3 The High Cost of ‘Density’ - From Betrayal to Toxic Danger: Lakewood’s Deadly Dealings with Developers

• Stories
• by Public
• 05/29/2025

mp3 • 10.9min • 5.29.2025   In the continuing saga of development in Lakewood, Colorado this podcast relates to The High Cost of ‘Density’ - From Betrayal to Toxic Danger: Lakewood’s Deadly Dealings with Developers In Lakewood, it’s become painfully clear: residents’ matter about as much to the city as the 65 towering, majestic—supposedly “protected”—trees that once stood like sentinels beside Belmar Park. Many trees were so wide you couldn’t wrap your arms around them. They had silently witnessed decades of community life. Then, without ceremony, trees that took more than half a century to grow were erased in a single tragic morning on May 12th – arguably Lakewood darkest moment. Their trunks cut with recklessness, crushing wildlife underneath their sturdy trunks, their roots severed, and bodies fed into industrial grinders—treated like nothing more than trash. Their destruction wasn’t just approved—it was encouraged. Lakewood didn’t just look the other way; it opened the door and handed over the chainsaws.  The city’s message to longtime residents? You’re just as disposable. Out with the old, in with the new— especially if the newcomers are likely to help stack the polls with more of their obedient, party-line minded people will keep the growth machine rolling. Loyalty, history, health—it all takes a backseat to political gain and development dollars. Something really strange is happening to the Democratic party in Lakewood. This was once the party of environmental stewardship, grassroots activism and sharing the wealth. Now, at least in Lakewood, the “democrats” we vote for push forward their “vision” of what they want for Lakewood, despite widespread public opposition. They bulldoze over green space in the name of “density”—forcing it down our throats even as residents repeatedly say "no."  Density at all costs is their new slogan — at the expense of our environment, our wildlife, and the quality of life for those who already live here. Not to mention they are actively supporting giving wealth to billion-dollar corporate developers - as if they need more money and power.   This isn’t progress—it’s corporate-driven greed and them siding with developers over their own residents. In Lakewood, environmentalism isn't championed by the left anymore—it's being defended by independents, centrists, and even shockingly, conservatives who see the livability of our community swirling down the toilet. Politics have drastically shifted recently, with democracy giving way to developer-driven agendas that dictate what happens in our cities. The people's voice is now completely erased. You can talk to city council - but they will give you a canned response saying how hard they are working, but "we'll help you with the next park." Right—because there’s nothing else like Belmar Park left in the heart of urban Lakewood. I tried for more than 2 years to have my voice heard by the city of Lakewood advocating for stewardship of our parks and open spaces in Lakewood, and specifically Belmar Park. I was dismissed, ignored, told “it's too late,” and “our hands are tied.”  Lakewood government DOES NOT work for the people anymore. Don’t think if you have a problem that you can go to our city government, and they will do a thing about it. I’m 100% certain that they won’t do anything after what I’ve been through the last 2 years with this city council who can’t do anything except execute orders from top-down authority (the city manager – Kathy Hodgson, planning director- Travis Parker, and other city staffers/planners who aren’t even from Colorado – like Brea Pafford – who all supported rubber stamping the Kairoi monstrosity) that will be built at 777 South Yarrow Street. Kairoi came in, destroyed and devastated our most cherished park, and so far has shown our community utter disrespect. At the Jefferson County district court hearing on May 27th, the billion-dollar developer, Tyler Sibley said, "I deserve to be treated the same as all the other developers Lakewood granted allowances to [for the last 13 years, without exception]".  He cares only about himself—not about the people, not about the living creatures who’ve called this area home long before this Texas-based developer arrived, and certainly not about the unique ecological value of the site. What he does care about is profiting handsomely—using Belmar Park as little more than a backdrop for marketing his multi-million-dollar high-rise. He AND Lakewood think nothing of our old growth trees and have made Lakewood an absolutely heartbreakingly abysmal place to live now.  Next time you vote—I know the two-party system seems hopeless, and the options rarely inspire confidence—but what we really need are leaders who truly listen to the people, stand up to city staff, and aren’t afraid to push back against agendas that don’t serve the people who live here. If you know of anybody you think would be good for this – please start recruiting them now and planting that seed. Stay tuned for an update of what the group Save Belmar Park Inc. is planning next and how the city of Lakewood’s dirty dealings led us to a sad loss for our entire community.  And, as if cutting down 65 "protected" trees and our heritage wasn’t enough, Lakewood is also greenlighting the "Bend project"—an excavation that will churn up contaminated nuclear waste soil, stirring up a toxic legacy from a time when radioactive materials were recklessly buried. It’s the same kind of reckless development that gave rise to the horror stories from the Candelas neighborhood, built near Rocky Flats—where cancers began appearing just like the local documentary maker of The Half-Life of Memory movie warned us about. Hosted by Ramey Johnson Lakewood isn’t just ignoring the warnings—it’s actively inviting the next health disaster. Our city is becoming a case study in how not to protect your people. Sincerely -A citizen along with others who ACTUALLY cares because I live here What do you think. Add you comments Watch out for our next series talks about the declining Sale Tax collection in Lakewood and how this might relate to development. See you soon.

