Referred Question 2O: The one about ending Park Hill Golf Course's
denverite.com
This one will decide the future of 155 acres of Northeast Park Hill.

If the easement is extinguished and the plan goes through, Westside could create more than 3,000 homes in Northeast Park Hill, 75% of which will be market rate, and the rest will be income-restricted. The area would boast the fourth largest park in the metro area, and the developer would fund that. Buildings could be between four and 12 stories high, depending on their location on the site.

If this measure does not pass, it’s possible that Westside would sit on the land, and it would remain vacant as it has since 2018. The company could also run a golf course on the site, essentially making the land inaccessible to all but fee-paying golfers.

Keyword is here "could" create more than 3000 homes. But the article states

This second part of the measure doesn’t actually do much. It’s basically a way for the architects of this measure to communicate to the public what Westside plans to do. There is nothing for voters to allow, beyond the city extinguishing the easement.

Looks like another case of capitalists trying to use progressive language to trick the public. There's no clause in the vote that mandates the developer build anything.

Also, the city and developers are saying the land must be primarily used for golf if the contract is preserved, but the opponents say it's a lie and it can be used for anything as long as it sticks to the "open space" principles of the contract

  • Shoegazer [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    It seems like everyone wants the golf course to be abolished, but the ones opposing the development wants to turn it into a park rather than a residential area

    This group wants the entire land to be converted from a golf course to a park. This vision is based on a legal theory that the conservation easement’s purpose is to preserve open space and recreation — not golf. Proving the validity of that theory would likely require a city-backed amendment of the easement to strip golf requirements from the contract and a likely court battle.

    That part of the neighborhood includes many empty parking lots and one-story industrial buildings ripe for dense, mixed-use development. Why take over 155-acres of potential park when there is so much underused land nearby they ask?

    Some opponents of the Park Hill Golf Course redevelopment argue that with much-needed housing already coming to the area around the 40th and Colorado A Line stop, a public park would be a crucial amenity and that the city should have the foresight to create one. Preserving parks and building housing shouldn’t be viewed as mutually exclusive, opponents note.

    They do make a good point. Why are we prioritizing a piece of nature instead of the ugly parking lots?