The good news: We can do better. As a Ward 3 Lakewood City Council member, I want to set the record straight so we can have a constructive, fact-based conversation about where we go from here.
How Did We Get Here?
Our network of 114 parks – consisting of 7,400 acres, or 25 percent of all land in this city, all set against the backdrop of the Rocky Mountains — makes Lakewood one of the most desirable places to live. Many of us, myself included, care deeply about preserving and expanding our park system. Indeed, the city has added 192 acres of parkland since 2018.
Last year, the SOS petition began circulating. Under previous law, developers building housing had to dedicate parkland or pay a “fee-in-lieu” into a fund for park maintenance and expansion.
SOS’s authors argued that developers shouldn’t be allowed to pay a fee and should have to set aside land. At first, that sounds appealing — more parks alongside new housing, no "buying out" of land dedication. About 6,400 registered voters thought so, too, and signed the petition. Under our charter, that sent the ordinance – or new law - to Lakewood City Council.
Unfortunately, the issue is more complex. The proposed ordinance didn’t just eliminate the fee-in-lieu — it also quietly doubled the land dedication requirement. This means that those building even attached single-family townhouses would have to give up about 30 percent of their land. Most apartments or condos would need to dedicate substantially more.
In many cases, these small parcels of land are too tiny to function as practical parks. And because neighboring cities don’t impose such extreme requirements, developers will simply build elsewhere. The result? No new housing and, as a direct consequence, also no new parks. SOS isn’t about saving open space — it’s a recipe for stagnation.
In the process, SOS also effectively bans affordable housing, pushing out lower-income families, seniors, young people and people of color — an ironic and tragic outcome in a city with a history of racially restrictive housing covenants until the late 1950s.
SOS is also poorly drafted. It applies retroactively to projects in development for years, a major legal liability. It conflicts with state law, which requires a fee-in-lieu option. Even more absurdly, it applies so broadly that it affects homeowners simply trying to remodel, forcing them in some cases to carve out useless “parkland” in their own backyards.
When SOS came before city council, we had no option to amend it. We could either pass it as written or send it to voters in an expensive, mid-January special election, amid widespread misinformation. Faced with bad choices, council reluctantly adopted it. Now, as predicted, we’re facing costly legal challenges, and growing complaints from residents. In just a couple of months on the books, SOS has already frozen at least twenty different projects, ranging from individual homeowners trying to renovate to larger developments that would provide high-quality housing to hundreds of residents.
Where Do We Go From Here?
A growing number of my constituents — and even some original SOS backers — now agree the ordinance needs fixing. And I agree.We should also respect the 6,400 residents who signed the petition. Lakewood has an exceptional park system, but many parts of the city — especially in the east and north — need more green space.
We can fix SOS while also honoring the intent behind it.
We need to restore a fee-in-lieu option to comply with state law. But let’s ensure it reflects fair market value, is regularly updated, and primarily funds park expansion, improvements and tree canopy growth. We must clearly and transparently communicate how these funds are spent, and better prioritize new parkland in Lakewood where it's needed most. The city should sometimes acquire parks under three acres, which can be valuable in a growing, denser community. Additionally, crucially, developers should have the option to fulfill parkland requirements by creating publicly accessible green spaces— plazas, dog parks, or lush community gardens — even if those spaces are privately maintained. A study presented to the city last fall has detailed recommendations along these lines.
Implemented well, these changes will support and expand Lakewood’s world-class park system, without stifling attainable housing for families struggling to afford Lakewood’s cost of living. I hope we’ll be able to work effectively toward these goals over the coming weeks.
Roger Low lives in the Belmar area of Lakewood with his husband. He has represented Ward 3 on Lakewood City Council since he was elected in 2023. You can share your thoughts on this issue with Lakewood City Council at upcoming meetings on the SOS ordinance the evenings of February 10 and February 24.
Westword.com frequently publishes commentaries on matters of interest to the community; the opinions expressed are those of the authors, not Westword. Have one you'd like to submit? Send it to [email protected], where you can also comment on this piece.
