top of page

Vote NO on 2O in Denver

Updated: Apr 2, 2023

A little over a year ago Denver voters overwhelmingly (by a 2-1 margin) supported the city-owned conservation easement preserving the Park Hill Golf Course property.

Vote No on 2O to prevent Denver Sprawl & preserve the last of our Open Space!

Now lifting the open-space-protecting easement is back on the ballot again with Ballot Measure 2O, sponsored by Westside, the developers who purchased the protected land with the intention to lift the easement and develop it into 5-8+ story buildings .

Once again, the residents of Denver must vote to protect the easement to save this precious open space filled with mature trees by voting NO on 2O this April 2023. Don't let develoers sprawl into this open space that was intended to remain open space for the community.

Vote NO on 2O in Denver to protect this open space and trees from development!
Vote NO on 2O in Denver to protect this open space and trees from development!

Vote NO on 2O and we could have the THIRD largest park, protecting the environment, reducing pollution and preserving the hundreds of mature trees on the property. We should not let our non-stop development craze in Denver sprawl into this amazing protected green space. It doesn't have to remain a golf course under the easement, it only needs to remain open space – not skyrises. Denver has to vote again to preserve the conservation easement by voting No on 2O.

Here's more thoughts on this topic:


Saturday, March 4, 2023 Denver is not for sale

By Wellington Webb

Many people have asked about my stance on the Park Hill Golf Course issue that appears on Denver’s April 4 ballot, known as Referred Question 2-O.

My stance may seem like a long answer but walk with me.

These are my thoughts after months of deliberation and conversations with developer Andy Klein, Kenneth Ho, Wayne Vaden, Norman Harris, Woody Garnsey, Penfield Tate, Josh Hafling, state Senator James Coleman, representatives for Habitat for Humanity, my brother in life Jim Sullivan, and without question my wife Wilma Webb, daughter, Stephanie O’Malley, son, Anthony Webb, grandson, Allen Webb, and a senior citizen whom I respect greatly, Margaret McCaskill. These discussions all centered on the proposed development of the 155 acres of precious open space at the Park Hill Golf Course property. This is the last large parcel of open space in the city. Andy Klein and Westside developers purchased a piece of property to develop knowing that the property is encumbered by a conservation easement. The easement was placed on this property by me as Mayor! The easement to protect the property was signed in 1997.

Today, in concert with the City Administration, Andy Klein and Westside developers present a tragically flawed plan that is being railroaded down our throats. They want Denverites to vote to take away the protection of the open space so that the proposed development that includes no less than 3,200 units of housing and other spaces can be built for profit. While the plan includes a couple of reasonable visions currently, there is nothing in the plan that has moved me to change my value to uphold parks and open space.

Westside was smart enough to add the Holleran Group as a co-developer, and I applaud this effort.

The Holleran Group’s plan calls for athletic fields, however, the allocation of property to accommodate them is too small. The athletic fields fit under the conservation easement and need their own space and should not to be counted as open space like the developers’ desire. The plan includes suggestion for an athletic complex but fails to include considerations for its own parking. The complex could include a gymnasium for basketball and volleyball, an indoor gym for girls track, a football field, a soccer field, and pickle ball courts. This alone would amount to at least 50 acres of the 155-acre parcel.

Again, I support the athletic fields but they must be built on its own space, and not be considered open space.

The nearby stormwater detention pond, which already has been built on 25 acres, can’t be moved and with a downpour, the Titanic could float at the end of the pond. So, it’s not appropriate to use the detention pond for anything other than stormwater drainage. Where else in the city is a detention pond being used for a basketball court? Nowhere to my knowledge. If it is, it shouldn’t be.

Now, a little history of the area and the need for a grocery store. For a few years I lived at 3625 Eudora Street and shopped at the Dahlia Shopping Center for groceries and the Duck Walls dime store; relaxed at a bowling alley; and was a customer at a clothing store, all located at this site. A golf course was nearby.

While a grocery store is wanted, there is other nearby property where a grocery store could be developed. By the way, grocery stores situate where they want, not necessarily where residents desire to have them.

As far as revisionist Black history, one thing I know for sure is history does not lie when presented with facts. As much as we dislike Mayor Ben Stapleton, who was supported by the Ku Klux Klan, history also tells us that he purchased Red Rocks Amphitheater through his parks manager George Cranmer. Does the city want to give it back? I don’t think so. By comparison, this current administration and some council members may not agree with the conservation agreement, but my administration and council members at the time had the foresight to protect this land from runaway development. The taxpayers paid $2 million to the former owners for the conservation easement, and had no intentions of developing that land in the future.

