Lakewood City Council voted to opt-in to Proposition 123 to provide increased affordable housing. Lakewood has not yet announced what kind of programs it will be pursuing or whether it will tailor projects to Lakewood’s need or whether it will integrate the funding into a larger housing strategy.

Lakewood’s Strategic Growth Initiative has shown that developers in Lakewood are not interested in building low-income, affordable, and/or subsidized units. That option has always been available to anyone who would guarantee 20% affordable housing. Zero units were generated. However, with new Proposition 123 funding, land purchases could be subsidized as well as the rent/ownership.

For the purpose of Proposition 123 funding “affordable” means 70% of median income.

Projects eligible for Proposition 123 funding would have to be predominantly affordable. Individuals are eligible for rent assistance who make 70% of median income. Individuals making 120% of median income are also eligible for down-payment assistance.

For Lakewood, that means that the 42% of people residing in Lakewood who currently rent would be eligible for some kind of assistance.  

Advocates for opting-into Proposition 123 funding point out that it is free money. It should be noted that in the rush for free money, Lakewood has not integrated this money into an overall housing philosophy. Lakewood has not decided if the goal is to provide partial or fully funded housing to a target population, what population should most benefit, or if there are any conditions attached that will help people resolve any difficult non-economic problems. Lakewood could choose to focus on providing rental and home ownership assistance or just developing new units.

Opting-into Proposition 123 did not come with any guardrails against the development concerns that prompted the Strategic Growth Initiative. For example, in Lakewood, residents were concerned about high-density units so the initiative-mandated council review of complexes with over 40 units. Although Lakewood could impose such oversight, Prop 123 funding will give high-density projects priority.

In other words, there has been no unique local terms to this spending. Without this evaluation of how local and state needs intersect, Lakewood will be driven by state priorities to secure funding.

For example, Lakewood could choose to target only development of units for the extremely low-income, rather than units for incomes up to 70% of median. The extremely low-income are “the only population experiencing an absolute shortage of affordable housing.’ This fact is supported by Lakewood’s own data which shows that homes are available in other income ranges. Such a target would assist Lakewood’s homeless population but that development normally triggers resident concerns who would rather have more upscale development. So far, Lakewood has not had that public conversation.

“Affordable” housing is defined by individual or household income… “the [extremely low-income are the] only population experiencing an absolute shortage of affordable housing.’ – NLIHC

Lakewood is now obligated to build 625 affordable units. If those units are part of a mixed development, the total overall growth could be 1225 units (625 = 51% of 1225). Therefore, the commitment to more affordable housing may also come with more market-rate housing as well.

From the election Blue Book

Arguments For Proposition 123

1) The measure creates a source of funds to tackle housing issues without raising tax rates, and gives local communities the flexibility to respond to their specific needs. The state and local governments are not doing enough to keep Colorado affordable.

2) Colorado’s housing prices make it too hard for many households to afford rent or to buy their own home. The new programs help Coloradans participate in the housing market now and in the future. Creating more homes will allow residents and essential workers to remain in their communities.

 Arguments Against Proposition 123

1) Many of these programs do not address the underlying causes of high housing costs. Pumping money into the market may distort it further, and the real beneficiaries will be landlords and housing developers. This is neither the role of government nor the best use of public resources. 

2) The measure is unnecessary and will reduce Coloradans’ future TABOR refunds. The state already provides resources to support affordable housing, including over $1 billion in federal stimulus funds allocated in recent years. This measure diverts money away from the state’s budgeting process— money that goes toward priorities as determined by the legislature through deliberation and consultation with stakeholders and constituents—and instead sets aside money in a fund with fixed uses.

Guest Post from an anonymous resident

Here are some thoughts I have regarding the proposed 412-unit Belmar Park West multifamily project at 777 S Yarrow Street in Lakewood, Colorado.

This is a massive project that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to complete on just a 5-acre parcel.

Community members should keep in mind that the Belmar Park West multifamily project is not over.  So please continue investigating and researching venues of redress.  There may be levers that come to light to improve the project by reducing density, increasing setbacks, providing science-based tree replacements, moving to a more appropriate site, etc.

I have not been involved in a community action for quite a few years.  The last one was in Douglas County.  Because that project years ago was under use-by-special-review, both the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners held public hearings.  County Commissioners ultimately rejected the project.  Each of these hearings were attended by up to four hundred Douglas County residents most of whom offered public comments.

The Private Investigator –

During this process, I was subjected to an email attack and followed by a private investigator for around 4-6 weeks! 

The investigator posed as a concerned citizen and often appeared out of nowhere while I was doing grocery shopping or other errands.  He even showed up at a private event I attended hosted by the Denver Bicycle Touring Club and posed as a club member.  He made various suggestions regarding the proposed project that were always off-base forms of misdirection.  It was apparent from the first encounter that something was ‘off’ with this person.

When I suggested he meet me in Castle Rock so we could jointly review campaign contribution disclosures of the county commissioners, he was somehow not interested in that particular chore.  Maybe he didn’t want that showing up on his hours billed report.

Eventually, the date arrived for the final vote by the Douglas County Commissioners.  Several hundred of us gathered in a large meeting hall after clearing the Sheriff’s security screening and metal detectors.  As we waited for the meeting to be called to order, this individual actually passed out a few business cards for his PI services.  He became quite embarrassed as he realized I was nearby and noticed his business cards. 

While I can’t prove who paid for his services, my point is that development projects including possibly local governmental bodies may have a budget category for opposition research.  Concerned citizens should be on alert for strange behavior.  And it does not hurt to be somewhat cautious about public exposure.

