City Council Removes Formal Recognition, Standing For Neighborhood Coalitions And Eviscerates Coalitions On A 5 to 4 Vote; Council Asks Help From Legislature To Remove City Authority Over Zoning; COMMENTARY: Mayor Keller Should Veto Or City Council Should Immediately Repeal O-26-61 Denying Recognition Of Neighborhood Coalitions

Posted on October 8, 2026 by Pete Dinelli

INTRODUCTION

Neighborhood Associations serve as a liaison between residents, city government and businesses facilitating community engagement, support and cooperation and communication. The Albuquerque Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance (NARO) establishes a framework for recognizing neighborhood associations within the city.

NARO facilitates the recognition of neighborhood associations, registration and charters and requires them to receive notifications about city actions and developments that may impact their area neighborhoods. The ordinance outlines specific criteria and processes for neighborhood associations to gain official recognition from the City of Albuquerque.

NARO recognition means receiving notice of permit applications foe developments, information on projects around the city and the standing to appeal. There are eight coalitions in the city, spanning multiple council districts and 140 neighborhood associations, which require members to be residents.

The link to the City Office of Neighborhood Coordination is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination

The link to view a map of recognized Neighborhood Associations is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination/documents/recognized-neighborhood-associations.pdf/view

THE “BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS” PACKAGE

On October 5, the Albuquerque City Council enacted three out of four measures sponsored by MAGA Republican Dan Lewis misleadingly labeled the “Better Neighborhoods” package under the guise and a false attempt to cut red tape and spur development projects. The “Better Neighborhoods” package benefits the development community to the determent of established neighborhoods. Taken together, the measures will have a major impact eliminating the rights of neighborhood coalitions to challenge developments.The “Better Neighborhoods” package consists of two ordinances directed at neighborhood coalitions and two memorials that request action from the New Mexico legislature to act.

This article is an in depth report on the city councils actions, an analysis of the legislation and a call to action to contact Mayor Tim Keller and the Albuquerque City Council.

CITY ORDINANCES

The two city ordinances make dramatic changes to the Neighborhood Association Recognition Ordinance (NARO) and are O-26-61 and O-26-60.

0-26-61 OVERVIEW AND ENACTMENT

O-26-61 is the most egregious of the four measures. Neighborhood Coalitions are defined as groups of neighborhood associations that can represent entire areas of the city and can be larger than some city council districts. Under the ordinance they could still organize but without a recognized city role.

O-26-61 removes city recognition for neighborhood coalitions, homeowners associations and business groups, and ends developer good-faith requirements. O-26-61 strips standing from neighborhood coalitions, raises appeal fees, and requires coalitions to pay legal fees if they lose a challenge against a developer who has applied for permits. The ordinance limits formal city recognition of neighborhood coalitions, homeowners’ associations and business groups and eliminates automatic development notices to them.

Appeal rights under O-26-61are limited to resident-based neighborhood associations near a project. Neighborhood coalitions can still file appeals but they must prove legal standing. The ordinance caps neighborhood association boundaries to 2 square miles. The ordinance requires neighborhood associations to come into compliance with boundary requirements by July 1, 2027 and allows associations to retain current boundaries until July 1.

Amendments to the ordinance requires associations to approve appeals by a majority vote, changed advance notice of an appeal vote from seven days to two weeks The ordinance encourages outreach to apartment buildings and public spaces. The ordinance adjusts meeting notice rules so associations can act on appeals. An amendment requires approval from at least 10% of an association’s members or 15 confirmed members for any appeal.

Ordinance O-26-61 passed on a 5 to 4. Voting YES were MAGA Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis, Dan Champine, Renee Grout and Progressive Democrats Stephanie Telles and Tammy Fiebelkorn. Voting NO were Democrat City Council President Klarissa Peña, Progressive Democrats Jaquin Baca and Nichole Rogers and Republican Brook Bassan.

If signed by Mayor Tim Keller O-26-61 will become law. If vetoed by Mayor Keller, the veto would require six votes of nine to override.

O-26-60 OVERVIEW AND DEFERRAL

O-26-60 substantially raises appeal fees which are currently between $190 to $265 to $925 for approved appeals and $300 for denied appeals. Amendments added indigency waivers for people who cannot afford the fee, extended the payment deadline to two business days. It requires the Planning Department to give the City Council an annual report on land-use appeals and their outcomes. O-26-60 was deferred by Councilor Lewis to the October 19 City Council meeting.

CITY COUNCIL MEMORIALS

State law governs zoning appeals. Councilor Lewis sponsored two memorials asking the New Mexico Legislature to make changes to state law governing zoning appeals.

M-26-01 asks the Legislature to clarify state law allowing municipalities to define the circumstances under which someone can appeal a development. It ask that the legislature clarify who qualifies as an “aggrieved” person with legal standing to challenge and sue. M-26-01 asks state lawmakers to remove restrictions that allow home-rule cities to set local definitions for legal standing. Memorial M-26-01 passed UNANIMOUSLY on a 9 – 0 vote.

M-26-02 asks the Legislature to allow municipalities to designate certain land-use categories, including zoning and development decisions, for direct appeal to District Court. M-26-02 passed on a 6-3 vote, with Bassan, Rogers and Peña voting against.

https://www.cabq.gov/council/find-your-councilor/district-5/news/new-better-neighborhoods-package-aims-to-empower-albuquerque-neighborhoods

PUBLIC COMMENT AND DEBATE ON “BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS” PACKAGE

During the October 5 City Council meeting, dozens spoke out during public comment, including residents, developers and members and leaders of neighborhood associations and coalitions. Upwards of 75 residents spoke during the meeting, with 44 opposing the reforms and 28 supporting them.

The main focus of public comment and debate was on O-26-61 and its removal of neighborhood coalitions from the Neighborhood Association Recognition Ordinance, which were added to the NARO in 2022 by the City Council.

SUPPORTERS SPEAK OUT

During public comments, developers and real estate agents said neighborhood coalitions were filing appeals that led to costly delays for needed projects. Some homeowner associations in support of the bill said they didn’t appreciate coalitions speaking for them.

Homeowner associations, coalition members and residents opposing the bill said coalitions bolster associations and notify residents of projects that may be out of their neighborhood boundary, but still 100 feet from their property line.

Rebecca Latham, president of her neighborhood association, said the bill strengthened accountability and gives associations “a clear voice.” Latham works for HB Construction and said her association takes time to build relationships and share information to understand “what makes most sense for our neighbors” and she said this:

“So when a group presents a position representing our association, without us having a chance to discuss it or approve it, it puts our credibility at risk.”

Angela Piarowski, a CEO with Modulus Architects, said many of their project have been affected by appeals with some projects delayed by years. Piarowski said this:

“We follow the rules, our clients invest based on those rules, they should be able to rely on the outcome. … A coalition’s disagreement should not become an effective veto over the city’s approvals.”

Adam Silverman, a local real estate developer who supported the changes, said coalitions without local ties can stall projects and neighborhood associations closest to developments should lead community discussions. Silverman was somewhat contradictory when he said this:

“I believe the neighborhood association should absolutely have the right to be involved in the process when something new is being proposed near their community.”

STATE SENATOR MOE MAESTAS AND CITY COUNCILOR TAMMY FEIBELKORN SUPPORT MEMORIALS AND REPEAL OF CITY ZONING AUTHORITY

On October 5, West Side State Sen. Antonio “Moe” Maestas appeared at City Council and spoke in support of the measures. Maestas said City Council memorials M-26-01 and M-26-02 will help him advance city zoning reform in Santa Fe which he has advocated for to increase affordable housing.

It was during the 30-day session of the 2026 New Mexico Legislature that Senate Bill 131 was introduced and sponsored by Democrat Senators Antonio “Moe” Maestas and Heather Berghmans. Senate Bill 131 would have repealed and eliminated all real property zoning authority and regulation authority from local governments, including all municipal governments, including Albuquerque, and county governments and initiate uniform statewide zoning to allow for more residential development in an effort to increase affordable housing. The legislation was voted down in committee.

Albuquerque Democrat City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn voted for both City Council memorials. During the 30-day session of the 2026 New Mexico Legislature, Fiebelkorn testified during the legislative committee hearing that she “strongly” supported Senate bill SB-131 that would have repealed and eliminated all zoning authority of the city of Albuquerque, prompting one legislator to express dismay that and elected city official was advocating repealing the city’s zoning authority and laws.

EDITORS NOTE: “Up zoning is a land-use planning tool that changes existing zoning regulations to permit more intensive development in specific areas already zoned. Zoning laws govern how property can be used, including housing density, minimum lot sizes, building heights, and parking requirements. Up zoning alters these rules to increase permitted density or intensity of use, allowing more units per acre, taller buildings, or different uses like commercial establishments in residential zones. This process does not directly create new housing but removes regulatory barriers, incentivizing new construction.”

Senate Bill 131 sponsored by Senator Moe Maestas was nothing more that and attempt to mandate and implement upzoning state-wide by Senator Moe Maestas using the New Mexico legislature to do it. It was nothing more than a power play on his part to repeal virtually all zoning laws in the state to the detriment of local interests and contrary to the self-rule authority of the City of Albuquerque.