0 WHAT AND HOW MUCH IS STILL REMAINING ON THE LAND?

• Stories
• by Public
• 05/23/2025

This year Memorial Day is a little early. This day is a federal holiday set aside to honor those brave men and women who died while serving America in the armed forces. My humble gratitude- thank you. Because of your service, I am able to write this newsletter.     Thank you to those who attended the recent screening of HALF LIFE OF MEMORY. This documentary exposes the truth about the egregious situation that happened at Rocky Flats regarding contamination and the cover-up. It is my sincere hope that your major takeaway is that the government lied, and we should be mindful that history has a way of repeating itself. You had the opportunity to meet Jon Lipsky, a former FBI agent who was highlighted in the movie. He refused to sign a document handed to him by the Department of Justice, telling him NOT to tell Congress the truth regarding Rocky Flats. The DOJ wanted him to lie. He refused to sign the document.   Now Lakewood is facing a similar potential build-out of 2100 apartments at the Federal Center that is now referred to as The Bend. Until it was recently sold, it was called the Horseshoe Property. This 59 acres of land is owned by Lincoln Properties, however, they used a company by the name of Lakewood Land Partners, LP for the deed. They paid $30,010,000 for the 59 acres.     UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: Mike Feeley (husband of Leslie Dahlkemper- County Commissioner) represented the developer who approached Metro West Fire Department and negotiated a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) plan. West Metro Fire District and any developer are NOT authorized to negotiate tax rates.WHY did Lakewood sign off on this?Why did the Fire Chief and City Manager agree to this negotiation? A GAP ANALYSIS is a tool used to justify public financing like “TIFs” (tax increment financing) in order to estimate the cost associated with contaminated land and demolition (not needed in this situation). A GAP analysis was never done.Since taxpayers are on the hook for costs associated with contamination, how much will we pay?Will taxpayers ultimately be held liable for any long-term health issues (like cancer) associated with contamination if the 59 acres are not remediated correctly?Could this lead to a class action lawsuit?Given the history of this property, should it ever be considered to have structures built on it?         The Bend is a superfund site that requires a long-term response to clean up any contaminated materials. It is known that after WWII, solvents, heavy metals, and PCBs were buried in landfills scattered throughout the campus.WHAT AND HOW MUCH IS STILL REMAINING ON THE LAND? To date, no one has been able to locate the soils report for the Common Spirit Hospital site (formerly St. Anthony Hospital). When asked for the soils report, Travis Parker, Director of Planning for Lakewood stated, “Lakewood’s retention policy is 2 years.”What standards does EPA use for retention of documents relating to hazardous materials? If the cost of remediation and liability issues regarding health become so egregiously high, will Lakewood Land Partners LP just walk away? The Blight Report, done in 2017 by the General Services Administration, stated on page 4, “no soil disturbance including digging, drilling, or grading on the northern section.” Note: The “northern section” is much of the 59 acres.How can a developer build on land with this determination without having liability issues for workers, inhabitants, and taxpayers?   LAST- Why would the City Manager, Mayor and City Council not question this development instead of supporting it? So many questions needing answers. In your service. Ramey Johnson

