On Friday, March 6, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law bill a supporter proclaimed will reduce crime and take repeat offenders off the streets and keep them behind bars. The legislation allows in part judges to impose stiffer penalties for 2 gun-related crimes. It also expands funding for community policing. The signed legislation provides for funding and requires training in de-escalation techniques for law enforcement officers who work in the public schools.

The legislation represents the consolidation of 3 bills sponsored by Republican State Representative Bill Rehm who introduced them for the 2020 thirty-day legislative session. The Governor placed the bills on the agenda making them major priorities for the 2020 session. The bills were consolidated into one bill by a legislative committee. The law goes into effect on July 1.

When the original 3 bills were introduced, State Representative Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, the sponsor of all three bills, said he “hopes” the laws will curb the high violent rates crime rates in Albuquerque. Rehm also said he believes the bills would make criminals “think twice” about getting a gun or using one during a crime.

According to Rehm at the time of introduction:

“We have violence all across the state, but in particular in Albuquerque right now. …What we’re trying to do in a bipartisan way… is push these bills to get them on through to try to address some of the violence we see. We know that being a criminal, you make bad decisions. … If you’re in possession of a firearm and you’re already making a bad decision … this is going to go ahead and say, ‘Don’t have a firearm with you.’ “

In a written statement released, the Governor had this to say about the legislation she signed into law:

“We are working both to prevent crime and to hold criminals more accountable. That is the type of smart, coordinated effort that New Mexicans demand and deserve.”

The primary sponsor of the legislation Republican State Representative Bill Rehm had this to say about it:

“We must make criminals understand we will make our communities safe. … Too many of our communities are seeing repeat offenders in their neighborhoods carrying a firearm. … We’re targeting the most violent and threatening members of our community who use a gun [with this legislation]”.

Co-sponsors of the legislation Democratic Reps. Dayan Hochman-Vigil and Marian Matthews, both of Albuquerque, had this to say:

“This legislation recognizes that crime doesn’t have just one cause or one solution by enhancing penalties for gun violence and by investing in deterrence through community policing. ”

WHAT THE LEGISLATION DOES

The house legislative crime package is the result of negotiations by Democratic and Republican lawmakers aiming to improve public safety in New Mexico, especially in Albuquerque. Albuquerque has the highest violent crime rate and homicide rate in the state. Last year, the city recorded 82 homicides, a record high.

The original 3 bills, along with a 4th, were combined in a House committee and offered as an “ anti-crime” packaged. Members of the House Judiciary Committee drafted the anti-crime legislation and consolidated four separate ideas into one bill. The legislation would increase criminal penalties, encourage community policing and make it easier for law enforcement officers to secure treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

The legislation increases penalties in two gun-related offenses:

1. Brandishing a firearm in the commission of a crime. For brandishing a firearm, sentencing enhancement goes from one year to three years. Sentencing Judges are given the discretion to suspend the enhancement time based on facts and circumstances and a defendant’s likelihood of rehabilitation.

2. Being a felon in possession of a gun. The basic sentence of one year and six months is doubled to three years.

The legislation broadens how New Mexico can use its law enforcement protection fund. Cities and counties will be allowed to apply for money from the fund to train officers in “community-oriented policing” techniques aimed at preventing crime.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1428504/package-of-anti-crime-legislation-signed-into-law.html

INCREASING CRIMINAL PENALTIES DRAWS MIXED REACTION

Not at all surprising, Paul Haidle, an attorney and senior policy strategist for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico said the passage of tougher penalties may make a statement but it won’t actually improve public safety. Kim Chavez Cook of the Law Offices of the Public Defender had this to say:

“Increasing penalties doesn’t deter crime”.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1418566/lawmakers-prepare-public-safety-package.html

CONCURRENT SENTENCING AND CONSECUTIVE SENTENCING

Under the New Mexico criminal code, concurrent sentencing and consecutive sentencing is available to sentencing judges when multiple crimes are committed by the same defendant. The postscript to this article lists the sentencing time for the various categories of crimes.

A “concurrent sentence” is a prison sentence imposed for multiple crimes that is equal to the length of the longest sentence. Concurrent sentencing can only occur when a defendant has been sentenced for two or more crimes. The purpose of a concurrent sentence is to allow a defendant to serve all sentences at the same time. A concurrent sentence is more favorable to a defendant convicted of multiple crimes for the reason that the total length of the sentence will be shorter than it would be if the sentences ran consecutively.

An example under New Mexico sentencing law of a concurrent sentence would be where the defendant commits a second degree felony of drug trafficking for manufacturing, selling or possession with intent to sell illegal drugs that carry’s up to a 9 year prison sentence and during a drug sale the defendant also commits third degree voluntary manslaughter that carry’s a 6 year sentence. Under New Mexico law, the defendant could be sentenced to 9 years in prison for the second-degree felony for the drug trafficking and the 6 years in prison for the involuntary manslaughter charge with the defendant to serve the sentences concurrently for a total of 9 years in prison.

The opposite of a concurrent sentence is a “consecutive sentence”. A consecutive sentence requires a defendant to serve two or more sentences back to back with the prison time stacked. In the above example, the defendant’s total sentence, if served consecutively, would be 15 years, 9 years for the drug charge and 6 years for the voluntary manslaughter charge.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/concurrent-sentence-in-law-definition-lesson.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Virtually every argument being made in support of the legislation increasing criminal penalties have been heard before over the years. Increased sentencing has proven ineffective in reducing violent crime nor do they deter crime. Criminals hell bent on committing any crime with a gun do not sit down with the criminal statutes to figure out what the penalties are for using a gun or the risk they are running at sentencing, if they are caught and convicted. Someone who is angry enough to shoot someone or who suffers from acute mental illness and wants to kill are not going to “think twice” about committing a crime as Representative Rehm has suggested.

Violent criminal intent cannot be rationalized in any meaning way. The most violent criminals when they kill do not think about how long their sentence may be in prison if caught, convicted and sentenced. It not likely they will even know what the sentences are for the various degrees of crime. The postscript to this blog article outlines the sentences for crimes committed.

Increased sentencing penalties and mandatory enhancement penalties will result in overcharging and a failure to screen cases properly by the District Attorney. Overcharging a case by the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office is a very common practice. Many mandatory enhancement charges will wind up becoming simply “bargaining chips” to secure a voluntary plea agreement to a lesser included offense and sentencing agreement usually at significantly reduced penalties.

MANDATE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCING AND ELIMINATE EARNED GOOD TIME DEDUCTIONS IN VIOLENT CRIME CASES

If the ultimate goal is to keep the most violent criminals behind bars for longer periods of time, the answer is not to increase penalties for the individual violent crimes. A more realistic approach would be to mandate “consecutive sentencing” of defendants convicted of multiple violent crimes to increase time in prison while still allowing the sentencing judge the discretion to suspend time to tailor the sentence to the individual defendant as the need be taking into account the likelihood of successful rehabilitation. The criminal sentences that can be imposed for felony crimes can be found in the postscript to this blog article.

Another example would be a violent defendant commits two 2nd degree felonies with 9 years exposure for each for a total of 18 years and commits two 3rd degree felonies with 6 years exposure for each for 12 years resulting in a total consecutive sentence of 30 years. A pre sentence report recommends less time of 20 years and the judge feels compassion is in order and sentences to 20 years, suspending 10 years of the consecutive sentence. Twenty years is far more than if the judge ran all the sentences concurrent which would result in a 9 year sentence.

Another option is to eliminate earned meritorious deductions or good time credits on all sentences for all violent crime. In other words, if a convicted felon is sentence to 3 years, the convicted felon must serve the full 3 years and the sentence is not reduce. The “Earned Meritorious Deductions” policy is outlined in the postscript to this blog article.

ENACTED LEGISLATION SIGNED INTO LAW

A very good thing about consolidated legislation signed into law by the Governor is that it drops the mandatory sentencing by a judge taking away a sentencing judge’s discretion to suspend the prison time. Under the signed legislation, sentencing judges would have the option of suspending the extra time and allow probation, which is how our criminal justice system should work.

