On April 8, CNN national news service outlet published a remarkable story written by  staff reporter Gabe Cohen entitled “A huge homeless camp will be cleared after neighbors sued.  What happens to its vulnerable residents is an open question.”  What made the story so remarkable is that what was reported as going on in Phoenix today is essentially identical to Mayor Tim Keller’s “all the above approach” to dealing with the homeless crisis except for the private lawsuit.

 Below is the CNN story in full followed by the link to the story that has photos:

The young widow watched as the helpers wended through the Zone at sunrise, offering what they could: water, a bus ticket or a shelter bed – if one was open.

Standing beside her tent, Rayann Denny sized up the sprawling camp of 900 or so people improvised along sidewalks in downtown Phoenix:

“It’s a whole nother world.”

The soft-spoken 37-year-old ended up homeless last year after her husband died and she couldn’t pay the bills alone. This camp, she said, can be “a lot of drama,” with flares of violence. But Denny won’t stay in a shelter, with its rules and a curfew, as she relies on drugs to get through her days.

“I just try to keep myself high,” she said, “so I don’t have to deal with the pain.”

Her home base here, though – however scant – soon will vanish.

In the latest chapter of America’s increasingly polarized approach to homelessness, Phoenix must permanently clear the area that’s become known as the Zone after a judge ruled in favor of neighbors who sued the city, calling the encampment – next to a non-profit social services hub and blocks from the state Capitol and the city’s Major League Baseball stadium – an illegal “public nuisance.”

Their lawsuit could be a model for those looking to force other US cities to clear similar encampments, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said. But the prospect worries advocates for the unhoused, who say it simply pushes a critical problem out of public view, especially as soaring home prices and expensive borrowing have pushed households to the brink.

As Phoenix officials prepare to start moving tents out of the Zone this week, they’re also scrambling to create safe options for the displaced: leasing more hotel rooms and vacant buildings to convert into shelters, and building an outdoor campground with security, restrooms and hand-washing stations, the city’s Office of Homeless Solutions director told CNN.

But those won’t be available right away.

So for now, the crew of helpers has stepped up its years-old effort to try to get residents off the streets.

Enter your email to subscribe to the CNN Five Things Newsletter.

“We have to move fast,” team leader Nette Reed said. “We have to come up with a plan.”

THEY SUED THE CITY – AND WON

Debbie and Joe Faillace have owned Old Station Sub Shop, next to where the camp cropped up, for more than 30 years. They frequently discover property damage, drug paraphernalia and feces when they get to work, they said.

“There’s just a complete lawlessness, and it’s getting worse,” Debbie Faillace said. “We want our neighborhood back. We want to feel safe.”

While more states are passing controversial laws to ban public camping, Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs this year vetoed one such bill, saying it only served to make homelessness “less visible.”

The Faillaces and others already had sued last year in state court over the Zone, an unofficial nickname that isn’t universally embraced. They claimed the city had allowed its public spaces to violate its own public nuisance laws, with unsanitary conditions, drug use, violence and property crimes, fire hazards and blocked rights of way, court documents show.

A judge in March ruled in their favor, giving the city a few months to eliminate the nuisance conditions, records show.

The legal strategy may offer a template to anyone who lives or works near large homeless encampments, said Ilan Wurman, a lawyer for the Phoenix plaintiffs and an associate law professor at Arizona State University.

“We basically showed a proof of concept to use the courts to force cities’ hands to actually do something about the humanitarian aspect of this crisis,” Wurman said. “We hope other businesses, property owners and homeowners take up this fight in other jurisdictions where there are massive homeless encampments.”

But using such a lawsuit to clear an encampment like the Zone is an oversimplified tactic that not only doesn’t end unsheltered homelessness – but also increases “invisible homelessness,” National Alliance to End Homelessness CEO Ann Oliva said.

“Of course we’re worried that this is going to be picked up as a tactic by other communities,” she said. “I hope that it’s not a template for how other communities want to address this issue because we know that the only way to actually address this issue and homelessness is affordable housing and the services that people want and need in order to get housing.”

‘I DON’T WANT TO … WALK THE STREETS’

 The Phoenix area has roughly half as many shelter beds as people experiencing homelessness, a population that’s grown 46% since 2019 amid the affordable housing crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic, according to annual counts coordinated by the Maricopa Association of Governments.

Many who live in the Zone have jobs or get government assistance – but say they still can’t afford rent. By setting up camp outside the non-profit Human Services Campus, they guaranteed quick access to a secure center with roughly 900 shelter beds – full on most nights – plus aid including food, water and health care, all critical during Arizona’s scorching summers.

As the Zone is cleared, “the farther people get removed, … the harder it will be for them to access services,” Human Services Campus CEO Amy Schwabenlender said.

 “People will be more likely to die,” she said, “or be sick and go to the emergency room.” More than 700 people experiencing homelessness died last year in Phoenix’s Maricopa County – a 23% increase over 2020 that reflects the bump in unhoused people over that period, county officials confirmed to CNN.

The Zone clearing, due to start Wednesday, will be piecemeal and dovetail with city efforts to come up with alternatives for its residents, said Rachel Milne, director of Phoenix’s Office of Homeless Solutions.

 “The city’s approach will be to take it one step at a time, one block at a time, one group of people at a time, making sure that we are able to offer those 50 or so people in that block a variety of different solutions, a variety of different places to go, all of which have the services that they will need to keep them safe and healthy,” she said. “It’s safer certainly than where they are now.”

But without a confirmed opening date for the city-structured campground, advocates for unhoused people expect encampments like the Zone to pop up in other Phoenix neighborhoods, they said.

“It moves people into other spaces where they’re most likely also not going to be welcomed in,” Schwabenlender said. “And if they think a safe outdoor space is going to end homelessness, it’s not. It just shuffles people from one place to another.”

Indeed, many see efforts now in the works in Phoenix as a Band-Aid on the larger crisis facing cities across the country. “We’ve got to work on other solutions: preventing more inflow, preventing people from experiencing homelessness, helping them exit the system quickly so that those shelter beds that we do have can be used more efficiently,” Milne said.

“I think we have a lot of work to do.”

Stefanie Powell doesn’t know where she’ll go when cleanup begins at the Zone, where she lives in a tent with her boyfriend, she said.

“I don’t want to wind up having to walk the streets again,” Powell said about finding a new place to stay. She can’t work, she added, because of medical issues like neuropathy and fibromyalgia.

“It’s hard because nobody wants to see the problem. Nobody wants to acknowledge the problem,” she said.

“They just want it to go away.”

The link to the full CNN report with photos is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/08/us/phoenix-homeless-encampment-the-zone/index.html

 ALBUQUERQUE’S CORONADO PARK CLOSURE

On June 27, 2022 calling it “the most dangerous place in the state of New Mexico” Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference standing in front of Coronado Park to announce the park’s closure saying it was imperative even without a fully formed plan for how to do it and what happens next.

Keller said this:

“We’re not going to wait any longer. We have all the evidence we need that says that we have to do something different. … It is not going to be something where every question is answered, and every plan is thought out. … We do not have the luxury of a perfect plan. … At this point, if we don’t close the park now, it will never be a park again. … There was unanimous consensus that at a minimum, temporarily, this park has to close. … This is the first step. We welcome everyone to help us problem-solve, but someone has to step up and make a decision … And that’s what people elected me to do.”

City officials  said that upwards of 120 people camped nightly at the park.

In Albuquerque, Coronado Park was the City’s version of the Phoenix “Zone” but on a much smaller scale.  Instead of 900 homeless like the Zone in Phoenix, Coronado Park had between 75 and as many any 120 homeless camping and it was the largest concentration of city homeless. The big difference is that Coronado Park evolved over the first term of Mayor Tim Keller as Keller insisted it to become the city’s de facto city sanctioned homeless encampment over the objections of the neighborhoods and businesses who expressed anger and frustration as Keller and the city refused to enforce the city’s vagrancy laws  and city park prohibition’s on camping.

Over the period of about 5 years, Coronado Park became the “de facto” city sanctioned homeless encampment with the city repeatedly cleaning it up only for the homeless to return the next day. City officials  said it was costing the city $27,154 every two weeks or $54,308 a month to clean up the park only to allow the homeless encampment to return.

Residents and businesses located near the park and neighborhood associations complain to the city repeatedly about the city’s unwritten policy to allow the park to be used as homeless  encampment.  At any given time, Coronado Park had 70 to 80 tents crammed into the park with homeless wondering the area.

Criminal activity had spiked at Coronado Park over the previous three years with an extensive history of lawlessness including drug use, violence, murder, rape and mental health issues. In 2020, there were 3 homicides at Coronado Park. In 2019, a disabled woman was raped, and in 2018 there was a murder. APD reported that it was dispatched to the park 651 times in 2021 and 312 times  in 2022. There have been 16 stabbings at the park in the previous 2 years and when the park was closed APD had seized from the park 4,500 fentanyl pills, more than 5 pounds of methamphetamine, 24 grams of heroin and 29 grams of cocaine. APD also found $10,000 in cash.

PRIVATE NUISANCE ABATEMENT REMEDIES EXIST

The April 8 CNN report revealed that it was a private civil cause of action against the City of Phoenix that resulted in a Court order declaring the “Zone” a public nuisance and ordering the City of Phoenix to vacate the area and clean up the area. It could as easily happened here. The City of Albuquerque already has one of the strongest nuisance abatement ordinances in the country.  The State of New Mexico has one of the strongest nuisance abatement laws on the books.

Normally, a  nuisance is defined in terms of an “activity” that endangers the public health and safety and welfare. The New Mexico state legislature has enacted a statute that empowers all municipalities to define and abate a nuisance as they see fit.  Under the Albuquerque nuisance abatement ordinance, the City Council defines a nuisance in terms of real property, not an activity, both commercial or residential, that is used to assist, promote, facilitate or involved with criminal activity and the real property can be declared a nuisance by a court of law.

In 2004, the city’s Nuisance Abetment Ordinance was amended extensively to include all state  felony and misdemeanors as well as all city code violations (plumbing, electrical, gas and construction) in order to be included for consideration to determine that a property is  nuisance.  Reliance is made on the number of calls for service to APD to declare a property a nuisance.

Under state law, a nuisance is defined as a  single act or activities that endangers the public health, safety and welfare.  A public nuisance is a misdemeanor but a civil District Court  injunctive court action under the rules of civil procedure is used to abate such nuisances. Both the city and state laws are enforced through the State District Courts relying the Rules of Civil Procedure to secure injunctive relief in the form of Temporary, Preliminary or Permanent Injunctions.  Injunctive relief actions are fast tracked by the courts and a temporary restraining order can be secured  within 10 days at the outset.

What is generally unknown to the public is that the State’s nuisance abatement laws provide for private remedies. Private citizens, neighborhood associations and businesses can initiate nuisance abatement actions and secure injunctions and even collect attorneys fee if they are the prevailing party.

