Denver ParkHill golf course conversion fails
I believe this golf course transition to housing is partly failing as there are no openly publicized literal site plans of *exactly* how the land will be used. "up to 25%" of affordable housing includes 0 and 1%. and when whole green space is an issue. No one is going to give up green space for just "Affordable housing" with no clear view of what that is.
...If it exists, I haven't seen it. Text written on it is here on https://lnkd.in/gGrvUZRF and I saw one rendered image which didn't convey enough to sell me on the idea and I am not next to it.
Affordable housing is a great idea, but for whom working where? We need to look at why housing is unaffordable and map strategies, starting with living wages and health/mental coverage, and ways for people to buy into a starter home. Not affordable housing in the picture everyone has in their heads, but a start to a program that works with people to allow them to move up, and place them in housing near their work, with plans to shift to better work and opportunities.
Where are the studies showing what income classifications would benefit from living there and where would they work? like your average Denverite who doesn't live there, I only know what little I have seen from the limited news and publicized content. I haven't seen any site platting or urban layouts, nor any indications of utility or commercial infrastructure to support this endeavor.
It's near a train station, great, but the train takes 2 to 3x as long as driving. Just saying those things without some explanation and a bunch of pretty pictures of what it might look like is like ordering off a fast food menu picture, and it never matches.
If you want to build there, maybe an innovative proposal with some medium to high density housing surrounded by SECURE AND SAFE public parks and community areas is a better solution. As they found out throwing things at the wall and sharing vague details, leads to mental images of shady deals end up in total dumps. Or pointless infill of a sea of houses to an urban green space which acts to relieve the pressure and monotony of house after house.
I'd suggest Secure/green space and park forward space to break along the exterior roads with higher density housing, and advertise it. Make it another central park with the open spaces but higher density.
Seemingly vague ideas to replace a park with housing and up to a quarter low income housing is a no go. subsidies might offer a better way to avoid the stigmas around low income housing, and designing security first and forward to make graffiti and other scars from forming would be best.
Instead of voting if we should convert it- we soul dtake proposals from firms globally with accurate cost estimates on actual plans for conversion under imminent Domain. There must be a way in because right now, it's just a desert next to the highway.
领英推荐
Where did park hill golf course come from?
In 1800 George W. Clayton left a will establishing a Trust to manage the assets including park hill. In 1982 the city was removed as trustee and an interim Clayton Foundation was incorporated as acting trustee cutting the city out completely beginning in 1982. In 1997, the city agreed to pay the trust $2M to create restricitons ad easements to create a public golf course. In 1998, the Trust entered into a Lease with a company known as American Golf Corporation to operate the Park Hill Golf Course. The Lease was later assigned to Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited, d/b/a Arcis Golf. This needs research if this was an overnight operation under the d/b/a or a longstanding organization and its ties as they added a “Right of First Refusal” clause on a lease that expired in 2018 to which the city has no part in the lease. Arcis exercised the first renewal option so that the term of the Lease will end on December 31, 2023 (with one 5-year renewal option remaining).
Taxable land and probate
In 1999 the Denver City Tax Asser determined Park Hill land was taxable and wanted at least 3 years back taxes, presumably in a move to take control of the property. This went to probate court, which I am surprised the statute of limitations hadn't run out(e.g. 90 days to file Federal Taxes) on claiming the taxes against probate. This made Denver as the title owner and the trust as "Beneficial" aka controlling owner of the land. This puts Denver on the hook for the taxes on a piece of land they can do little to nothing with - much like the trap of a timeshare. (They should have placed a lien to foreclose instead.)
Under the agreement, when the City took “legal title” to the property in 2000, a principle called “merger-of-title” effectively removed all restrictions, which then had to be re-incorporated into ownership under denver's title(the Agency Agreement) until July 2019 when the Agency Agreement was terminated by the Trust; placing the restrictions under a separate legal documents(contracts).
As the city owns the land the restrictions contract (reference needed) probably falls under the City Charter which is why
Charter and ballot question analysis to follow...!