimes Against Property, and a 23.5% increase in Crimes Against Society. Some of the offenses that are driving this increase include assaults, car (and car parts) theft, and destruction of property.
What Lakewood is not reporting
Within Group A Offenses, reported incidences of Crimes Against Society (mostly including drug and weapon related violations) increased from 2,475 to 3,056 (+23.5%) on average for the 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 reporting periods respectively. Crimes Against Society figures are not included in the LPD Annual Reports.
The LPD Annual Report also excludes the less serious Group B Offenses. NIBRS figures show a decrease in Group B Offenses of 44.6% when comparing 2021-2023 to the 2017-2019 averages. The Group B Offenses contributing to this reduction are disorderly conduct (-53.0%), DUI (-15.5%), liquor law violations (-77.6%), trespassing (-14.7%), and “all other offenses” (-47.7%). The bulk of the drop in reported offenses occurred between 2019 and 2020, when total reported Group B Offenses dropped from 4,673 to 3,220. Since Group B Offenses reflect actual arrests, these figures can be viewed as actual drops in arrests.
Total incidence reports in the Crimes and Group B Offenses that are not reported in the LPD Annual Report vary from year to year, but in general amount to approximately 30% of the total crimes (Group A and Group B combined) in the NIBRS figures.
Incidences of total combined Group A and B Offenses averaged over 2017-2018 and 2022-2023 are virtually the same. This is because the increase in reported Group A Offenses is offset by the reduction in reported Group B Offenses.
One other statistic Lakewood does not include in their LPD Annual Reports are arrest numbers. Using the same 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 averaging periods, we see that arrests for Group A Offenses dropped by 12.1% (recall that these reported offenses increased 13.5 in this same period). Arrests for both Group A and B Offenses for this same period are down 29.3%, in large part due to the drop in Group B Offenses (which require an arrest).
One would generally think that crime trends would move in the same direction – if Group A Offenses increase then so should Group B Offenses. It is possible that LPD is not focusing as much on the less serious Group B Offenses (as seen in the larger drop in Group B Offense arrests). If this is the case, there may be a perception amongst criminals that if lesser crimes are not being enforced they can get away with committing serious crimes. That would possibly account for the increase in reported Group A Offenses. It is also possible that people involved in certain Group B Offenses are more likely to be diverted to various social programs addressing mental health, addiction, or homelessness issues, and those incidences are not being reported as crimes (but this would not necessarily account for the increase in Group A Offenses).
A sense of resignation
In a posting on the City of Lakewood’s website from February 2022, there is a comment attributed to a Lakewood Police sergeant concerning law enforcement in the city:
“Let’s be honest. If they (criminals) have had 30 tickets for shoplifting, trespassing, drinking in public, do we really think that the 31st ticket is going to be that magical step that solves the problem?… We recognize that is probably not the case. That’s why the city and our chief of police recognize the importance of trying new things, not being afraid to step out and say, ‘This isn’t working. The status quo is not working. Let’s try something new’.”
The tone of this remark reflects a sense of resignation on the part of Lakewood and LPD to enforce laws. The problem in this statement is, if someone has 30 outstanding tickets, they obviously are not being held accountable for their offenses. The problem is not that the tickets are not being paid. The problem is that laws are not being enforced. In cases of habitual offenders, they need to be put in jail until they can be brought before a judge.
In July of 2021, Lakewood adopted the LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or alternatively, Let Everyone Advance with Dignity) to assist people with “unmet mental needs, addiction and homelessness”. Instead of charging individuals identified as candidates for the LEAD program with certain crimes, they are diverted to social programs to address the issues they are struggling with in hopes they will recover and return to society, not to be repeat offenders. LEAD has been adopted by several other Colorado communities, as well as several large cities including Seattle, Portland, and Baltimore. The LEAD Support Bureau, which advises Lakewood in this program, and their affiliate P.D.A. (Purpose. Dignity. Action., formerly Public Defender Association of Seattle), are a group of people with background experience such as include public defenders and social justice activists. It is important to understand that the national LEAD program is run by advocates for criminals and they actively seek to divert people involved in certain crimes into social programs and away from the criminal justice system. It is possible that the drop in reported Crimes Against Society and Group B Offenses is in part due to persons being diverted via the LEAD initiative rather than being charged with a crime.