Judges need to be empowered with deciding if a person can be rehabilitated in any meaningful manner and returned to society. Mandatory enhancement provisions do not allow a judge to impose any type of probation or suspension. A defendant’s criminal record, the extent of injury caused, the impact of the crime on the victim or the community, and the extent to which the defendant has addressed life circumstances, such as drug addiction, which may have contributed to the criminal behavior, become totally irrelevant with mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing by judges is not how the criminal justice system is supposed to work.

IF YOU WANT THEM TO DO MORE TIME, YOU MUST BE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT

A point too often forgotten by the tough on crime advocates is that once you imprison someone for a crime, they become wards of the state. A prisoner’s health, safety, welfare, food and lodging and medical care must be paid for by the taxpayer. It is far too easy for elected officials to say imprison someone for longer periods of time, but there must be a willingness on their part to also pay and build jails and house and feed those you want behind bars.

The philosophy of “lock em up and throw away the key” does not solve the underlying causes of crime which are poverty, drug addiction, lack of education, mental health problems and failed social intervention. It is a damn shame when people are far more willing to pay and build jails than schools rather than address the root causes of crime.

The same goes for funding our judicial system that protects and preserves our civil rights and freedoms guaranteed under our constitution that include freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, due process of law, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a jury trial.

CONCLUSION

The crime package legislation signed by the Governor is a reasonable compromise, but do not expect a dramatic effect on reducing violent crime. Although it made good press passing the legislation and signing the bill into law, the new increased penalties will have little or no impact on reducing crime.

_________________________

POSTSCRIPT

CRIMINAL SENTENCING PENALTIES

Under the New Mexico criminal code, felony crimes are categorized into five classes: capital felonies, first, second, third, and fourth-degree felonies. A capital felony is the most serious crime in New Mexico, a first-degree felony is the second most serious felony crime, and second, third and fourth-degree felonies are the least serious felonies.

Capital felonies in New Mexico are premeditated murder, felony murder which is murder committed during the commission or attempted commission of a felony, aggravated criminal sexual penetration, and depraved mind murder. Capital felonies carry the penalty of life in prison.

First degree felonies in New Mexico include murder, criminal sexual penetration of a minor and other serious sexual crimes, kidnapping, and robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. First degree felonies carry a prison sentence up to 18 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines.

Second degree felonies include robbery, shooting at or from a motor vehicle, sexual exploitation of a minor, the manufacture of child pornography, and drug trafficking including manufacturing, selling or possession with intent to sell illegl substances. Second degree felonies carry a prison sentence up to 9 years in prison and up to $10,000 in fines.

Third degree felonies can include voluntary manslaughter, aggravated battery, some sex crimes, and aggravated stalking. Third degree felonies carry a prison sentence up from 3 to 6 years in prison and up to $5,000 in fine. A third-degree felony resulting in death or a felony sexual offense against a child victim both carry six years in prison and a fine up to $5,000.

Third degree felonies can include voluntary manslaughter, aggravated battery, some sex crimes, and aggravated stalking. Third degree felonies carry a prison sentence up to three years in prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

Fourth degree felonies include involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, burglary, graffiti and property damage over $1,000, and shoplifting items with a value between $500 and $2,500. Fourth degree felonies carry a prison sentence of up to 18 months in prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/new-mexico-felony-class.htm

EARNED MERITORIOUS DEDUCTIONS (GOOD TIME)

Under New Mexico statutory law, N.M. Stat. ann.§ 33-2-34 (2015), convicted felons are subject to the “Earned Meritorious Deductions” statutory policy that reduces felony sentences on prison time to be served.

Under this policy, offenders convicted of the following “serious violent crimes” as defined by New Mexico statute will receive up to 4 days of credit for 30 days served (4/30):

• second degree murder (first degree murder is not subject to any meritorious deductions)
• voluntary manslaughter
• third degree aggravated battery
• first degree kidnapping • first and second degree criminal sexual penetration
• second and third degree criminal sexual contact of a minor
• first and second-degree robbery
• second degree aggravated arson
• shooting at a dwelling or occupied building
• shooting at or from a motor vehicle
• aggravated battery upon a peace officer
• aggravated assault upon a peace officer
• assault with intent to commit a violent felony upon a peace officer .

The following list of violent offenses are also considered to be “serious violent offenses” when the nature of the offense and the resulting harm are such that the court judges the crime to be so, and are also subject to 4 days of credit for 30 days served (4/30):

• involuntary manslaughter
• fourth degree aggravated assault
• third degree assault with intent to commit a violent felony
• third and fourth degree aggravated stalking
• second degree kidnapping
• second degree abandonment of a child
• first, second, and third degree abuse of a child
• third degree dangerous use of explosives
• third and fourth degree criminal sexual penetration
• fourth degree criminal sexual contact of a minor
• third degree robbery
• third degree homicide by vehicle or great bodily injury by vehicle
• battery upon a peace officer

(EDITORS NOTE: In the interest of full disclosure to readers, the author of this article retired in 2009 from government service with more than 27 years of vested service in the PERA pension program.)

(EDITORS NOTE: This March 9 blog article was edited to include the March 14 Albuquerque Journal Editorial followed by the link.)

As was expected, on March 2 Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law sweeping changes to New Mexico’s retirement system for police officers, firefighters and public employees known as the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). The legislation was labeled as PERA Pension Reform and was placed on the 2020 thirty-day legislative session by the Governor making it one of her major priorities for the 2020 session. The passage of the legislation was not even close with the Senate voting 25-15 and the House voting 40-28.

Over the last few years, it has been reported that PERA is in serious financial trouble because of long term liabilities of benefits to paid retirees in the future will exceed literally by the billions the funds that are available. PERA’s estimated unfunded liability, which is the gap between future retirement benefits owed and expected future assets on hand, has increased over the past four years from $4.6 billion to $6.6 billion in unfunded liability.

The PERA’s retirement system’s funded ratio, which is the plan’s assets divided by its liabilities, is now at 70%. The PERA governing board has set the goal to reach 100% funding of liabilities by the year 2043. The PERA pension system’s $6.6 billion in unfunded liabilities, or shortfall, has damaged New Mexico’s bond rating.

PERA pays pensions to more than 40,000 retirees and also has upwards of 50,000 active members who are working and paying into the retirement system. The number of people affected by the changes is multiplied at least two and three times when you add in family dependents.

The 2020 pension reform legislation is just another attempt in the last 8 years to address solvency. In 2013, the New Mexico legislature reduced retirement benefits for future workers, active employees and covered retirees. It also enacted stricter retirement eligibility guidelines for future hires. The 2013 solvency fix also increased employee contributions and taxpayer-funded contributions. At the time of the changes in 2013, the legislature proclaimed, much like what the Governor and the legislature are doing now, that they had adverted a crisis and saved PERA.

What has changed since 2013 is that the PERA governing board has set the goal to reach 100% funding of liabilities by the year 2043 declaring there is a PERA pension fund “crisis”. Currently, the PERA pension program has 70% of funded liability in current funding assets to future liability.

WHAT THE LEGISLATION DOES

Under the legislation enacted and signed into law, there will be a temporarily freeze of cost-of-living adjustments for some retirees and require public workers and government agencies to pay more into the system. The changes are intended to better position the Public Employees Retirement Association to withstand an economic downturn. The plan is now about 70% funded, with over $6 billion in unfunded liabilities.

In a statement released to the media, the Governor had this to say:

“By paying out more than it was taking in. … PERA was on a path to eventual bankruptcy. Now we’ve reversed course, and I’m confident New Mexico can keep its promises to current and future retirees.”

FIERCE OPPOSITION BY RETIREES

PERA Retirees turned out in force to object to the proposed changes to the retirement system especially dealing with their annual cost-of-living adjustments. Legislative committee hearings were packed with angry retirees who made it clear how much they rely on the “cost of living” adjustments to keep up with inflation and ever-increasing premiums for health care.

Legislative supporters of the changes said that while painful, the sweeping changes were necessary to maintain the solvency of the retirement funds and to achieve 100% funding over the next 25 years.

The pension reform legislation was a bi partisan effort sponsored by Democrat Senator George Muñoz, D-Gallup and Republican Representative Phelps Anderson, R-Roswell.

Democrat Senator George Muñoz, D-Gallup, had this to say:

“We’re watching after everyone’s future and safeguarding the state’s bond rating.”

