Below is a guest opinion column submitted for publication on this blog by Colleen Aycock, a resident of Four Hills in SE Albuquerque. She is an organizer of “Women Taking Back Our Neighborhoods”. She has a Ph.D. in Rhetoric from the University of Southern California and has spent her professional life teaching writing at the college level, editing business magazines, and writing biographies for the U. S. Capitol, Statuary Hall. She serves on the Editorial Board for the International Boxing Research Organization (IBRO), has authored 5 books on boxing. She has been inducted into the New Mexico Boxing Hall of Fame. She has spent a lifetime in active civic volunteerism, having been president of Rotary Clubs in Texas and Maryland. She is currently president of P.E.O. Chapter AM, Albuquerque. Her email is cka13705@aol.com.

EDITOR’S DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest column are those of Colleen Aycock and do not necessarily reflect those of the www.petedinelli.com blog. She has not been paid compensation to publish the guest column and has given her consent to publish on www.PeteDinelli.com.

COLLEEN AYCOCK GUEST COLUMN

MOTEL CONVERSIONS BAD PUBLIC POLICY TO DEAL WITH HOMELESS CRISIS

BY COLLEEN AYCOCK

The City of Albuquerque is involved in another City boondoggle. It is a Tiny Homes-type public housing project on steroids, with more units and with an impact that could potentially destroy entire business districts across Albuquerque.   The plan is called “Motel Conversions,” and the Mayor Tim Keller Administration’s goal is to buy motels and convert them into public housing projects, directed by Family & Community Services, eventually turning these City-purchased properties over to non-profit entities to run them.

On October 17, 2022, Mayor Keller announced that the city is ready to convert 10 commercial motels into public housing, and that the city plans to train individuals through their programs to perform the construction. The plan is to create “affordable housing” with “access for all.”

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/city-announces-new-plan-to-tackle-housing-crisis-in-albuquerque/

This may sound like a laudable goal, but like the “Plans” to house the homeless in tents and tiny homes the city calls living spaces without restrooms and kitchens, the plan for Motel Conversions is equally bad. The plan will not create true, meaningful, or complete, permanent housing for already struggling residents. It will only create high-density slums and invite additional crime into the area. The slap in the face to taxpaying citizens is that the City will use the deep pockets of the taxpayers to fund these ill-planned projects.  The City wants to use and reallocate federal HUD grants and one-fifth of the $100-million tax bond money designated for “Affordable Housing” for motel conversions, all monies never intended for substandard housing.

Simply put, staying in a converted one-room, motel room for longer than a week is harmful and constitutes substandard permanent living conditions for anyone, especially for a family with children.  This “permitted design” should not be allowed by the City of Albuquerque or funded by HUD or with public bond money earmarked for “Affordable Housing”.  A converted motel room is NOT what Albuquerque taxpayers thought they were getting when they voted for the $100-million-dollar bond package for Affordable Housing. And a slum is not what HUD intended for its Community Grants.

SURE STAY HOYEL FIRST CITY PURCHASE ON HOTEL CIRCLE

The first of these “Motel Conversions” is planned for the largest business district in City Council District 9 serving SE and NE Albuquerque, along Hotel Circle at Eubank and Lomas, a decision by the City that all businesses in this district say will harm them.

Since last fall, a year ago, the City of Albuquerque and the Real Property Division have been interested in purchasing the Sure Stay Hotel on Hotel Circle SE, a private hotel business directly across the street from the Econolodge and Days Inn hotels. These for-profit hotels are bordered by other for-profit businesses in the largest shopping area in SE and NE Albuquerque near I-40. These businesses include restaurants and big box stores that attract large numbers of clients and tourists to the area. The businesses include Sadies, the Owl Café, and Applebees, Target, Office Depot, Best Buy, the Home Store, PetCo and other businesses critical to the healthy economic welfare of District 9 and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Before the City could purchase the Sure Stay hotel for this residential public housing Project, the City needed to create a zoning amendment in the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) which would allow for this type of business conversion for residential use by the City.

Thus, the creation, in July, of the loosely crafted “Motel Conversion” IDO amendment (0-22-10) which the City Council passed, with some opposition, which allows for any commercial structure, not originally built or intended for permanent residential housing, to be converted into structures without full service kitchens with appliances, and, in lieu thereof, allow for microwave and dormitory-style refrigerators.

With the building code and IDO changes in place, the City could legally purchase any commercial building for use of Family & Community Services for permanent public housing projects. But the City had to have the MONEY guaranteed for these purchases and conversions. That money would come from several sources, but primarily HUD and, with City Councilors’ blessing, an already passed tax bond for “Affordable Housing,” monies not designated specifically for Motel Conversions. That detail didn’t matter. The City would reallocate those and other HUD funds for these conversions.

In the Spring 2022, Assistant Family Community Services Director Lisa Huval justified the purchases by saying, “The City Council also this spring approved borrowing $20 million as part of a $100 million gross receipts tax bond package for affordable housing, which Huval, Deputy Director of Housing, said can go toward creating new units or acquiring and rehabilitating property.”  There is over $23 million in city and federal voucher funding available, including $9.8 million extra in ongoing annual funding added to the budget this year,” she stated.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2537079/renters-seek-city-assistance-amid-soaring-costs.html

If the City Council knew this past spring that they were voting to reallocate these bond funds, the blame can be equally placed on City Council for allowing Family & Community Services to take $20-million from “affordable housing” to create Motel Conversions that would destroy business districts, specifically the business district, built and designed and named “Hotel Circle” exclusively for businesses.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FUNDING

On September  23, 2022, the Department of Family & Community Services published a notice in the “Albuquerque Journal” in its  Government Legals, fine-print, pages that stated the City intended to purchase Sure Stay Hotel by using Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding of $3,059,662.12 in Community Development Block Grants,  $2,443,724.00 from Public Facilities monies  and $615,938.12 from Foreclosure Prevention for a total property purchase of  $6,119,324.24.  Public Facilities money are intended to be used for such things as fire departments, police stations, community centers. Foreclosure Prevention money is intended to be used to prevent foreclosures—and not to be used as funding with which to buy a property.

On September  29, 2022, six days later, the city  published in the “Albuquerque Journal” a  “Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact and Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds from HUD”.   The notice stated:

“On or after Oct. 17, 2022 the City of ABQ, Dept. of Family and Community Services will submit a request to the HUD ABQ Field Office for the release of CDBG CARES and HOME American Rescue Plan (HOME_ARP) funding to the Sure Stay Hotel Acquisition and Renovation Project for the permanent housing with supportive services….”

The total HUD funding is estimated at $7,559,662.12.

Over 6 days, from September  23 to September  29, the published request for HUD funds increased by almost  $1.5 million from one document to the next. When the discrepancy was brought to the attention of Community Development Program Manager Monica Montoya, she responded that the original request was for $3,059,662.12 and that it be allocated for the contribution of the Sure Stay Motel acquisition, an original monetary request and location that the public never heard about but the city was already dealing with HUD funds. As the legal notice clearly published, other funds were being reallocated from “Public Facilities” and “Foreclosure Prevention”, grants that are inappropriate for the City’s purchase of a private motel.

With respect to  the discrepancy of funds from one notice to the other, Montoya stated that the released funding includes another HUD source that had already been approved for the purchase by saying “The Request for Release of funds also includes HOME-ARP funding for the rehabilitation of the Sure Stay. … That funding plan has already been accepted by HUD and therefore was not included in the amendment.” These back-room plans to take hotel businesses away from the business sector is a blatant example of the City’s machinations to weaponize federal public money against private citizens and businesses without full disclosure to the public. In the case of the Sure Stay Hotel, the transaction was not, at this point, completed but funds were being diverted to the purchase.

HARM MEASURED IN FUTURE COSTS

The actual consequences to established hotel and other businesses from the City’s plans to allow Safe Outdoor Spaces (SOS) which allows for tent living, also substandard housing,  next to an established hotel business must be considered. The cost of security and social services for these units do not outweigh the cost of lost neighborhood businesses, increased crime, and future long-term drug and mental health consequences for those forced to live, long term, in inhumane conditions. Flush with federal, state, and city money for constructing actual, livable residences, the Keller  Administration can and should design something better than tents, tiny homes and motel conversions for its population. Consider the cost to taxpayers of the appeals and litigation to come.

SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES APPEALS AND LITIGATION PROOF OF POOR PLANNING AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

PICTURE THIS:  A tent lot for the homeless situated behind a prestigious multistoried hotel, the Crown Plaza, that draws conventions to Albuquerque. The contrast is visually stark and economically devastating for the existing businesses and any potential business development for that area of Menaul.

Adopted in July along with the “Motel Conversion” amendment was the “Safe Outdoor Spaces” (SOS) amendment where as many as 40 to 50 individuals could live in tents or in their vehicles on an open space vacant lot. The SOS amendment garnered more public, press, and media attention than the “Motel Conversions” because of the back-and-forth battles between the City Council and Mayor over the SOS amendment. That battle consisted of the City Council passing the SOS amendment originally proposed by the City. Then Councilors changed their minds and introduced and passed a moratorium on the SOS—which the Mayor vetoed. The City Council then voted on the Mayor’s veto, but their votes failed to override his veto. 

Repeal legislation of the SOS amendment has been introduced and the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) held a hearing on the legislation and voted to recommend total  repeal of SOS land use.

Because the SOS Amendment passed, on July 30, Dawn Legacy Point filed the very first application for a ‘Safe Outdoor Space’ homeless encampment. The Dawn Legacy Point homeless encampment is intended to provide accommodations for upwards of 50 women who are homeless and who are “sex-trafficking victims” in addition to other vulnerable populations. The homeless encampment is to be located on vacant land at 1250 Menaul Blvd, NE which consists of two large parcels of property owned by the City with an assessed value of $4,333,550.

On August 8, the City Planning Department approved the Dawn Legacy Point application for a Safe Outdoor Space homeless campsite at 1250 Menaul, NE. Seven appeals of the Dawn Legacy Point Safe Outdoor Spaces were filed asking the City Planning Department to reverse its decision and deny the Safe Outdoor Space application of Dawn Legacy.

On September 28, 2022, an all-day hearing was convened by a City Land Use Hearing (LUHO) officer to hear the appeals.  All seven appeals were heard separately, but consecutively, at the September 28, 2022 hearing.  As a matter of administrative efficiency and economy, the appeals were consolidated and considered together for disposition.

 All of the appeals sounded the same chord: loss of business income, expensive cost of private security, and threat of the location becoming even more unsafe and ill-suited for business purposes.

The fact of the matter is, that the City’s location of the S.O.S on Menaul violates the City’s own goals “to situate similar businesses together”, (the City’s justification in a ruling in Nob Hill for allowing multiple cannabis stores in close proximity). A commercial lot of tents is not a hotel and is a stark contrast and dissimilar business if you picture that tent lot in the backyard the Crown Plaza Hotel.

On October 10, City Land Use Hearing Officer Steven M. Chavez issued his decision in the appeal of Dawn Legacy Point application.  Hearing Officer Chavez REMANDED the Dawn Legacy Point application back to the city Planning Department for further review after  finding “substantial and meaningful violations of due process” of law to the appellants.