What others are doing about crime
Some cities struggling with severe social and criminal problems are finally starting to take action by getting tough on crime. In San Francisco, residents recently approved Proposition F which requires drug testing for locally-funded welfare recipients. They also approved Proposition E, which eases restrictions on the police and allows stepped-up enforcement actions to reduce crime. The Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, has ordered the National Guard to the subway system in New York City to combat an uptick in crime. Washington D.C. recently passed the Secure D.C. Omnibus Amendment Act, which makes certain crimes easier to prosecute and steps up punishment guidelines. Leaders are beginning to see the failure of go-soft-on-crime policies and are finally responding to the cries of their constituents by taking a harder stance on crime.
Expectations and Accountability
Considering other cities have abandoned their years-long soft-on-crime policies, we should not expect to go soft on crime in Lakewood in hopes of success where others have failed. Laws are put in place to protect us and our property. When laws are not enforced we are no longer safe and secure in our communities. These are some expectations that we should adopt to ensure the leaders within the City of Lakewood are accountable for their policies and focused on keeping our community safe:
Lakewood residents have a right to know, and need to know, how laws are being enforced in the city. We clearly have ordinances against street-side panhandling that are not being enforced. The City needs share the news and let us know who is making the decisions which laws are enforced and which ones are not enforced.
The LPD Annual Reports should be complete and consistent year to year. A good standard for reporting would be the NIBRS categorization with annual crime figures from all Group A and B offenses.
The City needs to explain why they believe a group that has roots in defending criminals and social justice should be advising Lakewood on how to handle crime in our community especially in light of other cities having failed undertaking similar soft-on-crime policies.
The City needs to be forthright with us concerning which violations are turned over to social services (diverted via LEAD protocols, referrals to the Navigation Center, etc.), and how the determination is made to divert versus prosecute. Annual figures for offenses that are deferred can be included in the LPD Annual Report.
For offenders who are diverted into social help programs, tough standards and accountability expectations within these programs need to be met. If the individuals fail to meet their requirements, they need to be held accountable for their offenses within the justice system.
We should expect LPD fully complies with ICE detainer requests.
We need to know if the City has the resources (staffing, equipment, etc.) to sufficiently enforce ordinances. If we don’t have the necessary resources, the City needs to actively secure what is needed to protect the citizens of our community.
If you missed the last two Lakewood City Council meetings, you missed… Well, let’s put it this way, if my Mom had caught me doing what I saw at the meeting, I would have been sent to my room without any dinner. Let’s start with the February 12 meeting:
Perhaps the most disconcerting and substantive financial part of the meeting came about as a result of questions posed by Councilor Rein to the City Planning Office and the State’s representative providing the grant. According to the City Planning Office, the taxpayers are on the hook for $2M – $2.5 of operating expenses each year. (The City’s own financial documentation indicates the operating costs will be much higher, but let’s use the Planning Office numbers for now.) He went on to say that any decision of the Council to accept the $9M grant would “not be binding on future Councils.” I believe most legal scholars would disagree with the City Planner and state that future Councils will be bound by grant conditions and the “strings” attached to the grant. A future Council could elect to breach – but that always comes with a price tag. Query: Where was the City Attorney while the City Planning Office was providing legal advice to the Council? She sat there and didn’t say a word.
Following the Planning Office comments, the grant representative from the State said that a contract would be negotiated with the City identifying the City’s obligations. This contract would only be negotiated AFTER the City accepts the $9M grant. She pointed out that the contact obligations would be for a 30-year period of time.
YIKES! The City will not know its contractual obligations with the State until AFTER it accepts the money.
What entity takes $9M without knowing what “strings” are attached?? The answer to that probing question is, your City Council. A simple remedy to this problem would have been to negotiate the terms of the grant contract PRIOR to accepting the money. Finalization of the contract could have been contingent on the City accepting the grant. At least the citizens of Lakewood would have known what their City Council had signed them up for if the terms had been negotiated in advance. But, No! The councilors were so eager to get their hands on more of your money that they apparently didn’t even want to know what the additional strings would be. And don’t forget, “he who controls the purse controls the “strings.” Other than the two councilors from Ward 4 (Olver and Rein), no councilor expressed ANY concern over the uncertainty of the “strings” attached to accepting the $9M.
Now, fast forward to the February 26 Council meeting. The issue consuming the most time at this meeting dealt with the Head Start program in Lakewood. Due to possible overlapping resources and the very high per capita cost of the program, Lakewood wants to eliminate the Head Start program from its provided resources. The City favors passing this opportunity to Jefferson County or a private entity. All of the councilors seemed to agree with eliminating the program from the City’s budget. However, there was some uncertainty over which entity (if any) might take on the Head Start responsibilities so as not to have a disruption of services.
