Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Jeffco Schools is not disclosing how much the district will lose on the Emory Elementary deal. And curiously, no one knows when the Board met or voted on selling the closed school.
Lakewood Informer reached out to school officials and could find NOTHING. How is Lakewood selling the property when the purchase has not been completed through Jeffco? Has it been completed and everyone missed it?
An article by Jimmy Sengenberger on Lakewood’s deal for Emory Elementary gets reinforced by residents on nextdoor.com
From Jimmy Sengengberger at the Denver Gazette:
“In Jefferson County, local democracy dies in darkness.
“That’s the inescapable conclusion from the shady business between Jefferson County Schools, Lakewood and a homeless-services nonprofit.
“This April, Lakewood authorized City Manager Kathy Hodgson to negotiate a $4 million below-market purchase of the shuttered 17-acre Emory Elementary. The plan? Flip 10 acres to the Jeffco Action Center for just $1 million — a sweetheart deal costing taxpayers $3 million.
“Here’s the scheme: In January 2024, Jeffco Schools quietly gave municipalities first dibs on closed schools through a new “Municipal Interest” process, dodging competitive bidding. A consultant told the board they could skip community feedback using this path.
“The Action Center can’t open this municipal backdoor itself, so Lakewood did it for them
Lakewood is adding a new word to the dictionary — an innocuous move that covers up a dedicated zoning change for the Emory-Action Center swap while also shutting down future resident protests. Lakewood is planning on adding a new “Community Resource Facility” use to the zoning code to enable an “Amazon” warehouse-type low-income distribution center to operate anywhere in Lakewood. This new use is necessary for changes to the Emory Elementary property that Lakewood proposes to sell or exchange with the Action Center, which will convert it into a “Community Resource Facility”. That swap is not mentioned in the May 19th meeting on the zoning code change, even though the swap is what prompted the change in the first place. To listen to that meeting, one would think that there has just been a glaring oversight for the past 50 years, and no non-profits have been able to operate food pantries. Taken in isolation, residents could be forgiven for thinking that Lakewood didn’t have the ability to allow what is clearly already allowed in multiple places. Therefore, once again, residents must dig deeper to understand what is going on. In this case, allowing high populations of low-income support services in every zone in the city, including those previously reserved for schools. (For background, read Lakewood news at https://41444.us6.myftpupload.com/springsteen-files-injunction-regarding-emory/) Travis Parker, Chief of Planning and Community Development, says Lakewood hasn’t had a request for something like this during his time with Lakewood, which may give residents an idea of the scale of the facility that is envisioned. The Action Center currently operates in a commercial area and sometimes has customers lined up down the block. The new “Facility” will be much larger. Envision the difference between the local retail shop and the Amazon warehouse. Are residents prepared for the warehouse of low-income services anywhere in the city? *Another word game warning: since places like the Action Center and Recovery Works are paid for by donations, Lakewood claims they are different from commercial activities, so they use the word “guests” instead of “customers”. They say this is a “distribution of goods and services” instead of commercial activity. The medium of exchange might be different, but the underlying intent is the same. The new code discriminates against for-profit businesses that are not eligible to operate everywhere in the city. Lakewood is a government, not a charity, and this type of special treatment drives out other commercial businesses who cannot compete with special favors granted by the government. It also discriminates against smaller non-profits that currently operate throughout the city but are not getting financial favors from the city to host a “facility” — like the one envisioned by Lakewood for the Action Center. In a city where small businesses are closing everywhere, why give special treatment to organizations that don’t pay taxes? When a City Council member asked how existing operations were allowed, the answer was that they were in a mixed-use zone, but it was unknown under what technical use definition. Historical precedence seems to be pertinent to the discussion. Is it possible the man in charge doesn’t know how this could have been accomplished in the past? Or is the change specific to something that could be pertinent only to the Emory property swap Councilor Isabel Cruz asked what this change would look like outside of the school disposition process. Her question suggests an understanding that the change is driven specifically by the Action Center swap, even if that is not communicated directly. Councilor I. Cruz asks about smaller non-profits, but they are already allowed under existing rules. This change is necessary only to allow the Action Center’s mega-warehouse tied to land swap. Lakewood is making changes behind the scenes to preempt resident objections. Under current zoning, residents would have a chance to protest the Emory Elementary use change later. Adding this definition makes the change happen now, without specific public notice.
From Eve S Build! Build! Build! That is the priority of the Ward 1 Council members. I live within a mile of Graham Park and this is the first I have heard of this new Build project. Who asked them to build at Graham Park? Have they done any environmental impact studies? How many trees will they cut down? Graham Park is located at 2345 Routt St. in Ward 1. See Graham Park Improvements | Lakewood Together. Before ruining this park, Lakewood should be required to study the impact of redevelopment on the native and migrating species that have been surviving on this small green space. This research should be done across all seasons so migrating species of insects and birds are not excluded. The existing trees should be examined and their uses should be included. The Lakewood forestry experts do NOT value old growth trees, but these are essential to many insects. Chickadees and raccoons build nests in the rotten spots of old trees, but Lakewood regards big, old trees as worthless. The city removes them and replaces them with non-native saplings. At Belmar Park Lake, the city ignored the requests of many residents to consider our wildlife and our ordinances. Among other negative decisions, they declared that roof tops fulfill the “open space” requirements. The Council members love concrete and asphalt and they hate all natural creatures and plants. Lakewood said: “2025: Funding is allocated in the 2025-2026 budget for the removal of the Graham House and to incorporate passive-use park improvements at Graham Park.” Why do Jeslin and Glenda hate our natural areas so much? Why do they want to pave over every square foot that can be used by wildlife? Ward 1 meeting is scheduled for August 9 at 9:30 am at Holy Shepherd Church at 920 Kipling.