The purpose and concept behind SENATE BILL 131 and the upzoning it represented is very straight forward and based on too many false premises. The idea is that if you allow permissive use of townhomes, apartments, duplexes, and retail within existing single family zoning areas without city approval and permits to increase density, it removes restrictions and allows for increased development that will hopefully lower costs and increase affordable housing. It will not. Market forces will prevail as developed properties are sold for the highest value. Upzoning is being touted by Senator Maestas as a solution to the affordable housing crunch despite no mandate for any affordable housing to be built or any legislation to regulate price speculation.

Studies about Upzoning are still emerging and are limited in scope, but the data released is reflecting that Upzoning actually fosters gentrification. It most often impacts low income and non-white communities. It also has been shown to have little impact on housing inventory and price.

Upzoning utilizes many tools of gentrification as does the upzoning proposed in Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). Those upzoning tools include:

Allowing zoning changes for higher density.
Relaxing regulatory measures.
Does not mandate affordable housing of any type.
Excludes community involvement/empowerment by lawsuits being their only recourse.
Includes amenities like retail.
Places no measures against real estate price speculation.
Has no anti-displacement measures for existing residents.
Removes protections of historic neighborhoods and sites like The Petroglyphs via removal of height restrictions.

In essence, upzoning is a “deregulatory developers handout” that removes many of the guardrails of zoning allowing developers and speculators to build what they want, however they want and wherever they want.

OPPOSITION SPEAKSOUT

Julie Radoslovich, president of the Hurley Neighborhood Association, opposed the “Better neighborhoods Package” and said volunteer neighborhood associations rely on coalition expertise to navigate land-use rules and challenge improper developments. Radoslovich said this:

“Neighborhood coalitions serve as a buffer when actions threaten our neighborhoods.”

Jennifer Jones of the Inez Neighborhood Association said coalitions benefit parts of the city, like hers which is positioned beside Uptown and surrounded by major roads, that wish to address greater environmental impacts and traffic issues. Jones said associations “wouldn’t have a voice” in those wider problems if the bills passed.

Sarah Thomas said coalitions can give associations a leg up. She said her coalition “has really allowed us to put our heads together with a broader view of what I consider to be our community.” Thomas said her association, meanwhile, “is just barely hanging on” with only six people attending the last annual meeting. She added, “We had to beg people to be on our board.”

Neighborhood Activist Steven Holman is a resident of City Council District 7 which is the mid heights city council district of City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn. During City Council Public Comment on October 5, Holman gave the following one minute comment that succinctly addresses the impact of Better Neighborhoods Package:

In regards to the better neighborhoods package, I am going to keep this short and bitter.

This is retaliation for a history of litigation protecting the petroglyphs, marginalized communities, and historic sites that have often found the city violated its own rules.

There used to be over 300 neighborhood associations and now there are less than 150. They are disappearing and declining and coalitions have been filling the void.

This legislation will make it so there is actually less community representation. But that’s what you want, no way to fight back against Data Centers. The city has over 60 acres it said it could annex and rezone for a data center, yet it won’t do the same for affordable housing. True hypocrisy.

Coalitions exist to help marginalized groups and historic sites. My neighborhood is one of the largest and if a hate group somehow got the ok to build, my association couldn’t afford the litigation. I certainly know my city councilor [Tammy Fiebelkorn] wouldn’t hear me out. This is why coalitions are needed.

The question needs to be asked: Maybe the city is the problem?

The developers and sellouts like Strongtowns support this, even Senator Moe Maestas who tried to take zoning away from all cities statewide last legislative session supports this. Vote against the better neighborhoods package.

Don’t sell us out!

SPONSOR LEWIS LASHES OUT AT NEIGHBORHOOD COALITIONS

Republican Dan Lewis, the sponsor of the “Better Neighborhoods” package said neighborhood coalitions in general are “undemocratic” as decision-making bodies. Lewis said O-26-61 “right-sizes” neighborhood representation by putting authority back with “the neighborhoods that are closest and have a direct stake.”

Lewis assailed the Westside Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (WSCONA), which is in his district, as one of the “worst offenders” as it cost 400 jobs in its appeal of Mesa Studios. That neighborhood appeal was repeatedly denied but eventually won in State District Court because WSCONA President Jane Baechle, who did not live in the project area, walked the area of the petroglyphs and recognized the threat of development so close to the federally protected petroglyphs.

Lewis pointed out that his package of legislation did not mean coalitions “would disappear.” Lewis recalled a time when neighborhood association were “thriving” despite not having formal recognition. Lewis argued falsely that his ordinances strengthens neighborhood associations and falsely claimed that no one in his district opposed the bill and many “have left the coalition.” Lewis said this:

“These are simply good reforms … that puts the primary responsibility and say to our neighborhoods.”

Richard Schaefer, WSCONA secretary, said in a letter that the bill O-26-61was a “veiled attempt to make it far more difficult for residents to organize and exert their rights as fully enfranchised citizens of the City of Albuquerque.”

City Councilors passed the amended version of O-61 on a 5-4 vote. Council President Klarissa Peña and Councilors Brook Bassan, Nichole Rogers and Joaquin Baca voted against. In voting against, Rogers and Bassan said they felt the coalitions in their districts were very beneficial and could not vote against them. Bassan suggested legislation that relegated one coalition per district and Rogers said she wants to make coalitions “accountable” but not obsolete.

MAYOR KELLER MUST DECIDE

City spokesperson for the Mayor Dan Mayfield said this in a statement after Council action:

“We haven’t received the final bill which had several amendments from last night. Once we do, we’ll review it and the Mayor will make a decision [to sign the legislation into law or veto it.]”

Mayfield seem to signal Mayor Keller will sign O-61 into law when he said this:

“Neighborhood voices need to be heard, but one person shouldn’t be able to stand in the way of something that’s good for the whole neighborhood or our city.”

LEWIS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN PAST GUTTING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RIGHTS AND REMEDIES

The four legislative actions sponsored by MAGA Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis are not the first time that Dan Lewis and the City Council have gutted the rights and remedies of neighborhood associations and coalitions when it comes to appealing zoning changes and development projects.

In 2025, the City of Albuquerque lost a lawsuit in District Court that the Westside Coalition Of Neighborhood Associations filed against it when Dan Lewis acted improperly on behalf of developers to gut scenic protection rules near Petroglyph National Monument. His behavior was specifically cited in the Opinion and Order in that case (No. D-202-CV-2023-03961). The City appealed and lost again in the Court of Appeals. (See related guest column by Mike Voorhees regarding the law suite and Dan Lewis and the ordinances he sponsored in the postscript.)

It was on January 23, 2025 that Council Bill No. O-24-69, sponsored by Councilor Dan Lewis, was enacted by the city council on a 7 YES to 2 NO vote. O-24-69 blatantly limits the standing of Neighborhood Associations to appeal zoning changes and development projects approved by the city. Specifically, Council Bill No. O-24-69 as enacted limits the standing of Neighborhood Associations and provides as follows:

It excludes an individual’s use of public lands as a basis for standing to appeal.
It eliminates the failure to notify Neighborhood Associations as a basis for appeal or remand.
It requires Neighborhood Associations to pay attorney fees and costs to developers when their appeals of approvals are denied, but developers have no liability to pay attorney fees of Neighborhood Associations when developers appeal a denial, regardless of the decision. If the appellant Neighborhood association loses their appeal, they are responsible for paying up to $1,000 for reasonable costs.
It allows amendments by the request of a developer or other unknown party to bypass the EPC or LUPZ and go straight to the City Council.
It adds the burdensome requirement for a Neighborhood Association to file a petition in order to have standing in any appeal.
It allows a City Councilor to NOT be recused even when that councilor sponsors an amendment

The link to review the enacted O-24-69 is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/clerk/documents/o-2025-004.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND VINDICTIVE DAN LEWIS

It is clear that the four proposed city council actions sponsored by Dan Lewis are politically motivated. Lewis has an extensive history of tangling and disagreeing with the West Side Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (WSCONA) who have often objected to many of his efforts on the city council and development projects that may affect their homes and neighborhoods.

City Councilor Dan Lewis is one of the longest serving City Councilors having been elected to three 4 year terms. During the last five years Dan Lewis has exhibited a pattern of downright hostility towards his own constituents who oppose or who disagree with his votes on policy and legislation. Lewis has a reputation during city council meetings of berating, insulting or ignoring members of the public who disagree with him. Lewis is known to be constantly on his phone or texting during city council public comments. Lewis is known to go out of his way to offend citizens by leaving meetings very early on not to return.

Based on his conduct and his hostility towards his own constituents, Dan Lewis has overstayed his welcome. Lewis is more interested in promoting his own personal agenda over the interests of his own constituents and carrying out a vendetta against neighborhood associations and coalitions to benefit developers.

NEIGHBORHOOD COALITIONS

Simply put, when a new apartment complex, business or other commercial development is proposed in neighborhoods that will have a dramatic, detrimental impact on the neighborhood, especially historical or established neighborhoods, individual property owners often look to neighborhood coalitions to help appeal or challenge the projects because the individuals do not have the financial resources of their own to oppose developers. Rather than strengthen and empowering neighborhood associations as Dan Lewis claims, the passage of O-26-61 eviscerates 13 neighborhood associations across the west side and the north valley.