NOW, here’s the dichotomy – because of the “uncertainty” the Council would not move forward to allow the City to notify the Federal Government (DOE) that the City of Lakewood would no longer be responsible for the Head Start program. The councilors wanted the City to informally probe other Head Start providers (private entities and Jefferson County) to ascertain their interest.
Here’s the problem: the councilors were told by the City representatives that the Federal Government cannot seek other providers UNTIL the City removes itself as the Head Start provider.
Only one of the councilors expressed an opinion that acquiring another provider would not be a problem, given the City’s support for the program. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty (though likely small), the Council voted to delay notifying the Federal Government. Apparently, the councilors – even if they are well-intended – have little knowledge about Federal Government contracting. They may think that the Federal Government can move at light speed and such delay would have no impact on continuing the Head Start program. In reality, the timeframe between now and the City’s proposed schedule to withdraw from the Head Start program may be insufficient to allow the Federal Government to meet its contracting requirements. Council’s failure to allow the City to give timely notice to the Federal Government may result in contracting deadlines being missed.
Later in the meeting, one of the councilors recounted some of the events from the February 12 meeting. He specifically stated that the February 12 meeting included a “robust” discussion relating to the finances at the Navigation Center and the $9M grant. I must have attended a different City Council meeting because I heard no “robust” discussion about funding. Unfortunately, he misses the bigger issue. While there were brief comments about the current finances and how a portion of the grant could fund some of the operating expenses, there was no discussion about how the City would fund the long-term operating costs and no discussion about how to fund any of the “strings” the State will attach to the grant… and how could there be any discussion about those “stings” since the City Council has no idea what they will be. We heard no discussion about contents of the thirty-year contract required by the State, when those contract negotiations would occur and whether the Council would even review/approve the contract.
Editor’s note: Email received 2/29/2024 from Lakewood states “The contract you are referring to has not been drafted or finalized at this point. Planning expects that this will take place over the next couple of weeks. Thank you.“
Bottom line – Uncertainty over “strings” attached to $9M and saddling taxpayers with $60M – $100M+ of future obligations is not a problem for this council. ($60M if you use the Planning Office low number and likely more than $100M if you use the City’s internal numbers.) But a bit of uncertainty over the Head Start program caused the Council to delay timely, Federal notification and potentially destroying the Head Start program.
Even if you assume the Councilors are all well-intended, both meetings were a display of naivety and inexperience. In fact, Councilor Olver may have made the most poignant and accurate observation: He said the Council is suffering from “self-inflicted” wounds. That statement is indisputable! With the exception of Councilor Olver, maybe they should all be sent to their rooms without any dinner.
City Council Member Rich Olver was the only nay vote for the Strategic Housing Plan, which passed on February 12, 2024. He claimed it was a poisoned pill because it contained provisions that did not have public support, such as using abandoned school buildings for homeless services. Neighborhood associations came to voice their concern that stakeholders were not included. The associations were more concerned about the development strategies than the unhoused strategies. The associations’ comments show that although the plan was billed as affordable housing, there were two distinct pieces: more high-density development and plans for the homeless. Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero said the Housing Plan will work “hand-in-hand” with the Navigation Center. These items are all interconnected to give Lakewood the same framework that cities like Denver use to deal with the unhoused.
The message from February 12 was that a majority of Council want the plan passed; however, there was no clear consensus as to what the plan means.
Councilor Sinks said it would be good to have a roadmap to follow. Others spoke of discussions still to come. Councilor Low promoted strategies for eviction protection, Additional Dwelling Unit expansion and directly funding housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei said, “The action at this point is to adopt this framework. Nobody is agreeing tonight to all these strategies. We are agreeing that there is a need for affordable housing.”
Agreeing to a need for affordable housing does not require even one page. The Strategic Housing Plan is 156 pages of strategies. Which strategies Council did not agree to was not discussed. Instead of approving all strategies in one motion, each strategy could be adopted by separate motion after further discussion. In fact, many strategies will need to be adopted by modifying ordinance to implement.
Olver said this plan is not making more affordable housing, it is not stopping corporate land speculation, or increasing home ownership possibilities. He asked for more time to study, but no other Councilor agreed. Other Council Members had agreed to pass the plan at a previous study session.
Shahrezaei pointed out that the Strategic Housing Plan was funded by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the same department that funded the navigation center, and that Lakewood could not even change the name of the product DOLA had paid for.
