zoning

Stop the Lakewood Zoning Code Fiasco

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on August 4, 2025Posted in Community, Development, SustainabilityTagged affordable housing, code change, fiasco, Minneapolis, single-family, subsidies, zoning

From Jim Kinney Friends and neighbors, I hope you all have had a chance to study the draft City of Lakewood Zoning Code being pushed forward by what appears to be the majority of City Council, the Mayor, and the City Manager and the Director of Planning. The new code is being “sold” as the answer to fix the problem that our City needs affordable housing. Minneapolis was the first city in the nation to abandon the single family zoning category, in about 2018, thinking that action was the answer to magically have the city filled with affordable housing. The article, Counterpoint: Upending Single-family Zoning Isn’t the Answer: Like many zombie ideas, the idea that zoning changes will magically provide abundant affordable housing just doesn’t die, was written by Linda McDonald, of Minneapolis, who is a former City Council member and is one of the founding members of the citizen group Minneapolis For Everyone. The following quote is taken from her article (my highlighting). “In addition, the Urban Institute found no evidence that more low-cost housing was built, or that lower-cost housing became less expensive when zoning was reduced. This isn’t surprising. The real reason new housing is so expensive is that the costs to build — lumber, copper, labor, etc. — have been increasing much faster than inflation. The private marketplace simply cannot produce deeply affordable housing, the housing critical for truly low-income persons. In Minneapolis, there has been an increase in deeply affordable housing, but only because the city has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.” The draft Lakewood zoning codes proposes abandoning single-family zoning to solve the City’s lack of affordable housing. It has already been shown this approach has very little effect producing affordable housing. Tell City Council, the City Manager and the Director of Planning to abandon these draft new zoning codes, that abandoning single-family zoning is not the answer. If there is a reason to rewrite our current City Zoning codes, it is not to remove single-family zoning as the answer to magically adding abundant affordable housing. Educate yourself. Stand up and speak up. Council is planning on voting to make these disastrous draft codes our City law on August 25, 2025. In democracy,Jim Kinney

Lakewood Sacrifices Home Rule For No Reason

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on August 4, 2025Posted in Development, Sustainability, TransparencyTagged home rule, lakewood colorado, local support, preemption, state control, zoning

