Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

news

Lakewood Residents Petition to Save Their Parks

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

Guest Post from Save Open Space Lakewood Lakewood residents petition to save their parks and open space which the City likes to give away to developers. On April 27th they were at Lakewood’s Belmar Park with petitions. Background Local environment advocates will circulate a petition at Lakewood’s Earth Day, on Saturday, April 27, that would force the City from its arrogant behind-the-scenes approval of out-of-control developments to provide significant environmental stewardship for Lakewood. Once certified with 6,000 required signatures, the petition becomes an initiative which Lakewood is required to vote for. If it doesn’t, it will be placed on a citywide ballot. Over one thousand signatures have already been collected in less than a month. When: Saturday, April 27Time: 11 AM -7 PMWhere: Heritage Lakewood Belmar Park, 801 S. Yarrow St., Lakewood 80226 “It’s become clear that nothing short of this petition is going to change complacent City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission to be responsive to citizen concerns and also supportive of preserving our parks and open space,” said Cathy Kentner, who co-created the petition with fellow longtime community activist Rhonda Peters. Both founded Save Open Space Lakewood which is organizing this all-volunteer petition effort. The petition, titled the Lakewood Green Initiative, was inspired after the public learned Lakewood staff had worked for several years to preliminarily approve and advance the plans of Kairoi Residential, a Texas developer, for a 412-unit, 83 unit per floor, 6 story luxury apartment building with a footprint the size of two football fields which would share the eastern boundary of Belmar Park. Belmar Park is a 132 acre beloved park in the middle of Lakewood’s growing concrete jungle. It is a peaceful haven for over 230 bird species (many protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), abundant wildlife and innumerable human visitors. In preliminarily approving the Kairoi plan, the City ignored its own ordinances on protecting parkland and wildlife, improving tree canopy, fighting climate change and providing affordable housing. Instead it supported the gigantic 800,000 square foot design with no buffer with the park, the elimination of 69 mature trees, and lack of serious analysis of the development’s effects on the environment and on the safety of nearby residents who can only exit on a narrow street. The public was notified very late as if it was an afterthought. Now the City claims many elements of the project are a done deal and they lack the power to correct this. Since this deal was initially revealed, the City has placed numerous obstacles in the way of citizen attempts to have input on the development’soutcome. Likewise, Lakewood staff has been actively attempting to thwart approval of the petition. The latest effort was an unprecedented five-day delay. Interestingly, a few hours after a local TV reporter submitted questions to the City, the petition was promptly approved and released to Kentner. The Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments. Longer version: See soslakewood.org Several years ago Kentner, who ran as an independent candidate for Mayor and has served on the Lakewood Planning Commission, successfully authored and helped pass a petition to limit population growth in Lakewood; it was subsequently approved in a citywide election. By not following its own standards, Lakewood has effectively sold what should have been more than a dozen acres of parkland in the last decade. According to information provided by the city, Lakewood has not required land from developers since the Solterra development in 2007 and 2013. Kentner said there appears to be a gentleman’s agreement between Lakewood and all of its developments so they are allowed to pay the City instead of providing open space. Although citizens have long felt powerless as Lakewood approved large apartment buildings in charming neighborhoods and at the perimeter of parks, the Kairoi monolith at Belmar Park inspired several groups to work to either limit the size of the building or eliminate it entirely. SaveBelmarPark.com is a comprehensive website that includes a petition to declare eminent domain on the land between the building and the park in order to create a buffer zone. Save Belmar Park, Inc. has been organizing, educating and fundraising to pursue legal channels to protect the park. Save Open Space Lakewood (SOS Lakewood) created a petition to bring these groups together to work toward a common goal of protecting Lakewood’s natural environment.

