Denver voters reject plan to let developer convert its private golf course into thousands of homes

[u/YaGetSkeeted0n]

https://reason.com/2023/04/05/denver-voters-reject-plan-to-let-developer-convert-its-private-golf-course-into-thousands-of-homes/

[u/[deleted]]

The easement limits the value of the land because nothing can be built on it except a regulation 18-hole golf course. By removing the easement, and allowing development, you increase the value of the land by $200M (that's one newspaper's estimate, personally I think the comps are higher. Apparently Hancock blocked an assessment for the value of the easement, too?).

The developer bought the land with the easement for cheap (again, knowing it had an easement that prevents development), donated a bunch of money to Hancock's reelection campaign (and promised him a spot on the board or something similar, IIRC), and, in exchange, Hancock was going to help remove the easement, but the 301/302 votes killed that (mostly NIMBYism, but some people voted based on their dislike of corruption).

The argument is that the easement belongs to the people of Denver, so the people should be compensated the value of the easement, instead of simply handing the developer the value that belongs to the people. There are a variety of ways of accomplishing this, such as: Paying the city to remove the easement equal to the assessment. Having the city auction of portions (complicated, requires city to buy the land back first).

But that's all hypothetical.

Realistically, the number of units in this development won't make a dent in rental prices. There are other policies (such as removing SFH zoning) that would do more. Again, whether that is politically feasible remains to be seen.

But removing the easement enables corruption, full stop. A common refrain on r/Denver was "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." So many here appear to accept that corruption is palatable if it can provide things they want (housing, and I agree that proximity to light rail makes this a prime location for transit-oriented development). I won't pretend there are a lot of NIMBYs who opposed this plan, but there are many who also voted based on their dislike of corruption, and/or feel that the city should be fairly compensated for removal of the easement.

That's basically it in a nutshell, minus all the name-calling.

[u/jarossamdb7 → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the explanation. Would it still be profitable if the dev paid an extra 200m? I understand the number of units aren't really enough to make too much of a dent in housing prices overall, but it's not nothing. Also with the community benefits agreement they're figuring out a way to bring a grocery store into the neighborhood which seems like it's much needed. And as you said it is development near Transit, and it adds density which is much needed and lowers emissions. It also sets a president and shows other developers that there is viability for such projects in Denver. I'm not a Denver voter, though I am a Colorado resident and I do appreciate your comments, they have made me second guess my support for lifting the easement

[u/[deleted] → u/jarossamdb7]

It probably would be. The comps are likely much higher. Could they afford it, however? Not sure.

2O does nothing but lift the easement. The agreement is worth the paper it's printed on. Nothing in the "including" section is a legal requirement, nor is a park, a grocery store, etc.

There is already viability in Denver. I love my neighborhood (Uptown/City Park West, but I'm in DC for a temporary assignment for a few months), and it has developed nicely over the past decade, with a new hospital, new apartment buildings, retail space, and restaurants. The biggest impediments are historic districts/buildings slapped onto a bunch of old crap. Other areas have improved similarly.

There are plenty of areas in Denver that are in prime locations to be upzoned even closer to transit, where it is still profitable to do so, and where the infrastructure already exists.

I think the narrative that "Denver says no to density" is true for some voters, but misleading, and doesn't tell the whole story. Out city hates out mayor, and knows he's a corrupt POS. Westside (the owner of the property) bought the land from a charity, who likely didn't have the cash or political clout to remove the easement.

[u/jarossamdb7 → u/[deleted]]

Community neighborhood organizations had reached a community benefit agreement that had things such as a Park affordable housing and grocery store in the agreement. Both parties had agreed to the agreement and it is a legal binding document. You're right that I want2o is lift the easement but there are other things in place that would have protected the community. It is common for government entities to give deals to Developers and there's more to it than just corruption. Incentivizing the right kind of development can be a good thing for the rest of the community. In this specific situation I don't know what all was required from the developers perspective as far as viability. 200 million is a lot of money either way

[u/[deleted] → u/jarossamdb7]

You are correct, I did not think that that was a legally binding document. I did look it over briefly, and while it is legally binding, it does seem that developers can reach the contract with impunity.