Lakewood seems to be giving up local control through home rule: The sacrifice is being made in order to gain state funding for local initiatives that ALSO have not been transparent and do not have resident support. Lakewood City Council is throwing away the bedrock of local representation – home rule – in a bid to win political support for zoning changes. New Colorado statutes preempt local zoning code, a move other cities are fighting. But Lakewood is using Colorado’s preemption to show: The majority of Lakewood City Council agree with the proposed zoning changes and have already voted by resolution to accept the proposal (only Councilor Olver dissenting – Ken Cruz and Bill Furman not yet on Council). No Reason With the majority of Council in favor of the proposed code, Council should not have to worry that the changes will pass. There is no need to sacrifice home rule in order to pass the new code. Lakewood could fight for the principle of home rule – a principle Lakewood was FOUNDED ON over 50 years ago – and still enact the zoning code changes that Council feels are necessary. Instead, Lakewood will change its code so that for the first time state statutes will override local zoning (see highlighted insert from the version 3 redline proposal below). No Transparency According to resident Karen Gordey in Lakewood Informer news, the authority for the zoning came from home rule itself. She wrote: “… the Authority section (17.1.5). It originally cited “the city home rule charter” — a key phrase affirming Lakewood’s autonomy. That language? Now redlined. Gone. Instead, we’re left wondering whether the City is scrubbing references to home rule on purpose… or just by accident (which, frankly, would be just as troubling).” There has been no public policy discussion nor vote on whether to yield home rule. Instead, it’s just being quietly edited out. This language may be extended next year because City Council has engaged a City Charter Committee to discuss changes. Note: cities zone to keep order and make sure there is a good balance between residents (cost burden) and businesses (fund providers). But in order to do that, property rights had to be violated to tell people what they could and couldn’t do with their property. Now Lakewood is saying they are “de-regulating” to give property owners more choices, but they are still picking the choices. An owner cannot go back to agriculture property, for example. State Preemption Governor Jared Polis signed an Executive Order forcing states to comply with housing laws in order to receive state funding. From ColoradoPolitics.com, the laws include those listed below: Colorado also passed TEN new laws in 2025 that the Colorado Municipal League determined preempted local control. Instead of fighting against any of these, Lakewood supported key legislation, such as HB25-1093, which reversed a vote of Lakewood residents. Lakewood Council Will Not Fight for Rights Lakewood did not take the opportunity to join the lawsuit that six cities are bringing against Colorado for overstepping home rule boundaries. Thornton recently passed a resolution backing the lawsuit of those six cities. So far, no member of Lakewood City Council has brought something similar forward as a Council initiative. Most Council Members have made comments that Lakewood must comply with the state law. False Argument The argument that Lakewood has no choice but to comply with state law is completely false, as proven by history, other active lawsuits, and a legal opinion provided by the Colorado Municipal League (CML). The Colorado Sun reports that “the Colorado Municipal League this month advised cities in an email that it views the governor’s executive order as illegal. ‘It is CML’s position that this order exceeds the governor’s authority … and promotes arbitrary and capricious agency action.’” State Perspective Lakewood resident Lenore Herskovitz voiced concerns over home rule to a panel of Colorado Democrat leaders. She pointed out: Colorado Representative Rebekah Stewart responded by: Watch the video below: Local Support Lacking Ms. Lenore Herskovitz is one of many residents to bring up mountains of evidence about the abundant housing availability, such as her article titled “Affordable v Housing Crisis” or an article by savebelmarpark.com on Debunking the Supply and Demand Myth. These alternative points of view are not part of official presentations and are routinely dismissed. There doesn’t seem to be an answer to the question of how can a statewide, or even nationwide, affordable housing problem only be solved by changing multiple, unique, local zoning codes. What is known is that Lakewood already has the authority to change its zoning code if the residents support it. Lakewood officials seem to be using the state law as a crutch to win local support, but in the meantime, they are sacrificing home rule control without even bringing it to the attention of residents. As previously reported, Lakewood seems more concerned with getting state funding than gaining resident support for zoning changes. The state deadline for funding is in October 2025. That funding is used for other initiatives that don’t get resident support. Does Lakewood need a City Council if the only concern is what the state would do?

“Rooted In Littleton” Provides Blue Ribbon Example

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 20, 2025Posted in Community, Development, Transparency, Word GamesTagged Colorado, densification, densify, denver, desnity, Lakewood, littleton, Rooted in Littleton, survey, zoning

Littleton residents claim to be amateurs in the political sphere but you won’t believe it when you see how they have successfully organized against density-driven zoning changes. Rooted in Littleton got density changes postponed in January and kept fighting to recently gather enough signatures for a petition. Their website reads: “We are passionate about preserving the small-town charm and beauty of Littleton. Our deep roots inform the perspective that good things grow slowly and knee-jerk responses to large social issues don’t produce lasting results. Let’s not let increased density usher in a new era of increased traffic, crime and big city-problems in our little town.” Does that sound familiar? They have many of the same objections to densification as Lakewood residents, such as the attempt to “to erode our home-rule rights with a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach that could strip our community of its uniqueness.” Check out their website for excellent material that could be used as a blueprint for others fighting this issue: Survey Have you ever felt that Lakewood presents data on “housing density and housing shortages in 2024 [that] was insufficient and skewed toward City Council insiders”? That’s what Rooted in Littleton wrote but Lakewood residents have also been making that point for months. The argument really gained traction after the Belmar Park fiasco. (See these articles from savebelmarpark.com: Lakewood’s Housing Affordable Surplus, Lakewood’s 10-year Housing Surplus, Denver Has Enough Housing.) Instead of just complaining about it, Rooted in Littleton organized a survey of their own and provided it for the public. Unsurprisingly, they found that 45% of Littleton residents felt that densification is NOT the best solution The survey they conducted showed that “76% of the survey participants said they want a voice in all major housing legislation, especially as it relates to adding duplexes, triplexes and multiplexes in currently zoned single family residential neighborhoods.” They also found that a majority of people DO NOT believe in the “benefits” of the proposed densification, as shown below: This group is truly inspiring. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard Lakewood residents share the same sentiments that Rooted in Littleton share: Lakewood residents love Lakewood for the existing characteristics. Just like Rooted in Littleton likes their city. Check out their website and spread the word if you know people in Littleton.