Read More

Lakewood Residents Petition to Save Their Parks

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

Guest Post from Save Open Space Lakewood Lakewood residents petition to save their parks and open space which the City likes to give away to developers. On April 27th they were at Lakewood’s Belmar Park with petitions. Background Local environment advocates will circulate a petition at Lakewood’s Earth Day, on Saturday, April 27, that would force the City from its arrogant behind-the-scenes approval of out-of-control developments to provide significant environmental stewardship for Lakewood. Once certified with 6,000 required signatures, the petition becomes an initiative which Lakewood is required to vote for. If it doesn’t, it will be placed on a citywide ballot. Over one thousand signatures have already been collected in less than a month. When: Saturday, April 27Time: 11 AM -7 PMWhere: Heritage Lakewood Belmar Park, 801 S. Yarrow St., Lakewood 80226 “It’s become clear that nothing short of this petition is going to change complacent City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission to be responsive to citizen concerns and also supportive of preserving our parks and open space,” said Cathy Kentner, who co-created the petition with fellow longtime community activist Rhonda Peters. Both founded Save Open Space Lakewood which is organizing this all-volunteer petition effort. The petition, titled the Lakewood Green Initiative, was inspired after the public learned Lakewood staff had worked for several years to preliminarily approve and advance the plans of Kairoi Residential, a Texas developer, for a 412-unit, 83 unit per floor, 6 story luxury apartment building with a footprint the size of two football fields which would share the eastern boundary of Belmar Park. Belmar Park is a 132 acre beloved park in the middle of Lakewood’s growing concrete jungle. It is a peaceful haven for over 230 bird species (many protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), abundant wildlife and innumerable human visitors. In preliminarily approving the Kairoi plan, the City ignored its own ordinances on protecting parkland and wildlife, improving tree canopy, fighting climate change and providing affordable housing. Instead it supported the gigantic 800,000 square foot design with no buffer with the park, the elimination of 69 mature trees, and lack of serious analysis of the development’s effects on the environment and on the safety of nearby residents who can only exit on a narrow street. The public was notified very late as if it was an afterthought. Now the City claims many elements of the project are a done deal and they lack the power to correct this. Since this deal was initially revealed, the City has placed numerous obstacles in the way of citizen attempts to have input on the development’soutcome. Likewise, Lakewood staff has been actively attempting to thwart approval of the petition. The latest effort was an unprecedented five-day delay. Interestingly, a few hours after a local TV reporter submitted questions to the City, the petition was promptly approved and released to Kentner. The Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments. Longer version: See soslakewood.org Several years ago Kentner, who ran as an independent candidate for Mayor and has served on the Lakewood Planning Commission, successfully authored and helped pass a petition to limit population growth in Lakewood; it was subsequently approved in a citywide election. By not following its own standards, Lakewood has effectively sold what should have been more than a dozen acres of parkland in the last decade. According to information provided by the city, Lakewood has not required land from developers since the Solterra development in 2007 and 2013. Kentner said there appears to be a gentleman’s agreement between Lakewood and all of its developments so they are allowed to pay the City instead of providing open space. Although citizens have long felt powerless as Lakewood approved large apartment buildings in charming neighborhoods and at the perimeter of parks, the Kairoi monolith at Belmar Park inspired several groups to work to either limit the size of the building or eliminate it entirely. SaveBelmarPark.com is a comprehensive website that includes a petition to declare eminent domain on the land between the building and the park in order to create a buffer zone. Save Belmar Park, Inc. has been organizing, educating and fundraising to pursue legal channels to protect the park. Save Open Space Lakewood (SOS Lakewood) created a petition to bring these groups together to work toward a common goal of protecting Lakewood’s natural environment.