The Office of Neighborhood Coordination (ONC) lists 155 currently “unrecognized” entities including neighborhood associations, business/community groups, and Home Owner Associations (HOA’s.) The “notification requirements” listed in the Integrated Development Ordinance, which is all the city’s zoning laws, would have provided notification through neighborhood coalition points of contact, but that no no longer will happen because of passage of Ordinance O-26-61.

The Dan Lewis “Better Neighborhoods Package” of bills are misleading and a false claim of transparency, accountability, and clearer standards. Surprisingly, many affordable housing advocates, such as Strong Towns, have sold out and are convinced that the“Better Neighborhoods Package” of bills will create affordable housing, which it will not.

The very real consequences of passage of O-26-61 are clear and are as follows:

Loss of recognition equals the loss of notification to those individuals and neighborhoods that are likely to be harmed by the development.
Thirteen neighborhood associations may either lose recognition or have to kick out their county neighbors as members.
It makes sure contact information is publicly available to neighborhood association volunteers who can disseminate information on developments. Currently, contact information is publicly available only by request to developers from the Office of Neighborhood Coordination and only after the neighborhood association has submitted the correct Public Notice form.
It removes the requirement for developers to act in good faith and to cooperate with the very neighborhoods they chose to develop.

The two memorials sponsored by Lewis and enacted by the city council do not officially end Albuquerque’s “Home Rule” authority, but they do alter the “quasi legal” review process for appeals. By inviting the State legislature to alter zoning appeals, the City is clearing the way for fast-tracked developments. It makes it much harder, and far more expensive, for regular people to have a voice in how their neighborhoods develops.

Passage of the “Better Neighborhoods” package within two weeks of its introduction and without hearings by the City Council Land Use, Planning and Zoning Committee was and underhanded as it gets by Dan Lewis. It continues with the City Council’s now common practice of amending the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) without review and without allowing more extensive public input. Passage of the “Better Neighborhoods” package is in reality an effort to deconstruct guardrails and protections, and marginalize the voices of neighborhoods and city residents. Ultimately, the “Better Neighborhoods” package is the culminations of vindictiveness against neighborhood associations by by City Councilor Dan Lewis.

The “Better Neighborhoods” package sponsored by MAGA Republican Dan Lewis is a false and misleading attempt to cut red tape and spur development and encourage upzoning to increase density. Taken together, the measures will have a major impact eliminating the rights of neighborhood coalitions to challenge developments. The legislation is nothing more than a continuation of a complete frontal assault of rights and remedies of not only neighborhood association coalitions and businesses but of neighborhood associations themselves and private citizens. The City Council’s objective is to stifle and prevent opposition to developments that have a negative impact on residential neighborhoods and giving developers unchecked influence and authority.

PLAN OF ACTION OPTIONS

There are three options voters, and the public, have to reverse the disasterous enactment of the “Better Neighborhoods” package:

First, contact Mayor Tim Keller and ask him to veto Ordinance O-26-61. Strong Downs and the development community are already engaging in an extensive lobbying effort contacting the Mayors Office and encouraging Mayor Keller to sign the legislation into law.

Second, in the event Mayor Keller does not veto the legislation and signs it into law, city voters and residents need to contact city councilors. They have two options:

City residents should demand that City Councilor Republicans Dan Lewis, Dan Champine, Renee Grout and Progressive Democrats Stephanie Telles and Tammy Fiebelkorn, who voted for passage, move to reconsider passage of the legislation or introduce a Resolution or Ordinance repealing it .
City residents should ask City Council President Klarissa Peña, Progressive Democrats Jaquin Baca and Nichole Rogers and Republican Brook Bassan who voted NO to introduce a Resolution or Ordinance .

CONTACT INFORMATION

MAYOR TIM KELLER Contact Information

Department: Office of the Mayor

Phone: 505-768-3000
Fax: 505-768-3019

Physical Address: 1 Civic Plaza, 11th Floor, Albuquerque NM 87102

Mailing Address:

Office of the Mayor

PO Box 1293

Albuquerque NM 87103

EMAIL: tkeller@cabq.gov, MayorKellerIQ@cabq.gov, MayorTimKellerPress@cabq.gov

CITY COUNCIL CONTACT INFORMATION

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

CITY COUNCILOR AND SUPPORT STAFF EMAILS

stelles@cabq.gov

stephenchavez@cabq.gov

joaquinbaca@cabq.gov

bacajoaquin9@gmail.com

ipadilla@cabq.gov (Director of Council Services)

mmmontoya@cabq.gov (Council Clerk)

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/city-council-removes-formal-recognition-standing-from-neighborhood-coalitions/3136165

https://abq.news/2026/10/lewis-better-neighborhoods-bills-meeting-recap/

_______________________

POSTSCRIPT

The link to a related article is here:

Patricia D. Willson Guest Column: City Councilor Dan Lewis Legislation Will Not Build Better Neighborhoods; Link To “THE PAPER” News Article “Councilor Dan Lewis Wants More Say For Neighborhood Associations, Less For Coalitions; Dinelli Analysis And Commentary: Dan Lewis Wants To Eviscerate Or Disembowel Neighborhood Coalitions With Help From Legislature; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote NO On Ordinances (O-26-60 and O-26-61) and two Memorials (M-26-1 and M-26-2)

Steven Holman Guest Column “Councilor Dan Lewis Seeks To Eviscerate Neighborhood Coalitions In Retaliation For A History Of Litigation To Preserve Indigenous Sites And Historic Communities; Dinelli Commentary and Analysis: Dan Lewis Seeks Help From Legislature To Destroy Influence Of Neighborhood Coalitions; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote NO On Ordinances (O-26-60 and O-26-61) and Two Memorials (M-26-1 and M-26-2)”

Mike Voorhees Guest Opinion Column: “ABQ City Councilor Dan Lewis Sponsors Sinister Legislation to Gut Your Rights and Silence Neighborhoods To Favor Developers; Lewis Violates Both Court Order and Settlement Agreement”; Lewis Needs To Go; Tell City Council To Vote NO On Lewis Council Bill No. O-24-69

KOB 4 Releases Poll in Governor’s Race: Haaland 47%, Hull 41%; Identical 6% Spread To Journal Poll: 49% Haaland, 43% Hull; Commentary: Trajectory Of A Haaland Win Over Hull Remains The Same; Early Voting Started October 6 With Election On November 3; Please Vote!

Posted on October 6, 2026 by Pete Dinelli

On October 5, one month before the November 3 general election, KOB-4 released the results of a scientific poll taken of 800 registered and likely voters in the ’26 New Mexico Governor’s race between Democrat Deb Haaland and Republican Greg Hull. The Poll was conducted exclusively for KOB-4 by Survey USA. The poll was taken from September 25 to September 30.

POLL RESULTS

The poll reveals that Democrat Deb Haaland leads Republican Gregg Hull 47% to 41% in the race for Governor with 12% of likely voters undecided.

Deb Haaland, the former Secretary of the Interior under President Joe Biden and a former US Representative for New Mexico’s 1st congressional district, leads with 69% among both Liberals and Democrats. Republican Gregg Hull, the former Rio Rancho Mayor leads by 69% among Conservatives and by 75% among Republicans.

Moderates stated they will vote for Deb Haaland by a 20% margin and Independents stated they will vote for Deb Halland by a 10% margin.

Deb Haaland has a 21% advantage among women, while Gregg Hull leads by 8% among men which represents a 29% gender gap.

Deb Haaland leads by 13% among voters under age 50, but has just a mere 1% edge over Greg Hull among those age 50+.

White voters back Greg Hull by a 3% margin. Latino voters back Deb Haaland by 15%. “Other” race categories back Haaland by 18%.

Regionally, Deb Haaland leads Gregg Hull by 17% in Bernalillo County and by 16% in Doña Ana County. Greg Hull leads Deb Haaland by 3% in the remainder regions of the state.

On the issues, Hull leads Haaland with 53% among the 13% of likely voters who say crime is the issue which will most influence their vote this year, and with 35% among the 15% most-focused on immigration and border security.

On the issues, Deb Haaland leads Gregg Hull by 50% among the 12% who say national politics is most important, by 34% among the one-third of voters who say inflation is most important, by 26% among the 5% who say it’s the job market, and by 6% among the 6% listing abortion and reproductive rights is their top issue.

FAVORABILITY RATINGS

KOB 4 and the Survey USA poll also looked at the “favorability ratings” of the two candidates. SurveyUSA asked 673 registered voters whether they viewed each candidate favorably or unfavorably.

The poll revealed 31% viewed Deb Haaland favorably while 35% view her unfavorably. Another 19% said they are neutral and 16% said they are unfamiliar with her. Among independent voters, 21% view Haaland favorably and 32% view her unfavorably.

The poll revealed 29% viewed Gregg Hull favorably and 21% said unfavorable. Another 24% said they were neutral and 27% said they are not familiar with Greg Hull.

SURVEY USA POLL METHODOLOGY

SurveyUSA interviewed 800 adults during the time period from September 25 to September 30, 2026. Of those polled, 673 were identified as being registered to vote. Of the registered voters, 567 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote in the November election. The poll was conducted using blended sample with a mixed mode. 45% of likely voters were interviewed on their smartphone, tablet or other electronic device using non-probability sample of internet panel members. 55% were interviewed using probability-based telephone sample of adults with 30% interviewed on their landline telephones in the recorded voice of a professional announcer. 25% were interviewed using a live operator hand-texted respondents on their mobile phones, secured their cooperation, and linked them to an online version of the survey. The combined pool of survey respondents was weighted to targets for gender, age, race, education, and home ownership.