The conservation easement should remain respected just as the purchase of Red Rocks. Now allow me set straight a false narrative that is being offered by proponents of Referred Question 2-0, specifically that Blacks did not have access to Park Hill Golf Course. Park Hill Golf Course has a long, important role in Black history. Black male and female golfers often were at the course including, former Denver District Court Judge James Flanigan, former Councilman Bill Roberts, Denver Public’s School board member Ed Garner, accomplished architect Bert Bruton, well-known attorney Tyrone Holt, and accountant Lucius Ashby, just to name only a few. The clubhouse was a meeting place for DPS board President Omar Blair, the Sertoma Club, Leonard Sowell and the Park Hill Lions Club. Even Ray Charles could see that this false narrative and other falsehoods are being offered as smoke screens to divert from the fact that the current plan for development is bad.

I’m a pragmatic man and I believe that this characteristic was appreciated by voters while I was in office. While my strong support of parks and open space has not changed, I remain pragmatic and that’s how I’ve approached this issue of the Park Hill Golf Course.

With my pragmatism, I told developer Andy Klein that the development, at minimum, needs 100 acres for athletics and open space. He countered by suggesting that 60 acres plus the 25-acre detention pond equates to 100. Commons sense tells us that his calculation is not 100 acres of true open space.

I understand that if someone buys a piece of land they likely want to make a profit. I’m a capitalist and am not opposed to Westside making a profit. Because of this, I have struggled to find a good compromise. Searching for one, I looked at the entire process and I quickly became sick to my stomach.

I reflected on the fact that the City Attorney’s Office declares that the easement only applies to a golf course. This is wrong. It also is false campaigning that the developers are telling voters that if Referred Question 2-O fails, the 155 acres will be blighted land.

The City Attorney’s Office also advised Mayor Hancock not to extend concession contracts at Denver International Airport stating that doing so is either illegal or bad public policy. This advice was given at the same time every city in the country was extending airport concession contracts to keep businesses at the airports from going broke. I know it’s not illegal because I extended concession contracts by seven years as I was leaving office to assure the many women and minority vendors would not be eliminated by the next administration.

Staying true to its shenanigans, in January the City Attorney’s Office rejected a petition from residents of the Park Hill neighborhood that would have required a supermajority vote of 10 councilmembers to rezone the vacant Park Hill Golf Course. The City Attorney’s Office rejected the petition after the petition was submitted and after it changed rules for petition completion that it and city planners initially provided to residents.

I am sure that at least one of our former city planners is turning over in her grave about the game playing going on by the planning office on this issue. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is one reason why there is a lack of trust in government by voters.

I have studied the housing plan to be built on the conservation land. It includes 3,200 housing units between 36th and 40th on Colorado Boulevard. Many of the units would house more than one individual. This is an area that is already dealing with high traffic problems. I understand that neither Westside nor the city has obtained a new traffic study to evaluate this proposed density and impact on the traffic in the community. How can one realistically plan for 3,200 new housing units with multiple residents without a new traffic study?

Some of the buildings that are a part of the 3,200 new units would be eight to 12 stories. This is likely to result in accelerated and increased gentrification of the Park Hill area. It could be a “New Jack City” – without Wesley Snipes.

I have spent much time reviewing and thinking about this issue. However, a recent chance encounter made my struggles on this issue really clear to me.

As Wilma and I were recently leaving the I-Hop restaurant near Central Park, a dignified church-going senior citizen, Margaret McCaskill, who is a resident of Park Hill, approached us to talk. She said, “Mayor Webb, I live on the 3500 block of Monaco and you’re not going to let them block the views from my home and build that monstrosity on Colorado Boulevard, are you? My elected officials never ask my opinion about things like this. Help us!”

This chance encounter made me realize that this dispute isn’t truly about housing or open space; but rather this is about a bad business deal made by Westside and supported by the current city administration and its partners. There is a lot of wheelers and dealers but no leaders. So here is my stance.

Vote No on Referred Question 2-O on the April 4 ballot. Once defeated, the new City Council and new Mayor should go back to the drawing board and honor the conservation agreement. This would include 60 acres of open space, 25 acres for the detention pond, and 55 acres for the athletic fields and complex, which can be administered similarly to the nonprofit Gold Crown that has athletic complexes throughout the metro area.

With this approach, the biggest winner will be the Mile High City. Once you lose open space you never get it back. That’s a fact that we in Denver should never take for granted.

I heard you Mrs. McCaskill and I will continue to fight for you and all those Coloradans who value nature over parking lots.

Being a parks and open space guy is part of my DNA. People can talk until they are blue in the face, but I cannot and will not deny my DNA.

So here is my belief: We are at a crossroads. The message is clear in my mind. We lost Five Points now we’re going to lose precious open space in Park Hill.

Denver is not for sale. Walk with me again on this one.


