Denver, Colorado, Initiated Ordinance 302, Change Definition of Conservation Easement and Voter Approval Requirement for Commercial or Residential Development on City Park Lands Initiative (November 2021)

Denver Initiated Ordinance 302
Election date November 2, 2021
Topic Local zoning, land use, and development
Status d Defeated
Type Initiative	Origin Citizens

Denver Initiated Ordinance 302 was on the ballot as an initiative in Denver on November 2, 2021. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this measure requiring voter approval for residential or commercial construction on city park property or property protected by a conservation easement and amending the definition of conservation easement to apply only to those that have been approved by the Division of Conservation and that have received an income tax credit certificate, a definition that exempts the Park Hill Golf Course from the requirements.

A "no" vote opposed this measure requiring voter approval for residential or commercial construction on city park property or property protected by a conservation easement and amending the definition of conservation easement, exempting the Park Hill Golf Course from the requirements.

A simple majority was required for the approval of Initiated Ordinance 302.

Overview

What would Initiated Ordinance 302 do?

Initiated Ordinance 302 would require citywide voter approval before commercial or residential development is allowed in any parks or any city-owned land with a conservation easement. The ordinance would also require partial and full easement removals to be voted by residents. The measure would provide exceptions for (a) buildings for limited commercial use for cultural facilities or recreational purposes; (b) infrastructure improvements for purposes consistent with the easement; and (c) the ending of an easement specifically so the city could purchase the land for parks.

Initiated Ordinance 302 would also redefine conservation easement to include only property for which a Colorado state income tax credit certificate was issued by the Division of Conservation. This definition would exclude the Park Hill Golf Course from the definition and, thereby, exempt the Park Hill Golf Course from the voter approval requirements for development.

How do Initiated Ordinance 302 and Initiated Ordinance 301 relate to the Park Hill Golf Course?

See also: #Background

Initiated Ordinance 302 was designed with provisions regarding voter approval of development identical to provisions in Initiated Ordinance 301. In addition, Initiated Ordinance 302 contains a provision that would redefine conservation easement. This redefinition would exempt the Park Hill Golf Course property, which was purchased by Westside Investment Partners in 2019, from the voter approval requirements for development found in both of the initiatives.

If Initiated Ordinance 301 passes, but Initiated Ordinance 302 is defeated, the voter approval requirements for development will go into effect and would apply to the Park Hill Golf Course property.

If both initiatives pass, the voter approval requirements go into effect, but so does the definition of conservation easement in Initiated Ordinance 302, which means the voter approval requirements for development would not apply to the Park Hill Golf Course property. This is also the effective outcome if Initiated Ordinance 302 passes, but Initiated Ordinance 301 is defeated.

See also: Initiated Ordinance 301

Terrell Curtis of Empower Northeast Denver, which is backing the Yes on 302 campaign, argued that local residents should have control over the use of the Park Hill Golf Course land rather than the whole city as Initiated Ordinance 301 would require: “This community has been disenfranchised for decades, and now people who do not live here are trying to allow the whole city to decide what's best for us. We shouldn’t let Cherry Creek residents decide what communities in Five Points need and vice versa.”

The Protect Park Hill Golf Course, No on 302 campaign said, "302 is a deceptively-worded counter measure that Westside Investment Partners paid $270,000 to force it onto the November ballot in response to 301. It was created to neutralize 301 and benefit the developer." Penfield Tate, leader of the Save Open Space, Yes on 301, No on 302 campaign argued, “Ensuring protection for park land and open space in this city is something that every citizen should have a voice in. There is a very clear choice for Denver voters, green space versus concrete and asphalt."

Election results

Denver Initiated Ordinance 302
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		59,345	37.41%
No		99,270	62.59%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Initiated Ordinance 302 was as follows:

“

Shall the Voters of the City and County of Denver adopt a measure to do the following: 1) amend the definition of conservation easement to apply only to conservation easements which have been reviewed and approved by the Division of Conservation and for which an income tax credit certificate has been issued by the Division of Conservation pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 12-15-105 and 106; 2) require voter approval before the City allows residential or commercial construction on City park land or City property protected by a conservation easement with exceptions for limited construction related to recreational use, cultural facilities, or construction consistent with the terms of a conservation easement; and 3) require voter approval to extinguish a City-owned conservation easement?

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

If you know of endorsements or arguments that should be posted here, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Empower Northeast Denver led the Yes on 302 campaign.

Supporters

• Westside Investment Partners
• Empower Northeast Denver
• National Organization for African Americans in Housing
• NAACP Denver Branch
• Denver Councilmember for District 8 Christopher Herndon
• All In Denver
• Denver Councilmember for District 2 Kevin Flynn (Colorado)

Arguments

• Westside Investment Partners argued, "Should local land use issues be voted on by the entire city?...We think that answer is no, that is not how we typically do things in Denver, which is why if you want to protect local choice and local voices you should vote yes on 302."

• Empower Northeast Denver argued, "We should be empowering local communities to lead the planning and development process because they know best what they need. Protect local choices and local voices and vote yes on 302."

• The National Organization for African Americans in Housing argued, "Saying we can just build affordable housing elsewhere is not realistic. We do not need to make a choice between “open space” for affordable housing and nearby grocery shopping; the land is big enough for both uses."

