When Lakewood City Council had the opportunity to study the effects of repealing laws like those that govern panhandling in the street, Council voted no. Council Members said they, “can’t imagine telling a voter that we said we’re going to get rid of the consequences to crime.”
What residents heard was “we want our laws to stay.”
What Council meant was literally, “we can’t tell people what we are doing.”
Nobody used false words, but a year later, Lakewood is still not enforcing its own laws and has not acknowledged the effects of removing the consequences.
Since that time, Lakewood has doubled down on permitting window washing by deciding not to put up new signs to deter window washers, while voting to put up new signs to change the speed limit, both of which carry the same traffic risk.
Residents are still voicing concerns and noting the lack of enforcement. A new thread on nextdoor.com appeared January 6, 2025. It disappeared within a day because Lakewood has vocal supporters on nextdoor who get people canceled (A big reason to support independent media!). Before it was removed, the post had over 200 comments, most of which agreed that panhandling and window washing on street medians was dangerous. Residents want Lakewood to do something about it.
Original post:
Complaints:
Most neighbors said they felt threatened by the activity, especially females. Others felt endangered due to the high risk of accidents. Still more expressed frustration with Lakewood for not taking action the way other cities, like Arvada, are doing.
Some people disagreed that window washing was a problem at all. They didn’t seem to argue about its legality or status as a traffic hazard. Rather than addressing those issues, they argued that residents should be more compassionate. To those that feel threatened or endangered, the overwhelming response was to tell people to deal with it. That is, it was your fault for feeling threatened, not the fault of the window washers or the situation.
Misinformation:
More troubling is the amount of misinformation out there. For instance, one resident said this wasn’t a Lakewood issue. She advised people to call the state. During this process she agreed with Lakewood’s strategy of unofficially repealing crimes without resident consent.
Lakewood Informer reached out the CDOT and the Colorado State Patrol and confirmed that Lakewood are indeed the responders to this situation, if they so choose. Lakewood should have time to police all its laws.
One resident said he reached out to Lakewood City Council and was told there was no law against panhandling. Does City Council really not know the laws that have been brought to their attention numerous times?
According to another resident, Mayor Wendi Strom specifically called these “crimes of survival” – a concept Council denied defending when refusing to research repealing the law.
Are Council or staff interpreting Lakewood laws are illegal and so are unofficially repealing them without a proper vote?
Or are they playing word games to say “panhandling is not illegal” while not addressing the fact that there are laws that address the issue?
According to staff, Lakewood has repealed several panhandling laws. However, there are others still active for roadside solicitation (LMC 12.18.020).
City Council has refused to research effective policing strategies or to take action to enforce Lakewood laws. They have also not officially repealed any laws. But Lakewood residents seem to have no doubt that Lakewood is not enforcing its laws and they are noticing the detrimental effects.