The City of Lakewood has ongoing plans to expand housing under their almost secret land development company. The Lakewood Housing Authority has built and owns numerous housing projects and plans to build many more in the area.

Some believe to avoid undue attention from the public, Lakewood renamed their housing authority several years ago to Metro West Housing Solutions which is in reality the land development wing of city hall often utilized by the city to pull in lucrative public grant money.

Possible sites for Lakewood’s own pet housing projects with an eye to rake in that lucrative grant money include:

-The 7 acre site the city plans to acquire as part of the Emory School land swap deal which is currently on hold due to a court’s concerns over possible illegal meetings to discuss the deal out of public reach. See: https://www.denvergazette.com/2025/09/26/lakewoods-shady-school-deal-gets-even-shadier-jimmy-sengenberger/
and https://www.denverpost.com/2025/10/29/lakewood-jeffco-emory-elementary-action-center-transparency/

-All the city rec center locations (Carmody, Lakewood Link, Green Mountain, Whitlock, etc) are now on the chopping board to be demolished and replaced with just one more-difficult-to-access mega-center at Addenbrooke Park.
See: https://lakewoodinformer.com/recreation-centers-could-be-closed-and-consolidated/

-The current Action Center property on 14th Ave which the city plans to acquire in that unusual land swap for 10 acres of the Emory school site.

Maybe the best way to think of Lakewood’s municipal apparatus is to view it as a large but secretive land development company.

Lakewood’s recent upzoning of the entire city without a public vote could offer additional benefits to their secretive development wing going forward.

Please note the Lakewood Housing Authority AKA Metro West Housing Solutions has been recognized by many for their projects of high quality.

Lakewood, CO –  March 12, 2024  “the planning director and other city staff cannot provide any comments about this development.” 

The statement refers to the 777 S Yarrow Street proposal in Lakewood, Colorado.

Obviously, Planning Director Parker and city staff will be communicating closely with the developer. Just not with the public. Just not with YOU!

Presumably, the premise here is that any comments to members of the public would constitute improper ex parte communications.

Yet, the city sees no problem with staff having unlimited ex parte comunications with the developer.  The amount of bias in this process is EXTREME!

For example, neither the Planning Director nor staff have been recused from the process.  They should be.  Immediately.

Since the public is being excluded, so should the Planning Department be excluded.  The entire matter should be referred to the Planning Commission NOW.  A portion of the Planning Department’s budget should also be transferred to the Planning Commission so they can hire planning consultants to assist with the review.

You have probably heard the statement made when a legal matter has gained public interest:  “We don’t comment on pending litigation.”  But wait!  In this case, there is no pending litigation. And there is no quasi-judicial proceeding happening as yet.  Those facts don’t matter in Lakewood.

Let’s explore the logic.  Yes, there is a possibility that any of the many projects under consideration by the Planning Department may be appealed and be subject to a quasi-judicial review.

Therefore, if we apply Lakewood’s logic, the Planning Department should immediately cease all communication with the public about all projects currently under review since they are all subject to appeal.  Right?  Of course not. Obviously, the logic does not make sense and only serves the blatant developer-friendly bias of the City of Lakewood.

Lakewood resident Mark Smith is a former city planner with decades of experience.  In Smith’s opinion regarding staff members commenting on quasi-judicial matters: “there is zero prohibition for any and all city staff to speak to any and all citizens.  How is it that city staff can be fully engaged with applicant Kairoi but not citizens??”

Lakewood’s preferential treatment of developers and announced exclusion of the public should be reviewed by Lakewood’s City Council.

The following was transcribed from public comments of Attorney Kenley Brunsdale who lives in Lakewood, CO in Ward 4.

(Please scroll down to hear comments from Attorney Pat Mellen.)

Mr. Brunsdale provided these comments as a private citizen and as an attorney with decades of experience in administrative law.

Listen up, Lakewood.  Attorney Brunsdale explains why they rarely get sued over land use issues at the Federal level and what Lakewood should do.  He is also the second attorney of the evening with similar advice.

No more excuses, Lakewood.  Quit complaining developers will sue you.  Take this advice and get the job done.

February 21, 2024 Lakewood Planning Commission Meeting.

Kenley Brunsdale Ward 4

I’ll try to be prospective in some of the ideas that come to mind. I spent my life as a lawyer working in administrative law arena. And so some thoughts come to mind.