How much of Lakewood’s policy does DOLA fund?
Is accepting all this “free money” from DOLA leading Lakewood to take the steps the state wants, rather than the steps the local residents are asking for?
Olver went on to explain that housing migrants in the schools would not happen because that requires a public process to rezone an abandoned school into a residential area. Just like operating a shelter requires a special use permit that requires a public process, unless there is a very good reason. In the case of the navigation center, the city planned for it to be used as an emergency shelter but didn’t get a permit because it was an “emergency”. Now the city has accepted a grant requiring the land to be used as a shelter so there is an argument that there the city cannot NOT approve a shelter permit, regardless of how many people show up during public process. Experiences like these may have been in the minds of the people laughing at the words “public process” during the meeting.
Scorecard: Approve Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan
Strom: Aye
Shahrezaei: Aye
Sinks: Aye
Mayott-Guerrero: Aye
Cruz: Aye
Stewart: Aye
Low: Aye
Olver: Nay
Rein: Aye
LaBure: Aye
Nystrom: Aye
Read previous articles about the Strategic Housing Plan:
According to the article below, Recovery Works has completed the purchase of a motel in Lakewood. The motel will be an additional Jefferson County shelter and service center for the unhoused. Recovery Works is the same organization that will be running the new Navigation Center in Lakewood. Lakewood Council will vote on appropriating funds for the project on February 12, 2024.
IMPACT Commercial Real Estate has announced the recent sale of a former motel that will now serve as the future home for a nonprofit organization, Recovery Works. This was not only a significant milestone for the community but a testament that commercial properties can transform into something that will make a positive impact on the community as well.
The newly purchased 10,000-square-foot building is strategically located at 14825 W Colfax in Lakewood and will serve as a bridge center and resource for the unhoused in Jefferson County by referral. It will help people get back on their feet and find permanent housing for those in need. Recovery Works locations provide additional services, including meals, laundry capabilities and job programs for employment placement.
Lakewood’s City Council’s established Core Community Values, and Commitment to Citizens, which are both found on Lakewood.org, which include commitment to transparent government, open and honest communication and a commitment to provide education and information. City Council, which includes the Mayor, has also committed itself to focusing on quality results, promoting an inclusive environment for all citizens, respecting the traditions of the community, and honoring Lakewood’s neighborhoods’ values.
City Council’s Policy and Procedures Manual (also found at Lakewood.org), approved on May 14, 2018, contains the official policies and procedures City Council (Council) has developed and approved for themselves, to which their duties, proceedings, meetings and conduct all must conform. The authority for the Council Policy and Procedures Manual comes from the City of Lakewood Home Rule Charter and the Council’s approval of their Policy and Procedures Manual (Manual).
Manual, Section 05.16, establishes official Council policy and procedures for Study Sessions. Study Sessions are a regular event conducted to familiarize the Council and the public with detailed information and aspects of subjects under consideration in advance of the date the subject is to be before Council on the regular Council meeting agenda. Study Sessions are scheduled to be held on the first and third Mondays of each month, to facilitate coordinated study of subjects in preparation for upcoming regular Council meetings, which are scheduled for the second and fourth Mondays of each month. The public may comment at Study Sessions and their comments add to the overall value of information presented and collected at a Study Session. A public comment period follows each presentation within a Study Session, prior to Council discussion.
Council Study Sessions create the opportunity to present, question, understand, analyze, discuss and debate broad and detailed information, aspects and options associated with the subject, all the while allowing invaluable communication among Council, City staff and the public to occur. Participation in Study Sessions allows Council an opportunity and means to fulfill their Commitment to Citizens and focus on their Core Community Values, which were briefly introduced in the first paragraph.
Unfortunately, a disturbing and harmful trend has developed in City governance concerning the required use of Study Sessions in Council proceedings. Council chose to cancel a significant number of Study Sessions throughout 2023, and that trend of cancellations of Study Sessions is continuing in 2024. Holding Study Sessions, usually on both the first and third Mondays of the month, is required policy and procedure for Council.
Failure to conduct Study Sessions deprives City Council and the public of the necessary information, facts, perspectives, and a means of quality preparation necessary to make the best decisions for the Community on issues coming before Council for consideration and decision making.
The Council and the entire Lakewood community benefits from presentations and discussions during each Study Sessions. Council must ensure the scheduling and conduct of valuable, high quality Study Sessions, as they have required of themselves, for good reason, in their Council Manual.