CITY’S NO ARREST POLICY

New Mexico Statutes and City Ordinances have been enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property rights. All the laws cited have been on the books for decades and are applicable and are enforced against all citizens and not just the unhoused.

The specific statutes and ordinances are:

1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
2. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
8. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

For the last 5 years, the city and APD have had a “no arrest” policy when it comes to nonviolent misdemeanor charges  and offenses that are committed by the homeless.  The “no arrest” policy is the result of a settlement reached in the 1995 federal case of McClendon v. City of Albuquerque that involved overcrowding and racial discrimination at the jail and was filed  to reduce  overcrowding at the jail.

In the period between August 15, 2022, just before Coronado Park was closed, and October 2, 2022, two-and-a-half months later, the City enforced these provisions over 220 times by citation and very few arrests.  Even when APD officers do not actually cite or arrest unhoused people for violations of these laws and ordinances, it enforces them by telling unhoused people that they must move on or they will be cited or arrested for their violation.

ALBUQUERQUE COMMUNITY SAFETY DEPARTMENT 

It was in 2021 that Mayor Tim Keller created the Albuquerque Community Safety Department (ACS). The department provides a non-police response to 911 calls associated with homelessness, intoxication and mental health. The Albuquerque Community Safety Department (ACS) dispatches first responders to 911 calls with or without other first responders from the police and fire departments.  According to the departments performance measures, in the 2022-2023, the department responded to 10,619 total calls for service with 6,062  calls diverted from police intervention.

Albuquerque Community Safety responders may have backgrounds as social workers, peer-to-peer support, clinicians, counselors, or similar fields. It is a first-of-its-kind cabinet-level department responding to calls on inebriation, homelessness, addiction, and mental health. It  works  alongside APD and AFR as a third option for 911 dispatch. It was created from a unique, Albuquerque idea based on programs the City developed and tested with the community.

KELLER’S ALL THE ABOVE APPROACH TO CITY’S HOMELESS CRISIS

Since day one of becoming Mayor on December 1, 2017, Tim Keller has made it a major priority to deal with the city’s homeless crisis.  It is the city’s Family and Community Services Department that administers the city’s programs to address the homeless, additional housing, and behavioral health services, including mental health services and counseling.

Mayor Keller has proclaimed an “all above approach” to deal with the unhouse and provide housing and services the homeless and near homeless to address the root causes such as substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, and youth opportunity.

For five years, Mayor Kellers “all the above approach” has cost the city millions. Keller has done the following over the last two fiscal years:

• 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 Family and Community Services proposed budget lists forty five (45) separate affordable housing contracts totaling $39,580,738, fifteen (15) separate emergency shelter contracts totaling $5,575,690, and twenty seven (27) separate homeless support service contracts totaling $5,104,938 for a total of $50,261,366.

The Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Family Community Services budget includes the following major line-item funding:

• $14 million in non-recurring funding for supportive housing programs in the City’s Housing First model.
• $1.5 million in recurring and $500,000 in non-recurring funding for a Medical Respite facility at Gibson Health Hub, which will provide acute and post-acute care for persons experiencing homelessness who are too ill or frail to recover from a physical illness or injury on the streets but are not sick enough to be in a hospital.
• $3 million in recurring funding to operate the first Gateway Center at the Gibson Health Hub, including revenue and expenses for emergency shelter and first responder drop-off, facility operation and program operations.
• $1.2 million for the Westside Emergency Housing Center, which has operated at close to full occupancy for much of the year.

SAFE OUT DOOR SPACES

Mayor Tim Keller’s “all the above approach” to deal with the homeless crisis  includes Safe Outdoor Spaces (SOS). It was Mayor Keller on April 1, 2022  in his 2022-2023 proposed budget where he first advocated for the land use known as “Safe Outdoor Spaces” to deal with the homeless crisis. Buried in the approved  2022-2023 budget was line-item funding that provided as follows: “$750,000 for proposed “safe outdoor spaces”. …  will enable ultra-low barrier encampments to set up in vacant dirt lots across the City. There is an additional $200,000 for developing other sanctioned encampment programs.”

It was on June 6, 2022  that the City Council enacted a series of amendments updating the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). One of the amendments was the “Safe Outdoor Spaces.” The legislation passed on a 5 to 4 vote and as enacted allows for 18 city sanction safe out door spaces,  2 in each of the 9 city council districts. “Safe Outdoor Spaces” are city sanctioned homeless encampments located in open space areas that will allow upwards of 50 homeless people to camp, require hand washing stations, toilets and showers, require a management plan, 6-foot fencing and provide for social services.

For over a year Safe Outdoor Spaces became one of the most divisive issues between the Mayor, the city council and the general public and neighborhood associations.  City sanctioned homeless 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 mishandled the city’s homeless crisis and who were determined to allow them despite strong public opposition.  Six applications have been filed thus far with only 3 approved and one of those 3 approved was appealed. The one appeal involved a Safe Outdoor Space on Manual and the freeway on city owned property that was to house 50 women who were victims of sex trafficking.  The appeal was rendered moot when the city owned property was sold to the state for a new State Police facility.

“HOUSING FORWARD ABQ” PLAN

On October 18, 2022 Mayor Tim Keller announced his “Housing Forward ABQ” plan. It is a  “multifaceted initiative” where Mayor Keller is hoping to add 5,000 new housing units across the city by 2025 above and beyond what private industry normally creates each year. As it stands now, the city issues private construction permits for 1,200 to 1,500 new housing units each year. According to Keller, the city is in a major housing crisis and studies show the city needs as many as 13,000 to 30,000 new housing units.

To add the 5,000 new housing units across the city by 2025, Keller  is proposing that the City of Albuquerque fund and be involved with the construction of new low income housing to deal with the homeless or near homeless.    The strategy includes “motel conversions” and  a zoning code “rebalance” to enhance density.  It includes allowing “casitas” which under the zoning code are formally known as “accessory dwelling” units.

Keller wants to allow “different forms of multi-unit housing types” on residential properties.   63% of the city’s housing  is single-family detached homes.

According to Keller, the city will also be pushing to convert commercial office space into to residential use. The Keller administration is proposing $5 million to offset developer costs with the aim of transitioning 10 properties and creating 1,000 new housing units.  The new plan also includes “motel conversations” which is the city purchasing and turning old and existing motels into housing.

“MOTEL CONVERSIONS”

“Motel conversions” are a major component of Keller’s “Housing Forward Abq” plan and  includes affordable housing where the City’s Family & Community Services Department  acquires and renovates motels to develop low-income affordable housing options. The existing layout of the motels makes it cost-prohibitive to renovate them into living units with full sized kitchens. An Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) amendment  provides  an exemption for affordable housing projects funded by the city, allowing kitchens to be small, without full-sized ovens and refrigerators. It will require city social services to regularly assist residents.  The homeless or the near homeless would be offered the housing.

On February 1, 2023 it was reported that the City of Albuquerque has executed a purchase agreement for the purchase of the Sure Stay Hotel located at 10330 Hotel NE for $5.7.  million for a motel conversion and to  convert the 104-room hotel into 100 efficiency units.  On April 17, Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference and announced the city had finalized purchase of the Sure Stay Hotel and the city intended  to renovate the building into 100 apartments for low and moderate-earning households. Keller said the new apartments will help address the housing shortage while providing a quality living situation. City officials said that $3-4 million has been earmarked for renovations. City officials said that converting and remodeling the property is much cheaper than building a new structure.

“POINT IN TIME” SURVEY

Each year the “Point in Time” (PIT) survey is conducted to determine how many people experience homelessness and to learn more about their specific needs. The PIT count is done in communities across the state. The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to secure federal funding.

The PIT count requires the use of the HUD definition of “homelessness”.

The PIT count uses the HUD definitions of “Sheltered”, “Unsheltered” and “Transitional Housing”.  The Unsheltered are defined as those who encamp in neighborhood open space areas, alleys, parks, high-traffic areas and points of congregation, meal service sites, and general service sites. It is the “unsheltered” that Safe Outdoor Spaces are targeting and designed to help the most.

In August, the 2022 the Point In Time (PIT) homeless survey reported that the number total homeless in Albuquerque was 1,311 with 940 in emergency shelters, 197 unsheltered and 174 in transitional housing. Surprisingly, the survey found that there are 256 fewer homeless in 2022 than in 2021 which was 1,567.  In 2019, the PIT found 1,524 homeless.

The 2022 PIT report provides the odd number years of shelter and unsheltered homeless in Albuquerque for 8 years from 2009 to 2019 and including 2022.  During the last 12 years, PIT yearly surveys have counted between 1,300 to 2,000 homeless a year.  Those numbers are:  2011: 1,639, 2013: 1,171, 2015:1,287,  2017: 1,318, 2019: 1,524, 2021: 1,567 and 2022: 1,311.

The 1,311 figures in the 2022 PIT report is the lowest number of unsheltered reported for the last 5 years. According to the 2022 PIT report there were 256 fewer homeless in January 2022 than in January 2021, yet the public perception is that the city is overrun by the homeless likely because they have become far more aggressive, more assertive  and more visible.

The 2022 PIT data breakdown for the unsheltered for the years 2009 to 2022 in the city is as follows:

Chronic homeless:  67% (homeless 6 months to a year or more)

Veterans:  9%  

First-time homeless:  38%

Homeless due to domestic violence:  16%

Adults with a serious mental illness:  46%

Adults with substance use disorder:  44%

(2022 PIT Report, page 7)

Note that a whopping 90% combined of the unsheltered are suffering from mental illness or substance use disorder.

https://www.nmceh.org/_files/ugd/6737c5_4ecb9ab7114a45dcb25f648c6e0b0a30.pdf

https://www.abqjournal.com/2402560/homeless-numbers-see-little-change.htm

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Albuquerque’s homeless crisis in no way approaches the Phoenix homeless crisis yet Mayor Tim Keller is using the identical approach which has a very steep financial cost when compared to the actual number of chronic homeless. The approach as CNN reported is one of “moving tents out of [homeless encampments] … and …  scrambling to create safe options for the displaced: leasing more hotel rooms and vacant buildings to convert into shelters, and building an outdoor campground with security, restrooms and hand-washing stations. … Many see efforts now in the works in Phoenix as a Band-Aid on the larger crisis facing cities across the country. “We’ve got to work on other solutions: preventing more inflow, preventing people from experiencing homelessness, helping them exit the system quickly so that those shelter beds that we do have can be used more efficiently.”

Albuquerque’s total chronic homeless numbers and those living on the streets is between 1,300 to 2,000 homeless with the actual number dropping this  last year according to the annual point in time survey.  Notwithstanding, the public perception is that the city is being overrun by the homeless. The likely reason for the public perception is that the homeless have become far more aggressive in going anywhere and  whenever they want, within the city, including neighborhoods and parks and camping  with less than adequate law enforcement action. The Keller Administration has adopted a “no arrest policy” when it comes to enforcing the city’s vagrancy laws.