CITY VIOLATES DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS

The most compelling legal fact considered in the SOS debacle at the LUHO Hearing was that the City never notified any surrounding and bordering business that the City intended to put inferior residential living spaces next door to their businesses. The General Manager of the Crown Plaza testified to the LUHO Officer that the hotel had been losing business due to the large number of homeless loiterers and high crime in the area. The Crown Plaza had over $750,000 of repeat convention contracts cancelled, all for reasons that the area had become unsafe. The LUHO officer found that Dawn Legacy Pointe’s SOS application lacked “substantial and meaningful” statutory violations of Due Process.

https://newmexicosun.com/stories/633374263-abq-hearing-officer-remands-dawn-legacy-pointe-sos-application-finding-substantial-and-meaningful-violations-of-due-process

The City’s modus operandi is clear:  The City can do whatever it wants behind closed doors, it can pass an ordinance to fit its secret plans without the public knowing where and what it intends to do with the ordinances; and, as shown with the Dawn Legacy SOS application, the City doesn’t seem to care about violating anyone’s due process.  With the Dawn Legacy application, the City violated the due process rights of adjacent property owners and rushed the approval of the land use to approve it behind closed doors. It is doing the same thing with Motel Conversions, but on a planned larger scale.

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS REPEATING ITSELF WITH HOTEL CONVERSIONS

 The violation of constitutional rights is now repeating with Motel Conversions. Not a single business along Hotel Circle, from Lomas to Eubank has been notified of the City’s year-long plan to buy the Sure Stay Hotel for Family & Community Services to provide permanent public residential housing.

But the real travesty is evident in the City’s fast-hands, and probably illegal, use of tax-payers’ federal tax funds through HUD and other “reallocated” taxpayer monies the City is using for the purchase of these Motel Conversions.

There are other problems with the City’s purchase of the Sure Stay Hotel:

1) No Open Record Public Request for Purchase. Community Development Program Manager Monica Montoya stated that there was no public Request for Purchase (RFP) for the purchase of the hotel.

2) No Due Process. No businesses along Hotel Circle, SE, were notified and still have not been notified in writing or in person of the Sure Stay Hotel purchase by any public or elected official.

3) Hidden Costs for Services. The request to HUD for Release of Funding, published in the newspaper includes “supportive services” which has not been defined. There was no disclosure of  how much money these “services” will cost the taxpayer for the first year or thereafter. According to Monica Montoya, “supportive services” include such things as the delivery of vaccines and food boxes. It is sadly ironic to picture a delivery of a food box to client living a hotel room without a kitchen.

4) Cost of Crime. There is proof that this “Project” will make the business district more dangerous.

MOTEL CONVERSIONS HISTORY OF BEING IMPRACTICAL FOR PERMANENT LIVING

Motel conversions have a history of being impractical for permanent living and very, very dangerous to neighborhoods and businesses in the area. That proof can be found in the conversion of a motel on East Central, now called the Four Hills Studios. This long-term, low-income property accepting housing vouchers has experienced, in this year alone, a murder, assaults with serious bodily injury, drug dealers and drug-related crimes, and extortion of its residents. The police have reported over 400 calls to that location in the first half of this year. While the City doesn’t own this property, citizens are forced to pay the high costs from the consequences of its conversion for low-income residential use in a business district. (That motel conversion is now under new ownership with new managers, under the ADAPT program, a program that replaced the Safe City Strike Force to deal with harmful, derelict properties.)

There are other troubling financial questions regarding these motel sales. Those questions include:

Who are the sales agents? Who stands to gain financially from these sales?

How many reputable businesses will be put out of business when these projects pop up?

Where are the other 9 City-planned Motel Conversions locations?

The City has not been forthcoming with any answers to these questions.

A BACKWARD PROCESS

The city’s purchasing process for affordable housing is ill advised and backwards.  The City should be looking for properties that will promote quality living for residents in residential areas. The City needs to build the City up, not take inferior, cheap, and worn properties to rehab for the unfortunate, concentrating them in properties that are likely to become slums.

The City’s Planning Dept. should be asking the businesses in and around Hotel Circle for their input first. The City should have asked businesses how these public housing projects will affect their businesses and economic well-being.  Not a single business surveyed wanted this Sure Stay Housing Project to go forward. Their answers were a resounding: “It will destroy our business.” “Why is the City putting residential public housing in a business district?” “We are against this.” Like the City’s purchase of a commercial lot for tents in the backyard of a multi-storied hotel, it appears the City of Albuquerque through Family & Community Service is running rough-shod over the business district at Hotel Circle. Maybe the name of its road sign should be changed from “Hotel Circle” to ““No taxpayer Input Desired/Required.”

Why is the City doing this?  The simple answer: because it can, and the City has deep pockets from taxpayer funds with which to tap. 

SUMMARY

In a pre-planned move, for over a year now, the City has been setting in motion a plan to buy the Sure Stay Hotel on Hotel Circle, planning to change the IDO to make this and other purchases possible, planning to use one-fifth of the tax bond package for “inferior housing” (with City Council approval), and then planning to turn these City purchases over to Not-for-profit entities to run them—all plans that failed to notify the public or the businesses imminently affected.

What is happening now is NOT the best way to run a city or a public residential housing program, by buying up commercial properties willy-nilly in business districts, without a plan, anywhere the administration wants, without proper notification to the public, and failing to account for and use of HUD money for its intended purposes.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

If you want to voice your opinion against the City’s purchase of the Sure Stay Hotel or any other motels for conversion into insufficient housing for permanent public “Projects” for low-income, homeless, or any other individuals, please add your name to the petition requested by the surrounding businesses on Hotel Circle.

The petition is located on Judy Young’s website. Judy is a member of Women Taking Back Our Neighborhoods and is running for Bernalillo County Commissioner, Dist. 5 in Albuquerque. She is the only candidate for office that has offered to help these businesses in their desperate cry for help in this matter.

Sign the Petition at: https://youngbernco.com/motel-conversions-petition

You can also request to HUD to STOP using HUD funds by re-allocating funds not meant to be used for purchases that will destroy businesses in existing business districts by emailing:  Lawrence Reyes, Dir.of Albuquerque HUD office:

lawrence.c.reyes@hud.gov.

Respectfully

Colleen Aycock

Founding member of Women Taking Back Our Neighborhoods

Democrat City Councilor Issac Benton and Republican Brook Bassan are proposing making changes and updating the city’s Pedestrian Safety Ordinance permitting anyone from certain kinds of activities on city owned medians. The ultimate goal is to restrict panhandling on city owned medians.  If this sounds at all familiar, its because it is.  It was in 2017 that Albuquerque City Councilor Trudy Jones sponsored the original “Pedestrian Safety Ordinance” that was enacted unanimously by the city council.  The original bill banned pedestrians from having exchanges with drivers.

The American Civil Liberties Union  (ACLU) filed  a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging  the city ordinance.  U.S. District Court Judge Robert Brack  in Albuquerque ruled in 2019 that the ordinance violated free speech protections because it was “not narrowly tailored to meet the City’s interest in reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.”  The city appealed the ruling and in 2021 the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021  upheld Judge Brack’s ruling.

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in its ruling  wrote:

“[The city was]  unable to establish that the ordinance does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further its interest in pedestrian safety … [and] has almost completely failed to even consider alternative measures that restrict or burden the speech at issue less severely than does the ordinance.”

The federal appeals court  noted the city’s  argument on  accident reports failed to support the need for several of the ordinance’s provisions,  ruling the city’s arguments “actually belied any assertion that pedestrian presence near highway ramps or on medians, or pedestrian involvement in physical exchanges with vehicles occupants, gave rise to significant safety concerns.”

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The original language of the “Pedestrian Safety Ordinance” that was declared unconstitutional by the federal court  is as follows:

(D)   It is unlawful for any pedestrian to engage in any physical interaction or exchange with the driver or occupants of any vehicle within a travel lane unless reasonably required because of an emergency situation. For purposes of this section, a “physical interaction or exchange” is conduct by which a pedestrian intentionally makes physical contact with a vehicle in a travel lane or with any of its occupants, either directly or with an object.

 (E)   It is unlawful for any occupant of a motor vehicle within any travel lane or intersection to engage in any physical interaction or exchange with a pedestrian unless reasonably required because of an emergency situation. For purposes of this section, a PHYSICAL INTERACTION OR EXCHANGE is conduct by which an occupant of a motor vehicle in a travel lane intentionally makes physical contact with a pedestrian, either directly or with an object.

The complete, unedited ordinance can be found in the POSTSCRIPT following to this blog article.

The new Benton/Bassan bill deletes the egregious, unconstitutional language and the following language is substituted:

“It is unlawful for any person to stand in any travel lane of a street, highway, or controlled access roadway or in any travel lane of the exit of entrance ramps thereto, or to otherwise enter a travel lane of a street, highway, or controlled access roadway or in any travel lane of the exit of entrance ramps thereto, except for the purpose of legally crossing … It is unlawful for any person to access, use, occupy, congregate or assemble on any median that is located on any roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and that does not possess a flat area of at least four feet (4’) in diameter”.

Note that the new  ordinance specifically bars individuals from standing in or entering street and highway travel lanes unless they are “legally crossing.” It also prohibits using or occupying medians on 30 mph or faster roads where there is not a flat surface at least 4 feet wide.

Under the new ordinance, if pedestrians are on a median that doesn’t meet the bill’s requirements, a $100 citation could be issued.  APD and the Albuquerque Community Safety Department (ACS) will  be authorized to give warnings, or  are a person can be criminally charged with a misdemeanor and fined a $100.

The new ordinance delineates  an extensive amount of statistics and cites New Mexico  as being  among the worst in the nation for pedestrian fatalities, with 9 deaths per 100,000 from 2009-2019. It also cited the 2020 death of Rachanda Myers, a mother of three who was hit and killed by a car sitting on a narrow median on Pan American Freeway.

The updated ordinance removes the unconstitutional  provisions of the original ordinance, including the part banning exchanges between drivers and pedestrians, and loosens up where pedestrians can be on sidewalks. Under the new version of the ordinance,  if people are on a sidewalk or median, it has to be at least four feet wide, on a street where the speed limit is under 30 miles per hour, and flat, having no greater than 8% grade.

Ordinance  co-sponsor Republican City  Councilor Brook Bassan  had this to say:

“I absolutely believe that people should be able to express their free speech, but I also think that people driving have a right to be safe when they’re driving to or from different locations and not have to worry if they’re going to hit somebody and kill them. And if people are a little bit more unbalanced, they need to be able to be safe too. … The priority is to make sure people are safer both to make sure people are safer standing on medians or sidewalks or if they’re driving.  … We’re working to have some enforcement that’s fair and that allows for the opportunity for some change to happen.”

Democrat co-sponsor City  Councilor Benton for his part  said he believes the new version can withstand a potential legal challenge because it does not specifically target people who are homeless and it  would also apply to people fundraising or otherwise using medians. Benton said this:

“If they’re doing it on a 2- or 3-foot-wide median in heavy traffic, that’s just not a safe situation.”

MAYOR TIM KELLER REQUESTED THE LEGISLATION

City Councilors Benton and  Bassan are sponsoring the legislation on behalf of the Keller administration. It was in September that Mayor Tim Keller requested that the ordinance be enacted. In a September memo to both, Keller wrote:

“Due to the … large number of pedestrian/vehicle-involved crashes, Albuquerque seeks to address general pedestrian safety concerns, and to prevent further unnecessary deaths and injuries resulting from pedestrian occupation of medians by amending the Traffic Code to disallow occupancy by pedestrians in medians” .

Mayor Tim Keller’s office issued the following statement after new ordinance was introduced:

“[The new ordinance represents]  common-sense regulations  and is responsive to specific Court of Appeals’ concerns. …  Medians are constructed to manage traffic flow, and narrow medians on high-speed roads are simply not safe places for anyone to stand.  We have to protect pedestrians and drivers with common-sense regulations. The City carefully evaluated the Tenth Circuit opinion and sought to address the specific concerns identified by the Court.  Most significantly, the City limited the scope of the new ordinance. The ordinance only prohibits people from standing on dangerous medians that are four feet or narrower.  This change is designed to protect both pedestrians and the traveling public, while also allowing for protected speech.”

