ABQ Will Be “The Land of Encampment” With 45 City Sanctioned Homeless Encampments; ABQ Journal Advocates Pilot Project; Journal Center Would Be Ideal Location For Pilot Project; The Rise Of Tent Cities In America; Permanent Shelter, Enforcement Actions, Solution To Encampments, Not Tent Cities

Posted on April 25, 2022 by

Coronado Park is considered by many as the heart of Albuquerque’s homeless crisis. Over the last 10 years, Coronado Park has essentially become a “de facto” city sanctioned homeless encampment with the city repeatedly cleaning it up only for the homeless to return the next day.

At any given time, Coronado Park will have 70 to 80 tents crammed into the park with homeless wondering the area. It comes with and extensive history 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. Police 911 logs reveal a variety of other issues. In February 2019, police investigated a stabbing after a fight broke out at the park. One month before the stabbing, police responded to a call after a woman said she was suicidal, telling police on lapel camera video that she had previously made attempts to overdose on meth.

On Thursday, April 22, KRQE News 13 ran a story entitled “Albuquerque cleans up encampment at Coronado Park, homeless move back in” as reported by George Gonzales. Following is the transcript of the news story:

“The city of Albuquerque says the largest encampment in the city, Coronado Park, is sprawling with tents and homeless individuals. Crews were clearing it out and cleaning it up, just so the homeless campers could move right back in.

“The main point in cleaning it out is it’s a public health hazard if we continue to leave that trash in the park and sit. So, the goal is to strike a balance between public safety and compassion in having these people have a place to stay,” said Family and Community Services Public Outreach Program Manager, Rob Garnand.

“The Family and Community Services Department says cleaning up Coronado Park is a priority in order to prevent disease and outbreaks as well as to provide some level of hygiene to people living in the encampment. While camping in parks is illegal, the city is not writing citations as they do from time to time in other parks around town. Instead, they’re focusing on providing people living in the encampment with resources. However, the city’s says the problem is most people don’t accept the help. So whenever the encampment is cleared, the people return with their tents.”

“We notify them of shelter spaces and the response that we get a lot of times is that they don’t want to go to the shelter so that’s kind of the situation we are in right now in the city. They list different reasons, they tend to throw back on us a lot, have you ever stayed in a shelter?” said Garnand.

The city says they are doing the best they can to keep the area clean. The city is also working on a plan to designate empty lots around town as places for encampments. Those lots would have to be next to nonprofits that help the homeless. They would have bathrooms and security and they would not be allowed next to parks or within 300 feet of residential neighborhoods.”

The link to the KRQE News 13 story is here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-cleans-up-encampment-at-coronado-park-homeless-move-back-in/

The link to the YOUTUBE story is here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKZlr1jDtvE

The city sweep of Coronado park resulted in most if not all of the homeless moving their camp sites to the vacant lot where the Interstate Inn was located just south of Coronado park. The Interstate Inn was torn down in 2008. According to news reports at the time of the teardown, the Interstate Inn was a crime magnet. There was as many as 16 sex offenders all living at the Interstate in 2005 in addition to the constant drug busts. The Interstate Inn was a 2-story, 3 building motel complex that was condemned as being substandard and a nuisance and torn down by the City Safe City Strike Force.

ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS

On Wednesday, April 13, the City Council’s Land Use, Planning and Zoning Committee (LUPZ) met to consider two separate amendments updating the city’s 2017 enacted Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) that regulates residential zoning development throughout the city. Two amendments were approved by the committee and 2 public hearings have been scheduled for both on April 26 by ZOOM.

The amendments are:

SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES (A12)

This amendment is for zoning changes that will allow city sanctioned “safe outdoor spaces”, also called “government sanctioned homeless campsites” where the homeless will be able to sleep and tend to personal hygiene. Not more than 5 sanctioned campsites will be allowed in any one of the city’s 9 city council districts, or 45 total campsites, and the campsites would be limited to 40 tents, cars or recreational vehicles. Ostensibly, a minimum 1,800 homeless city wide will be allowed to select the camp they want to use. The math is as follows: 5 sanctioned campsites times 9 council districts equals 45 times 40 tents, cars or recreational vehicles equals 1,800.

CONVERSIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (A2)

This amendment would relax the rules when converting nonresidential properties, such as hotels or offices, to residential use. This amendment proposes to eliminates a requirement that each unit must have a full kitchen, namely an oven or cooking stove. It would permit a microwave or hot plate as an alternative, but only if the city is involved in the conversion project by providing affordable housing money.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Two public hearings on both amendments are scheduled for Tuesday, April 26 by ZOOM. The notice, times and links to the meetings can be found in the postscript to this blog article.

ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL WEIGHS IN

On April 24, 2022, the Albuquerque Journal published a John Trever Editorial Cartoon he entitled “LAND OF ENCAMPMENT” to accompany an editorial entitled “Pitching a tent-cities plan, Sanction encampments worth a pilot project-if they lead to the removal of unsanctioned camps” .

JOHN TREVOR EDITORIAL CARTOON

The Trevor cartoon is entitled “LAND OF ENCAMPMENT”. The cartoon had two homeless campers with backpacks hitchhiking along a highway into Albuquerque. A sign to their left said ALBUQUERQUE NEXT 15 EXITS. A sign to their right said “LODGING” and below that appeared the lodging accommodations “TENT TOWN”, “KAMP KAWANAS”, “TENTPOLE CITY”, “PITCH IT PLACE”, “BIVOUAC VILLAGE” and “CAMPSAFEPLACE”. One homeless person is quoted as saying to another “I HEAR THE HOUSING MARKET IS REALLY TIGHT HERE!”

ALBQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL

On Sunday, April 25, the Albuquerque Journal published its editorial entitled “Pitching a tent-cities plan, Sanction encampments worth a pilot project-if they lead to the removal of unsanctioned camps”. Following are portions of the editorial worth noting:

“A City Council committee has advanced an amendment to the zoning code permitting up to 45 encampments in certain commercial, business park, manufacturing and mixed-use zones.
…
Unsanctioned homeless encampments have become de facto, even though sleeping in city parks, camping on freeway embankments and doing your dirty business on sidewalks are all illegal.

The amendment offered [to the Integrated Development Ordinance] … would cap the number of sanctioned encampments citywide at 45, with no more than five in any one of the city’s nine council districts, and limit the size of each to 40 tents, cars or recreational vehicles. Each would be required to have a certain number of water-flush or composting toilets, hand-washing stations and showers, with a surrounding wall or screen at least 6 feet high for sites with tents. Operators, which could include churches and nonprofit organizations, would have to offer some form of social services and support facilities.

… [A] U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2018 on an anti-camping ordinance in Boise, Idaho, states cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough shelter beds available for their homeless populations.

…[City Councilor Pat Davis] says Albuquerque lacks the number of shelter beds to be able to enforce widespread illegal camping and [the] amendment would let the city crack down on non-sanctioned camping.

Sanctioned encampments are worth exploring if, in fact, they would replace the non-sanctioned camps that have sprung up along streets, on sidewalks and in vacant lots and parks. That is a big “if.”

The city initiative comes as liberal-run cities across the United States are increasingly changing course and clearing out non-sanctioned homeless camps.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler has used emergency powers to ban camping along certain roadways; Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser launched a pilot program last summer to permanently clear several homeless camps; and Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell ended a standoff with activists by removing two blocks of tents from nearby City Hall. The Los Angeles City Council has used new laws to ban camping in 54 locations. Voters in left-leaning Austin, Texas, last year reinstated a ban that penalizes those who camp downtown and near the University of Texas, in addition to making it a crime to ask for money in certain areas and times.
…
It’s clear the city needs to do something. And sanctioned encampments may well be part of the solution.
…
But going from no sanctioned encampments to allowing 45 seems a big jump. Why not start with a pilot program with a scaled-back number of camps?

Sanctioned camps offer the homeless basic security, much improved sanitary conditions and a connection to services, unlike the makeshift camps whose neighbors have suffered long enough. If they truly replace the unsanctioned camps, they would be a major step forward. But there is no benefit if they simply in addition to the current unsanitary and unsafe camps.
…
Whether sanctioned encampments clean the city up, attract more homeless or wind up underutilized like Bernalillo County’s Tiny Homes Village must be studied if the safe outdoor spaces proposal moves forward.

And the biggest unanswered question is still what will the city do with squatters who have no interest in the offers of shelter beds, motel vouchers or tent spaces?

The link to the full editorial is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2491948/webhedline-48.html

EDITOR’S COMMENTARY

The blunt truth is that Coronado Park has been the Albuquerque’s “de facto pilot project” for homeless encampments for the last 10 years with city officials offering services to the homeless who camp there and repeatedly cleaning up the park. Coronado park shows that sanctioned encampments do not work. If the Albuquerque Journal editors truly believe that a “pilot program” is needed and that “sanctioned encampments may well be part of the solution”, the Albuquerque Journal should offer the use the Journal Center area with its well-manicured lawn areas and open space for a city sanctioned homeless encampment pilot project.

The proposed zoning code amendment says the campsites would be permitted in certain “commercial, business park and manufacturing zones and in some mixed-use zones”, which means the Journal Center would qualify. Charitable organizations or service providers could lease vacant property in such areas, set up the camps and then deliver their services to the campers, including transportation, using the city Sun Van services.

ALBUQUERQUE’S HOMELESS NUMBERS

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines sheltered homeless as “residing in an emergency shelter, motel paid through a provider or in a transitional housing program.” HUD defines “unsheltered homeless” as “those sleeping in places not meant for human habitation including streets, parks, alleys, underpasses, abandoned buildings, campgrounds and similar environments.”

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

On June 22, 2021, Albuquerque’s 2021 Point-In-Time (PIT) report was released that surveyed both sheltered and unsheltered homeless.

Major highlights of the 2021 PIT report are as follows:

There were 1,567 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people living in Albuquerque, a slight increase over the 2019 count of 1,524 homeless. The 2020 homeless count is 2.8% higher than in 2019 and 18.9% more than in 2017, despite the pandemic limiting the 2021 counting effort’s.

42% of Albuquerque’s unsheltered were defined as chronically homeless, meaning they had been continuously homeless for at least a year and had a disabling condition.
21% said they were homeless due to COVID.
37% were experiencing homelessness for the first time.
12% were homeless due to domestic violence.
30.19% of the homeless in Albuquerque self-reported as having a serious mental illness.
25.5% self-reported as substance abusers.

The link to quoted statistics is here:

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

https://www.cabq.gov/family/documents/2019-albuquerque-pit-count-final.pdf

CITY’S HEAFTY FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO HELP HOMELESS

Albuquerque is making a huge financial commitment to help the homeless.

This past fiscal year 2021 ending June 10, 2021, city hall and the Keller Administration have spent upwards of $40 Million by the Family and Community Services Department to benefit the homeless or near homeless. The 2021 adopted city budget for Family and Community Services Department spent $5,688,094 for emergency shelter contract , spent $22,531,752 for affordable housing and community contracts, spent $3,384,212 for homeless support services contracts, spent $4,329,452 for mental health contracts and spent $2,586,302 for substance abuse contracts for counseling contracts.

The link to the 2021-2022 city approved budget is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy22-approved-budget-numbered-w-hyperlinks-final.pdf

Mayor Keller’s 2022-2023 proposed budget significantly increases the Family and Community Services budget by $24,353,064 to assist the homeless or near homeless by going from $35,145,851 to $59,498,915. The 2022-2023 proposed budget for the Department of Community Services is $72.4 million and it will have 335 full time employees, or an increase of 22 full time employees.

A breakdown of the amounts to help the homeless and those in need of housing assistance is as follows:

$42,598,361 total for affordable housing and community contracts with a major emphasis on permanent housing for chronically homeless. It is $24,353,064 more than last year. (Budget page 101)
$6,025,544 total for emergency shelter contracts (Budget page 102.), down $396,354 from last year.
$3,773,860 total for mental health contracts (Budget page105.), down $604,244 from last year.
$4,282,794 total homeless support services(Budget page 105.), up $658,581 from last year.
$2,818,356 total substance abuse contracts for counseling (Budget page 106.), up by $288,680 from last year.

The link to the proposed 244-page 2022-2023 budget it here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf

“TENT CITY, USA”

The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty is a national legal group dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness. It works to expand access to affordable housing, meet the immediate and long-term needs of those who are homeless or at risk, and strengthen the social safety-net through policy advocacy, public education, impact litigation, and advocacy training and support.

In 2017, The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty released a study entitled “TENT CITY, USA The Growth of America’s Homeless Encampments and How Communities are Responding” with the link here:

https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Tent_City_USA_2017.pdf

In 2018, the National Law Center on Homeless and Poverty released a study entitled “Welcome The Rise of Tent Cities in the United States” with the link here:

https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/WelcomeHome_TentCities.pdf

The following was gleaned from the studies prepared the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty:

Tent cities have been reported in the majority of states, 46 of 51 jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia). Of all of these, only 8 encampments had a legalized status. Three more were moving in that direction, meaning that through municipal ordinance or formal agreement, the tent city had been sanctioned by the community and was either allowed to self-govern or was created by service providers working with the city. Ten tent cities had at least a semi-sanctioned status, meaning that although not formally recognized, public officials were aware of the encampments and were not taking active steps to have them evicted.

https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/WelcomeHome_TentCities.pdf

“In the past decade, documented homeless encampments have dramatically increased across the country. Research showed a 1,342 percent increase in the number of unique homeless encampments reported in the media, from 19 reported encampments in 2007 to a high of 274 reported encampments in 2016 [the last full year for data], and with 255 already reported by mid 2017, the trend appears to be continuing upward. Two thirds of this growth comes after the Great Recession of 2007-2012 was declared over, suggesting that many are still feeling the long-term effects.

Unique homeless encampments were reported in every state and the District of Columbia. California had the highest number of reported encampments by far, but states as diverse as Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Oregon, and Virginia each tallied significant numbers of reported encampments.

Half the reports that recorded the size of the encampments showed a size of 11-50 residents, and 17 percent of encampments had more than 100 residents.

Close to two-thirds of reports which recorded the time in existence of the encampments showed they had been there for more than one year, and more than one-quarter had been there for more than five years.

Three-quarters of reports which recorded the legal status of the encampments showed they were illegal; 4% were reported to be legal, 20% were reported to be semi-legal (tacitly sanctioned)

This increase in encampments reflects the growth in homelessness overall, and provides evidence of the inadequacy (and sometimes inaccessibility) of the U.S. shelter system. The growth of homelessness is largely explained by rising housing costs and stagnant wages.

Municipalities often face pressure to “do something” about the problem of visible homelessness. For many cities, the response has been an increase in laws prohibiting encampments and an increase in enforcement.

[A survey of ] the laws and policies in place in 187 cities across the country … found:

33% of cities prohibit camping city-wide, and 50 percent prohibit camping in particular public places, increases of 69% and 48% from 2006-16, respectively.