Over the last two years alone, the Keller Administration has spent upwards of $100,000,000  to provide services and shelter to the homeless. It is now proposing to spend another $50 million in fiscal year 2023-2024.  There must come a point when it must be asked “when is enough is enough” to deal with the 1,300 to 2,000 chronic homeless in Albuquerque, especially those who do not want any kind of help?

Being homeless is not a crime. The city has a moral obligation to help the homeless, mentally ill and drug addicted. The city is meeting its moral obligation to the homeless  with the millions being spent each year for services, shelter and housing. But there comes a time when the public must demand and expect results.

The blunt truth is that Mayor Tim Keller, the City Council and the city will never solve homelessness crisis  and it’s not at all likely that the city will ever be free of the homeless.  All that can and must be done is to manage the homeless crisis but there must be limitations.  Adopting an “all the above approach” has been just plain foolish on a number of levels.

Spending millions on homeless services, shelters and housing and having no visible impact on 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 is at worst evidence of incompetent management and at best wasting city resources.

Keller and company need to do a better job dealing with the homeless and those who refuse services.  Mayor Keller needs to take a more measured approach which must include reliance on the city and state nuisance abatement laws, current laws and  law enforcement and perhaps the courts, such as civil mental health commitment hearings, to get those who refuse services and to get them off the streets in order to get them the mental health care and drug rehabilitation they desperately need.

The regular 2023 municipal election to elect city councilors for City Council Districts 2, 4, 6, and 8 will be held on November 7, 2023 along with $200 Million in bonds to be approved by city voters. The City Clerk has posted on its city  web page the election calendar and information for all candidates.

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/candidate-calendar-for-the-2023-regular-local-election

The 2023 Regular Local Election Calendar for candidates began on April 30 with an “exploratory period” to allow candidates to organize and collect “seed money” donations  and  ends on June 4. The petition and qualifying contribution period begins on June 5 and ends on July 10, 2023.

ANNOUNCED CANDIDATES

Known candidates listed on the City Clerks web page as of April 5 include the following candidates listed:

DISTRICT 2 (DOWNTOWN, OLD TOWN, PARTS OF THE NORTH VALLEY AND WEST SIDE)

• Joaquin Baca, Democrat, a hydrologist and elected member of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District who intends to seek public financing.
• Loretta Naranjo Lopez, Democrat, a retired city planner and current member of the New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Association Board who intends to seek public financing.

DISTRICT 4 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS)

• Brook Bassan, Republican, a stay-at-home mom and incumbent councilor who intends to seek public financing

DISTRICT 6 (NOB HILL, INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT)

• Jeff Hoehn, Democrat, a nonprofit executive director who intends to seek public financing
• Abel Otero, Democrat, a barber who intends to seek public financing
• Joseph Pitluck Aguirre, Independent, a dentist and software development company owner who intends to run a privately financed campaign

DISTRICT 8 (NORTHEAST HEIGHTS AND FOOTHILLS)

• Dan Champine, Republican, a retired police officer and current mortgage lender who intends to seek public financing
• Idalia Lechuga-Tena, Democrat, a consultant and former state representative who intends to seek public financing

https://www.abqjournal.com/2596546/candidates-launch-2023-campaigns-for-the-albuquerque-city-council.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

As the saying goes “out with the old and in with the new”. The November 7 municipal election will remake the council and perhaps there will be a shift from the current Democrat control to a Republican controlled city council. Three of the four incumbents whose seats are on the ballot are not running for reelection and they are District 2’s Democrat Isaac Benton, District 6’s Democrat  Pat Davis and District 8’s Republican Trudy Jones. The only sitting councilor running this year is District 4’s first term Republican Brook Bassan.  The city  council’s five other seats will not be decided again until 2025 and will include the Mayor’s race.

After the 2021 municipal election, the city council went from a 6 -3 Democrat Majority with the loss of Democrat Cynthia Borrego to Republican Dan Lewis  and it  became a 5-4 Democrat majority, but the ideology split is  5 conservatives to 3 progressives and 1 moderate. The breakdown by name is as follows:

Democrats

District 1 Conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez
District 2 Progressive Democrat Isaac Benton
District 3 Moderate Democrat Klarissa Peña
District 6 Progressive Democrat Pat Davis
District 7 Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn

Republicans

District 5 Conservative Republican Dan Lewis
District 4 Conservative Republican Brook Bassan
District 8 Conservative Republican Trudy Jones
District 9 Conservative Republican Renee Grout

Although the City Council is currently split with 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans, Conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez has often allied himself with Republicans Dan Lewis, Renee Grout, Trudy Jones and Brook Bassan allowing them to approve or kill measures on a 5-4 vote but being unable to override Mayor Tim Keller’ veto’s with the required 6 votes. Sanchez has voted for the Republican sponsored repeals of Democrat sponsored legislation including the city policy mandating project labor agreements, the emergency powers given to the Mayor to deal with the pandemic and voted to repeal the ban on the use of plastic bags at businesses. Sanchez raised more than a few eyebrows in 2022 when it was reported on March 14, 2022 he had established a political action committee called the Working Together New Mexico PAC that was formed to back “moderate” Democrats in a host of contested Democratic Party primary races.

Although Republican Brook Bassan is running for a second term, she still may have conservative Republican opposition. With progressives Pat Davis and Isaac Benton’s departures at the end of the year, the balance of power could shift further to the right if their replacements are more moderate to conservative Democrats giving Keller more headaches in passing his progressive agenda.

Informed sources have said Mayor Tim Keller has already met or spoken with at least two democrats running and pledging his support to them. This is a clear indication that Keller is fully aware of the stakes in the upcoming 2023 municipal election and that he intends to take an active roll in electing city councilors who will support his agenda over the final 2 years of his second term. Keller himself has said privately he is running again for a third term for Mayor in 2025 despite his 33% approval and 40% disapproval ratings found in a November, 2022 Albuquerque Journal poll.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2545820/mayor-kellers-job-approval-rating-sinks.html

Anyone interested in running for City Council is encourage to contact the Albuquerque City Clerk’s office.

The links to the city clerk’s web pages are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/faqs

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/candidate-calendar-for-the-2023-regular-local-election

______________________________

POSTSCRIPT

CITIZEN’S SALARY COMMISSION RECOMMENDS INCREASING CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR’S SALARIES BY 87%

On March 24, it was reported that the  Citizens Independent Salary Commission responsible for making recommendations for compensating city elected officials  voted to recommend increasing the  pay of city councilors by 87%.  If approved, city councilor pay would go from the present $33,600 to $62,843 a year.  The City Council president would get an equivalent increase going from $35,860 to $66,928 a year. The commission also voted to increase the mayor’s salary going from $132,500 to $146,081 a year.

The committee’s decision making process included a series of surveys and questioning Mayor Tim Keller and all 9 current city councilors and the public. The questionnaire sought to gauge workload, expectations and if the current salary reflected the job responsibilities and whether it might present an economic barrier for people who want to run for office.

The commission reported it wanted to ensure “fair and reasonable” pay for the city’s elected officials that accounts for their time and effort and comparing them  to peer cities.  The salary analysis included reviews of El Paso, Texas, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Tucson, Arizona.

Not all councilors responded to the survey. The 6 who did respond reported that at least 28 hours a week are needed to “adequately” fulfill their responsibilities but that their position needs full-time attention.

The public was fairly split on what elected officials should be paid. Among 182 survey respondents, 37% answered that the City Council salary should remain $33,660, but 36% thought councilors should make less and 26% said they should earn more. Wirh regards  to the mayor, 48% said the position should earn less, 34% thought it was good as it is now, and 18% felt the job deserved a higher salary.

The commission wanted to establish salaries “likely to attract competent and effective candidates to serve in public office and that enhances the opportunity for every eligible citizen to serve, regardless of their financial circumstance. …  why would someone be Mayor if they could be CAO (chief administrative officer), which pays almost double

One opinion expressed  was that the Albuquerque’s current councilor salary might prevent people from running for a seat, since the position is often too demanding to hold another job but does not pay enough to survive on.

Salary Commission Chair Kent Hickman said this when announcing the recommendations:

“The Commission considered a variety of data, including historical compensation received by the Mayor and City Councilors, comparative pay and forms of government among similar cities, the managerial complexity of elected officials’ labor, as well as changes in the cost of living and median household income.”

The Citizens Independent Salary Commission voted on the salary changes during an early March meeting. The new pay scale if approved by the City Council would take effect only after the 2023 and 2025 municipal elections meaning in 2024 for the candidates who win the council District 2, 4, 6, and 8 elections this fall and in 2026 for those who prevail in the 2025 election for Mayor and the other five council seats.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2585042/citizencommissionwantsbigraiseforalbuquerquecitycouncilors.html

CANDIDATE INFORMATION

The City Clerk has already posted on its city web page the election calendar and information for all candidates. The 2023 Regular Local Election Calendar for candidates begins on April 30 with an “exploratory period” to allow candidates to organize and collect “seed money” donations and  ends on June 4. The petition and qualifying contribution period begins on June 5 and ends on July 10, 2023.

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/candidate-calendar-for-the-2023-regular-local-election

ELIGIBILITY: In order to become a candidate, a person must be registered to vote in, and physically reside in, the district they seek to represent by August 9, 2023. Any changes to voter registration must be effective on August 9, 2023. How a name appears on ballots cannot be changed at the time of candidate filing.

NOMINATING PETTIONS: A candidate for City Council must collect 500 signatures from registered voters within the district the candidate wishes to represent. The City Clerk’s Office encourages candidates to collect more petitions signatures than required. Though signatures collected on the website will be validated as registered voters, signatures collected on paper forms will need to be verified as registered voters in the candidate’s district by the City Clerk’s Office once you submit them. Because individuals don’t always know their registration status, it’s possible that a number of the signatures you collect may not count towards the total required. A Council Candidate may collect petition signatures from 8:00am on June 5 through 5:00pm on July 10.

Candidates for City Council can be either publicly financed or privately financed.

PUBLIC FINANCING: Candidates can qualify city public financing by securing $5 qualifying donations from registered who live in the district. The public finance candidate must agree to a cap and agree that is all they can spend. Candidates are required to collect qualifying contributions from 1% of the registered voters in the district they wish to represent. The number changes based on the district a candidate is running in. City public financing can be between $40,000 to $50,000 depending on the 1% of registered voters in the District. City Council candidates may collect qualifying contributions from 8:00am on June 5 through 5:00pm on July 10.

PRIVATE FINANCING: There is no cap on what a privately finance candidate can spend on their campaigns.  A privately financed candidate may give themselves  an unlimited amount of money to spend on their campaigns. However, another individual may only donate up to a certain amount. For a City Council candidate, an individual may only donate up to $1,683.00.