The links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/kob-poll-finds-haaland-leading-hull-by-6-points-in-head-to-head-race/

https://results.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6e6ded19-6ad8-4379-8fa9-6a15dfa99052

RECALLING ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL POLL

On Sunday, August 30, the Albuquerque Journal Published its poll in the 2026 race for Governor. The Journal poll found 49% of likely voters surveyed said they plan to vote for Democrat Deb Haaland, who is seeking to become the first Native American woman elected governor in the nation’s history. Meanwhile, 43% of voters said they plan to vote for Republican Gregg Hull, the former Rio Rancho mayor who would be the first Republican to win a statewide race in New Mexico since 2016. The remaining 8% of voters surveyed said they had not yet decided on who they would support in the November general election. The overall 6-point margin separating Deb Haaland and Greg Hull in the Journal Poll mirrors the final margin of New Mexico’s 2022 gubernatorial race between Democrat Incumbent Governor Lujan Grisham and Republican Mark Ronchetti.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/journal-poll-haaland-leads-hull-by-closer-than-expected-margin-in-new-mexicos-race-for-governor/3111874

PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS RECALLED

On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the New Mexico primary election took place. It was the first semi-open primary in New Mexico history where independent voters could choose either the Democratic or Republican primary to vote in without having to register with that party. Overall voter turn out was the largest primary turnout in the last twelve years helped by the inclusion of independent voters who for the first time were allowed to vote in major party primaries. Independents voted Democratic with 28,000 and voted Republican with 10,000.

New Mexico history was made in the Democratic Primary for Governor when former Biden Cabinet Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland became the first Native American woman to be nominated for Governor of New Mexico. Deb Haaland garnered 72.3% (156,861 votes) of the votes to Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman’s 27.7% (60,189) cast around New Mexico. Haaland won every single county in the state by varying percentages. In Santa Fe County she won with 80% of the Democratic vote. In Bernalillo County Haaland won with 69%. In Dona Ana County, she won with 79%. In conservative Chavez County, thought to lean moderate Bregman, she won with 73%.

On the Republican side for Governor, former three-term mayor of Rio Rancho Greg Hull prevailed to win the Republican nomination claiming victory over business owner Doug Turner and cannabis entrepreneur Duke Rodriguez in a three-way race for the GOP nomination. Gregg Hull secured 47% of the vote (56,412), Doug W. Turner secured 36.9% of the vote (44,319) and Duke Rodriguez secured 16.1% of the vote (19,288).

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The Channel 4 poll and the Albuquerque Journal Poll showing that Deb Haaland is leading Greg Hull by 6% in both polls but falling short of the 50% plus one margin to win reflects that the race for Governor is not over but that the trajectory of the race remains the same with Deb Haaland expected to win on November 3. The 6% Haaland lead in both polls is identical to the margin Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan defeated Republican Mark Ronchetti in her bid for a second four year term. In 2022, Governor Lujan Grisham did not garner 50% in polling until late in October, 2022.

Of major concern in the Channel 4 poll for Democrat Deb Haaland is that she has unfavorable rating of 35% compared to a 31% favorable,19% neutral and 16% unfamiliar. By comparison Republican Gregg Hull is the lesser known candidate and Hull’s favorability was at 29%, 21% unfavorable, 24% neutral and 27%.

Thus far, Gregg Hull has refused to go negative on Haaland. With less than a month before the election, that may change. Going negative can only happen if Hull is capable of raising enough campaign donations. According to the most recent campaign finance reports, Haaland has upwards of $3.5 million left to Hull’s $600,000 to spend in the last month of the campaign

Haaland remains the clear front runner in the Governor’s race. Republican Hull is facing an uphill battle in a Democratic leaning state. Democrat Deb Haaland is still well-positioned to win the November election even though the election may be closer than expected. Haaland is the former U.S. Interior secretary under President Joe Biden and a former congresswoman. Simply put, Haaland is a national figure with respect to her fundraising ability and the historical nature of her candidacy and the possibility of being the first native American who would be elected a governor.

Haaland also has tremendous support among women, highly educated voters and Independent voters and all taken together they will likely decide the election. Then there is the matter of the national political mood that clearly favors Democrats thanks in large part to President Trump’s disastrous presidency, the Iran war he has started and his disastrous handling of the economy.

As evidenced by Deb Haaland’s Democratic primary victory of 72.3% (156,861 votes) over Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman’s 27.7% (60,189), Democrats are highly motivated to vote for Deb Haaland and its highly unlikely the will vote for Republican Hull. President Trump’s extremely high negatives in the state will also have a major impact motivating voter turn out in a deep blue Democrat state.

In the final analysis, it will be a combination of the independent voters, the progressive voters and the female and Hispanic voters, along with an expected high Democratic voter turnout because of Trump’s negatives, that will result in Deb Haaland being elected our next Governor.

Election day is November 3. Early voting dates began October 6 and goes to October 31, 2026 (county clerk offices October 6–16; expanded locations October 17–31; hours vary by location). Please vote!

The link to a related article is here::

Deb Haaland In Her Own Words On Her Plans For New Mexico; Dinelli Endorsement Of Deb Haaland For Governor

Trump Endorses MAGA Republican Greg Cunningham For Congress To Represent “New America”; Gabe Vasquez Denounces Cunningham’s Extreme Agenda; COMMENTARY: Trump’s Endorsement Of Cunningham Is Reason Alone To Vote To Reelect Gabe Vasquez To Congress; Vote To Reelect Gabe Vasquez To Represent New Mexico And Not Trump!

Posted on October 5, 2026 by Pete Dinelli

On Saturday, October 3, President Donald Trump gave 2nd Congressional District MAGA Republican candidate Greg Cunningham his “complete and total endorsement” over two term Democrat Gabe Vasquez for New Mexico’s Second Congressional District. Cunningham was handpicked by Trump to run against Vasquez. In his endorsement, Trump doubled down on renaming the state “New America” and completely mispronounced or butchered the last name “Vasquez” .

Following is a transcript of Trump’s endorsement video of Cunningham:

Hello, New America, formerly known as New Mexico.

I’m asking you to get out and vote for Greg Cunningham to be your next representative for New Mexico’s second congressional district. Here’s my complete and total endorsement. Greg is a retired United States Marine who bravely served his country in combat, respected by everybody. He then served over 20 years in the Albuquerque Police Department. He’ll always fight to keep America strong and keep New Mexico safe and free. And I do like the change, by the way, to New America, what a beautiful change that would be! Up to you, I’m not going to push it, but a lot of people are liking it a lot.

Greg is running against radical left Democrat Gabe Vasquez, who supports defunding the police, a $5 trillion tax hike, and destroying New Mexico’s oil and gas industry, which means your state taxes will soar and your school budgets will be totally destroyed.

Greg Cunningham will never ever let you down. He’s outstanding in Congress. Greg will vote for the strong borders and total American energy dominance that we’ve created, we are bigger than any country in the world in energy dominance times three. He will vote to keep your taxes low, and he’ll always protect your Second Amendment. That means he’ll protect your right to keep and bear arms.

The link to the Trump endorsement video of MAGA Republican Greg Cunningham is here:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1643109807546573

GABE VASQUES REPONDS TO TRUMP ENDORSMENT

Patricia Socarras Santiago, campaign manager for Gabe Vasquez, immediately responded to the Trump of endorsement of Greg Cunningham and said this in a statement:

“A vote for Greg is a vote for President Trump’s disastrous policies that have already made life harder for every working New Mexican. Greg wants to go to Washington to happily be a rubber stamp for Trump if it means keeping himself bankrolled. This election, New Mexicans will fight back against higher costs, less access to healthcare, and unlawful deportation raids by rejecting Greg at the ballot box.”

In a press release, the Gabe Vasquez campaign said this:

“Today, President Trump doubled down on his support for his obedient MAGA-extremist candidate Greg Cunningham, who has repeatedly said Trump’s agenda is his “number one priority.” Trump’s — and Cunningham’s — extreme agenda includes continuing the reckless war in Iran (which has caused gas to hit over $4 a gallon for more than six months and diesel prices to soar to over $6 a gallon), pushing 89,000 New Mexicans off their healthcare, slashing food benefits for 10,000 New Mexican children, and putting American soldiers at risk in careless wars, already senselessly costing American lives.

Greg Cunningham has consistently sided with the President over New Mexicans, including attending Trumpapalooza in Texas after the president’s absurd “New America” comments, saying Americans feeling the pain of higher prices should just “hang on,” and declaring that his “number one priority” would be pushing forward the President’s agenda.”

