Author: Lakewood News from Karen

From Geek Nexus

  • Survey reveals the 175 cities where residents are most irritated by a neighbor’s political yard sign.
  • Residents of Arvada emerged as the most annoyed in Colorado by their neighbors’ yard signs.
  • Infographic included.

As election season approaches, neighborhoods across America are transforming in more ways than just the changing colors of fall. Yards are blossoming with red, blue, and everything in between, as homeowners proudly display campaign signs, turning their lawns into political statements. This colorful display, however, isn’t just a form of expression – it’s sparking debates and, in some cases, irritation among neighbors…

The upcoming elections will shape the political landscape for years to come, so it’s no surprise that some Americans want to make their views visible. But while political yard signs are an essential part of the democratic process for many, not everyone appreciates them. To find out where these signs are causing the most contention, Geek Nexus surveyed 3,000 homeowners, ranking 175 cities based on the level of irritation sparked by neighborhood yard signs.

In a ranking of the top 10 cities most aggravated by political signs, Fort Lauderdale, FL, topped the list, followed by Little Rock, AR, and Pasadena, CA.

When it comes to Colorado, residents of five cities emerged among the most irritated when their neighbors decide to erect political yard signs in their front yards: Arvada (which ranked in #91st place nationally), Aurora (#118), Lakewood (#140), Thornton (#142), and Denver (#151). While Colorado may not be a battleground state, it seems residents of these cities would prefer if their neighbors kept their political views a bit more private – at least when it comes to yard signs. Whether it’s a disagreement over political beliefs or simply the cluttered look of campaign slogans across the neighborhood, many locals would likely agree that a little less lawn politics could go a long way in maintaining good neighborly relations.

Interestingly, the list also includes two cities in ‘swing’ states: Surprise, AZ, and Ann Arbor, MI. Here are the top 10 cities most frustrated by political yard signs:

1. Fort Lauderdale, FL
2. Little Rock, AR
3. Pasadena, CA
4. West Palm Beach, FL
5. Portland, ME
6. Omaha, NE
7. Surprise, AZ
8. El Paso, TX
9. Ann Arbor, MI
10. Salt Lake City, UT

Infographic showing complete city ranking

Beyond the rankings, Geek Nexus’s survey revealed some interesting insights into Coloradans’ attitudes toward political yard signs. For example, 60% of respondents said they knew their neighbors’ political leanings, while 40% weren’t sure or preferred not to know. As for the actual influence of yard signs, opinion was split: 46% of people think these signs can sway voters, while 54% believe they’re just lawn ornaments with no real effect on election results.

Most respondents agreed that political yard signs should have their season, with 76% supporting the idea that signs should only be displayed during specific times of the year, like the lead-up to an election. And while only a small group (24%) admitted they’d consider removing a neighbor’s sign if they disagreed with it, the majority (76%) were clear that they’d rather not cross that line.

Then there’s the matter of legality: 58% of people were unaware of laws regulating the display of political yard signs. And it’s not just the signs that cause tension – yard aesthetics, in general, can be a source of neighborly friction. In fact, 34% of homeowners admitted to having clashed with a neighbor over property appearance in the past.

Yard signs are a way for people to express their beliefs, but they can also create tension, especially during an election,” says Jake Valentine of Geek Nexus. “What we’re seeing is that something as small as a lawn sign can have a big impact on neighborhood dynamics. It speaks to the importance of balancing personal expression with community harmony, especially in a time as charged as election season.”


From HostingAdvice

Digital Dilemma: Residents of Lakewood Reject Smart Tech, Citing ‘Big Brother’ Fears, Reveals Study.

  • Survey reveals the cities most supportive, and most skeptical of smart city technology.
  • Residents of Denver the most supportive, whereas those from Lakewood are skeptical.
  • Infographic included showing study results.

For years, public policy experts have forecasted the rise of smart cities across the U.S., envisioning urban environments that enhance online connectivity, streamline infrastructure, and improve public safety. However, public opinion is increasingly divided. While some welcome the benefits, many are concerned about the potential downsides – chief among them, the fear of a “Big Brother” society where constant online surveillance undermines privacy, a reality already observed in some parts of the world, like China.

HostingAdvice carried out a survey of 3,000 respondents to take the pulse of the nation when it comes to the introduction of truly connected smart cities. The survey revealed that Los Angeleans are most in favor of converting theirs into a smart city. And who can blame them? By using AI algorithms, smart transportation systems can dynamically adjust traffic signals and manage and predict traffic patterns to address the city’s notorious bumper-to-bumper traffic. 