MEASURE FINANCE COMMITTEE: A Measure Finance Committee is a political committee, person or group that supports or opposes a candidate or ballot measure within the City of Albuquerque.  Measure Finance Committees must register with the City Clerk, regardless of the group’s registration as a PAC with another governmental entity. Measure Finance Committees must also file financial statements at the same times that candidates report. Measure Finance Committees are not bound by the individual contribution limits and business bans like candidates. However, a Measure Finance Committee that supports or opposes a measure and receives aggregate contributions in excess of 30% of the Mayor’s salary from one individual or entity, must incorporate the donor’s name into the name of the committee. For 2023 Measure Finance Committees, that threshold number is: $39,750.00.

The links to the city clerk’s web pages are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information/faqs

https://www.cabq.gov/vote/candidate-information

On Sunday, May 7, the Albuquerque Journal published the below Dinelli Guest Opinion Column on page C3 of its editorial pages. On the same day, the paper published on its front page an in depth article with the bold print banner headlines “WHAT’S BEHIND ABQ’S SKYROCKETING RENTS? Out-of-state investment could be a boon to city’s apartment scene, but tenants face rent hikes and other issues”.

HEADLINE: “Keller’s shanty town of casitas, duplexes, encampments”

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

PUBLISHED: SUNDAY, MAY 7TH, 2023 AT 10:00AM
UPDATED: SUNDAY, MAY 7TH, 2023 AT 10:15AM

 A shanty town is loosely defined as an area of improvised buildings known as shanties or shacks of poor construction that lack adequate infrastructure including proper sanitation, safe water supply, electricity and street drainage and parking. Mayor Tim Keller wants enactment by the City Council of two major amendments to the zoning laws that will transform the city into a shanty town. The amendments will allow the construction of 750 square-foot “casitas” and “duplex” additions in the backyards of all 120,000 residential lots that have existing homes. The City Council has voted to allow 18 city-sanctioned Safe Outdoor Space tent encampments for the homeless to help with the “shanty town ambiance.”

The casita and duplex amendments are part of Keller’s Housing Forward ABQ Plan. It is a “multifaceted initiative” where Keller has set the goal of adding 5,000 new housing units across the city by 2025 above and beyond what private industry normally creates each year. Keller has proclaimed the city is in a major “housing crisis” and the city immediately needs 13,000 to 28,000 more housing units.

The zoning code amendments would make both casitas and duplex additions “permissive uses” and not “conditional uses” as they are now and have always been historically. A “conditional use” requires an application process with the city Planning Department, notice to surrounding property owners and affected neighborhood associations and provides for appeal rights. A “permissive use” would give the Planning Department exclusive authority to issue permits for construction without notices and hearings and with no appeal process. Objecting property owners and neighborhood associations to the permissive casita and duplex uses would be relegated to filing lawsuits to enforce covenants and restrictions.

Reclassification zoning of all single-family lots to allow residential duplex development and casita development will encourage large private investors and real estate developers, including out-of-state corporate entities, to buy up distressed properties to lease and convert whole blocks into rental duplexes with substandard rental casitas. This will dramatically degrade the character of neighborhoods and the city as a whole.

To put the argument in perspective, an individual investor will be able to purchase single-family homes to rent, add a 750-square-foot two-family home addition and build a separate 750-square-foot free-standing casita. The result is a one-home rental being converted into three separate rental units. Such development will increase an area’s property values and property taxes. It will also decrease the availability of affordable homes and raise rental prices even higher. It will increase gentrification in the more historical areas of the city as generational residents will be squeezed out by the developers and increases in property taxes.

The housing shortage is related to economics, the development community’s inability to keep up with supply and demand and the public’s inability to purchase housing and qualify for long-term housing mortgage loans. There is also a shortage of rental properties resulting in dramatic increases in rents.

Keller is using the short-term housing “crunch” to declare a “housing crisis” to shove his Housing Forward ABQ Plan down the throats of city residents and property owners. Keller is advocating transformative zoning changes to increase density by severely relaxing zoning restrictions to favor investors and the developers that will destroy entire neighborhoods.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2596580/casitas-duplexes-zoning.html

ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL COLUMN

On May 7, the Albuquerque Journal published on its front page an in depth article written by Journal staff reporter Alaina Mencinger spread out over 3 pages with the bold print banner headlines “WHAT’S BEHIND ABQ’S SKYROCKETING RENTS? Out-of-state investment could be a boon to city’s apartment scene, but tenants face rent hikes and other issues”. Major highlights of the Albuquerque Journal article that are worth noting are as follows:

“More outside investors are buying multifamily properties around the metro area — which could be a boon for Albuquerque’s aging housing stock, with many investors promising renovations and updates post-purchase. But tenants from several buildings around the city have reached out to the Journal over the past months, detailing rent hikes, problems with maintenance and unexpected lease non-renewals after ownership changed hands.

Maria Griego, director of economic equity at the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, said the center frequently receives calls from tenants after their building are bought.

“I’d say it’s one of our more common calls that we get,” Griego said. “More and more, we’re hearing from folks who are surprised to know that their lease is not going to be renewed, or that it will be renewed, but, they have to pay a huge increase in rent.”

So what’s causing the changes in the Albuquerque rental scene? And what’s the impact on the city’s thousands of renters?

…

The vast majority — about 88% — of the 8,000-odd multifamily rental properties in Albuquerque are locally owned, mom-and-pop operations, said New Mexico Apartment Advisors CEO Todd Clarke.

But a growing number of real estate investors are entering the market.

According to data from Clarke, there are currently 1,999 investors looking in the Albuquerque multifamily market — a number that has increased sixfold since before the pandemic.

There are a number of factors that have made Albuquerque appealing to outside investors, Clarke said. Pre-pandemic, he saw many investors come from markets that had rent control, unlike New Mexico, and were attracted by the low square-footage cost.

Clarke said Albuquerque’s economic growth over the past few years has been boosted by the FAANG effect — the relocation of major tech companies including Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google to an area. And investors started to take more notice, Clarke said.

“I feel like if not for the global pandemic, and kind of crazy national and global politics, that the headline news every day would have been this phenomenal economic success that Albuquerque is having,” Clarke said. “Investors like to go to markets where you see some strong job growth, because it speaks well about your future prospects for the community.”

Outside investment could increase and update Albuquerque’s housing stock. There are several thousand new units either under construction or newly opened, Clarke said. But before those units came on the market, the average age of an apartment in Albuquerque was 58 years — significantly older than housing in similar markets.

Cynthia Meister, vice president of Albuquerque’s branch of real estate company Northmarq said when she first moved to Albuquerque, she found the condition of the housing stock “embarrassing” — and said investors also noticed how out-of-date many properties were.

“There were some developers that came in and they bought up some of these properties that were just dilapidated, and they put in outside lighting … they put in new cabinets, etc,” Meister said. “And yes, there is going to be a rent increase. Absolutely, there is going to be a rent increase.”

Meister noted that tenants don’t necessarily want to move out of their current apartments into renovated units — and thus either pay higher rents for unrenovated or have to move entirely at the end of a lease.

Clarke said many Albuquerque residents have put up with “substandard housing,” in exchange for lower rents. Over the past decades, Clarke said, rents have remained somewhat stagnant — until now, as the city reckons with a rental shortage of about 13,000 units. In Northmarq’s Q4 2022 report, data indicated that low vacancy and high rents had prompted more housing development, but Meister noted that enduring supply chain issues could push back opening dates.

A pressure cooker of high demand and the cost of renovating outdated buildings has led to the citywide rent spikes, giving a “heart attack” to residents as prices increase all at once, Clarke said. And, mortgages are now harder to afford, he continued, so there are fewer housing options available, putting additional pressure on the rental market.”

… .”

The link to read the full May 7 Albuquerque Journal article with accompanying graphs is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2596923/albuquerque-apartment-rents-skyrocketing.html

CASITAS AND DUPLEX ADDITIONS WILL BE COSTLY

Home Builder Digest is a national online magazine dedicated to the residential housing industry. According to Homebuilders Digest, the United States market rate to build is at $207 per square foot.  Home builders serving the Albuquerque area estimate the cost to build in Albuquerque between $175 to $275 per square foot.

The Homebuilder’s Digest has also addressed the hard costs of construction and affordable housing in the city as follows:

HARD COSTS

Hard costs cover everything from materials to the actual home construction. In Albuquerque, a value-based custom home would start around $175 per square foot. This is a home that would have builder-grade finishes, such as ceramic tile, laminate flooring, basic cabinets, level one granite or quartz, aluminum or builder-grade vinyl windows, value series appliances, and basic plumbing and electrical fixtures.

A mid-range home would start at around $225 per square foot. Mid-range finishes would include porcelain tile, engineered wood, mid-level cabinets with soft close, level two or three granite or quartz, and a moderate budget for plumbing and electrical fixtures. It would also have premium vinyl or fiberglass windows and higher-end appliances.

A high-end custom home would start at around $275 per square foot. This home would have all high-end custom finishes, fiberglass or wood windows, and professional appliances.

A home with energy efficiency features would range between $200 to $400 per square foot depending on selections for mechanical systems, windows, plumbing and lighting fixtures, cabinets, appliances, flooring, and more.

 AFFORDABLE HOUSING

 “Many in the city believe Albuquerque should develop a more comprehensive housing strategy that will include provisions for homeless programs, transitional living programs, low-income rental, market-rate rental, and homeownership programs. Zoning policies enabling greater density, such as allowing for more accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on properties and encouraging high-rise condominiums can also help. Even new developments at higher price points can make a difference, as a family moving into a condominium can put their single-family house on the market and create an opening for a step-up buyer, and then consequently a first-time homebuyer.  … 

https://www.homebuilderdigest.com/cost-guide/new-mexico-cost-guides/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house-in-albuquerque/

Home builders serving the Albuquerque area estimate the cost to build residents in Albuquerque is between $175 to $275 per square foot. It’s a cost that equally applies to casitas and  duplex development. To build and construct a 750 foot casita or duplex at the $175 foot construction cost would be $131,425 (750 sq ft X 175 = $131,421) and to build both $262,848. To build and construct a 750 foot casita or duplex at the $275 foot construction cost would be $206,250 (750 sq ft X $275 = $206,250) and to build both $412,500.  These are just actual construction costs.  The addition of plumbing, sewer,  electrical and gas hook ups and permits  will likely add and additional $30,000 to $50,000 to the final construction costs bring the actual total cost to $180,000 for a single unit or to perhaps $256,000 for both a casita and a duplex.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The Dinelli Journal guest opinion column and the Albuquerque Journal front page column complement each other.  Both identify that what is occurring in Albuquerque is major outside investors are coming to the city and buying up residential properties.

The casita and duplex amendments to the city zoning code are part of Keller’s Housing Forward ABQ Plan. At all 5 public meetings held in March and April, and the two City Council Land Use Planning and Zoning committee meetings on the zoning changes, the Keller Administration repeatedly said that casita and duplex development are needed to increase density, create affordable housing and to get away from “urban sprawl”.  They repeatedly made the misleading representation that many within the community want additional housing for extended families making reference to “mother-in-law quarters”.  Calling casitas “mother-in-law quarters” is nothing more than a ploy by the Keller Administration to make the proposal palatable to the general  public.