50% have either a formal or informal procedure for clearing or allowing encampments. Many more use trespass or disorderly conduct statutes in order to evict residents of encampments.

Only five cities (2.7% ) have some requirement that alternative housing or shelter be offered when a sweep of an encampment is conducted.

Only 20 (11%) had ordinances or formal policies requiring notice prior to clearing encampments. Of those, five can require as little as 24 hours’ notice before encampments are evicted, though five require at least a week, and three provide for two weeks or more. An additional 26 cities provided some notice informally, including two providing more than a month.

Only 20 cities (11 percent) require storage be provided for possessions of persons residing in encampments if the encampment is evicted. The length of storage required is typically between 30 and 90 days, but ranged from 14 to 120 days.

Regional analysis found western cities have more formal policies than any other region of the country, and are more likely to provide notice and storage.

Using the criminal justice system and other municipal resources to move people who have nowhere else to go is costly and counter-productive, for both communities and individuals. …

Research shows that housing is the most effective approach to end homelessness with a larger return on investment.

Other cities spend thousands of dollars on fences, bars, rocks, spikes, and other “hostile” or “aggressive” architecture, deliberately making certain areas of their community inaccessible to homeless persons without shelter.

Many communities state they need criminalization ordinances to provide law enforcement with a “tool” to push people to accept services, such as shelter. Conducting outreach backed with resources for real alternatives, however, is the approach that has shown the best, evidence-based results.

The 100,000 Homes Campaign found permanent housing for more than 100,000 of the most “service-resistant” chronically homeless individuals across America by listening to their needs and providing appropriate alternatives that actually meet their needs.

Most cities in the United States have insufficient shelter beds for the number of people experiencing homelessness; in some cities, the shortage is stark.

So when law enforcement tells residents of encampments to go to a shelter, they risk finding the shelter full. Even where shelter beds are open, they are not always appropriate, or even adequate, for all people.

Many shelters are available only to men or only to women; some require children, others do not allow children. Some do not ensure more than one night’s stay, requiring daily long waits in line- sometimes far from other alternatives.

The survey of 187 cities found only 10 of these cities have explicitly permitted some form of legalized camping. Encampments are not an appropriate long term solution to homelessness or the nation’s affordable housing crisis.

In order to be successful, legalized encampments require a tremendous amount of planning, consultation, and collaboration with all stakeholders, most especially the homeless residents of the encampment. In many cases, this time and effort may be better spent developing other interim or permanent housing solutions.”

https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Tent_City_USA_2017.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The city’s 2021 Point-In-Time (PIT) report found that there were 1,567 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people living in Albuquerque, a slight increase over the 2019 count of 1,524 homeless. It also found Albuquerque’s unsheltered homeless decreased from 567 people in 2019 to 413 in the 2021 count. It is the “unsheltered homeless”, or between 413 to 667 homeless that the campsites will likely be used by, yet the council wants to provide campsites to accommodate 1,800 adults.

The city does have a homeless crisis and for that reason the city and the county are spending millions a year in addressing the homeless crisis. Many who want to establish government sanction encampments have a hard time dealing with the facts that many homeless adults simply want to live their life as they choose, where they want to camp for as long as they can get away with it, without any government nor family interference and especially no rules.

Government sanctioned homeless encampments will only encourage those who seek such encampments to continue with their lifestyle living on the streets. Providing a very temporary place to pitch a tent, relieve themselves, maybe even bath and sleep at night with rules they do not want nor will likely follow is not the answer to the homeless crisis.

It is the actual services that are being provided to the homeless that are critical to solving the homeless crisis. City sanctioned homeless camps will defeat any real progress being made by the city. The answer is to provide the support services, including food and lodging, and mental health care and counseling needed to allow the homeless to turn their lives around and become productive citizens and be self-sufficient and no longer dependent on others.

PERMANENT SHELTERS NEEDED, NOT TENT ENCMAPMENTS

Research shows that housing is the most effective approach to end homelessness with a much larger return on investment than offering government sanctioned encampments. If that is the case, the city is making significant progress in managing our homeless crisis. The city is doing it the right way. Given the millions the city is spending each year and what the city is building, the city needs to continue with the approach of offering programs, building shelter space and making beds available for its homeless population.

The City of Albuquerque has at least 10 separate homeless service provider locations throughout the city and the Westside 24-7 shelter. The city will be spending upwards of $60 Million to help the homeless this next fiscal year that starts on July 1, 2022.

It was on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, the city officially announced it had bought the massive 572,000-square-foot Lovelace Hospital Complex on Gibson for $15 million and will transform it into a Gateway Center for the homeless and the complex will be only 1 of 3 multisite homeless shelters being planned. The emergency shelter and services hub is slated to provide overnight beds for 50 women by year’s end. The city has also said it could eventually host up to 100 adults and 25 families at a time.

The 572,000-square-foot complex could likely accommodate far more shelter space if properly planned and remodeled. Former hospital patient rooms with bathrooms and showers, as well as offices and treating rooms could be remodeled into temporary housing facilities.

NOT A CRIME TO BE HOMELESS

What is happening in Albuquerque is that the homeless are becoming more and more visible to the public by their camping anywhere they want and for as long as they can get away with it. The problem is complicated when the city, and for that matter private property owners, do not intervene with aggressive action to remove encampments.

Camping on public property is not allowed but people experiencing homelessness have constitutional rights. The blunt truth is being homeless is not a crime and arresting and jailing is not a solution.

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/the-process-behind-removing-homeless-camps-from-public-places/

The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) and city workers have in the past done “sweeps” of unsheltered people from parks, sometimes arresting them, citing them for trespassing or loitering and taking and disposing of their property. APD is limiting its enforcement of trespassing and vagrancy laws relying on citations as opposed to making arrests as a result of federal litigation.

Alleged seizures of property and identification records of the homeless by APD likely violates the 2017 settlement agreement in the federal case of McClendon v. Albuquerque, which prohibits Albuquerque police from seizing or disposing of property or personal identification unless they are “authorized by law.” The point of the lawsuit was that police were arresting and incarcerating so many people that the jail was severely overcrowded with the settlement meant to reduce the number of people in jail. To that end, it also prohibits Albuquerque police from even asking for identification if they have reason to believe that the person is mentally ill or homeless.

https://sourcenm.com/2021/09/17/albuquerque-police-still-sweeping-homeless-camps-despite-cdc-guidelines/

PROCESS IN PLACE

There are multiple steps the city follows when no law enforcement sweep actions happen. When an encampment is reported and a complaint filed, the Family and Community Services Department and Albuquerque Community Safety sends outreach providers to speak to the people to see what services they might want and what services can be offered.

After the assessment, written “notices to vacate” are issued and people have 72 hours to clear the area of their personal property and belongings. The camps are then cleared by the city, but it does not always stay that way. Neighbors, and area property owners and the homeless population are stuck in a vicious cycle of filing 311 reports and calling APD and filing complaints and getting camps cleared out, then the camps moving back in.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/city-official-answers-questions-on-homeless-encampments-in-albuquerque/6317454/

The city claims the only time the city can immediately clear out a camp is if it is putting the campers or community members in danger. That is not the case if the city relies on its nuisance abatement laws and declares encampments on city property nuisances and the Mayor orders clean up and removal. The city does have the west side 24-7 homeless shelter which is located 20 miles outside the city and located in the old vacated jail that can be offered and where the homeless can go.

The city has one “encampment team” made up of seven people. The encampment teams should be increased to at least 4 that can patrol the streets and take action on a daily basis. Their job would be to respond to reported encampments set up on public property, and give the people living there “written notice” that they have to go. Once their time is up, the encampment team checks in to make sure the people have in fact moved. Once the encampment has been vacated, the city cleans up whatever is left behind at the camp which includes many times trash and needles for elicit drug use.

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/the-process-behind-removing-homeless-camps-from-public-places/

The city cannot just ignore and not enforce its anti-camping ordinances, vagrancy laws, civil nuisance abatement laws and criminal laws nor pretend they simply do not exist. Squatters who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers or alternatives to living on the street really give the city no choice but to make it totally inconvenient for them to “squat” and forcing them to move on.
___________________

POSTSCRIPT

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY ZOOM

On April 20, the Albuquerque City Council published and emailed the following notice for 2 separate ZOOM hearings with links to attend:

“City Council staff is offering two opportunities to provide a review of amendments already passed by the Land Use, Planning and Zoning committee in addition to any new amendments the City Council may consider at their May 2nd meeting, pertaining to the Integrated Development Ordinance (I.D.O.)

Both meetings are on Tuesday, April 26th at 12pm and 5:30pm via ZOOM.

Safe Outdoor Spaces (A12) and Conversions for Affordable Housing (A2) provide ways to provide safe areas and increase the availability for much needed housing and services.

ZOOM Links for April 26

12PM SESSION:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://cabq.zoom.us/j/89269582954?pwd=SUdUd0VsQWZ3UnBlYlBQUVgrR0gyUT09

Meeting ID: 892 6958 2954
Passcode: 709450
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,89269582954# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,89269582954# US (Tacoma)
5:30 P.M. SESSION:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://cabq.zoom.us/j/85356524809?pwd=NXk3aURQcUNVbTQ0VktCTVhMWFRqQT09

Meeting ID: 853 5652 4809
Passcode: 205822
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,85356524809# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,85356524809# US (Tacoma)

ABQ City Council Schedules Public Hearings For Zone Changes To Allow 45 City Sanctioned Homeless Camps Spread Out Over All 9 City Council Districts; Rules Relaxing Converting Nonresidential Properties To Residential Use; Public Encouraged To Attend Or Contact Their Counselors

Posted on April 21, 2022 by

The amendments are:

SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES (A12)

This amendment is for zoning changes that will allow city sanctioned “safe outdoor spaces”, also called “government sanctioned homeless campsites” where the homeless will be able to sleep and tend to personal hygiene. Not more than 5 sanctioned campsites will be allowed in any one of the city’s 9 city council districts, or 45 total campsites, and the campsites would be limited to 40 tents, cars or recreational vehicles. Ostensibly, a minimum 1,800 homeless city wide will be allowed to select the camp they want to use. The math is as follows: 5 sanctioned campsites times 9 council districts equals 45 times 40 tents, cars or recreational vehicles equals 1,800.

CONVERSIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (A2)

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY ZOOM

On April 20, the Albuquerque City Council published and emailed to interested parties the following notice for 2 separate ZOOM hearings with links to attend:

Both meetings are on Tuesday, April 26th at 12pm and 5:30pm via ZOOM.

We need to help people who are experiencing homelessness. These amendments are critical.

Safe Outdoor Spaces (A12) and Conversions for Affordable Housing (A2) provide ways to provide safe areas and increase the availability for much needed housing and services.

ZOOM Links for April 26

12PM SESSION:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://cabq.zoom.us/j/89269582954?pwd=SUdUd0VsQWZ3UnBlYlBQUVgrR0gyUT09

Meeting ID: 892 6958 2954
Passcode: 709450
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,89269582954# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,89269582954# US (Tacoma)

5:30 P.M. SESSION:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://cabq.zoom.us/j/85356524809?pwd=NXk3aURQcUNVbTQ0VktCTVhMWFRqQT09

Meeting ID: 853 5652 4809
Passcode: 205822
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,85356524809# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,85356524809# US (Tacoma)

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The city council’s notice of both hearings that says “These amendments are critical” interjects and element of biasness that the council has essentially decided what to do and now is soliciting supporters to advocate for the amendments. Simply put, this is wrong!

Any interested party who opposes the amendments are encouraged to attend the ZOOM hearings and voice their concerns. If you can not attend either of the two hearings, please email you concerns to your city councilor and ask that it be made part of the record that could aide in future litigation. The email address to contact each city councilor are as follows:

lesanchez@cabq.gov

louiesanchez@allstate.com

ibenton@cabq.gov

kpena@cabq.gov

bbassan@cabq.gov

danlewis@cabq.gov

LEWISABQ@GMAIL.COM

patdavis@cabq.gov

tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov

trudyjones@cabq.gov

rgrout@cabq.gov

lrummler@cabq.gov.

SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES (HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS)

The proposed zoning changes to allow for homeless campsites can be summarized as follows:

1. Not more than 5 sanctioned campsites will be allowed in any one of the city’s 9 city council districts, or 40 total campsites, and the campsites would be limited to 40 tents, cars or recreational vehicles. Ostensibly, a minimum 1,800 homeless city wide will be allowed to select the camp they want to use. The math is as follows: 5 sanctioned campsites times 9 council districts equals 45 times 40 tents, cars or recreational vehicles equals 1,800.

2. Each campsite will be required to have a certain number of water-flush or composting toilets, or portable facilities, hand-washing stations and showers based on occupancy.

3. It would require a surrounding wall or screen at least 6 feet high for those using tents.

4. Operators of the campsites, which could include churches and nonprofit organizations, would have to provide the city with a management plan or security agreement proving the site has 24/7 on-site support and security.

5. Operators would offer occupants some form of social services and support facilities.

6. The homeless campsites would be prohibited from being allowed within 330 feet of low-density residential areas. Religious institutions would have more flexibility for locating them.

7. The campsites would be permitted in certain commercial, business park and manufacturing zones and in some mixed-use zones after a public hearing.

According to City Officials, in most instances, the encampments would be set up and managed by churches or nonprofits.

The City Council amendment to the Integrated Development Ordinance will allow 5 sanctioned homeless campsites in each of the city’s 9 city council districts, or 45 total sanctioned campsites spread throughout the city, and allowing 40 tents, cars or recreational vehicles in each campsite, or ostensibly for a total of 1,800 homeless to camp. This is the best example of elected officials’ good intentions that will go awry making a crisis even worse. A total of 45 sanctioned campsites, coupled with $59,498,915 million in spending for the homeless, will likely have the unintended consequence of making Albuquerque an even bigger magnet for attracting the homeless to the city.

Any city councilor or any member of the general public that thinks 45 city sanctioned campsites with upwards of 40 occupants spread throughout the city is somehow “good idea” need to have their head examined. All they need to do to realize this is a very bad idea is to take a tour of the Coronado Park located near I-40 and 2nd street. As of April 17, the public park has upwards of 60 tents with the homeless wondering the park and the surrounding area.

Coronado Park is considered by many as the heart of Albuquerque’s homeless crisis. It comes with and extensive history 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. Police 911 logs reveal a variety of other issues. In February 2019, police investigated a stabbing after a fight broke out at the park. One month before the stabbing, police responded to a call after a woman said she was suicidal, telling police on lapel camera video that she had previously made attempts to overdose on meth. Officers then took her to get help.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/police-records-depict-pattern-of-problems-violence-at-coronado-park/5891961/

On August 20, 2020, the City of Albuquerque paid more than a half-million dollars for a small piece of property with a two story office building at 2040 Fourth Street NW, right next to Coronado Park. For decades, the two story office building housed the law firm Dubois, Cooksey & Bischoff. Reports were that the homeless use of the park became so bad that the firm felt it had no choice but to sell to the city and threatened an inverse condemnation action against the city.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-buys-old-law-office-property-near-coronado-park/

City officials have said Coronado Park is the subject of daily responses from the encampment team because of the number of tent’s set up there. They say the encampment team, along with Parks and Recreation Department , and Solid Waste go out every morning, during the week, to give campers notice and clean up the park. They also work on getting them connected to resources and services they may need.