Republican Representative Phelps Anderson

“The path to PERA solvency would never have been accomplished without this bipartisan effort.”

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED

The Pension Reform legislation is largely based on recommendations from a task force the Governor appointed last year to come up with pension reform recommendations. The Governor’s PERA Pension reform task force was essentially packed with public safety union representatives none who had any financial background in government pension planning.

Public Safety Unions are a small fraction of the states work force and retirees. PERA’s Board Chair, Jacquelin Kohlasch, along with Executive Director Wayne Propst and Chief Investment Officer Dominic Garcia were appointed Task Force members. The chairman of the task force was the Governor’s Deputy Chief of Staff, a retired fire fighter and former fire union president who lobbied for enactment of the bill. Public Safety Unions are a small fraction of the states work force. No women were appointed to the task force.

The task force final recommendations were heavily influenced by the PERA Executive Director Wayne Propst and Chief Investment Officer Dominic Garcia. Propst and Garcia at the time were in conflict with many of the duly elected PERA Board of Directors over pension investment strategy. Propst and Garcia were accused of pension fund mismanagement by Board members. Propst was also accused of impropriety by board members for giving himself and his staff huge raises without conferring with the PERA Board. Things got so bad that the New Mexico Attorney General initiated an investigation resulting in a finding of no misconduct. Notwithstanding the controversies, on November 1, 2019, by an 8-4 vote, the PERA board voted not to terminate Executive Director Wayne Propst.

The most controversial aspect of the reform bill involves the 2% cost of living (COLA) currently guaranteed to all retirees. The legislation freezes many retirees’ cost-of-living adjustments for two years that will save money. After the two year freeze, the legislation establishes a “profit-sharing” model for the annual cost-of-living adjustments that most retirees now receive. Rather than an automatic 2% increase in their pensions each year, the actual amount would fluctuate, anywhere from 0.5% to 3%, depending on investment returns.

Most state, county and municipal employees that contribute to PERA and the governments they work for will have to pay more into the PERA system, which will reduce take home pay for workers and require more government spending. The contribution increases will be phased in over several years. Government employees and employers each will be required to pay and additional 2% of a person’s salary.

Other changes will help retirees who are older than 75, disabled or receiving pensions of less than $25,000 a year, despite 25 years of service. With respect to annual cost-of-living adjustments, they would be increased by half a percentage point to 2.5% for retirees who are 75 or older.

Under the reform measures, some of the mandated contribution increases will be eliminated as the health of the pension fund improves. There are “public safety” employee exemptions where police and corrections officers and low-paid workers will not be subject to the increases in contributions.

Below is a link for news coverage:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1426696/lujan-grisham-signs-pension-changes-into-law.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

During her campaign, candidate for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham said she would oppose cuts to benefits, including any reduction in the annual inflation-related pension adjustments that retired state workers and teachers receive. According to a campaign spokesperson at the time:

“She does not believe that New Mexico needs to eliminate our defined benefit system for current or future educators and state employees and opposes any reduction in cost-of-living adjustments.”

The PERA solvency legislation the Governor signed has alienated some of her strongest supporters that could signal trouble for her in 3 years when see seeks a second term. Governor Lujan Grisham received a significant number of union endorsements and campaign donations especially from state government unions such as AFSME.

The PERA governing board has set the goal to reach 100% funding of liabilities by the year 2043 declaring there is a PERA pension fund “crisis”. The truth is, the crisis is fabricated. The PERA Pension plans are solvent for at least 23 years, if not more. The PERA pensions funds have always operated in the red, with investments ebbing and flowing to pay retirement benefits as they incur. It is the funds financial advisers who have now fabricated a crisis saying there is a need for a 100% funded program, no doubt motivated by getting their hands on more money to invest and getting increased investment fees and commissions.

The New Mexico PERA pension program has 70% of funded liability in current funding assets to future liability making it one of the strongest pension programs in the country. The two major pension funds that are currently problematic are shortfalls of 7.99% of State General pensions and 13.87% for Municipal Fire Pension programs. Contribution shortfalls of State General and Municipal Fire are up and until 2066. PERA management has failed to articulate in clear terms all the options available to insure PERA will reach a 100% funding ratio by 2043.

The fact that the Municipal Fire Pension program is 13.87% underfunded must be noted. The Chairman of the Governor’s Pension Reform Task Force is one of the Governor’s chief of staff, a retired fire fighter and former Albuquerque Firefighter Union President. Municipal Fire Fighter Pensions are far more lucrative than state worker pensions as to benefits with only 20 years needed to retire with a full pension of a high three year pay, and much less is required to be paid into the pension system.

The Governor’s PERA Pension reform task force was essentially packed with public safety union representation. Firefighters from across the state, especially from Albuquerque, appeared in full firefighters uniform and packed the legislative committee hearings in support of the pension reforms. Public Safety employees are a small fraction of the PERA contributors.

The argument made essentially was that the legislature needed to “spread the pain” around to all pension programs, and not touch any of the “public safety” pension programs and not demand more time to retire or increase employee contributions. The task force declined to promote an infusion of funding from the legislature for only those programs that are underfunded and that have not met investment return goals.

The New Mexico Legislature and the Governor rushed into pension reform in a 30 session when it should have been taken up in a 60-day session. PERA manages a $15 billion pension fund and income from fund investments that helps pay pensions owed. There was more than enough time to address the PERA pension system and the sky is not falling. It has become the mantra of some pension fund administrators, financial consultants that benefit from such schemes and ideological zealots that government pension funds should be 100% funded. These individuals are wrong. A recent report from the highly respected Brookings Institution, “The Sustainability of State and Local Government Pensions: A Public Finance Approach,” debunks this false narrative.

It is not necessary for the pension funds to achieve 100% funding and there are serious risks in attempting to achieve full pre-funding. Funds attempting to reach full pre-funding generally take more risks in their investment portfolios. Most importantly, trying to achieve full pre-funding, especially over a relatively short period, requires significant sacrifices and financial pain. This includes cuts to retirees’ COLA benefits, increases in contribution rates and significant subsidies from state government, all elements of the governor’s proposal.

Rather than reducing Cost of Living Adjustments, the legislature could have made adjustments like increasing age of retirement, change the formula to calculate retirement, make increases in contributions and infuse state funding into the pension funds, but only those that are underfunded which currently are the municipal fire fighters fund and the general worker fund. Better management of the pension funds and increasing returns on investment are always relied upon to pay for benefits, and the current PERA management investment team is not getting the job done, but thanks to Wayne Propst, he and his management team are enjoying huge pay raises.

PERA pays pensions to more than 40,000 retirees and also has upwards of 50,000 active members who are working and paying into the system. Former Governors Bill Richardson and former Republican Governor “She Who Must Not Be Named” avoided pension reform knowing the dangers and pitfalls. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on the other hand has wondered into territory that will probably have an impact on her re election bid or at least her overall popularity with some of her core supporters.

PERA retirees can expect the New Mexico legislature will once again have to make further modifications in future years to the PERA pension programs because what was approved by the legislature will not get the funds to 100% solvency. Too bad, it did not have to be this way had the Governor and the legislature shown a little more patience to address real pension reform and not rush it in a 30-day session.
___________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

Below is the March 14 Albuquerque Journal Editorial followed by the link:

Editorial: Much-lauded state pension ‘fix’ is really just a Band-Aid
BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD
Saturday, March 14th, 2020 at 12:05am

There was plenty of self congratulation when the Legislature passed and the governor signed New Mexico’s latest “fix” for the state’s chronically underfunded public employee pension system. It pumps in a one-time cash infusion of 55 million in tax dollars, freezes and limits cost-of-living adjustments for two years, moves to a profit-sharing model for COLAs – based on investment success – and bumps up contributions by both employees and government employers – aka taxpayers.

Ivey-Soto is right. This hard discussion can only be put off for so long. The taxpayers of this state, and the public employees, deserve a real “fix.”

