Park Hill development is a good deal and then some
Re: “A sweetheart deal, just not for Denver taxpayers,” Feb. 26 commentary
Your negative endorsement of the Park Hill Golf Course ballot measure was done in the name of protecting taxpayers. But from what, exactly?
Have taxpayers lost money at Park Hill? After all, it’s privately owned land. Is there a concern that the $ 2 million that Denver paid for the easement in 1997 somehow won’t be repaid many times over? Or should we believe that the donation of 100 acres of land for new public parks is too meager?
The April 4 election is about new housing, plain and simple. By The Post’s logic, the urgent housing needs of thousands of seniors, teachers, nurses, and working families pale in comparison to the theoretical possibility of squeezing an unknown amount more from the developer.
Everyone in Denver knows that we have an affordable housing crisis, and rejecting Ballot Measure 2O will take away Denver’s best chance to deliver a massive chunk of new housing. It’s a pity the editors have used their voices to make us think otherwise.
— Justin Petaccio, Denver
Thank you, Denver Post, for your editorial. The value of the conservation easement is significant, currently unresolved, and needs to be offset by the value of the Westside goody package. We need an independent CPA and an MAI appraiser to assess this offer and continue negotiations with Westside if it doesn’t pencil.
It’s just math. Don’t be scared. Glad The Post isn’t.
— Cristin Cochran, Denver
The Denver Post got it half- right: in purely financial terms, this deal stinks for Denver and its taxpayers, and Mayor Michael Hancock and the 11 Council members who voted for it have utterly failed to protect Denverites’ interests.
But The Post fails to address two other key factors that should impel a “no” vote: First, the property is protected by a conservation easement that the city bought for $ 2 million in 1997 ( thanks to Mayor Wellington Webb), which can only be removed by judicial extinguishment for very limited reasons, per state statute. Second, Denver should not lose this opportunity to add a major tract of pristine open space to its limited urban parkland. As others have commented, the city can condemn this land and acquire it for its much- reduced fair market value because of the perpetual conservation easement protecting it.
— Joseph Halpern, Denver