And more thoughts from local doctors:

Denver Historians Colloquium

c/o Dr. Thomas J. Noel

March 3, 2023

An Open Letter to the Voters of the City and County of Denver

Subject: Preservation of the Park Hill Conservation Easement in Northeast Denver

We represent a group of Denver-based historians from many different walks of life – authors, educators, former officials, design experts, preservation advocates, and more. Our pattern is to meet most weeks throughout the year and discuss current projects related to historic preservation, including research, writing, historic tours, restoration efforts, and design.

We are sharing comments on Ballot Measure 20 which, if approved, would remove the 155-acre conservation easement to protect this land from future development. One of the characteristics which has set Denver apart from other cities has been its iconic parks and open space network. From graceful landscaped parkways to preserved spaces of high desert ecosystems, Denver has been blessed with a long history of placing value on parklands that contribute to a sense of place and to connect the city with its landscape setting.

While we support the need to provide housing and new investment in the city, we strongly oppose sacrificing a conservation easement paid for by Denver residents to be replaced with a master plan proposal at the former Park Hill Golf Course. As members of the community with a keen awareness of Denver’s urban form and its neighborhoods, there are ample areas for infill and redevelopment throughout the city. It is a flawed process on the part of city officials to present voters with a false choice between open space or development.

Denver now has a serious deficit of parkland and open space which has significant dropped its status and ranking for parks. The city’s own analysis of its park system identifies that there is now a 1400-acre deficit in parkland citywide. Today we only have 9 acres of parkland for every 1000 people, when the national average is 13 acres per 1000 people. And many of our most park deficient neighborhoods are in lower income areas and communities of color (see Game Plan for a Healthy City, 2019 – the city’s adopted park plan – and Trust for Public Land).

We encourage a “no” vote on the ballot measure – with a message back to city officials to identify opportunities for new housing that do not surrender existing open space. To reclaim Denver’s reputation as a “city in a park,” we need decisions that close our serious parkland gap and decision that direct housing to areas that are the ripest of infill and redevelopment – that is the many acres of vacant and underutilized lands currently in the city.

Building on our past legacy of parks and vibrant neighborhoods should be at the core for creating a future that is sustainable, ecologically healthy, equitable, and resilient – especially to the challenges of a changing climate.

Respectfully submitted,

Tom Noel, Prof. Emeritus of History, CU-Denver & former State Historian

Jay Fell, Prof. Of History CU-Denver

Jim Kroll, former manager of Western History & Grealogy Dept., Denver Public Library Dept

Katy Ordway, Prof. Of History Red Rocks Community College

Amy Zimmer, Architectural Historian

Mary O’Neil, School Teacher

Sister Mary Cage, SCL, historian


The Denver Post endorses a “no” vote on Referred Measure 2O Another argument against voting for 2O comes from The Denver Post, who looked at the financial aspects of lifting the easement, and have recommend to vote NO on 2O as it is a bad deal for the city.


Greater Park Hill Community News:

Plaintiffs, Including Former Mayor Webb, Allege Denver Engaged In Illegal Actions Related To Park Hill Golf Course Plan. Read article »


For more up-to-date info and news regarding Denver's Ballot Measure 2O, visit this website:

Here's a great read from that addresses the common phrase "Nimby" that developers are calling people who want to protect open space.

Nimbys are not selfish. We’re just trying to stop the destruction of nature.

Nimby can be used as a convenient, pejorative term to downgrade the importance of wildlife protection while obscuring arguments about who actually benefits from developments and which people lose out. Perhaps we don’t have to abolish the term altogether, but rather repurpose it. Nimby should no longer stand for “not in my back yard” but “nature in my back yard”. Because in my opinion, it’s certainly not a selfish thing to worry about the guardianship of future biodiversity. Read the full Nimby article »

Great post from Next Door:

The Westside Misinformation Campaign… Coming Daily to a Mailbox Near You

When you have lots of money, you can put out lots of glossy flyers. But much of what Westside and the City are saying about Park Hill Golf Course (PHGC) is deceptive, including Measure 2O itself, which begins with:

"Shall the voters of the City and County of Denver authorize the release of the City-owned conservation easement on privately owned property known as the Park Hill Golf Course, which requires the land to be used primarily for golf-related purposes, and allow for commercial and residential development…," etc.

The tone of the first sentence suggests the City somehow imposed an easement on “privately owned property”, when in fact Clayton Foundation agreed to $2 million in 1997 for a perpetual easement that would preserve the land as open space for future generations. Denver has grown by 50% (250,000 people) since then. It’s also NOT required that PHGC remain a golf course if development isn’t allowed; an ongoing deception that was sold to local residents, and now everyone else. City Attorney Kristen Bronson confirmed that modification was possible in the document “City Attorney’s Guidance on PHGC Conservation Easement” (dated Oct 1, 2019), when she stated “Any such change would require a mutual agreement between the City and the landowner.” Exactly what Mayor Webb and others have said- the City and owner (Westside) could agree to allow “park” open space as well, but neither is willing because “golf course” perfectly serves the purpose of encouraging development, since no one wants a golf course.