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1431680/muchlauded-state-pension-fix-is-really-just-a-bandaid.html

On January 1, 2020 it was announced by his family that long time Albuquerque City Councilor Ken Sanchez had passed away. He was 63. He suffered a major medical episode in November of last year and was hospitalized. Under the City Charter, Mayor Tim Keller will appoint a replacement to serve out the remaining two years of his term and that person will have to stand for re election in 2021 if they want to continue to serve. The West-side City Council District encompasses most of the area west of the Rio Grande between Central and Montaño.

SOME BIG SHOES TO FILL

City Councilor Ken Sanchez represented District 1 with great distinction and he was extremely well like by his constituents. Many of his West side constituents referred to Ken Sanchez as the West side’s Mayor or “the champion for the West side.” He was a hard-working public servant without question and always worked for what was in the best interest of his constituents. The one word that is always used when talking about Ken Sanchez is “gentleman”. He had the common touch and always went out of his way to be gracious and courteous to all those he came in contact with him.

Councilor Ken Sanchez was first elected to the city council in 2005 and elected to 4 terms as a city councilor, serving for 14 years District 1, the central west side district of Albuquerque. During his time on the City Council, he served as City Council President in 2010, 2014, and 2018 and served as Committee of the Whole Chairman in 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2011 and working towards balanced and responsible budgets. Councilor Sanchez was also appointed Chair of the Finance and Government Committee in 2012. In 2012 Councilor Sanchez was unanimously elected Chair of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo Water Utility Authority. Councilor Sanchez also served the community for two terms on the Bernalillo County Commissioner from 1995-2002.

Throughout his years on the city council, Councilor Ken Sanchez was committed to improving the lives of Albuquerque’s Westside residents and the city as a whole. He worked with the residents of the city, the Albuquerque Police Department and the Albuquerque Fire and Rescue Department to address the needs of Public Safety in general. Among his many efforts, he worked with the community, the City Council, all Mayors and other elected officials, and local businesses to bring much needed economic retail development to the Westside. He worked to bring more jobs and places for people to shop near their homes on the West side.

SIXTEEN APPLICANTS WITH DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

The Keller Administration released the names of the applicants, along with their for Ken Sanchez’s Albuquerque City Council seat, but did so only after the Albuquerque Journal filed an Inspection of Public Records request to get the applicants names and their supporting documentation. See full story on applicants at below link. Mayor Tim Keller appointed committee to “vet” the applicants. Keller for his part has been interviewing applicants and no doubt is being lobbied by many.
The names of the 16 applicants are:

1. Barbara Baca, the former City Parks and Recreation Director, now retired, and . elected member of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District board. Baca is also the daughter of long time former Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Baca who was Ken Sanchez’s predecessor on the City Council.

2. Michael Gallegos, former Las Vegas, N.M., City Councilor who served for 12 years.

3. Daniel Green, a grocery store supervisor.

4. Kristopher Finfrock-Martinez who lives in Tijeras but disclosed he has lived in District 1 before and plans to move back. The city charter mandates that City Councilor must be residents of their Districts so he in all likely is disqualified. Mr. Finfrock-Martinez has said he is a “proud supporter” of Republican President Donald Trump.

5. Michael Gary Garcia, a pharmacist who has said he graduated with Sanchez from West Mesa High School.

6. Attorney Damian Lara, a 2018 Democratic primary candidate for the city’s U.S. House of Representatives seat vacated by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.

7. Angelo Lujan, who interned in the Mayor’s Office under both Mayor Berry and Mayor Keller and who now works for a nonprofit that helps people with disabilities.

8. Jaclyn Sanchez, Councilor Sanchez’s daughter and a local salon owner.

9. Victor Segura, a small-business owner who was also a city hall appointee of Mayor Martin Chavez.

10. Dan Serrano, current member of the city’s Environmental Planning Commission and founder of the ABQWest Chamber of Commerce.

11. Melonie Mathews, program director for the Gathering of Nations Ltd.

12. Andres Rivera, a University of New Mexico School of Law student.

13. Thanh-Lan T Sena, who said she wants to be the first Vietnamese-American woman to serve on the Albuquerque City Council.

14. Jeff Turcotte, a coach and activities director for St. Pius X High School.

15. Dr. Joe Valles, a dentist and former president of the West Side Coalition.

16. Pete Zollinger, longtime Democratic Party political activist who ran for congress and the Democratic nominee against former Republican United States Congressman Steve Schiff.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1428168/16-apply-to-replace-sanche-zon-city-council.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Mayor Tim Keller’s appointment for a replacement of Ken Sanchez is without a doubt one of the most critical appointments of his tenure as Mayor. The fact that there are 16 applicants for the political appointment means that the Mayor runs the risk of alienating and offending 15 of the applicants. Keller has already announced that he is seeking a second four year term as Mayor, and whoever he selects will be on the November 2021 ballot with him.

City Councilor Ken Sanchez and Mayor Tim Keller did not always get along. Councilor Sanchez was known for having an independent streak always concerned for what was in the best interests of his constituents. Ken Sanchez was considered a moderate democrat attuned to the needs of his constituents. There were many times Councilor Sanchez would vote against what a Mayor wanted, including Keller.

Mayor Tim Keller is considered a “progressive democrat” and won in 2017 with the overwhelming support of the “progressive wing” of the Democratic party commonly referred to as “the Bernie Sanders” wing of the party. City Hall sources and insiders are saying Keller is under pressure to select a strong progressive Democrat, preferably a woman, to fill the position.

Mayor Keller would be wise to select a replacement for Ken Sanchez and appoint someone, female or male, who is in the same political vein as Ken Sanchez philosophically and who fully understands the district and who is committed to continuing the work of City Councilor Ken Sanchez including his plans for the westside, even if contrary to what Mayor Tim Keller may want or feels what is in the best interest of the Westside.

City Hall has deemed that a 24-hour, 7 day a week temporarily shelter for the homeless as critical toward reducing the number of homeless in the city. The city owned shelter is projected to assist an estimated 300 homeless residents and connect them to other services intended to help secure permanent housing. The new facility would serve all populations, men, women, and families.

On February 27, the City of Albuquerque released a report and analysis announcing the top 3 preferred locations for the new 24/7 homeless shelter known as the “Gateway Center”. The 3 locations are:

1. University of New Mexico land next to the state laboratory, near Interstate 25 and Camino de Salud
2. Coronado Park at 3rd Street and Interstate 40
3. The former Lovelace hospital on Gibson

Now that the city is slowly “winnowing down” the site selection for the new 24-7 homeless shelter, a discussion of the extent and nature of the homelessness in the city and the state is order. Critics often assert that to try and end homelessness is futile and it has been problematic for decades going as far back as the Republican President Ronald Reagan. However, there are those who believe otherwise. The blog article is a discussion of the argument that the state of New Mexico, even as poor as it is, can end homelessness.

REAGAN’S SHAMEFUL LEGACY OF HOMELESSNESS IN AMERICA

In the early 1970s in California, then Governor Ronald Reagan in the interest of reducing mental-health costs, Reagan closed numerous hospitals and facilities for treating the mentally ill and, because families either couldn’t care for them or families just didn’t exist anymore, the mentally ill were relegated to the streets of cities and towns to fend for themselves. In Reagan’s view, it saved money and reduced the size of state government. The result was that mental health facilities closed and the mentally ill wound up on the streets.

“In November 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan overwhelmingly defeated Jimmy Carter, who received less than 42% of the popular vote, for president. Republicans took control of the Senate (53 to 46), the first time they had dominated either chamber since 1954. Although the House remained under Democratic control (243 to 192), their margin was actually much slimmer, because many southern “boll weevil” Democrats voted with the Republicans.

One month prior to the election, President Carter had signed the Mental Health Systems Act, which had proposed to continue the federal community mental health centers program, although with some additional state involvement. Consistent with the report of the Carter Commission, the act also included a provision for federal grants “for projects for the prevention of mental illness and the promotion of positive mental health,” an indication of how little learning had taken place among the Carter Commission members and professionals at NIMH. With President Reagan and the Republicans taking over, the Mental Health Systems Act was discarded before the ink had dried and the CMHC funds were simply block granted to the states. The CMHC program had not only died but been buried as well. An autopsy could have listed the cause of death as naiveté complicated by grandiosity.”

https://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

Ronald Reagan when elected President believed he had mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, he increased it through the escalating military budget, all the while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working class Americans, particularly the poor.