Not once has the Keller Administration ever discussed the actual cost of construction of 750 square foot casitas and duplex remodeling nor who will be able to afford such remodeling and construction.  They simply presume property owners will be able to afford to do it themselves which is not at all likely given the high cost of construction and materials. The truth is very few people have the financial ability to invest another $130,000 to $250,000 in homes they already own. The casitas and duplexes will be used predominantly by developers and investors as rental units, either for housing or business use.

The blunt truth is that outside investors are the only ones that will likely be able to afford and undertake increasing the city’s density with casitas and duplex development.

Throughout her public service career as the New Mexico Cabinet Secretary for Health,  Bernalillo County Commissioner, United State Congresswoman and now Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham has paid special attention to the state’s  mental health care system.  One of the biggest accomplishments Governor Lujan Grisham can be proud of is the fact that she cleaned up the absolute mess and destruction of the state’s mental health care system brought on by the vindictiveness and incompetence  of her predecessor Governor Susana Martinez.

GOVERNOR SUSANA “CRUELA” MARTINEZ

The cruelest thing that Governor Susan Martinez did as Governor was order an “audit” of mental health services by nonprofits in New Mexico which devastated New Mexico’s behavioral health care system.  At the time, more than 160,000 New Mexicans received behavioral health services, with most of those services funded by Medicaid.

In June 2013, under the direction of Governor Martinez, her Human Services Department cut off Medicaid funding to 15 behavioral health nonprofits operating in New Mexico. The Martinez Administration said that the outside audit showed more than $36 million in overbilling, as well as mismanagement and possible fraud. The Martinez Human Services Department agency brought in 5 Arizona providers to take over.

In early 2016, at least 13 of the 15 nonprofits that were shut down were exonerated of fraud by New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas.  Even though AG Balderas found no fraud and cleared the nonprofits of fraud the damage had been done to the nonprofits and many just went out of business

Three of the five Arizona providers brought in by Governor Susana Martinez’s administration in 2013 to replace the New Mexico nonprofits pulled up stakes in the state and the mental health system as yet to fully recover.

https://www.abqjournal.com/749923/third-arizona-behavioral-health-provider-to-pull-out-of-state.html

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was left with the task of restoring the states mental health care system and including  settling all the civil lawsuits brought on by the Martínez Administration’s nefarious conduct.

GOVERNOR MLG  SUGGESTS OPTIONS FOR MANDATORY TREATMENT

On September 30, during the first debate between Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and TV Weatherman personality Republican Mark Ronchetti  both found common ground on the issue of the  homeless.  Both said they would crack down on certain activities while expanding services to those willing to utilize them.

Governor Lujan Grisham said the state was working to expand substance abuse treatment programs in the state but pointed out some homeless reject treatment options. Lujan Grisham had this to say about those homeless who refuse treatment options:

“We’re going to need to do a little tough love and that’s going to mean probably more options for mandatory treatment.  …  I plan to propose in the next legislative session restrictions on panhandling and trespass for this population.”

The 2023 New Mexico 60 day legislative began on January 17 and  came to an abrupt end on March 18 at 12 noon. No legislation was introduced restricting panhandling and trespassing by the unhouse nor mandatory treatment.

2024 LEGILATURE PRIORITIES

Friday, April 7, was the last day Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham had to sign into law or veto legislation enacted by the 2023 New Mexico legislature. By the end of the day, the Governor had veto 36 major legislative initiatives including most of the massive tax reform and reduction package but leaving intact rebates.

At the conclusion of the bill signing the Governor took the opportunity to discuss crime and gun measures for the 2024 legislative session.  The governor  also said she wants to explore proposals that would require people who need behavioral health care to enter treatment.  She said the civil commitment concept may not be scheduled for next year’s session, given the legal complexity. The Governor said this:

“We’re going to have to revisit, I believe, appropriate placements and potential temporary commitments for folks who have significant behavioral health issues and also drug addictions. … The due process requirements are critical, but they can also blindly get in the way of getting people the care and treatment they need.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2588667/gov-michelle-lujan-grisham-signs-three-crime-bills-calls-for-more-public-safety-legislation-in-new-mexico.html

HOMELESS SUFFERING MENTAL ILLNESS AND DRUG ADDICTION

Each year the “Point in Time” (PIT) survey is conducted to determine how many people experience homelessness and to learn more about their specific needs. The PIT count is done in communities across the state. The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to secure federal funding.

According to the 2022 PIT annual report, there were 1,567 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people living in Albuquerque. Of the 1,567 homeless in Albuquerque, 30.19% of the homeless  self-reported as having a serious mental illness and  25.5% self-reported as substance abusers. There is an overlap with homeless suffering both mental illness and substance abuse.  In other words, a whopping 55.69% combined total of those surveyed self-reported as having a serious mental illness or were substance abusers.

The 2022 Point In Time Report provides what it referred to “balance of the state” statistics where the Albuquerque’s homeless numbers were excluded. The total estimated number of households experiencing homelessness in Balance of State on January 31, 2022 were reported are as follows:

Totals of HOUSEHOLDS with one child, without children and with only children:

Emergency Shelters:  574

Transitional Housing: 70

Unsheltered: 366

TOTAL: 1,010

Of the 391 unsheltered, 43% were identified as adults with serious mental illness and 40% were identified as adults with substance use disorders or a staggering 83% combined figure.

The PIT report is 40 pages long and includes graphs and pie charts outlining the statistics reported.  You can review the entire report at this link:

https://www.nmceh.org/_files/ugd/6737c5_4ecb9ab7114a45dcb25f648c6e0b0a30.pdf

https://www.abqjournal.com/2402560/homeless-numbers-see-little-change.htm

EXISTING SPECIALTY COURTS TO DEAL WITH DRUG ADDICTION, MENTAL ILLNESS AND HOMELSS

There are two existing “Specialty Courts” that a exist to deal with the drug addicted, the mentally ill and with the homeless. Those specialty courts are the Metropolitan Court’s Outreach Court and the “Metro Community Veterans” court.

METROPOLITAN COURT’S OUTREACH COURT

A number of years ago, the Bernalillo Court Metropolitan Court established the specialty court known as “Drug Court” that dealt with those charged with misdemeanors and who suffered from drug addiction. A few years later, the Drug Court evolved into what is now  the “Metro Outreach Court.” The Outreach Court program is a collaborative effort between the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, the Office of the District Attorney, the Law Offices of the Public Defender, the Private Defense Bar, the Bernalillo County Attorney’s Office and community providers. The court follows the American Bar Association’s (ABA) seven guiding principles for Homeless Courts and is modeled after the San Diego Homeless Court.

The Metro Court Outreach Court provides the following description of the court and how it operates:

“The Court model is based around local community service providers being the gateway for participants to enter into programs voluntarily. Outreach Court is a specialty court program aimed at a segment of the population that has limited means of complying with conditions of the court, and faces challenges in obtaining legal representation. As a result, misdemeanor charges are often ignored until the defendant is incarcerated.

Outreach Court is unique from all other specialty courts as it is designed to work with individuals already engaged with treatment providers and give them an opportunity to resolve outstanding misdemeanor cases and warrants. This is accomplished by collaborating with community providers that are already providing services to these individuals.

Outreach Court provides a progressive diversionary program, allowing alternative resolutions in lieu of custody, fines, and fees for most misdemeanor charges. Participants may engage in life skills activities, substance abuse group meetings, literacy classes, and training, or search for employment, counseling, and programming aimed at improving their situations under the guidance of their community provider. The court acknowledges these endeavors in order to satisfy the courts’ requirements.

The prospective participants are referred to court staff to determine eligibility by their community advocate. If approved for participation, court staff will notify all involved parties. The participant will work with their client advocate at their chosen program to design a plan to move towards self-sufficiency prior to appearing in court.

This initiative shows a participant’s willingness to seek justice and to reconcile their past by their continued efforts to reclaim their future. Providers will write letters of advocacy on behalf of the participant and their efforts in the program. This is symbolic of the relationship between the client and the program, and outlines their accomplishments, providing the court with insight into their efforts. The court will review the letter of advocacy and determine the graduation time of the participant to be held at a community provider’s location.

Outreach court enables homeless and precariously housed individuals who are actively engaged in the program to address their outstanding legal obligations, freeing them to reclaim their lives and return to the community as valued members.”

https://metro.nmcourts.gov/bernalillo-county-metropolitan-court/specialty-courts/outreach-court/

METRO “COMMUNITY VETERANS” COURT

In 2012, Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court partnered with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Albuquerque Veteran’s Medical Center to implement a Veterans Program.

The Veteran’s Court web page provides the following description of the court and how it operates

“A team of criminal justice, treatment, and Veteran’s Affairs professionals were assembled that meet on a monthly basis to discuss Veteran defendants in Bernalillo County who were facing criminal charges or were struggling to meet their probation requirements.

The team soon learned first-hand how partnering with the VA and Veteran community resources was necessary in the effort to break down barriers and improve the identification and meeting the specialized needs of Veterans.

The Community Veterans Court began admitting participants in May of 2016. … [This] Court leads a multidisciplinary team consisting of two probation officers, an assistant district attorney, a public defender, and the Veterans Justice Outreach Coordinator from the New Mexico Veterans Administration Health Care System. To be eligible, defendants must be veterans of military service from any era regardless of discharge status, in the National Guard, or in the Reserves. Additionally, they must have been charged with a misdemeanor in Bernalillo County and volunteer to join the Court. Treatment services for any substance use disorder or mental illness, such as PTSD, are obtained primarily from the Veterans Administration Hospital or local Veterans Clinic.

Participants meet with the judge for status hearings one or more times per month, undergo frequent and random drug and alcohol testing, meet with an assigned probation officer, engage satisfactorily in treatment, and satisfy other conditions of the Court. Each participant is paired with a mentor, who is also a veteran. The unique camaraderie of the veteran’s group is a vital component in each participant’s recovery.

https://metro.nmcourts.gov/bernalillo-county-metropolitan-court/specialty-courts/community-veterans-court-c-v-c/

VETERANS COURT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The Veterans Court has the following 6 eligibility criteria for participant:

1. 18 years of age or over

    2.  Charged with a misdemeanor offense in Bernalillo County

    3.  Must have served in the U.S. Armed Forces or the corresponding reserve branches and/or members of the National Guard. Less than honorable discharges are reviewed on a case by case basis

   4.  Eligibility for CVC is not determined by eligibility for benefits from the Veterans Administration

   5.  An identified treatment need/issue substantially related to the offense

   6.  Consent of the prosecuting authority for pre-plea referral to the CVC or post plea if a presumptive commitment to prison/ jail exists.