SLAPP!  Take That!  SLAPP

Another area of concern is that developers have been known to use SLAPP lawsuits to stifle free speech.  A SLAPP lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.  These types of lawsuits have been used to embroil public interest organizations and even local neighborhood activists in expensive legal action if they don’t desist from their free speech activities. 

A SLAPP lawsuit represents both intimidation and an abuse of the legal process. Thirty-three states including Colorado and the District of Columbia have passed laws to help defendants dispose of such claims relatively quickly.  However, it is much better for all stakeholders to avoid these disputes.

It Is Not About the Developer

A good way to lower the risk of such a lawsuit is to not disparage the developer.  Keep in mind that if Developer A were to exit the project, there could be a Developer B that comes in.  Would the issues be different under Developer B?  Aren’t the issues of public concern typically around the zoning, policies and regulations in place that allow a controversial project to be proposed? 

With all of this in mind, I am hesitant to do an interview and inadvertently go on record saying something that could be used as the basis of legal harassment. 

It is About City Zoning, Policies, Etc.

Likewise, community members are clearly not disparaging the developer when making public comments such as at city council meetings.  It is really not about the developer.  Rather, it is about the City of Lakewood setting the stage for this to happen.

There is quite a list of developer-friendly tactics the City of Lakewood has implemented over the years that have created the opening for this huge demolition and construction project adjacent to a legally unprotected and vulnerable bird sanctuary and wildlife habitat.

For example, the city allows over 80% of the tree canopy habitat adjacent to Belmar Park to be totally destroyed by the multifamily project. Less than 20% of the tree canopy is to be restored with science-based tree replacements.  Is that ethical or moral?  It is certainly egregious. 

The multifamily building does not have adequate snow storage nor does Lakewood even require a snow storage and removal plan.  Obviously, uncleared snow and ice could delay emergency response after a winter storm.

And there are serious fire safety, traffic safety and wildfire issues that have been previously raised in the Informer by Tom Dearth.

The study of future traffic was simply a lookup in a book of traffic averages because you can’t study traffic that isn’t there yet.  There are traffic safety issues that have not been fully considered including whether the extra vehicles parked on the street will delay emergency response or evacuation. 

Unfortunately, the Belmar Commons residents will have to deal with whatever eventuality afflicts their few blocks of South Yarrow Street when an 800,000 square foot building with more than 500 cars becomes their new neighbor. 

These developer-friendly policies, regulations, etc. are all fair game to be criticized and alternative recommendations put forth.  If there is an attorney willing to invest some legal sweat-equity, that might also be helpful. 

The City Council and Planning Department will tell you they can’t do anything because it is a ‘use-by-right’ development.  But we are not talking about some inherent human right. They are referring to a right they themselves granted through their own planning, zoning, growth cap waiver and redevelopment process.  It is up to them to take responsibility for what they have done.  And up to the voters to hold them accountable.

Do not stand back.  Stand UP!

On November 28, Lakewood City Council was asked to designate a property on S Wadsworth Blvd as blighted.

Per Colorado Revised Statutes a “‘Blighted area’ means an area that… is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare”. This definition is included in statute as a way to target areas for urban renewal and perhaps increased funds.

But not in Lakewood.

“In your city, the purpose of a blight designation is to do housing”

“In your city, the purpose of a blight designation is to do housing,” says independent, redevelopment specialist, Anne Ricker. Ricker’s firm, Ricker | Cunningham, was hired to evaluate blight at 1000 to 1090 S Wadsworth Blvd. This specialist was accustomed to evaluating blight as a first step towards urban renewal, but in this case, Lakewood is not using blight for renewal, just for regulating a certain type of growth. In other words, using blight as a way to allow increased high-density residential growth.

City Council Member Able agrees with this assessment. He stated that the blight designation was used to get around Strategic Growth Initiative requirements that our community passed at the ballot box.

So when the council is asked to approve blight in instances like this, what they are really doing is considering approval of over 40 units of high-density, residential units.

To prove that we are talking about residential development, some Council Members talk about developing the existing commercial use. In response, the property owner responds that they really need all available options that the zoning allows for, in order to make the property economically viable.

“How many affordable housing units have been produced out of [blight provisions]?…. ZERO”

Councilor Able, November 28, 2022

Ironically, some of the problems noted in the blight study, such as limited access points, limited parking and crime, could all be exacerbated with higher-density use.

To make things more complicated, there appeared to be some confusion over City Council’s role. Several members seemed to suggest that Council should approve the request automatically, not because they agreed with the designation, but because the process had been followed. However, some followed up with the feeling that something was off.

Other council members had the idea that they could agree or disagree with the blight designation from the beginning. One member stated that you could blight anything if you wanted to. The problem was summarized, once again, by Councilor Able, when he suggested that the study appeared to be checking boxes without evaluating the deeper issue of a public menace, which is needed for blight.

In the end, the discussion turned to development rather than blight. Mayor Paul suggested that this blight designation go away so that applicants are not burdened with this process. The Mayor asked about using the new process of adding 20% affordable housing to a new development to bypass the blight designation. This discussion again reflects that “blight designation is used for development, not renewal, in Lakewood.” The 20% affordable housing provision also provides a “loophole” to the voter-approved Strategic Growth Initiative.

The designation was voted down. This was the second out of ten requests to be denied.

To review the new amendment authorizing the use of affordable housing to allow high-density growth, watch the video here.