0 ‘Secret shoppers’ at King Soopers, other Kroger stores say overcharging is common

• Stories
• by Public
• 05/17/2025

Provided By: Larry Gardner - Lakewood Colorado MAYBE YOU SHOULD RECONSIDER WHO IS ACTUALLY SELLING PRODUCTS CHEAPER. Based on the article below (Denver Post) this issue of fair pricing at Kroger seems endemic throughout the U.S. Please share with friends, family and parishioners at your church of choice, as appropriate. If desiring further action,you can also file a complaint with the CO A.G's office. ‘Secret shoppers’ at King Soopers, other Kroger stores say overcharging is common  Members of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 say "secret shoppers" who visited 50 Kings Soopers and City Market stores in March found wide discrepancies between prices listed on shelves and what people actually paid. Shopping trips to King Soopers and City Market stores in Colorado and other Kroger-owned supermarkets in other states turned up what the shoppers say were widespread discrepancies between the price on the shelves and what got rung up. As a result, the customers spent more for groceries than they expected at a time when prices for most items remain high and tariff increases have stoked fears of inflation heating up again. Walmart, the nation’s largest grocer, warned Thursday that higher tariffs on imports will raise prices. Members of the union negotiating a new contract with King Soopers shopped at 50 stores across Colorado over four days in March. The total tab, paid for by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, was $3,921.11. However, based on the price tags on the shelves, the bill should have been $3.297.26, or nearly 16% less, said Kristi Bush, the union’s associate general counsel and one of the shoppers. The UFCW’s secret shopper excursions coincided with ones made by The Guardian newspaper, Consumer Reports and the Food & Environment Reporting Network in 26 Kroger-owned stores in 14 states and the District of Columbia in March, April and May. The tests by the media partners found more than 150 items with expired tags, leading to average overcharges of about $1.70 per item, 18% over the discount price listed on the shelves. The union that represents King Soopers and City Market employees in Colorado has made the discrepancies an issue in contract negotiations that started late last year.  The union raised the issue while King Soopers and Albertsons, which owns Safeway stores in Colorado, were pursuing a merger. The deal collapsed in December after judges in two separate cases rejected the merger. Kim Cordova, UFCW Local 7 president, said the union has shared the information from its shopping trips with Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser in hopes that he will investigate. The attorney general’s office can’t confirm “or otherwise comment on investigations,” spokesman Lawrence Pacheco said. In 2023, Weiser and the Nevada attorney general reached a settlement with Walmart over the company’s failure to make sure the price customers paid matched the price listed on the shelf. The settlement called for Walmart to pay $3 million to Colorado to help fund local food pantries and other food assistance programs Bush, who went to King Soopers stores to check prices, said shoppers took timestamped pictures of the items on the shelves and later compared the tags on the shelves to the receipts.. The bill for a trip to an Englewood store was $83.80. Based on the prices listed on the shelves, it should have cost Bush $57.61. In one case, she got two bottles of soap that were advertised at a special price of $8.99 per bottle if she bought two. But the receipt showed she paid the full price of $14.99 per bottle. In another case, Bush picked up a bag of chicken strips, “the kind that you would feed your kids.” The regular price was $10.99 per bag, or $9.99 with a King Soopers loyalty card. The tag listed an additional discount of $2 per bag if the shopper bought three of the items. “I bought three and they charged me $10.99 for each bag of chicken,” Bush said. “The total should have been $23.97. I paid $32.97.” Chris Lacey is a service manager at a Littleton King Soopers. He’s not surprised by the reports of listed prices not matching what people actually pay. Last week, avocados were listed on the King Soopers app for 99 cents apiece, but Lacey said they rang up as $1.49 for each one.

