Denver Voters Reject Plan To Let Developer Convert Its Private Golf Course Into Thousands of Homes
Developer Westside wanted to turn its 155-acre property into 3,200 homes and a public park.

In yesterday's municipal elections, Denver voters roundly rejected a ballot initiative that would have allowed the conversion of a private, shuttered golf course into thousands of new homes and a park.
While votes are still being counted, early returns show that just under 40 percent of voters cast 'yes' votes for Referred Question 20. If approved, the measure would have dissolved a conservation easement requiring the 155-acre Park Hill Golf Course to remain a golf course and allowed developer Westside to proceed with its plans to build 3,200 housing units alongside a park and other public amenities.
"The Park Hill Golf Course will forever be a case study in missed opportunities. With historically low turnout, Denver has rejected its single best opportunity to build new affordable housing and create new public parks," said Westside in a statement. "Thousands of Denverites who urgently need more affordable housing are now at even greater risk of displacement."
Westside first acquired the Park Hill site back in 2019 and has been trying to put a mixed-use housing project on it ever since. At the time, developing the site required only that the city and the site's owner agree to lift the conservation easement requiring the property to be maintained as a golf course.
The company's plans didn't sit with neighborhood activists, who argued the city shouldn't forfeit the open space and should instead look for ways to acquire the site and convert the entire property into a park.
In 2021, these activists—organized under the group Save Open Spaces (SOS) Denver—successfully passed a ballot initiative requiring that any proposed dissolution of conservation easements be put to the voters. A Westside-sponsored initiative that would have exempted their property from this ballot initiative requirement failed.
Nevertheless, Westside and the city continued to hash out a development agreement for the Park Hill site. The final plan would have had the company offer hundreds of its planned units at below-market rates for lower-income residents. Westside had also agreed to reserve the majority of the 155-acre property for parks and open space, among other amenities it promised to provide for the neighborhood.
This did little to mollify opponents, who objected to any loss of open space.
"In a climate crisis, in a heat island with a deficit of trees, you don't cut them down and build on top of it. Not when you have alternatives that are equal and better," Harry Doby, an activist with SOS Denver, told Reason earlier this year. He suggested industrial properties adjacent to the site should be redeveloped instead.
The Westside project also attracted fervent opposition from Denver's socialists.
Democratic Socialists of America-endorsed City Councilmember Candi CdeBaca, who is on track to lose her reelection bid, criticized the Westside proposal as insufficiently affordable and said the Park Hill site lacked the infrastructure necessary to support an influx of residents.
The city's DSA chapter, and the national DSA's Housing Justice Commission, both came out against the Park Hill redevelopment as well. They argued letting a developer turn the golf course into more housing would only benefit "capital" at the expense of "democratic control and redistribution of land."
We support Denver DSA. Affordable housing can't be provided by the market. Reforms offered up by the state and developers that don't include democratic control and redistribution of land are ultimately false promises that serve only to benefit capital. https://t.co/EWMbFZXIAs
— DSA Housing Justice Commission ???????? (@dsa_housing) March 17, 2023
Countering this eclectic opposition were the city's local Yes in My Backyard (YIMBY) activists, affordable housing developer Habitat for Humanity, and business groups.
The Denver City Council approved a development agreement and rezoning of the Park Hill site in January 2023, setting the stage for last night's ballot initiative.
Throughout the process, Westside has argued that the site has to be a golf course as long as the conservation easement is in place. Opponents won't get the park they've been clamoring for.
After last night's vote, the company has said the land will be returned to a regulation 18-hole golf course and that the site is immediately closed to public use.
Doby, in a February email, predicted that Westside will not go through with the cost of restoring the golf course to active use, and instead cut its losses and sell the property. Because of the 'no' vote, he argues that "a developer wouldn't touch this parcel with a 100 foot pole." That should decrease the sale price, making it feasible for a non-profit to buy the land and work with the city to modify the easement to allow the park.
Time will tell what exactly ends up happening with the site. What is certain is that thousands of units that would have otherwise housed people won't be built.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I summon the ghost of George Carlin!
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
I have just received my 3rd Online paycheck of $28850 which i have made just bydoing very simple and easy job Online. This Online job is amazing and regularearning from this are just awesome. Now every person can get this home job andstart making extra dollars Online by follow details mentioned on this webpage............
.
.
GO HERE —————->> https://salarycash710.blogspot.com
Critical failure. Instead of the ghost of George Carlin, you got the ghost of Richard Nixon.
Sarc always rolls a 2.
Turn it into a drag strip or something else that noisy.
Nuclear test range?
and surround it with rusty chain link fencing topped with barbed/razor wire and signs that say "thank god we said 'NO' on 20."
Leave it open for the homeless tent cities. Surely the neighborhood activists will like that use better than development into houses.
Up with the PHAZ!
Democrats deserve everything they get.
It's right by Colorado Boulevard, it's already noisy as shit, and in one of the most ghetto parts of town, to boot.
How about outdoor drag shows? One at every hole!
Shouldn't the picture be of Polis since it is happening in Colorado like you do for any story in florida?
That's different
They can't sully their image of Governor McDreamy.
"What is certain is that thousands of units that would have otherwise housed people won't be built."
