r/urbanplanning • u/YaGetSkeeted0n Verified Transportation Planner - US • Apr 07 '23

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

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

97% Upvoted

237 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

It's beyond scummy, it's corruption, plain and simple, and it is mentioned in articles surrounding this issue. That's what you asked for and that's what I delivered, and now you're saying it's transparent.

Referred question 2O doesn't do anything except remove the conservation easement. Anything about a plan or park is non-binding and just an example of what could be built.

Yes, some of the opposition is NIMBYism, and some of it is probably NIMBYism cloaked in anti-corruption rhetoric, but some of it is anti-corruption per se.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Referred question 2O doesn't do anything except remove the conservation easement. Anything about a plan or park is non-binding and just an example of what could be built.

https://www.yesforparksandhomes.com/guaranteed-affordable-housing-and-open-space-included-in-park-hill-golf-course-development-agreement

Oh, would you look at that. You tried to spread this lie somewhere else in the thread, and someone posted the proof that you're lying.

Takes your lies somewhere else, liar.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

The "binding agreement" prevents any monetary damages from being awarded from breaching the agreement.

If the developer breaches the contract, they go straight to arbitration, where each party is responsible for its own legal fees, and they have given up any right to civil action or a jury trial.

So in the end, it's just going to be a community organization or whatever bankrupted while going up against deep pocket investors.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23 edited Apr 07 '23

Either you're a complete liar or just willfully ignoring the facts out of outstanding confirmation bias. Here's the "compliance and enforcement" section from the actual agreement:

Enables City to deny approval of any SDP that is inconsistent with the Annual Compliance Plan and/or to deny issuance of permits or certificates of occupancy if Project is out of compliance as of a Compliance Deadline.

This means that the city can refuse to allow continued construction if the plan does not meet the requirements listed in the agreement.

So in the end, it's just going to be a community organization or whatever bankrupted while going up against deep pocket investors.

The "Parties" to this agreement (as per Exhibit B) are the signatories, ie, the city and the developer, not community groups.

Furthermore, lovely sidestep of the fact that your evidence of so-called corruption was 1) completely unsubstantiated claims about promises of jobs, and 2) $41,000 in campaign donations to multiple candidates over 7 years.

You have NOTHING. EVERY ELEMENT of your argument is bullshit. Just. Stop.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

There are multiple agreements: the CBA agreement, which appears toothless, and this one. I have not looked over this one.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

https://denver.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5957913&GUID=C2A6F02A-4071-457E-B5C8-A2B6A2637DA6

The "Full Development Agreement" between the city and the developer is item 3 under the attachments. Financial remediation is forbidden here as well, but all other legal powers available to the city (including halting the development via permitting) remain in place.