Greg Cunningham has shown New Mexico time and time again that his loyalty is to President Trump and his extreme agenda, NOT New Mexicans:

Trump is Greg Cunningham’s “number one priority”: Greg has stated that his “number one priority” in Congress would be carrying out President Trump’s extreme agenda — that includes the reckless $100 billion war in Iran, crippling tariffs, surging gas and diesel prices, major cuts to healthcare, and violent immigration enforcement tactics. He has reiterated that stance in interviews and campaign materials since.
Greg Cunningham supports Trump’s war in Iran: When asked about the Iran war, Greg has said that he “applaud[s] the president for doing the right thing,” confirmed he does support the war, and has said that New Mexicans just need to “hang on” and deal with higher prices.
Greg Cunningham supports Trump’s cuts to healthcare and food assistance: When asked about hardworking New Mexicans who rely on healthcare programs like Medicaid and food assistance like SNAP, Greg has called them “enslaved,” saying, “When you accept government acceptance, I mean assistance as a way of life, you’re enslaved.”
Greg Cunningham wants a complete and total ban on abortion – with no exceptions for rape or incest: Greg Cunningham signed Abortion Free New Mexico’s “Pro-Life Pledge,” committing himself to “ending all abortion” in New Mexico and defending life “from conception to natural death.”
Greg Cunningham is bankrolled by MAGA Inc. He has received $403,000 in right-wing extremist PACs and an additional $816,000 from No Going Back PAC – a Trump-directed dark money group.
Greg defends Trump’s violent immigration crackdown: When federal agents shot and killed two people during Trump’s violent immigration surge in Minnesota, Greg Cunningham blamed the victims, calling them “ideologically opposed…intent on disrupting…and that’s why happened in both cases.” Greg Cunningham has also said “immigration without assimilation is an invasion.”
Greg defends renaming New Mexico “New America.”

While 2nd Congressional District has said supporting Trump’s extreme agenda in Congress is his “number one priority,” Gabe Vasquez will always put New Mexicans first. He has consistently been ranked one of the most bipartisan members of Congress for his commitment to working across party lines to deliver commonsense solutions for New Mexicans.”

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/trump-gives-cunningham-complete-and-total-endorsement-in-new-video/74009092

https://gabeforcongress.com/2026/10/03/breaking-trump-makes-it-official-in-new-endorsement-video-a-vote-for-cunningham-is-a-vote-for-trump/

https://abq.news/2026/10/in-social-post-trump-endorses-cunningham-mispronounces-vasquezs-name-and-doubles-down-on-renaming-new-mexico/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The race for the 2nd Congressional District of New Mexico between two term Incumbent Democrat Gabe Vasquez and MAGA Republican Greg Cunningham has become the nastiest election in New Mexico and one of the closest watched races in the country. The MAGA Republicans believe that two term Congressman Gabe Vasquez is vulnerable because he has won his two elections by a few hundred votes, while Trump did better in the district when he ran in 2024. At stake in the 2026 election in part is control of congress. MAGA Republicans are going all out to flip the district, so much so that Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was dispatched to New Mexico to campaign for Greg Cunningham.

MAGA Republican Greg Cunningham and Political Action Committees that support him are outspending Democrat Gabe Vasquez by a 3 to 1 margin. The negative ads against Vasquez have been vicious, negative and unrelenting. Many of the political ads against Vasquez contain at best very misleading and at worst very false statements when it comes to support by law enforcement, holding police accountable and “defunding the police”. The political action committee ads assailing Vasquez support of immigration reforms and pathways to citizenship by undocumented residents are the most negative, misleading or false ads. Those ads falsely state Vasquez wants to give convicted rapists and child molesters citizenship when the truth is convicted felons are disqualified from becoming US citizens.

Democrat Gabe Vasquez for his part in his politcal ads has highlighted just how extreme MAGA Republican Greg Cunningham is and how he will be a rubber stamp supporting all that is Donald Trump. It is now crystal clear with Trump’s endorsement, that Cunningham is indeed indebted and tied to the hip with Trump and the MAGA political ideology.

Nationally, Republican candidates for Senate and Congress are no fools and are distancing themselves from Trump because they know just how toxic he is to the point that Republicans may well lose control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but not Greg Cunningham who says Trump’s agenda is his number one priority. The Trump endorsement has backfired big time on social media as Trump turned off New Mexico voters and confirms that Cunningham is in Trumps back pocket.

The Trump endorsement of Greg Cunningham should be viewed as a reason to vote for Gabe Vasquez. Vote to reelect Gabe Vasquez to Congress to represent NEW MEXICO’s Second Congressional District and not Trump!

Mike Voorhees Guest Column: Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis Sponsors Punitive City Council Ordinances As Retaliation Against Neighborhood Coalitions And To Benefit Developers; Dinelli Commentary and Analysis: Dan Lewis Seeks Help From Legislature To Eviscerate Influence Of Neighborhood Coalitions; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote NO On October 5 On Ordinances (O-26-60 and O-26-61) and Two Memorials (M-26-1 and M-26-2)”

Posted on October 4, 2026 by Pete Dinelli

INTRODUCTION

The Office of Neighborhood Coordination (ONC) was established in 1985. The City of Albuquerque identifies and recognizes 144 neighborhood associations that are registered with the city and 94 have web sites. Neighborhood Associations serve as a liaison between residents, city government and businesses facilitating community engagement, support and cooperation and communication. The Albuquerque Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance (NARO) establishes a framework for recognizing neighborhood associations within the city. NARO facilitates the recognition of neighborhood associations, registration and charters and requires them to receive notifications about city actions and developments that may impact their areas and neighborhoods. The ordinance outlines specific criteria and processes for neighborhood associations to gain official recognition from the City of Albuquerque.

The link to the City Office of Neighborhood Coordination is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination

The link to view a map of recognized Neighborhood Associations is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination/documents/recognized-neighborhood-associations.pdf/view

DAN LEWIS SPONSORED CITY ORDINANCES AND MEMORIALS

On October 5^th, the Albuquerque City Council will consider and vote on four major legislative proposals sponsored by westside Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis that will have major impact eliminating the rights of neighborhood coalitions to challenge developments. Two proposals are ordinances making dramatic changes to the Neighborhood Association Recognition Ordinance (NARO) and two are memorials asking the New Mexico legislature to make changes to zoning laws as they relate to appeals of development projects.

O-26-61 would remove city recognition for neighborhood coalitions, homeowners associations and business groups, and end developer good-faith requirements. Coalitions are defined as groups of neighborhood associations that can represent areas larger than some city council districts. Under the ordinance they could still organize but without a recognized city role. O-26-60 would raise fees to appeal project approvals to $925, up from $190-$265, to cover review costs.

State law governs zoning appeals. Councilor Lewis is sponsoring two memorials asking the New Mexico Legislature to make changes to state law governs zoning appeals. M-26-01 would clarify who qualifies as an “aggrieved” person with legal standing to challenge and sue. M-26-02 would let appellants go directly to District Court.

GUEST COLUMN BY MIKE VOORHEES

Mike Voorhees, whose educational background includes degrees in geography and engineering, moved to Albuquerque in 1995 to help grow the aerospace sector. Since then, he has been involved in various community organizations and activities, including a Habitat for Humanity house build, open space trail repair, and advocacy for safety and education in hot air ballooning. In 2024, after exposing multiple improper actions of the City’s Planning Department, he was elected to the Executive Committee of the West Side Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (WSCONA) as Member at Large. Mike Voorhees currently serves as the Vice President of the West Side Coalition of Neighborhood Associations.

Mike Voorhees submitted the below guest column to be published on www.PeteDinelli.com. He was not compensated for it and his column is being published as a public service:

Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis Sponsors Punitive City Council Ordinances As Retaliation Against Neighborhood Coalitions And To Benefit Developers

While most Burqueños are welcoming the world to our rich cultural heritage and spectacular color-filled skies for the 54th Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta, at least one city councilor is using the celebration as cover for his rushed attempt to push through four horrendous bills that will trample upon our Constitutional rights while rapidly changing Albuquerque into a generic collection of fast food chains, overpriced high-rent apartments, carwashes, and multistory self-storage monstrosities.

Councilor Dan Lewis, who is also the Executive Director of the Asphalt and Pavement Association of New Mexico (APANM) is sponsoring City Council bills that expressly discriminate against Neighborhood Coalitions. What are Neighborhood Coalitions you ask? They are simply the people from different neighborhoods who have banded together to share information, help their neighbors stay informed about what is going on, and when necessary, hold the City accountable to following the law. Neighborhood Coalitions have repeatedly stood up for sustainable communities, open space, parks, and well designed commercial projects that enhance the quality of our lives. When the City has allowed unscrupulous developers to violate its own ordinances, we have taken them to court and won…repeatedly.

Councilor Lewis complains that our actions are “frivolous”, but the courts have ruled in our favor that City has violated its own rules and ordinances, state laws, and the Constitution. The courts have stated that Councilor Lewis specifically acted with biased prejudgment when serving in a quasi-judicial roll, and have barred him from repeating that. The State Ethics Commission forced Councilor Lewis into a Settlement Agreement requiring “Mandatory Recusal from all matters involving APANM and its Members.” And yet the four ordinances he is sponsoring are designed to favor developers, APANM, and its members, while discriminating against any who dare oppose one of their projects. Very few commercial development projects are built without some amount of asphalt pavement.

Former politicians can usually recall which vote of theirs was a career-ending mistake. I suspect supporting any of Dan’s four bills will haunt those future former politicians for the remainder of their lives. Why are these so egregious?

