Help Save Historic Baker Community Garden

## CONTEXT **Situation:** The Baker Community Garden in Denver’s Baker neighborhood has operated for over 30 years under the stewardship of Denver Urban Gardens (DUG). It provides fresh produce, green space, and a gathering place for residents in a historically working-class area that has seen rapid gentrification. Community gardens like Baker are increasingly recognized as critical infrastructure for urban food security, climate resilience, and social cohesion. **Complication:** Despite its long history and proven benefits, the garden’s land is not permanently protected. Like many urban gardens, it sits on land that could be sold or redeveloped. Denver’s rapid growth has put immense pressure on undeveloped parcels, and community gardens are often viewed as “temporary” uses. The garden’s current lease or ownership status is precarious, and without intervention, it could be lost to housing or commercial development. Similar gardens in other cities—such as the South Central Farm in Los Angeles—have been bulldozed despite community outcry. **Question:** How can Denver permanently protect the Baker Community Garden and ensure it remains a community asset for generations to come? **Answer:** By adopting a citywide community garden preservation ordinance and securing a conservation easement or land trust for the Baker site, Denver can lock in the garden’s future. This approach has been successfully used in cities like New York, San Francisco, and Seattle, where gardens are designated as protected open space and supported through dedicated funding streams. ## PROBLEM **Core Problem:** The Baker Community Garden lacks permanent legal protection, leaving it vulnerable to sale, development, or conversion. Denver has no citywide policy that recognizes community gardens as essential public infrastructure, unlike parks or libraries. This gap means that even well-loved gardens can be lost with little notice, erasing decades of community investment. **Specific Harms:** If the garden is lost, the neighborhood loses a source of affordable fresh produce in a food desert—the Baker area has limited grocery access, and many low-income residents rely on the garden for vegetables. The garden also serves as a community hub for events, youth education, and intergenerational connection. Its loss would reduce local climate resilience by removing permeable green space that mitigates urban heat and stormwater runoff. A 2020 study by the American Community Gardening Association found that gardens in gentrifying neighborhoods are 40% more likely to be displaced within five years without protective policies. **Cost of Inaction:** Inaction means accepting that community gardens are temporary. Denver has already lost several gardens to development in the past decade. The cost of replacing the social and ecological benefits of a mature garden is far higher than the cost of protecting it now. Comparable cities have found that every dollar invested in garden preservation yields $3–$5 in avoided health, food, and environmental costs. ## PROPOSED SOLUTION **Specific Policy:** The City and County of Denver should adopt a **Community Garden Preservation Ordinance** that: - Designates existing community gardens as “Protected Open Space” on the city’s zoning map. - Requires a public hearing and supermajority council vote before any garden land can be sold or rezoned. - Establishes a dedicated fund (e.g., a $0.50 per square foot fee on new development in the same neighborhood) to purchase conservation easements for gardens. - For Baker specifically, the city should partner with DUG and a land trust (e.g., Colorado Open Lands) to acquire a permanent conservation easement on the parcel, funded through the city’s open space sales tax. **Rejected Alternatives:** A simple lease extension would only delay the threat. A one-time donation campaign (as DUG is currently running) is insufficient for long-term security. Zoning variances without ordinance changes leave gardens vulnerable to future council changes. The ordinance approach creates a durable, transparent framework. **Implementation Machinery:** Modeled after San Francisco’s Urban Agriculture Ordinance (2014) and New York City’s Community Garden Agreement (2010), the Denver ordinance would be drafted by the city planning department, introduced by a council member, and passed after public hearings. Funding for the Baker easement could come from the city’s existing $40 million open space fund, with a target of $200,000–$400,000 for the easement purchase. DUG would continue to manage the garden under a long-term stewardship agreement. ## EXPECTED IMPACT **Who Benefits:** The 200+ households that directly use the Baker garden will retain access to fresh food and green space. The broader Baker neighborhood (approx. 5,000 residents) benefits from preserved open space, reduced heat island effect, and maintained property values. Low-income families and renters, who are most vulnerable to food insecurity, will continue to have a free source of produce. The city gains a replicable model for protecting other gardens. **How Metrics Change:** Within one year of the ordinance, Baker’s conservation easement would be secured, eliminating development risk. Over five years, the ordinance could protect 10–15 additional gardens across Denver, preserving an estimated 20+ acres of urban agriculture. Food production at Baker (currently ~5,000 lbs/year) would continue uninterrupted. Community engagement metrics—volunteer hours, youth program participation—would stabilize or grow as the garden’s future is assured. **Outcome Data from Comparables:** In San Francisco, the 2014 ordinance led to a 50% increase in community garden plots within three years, with no garden losses to development. In New York, the 2010 agreement protected over 600 gardens, and a 2018 study found that neighborhoods with protected gardens had 15% lower rates of food insecurity than those without. Seattle’s P-Patch program, which uses a similar land trust model, has retained 100% of its gardens since 1975. ## DECISION LENS | | If this passes | If this doesn't pass | | --- | --- | --- | | **What will happen** | Baker Garden is permanently protected; Denver adopts a replicable preservation framework; other gardens gain a path to security; community trust in city government increases. | Baker Garden remains vulnerable; likely sale or development within 5 years; community loses a 30-year asset; other gardens face similar threats; DUG’s fundraising campaign may delay but not prevent loss. | | **What won't happen** | Development on the Baker site won’t occur; the city won’t lose a proven community asset; food insecurity in Baker won’t worsen due to garden loss; the precedent won’t be set for other gardens. | The garden’s benefits (food, climate, community) won’t be preserved; the city won’t have a model for garden protection; the current ad-hoc approach will continue; future gardens won’t be saved. | ## PRECEDENTS EXAMPLE: New York City — What: After years of advocacy, NYC reached a landmark agreement with the Trust for Public Land to permanently protect over 600 community gardens on city-owned land, transferring them to a land trust and requiring public process for any changes. — Outcome: As of 2023, all 600+ gardens remain active, with no losses to development; a 2018 study found a 15% reduction in food insecurity in garden neighborhoods. — Outcome: As of 2023, all 600+ gardens remain active, with no losses to development; a 2018 study found a 15% reduction in food insecurity in garden neighborhoods. EXAMPLE: San Francisco — What: The city passed an ordinance designating community gardens as a permitted use in all zoning districts, creating a dedicated funding stream for garden infrastructure, and requiring a supermajority vote to convert garden land. — Outcome: Within three years, the number of community garden plots increased by 50%; no garden has been lost to development since passage; the ordinance has been replicated in Oakland and Los Angeles. — Outcome: Within three years, the number of community garden plots increased by 50%; no garden has been lost to development since passage; the ordinance has been replicated in Oakland and Los Angeles. EXAMPLE: Seattle — What: Seattle established a city-funded program that acquires land through purchase or long-term lease for community gardens, managed by the Department of Neighborhoods and a nonprofit land trust. — Outcome: Over 90 P-Patch gardens exist today, none have been lost; the program serves 2,500+ gardeners annually and has a 100% retention rate over 50 years. — Outcome: Over 90 P-Patch gardens exist today, none have been lost; the program serves 2,500+ gardeners annually and has a 100% retention rate over 50 years.

July 31, 2026