It’s surreal to think that a man who purchased a Denver home with intentions of razing it could have been thwarted by people who tried to have his property declared a landmark after he bought it.
If Gary Yourtz hadn’t laid out $18,000 to defend his plans, that might have been the case.
Denver needs to get a grip on the so-called “hostile” landmark designation process before other such situations arise.
It is unfair for someone to buy a property with the well-founded belief it can be used for one purpose, only to have outsiders decide you shouldn’t have that right.
We’re on board with City Councilman Charlie Brown, who told the Post’s Jeremy P. Meyer that he is considering proposing changes to the city ordinance that allowed this conflict to arise.
At the center of the dispute is a 1958 ranch-style house that Yourtz bought in the Belcaro neighborhood. He liked the neighborhood, and planned to build his dream house there — after demolishing the existing home.
In Denver, the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission looks over demolition permits to decide whether a property has the potential to qualify for landmark status.
The commission determined the house on Yourtz’s property had that potential, which gave the public 21 days to apply for landmark status for the house.
Someone did — an Arapahoe County man named Mitch Cowley, who filed the application along with a Belcaro resident. Cowley told The Post he had long admired the house and would point out its virtues to friends.
Cowley justified his actions by saying this: “Just because someone owns something doesn’t give them the ultimate right.”
As outrageous as that statement may seem, in Denver, it is true. That’s because people who do not own a property have the ability to petition for it to gain landmark status — a so-called “hostile application.”
Yourtz called the situation a “complete violation of your property rights.” We agree.
To be clear, we are not averse to historic preservation. There are many fine structures in town that have been preserved, and we are glad to see it. Such architecture is part of the character of a place.
Our issue is not with preservation, but with what we see as the taking of property rights.
If the ranch-style house already had the landmark designation when Yourtz bought it, we wouldn’t have much sympathy for his situation, but that wasn’t what happened here.
This was a case of someone potentially having the ability to derail Yourtz’s plans after Yourtz spent $1.1 million to buy the property.
Thankfully, the landmark designation application was withdrawn before the process got too far. However, this story is a convincing example of why the City Council ought to change its preservation ordinances.
