| 14. 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? | |
| MAYORAL CANDIDATES | |
| Matt Brady | It should remain open space parkland with some recreational amenities, like a practice driving range, an area for soccer and volleyball, and maybe a softball diamond. |
| Jim Walsh | My position is that this space should be preserved as open space/park space into the future. The current development plan does not adequately address the needs of NE Denver, where open space can contribute to the health of the community. |
| Trinidad Rodriguez | I’m increasingly concerned that the current redevelopment proposal is not the right approach. Both sides are arguing that their approach makes a material difference in ameliorating larger systemic challenges like access to nature or affordability. This is simply not the case and is an extraordinary distraction from reality and fact. I believe the key issues for any redevelopment rely on greater mitigation of the impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, which the proposed Park Hill plan does not do. I will vote no. |
| Mike Johnston | I will vote yes on lifting the conservation easement. We are at a critical tipping point in our city’s housing crisis and we cannot wait any longer to build more affordable housing units. Lifting the easement and building new affordable housing, alongside the fourth largest park in Denver, will help immediately get more housing on the market so we can drive down costs. By voting no, we let the easement stand and could be left with an unusable golf course for many years to come. |
| Chris Hansen | I personally plan to vote yes on 2.0 because the current easement restriction does not allow us to explore the possibility of using the property as open space or to add other amenities our city needs. I will work hard to implement whatever the voters decide what they think will provide maximum benefit to the community. |
| Lisa Calderón | Currently, Denver has less than ¾ of the recommended park space per capita. The city must proactively pursue opportunities to expand city parkland and build on Denver’s City Beautiful movement by adding even more parks and parkways. Development without strategic consideration threatens our public spaces and our parks. I was a staunch advocate for SOS Denver’s 2021 ballot initiative to protect Park Hill Golf Course as open space. As a Denver City Council District 9 resident, former Parks and Recreation Advisory Board member, and former Chief of Staff for Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca who was denied a seat on the area planning committee, I am more invigorated than ever to protect the conservation easement and open space. A city housing plan shouldn’t be driven by corporate developers making backroom deals with compromised politicians. A public park system belongs to all Denverites. In November 2021 Denver voters already made their wishes known by a wide margin. They resoundingly defeated Westside’s duplicitous and dueling initiative to lift the 1997 conservation easement protecting the last large undeveloped properties in Denver. The choice between open space and housing was always a false one. We can have both, but not by sacrificing one for the other. Our housing crisis will not be solved by cheaply selling our finite green spaces, which are the lungs of our neighborhoods, to combat the urban heat island effect. That is why we must balance the needs of housing, multimodal transportation, and environmental issues in our decisions. As Mayor, I commit to building deeply affordable and mixed-income social housing in grey and brown space to reach our housing, affordability, and climate goals. I will also work with SOS Denver to prioritize the balance of our green space and development. A public realm needs to be nurtured district-by-district, with City leadership, not just private enterprise. |
| Kelly Brough | I have met with more than a dozen stakeholders on this issue: Park Hill neighbors, open space advocates, developers, attorneys, current and former elected officials. Some folks have been formally or officially involved in the debate and others have been interested observers. From all these conversations, it seems to me that most – if not all – people knowledgeable about the issue agree on three things: 1. We need more park land and open space in Denver; 2. We need more housing that is affordable and particularly housing that allows people who have historically lived in North Park Hill to continue living there; And 3. That the process to resolve this issue was very flawed. Sadly, this last point – the flawed process – is probably not something that we can overcome. And that is a real tragedy. The future of this property, in the heart of one of Denver’s great neighborhoods, should have been a great opportunity to bring people together to build a common vision for the future. It is pretty clear to me that only a judge has the authority to lift a conservation easement. So, regardless of the outcome of the ballot question this spring regarding public support for the current development proposal, I believe there will be a lawsuit. I think a court will make final determination about the fate of the conservation easement and will set the path forward for the next administration. Regarding my position on ballot question 2-O, I waited to make my decision to allow for review of the Community Benefits Agreement. Based on the agreement, I will vote yes. That said, it is clear we will still need a legal resolution to this issue, and it’s my sincere hope and wish that a legal resolution on this matter is reached quickly so that the City can move forward as constructively as possible. |
| Renate Behrens | Parkhill should stay green, get rid of golf curse, turn to Colorado original vegetation, that does not need water. nature reserve like New York’s Central Park. |
| Deborah “Debbie” Ortega | I voted in support of moving Proposition 20 to the ballot so the voters of Denver can decide on lifting Park Hill Golf Course’s conservation easement, and if approved will require the community benefit to be recorded as a restrictive covenant with the land. This would require the existing developer or any future developer to comply with 25% affordable housing, 100 acres of the 150 acres as open space, and a grocery store, among other commitments. |
| PAUL NOEL FIORINO (write-in) | PHGC is a continuation of the Municipal Districts that have cut up, and removed Greenspace, literally digging up buried bodies of Denver’s earliest Pioneers ( Women of Faith) and taking away the Deeds of Trust, that the property has been given in good faith, for educational purposes and Parks. Fiorino for Denver Mayor is a warrior for your land. Voto Fiorino |
| Thomas Wolf | Clear as mud, very contentious and a lot of disinformation due to lack of transparency. That said, I am pro parks, pro green space, pro transit-oriented development, and pro affordable housing woven into the fabric of all neighborhoods. This project seems to offer all the above, but clearly the devil is always in the details of execution and enforcement, and citizens are rightfully concerned with their city’s ability to uphold this responsibility. If the development pays to change the easement, builds a 100-acre public park that is preserved in perpetuity, at no cost to the city, that seems like an attractive deal versus the city bearing the expense of repurchasing the land, changing the easement, building the park, and maintaining it. I look forward to being your next Mayor and implementing the voter’s decision. |
| Dr. Abass Yaya Bamba | My position on that question relates to Park Hill Golf Course is clear. The golf course must be kept and classified as high value open space for the wellbeing of our community. |
| Terrance Roberts | I have been one of the original opponents of this development from day one. I am from the NE Park Hill community. There is limited park space in the city, especially in that area. There is already a development going up on 38th and Holly, boxing the community in. The community has already voted on, and paid for an easement on the land. I support making it more then “just a golf course” like the developer is falsely claiming it will be if people vote No on 2.0, but I am totally against any type housing there. The residents in the community do not want that as stated by a majority. I also do not agree with letting a citywide vote decide what’s already been decided. It’s corruption to me I think it amounts to that. |
| AUDITOR | |
| Timothy M. O’Brien | As this is an area of possible future audit, I will not compromise my independence by taking a position on this project. I am committed to never entering an audit with a predetermined outcome in mind. In this way, I can equitably serve every person in Denver. |
| Erik Clarke | I think the ultimate decision will be by a court of law. There’s a conservation easement on the property. Lifting that easement is a legal question, in my view. I’m aware that a lawsuit has been filed and there may be an update on that case by the time this survey is published. |
