Activists fear city, nonprofit working to replace golf with development and flood control in Park Hill
Posted on
The Denverite
The future of the Park Hill Golf Club is up in the air, and neighborhood activists say the city of Denver needs to be more transparent about its role in deciding what happens to the land.
The nonprofit Clayton Early Learning has been running the community discussions about what will happen to the land. Clayton is considering inviting developers to build affordable housing and retail on the land.
However, it’s the city government that holds some of the most important cards. It’s a complicated deal that could reshape one of the last open pieces of land in Denver. Here’s what’s happening.
The potential for a deal is obvious.
Clayton needs the city’s permission to get rid of development restrictions that have governed the land for decades. Clayton agreed to those restrictions back in 1989 in exchange for $2 million from the city, when city leaders were trying to prevent development of the golf course.
Meanwhile, the city government wants to use up to 25 acres of the golf course as a stormwater detention area, part of a much larger flood-control project. The 25 acres would only be covered with water during major storms, city staff said.
Now, with the potential for change looming, neighborhood activists are complaining that too much of this process is happening behind closed doors.
“Transparency and a lack of openness have come to the attention of community members and the number of questions continue to grow,” members of Denver Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation wrote in a letter to city officials on Sept. 1, adding that there would be a “city-wide impact.” INC is the umbrella group for the city’s neighborhood associations.
City staff have indeed been talking for months with Clayton.
That’s according to both Clayton and the city.
“Yes, absolutely,” Courtney Law, spokesperson for the city finance department wrote in an email.
The nonprofit has been the one driving the discussion about the land’s future. They’ve held community meetings and solicited input. But the city’s involvement has been no secret, Law continued.
“Clayton has been sharing that in community meetings, with the public and with other stakeholders,” she wrote. Clayton leadership told Denverite last month that the city “definitely” has an interest in the land.
“This has been a very transparent process, as far as our being very, very sincere in understanding what the community would desire,” said Charlotte Brantley, CEO and president of Clayton Early Learning.
And it’s not surprising that the city would be involved, Law wrote.
“We have worked with Clayton for over a century to ensure the rightful stewardship of this land, and that will continue,” Law wrote.
The city originally acted as the trustee for the assets left behind when George Clayton died in 1899. The golf course previously was agricultural and dairy land, and the government managed it as a city golf course starting in 1932. Until 1982, the city itself owned the golf course land. Then it gave the deed over to the George W. Clayton Trust.
City Council members in the late 1980s considered trying to buy the land back from Clayton. Instead, the city paid Clayton for a promise not to develop the land.
In exchange for $2 million, Clayton agreed in 1997 to a “conservation easement,” which says the land can’t be used for anything but golf and related activities.
Due to some tax concerns, Clayton has since given the title to the land back to the city — so, it’s technically a private course on publicly owned land. Clayton collects the rent, though, which it uses to support its early learning programs, and it can take the land back whenever it wants.
However, when it does, it will come with development restrictions that can only be lifted by the city.
The city hasn’t taken any official or unofficial stance on what will happen with the land, according to Law, but she expects more information later this month.
“The city and Clayton have the same goals regarding the golf course property: to ensure Clayton Early Learning can continue to serve young learners in low-income neighborhoods, and that this Park Hill land is managed responsibly moving forward,” she wrote.
“We have worked with Clayton for over a century to ensure the rightful stewardship of this land, and that will continue.”
Clayton will host a third community form on the future of the property on Sept. 21 at the Clayton Early Learning Campus’ administration building, 3801 MLK Jr. Blvd.
As another alternative to my previous post, what if the City and County of Denver acquires the Park Hill Golf Course property for $14 million? The City could keep the property as open space and a golf course and accommodate the stormwater detention it needs on the property under the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Detention System. If Clayton spends 5% of the $14 million each year, they’ll be back to the $700,000 per year they’re currently receiving from the golf course lease. Seems like a win for the City, a win for Clayton and a win for the beneficiaries of the perpetual Conservation Easement — the citizens of Denver.
Any City Council member who ops for a zoning change to turn Park Hill into a development….please heed this,, I will talk to friends/neighbors to talk to their friend/neighbors to talk to their friends/neighbors and RNO’s to vote those people out of office and any other office they may seek. I will make it my mission in life…..and I know a lot of people…..developers have several votes…neighborhoods have MANY…..
I’ll take a shot at answering some of the questions I raised in an earlier comment:
It’s easiest to value the release of the perpetual Conservation Easement and approval of the Zoning together. Let’s say the value of the golf course with the Perpetual Conservation Easement in place is $5 million. Then, let’s say the value of the 155-acre property after the perpetual Conservation Easement is released and the property is rezoned is $25 million. This means that together, the value of the perpetual Conservation Easement and Zoning is $20 million.
If the value of the 155 acres after the perpetual Conservation Easement is released and the property is rezoned is $25 million ($161,290 per acre), then the value of an Inundation Easement on 25 acres — which will no longer be developable with the Inundation Easement is in place — is arguably the value of of 25 acres of rezoned land that can’t be developed or about $4 million ($161,290 per acre times 25 acres).
Why is the City and County of Denver willing to release the perpetual Conservation Easement and approve Zoning that together are worth $20 million and in the process lose irreplaceable open space in exchange for an Inundation Easement that is worth only $4 million? Instead, why not pay Clayton $4 million in cash for the Inundation Easement and leave the perpetual Conservation Easement and golf course in place? The $4 million would increase the $300 million budget for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Detention System by only 1.3%.
If Clayton can sign a new lease on the course for $500,000 per year and spend 5% of the $4 million each year — or $200,000 — they’ll be back to the $700,000 they’re getting from the lease right now.
It is astounding to me that intellectual critical thinkers and activists do not recognize climatic changes and support proactive measures.
I caution City Council that ANY re-zoning of Park Hill GC other than it’s present zoning will result in very unfavorable conditions for those council members who approve of such change…It has remained an open space/golf course for nearly 100 years and MUST remain so.
From the article, it sounds like the City and County of Denver is negotiating with Clayton to release the perpetual Conservation Easement on the Park Hill Golf Course — for which the City paid Clayton $2 million in 1997 — and to approve zoning on the property that Clayton wants for commercial and residential development in exchange for an Inundation Easement on 25 acres of the property that the City needs for its Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Detention System and CDOT’s I-70 expansion.
This raises several questions:
Can the City release a perpetual Conservation Easement granted to the City for fair value? Even if it can, should it?
What is the value of the 25-are Inundation Easement?
What compensation is the City providing Clayton in exchange for the Inundation Easement?
What is the value of the Conservation Easement?
What is the value of the zoning?
How did they arrive at these values?