The future of Park Hill Golf Course is on the ballot

Re: “Dueling ballot measures eye future of

Park Hill golf course,” Oct. 8 news story

I’m a fourth generation Denverite that does not want the electorate to be duped this November.

Regarding real estate developer Westside’s Ballot Measure 302, it’s important that voters understand that “Empower Northeast Denver” is actually an alter ego of Westside Investment Partners, which owns the Park Hill Golf Course land subject to its perpetual open space and recreational conservation easement.

Here are the facts from public records: (1) Westside formed Empower as a Colorado nonprofit corporation on June 9, 2021; (2) Empower’s principal office and registered agent are located at Westside’s corporate offices in Glendale; and (3) as of the filing of its September campaign finance report for Ballot Measure 302, all but $420 of the $340,725 cash and in-kind financial contributions reported for Ballot Measure 302 were provided by Westside and its subsidiary ACM Park Hill JV VII LLC.

“Empower” is not a grassroots citizen group. I urge a “yes” vote on the truly grassroots citizen-sponsored Ballot Measure 301 (Parks and Open Space Preservation) and a “no” vote on Westside’s dueling and confusing Ballot Measure 302 that Westside is supporting for the sole purpose of undermining citywide voter protections for the Park Hill Golf Course land conservation easement.

Tony Pigford, Denver

Re: “Whose open space,” Oct. 10 letter to the editor

The letter writer and the developer behind ballot measure 302 want to remove protection of the former Park Hill Golf Course to make way for “mixed use” development, with some as-yet-undefined open space within it. They say their plans were conceived in response to input from the local community and that voices of the rest of Denver’s citizens should not be heeded.

On the contrary, the fate of the former golf course is a matter of great interest to all citizens of Denver. First, Denver taxpayers paid for the easement protecting it back in 1997. Neither the mayor nor City Council should be able to give it away or trade it for non-open space development without our consent.

Second, if protected, the site can be a citywide asset on par with Denver’s other major parks and serve as an oasis of open space in a quadrant of the city where parkland is sparse and recreation facilities have suffered years of neglect.

Westside Investment Partners knew about the 1997 easement when they paid $3.55 per square foot for the land in 2019. That’s about 1% of the price other developers are spending on developable property in Denver these days. No one should think for a moment that Denver “owes” Westside a penny for the gamble it took when it bought the property intending to redevelop it.

The answer to the question “Whose open space?” is unequivocal; it’s ours and measure

302 should be defeated.

John Brink, Denver

Re: “Empower Northeast Park Hill residents to demand more,” Oct. 17 editorial

On what basis did The Denver Post’s editorial board decide that Norm Harris and Lamone Noles represent the entirety of Northeast Park Hill’s black community? Was it simply because Noles and Harris said they did? That tact — say it often enough and people might believe it’s true — is straight out of Trump’s playbook. And The Post fell for it.

Meanwhile, here are some truths (or posttrump, maybe I need to say real truths as opposed to alternate truths). First, not every person of color on the city’s steering committee supports development; Noles neither represents the steering committee as a whole, nor does she represent all people of color on the committee.

Second, and by now this should be wellestablished, there are numerous prominent black community leaders who actively support “yes” on 301; “no” on 302. And finally, there are, at least, many more “yes” on 301 yard signs planted in Northeast Park Hill as there are signs supporting 302.

So, no, Noles and Harris do not represent all of Northeast Park Hill’s black community.

By the way, I’m white and no one would ever assume, no matter how “earnest and impassioned” my words, that my views represent those of all white people.

Nan Young, Denver

I nodded in agreement with the introductory “history and perspective” in the editorial entitled, “Empower Northeast Park Hill residents to demand more.” I soon found myself disappointed.

Notably, the editorial highlights Lamone Noles’ current view regarding the conserved land. Her current view is alongside a direct mention of her service on the committee for the Park Hill Golf Course Area Visioning Process. Twenty-seven citizens serve, and each has an equal voice. Why is it The Post quotes only Lamone from the 27? I serve on the committee and Lamone’s comments side by side two developer representatives should not be considered those of the committee, or me.

I’m deeply disappointed in The Denver Post ignoring fairness and balance. The Post missed a key opportunity to hear in their editorial deliberations the voices of many who have worked tirelessly through a taxpayer funded, $250,000plus process led by Denver’s Community Planning and Development Department on behalf of its client, Westside Investment Partners.

Today I’m voting “yes” on 301 and “no” on

302. Voted together, the choices preserve for tomorrow my voice and my vote on any full or partial conservation easement release. Any vote otherwise leaves the conservation easement in the developer favored hands of the mayor and City Council, not to mention The Denver Post’s influence.

David Martin, Denver

Thank you for trying to clarify the difference between 301 and 302. It was helpful in many ways. I am a open space advocate and went before the parks and recreation committee in 2017 to request $24 million be included in the one billion dollar bond issue to buy Park Hill Golf Course. Denied. Now the saga continues.

Lamone didn’t include the fact that there are many parcels of zoned “transitional” land around Park Hill Golf Course being purchased to develop and this is where the city and community can bargain with community needs and necessary zoning changes for development. She is aware of this fact.

Yes, the Park Hill community, all community members, should have a voice in what is going to happen to their community and they won’t until the city is really ready to work with them and not be lead by developers. Yet, I should have a voice in what will happen to Park Hill Golf Course as I voted along with others to keep it open space by paying for a conservation easement. I have been told publicly that people who don’t live in Park Hill should have no voice in what happens to the conservation easement. Sorry, but I don’t agree with that position as the voice of voters should not be ignored.

Cindy Johnstone, Denver