At the end of June, the United State Supreme Court issued 4 major decisions that were highly anticipated and with great concern confirming it has become a far right activist court.   The first was the court’s rejecting an attempt to empower legislatures with exclusive authority to redraw congressional districts without court intervention.  The second struct down decades of affirmative action in college admissions.  The third ruled that a Christian business owners can discriminate and withhold services to the LGBTQ+ community based on religious grounds.  The fourth  invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan.  This blog article reports on all 4 decisions and the continuing partisanship and erosion of confidence in the country’s highest court.

SUPREME COURT REJECTS “THE INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE DOCTRINE” 

The case of Moore v. Harper involved “the independent state legislature doctrine”.  The fact that it was even considered by the court was astonishing in and of itself given how extreme it was and how it would have undermined the election process. It involved an appeal where the North Carolina Supreme Court undid a  partisan gerrymandering of the state’s congressional map that would have given Republicans a large advantage in races for House seats. Republican efforts to draw congressional districts heavily in their favor were blocked by a Democratic majority on the North Carolina State Supreme Court on grounds that the GOP map violated the state Constitution. A state court-drawn map produced seven seats for each party in last year’s midterm elections in the highly competitive state. The question for the justices was whether the U.S. Constitution’s provision giving state legislatures the power to make the rules about the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections completely cuts state courts out of the process.

Several Republican state legislators asked the Supreme Court to restore the biased map for primary elections. Their emergency filings with the US Supreme Court claimed that the North Carolina state supreme court did not have the power to even review the legislatively drawn congressional map, despite the fact that the map violated several guarantees in the state’s constitution.  Republican lawmakers argued that neither state courts nor state constitutions should have a say in how federal elections are run. Republicans also challenged whether the North Carolina court got its decision right but also argued state courts do not have  any role to play in reviewing laws passed by legislatures that deal with federal elections.

Links to quoted and related sources

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1271.html

https://portside.org/2022-07-14/case-could-blow-american-election-law?utm_medium=email&utm_source=portside-snapshot

Republicans control a majority of state legislatures and there is a national coordinated effort to disenfranchise voters by not allowing for “mail in” balloting and requiring in person voting on election day. Americans are losing faith in elections after years of hearing false claims of widespread fraud from former President Donald Trump and his allies. After the 2020 presidential elections and Trump’s unfounded allegations of voter fraud, Republican control legislatures rushed to change their election laws asserting election law reforms were needed to protect the vote from widespread fraud when there is no fraud found at all in at least 51 federal lawsuits filed by Trump.

At the center of the dispute is a clause in the Constitution that delegates responsibility for federal election rules to the “legislature” of each state subject to oversight by Congress and not the Courts. Republicans argued  the plain meaning of the constitution  that state legislatures, and only state legislatures, have the power to set those rules. Such a reading of the clause would cut governors, election officials and state courts out of the rulemaking process giving all power over federal elections to the legislatures who could simply invalidate an election saying it was fraudulent with no proof.

At least 4 of the Supreme Court conservative justices signaled varying levels of interest in the idea of giving legislatures more power, embracing “the independent state legislature doctrine”. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the North Carolina lawsuit presented an “important” question and that “both sides” had “advanced serious arguments.” Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts are viewed as near the ideological center of the court but given how they voted to overturn “Roe v. Wade”, they could easily change their minds. Kavanaugh has also shown he is not above lying to congress saying he is “impartial” and respected prior court precedent as he did with the case Roe v. Wade just to turn around and vote to throw out 50 years of s Supreme Court precedents.

MOORE V. HARPER  RULING

On Tuesday, June 27, the United States Supreme Court ruled that state courts can curtail the actions of their legislatures when it comes to federal redistricting and federal elections gerrymandering.  The Supreme Court  rejected arguments by North Carolina Republicans that could have dramatically altered races for Congress and President in the state and beyond.  The justices voted 6 to 3 to  uphold  the North Carolina Supreme Court decision that struck down the state legislature’s  congressional districting plan as excessively partisan under state law. However, the Supreme Court did indicate there could be limits on state court efforts to police elections for Congress and president, suggesting that more election-related court cases over the issue are likely.

Republican Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 6 vote majority  that “state courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review.”  The Moore v. Harper decision was the fourth case of the term in which conservative and liberal justices joined to reject the most aggressive legal arguments put forth by conservative state elected officials and advocacy groups. Earlier decisions on voting rights, a Native American child welfare law and a Biden administration immigration policy also unexpectedly cut across ideological lines on the court.