The ACLU  for its part said it was reviewing the new ordinance and issued the following statement:

“We are still analyzing the bill and the City’s actions for consistency with the Court’s order and how the city council votes. We are committed to making sure that people in our city do not suffer criminal legal consequences for taking part in life-sustaining activities that are protected by basic constitutional rights. “

The links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-city-councilors-propose-median-safety-ordinance/

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/albuquerque-councilors-propose-update-to-pedestrian-safety-bill/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2538089/city-trying-again-to-outlaw-activity-on-medians.html

CAMPING ON SIDEWALKS  HAS BEEN ILLEGAL FOR 50 YEARS

One of the most  common complaints are the  homeless camping where they want on city sidewalks. In July when Mayor Tim  Keller announced the closure of Coronado Park, which  had become an a de facto city sanctioned encampment, he  also announced a policy change when it  comes to encampments on sidewalks. Keller had this to say:

“The city has changed its policies with respect to certain areas, we are going to have a much quicker response time with respect to encampments. Those areas are sidewalks. …  It’s an ADA issue. It is too dangerous to camp on a sidewalk for people trying to use the sidewalk.”

The City has adopted a  Criminal Code”, 12-1-1 to 12-1- 99.  There are two specific  ordinances that apply and  that make it illegal to camp on sidewalks that  were enacted 50 years ago.  Those ordinances are:

12-2-3 CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

Criminal trespass consists of unlawfully entering or remaining upon the lands or property of another knowing that any consent to enter or remain has been denied or withdrawn by the person or persons lawfully in possession of the premises or after the request or demand to leave the premises by the authorized representative of the person or persons lawfully in possession of the premises.

(’74 Code, § 12-1-2-3) (Ord. 96-1973; Am. Ord. 78-1978) Penalty, see § 12-1-99

12-2-7 OBSTRUCTING MOVEMENT.

 Obstructing movement consists of:

   (A)   Hindering or molesting persons passing along any street, sidewalk, crosswalk, or other public way; or

   (B)   … .

Violation of either of the ordinances is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500, or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(’74 Code, § 12-1-2-7) (Ord. 96-1973; Am. Ord. 43-1988; Am. Ord. 55-1990; Am. Ord. 1-2004; Am. Ord. 21-2004) Penalty, see § 12-1-99

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/albuquerque/latest/albuquerque_nm/0-0-0-101138#JD_12-2-3

The Albuquerque Police Department issued a statement on the enforcement in a statement they said in part:

“Most encounters police have with people who may be criminal trespassing result in arrests on existing warrants. So, the criminal trespass may not be captured.”

The link to the quoted new source is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/target-7-albuquerque-sidewalk-camping-citations/41537630

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

What was downright laughable  if not embarrassing  was when Mayor Tim Keller said “It’s an ADA issue. It is too dangerous to camp on a sidewalk for people trying to use the sidewalk.”  This comment is what you call a person trying to say something intelligent.   Ostensibly,  Keller is ignorant of the fact that both the city’s “criminal trespass” law and “obstructing movement” law were enacted 50 years ago in 1973 and close to 20 years before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on July 26, 1990.  The laws have nothing to do with the with disabilities and everything to do with public safety and making  sure that  public rights of way are used for their intended purpose.

The biggest problem with the original ordinance sponsored by Republican City Councilor Trudy Jones is that it was obviously directed at the homeless or panhandlers and also at drivers stopping to pass items such as food, money or anything a driver wanted  to give as a handout to help make a beggar’s or a homeless person’s life a little less miserable. It came across as downright cruel and lacking any compassion interfering with people simply wanting to help with a handout.

In 2017, the city council was repeatedly warned about the language of the original  ordinance by the ACLU and the City Council simply ignored what it was being told and that the original ordinance was unconstitutional.  What was truly amazing is the poor advice the City Council was likely given in 2017 by the City Attorney’s Office and the fact that the City Attorney office appealed the original ruling.

From review of the new language and with the deletions of the unconstitutional language, the new version of the ordinance has a much better chance of being upheld as constitutional or going unchallenged in federal court. What is very promising is that the ACLU is also analyzing the new ordinance, and if it concurs, the city council should proceed with enactment of the new ordinance.

The homeless have reached crisis proportions with them becoming far more visible and aggressive by illegally camping in parks, on streets, in alleyways and in city open space whenever they want. When it comes to the “homeless crimes” of loitering, panhandling, illegal camping and criminal trespassing, Mayor Keller implemented a “no arrest” policy where arrests are the last resort and citations are to be issued. APD is allowed to make arrests only when circumstances endangering public safety warrant an arrest. This policy is ill-advised.

Being homeless is not a crime. The city has a moral obligation to help the homeless, mentally ill and drug addicted and is doing so with millions spent each year. With that said, homeless squatters who have no interest in city shelters, beds, motel vouchers and who want to live on the streets and camp in city parks, in alleys and trespass as they choose give the city no choice but to make it inconvenient for them to “squat” and force them to move on or be arrested by the Albuquerque Police Department.

The “new and improved” Pedestrian Safety ordinance if enacted by the  city council coupled with the two existing  ordinances  prohibiting camping on sidewalls has the potential of making a real difference. But that will only be the case if APD is cut lose to do its job of enforcement.

______________________

POSTSCRIPT

Following is the original and unedited “Pedestrian Safety Ordinance” sponsored by Republican City Councilor Trudy Jones and  enacted in 2017:

• 8-2-7-2 OCCUPYING ROADWAYS, CERTAIN MEDIANS AND ROADSIDE AREAS PROHIBITED; CERTAIN PEDESTRIAN INTERACTIONS WITH VEHICLES PROHIBITED.

(A)   It is unlawful for any person to stand in any travel lane of a street, highway, or controlled access roadway or in any travel lane of the exit or entrance ramps thereto;

(B)   It is unlawful for any person to access, use, occupy, congregate or assemble within six feet of a travel lane of an entrance or exit ramp to Interstate 25, Interstate 40, or to Paseo del Norte at Coors Boulevard NW, Second Street NW, Jefferson Street NW, or Interstate 25, except on a grade separated sidewalk or designated pedestrian way, unless reasonably necessary because of an emergency situation where such area provides the only opportunity for refuge from vehicle traffic or other safety hazard;

(C)   It is unlawful for any person to access, use, occupy, congregate, or assemble within any median not suitable for pedestrian use, unless reasonably necessary during an otherwise lawful street crossing at an intersection or designated pedestrian crossing, or because of an emergency situation where the median provides the only opportunity for refuge from vehicle traffic or other safety hazard. For purposes of this section, a MEDIAN NOT SUITABLE FOR PEDESTRIAN USE is:

(1)   Any portion of a median that is less than six feet in width, and located within a roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or faster or located within 25 feet of an intersection with such a roadway; or

(2)   Is the landscaped area of the median as defined by this Traffic Code; or

(3)   Is otherwise identified by signage as not suitable for pedestrian use by the City Traffic Engineer based on identifiable safety standards, including but not limited to an unsuitable gradient or other objectively unsuitable features.

(D)   It is unlawful for any pedestrian to engage in any physical interaction or exchange with the driver or occupants of any vehicle within a travel lane unless reasonably required because of an emergency situation. For purposes of this section, a “physical interaction or exchange” is conduct by which a pedestrian intentionally makes physical contact with a vehicle in a travel lane or with any of its occupants, either directly or with an object.

(E)   It is unlawful for any occupant of a motor vehicle within any travel lane or intersection to engage in any physical interaction or exchange with a pedestrian unless reasonably required because of an emergency situation. For purposes of this section, a PHYSICAL INTERACTION OR EXCHANGE is conduct by which an occupant of a motor vehicle in a travel lane intentionally makes physical contact with a pedestrian, either directly or with an object.

(F)   Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing maintenance or construction activities within medians or roadside areas by public agencies or agents thereof, entering or exiting a bus or other form of public transit at authorized pick up and drop off locations, or as preventing physical interactions or exchanges between pedestrians and occupants of vehicles where the vehicle is lawfully stopped or pulled over outside of a travel lane, or parked at a location where on-street parking is permitted.

(’74 Code, § 9-5-14.2) (Ord. 65-1974; Am. Ord. 2017-028; Am. Ord. 2019-017)

Click to access O-2019-017.pdf

On July 30, Dawn Legacy Point filed the very  first application  for a ‘Safe Outdoor Space’ homeless encampment. The Dawn Legacy Point homeless encampment is intended to provide accommodations for upwards of 50 women who are homeless and who are “sex-trafficking victims” and other vulnerable populations.  The homeless encampment  is  to be located on vacant land at 1250 Menaul Blvd, NE which  consists of two large parcels of property owned by the city with an assess value of $4,333,550.

On August 8, the City Planning Department approved the  Dawn Legacy Point application for a Safe Outdoor Space homeless campsite at 1250 Menaul, NE. Seven appeals of the Dawn Legacy Point Safe Outdoor Spaces were filed asking the City Planning Department to reverse its decision and deny the Safe Outdoor Space application of Dawn Legacy.

The 7 appellants are:

1. Martineztown Santa Barbara Neighborhood Association
2. Menaul Middle School
3. Life Roots
4. Reuele Sun Corporation, a participant in the Menaul Redevelopment Area
5. Crown Plaza Hotel, a participant in the Menaul Redevelopment Area
6. T-Mobil Cell Phone Call Center
7. Greater Albuquerque Hotel and Lodging Association

On September 28, 2022 an all-day hearing was convened by a City Land Use Hearing officer to hear the appeals.  All seven  appeals were heard separately but consecutively  at the  September 28, 2022 hearing.  As a matter  of administrative efficiency and economy, the appeals were  consolidated and considered  together for disposition

 On October 10, City Land Use Hearing Officer Steven M. Chavez issued his decision in the appeal of  Dawn Legacy Point application.   Hearing Officer Chavez REMANDED the Dawn Legacy Point application back to the city Planning Department for further review after  finding “substantial and meaningful violations of due process” of law to the appellants.

NEW MEXICO SUN ARTICLE

On October 13, the on line news agency “New Mexico Sun” published a  report on the remand.  The article  was written by New Mexico Sun staff reporter  Andy Nghiem.  Below is the article followed by a link to the article:

HEADLINE:  “ABQ Hearing Officer remands Dawn Legacy Pointe SOS application finding ‘substantial and meaningful’ violations of due process”.

By Andy Nghiem

“In response to appeals filed by the Santa Barbara Martineztown Neighborhood Association (SBMTNA), the Menaul School, and several local businesses, City of Albuquerque Land Use Hearing Officer Steven Chavez (LUHO) issued an October 10 ruling remanding the Dawn Legacy Pointe “safe outdoor space” (SOS) homeless encampment application back to planning. The officer found that in their rush to approve the SOS, City Staff and the applicant committed “substantial and meaningful” violations of “due process” by failing to provide appropriate notice.

In his ruling, Chavez wrote that, “…the applicants failed to properly send notification of the pending SOS application to all the qualifying abutting property owners within 100-feet of the proposed site (excluding right-of-way). Because the defect is so substantial and meaningful involving due process, a remand is fundamentally the shortest path to a final resolution of these appeals.”

Chavez also added that “Planning Staff disregarded the manner of notice required which is specifically applicable to all applications requiring “administrative decisions” in the IDO,” “The practical impact … was that a meaningful number of property owners who otherwise would be entitled to individualized notice of the application were not sent notice,” and, “Staff and the applicant erred because they disregarded an otherwise applicable process for a seemingly irreconcilable process that resulted in inadequate notice. Moreover, Staff’s interpretation of the IDO contravenes New Mexico law.” “Staff and the applicant erred and as stated above, a remand is the only cure to this due process violation.”

