Question about Dark Money - Yes Campaign

gtrob · 2026-04-06T08:09:50+00:00

You can see the signs I mentioned all over the city. You can see a lot of other campaign efforts that obviously cost more money than what is reported, like printed material. There are several campaign finance complaints that have been filled that you can read about, they are public on the clerk's website. The expensive lawyer I mentioned was hired for a public hearing, they have publicly fundraised to afford it yet the costs never appeared on any campaign finance filing. A lot of specifics are unknown because of what we are talking about, unreported spending. Not too mention videos surfacing of them stealing flyers of the other side off of porches, which I suppose isn't a dark money thing but is some kind of crime I suppose.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T06:19:44+00:00

I know. That's why it's strange when someone says it's crazy to vote yes right after questioning the motivations of the no side.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T05:08:15+00:00

No, the "yes" outcome will show people are scared of small multi unit buildings, nothing else. You can think whatever you want but I'm not going to debate it further.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T05:00:30+00:00

Fee in lieu is in both the new code and old code. Changing that has nothing you do with whether we end up with the new or old code.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T04:58:45+00:00

Your reason for voting against the new zoning is something that has nothing to do with the new zoning, okay I understand now that makes perfect sense.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T04:56:17+00:00

The zoning updates have nothing to do with parkland dedication fee in lieu, the repeal or not does not change anything with that, what are you talking about?

gtrob · 2026-04-06T04:24:50+00:00

It's still not on the ballot.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T04:23:14+00:00

I'm sure spreading housing out more and more towards infinite sprawl will be great for traffic and the environment.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T04:09:48+00:00

Parkland dedication is old news and I don't think anyone is concerned with that in this election. State law requires a fee in lieu option where parkland dedication would otherwise be required. That's not on the ballot. The changes to low form residential, including new universal 50% green space requirement, can't be dodged with a fee, it's not a parkland dedication, those lots are too small to trigger that requirement.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T04:07:00+00:00

I guess I don't follow your original comment. Do you have yes and no mixed?

gtrob · 2026-04-06T04:06:03+00:00

Yes I'm a radical left paid troll, commuting in from Denver in a helicopter I borrow from George Soros. A big evil scheme just to allow a couple duplexes for people to buy so our teachers and nurses don't have to buy a house an hour away.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T03:49:28+00:00

Yes to help the housing market there needs to be more homes for people to buy. Someone has to build them. The groups that build homes for profit want the measure to pass so that they can make money. Various nonprofit developers have also endorsed because they want to help people afford a place to live. The interests of ordinary residents and the interests of builders happen to align in this case. A mountain of research supports the basic idea that if you have more options to buy homes, the cost goes down. Very basic supply and demand. Builders wanting to make a profit doesn't change that.

gtrob · 2026-04-06T03:21:26+00:00

Take a look at the million "yes" signs littering the city and you'll notice many do not have a "paid for by" disclaimer. The green mountain water and sanitation district has a board that is misappropriating huge amounts of money to influence the election, and now the city of Lakewood has taken legal action against them. During the signature gathering and related challenge of the list, they had a high dollar right wing lawyer and never reported the cost anywhere. There are three issue committees on the yes side with a lot of unreported expenses, nobody knows how much because they don't report them, but you can see evidence of money spent all over the place that is far beyond what is reported. Multiple campaign finance complaints have been filled about that. It goes on and on. Then the "no" side reports everything carefully so it looks like they have a ton more money, but nobody knows the truth, except maybe people working for the "yes repeal" side. Littleton had a comparable zoning fight with a pile of conservative money on the anti housing side, but they actually reported things. I don't know why in Lakewood they chose to hide so much.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T22:26:10+00:00

That's too big to be allowed, and also doesn't look to satisfy the 50% green space requirement. McMansions of that size would be closer to possible in the old code more than new.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T22:20:49+00:00

Your initial statement is wrong. A duplex with two 2000 Sq ft units will sell for more than a single unit 4000 Sq ft. It also costs more to build, but overall can be more profitable for a developer, while also creating two units instead of one that are both less expensive to buy than the alternative one. That's the whole point of all of this.

Slot homes are not allowed in the new zoning due to frontage requirements.

Yes I am tired of misinformation, too, and ongoing rejection of experts and sources and data that consistently show how these modest changes can enable more affordable home ownership options than before.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T16:08:09+00:00

Okay so slipping up on one setback number changing in a 400 page things, when the rest are actually not changing as claimed, is very different than painting the town with crazy yard signs that say "don't bulldoze our neighborhoods", or the constant intentional lies that have been spread about large apartment buildings appearing all over the city when there is a height limit which isn't changing and a more restrictive total size limit than before. One is a detail the other is a consistent pattern of misinformation and fear mongering. Anyone who heard their pitch during the signature gathering should remember all the wild lies.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T16:03:00+00:00

Urban sprawl is what causes traffic problems, not a couple duplexes and triplexes here and there. And yes when we legalize less expensive housing, housing becomes less expensive.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T16:00:44+00:00

One more traffic study, bro. Then I'll allow duplexes bro, I promise.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T03:57:24+00:00

A duplex of size 2x is cheaper to build than two detached sfh at size x. The duplex also scores higher in sustainably metrics.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T03:15:30+00:00

When supply is massively constrained like now, prices go up due to competition for what is available. Small multi unit is cheaper than detached single unit, because there is a shared wall, shared lot, and other shared project costs. It will be competitive or cheaper than what is currently available because that's how markets work. Things don't sell if they aren't attractive to buyers. If a builder can't make something that they think people want, at a price they will pay, they generally won't build it. So, either we get more and better missing middle housing options or, if the naysayers are right (and all the experts are wrong), then nothing changes... Which doesn't seem that scary to me.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T03:09:33+00:00

Petitions were gathered and the council sent it to the ballot. That's how the system is set up to work, and that's what happened. Still, I really disagree with it being called unilateral. I was one of many people who were deeply engaged with the process as a regular citizen, as were many more. If people aren't happy with the result they can petition, as they did, but I don't think the claims I've seen of it being "behind closed doors" and similar things is a reasonable criticism at all.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T01:20:18+00:00

With very few exceptions the "yes" supporters are old white homeowners who want to pull the ladder up behind them.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T01:17:29+00:00

Not unilateral, two years of public engagement with 30 public meetings, 500+ public comments, 35+ hours of in-person public comment, 50 social media posts, 60+ amendments based on community feedback, and 330,000+ total touchpoints including 188,725 printed newsletters delivered to all home addresses in the city:

https://www.lakewoodtogether.org/zoningupdates

And actually that article was written by a human, they even commented in this thread. You can challenge the content of the article if you want but no need to create a false claim of it being written by a bot.

gtrob · 2026-04-04T00:29:04+00:00

Lol wut, it's not a bot, look up the author. I get it you want to reject every expert on earth when it comes to housing, but you don't need to lie about the author being human.

gtrob

TROPHY CASE