The membership of Denver DSA has voted to endorse a “NO on 2O” position - denying the developers the ability to execute a plan that we think is ultimately a loss for the city. Read our statement below if you wish to learn more about why: pic.twitter.com/FOyUpb43eZ— Denver🌹DSA (@DSAdenver) March 17, 2023
The land can be used for anything as long as it meets the requirements of being an “open space” and for “recreational purposes.” So it can be golf, or anything by else that meets those requirements. The land is current owned by a developer. If they vote no, it’s possible they’ll just turn it into a golf course again unless people somehow vote for the government to buy it up. Despite all the replies, the group wants it to be a publicly accessible park, not a golf course. Although the country is pathetic when it comes to forcing a private company to do anything.
They also point out that there are areas around the land that are unused (parking lots for example) which aren’t being considered for development. Personally I think hundreds of acres can be reduced a bit for development, but the pro-development side wants to reduce that to just about a few acres of open land and much of the used land will probably be parking lots anyway lol (in addition to the houses and apartments, but parking lots will just cause it to be less dense)
The failure of the anti-development side is that they’re not very good at explaining that other parts of the neighborhood can be used for development and don’t have any development proposals to be considered should a “no” vote succeed (they want the government and voters to think of a different plan after a no vote succeeds). This causes people to think they’re anti housing.
The land can be used for anything as long as it meets the requirements of being an “open space” and for “recreational purposes.” So it can be golf, or anything by else that meets those requirements. The land is current owned by a developer. If they vote no, it’s possible they’ll just turn it into a golf course again unless people somehow vote for the government to buy it up. Despite all the replies, the group wants it to be a publicly accessible park, not a golf course. Although the country is pathetic when it comes to forcing a private company to do anything.
They also point out that there are areas around the land that are unused (parking lots for example) which aren’t being considered for development. Personally I think hundreds of acres can be reduced a bit for development, but the pro-development side wants to reduce that to just about a few acres of open land and much of the used land will probably be parking lots anyway lol (in addition to the houses and apartments, but parking lots will just cause it to be less dense)
The failure of the anti-development side is that they’re not very good at explaining that other parts of the neighborhood can be used for development and don’t have any development proposals to be considered should a “no” vote succeed (they want the government and voters to think of a different plan after a no vote succeeds). This causes people to think they’re anti housing.