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/the-process-behind-removing-homeless-camps-from-public-places/

The city does have a homeless crisis with around 1,500 homeless in any given night in the metro area. The city and the county for that reason are spending millions a year in addressing the homeless crisis. It is the actual services that are being provided to the homeless that are critical to solving the homeless crisis.

The Family and Community Services Department is being given $60 million dollars to deal with the homeless in the 2022-2023 budget. City sanctioned homeless camps will defeat any real progress being made. Government sanctioned homeless encampments will only encourage those who seek such encampments to continue with their lifestyle living on the streets. Providing a very temporary place to pitch a tent, relieve themselves, maybe bath and sleep at night with rules they do not want nor will likely follow is not the answer to the homeless crisis.

The answer is to provide the support services, including food and lodging, and mental health care needed to allow the homeless to turn their lives around and become productive citizens and self sufficient and no longer dependent on others.

CONVERTING TEMPORARY LODGING INTO PERMANENT HOUSING

The second amendment to update the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) is sponsored by Democrat City Councilor Isaac Benton. It would relax the rules when converting nonresidential properties used for temporary lodging, such as hotels or motels, to full time residential use. The proposal eliminates a requirement that each unit must have a full kitchen, namely an oven or cooking stove. It would permit a microwave or hot plate as an alternative, but only if the city is involved in the conversion project by providing affordable housing money.

During the LUPZ committee meeting, citizens testified that they worried the city was creating unsuitable housing options. Greg Weirs of the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association had this to say:

“This amendment [relaxing the rules to convert nonresidential properties] would create a new problem for those who cannot afford market-rate rent. … We’re concerned that if passed this amendment will incentivize substandard affordable housing, which will entrench the challenges faced by those it purports to serve.”

Republican City Councilor Brook Bassan took issue Weir’s the argument. The Councilor said she use to cook on a hot plate and did not consider it “substandard or a punishment.” She said the city must attempt new solutions. Bassan added and that her own Northeast Heights council district should be willing to shoulder some of the burden when it comes to the homeless because the status quo is problematic.

The link to quoted news sources is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2489290/council-to-consider-sanctioned-encampments.html

DINO City Councilor Louie Sanchez Calls Trade Union Members “Slugs” When Votes To Repeal “Project Labor Agreement” Mandate; Doubtful If Sanchez Has Ever Broken Sweat At Work; Keller Veto’s Repeal Score Card: 3 Keller Veto’s Upheld, 1 Council Override; POST SCRIPT: PLA’s In City Government

Posted on April 20, 2022 by

“I know the competition is good. … I really feel everybody has to have a piece of the pie. … Another thing I know, because I was a union member for so long, is that, there is a lot of slugs in the union. I know that for a fact.”

Thus spoke Albuquerque City Council Louie Sanchez on April 4, 2022 voting with 4 Republicans to repeal “City Project Labor Agreement” requirement.

ENACTMENT OF PROJECT LABOR AGEEEMENT MANDATE

It was on December 6, 2021, the Albuquerque City Council voted 6-3 to amend the city’s “Public Purchases Ordinance” to require Project Labor Agreements (PLA’s) on all future city construction projects that cost at least $10 million and that employ workers from at least three crafts according to the ordinance. According to the enacted ordinance, a PLA is defined as “pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations or with their representatives that establishes the terms and conditions of employment” on a specific city construction project. General contractors who successfully win applicable city projects will now have to execute a PLA that governs all construction work.

Not at all surprising, the ordinance was condemned as “pro union”. It was strenuously opposed by the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, the real estate and development community including the National Association of Commerce and Industry (NAIOP) and other business organizations and conservative Republican “right to work” proponents. The bill was enacted on a 6 to 3 vote. Voting YES for the measure at the time were all Democrat City Councilors Cynthia Borrego, Pat Davis, Lan Sena, Isaac Benton, Diane Gibson and Klarisa Peña. Voting NO were Republicans Trudy Jones, Don Harris and Brook Bassan.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2452234/city-council-denies-100-million-facilities-plan-ex-bond-proposal-would-have-used-all-of-the-citys-recent-savings.html

The postscript to this blog article contains a discussion of PLA’s in the city’s past elections and 10 reasons for them.

PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS EXPLAINED

Project Labor Agreements also known as PLAs have been around for decades and are collective bargaining agreements between building trade unions and contractors. A project labor agreement under the ordinance is defined as a “pre-hire collective bargaining agreement” with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific public works construction project. They govern terms and conditions of employment for all craft workers, union and nonunion, on a government construction project. PLA’s mandate the use of a skilled labor force and licensed workers such as plumbers, electricians and carpenters in construction contracts and mandate the payment of prevailing union wage to both union and nonunion workers.

In the City of Albuquerque, only 14% of the construction workforce are union employees. Federal legislation allows the use of project labor agreement, which are essentially a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement to establish employment terms, including wages and working conditions on construction projects.

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/benefits-project-labor-agreement-39456.html

https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do/empower-workers/project-labor-agreements

PLA’s are controversial on a number of levels and are highly vilified by anti-union and “right to work” advocates and Republicans. Under the National Labor Relations Act, construction contractors and employees have the right to choose to unionize or not to unionize. The vast majority of contractors and their employees voluntarily opt against unionization. A project labor agreement requires all contractors, whether they are unionized or not, to pay the going rates or hourly wages paid to skilled and licensed labor. The most common objection voiced against PLA’s is that qualified non-union contractors who wish to make lower-cost bids, and employees who wish to work non-union, are locked out of government construction projects. Another opposition argument is that use of PSA’s usually results in cost overruns and higher construction costs for taxpayers.

https://www.nrtw.org/what-is-a-project-labor-agreement-and-how-does-it-affect-workers/

REACTION TO ORDIANCE

The bill was formally introduced without discussion at the November 15, 2021 City Council meeting and was not heard by a City Council committee ahead of December 6 city council vote.

The councilors and supporters of the PSA ordinance argued that it woud enhance transparency and ensure that a properly trained and compensated workforce builds city facilities. Not at all surprising local construction industry representatives called the ordinance “unfair and anti-competitive” and questioning why there has not more public discussion.

Then Democrat City Councilor Cynthia Borrego had this to say in a written statement:

“[The ordinance commits the city] … to project labor from NM Building and Construction Trades Council — New Mexico labor. It will ensure experienced and professional labor-qualified and certified workers build City projects and that the City constructs the highest quality infrastructure and projects.”

Then Democrat City Councilor Lan Sena for her part said supported PLAs because they clearly outline the terms of each project, whether it’s worker pay and benefits or management rights, and because the city would require each agreement to include an apprenticeship component, which she said will help boost the local workforce. Sena said this:

“PLAs provide stability, predictability and diversification of our local jobs and training a labor force.”

Carla Kugler, president and CEO of Associated Builders and Contractors’ New Mexico chapter, complained she only learned of the proposal a few weeks ago and had this to say:

“Something so controversial and something that has this much impact on the construction community should be worth investing a little time and thought in it. … [This ordinance is] a handout for organized labor forced upon our construction community and workforce. … [There is no need for PSA’s to ensure contractors pay workers properly] . … There is oversight [already on city projects] … The Department of Workforce Solutions oversees everybody’s pay — union and non-union.”

Republican City Councilor Trudy Jones called the proposal “short-sighted” and said she felt it is unnecessarily pit unions against none union businesses and put it this way:

“I’m not opposed to unions. … I just believe that we shouldn’t interfere this way.”

EDITOR’S COMMENTARY: Yeah, right Councilor Trudy Jones, you are the only right-wing Republican in the United States not opposed to unions.

Democrat Lan Sena took strong issue with the accusation that the ordinance was rushed saying similar legislation had been debated locally before and she stated:

“This isn’t anything new, especially since the county has participated in this as well. ”

Sena said she supports PLAs because they clearly outline the terms of each project, including worker pay and benefits and management rights, but also because the city would require each agreement to include an apprenticeship component, which she said will help boost the local workforce.

Sena put it this way:

“PLAs provide stability, predictability and diversification of our local jobs and training a labor force. ”

Sena added the ordinance will not prevent non-union firms from winning jobs as long as they enter into the requisite PLA.

The Bernalillo County Commission passed a similar ordinance in 2020, though it has not yet applied the new requirement to any projects.

SUPPORT EXPRESSED IN CONTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Over the past 3 years fiscal years, the city had 6 major projects that would have met the requirements for a PLA now required by the new ordinance.

Troy Beall, CEO of B&D Industries, a local electrical/mechanical contractor said he supports PLAs. According to Beall, his firm currently employs upwards of about 700 union members. Beall believes a union workforce is better trained. Beall reported that his firm was called in as a subcontractor to help finish an over-budget and delayed Albuquerque International Sunport renovation a few years ago after the first electrical subcontractor walked off the job.

“I have a 40-year history in this community, and I don’t know of a job that’s ever failed [under a collective bargaining agreement]. It’s because we agree to a contract with individuals for our employees. … The union has been very good for our corporation.”

A link to quoted source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2451444/councilors-want-labor-agreements-on-large-city-projects.html

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

It was outgoing Democrats City Councilors Cynthia Borrego and Lan Sena who sponsored the legislation. They left office on January 1, 2022. Democrat Borrego lost her bid for another term to conservative former City Councilor Republican Dan Lewis. Progressive Democrat Lan Sena, who was appointed by Mayor Tim Keller to fill the vacancy on the counsel the result of the death of Ken Sanchez, lost her bid for a full term to conservative Democrat Louis Sanchez.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2451444/councilors-want-labor-agreements-on-large-city-projects.html

On February 7, 2022, Republican City Councilors Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Trudy Jones, and Renée Grout introduced legislation to repeal Council bill O-21-80, which amended the City’s Public Purchases Ordinance to require the use of Project Labor Agreements. The 4 Republicans gave their rationale for the repeal in a statement that said:

“By repealing this requirement, we’d be reducing unnecessary requirements to getting much needed public works projects done while ensuring we are doing everything possible to keep construction costs from rising unnecessarily. … We want to ensure that Albuquerque continues improving infrastructure as quickly and efficiently as possible without eliminating our local, New Mexican businesses from opportunities.”

https://www.cabq.gov/council/find-your-councilor/district-5/news/city-councilors-seek-to-repeal-the-use-of-project-labor-agreements

On April 4 the Albuquerque City Council voted 5 to 4 to repeal the Project Labor Agreement mandates passed by the City Council in December, 2021. The legislation was enacted in 2021 when the City Council had a 6-3 Democrat majority. After the 2021 municipal election, the Democrat majority was reduced to a 5-4 majority.

Despite pleas from local labor unions to keep the Project Labor Agreement Ordinance in place, city councilors voted during the April 4 meeting to repeal ordinance. Not everyone supported the ordinance with some contractors speaking in favor of the repeal, saying the PLA would jeopardize the quality of work and impact schedules. The city council ultimately voted five to four in favor of nixing the law, only four months after passing it.

Three of the five councilors who voted to repeal the ordinance are new to the council and they are Republicans Dan Lewis and Renee Grout and West side Democrat Louie Sanchez. Democrat City Councilor Louie Sanchez joined all 4 of the bill’s Republican City Councilor sponsors Brook Bassan, Renee Grout, Dan Lewis and Trudy Jones. Democrat City Councilors Isaac Benton, Pat Davis, Tammy Fiebelkorn and Klarissa Peña voted no to repeal.

Republican City Councilor Trudy Jones acknowledged that while the original PLA ordinance does not preclude non-union contractors from bidding on major city projects, she said she felt it gives union shops an unfair edge and said:

“I am certainly not opposed to unions or union labor. However, I am opposed to giving preferential treatment to any group when it comes to bidding and working on City projects.”

Sanchez is a former APD police officer and has been a member of the Teamsters Union and a member of the Albuquerque Police Officers Association. Sanchez retired after 26 years of service with the Albquerquerqu Police Department. He was in charge of Mayor Marty Chavez’ security detail. He is now employed as an insurance agent. In announcing his support of the repeal, Louie Sanchez had this to say:

Mayor Tim Keller immediately after the repeal responded to the council’s decision in a tweet, calling it “another backward-looking proposal from the council.”

In a separate written statement, Keller called the repeal “way off-base, especially when the Council has far more pressing issues to address”.

Links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2488222/keller-trots-out-veto-pen-again.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/albuquerque-city-council-repeals-labor-agreement-law/

MAYOR KELLER VETO

On April 11, Mayor Tim Keller vetoed the repeal of the PLA ordinance. Keller wrote in his veto message:

“We need City Council focused on the issues in front of us like crime, housing, and behavioral health, not trying to repeal good public policy like the PLA amendment. Simply put, it is premature and imprudent to repeal this ordinance before the impact of its provisions can be assessed. ”

Keller wrote that the ordinance was intended to “make certain that the City is being prudent with taxpayer money” by creating good-paying jobs and “career pipelines.” He also said the ordinance ensures accountability and workplace safety standards on public works projects that cost at least $10 million. Keller noted that the legislation had yet to be used as no projects have been completed under the ordinance, though two have gone out for bid with the PLA requirement.

Councilor Trudy Jones, who co-sponsored the repeal bill, called Keller’s action “childish” and “pandering to the unions.”

EDITOR’S COMMENTARY: Jones’ repeal vote was as partisan as it gets and nothing more than pandering to Republican right-wing contempt for unions and pandering to all her little buddies at NAIOP.

CITY COUNCIL FAILS TO OVERIDE KELLER

On April 18, the construction and development industry representatives urged the council to override Keller, arguing that the PLA requirement is unfair. Rhiannon Samuel of NAIOP New Mexico, the most prominent and influential commercial real estate development association in Albuquerque told the counsel:

“Mandating project labor agreements disproportionately disadvantages most of our trades workforce by failing to give them equal access to city contracts. ”

Representatives and members of unions throughout the city turned out in force to oppose the override of the Project Labor Agreement Ordinance veto and to essentially berate Sanchez for his name-calling. Union members from a variety of occupations jammed the council chambers. It was clear flexing of political muscle and sent Sanchez one of the strongest messages possible to an elected official. Councilor Sanchez district has a strong working-class constituency and believed to have never elected a Republican.

Trade union members spoke to the council in opposition to the override as dozens other union members stood in support. The unions argued that the agreements ensure apprenticeship and workforce development and keep contractors from misclassifying workers to pay them less than the applicable prevailing wage.

Councilor Sanchez’s comments “there’s a lot of slugs in the union” drew particular scorn with a warning. Bobby Baca of IBEW 611, the electrician union, told Sanchez:

“I choose to forgive you for what you said, but I will never forget and neither will our membership. What you said about union workers is totally wrong, and I believe you owe a public apology to everybody standing in this room.”

