| District | Name | 12. City Council recently voted to approve several items related to zoning and development at Park Hill Golf Course, including referring to voters the question of whether to lift the conservation easement. What is your position on PHGC? |
| 1 | Amanda Sandoval | I voted no on the rezoning of the PHGC OS-B zone district to other zone districts. |
| 1 | Sarah Truckey | The resounding input of the community directly impacted by the decision to move forward with the redevelopment of the PHGC is “no.” I believe in doing what matters most to the community most impacted as well as listening to constituents concerns of development that isn’t transparent. |
| 2 | Kevin Flynn | In favor. The easement unequivocally requires that the private owner maintain the golf course use. The easement specifically prohibits any other use that would prevent it from being a golf course. It cannot be amended to simply be “open space.” But virtually no one wants it to be a golf course anymore. I would rather the city get 100 acres of future public parkland plus $20 million to start creating the park, than to defeat 2O and have it remain a private golf course OR ask the taxpayers to pay Westside $20 to $30 million to buy the entire 155 acres for a park when we could have had 100 acres of park for free. |
| 3 | Jamie Torres | I think members of the community laid out a clear vision for what a preferred use of that property is and now present that as an option for Denver voters to consider. I personally support this vision and have been convinced by members of the community that it is a better use of the land to have both housing and retail and a large park than to have a private golf course. |
| 4 | Tony Pigford | I do not support redevelopment at PHGC. I’ve been a consistent advocate for preserving Denver’s dwindling open spaces, from my opposition to the I-70 expansion to the successful Yes on Parks and Open Spaces Initiative. I believe the proposal before the voters is a poor use of this space and that if the voters agree with me and reject it at the ballot box, the City should use 2A funds to buy+convert the entire property into a public park. |
| 5 | Amanda Sawyer | I voted no on the small area plan and the rezoning of this property. |
| 5 | Michael Hughes | Should I be elected, this question will already be settled by the voters directly — I believe in democratic processes and will work to implement the will of the voters. I see the need for housing in close proximity to the light rail at the northwest corner of the site; I also see the easement as an extraordinary asset for the city and am still making up my own mind about how I will vote. |
| 6 | Paul Kashmann | I voted no all the way through that process. I believe we desperately need affordable housing, and Park Hill needs a grocery, but I do not believe it should be built on open space, which is an equally desperate need on its own. |
| 7 | Nick Campion | In 2021, Denver voters wanted to keep it as a green space which I support. And once we develop on open space, we are not going to be able to get it back. It’s a false narrative that it’s only green space vs having mixed used development. In reality, it can be green space with mixed used development around it. Our goal should be to repurchase the PHGC land and turn it into a fabulous regional park. My vision for the PHGC would be to turn it into Denver’s last large-scale park and build density around and not on it. I support the City and County of Denver acquiring the Park Hill Golf Course because we need to make progress on this open space which can be used by the public and keep Denver a city within a park and not another over-developed city. We need affordable housing, but this is not our only option for additional housing united or mixed-use development, despite what the developer might imply. |
| 7 | Adam Estroff | The conservation easement was poorly crafted – it requires the land to have “a regulation-length 18-bole daily fee public golf course.” We have to lift the easement in order to have any other use of the land, besides an abandoned golf course. Many of Denver’s parks, like Washington Park, were financed by making similar development deals. |
| 7 | Guy Padgett | A golf course is the least best use of that land; furthermore, golf courses are the most exclusionary uses of open space in our country’s recent history — sometimes by design. If I could make this decision on my own, and determine the future of the Park Hill Golf Course, it would be used as a mix of open space and developed parkland. The current clubhouse would be preserved as a community event and meeting center, and the city would actively pursue the building of and recruitment of a grocery store to serve the residents of a food desert. There would be bike and walking lanes through the space to help better connect the neighborhood to the transit stops on the west and north sides of the property. However, if necessary to achieve these ends we take a third of the land and allow developers to develop housing, including substantial income restricted units, then I support that. |
| 7 | Arthur May | I have consistently voted that I do not support the current plan. |
| 8 | Shontel Lewis | The Park Hill Golf Course is more an issue of affordable housing, the enforceability of a community benefit agreement, and listening to those who are from the community. This is an opportunity for co-governance and transparency around process. I am committed to the “messy middle,” that will flesh out these issues and put the power in the hands of the people who live, thrive and hope to progress in this district. |
| 9 | Candi CdeBaca | No on 2-O! Vehemently! |