The SBMTNA’s appeal against Dawn Legacy Pointe’s ‘Safe Outdoor Space’ (SOS) application focused on several issues, not the least of which highlight the lack of transparency and due process extended to the public and the impacted communities. The appeal contended that by failing to follow established policies required for the approval of applications relating to ‘special’ or ‘conditional’ use zoning the City and the applicant ultimately acted in bad faith by “unilaterally” reviewing and approving Dawn Legacy Pointe’s application” behind closed doors” without notice to the public and without the required opportunity for public input. The appeal also claimed the City extended “preferential treatment” and gave “insider information” to Brad Day and Dawn Legacy Pointe while not affording the same to other SOS applicants.

The New Mexico Sun previously reported that days after the city of Albuquerque began accepting applications for safe outdoor spaces, the newly formed Dawn Legacy Pointe proposed an encampment at 1250 Menaul NE, a parcel just west of Interstate 25 within the Martineztown neighborhood. Following the news of the proposed encampment, the SBMTNA sent a letter to Family and Community Services Director Carol Pierce expressing outrage as the proposal was not discussed with them.

“The Santa Barbara Martineztown Neighborhood Association (SBMTNA) was informed that you attended a westside neighborhood meeting and informed them about providing homeless outdoor spaces in or near their area and the Martineztown Santa Barbara boundaries at 1250 Menaul NE,” the letter read. “This location is at the corner of Menaul NE and the Frontage Road. This news was disturbing because your office has never approached us to discuss this proposal.”

Albuquerque commercial real estate developer, Brad Day, has taken a special interest in pushing the ‘save outdoor space’ homeless encampment scheme for months. Despite not being listed on any of the corporate documents of Dawn Legacy Pointe or Street Safe New Mexico (the non-profit listed as fiscally sponsoring DLP), Day’s name appears several times on the 1250 Menaul ‘safe outdoor space’ application.

According to the City Planning Department’s instructions for a ‘special’ or ‘conditional’ use (like SOS) as well as other SOS applications received, applicants are required to notify neighborhood stakeholders of their application to allow for public notice and hearings. However, Lopez and the members of the SBMTNA never received any notification from Dawn Legacy Pointe or Safe Streets New Mexico regarding their pending application to place a homeless encampment in their neighborhood.

New Mexico Sun previously reported that following an Aug. 11 meeting between local Santa Barbra Martineztown leaders and city officials which included commercial real estate developer and ‘safe outdoor space’ advocate Brad Day, where Day and officials informed the group that the Dawn Legacy Pointe encampment application had already been approved, SBMTNA President Loretta Naranjo Lopez told the New Mexico Sun that it “seems like the city has known what they were going to do here for a while.” 

“The city also knows the impact of homeless encampments next to neighborhoods and to not involve us from the beginning is incredibly discouraging,” Lopez continued. “Failing to have us at the table, especially when they know how dangerous these encampments are, shows a complete lack of regard for the welfare and safety of our community. They can call it ‘safe’ all they want, but we’re not safe and experience has shown us that.”

Because the violations of notice and due process were so “substantial and meaningful” the LUHO did not make any rulings beyond those focused on the failure to follow appropriate notice processes – leaving the door open for those issues to be considered in future hearings should the application proceed following its remand. Saying in the ruling that, “[b]ecause a remand is appropriate, proposed findings regarding the other appealable issues are not deliberated here.”

The link to the full article is here:

https://newmexicosun.com/stories/633374263-abq-hearing-officer-remands-dawn-legacy-pointe-sos-application-finding-substantial-and-meaningful-violations-of-due-process

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The hearing officers remand decision is 16 pages long and highly technical in nature containing and citing provisions of the Integrated Development Ordinance under which the Dawn Legacy Point application was approved by the City Planning department. The hearing officer pointed out that all the appeal arguments were substantially similar and had to do with an administrative  decision from City Planning Staff for a proposed temporary Safe Outdoor Space (SOS) use  application submitted by Dawn Legacy Pointe.

The only issue addressed in the remand order disposition was the issue presented  regarding the lack of notices to abutting property owners.  Notwithstanding, the  hearing officer’s  “fact findings” supporting his decision to  remand and his summary of issues argued by the appellants merit review.

FACTS SUPPORTING REMAND

Land Use Hearing Officer Chavez made the following “findings of fact”:

“The record and the disposition of remand is supported by the following facts in the record:

 1.  In the most recent amendment of the IDO, effective July 28, 2022, the SOS use became a lawful temporary use which also included regulatory permitting provisions for their  approval in the IDO

 2.  Dawn Legacy Pointe is a new incorporated non-profit entity, incorporated to provide safe outdoor space services to homeless persons in the City of Albuquerque.

 3.  Even though Planning Staff testified that an “application” was submitted by Dawn 31 Legacy Pointe to the City Planning Department on July 30, 2022, there is not an application in the record from Dawn Legacy Pointe or from their representative(s) for a SOS temporary use at any location.

 4.  To satisfy the requirement of sending notice of the application to abutting property owners under the IDO, in the record there are two “Property Owner Notice Forms” for the proposed temporary use, notifying the Sunset Memorial Park landowner to the West of the proposed SOS use, and notifying the City of Albuquerque as the lot owner of an unidentified lot.

 5.The record also includes three AGIS City Zoning maps depicting the proposed lot

 6.  Presumably to support an application, there are documents in the record which were submitted by the applicants, including a site plan and other relevant exhibits, but there is not an application in the record. The only indication demonstrating that the City Planning Staff approved the “application” is exhibited in a computer file print-out sheet. The print-out sheet  indicates a review date of August 10, 2022, and a review status of “approved.”

 7.  The record shows that the following documents were submitted to the Planning Department by Dawn Legacy Pointe:

A.  A single page proposed site plan for the .79.-acre proposed SOS site

B. A two-page document labeled “Safe Outdoor Spaces Operation/Security 49 Plan.”

C.  A one-page document labeled “Safe Outdoor Space Registration Form.”

D.  A one-page document labeled “Intake Report Tracking” apparently copied 53 from the Mesilla Valley, Community of Hope—a non-profit entity designed  to provide a wide array of homeless services in the Las Cruces area.

E.  A four-page document apparently copied from Camp Hope labeled “Camp 56 Hope Agreements” with an attached waiver of liability form for homeless.

F.  A single-page letter dated July 31, 2022, from Mathew Whelan, the City  Director of the Solid Waste Management Department, advising Dawn  Legacy Pointe that pending approval of the temporary use application, the  City granted permission for use of one-acre of the site at 1250 Menaul Boulevard NE for 6-months, presumably for the proposed SOS use.

8. The proposed site is zoned NR-LM (Non-residential, light-manufacturing) under the IDO.

 9. The proposed site is owned by the City of Albuquerque. Apparently, the City intends to enter into a lease and a solid waste management agreement with Dawn Legacy 67 Pointe soon.

 10.  The first appeal … was filed by the Santa Barbara Martineztown  Neighborhood Association (SBMNA) on August 12, 2022. The next three appeals …  filed by 9. Crown Plaza Albuquerque, the Greater Albuquerque Hotel  and Lodging Association, and Beth Brownell and Scott Cunningham, respectively, were filed  with the City on August 19, 2022. Two more appeals …  were filed on  August 23, 2022, by LifeRoots, Inc. and by Menaul School, respectively. The last appeal … was filed on August 25, 2022, by Robert D. Reule.  All the appeals are timely filed.”

SUMMARY OF ISSUES ARGUED BY THE APPELLANTS

Land Use Hearing Officer Chavez summarized the appellants arguments as follows:

 “1. Appellants contend that City Staff reviewed the Dawn Legacy Pointe application in an abnormal, expedited manner and, as a result, failed to scrutinize the application; gave preferential treatment to the applicants; and failed to properly notify all the abutting  property owners and the SBMNA of the application and its review by City Staff. 

 2. The appellants contend that the operating and security plans approved by City Staff for the SOS use are inadequate; that the applicants have insufficient resources to operate a SOS temporary use; and that these deficiencies will result in the use becoming a public nuisance and/or it will adversely impact/affect the SBMNA membership and their neighborhoods, the business uses, and the Menaul School on Menaul Boulevard near  the site.”

 REMAND INSTRUCTION

Land Use Hearing Officer Chavez issued the following remand instructions:

“To correct the due process violation regarding lack of notice, Planning Staff and the applicants must assure that individual notice is sent to:

All owners, as listed in the records of the Bernalillo County Assessor, of property located partially or completely within 100 feet  in any direction of the subject property. Where the edge of that 100-foot buffer area falls within any public right-of-way, adjacent properties shall be included.

Before any administrative decision can be made on Dawn Legacy Pointe’s application, this is the minimal notice required [under the IDO] …   The applicant [Dawn Legacy]  must also show proof of sending the notices.  

Anyone who satisfies the standing criteria of the IDO for appeals can appeal the subsequent administrative decision within the time specified in the IDO for such appeals. 

Specifically, for the appeal issues that were not considered herein, an appellant must file a new appeal within the time required after the remand runs its course, but after Staff have made a  subsequent administrative decision on the application.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is very disappointing, but not at all surprising, that the Land Use Hearing Officer remanded the cases back to the Planning Department and ordered that it give proper notice to all  the surrounding property owners.  It was a course of least resistance to play it safe with the Keller Administration which is aggressively pushing  the SOS to be approved.

The hearing officer should have granted all 7 appeals and denied the SOS application and set  aside the Planning Department’s award of the SOS  which would have forced Dawn Legacy to either accept the denial of the applications or to appeal directly to the City Council.  It’s likely the City Planning will now just find a way to grant the application and the appellants will again be forced to appeal to a hearing officer and no matter the outcome of that appeal, the 7 appellants or Dawn Legacy,  will appeal a  second decision of the hearing officer to the City Council.  It is the City Council  who has the ultimate and final say on all land use issues and this entire mess of the Dawn Legacy application will eventually have to be decided by the City Council.

The downside is that Dawn Legacy will no doubt try to correct the defects in its original application giving it a second bite at the apple unless of course it decides to withdraw the application.  The upside of the remand is that Dawn Legacy’s plans were  to  open the encampment in October.   Now Dawn Legacy must  place it on hold until they and the city  get their act together, which is still a big if given the sure incompetence exhibited with the first application.

Mayor Tim Keller and his administration should be absolutely ashamed about what occurred with application and its treatment of surrounding property owners trampling on their rights and who were forced to appeal to protect their rights.  There is no getting around it. What the Planning Department did in rushing the application process simply did not pass the smell test. What also did not pass the smell test is when the city gave Dawn Legacy preferential treatment and identifying city property for them to use.

Even if Dawn Legacy manages to correct it application, what will still remain is that the Safe Outdoor Space Use will have an adverse impact on the area and will result in the SOS property becoming a public nuisance.  It  will also adversely impact  the South Broadway Martinez town Neighborhood Association and its membership the businesses in the area, and the Menaul School.

The Dawn Legacy Point homeless encampment is intended to provide accommodations for upwards of 50 women who are homeless and who are “sex-trafficking victims”.   What is being created at 1205 Menaul, NE is a location for victims to become victims once again. There is no common sense to it at all  and it is indeed just plain crazy.  Mayor Tim Keller holds himself out as a progressive and has made housing of the homeless a top priority, yet ostensibly he has no problem with a Safe Outdoor Space to be use for victims of sex-trafficking. Shame on Tim Keller.

The actual location is troubling and has the potential of becoming a magnet for crime, prostitution or illicit drug trade. It’s located near a truck stop known amongst law enforcement for prostitution and illicit drug activity.  It’s directly across the street from a major call center, a motel suite and is walking distance of Menaul Boarding School and apartments. Occupants of the ‘Safe Outdoor Space’ will not confined and would be free to go and come as they pleased and could easily wind up uninvited wherever they want to go. This includes the truck stop and disrupting the peaceful use and enjoyment at nearby locations or engaging in illicit activity.