Sanchez for his part only made things worse when he addressed the criticism prior to his voting to override and said:

“To make it clear, I didn’t call each and every one of you a slug – that’s not what my comment was. … My comment was that I’ve been in unions before, and I’ve been in unions that have had slugs that worked for them.”

On April 18, the Albuquerque City Council failed to override Mayor Keller’s veto of the Project Labor Agreement ordinance on a 5-4 vote. Republicans Brook Bassan, Renee Grout, Trudy Jones, Dan Lewis and lone Democrat Louie Sanchez supported the override which is the same five that had previously voted for the repeal. Democrats Isaac Benton, Pat Davis, Tammy Fiebelkorn and Klarissa Peña voted against the override.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2490161/keller-wins-latest-veto-battle.html

Mayor Tim Keller after the vote said in a statement:

“I want to thank the councilors who upheld the veto tonight for standing up for our taxpayers and our workers. Project Labor Agreements have been used to ensure quality and accountability on civic projects from the Hoover Dam to the Kennedy Space Center, and we’ll use them in Albuquerque to build our city and strengthen pathways to good careers.”

KELLER’S VETO RECORD: THREE UPHELD, ONE OVERIDE

The April 18 vote gave Keller his third veto victory out of four tries in the last 5 weeks. Keller succeeded in preserving mayoral power given during a public health emergency. The city council enacted a Dan Lewis’ sponsored bill barring the city from instituting covid vaccine mandates of city employees on 5-4 to revoke it, Keller vetoed it and the council failed to override the veto lacking the sixth vote necessary to override the veto. Keller failed in his attempt to salvage Albuquerque’s plastic bag ban repeal sponsored by Republican City Councilor Brook Basaan.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

On April 8, Sanchez showed his ignorance on a number of levels and was a damn fool when he said:

First, the APD police union that Sanchez was a member of under no circumstance can be considered a traditional “blue collar” trade union such as the building trade unions for certified and licensed plumbers, carpenters and electrician’s which is what Project Labor Agreements deals with and are all about. There are no such thing as PLA’s when it comes to law enforcement and they are for government construction projects.

Second, APD’s police union allows the management positions of Sergeants and Lieutenants to be union members, while trade unions do not allow management to be union members.

Third, it is common knowledge that the APD police union membership are conservative and very Republican leaning while trade unions for plumbers, carpenters and electrician unions are traditionally Democrat leaning.

Fourth: It is very doubtful that Sanchez has ever broken a sweat on the job like a plumber, carpenter or electrician has on a construction project. Sanchez was a sworn police officer and as head of the Mayor’s security detail was always talking into his sleeve at events or was responsible for driving Mayor Marty Chavez around as the air conditioner was on full blast in the summer and the heater on in the Winter. Chavez never endorsed Sanchez for city council which says a lot about both men.

PAC FORMED

Since commencing his term on the City Council on January 1, Louie Sanchez has aligned himself with all 4 Republicans on major Republican sponsored resolutions calling for the repeal of past Democrat initiatives. 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.

On March 14, Sanchez announced a new political action committee, or PAC, called the Working Together New Mexico PAC that will back “moderate” Democrats in a host of contested primary races. With his announcement, and less than 3 months on the city council , Sanchez is saying he wants to be a “King Maker” in New Mexico Politics.

The Working Together PAC is registered as an independent expenditure committee, and for that reason it cannot coordinate with any other candidate’s campaign.

Sanchez does not define what he means by “moderate” nor what the litmus test is to get the financial support of the PAC. However, based on the Sanchez votes and actions on the City Council, he likely means a plethora of conservative Republican causes that are contrary to Democratic core values and that support corporate interests over the working class.

CONCLUSION

Democrat Louie Sanchez is now considered by many as a DINO (Democrat in Name Only), especially after forming a political action committee (PAC) to raise money and oppose incumbent Democrats in the legislature who he claims are too progressive or not moderate enough for his liking.

Albuquerque City Councilor Louie Sanchez is not up for re-election until 2025, but in less than 4 months in office he has managed to alienate so many Democrats to the point he has sown the seeds of opposition. With any luck, Sanchez will be a one term city councilor.

_________________________

POSTSCRIPT

Mandating Project Labor Agreements (PLA’s) on city construction projects has always been controversial in Albuquerque. History and experience show it is a mandate that is long overdue and that has been prevented primarily because of Republican Mayor and Republican City Council opposition stoked by the Republican right wing leaning business community.

Former conservative and Republican Mayor Richard Berry was elected to serve two terms from 2009 until 2013. Berry was a construction contractor and developer in Albuquerque and was known to oppose anything and everything associated with unions and he actively supported for and lobbied for right to work legislation. During his entire 8 years as Mayor, Berry was at impasse with virtually all 7 of the city hall unions and their collective bargaining contract, especially the police union. During his first term in office (2009 to 2013) Berry unilaterally ordered the suspension of negotiated union contracts and refused to pay negotiated pay increases agreed to by his predecessor Mayor Martin Chavez. Berry even ordered pay cuts to forestall increasing taxes to deal with a deficit.

It was no secret that Mayor Richard Berry was the darling of the real estate development community and “right to work proponents” with Berry even lobbying for right to work laws in Santa Fe. Berry was also known to object to PSA’s. The National Association Of Industrial Office Parks (NAIOP) and Republican leaning organizations such of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Forum and the New Mexico Business Coalition were big time supporters of Berry contributing thousands to his successful privately finance campaign for a second term in 2013 where he spent well over $1 Million to get elected to a second term in the lowest voter turnout in the city’s history. Berry won in a landslide with a 19% voter turnout.

In the 2013 Mayor’s race, PSA’s were made an issue, especially by NAIOP. During the NAIOP luncheon debate moderated by Albuquerque Journal Senior Editor Kent Waltz and attended by well over 300 people, Republicans Richard Berry and Paul Heh and Democrat Pete Dinelli were all asked their positions on PSA’s. Berry and Heh both said they were opposed, while Pete Dinelli said he agreed they were necessary. Dinelli pointed out that for any Mayor to be successful they must work with the city unions. Dinelli was literally booed by half of the audience watching, including Berry’s Chief Administrative Officer Rob Perry. Dinelli came very close to telling NAIOP to go screw themselves and walking out of the debate but he showed great restraint and stayed anyway to make a point. Restraint is not required of a person who is fully retired, free to think, say and do what they want, so to NAIOP, it’s a delight and a real treat to watch NAIOP membership to deal with project labor agreements before they can suck on the government tit and be paid with taxpayer money for government construction contract work.

VILIFYING GOVERNMENT WITH YOUR HAND OUT

It is always amazing how real estate developers and construction firms and organizations such as NAIOP and Republicans are so resistant to any and all government rules, and regulations such as building codes, electrical codes, plumbing codes and minimum construction standards proclaiming government overreach. To them, its irrelevant that building electrical, plumbing and safety codes protect the public health, safety, and welfare and taxpayer dollars.

Business Organizations such of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Forum and the New Mexico Business Coalition and NAIOP never cease with their vilification of unions and government regulations proclaiming it interferes with their ability to compete and make a living and drives up their costs to do business and lowers profits. What is also interesting is that NAIOP membership are always first in line with their hands out to bid on city government contracts wanting multimillion dollar construction contracts, such as the $120 million ART Bus project, yet they vilify government.

LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR CITY PLA’S

Simply put, PSA’s are necessary in City government construction contracts for any number of legitimate reasons. Those reasons include:

1. The PSA’s mandate uniform wages, benefits, overtime pay, hours, working conditions, and work rules for work on major city construction projects
2. The PSA’s mandate that contractors on city construction projects have reliable and uninterrupted supply of qualified workers at predictable costs;
3. The PSA’s ensure that a government construction project will be completed on time and on budget
4. The PSA’s will ensure no labor strife by prohibiting strikes and lockouts and including binding procedures to resolve labor disputes;
5. PSA’s in projects over $10 million as mandated by the ordinance will make it easier to manage by placing unions under one contract, the PLA, rather than dealing with several unions that may have different wage and benefit structures;
6. The PSA ordinance includes provisions to recruit and train workers by requiring contactors to participate in recruitment, apprenticeship, and training programs for women, minorities, veterans, and other under-represented groups
7. The PSA reduces misclassification of workers and the related underpayment of payroll taxes and workers compensation.
8. The PSA ordinance will translate into a larger percentage of construction wages staying in the city and state.
9. The PSA will improve worker safety by requiring contractors and workers to comply with project safety rules.
10. The PSA requirement for city government construction projects will have a positive long-term economic benefit for the local and construction industry as a whole.

New Mexico Civil Guard Makes Mockery Of Judicial System; Police And Military Have Exclusive Authority “To Keep The Peace”; Ban Citizen Militias Or Define And Heavily Regulate Before Someone Gets Killed

Posted on April 19, 2022 by

On Monday, July 14, 2020, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez filed a civil lawsuit to stop the New Mexico Civil Guard private militia from usurping the state’s military and law enforcement authority. The lawsuit was filed against the New Mexico Civil Guard and 14 of its members who “include some individuals associated with white supremacist and neo-Confederate organizations.” The legal action was filed after militia members took it upon themselves to protect a city-owned statue that depicted Spanish conquistador Juan de Oñate during a June 15, 2020 protest.

Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is assisting with the lawsuit. It called the lawsuit the nation’s first civil suit by a district attorney to protect the public from paramilitary forces.

JUNE 15, 2020 PROTEST

During the June 15, 2020 protest, 5 to 6 heavily armed New Mexico Civil Guard members, some dressed in military camouflage, attended and tried to “protect” the sculpture. It was reported that the shooting occurred when at least 3 of the protesters attacked a person identified as Steven Baca who was walking away from them. Steven Baca was struck in the head with a skateboard and Baca drew a gun, shot numerous times, with one shot hitting one of the protesters. Steven Ray Baca was not a member of the New Mexico Civil Guard. The shot protester was rushed to the hospital and was listed in critical but stable condition and eventually released.

The shooting and violence resulted in the City taking the single figure of Onate in the sculpture grouping down. On June 16, the Albuquerque Police Department released a photo of the 13 guns and 34 magazines taken from militia members at the. In the APD photo there are 4 semi-automatic rifles. A controversy is now brewing over the handling of the protest by the Albuquerque Police Department (APD).

LAWSUIT FILED

The lawsuit argues that the New Mexico Constitution says civilian militias can only be activated by the governor and alleges the New Mexico Civil Guard is acting like law enforcement. According to the lawsuit, the New Mexico Civil Guard are acting like law enforcement by holding training sessions, outfitting themselves with military equipment and gear, and patrolling protests armed and in uniform without any legal authority to act in any kind of law enforcement capacity.

The lawsuit alleges that membership includes people associated with white supremacist and neo-Confederate ideology. According to the lawsuit:

“[NMCG has routinely used paramilitary tactics] at protests, demonstrations, and public gatherings throughout New Mexico, providing wholly unauthorized, heavily armed, and coordinated ‘protection’ from perceived threats.”

The federal civil complaint makes specific allegations that are alarming as to the actions of the New Mexico Civil Guard. Paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the complaint are succinct and outlines the “New Mexico Civil Guard” activities and what they are all about:

“2. The so-called “New Mexico Civil Guard” (NMCG) is not an organized police force or an organized part of the military. Nor is it affiliated with or overseen by the Government. Yet this group formed for the claimed purpose of maintaining the peace and both fashions itself and pretends to function as a part of the state military. NMCG’s coordinated, armed, and uniformed presence at public events results in intimidation and creates a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights to address matters of public concern. NMCG’s attempt to operate as a private police or military unit in Bernalillo County is a per se public nuisance that must be abated to protect public safety, allow the free and open use of public forums, and minimize violent armed confrontations.
… .
5. NMCG has unlawfully exercised and intends to continue to unlawfully exercise the power to maintain public peace reserved to peace officers. NMCG’s membership is not composed of peace officers, and New Mexico law clearly provides that NMCG and its members have no civil or military authority to maintain the public peace.”
… .
“7. This is a case about paramilitary action that threatens public safety and intimidates the public’s exercise of First Amendment rights. It is not a case about gun ownership, gun possession, or self-protection. Importantly, NMCG’s paramilitary activity is not protected by the Second Amendment, and the relief that the State seeks does not run afoul of Defendants’ Second Amendment rights. … .

“8. Nor is this a case about political viewpoints. To the extent NMCG has certain white supremacist ties, their viewpoint heightens the risk of violence at certain public events because of the antipathy they hold for particular groups of protesters. But the threat posed to public safety by paramilitary actions at public demonstrations or gatherings exists regardless of the paramilitary organization’s underlying ideology. Put simply, there is no place in an ordered civil society for private armed groups that seek to impose their collective will on the people in place of the police or the military. … .”

The link to the civil complaint filed is here:

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/07/State-v.-NM-Civil-Guard-Filed-Verified-Complaint.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/us/new-mexico-militia-group-lawsuit/index.html

The lawsuit is asking the court to bar the group from acting as an “unlawful military unit” and patrolling New Mexico streets on its own.

In the response to the District Attorney’s lawsuit, the group’s members contend they have a common-law right to keep the peace, carry weapons and assemble under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/07/07/details-emerge-of-new-mexico-civil-guard-actions-at-june-15-onate-protest-wouldve-blown-his-brains-out-if-he-kept-shooting-learning-cool-things-and-barbecuing-on-fridays/

MAKING A MOCKERY OF PROCEEDINGS

The Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office’s in an attempt to force the New Mexico Civil Guard to turn over records about its membership and activities scheduled the taking of the deposition Bryce Leroy Spangler Provance the former head of the New Mexico Civil Guard. Provance, a convicted felon, founded the group and was designated as its representative to appear for the deposition and answer relevant questions despite having been kicked out of the the group. The deposition was videoed taped.

Criminal defense attorney Paul Kennedy was present representing Provance. Kennedy is a former state Supreme Court justice, a well know political operative within the Republican Party who also represented Governor Suzana Martinez from time to time and Republican strategist Jay McClusky who is now running Mark Ronchetti’s campaign for Governor.

The deposition was taken on March 3, 2022. The deposition lasted a mere 12 minutes which was enough time for Province to made a mockery of the proceeding but also for him to give the District Attorney enough to seek a judgment against the group in the case.

The link to review the full 12-minute deposition is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPkeGTdohI
The deposition of Province was taken by Attorney Mark Baker. Following are relevant portions of the deposition.

ATTORNEY MARK BAKER: “Say your full name and spell your last name for the record.”
PROVANCE: “No comment.”
ATTORNEY MARK BAKER: “You’re declining to identify yourself on the record?”
PROVANCE: “Yes.”
ATTORNEY MARK BAKER: “On what basis?”
PROVANCE: “Fifth Amendment right.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Provance took from his coat a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the cover of a book by Arizona conspiracy theorist Milton William Cooper, and a piece of folded brown paper. Provance refused to describe the collection papers as anything more than “personal documents. When Baker asked to see the 3 items, all were marked as exhibits to the deposition and Baker asked questions on all 3.