The Comprehensive Plan Bait and Switch

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 2, 2025Posted in Community, Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Transparency, Word GamesTagged 15 minute, 15-minute, bait and switch, community input, comprehensive plan, word games, zoning

Comprehensive plans are easily readable documents that explain a vision for the future of the city in a moment of time. It speaks in plain English to what the zoning code describes in technical detail. The problem is that the zoning code details are what carry the force of law and because technical details are harder to read, it is easy for residents to overlook inconsistencies in proposed zoning compared to plans. This is otherwise known as a bait and switch. For instance, in the comprehensive plan, Lakewood promises to maintain neighborhood character; while in the zoning code, Lakewood implements high-density urbanization which resulted in the destruction of Belmar Park-adjacent property. Pieces of Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan were used as evidence to fight against the Belmar Park development. Lakewood officials discounted all such arguments. Now that residents have caught on to the inconsistencies, Lakewood staff argues against using the Comprehensive Plan to guide zoning. Instead, Lakewood proposes changing the ordinance so that the zoning code is no longer tied to the comprehensive plan. With this change, residents could not form legal challenges based on compliance with the comprehensive plan and there is less room to fight against maximum buildout in adjacent properties. Do Residents Need a “Vision” Document Why have a comprehensive plan at all? This is a long-term plan that locks in the vision for this moment in time. It includes aspirational goals with no implementation details. Therefore, the details are filled in by staff using their discretion to interpret the zoning code. Technically, one government cannot bind future governments to its decisions. If tomorrow’s City Council wanted to change the vision of Lakewood, it could choose to do so. However, having a long-range plan laid down by yesterday’s Council is a roadblock that is not easily overcome. Residents would better understand the zoning code if each change had to be justified with open debate. Instead, as is currently occurring, the entire zoning code can be changed by saying the code matches the ambiguous goals of the comprehensive plan. For example, the as-yet unapproved Comprehensive Plan seeks affordable housing. Therefore, City Council reasons that ANY CHANGE to the zoning code will be acceptable as long as affordable housing is the intent, not necessarily the outcome. There is no need for an updated 100-page vision plan document to update 300 pages of zoning code. Why not just introduce one little change at a time that is easily understood by the residents, and easily tested for effectiveness? The proposed zoning changes are still being discussed and changed. City Council have taken months to understand these detailed changes. Residents will have a couple weeks. However, residents did spend months providing input into the comprehensive plan, that will no longer have much meaning. The Proposed Change Lakewood intends to remove the binding zoning code connection to the Comprehensive Plan. As first noted by savebelmarpark.com: Lakewood zoning code currently states that the Comprehensive Plan is the foundation for the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed redline removes the “consistency with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan”. When the new zoning passes, all the aspirational goals laid out in the plan can be disregarded at will. Which really is no different than today, as shown by the Belmar Park debate except that today such a decision could be legally challenged and tomorrow it can’t. This specific change to the zoning code was not discussed at any public meeting. Comprehensive Plan Goals Not Followed The Comprehensive Plan states (pg 4-10): “Through the site plan review process and design guidelines, ensure that new multifamily, mixed use, and commercial developments adjacent to single-family neighborhoods are compatible by incorporating appropriate design, scale, height transition, and connectivity to seamlessly integrate with the neighborhood.” Residents compiled argument after argument to show that 777 S Yarrow St does not integrate with the neighborhood and does not meet environmental goals from the plan. Residents can clearly see that the Comprehensive Plan promises integration with the neighborhood. Residents can also clearly see that is not what staff implemented be allowing trees cut down to develop to the lot line near Belmar Park and new high-density apartments that don’t match the nearby buildings. . 15-minute Cities In other communities, residents are also waking up to this bait and switch. An opinion piece in the Boulder Daily Camera highlights this problem by examining Boulder’s 15-minute cities. This is particularly relevant since Lakewood leadership constantly mentions their desire for 15-minute city amenities. The proposed zoning code allows retail in residential zones for 15-minute planning. Steve Pomerance, in the Boulder Daily Camera, addresses this issue: “The underlying problem with this whole conceptual framework is the self-contradictory assumption that we can have commercial centers in neighborhoods that provide an adequate variety of goods, services and transit, all within 15 minutes of where people live, but still keep our relatively low-density neighborhoods intact. This is simply not supported by the economics or the geography.” – Steve Pomerance Read the rest of that article to understand the same sense of contrasting values Lakewood is “selling” to residents. The new development at The Bend is promising 15-minute city amenities. “Selling” is the appropriate term used here because the zoning was contracted before the comprehensive plan was finalized. In another eerie coincidence with Boulder, Pomerance wrote, “It’s as if those who wrote these objectives had already decided that the results of the cost/benefit study would support implementing this concept, and thus support the massive densification required to create such neighborhoods. Community Input Into Zoning Up to this point, residents have had no input. It was not a resident-driven development. Lakewood’s Chief of Sustainability and Community Development, Travis Parker, has been attending ward meetings to educate and also to promote the good points of the new zoning code — as if there are no other options. No one has addressed the dissatisfaction with the current densification in Lakewood. Does a desire for affordable housing mean automatic agreement to sacrifice current neighborhoods? More