Residents of New York City followed in second place in the survey, which again is understandable, given that city’s heavy traffic, which commuters who travel via the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway would attest to.

The top 5 cities whose residents are most enthusiastic to become fully integrated smart cities:
1.     Los Angeles
2.     New York City
3.     Buffalo
4.     Dallas
5.     Jacksonville

When it comes to Colorado cities, 3 emerged as supportive of smart technology and would broadly embrace it. These were: Denver, Fort Collins, and Aurora.

However, residents of Colorado Springs and Lakewood were skeptical of embracing smart city technology and would vote to reject it.

Infographic showing survey results

HostingAdvice asked respondents who were supportive of smart-city technology which aspects of it most appeals to them. Thirty-two percent cited more efficient infrastructure and transportation – improving rush hour traffic congestion appears to be the biggest draw. The second most popular factor is the improved environmental sustainability that can be brought about by smart technology. This comes as no surprise after another blistering summer across the country – fighting climate change has become increasingly important to many people. Twenty-four percent identified increased public safety as the most desired benefit, followed by better online connectivity (14%).

However, as much as there is a willingness by some to embrace smart technology in their public spaces, a significant proportion of respondents are against it. HostingAdvice quizzed respondents on their primary concerns. The biggest concern (24%) is a potential loss of privacy due to increased surveillance. Many worry that smart cities in Colorado may lead to environments, such as Chongqing in China, a city of 30 million people, that is reported to have one of the highest concentrations of surveillance cameras in the world, with around 2.6 million cameras installed throughout the city. Critics argue that Chongqing’s vast surveillance network, including millions of cameras with facial recognition technology, represents a significant invasion of personal privacy. This technology allows the government to track individuals’ movements and activities in real time, raising fears about constant monitoring and lack of personal freedom.

Another concern includes data security, hacking risks, and unwanted government control or interference (28%). Lastly, 10% of respondents said they worry about a lack of transparency about how their data is used. Indeed, when HostingAdvice asked Coloradans their opinions on the likelihood that smart cities could lead to a “Big Brother” society, over half (52%) said that scenario was ‘very likely’ or ‘’likely’.

When respondents were asked whether they feel comfortable living in a city where online surveillance is used to enhance public safety, 57% said they were in favor. In fact, over two-thirds (70%) said they believe the benefits of smart cities outweigh the potential risks to privacy. 

Finally, respondents were asked what they believe are the biggest challenges to implementing smart cities:

Cost of infrastructure development (32%)
Public opposition due to privacy concerns (19%)
Cybersecurity threats (18%)
Technological limitations (16%)
Government regulations (15%) 

While the advantages of smart innovations are undeniable, it’s important we acknowledge residents’ concerns over privacy and how their data is handled. A truly smart city isn’t just about the tech – it’s about building trust and ensuring that these advancements genuinely improve the quality of life for everyone,” says Christina Lewis of HostingAdvice.


In 2023, then-Council Member Mary Janssen and resident Natalie Menten brought to light that Lakewood’s City Charter had a revenue cap to protect residents from rapid property tax increases. Most of city leadership said Janssen and Menten were totally wrong and besides, leadership said, Lakewood needed the money. However, it turns out Janssen and Menten were not wrong, and Lakewood is now adjusting the 2025 mill levy to comply with the City Charter. There will still be a property tax increase for residents, but only half of the previously proposed increase. Lakewood did not explicitly state the reason for the change because residents can sue if the city of Lakewood was found to be over-collecting taxes. Instead, staff only referenced a “complex legal issue.”

Per the new slide presented October 21 (below), the original mill levy would have resulted in $1,561,000 more taxes than 2024 ($872k + $ 689k).

Recommendation: 2025 Budget: Mill levy 4.496 mills. Estimated to be $872k higher than 2024 estimated property tax. This will be $689 lower than the proposed budget. General Fund backfill for this change $689k
Slide from October 21, 2024 budget presentation showing new mill levy recommendation

The Budget Book advertised this was a 6.2% increase over the 2024 REVISED BUDGET. However, the revised budget is over $1,000,000 more than the original 2024 budget. The mill levy to collect property taxes was set in the original budget.

In reality, the original 2024 budget to 2025 budget numbers show a 13.5% increase.

Lakewood has been collecting almost double the amount of property taxes allowed by City Charter section 12.12.

No one has said that Mary Janssen or Natalie Menten was correct in their original interpretation of the City Charter, as presented to the Lakewood leadership on October 23, 2023.

No one even said this change was because of the City Charter provision. Instead, there was only a vague sentence explaining that “a complex legal issue has been identified.”