First of all, I’d like to say that on administrative law, and this could be communicated to developers right up front, either through a waiver or through a provision that simply says, yes, there’s many sub decision decisions that have to be made. Here.

And nothing is final until everything is final.

And that’s the way it’s done at the federal level and federal administrative law and everybody knows, and therefore you never get in this. This chicken and egg problem where the developer comes in. But yeah, but yeah, but yeah, we spent this money and we’re going to sue you and they in this bullying tactic, and play starts and that’s avoided completely in the federal process, and it should be here too. I mean, they’re big boys, they, they know their eyes are open, they can read the encumbrances, they can read the process and they can make their investment.

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

Secondly, I want to endorse what Pat (Mellen) was saying.

Without going into the current Belmar case, I do think it is an excellent case study of when it’s totally inappropriate for a staff-only secret closed door process to take place.

I don’t know where the line is, but clearly this is way past it, and isn’t exemplary and in the public angst that it’s cost.

One trigger could be anytime you are going to be expecting the city to give you waivers and boundary changes and waiving Parkland dedication and waiving easements and making boundary changes and waving tree ordinances waiving… Wow, all those things are negotiations.

And usually you expect to get something back as a city.

Those negotiations all took place in secret. The public cares about all of them. Those should have been happening in this body. With all of us watching, and anytime a park is involved, something of this size is involved. This level of public resources and public values which are being waived or traded away. That automatically should trigger no discretion. No option for a secretive private staff process. Your body was created for the very purpose of creating public involvement and public installation and allowing the public to accept the negotiations, the trade offs and feel like that they were part of the design and in the process, so that when it’s done, they can feel good about it.

So I don’t want to bemoan the current project.

But I do think it is an outstanding case study of what should never ever happen again.

Kirk Kolkmeier 3:20
Your time has expired, but I guarantee you good questions. I very much appreciate your statement because it is the very thing we are grappling with, right? Where is that line and you feel that it’s been crossed clearly here? How do we on a fairly consistent basis, decide what projects need to have a full public hearing? Versus

Kenley Brunsdale – There’s two obvious triggers in this case study. One is if it’s next to a signature Heritage Park, that the whole the whole city values that should automatically trigger it. Bingo. Okay, another one would be where the city is going to be giving things away. waving, waving easements changing boundaries.

These things have value. You’re supposed to get something back. You don’t you don’t…

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

Kip Kolkmeier 4:24
Okay, other questions? Thank you so much. Oh, I’m sorry. You do have one? Yes.

Commissioner 4:34
How many things do you think are appropriate to give away before you hit that threshold?

Kenley Brunsdale 4:38
Anything of value. Okay, anything normally that a developer would expect to pay for? Okay, thanks. Thank you.

During the same meeting, local land use attorney Ms. Pat Mellen also addressed the commission.

Westword magazine reported on January 24, 2024 that Irongate Offices LLC contacted Lakewood and offered the property for sale to the city.  But Lakewood did not purchase the property. It was eventually purchased by a Texas developer to build hundreds of luxury rental apartments.

Former Mayor Adam Paul expressed to Westword his opposition to the city purchasing the property based on his view of ‘equity’.

However, ‘equity’, while it may be a politically popular term, is not a criteria Lakewood has designated in the Municipal Code for parkland selection.

So what?  Isn’t ‘equity’ always a good thing?  Well, consider this.

Since Lakewood did not purchase 777 S Yarrow, the city may end up with more inventory of expensive market priced luxury rental housing instead.

Our prediction is that if the project is built, most people who need housing will not be able to afford the rent.  How’s that for ‘equity’?

NOTE: For some reason, Westword ‘clarified’ their original reporting and substituted a phrase in one sentence to mention instead a discussion between Mayor Paul and city staffers.

However, Westword has not published a retraction or errata notice for the original reporting that Mayor Paul stated Irongate checked with the city.

With or without the ‘clarification’, Mayor Paul was a solid opponent to purchasing 777 S Yarrow according to Westword.

Quoting from the ‘clarified’ January 24, 2024 article by Westword:

When Adam Paul was mayor of Lakewood, he discussed with city staffers the possibility of buying the property should it become available, recalls Paul, who joined Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s administration last fall after he was term-limited out of office.

“Realizing that there’s a lot of other parts of our city that don’t have a lot of parkland, especially in some of our lower-income areas, it was really an equity thing for me,” he says. “Is that a highest and best use, for us to purchase that — or to go and really look at pursuing more park and open space land in other parts of the city that may not have a huge park already?” end of quote