YES, AND.
In general, we believe that our public parks are important third spaces that support the health, safety, and economic vitality of our city. Of course, the largest and most contentious portion of 2B’s $175 million request is the Park Hill Park Buildout, a $70 million project that would begin to transform the former 155-acre Park Hill Golf Club property into one of Denver’s largest urban parks.
We’ll admit it: Being asked to shell out $70 million for a new park stings when we remember that we could have had a park, plus 6,000 units of housing, in that space at the expense of private developers.
But there’s no use living in the past; when we look at our current options, we recognize that the park transformation is a more productive use of land than leaving it undeveloped. Plus, we feel that the 22 other parks, playgrounds, pools, and other active spaces that will receive the remaining $104 million in 2B are worthwhile investments.
There’s just one caveat to our YES endorsement: The transit-oriented multi-family development that was promised to voters if we approved Referred Question 2O? We’re not quite ready to give up that dream – and we think there’s another way to make it happen.
Studies show that when a residential property is close to a park or open space, its value is increased by up to 55 percent. If we’re going to have Denver’s fourth largest park in close proximity to the 40th and Colorado light rail station, we’d like to see the industrial area surrounding that station rezoned for residential development. Let’s work together to make it happen.
Leave a Reply