“The most dramatic cut in domestic spending during the Reagan years was for low-income housing subsidies. Reagan appointed a housing task force dominated by politically connected developers, landlords and bankers. In 1982 the task force released a report that called for “free and deregulated” markets as an alternative to government assistance – advice Reagan followed. In his first year in office Reagan halved the budget for public housing and Section 8 to about $17.5 billion. And for the next few years he sought to eliminate federal housing assistance to the poor altogether.

Tenant groups, community development corporations and community organizations fought to limit the damage done by Reagan’s cutbacks. Some important victories were won when Clinton entered office—the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and stronger enforcement of the CRA. Funding for low-income housing, legal services, job training and other programs has never been restored to pre-Reagan levels, and the widening disparities between the rich and the rest persist.”

Source of quoted: https://shelterforce.org/2004/05/01/reagans-legacy-homelessness-in-america/

See also: “The great eliminator: How Ronald Reagan made homelessness permanent”:

https://www.sfweekly.com/news/the-great-eliminator-how-ronald-reagan-made-homelessness-permanent/

POINT IN TIME SURVEY

Each year, the “Point in Time” (PIT) survey is conducted to determine how many people experience homelessness on a given night, and to learn more about their specific needs. The PIT survey is conducted on only one night to determine how many people experience homelessness and to learn more about their specific needs. The PIT count is done in communities across the country in both urban and rural areas, and counting both sheltered and unsheltered homeless people.

The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for funding and to help understand the extent of homelessness at the city, state, regional and national levels.

On January 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) report released the annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress containing the statistics for Albuquerque and New Mexico.

The link to the report is here:

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5948/2019-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us/

NATIONAL “POINT IN TIME” HOMELESS COUNT

The PIT survey found that an estimated 567,715 people nationwide, both sheltered and unsheltered, were identified as homeless which is a 2.7% increase over 2018. Overall homelessness declined in 29 states and the District of Columbia, but increased in 21 states.

Nationwide, 396,045 people experienced homelessness as individuals, meaning they did not have children with them. Individuals made up 70% of the total homeless population. Half of those who experienced homelessness as individuals were staying in sheltered locations.

NEW MEXICO “POINT IN TIME” HOMELESS COUNT

According to the PIT, New Mexico had the nation’s largest percentage increase in homelessness from 2018 to 2019 in the nation with an increase of 27%. New Mexico also had a 57.6% increase in chronic homelessness last year, also the highest in the nation. The percentage increase in Albuquerque’s homeless population alone rose by 15%. In New Mexico there were 2,464 homeless people in 2019 and of that total, 1,283 persons, or about 52%, were chronically homeless.

ALBUQUERQUE “POINT IN TIME” HOMELESS COUNT

The New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness was contracted by the City of Albuquerque to conduct the annual PIT count. The Coalition puts the number of homeless people in Albuquerque at 1,524 sheltered and unsheltered individuals. This 1,524 is 206 more than were counted in 2017 when 1,318 homeless people were counted in the city limits.

CATEGORIES OF HOMELESS

The New Mexico Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) is a federally mandated system operated by the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness in cooperation with the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority and the City of Albuquerque. The follow statistics reflect those people who sought help for their homelessness from a government funded agency participating in HMIS during calendar year 2018.

According to the New Mexico Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), homeless people have varying needs based on their age and abilities. HMIS sub-divides age into three categories based on level of support required and length of time the individuals or families remain homeless. The 3 age categories are as follow:

1. Those who exit homelessness quickly, usually within 30 days, mostly because of their own efforts

2. Those who exit homelessness needing longer term assistance, and

3. Those who remain homeless despite seeking assistance.

THE UNDER 18 AGE GROUP

According to HMIS, in calendar year 2018 “there were 2,585 people under the age of 18 who were homeless. Of this group 584 were separated from their parents or guardians. The other 2,001 people were accompanied by a parent or guardian who was also homeless. During the year 340, of these children were able to resolve their homelessness within 30 days and 607 were able to exit to permanent housing after a longer period of stay. 1,016 of these children remained in the housing or shelter at the end of the year. 622 children left a shelter or housing program but remained homeless. Of the 622 who remained homeless, we estimate that 124 of them were separated from their parents or guardians.”

(Quoting Analysis of Resources Needed to House Everyone in New Mexico Hank Hughes, New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness)

YOUTH AGES 18-24

According to HMIS, in calendar year 2018 “a total of 981 people aged 18 to 24 were homeless in 2018. 221 of them were part of a family and 100 of them were the head of their household. 760 were unaccompanied. 54 left for permanent housing in 30 days or less and 124 were able to secure permanent housing after a longer stay. 425 remained in the shelter or housing program at the end of the year. 378 left a shelter or housing program and remained homeless.”

(Quoting Analysis of Resources Needed to House Everyone in New Mexico Hank Hughes, New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness)

ADULTS AGES 25 & OVER

According to HMIS, in calendar year 2018, “9,021 people aged 25 and up were homeless in 2018. Of these, 1,126 were in families and 7,647 were unaccompanied, while for 248 no household type was reported. 503 left for permanent housing within 30 days of entry into a program and 1,163 secured permanent housing after a longer stay. 4,578 remained in a shelter or housing program at the end of 2018. 2,777 left a shelter or housing program and remained homeless and about 2305 of them were unaccompanied and 472 were part of families.

Overall a total of 897 people exited quickly with little help from the services system. A total of 1,894 were able to exit homelessness with longer term help and 3,777 people remained homeless after seeking assistance. Thus, while the current system is helping many people exit homelessness, most people experiencing homelessness are not receiving enough help or the right help.”

(Quoting Analysis of Resources Needed to House Everyone in New Mexico Hank Hughes, New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness)

INTERVENTIONS TO HELP PEOPLE EXIT FROM HOMELESSNESS

HMIS reports that there are two interventions that are considered best practices for helping people exit from homelessness: rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing.

RAPID REHOUSING

“Rapid housing is the best practice for families and individuals who can reasonably be expected to obtain employment and support themselves and their families within two years. Rapid rehousing involves providing rental assistance to help the homeless household move into an apartment, and then provide rental assistance that decreases over time as the household income increases until the assistance is no longer needed. Supportive services are provided to help the family set goals and obtain other resources they may need such as child care and medical care.”

(Quoting Analysis of Resources Needed to House Everyone in New Mexico Hank Hughes, New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness, page 3, 4) )

PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

“Permanent supportive housing is the best practice for families and individuals where the head of the household is disabled and may never be able to support the household. Permanent supportive housing involves providing rental assistance and support services for as long as they are needed. Clients of permanent supportive housing are expected to pay 30% of their income for rent, with the program paying the difference.

Intensive supportive services are offered to assist clients in obtaining health care, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, job training, and other assistance as needed. Permanent supportive housing may be provided in scattered site privately owned apartments or in site based apartments owned by the permanent supportive housing program. Clients of permanent supportive housing often move on to less costly forms of assistance such as regular public housing after they have achieved a good level of stability.”

(Quoting “Analysis of Resources Needed to House Everyone in New Mexico Hank Hughes, New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness” page 3, 4.)

SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN: STATE COULD AFFORD TO END HOMELESSNESS

In addition to operating a Rapid Housing and Permanent supportive housing program, there is a need to build new permanent supportive housing. On January 16, the Santa Fe New Mexican published a report written by reporter Olivia Harlow on an in-depth analysis on how much it would cost the State of New Mexico to house the homeless. The analysis report was compiled by the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness. Below is the article in full with a link to the Santa Fe New Mexican Report:

HEADLINE: State could afford to end homelessness
BY Olivia Harlow
Jan 16, 2020

“A new, in-depth analysis on how much it would cost the state government to house those without a home suggests eradicating homelessness across New Mexico could be feasible in the next five years.
The report, compiled by the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness, examines data from several statewide organizations and estimates it would cost the state about $212 million over five years to expand existing programs and $48 million in capital outlay for additional housing units to get more than 6,500 people off the streets and ensure others don’t end up there in the future.

THE LINK TO NEW MEXICO COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS IS HERE:

http://www.nmceh.org/pages/resources.html

The ultimate goal is to end homelessness in New Mexico — or, more accurately, “to create a system in which homelessness is rare and nonrecurring,” said the coalition’s executive director, Hank Hughes.