Another upside to the hearing officer remanding the case is that Dawn Legacy could simply withdraw the application for the safe outdoor space, which would be the right thing to do and it is a real possibility.

Confidential sources are saying that Dawn Legacy have been offered the use of a building to house the proposed victims of sex trafficking. Woman who are victims of sex trafficking need permanent housing that is a safe place to live and be provided with far more stable housing than a tent in an open space lot area owned by the city.  Forcing victims of sex trafficking to live in tents is nothing more than victimizing them again.

NEWS UPDATE

On October 20, it was reported that Dawn Legacy has added  18 more property owners to the list of those who must be given notice of its application and that the organization sent the letters out on Tuesday, October 18.  Brad Day, a volunteer consultant for Dawn Legacy Pointe, said that once the application is approved again, the organization remains ready to “very quickly” launch the safe outdoor space once it gets the go-ahead.  Day said this:

“We’re all set – we’ve got our insurance, we’ve got the fencing contractor lined up, we’ve got the tents and all the other materials that we need.  We’re ready to go.”

Santa Barbara Martineztown Neighborhood Association President Loretta Naranjo Lopez said the association maintains that any city approval would be “detrimental and discriminatory” to the area and said this:

“We don’t want them there, period!  We’re going to fight it all the way. We’re going to do everything possible to make sure they don’t stay there.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2541779/ruling-neighbors-not-properly-notified-of-safe-outdoor-space-ex-con.html

POSTSCRIPT

For those who may be unfamiliar, a review of the land use appeal process is in order.

A review of an appeal of a planning department land use decision,  such is the Dawn Legacy Point Application for a  Safe Out Door Spaces,  is  called  a “whole record review”  to determine whether the administrative  decision approving the application was fraudulent, arbitrary, or capricious; or whether the  decision is not supported by the evidence in the record; or if in approving the proposed use  there was error in applying the requirements of the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO), a plan, policy, or regulation.  At the appeal level of review, the administrative decision and record must be supported by substantial evidence to be upheld.

The Land Use Hearing Officer (LUHO)  may propose to the City Council  that the Council affirm, reverse, or otherwise modify the lower decision to bring it into compliance with the standards and criteria of this IDO. The City Council also delegated  authority to the LUHO to remand appeals independently and directly for reconsideration or for  further review if a remand is necessary to clarify or supplement the record or if a remand will  expeditiously dispose of the matter.

In administrative appeals, the appellants must first demonstrate that they each have  “standing”  to pursue the appeals.  Standing is a jurisdictional, fact-based question under the IDO that must be determined before the merits of  any appeal is resolved.  Standing limits participation in appeals because if an appellant cannot sufficiently demonstrate standing, the LUHO is obligated to recommend a disposition that the appeal be denied.  Under the IDO, an appellant must have a sufficient connection as an aggrieved party to have standing.

For purposes of the Dawn Legacy appeals, there were two alternative means for the appellant to demonstrate that they had standing to proceed with their appeals under the IDO:

First:   An appellant had to demonstrate that they are property owners within 100-feet of the proposed SOS site, or that they are representatives of neighborhood associations whose boundaries include the proposed  site or whose boundaries are within 100-feet of the site .  This 100-foot proximity requirement expressly applies to temporary uses in the IDO … .

Second:  An alternative pathway for standing  was to  demonstrating that the “property rights or other legal rights” of the appellant had  “been  specially and adversely affected by the decision” of the Planning Department in granting the application .

Below is my guest column published by the Albuquerque Journal on Octobern18:

HEADLINE: Safe outdoor spaces not the answer to homeless crisis

BY PETE DINELLI / FORMER ALBUQUERQUE CITY COUNCILOR AND CHIEF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER

PUBLISHED: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18TH, 2022 AT 12:02AM

For five years, Mayor Tim Keller has made the city’s homeless crisis a major priority and now proclaims an “all-the-above approach.” It’s an approach that is costing millions and it is failing. Keller has done the following:

• Over two years, budgeted $33,854,536 for homeless emergency shelters, support, mental health and substance abuse programs and $60,790,321 for affordable housing programs for the low-income, near homeless.
• Established two 24/7 homeless shelters, including purchasing the Gibson Medical Center for $15 million to convert it into a homeless shelter.
• Established a “no arrest” policy for violations of the city’s camping, trespassing and vagrancy laws with an emphasis on citations.
• For five years, allowed Coronado Park to become a “de facto” city-sanctioned homeless encampment, which he was forced to close down because of drugs and violent crimes.
• Advocated and funded city-sanctioned safe outdoor space (SOS) homeless tent encampments. The Environmental Planning Commission is recommending the City Council repeal this land use.

SOS encampments are not just an issue of “not in my back yard,” but one of legitimate anger and mistrust by the public against city elected officials and department employees who have mishandled the city’s homeless crisis and who are determined to allow SOS despite strong opposition. SOS tent encampments will destroy neighborhoods and make the city a magnet for the homeless. The general public has legitimate concerns that SOS homeless tent encampments will become crime-infested nuisances; such was the case with Coronado Park. The homeless crisis will not be solved by the city but must be managed with permanent housing assistance and service programs, not nuisance tent encampments.

The 2022 “Point In Time” homeless survey reported the number of homeless in the city is 1,311 with 940 in emergency shelters, 197 unsheltered and 174 in transitional housing. The survey found there are 256 fewer homeless in 2022 than in 2021. During the last 12 years, PIT yearly surveys have counted 1,300 to 2,000 homeless a year. The PIT survey statistics have never supported city or charitable provider claims the city has upwards of 5,000 homeless. When PIT survey results are released, the city and providers quickly dismiss them as an “undercount,” likely because fewer homeless means less funding for the Family Community Services Department.

The homeless have reached crisis proportions with them becoming far more visible and aggressive by illegally camping in parks, on streets, in alleyways and in city open space whenever they want. When it comes to the “homeless crimes” of loitering, panhandling, illegal camping and criminal trespassing, Mayor Keller implemented a “no arrest” policy where arrests are the last resort and citations are to be issued. APD is allowed to make arrests only when circumstances endangering public safety warrant an arrest. This policy is ill-advised.

Being homeless is not a crime. The city has a moral obligation to help the homeless, mentally ill and drug addicted and is doing so with millions spent each year. Homeless squatters who have no interest in city shelters, beds, motel vouchers and who want to live on the streets and camp in city parks, in alleys and trespass as they choose give the city no choice but to make it inconvenient for them to “squat” and force them to move on or be arrested by the Albuquerque Police Department.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2541179/safe-outdoor-spaces-not-the-answer-to-homeless-crisis.html

On October 7, APD Chief Harold Medina  announced at a news conference new incentive pay  bonuses for   police officers who have been on the force 19 years or more,  and who are eligible for retirement. They  will  be paid as  much as $18,000 more per year, or $1,500 more a month.   In addition, the department will pick up 100% of the officers’ medical benefits.

The additional $18,000 more a year in incentive pay for 19  year  veterans will be paid in addition to the $16,380 annual longevity pay already being paid to police officers with 18 years or more of police service. According to APD Chief Medina  the incentive pay is  necessary to stop the number of officers resigning or retiring which cannot be offset by the number of new recruits entering the department.

APD  has  also extended existing hiring bonuses for incoming police officers through January 6, 2023.  Those include $10,000 extra for police cadets, $15,000 for lateral officers, and $1,500 for police service aides.   City employees can also be paid a bonus  if they recruit new officers. The city is paying a “finders fee” of $2,500 to people who bring a police cadet on board, $2,500 for those who find a successful lateral hire, and $1,000 for employees who help bring on a public service aide.

It was on February 4 that that the Mayor Tim Keller administration announced that it has negotiated a new union contract with the Albuquerque police union that raised APD sworn officer pay after one year of probation to over $68,000 per year.   The new 2-year contract raised police pay across all ranks by 8% and increased “longevity pay” by 5%.  Under the new police contract announced in February, APD’s wages are well above cities and law enforcement agencies of comparable size including Tucson, Arizona at $54,517, and El Paso, Texas at $47,011. The new APD contract keeps APD starting wages slightly higher than the New Mexico State Police.

RATIONAL GIVEN FOR ADDTIONAL INCENTIVE PAY

According to APD Chief Medina the incentive pay is necessary to stop the number of officers resigning or retiring which cannot be offset by the number of new recruits entering the department.  Under the state’s Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA), the retirement program for law enforcement is one of the best in the country.   Police officers can retire after 20 years earning as much as 75% of their average high 3 wage years pay and with 25 years, 90%.   APD is having a very difficult time keeping police officers past 20 years of service, with most just retiring and starting new careers or going to work for another law enforcement agency. The goal of the latest incentive is  to keep employing the more experienced APD officers.

APD also has extended existing hiring bonuses for incoming police officers through January 6, 2023. Those include $10,000 extra for police cadets, $15,000 for lateral officers, and $1,500 for police service aides. City employees can also earn extra money if they recruit new officers. The city is paying a “finder’s fee” of $2,500 to people who bring a police cadet on board.  $2,500 is also paid to those who find a successful lateral hire, and $1,000 for employees who help bring on a public service aide.

According to APD officials, the department has seen fewer resignations and fewer terminations in 2022.  Last year 97 officers retired from the department. Through September 2022, 45 APD officers have resigned in 2022 compared with 58 in 2021. There have been 44 retirements through Oct. 3, 2022, compared with 91 in 2021. With respect to terminations, APD has fired 5 people this year, as opposed to 8 in 2021.

When Mayor Tim Keller first ran for office in 2017, he campaigned on the promise that he would increase the number of APD sworn officers from the then 850 to 1,200.  During the last 5 years Keller has been in office, the number of sworn officers has never exceeded 1,000 and has now dropped to the current 857.

During the October 6, 2022 press conference, Medina said the goal of 1,200 sworn police remains the same but “given the current environment” of recruitment, the focus now is providing comprehensive services with the current roster of 857 officers, as well as boosting the number of people enrolled in the Public Service Aide program and the number of professional staff who support the officers in the field.

APD Chief Harold Medina had this to say about the reasons for the new incentive pay:

“I know when the Mayor took office, we talked about our goal is 1,200 officers. We still would love to get to 1,200 officers, but I’m here today to say that it’s going to be very difficult. … We’re going to do our very best to get to 1,200 officers, and that is our goal, but the reality of it is, in this environment, we may not. And we’re going to take ownership if we don’t, but we’re not just going to talk about we can’t do this, we’re talking about how we’re going to get the job done still. …

We know that officers have a value beyond their 20 years [and] they want to work  … We’re trying to find ways to incentivize [them to continue working.]  … We’ve had members here with our recruiting team that said [the new benefits] made a different for them, and they’ve decided to stay on the department past 20 years because they see the financial benefit. … It seemed to make a difference the first month, and at the end of the year, we’ll be gauging, we’ll be releasing to the community whether we saw a reduction.”

APD is giving officers who have resign a window of 90 days in which they can ask to be reinstated to their original positions.

INCREASE IN RECRUITING SEEN

Chief Medina said during the October 8 news conference that APD has seen an increase in recruiting since it announced it increased its compliance with the court-mandated settlement agreement with the Department of Justice.  Medina said he worked with the DOJ to change policies and processes so as to see a reduction of discipline handed out to officers.

Medina said this:

“You know, departments under a consent decree are not easy places to work for, and I personally try to recruit laterals from surrounding agencies on a consistent basis. … The No. 1 thing that deters them is the fear of our settlement agreement, and we have been working to reduce those fears. …Bottom of FormWe remain committed to reform and trying to find the most sustainable way to move forward and fight crime at the same time.”

WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM

The APD announced $18,000 to be paid to 19-year veterans on the force comes as the state pours millions of dollars into a law enforcement recruitment fund, of which some of that funding is going to APD.  In early September, New Mexico announced it would award $8.75 million to the Albuquerque Police Department for recruitment efforts. According to the Governor’s Office, the money was expected to fund upwards 67 new officers at APD.  Money for the program comes from a bill passed by New Mexico lawmakers during the 2022 regular session. Earlier the Governor’s Office said roughly $8.5 million remains available in the state fund. Law enforcement agencies who want the money need to apply.

It was on September 9 Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced how much money each participating law enforcement agency would receive to boost their staff. The Albuquerque and Las Cruces Police Departments received the largest share of the funds. Those departments each got $8.75 million, enough for about 67 new officers per department.  Lujan Grisham had this to say:

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/albuquerque-police-to-unveil-new-plan-to-keep-police-officers-on-the-job/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2538540/apd-retention-plan-offers-18000-a-year-incentive.html

APD BUDGET AND STAFFING

The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) is the largest city budget out of 27 departments. The fiscal year 2023 approved General Fund budget is $255.4 million, which represents an increase of 14.7% or $32.8 million above the fiscal year 2022 level. The approved General Fund civilian count is 665 and the sworn police count is 1,100 for a total of 1,765 full-time positions.

APD’s general fund budget of $255.4 provides funding for 1,100 full time sworn police officers, with the department fully funded for 1,100 sworn police for the past 3 years. However, as of October 7, there are  857 sworn officers in APD. The APD budget provides funding for 1,100 in order to accommodate growth. During APD’s budget review hearing, APD Chief Medina acknowledged that the department will likely not meet that staffing level and the personnel funds will help cover other operating costs.

The APD’s budget was increased to accommodate for an immediate 8% in police pay and another 5% in police pay to begin in July because of the new police union contract. The APD budget provides for a net total increase of $1.2 million in overtime pay to accommodate the police union contract hourly rate increase that went into effect on January 1, 2022.

During the October 7, 2022 news conference, it was reported that APD has 857 sworn officers.  This is down from the 917 sworn police number reported on December 6, 2021 to the Federal Court overseeing the consent decree.

As of October 2022, APD has 514 civilian professional staff, 40 public safety aides, 73   911 operators, 23 dispatchers, 41 retired officers that have returned to the department with more than 50 retired officers on contract work for the department.  The latest APD cadet class has 26 people in training to become police officers. The upcoming next cadet class is likely to see between 50 to 60 people.

CHIEF HIGH COMMAND TRIPLES IN 4 YEARS UNDER KELLER

During the last 4 years, the APD high command that works directly out of the Chief’s Office went from 3 to 10 full time sworn staff. Those positions are Chief, Superintendent Of Police Reform, Deputy Superintendent of Police Reform, 6 Deputy Chiefs, 1 Chief of Staff. Although APD abolished the ranking of Major that existed 4 years ago, which there were only 4, it has created the new position of “Deputy Commanders” which there are 16. The 16 “Deputy Commander” positions create a whole new level of bureaucracy and management between Commanders and Lieutenants that is highly questionable as to duties and responsibilities other than “assisting” commanders, perhaps as the commander’s drivers and escorts around town.

The hourly pay rate for APD Lieutenants is $45.36 an hour starting July 1, 2022 or $94,348.60.  Commanders and Deputy Commanders are at will employees paid upwards of $98,000 a year in base salary and with overtime they can easily earn well over $100,000 a year and as much as $120,000 as evidenced by those listed in the top 250 wage earners for the city.

Eight of 10 APD Chief executive command staff are listed in the top 250 city wage earners.  At least 6 of those in the executive command staff have at least 20 years or more service with APD.  8 of the positions are considered “at will employees” and serve at the pleasure of Mayor Keller and are not paid overtime. All 8 are reported to have a received a pay increase upwards of 8% beginning January 1, 2022.

Following are the 8 with pay listed for the full 2021 calendar year:

Medina, Harold, Police Chief Of Police, $177,562.68
Smathers, Michael Jay, 1st Deputy Chief, $149,881.56
Garcia, Eric, 2nd Deputy Chief, $147,444.20
Barker, Cecily, Deputy Chief, $147,201.70
Griego, Jon J , Deputy Chief $144,228.47
Brown, Joshua Deputy Chief, $134,608.38
Lowe, Cori Deputy Chief, $128,409.85
Stanley, Sylvester, Superintendent of Police Reform/DCAO , $123,219.28 (8 months with city and retired and the end of 2021)

 APD RETIREMENT PLANS UNDER PERA

APD has one of the most lucrative retirements programs in the country under the Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) plan for municipal police where both city and employee pay into the retirement program. Yearly retirement pay is determined with a formula of age, years of service, and averaging the salaries high 3 years. A percentage of yearly pay is given for each year of service with an age requirement to collect the pension.   A sworn police officer with 20 years of service can retire at any age and be paid  75% of their average “high 3 years” of pay.  A sworn police officer with 25 years of service can retire  at any age and be paid  95% of their average “high 3 years of pay.” 

https://www.nmpera.org/for-members/retirement-eligibility/

 NEW POLICE  UNION CONTRACT INCENTIVE PAY REVISTED

 On February 4, it was reported that that the  Mayor Tim Keller’s administration negotiated a new union contract with the Albuquerque police union that raised starting APD sworn officer pay to over $68,000 per year.  The new 2-year contract raised police pay by 8% and  increased “longevity pay” by 5%.  The new contract also  created  a whole new category of “incentive pay”.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2467440/city-reaches-new-deal-with-police-union.html

Under the new contract, APD’s starting wage is well above cities and law enforcement agencies of comparable size including Tucson, Arizona, $54,517, and El Paso, Texas, $47,011. The new APD contract keeps APD starting wages slightly higher than the New Mexico State Police. The 48-page APOA police “Collective Bargaining Agreement” (CBA) is for 1 year and 6 months period. It is effective January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023.

The new CBA can be downloaded as a PDF file at this link:

https://www.cabq.gov/humanresources/documents/apoa-jul-9-2016.pdf/view

Under the new contract terms, longevity pay increases by 5% starting on July 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year starting at $2,730 per year with those who have 5 years of service and with incremental service years up to 17 years or more who will be paid $16,380.

NEW HOURLY WAGE RATES

First year probationary officers are not covered by the union contract in that they are not union. Starting pay for an APD police officer graduating from the academy and for the officers first year of probation remains the same. They are paid $21.27 an hour for a 40-work week, 52 weeks a year or $44,241.60 yearly.

The cost of training each APD cadet is upwards of $60,000. As it stands, there is no minimum commitment of years for a cadet to work for the city after graduation, meaning they could move on to another law enforcement agency their first year of employment with the city if they want.

“Rank and File” police officers are generally recognized as sworn police officers under the rank of sergeant. Under the union contract sergeant and lieutenants are allowed to join the police union. “RANK AND FILE” HOURLY PAY.

The normal workweek under the contract is defined as 40 hours comprised of either 5 eight hour or 4 ten-hour days. (Page 19 of contract)

Page 6 of the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) outlines the new hourly wages negotiated for both rank-and-file officers and sergeants and lieutenants.

CLASSIFICATIONS

Under the union contract, the classification of Police Officer 1C is an officer in the bargaining unit who has completed probation up through 4 years of service as an APD Sworn Officer.

The classification of Senior Police Officer 1C is an officer in the bargaining unit with 5 through 14 years of service as an APD Sworn Officer.

The classification of Master Police Officer 1C is an officer in the bargaining unit with 15 or more years of service as an APD Sworn Officer.

The definition of serve and service is “actual time worked”.

2 TO 4 YEAR SERVICE PAY WENT  FROM $60,320 TO $68,411.20 A YEAR

Hourly pay for a Police Officer 1/C (first class) after completing one year of probation and then up through 4 years with the department under the new contract went from $29 and hour or $60,320 yearly to to $32.89 and hour or $68,411.20 a year starting July 1, 2022 until the expiration of the union contract on June 30, 2023.

5 To 14 YEAR SERVICE PAY WENT  FROM $62,400 TO $70,761 A YEAR

Hourly pay for a Senior Police Officer 1/c (first class) with 5 to 14 years of service goes under the new contract went  from $30 an hour or $62,400 a year  to $34.02 an hour or $70,761.60 a year starting July 1, 2022 until the expiration of the union contract on June 30, 2023.

15 OR MORE YEARS SERVICE PAY WENT  FROM $65,520 TO $74, 297 A YEAR

Hourly pay for a Master Police Officer 1/c (first class) with 15 years and above of service went from $31.50 an hour or $65,520 a year to $35.72 an hour or $74,297 a year starting July 1, 2022  until the expiration of the union contract on June 30, 2023.

SARGEANT PAY WENT  FROM $72,800 TO $82,533 A YEAR

Hourly pay for APD Sergeants under the new contract went from $35 an hour or $72,800 a year to $39.69 an hour or $82,555.20 a year starting July 1, 2022 until the expiration of the union contract on June 30, 2023.

LIEUTENANT PAY WENT  FROM $83,200 TO $94,348 A YEAR

Hourly pay for Lieutenants under the new contract went from $40 an hour or $83,200 a year to $45.36 an hour starting July 1, 2022, $94,348.60 a year until the expiration of the contract on June 30, 2023.

LONGEVITY PAY INCREASES

APD sworn police officers are paid “longevity pay” in addition to their yearly pay. On page 9 of the new police union contract, longevity “years” is defined as the completed years of service identified by the City and documented by an officer that an officer has served as a sworn public safety officer in any United States jurisdiction in good standing, excluding military police, and for time with APD shall be complete year(s) from the date an officer achieves P2C status or if a higher rank as a lateral. Special circumstances under the contract does create exceptions to this rule. The definition of serve and service is “actual time worked”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Under the union contract, lateral transfers from other departments are given credit for their years of service to the other department and are paid the longevity pay as if they had worked for APD. APD also pays lateral transfers “sign on” bonuses of $15,000 in an effort to attract experienced police officers.

APS sworn qualify for longevity pay in their fifth year of service. Under the new contract terms, longevity pay starts at $2,730 per year and increases topping of at $16,380 annually for those who have served 17 or more years.

CATEGORIES OF LONGEVITY PAY

The negotiated longevity pay under the new union contract deals with the overlap of 3 fiscal years. A fiscal year begins on July 1 of any given year and ends on June 30 of the following year. The longevity pay rates can be found on page 8 and 9 of the new union contract.

For fiscal year 2022 – 2023 that began on July 1 the  longevity pay scale bi-weekly annual amounts are as follows:

Beginning Year 5 through 5, $105 paid bi weekly, $2,730 annually
Beginning Year 6 through 6, $131 paid bi weekly, $3,406 annually
Beginning Year 7 through 9, $236 paid bi weekly, $6,136 annually
Beginning Year 10 through 12, $315 paid bi weekly, $8,190 annually
Beginning Year 13 through 15, $368 paid bi weekly, $9,568 annually
Beginning Year 16 through 17, $473 paid bi weekly, $12,298 annually
Beginning Year 18 and above, $630 paid bi weekly, $16,380 annually

https://www.cabq.gov/humanresources/documents/apoa-jul-9-2016.pdf/view

LIST OF 250 TOP CITY HALL WAGE EARNERS

Under the union contract, sworn police are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half of their regular straight-time rate when they perform work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek. Time worked over 40 hours per week is compensated at time and a half of the officer’s regular rate of pay, or in the form of “compensatory time.” There is no contract provision placing a cap on the amount of overtime any officer can be paid. Compensatory time is the award of hours as already worked to be paid and is calculated at the rate of 1-1/2 times the hours actually worked. The maximum accrual of comp time for any officer is 150 hours.

