Author: Lakewood News from Karen

Look Back on 2023 Goals

Guest post by Lenore Herskovitz

On March 1 and 2, 2024 City Council held its Annual Planning Meeting. Mayor Strom and Councilor Stewart organized the event. The City used the same facilitator as last year (Point b(e) Strategies) but unlike last year there was no recording of this meeting. Ironically, one of last year’s priorities was “Effective, accountable, transparent, and data-informed government”. This seems like an appropriate time to look back on how successful the Council has been in achieving its 2023 goals (3 of the 6 proposed goals will be discussed).


The first: Secure, inclusive, and affordable neighborhoods. The focus regarding housing was provided by the Strategic Housing Plan which was discussed in a Study Session in the beginning of 2023 and then at the end of the year. This is an ongoing process. Additionally, the Housing Policy Commission was going to take up where the defunct Development Dialogue Committee left off in April, 2022 targeting, in part, affordability and inclusionary zoning. The Housing Policy Commission spent close to a year formulating Short Term Rental (STR) legislation. Once this passed in March 2023 the Commission was free to take on the other housing issues. Their first meeting was held in May of last year. Two following meetings occurred ending in July, then nothing for the remainder of the year. Two proposed meetings were cancelled.


The second: Short and long-term solutions for the unhoused. There has been some progress in this area with the opening of RecoveryWorks Navigation Center and the establishment of an emergency cold weather sheltering program. This topic will also be an ongoing challenge for the future.


The third: Effective, accountable, transparent, and data-informed government. Two positives can be noted. The City has hired a Communications Manager, Angela Ramirez, who has been reaching out on various social media platforms in an effort to keep the public informed about citywide issues. Additionally, the Lakewood Police Department has begun posting a weekly activity summary called “Snapshots of Police Work” which includes calls for service, arrests, traffic stops, etc. This has been promoted on Nextdoor, Facebook, and in the Friday Report mailing.


In spite of these inroads, problems far outweigh any progress that has been made. It is still difficult to navigate websites with additions being made frequently. There is confusion between when and where notifications should be posted on Lakewood.org (the official city site) and Lakewoodspeaks. At last year’s annual meeting a “one stop shop” solution was suggested. It never went anywhere. Now “Looking at Lakewood” which is sent to every household in the city only features one Ward per issue. Previously all wards and Councilors had an entry in each mailing. This created a sense of connectivity between wards. Now that source of information has been removed. We must maintain our monthly Ward meetings. Coffee chats and office hours with our representatives should serve as a supplement not a replacement for community gatherings.


We are constantly hearing from staff and our elected officials how much they value and desire our input ( the latest buzz phrase is “community engagement”) on surveys, the Strategic Housing Policy and most recently the Comprehensive Plan to name but a few. Yet when it comes to turning suggestions and requests into actionable policy many feel it is an exercise in futility. Even obtaining information regarding this year’s annual meeting was difficult. Councilor Stewart told the attendees at the most recent Ward 3 meeting that the agenda and meeting information were available on Lakewoodspeaks. Evidently she had not verified this because the posting was on Lakewood.org without the agenda. The agenda was finally available to the public 24 hours before the scheduled event (this is all that is required). For years the public has wanted this meeting to be more accessible and transparent. Who decided not to record the event this year? And why? Where is the accountability? At its peak, nine members of the community attended the March 2 meeting in person. I attended part of the first day event (this was conducted by the Mayor with no facilitator present). I was the only community member there.


Communications between staff, council members and the public are insufficient especially when discussing controversial issues. The city is often reactive instead of proactive which leads to confusion, anger and resentment. Too many decisions are made behind the scene by “anonymous” staff which fuels the lack of trust. Misinformation runs rampant among community members and within our governing body. There is mixed messaging and omissions of pertinent information leading to blame-placing from both sides.
Council members have been negligent on following up on goals set last year. The City Manager was asked to provide quarterly updates on the established goals. Originally it was suggested that this be done in person but that was ignored and replaced by videos. The last available video that was posted on the city dashboard was from July, the end of the 2nd quarter (there are written updates but no videos that I was able to locate). The Council needs to provide oversight and hold the City Manager accountable when she doesn’t fulfill her obligation. This would hold true for any job but especially for someone who is our highest paid city official. The Council can weigh in on this when the City Manager’s evaluation comes up next month.


A broader look back shows there were only 7 study sessions last year. The calendar allows for an equal number of council meetings and study sessions each month. The Belmar Park West project highlighted many problems including the land dedication/fee in lieu process. There should have been annual reviews by Kit Newland, Director of Community Resources since 2019. NOT DONE! The City Council was suppose to review this policy by the end of last year. NOT DONE! This is now scheduled for a study session on April 15, 2024, 4 1/2 months after the deadline that had been set. Interestingly, it only took the Council 2 weeks this past summer to pass an emergency ordinance to sunset the Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI) in 2025. This was in response to HB 23-1255 which prohibited growth limitations. Although cities were given 24 months to comply, Lakewood passed their ordinance on August 7, 2023 the day before the bill became law. Neither Boulder nor Golden have taken such drastic action. Lakewood could have simply removed the 1% growth cap and retained the all important oversight portion of the Initiative thereby satisfying both the state requirement and honoring the voters who supported it. To reiterate, this took place within a 2 week period when 24 months were allotted before a change was required. Yet the “fee in lieu” which had a specific immediate deadline was placed on the back burner for 4 1/2 months.


Council members have a great responsibility to their constituents. Trust, truth, and transparency are in short supply. Councilors should represent the best interests of their community not their own interpretation of them. Questions need to be answered by Councilors and staff alike. Codes and ordinances need to be followed and enforced. If changes are made, they must be redlined. Appointed city officials should be available for in person town halls or open forums where they can explain and answer questions about their decisions that have a direct effect on the community. Goals are meaningless without oversight and follow through actions. Within a few weeks the official copy of new goals should be available. Only time will tell if progress is made.


Does the Lakewood Police Department (LPD) check the ICE database when making arrests, as was common practice before Colorado became a sanctuary state? Would Lakewood Police release a person charged with a crime before Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE could file a detainer, as happened in Georgia with Laken Riley? What does Lakewood PD do if they find someone with uncertain immigration status? What are the processes and policies for Lakewood to cooperate with ICE?

From January 17 to February 7, a series of questions and open records requests were submitted to Lakewood PD to answer these questions. The intent was to establish whether Lakewood was cooperating with ICE or acting as a sanctuary city.

After almost a full month, on Feb 12 at 5:15, right before the big City Council meeting at 7pm, Patrick Freeman, the Senior Police Legal Advisor for the Lakewood PD, called to say they couldn’t understand what was being requested. He said policies were online and could be found there – exact page unspecified. So after emails dated January 17, 24, Feb 7, registered mail and phone calls, the answer was to find the answer yourself on an unindexed website. 

Can you find the answers to these questions in one of the links, sub-links, etc. below.  Yes, this is a list of approximately 600 links that is the self-service method to answering citizen requests regarding policy.

Compilation of hundreds of links from the police policy website with the words "where to start"

Freeman repeatedly stressed that he was not trying to be difficult, he just couldn’t understand the request. This is absolutely possible but it is also true that many communication problems can be solved through discussion and questions. However, Freeman said it was not necessary for him to answer any questions. He quoted the open records statute to show there was no requirement for questions to be answered.

Does this mean a state statute needs to be cited in order for Lakewood to answer resident questions?

An exhaustive search of these policies is often impossible for many Lakewood residents and information overload is an effective deterrent. However, a cursory search did not reveal any polices regarding cooperation with any federal agency, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) or the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Where are the policies for cooperating with federal agencies?

Since the Lakewood Police Department could not produce any relevant documents in response to the document request, and will not answer questions, how can Lakewood residents know what is going on with their city?

One Lakewood resident says, “I was present at the City Council meeting that Adam Paul declared that Lakewood would never arrest anyone for being an illegal, nor would our police ever refer anyone to ICE —even if arrested. Nor was  ID required by  the police.” The resident recalls Paul made the statement years ago when Denver declared its sanctuary status. This meeting would be captured on video but is hard to locate after all this time.

Any city that offers sanctuary would not have a policy or procedure since it would not cooperate with ICE.

If Lakewood is not a sanctuary, why do its leaders resist providing substantive policy or procedural information on how they cooperate with ICE? Why does their attorney find it difficult to understand lawful open record requests?

Read more

Read more here about how Lakewood is trying to build trust in the community, including increasing transparency: New Police Philosophy for Lakewood


In response to news about the letter from the Metro Mayors (see explanation here) Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom said she was passionate about the issue and grateful for the opportunity to be a part of this letter.  At the February 26 Council meeting, Strom said she hopes it amplifies the voices of the Denver Metro area since we have seen so many migrants. She did not mention the voices of Lakewood, Colorado residents who have also been vocal about the issue. Strom went on to talk about the importance of planning, rather than the perception that this migrant crisis might be used as an opportunity to push for reform at the expense of border security.

Strom acknowledged all the problems coming to the city, including overwhelmed non-profits and the conflicts between homeless and migrants. However, she said those problems are here and the city must deal with them while also addressing the needs of our residents.

Again, Strom did not address solutions involving border security or removing sanctuary status, showing that although the letter might be bipartisan, it is not comprehensive and may not represent Lakewood resident viewpoints.

The dialogue once again skirted the issue of who pays. The Metro Mayors letter asked for federal funding while Lakewood Mayor Strom said this was something Lakewood could do that didn’t cost money. However, Lakewood residents still pay federal taxes and removing state sanctuary status would also cost no money.

This package of federal funding, new laws and fast track work authorizations have been part of nationwide immigration reform efforts. Mayor Strom says that amplifying voices for these measures is good planning. It could also be construed as “never let a crisis go to waste.”

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Rahm Emanuel

The recent purchase of the Mountain View Inn by RecoveryWorks caused some readers to question where the money came from.

The Director of RecoveryWorks, James Ginsberg, responded that the “funds came from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) through the State Division of Housing’s Transformational Affordable Housing Grant.  RecoveryWorks applied for the funds through a statewide competitive process.”

These funds are completely separate from the recent Navigation Center purchase.  

Cross Post from SaveBelmarPark.com

Comments from Lakewood Attorney Kenley Brunsdale regarding the Belmar Park West major site plan review process:

I spent my life as a lawyer working in administrative law arena. And so some thoughts come to mind.

These negotiations took place in secret and quiet. Who knows what the city gave away for nothing.

But this has been a really classic case of of that game that developers play and that should be eliminated.

Click/Tap to read the rest of his comments


Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom supported new migrants becoming “proud workers and residents of Colorado” by approving a letter from the Metro Mayors Caucus. A copy of the letter itself was provided by the Caucus, not by Lakewood, and is shown below. Unlike other legislative positions, this letter was not discussed in public and was not subject to Council committee vote. However, the letter does specifically state that it represents community members, not just the Mayor’s personal opinion. The letter requests three things: fast-tracked work permits, legal services, and federal funding.  Border enforcement is not mentioned, nor is removing Colorado’s sanctuary status.  Read the letter below.

Work authorizations and federal funding are parts of what people know as “immigration reform” rather than what people know as “border security”.

Recent community meetings show that Lakewood residents are very interested in the migrant issue and would like a say in these decisions. However, instead of publicly discussing the issue, Mayor Strom approved the letter while residents were conducting their own community meetings in preparation to hear what actions Lakewood planned on taking on February 12.

Resident voices are being signed in support of this federal issue, whether they approve or not, with no public explanation from their local representative.

The letter itself is not available on the Metro Mayors Caucus nor Lakewood’s website. When asked for the letter, Lakewood responded that the letter and associated emails would cost $134 to provide. Fortunately, the Metro Mayors Caucus released the letter to Kim Monson, host of the Kim Monson Show, who heard about the letter directly from Strom.

The letter is only signed by the Mayor of Golden, as representative of the Metro Mayor Caucus. Only 26 of the 38 member communities needed to approve the letter on behalf of them all. Which communities voted yea or nay is not listed but Mayor Strom’s email shows that she joined in “signing on to the letter…. in support” of these actions on behalf of Lakewood.

Note: If you are not in Lakewood, ask your representative if they voted in favor of these measures

This letter of support was not mentioned on Lakewood’s website regarding migrant misinformation. There is no other webpage on migrant information. The letter was not mentioned during the February 12 meeting when residents were assembled to hear news about Lakewood, Colorado migrant actions.

Read the letter for yourself below.


Cross post from Karen Morfitt, CBS Colorado

From the article…

“They purchased the former motel- as they work to build a continuum of services in the area and is just a piece of the strategic plan the county has been shaping for years.

“When people are left languishing on the street, they are kind of in survival mode. It’s hard to pull yourself out of that homelessness,” Ginsburg said.

The location, which is close to RTD, and other services is why many already struggling to find affordable housing were paying weekly to live in the motel.

Amos Apencer has a month or so before it will no longer be an option.”

Read more from CBS Colorado…


Read more from the original posting: Recovery Works Secures Former Motel in Lakewood

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


Hundreds of Lakewood residents raised concerns over supporting migrants and stopped City Council from taking immediate actions at the Council meeting on February 12.  The Council did not even have a discussion on migrant support after the City Manager provided her report on meeting with Denver. Previous Council meetings clearly suggested further discussion and action was anticipated so the abrupt absence substantiates the city’s “misinformation” campaign but does not explain why Council changed directions. Comments later in that meeting show that Lakewood will open city and city-connected non-profit homeless services to migrants. As a new way to support migrants, Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom has signed Lakewood’s support to fast-tracking work authorizations. Media coverage of the February 12 meeting is listed below.