ATTORNEY MARK BAKER: “So one is a torn piece of what looks like maybe a paper bag and has a picture of what looks like the devil and Georgetown Law and people inside in flames. Is that right?”

PROVANCE: “No. The devil’s in flames.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The second drawing depicted Provance in a sexual act with a character labeled “Your Mom.”

Attorney Mark Baker: “What relevance does this have to the deposition today?”
Provance: “It was to make me smile when I had to look at you.”

DA Torrez and attorney Mark Baker have been seeking documents that show the membership, history and organization of the group. During the deposition, Provance claimed he destroyed all such evidence in a fit of anger after he and the group parted ways, but before he’d learned of an order to preserve the material for potential legal action. Provance testified:

“[I] shredded and burned all membership files. I shredded and burned anything regarding the structure of the New Mexico Civil Guard. I also poured bleach on the hard drive from my laptop and then burned it. … [I felt] bad after getting removed from the militia group, so I disconnected from the world, and I actually lived in a camper for a while. … And since I was the last individual, I reckon, to be served with this lawsuit, I did not know about the provisions to retain any of the documentation. ”

At one point, Provovince insisted that all of his answers to questions asked would be “no comment”.

After refusing to answer several more questions, Provance removed his microphone and walked out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPkeGTdohI

PLEADING THE 5TH

Provance brought to the deposition a copy of portions of the Declaration of Independence, but wouldn’t comment about it citing his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Baker asked whether he thought that identifying the Declaration of Independence would incriminate him, or “pose the possibility of incriminating you?” Provance responded “No comment.”

During the deposition Provance said he was “a free man under the Constitution,” and as the founder of the militia organization retained all its documents. Provance said that after he was forced from the group, he destroyed all documentation, shredded and burned all the membership files and those related to the structure of the guard.

After 12 minutes of questioning, Provance got up and abruptly left and as he was leaving said “Have a lovely day.” Ostensibly,criminal defense attorney Paul Kennedy had no problem with his client abruptly cutting short the deposition in that he did not instruct his client to stay nor did he ever instruct Province to answer questions asked.

“BEHOLD A PALE HORSE”

During the videotaped deposition, Provance provided the DA’s attorney with a torn piece of paper that looked like the cover of the book, “Behold a Pale Horse” a book written by William Cooper and published in 1991.

During the deposition, attorney Backer asked “What is the subject matter of the book?” to which Provance replied “No comment.” Baker asked “Based on what?” and Provance replied “Fifth Amendment right. ”

Cooper was killed in in 2001 in a burst of gunfire outside his hilltop home in eastern Arizona. Cooper was a radio host who had attracted a rabid following among UFO buffs, prisoners and the militia movement. For them, the book “Behold a Pale Horse,” and Cooper’s nightly shortwave radio show lifted the veil on how the world actually works.

Through his death in 2001, Cooper became a legend and his book has become a defining text for conspiracy-minded people and Qnon enthusiasts.

https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona-investigations/2020/10/01/behold-pale-horse-how-william-cooper-planted-seeds-qanon-theory/3488115001/

SUING FACEBOOK TO GET RECORDS

Over the past year, DA Torrez has sought information about the guard, its members and its activities, going so far as California and to FACEBOOK to get records. On November 15, 2021, it was reported that Torrez filed a petition with a California Superior Court judge asking to force FACEBOOK to comply with a subpoena from his office that seeks information regarding accounts set up by the right-wing militia group and its members. Torrez said militia members used Facebook to recruit, organize and direct members in addition to telling them where to meet and how to prepare themselves ahead of protests.

At news conference on November 15, Torrez reported that FACEBOOK took down pages associated with the Civil Guard because the accounts violated Facebook’s own policies regarding dangerous individuals and organizations. Torrez added FACEBOOK has refused to provide information he seeks about who set up and controlled the accounts.

Torrez wrote in a news statement:

“FACEBOOK is asking Congress and the American people to trust it to regulate extremist content on its platform and yet refuses to turn over basic account information about an identified extremist group that used that same platform to recruit, organize and direct its members to engage in unlawful activity.”

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/da-files-complaint-against-facebook-for-information-on-new-mexico-civil-guard/article_28dcfae2-463e-11ec-8ba5-d30e2875f9f9.html

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Provance was so combative and uncooperative during the deposition that on April 12, District Attorney Torrez filed a motion for a default judgment against the New Mexico Civil Guard. The motion asks the State District Court Judge to enter and order for a default judgment against the Civil Guard seeking to have the New Mexico Civil Guard, its members and its organizers to be permanently barred from organizing any militia group that would engage in unlawful policing or paramilitary activity. Such a decision would end the suit and effectively bar the group from acting as it has in the past.

The motion states in part:

“Provance’s spectacle … was just the culmination of NMCG record of obstruction. … NMCG has repeatedly flouted its discovery obligations. … [The destroyed documents could have] borne on the state’s allegations that NMCG organized itself as an unlawful military unit whose members falsely assumed law enforcement functions.”

The motion also asks the District Court Judge to award sanctions, costs and attorney’s fees in the case.

Torrez for his part had this to say:

“We didn’t get very far in that deposition. It was pretty extraordinary. … The real goal in all of this is to stop armed extremists from organizing, recruiting, and directing their members to engage in activity that is exclusively reserved for the police or in extraordinary circumstances, the National Guard. … [The motion is] s a pretty extreme outcome, I will say, but it’s warranted under the circumstances, given the extreme conduct that was demonstrated.”

Torrez noted that the group has repeatedly thumbed its nose at the legal process as the suit moves forward. He also noted the irony that the Civil Guard refused to respect the laws it claimed to uphold under the United States Constitution.

The links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/district-attorney-asks-court-for-quick-ruling-against-new-mexico-civil-guard/6444717/?cat=500

https://www.abqjournal.com/2488239/nm-civil-guard-records-destroyed.html

NEW MEXICO CIVIL GUARD FILES A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY

On September 9, 2021, 8 members of the New Mexico Civil Guard (NMCG) filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The lawsuit claims the 8 were “targeted” by APD when they showed up on June 15, 2020 at the protest over the “La Jornada” (The Journey) sculpture in front of the Albuquerque Museum. The protest was for the removal of the figures of Juan de Onate de Salazar in the sculpture.

According to a federal lawsuit, the citizens militia group claim city officials targeted them for no reason. The lawsuit alleges that the city was aware the militia group was going to be there and APD positioned officers near the protest waiting until a Civil Guard member “committed a crime and planned to then arrest them.” The plaintiffs alleged they did nothing wrong and were detained anyway by APD.

The Civil Guard members allege one of them was attacked at the protest and at that point all the civil guard left the crowd. According to the complaint, after they had moved away, 31-year-old Steven Baca pulled a concealed handgun and started shooting, hitting one man. When the shooting began, the guard members returned and ran toward Baca and upon encountering him, one militia member stepped on the gun or “kicked his gun away”.

The lawsuit alleges that even though police knew the group wasn’t associated with Baca, they “arrested” the plaintiffs anyway, held them for hours for questioning, not allowing them to talk to lawyers or even use the restroom . They were eventually released after interviews.

EDITOR’S NOTE:The allegation that they were arrested is false. No militia member was arrested but they were held for questioning and then released.

At the time of the incident, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez said that the militia members had a right to be at the protest and bear arms. However, the DA made it clear they did not have the right to intervene as “enforcers of the law”. The DA later filed the civil complaint seeking an injunction to prohibit the Civil Guard from acting in any police or military capacity and to declare the group a “nuisance” posing an immediate threat.

A link to the complete news report is here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/nm-civil-guard-sues-city-over-juan-de-onate-protests/

ONLY CERTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORIZED “TO KEEP THE PEACE”

The New Mexico statutory law is very clear as to the definition of a “peace officer”. The law is also very clear that only peace officers are authorized to maintain the peace and make arrests. The New Mexico Civil Guard are not law enforcement and have likely violated the laws with their actions that govern peace officers

It is § 30-1-12(C) (1963) of the New Mexico statutes that defines a peace officer as anyone who is elected or appointed and who is:

“vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for crime.”

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2018/chapter-30/article-1/section-30-1-12/

Under §29-1-9 (2006) of the New Mexico statutes the duties, responsibilities and authority to lawfully maintain the peace are expressly reserved to peace officers. The statute provides:

“[N]o person shall assume or exercise the functions, powers, duties and privileges incident and belonging to the office of special deputy sheriff, marshal, policeman or other peace officer without first having received an appointment in writing from a person authorized by law to appoint special deputy sheriffs, marshals, policemen or other peace officers . . . .”

Section §30-27-2.1 of the New Mexico statutes also defines what a police officer is, what impersonating a police officer is and it illegal for anyone to impersonate a peace officer. The statute provides:

… [A] “peace officer” means any public official or public officer vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for crime, whether that duty extends to all crimes or is limited to specific crimes.

Impersonating a peace officer consists of:

(1) without due authority exercising or attempting to exercise the functions of a peace officer; or

(2) pretending to be a peace officer with the intent to deceive another person.
… Whoever commits impersonating a peace officer is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the offender is guilty of a fourth-degree felony.

NEW MEXICO LAW ENFORCMENT HEAVILY REGUALTED

Much like doctors, lawyers, and teachers, law enforcement in New Mexico is heavily regulated profession. There are minimum qualification and training requirements for all state certified law enforcement. It is the Law Enforcement Training Act that creates the law-enforcement academy to provide a planned program of basic law enforcement training and in-service law enforcement training for police officers.

The academy requires minimum training requirements for certification, and requirements for continuing training “to constantly upgrade law enforcement within the state.” (NMSA 1978, §§ 29-7-1 to – 15, passed in 1969, and amended through 2020). The statute provides for suspension and revocation of law-enforcement certification based on dishonesty or fraud, the commission of a felony, or violations of law involving moral turpitude. (§ 29-7-13,) NMSA 1978. During the 2020 legislative session, the New Mexico Legislature amended the Act to require revocation of law-enforcement certification for crimes involving the use or threatened use of force. ( NMSA 1978, § 29-7-15)

NEW MEXICO MILITARY HEAVILY REGUALTED

The New Mexico Civil Guard is not military and are not authorized under the law to use military force. The New Mexico Civil Guard is likely violating the laws that govern government militias, the National Guard and the New Mexico state defense force.

Under New Mexico statutory law, entities that are authorized to use military force on the State’s behalf are collectively known as the “militia”. It is Section 20-2-1 of the New Mexico Statues that outlines 3 distinct components of the militias:

A. “Militia” means all the military forces of this state, organized and unorganized, whether active or inactive; but excludes the regularly organized police forces of the state or its political subdivisions and excludes the civil air patrol division.

B. “National guard” means the New Mexico army national guard and the New Mexico air national guard. The national guard is federally recognized and has a dual state and federal character and mission. When used in Chapter 20 NMSA 1978 national guard shall refer to the national guard of New Mexico unless otherwise stated.

C. “New Mexico state defense force” means that part of the militia of the state which is not federally recognized. It is exclusively a state entity. Its standing cadre is a component of the organized militia; its ranks are filled upon order of the governor from the unorganized militia. When used in Chapter 20 NMSA 1978, state defense force shall refer to the New Mexico state defense force.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-20/article-2/section-20-2-1/

Note that 20-2-1 section A makes it clear that militia does not include organized police forces of the state, counties and municipalities all which are separate political subdivisions. Note also that the New Mexico National Guard is federally recognized and can be called or ordered into active federal service ostensibly by the United States Defense Department or order of the President. The State Defense Force is “exclusively a state entity and not federally recognized as is the National Guard. The ranks of the State Defense Force can be filled by the unorganized militia only by order of the Governor. Absent activation into the State Defense Force by the Governor, any unorganized militia lacks authority to operate as a military force.

FUNCTIONS OF NM NATIONAL GUARD AND STATE DEFENSE FORCE

It is not the function of the National Guard nor the State Defense Force to exercise the powers and duties of peace officers. It is New Mexico statutes § 20-2-3, dealing with Military Affairs, that designates the Governor as only one who has the power to call out the national guard and the militia and the statute outlines those instances.

§ 20-2-3 provides:

“A. The governor may, in case of insurrection, invasion, riot or breach of the peace or of imminent danger thereof or in case of other emergency, order into active service of the state the militia or any components or parts thereof that have not been called into federal service. As used in this section, “emergency” includes any man-made or natural disaster causing or threatening widespread physical or economic harm that is beyond local control and requiring the resources of the state.

B. The governor may also order any member of the national guard to active state service … for the following reasons:

(1) to protect critical infrastructure in the state from a cybersecurity threat or security vulnerability;
(2) to protect an information system owned or operated by the state from a cybersecurity threat or security vulnerability;
(3) to protect information that is stored on, processed by or transiting on an information system owned or operated by the state from a cybersecurity threat or security vulnerability; or
(4) to identify the source of a cybersecurity threat.

C. A member of the national guard called to active service pursuant to … t Subsection B … shall not have any police powers or arrest authority. … .

D. In case of any breach of the peace, tumult, riot or resistance to process of this state or imminent danger thereof, the sheriff of a county may call for aid from the governor as commander-in-chief of the national guard. If it appears to the governor that the power of the county is insufficient to enable the sheriff to preserve the peace and protect the lives and property of the peaceful residents of the county or to overcome the resistance to process of this state, the governor shall, on application of the sheriff, order out such military force as is necessary.

E. When any portion of the militia is called out for the purpose of suppressing an unlawful or riotous assembly, the commander of the troops shall cooperate with the civil officers to the fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of the object for which the troops were called. … .

F. When any portion of the militia is ordered into active service pursuant to this section in case of an emergency, the militia may provide those resources and services necessary to avoid or minimize economic or physical harm until a situation becomes stabilized and again under local self-support and control, including the provision, on a temporary, emergency basis, for lodging, sheltering, health care, food and any transportation or shipping necessary to protect lives or public property; or for any other action necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

G. … .

https://codes.findlaw.com/nm/chapter-20-military-affairs/nm-st-sect-20-2-3.html

ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED MILITIAS DEFINED UNDER NEW MEXICO LAW

It is §20-2-2 of the New Mexico statutes that defines “organized and unorganized militias” as follows:
“The militia is composed of the organized and the unorganized militia.

A.The organized militia is the national guard and the standing cadre of the state defense force and such parts of the unorganized militia when and as may be activated, enrolled or enlisted into the national guard or into the state defense force.

B. The unorganized militia is comprised of all able-bodied male citizens of the state and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States and are residents of the state who are not less than 18 or more than 45 years of age, but who shall not be more than 64 years of age if they shall have earlier served in or retired from the national guard; subject to … [specific] listed exceptions … .