0 Let’s work together to fix these issues.

• Stories
• by Staff
• 05/16/2025

It’s come to my attention that many of you are wondering whats going on at Green Mountain Water Board. (GMWSD). Well I lost the election by about 40 votes. That’s fine. In a way I’m glad because many people say this board is so corrupt I really don’t want to be any part of it. The 1200 plus citizens that voted for me Thank You and I’m not going away I’m just getting started. As a regular citizen now  like yourself I will fight for whats right, not for what is obviously wrong. Just to make it clear I never missed a regular meeting or voted to table any issues or voted NO on any developments. Lots of lying and miss information going on. GMWSD is being sued by the Federal center owners and this was all caused by two board members and their mis-information their putting out and causing the problems. Who will pay in the end,  you the citizens.  In many peoples option the 2 people causing all the trouble should not jeopardize the health, safety and financial stability of our city. Others say It’s time to remove or recall the president and treasure ASAP of their positions and appoint people who care about you the citizens of Lakewood Colorado. Tell all your friends and neighbors about this huge potential problem. Watch the GMWSD video it speaks for itself. Let’s work together to fix these issues. By for now Randy Little.  

1 Taking legal action to preserve election integrity

• Stories
• by Public
• 05/13/2025

Suite Filed By Dave Wiechman As you may recall the recent water board election (on May 6) turned on the issue of whether GMWSD should enter into a development agreement with the Texas developer who bought the 59-acre horseshoe property on the NW corner of the Denver Federal Center. The developer (whether he uses his real name, Lincoln Properties of Dallas or uses his Colorado shell company name Lakewood Land Partners) wants to build several 5-story apartment buildings for 2,150 rental units on the landfill where the Feds buried toxic chemicals for 85 years.   I and a majority of the Board wanted to take the time to ask more questions and ensure the  health and safety of both future residents and nearby neighbors. The water board President wants to give them a development agreement now and then have GMWSD watch over their development later. That is the same approach I favored a decade ago when developers asked Lakewood City Council for a metro district (Big Sky) to develop Rooney Valley. I bought into their assurances that Lakewood would have oversight powers over the RV developments. I learned later the developer takes the attitude that once they get their service plan / metro district authorization they figure they are free to do whatever they want.    Fooled me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me. I now realize the in negotiations the people must require the developer to fulfill all his promises BEFORE we concede anything he wants. In order words, clean up the property FIRST or go your own way. GMWSD should not become another one of your lackeys.   In Tuesday's elections, I and the other incumbents received the majority of the votes and should be returned to office. However, the pro-developer faction has come up with a scheme to deny seating the fourth place winner - Randy Little. Instead they want to disenfranchise him from the Board and instead appoint someone who didn't even run.   Obviously, it's very long document but it's attached if you want to read it all.   Request for Prohibitory Injunction - Prevent Irreparable Harm & Preserve the Status Quo (pursuant to CRS§1-13.5-1501?)  Introduction / Background -  Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District (GMWSD) is a special district organized under Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.  GMWSD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors (BOD) elected to a four-year term of office in biannual elections. The terms are staggered so that about half the BOD is up for election (or re-election) every two years. There are also vacancies created by board members resigning before their term has expired.  In cases of director resignations, the remaining BOD members appoint someone to fill that seat until the next regularly scheduled election. In the case of GMWSD there were two resignations during the last term - Randy Little and Arthur Martinez.  Two other directors, David Wiechman and Roger Wendell, were elected in 2022, completed their initial term, and have now been re-elected to a second term. A final BOD member (the current President) is in the final two years of two consecutive terms of office and was not involved in the recent election.  The GMWSD is now entangled in a unique and significant issue that could affect the health and safety of the general public AND potentially affected the financial well-being of the district. Currently GMWSD includes 59 acres on the NW corner of the Denver Federal Center in west Lakewood. This currently vacant land was previously used during WWII by the federal government as a munitions manufacturing facility and disposal landfill for 85 years.  During the period of federal government operation the site was a dumpsite for toxic chemicals. At one point the site was considered for Superfund designation. About ten years ago, the federal government did a partial cleanup by removing a layer of topsoil and replacing it with a one-foot layer of “clean” topsoil to create a “seal”. The Feds ruled the site was “safe” so long as the seal was not compromised.  