Resident Voices Community Potluck with Lakewood Informer June 26

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 16, 2025Posted in CommunityTagged Accountability, affordable housing, City Council, Colorado, karen gordey, Lakewood, lenore herskovitz, organization, potluck, rich olver, sanctuary, zoning

Lakewood Informer wants to hear from you at a community potluck Is Lakewood on the right track? What events triggered you to get involved in Lakewood politics? Do you think Lakewood city management listens to you? And the big question – can you MAKE THEM listen? Join us for a potluck dinner at Addenbrooke Park on June 26, 5:30-9 pm and meet others who are concerned about the city. Bring your stories to share through the Lakewood Informer. Meet Lakewood Informer authors to get the latest information and meet your fellow residents. Discuss actions to get Lakewood’s attention on critical issues. –Karen Gordey on selling out neighborhoods–Lenore Herskovitz on affordable housing–Nancy Pallozi on Emory Elementary–Issues like sanctuary cities, The Bend, home rule, and getting organized–We don’t all agree on any of these items but it’s a starting point for discussion Tickets are free but a $10 donation would help defray costs for shelter rental and make future events possible. Hot dogs provided. Bring shareable food dishes at 5:30 for a meeting start time of 6 pm.Small group discussions start at 7 pmWrap up with solutions at 8 pmCapture your stories with video for sharing all night!Must be vacated at 9 pmWill be held rain or shine Tickets are limited, so please reserve asap. Maximum 2 tickets per person. Ticketing will be enforced to ensure park capacity limits do not prevent the meeting from happening. Summaries and videos of the event will be posted to the Lakewood Informer afterwards. There is a $10 suggested donation to cover costs (like park permit). Get a ticket with $10 donation here: https://checkout.page/s/R7jzvq1NxJ8Bu or scan: Free tickets are also available Due to a bad actor with a penchant for using false names, free ticketing is not available at this time. Please email me directly for a free registration with confirmed email and phone number. Karen at thedesk@lakewoodinformer.com These free tickets will not be honored because they didn’t follow the rules. If you have suggestions for discussion topics or would like to be a discussion leader, please let me know!

Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on January 18, 2025Posted in UncategorizedTagged affordable-housing, housing, news, real-estate, zoning