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The efforts of Bernalillo County District Attorney suing the New Mexico Civil Guard are to be commended. The reality is, the one lawsuit only affects one civilian militia group in the State when there are likely far more. Further, there is nothing that will prevent such militias from forming in the future nor prevent such citizen militias from other states to come to New Mexico. Citizen Militias are not regulated in the State of New Mexico. For these reasons the New Mexico legislature should enact a state law outlawing or regulating citizens militias in the state.

The State of New Mexico should enact legislation that defines with more particularity what a “citizen miltia” is and either ban them entirely or regulate all citizens militias. If New Mexico does not ban citizen militia’s outright, a Citizen’s Militia Registration Act could be enacted. Citizen militias need to be defined along similar lines of how “gangs” are defined under federal criminal law.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-gang-definitions

A “citizens militia” needs to be defined as:

“An association of three or more individuals, whose members collectively identify themselves by adopting a group identity employing one or more of the following: a common name, slogan, identifying sign, symbol, flag, uniforms or military apparel or other physical identifying marking, style or color of clothing, whose purpose in part is to engage in the protection of private property and other people. A registered citizens militia may employ rules for joining and operating within the militia and members may meet on a recurring basis.”

A Citizen Militia Registration Act would require citizen militias to:

Register with the New Mexico Homeland Security Office and the New Mexico State Police.

Allow only American Citizens to be members of a citizen militia.

Require members to register their firearms with the State.

Pay yearly regulation fees and firearm certification fees and carry liability insurance.

Identify all their members by name, address and contact information.

Prohibit felons from joining.

Limit their authority and powers so as to prevent militias to engage in law enforcement activities.

Require members to pass criminal background checks and psychological testing.

Mandate training and instructions on firearm use and safety.

Require all militias and its members to agree to follow all local, state and federal laws and apply for permits to attend functions sponsored by others.

Failure to register as mandated would be a felony.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-gang-definitions

CONCLUSION

Those who take it upon themselves to associate and bear arms calling themselves “citizen militias” take it to the extreme when they attend protests fully armed in military attire proclaiming they are there to assume the responsibility law enforcement to protect people and property. Such attendance amounts to nothing but vigilantism. The state can and should act to ban citizen militias or enact legislation to regulate them before someone gets seriously hurt or killed.

City Sanctioned Homeless Encampment Coming To Open Space Area Near You!; City Council To Allow 45 Homeless Camps For 1,800 Homeless And Allowing Up To 40 Tents; Councilors Need Their Heads Examined And Tour Coronado Park

Posted on April 18, 2022 by

This falls squarely into the category of “What the hell are they thinking?”

On Wednesday, April 13, the City Council’s Land Use, Planning and Zoning Committee (LUPZ) met to consider amendments updating the city’s 2017 enacted Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) that regulates zoning development throughout the city. One amendment is for zoning changes that will allow city sanctioned “safe outdoor spaces”, also called “government sanctioned homeless campsites” where the homeless will be able to sleep and tend to personal hygiene. The amendment is being offered as a solution to assist the city to deal with the city’s homeless numbers. The amendment is now part of the IDO update legislation. The full City Council could vote on the amendment as early as May 2.

HOMELESS CAMPSITES

The zoning change that will allow for homeless encampments is expected to generate severe opposition from neighborhood associations as well business organizations. Democrat City Councilors Isaac Benton, Brook Bassan, Pat Davis, Tammy Fiebelkorn and Republican Trudy Jones have all sponsored or co-sponsored amendments to the city’s zoning code to allow for homeless campsites. The LUPZ committee voted to advance Councilor Pat Davis’ amendment that will restrict the number of homeless campsites citywide.

The proposed zoning changes to allow for homeless campsites can be summarized as follows:

7. The campsites would be permitted in certain commercial, business park and manufacturing zones and in some mixed-use zones after a public hearing.

According to City Officials, in most instances, the encampments would be set up and managed by churches or nonprofits.

Members of the public who appeared before the LUPZ committee cautioned the councilors about allowing homeless campsites and specifically asked for rules to restrict their proliferation in certain areas of the city. Councilor Pat Davis said his proposal addresses some of those concerns by banning more than 5 sanctioned campsites in any one of the city’s nine council districts. In other words, no more than 45 camp sites would be allowed within the city limits spread out over the 9 city council districts.

FUNDING FOR HOMELESS CAMPSITES AND GATEWAY SHELTER

Mayor Keller’s 2023 budget includes $750,000 for the first phase of implementing city sanctioned Homeless camp sites which if approved by Council “will enable ultra-low barrier encampments to set up in vacant dirt lots across the City” plus an additional $200 thousand for developing other sanctioned encampment programs for a total of $950,000.

Mayor Keller’s 2022-203 proposed budget also includes the following funding:

• $4.7 million net 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.

• $1.3 million 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.

• $4 million in recurring funding and $3 million in one-time funding for supportive housing programs in the City’s Housing First model.

It was on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, the city officially announced it had bought the massive 572,000-square-foot complex for $15 million and will transform it into a Gateway Center for the homeless. It was announced that the complex would be only 1 of the multisite homeless shelters and not the 300-bed shelter originally planned. The complex has a 201-bed capacity, but remodeling could likely increase capacity significantly. The emergency shelter and services hub is slated to provide overnight beds for 50 women by year’s end. The city has also said it could eventually host up to 100 adults and 25 families at a time.

2022-2023 PROPOSED FUNDING FOR CONTRACTS TO DEAL WITH HOMELESS

The City of Albuquerque has at least 10 separate homeless service provider locations throughout the city. This fiscal year that ends June 30, the entire general fund budget for the Department of Family and Community Services is approximately $41 million. The $41 million is not just exclusive funding for services to the homeless.

The services offered by the Family and Community Services Department to the homeless are directly provided by the city or by contracts with nonprofit providers. The services include social services, mental/behavioral health, homeless services, health care for the homeless, substance abuse treatment and prevention, multi-service centers, public housing, rent assistance, affordable housing development, and fair housing, just to mention a few.

This past fiscal year 2021 ending June 10, 2021, city hall and the Keller Administration have spent upwards of $40 Million by the Family and Community Services Department to benefit the homeless or near homeless. The 2021 adopted city budget for Family and Community Services Department provides for emergency shelter contracts totaling $5,688,094, affordable housing and community contracts totaling $22,531,752, homeless support services contracts totaling $3,384,212, mental health contracts totaling $4,329,452, and substance abuse contracts for counseling contracts totaling $2,586,302.

The link to the 2021-2022 city approved budget is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy22-approved-budget-numbered-w-hyperlinks-final.pdf

Mayor Keller’s 2022-2023 proposed budget significantly increases the Family and Community Services budget by $24,353,064 to assist the homeless or near homeless by going from $35,145,851 to $59,498,915. The 2022-2023 proposed budget for the Department of Community Services is $72.4 million and it will have 335 full time employees, or an increase of 22 full time employees.

A breakdown of the amounts to help the homeless and those in need of housing assistance is as follows:

$42,598,361 total for affordable housing and community contracts with a major emphasis on permanent housing for chronically homeless. It is $24,353,064 more than last year. (Budget page 101)

$6,025,544 total for emergency shelter contracts (Budget page 102.), down $396,354 from last year.

$3,773,860 total for mental health contracts (Budget page105.), down $604,244 from last year.

$4,282,794 total homeless support services(Budget page 105.), up $658,581 from last year.

$2,818,356 total substance abuse contracts for counseling (Budget page 106.), up by $288,680 from last year.

The link to the proposed 244-page 2022-2023 budget it here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf

2021 POINT-IN-TIME (PIT) REPORT

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines sheltered homeless as “residing in an emergency shelter, motel paid through a provider or in a transitional housing program.” HUD defines “unsheltered homeless” as “those sleeping in places not meant for human habitation including streets, parks, alleys, underpasses, abandoned buildings, campgrounds and similar environments.”

On June 22, 2021, Albuquerque’s 2021 Point-In-Time (PIT) report was released that surveyed both sheltered and unsheltered homeless.

Major highlights of the 2021 PIT report are as follows:

The 2021 PIT count found that 73.6% of the homeless population was staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing or using motel vouchers rather than sleeping in alleys, parks and other “unsheltered” locations. The 73.6% in the 2021 count is much a higher than the 2019 and 2017 PIT counts.

Albuquerque’s unsheltered homeless decreased from 567 people in 2019 to 413 in the 2021 count.

42% of Albuquerque’s unsheltered were defined as chronically homeless, meaning they had been continuously homeless for at least a year and had a disabling condition.

21% said they were homeless due to COVID.

37% were experiencing homelessness for the first time.

12% were homeless due to domestic violence.

30.19% of the homeless in Albuquerque self-reported as having a serious mental illness.

25.5% self-reported as substance abusers.

The link to quoted statistics is here:

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

https://www.cabq.gov/family/documents/2019-albuquerque-pit-count-final.pdf

Government agencies and nonprofits report that the city’s homeless numbers are greater than those found in the PIT reports and that the number of homeless in Albuquerque approaches 4,500 to 5,000 in any given year. The nonprofit Rock At Noon Day offers meals and other services to the homeless. Noon Day Executive Director Danny Whatley reported in July, 2021, that there are 4,000 to 4,500 homeless people in the Albuquerque area. Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) is New Mexico’s largest school district, serving more than a fourth of the state’s students and nearly 84,000 students. APS reports the number of homeless children enrolled in district schools, meaning kids from families that have no permanent address, has consistently ranged from 3,200 to 3,500.

NOT A CRIME TO BE HOMELESS

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/the-process-behind-removing-homeless-camps-from-public-places/

Alleged seizures of property and identification records of the homeless by APD likely violates the 2017 settlement agreement in the federal case of McClendon v. Albuquerque, which prohibits Albuquerque police from seizing or disposing of property or personal identification unless they are “authorized by law.” The point of the lawsuit was that police were arresting and incarcerating so many people that the jail was severely overcrowded with the settlement meant to reduce the number of people in jail. To that end, it also prohibits Albuquerque police from even asking for identification if they have reason to believe that the person is mentally ill or homeless.

https://sourcenm.com/2021/09/17/albuquerque-police-still-sweeping-homeless-camps-despite-cdc-guidelines/

PROCESS IN PLACE

The process the city has in place to deal with homeless encampments is a long process from when the city gets a complaint about a homeless camp to when it gets cleared out, if it ever gets cleared out. The only time the city can immediately clear out a camp is if it is putting the campers or community members in danger. The city does have the west side homeless shelter which is located 20 miles outside the city and located in the old vacated jail where the homeless can go, but the city cannot force them to the shelter or any other shelter.

The city has an “encampment team” made up of seven people. Their job is to respond to reported encampments set up on public property, and give the people living there “written notice” that they have to go. Once their time is up, the encampment team checks in to make sure the people have in fact move. Once the encampment has been vacated, the city cleans up whatever is left behind at the camp which includes many times trash and needles for elicit drug use.

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/the-process-behind-removing-homeless-camps-from-public-places/

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/city-official-answers-questions-on-homeless-encampments-in-albuquerque/6317454/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

During the April 13 LUPZ Committee hearing, Republican City Councilor Brook Bassan had this to say:

“We have to do something, and these are ideas. Let’s try it – let’s try it, because we’re already mad [about the homeless] . We’re probably going to get a little bit madder. … Then if we don’t try anything, it’s just going to continue getting worse, but if we try something, we’re going to start seeing something else better happen.”

Director of the city’s Family and Community Services Department Carol Pierce had this to say about both amendments:

“This is a huge opportunity for our community to help unhoused folks and to have more options. … We need more options. … We just need different kinds of tools in our tool belt.”

Basaan’s and Pierce’s comments fall squarely under the category of “Exactly what the hell are you thinking?” How many more tools are needed and must be funded for services not wanted?

NEED TO HAVE THEIR HEADS EXAMINED AND TOUR CORONADO PARK

Any city councilor or any member of the general public that thinks 45 city sanctioned campsites with upwards of 40 occupants spread throughout the city is somehow “good idea” need to have their head examined. All they need to do to realize this is a very bad idea is to take a tour of the Coronado Park located near I-40 and 2nd street. As of April 17, the public park has upwards of 60 tents with the homeless wondering the park and the surrounding area.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/police-records-depict-pattern-of-problems-violence-at-coronado-park/5891961/

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-buys-old-law-office-property-near-coronado-park/

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/the-process-behind-removing-homeless-camps-from-public-places/

GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED HOMELESS CAMPS FLAWED POLICY

As it stands, the proposed amendment to allow homeless camp sites is seriously flawed. Those flaws include:

1. Exact size or physical area of the encampments are not defined.

2.The length of time of occupancy that will be allowed and the extent of screening of campers, check in times and check out times are not delineated.

3. There is no mention if the City Administration will be allowed to unilaterally decide where the camp sites can be located, like Mayor Tim Keller did with the purchase of the Lovelace/Gibson for the Gateway Shelter, with very little or no input from neighborhoods and the city council.

4. Will the amendment allow under-utilized city parks and city owned open space be allowed to be used for the encampments. Bullhead park near the Veterans Hospital or even the vacant airport industrial park come to mind when there is talk of open space locations that are near homeless services in that both are in walking distance to the soon to be open Gateway Homeless Shelter Center on Gibson.

5. Location and site selection criteria, including proximity to residential areas, school, churches, hospitals and bars and recreational marijuana dispensaries.

6. The extent of rules imposed to allow camping such as no drug use, no weapons nor firearms or open fires.

7. Security to be provided by the city.

8. To what extent is the city assuming liability for any injury sustained to anyone who uses the camps?

CREATING LIABILITY WITH USE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY

Once a homeless campsite becomes a “city sanctioned operation” on city owned open space property, the city will be subjecting itself to liability. The city is assuming the responsibility for maintaining a safe environment and to provide accommodations for personal hygiene. When there is a failure for the city to provide satisfactory security and a person is injured, a personal injury lawsuit for damages will likely result.

EXTENT OF THE UNSHELTERED DECREASED

The 2021 Point-In-Time (PIT) report found that there were 1,567 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people living in Albuquerque, a slight increase over the 2019 count of 1,524 homeless. It also found Albuquerque’s unsheltered homeless decreased from 567 people in 2019 to 413 in the 2021 count. It is the “unsheltered homeless”, or between 413 to 667 homeless that the campsites are being proposed to help, yet the council wants to provide campsites to accommodate 1,800 adults.

Basaan, Pierce and the city council need a reality check. They have a hard time dealing with the facts that many homeless adults want to live their life as they choose, where they want and how they want, without any government nor family interference and especially no rules. They simply do not want anyone’s help. Many homeless do not seek help, even though they may desperately need it, especially those who suffer from mental illness or substance abuse. It’s an aversion to any sort of rules, a desire to live as one chooses, and many times the inability to qualify for help that makes things difficult for the homeless.

