Interesting development on the question of whether the Park Hill Golf course can be redeveloped. Some in the neighborhood oppose any development whatsoever. Screw the housing shortage/crises - they want to look at rolling grassy open space (even if its not public accessible open space) on their way home to their expensive Denver homes.
As the Denverite notes - they may actually get their way due to a new state law which Westside Investment, the new owners, may have overlooked when they acquired the property last year. As you may recall, the City of Denver holds a conservation easement on the Golf Course preserving its use as a golf course, and would need to approve any changes to allow development. A new statute adopted last year may complicate that,
A LOT:
The law states that it cannot be terminated unless a court says the conditions on or around the golf course have changed to make its continued conservation impossible. Advocates say the language makes building illegal.
“I believe that Westside wasn’t aware of that (law), because if you take a look at when the deal was closed, it was closed right after the law went into effect,” Webb said.
Denver City Council members Debbie Ortega and Candi CdeBaca have asked the mayor’s office for its legal opinion in an official letter.
I see no way you can credibly argue that due to changed conditions, conservation is now "impossible." Thus, Westside could be stuck with a lemon (from a developer's perspective) that it can't develop.
There at least one possible out, that's come up on here in other contexts: Home Rule. Again, the idea is that home rule cities can ignore any state law conflicting with home rule ordinances, with respect to legislation dealing with a purely local matter. Land use is a classic example of a "local matter" so I would think the city has a decent argument that the state can't tie the city's hands in this case. Also, I also would wonder whether a state can actually retroactively limit a property right in an easement (i.e., the right of the holder of the easement to transfer or remove the easement) without running afoul of the takings clause (government taking property without just compensation). In any event, if indeed the law was missed by Westside, perhaps they will have a malpractice claim against their attorneys? :-).
All interesting issues, but given the uncertainty and political opposition, these issues could to tie up the property for years to come. I suppose that, at the least, it's a future land bank for development, even if that comes 20 years from now.
https://denverite.com/2019/10/22/park-hi...y-hold-a-trump-card-to-stop-development/
Prev
Linear Mode