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?
Lakewood spent two years fighting against releasing body cam footage in a fatal shooting case but has now lost in the Court of Appeals. The issue was first raised by then-City Councilor Anita Springsteen. The original story can be found at Fox31: 17-year-old’s killing by police raises questions for councilor. After turning down multiple requests for the video release, Scripps News filed a lawsuit, naming Springsteen as the requesting official. Lakewood lost in lower court, then appealed and has now lost the appeal. The ruling was made July 10. The footage has not yet been released. By Jeffrey A. Roberts, Executive Director, Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition Appeals court: Children’s Code does not bar public disclosure of blurred body-cam footage showing Lakewood officers killing 17-year-old robbery suspect Colorado’s Children’s Code does not prohibit the public disclosure of blurred body-worn camera footage of Lakewood police shooting and killing a 17-year-old robbery suspect in 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. Affirming a district court decision, a three-judge appellate panel rejected the city of Lakewood’s argument that the statute which protects the confidentiality of juvenile records trumps the footage-release provisions in the 2020 Law Enforcement Integrity Act. The statute, the judges concluded, “unambiguously required the court to release” the video. The body camera footage is not a “juvenile record” under the Children’s Code, the opinion says. Rather, “it is a conduit through which information from a juvenile record might be disclosed absent blurring of the video. And even in that circumstance — where the BWC footage might reveal a juvenile record — the statute does not bar release of the footage. The court must still release the footage, but it must blur the video to account for the juvenile’s privacy interest.” The case concerns the shooting of Mariana Martinez by Lakewood police on March 27, 2023. According to a news story, the department initially said Martinez fired at officers but clarified the next day that she pointed a gun at them. First Judicial District Attorney Alexis King found that the officers’ use of deadly force against Martinez “was legally justified to defend themselves and others from the threat posed by Miss Martinez.” Read the full article at CFOIC…
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.
Lakewood City Council will finally vote to spend money on fixing the bridge lights for RTD on July 14. This controversial measure was delayed twice before because of the high price tag for fixtures that do not belong to Lakewood. Now, City Council is scheduled to vote on a resolution to fund this measure through an Intergovernmental Agreement with RTD. It will be on the consent agenda so it doesn’t get discussed, just agreed to, unless someone pulls it for special consideration. As reported in “Shahrezaei’s Bridge Lights“, there are issues to consider, such as why Lakewood would pay for property not owned by Lakewood. Lakewood has recently de-TABORed because they cannot stay within budget without extra money and is looking at eliminating printed newsletters to save money. These measures are evidence that Lakewood does not have money to waste on RTD issues. The staff memo states, “Public outreach for the funding associated with the current IGA amendment was included in the public budget adoption process last year.” At that time, public sentiment was so against the measure that it was not approved, just like it was NOT approved the year before. But now, with little fanfare and no regular agenda discussion session, it’s back. The budget for the lights has come down since it was initially proposed. Originally budgeted for $800,000, which covers the full cost of the lighting, the new agreement splits the costs evenly with RTD, with each party capped at $500,000. In exchange for funding the lighting, Lakewood will be able to help choose the display color.
Word games and a lack of trust have led city staff to accuse residents of “misinformation.” This time, the issue involves the plans to eliminate or reduce physical printed editions of the Lakewood newspaper, Looking@Lakewood. The plans for this switch are still being formed and testing is currently underway — starting with the July edition, which is digital only. Although Lakewood says this is only a test, the city will only commit to one future, printed edition, which substantiates concerns for a permanent elimination. Full elimination may only be conjecture, but according to a response from Lakewood, some city staff believes that mistake is purposeful “misinformation.” This situation is a good example of the word games Lakewood plays and demonstrates the reason that residents continually struggle to make sense of changing policy. The May edition of Looking@Lakewood (below) announced that the July edition would be digital only. When asked about future plans for printed editions, the city responded that the October election edition will be printed and distributed to everyone. This edition is important not only to voters, but to the City Council members campaigning. However, the city response shows no commitment to future printed editions. Rather, they reiterate the cost and sustainability issues the city is concerned about. As the response shows, not even Lakewood can say that printed editions will stay; they can only say they “understand that some residents prefer” a physical copy. They have also said there is no CURRENT plan to FULLY stop mailing. Both of those statements are political word games that make no commitments. Given that evidence, it is easy to see why some residents may mistakenly believe Lakewood has already decided to stop printing completely. Sharing that belief is not “misinformation” but rather “speculation” or, at worst, an honest error. It may also be based on actual experience dealing with Lakewood because historically, the first step Lakewood takes when making a change has been to form a tentative plan, then take a resident survey, and very often to then proceed with the original plan. As long as a printed version is possible in the future, the city can rightly say “Any information you’ve seen or shared that Looking@Lakewood is going completely digital and won’t be mailed ever again is misinformation,” (bold added). Meanwhile, if you are interested in receiving news from the city, you should sign up for the electronic version because, for good or bad, you may not receive a printed version. Resident input is still being taken through the signup below.
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