A couple years ago the federal government sold this contaminated property to a Texas developer who is proposing to build 2,150 apartment units on the former landfill. This has led to a political contest between interests (such as the City of Lakewood) that want to build more housing and citizens who are concerned disturbing the site would create a Love Canal-type environmental disaster.  As a result there was a split on the GMWSD board between those who concluded that the developer has an inalienable right to develop this site and those who believe the site must be examined in greater detail to determine whether or not the developers’ intention to turn it into long-term, dense multi-family housing is feasible.  The developer is arguing GMWSD has no choice in this matter, but is required to provide water and sewer services in order to facilitate construction of habitable buildings on the former landfill.  A majority of the BOD (three out of five seats) are seeking to table any action on the development request until an adequate environmental investigation and cleanup can occur, and specifying before allowing any destruction of the landfill’s ground cover seal.  Based upon the above, at the April BOD meeting the 3-person majority decided to table further action until after the May 6 elections so the public could weigh in on their concerns and priorities. A couple weeks later (April 29) the BOD minority, led by the President, pushed for a “special” BOD meeting to revisit this issue BEFORE the May 6 election. However, in reliance upon the previous meeting’s decision to wait until after the elecction the majority of  BOD members had already made other plans and did not attend this special BOD meeting. As a result the special meeting failed to achieve the necessary quorum to legally conduct business.  This issue was the defining political question for the public and electorate in the recent special district elections on May 6. This election pitted supporters of the development against skeptics who wanted to investigate the issue in greater detail.  There were four seats up for election on May 6. However, for unknown reasons, the vendor hired to manage the election did NOT send out nomination petitions that spelled out that three seats were to be filled for a four-year term and one seat was to be filled for a two-year term. As a result of this error all six candidates were considered to be running for four-year seats and NO ONE was running for the two-year seat. Everyone assumed the election would utilize the former practice of awarding terms based upon their vote results. We thought the top three vote-getters would get the four-year terms and the fourth place winner would get the single two-year term.  At the April BOD meeting it was revealed that the assumed practice had changed and that everyone was now running for the four-year seats and NO ONE was running for the two-year seat. Staff reported the single 2-year term seat would be filled through an APPOINTMENT by the new BOD elected May 6. This was a surprise to the Board members but appeared to be too late to do anything about it. The majority of directors assumed the BOD would ratify the fourth-place winner to the 2-year term.  However, late on the afternoon of election day (May 6), the district’s attorney sent out an email to the board claiming the term of the two current directors who were appointed (Little and Martinez) were terminated as of 7 p.m. on election day. The lawyer concluded that for a one-week interim period between election day (May 6) and the swearing-in of the new BOD (May 13), based upon the election results, the BOD would shrink down to three members (President, Wiechman and Wendell).  The staff memo goes on to claim that the next BOD meeting (regularly scheduled May meeting - May 13) would consist of only three directors (President, Wiechman and Wendell) with a quorum of only two necessary to conducy board business. The other two Board members (Little and Martinez) were declared to be non-members as of 7 p.m. on election day. The memo goes on to claim a quroum would now only be three members.  This would make just the President and Wendell as the sole, de-facto decision makers and render the votes of all district voters in the recent election null and void.  The agenda for this rump May 13, 2025 meeting, now calls for the selection of a new Board member for the 2-year term. The way the meeting has been set up allows the President to select an ally from outside the current Board members or anyone who actually ran for election and thus form a new majority. The result would be the President would be able to ignore and thwart the will of the voters as demonstrated in last week’s election.  Applicant’s Request - prohibit any legal GMWSD Board meetings until June 2025 to prevent the complete disenfranchisment of voters participating in May 6’s election.  Prerequisite 1 - Likelihood of success   If the Board is prohibited from holding a board meeting on May 13 then there would be sufficient time for the elected board members to be certified, returned to office and their board voting rights restored. The addition/return of the previous Board (and now retained) members allows for the preservation of the status quo. The restoration of the balance of power could prevent the appointment of an unknown new board member who has not been vetted nor ratified by a vote of the people. Prerequisite 2 - Irreparable Harm - significant and lasting damage - can’t be compensated for by money.  