• The NAACP Denver Branch argued, "The voice of historically Black Northeast Denver neighborhoods deserves the right to be uplifted and empowered to decide the future of their community. After years of discriminatory practices, we face a unique opportunity in this upcoming election to address the needs and wishes of a local community of color."

• Denver Councilmember for District 8 Christopher Herndon argued, "I support ballot initiative 302 because Northeast Park Hill should have the right – just like any other neighborhood in Denver – to make land use decisions for their community. I will support whatever the area residents want for the future of the Park Hill Golf Course, whether it’s affordable housing, a grocery store, park space or all of the above. What I won’t support are attempts like Initiative 301 to take this decision away from people who live in the neighborhood."

• All In Denver argued, "There is room for all on the golf course — affordable housing, economic opportunity, healthy foods, and parks. But Northeast Park Hill voices should be at the center of the conversation. Initiative 301 marginalizes them and diminishes their voice."

• Denver Councilmember for District 2 Kevin Flynn argued, "I’m voting for Initiative 302 because it is the only way to prevent the silencing of the voices of communities of color in Northeast Park Hill. They deserve to be heard after decades of being marginalized in this town. I-302 not only gives them a seat at the table, it prevents others from folding up the table and taking it away."

Opposition

If you know of endorsements or arguments that should be posted here, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Yes for Parks and Open Space led a Yes on 301, No on 302 campaign.<

Protect Park Hill Golf Course led a No on 302, Yes on 301 campaign.

Opponents

• Save Open Space Denver
• Yes for Parks and Open Space
• Former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb
• Denver Post Editiorial Board
• Protect Park Hill Golf Course
• Former Colorado State Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald
• Former Colorado Representative Anne McGihon
• Congress Park United Neighbors
• Our Revolution Metro Denver
• Colorado Green Party
• Colorado Republican Party
• Overlook at Park Hill Homeowners Association
• Overlook at Park Hill Registered Neighborhood Organization

Arguments

• The group Save Open Space Denver argued, "open space is a precious and very finite resource...With the climate crisis on everybody’s doorstep, I think forward-thinking cities develop open space as a last resort not the first."

• The group Yes for Parks and Open Space argued, "By preserving this last piece of open space in our city, we can use this opportunity to create a community gathering place."

• Former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb argued, "Do you want parks and open space? If so, you vote yes on 301. If you want a commercial developer coming in, then vote yes on 302."

• The group Protect Park Hill Golf Course argued, "The ONLY way to maintain the conservation easement and leave decisions about development of our parks and open spaces up to the people, not the developers, is to vote YES on 301 and vote NO on 302."

• Former Colorado State Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald argued, "The fact that a developer launched their own ballot measure to intentionally confuse voters on this issue is just more of the same deceit we’ve seen for years, now. We need to fight this battle and I’m all in!"

• Former Colorado Representative Anne McGihon argued, "For me, it’s a simple question and answer. Do we let developers tear up a perpetual conservation easement? My answer is NO!"

• The Congress Park United Neighbors argued, "Initiative 301 is a citizen-led initiative by residents like you to ensure that the conservation easement that was voted for and paid for by Denver residents continues in perpetuity at the former site of the Park Hill Golf Course. In stark contrast, Initiative 302 is led by none other than Andy Klein of Westside Development and his ally, Mayor Hancock. You may recall that Mr. Klein contributed funding to promote the East Central and East Area Plans. While he enjoys his single family zoning, access to parks and greenspace, he would ask you to go without. While he comfortably enjoys safe access to transportation, neighborhood amenities, and grocery stores, he promotes policies to increase housing costs and decrease access to services for those who need them the most."

Background

History of Park Hill Golf Course

In 1989, Denver set aside $2 million so that they could purchase the Park Hill Golf Course from the then-owner George W. Clayton Trust. $2 million was not enough for Denver to purchase the land and they instead formed an agreement with the George W. Clayton Trust that the trust would remain the property owner, give up their development rights, and create a conservation easement that required the land to be used as a golf course and Denver would give the trust the $2 million.

In 1998, the Clayton Trust began renting the golf course land to a golf course operator. Because of a property taxation issue created by the rental of the land, a new agreement was reached between the Clayton Trust and Denver and the land remained under Clayton Trust management but was signed over to the city. The agreement terminated the original conversation easement but required Clayton Trust to put in a new easement if they were to sell the land.

In 2019, the Clayton Trust sold the land to Westside Investment Partners and was required to create a new easement. State law, however, had changed since the original easement and, as of 2019, easements required a court order to be removed and only in cases where a judge ruled it was impossible for the land to fulfill its easement purposes.

Colorado Conservation Easements

A conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement, typically limiting the development allowed on the land. It is generally issued to protect and preserve the conservation value of the land, like scenic views, outdoor recreation, or natural habitats. In Colorado, those who engage in an easement are allowed to claim a tax credit on their state income tax. Since 2015, the credits have been issued at 75% of the first $100,000 of land value and 50% of any remaining land value up to a maximum of $5 million per easement.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Colorado

This measure was put on the ballot through a citizen initiative petition. The measure qualified for the ballot on July 27, 2021.

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2021
• Local zoning, land use, and development on the ballot

• Denver County measures

Colorado

• Colorado 2021 local measures
• Local ballot measures, Colorado
• Denver, Colorado

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic