Denver voters on Tuesday rejected Question 2O, the ballot measure that would have cleared the way for a major redevelopment of the former Park Hill golf course.
The Yes on 2O campaign conceded defeat late Tuesday night, saying the site will now be closed to the public and must return to being a privately-owned, regulation-length 18-hole golf course.
“The Park Hill Golf Course will forever be a case study in missed opportunities,” said Bill Rigler, spokesperson for the Yes on 2O campaign. “With historically low turnout, Denver has rejected its single best opportunity to build new affordable housing and create new public parks. Thousands of Denverites who urgently need more affordable housing are now at even greater risk of displacement.”
As of 2 p.m. Thursday, the ballot measure that would have approved removal of the conservation easement that restricts the use of 155 acres of land in northeast Denver to primarily a golf course was failing with nearly 59% opposition. The margin has tightened slightly with later results.
Voters were tasked with deciding what to do with the land at the northeast corner of Colorado Boulevard and East 35th Avenue after the Denver City Council referred the question to voters, asking if Westside Investment Partners, which has owned the property since 2019, can move forward with redevelopment.
The City Council also approved a rezoning of the land for future development. Plans could include up to 3,200 new housing units and retail. Any future development agreement would have to include 25% of all housing built as income-restricted and 100 acres of the land (including 25 acres already being used as stormwater drainage area) committed to the city as parks and open space.
Additionally, Westside signed a community benefits agreement with members of the Park Hill neighborhood that stipulates that Westside would have to offer free land for any grocery store that wants to build on the property as well as create a property tax displacement fund to help surrounding residents.
“What we reinforced again tonight was that the city had the wrong vision,” said Harry Doby, No on 2O’s treasurer. “They thought the land was expendable. We did not.”
And voters seemed to agree with the campaign against the measure. Doby said the group believes this will pave the way for the former golf course to remain as open space.
RELATED: Full Denver election results
The 2023 question came as a result of a 2021 ballot measure, Ordinance 301, which required any proposed development to the green space to go before voters. This land is the only property within Denver covered by a city-owned conservation easement. The measure was contentious, as evidenced not only by competing measures in the 2021 election but also by the multiple lawsuits the developer and city have faced over the land.
One of those lawsuits was filed by the Sisters of Color United for Education nonprofit against the real estate companies that own the Park Hill golf course land over a deal they say the developer backed out of after the group had paid more than $200,000. Save Open Space Denver and other plaintiffs also sued the city this year over the dormant golf course, saying the land was considered “protected land” and has to remain as open space.
Last year, a Denver District Court judge dismissed another lawsuit brought by Save Open Space Denver that sought to stop the city’s planning process for the Park Hill golf course. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit because the city and Westside had not yet requested that the conservation easement be lifted.
Those who opposed the redevelopment of the Park Hill golf course argued that redevelopment would damage the city’s environment at a time when Denver is slipping in rankings of park space per resident and that it would be detrimental to the surrounding Northeast Park Hill neighborhood. It’s already at high risk of gentrification and they worried this would drive up property taxes and increase traffic burdens that residents would have to pay to improve. They also said the investment benefits the developer but not the city’s residents without properly appraising the value of the easement.
Although those against the measure said a “no” vote would force the developers to keep the land as open space, Westside has said it could consider all options allowed under the easement for the land, including the possibility of a “Topgolf-like facility.” Doby called that an empty threat because of the restrictions in the conservation easement.
But proponents of the measure have said approval of the measure would have guaranteed a new park and 2,500 homes for Denver residents, including affordable housing, at a time when the city is facing a housing shortage. It would still leave open space, creating the fourth-largest park in the city, according to the Yes on 2O campaign. And with legally-binding agreements that the developer entered into, the community would benefit, they argued.
Ultimately, the numbers were not in the developer’s favor.
While opponents of 2O said they recognize the need for more housing as Denver continues to grow, they disagree that open space should be sacrificed for that new development.
Stay up-to-date with Colorado politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.