City hall sanctioned homeless camps, especially those on city owned property, must have rules and regulations, which in practice will likely be totally ignored by the homeless. The county’s Tiny Homes Village is the best example the problem. Bernalillo County is having a hard time finding people to stay at the Tiny Home Village complex. The county spent $5 million to build the facility even as homeless encampments keep popping up all over the city.

One year after the Tiny Home Village opened in the International District, 25 of the 30 homes are empty as nearby streets are lined with tents. One of the city’s largest homeless encampments is right outside the Tiny Home Village. One of the biggest reasons for the Tiny Homes village being empty is all the rules that must be adhered to. To qualify for a Tiny Home, one must be free of drugs and alcohol. In addition to following the rules, residents are required to help around the complex. Many applicants for the Tiny Homes project cannot make it past the vetting process.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/tiny-home-village-struggles-to-fill-vacancies-as-homeless-encampments-surge/

The 2021 Point-In-Time (PIT) report does reflect that progress is being made when it reported that 73.6% of the homeless population was staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing or using motel vouchers rather than sleeping in alleys, parks and other “unsheltered” situations. The 73.6% in the 2021 count is much a higher than the 2019 and 2017 PIT counts.

GONVERNMENT SANCTION ENCAMPMENTS NO SOLUTION

If the Family and Community Services Department and its Director Carol Pierce think the department needs “more tools” than $60 million dollars can provide a year, they do not have the know how to “build” or find a solution other than just throwing more financial resources at the problem.

City sanctioned homeless camps will defeat any real progress being made. Government sanctioned homeless encampments will only encourage those who seek such encampments to continue with their lifestyle living on the streets. Providing a very temporary place to pitch a tent, relieve themselves, maybe bath and sleep at night with rules they do not want nor will likely follow is not the answer to the homeless crisis.

City Councilor Louie Sanchez Claims His 911 Calls Mishandled, Demands Full City Audit; Accurate Audit Not Likely With 390,000 Calls A Year; APD 911 Priority Call Response Times And Crime Rates Evaluated; Sanchez Demand For Audit Reflects Ignorance And Vindictiveness On 5 Levels

Posted on April 15, 2022 by

EDITOR’S NOTE: This blog article contains an in depth analysis of 911 Call statistics and APD response times in conjunction with the city’s crime statistics in order to emphasize the difficulty that an audit will present.

On November 2, 2021 Louie Sanchez was elected the District 1 City Councilor defeating incumbent Lan Sena who had been appointed city councilor by Mayor Tim Keller after the death of longtime city councilor Ken Sanchez. Louie Sanchez was sworn into office on January 1 for a 4 year term to represent the West side area of the City. Sanchez is a retired APD cop with 26 years of service. After retiring, Sanchez became an insurance salesman. His election to the city council race was the first time he has ever run for office. Sanchez did have some limited exposure to politics having served as the officer in charge of Mayor Marty Chavez security detail and work directly out of the Mayor’s Office.

HIGH PROFILE NEWS COVERAGE

On April 7, KOAT Target 7 ran a lead story entitled “Albuquerque City Councilor Louie Sanchez concerned about 911 response times”. On the April 13, the Albuquerque Journal on its front page above the fold with his photo ran a story with the headline “City Councilor Sanchez questions response times of APD officers”. Both stories involve Sanchez making a 911 Priority 1 call on March 6 along with his history of making 911 emergency calls. According to both news reports, over the past 10 months, Louie Sanchez has called the APD 911 emergency dispatch nearly a dozen times to report crimes or occurrences he has seen outside his Allstate Insurance Agency office on Central and 61st.

The links to both news reports are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2487806/city-councilor-questions-911-response.html

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-city-councilor-louie-sanchez-concerned-about-911-response-times/39668101

PATTERN OF 911 CALLS

Since being sworn in to office on January 1, Sanchez has continued making 911 calls but now brings them up during City Council meetings to complain how they are being handled. Sanchez is asserting that his calls are examples of APD mishandling, or just not responding, to 911 Priority 1 calls and downgrading the calls, his calls in particular, so APD does not have to respond. APD is questioning his motives. Sanchez is now demanding an audit of APD priority 1 calls.

At the epicenter of both news reports is that Sanchez is demanding to know why APD police officers are not immediately being dispatched to high priority calls. His March 26 call was about a man threatening or maybe hitting another with a gun. According to Sanchez, he believes 911 calls are being downgraded from what should be considered the highest priority, or a Priority 1 which are felonies that are in progress or there is an immediate threat to life or property to a lower priority call such as a Priority 5 Call, which is where a crime has already occurred and there “is no suspect at or near the scene and no threat of personal injury, loss of life or property.”

CALL FOR AUDIT

Since taking office, Sanchez has been extremely critical of APD Chief Harold Medina and uses City Council meetings to raise issues as he attempts to excert dominance over APD management. He frequently brings up his 911 and calls to 242-COPS at council meetings as well as his history with the police department. After the April 4 City council meeting, Louie Sanchez prompted the city council services to request the city’s Office of Internal Audit to conduct an audit of 911 emergency response times. Nicole Kelley, the city auditor said the department is determining what the scope and objective of that review would be.

THE MARCH 6 EMERGENCY 911 CALL

According to the Target 7 report, Louie Sanchez made a 911 call on the afternoon of Saturday March 26. The transcript of the 911 call is as follows:

“Sanchez: 61st and Central. I’m across the street in the building
Dispatch: Which corner are they on?
Sanchez: They are at the pit stop 61st and Central.
Dispatch: Which corner is that on?
Sanchez: He beat a guy up with a but stock of a gun and pointed it.”

The dispatcher asks Councilor Sanchez if he wants to meet with police, he says no.

Dispatch: If nobody wants to talk to officers then…
Sanchez: No, you need to get the gun off the street, ma’am. There he goes. He is walking away. He just pointed the gun at somebody else.
Dispatch: Where’s the victim?
Sanchez: Are you going to get it? You guys waste too much time.

Four minutes into the call the dispatcher issues a “be on the lookout for the suspect.”

Sanchez: Are you serious? You’re not going to come over here and deal with it. You’re just going to be on the lookout.

About five minutes into the call dispatch hung up on Sanchez without letting him know whether officers were called to the scene.

According to police logs reviewed by Target 7, an APD officer arrived in the area to check out what was going on with a reported man with a gun approximately 50 minutes after Sanchez made the call and after he talked with the dispatcher’s supervisor. Sanchez said he believes officers were not dispatched until after he called a supervisor complaining.

In the Target 7 interview, Sanchez had this to say:

“As far as I know, no one even checked the area. As far as I know, an officer never came to talk to me together [for] further information. … I hope that the police department is not avoiding or diminishing calls to keep the crime stats down.”

In both news stories, APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos was asked about the March 6 call made by Sanchez. In both reports, Gallegos said the call should have been considered a Priority 1 or Priority 2 call since there was an allegation that a gun was involved. Instead, the call-taker told Sanchez she was setting up a “be on the lookout”, which Sanchez took exception to and essentially demanded more.

Gallegos did say APD officers were dispatched to the scene about 50 minutes after Sanchez’s call. According to Gallegos, when officers went to the scene all they found were two people sitting in the shade who said they had been there a few minutes and hadn’t seen anything suspicious. Gallegos said when officers reviewed area security camera footage they did not have a clear view of the gas station where Sanchez said the incident took place. Gallegos did say the security camera showed at least 4 different police cars in the area at various times on a busy street.

Despite whether Sanchez was willing to speak with a responding officer, APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said the dispatcher made an error. Gallegos had this to say:

“Ideally, they would have dispatched officers, gone to the scene … Ideally, they would have victim information, or they could have met with Mr. Sanchez, to get more information … if there’s someone out there on the property, they could formulate a plan and go deal with it. … They should have dispatched an officer right away and that type of call. … The director [of the 911 Dispatch Center] did speak to the call taker after the incident, talked with that person and mandated some additional training to make sure they were aware of what they should have been doing. ”

APD Spokesman Gallegos added that he thought Sanchez may have confused the call-taker by saying that he didn’t want an officer to contact him and then saying he did. According to Gallegos:

“If the victim [is] not there and they don’t know if a victim wants to press charges or a witness isn’t contacted, the officer can’t just show up and take the gun from someone’s hands if they’re not sure that they committed a crime or have suspicion.”

Sanchez for his part told the Journal reporter that when he told the call-taker “no” about an officer contacting him he meant “that’s not the way that’s supposed to be taking place,” not that he wouldn’t talk to an officer.

PATTERN OF CALLS USING A SECURED PHONE LINE

Logs provided to the media by APD show Sanchez called 911 or 242-COPS on 11 different days between June 2021 and the end of March referencing fights he’s seen, or suspected drug dealing and prostitution. According to dispatch logs, Police were dispatched to at least 3 of those calls. In some cases, Sanchez told the operator it was already too late to dispatch a police officer and expresses disbelief that no one had answered the phone when he called. Sanchez acknowledged that he has called more frequently in the past several months and says that’s because a lot of incidents have happened in front of his office and Sanchez said had this to say:

“I witnessed a fight in progress with a stabbing, I witnessed individuals throwing rocks at each other during heavy traffic.”

APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos took issue with the number of calls made by Sanchez and declined to say whether APD believe Sanchez’s calls are legitimate. Gallegos said:

“I think I counted 10 calls to 911 or 242-COPS. [On a couple of the calls] you can hear [Sanchez] arguing with the call-taker. … It is a pattern, the counselor calling 911 or saying he is going to call 911 and then bringing it up at city council meetings. So it’s a little confusing, I guess, as to what his goals are. … If they’re all legitimate emergencies, that’s quite a bit for that period of time. … The concern is we don’t want him tying up the line for anyone else who does have a legitimate emergency. It’s impossible for me to know whether they were and what his intentions were. … I think something like [Sanchez’ motives] … would have to be more properly vetted and answered by an outside entity like maybe the inspector general.”

Gallegos also took issue with the phone line Sanchez used and said Sanchez called a secure line that is supposed to only be used by the Chief. Sanchez countered that saying “I’ve called that line for 26 years as a police officer and I still have that in my phone.” Its more likely than not that Sanchez did not have the number his entire 26 years as a police officer and was in fact given the number when he was in charge of the Mayor’s personal security detail and he kept the number stored in his personal phone.

Target 7 did ask Councilor Sanchez what his goal was in making all the calls and he said he wants to make sure citizens get a response when they call police, especially on a 911 priority call.

APD ADDS TWO PRIORITY CALL CATEGORIES TO REDUCE RESPONSE TIMES

On March 6, 2019, APD announced that it expanded the way it was dispatching police officers to 911 calls from a 3 priority call list to a 5 priority call list. A major goal of adding the two new types of priority call to the system is to determine what calls do and do not require a police officer. APD stressed that every call is different and depending on the circumstances of that call the level of priority can always change. The single most compelling reason for the change is that it was taking way too long to dispatch police officers after a call was received. Police were being dispatched to calls where an officer was not always needed.

Priority calls are evaluated as they are received by Communications personnel and categorized in one of the following 5 priorities:

PRIORITY 1 call is a felony that is in progress or there is an immediate threat to life or property. These are calls where the immediate presence of the police is essential to have life, prevent serious injury, or to arrest a violent felon.

PRIORITY 2 call is where there is no immediate threat to life of property. Misdemeanor crimes in progress are priority 2 calls

PRIORITY 3 call is any calls where there are no threats to life or property were priority any call in which a crime has already occurred with no suspects at or near the scene.

PRIORITY 4 call is a routine response call that require the presence of police, but time is not critical.

PRIORITY 5 is a where a crime has already occurred and there “is no suspect at or near the scene and no threat of personal injury, loss of life or property.”

Under the new system, the public are asked to go to the telephone reporting unit to make a report and APD will not dispatch officers unless it meets some other criteria elevating the call. For the lower priority calls where an officer isn’t needed, callers have three ways to file a report: online, over the phone, or at any police substation.

In announcing the change in policy, APD Public Information Officer Gilbert Gallegos had this to say:

“What we want to do is get officers to the scene of a call as quickly as possible for the most urgent calls, and by that I mean calls where there is a life-threatening situation. … Basically we’re adapting to the situation where we’re trying to make the system much more efficient and much more effective “.

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/city-changes-the-way-officers-are-dispatched-to-calls/1829973373

Click to access analyzing-calls-for-service-to-the-albuquerque-police-department..pdf

NEWS INVESTGATIVE REPORTS REVEALS DRAMATIC INCREASES IN APD RESPONSE TIMES

The time it takes for APD to respond to priority 1 calls, which are calls for a felony that is in progress or there is an immediate threat to life or property, has a major impact on increasing physical injury to victims or callers. There have been news reports on APD response times that merit mentioning.

KOAT TV TARGET 7 REPORT

Two years ago , on February 20, 2020, KOAT TV Target 7 reported on an investigation into the Albuquerque Police Department’s (APD’s) response times. The report revealed an alarming level of time it took APD to respond to 911 emergency calls and that there was a 93% increase in APD 911 response times since 2011 with a 48 minutes average time of arrival. It was reported that it takes APD 23 minutes longer to get to an emergency call than it did 8 years ago. There has been an astonishing 93% increase since 2011 with response times getting worse every year since. In 2011, the average response time to all calls, whether it was a life or death emergency or a minor traffic crash was 25 minutes. In 2019, that time period spiked to 48 minutes in the average response time.

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

KOB INVESTGATIVE REPORT

On August 11, 2021, KOB 4 did an investigative report on APD’s response times for Priority 1 calls and requested the response times for Priority 1 calls over the last few years. Priority 1 calls include shootings, stabbings, armed robberies, sexual and aggravated assaults, domestic violence with weapons involved and home invasions. According to the data, the time it takes officers to get to a crime scene stayed relatively consistent between January 2018 to May 2021 and was roughly between 9 and 12 minutes. Data obtained did reveal drastic differences in recent years. In 2018, clearing a scene ranged from an hour to an hour and 12 minutes. Fast forward to 2021 and APD was averaging more than 2 hours to write reports, gather evidence and interview witnesses, a full hour longer than three years ago.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/abq-4ward-examining-apds-response-times/6204745/

APD PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGET

The City of Albuquerque budget is a “performance based” budget. Each year, all 27 city departments submit statistics reflecting job performance to justify the individual department budgets being requested for funding.

On April 1, the Mayor Tim Keller Administration released the 2022-2023 annual budget that once enacted by the city council will be for the fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2022 and will end June 30, 2023. The overall budget submitted for review and approval of the Albuquerque City council is for $1.4 Billion. $841.8 represents the general fund spending and it is an increase of $127 million, or 17.8%, over the current year’s budget of $1.2 Billion.

The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) continues to be the largest city budget out of 27 departments. The fiscal year 2023 proposed General Fund budget is $255.4 million, which represents an increase of 14.7% or $32.8 million above the fiscal year 2022 level. The fiscal year 2022-2023 proposed General Fund budget for APD is $255.4 million, which represents an increase of 14.7% or $32.8 million above the FY/22 level. The proposed General Fund civilian count is 665 and sworn count is 1,100 for a total of 1,765 full-time positions.