Let me explain. The Constitution forbids Bills of Attainder: Article 1, Section 10 “No State shall…pass any Bill of Attainder”. Being prohibited from the start, many Americans have forgotten what a Bill of Attainder is. Simply put, it is any targeted, punitive law against a group or individual (such as Neighborhood Coalitions) without due process, and based upon the past actions of such a group (like the repeated success of Neighborhood Coalitions exercising their Constitutional Rights in the courts). The Constitution also protects Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment and Equal Protection in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that Viewpoint Discrimination is an “egregious form of content discrimination” and is not permitted under the First Amendment.

Dan Lewis’ legislation would charge anyone with a viewpoint opposing a development $1000 to appeal, but those favoring a development (the developer) would only pay $300. This treats different groups unequally and thus also violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The First Amendment also bans any law abridging the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Lewis’ memorials are designed to do just that if the State Legislature followed his request. So any councilor voting for this would, by definition, be violating their oath to the Constitution.

Lewis’ narrative is that if only pesky neighborhood advocates would get out of the way of letting developers build whatever they want, wherever they want it, we would live in an affordable paradise. He would have us silenced so that developers could build AI data centers next door, using all the water, and consuming ever more and more electricity, and no one would have standing to stop it.

Sadly, in each city that has been gullible enough to listen to this private equity propaganda campaign, they have found the opposite to be true. Those cities became dramatically less affordable, their local businesses are closing at an accelerating rate, homeless is going up, and quality of life is declining.

Surprise legislation with only two weeks public notice is almost never legitimate. This certainly isn’t. Let’s hope Albuquerque’s other City Councilors are less gullible than I fear.

Respectfully,

Mike Voorhees

DINELLI ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

It is clear that the four proposed city council actions sponsored by Dan Lewis are politically motivated. Lewis has an extensive history of tangling and disagreeing with the West Side Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (WSCONA) who have often objected to many of his efforts on the city council and development projects that may affect their homes and neighborhoods.

City Councilor Dan Lewis is one of the longest serving City Councilors having been elected to three 4 year terms. During the last five years Dan Lewis has exhibited a pattern of downright hostility towards his own constituents who oppose or who disagree with his votes on policy and legislation. Lewis has a reputation during city council meetings of berating, insulting or ignoring members of the public who disagree with him. Lewis is known to be on his phone or texting during city council public comments. Lewis is known to go out of his way to offend citizens by leaving meetings very early on not to return.

Since being elected in 2021 to a third four year term, and after he ran for Mayor in 2017 and lost to Tim Keller in a landslide runoff 62.20% to 37.8% of the vote and returning to the City Council, Lewis has engaged in obstruction tactics to carry out a very personal vendetta against Mayor Tim Keller. His tactics include demanding additional confirmation hearings on already council approved Keller Department Director appointments, such as the City Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer, so he could disparage their job performance and insult them during public hearings he presided over with the full intent not to vote for their confirmation. In 2021, immediately upon being sworn in, Lewis introduced legislation to repeal pandemic era legislation he disagreed with and that was enacted after he left the council in 2017, with all 4 of his efforts to repeal failing to his chagrin.

Based on his conduct and his hostility towards his own constituents, Dan Lewis has overstayed his welcome. Lewis is more interested in promoting his own personal agenda over the interests of his own constituents and carrying out a vendetta against neighborhood associations and coalitions to benefit developers.

LEWIS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN PAST GUTTING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RIGHTS AND REMEDIES

The four legislative actions sponsored by City Councilor Dan Lewis are not the first time that Lewis has attempted to gut the rights and remedies of neighborhood associations and coalitions when it comes to appealing zoning changes and development projects.

It was on January 23, 2025 that Council Bill No. O-24-69, sponsored by Councilor Dan Lewis, was enacted by the city council on a 7 YES to 2 NO vote. It blatantly limits the standing of Neighborhood Associations to appeal zoning changes and development projects approved by the city. Specifically, Council Bill No. O-24-69 as enacted Limit the standing of Neighborhood Associations and provides as follows:

It excludes an individual’s use of public lands as a basis for standing to appeal.
It eliminates the failure to notify Neighborhood Associations as a basis for appeal or remand.
It requires Neighborhood Associations to pay attorney fees and costs to developers when their appeals of approvals are denied, but developers have no liability to pay attorney fees of Neighborhood Associations when developers appeal a denial, regardless of the decision. If the appellant Neighborhood association loses their appeal, they are responsible for paying up to $1,000 for reasonable costs.
It allows amendments by the request of a developer or other unknown party to bypass the EPC or LUPZ and go straight to the City Council;
It adds the burdensome requirement for a Neighborhood Association to file a petition in order to have standing in any appeal;
It allows a City Councilor to NOT be recused even when that councilor sponsors an amendment

The link to review the enacted O-24-69 is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/clerk/documents/o-2025-004.pdf

FINAL COMMENTARY

One major consequence of the Dan Lewis legislation, both on the city and state levels, would be that neighborhood coalitions would not have the standing to object to major developments in Albuquerque, such as the data center akin to Project Jupiter in Las Cruces, that would have a negative impact on the entire city.

The most glaring problem with the introduction of all four measures sponsored by Lewis is the fact that they were not referred to the City Council Land, Use and Planning Committee for a hearing and recommendations. Instead the full City Council will be voting on all four measures on October 5. It is clear that Lewis and perhaps the entire city council is once again taking steps to oppose neighborhood associations and coalitions.

Taken together, the four city council actions are nothing more than a continuation of Dan Lewis vicious attempt to eviscerate or disembowel neighborhood coalitions and neighborhood associations and their influence to speed up development and silencing their influence with help from the New Mexico legislature.

CONTACT CITY COUNCILORS

On Monday, October 5, the City Council meeting will be held in the Vincent E. Griego Council Chambers, basement level of the City of Albuquerque Government Center, 1 Civic Plaza NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. The meeting is open to the public. The meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m., and to speak during the meeting on the resolution during public comments, you must sign up beginning at 4:30 p.m. You can sign up for Public Comments for the October 5 City Council meeting here:

https://www.cabq.gov/council/find-your-councilor/public-comments

Voters and residents are urged to attend the meeting or contact and voice their opinion and tell all city councilors or their city council service assistants to VOTE NO on O-26-60, O-26-61, M-26-1 and M-26-2.

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

CITY COUNCILOR AND SUPPORT STAFF EMAILS

stelles@cabq.gov

stephenchavez@cabq.gov

joaquinbaca@cabq.gov

bacajoaquin9@gmail.com

ipadilla@cabq.gov (Director of Council Services)

mmmontoya@cabq.gov (Council Clerk)

__________________

POSTSCRIPT

The link to a related article is here:

Patricia D. Willson Guest Column: City Councilor Dan Lewis Legislation Will Not Build Better Neighborhoods; Link To “THE PAPER” News Article “Councilor Dan Lewis Wants More Say For Neighborhood Associations, Less For Coalitions; Dinelli Analysis And Commentary: Dan Lewis Wants To Eviscerate Or Disembowel Neighborhood Coalitions With Help From Legislature; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote NO On Ordinances (O-26-60 and O-26-61) and two Memorials (M-26-1 and M-26-2)

Steven Holman Guest Column “Councilor Dan Lewis Seeks To Eviscerate Neighborhood Coalitions In Retaliation For A History Of Litigation To Preserve Indigenous Sites And Historic Communities; Dinelli Commentary and Analysis: Dan Lewis Seeks Help From Legislature To Destroy Influence Of Neighborhood Coalitions; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote NO On Ordinances (O-26-60 and O-26-61) and Two Memorials (M-26-1 and M-26-2)”

Mike Voorhees Guest Opinion Column: “ABQ City Councilor Dan Lewis Sponsors Sinister Legislation to Gut Your Rights and Silence Neighborhoods To Favor Developers; Lewis Violates Both Court Order and Settlement Agreement”; Lewis Needs To Go; Tell City Council To Vote NO On Lewis Council Bill No. O-24-69

Steven Holman Guest Column “Councilor Dan Lewis Seeks To Eviscerate Neighborhood Coalitions In Retaliation For A History Of Litigation To Preserve Indigenous Sites And Historic Communities; Dinelli Commentary and Analysis: Dan Lewis Seeks Help From Legislature To Destroy Influence Of Neighborhood Coalitions; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote NO On Ordinances (O-26-60 and O-26-61) and Two Memorials (M-26-1 and M-26-2)”

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Pete Dinelli

INTRODUCTION

The link to the City Office of Neighborhood Coordination is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination

The link to view a map of recognized Neighborhood Associations is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination/documents/recognized-neighborhood-associations.pdf/view

DAN LEWIS SPONSORED CITY ORDINANCES AND MEMORIALS

State law governs zoning appeals. Councilor Lewis is sponsoring two memorials asking the New Mexico Legislature to make changes to state law governing zoning appeals. M-26-01 would clarify who qualifies as an “aggrieved” person with legal standing to challenge and sue. M-26-02 would let appellants go directly to District Court.

GUEST COLUMN BY STEVEN HOLMAN

Steven Holman is a resident of City Council District 7 which is the mid heights city council district. The district includes the uptown retail business district including the Commons, Winrock and Coronado Shopping Center. The District boundaries are generally Montgomery Boulevard on the North, I-25 on the West, Lomas on the South and Eubank on the East.

