Open space will take a hit under golf course plans

In a city growing more dense by the year, and sometimes seemingly by the month, the prospect of a major new public park in Denver would be just about the best news of the season. But the fate of the floundering Park Hill golf course — which could become that regional park — is anything but settled, and the pressure to develop large portions of it are likely to carry the day if citizens don’t insist on a reasonable alternative.

And maybe, alas, even if they do.

The first step is for the Denver City Council to hold out for revisions to a purchase agreement announced last month between the Hancock administration and the George W. Clayton Trust, which owns the 155 acres on which the golf course sits. The complex deal is structured in ways that will incentivize high-value development, despite assurances that all options are on the table. Meanwhile, a conservation easement that Denver taxpayers bought 20 years ago, and whose land-use restrictions were renewed in an agreement in 2000, will be discarded with the stroke of a pen.

Clayton is in a bind, to be sure, and one that will require city assistance. Clayton Early Learning does good work. It serves 700 children on its campus at Colorado and Martin Luther King boulevards and relies in part on a $700,000 yearly payment from the golf course operator. But golf revenues have been declining and Clayton officials believe the tend is irreversible — hence their desire to leverage the property for a larger and more certain income stream when the lease expires at the end of next year.

You can’t blame them. And the city naturally wants to ensure that Clayton’s mission of serving underprivileged kids endures.

But shouldn’t council members have some idea of what might be required to protect Clayton from financial disruption? Could it result in developing 30 acres, 40 acres, half of the property — or more? Evan Dreyer, the mayor’s point man on negotiations, has said the most likely scenario for the site is a “significant amount of open space and some development,” but that the “full spectrum” of possibilities will remain in play with the sales agreement. That’s sufficiently vague to allow just about anything.

Meanwhile, Denver and Clayton officials have said repeatedly the trust needs at least $24 million from the property to generate $1 million annually from investments. Unfortunately, the sales agreement, as generous as it appears to be for Clayton, doesn’t come close to that figure.

Most news reports have declared that Denver is offering Clayton $20.5 million, but this is misleading. Denver is offering $10 million up front for half the acreage, and then $350,000 every year for 30 years. That’s $20.5 million, all right, but as Councilman Kevin Flynn pointed out at a hearing this month, the present value of a payment in 2049 is nothing like $350,000. Flynn added that the payment structure leaves Clayton “far short” of its stated goal — an opinion seconded by Clayton CEO Charlotte Brantley.

The further Clayton is from $24 million, the greater the pressure for Denver and Clayton to welcome extensive, high value development, since Clayton will receive 75 percent of net sales to developers until that goal is reached. And come to think of it, how much of Denver’s investment does the city expect to recoup from sales of the land?

After all, what is the market value of open space? In theory, a community “visioning process,” directed by Clayton, is supposed to determine the extent and type of development, as well as reflect a balance between the financial needs of Clayton and preferences of nearby neighborhoods. But the desires of neighbors, as revealed in a survey undertaken by Clayton, are diverse enough to justify almost any outcome save full site development.

For what it’s worth, the most popular options endorsed by residents were open space and recreation, followed by a grocery and “mixed use ‘Main Street.’ ” Meanwhile, when asked whether any potential uses should be considered a “deal breaker,” only “highdensity housing” was identified by more than 10 percent of respondents.

Council members are being asked to approve an agreement absent any clear idea of the fate of one of the largest pieces of undeveloped property in the city. As councilwoman Robin Kniech suggested, why not wait until the visioning process is finished so “we are negotiating with information. Right now we are negotiating blind.”

If you scan the list of projects that Denver voters are being asked to fund in the upcoming bond election, you will be staggered by their breadth. What a missed opportunity to midwife a new destination park. And yet, as Maggie Price of the citywide Interneighborhood Cooperation group told me, “Our regional parks are stretched beyond belief. They’re getting loved to death.”

Georgia Garnsey, a member of the Park Hill Golf Course Citizens Advisory Committee, wrote recently in the Greater Park Hill Community newspaper that “at one point we were asked to play a game, the Ball and Bucket Land Game, designed just for the committee, where cards representing green space were given ‘low value,” and high density development was given ‘high value.’ It was impossible to reach $24 million (the game’s goal) with the cards provided without providing for some substantial development.”

No surprise. Council members no doubt are likewise being told there is no alternative to significant development. But even if that is the case given the administration’s priorities, council members should at least have a better idea of what their consent will mean should they agree to trash the legacy of a major

conservation easement.

Vincent Carroll is a former Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News editorial page editor.