Read More

City Seeks to De-Tabor but Over Collects Property Tax

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

Guest Post by Mary Janssen Here we are again! The city of Lakewood is sending out a $73k survey to test the waters if the public is ready to De Tabor again and give up your over paid tax refunds so the city can spend it on their pet projects that they deem important. After asking how things are going… snow plowing, police response, pot holes, the money spent on new parks (a new majority in Ward 5). They ask you if you would reject them taking more of your money. One of the questions made me laugh. The one about the Mill levy. If you didn’t know I made a motion last October to decrease the mill levy from 4.7% to 3.85%. This would have decreased the revenue collected by the city to within the charter rule (12.12) which says clearly that property tax revenue must be below 7% growth from previous year. At a budget meeting I attended The city financial officer Holly Bjorklund was projecting a valuation number that she guessed was going to be the new property valuations. We do property taxes in arrears. After doing some research on what the city was collecting on previous years since the last De Tabor we found the city was over collecting property taxes one year alone was 18%. Based on this information I thought the citizens deserved a real decrease so that’s how my team and I came up with 3.85. It would have decreased the revenue to around 5%. The city would still be collecting a fair amount and provide the citizens the relief so desperately needed since the other districts i.e. school, Fire, etc. did not decrease their mills. My team did some calculations and found that based on Holly’s projected valuation number the city would be increasing property tax revenue by 12%. After getting the real certified valuation number from the Jefferson County Assessors in August the city would have made a whopping 24.5% increase in revenue. That new certified number was never brought up, so I made some papers to inform the rest of council, the mayor and the city manager and the budget committee about the new certified valuation numbers and why we must decrease the mill levy to provide relief to our Lakewood citizens. The only other councilor that contacted me about this was Rich Olver and he decided that based on the research and the facts he would co-sponsor my motion. I had to announce my motion by council request and was denied the first time so I had to wait till the end of October at the budget approval council meeting, when I was allowed to bring my motion forward, as reported in Lakewood news. I had already provided the other councilors the mayor, the budget committee city manager and staff my findings and why we need to decrease the mill. I put my motion forward and councilor Olver seconded my motion, when out of the blue councilor Barb Franks made an amendment to my original motion to raise my mill levy number of 3.85 to 4.28% in an appearance to make it look like the revenue was neutral. I have an email from Holly Bjorklund the chief financial officer admitting that the city will be indeed increasing the revenue by 12.5% , not neutral. During discussion about the amendment I cited the charter 12.12 and was told by the city attorney that we were talking about the mill levy reduction not the charter rule about the revenue cap. I was told that in order for the city to go back and look at the interpretation of 12.12 the city would have to be sued. The 4.28% mill levy amendment was voted on 10-1. I declined to vote for the amendment because #1 it was based on an estimated valuation number not the certified valuation number and #2 I knew that the increased revenue would be above the charter cap. So based on facts do you think its safe to let the city take your TABOR Refunds? Mary Janssen Previous Lakewood City Councilor Ward 5

Read More

Give us your TABOR refunds, says Lakewood

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

Guest Post by Alex Plotkin A city that for over a decade has not only refused to do economic development (in a true sense), but has lost jobs and is now planning to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize developers, under the guise of “economic development.” A city that, for over a decade, has done nothing to improve the path conditions along Alameda Avenue, in Ward 4.  Nor have any improvements have been made to alleviate the traffic increases at Union and Alameda. To be fair, the city did spend an untold amount of money to add “roundabouts” on Green Mountain Drive.  Perfectly placed to create a road hazard with any amount of snow. A city that has been lecturing the citizens about how the citizens should be planting trees, to cool the city, you know?  The same city that is now allowing an-out-of-state developer to destroy a much-beloved park at Belmar, while chopping down dozens of decades-old trees. A city where for years now the recreational fields at Carmody Park are in an awful shape.  Fields where parents actually pay a fee to have their children play. They “fixed it” this year: And this is a park that has favorable political sunshine on it. A city, where instead of maintaining the hiking and biking trails damaged by runoff, a sign is placed, telling you to be careful.  You should see what the head of parks gets paid, though. A city, where the City Council goes in to executive sessions, to decide on even more perks for a City Manager, while the needs of thousands of residents are ignored and the city is millions over budget: A city, where the citizens are lectured about how they should not be driving, to save the environment and stuff.  While the city has failed to champion any sort of real economic development, so that thousands of people would not have to drive out of the city for work. A city, where the citizens are told not to drive, while the aforementioned City Manager gets paid for mileage, just to go to work.  A City Manager that lives in the city.  Gets paid to drive to work.  Do you? Here is an exert from City Manager’s contract: The taxpayers, it seems also get to pay for the privilege of the department heads using the medical benefits, after they leave.  Do you get a perk such as that with your employer? The City Manager also has a retirement perk that seems more geared for a CEO than a “public servant”. In just one year, the city spends about $100,000,000 just on staff alone.  To be fair, some of that is police, which the city’s council has been hamstringing from even enforcing the laws that exist. Here are the compensation numbers, just for the “department heads” (as of two years ago – you may want to see the updated ones for 2024): As you walk around the neglected parks and drive on Kipling where the road surface has been in need of repair for years and most of the lights are out on some of the sections, may be think about asking the city what has it done with the tens of millions it receives every year, before even getting to the TABOR refunds?  Perhaps start off by looking at the expenditure trends of the planning and city manager’s departments? So when Lakewood asks for your TABOR refund (for parks and police of course), ask the city – why are millions spent on just the planning and the city manager’s offices alone and why is the city millions over budget every year?  The cuts should have happened years ago, with money saved then be used for the parks, police, economic development and road and infrastructure maintenance.  But, instead, the city is now spending thousands of dollars of your money for marketing research to see how to manipulate the residents in to allowing the city to keep millions more from the TABOR-mandated refunds.

