With most of the votes counted, it's clear a majority of Denver voters did not want the former Park Hill Golf Course land to be redeveloped. 

Question 2O failed by almost 20 points, with 59.2% of voters saying "no" as of 5 p.m. Tuesday. 

Westside Investment Partners owns the 155-acre plot of land at 4141 E. 35th Ave., which it bought from the Clayton Foundation for $24 million in 2019. Plans submitted to the city of Denver included a park, affordable housing, market-rate housing and a grocery store. 

The Denver City Council voted, 11-2, to put 2O on the ballot. It also approved the creation of five new metropolitan districts to raise money to pay for the projects, a development plan and a "Community Benefits Agreement."

Before the council's vote on the plot of land, located in a historically Black community, it was zoned as open space. 2O would have removed the conservation easement requiring it to remain a golf course. 

The Denver Gazette interviewed a Westside spokesperson and one from Save Open Space Denver, the group opposed to 2O. 

What does "no" on 2O mean for the space?

Question 2O asked voters if a conservation easement on the 155-acre property of the former Park Hill Golf Course should be lifted. The "no" vote means the park will stay as-is, whereas a "yes" vote would have cleared the way for redevelopment of the site. 

"Because the Park Hill easement is unambiguous, the land will return to a privately-owned, regulation-length 18-hole golf course," according to a statement from Westside. "The site will immediately be closed to public use or access, with no housing, community grocery store, or public parks allowed on this site, in accordance with the will of the voters." 

What will Westside do with the land, based on 2O failing?

"At this point, the only path forward to get the ROI (return of investment) on this property is to follow what the easement allows," Westside spokesman Bill Rigler told The Denver Gazette Wednesday. "That means a golf club and related uses. Top Golf is absolutely an allowable use."

"Opponents permitted a big lie that Westside would turn around and give this land away," he said. "That's not going to happen. Selling the land at a loss back to the city is not going to happen. Frankly, it's hard to envision a scenario where anyone would want to come into the site and have to go through the same experience and expense Westside just took." 

What happens to the development agreement the Denver City Council approved in January? 

2O failing means Westside's development plans were not approved, according to Denver City Council at-large candidate and legislator Penfield Tate III, who got 15.8% of the vote as of 5 p.m. Wednesday putting him in third place. 

"Based on a contractual agreement the developer has with the city, it has to return the land to a golf course for the short term," Tate said. "Then the developer has to decide if it wants to continue to run the golf course or if it wants to convert it to some other use consistent with the conservation easement."

The easement calls for the land to be open space and recreation, which Tate said means the land does not have to remain a golf course.

"It is my belief, and the city shares this belief, that the use can be changed," Tate said. "It has to be a golf course right now because that's the agreement the developer made with the city. Long term, it does not have to be a golf course."

The language of the easement, however, forbids the use of the land for anything other than a golf course.

"Both the development agreement and the community benefits agreement are null and void," Rigler said. "The important part of that is the benefits agreement came with a minimum of $150 million in community benefits, including the donation of land for a grocery store."

What can fill the Park Hill Golf Course space with a "no" vote?

The easement language expressly forbids the use of the land for anything other than a golf course. It does, however, allow "unrelated recreational uses," such as athletic fields and tennis courts, but with the added requirement that a golf course must remain on site.

The language reads:

"The Golf Course Land shall be occupied, used, operated, and maintained as a regulation-length, 18-hole daily fee public golf course with such related uses and activities as may be accessory or incidental to the operation of a golf course. No use of the Golf Course Land shall be permitted that would be a detriment to the existence and operation of the Golf Course."

What have the question's opponents said about the space's use?

Woody Garnsey, who represented Save Open Space Denver at a debate about the space in early March, said not much would need to be done to make the area more pleasant and park-like.

The city could add features, such as playgrounds, benches and tennis courts, to make the area more park-like without going through the process of redeveloping the land, Garnsey said. 

No details were provided by opponents of how those potentially added features would be funded. 

Rigler said much of the campaign felt to Westside and partners The Holleran Group like "we had entered a no fact zone." 

"The opponents like to say once the open space was gone, it's gone," Rigler said. "But the easement very plainly states in black and white, that's not the case at all."

Denver Gazette City Editor Dennis Huspeni contributed to this story.