Acceptance in the program is contingent upon meeting the full eligibility criteria of the program and approval of the CVC Presiding Judge.

https://metro.nmcourts.gov/bernalillo-county-metropolitan-court/services/language-access/eligibility-criteria/

https://metro.nmcourts.gov/bernalillo-county-metropolitan-court/specialty-courts/community-veterans-court-c-v-c/

https://metro.nmcourts.gov/bernalillo-county-metropolitan-court/specialty-courts/outreach-court/

NEW MEXICO STATUTORY LAW ON CIVIL COMMITMENTS FOR MENTALLY ILL AND DRUG ADDICTED

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was absolutely correct when she had this to say on April 7 about New Mexico’s mental health commitment process:

“The due process requirements are critical, but they can also blindly get in the way of getting people the care and treatment they need.”

There are complicated state laws on the books that deal with when and under what circumstances formal civil commitment hearings can be initiated for 3-day, 7-day and even 30-day observation and diagnostic evaluations for the mentally ill and the drug addicted.  Such processes and procedures can be utilized to deal with the homeless who are drug addicted or who suffer from mental illness and to ensure that they get the medical treatment and counselling services they need.

The New Mexico laws dealing with mental illness commitment hearings are very technical  reading for a layperson but do provide a succinct outline of how the process works. For that reasons the statutes are quoted herein but  have been heavily edited with deletions to assist the reader.

NM Statute §43-1-1 (2019)

It is Chapter 43 of the New Mexico Statutes that deals with mental illness commitment procedures and mental health evaluations of criminal defendants and to provide court ordered treatment.

NM Stat § 43-1-1 (2019) provides in part as follows:

Whenever a district court finds it necessary to obtain an evaluation of the mental condition of a defendant in a criminal case, the court shall order an evaluation from a qualified professional available to the local facilities of the court or from a qualified professional at a local mental health center designated by the secretary of health. …

[The following civil commitment procedures are to be followed:]

The Secretary of Health shall arrange for a qualified professional furnished by the state to visit the defendant in local facilities available to the court or shall designate suitable available facilities. If the secretary of health designates a local mental health center or a state facility for the defendant’s evaluation within forty-eight hours of service of the evaluation order, the secretary of health shall notify the court of such designation.

…

If the Secretary of Health elects to have the defendant retained at the district court’s local facilities, the qualified professional furnished by the state shall visit the local facilities not later than two weeks from the time of service of the court’s evaluation order upon the secretary of health … .

 If the Secretary of Health elects to have the defendant transported to the facilities designated by the Secretary of Health for the purpose of evaluation, the evaluation shall be commenced as soon as possible after the admission of the defendant to the facility, but, in no event, shall the evaluation be commenced later than seventy-two hours after the admission.

The defendant, at the conclusion of the evaluation, shall be returned by the county sheriff to the local facilities of the court upon not less than three days’ notice. After the evaluation is completed, the qualified professional furnished by the state shall be available for deposition to declare his findings. The usual rules of evidence governing the use and admissibility of the deposition shall prevail.

Documents reasonably required by the secretary of health to show the medical and forensic history of the defendant shall be furnished by the court when required.

After an evaluation and upon reasonable notice, the district court may commit a dangerous defendant charged with a felony … or may dismiss the charges without prejudice and refer the defendant to the district attorney for possible initiation of proceedings under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code.

A defendant so committed under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code shall be treated as any other patient committed involuntarily.

Whenever the Secretary of Health determines that he does not have the ability to meet the medical needs of a defendant committed … the secretary or his designee shall serve upon the district court and the parties a written certification of the lack of ability to meet the medical needs of the defendant.

The court shall set a hearing upon the certification within ten days of its filing and shall, after the hearing, make a determination regarding disposition of the criminal case.

When deemed by the Secretary of Health to be medically appropriate, a dangerous defendant committed pursuant … may be returned by the county sheriff to the custody of the court upon not less than three days’ notice. The secretary shall provide written notification to the court and parties within three days of the defendant’s discharge.   … .”

NM STATUTE § 43-1-11 (2020)

In 2020, the New Mexico Legislature enacted 43-1-11 providing for and outlining a process for the civil commitment of adults for mental health evaluations and to provide medical help.

NM Stat § 43-1-11 (2020) provides in part as follows:

“ Every adult client involuntarily admitted to an evaluation facility … has the right to a hearing within seven days of admission unless waived after consultation with counsel.

[The following hearing process is to be followed:]

If a physician or evaluation facility decides to seek commitment of the client for evaluation and treatment, a petition shall be filed with the court within 5 days of admission requesting the commitment.

The petition shall include a description of the specific behavior or symptoms of the client that evidence a likelihood of serious harm to the client or others and shall include an initial screening report by the evaluating physician individually or with the assistance of a mental health professional or, if a physician is not available, by a mental health professional acceptable to the court.

The petition shall list the prospective witnesses for commitment and a summary of the matters to which they will testify. … .

At the hearing, the client shall be represented by counsel and shall have the right to present evidence on the client’s behalf, including testimony by an independent mental health professional of the client’s own choosing, to cross-examine witnesses and to be present at the hearing.

… .

A court-appointed guardian for an adult involved in an involuntary commitment proceeding shall have automatic standing [or right] to appear at all stages of the proceeding … .

The court shall include in its findings the guardian’s opinion regarding the need for involuntary treatment … .

Upon completion of the hearing, the court may order a commitment for evaluation and treatment not to exceed thirty days if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that:

(1) as a result of a mental disorder, the client presents a likelihood of serious harm to the client’s own self or others;

(2) the client needs and is likely to benefit from the proposed treatment; and

(3) the proposed commitment is consistent with the treatment needs of the client and with the least drastic means principle.

 Once the court has made the findings set forth … , the court shall hear further evidence as to whether the client is capable of informed consent. If the court determines that the client is incapable of informed consent, the court shall appoint for the client a treatment guardian … .

[ACTION BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY]

An interested person who reasonably believes that an adult is suffering from a mental disorder and presents a likelihood of serious harm to the adult’s own self or others, but does not require emergency care, may request the district attorney to investigate and determine whether reasonable grounds exist to commit the adult for a thirty-day period of evaluation and treatment.

 The applicant may present to the district attorney any medical reports or other evidence immediately available to the applicant but shall not be required to obtain a medical report or other particular evidence in order to make a petition.

The district attorney shall act on the petition within seventy-two hours. If the district attorney determines that reasonable grounds exist to commit the adult, the district attorney may petition the court for a hearing.

The court may issue a summons to the proposed client to appear at the time designated for a hearing, which shall be not less than five days from the date the petition is served.

If the proposed client is summoned and fails to appear at the proposed time and upon a finding of the court that the proposed client has failed to appear, or appears without having been evaluated, the court may order the proposed client to be detained for evaluation … .”

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2020/chapter-43/article-1/section-43-1-11/#:~:text=An%20interested%20person%20who%20reasonably,grounds%20exist%20to%20commit%2

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

A glaring reality is that much more must be done with the initiation of civil commitment hearings to deal with the mentally ill and the drug addicted who are homeless and to ensure that they get the medical and mental health treatment and counselling services they desperately need. In Albuquerque, both the City Attorney and the Bernalillo County District Attorney can and should dedicate resources in the form of attorneys that will assume the filing of civil mental health commitment pleadings for such hearings as prescribed by law. The New Mexico Public Defender should also be called upon by the Court to provide a defense where and when needed.

A greater emphasis must be made to get those who are  homeless and the drug addicted who may or may not be in the criminal justice system the medical care and assistance they need without criminal prosecution and warehousing in the county jail. There is a critical need for a civil mental health commitment court for the homeless suffering from mental illness or drug addiction and who  pose a threat to themselves, their family and the general public. There is an even bigger need for the construction and staffing of a mental health facility or hospital to provide the services.

CREATE “BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TREATMENT COURT”

One single specialty “Behavioral Health Treatment Court” under the direct supervision of the New Mexico Supreme Court should and can  be created as an outreach and treatment court for the drug addicted and the mentally ill with an emphasis on the homeless.  The Metropolitan Court’s “Outreach Court” and Metro “Community Veterans” Court should be consolidated with a District Court Judge appointed by the Supreme Court designated  to organize and preside over the consolidated court.   The consolidated court would deal exclusively with mental health commitment hearings with the help of Metro Judges and magistrate judges.

Both the Albuquerque City Attorney and the Bernalillo County District Attorney could dedicate resources in the form of attorneys that will assume the filing of civil mental health commitment hearings as allowed by law. A program of cross deputization of City Attorney’s by the Bernalillo County District Attorney to allow them to file civil mental health commitment petitions in State District Court in misdemeanor and felony cases needs to be created. The New Mexico Public Defender must be called upon by the Courts to provide a defense and ensure due process of law.

BUILD AND STAFF MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY

As it stands now, there exists less than adequate facilities where patients can be referred to for civil mental health commitments and treatment. There is glaring and absolute need for a behavioral health hospital and drug rehabilitation treatment facility.  New Mexico is currently experiencing historical surplus revenues and this past legislative session the legislature had an astonishing $3.6 Billion in surplus revenue. It likely the state will continue to see historic surpluses. Now is the time to dedicate funding for the construction of  behavioral health hospital and drug rehabilitation treatment facility the courts can rely upon for referrals.

FINAL COMMENTARY

If Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is truly concerned about making sure those who are unhoused and who are suffering from drug addiction and mental health issues, the 2024 New Mexico legislative session is the ideal time to finally do something about.   It is the 30 day legislative session which by law deals with appropriations and budgetary matters.  The legislative agenda is limited to what is called the “Governor’s Call” and only legislation she places on the agenda can be can be considered. The Governor should place on the call the creation of a “Behavioral Health And Addiction Treatment Court” and the construction of a mental health treatment  hospital for civil commitments to complete the task of rebuilding the state’s mental health system destroyed by her predecessor.

On April 12 and then April 26 the Albuquerque City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee held meetings on the yearly amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). The committee of 5 consists of conservative Republicans Trudy Jones, Dan Lewis and Renee Grout, and progressive Democrats Isaac Benton, and Tammy Fiebelkorn with FIebelkorn appointed as chair of the committees by progressive Democrat City Council President Pat Davis

Among the more controversial amendments considered was 0-22-54 which is Mayor Keller’s proposed zoning code changes to allow the construction of 750 square foot casitas and 750 square foot duplex additions on every single existing residential lot that already has single family house in order to increase density.   According to city officials, there are  120,000 residential lots that have existing homes.  With the construction of “casitas” and “two family home” additions, density could double to 240,000 with casita structures alone or triple to 360,000 with both casitas and duplex home additions.

The zoning code amendments would make both casitas and duplex additions “permissive uses” and not “conditional uses” as they are now and have always been historically.  A “conditional use” requires an application process with the city Planning Department, notice to surrounding property owners and affected neighborhood associations and provides for appeal rights. A “permissive use” would give the Planning Department exclusive authority issue permits for construction without notices and hearings and with a no appeal process. Objecting property owners and neighborhood associations to the permissive casita and duplex uses would be relegated to filing lawsuits to enforce covenants and restrictions. City officials have said that restrictive covenants and building set backs in property deeds are a private property  matter between landowners that the city does not enforce.

