News: Westside and City Hit With Lawsuit
Plaintiffs, Including Former Mayor Webb, Allege Denver Engaged In Illegal Actions Related To Park Hill Golf Course Plan
by Cara DeGette
Editor, GPHC
Three weeks before ballots were scheduled to begin dropping into Denver voters’ mailboxes, a group of high-profile plaintiffs — including former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb — filed suit against Westside Investment Partners and the City of Denver. At issue is the city council’s green-lighting of a controversial plan to rezone and develop the 155-acre Park Hill Golf Course property, which is protected by a conservation easement
In a series of actions, the city council in January approved Westside’s proposal to rezone the protected land at 35th and Colorado Boulevard, and sent the package off to Denver voters. On April 4, voters will weigh in — via ballot question 2 O — whether they support terminating the conservation easement to allow Westside to fire up the bulldozers for a high-density commercial and residential project and park.
The lawsuit was filed by Save Open Space Denver. In addition to Webb — who brokered the original conservation easement in 1997 when he was mayor — plaintiffs include former Colorado Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald and former state Sen. Penfield Tate, who is currently running for the city council. Other former state legislators and members of the city council and board of education are also listed, as well as community leaders Brother Jeff Fard, Shanta Harrison and Rachel Coates.
“The plaintiffs allege that [Denver City Council’s] actions constitute illegal extinguishment of the conservation easement,” said SOS Denver spokeswoman Colette Carey. Colorado law, she noted, specifies that conservation easements cannot be extinguished without a court order.
During all this time figuring out ways to develop the golf course land, the city and Westside have opted not to do this — take it to a judge. This is baffling to opponents.
“Conservation easements are supposed to be perpetual — that’s kind of the point,” said attorney Ed Ramey, who is representing the plaintiffs. There are different types of easements, and they can specify certain agricultural, wildlife habitat, recreational or golf courses/open space uses. “Once granted they are supposed to be preserved in perpetuity.”
That said, Ramey continued, there is a mechanism by which easements can be terminated. Colorado statute specifies that the owner of the property (in this case Westside) and the owner of the conservation easement (in this case the City of Denver) can go to district court and show a judge that it’s impossible to fulfill the open space and recreational purposes of that easement.
“What’s weird about this situation is the city and the developer are trying to creatively avoid the process, and that is what we’re challenging,” Ramey said.
A previous lawsuit challenging the city’s use of time and resources crafting a plan for protected property was dismissed. “Now we’re at a different point, since they’ve decided to proceed, which they did improperly,” said Ramey. Several additional claims are alleged in the new suit, including:
• The agreement between the city and Westside violates the Colorado constitutional ban against governments making donations to private parties.
• The city and city council illegally rejected “protest petitions” signed by neighboring landowners before proceeding with a vote.
GPHC Board Opposes Westside’s 2 O
On Feb. 2 the board of Greater Park Hill Community, Inc. adopted a resolution opposing Westside Investment Partners’ April 4 ballot measure, 2 O.
“Denver has a critical need to protect and enhance its parks and open space for the health and well-being of its residents,” according to the resolution, noting that in recent years the city has “failed” to do so. The complete resolution can be read at
tinyurl.com/GPHCWestside.
Since 2018 GPHC has supported preserving the conservation easement. The registered neighborhood organization has based its steadfast position on a statistically valid neighborhood-wide survey conducted by the National Research Center in October, 2019. At the time, GPHC board members highlighted their goal was to clearly gauge the positions of neighbors on the golf course property and several other issues — and provide similarly-aligned representation.
An overwhelming majority — fully 77 percent — of survey respondents (all ages, all races, all socioeconomic backgrounds, living in all parts of Park Hill) said they wanted the land to remain entirely some kind of green space/park or golf course. The link to the complete survey is:
greaterparkhill.org/resources/neighborhood-survey/.
Note: The Greater Park Hill News has extensively covered the complexities of the issues surrounding the Park Hill Golf Course property. Here is a link to past coverage: greaterparkhill.org/news-and-opinion/going-for-green/.