This was a tacit, belated, admission that Mary Janssen and Natalie Menten were right. The city had to lower their mill levy or risk getting sued by the residents for illegally over-collecting property taxes.

For three public meetings on the budget, the mill levy recommendation was an increase to 4.711 mills (about $22 per tax bill). On Monday, October 21, 2024, during the fourth and final budget meeting, city staff recommended increasing the mill levy to only 4.496 mills (about $11 per tax bill).

KEY TAKEAWAYS
The mill levy is a property tax applied based on the assessed value of the property.
The rate of the tax is expressed in mills - one mill is equal to one dollar per $1,000 of assessed value.
The tax is applied by local governments and other jurisdictions to raise revenue to cover its budget and to pay for public services such as schools.
Explanation of mill levy from investopedia.com

Lakewood could only increase the mill levy by about half the amount they wanted because according to the City Charter they can only collect 7% more in revenue than the previous year, not 13.5% as originally proposed. With this change, Lakewood will only collect about half the amount of property taxes in 2025 as originally proposed.

Another tacit admission that something was wrong involved the lack of conversation surrounding this issue. Not one Council Member questioned why this lower levy was necessary, even though every Councilor – besides Councilor Olver – has advocated for more spending and higher taxes. The lack of opposition or even discussion was highly unusual and points to legal implications that Council may have been privately briefed on the issue. The entire mill levy reduction discussion and vote took less than one minute (41:49 min mark to 42:42 min mark).

Councilor Olver pointed out this was still a property tax increase for Lakewood residents. However, some Councilors disagreed, including Councilors Low and Rein who called the change a tax decrease. Nevertheless, Olver did the math for 2025 from 2024 and stated, “I have to point out that 4.5 is greater than 4.2. That’s my math and I’m sticking to it.


Lakewood resident Wendy Purcell has formed an issue committee to fight against Lakewood’s ballot initiative 2A to keep your TABOR refunds. This is a David vs Goliath story. What makes someone step up when the entire city government is against her? Lakewood Informer asked her.

*Updated with links to previous articles below


What made you decide to start an issue committee against the city’s TABOR initiative?

We are so lucky to have Natalie Menten as our TABOR watchdog all these years in Colorado. I am a handful of concerned citizens that want to keep TABOR refunds for Lakewood residents. Thanks go to Mary Janssen & Lynnda Gies to help get the word out about the city of Lakewood’s TABOR constant requests to take our refunds away forever.

Do you think you can compete with the big money the establishment has raised? Stevinson gave $10,000 and the majority of City Council has contributed.

Yes we can


Why do you think Lakewood can survive without your TABOR refund money? Every department is making statements about how dire things will be if they don’t get more money. Are they believable?


No. The city needs a balanced budget to expand the city as quickly as possible without any pushback from the residents the city depends on.
The city is lobbying through through taxpayer-funded communication agents and established facebook channels.

How does an everyday resident like you get your message out?

We had a few posts on a some websites. Lynnda Gies & I canvassed the intersection of Alameda & Garrison on 10/20/2024 & got a positive response from the drivers for voting NO on Lakewood 2A.


Lakewood Facebood ad to retain TABOR funds

Further Reading:

City Uses Budget Presentation to Push TABOR Retention

TABOR Will Be on the Lakewood Ballot

City Seeks to De-Tabor but Over Collects Property Tax

Give us your TABOR refunds, says Lakewood

Lakewood Lobbies for Your TABOR Refund

Lakewood and Jeffco To Spend Money To Keep Your TABOR funds

Lakewood Budget Board Recommends Keeping Future TABOR Refunds

Wadsworth Building Update

Cross-post from Lakewood.org

Lakewood-Wadsworth Station apartment building

October 2024 update
Canyon Partners Real Estate and DeBartolo Development have formed a partnership to acquire and complete the apartment complex at 1221 and 1225 Wadsworth Blvd. Once the acquisition process is completed, the partnership is expected to restart construction of the project in 2025.

The new partnership has no ties to the original borrower or developer and is bringing fresh capital and a new team to the project including a locally based general contractor.

In early 2024, construction of the property was paused as the then-developer encountered financial-related challenges. The project was not halted by the City of Lakewood, and the project is not out of compliance with its permit at this time.

Read more…


Lakewood Chief of Police Philip Smith with be the guest speaker at October’s Ward 4 meeting, Wednesday, October 16, 2024.

07:00 PM – 09:00 PM, October 16

Lutheran Church of the Master, 14099 W. Jewell Ave., Lakewood, CO, 80228 View Map

Ward 4 meetings always include Q&A about a broad range of topics. All city residents are welcome.

Shahrezaei’s Bridge Lights

A line item for an $800,000 expenditure was added to the 2024 budget to fix the lights on RTD’s bridge, apparently at the request of Council Member Shahrezaei, in defiance of normal council procedures. At the time in 2023, the official explanation was that the expenditure originated from the Public Works department. As explained in Lakewood Informer news, the only communications Lakewood disclosed were between Councilor Shahrezaei and RTD, not city staff. Individual Council Members are prohibited from directing city staff in any action, including adding items to the budget. A councilor must request a study session and get permission from the rest of Council before staff take any action. So how did these bridge lights make it into the budget? The bridge does not even belong to Lakewood.

The funding of this project was approved by City Council as part of the 2023R –
2024 Budget process. This project was of particular interest to the Ward 1 City
Council members, who helped advocate for its inclusion in the budget. Staff has
begun design work and lighting demonstrations with the selected vendor. The only
change in the 2024 Revised Budget was the addition of ongoing maintenance
funding of $18,000 in the out years, as the city continues to work with RTD on
ironing out who will be responsible for this obligation. Solar panels are not being
considered for this project; at this point in the design process, it does not appear that
the electrical load of the proposed lighting would justify the cost of adding solar
panels. Public Works will continue to evaluate throughout the design.
Staff reply to Council Q&A, 10/4/2024

During the 2025 budget discussions, city staff are not so willing to claim they originated this item. Now, the city staff explain that the item is in the budget due to Ward 1 Councilors, not staff. The only Councilor that spanned both years is Councilor Shahrezaei. (Note: the 2024 budget was passed in Oct, 2023)

Shahrezaei explained that the bridge lights were approved last year, as if that answered all questions. She failed to explain that the expense could still be removed today, before approving the 2025 budget.

She also failed to explain how she got the item in the budget in the first place.

Shahrezaei worked with RTD representatives through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). She is the only one with communications about the bridge through CORA requests.

Emails produced under CORA showing Council Member Shahrezaei was the point of contact.

Lakewood does not own the bridge in question – RTD does. Lakewood has no obligation to take on any of this expense for an architechtural enhancement. As Shahrezaei explained in 2024 (video minute marker 58:00), she feels the lights contribute to placemaking, which is important to the city.

“In our comp[rehensive] plan and our goal setting, placemaking is important and I know that there are other things that we have to consider for our community, placemaking is one of the things that we’ve all shown priority for … which is why this is a carryover and part of the revised budget, but this isn’t part of the 2025 budget.” – Councilor Shahrezaei

“Placemaking” is not a discrete or defined goal of Lakewood City Council.

Correction 10/14/24: The newly unveiled Comprehensive Plan defines Creative Placemaking:  “Tell Lakewood’s story and enhance community identity, health, and quality of life through community-based initiatives throughout the city that celebrate local culture, foster social cohesion, promote economic vitality, and activate Lakewood’s public spaces.”


Cross-post By Karen Morfitt, CBS News

A resource for struggling families and those living on the street in Lakewood is in desperate need of a new location.

Without it, Mean Street Ministry, which operates a food bank and day shelter along the West Colfax corridor, might not survive.

“I was homeless and looking for a place to stay one night, stayed behind the dumpster here,” Rollin Huber said.

The decision would change his life.

“A gentleman from Mean Street came and got me at six in the morning and took me in,” Huber explained.

Read the full article from CBS News


The money for new pallet homes, or transitional housing units, will come from Lakewood’s Economic Development fund. The 2025 budget also shows the city expects to spend $9.5 million on land purchases for unspecific purposes, also from the Economic Development Fund. Lakewood is waiting to start the transitional housing program until land can be purchased somewhere. The city budgets $300,000 for pallet homes. These homes will be a new program that Lakewood will provide funding and support for, but may be owned and run by an outside organization with limited oversight. The Economic Development Fund has traditionally been used to develop economic opportunities in Lakewood, but in 2023, Lakewood re-interpreted the ordinance to include safety and general upkeep of the city. Previous discussion on the transitional housing program did not include a business analysis of any economic growth potential this program would provide.

The $9.5 million for land purchases could be used for transitional housing land (for pallet homes), in whole or in part. By approving the budget, the city will have funds to allocate for purchases as it prioritizes.

State of the Economy

The budget presentation shows that median household income rose by 10% but the Jeffco employment rate is down by 1%, marking the need for more economic opportunities.

From the Lakewood budget presentation 8:50 min mark

Lakewood predicts just under 1% growth in sales tax which reflects the state of the economy.

From the Lakewood budget presentation 20:30 min mark

Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info


Subscribe


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