APD’s general fund budget of $255.4 provides funding for 1,100 full time sworn police officers, with the department fully funded for 1,100 sworn police for the past 3 years. However, there are currently 888 sworn officers in APD. The APD budget provides funding for 1,100 in order to accommodate growth.
The link to the proposed 244-page 2022-2023 budget it here:

https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf

APD PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORTED IN 2022-2023 GENERAL FUND BUDGET

The 911 Emergency Dispatch Center is a 24/7 center that has operators and dispatchers located in the Emergency Operations Center North of the Albuquerque Fire and Rescue Department Academy on the Westside. It has upwards of 60 full time operators, dispatchers and support staff divided into 3 separates 8 hour shifts. All 911 emergency calls are recorded.

The 2021 approved budget and the 2022-2023 proposed budget for APD contains the following performance measures:

Number of actual 911 calls received by fiscal year:

2020: 370,686
2021: 384,150
2022: target: 390,000
2022: midyear [actual]: 240,203
2023: target: 400,00

Number of actual 242-COPS calls received

2020: 600, 236
2021: 554,992
2022 target: 580,00
2022 mid-year [actual]: 279,447
2023 target: 575,000

Number of calls for service

2020: 543,574
2021: 524,286
2022 target: 550,000
2022 mid-year [actual]: 253,386
2023 target: 550,000

Number of violent crimes per 100,000 residents:

2020: 6,685
2021: 7,073
2022 target: 8,000
2022 mid-year [actual]: 7,579

Number of property crimes per 100,000 residents:

2020: 32,135
2021: 8,972
2022 target: 33,000
2022 mid year [actual]: 24,600

APD RESPONSE TIME PERFORMANCE MESURES

Following are the response times listed for APD priority 1, 2,3,4 and 5 calls under the performance measure “Officers arrive quickly”:

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Percentage (%) of Priority 1 calls responded to within 10 seconds” refers to the call actually being answered by the 911 operator, the time the operator takes to assign a priority ranking of 1 through 5 and the time it takes to dispatch a police unit to a call. It does not reflect the time it actually takes for a dispatched officers to arrive at a scene after the call is made to 911.

Average response time to Priority 1 calls (minutes)

Percentage of Priority 1 calls responded to within 10 minutes:

Fiscal year 2020 Actual: 90.80%
Fiscal year 2021 Actual: 89.48%
Fiscal year 2022 Approved: 90%
Fiscal year 2022 Mid Year: 70.07%

RESPONSE TIMES

The actual time in minutes and seconds are as follows:
Fiscal year 2020 actual: 7 minutes, 10 seconds
Fiscal year 2021 actual: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Approved fiscal year 2022: 6 minutes, 10 seconds
Midyear fiscal year 2022: 7 minutes, 19 seconds
Proposed Fiscal year 2023: 7 minutes, 30 seconds

Average response time to Priority 2 calls (minutes)

Fiscal year 2020 actual: 10 minutes, 43 seconds
Fiscal year 2021 actual: 3 minutes, 45 seconds
Approved fiscal year 2022: 4 minutes, 9 seconds
Midyear fiscal year 2022: 6 minutes, 18 seconds
Proposed Fiscal year 2023: 6 minutes, 20 seconds

Average response time to Priority 3 calls (minutes)

Fiscal year 2020 actual: 14 minutes, 49 seconds
Fiscal year 2021 actual: 13 minutes, 43 seconds
Approved fiscal year 2022: 14 minutes, 55 seconds
Midyear fiscal year 2022: 16 minutes, 28 seconds
Proposed Fiscal year 2023: 16 minutes, 30 seconds

Average response time to Priority 4 calls (minutes)

Fiscal year 2020 actual: 15 minutes, 12 seconds
Fiscal year 2021 actual: 15 minutes, 16 seconds
Approved fiscal year 2022: 16 minutes, 13 seconds
Midyear fiscal year 2022: 18 minutes, 39 seconds
Proposed Fiscal year 2023: 19 minutes, 0 seconds

Average response time to Priority 5 calls (minutes)

Fiscal year 2020 actual: 11 minutes, 45 seconds
Fiscal year 2021 actual: 9 minutes, 34 seconds
Approved fiscal year 2022: 7 minutes, 28 seconds
Midyear fiscal year 2022: 7 minutes, 43 seconds
Proposed Fiscal year 2023: 7 minutes, 45 seconds

APD PERFORMANCE MEASURES ON SOLVING CRIMES

APD’s 2022-2023 proposed budget contains specific performance measures on APD “solving crimes” when it comes to felony arrests, misdemeanor arrests and DWI arrests. Following are those statistics

ACTUAL NUMBER OF FELONY ARRESTS

Fiscal year 2020: 10,945
Fiscal year 2021: 6,621

ACTUAL NUMBER OF MISDEAMEANOR ARRESTS

Fiscal year 2020: 19,440
Fiscal year 2021: 16,520

ACTUAL NUMBER OF DWI ARRESTS

Fiscal year 2020: 1,788
Fiscal year 2021: 1,230

APD CLEARANCE RATES

APD’s 2022-2023 proposed budget contains specific performance measures on APD “
Clearance rates on crimes investigated, including homicides separately, as follows:

Actual clearance rates of “crimes against persons” (e.g. murder, rape, assault)

Fiscal year 2020: 56%
Fiscal year 2021: 56%

Actual clearance rates of “crimes against property” (e.g. robbery, bribery, burglary)

Fiscal year 2020: 11%
Fiscal year 2021: 12%

Actual clearance rates of “crime against society” (gambling, prostitution, drug violations)

Fiscal year 2020: 79%
Fiscal year 2021: 77%

HOMICIDE CLEARANCE RATE:

Fiscal year 2020: 57%
Fiscal year 2021: 53%
Approved for 2022: 60%
Mid-Year [Actual] 2022: 47.5 %

APD NOT PROACTIVE AS TO ARRESTS

APD performance measure statistics for the budget years of 2019 and 2020 reflect that APD is not “pro-active” and not doing its job of investigating and arresting people. APD felony arrests went down from 2019 to 2020 by 39.51%, going down from 10,945 to 6,621. Misdemeanor arrests went down by 15% going down from 19,440 to 16,520. DWI arrests went down from 1,788 in 2019 to 1,230 in 2020, down 26%. The total number of all arrests went down from 32,173 in 2019 to 24,371 in 2020 or by 25%. Bookings at the jail have plummeted from 38,349 in 2010 to 17,734 in 2020. To have booking, there must be arrests. Thus far as of mid April 2022, APD’s homicide unit has an anemic clearance rate of 36%.

2018 to 2021 CRIME STATISTICS COMPARED

APD Response times are only the very first step with APD dealing with a crime. The extent of the city’s crime problem is reflected by the city’s final crime statistics. Following is a nutshell breakdown of Albuquerque’s 2018 to 2021 crime statistics as reported by the FBI national crime statistics reports:

TOTAL CRIMES

In 2021, according to data released on March 30 by APD, total crimes in Albuquerque increased by 0.85%. The less than 1% increase was the first time since 2018 that crime was reported to have increased overall. Since 2018, APD has said that there was a 19% drop in property crime, which drove a decrease in overall crime, even as violent crime spiked across Albuquerque. The 0.85% increase in overall crime came after the city recorded decreases of 7% and 6% in 2019 and 2020 in overall crime. Those decreases were attributed to back-to-back drops of 10% in property crimes.

Following are the past 4 years of total crime statistics:

2018: 75,538
2019: 70,223
2020: 65,503
2021: 66,066

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

Crimes Against Persons include murder, rape, and assault, and are those in which the victims are always individuals. Following are the reported totals in Crimes Against Persons for the last 4 years:

2018: 14,845
2019: 14,971
2020: 15,262
2021: 15,765

Violent crime increased or has stayed relatively constant for the last 4 years. In 2021, Violent Crime, known as crimes against persons, saw increases in all but four categories. Violent crime continued to rise and went up 3% which is largest annual increase since 2018. APD’s data shows the steepest increase were in homicide with an increase of 53%, intimidation with an increase of 20% and aggravated assault with an increase of 5%.

In 2021, gun violations along with homicide and fraud, saw the largest increases. APD’s data shows the steepest increase were in homicide with a 53% increase, intimidation with a 20% increase and aggravated assault with a 5% increase, all of which reached their highest levels since 2018.

Sex offenses increased by 15% as simple assault decreased by 11% and kidnapping decreased by 5%.

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Crimes Against Property include robbery, bribery, and burglary, or to obtain money, property, or some other benefit. Following are the Crimes Against Property for the last 4 years:

2018: 57,328
2019: 51,541
2020: 46,373
2021: 46,291

In 2018, property crime began to fall and for the past several years, has decreased. In 2021, property crime had its first increase of under 1%. Property crime saw its biggest jumps in reports of fraud and robbery. Notwithstanding the increase, property crime did see a large drop with a 15% drop in stolen property, a 10% drop in the category of “destruction, damage, vandalism” and a 7% drop in “larceny and theft offenses”. All three categories reached their lowest levels since 2018.

Fraud skyrocketed 61%, from 3,900 to 6,300 cases. According to APD, Fraud rose as APD cracked down on shoplifting, larceny and burglaries. APD said those with drug abuse issues moved away from those crimes and began to steal identities, checks and credit cards to fuel their drug addiction behavior. According to APD, auto theft rose by 6% and the rise was the first time in years.

Auto theft rose for the first time in years and went up by 6%. According to APD Chief Medina, the increase was attributed to an Internal Affairs investigation into the Auto Theft unit that opened in June 2021. The investigation caused the unit to “take a step back” and become “skittish” in enforcement.

CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY

Crimes Against Society include gambling, prostitution, and drug violations, and represent society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types of activity and are typically victimless crimes. Crimes Against Property for the last 4 years is reported as follows:

2018:3,365
2019: 3,711
2020: 3,868
2021: 3,910

According to the data released, crimes against society saw a large spike of 66% in gun violations which has gone up 218% since 2018 and drops of 26% and 63%, respectively, in drug offenses and prostitution. In 2021, prostitution, drug and stolen property offenses had the biggest decreases. Chief Medina attributed the slight increase in Crimes Against Society locally to internal investigation and technology lapses hindering auto theft enforcement, people with drug use issues committing more fraud and an increase in guns being taken off the streets.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/04/08/koat-target-7-news-report-makes-city-councilor-louie-sanchez-look-foolish-by-allowing-apd-to-question-sanchez-motives-and-allowing-apd-not-to-state-if-they-believe-sanchezs-911-calls-were-legitim/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2020/03/02/apd-homicide-clearance-rate-drops-from-80-to-52-911-response-time-increases-by-93-to-48-minutes-average-response-time-abq-journal-weighs-in-on-homicide-clearance-rate/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Newly elected City Councilor Louie Sanchez’ demand for an audit of APD is questionable on a number of levels. It reflects a degree of vindictiveness’ and pettiness on his part as he seeks to show dominance and control over a department he once worked for 26 years.

First, Louie Sanchez has made it very personal in his attempt to exert his authority as an elected official over APD. He engages in a pattern of conduct of calling APD 911, not being satisfied with how APD handles his calls, and then turns around to discuss it at city council meetings. Instead of first attempting to handle the problem privately like citizens are required to do, he uses his city council position to get media coverage to force APD into submission.

Second, when Sanchez yells at low ranking city 911 operators, as APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos has said, he is creating an atmosphere of resentment and mistrust of an elected official by city hall employees.

Third, Sanchez used a “secured line” that is supposed to only be used by the Chief saying “I’ve called that line for 26 years as a police officer and I still have that in my phone.” It’ s more likely than not that Sanchez did not have the number his entire 26 years as a police officer and was given the number when he was in charge of the Mayor’s personal security detail. When Sanchez terminated his employment with APD, he was required to return all of his city issued equipment and should have deleted the secured line and not retain it for his personal use.

Fourth, Sanchez is asking for an audit that is so “in the weeds” as to be impossible to determine anything of real value let alone accuracy. In order to perform the audit Sanchez wants and get accurate results, auditors will have to find a way to review upwards of 400,000 Priority 1 calls, which would require also listening to dispatch recordings and then and only then be able to determine if a 911 call was accurately classified as priority 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. Such review will only result in second guessing the classification of calls.

Five, Sanchez is attempting to micromanage APD when that is not the function or authority of a City Councilor. If managing APD is what Sanchez wants to do, he should resign his council seat and ask Mayor Keller to appoint him APD Chief or Chief Administrative Officer of the City, which may be a good idea given Medina’s poor performance and now that CAO Sarita Nair is leaving. Then again, its highly doubtful the City Council, other than Dan Lewis, would vote to confirm him.

FINAL COMMENT

City Councilor Louie Sanchez has no business trying to manage APD as a City Councilor by calling APD 911 and telling APD how to handle 911 calls which is exactly what he has done. Sanchez is looking increasingly like a fool and losing credibility at City Hall as he uses the press to ask questions of APD and calling for audits. Louie Sanchez needs to start acting like a City Councilor and needs to start introducing City Council Resolutions that will affect APD on policy to solve APD problems and get the backing of more than Republican City Councilors with his efforts.

On April 1, Mayor Tim Keller forwarded to the City Council the 2022-2023 proposed budget that the City Council must review, amend and enact before July 1. The most crucial responsibility of the City Council is to review the budget. City Councilor Louie Sanchez has the best opportunity to find out what is going on with APD during the budget process when APD’s budget is presented by APD Chief Medina. The budget process is the time and place to hold APD accountable.

NEWS AND COMMENTARY

Category Archives: Opinions

ABQ Will Be “The Land of Encampment” With 45 City Sanctioned Homeless Encampments; ABQ Journal Advocates Pilot Project; Journal Center Would Be Ideal Location For Pilot Project; The Rise Of Tent Cities In America; Permanent Shelter, Enforcement Actions, Solution To Encampments, Not Tent Cities

ABQ City Council Schedules Public Hearings For Zone Changes To Allow 45 City Sanctioned Homeless Camps Spread Out Over All 9 City Council Districts; Rules Relaxing Converting Nonresidential Properties To Residential Use; Public Encouraged To Attend Or Contact Their Counselors

New Mexico Civil Guard Makes Mockery Of Judicial System; Police And Military Have Exclusive Authority “To Keep The Peace”; Ban Citizen Militias Or Define And Heavily Regulate Before Someone Gets Killed

City Sanctioned Homeless Encampment Coming To Open Space Area Near You!; City Council To Allow 45 Homeless Camps For 1,800 Homeless And Allowing Up To 40 Tents; Councilors Need Their Heads Examined And Tour Coronado Park

City Councilor Louie Sanchez Claims His 911 Calls Mishandled, Demands Full City Audit; Accurate Audit Not Likely With 390,000 Calls A Year; APD 911 Priority Call Response Times And Crime Rates Evaluated; Sanchez Demand For Audit Reflects Ignorance And Vindictiveness On 5 Levels