
City Council has done very little to prevent exclusionary housing in Lakewood, Colorado. Council has even taken action opposing inclusionary zoning (p.41, 14) by adopting the 2024 Strategic Housing Plan that endorses the stance that inclusionary zoning in Lakewood is not even feasible:
“Each of the prototypical housing developments are infeasible when hypothetical inclusionary zoning requirements are applied” 2024 Strategic Housing Plan.
Yet Lakewood has a declared housing emergency that was cited to justify Lakewood’s Safe Parking Program! Under Lakewood’s ‘weak mayor’ management model, the City Council relies on our professional city managers to address problems such as the declared housing emergency.
Despite the ongoing emergency, neither the Planning Director nor the City Manager have current recommendations to city council to prevent or at least mitigate the proliferation of exclusionary housing in Lakewood. The absent response to the housing emergency could give rise to a claim that Lakewood is engaged in a systemic program of city-wide exclusionary zoning.
Yes, it is a difficult situation. Yes, inclusionary zoning measures may have significant and possibly unwelcome impacts to some. But this crisis has been years in the making. The time for debate and committees and more talk is long past. It is an emergency.
People in Lakewood are living in tents due to the high rents!
And Lakewood taxpayers need protection from the huge lawsuit exposure risk city executives have allowed. If your house is on fire, do you make an appointment with the fire department to discuss options? Or do you connect the fire hoses and get out the ladders?
Much of the multifamily housing in Lakewood is exclusionary due to the disparate impact of high rents on members of protected classes who cannot afford what is being built.
“In Colorado, 47% of white renters are cost-burdened compared to 56% of Black renters and 59% of Latinx renters.
People of color are over represented among low wage-earners and the disability community and continue to feel the effects of the United States’ and Colorado’s history of exclusionary housing policies.”
And consider this. Owners of market-rate multi-family rental housing may hold vacant units that they are unable to fill because of high rents and claim losses as tax write offs or business expenses. This disincentivizes reducing rents to make them available to lower-income households.
All of this contributes to the disparate impact on protected classes in Lakewood that could spur fair housing lawsuits.
On June 25, 2015, the US Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
And this is occurring during the city’s Declared Housing Emergency which makes the lack of a major policy response even more glaring:
SECTION 2. Emergency Declaration. The City Council of the City of Lakewood hereby finds, determines and declares that an emergency exists and that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public property, health, welfare, peace or safety for the reasons enumerated in the introductory paragraphs of this ordinance, which are incorporated into this Section 2 by reference.
Lakewood’s failure to address such a major policy gap is unfortunate and may further increase the risk of lawsuits.
Yes, Councilors Low and Stewart have asked Kairoi Residential to voluntarily include some lower cost units at 777 S Yarrow. Why would a developer agree to that if they are the only developer in the city being asked?
In the context of exclusionary zoning, legal liability can arise if zoning ordinances or policies are found to be discriminatory or in violation of fair housing laws.
For example, if a municipality enacts zoning regulations that disproportionately impact certain protected groups, such as racial minorities or people with disabilities, those affected parties may have grounds to bring a lawsuit alleging discrimination under federal fair housing laws like the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
And fair housing laws typically do not require proof that discrimination was intended!
Similarly, if exclusionary zoning policies effectively prevent the development of affordable housing in a community, leading to socioeconomic segregation, there may be legal challenges based on the violation of fair housing principles.
And Lakewood clearly has an official policy adopted as part of the ‘strategic’ housing plan that inclusionary zoning is ‘infeasible’.
What is Lakewood doing to address the crisis?
“To date, Lakewood has adopted few policies addressing affordable housing” p13 2024 Strategic Housing Plan”
Legal liability in the context of exclusionary zoning can result in various consequences, including court-ordered injunctions to change zoning policies, financial penalties, and the requirement to provide remedies such as affordable housing or accommodations for marginalized groups.
To mitigate legal liability, municipalities often engage in careful planning and analysis when crafting zoning regulations, ensuring they comply with applicable laws and do not have discriminatory impacts.
Additionally, proactive measures to promote fair housing, such as adopting inclusionary zoning policies and providing incentives for affordable housing development, can help reduce legal risks associated with exclusionary zoning.
However, Lakewood, by its own admission cited above, is late to the party as far as adopting proactive measures.
In an interview with Westword magazine in January 2024, Mayor Wendi Strom stated: “
“We cannot deviate from the law unless we are accepting getting sued.”
Mayor Strom’s comments are especially appropriate when considering the damages that might accrue due to Lakewood’s seeming support for exclusionary zoning.
For example, a lawsuit brought on exclusionary zoning grounds could result in greater damages than a lawsuit brought by a developer who might object to a zoning change to implement inclusionary zoning.
So we ask Mayor Strom, exactly which lawsuit was she alluding to? A Fair Housing class action lawsuit that might be city-wide or a lawsuit from a single developer?
In fair housing lawsuits, damages can vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the remedies sought by the plaintiff. Some common types of damages that may be awarded in fair housing lawsuits include:
- Compensatory Damages: These are intended to compensate the plaintiff for actual losses suffered as a result of the discriminatory practices. Compensatory damages can include monetary awards for expenses such as relocation costs, emotional distress, or financial harm incurred due to housing discrimination.
- Punitive Damages: In cases where the defendant’s actions are deemed particularly egregious or intentional, punitive damages may be awarded to punish the defendant and deter future violations. Punitive damages are typically intended to be punitive rather than compensatory and can be substantial.
- Injunctive Relief: Courts may issue injunctions requiring the defendant to cease discriminatory practices or take specific actions to remedy the harm caused by their actions. Injunctive relief can include requirements to change discriminatory policies, provide training to staff, or implement affirmative measures to promote fair housing.