Complete Bullshit! That is not certain at all. That they won't get built at this location may be certain, but the idea that the developers are just going to give "building" isn't probable, let alone certain.
Maybe less affordable, maybe with longer commute times, maybe with less park space, maybe, maybe, maybe.
But that is all you have...maybes. Not certains.
It’s certain they won’t be built on this site.
Where there was perceived demand, otherwise they wouldn’t have bought the land in hopes of developing it.
This area is highly in need of housing. Sure, they can build out near the airport requiring more traffic and more commuting. But it would have been better for many people to have been able to build at this location.
Then that is what the author should have said. It is not. He phrased it as zero sum... housing that was, now isn't.
He could have ended his article with free market ideals, private property rights, the needs of the few (those who who would directly benefit from new housing the area) being overruled by the desires of special interests, etc. Instead, he decided to push his political housing ideologies by pushing fear mongering absolutes.
It isn't that I even disagree with him, but he lost all his credibility at the end, because...
That is bullshit when it done by the Right.
Bullshit when it is done by the Left.
And bullshit when it is done by Libertarians.
What are you talking about? He’s clearly talking about the Park Hill site. And he made that statement after explaining it will either be a park or a golf course, it just won’t ever be housing.
You’re strangely attempting to read something different than was is actually written.
Again, here is exactly what he said: “What is certain is that thousands of units that would have otherwise housed people WON'T BE BUILT.” [emphasis mine]
While true they may not be built at that location, he is stating that they won't be built at all.
But they will be built... Because that is what developers do.
How about instead of cherry picking one sentence, you read that sentence in context with the entire story. But most especially, at least combine that sentence with the preceding sentence that forms the paragraph so that it reads:
“Time will tell what exactly ends up happening with the site. What is certain is that thousands of units that would have otherwise housed people won’t be built.”
He’s clearly talking about the Park Hill site, not housing in general. Why you are trying so hard to read it that way it baffling to me.
This area needs it, but the people living there don’t deserve it. These are residents with terminally low future-time orientation and the impulse control of a five-year-old. Any housing development in that area would just turn into a shithole in less than a decade, anyhow.
They’d be better off trying to figure out how to build more housing in the old Stapleton area. At least that part of town isn't a total shithole.
This area definitely straddles upper class to the south and poverty and crime stricken to the north. I honestly don't know how it would turn out, but housing is still needed in the area.
80% of Denver is zoned single family - and that ain't gonna be built on.
What a bunch of jackasses. The developer wanted to turn the formerly private golf course into something the public could use from housing to parks. These jackasses forced the developer to maintain the property as a private golf course, not open to the public. Basically, the DSA helped the rich and hurt the middle class and the poor.
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Last month I was declared bankrupt in state court. You see I quit my job to work from home to be payed $95/per hour and the best thing is was I am not that tech-savy, and they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… and I never made one red cent. I actually had to spend money to get started on this total fraud, it ruined my life.
https://upsolve.org/learn/how-to-file-bankruptcy/
Zoning at work. You already know your property is not yours do to with what you want,
Its just a golf course. Public or private is up to the owner
Goes to the lesson many don't seem to understand: personal desires of most people are more important than any claimed principles they espouse, no matter how loudly and righteously they shout and lecture others about those principles.
Sell it to a homeless coalition for a dollar to create a tent and RV city. Ever seen Slab City? I'm thinking that would be a suitable use for the land, and stick a middle finger in the face of the socialists. How can socialists be against the homeless? Let's watch!
Just encourage homeless people to camp on the edges close to the homes and only enforce trespassing in the middle.
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
While I agree in general with the libertarian ideal of not putting local government roadblocks in the way of housing development, I do acknowledge that there can be legitimate reasons to restrict growth in a location, such as lack of water or overwhelming roads and infrastructure.
That isn't to say that any random NIMBY objection to growth is legitimate.
That’s really not the case in this circumstance. The location is near the interstate and large thoroughfares. Traffic wouldn’t be an issue. Denver would have the water to serve the development. There’s actually a large apartment complex development about 3/4 of a mile to the north east.
This really was a NIMBY push by residents in the area to stop the development in the hopes that it would get turned into an open space/park, and to avoid lower income housing as the area is right on the cusp of lower middle/poor to the north and upper middle class to the south. There was also a fairly decent push by upper-class golfers who wanted a private golf course back. Though, I really doubt it will ever be a golf course again. It struggled to survive when it was a golf course. Not sure things have changed significantly to now support a course.
"Low income housing", that's what killed the deal.
Developers in Denver are now required to make 8% or more of any new development affordable. Just like SF did years ago. It is just another nimby law to raise the cost of new housing and discourage development.
Most cities in the Denver metro are run by a bunch of left-wing neoyuppie fuckheads now who get all their half-baked ideas at the mutual social events they attend. They're basically turning what was once a relatively decent metro area of middle-class cities and urban neighborhoods into an economically stratified, dysfunctional toilet bowl.
So. The headline should be...
"Well-off Democrats and Socialists oppose affordable housing"
The neighbors fought development because they have been using the land as a park since the course closed, and be plan on continuing to do so.
It would be great if the developer could afford the loss and just built an 8' stockade fence around the entire property
I summon Sarait with arepas