The widespread zoning changes Lakewood made in 2013 resulted in a resident-initiated movement known as “strategic growth.” Residents were unhappy with the increased, high-density residential units being built that unbalanced the economic growth of the city. Ten years later, city leaders are still not listening to residents. On December 9, 2024, Lakewood City Council passed a resolution stating the city will have a “zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood.“ This resolution is not normal procedure. Normally, there is a proposal presented to the public that will show specific plans on promoting homes for the unhoused, increased density, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. This is not that. Rather, it is a declaration that the city already has its mind made up to implement these changes. And because they seek to be “bold”, the Council will approve whatever the contractor recommends, whether or not the public likes it. It’s like Lakewood is playing a Jedi mind trick. Lakewood leaders want a zoning code to accomplish a bold new agenda and they are saying: you can’t see the code but it will be good for you. You will like it. Residents are waking up to the fact that the “anti-growth” narrative was just a way to belittle those who disagreed with the establishment. Look at how residents react to the proposed developments at Whippoorwill and Belmar for proof that no one is asking to stop all development. They just want it done reasonably and in line with existing neighborhoods. Residents are also waking up to the fact that the “affordable housing” narrative is false because Lakewood doesn’t have a housing shortage. These two narratives are how Lakewood justifies the need for this zoning code change. Lakewood needs to pass this resolution and zoning code before more residents wake up. Going through proper public discussion took years for a short-term rental policy and the zoning code is much more significant. Being “bold” seems to be a new political buzzword meaning leaders are crossing a line. Bold is fast-moving, which could be dangerous in government designed to work slowly through public discussion. In this case, as you can see below, the new zoning code will potentially destabilize neighborhoods by extensively changing the rules to densify development in every code. The zoning code was established to keep neighborhoods stable, so residents know the type of neighborhood they are moving into. With these proposed changes, the zoning code can even be used to expedite spending for the homeless, which is a budgetary process normally outside the scope of zoning. The resolution cites the new comprehensive plan as proof that residents approve of this zoning code change. This is disingenuous at best because: Read the resolution below and see how wonderful it sounds. For each bulleted objective from the resolution, there is an example (in white italics) that shows how it could be twisted into something that residents would not like, most of which have been mentioned by city and state leadership. The revised Zoning Code will: The Lakewood resolution was written at the direction of the City Manager, thus by-passing public input. This allowed City Council to “signal” residents that this bold change was coming. That way there is nothing for residents to oppose until it’s too late to make changes. The reality is Lakewood does not have a shortage of housing. Changing the zoning code in the name of affordable housing is misleading. Read “The Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”.

Lakewood’s Gross Misinterpretation

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on January 5, 2025Posted in UncategorizedTagged government, housing, Lakewood, news, save-open-space, zoning

From Cathy Kentner This week it came to light that the city of Lakewood is disseminating purposeful and gross misinterpretations of the new parkland dedication ordinance. City officials have made the decision to require land dedication for the replacement of a single family home while blaming it on the recently passed Save Open Space Green Initiative. And, what is even more ridiculous, they have told a landowner they must create an easement, a part of their yard, that would be open to the general public. This is clearly not what the new ordinance states. 1. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require land dedication when an individual is replacing a single family home with another single family home. For decades the parkland dedication ordinance, and resulting formula, has been based on the number of anticipated residents added to the city. Therefore, when replacing a single family home with another single family home, no land dedication is required because there are no residents being added. 2. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require an easement for public access on private property. Even if the city were to erroneously require land dedication, the ordinance clearly states “The land area that may remain in private ownership must be added to the project’s open space requirement…” The open space requirement on a home does not require an easement open to the public. It would seem that the City is deliberately putting up an unnecessary barrier for a single family home replacement and blaming it on the newly passed ordinance. Yet at the same time, the city is going out of their way to mitigate if not eliminate any barriers that would inhibit large developments of market rate and luxury apartments. Instead of encouraging families to stay, we cater to big money developers and corporations. In the process we displace longtime residents who can’t afford to live here anymore and cause urban sprawl as they go further from Lakewood for a single family home. The Save Open Space Initiative was not created on false pretenses. There is no covert agenda to stop growth as some have suggested. The reality is we have a finite amount of land. If it is being absorbed by large expensive developments with no required provisions for open space, parkland dedication, trees, or affordable units, we will be creating an unaffordable, unhealthy environment for future generations. This initiative aims to restore the balance of open space and parkland with the creation of the kind of housing that is wanted and needed. Much was lost over the past 12 years when developers all chose to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. The Save Open Space Lakewood Green Initiative was passed by the city council who can, and arguably should, direct their staff to follow it appropriately. If necessary, council could very easily amend the ordinance to clarify that adding one unit does not meet the threshold for parkland dedication. Perhaps if the city supported its residents with the same vehemence shown to developers, we could diminish the divisiveness that dominates our discourse. Original News Story Lakewood family looking to rebuild home told they must give up part of property under new ordinance, Danielle Kreutter, Denver 7

A Poisoned Pill Passed: The Strategic Housing Plan

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on February 19, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged city-council, Colorado, Homeless, housing, Lakewood, news, zoning

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

Lakewood Park Land Dedication Issues

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on February 10, 2024Posted in UncategorizedTagged Colorado, community, Lakewood, news, parks, urban-planning, zoning

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. And when was the last time parking was expanded for regional parks like Hayden Park on Green Mountain? Taking 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. Excerpt from the Westword 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