Mayor Wendi Strom has changed the timing of public comment. In the name of efficiency, Strom has moved comment from the beginning until later in the meeting. Originally, public comment was moved to after the consent agenda. Now, there is no public comment until all business has been concluded.
You can voice your opinion after Council has voted.
In this case, efficiency may seem like shutting down the voices of the public. Are there other efficiencies being achieved?
The agenda for Monday, February 12 is shown below with notations for topics that will bring changes to Lakewood that have been in the news recently.
Public Comment online is available until noon, February 12.
To comment, go to the meeting agenda page and click on the item you wish to speak about. There will be a “Comment on this item” button. If there is no Comment button, Council is not accepting comment on that item particularly (for example, Mayor and Council Reports in the picture below). Anything on those items will go in “Public Comment”, while “City Navigation Center” has its own comment section.
Sidenote: Lakewood City Councilors expressed satisfaction during the January 8 meeting that there were 50 comments supporting migrant assistance. In point of fact, many of those comments were supporting revisions to the Yarrow St development plan. Recently, Lakewood Informer conducted a survey that showed residents were not in favor of the migrant assistance or the current plans for the homeless shelter. The survey had 4 times as many respondents as the public comment but is still not representative of Lakewood as a whole. 100 survey respondents were used as the basis of adopting building codes. (for more, see Opinion: Your Views Matter When They Agree With the City)
Recent park land dedication discussions show that the policy is used for more than just adding parks for new residents. The policy could be used to extract fees from developers for other park services. The policy could also be used as a tool for preferential development. Or the policy can determine whether the city increases the number of parks or level of services. The review for this policy is overdue, but thanks to a motion from Council Member David Rein, it may be discussed soon.
The new development at 777 S Yarrow St did not require any land dedicated for parks for the new residents. The land dedication would have been of particular public interest since it is near Belmar Park. Instead of land, the city accepted a fee that will be used for undisclosed park services. The fee was set in 2018 so it may seem low in todays market. This so-called “fee-in-lieu” of park land dedication is the policy under discussion.
See more at savebelmarpark.com, including how this property does not pay taxes on full acreage
Paying a fee in lieu of dedicating land was made possible in a time of slow growth for Lakewood, when Lakewood officials decided there was enough park land. That is no longer the case but developers are accustomed to being able to pay a fee in order to maximize their land development. This pushes new residents into existing parks, putting strain on those resources. Ironically, fees collected today are supposedly going to buy parkland.
During periods of slow-growth, cities try to incentivize growth by setting fees that are more palatable to developers who want to maximize the small, in-fill projects that occur after the initial urban sprawl. The next phase, the one that Lakewood is currently in, is where the city returns to high-growth, except this time the growth is high-density. Dense growth still requires the same amount of park land, including parks close to home. This is especially true of dog parks for apartment residents.
Does the city repeal fee-in-lieu of land that was meant for slow-growth times of incentivizing development? Not usually, as shown in this article of park policy over time.
Discussions have not evolved to making land dedication easier for high-density developments. The fear is that returning to land dedication would slow development. However, land dedication may be the only way to serve neighborhoods. As Council Member Mayott-Guerrero points out, the city has had problems purchasing land in high-density areas.
Neighborhood Parks versus Other Parks
The problem is partially of public perception. Providing open-space for a new development has historically included a neighborhood park within the development. That way of thinking also aligns with the modern-day vision of a 15-minute city, with everything in walking distance. Clearly neighborhood parks are still highly desired but that is no longer being considered for high-density growth, as the public would define park space.
High-density growth packs more people into less space, meaning there is less space for parks as well. “Open space” does mean green space or park space. In fact, “open space” requirements can be fulfilled by garbage dumpster areas, or in a pinch, access to the roof.
Park land dedication is intended to provide park services to the new residents of the development. Courts have upheld passing these costs through developers to new residents. This is different than if a city would demand land or fees to pay for unrelated costs or services, which would constitute a “taking”.
A taking is “is when the government seizes private property for public use.” For example, when former Mayor Paul stated that he wanted to use the fee in lieu of land for equity, to look at parks in other neighborhoods, there is no longer a direct link to services for the new residents and could constitute a taking. (see more about the Westword article at savebelmarpark.com)
“Realizing that there’s a lot of other parts of our city that don’t have a lot of parkland, especially in some of our lower-income areas, it was really an equity thing for me,” Paul says.