“It’s doable, it’s feasible and it’s important,” said Nicole Martinez, executive director of Mesilla Valley Community of Hope, a Las Cruces-based nonprofit that offers housing programs, case management and educational services.

“This isn’t a pipe dream,” she added. “Homelessness isn’t something that’s going to go away on its own. It’s going to require these types of solutions.”

A spokeswoman for Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said the governor was unavailable Thursday to comment on the coalition’s proposal but included in her proposed spending plan funding for programs that assist the homeless community.

The governor’s budget includes $4 million for a permanent, supportive housing program that would provide vouchers for “rental assistance and support services for homeless adults diagnosed with serious mental illness, functionally impaired and very low income,” Judy Gibbs Robinson said in an email.

The governor’s spending plan also includes $2.4 million for programs that address youth homelessness, Robinson said.

The coalition’s comprehensive report, Analysis of Resources Needed to House Everyone in New Mexico, suggests two approaches to address homelessness: rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing.

Rapid rehousing is a method that works best for people who eventually can obtain employment and support themselves and their families, Hughes said. Permanent supportive housing is a strategy better suited for people with disabilities who might never be able to maintain a household on their own and require lifelong financial assistance.

According to the new report, the total number of New Mexicans experiencing homelessness ranges between 15,000 and 20,000 people each year.

In 2018, more than 12,500 people in precarious living situations sought services from agencies that supply data to the New Mexico Homeless Management Information System, a project of the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness. But this number doesn’t include the thousands of people each year who receive help from privately funded agencies that don’t share data and those who do not seek help at all, Hughes said.

The coalition’s report says more than 6,500 individuals per year do not get the help they need to get off the streets. The money to provide them with housing should come from the state, Hughes said.

“The state does not really do much in terms of housing and homelessness right now,” he said, noting its current funding for programs that aid the homeless is about $2 million.

Hughes said he hopes the state will provide an additional $6 million this year to address homelessness and will arrive “at a peak period” in the report’s five-year plan in which it will provide $60 million a year.

The report proposes the state provide $30.65 million in the first full year of the plan, $61.3 million per year in the following two years, $40.9 million in the fourth year and $20.45 million in the fifth year.

Additionally, it recommends the state make a one-time investment of $48 million for construction of permanent supportive housing for 300 people “with such severe substance abuse and mental health issues that they would pretty much need constant care,” Hughes said.

The total cost for the housing project would be around $72 million, Hughes said, but he expects $25 million of the cost to come from the National Housing Trust Fund, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program and other sources.

Hughes envisions around-the-clock case management at the apartments and medical assistance.

The $260 million total over five years is “a significant increase” in the state’s investments in addressing homelessness, he said.

But he and other advocates said the cost would be partially offset by decreased spending on emergency services for people in the homeless community.

A recent study by the University of New Mexico, cited in the coalition’s analysis, followed 95 chronically homeless people in Albuquerque and concluded that after 12 months in housing, the costs for emergency rooms, medical outpatient procedures, emergency shelters and jail time for the group decreased by 31 percent — or $12,832 per person. The savings in one year was more than $1 million, the study said.

“What happens is that as people are homeless, those who fell on hard times, they start to use more and more emergency services to get their needs met,” Hughes said. “… If you house those people, there’s a net savings to the overall system.”

Martinez agreed, noting that a model known as Housing First, which focuses on immediately finding homes for those living on the streets, is critical to solving problems that stem from homelessness.

“A lot of times, people refer to housing as being health care,” she said. “… It helps improve people’s quality of life, giving them something that’s stable and secure. It’s a good starting point to helping improve their well-being and health care.”

But the report says agencies would have to double their current efforts for permanent supportive housing and triple their efforts for rapid rehousing to fully address homelessness across the state.

“It will be a challenge,” Martinez said, “but we are used to challenges. And we need to start working on them now.”

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/report-state-could-afford-to-end-homelessness/article_a6a98c26-388d-11ea-927c-f3bd9ca6d84a.html?fbclid=IwAR2P3_gMhoRQbtMc5aDbzIwoJZgEfZdPRUj67v6RYSumfgdlmh9YSSg17qU

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

President Ronald Reagan is long gone, but his dark shameful treatment of the mentally that resulted in homelessness in American is something we all continue to deal with on national and local levels. What is so damn pathetic, the Party of Reagan is now the Party of Trump, and its not likely even Reagan would fit into the Republican Party. Government, which Reagan loathed, still remains the single most viable approach to solving America’s homelessness.

The City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County and the State of New Mexico have a moral obligation to assist the homeless, especially those who suffer from chronic mental illness. More needs to be done by the city, county and state to reduce the ever-increasing numbers of homeless.

The only way to reduce the number of homeless is to reach a viable consensus and implement an aggressive plan on how to reduce the number of homeless. It will mandate the city, county and the state to work with virtually all the charitable providers, “pooling of resources” and work to get arrive at an action plan.

The report and analysis compiled by the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness provides a viable road map to achieve the ultimate goal to end homelessness in New Mexico within 5 years. What is needed is the political will and commitment by our elected officials.

______________________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

On March 6, the Albuquerque Journal publish the following editorial:

Editorial: Shelter needs city, county, providers, UNM on same page
BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD
Friday, March 6th, 2020 at 12:02am

“With thousands of people sleeping on our streets and a minimum of 14 million taxpayer dollars on the line, it is essential the leadership of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, the University of New Mexico and various service providers work together to make a 24/7 low-barrier homeless shelter a reality.

The voters have spoken; the homeless shelter needs to be built ASAP. Taxpayers have little interest in bureaucratic squabbles and big interest in helping their fellow men, women and children and cleaning up our streets.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1428145/shelter-needs-city-county-providers-unm-on-same-page.html

For a related blog article see:

We Have Moral Obligation To Help Our Homeless

The term “jumping the gun” can be loosely defined as “to start something before it is permissible, appropriate, or advisable.” The phrase alludes to starting to run in a foot race before the starting gun goes off. “Jump the gun” is said to derive from track and field races and was preceded in the USA by the phrase “beat the gun”, or pistol. It is said to be caused by an athlete being too anxious and impatient to start a competition. When it come to the site selection process for the new 24-7 homeless shelter, it sure does look like Mayor Tim Keller has jump the gun on the process and has announced his preferred location.

BACKGROUND

Since being elected Mayor, Tim Keller has made it known that building a homless shelter is one of his top priorities.

On November 5, voters approved general obligation bonds of $14 million for a city operated 24-7 homeless shelter that will house upwards of 300. The actual cost will be $30 million and the City asked the 2020 New Mexico Legislature for the additional $14 million to complete phase two of the project, but the funding request failed.

City Hall has deemed that a 24-hour, 7 day a week temporarily shelter for the homeless as critical toward reducing the number of homeless in the city. The city owned shelter is projected to assist an estimated 300 homeless residents and connect them to other services intended to help secure permanent housing. The new facility would serve all populations, men, women, and families.

The city facility would have on-site case managers that will guide residents toward addiction treatment, housing vouchers and other available resources. According city officials, the new homeless shelter will replace the existing West Side Emergency Housing Center, the former jail on the far West Side.

The goal is for the new homeless shelter to provide first responders an alternative destination for the people they encounter on so-called “down-and-out” calls. Many “down and outs” today wind up in the emergency room even when they are not seriously injured or ill. According to city officials, in a recent one-year period, only 110 of 6,952 “down and out” people were taken by first responders to the Emergency Room with life-threatening conditions.

CITY ANNOUNCES FINALISTS

On February 27, the City of Albuquerque released a report and analysis announcing the top 3 preferred locations for the new 24/7 homeless shelter known as the “Gateway Center”. The 3 locations are:

1. University of New Mexico land next to the state laboratory, near Interstate 25 and Camino de Salud
2. Coronado Park at 3rd Street and Interstate 40
3. The former Lovelace hospital on Gibson

According to a city news release, 149 potential sites were originally identified through a community feedback process. That process included an “on line” survey” for people to take. Thirty 30 sites were identified. The Keller Administration scored the 30 sites “based on ownership of the location, lot size, zoning, acquisition cost, access to transportation, and proximity to services. ”

During a presentation of the report and analysis to a joint government board meeting of officials from the City, Bernalillo County and Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) government officials and community activists, officials from the Family and Community Services Department emphasized that even though 3 sites have now been identified, all the details have yet to be worked out for any one and the final site selection is far from over. Lisa Huval,the city’s deputy director for Housing and Homelessness emphasized that there is a chance the city creates multiple smaller shelters at different locations and keeps the West Side location open for overflow purposes.