At the beginning of each calendar year, City Hall releases the top 250 wage earners for the previous year. The list of 250 top city hall wages earners is what is paid for the full calendar year of January 1, to December 31 of any given year.

Review of the 2019, 2020 and 2021  top paid 250 highest paid wage earnings employed by the city reveals 160 of 250 top paid city hall employees were APD  sworn  police who were paid between $107,885.47 to $199,666.40.

For the calendar year of 2021, 126 of the top 250 city hall wage earners were APD sworn police officers ranging from the rank of patrol officer 1st class to the rank of Lieutenant. In 2019, there were 70 APD patrol officers in the list of 250 top paid employees earning pay ranging from $108,167 to $188,844. There were 32 APD lieutenants and 32 APD sergeants in the list of 250 top paid employees earning pay ranging from $108,031 to $164,722.

In 2020, there were 69 patrol officers paid between $110,680 to $176,709. There were 28 APD Lieutenants and 32 APD Sergeants who were paid between $110,698 to $199,001 in the list of the 250 top paid city hall employees paid between.

The City of Albuquerque updated the list for the year 2021. According to the list of the top 250 city hall wage earners, they were paid between $119,356.16 to $211,144.75.   146 of those 250 listed positions are  assigned to APD.

The lopsided number of APD sworn police officers listed in the top 250 paid city hall employees is directly attributed to the excessive amount of overtime paid to sworn police officers.

https://publicreports.cabq.gov/ibmcognos/bi/?perspective=classicviewer&pathRef=.public_folders%2FTransparency%2FTop%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List&id=i5AAD1EA752BA417099BA819E482F6642&objRef=i5AAD1EA752BA417099BA819E482F6642&action=run&format=HTML&cmPropStr=%7B”id”%3A”i5AAD1EA752BA417099BA819E482F6642″%2C”type”%3A”report”%2C”defaultName”%3A”Top%20Earners%20of%20the%20City%20of%20Albuquerque%20List”%2C”permissions”%3A%5B”execute”%2C”traverse”%5D%7D

COURT APPROVED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On April 10, 2014, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), issued its report of the 18-month civil rights investigation of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The DOJ reviewed excessive use of force and deadly force cases and found that APD engaged in a “pattern and practice” of unconstitutional “use of force” and “deadly force” and found a “culture of aggression” within APD. On November 27, 2014, the City and the Department of Justice entered into the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) mandating 276 reforms. APD is one of 18 municipalities in the United States under a Federal Court consent decree for excessive use of force and deadly force. The link to the CASA is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/mental-health-response-advisory-committee/documents/court-approved-settlement-agreement-final.pdf

Within months after being sworn in on January 1, 2018, Mayor Tim Keller affirmed his commitment to implement all the DOJ mandated reforms agreed to under the CASA. Mayor Keller began implementing an $88 million-dollar APD police expansion program over a four-year period over increasing the number of sworn police officers from 898 positions filled to 1,200, or by 302 sworn police officers. The massive investment was ordered by Mayor Tim Keller to full fill his 2017 campaign promise to complete all the CASA reforms, increase the size of APD and return to community-based policing as a means to reduce the city’s high crime rates.

COMMENTARY AND ANAYSIS

APD Chief Harold Medina diverting legislative funding APD applied for and which was specifically allocated by the New Mexico legislature for “recruitment” and hiring of 67  APD Cops and then turning around and using it to pay APD 19 years of service veterans and additional $18,000 in incentive pay is so very wrong on so many levels.  It does not pass the smell test and it is akin to a “bait and switch” scam tactic by APD.  Medina did not disclose if he will benefit himself financially.

In all likely, Chief Medina has abused his authority or discretion by violating the spirit and intent of the state funding allocation.  APD had to apply for the funding and in doing so likely made the representation it would be used for “recruitment and hiring” with no mention that it would be used to pay incentive bonuses.  Incentive bonuses of $18,000 paid to 19-year APD veterans are not “recruitment and hiring”.

OBSCENE TOTAL

In February when the new 2-year APD contract was announced, the 8% pay raise and  the increased “longevity pay” of 5% was justified by saying APD needed to be more competitive to attract and retain new sworn police officers.   All other city employees received meager pay raises of 2.5% under the enacted 2022-2023 city budget.

It is difficult to understand and to justify paying 20-year law enforcement veterans an additional $18,000 more a year plus paying 100% of the officers’ medical benefits when those officers are also being paid $16,380 annually in longevity pay on top pf 8% pay raises resulting in a whopping $34,380 of incentive pay in one year

WHO WILL BENEFIT NOT DISCLOSED

APD Chief Harold Medina and all of his deputies are listed in the 250 top paid city hall employees and are paid between $128,409.85 to $177,562.68 a year.  Medina did not disclose if he and his high command will be paid the $18,000 in additional incentive pay.  Medina has retired before from APD and has upwards of 30 years of service years.  At least 4 of the Deputy Chiefs also are eligible to retire with over 20 years of service or more and Medina did not disclose if they will be given the additional $18,000.

APD Chief Harold Medina did not disclose exactly how many APD police officers who have 19 years of experience will actually qualify for the additional $18,000 in incentive pay.  Paying so much more to 20-year veterans is an attempt to keep employing an older generation of officer when what the city and APD really needs is a new, younger generation of police officer do the work and who have their entire law enforcement career ahead of them.

Since 2014,  APD has been under a Federal Court Order after the Department of Justice found APD had engaged in excessive use of force and deadly force and finding a culture of aggression within APD.   The 2013 DOJ investigation essentially found it was “experienced police officers”, which would include APD management and APD Chief Harold Medina, that created, participated and was aware of or who did not stop the culture of aggression within APD. Now Chief Medina wants to pay those very same  officers and additional $18,000 a year to keep them from retiring when they should probably just move on.

Simply put, police work is a young person’s profession that is both mentally, emotionally and physically demanding.   APD needs a new, younger generation of police officer who accept and are trained on constitutional policing practices and who do not resist the reforms mandated by the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

MILLIONS AVAILABLE IN UNFILLED SWORN POLICE OFFICER FUNDING

The fiscal year 2023 approved General Fund budget for APD is $255.4 million, which represents an increase of 14.7% or $32.8 million above the fiscal year 2022 level. The APD approved budget fully funds 1,100 sworn police in order to accommodate growth, yet the department currently employs only 857 sworn police. In other words, APD has  243 full time positions that are fully funded that are vacant.

Starting pay for an APD police officer graduating from the academy and for the officers first year of probation is $21.27 an hour for a 40-work week, 52 weeks a year or $44,241.60 yearly. Therefore 243 vacant starting pay salaries for sworn police at $44,241.60 translates into $10,750,708 of potential unused salary funding.

During APD’s 2022-2023 budget review hearing, APD Chief Medina acknowledged that the department will likely not meet the 1,100-staffing level and said personnel funds for unfilled potions will cover other operating costs.  During the April 28 budget hearing, Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis questioned APD for more information on its budgeting strategy on using unspent sworn police officers’ salaries for other priorities. Lewis said this:

“I think it’s good for us to understand this is not a budget that [actually] funds 1,100 police officers. … We’re going to give you [funding for] 1,100 officers this year. We’re going to fund [the amount] just like we did last year. We’re continuing to do that, but I think at the very least what this council is going to need and want is a very specific breakdown of where those salary savings went because we didn’t hire those officers.”

The approved 2022-2023 APD budget of $255.4 million covers the continuation of the 8% pay increase that went into effect in January and then covers the additional 5%, for a total of 13% in APD sworn police raises that starts on July 1. 2022.

INCREASE NEW CADET HIRING BONUSES TO $25,000 WITH 5 YEAR COMMITMENT

After working a full 20 years, police officers who usually continue to work do so out of sure love of the job and their dedication to public service.  Medina wants to pay additional incentive on the “back end” of police officer careers who are eligible for retirement.  Incentive pay should be paid “on the front end” of a career to attract and keep a new generation of police officer.

It costs the city upwards of $60,000 a year to fully train a new police officer in the academy.  Once trained, there is no minimum number of years that an officer must work.  APD and recruiting efforts would be better served if more is offered as sign on bonuses.  As it stands, APD is paying $10,000 for new police cadet sign on bonuses. What should be offered are $25,000 in new cadet bonuses with a 5-year minimum service commitment.

CONCLUSION

Simply put, APD is awash in excessive unused personnel funding.  There is no reasonable excuse for Medina to divert funding given to the city by the state for recruitment and hiring of police officers and then to turn around and dole it out to pay $18,000 more in incentive pay to 19-year veterans, not when millions of vacant personnel funding is available. It’s Medina’s gross mismanagement of human resources at best and his incompetence at worse with an element of sure greed thrown in for good measure.

The second and final debate of the 2022 Governor’s race between Democrat Governor  Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Republican TV weatherman Mark Ronchetti  is now in the history books.   It will likely be forgotten after a one-day news cycle but if it is remembered, it will be for the personal insults and harsh jabs.  Ronchetti accused the governor of being a “hypocrite” and making “a blizzard of excuses” for her failed policies.  Lujan Grisham cast the former television weatherman as an inexperienced “TV personality” whose only real plan is to ban abortion in New Mexico.  Lujan Grisham addressed Ronchetti’s accusations head-on and said “He talks about a blizzard. This is a blizzard of nonsense.”

The final debate occurred on October 12 on KOAT TV 7, lasted 60 minutes, it was sponsored by the KOAT, TV, the  Albuquerque Journal and KKOB Radio. It was  moderated by KOAT anchors Shelly Ribando and Doug Fernandez with a few questions asked by  Journal Capitol Bureau chief Dan Boyd and Bob Clark of KKOB Radio.  The candidates were also allowed to ask each other one question.  As was the case with the Channel 4 debate, Libertarian candidate Karen Bedonie was not invited to participate.

The link to view the final debate is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-gubernatorial-debate-2022/41600831

Following is a summary of the highlights of the debate.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Ronchetti was the first to speak and said in part:

“The cops know that this governor doesn’t back them up. She catches criminals and releases them. She appoints judges that catch and release them. She regularly appoints people to the parole board that catch and release them.”

Ronchetti pledged New Mexico can do better regarding crime and education by choosing “a different path.”  Ronchetti severely criticized the Governor for New Mexico’s high violent crime rates and poor academic outcomes, arguing it’s time for new leadership at the Capitol.  Ronchetti said spending isn’t making a meaningful difference in the lives of ordinary New Mexicans and said in part:

“The government in Santa Fe has never been bigger, never been richer.”

The Governor for her part highlighted her accomplishment while in office and mentioned recent job growth, job creation as well as expanding education opportunities like Pre-K.  She also mentioned the power of the state government to fix some local problems plaguing cities.  Lujan Grisham also reassured abortion rights to remain in place if reelected and said abortion is still legal in New Mexico because of her.  Lujan Grisham acknowledged challenging times including the pandemic and the largest wildfire in state history, but she said New Mexico is recovering. The unemployment rate, she said, had fallen to its lowest level in 14 years and she said:

“I inherited a government that had 425 less officers in Albuquerque, let alone the hundreds of officers lost because of Republican budget cuts in New Mexico statewide. … Progress isn’t promised. … The threat of going backward is real.”

ABORTION AND WOMAN’S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Not at all surprising, abortion was a big topic of discussion with the historic Supreme Court decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Lujan Grisham highlighted her signing of a bill that repealed New Mexico’s 1969 criminal abortion law outlawing abortions  and  she said:

“Women have a choice in New Mexico today because I’m governor”.