 The amendments are part of Mayor Tim Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan.” Keller proclaims the city is in a major “housing crisis” and the city has an immediate demand for 13,000 to 28,000 housing units including rental units.  Keller wants to allow “different forms of multi-unit housing types” on existing residential properties.  It is a “multifaceted initiative” where Mayor Keller has set the goal of adding 5,000 new housing units across the city by 2025 above and beyond what private developments and the construction industry normally creates each year.

APRIL 12 LUPZ MEETING

The April 12 LUPZ Committee allowed for the first-time public comments on the IDO updates.  People were required to sign up an hour and a half before the meeting began. People were given a maximum of 2 minutes each to address the committee, a limitation strictly enforced with a timer and the ringing of a bell by committee chair Fiebelkorn requiring people to rush through their comments.  Comments were made for and against Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan.”

The majority of the speakers stated they had affiliations with neighborhood associations and they argued against the changes. The consensus amongst the neighborhood association representatives is that the zoning proposal is a rush job.  Many of the speakers voiced concern that the changes would alter neighborhood character or invite developers to buy up single family homes and replace them with duplexes and casitas to maximize value. Established neighborhood association leaders said their quality of life would be negatively impacted by increasing the population, diminishing their privacy, and creating more parking problems if ADUs became permissive uses.

Not at all surprising, many developers spoke in favor of the zoning changes to allow casita and duplex developments on all residential lots in the city.  The argument made by the developers to solve the city’s housing shortage was to simply build more, ignoring the economics of supply and demand and financing and assuming rents and market values will go down by simply building more housing.

The 2 most prominent speakers representing the commercial real estate development community who spoke in favor of the amendments and Keller’s Housing Foreword ABQ Plan were Jim Strozier, the President of the New Mexico Chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP), and NAIOP’s Executive Director Rhiannon Samuel.  Both Strozier and Samuel proclaimed the city was in a housing crisis and the only way to solve it is to build more housing.  NAIOP is considered the most influential business organizations in the city boasting membership of upwards of 300.  NAIOP membership consistently bids on city construction contracts.

Also speaking in favor of “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” during the April 12 LUPZ committee hearing were people who work with low-income and homeless populations, homeowners interested in building casitas to keep their own family members close by, and college students and young people who said the changes could help make housing more affordable.  College students and young people wanting casitas and duplex developments were particularly eloquent describing their struggles to make a living, often having to work two jobs and share housing with others to afford rent. They argued that  Accessory Dwelling Units and duplexes in R-1 residential neighborhoods would help them.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: The idealistic argument of simply building more and having more housing units will reduce rents is not reality nor free market based. Historically, rents and housing pricing increase or stabilize, they do not ever decline.  Property owners and landlords always charge what the market will bear and they get it

During the April 12 LUPZ committee meeting former City Councilor, State Senator and progressive Democrat Eric Griego with the Mayor’s office made an identical presentation to the LUPZ Committee city officials made at 5 public hearings using the same slides and arguments made to the public on Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” and the amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance.

After the presentation by Eric Griego, Republican Councilor Renee Grout spent time questioning Griego.  The Grout line of questioning of Griego included asking what stakeholders, neighborhood associations, developers and charitable organizations were involved with the process of developing the Mayor’s Housing Foreword ABQ Plan. She asked to what extent had the Keller Administration conferred with neighborhood associations and property owners on the plan.  The line of questioning included to what extent had the Keller Administration incorporated, modified or changed the Housing Foreword ABQ Plan to reflect changes asked for at the 5 public forums.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Eric Griego’s responses to Councilor Renee Grouts line of questioning were totally inadequate bordering on being misleading as he hesitated, stammered and deflected answering her questions.  Griego was not able to identify a single stakeholder, neighborhood association, developer or charitable organization involved with the process of developing the Housing Foreword ABQ Plan. There exists in the city upwards of 250 various neighborhood associations, yet Griego could not identify even one that was conferred with to develop the Housing Forward ABQ Plan.   What was most disappointing is that Griego was not able to say to what extent the Keller Administration incorporated, modified or changed the Housing Foreword ABQ Plan to reflect the desired changes asked for during the 5 public forums. Eric Griego said repeatedly the Keller Administration wants to work with the community and stakeholders to come up with a plan through communication and compromise, but he gave the unmistakable impression that the Keller Administration had changed absolutely nothing and has no intentions of changing anything.

After all public comments, Councilor Renee Grout attempted to amend what was being offered by the Keller Administration on casita and duplex developments.  Grout repeatedly said she was trying to represent “neighborhood association” interests with her amendments, but she was given no support from the other 4 committee members. When Grout offered her amendments for discussion and input, she was not given the courtesy of a second by her colleagues to allow public discussion, not even by fellow Republicans Dan Lewis and Trudy Jones.

Councilor Grout unsuccessfully tried to amend  the bill so property owners asking for a permissive use would have to undergo a public hearing process before building a casita and to require that casitas be at least 5 feet away from a property’s rear and side lot lines.  To add insult to injury, the LUPZ Committee ignored Grout and extended the casita allowance to include the city’s residential agricultural zone.

Grout also wanted to strike Keller’s duplex allowance from the legislation entirely.   Grout said this when she sought to strike Keller’s duplex allowance from the legislation entirely:

“I think that it would be odd in a regular neighborhood to all of the sudden have a duplex in the middle of the neighborhood. … When somebody spends their hard-earned money on a single-family home that was their biggest investment they ever made and (then), for the neighborhood to change, it scares some people.”

APRIL 26 LUPZ MEETING

The April 26 City Council LUPZ committee meeting was simply a continuation of the April 12 meeting.  People were allowed to speak on 0-22-54 allowing construction of Casitas and duplexes.  The meeting again featured neighborhood association representatives and coalition leaders. Also testifying were a few past officials saying that the casitas, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) should be conditional uses in R-1 neighborhood thereby giving neighbors and neighborhood associations a chance to be notified of the construction development and have a say on it.

Those speaking in favor of not changing the housing proposal from conditional use to permissive use were mostly commercial business owners. One speaker was an elderly woman who wanted a casita to be allowed on her daughter’s property.  One hotel builder thought Casitas would negatively affect  a project  on the west side.

SECOND VERSE SAME AS THE FIRST

The April 26 hearing once again had District 9 City Councilor Renee Grout asking Eric Griego with the Mayor’s Office to what extent stakeholders, neighborhood associations, developers and charitable organizations were involved with the process of developing the Mayor’s Housing Foreword ABQ Plan.  Eric Griego admitted that no neighborhood associations were consulted when the city drew up the change in zoning proposal to allow casitas and duplexes as permissive uses.  Griego also admitted that the Keller Administration has not incorporated any of the changes proposed at the 5 public hearing believing there was no need for changes.  What Griego did say is that the Keller Administrations simply reviewed what other major cities in the country are doing to increase density and developed the Housing Foreword ABQ Plan and the Keller Administration essentially  “cherry picked” what they thought would work in Albuquerque.

A District 6 Coalition (the SE Heights  International  District) leader testified  citing studies that showed Austin, Texas allowing the ADUs everywhere in hopes of increasing the affordable housing supply had not done so that and the opposite happened.  She said older homes had been torn down to make way for smaller multiple dwellings on lots and rents had risen.

The Secretary of District 7 Coalition said that members had expressed the opinion that making the casitas Accessory Dwelling Units conditional use was a possible compromise and that, while District 7  had no objection to the city’s plans for converting hotels into low-cost housing units, they thought it was a temporary solution.  According to the District 7 representative, the long term solution is to encourage and aid developers in building more apartments

RECOMMENDATIONS IGNORED

At the conclusion of the Aril 26 public comments, City Councilor Renee Grout offered and moved for  an amendment that would keep  casitas and duplexes a conditional use mandating that notice and hearing be required by the Planning Department. City Councilor Dan Lewis seconded the motion. When City Councilor Grout asked for the Administrations position on the amendment, Deputy Chief Administers Bob White said the Administration opposed it. Grout was surprised and became noticeably irritated and said she had conferred with the Keller Administration earlier and was told the Administration had no problem with it. White conferred with Eric Griego and after words told Grout the Administration had no position and could not support the amendment at the time. Realizing she did not have the votes to pass the amendment in committee, Grout withdrew her amendment knowing she could still introduce it  to the full council at a later date.

City Councilor committee members Tammy Fiebelkorn, Isaac Benton and Trudy Jones ignored all objections by the public to send  0-22-54  to the City Council with a “do pass recommendation.” Councilor Grout and Councilor Lewis voted against voting it out of committee with the “do pass recommendation”. Councilor Fiebelkorn then attempted to “fast-track” 0-22-54  to be heard at the next Council meeting for immediate action sidestepping further full city council hearings on all the amendments.  Councilor Lewis objected strenuously, saying that such a “sweeping” change to the R-1 zone should not be pushed toward rapid Council introduction and a final vote at the same meeting. Councilor Fiebelkorn withdrew her fast-track proposal. Notwithstanding Mayor Keller’s housing changes as embodied in 0-22-54 will likely go before the full Council on May 15 for some discussion but not a final vote.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The City Council with enactment of 0-22-54 wants to  empower  the Planning Department to unilaterally issue “permissive uses” for “casitas” and “two family duplex development” on existing structures.  The Planning Department will be allowed to exclude the general public from the permissible use application and deny adjacent property owners the right to object and appeal casitas and duplex remodeling. It essentially will require property owners to sue adjoining property owners to enforce covenants and restrictions, pitting individual neighbors against entire neighborhoods.

Reclassification zoning of all single-family lots to allow residential duplex development and casita development will encourage large private investors and real estate developers, including out-of-state corporate entities, to buy up distressed properties or lease and covert whole blocks into rental duplexes with substandard rental casitas. This will dramatically degrade the character of neighborhoods and the City as a whole.

To put the argument in perspective, an individual investor will be able to purchase single family homes to rent, add a 750 square foot two family home addition and build a separate 750 foot free standing casita.  The result is a one home rental being converted into 3 separate rental units.  Such development will increase an areas property values and property taxes. It will also decrease the availability of affordable homes and raise rental prices even higher. It will increase gentrification in the more historical areas of the city as generational residents will be squeezed out by the developers and increases in property taxes.

The housing shortage is related to economics and the development community’s inability to keep up with supply and demand and the public’s inability to purchase housing and qualify for long term housing mortgage loans. There is also a shortage of rental properties resulting in dramatic increases in rents.  Mayor Tim Keller is using the short-term housing “crunch” to declare a “housing crisis” to shove his “Housing Forward Abq Plan” down the throats of the city residents and property owners. Keller is advocating transformative zoning changes to increase density by severely relaxing zoning restrictions to favor investors and the developers that will destroy entire neighborhoods.

Voters and residents are urged to contact and voice their opinion and tell all city councilors to vote NO on the 0-22-54 amendments.