City officials have said ground breaking is targeted for the summer of 2021 with starting operations in the spring of 2022.

MAYOR KELLER PROMOTES UNM SITE

On Friday, February 28, Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference with local church leaders at the vacant strip of University of New Mexico land that the city has now listed as a possible site for its forthcoming homeless shelter. Mayor Keller announced his support for the vacant strip of University of New Mexico for building the 300 person “Gateway Project” for the homeless. Mayor Keller proclaimed the project had a 50-50% chance of being built on the site and ending up there. On March 2, the Albuquerque Journal did a front page, top of the fold story complete with a bold headline “Keller promotes proposed UNM site for shelter.”

During the Friday press conference Mayor Keller boldly proclaimed:

“Out on those hills out there, right on the other side of them, is one of our top three choices. I want to note that this is nowhere near campus. It is on UNM land, but it is very far from campus and so we want to kind of debunk that myth. … It is very different from students and the duck pond. This is not the city’s (land) and if the UNM community is not interested in sharing it then this will be off the table. … We’re working with them. We’re in discussions with them … and we’re essentially in a negotiation phase to see if we can come up with something that works for both of us. It might happen or it might not. Those are both 50% likely.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1426375/keller-promotes-proposed-unm-site-for-shelter.html

STARTING A RACE WITH A RELUCTANT FINALIST

Missing from the February 5 press conference was UNM President Garnett Stokes, the UNM Regent President Douglas M. Brown, nor any regent and no one with any authority from UNM.

The UNM land would be free and development cost would be $12.4 million. The University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center laboratory area tied for second place in the city’s on line survey receiving 15% of the vote.

UNM Health Services confirmed a few months ago in a statement released that they were talking with city officials so they can be part of the solution. Following is the statement released:

“The University of New Mexico has been in discussions with the city of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County on the best ways to address the needs of the homeless population in our community. In those discussions, the possibility of utilizing currently vacant land near the office of the medical investigator/state lab has been mentioned. Nothing has been decided and you will see from the survey that other locations are being considered. Our mission at UNM Health Sciences is to treat every New Mexican with the highest level of care possible. Being part of the solution to address the mental health, substance use disorder and housing needs of residents goes to the heart of that mission. It is not enough to just treat those who enter our emergency department, we must invest in comprehensive, compassionate care. Partnering with local governments ensures we continue to deliver more to those in need.”

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/city-survey-results-reveal-top-picks-for-new-homeless-shelter-location/5635350/?cat=500

University of New Mexico leaders have sent mixed messaged on whether UNM land should be considered for the shelter. Dr.Paul Roth, chancellor of the UNM Health Sciences Center and chief executive officer of the UNM Health System, did say previously there are several advantages to using the UNM land for the homeless shelter including proximity to health and behavioral health facilities that are a critical part of the proposed shelter.

UNM’s Campus Safety Council, which consists of the dean of students, student body president, chief of university police and others, voted overwhelmingly in January to recommend to UNM officials and regents not to allow the shelter anywhere at UNM. According to UNM’s Campus Safety Council the facility will create a dangerous situation for students, burden campus police and hurt the university’s enrollment which has been on the decline the past 3 years.

UNM President Garnett Stokes has made it clear that no decision has been made. Stokes has said that she will keeping an open mind about the proposal, and will gather input from the campus community and others before making a recommendation to the Board of Regents.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1425469/city-releases-top-3-choices-for-new-homeless-shelter.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It appears that it is likely Mayor Tim Keller got exactly what he wanted from his February 28 press conference with church leaders: a front page, bold banner headline from the Albuquerque Journal as well as TV news coverage of his choice of sites. The problem is that it is highly likely he created a problem by “jumping the gun” and interfering with city negotiations with UNM offficials.

Before Keller’s February 29 press conference, the Keller Administration said that although 3 locations have been identified, the city’s site selection is ongoing and new locations continue to emerge. Included in the process will be a fiscal analysis of each site and determining the financial limitations to complete the project. Each site under serious consideration will require a financial analysis, including land acquisition cost, before the Keller Administration makes any final recommendations to the City Council, yet Keller does a press conference.

No doubt Mayor Tim Keller is anxious to get a start on the new shelter, but holding a press conference with “church leaders” who are not parties to a transaction was a mistake. When you use words such as “if the UNM community is not interested in sharing it [with the community] then this will be off the table” smacks of trying to force a party’s hand to agree to something they may not want to agree to and who has sever reservations about the project. Hold a press conference is something you do not do when you’re in the middle of negotiations to with an entity and when 2 other sites are also under consideration.

Mayor Tim Keller, whether he likes it or not, has a reputation of “jumping the gun” with his ambitions to get started on campaigns for higher office and not finishing work he has started. He resigned in the middle of a 4 year State Senate term to run for New Mexico State Auditor, which he won. Within one year after becoming State Auditor for a 4 year term, he decided to run for Mayor, and once elected Mayor, he resigned as state Auditor. The Republican Governor “She Who Shall Not Be Named” had to appoint a replacement who was Republican Wayne Johnson who had run for Mayor against Keller.On November 5, 2019, during an election night radio coverage interview with political blogger Joe Monahan, Mayor Tim Keller announced he is running for a second term as Mayor in 2021.

Jumping the gun in political races when no one yet is running has been very good for Keller’s political career to give him and advantage, but it sure the hell is no way to conduct negotiations for city projects. Despite Mayor Keller jumping the gun on site selection for the homeless shelter, the City needs to complete the fiscal analysis of each of the 3 sites and determine the financial limitations to complete the project before a final site is selected by the City Council.

On March 2 and 3, respected New Mexico Politcal Blogger Joe Monahan published two articles, along with others, on his political blog “New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan.” Both articles are very insightful as to two major issues: Albuquerque’s Mayor Tim Keller’s and APD Chief Michael Geier’s failure to be forthcoming on recent murders in Albuquerque and “Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions” enacted by County Commissions to prevent enforcement of gun control legislation including the “Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act” also known as a “red-flag” gun bill that will allow firearms to be temporarily taken away from those deemed dangerous to themselves or others.

The “Red Flag “ law was enacted by the 2020 New Mexico Legislature and signed into law by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on February 25. Both of Mr. Monahan’s articles are very insightful and contain information from sources throughout the state and city that have made him the number one read New Mexico political commentator. The link to “New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan” is here:

http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/. Mr. Monahan’s email address is here: newsguy@yahoo.com

Following are the excerpts from the March 2 and 3 Monahan articles followed by additional information and commentary regarding both issues:

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, MONAHAN BLOG ARTICLE: “ARE MAYOR KELLER AND CHIEF GEIER “FADING” THE TOUGH CRIME QUESTIONS?

“What’s with all the unanswered questions surrounding the many murders in ABQ? That’s the question [raised by a senior political analysts]

–Demand to know why APD won’t allow BCSO and NMSP to assist in murder investigations? “

MONDAY, MARCH 02, 2020 MONAHAN BLOG ARTICLE: STATE’S RURAL-CITY DIVIDE PUT IN STARK RELIEF BY RED FLAG GUN LAW

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Monahan published a map of the state of New Mexico with the 27 counties colored in red that have enacted “Second Amendment” Sanctuary Resolutions and the 5 counties that have not colored in blue which made a striking contrast of the great divide.

“Here in sharp relief is the immense rural-city divide that represents the New Mexico politics of our time.

That’s some comfort for the Second Amendment crowd but when it comes to gun control the horse has left the barn. While that horse roams the meadows of only a narrow patch of New Mexico that’s where the political power resides.”