The City Manager’s report of her discussion with Denver is available online. However, Council had previously promised a discussion at the February 12 meeting to decide what further actions they will take. Councilors Roger Low and Isabel Cruz stated that they hoped the City Manager’s report was only the first step.  “Quickly” was the buzzword the City Manager repeated. Not just listening quickly, but acting quickly. The lack of discussion following the executive report was notable not only because of this previous promise, but because it was apparently coordinated. Mayor Strom did not open the floor to comments and no Council Member tried to open a discussion at this time.

Also notable was that six Council Members were wearing butterflies as a sign of solidarity with migrants. This visible support in combination with an apparent coordinated lack of discussion led two members of the public to wonder aloud whether there was any point to making public comment.

Are Council Members listening with an open mind if they come in solidarity with a position?

Migrant support was also discussed when the city approved funds to open a county-wide homeless shelter and support center, otherwise known as a navigation center. Denver’s failed homeless policies and influx of migrants have pushed Denver’s homeless into Lakewood. So by approving a new center, Lakewood is supporting Denver’s failed policies and two displaced populations. And as one public commenter said, Lakewood itself is adopting the same failed “housing first” strategy that Denver has tried.

The navigation center was approved by a vote of 10-1.

Scorecard: Approve Lakewood Navigation Center

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye (wears butterfly)

Sinks: Aye (wears butterfly)

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye (wears butterfly)

Cruz: Aye (wears butterfly)

Stewart: Aye (wears butterfly)

Low: Aye (wears butterfly)

Olver: Nay

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye

Non-Profit Coordination

Lakewood will continue to work with non-profits to “navigate”, or coordinate, migrant support. Council Member Sophia Mayott-Guerrero stated that “of course both the Housing Plan and the Navigation Center and any other social resource may in fact support people who have immigrated here.” Mayott-Guerrero has said that she herself volunteers with the Venezuelan migrant population.

Many Lakewood residents seemed to be saying there is no “of course” about it. They want to stop enabling a population that may not have come here legally and they want Lakewood to have a discussion, not just assume there is only one way to do it.

For example, Lakewood’s unofficial policy of migrant support is in stark contrast to cities like Colorado Springs which has declared itself NOT a sanctuary city. According to the Colorado Sun, Colorado Springs has seen approximately 24 migrant families compared to Denver’s 40,000 migrants. Lakewood residents driving popular intersections such as Colfax or Alameda and Sheridan will see migrants looking for work, suggesting Lakewood’s migrant numbers are already more than Colorado Springs, despite Colorado Springs being the larger city.

What is bringing more homeless and migrants to Lakewood than to Colorado Springs?

According to the Colorado Sun piece, the Springs and El Paso County are encouraging non-profits to NOT provide services to migrants because it is not compassionate to signal there are services available when that may not be financially feasible.

The majority of Lakewood residents speaking against migrant support echoed this worry about financial resources, especially during a time when personal finances are stretched thin. Supporters of migrant support felt there was enough to go around, especially when federal funds kicked in to provide free money.

The Navigation Center will not require an ID or any legal verification for service.

Lakewood Encourages Fast-Tracking Work Authorizations

Lakewood is not taking a backseat to providing migrant support. According to the Kim Monson Show, Lakewood Mayor Wendi Strom signed a letter of support from the Metro Mayors Caucus in support of three things: fast-tracked work permits, legal services and federal funding for migrants. This letter is not yet available.

Media Coverage of the Meeting

Lakewood, Colorado, residents urge city council not to help neighboring Denver with migrant crisis, by Lawrence Richard, Fox News

Lakewood residents pack meeting about migrant rumors, FOX31 Denver

Lakewood tries to dispel migrant rumors, 9News

Lakewood residents are right to be skeptical about migrant agreement with Denver, Colorado Peak Politics

Lakewood residents protest as Denver spends millions on new immigrants and tensions grow over what to do,  by Rachel Estabrook, CPR News

Denver suburb residents outraged over migrant crisis, America’s Newsroom, FOX News


According to the article below, Recovery Works has completed the purchase of a motel in Lakewood. The motel will be an additional Jefferson County shelter and service center for the unhoused. Recovery Works is the same organization that will be running the new Navigation Center in Lakewood. Lakewood Council will vote on appropriating funds for the project on February 12, 2024.


Cross post from Mile High CRE

IMPACT Commercial Real Estate has announced the recent sale of a former motel that will now serve as the future home for a nonprofit organization, Recovery Works. This was not only a significant milestone for the community but a testament that commercial properties can transform into something that will make a positive impact on the community as well. 

The newly purchased 10,000-square-foot building is strategically located at 14825 W Colfax in Lakewood and will serve as a bridge center and resource for the unhoused in Jefferson County by referral. It will help people get back on their feet and find permanent housing for those in need. Recovery Works locations provide additional services, including meals, laundry capabilities and job programs for employment placement.

Read more….


Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info


Subscribe


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