Steven and his husband Jesus decided to permanently set their roots in Albuquerque in 2023 and purchased their first home in the Bel-Air neighborhood. They are both everyday working-class citizens who have overcome obstacles like poverty and homelessness to achieve their home ownership.

Steven is a strong believer in accountability in government, having been involved in progressive marches in Washington DC against the Iraq War, for Women’s reproductive rights, for Marriage Equality, and with the Occupy and BLM Movements. In writing this piece Steven and Jesus want the voices of local communities and their advocates to not be suppressed or silenced.

Steven Holman submitted the below guest column to be published on www.PeteDinelli.com. He was not compensated for it and his column is being published as a public service:

City Council To Vote On Council Lewis Sponsored Legislation That Will “Disempower” Community Coalitions And Neighborhood Associations; City Process Approving Development Projects Is The Problem Creating Litigation

BY Steve Holman

On Monday, October 5th the Albuquerque City Council is set to vote on O-26-60, O-26-61, M-26-1, and M-26-2.

These proposals will completely dismantle not only Community Coalitions but Neighborhood Associations as well by placing increased burden on their already strained and limited resources.

This legislation was introduced because of communities who have come together to fight back against harmful practices that the city rubber stamped. This is retaliation to a history of litigation by Community Coalitions and Neighborhood Associations that has protected indigenous sites and historic low income communities who have been traditionally marginalized by the city.

Have city officials ever stopped to think that the reason the city gets tied up in so much litigation is because the city is the problem?

Neighborhood Associations are largely on the decline as many are severely underfunded or on the verge of disappearing, my own included and I live in one of the largest neighborhoods. If for instance, a hate group decided to set up shop in my community, my Neighborhood Association couldn’t foot the necessary bill to do anything about it. That is why coalitions exist, to help serve communities that are incapable of fighting back.

The good of coalitions is that they can help representation of LGBTQlA, indigenous, and other marginalized groups city wide, but with this legislation they would have no power or ability to stand up to harmful decisions should they be enacted. The ACLU wouldn’t even be able to do anything on behalf of communities because they wouldn’t be recognized by the city. So when people lie and say coalitions are supposedly rooted in racism, maybe they should take several seats and realize they’re hurting marginalized communities in having a means to fight back.

This is all intended to pave the path for developers to do what they want, wherever they want it. They didn’t get what they wanted in zoning changes via Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) updates, which is all the city’s zoning laws, so instead they’ve changed tactics to dismantle the means of communities to fight back against these policies. This is once again the selling out of our communities to special interests and groups who have no care for history, culture, or preservation. Why do you think the sellouts from StrongTowns and Urbanist shills support this? They are backed by developer and city interests to build baby build.

Worst of all with the advent of data centers, this is a sure fire way to ensure there is no pushback. Remember folks, the city has said publicly that is has 60+ acres they’re willing to annex and update zoning for a data center, yet they aren’t willing or able to do the same for affordable housing. Pay attention, the hypocrisy is ripe.

The fact that this legislation hasn’t even been through the Land Use Planning and Zoning committee due to it changing parts of the IDO and is instead going straight to a general council vote, is very disturbing as well. Looks like someone is not following proper policy and procedure, because IDO changes require community notice and feedback as well as committee vote.

Remember these are public servants and if constituents have to file lawsuit over a decision an elected official has backed, then maybe that official should re-examine why they ran for office to begin with. At the end of the day, the city should be asking “Maybe I am the problem?” and begin working to rebuild community partnerships instead of further stripping away community empowerment.

RESPECTFULLY

Steven Holman

DINELLI ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

It is clear that the four proposed city council actions sponsored by Dan Lewis are politically motivated. Lewis has an extensive history of tangling and disagreeing with the West Side Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (WSCONA) who have often objected to many of his efforts on the city council and development projects that may affect their homes.

City Councilor Dan Lewis is one of the longest serving City Councilors having been elected to three 4 year terms. During the last five years Dan Lewis he has been an Albuquerque City Councilor, he has exhibited a pattern of downright hostility towards his own constituents who oppose or who disagree with his votes on policy and legislation. Lewis has a reputation during city council meetings of berating, insulting or ignoring members of the public who disagree with him. Lewis is known to text on his cell phone or be on his phone during city council public comments. Lewis is known to go out of his way to offend citizens by leaving meetings very early on not to return.

Since being elected in 2021 to a third four year term, and after he ran for Mayor in 2017 and lost to Tim Keller in a landslide runoff 62.20% to 37.8% of the vote, returning to the City Council, Lewis has engaged in obstruction tactics to carry out a very personal vendetta against Mayor Tim Keller. His tactics include demanding additional confirmation hearings on already council approved Keller Department Director appointments, such as the City Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer, so he could disparage their job performance and insult them during public hearings he presided over with the full intent not to vote for their confirmation. In 2021, immediately upon being sworn in, Lewis introduced legislation to repeal pandemic era legislation he disagreed with and that was enacted after he left the council in 2017, with all 4 of his efforts to repeal failing to his chagrin.

It is clear from his conduct and his hostility towards his own constituents, Dan Lewis has overstayed his welcome on the city council and is more interested in promoting his own personal agenda over the interests of his own constituents.

LEWIS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN PAST GUTTING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RIGHTS AND REMEDIES

It excludes an individual’s use of public lands as a basis for standing to appeal.
It eliminates the failure to notify Neighborhood Associations as a basis for appeal or remand.
It requires Neighborhood Associations to pay attorney fees and costs to developers when their appeals of approvals are denied, but developers have no liability to pay attorney fees of Neighborhood Associations when developers appeal a denial, regardless of the decision. If the appellant Neighborhood association loses their appeal, they are responsible for paying up to $1,000 for reasonable costs.
It allows amendments by the request of a developer or other unknown party to bypass the EPC or LUPZ and go straight to the City Council;
It adds the burdensome requirement for a Neighborhood Association to file a petition in order to have standing in any appeal;
It allows a City Councilor to NOT be recused even when that councilor sponsors an amendment

The link to review the enacted O-24-69 is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/clerk/documents/o-2025-004.pdf

FINAL COMMENTARY

One major consequence of the Dan Lewis legislation, both on the city and state levels, would be that neighborhood coalitions would not have the standing to object to major developments, such as Data Centers, that would have a negative impact on the entire city.

The most glaring problem with the introduction of all four measures sponsored by Lewis is the fact that they were not referred to the City Council Land, Use and Planning Committee for a hearing and recommendations, but instead the full City Council will be voting on all four measures on October 5. Its clear that Lewis and perhaps the entire city council is once again takin steps to opposition opposition of neighborhood associations and coalitions.

CONTACT CITY COUNCILORS

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

CITY COUNCILOR AND SUPPORT STAFF EMAILS

stelles@cabq.gov

stephenchavez@cabq.gov

joaquinbaca@cabq.gov

bacajoaquin9@gmail.com

ipadilla@cabq.gov (Director of Council Services)

mmmontoya@cabq.gov (Council Clerk)

____________________________

POSTSCRIPT

Links to related articles are here:

Patricia D. Willson Guest Column: City Councilor Dan Lewis Legislation Will Not Build Better Neighborhoods; Link To “THE PAPER” News Article “Councilor Dan Lewis Wants More Say For Neighborhood Associations, Less For Coalitions; Dinelli Analysis And Commentary: Dan Lewis Wants To Eviscerate Or Disembowel Neighborhood Coalitions With Help From Legislature; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote NO On Ordinances (O-26-60 and O-26-61) and two Memorials (M-26-1 and M-26-2)

Mike Voorhees Guest Opinion Column: “ABQ City Councilor Dan Lewis Sponsors Sinister Legislation to Gut Your Rights and Silence Neighborhoods To Favor Developers; Lewis Violates Both Court Order and Settlement Agreement”; Lewis Needs To Go; Tell City Council To Vote NO On Lewis Council Bill No. O-24-69

Patricia D. Willson Guest Column: City Councilor Dan Lewis Legislation Will Not Build Better Neighborhoods; Link To “THE PAPER” News Article “Councilor Dan Lewis Wants More Say For Neighborhood Associations, Less For Coalitions; Dinelli Analysis And Commentary: Dan Lewis Wants To Eviscerate Or Disembowel Neighborhood Coalitions With Help From Legislature; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote NO On Ordinances (O-26-60 and O-26-61) and two Memorials (M-26-1 and M-26-2)

Posted on September 30, 2026 by Pete Dinelli

INTRODUCTION

The link to the City Office of Neighborhood Coordination is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination

The link to view a map of recognized Neighborhood Associations is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination/documents/recognized-neighborhood-associations.pdf/view

DAN LEWIS SPONSORED CITY ORDINANCES AND MEMORIALS

O-26-61 would remove city recognition for neighborhood coalitions, homeowners associations and business groups, and end developer good-faith requirements. Coalitions are defined as groups of neighborhood associations that can represent areas larger than some city council districts. Under the ordinance they could still organize but without a recognized city role. O-26-60 would raise fees to appeal an approved project to $925, up from $190-$265, to cover review costs.

State law governs zoning appeals. Councilor Lewis is sponsoring two memorials asking the New Mexico Legislature to make changes to state law governs zoning appeals. M-26-01 would clarify who qualifies as an “aggrieved” person with legal standing to challenge and sue. M-26-02 would let appellants go directly to District Court.

