Tag: travel

Limiting New Gas Stations

Lakewood passed a new ordinance to reduce new gas stations in order to increase public health, January 13, 2025. Not only will this decrease the number of future gas stations, the ordinance demands the new gas stations provide electric charging stations, one of which must be the latest, fastest technology. This is will substantially increase the cost to construct a new gas station while benefitting a diminishing number of customers who are purchasing electric vehicles. Lakewood also eliminated two zoning codes from permitting gas stations.

If Lakewood’s plans to bring in thousands more residents through affordable housing efforts pay off, everyone in Lakewood can anticipate waiting longer in lines. Gas stations are one of the few businesses that are still thriving in Lakewood.

Rather than re-inventing the wheel, please read the article below for more of the adverse effects of similar legislation in Denver. In another parallel move, Denver passed the same legislation as Lakewood, a week before Lakewood voted (correction 1/15/25 – Denver’s ordinance only passed to committee)

Lakewood’s ordinance is more extreme than Denver’s because of Lakewood’s market manipulation in demanding charging stations, even dictating the type of stations, but otherwise the legislation is similar. The adverse effects were not discussed by Council.

Don't Denver My Lakewood

Sharf: Denver gas station ban a swipe at car mobility

January 13, 2025 By Joshua Sharf, Complete Colorado

Denver city councilors last summer proposed to limit the construction of gasoline stations in in the city, ostensibly in response to a citizen outcry a deluge of new gas stations being built on land that could instead be used for housing.

Actual legislation has now been okayed by the city planning board, and is worse than imagined.

A sweeping ban

The ordinance would enjoin new gas stations from the overwhelming majority of Denver, including near areas where new, higher-density housing is being built.  It is hard to escape the conclusion that the proposed legislation is part of the city council’s campaign to make driving in Denver as miserable as possible.

Sponsored by council members Paul Kashmann and Amanda Sawyer, the bill would ban new gas stations within ¼ mile of any existing gas station, within ¼ mile of a light rail station, and within 300 feet of any protected districts, zoned for low-density housing.

A staff study from last May discussed exempting gas stations catty-corner to existing stations, but now there will be no such exemption.  There will, however, be an exemption for gas stations that are part of new large-sized grocery stores with over 20,000 square feet of space.

Read more…


The Planning Commission presented evidence of health and environmental harm from fueling stations and car washes. No evidence from the other side was presented. With only one side represented, it is no surprise that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to restrict gas stations in Lakewood, while at the same time increasing electric charging stations. Council comments generally reinforced that view and city staff will be drafting new ordinances to implement these recommendations.

The Planning Commission discussed the issue at three public meetings. In the presentation, this sounds like all sides were heard. However, inviting comment or being open to comment is not the same as researching or actually hearing the other side.

No industry representatives made comment or presentation and no information was brought forth to represent their side. Only one person made comment on LakewoodSpeaks to support the market economy. This led to a one-sided, forgone set of recommendations from the Planning Commission.

An example from the presentation of what the Planning Commission found to be a compelling argument:

“Within 10 years 80% of all fueling stations will be unprofitable (due to the switch to EV cars), leaving stranded assets that will need environmental remediation” – cited by Planning Commissioner Kip Kolkmeier

Does Lakewood have a profit standard for businesses to open? No.

Does Lakewood bear any responsibility for environmental costs if remediation is needed? No.

Is EV car use on track to eliminate gas cars? No, not without government force.

None of that was mentioned.

Planning Commission recommends eliminating gas stations in all mixed use zoning, which they claim are designed for pedestrian, cycling and mass transit use. This statement does not align with ordinance but is a move the city seems to encourage, whether explicitly stated or not. Most public policy discussions that encourage walkability do not explicitly say cars will be eliminated (*Originally worded to be sound harsher)

Purpose of Mixed-Use Zone: “Provide a well-designed site circulation system with a strongly defined pedestrian and vehicular network, good connections to adjacent land uses and efficient connections to transit stops.” Per Lakewood Zoning Ordinance, Article 7.

Planning Commission also recommends increasing electric charging stations, for which there is no business case for proven profitability or need. This argument also proves the misleading nature of “mixed use zoning is for pedestrian, cycles and mass transit.”

Lakewood may consider requiring charging stations as a prerequisite to approving future gas stations. This move will introduce additional market distortions with affects that were not studied at all. Gas stations already have the option to add any charging stations they feel have market demand.

Lakewood staff will be drafting new ordinances to implement these recommendations, while conducting further research.


Lakewood Following Denver

Once again, Lakewood is following in Denver’s footsteps. See some of the other side of the argument from Joshua Sharf, Complete Colorado:

“Never mind your guns, some Denver City Councilmembers are coming for your gas stations.

The Denver Post reports that, concerned by an alleged “sudden proliferation of gas stations,” Councilmembers Amanda Sawyer and Paul Kashmann, among others, have decided that gas stations – apparently uniquely among Denver’s many retail businesses – are taking too much space away from other priorities such as housing.  In response to this deadly threat to housing density, they are close to proposing a zoning change precluding new gas stations from being built inside a quarter-mile buffer zone around existing stations.”