Read More

Lakewood Lobbies for Your TABOR Refund

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

Lakewood has hired Magellan Strategies to conduct a ballot measure survey intended to help pass a ballot measure allowing the city to keep your TABOR refunds. Residents are already receiving the first part of that survey by cell phone message. The intent is to use the survey to find out what question residents respond positively to, and use that language on the ballot. The survey will also allow weighing responses by demographic group and information targeted to specific demographics. The city will spend up to $74,000 figuring out how to convince residents to give up their refund. Opposing groups will not have this advantage. This survey is a one-sided informational campaign aimed at allowing the city to keep TABOR refunds because the Budget and Audit Board has already identified the need to keep the funds. According to Magellan, a cold ballot measure, one without prior information, does not have a good chance of passing. Through the survey, the city can spread the information that the city needs money. In other words, the survey is a way to get around the prohibition against government ballot campaigns. “A ballot measure survey is more than just measuring voter support and opposition for a sales or property tax increase. The ballot measure survey is the single best way a government organization can educate and inform their resident and voters about the reasons why new revenue is needed for core services, capital projects, an other needs.  From years of experience, we believe a ballot measure asking voters to approve a tax increase for any purpose is more likely to pass if a survey is conducted. One primary reason being, informed voters, who trust their local government’s leadership, appreciate the information and can better rationalize the financial contribution they are making.”   From: https://magellanstrategies.com/surveys-for-governments (emphasis added) What does the city need money for? Well…. everything. The city does not know and cannot say specifically. Spending levels for all city departments have gone up over the years and that level is now expected to be maintained. The survey attempts to find out what residents would be willing to spend money on so that the city can justify keeping refunds. The Budget Board had not identified possible specific cuts prior to the survey. If the ballot measure fails, City Manager Hodgson told the Board the city will default to across the board spending cuts. In other words, reverting to previous levels. The survey takes about 10 minutes to complete and is composed of general interest and demographic questions. This will help gauge the mood of the residents. The demographic questions will help the surveyors weigh your response. For example, respondents who are homeowners over 65 will have their answers downplayed, while Hispanic renters will have their answers amplified. This artificial weighing allows the consultant to mimic the demographics of Lakewood, rather than the demographics of actual respondents or voters. Take the survey here https://www.research.net/r/What_do_you_want_for_Lakewood There will be a second survey in June to refine the actual ballot language. This first survey is just gauging community interest. Residents question the use of city funds in an effort to gain resident money, as demonstrated in the Nextdoor post below. According this post, the average income in Lakewood is $45,000, almost $30,000 less than what Lakewood may spend on this survey.

Read More

Secret Plans for Emory Elementary

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, HomelessTagged , , , , , , ,

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 a local effort called Concerned Citizens in Lakewood, concernedcitizensinlakewood@gmail.com, 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: 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? As of April 11, the School Board voted to dispose of two more Lakewood elementary schools: Glennon Heights Elementary & Vivian Elementary.  To receive JeffCo Public Schools updates on these and other school properties sign up on Jeffco’s Property Disposition Work: Community Distribution List & Jeffco Public Schools: Property Disposition Community Voice Form

Read More

Lakewood Supports City Planners Over Residents

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

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.

Read More

A Look at Crime Statistics in Lakewood

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

Guest post from Bill Foshag 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

Read More

A $9 Million Grant with Unknown “Strings” Attached

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

Guest Post by J.T. Johnson – Lakewood Ward 4 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. 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.) 

Read More

A Poisoned Pill Passed: The Strategic Housing Plan

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

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: Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan Update Residents Will Pay for Development Migrants and Housing Not Affordable: More Market-Rate Housing Coming to Lakewood Correction: Services, not shelter, to Move to Jeffco School

Read More
Scroll to top