Sabotage of GMWSD’s elected form of governance could create long-term irreparable harm to the water district, its customers and the community. The minority faction seeks to allow a developer to build huge apartment buildings on a former toxic landfill. This action would enrich the out-of-state developer at the expense of putting the health and safety of future residents and adjacent neighbors at possible risk. An example of this type of endangerment is the case of Love Canal in New York during the 1970s.  By restoring the voting rights of the board members who were previously appointed, served honorably and are now officially elected, a palace coup will be thwarted, and the status quo preserved. The board members who were temporarily disenfranchised will be returned to their proper office and the balance of political power restored. Although the preservation of democratic governance is of major importance in our society, it does not have a quantifiable monetary value.  Prerequisite 3 - Balance of hardships  The restoration of the voting rights of the appointed (now elected) Board members will NOT harm the interests of the Board minority who had been previously thwarted from awarding advantages to the developers.  Failure to restore the balance of power that people created through their votes will be a major hardship for the majority of our customer/voters. Their voice in democratic governance will be effectively silenced, and they will be forced to face potential financial hardships IF the water district enables a development that may degenerate into an environmental disaster.  Prerequisite 4 - Not Adverse to Public Interests  As noted in the satisfaction of the first three prerequisites, the restoration of the voting rights of the previously appointed and now elected Board members will preserve the interests of the voters/customers of our water district. By preventing the imposition of minority interests upon the majority, democratic governance will be preserved. Furthermore, by forestalling the minority’s attempts to advance dangerous development schemes, the health and safety of the community as well as the financial well-being of the district will be protected.  Conclusion  With the satisfaction of all the prerequistes for a prohibitory injunction, I petition the court to prohibit the Board of Directors of the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District from meeting in May. This would allow sufficient time for the certification and swearing in of the newly elected, returning Board members. I also petition the court to order the Board to select the next highest vote getter in the May 6 election as the appointment for a 2-year term. This person should be the remaining incumbent Board member (Randy Little) who received the fourth highest vote total.    Attachment 1 - message from district staff to Board of Directors at 12:58 p.m. on election day Tuesday, May 6, 2025:  As you know, today is election day and the four incumbent directors are on the ballot for three four-year terms and no one is on the ballot for the two-year term. No matter the outcome of the election, there will be a vacancy after the election results are certified.  However, due to a quirk in timing, there will be two vacancies on the board at the next regular meeting (May 13):  Karen, Roger, and Dave were elected to their positions and those positions last until their successors are elected and seated (which means oaths taken and filed).  Art and Randy were both appointed to their positions, though, and appointments last only until the next regular election, which means Art and Randy will not be directors of the board after 7pm tonight, regardless of the outcome of the election.   The composition of the board on next Tuesday will be Karen, Dave, and Roger.  Those three directors will constitute the board and two directors will constitute a quorum.  The two-year term vacancy could be filled by appointment by those three (this is not required, but possible).  After the election results are certified, the newly elected directors will take their oaths and then be seated.  The composition of the board at the June regular meeting will be determined by the final election results (and any potential appointment made prior).   Please contact me with questions about the timing or other issues.     Attachment 2 - May 6, 2025 election results   #1 David Wiechman - 2,086  Incumbent  #2 Art Martinez - 1,397         Incumbent  #3 Roger Wendell - 1,319     Incumbent  #4 Randy Little - 1,272        Incumbent  #5 Phil Hardinger - 794  #6 Dallas Joss - 788  Attachment 3 - Nomination Forms - no opportunity to run for the 2-year term (only the 4-year option is provided):  Board agendas and minutes indicated that the issue was discussed at the March 11 meeting. However, there are NO minutes available. Listening to the video recording indicates there was NO notice or discussion about how many candidates were running for what seats. The issue of 4 or 2-year terms was NOT mentioned.  The subject of the election was on the agenda of April 11. At this meeting we learned for the first time about the election being limited to three 4-year terms with the one 2-year term to be appointed by the new board. At this point, the deadline for submitting nominations had expired.