| 10 | Margie Morris | As both an outdoor enthusiast and someone who is keenly aware of the need to protect our planet, I put a high value on open space. Concurrently, I recognize that our city has a massive deficit in affordable housing stock that is a primary driver of our homelessness crisis. PHGC is a complex issue that pits these two critical needs against one another. However, I understand that it is also a proxy for resident’s frustration and anger regarding our city’s over-reliance on developers to haphazardly (mis)manage the infrastructure to support Denver’s tremendous growth over the past 15+ years. The bottom line is this: mismanagement will stop with me. Our city council must be proactive rather than reactive regarding thoughtful growth and development that meets the needs of our full range of residents AND our need for a healthy, green environment in which to thrive. Denver is overdue to use our established plans, like Blueprint Denver and others, to lead an intentional process for long term development that ensures our city is in the drivers’ seat and prioritizes the benefit of our residents over the profits of developers. |
| 10 | Noah Kaplan | This April, voters will decide whether they want to preserve a privately-owned defunct golf course a mile from one of the city’s flagship public courses. I hope they give North Park Hill the fourth largest park in the city and a generation of families sustainable housing opportunities, including fully subsidized housing to market rate options. This development proposal is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to infuse a historically underserved neighborhood with resources to generate economic opportunity, arts and culture centers, and a grocery store in a food desert. The legally binding Developer Agreement and Community Benefits Agreement can only be altered with a vote of council. I will work to honor and optimize the voter’s decision. |
| 10 | Shannon Hoffman | I am the only D10 candidate who has said she will personally vote no on 2O next month. I do not support lifting the conservation easement or the current proposal to sell PHGC to a private developer at a bargain price. I don’t support keeping it a golf course, either. Denser housing and more green space is possible, but proponents are currently framing this as a choice between the two. I want everyone to have the same green space access that I enjoy as a Capitol Hill renter just a short walk away from Cheesman Park. The City should repurpose PHGC with tax funds that voters have already approved for new parks and open spaces. We do need more housing, especially for folks making $25,000 to $60,000 a year, but we should build on City-owned parcels near PHGC already zoned for mixed use and lined for utilities. |
| At-Large | Sarah Parady | I don’t support the effort to lift the conservation easement for this project. The plan does not provide enough truly affordable housing or public benefit to be worth building on the biggest remaining green space in Denver. The city should acquire PHGC which would lift the easement. Once acquired, I would look at the PHGC land through the lens of a citywide inventory of public land and buildings. I expect the result of that inventory would be to invest in infill housing across the city and invest in a regional park in Park Hill just as we once did in Wash Park and City Park. If an inventory showed a need to use some limited portion of the PHGC land for housing, I would be open to that if it were publicly owned for public benefit. |
| At-Large | Marty Zimmerman | I am in favor of lifting the easement: barely (think 50.001% to 49.999%). The community outreach identified 8 needs of the community and the plan meets all 8 of those goals. Although I am very slightly in favor of the development, I do not believe it will happen because State law requires a judge to lift a conservation easement, not the people. This means that no matter how the vote goes, this will end up in court, despite the legally binding development agreement in case the construction occurs. My most significant reservations with the project are the Metro Districts. There is no transparency as to who holds the bonds, the Boards are appointed by the developers and the outcome will be that property taxes within at least a ½ mile radius with drastically increase. The developer will make a lot of money from this project and there is no clarity as to how much (even though the Denver Post made a great estimate). The reason I am in favor is that the land is private property and so if it is not developed, it will stand vacant and the neighborhood will not have a park, the affordable housing will not be built, the area will remain a food desert (though there are other solutions to address this), and the lives of people in the local community will not change. This means that there will continue to be displacement, and a lack of park space with sport fields. I also believe that because the outcome of the easement vote will still be slowed down by the courts, the new City Council will have time to address some of the key, systemic issues with the process (such as the need for legitimate area plans, not having the developer pay a portion of the planning costs, the need for an independent analysis, the lack of transparency on future taxation, the lack of transparency in the terms of the bonds, the percentage of affordable housing that will not have to pay the Metro District’s higher taxes, etc.) and the Metro Districts so that this type of issue will not arise again. |
| At-Large | Penfield Tate III | I am actively opposing proposition 2-O. Is is a bad deal for Denver’s communities. |
| At-Large | Jeff Walker | My position as a private citizen is to support the development of housing, retail and a park. The conservation easement contains a termination clause so it stands to reason that since the golf course is no longer functioning, the best use of the land is the only proposal made by the fee property owner. The city owns only the easement, which restricts the surface uses. If this issue resurfaces or a similar issue rises when I am on city council, I would support allowing the electorate to vote on the matter just as the electorate said it wanted when Initiated Ordinance 301 was passed by an overwhelming majority. |