The Governor made it clear that she continued to stand and support the medical procedure and women having a choice. She also pointed out how Rochetti in private confessed to his pastor Steve Smothermon that his intent was to ban all abortions. Lujan Grishman made it clear that there was no need for a public vote on abortion and it was already decided.

Ronchetti for his part was clearly on the defensive. Ronchetti regurgitated his TV ads to say it was a very personal topic and that a state amendment would let the voters choose.   He said he does not want to ban all abortion but late term abortions but says he is pro-life. Ronchetti described himself as “pro-life” but said voters should decide the issue through a constitutional amendment and said:

“The values of the people in the state of New Mexico have to be taken into account.”

RISING CRIME RATES

On the topic of rising crime in New Mexico, Ronchetti brought up the “soft on crime” approach the state has taken with violent offenders. He asserted that  there are “10% less” state police officers than when Lujan Grisham entered office 4 years ago and that the population of criminals in prison is 20% less that when Lujan Grisham took office. Ronchetti said the FBI seizure of over 1 million fentanyl pills was proof that that criminals are here due to the laxed policing.  Rochetti ignored the fact that the seizure occurred under Lujan Grisham’s watch with local authorities in fact assisting the FBI.

Lujan Grisham for her part cited millions invested in police departments across the state and other resources provided to them under her leadership.  The governor also brought up GOP actions that cut the state budget affecting law enforcement. Governor Lujan Grisham also pinning a significant amount of blame for the state’s rising crime rates on former GOP Governor Susana Martinez who she called Ronchetti’s “mentor”.  She noted that it was Martinez who “destroyed” the state’s behavioral health system and which in turn led to more drug abuse and crime.  Lujan Grisham said this:

“The Governor Martinez administration, my opponent’s mentor and campaign supporter illegally eradicated all mental health services in the state of New Mexico. And it has had catastrophic impacts right here in Albuquerque.”

She also noted failed prosecutions of high-profile cases by Republican District Attorneys.

EDUCATION

The candidates were asked about New Mexico’s Public Education system.

Ronchetti asserted that his plan focuses on public education rather than private like Lujan Grisham has asserted. He cited the state’s low proficiency numbers and stated that there are several problems plaguing the state’s youth in education that must be addressed.  Ronchetti said he wants to get back to the basics in education of math, reading, science.

Governor Luan Grisham responded by reminding the public of the landmark public education decision of Yazzie v. State of New Mexico that ruled under the prior Republican Governor, the state of New Mexico violated the constitutional rights of at-risk students by failing to provide them with an education.  Govern Lujan Grisham undertook to fully fund the state’s efforts to reform the State’s public education system and she was highly successful by securing over $1 Billion dollars for the state’s public education system raised the base pay for teachers by upwards of 20%.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Lujan Grisham said she’s happy that the rate for unemployment is lower than it has been in 14 years. She also stated we are the 12th ranked economy in the nation.

Ronchetti says she never gave anyone a raise in the state and that ranking does not apply to all New Mexicans. Also stated the governor has been hard on small businesses.

ENERGY

The Power New Mexico shut down of the San Juan Generating Station was asked in terms that the state may not have enough energy in the coming years.

Rather than addressing the energy question, Ronchetti used the opportunity to simply attacked Lujan Grisham for paying PNM $300 million to shut down the San Juan generating station.

Lujan Grisham for her part said Ronchetti did not understand the Energy Transition Act. She then argued that New Mexico is becoming one of the highest producers in hydrogen energy and doing well in solar energy costs.

BORDER SECURITY

The border and the crime caused was another hot topic.

Ronchetti renewed his call for the New Mexico National Guard to be placed at the border to interrupt the flow of illicit drugs and ensure a secure border that is safe for local residents.

Lujan Grisham called his statements “political theatre” and said she spoke with those guards who worked the border during President Trump’s order and they told her their job duties were not border security. The Governor also said the national guard has no power to enforce immigration law and such a posting would leave the state without them if they were needed to assist with fires or floods.

HOMELESSNESS IN NEW MEXICO

The rising homeless population in Albuquerque was also a topic of questions.

Lujan Grisham said there is a need to have affordable housing to address the problem and that has been done under leadership.  Lujan Grisham has said previously that her administration is working to address the affordable housing shortage in the state and plans are underway to build 6,000 new houses around New Mexico.

Ronchetti said the population for homeless has grown and is now out of control, especially because of the policies of Mayor Tim Keller and that mental health resources need to be utilized for them. He went on to call for a ban on tent cities in Albuquerque and would commit to signing a bill supporting it.

HEALTH CARE

Health care services in New Mexico were also bought up in the debate.

Ronchetti said that the governor has put more of an emphasis on lawyers than doctors leading to more lawyers and less doctors for the state.

Lujan Grisham responded by deflecting the accusation citing price decreases for several procedures, as well as supporting the Inflation Reduction Act that allows negotiating prescription costs directly.  Ronchetti opposed the Inflation Reduction Act.

FOOD TAX

When asked about reinstating the state’s food tax, Lujan Grisham pointed out a food tax is the most regressive tax there is affecting the poor the hardest and said  she would “absolutely not” support it if it wound up on her office desk to sign.

Ronchetti also opposed any more taxes going to the government. He stated if you make less than six-figures, you’d see tax cuts under his tax plan.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change and wildfires that have plagued the state and continue to affect wildfire victims were brought up.

Lujan Grisham said she believe in climate change and pointed out that Ronchetti does not. She said the state will have enough renewable energy to power all of New Mexico.

Ronchetti said the best way to avoid wildfire threats is by having quality procedures to prevent them. He also brought up non-updated logging that worsened the wildfire situation this year.

CANDIDATES QUESTION EACH OTHER

The candidates were allowed to asked each other a question.

Rochetti asked the Governor about the $150,000 settlement with a former campaign spokesman who had alleged she grabbed his crotch while laughing in a 2018 campaign meeting. He accused Lujan Grisham of hypocrisy for saying she supports and believes the victims of sexual harassment and said:

“You’ve never come clean. … You are a hypocrite.”

The governor did not answer the question directly but said her campaign has been transparent about the issue. The governor’s campaign has contended the allegations are false and at one point characterizing that they were bizzare, and that the case was settled to avoid the expense and distraction of a lawsuit.

The Governor in response called the accusation a “false attack”  and said her campaign disclosed the settlement publicly.  She said the settlement was reached to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation at the apex of the pandemic. The Governor pivoted and said:

“You have spent your entire campaign attacking my character and my integrity.. They’re baseless attacks. … You’re a TV personality with no experience.”

When the Governor  asked her question of Ronchetti, she asked him  “What is misoprostol?” Misoprostol is used for elective medical abortion, and the question was obviously asked to test Roncheiit’s knowledge of a woman’s reproductive rights.  He lashed out with a smart-ass response and said:

“This is what 25 years in government gets you. . . a Governor who wants to play Jeopardy. … People have had enough of the political games. It’s garbage at this point.”

In a rebuttal response to Ronchetti, the Governor said this:

“Let me tell you what misoprostol is.  … It is a lifesaving drug for women often required for medical abortions that now women can get to treat cancer. If you don’t know what that is and … you don’t know the importance of providing comprehensive health care access, you don’t deserve to be governor.”

In the summer, Albuquerque Mega Legacy Church pastor Steve Smothermon told his Sunday congregation that after talking to Ronchetti for hours, Ronchetti said he was committed to doing away with all abortions, and Ronchetti could not say so publicly because it would damage his election chances.

During the debate, Ronchetti was asked about the comments made by Smothermon and he  reponded “You’ll have to ask the pastor about that” declining to say if Pastor Steve Smothermon lied about what Ronchetti said to him in private.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-gubernatorial-debate-2022/41600831

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-gubernatorial-debate-2022/41600831

https://www.koat.com/article/recap-koat-2022-gubernatorial-debate/41606034

https://www.abqjournal.com/2539958/gov-candidates-confront-each-other-in-combative-debate.html

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/lujan-grisham-ronchetti-trade-barbs-deflect-on-tough-questions-in-final-debate/article_d80fc9d0-4a44-11ed-9ea8-a7c1e5cd5a81.html

OPINION POLLS RECALLED

As of October 13, there have now been a total of 5 polls conducted by the news media in the 2022 race for New Mexico Governor. All 5 polls have Democrat Governor Lujan Grisham leading Republican Mark Ronchetti by as low of only 3% and as high as 16%.

October 9, KOB 4  Survey USA poll:

Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham: 53%

Republican Mark Ronchetti:  37%

Libertarian Karen Bedonie:  3%

Undecided: 7%

On October 9  NM Political Report “Public Policy Polling” poll:

Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham: 48%

Republican Mark Ronchetti: 40%

Libertarian Karen Bedonie: 7%

September 15, KRQE NEWS 13  Emerson College Poll:

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham   48%

Republican Mark Ronchetti:  43%

Undecided: 5.2%

September 14, KOB  “4 Investigates Poll” Survey USA poll:

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham: 48%

Republican Mark Ronchetti: 36%

Libertarian Karen Bedonie: 5%

Undecided: 11%

August 28, the Albuquerque Journal poll:

Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham: 47%

Republican Mark Ronchetti: 40%

Libertarian Karen Bedoni: 5%

Undecided: 8%

Averaging out all 5 of the polls reflects that Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham polling average is 48.8% compared to Ronchetti’s 39.2%. Ronchetti has yet to surpass 40% to 43% in any of the polling which is essentially the Republican base in New Mexico. Lujan Grisham has busted the magic 50% plus one in only 1 poll but that will likely change during the last month of the campaign in that Ronchetti has stalled and the momentum is clearly on the Governor’s side. The Albuquerque Journal is scheduled for release on October 30 its final poll and it will likely predict Governor Lujan Grisham winning with the margin being the only mystery.

MOST EXPENSIVE RACE FOR GOVERNOR IN STATE HISTORY

On October 11, it was reported Republican Mark Ronchetti outraised Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham during the latest four-week reporting period, leaving him with a heftier campaign war chest to continue his negative attacks on Governor Lujan Grisham.  The campaign finance reports filed with the Secretary of State on October 11 reflect that for the four-week period that ended October 3, Ronchetti reported nearly $1.5 million in contributions compared to roughly $1.1 million for the governor.

The reports filed Tuesday by both candidates reveal this year’s race for governor will be the most expensive in state history with Ronchetti having raised more than $7.8 million for his campaign while Lujan Grisham has raised in excess of $11.1 million.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2539602/ronchetti-outraises-lujan-grisham-as-election-day-nears.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The second and last debate on Channel 7 was clearly better than the first debate on Channel 4.  A redeeming quality of the debate was that is covered a plethora of issues including abortion, crime, homelessness, health care, education, taxation, energy, climate change, and gun control. The candidates dedicated their time to contrasting their policy ideas and plans with personal and negative attacks for good measure to make a point.  Ultimately, there were no major gaffs by either candidate and the debate did not produce a clear winner.

On a personal note, Ronchetti’s open mouth, clenched white teeth and rapid delivery of rhetoric was annoying and downright exhausting to watch. Ronchetti refrained from his childish, weird facial gestures and grimacing he used to react to the Governor’s answers in the first live TV debate.

Governor Lujan Grisham for her part was noted to be sitting during the debate, and not standing like Ronchetti. The likely reason for the Governor sitting is that she is nursing an injury to her left knee and is wearing a brace in public.  The Governor appeared annoyed and impatient at times during the debate, but still managed to appear poised and professional.

Given the amount of campaign funding still available to both candidates, voters can expect the campaign ads to become even more negative over the next remaining weeks. Given the 5 polls, Governor Lujan Grisham is on her way to winning a second term as Governor.

Early voting has already begun, and the election is November 8. Please vote.