- Attorney’s Fees and Costs: Prevailing plaintiffs in fair housing lawsuits may be entitled to recover their reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs from the defendant. This provision aims to ensure that individuals have access to legal representation in fair housing cases, even if they cannot afford it upfront.
- Compensatory Relief: In addition to monetary damages, courts may order compensatory relief, such as requiring the defendant to provide housing or accommodations to the plaintiff or affected individuals. This could include options like offering a housing unit, providing accessibility modifications, or offering preferential treatment for housing opportunities.
The proposed multifamily project at 777 S Yarrow St is an example of exclusionary housing even though the developer has no intention whatsoever for that to be the case.
In effect, the developer is an innocent bystander in this scenario. A developer may construct a project that qualifies as exclusionary without any intention on the part of the developer. We do not suggest there is any intention on the part of the Belmar Park West developer to produce exclusionary housing. Nor is there even a responsibility on the part of a developer to build inclusionary housing instead of exclusionary housing other than compliance with whatever zoning is in effect.
Criticized as a key factor in perpetuating housing inequality in the United States, exclusionary zoning refers to a range of policies that, explicitly or implicitly, seek to prevent people of certain races, ethnicities, or income levels from buying homes in specific neighborhoods.
The classic form of exclusionary housing in the United States is based on prohibiting the sale of real property by a white owner to a black buyer. The labels ‘white’ and ‘black’ represent social constructs known by Americans as so-called racial categories.
This type of discrimination was banned under the Fourteenth Amendment by the US Supreme Court in 1917 in Buchanan v Warley.
Due to litigation and legislation prohibiting the most blatant forms of exclusionary housing, the practice has evolved into more subtle mechanisms such as we see with much new housing including the proposed 777 S Yarrow St project. So while the exclusion mechanism is not blatantly racist, it is clearly exclusionary as defined economically.
Again, we are not suggesting that Belmar Park West or any Lakewood housing projects are intended to be exclusionary. But if the rent levels produce disparate economic impacts on protected classes, then a project may fit the category of exclusionary housing.
The practice of allowing the development of very few uses in a neighborhood is another method of exclusionary zoning. This type of exclusion is also happening with regard to the 777 S Yarrow St project.
For example, even though the zoning for 777 S Yarrow St is supposedly ‘mixed use’, Lakewood is allowing monolithic market-priced high-density luxury rental housing as the only land use with one large project of over 800,000 square feet that will dominate the zone district.
Although mixed-use is allowed, it is not required. And it is not happening at 777 S Yarrow Street. So it is exclusionary in that regard.
Factoid – “According to a US Census Bureau poll in summer of 2021, Colorado ranked first for housing instability for older adults in the US”
At a meeting with Lakewood Planning and Belmar Commons HOA Board representatives in August 2023, attendees made note of the Planning Department’s estimated rental value of $5 per square foot for units to be built at 777 S Yarrow St.
According to US Census data, the median household income in Lakewood, Colorado in 2022 dollars is $82,786.
At $5/sqft, a 750 sq ft apartment would rent for $3,750/month or $45,000/year or 54% of the median household income of families in Lakewood, Colorado.
Some apartments in Lakewood ask over $9/sqft for rent!
Even at $4.25/sq ft a 750 sq ft studio apartment would rent for $3,187.5/month or $38,250/year or 46% of the median household income of families in Lakewood, Colorado.

Up to $9/sqft at Montrachet in Lakewood, CO as of Feb 2024!
The Charles in Golden advertises as much as $4/sq ft in Feb 2024 including parking and storage.
Union West in Lakewood advertises up to $4.20/sq ft plus parking and storage.
Regatta at Sloan’s Lake advertises up to $4.17/sqft plus add ons.
According to the ‘Housing Affordability in Colorado’ white paper sponsored by the Colorado Municipal League and others,
” As a general rule, a household should not spend more than 30 percent of its annual gross income towards housing costs.”
“Households spending more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on housing are considered “cost-burdened.”
“Households spending 50 percent or more of their gross annual income towards housing are defined as “extremely cost-burdened.”
Due to the disparate cost impact, a larger percentage of households in protected classes in Lakewood, Colorado would be economically excluded from living at 777 S Yarrow St.
Because it is economically exclusionary housing in the extreme, Coloradans are justified in asking what in the world is going on in Lakewood, Colorado?
If as few as three members of protected classes showed they were economically excluded from a project such as 777 S Yarrow St, a Fair Housing lawsuit might proceed and possibly be certified as a class action.
And keep in mind this type of lawsuit could be brought on a contingency basis meaning plaintiffs that have no money to pay an attorney could still sue! If such a case were brought, plaintiffs’ attorneys would have additional statistics to support the disparate impact claim.
We believe Lakewood is at risk legally and that market priced luxury rental housing such as 777 S Yarrow St exacerbates the housing-related disparate impacts experienced by many Lakewood residents.
As mentioned earlier,
“To date, Lakewood has adopted few policies addressing affordable housing” p13 2024 Strategic Housing Plan”
So we ask, why do Lakewood’s city executives ignore the issue of exclusionary housing and not offer immediate proactive recommendations to City Council?
Disclosure: We are not aware of any specific individuals who have stated an interest in suing the City of Lakewood under the Fair Housing Act. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
References:
The Future of Exclusionary Zoning and Land Use in Colorado – Amy Brimah
Rigid Zoning Rules Are Helping to Drive Up Rents in Colorado
Housing Affordability in Colorado
Colorado’s Affordable Housing Crisis
Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan 2024
Recent Accomplishments Of The Housing And Civil Enforcement Section