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

CITY COUNCIL AND SUPPORT STAFF  EMAILS

lesanchez@cabq.gov
louiesanchez@allstate.com
bmaceachen@cabq.gov
ibenton@cabq.gov
namolina@cabq.gov
kpena@cabq.gov,
rmhernandez@cabq.gov
bbassan@cabq.gov
danlewis@cabq.gov
galvarez@cabq.gov
patdavis@cabq.gov
seanforan@cabq.gov
tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov
lrummler@cabq.gov
trudyjones@cabq.gov
azizachavez@cabq.gov
rgrout@cabq.gov
rrmiller@cabq.gov
LEWISABQ@GMAIL.COM
nancymontano@cabq.gov
cortega@cabq.gov
cmelendrez@cabq.gov

On April 27, first term City Councilors Democrat Louie Sanchez and Republican Renee Grout announced legislation proposing a City Charter amendment for a public vote that will make the Mayor of Albuquerque a member of the City Council.  They want to transfer all the mayor’s executive and city management duties to a city manager chosen by the city council. According to the proposed legislation, the mayor would “be recognized as the head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes”.  It turns out the legislation has never been vetted, researched or recommended for approval by the City Charter Review Task Force responsible for making recommendations for charter amendments.

Under the proposed legislation, a “professional” city manager would be selected by the City Council to oversee and manage all 27 city departments and directors. The city’s existing Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) already serves this function and presumably would be abolished. The city manager would administer the city’s personnel rules and regulations for the over 7,000 city employees.  The City manager would be responsible to prepare and formulate the city’s annual operating budget for city council review and adoption.  This year’s 2023-2024 proposed budget is $1.4 Billion.

The mayor would preside over council meetings, but would only be allowed to vote in case of a tie vote. The mayor would have no administrative duties, nor hiring authority, and be allowed to vote at council meetings only in the event of a tie. The mayor would have no veto power over enacted legislation and would have less power than a city councilor on pending and enacted legislation.

CHARTER REVIEW TASK FORCE CREATED

The City of Albuquerque has enacted a code of ordinances that deals with the interpretation and enforcement of all city ordinances.  Among the city ordinances enacted are those that create 22 permanent standing committees, advisory councils and task forces.  Among the more notable permanent standing committees, advisory councils and task forces are the following:

• 2-1-3 Financial Planning Board.
• 2-1-4 Goals Commission.
• 2-1-11 Capital Improvements Advisory Committee.
• 2-1-14 Task Force on Governmental Efficiency and Results.
• 2-1-15 Program and Budget Planning Task Force.
• 2-1-16 Redistricting Committee.

On September 28, 1998 the Albuquerque City Council enacted city ordinance § 2-1-7 creating the Charter Review Task Force. It is a seven-member task force appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council to review and evaluate all areas of the City Charter, including those sections which have been challenged in court or otherwise as well as unchallenged sections.

According to the ordinance the task force “shall be a blue ribbon group, whose members are well respected in the community. Among the members shall be citizens who are knowledgeable as to municipal government organization in Albuquerque and/or in general. Membership shall include attorneys respected in the area of municipal and constitutional law.”

The charge of the Charter Review Task Force is to examine any and all articles, sections, and provisions of the City Charter for the purpose of recommending any amendments to the Charter deemed appropriate.  The Task Force is required to hold one or more public hearings at which the citizens of the city shall be encouraged to give their views on the Charter. The Task Force is required to present its recommendations to the Mayor and the Council in the form of a final report.

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/albuquerque/latest/albuquerque_nm_res/0-0-0-17571

The convening of an individual Charter Review Task Force is done by the passage of a city council resolution where members are appointed and selected by all City Councilors and the Mayor and the Chair of the Task Force is selected by the Council. The Task Force is then required to hold public meetings, allow public comment and the public is invited to offer suggestions or comments. The task force after completion of its work is required to confer, deliberate and formulate a final report to the Mayor and city council who the ultimately decide if Charter Amendments are in order.

The last time a Charter Review Task Force Charter Report with recommendations was issued was on May 1, 2009.

https://www.cabq.gov/council/projects/completed-projects/2009/charter-review-task-force

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Democrat City Councilor Louis Sanchez and Republican Renee Grout have pretty much made fools of themselves by proposing a City Charter amendment for a public vote that will make the Mayor of Albuquerque a member of the City Council and creating a city council appointed city manager without it being vetted by the Charter Review Task Force. What they have done smacks of pure political hackery motivated by frustration on their part and caused by sure ignorance of the process used and relied upon for decades to evaluate the city’s form of government.

Both Democrat City Councilor Louis Sanchez and Republican Renee Grout were elected on November 2, 2021 having never been elected nor served before in any other elective office. They have served a mere 16 months as city councilor having been sworn into office on January 1, 2022.  Both now proclaim the city needs a complete and dramatic restructuring of city government with a 50 year throwback to the past city commission-city manager form of government  without offering any substantive evidence that the current Mayor-Council form of government is failing or not working.  All they offer is political rhetoric. They both prefer to sponsor legislation amending the Charter without the convening of the Charter Review Task Force which was created in part to prevent this sort of nefarious conduct by city councilors.

What they do offer is pure political rhetoric showing their sure ignorance of how Albuquerque City government works.

City Councilor Louis Sanchez had this to say:

“I think this is something the citizens have needed for a long time and deserve. … What we’re simply doing is making sure that the council can vote on putting it on the ballot. … It’s time to let the citizens decide if they’ve been impacted at all by safety, security issues. … We hear people always talking from Rio Rancho, ‘Man I don’t want to go to Albuquerque, because Albuquerque’s dangerous’. … I think it’s a great opportunity for our citizens to chime in [and] make Albuquerque  a little more efficient, more stable, more fiscally responsible and transparent over time. …  [The Mayor] …  would still bring a lot to the table [in a council-manager structure]. There is a lot of things that every one of the other mayors [in this form of government] bring to the table, so it’s a very important job.”

What is downright laughable is when City Councilor Louis Sanchez says “this is something the citizens have needed for a long time and deserve”  when it was the citizens of Albuquerque who actually created the Mayor-Council form of government by adopting a city charter and it has worked for over 50 years.  It laughable when he says the mayor could still propose legislation and policy, but does not say the Mayor would be prohibited from voting on it or vetoing it. What is embarrassing is when he says  there is a need for people to “chime in about public safety and security issues.”  His comment is reflective of being totally ignorant as an elected official to what has been going on for the last 8 years with the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree reforms.

The DOJ consent decree was brought on by citizens’ complaints and findings of excessive use of force and deadly force and a “culture of aggression” within APD. The city council has proven to be an absolute failure in overseeing APD and dealing with reducing crime but Sanchez says people need to “chime in” on the city’s crime problems. The public has  repeatedly chimed in with complaints of our crime rates through neighborhood associations, the police oversight commission and the community policing councils and with the city council who have the reputation of just not listening and not doing anything meaningful about crime let alone police reform.

City Councilor Renee Grout said this:

“It makes for a government that’s more responsive and better balanced between different interests. …  Under the council-manager system, the mayor is included on the council and part of all policy decisions with citizens and other councilors. The mayor is still the head of the city government and he represents the city at public junctions, and I should say he or she. …  I am learning that city government, or government, works very slowly and to get anything done takes forever. … If you’re having to start over again [with a new mayor and new priorities], no wonder we’re not making ground. … City managers are selected based on their experience and qualification for this job. They have no guaranteed term of office, they are accountable to the entire council for the quality of their performance on the job. …  Dallas and Phoenix  both …  have this form of government and they are thriving and they are excelling. You see they’re vibrant and I think we’re getting left behind. When a new mayor comes in and that mayor doesn’t like what the previous administration was doing they change everything up.”

Albuquerque is not Phoenix, Arizona,  Dallas, Texas  nor Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  like Grout would like everyone to believe to be when she refers to those cities and their city manager form of government. Albuquerque is in no way as wealthy, but far more unique and diversified in its people and neighborhoods. Grout expressed concern over major projects not carrying over from one mayor to another.  There are times a previous Mayor’s legacy projects need to be stopped. Grout has forgotten the disastrous ART bus project started by Mayor Berry but finished by Mayor Keller with council support. When Grout says she is learning that city government … works very slowly and to get anything done takes forever”  she acts like that’s wrong and that the city council is not part of the problem.  There are times government needs to go slow down, such as with major zoning changes that affect people’s property rights and major expenditures. Grout also ignores the fact the city council is considered by many as the biggest problem and impediment to getting things done and all the delays in drafting and enacting legislation.

When Grout says “[City managers] have no guaranteed term of office, they are accountable to the entire council for the quality of their performance on the job” she must think this a good thing.  It is based on the false presumption that  9 city councilors with very different priorities and politcal philosophies will agree on the quality of job performance. What you will have is a city manager jumping to the every little  whim and demand of each city councilor to keep them happy. With no “guaranteed term of office”, no professional  in their right mind would want the job and would likely demand  a contract with a lucrative buy out provision.

There is very little doubt, despite what they are saying publicly, with a straight face no less, what is motivating Sanchez and Grout. It is their sure dislike for Mayor Tim Keller and his progressive policies and the fact he has repeatedly out maneuvered the City Council with his veto.  In the last 16 months, Sanchez and Grout have tried and have failed to override at least 5 Keller vetoes.  Thus far, they have failed to stop Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” which will allow 750 square foot casitas and duplexes in all residential back yards, and motel conversions, where the city buys motels to convert to low-income housing.  They have failed to hold  Mayor Keller accountable to any real extent for impropriety, such as the violation of the anti-donation clause with the $236,622 purchase of artificial turf for the Rio Rancho Events Center for the benefit of the privately owned New Mexico Gladiators.

Their solution is simply get rid of Keller’s power as Mayor in case he runs again, which is likely, for another term, and wins, which is highly questionable.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-city-councilors-seek-weaken-mayor-role/43744354

https://www.koat.com/article/city-councilors-wants-a-city-manager-mayor-disagrees/43750857

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/albuquerque-city-councilors-propose-amendment-that-would-shift-mayors-powers/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2594324/albuquerque-city-councilors-propose-weakening-mayoral-authority.html

A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP, NOT OF GOVERNMENT

What Sanchez and Grout are saying with their proposed legislation is that there is a “failure of government” when in fact it is a “failure of leadership.” What the city has been plagued with over the last 14 years is a “failure of leadership” by two term Republican Mayor Richard Berry and now two term Democrat Mayor Tim Keller. The failure of leadership has been augmented by a failure of leadership of City Councils to deal with spiking violent crime rates, failure of police management, failure of police oversight that enabled excessive use of force and deadly force and a “culture of aggression”, and a failure to deal with the city’s ongoing homeless crisis.

Simply put, the Sanchez/Grout proposed charter amendment is nothing more than one great power grab by the two freshman councilors not satisfied with the power they already have.  They do not recognize the need for division of power and a system of checks and balances that exists now.  Both show at best sure ignorance of city government, how it works, what authority and role they should play as city councilors, especially when they sponsor legislation that has not been properly researched and vetted and based on political rhetoric.

The City Council should reject in no uncertain terms, City Councilors Sanchez and Grout’s power grab and their attempt to establish a city manager form of government at city hall.