APD HOMICIDE CLEARANCE RATE DROPS FROM 80% TO 52%, A HISTORICAL LOW

On Sunday, February 23rd, 2020, it was reported that there has been a dramatic surge in the number of homicides and the percentage of those solved by arrest has dropped dramatically. In 2019, the city had a historical high of 82 homicides in one year with a 52% solve rate. From January 1, to February 01, the city had 8 homicides, the same number of homicides as in January, 2019. On February 22 and 22, three more homicides were reported in the city with arrests yet to be made. On Sunday, March 1, the Albuquerque Journal editorialized on the homicide clearance rate. You can read the full editorial here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1426124/getting-away-with-murder.html

93% INCREASE IN APD 911 RESPONSE TIMES SINCE 2011: 48 MINUTES IS AVERAGE TIME OF ARRIVAL

On February 20th KOAT TV Target 7 reported on an investigation into the Albuquerque Police Department’s (APD’s) response times. The report revealed an alarming level of time it takes APD to respond to 911 emergency calls. The time it takes for APD to respond to priority 1 calls in all likely has a major impact on increasing physical injury to victims or callers. It was reported that it takes APD 23 minutes longer to get to an emergency call than it did 8 years ago. There has been an astonishing 93% increase since 2011 with response times getting worse every year since. In 2011, the average response time to all calls, whether it was a life or death emergency or a minor traffic crash was 25 minutes. In 2019, that time period spiked to 48 minutes in the average response time.

https://www.koat.com/article/apd-response-times-continue-to-climb/31028667

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

“FADING” THE NEWS ON MURDERS

A major promise and commitment Mayor Tim Keller made to the voters of Albuquerque from day one of being sworn in as Mayor was to be transparent and make full disclosure of all things city hall. When it came to the Albuquerque Police Department (APD), Mayor Keller proclaimed an new day had arrived and that his APD Administration and management would admit and recognize mistakes, learn from those mistakes and adjust and be fully committed to implementing the Department of Justice mandated reforms. Today, Mayor Keller and APD Chief Michael Geier have reverted back to APD’s old tricks of not being forthcoming with information on the city’s murders and are in fact attempting to “fade” the news of the murders as much as they can, no doubt because Keller is seeking reelection.

The Keller administration is spending $88 million dollars, over a four-year period, with 32 million dollars of recurring expenditures to hire 350 officers and expand APD from 878 sworn police officers to 1,200 officers in order to return to community-based policing. According to recent pay stubs, APD has 950 sworn police or 250 short of what was promised. The Keller Admiration also negotiated with the police union significant APD pay raises and bonuses and an aggressive hiring and recruitment program offering incentives to join or return to APD.

What is very troubling is that all the increases in APD budget, personnel and new programs are not having any effect on bringing down the violent crime and murder rates. It is no longer an issue of not having the money, personnel or resources, but of a failed personnel resource management issue. It is also obvious that the APD command staff Keller handpicked are not getting the job done.

NEW MEXICO’S RED FLAG LAW

On February 25 Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham sign into law the “Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act” also known as a “red-flag” gun bill that will allow firearms to be temporarily taken away from those deemed dangerous to themselves or others. The Governor had placed the “red flag gun bill” on the 30-day legislative agenda thereby making it one of her top initiatives during the session. The new law will take effect May 20, which is 90 days after the 2020 New Mexico legislative session ended. New Mexico is now the 18th state to adopt such a “red flag” law.

The “Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act” signed by the Governor is a natural progression of the 2019 New Mexico Legislature passage of legislation which prohibits gun possession by someone who’s subject to an order of protection under the Family Violence Protection Act. Under the enacted legislation domestic abusers must surrender their firearms to law enforcement. The gun possession prohibition also applies to people convicted of other crimes.

SAFEGUARDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

The “Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act” or red flag law does contain significant safe guard provisions that protect a citizen’s 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendment Rights. The court proceeding and the process under the new red flag law and how it works is summarized as follows:

“A law enforcement officer, or a prosecutor in cases involving a law enforcement officer, are allowed to file a petition in State District Court for an order to prohibit someone from possessing firearms.

The petitions can be filed upon request from a spouse, ex-spouse, parent, child, grandparent, school administrator or employer.

If a law enforcement officer declines to file a petition upon request, the officer will have to file a notice of the decision with the county sheriff.

A District Judge can enter an emergency 10-day risk protection order if “probable cause” is found that an individual poses a danger of causing “imminent” injury to themselves or others.

The individual is then required to surrender all their firearms within 48 hours of a judge’s order or sooner.

A one-year order can be imposed after a court hearing, although such an order requires a higher evidence threshold.

One-year risk protection orders are subject to appeal.

All firearms are required to be returned to their owner within 10 days after an order’s expiration.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1424533/gov-lujan-grisham-signs-red-flag-gun-bill-into-law.html

Exclusive authority is given to law enforcement to make the decision to file a petition and the petition must be based on whether there’s “probable cause” to believe the individual “poses a significant danger of causing imminent personal injury to self or others.” Law enforcement officials will have to explain their decision with the filing of a court notice if they decide not to seek a judge’s order after receiving a report and evidence in support of the petition.

COUNTY COMMISSIONS THAT ENACT “SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY RESOLUTIONS” EXCEED AUTHORITY

The fact that 27 out of 33 Counties have enacted “Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions” should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone given New Mexico’s gun culture. The blunt truth is that the County Commissions, and for that matter municipalities, who have enacted “Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions” to circumvent the New Mexico gun restriction laws enacted by the legislature have exceeded their authority. Such resolutions are “null and void” upon enactment making them meaningless. It is highly likely that any county that attempts to enforce such resolutions will wind up in court and the court’s will set aside the resolutions.

Many elected sheriffs opposed the red flag law and some are saying they will refuse to enforce it. County Commissions that enact “Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions” thinking that gives their County Sheriffs authority to not enforce the “red flag law” show a serious ignorance of how the Bill of Rights and United States Constitution work. They also show a serious ignorance of the law. They have a warped interpretation of constitutional rights that have rotted out all of their common sense and prevent any reasoning with them which is the mentality of gun rights fanatics and the National Rifle Association.

The 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments are not absolute rights and are often cited by gun fanatics and the National Rifle Association (NRA) to oppose any and all kind of reasonable gun control legislation. Each separately and together have limitations and exceptions, are subject to court interpretations and are not black and white restrictions with no exceptions.

The reality is that there are many limitations under the law and to our constitutional rights guaranteed by the 2nd, 4th and 14th amendments. Convicted and violent federal felons, who are still citizens of the United States, lose the “right to keep and bear arms” provided by the 2nd Amendment and in fact are given enhanced sentences for gun possession and use of a gun in the commission of a crime. Search warrants based on “probable cause” used by law enforcement for the seizure of personal property, including guns, are not “unreasonable searches and seizure” prohibited by the 4th Amendment. Despite what some sheriff’s say that property will be taken from people who have committed no crime, it is likely that those very departments and deputy sheriff officers over the years have secured search warrants and taken property based on “probable cause” from people who have not committed a crime. Court orders and injunction relief secured with supporting sworn affidavits, evidence and testimony in civil petitions to the court provide for due process of law and do not violate the 14th Amendment.

The elected sheriffs who oppose the meaningful gun control legislation that the red flag law represents ignore their duty and responsibilities “to serve and protect the general public” that elected them. They choose to promote their own fanatical “pro-gun” political philosophy and their own personal interpretation of the law and constitutional rights. Elected County Sheriffs have an ethical and legal obligation to honor their oaths of office. They cannot pick and choose what laws the agree with and want to enforce. Elected County Sheriffs who refuse to enforce the law are also asking taxpayers to assume the financial risk of their decision to impose their personal views over the law.

Any elected County Sheriff who refuses to enforce the new red flag law should resign immediately and allow elected county commissions to appoint law enforcement who will respect their oath of office and set aside political philosophy and political agendas. A refusal by sheriffs to enforce the law should justify the Attorney General to send letters suspending a sheriff’s law enforcement certification.

Related blog articles can be read here:

APD Homicide Clearance Rate Drops From 80% To 52%; 911 Response Time Increases By 93% To 48 Minutes Average Response Time; ABQ Journal Weighs In On Homicide Clearance Rate

Major Kudos To Governor Lujan Grisham Signing Red Flag Law And Telling Sheriffs Who Refuse To Enforce The Law Need To Resign