Read more…


From DatingAdvice.com, Written by: Amber Brooks, Edited by: Lillian Castro

Ranking of the most and least appealing cities if moving for love.

  • Thornton rated as the most attractive city in Colorado to move to for a new relationship. Lakewood the least appealing.
  • Infographic included.

You’re head-over-heels in love, and the thrill of a long-distance romance has been both sweet and exhilarating. But as time goes by, the prospect of uniting with your beloved in the same zip code becomes not just a dream, but a necessity. However, does the allure of your significant other’s city sway your decision to make the leap? What if love calls from the sun-kissed beaches of Miami or the bustling streets of New York City? Would the affection be as strong to draw you to McDowell County, West Virginia, a place fighting valiantly against economic setbacks, or to Gary, Indiana, a city trying to rise again from its industrial past?

Through a comprehensive survey of 3,000 people in long distance relationships, DatingAdvice.com sought to find out whether the city in which their partner resides is a factor when deciding whether to move.

They therefore created a ranking of cities considered the most and least appealing if moving for love, with some very interesting results…

The top five cities people would move to for love are:

#1 San Francisco, California.
San Francisco was voted as the most appealing city, with its tech-forward streets and cultural mix pulling at the heartstrings of lovers nationwide. It’s where innovation meets inclusivity, offering new transplants the promise of progressive values and a community that’s as varied as it is vibrant. The Golden Gate City promises a treasure trove of parks, coastal views, and artistic pursuits, perfect for those in pursuit of a life painted with shared experiences.

#2 New York City, New York.
In second place came the magnetic allure of New York City — every district beating with its own rhythm, offering a variety of experiences that range from gastronomic quests in Queens to the artistic soul of Brooklyn. It’s a city where the world connects, and diversity is the cornerstone of every block, making it a haven for lovebirds looking to build a nest in the world’s capital.

#3 Buffalo, New York.
Buffalo’s warmth and welcoming community spirit make it an inviting destination for those relocating for love. For someone new to Buffalo, the sense of belonging and ease of making connections stand out, making it easier to transition into a new life. The city’s affordability and proximity to natural wonders like Niagara Falls also mean that couples can enjoy a high quality of life and shared adventures without breaking the bank.

#4 Fresno, California.
Fresno is a gem for those seeking a blend of urban culture and outdoor living. Newcomers are drawn to its laid-back atmosphere, diverse community, and the beauty of its surrounding landscapes. Fresno also serves as a gateway to some of the nation’s most treasured national parks, offering couples an escape into nature at a moment’s notice. For partners looking to lay down roots and explore California’s natural and cultural offerings, Fresno is an attractive and affordable choice.

#5 Jackson, Mississippi.
For those moving to Jackson, the city offers a deep dive into the heart and soul of the South. Its rich musical heritage and culinary scene provide a sensory feast for newcomers, with blues clubs, galleries, and restaurants waiting to be explored together. Jackson’s community-focused vibe means that newcomers quickly feel at home, supported by a network of friendly locals and fellow transplants. 

When it came to Colorado cities specifically, 2 were identified as appealing for those willing to relocate to live with their partner. The top pick was Thornton, in #69 nationally:

#69 Thornton

Thornton, part of the Denver metropolitan area, provides residents with a balance of suburban living and access to the great outdoors, including the Rocky Mountains. An appealing choice for young lovers looking to forge their future together.

Another top ranked Colorado city was:

#146 Denver.

However, 5 Colorado cities were cited as locations that people would not be prepared to move to for love. The least appealing was Lakewood, in #245 place nationally: 

#245 Lakewood

Lakewood offers scenic beauty and outdoor recreational opportunities near the Rocky Mountains. However, moving here might involve addressing concerns about wildfires and seasonal weather extremes, as Colorado experiences droughts and snowstorms. While Lakewood boasts access to hiking trails and ski resorts, some may find the high cost of living and traffic congestion a consideration.

Other Colorado cities considered to be unappealing were:

#176 Arvada #221 Fort Collins #238 Aurora #240 Colorado Springs.

Infographic showing which cities people are most willing to relocate to for love.

The survey queried respondents who had moved to be with their partners, probing into the significant concessions they made. A striking 57% identified parting with family as the most substantial sacrifice, while 18% pointed to a shift in lifestyle as a primary concern, which encompasses forging new friendships, seeking out new gyms to join, and discovering new favorite drinking hangouts. An additional 15% felt that leaving behind friends was the hardest part, with 10% citing the job hunt as a formidable challenge.

About 23% of couples who closed the gap from long-distance to cohabitation conceded that there were heated arguments over who should relocate. Nonetheless, most couples reported that the move fortified their bond, though 16% admitted it introduced new hurdles. Eleven percent observed that their relationships terminated post-relocation.

Finally, in recognizing that long-distance relationships cannot be sustained indefinitely and must eventually transition to being close-distance to survive, respondents were quizzed about the duration they believe a long-distance relationship can endure before the couple must choose to cohabitate or conclude the relationship. The collective average from the responses indicated that the maximum sustainable period for a long-distance relationship is 1 year and 11 months.


Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info


Subscribe


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