Appraisal Of Park Hill Golf Course July 26 2018

Attached is an appraisal commissioned by the city in the summer of 2018 in connection with its need to pay compensation to Clayton Early Learning [the then land owner] and Arcis [the then golf course operator] for damages resulting from the city’s stormwater detention project in the NE corner of the PHGC land.  Here are some takeaways from the appraisal:

  1. The encumbered value of the land prior to the “taking” pursuant to the condemnation agreement between Clayton and the city was $2,941,648 which was slightly lower than the $3.1 million appraisal commissioned by Clayton in 2015 [page 8]
  2. The appraised amount of the compensation damages was $415,300 [page 8] excluding the cost of returning the land to a golf course at the end of the project
  3. Therefore the $6 million paid by the city to Westside in connection with the November 2019 “Settlement Agreement” apparently included (a) $415,300 to settle the condemnation “takings” claims made in the two lawsuits and (b) $5,584,700 for the hypothetical cost of returning the land to a golf course at the end of the stormwater detention project which Westside will never do.

REAL PROPERTY APPRAISAL REPORT – Appraisal (Final) Park Hill Golf Course – Nelson 7-23-18

Pinocchio For Mayor Hancock

Image

 

 

 

A Pinocchio for Mayor Hancock

Re: “ ‘Our roads are a mess,’ challenger slam Hancock,” April 2 news story Mayor Michael Hancock deserves a “Pinocchio” for his answer at the April 1 Denver Post mayoral debate about the future of the Park Hill Golf Course land open space. Moderator Andrew Kenney asked what the mayor would do with the 155 acres of golf land in northeast Denver. Referencing the city’s 2017 negotiations to buy the land from the Clayton Trust, Hancock said “the reason why the city of Denver leaned in on this Park Hill Golf Course issue is because we wanted to make sure we preserved open space.” Hancock’s statement was a lie. The city preserved this land as open space in 1997 when it paid Clayton $2 million for a perpetual open space conservation easement. Despite the fact that Clayton had already relinquished it development rights, the city and Clayton in 2017 drafted a document that is totally inconsistent with Hancock’s debate statement. The document was a draft real estate development agreement between the city and Clayton which — if finalized — would have resulted in the city selling a significant portion of the land for mixed residential and commercial development with some pocket parks thrown in.

Kevin Doyle, Denver