However, it gets tricky. It is only taking if the city admits they are using the fee for other residents or the developer can prove intent. It is not taking if the city says the policy is to use fees to increase parks in some other space for new residents to drive to. Lakewood’s official policy is that dedications “shall be reasonably related to the needs of the residents of the proposed development.”
Development Tool
Council Member Jacob LeBure pointed out that past park dedication policies involved leveraging the policy to control or incentivize development.
For example, if Lakewood enforced the policy of neighborhood parks, the Yarrow Street project would have required 3 acres of land dedicated to parks. Enforcing land dedication might cause this development to stop.
Councilor Mayott-Guerrero says these fees are “barriers and leverages for how to better encourage affordable housing.” For that reason, she encourages the park discussion to be part of the Strategic Housing Plan.
Is the Government Providing Parks or Controlling Housing?
The question is, is this policy about providing parks for new residents or affordable housing.
History shows that when government officials try to leverage their power for outside purposes, they may be outclassed. As pointed out by parks expert Dr. John L Crompton, “Developers frequently are represented by specialist lawyers and consultants whose expertise typically far exceeds that of local city planners, so taxpayers are disadvantaged.”
As LeBure says, evaluating different developments is a cumbersome process and you don’t always get the outcome you want.
If City Council’s priority is to enable housing development, they would necessarily have to sacrifice some neighborhood open space and endure the fall out of the new residents asking for more parks.
Council Member Rein explains his motion is actually simpler than all this. He would like to listen to staff suggestions, not discuss or make Council decisions, which will come later.
Correction: The Denver7 article said that migrants were causing enrollment to go up and enrollment at Slater went up by 50 students. The two statements were apparently unrelated to migrant enrollment. 12 February, 2024
Several new migrant families have started attending Foothills Elementary school in Lakewood. This information comes after the Denver7 report that 50 migrant students were attending Slater Elementary in Lakewood, indicating that the migrant influx continues. Jefferson County Schools have not yet replied to official requests for information (made only late on 2/9/24). An accurate head count may not be possible as the number of migrants attending school continues to change.
A large, sudden influx of students this late in the year will present challenges for the entire school community. Denver is currently dealing with the issues inherent with a large influx of non-english speaking students this late in the year. According to the Denver Post:
“DPS, which has a $1.3 billion budget, also has drawn from reserves to help make up the difference, district spokesman Bill Good said. The district is now working to hire more Spanish-speaking teachers and other support staff.”
“Our system was never built to handle this kind of challenge,” said Rob Gould, President of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. “You’re taking an already stressed system and applying more stress to it.”
According to the article, Denver has needed more bus routes, more furniture, more teachers, and more classrooms. New York schools ran special classes for processing and assimilation.
There is no indication that Jefferson County Schools have enough licensed teachers or had public assimilation workshops. However, teachers are generally dedicated professionals who do their best in challenging situations. The children are in good hands.
Jefferson County is listed on some sites as being an official sanctuary county. Records show that Jefferson County has not detained a single person for ICE in over a year.
Migrants find access to Lakewood resources through the non-profit network set up to help homeless. This at a time when Lakewood is set to approve the largest homeless assistance appropriation in it’s history, on Feb 12, 2024. Almost all homeless resources are available without an ID required.
![To: Pam Brier; Kathy Hodgson
Cc: Gatlin Jeff; Donna Repp; Tolleson Julie
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Emory Elementary Next Steps Meeting
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:40:36 PM
Attachments: image001.png
# EXTERNAL – USE CAUTION #
Kathy and Pam, Jeff and I are very excited to meet with you next week! Pam, I know you had been
talking with JLL, our commercial real estate agent. We’re not sure we’ll need an agent for this
transaction, but we will be using an outside real estate attorney. We believe it will be helpful (and
expeditious) for the attorney to be present early on in our conversations. Our attorney is Blair
Lichtenfels with Brownstein.
We would like to proceed with our meeting next week without counsel to do introductions and
talk timeline and next steps. At the next meeting we set, we would like to have our counsel and your
counsels present so that we can begin to move forward.
My rough thoughts on an agenda are as follows. Please feel free to suggest content:
Introductions
Catch-up on current context – Action Center, Lakewood, and Jeffco
Discuss Jeffco surplus process and timeline
Identify next steps, including to set a meeting with counsel present
Thank you both!
Lisa
Lisa Relou
Chief of Strategy & Communications](https://g51.e2b.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/lakewoodplanningmeeting.png?w=434)