Westside’s flyers, meanwhile, claim they’ll donate “100 acres” of parks/open space, creating Denver’s “4th largest park”. That’s false. 25 acres to the north must remain open for flood detention. Westside didn’t “donate” these and they’ll likely have only simple paths and grass that can’t be damaged by standing water. The 75 acres left will have about 15 within the construction to the west. Adding them to Westside’s park acreage would be like adding 17th Ave Parkway to City Park. The actual created park, with nice landscaping, playing fields, large tree canopy, playgrounds, structures, amenities, etc., will be about 60 acres, making it Denver’s 6th largest park- 1/5th the size of City Park.

The flyers also claim a yes vote gets “$60 million for roads, sidewalks, and infrastructure”, failing to mention the City-approved metro districts allow Westside to pass infrastructure costs on to new residents (in the 75% of units not designated affordable), doubling their taxes and likely increasing gentrification due to costs. They further claim “$150 million in benefits to the community” from the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), yet that isn’t in the CBA or the Development and Land Exchange Agreement with the City. Has anyone scrutinized these numbers, who doesn’t have a vested interest in the outcome?

Westside paid $24 million for 155 acres, or $155,000 an acre, when the actual unencumbered land value (without easement) is likely 5 to 10 times higher. Until an independent appraisal is done, the true value won’t be known to the public or discussed by Westside. That’s not accidental. When adding the value of what’s to be constructed to their low purchase price, Westside is likely up hundreds of millions of dollars. They can stand to appear very generous and socially conscience, knowing they’ll still make a killing. It’s possible they could have created 40-50% affordable units, covered all the infrastructure costs and other commitments, and still walked away with tens of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the City basically gave away a valuable community asset with little oversight; its last large open space forever; when nearby areas could also be used for affordable housing and development.

No “good deal” needs to be continually sold on a foundation of misinformation. There’s something wrong here. It’s time to put the brakes on until much more scrutiny can be had, by a new Mayor and Council. – E.S.


The Westside Investment Partners Big Con On Park Hill Golf Course

by Charles Bonniwell | Mar 17, 2023 From:

Nineteenth century showman and con artist P.T. Barnum’s most famous purported saying is: “There is a sucker born every minute.” Westside Investment Partners and its head Andrew Klein certainly appear to believe that to be true of Denver. At the PBS12 mayoral debate all the candidates were jointly asked:

“Raise your hand if you are receiving campaign donations from Westside Investment Partners or any related entities who own golf course property and are pushing for its development.”

No one raised their hand but, in fact, former state Senator Mike Johnston, state Senator Chris Hansen, and city Councilmember Debbie Ortega all took money from Klein and support the high-density development on Park Hill Golf Course. This is enough that no one on the Editorial Board will vote for or support any of those individuals for mayor.

Denverite has reported Westside Investment Partners’ leaders and staff are supporting eight City Council candidates, including Amanda Sawyer who ran four years ago against high-density development. Sawyer, who quickly became almost unbearably smug, self-important, and arrogant upon assuming her city council position, has now become a high-density developer backer. This demonstrates that there must be something in the water in District 5 as her two predecessors, Marcia Johnson and Mary Beth Susman, also became corrupted by developers soon after coming into office. Incumbents in Denver are almost impossible to beat, especially when backed by developer money, but Michael Hughes is trying to unseat Sawyer in District 5 and we wish him the best.

It isn’t just politicians that Klein and Westside Investment Partners have corrupted with their money. A Who’s Who of venerable liberal organizations including Volunteers of America, Habitat for Humanity, St. Thomas Episcopal, Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance, Denver Classroom Teachers Association, and many others, signed onto one of most dishonest ad campaigns to get Denver voters to approve their high-density development on April 4th.

The development is being sold on the ridiculous canard that because there is a city-wide shortage of high-quality, affordable housing we must approve their development of 2,550 new homes on half of 155 acres of open space. The most revolting assertion is that it causes the “creation of the fourth largest park in the city.” By taking half the land now for high-density development no one but a fool would believe that they will not be back for the other half in a blink of an eye.

The hucksters who told us at one time that we had to destroy South Vietnam in order to save it are back at it to tell you that you have to destroy a 155-acre park to save it. The homes will not be affordable, but will go for Cherry Hills prices and disrupt a wonderful Black neighborhood for rich White yuppies.

The destruction of Park Hill Golf Course is Mayor Michael Hancock’s final middle finger to the people of Denver. In 12 years as mayor he has made the city so unlivable that he is moving to Miami when his term is up. Hopefully Denver voters will give him the middle finger back by voting “NO” on Referred Question 20. View full editorial at:




bottom of page