urban renewal Archives - Lakewood Informer

Toxic Legacy: Uncovering the Chemical Contamination at the Denver Federal Center – Part 2: Blight or Oversight? The Bend, the LRA, and Lakewood’s Shortcut

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 20, 2025.

By Karen Gordey

“Transparency isn’t optional when taxpayer dollars and contaminated land are involved.”

A New Name, A Familiar Pattern

Most Lakewood residents haven’t heard of “The Bend.” That’s because it was previously known in city discussions as the 6th & Union, 4th & Union, or simply part of the Denver Federal Center redevelopment. To longtime residents of Lakewood, it is known as the Horseshoe Property. It quietly rebranded, and with it came an expedited process that skirted public scrutiny.

I attended a West Metro Fire Protection District Board meeting on January 21, 2025, out of concern for wildfire readiness. What I stumbled into instead was a vote on tax increment financing (TIFs) for a development I’d never heard of—The Bend—on land I knew all too well.

As a result of hearing this, I went out to the Lakewood website to refresh my memory on the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA). From the Lakewood website: “The fundamental mission of the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) is to encourage private reinvestment within targeted areas of Lakewood. The LRA has been created by citizens to enhance the City’s ability to preserve and restore the vitality and quality of life in the community.”

So let’s first look at how the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) process is supposed to work. (Below is a bullet point version. However if you are interested in seeing the full presentation it is on Lakewood Speaks and you can search for the LRA meeting from March 4, 2024.)

Lakewood’s Reinvestment Authority (LRA) process, aligned with Colorado state law, outlines a clear and deliberate path for redevelopment:

Blight Study / Conditions Survey: Performed non-intrusively by a third party, this survey determines how many of the 11 conditions of blight per state statute are present.
Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission is supposed to review the blight study and the Urban Renewal Plan (2 separate documents) and make recommendations to City Council.
City Council Vote: Council receives both documents and votes to approve or deny.
LRA Plan Approved: If approved, this becomes a 25-year plan governing redevelopment in the area.
URA Designation: The project area is officially defined and adopted.
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) + TIFs: Other taxing entities (like West Metro Fire) enter IGAs, and TIFs are created after financial need is demonstrated through a gap analysis.

What Actually Happened with The Bend

The land is owned by Lincoln Properties; however, they used a company by the name of Lakewood Land Partners, LP for the deed.
The project was rebranded mid-process, obscuring its identity from the public.
The Developer negotiated TIFs with at least the West Metro Fire Department prior to the Planning Commission meeting or City Council approval for a new urban renewal project.
The Planning Commission met and approved the development plan without ever reviewing the blight study.
TIFs were approved by West Metro Fire before proper public process was complete.
This project was set to be heard at City Council for blight designation on February 28, 2025 (per the presentation at the planning meeting) however it is now slated to be discussed in a study session on April 21, 2025 followed by a City Council meeting on May 12, 2025.

Sidebar: Past Precedents

Lakewood has a documented pattern of fast-tracking redevelopment by combining steps for blight designation and plan approval. For example, consider these past projects:

Alameda 1 – Council Reso 1998-48 (5/26/1998)
Colfax & Wadsworth (Creekside) – Council Reso 1990-70 (8/9/1999)
Alameda 2 (Belmar) – Reso 2000-82 (9/11/2000)
Lakewood West Colfax Corridor – Council Reso 2005-79 (12/1/2005)

Developer Negotiating TIFs?

At the January 21, 2025 West Metro Fire Department Board of Directors meeting, officials explained that they were approached, not by the City but rather by the developer regarding a new urban renewal agreement for the near 6th Avenue and Simms/Union. This land lies within West Metro’s boundaries, but not currently in their response area.

The meeting minutes show active negotiations over TIF revenue shares, which should raise eyebrows because the developer has no role in negotiating government taxes.

This raises a critical question. Was the developer acting as an agent of Lakewood? Was the developer acting on behalf of a presumed new metropolitan district?

Screenshot of the minutes from West Metro fire on January 21, 2025, discussing urban renewal agreements — Screenshot of the minutes from West Metro Fire on January 21, 2025, discussing urban renewal agreements

Just weeks later, at the February 18 meeting, the Fire Department approved the TIF Sharing Agreement with the City of Lakewood for the Bend project, again detailing the revenue splits.

Screenshot of the minutes from West Metro fire on February 18, 2025 — Screenshot of the minutes from West Metro Fire with vote details on February 18, 2025

While both of these documents can be found on the West Metro Fire Department website, both meeting minutes have been downloaded and can be found here on our google drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1O0eNIOLdCo833C0xGKrvvRAeH9sUeVez

Here’s the problem: under the Colorado Urban Renewal statute https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_31-25-107 developers are not authorized to negotiate Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreements. That duty lies exclusively with the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in this case, the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) or the City itself, acting in that capacity. The minutes of West Metro make no mention of negotiating directly with Lakewood.

Under the statute section (9.5)(a), the taxing agreements must be worked out with the appropriate entities before the plan is approved but there is no new metropolitan district approved, unless one was promised behind closed doors. Even if a new metro district was granted, there should be a meeting and A VOTE of that Board of Directors, with conflict of interest disclosures filed. In this case, the property owners and developers will likely be the only board members so they will act as their own government. They will negotiate deals as a government that will enrich their personal property in a direct conflict of interest. They will be able to do this legally if Lakewood City Council approves their service plan in May.

Why It Matters

The LRA has extraordinary powers: it can borrow money, sue and be sued, condemn property, and distribute public financing to developers. When oversight is minimized or skipped, or in this case handed over to the developer; transparency, accountability, and public trust suffer.

And when that’s happening on top of a Superfund site, it’s not just a process problem, it’s a public health issue and fiscal irresponsibility.

Article 3 will dive into the specifics of what’s in the blight report/conditions survey, the gap analysis, what the city has currently approved for this property, and the lawsuit filed by Lincoln Properties against the Green Mountain Water Board.

Please Note, the author did send an email on April 7^th to the Mayor and City Council requesting to talk about this project. No one has yet to respond.

Important Upcoming dates:

April 21^st at 7 pm – Virtual Study Session with City Council and the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA)

May 8^th at 6:30 pm – Screening of the movie “Half Life of Memory, Rockleys Event Center 8555 W Colfax Ave, Lakewood, CO 80215. This event is free!

May 12^th at 7 pm – City Council Meeting, 400 S. Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO, 80226. 7pm Public Hearing for the 1.) Creation of Urban Renewal District 2.) Creation of Metro District 3.) Approval of parkland dedication, including improvements in-lieu of a site greater than 15 acres.

Lakewood Playing Games with Blight Statutes to Increase Development

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on February 6, 2025. 1 Comment

Lakewood is using every tool at its disposal, and then some, to aid development at 4^th and Union, known as The Bend. The latest proposal is to blight the property in order to include it in an Urban Renewal Project so that the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority can fund the development. The Lakewood Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the first step of this process on January 22, 2025. However, despite a presentation on blight, there was no consideration of blight status for this vote and other developments in the area, like St. Anthony’s, did not receive financial assistance. Since the blight finding relies on environmental contamination, Lakewood should get involved in cleaning up a toxic landfill to make this legal, which is also not being proposed. This vote concentrated on whether the new development conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was written by Lakewood to include this high-density development, which has been in the works since 2013. There was no examination of whether the residential units being built were needed per the provisions of urban renewal, such as mitigating slums.

Examples of Games

Eliminate slum and blight – will not, develops around it
Comprehensive Plan baked in – a new plan is up for approval any time now
Shortage of safe housing – meant to eliminate slums but city is using for affordable housing
Playing favorites – Same conditions as St. Anthony’s that didn’t get funding
But For – Development would happen without city assistance

None of these factors were discussed or by the Planning Commission but one approval leads to another in this process.

No elimination of slum or blight

Slide 16 of Lakewood presentation March 4, 2024 https://lakewoodspeaks.org/items/3419. Lakewood is not planning on eliminating slum or blight, just developing.

Per Colorado State Statute 31-25-102 (1), the purpose of a blight designation and urban renewal is to eliminate blight or slums. In a typical blight situation, there has been deterioration of structures that now need repaired. That’s not the case here.

Raw land is not suitable for a blight designation. Adding infrastructure is just development. The problem, as Lakewood seems to see it, is that they want to enable the developer’s goal of 2000 units of high-density residential in an area that wasn’t designed for that many units. A smaller development may work. Lakewood wants to change the standards from when 6^th Avenue and Union were constructed to today’s goals of high-density and walkability.

That’s not blight. That’s development. And per Lakewood’s own presentation, it is illegal to use blight designations for the sake of development for its own sake.

The only problem with the land is that there is a toxic landfill on the north end. Neither Lakewood nor the developer is currently proposing mitigating that risk so there is no elimination of blight conditions in this proposal. Merely finding blight, if it even exists, is not enough to comply with statute.

Lakewood points at projects like a landfill in Castle Rock that underwent a similar blight process. During that process, the landfill was cleaned. Cleanup is not proposed for The Bend site which is not a city landfill but a toxic munitions dump. So the underlying blight condition, if any, will remain in place.

Location of new development showing there are no known contaminants at the development site — Box labeled “D” is The Bend development. From pg 2 of EPA report

Comprehensive Plan Baked in

A new Comprehensive Plan will be approved in February. There was no pause on The Bend blight vote to see if it would meet any revisions that arise during the vote. Both the current and upcoming plan are written in such a way that city staff can interpret Comprehensive Plan goals to mean just about anything. And this area has been targeted by developers (not necessarily residents) for high-density residential for more than 10 years.

In fact, the Comprehensive Plan details what Lakewood would want to see built on that land so this whole argument is circular. It is just the city writing what it wants in multiple places and then using those multiple places as justification.

Shortage of SAFE housing

According toC.R.S. 31-25-107 (5), if residential housing is to be developed, there must be a demonstrated lack of decent, safe and sanitary housing. Remember that this statute is designed to eliminate slums.

“(5) In case the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land which, under the urban renewal plan, is to be developed for residential uses, the governing body shall comply with the applicable provisions of this section and shall also determine that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe, and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas (including other portions of the urban renewal area); that the conditions of blight in the urban renewal area and the shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality.”

Lakewood will not be eliminating slums and there was no consideration of safe and sanitary housing. Instead, Lakewood points to a “shortage” of housing that is in dispute (see “the Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”). Lakewood also points to the need for “affordable housing”, which is not considered in statute.

Playing Favorites

St. Anthony’s did not get financial assistance through the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority and it has the same sort of environmental conditions that the land being developed further north has – that is it is technically clean for development. Again, the new development will not be developing or mitigating the toxic landfill that forms the base of the environmental concerns there.

But For

The need for Lakewood to provide this tax incentive is the “But for” argument. “But for” the urban renewal designation, development may not happen. This is patently false since the developers have been planning on funding the project for years without the blight designation.

Tag: urban renewal