PATRICIA D. WILLSON GUEST COLUMN

Patricia D. Willson has lived in New Mexico since 1969 and has been a licensed Architect in the state since 1987. As a resident of District 6 for over fifty years, she has served on her neighborhood association board, District 6 Coalition and Inter-Coalition Council (ICC). The ICC is an unrecognized coalition of neighborhood association coalitions formed by the late Dr. Joe Valles in 2014. The ICC has a committee of dedicated volunteers who review the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) amendments every year—and keep their fingers on the pulse of zoning issues coming before Council.

On September 29, Patricia D. Willson submitted the following guest opinion column to www.PeteDinelli.com to be published as a public service announcement. Ms. Willson has not been paid any compensation to publish the guest column and has given his consent to publish on www.PeteDinelli.com.

DAN LEWIS LEGISLATION WILL NOT BUILD BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS

BY: Patricia D. Willson

On October 5^th, Council will hear a package of four legislative proposals sponsored by Councilor Lewis. These will address what the Councilor claims causes “…our neighborhoods, economy and quality of life suffer when worthwhile projects become trapped in an approval process that seems designed to produce delay rather than resolution.”

In a September 27^th article in the Albuquerque Journal, Councilor Lewis presented a simplified summary of each bill, but did not mention several egregious consequences of each piece of legislation. The following is my opinion about each major point he made.

WILLSON RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 27^TH ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL LEWIS COLUMN “A BETTER APPROVAL PROCESS CAN HELP BUILD BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS”

Dan Lewis said the following things about his sponsored legislation to be heard at Council on October 5^th.

DAN LEWIS COLUMN: “The first ordinance would remove the city-recognized authority of coalitions of neighborhood associations to appeal approved projects. Individual neighborhood associations would retain their voice and become even more empowered, placing influence back in the hands of the communities most directly affected.”

PATRICIA WILLSON RESPONSE: O-26-61 would revise the Neighborhood Association Recognition Ordinance (NARO) to “remove the city-recognized authority of coalitions of neighborhood associations to appeal approved projects.” Councilor Lewis fails to mention that by removing Coalitions from Recognition, it would also remove them from Notification. Not only would O-26-61amend the NARO with no Committee or Public review, it would amend the IDO (Integrated Development Ordinance) outside of the accepted three step process. It also would make the contact information for each NA’s two designated points of contact publicly available. Currently, that information is given out to developers by request. It also deletes § 14-8-2-9 DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITES entirely. That paragraph requires developers to act “with diligence and good faith…promote collaboration and listen with respect to neighborhood concerns.”

DAN LEWIS COLUMN: “The second ordinance would increase the fees for appealing projects that the city has already approved. Those fees would help offset the administrative cost of reconsidering decisions that have already gone through public hearings and formal review. The change would apply only to appeals of approved projects and would not significantly change the cost of appealing a denial.”

PATRICIA WILLSON RESPONSE: O-26-60 is another attempt to raise the price point for appeals by neighborhood associations and coalitions to around $1,000—an amount out of reach for volunteer groups that are not allowed to collect dues. Several previous IDO amendments (there have been over 700 since its adoption in 2018) have made pre-submittal review of applications more difficult. Sometimes an appeal of an already approved project is the only option to protect neighborhoods.

DAN LEWIS COLUMN: “The third proposal is a memorial asking the New Mexico Legislature to amend state law so that appeals of approved projects would be allowed to proceed directly to state district court instead of returning to the city for another review of a decision it has already made. This would eliminate a duplicative step while preserving the right to seek judicial review.”

PATRICIA WILLSON RESPONSE: M-26-01 asks the State Legislature to strip municipal accountability by fast-tracking appeals to the State district Court system. It would outsource localized zoning disputes to State judges who lack local neighborhood context, and create an intentionally complex, expensive barrier, forcing residents to hire attorneys instead of speaking at city administrative hearings. It also allows the zoning authority to define who is considered “aggrieved”.

DAN LEWIS COLUMN: “The fourth proposal is another memorial asking the Legislature to clarify who has legal standing to file an appeal. Someone challenging an approved project should be able to demonstrate a meaningful connection to it, such as living nearby or experiencing a direct effect from the development.”

PATRCIA WILLSON RESPONSE: M-26-02 adds language to State law narrowing the legal standards governing who has standing to appeal an approved project. Huge areas of the city have no neighborhood association and thus no notification regarding projects in the first place. Coalition coverage is crucial to notification.

There are two aspects of these bills that are harder to summarize but potentially significant. They are:

The revised NARO language will also remove recognition/notification from a subset of neighborhood associations (not only from coalitions). The three items are: removing eligibility if in existence prior to 2017, removing eligibility if overlapping boundaries with another NA and removing eligibility if the association/neighborhood boundaries include any part of unincorporated Bernalillo County.

For the west side, that effectively revokes recognition for Santa Fe Village NA, Molten Rock, Quaker Heights and probably Taylor Ranch. Vista Grande Heights NA includes both City and County parcels. There may be others because so much of the west side is a patchwork of city/county jurisdictions.

The proposed changes also require any association comment on a land use issue to be voted on by the entire association membership and the meeting/vote to be announced two weeks prior to holding the vote. So, appeals must be filed in 15 days. The President’s letter of introduction is official two weeks before a vote. The publication in the Journal of applications is 15 days before the hearing date. Even the remaining recognized NAs have zero time to craft an organization position and plan a vote.

WILLSON COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Another colleague has said that by shifting the forum from accessible local community boards to expensive state courtrooms, the “Better Neighborhoods” package ensures that the public purse pays for the litigation while private equity profits from the silence. But municipal efficiency does not require public disenfranchisement. True regulatory reform means shifting from a reactive cycle of crisis management to a proactive framework of shared design—speeding up development by front-loading neighborhood voices rather than silencing them.

REPECTFULLY YOURS,

Patricia D. Willson

THE PAPER NEWS ARTICLE

On September 29^th, the on line news agency “THE PAPER” published a news story written by staff reporter Jesse Jones. The headline reads “Councilor Dan Lewis wants more say for neighborhood associations, less for coalitions in ABQ development” The by line quote reads “Lewis proposes four measures to streamline project appeals and limit coalition standing, while community leaders argue the changes weaken neighborhood oversight.”

According to the “THE PAPER” news report, O-26-61 is the centerpiece of Dan Lewis’ efforts to limit the influence of neighborhood coalitions and associations. The Paper article reads in part:

“O-26-61 would remove city recognition for neighborhood coalitions, homeowners associations and business groups, and end developer good-faith requirements. Coalitions, [defined as] groups of neighborhood associations that can represent areas larger than some city council districts … could still organize without a recognized city role. Lewis said neighborhood associations have defined boundaries, elected leadership, meetings and voting requirements in order to represent an entire neighborhood. Coalitions, however, he calls “unaccountable” and “undemocratic,” saying they can represent areas where leaders lack a direct connection to a project and appeal projects without the same voting requirements. He said those appeals can stall housing, grocery stores and job centers. Recognized associations would retain development notices and appeal standing. O-26-60 would raise fees to appeal an approved project to $925, up from $190-$265, to cover review costs. Denied project appeal fees remain $225, and city applications remain free.”

“State law governs zoning appeals, so Lewis’ two memorials ask the New Mexico Legislature to make changes. M-26-01 would clarify who qualifies as an “aggrieved” person with legal standing. M-26-02 would let appellants go directly to District Court. “It gives them a choice; it doesn’t take away anything from them,” Lewis said. “They can still go through the whole city process if they want to… It’s just another way to help keep from the delays.” … Neighborhood coalition leaders, including the West Side Coalition of Neighborhood Associations and the District 6 Coalition, oppose the package, saying it could make it harder for residents to organize across neighborhood boundaries.”

“Patricia Willson, District 6 Coalition treasurer and Inter-Coalition Council representative, said O-26-61 would remove coalitions’ authority to appeal approved projects. She said the $925 fee could create barriers for volunteer groups and questioned dropping developer good-faith requirements. Willson said regional coalitions notify residents where active neighborhood associations are absent, adding that past coalition appeals succeeded when the city failed to follow its own Integrated Development Ordinance rules and due process.”

The link to read the full article with images and maps published by the Paper with is here:

https://abq.news/2026/09/good-neighbors/

DINELLI ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis is one of the longest serving city councilors representing the west side having served 13 years. It is clear that the four proposed city council actions sponsored by Dan Lewis are highly politically motivated. Lewis has an extensive history of tangling and disagreeing with the West Side Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (WSCONA) who have often objected to many of his efforts on the city council and development projects that may affect their homes.

Taken together, the four city council actions are nothing more than Dan Lewis attempting to eviscerate or disembowel neighborhood coalitions and neighborhood associations and their influence to speed up development and silencing their influence with help from the New Mexico legislature. One major consequence of the Dan Lewis legislation, both on the city and state levels, would be that neighborhood coalitions would not have the standing to object to major developments, such as Data Centers, that would have a negative impact on the entire city.

CONTACT CITY COUNCILORS

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

CITY COUNCILOR AND SUPPORT STAFF EMAILS

stelles@cabq.gov

stephenchavez@cabq.gov

joaquinbaca@cabq.gov

bacajoaquin9@gmail.com