The practical effect of the  Moore v. Harper decision is minimal in North Carolina.   The North Carolina state Supreme Court, under a new Republican majority, has already undone its redistricting plan ruling.   Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have dismissed the North Carolina case because of the intervening state court action.

Vice President Kamala Harris said in a statement that the decision “preserves state courts’ critical role in safeguarding elections and protecting the voice and the will of the American people.”

Former President Barack Obama applauded the outcome as “a resounding rejection of the far-right theory that has been peddled by election deniers and extremists seeking to undermine our democracy.”

Notwithstanding the courts ruling, the leader of a Republican redistricting group said he was pleased the court made clear there are limits on state courts.  Adam Kincaid, president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, said this in a statement”

“[This decision] should serve as a warning to state courts inclined to reach beyond the constitutional bounds of judicial review. This is a first, positive step toward reining in recent overreaches of state courts.”

Derek Muller, a University of Iowa law professor and elections expert, said the decision leaves some room to challenge state court rulings on federal election issues.  Muller said this:

 “[Future challenges] are likely to be rare cases. … The vast majority of state court decisions that could affect federal elections will likely continue without any change.”

You can read the entire Moore v. Harper ruling here:

Click to access 21-1271_3f14.pdf

STAKES WERE HIGH

The Moore v. Harper case attracted major attention of Supreme Court watchers because 4 Republican  conservative justices had suggested before that the Supreme Court should curb state courts’ power in elections for president and Congress.  Opponents of the Independent Legislature Theory had argued that the effects of a robust ruling for North Carolina Republicans could be reach much further than just that one state’s redistricting.

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law said what was potentially at stake were more than 170 state constitutional provisions, over 650 state laws delegating authority to make election policies to state and local officials, and thousands of regulations down to the location of polling places.  Republican lawmakers in North Carolina told the Supreme Court that the Constitution’s “carefully drawn lines place the regulation of federal elections in the hands of state legislatures, Congress and no one else.”

Former federal appeals court judge Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative who joined the legal team defending the North Carolina court decision said  the outcome could have transformative effects on American elections. Lutog said this:

“This is the single most important case on American democracy, and for American democracy, in the nation’s history.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-elections-state-legislatures-a620db8c1ad30fc34b3ab0c81b29b87c

Had this ruling gone the other way, the New Mexico legislatures re alignment of the state’s Southern  3rd Congressional District in 2021 would likely have been affected to some degree.

 

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

On June 29, the Republican Supreme Court issued its decisions in the case of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for granting admission. The decision overturns decades of standing precedent that has benefited Black and Latino students in higher education. A plaintiff had challenged race-conscious programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The vote broke strikly along ideological grounds, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing for the conservative members in the majority, and the liberals dissenting.

Republican Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the Republican conservative majority, saying the Harvard and University of North Carolina admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause because they failed to offer “measurable” objectives to justify the use of race. He wrote for the majority  the programs involve racial stereotyping and had no specific endpoint.

The opinion claims the court was not expressly overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action, and suggested that how race has affected an applicant’s life can still be part of how their application is considered. The majority effectively overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.” Republican conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion.

The decision was the latest in a series of challenges to the role of race in university admissions. In both the North Carolina and Harvard cases, the plaintiffs had asked the justices to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger.  In her opinion for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reaffirmed that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions,” but she warned that race-conscious admissions policies should not last forever. In 25 years, she suggested, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest” in diversity.

Democrat Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School,  who once called herself “the perfect affirmative action baby”, dissented, in an opinion that was joined by Democrat  Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor emphasized that the majority’s decision had rolled “back decades of precedent and momentous progress” and “cement[ed] a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society.” In a demonstration of the controversial nature of the case, justices read their dissents from the bench for the first time since 2019.

Republican Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.  He pushed back against the idea, advanced by Democrat Sotomayor in her dissent, that the 14th Amendment “does not impose a blanket ban on race-conscious policies.” Thomas  in his memoir discussed the “stigmatizing effects of racial preference” that he felt after he was admitted to Yale Law School in the 1970s under a race-conscious admissions program, was also sharply critical of the UNC and Harvard programs from a practical perspective.

Thomas argued the admission programs “do nothing to increase the overall number of blacks and Hispanics able to access a college education” but instead “simply redistribute individuals” among colleges and universities, “placing some into more competitive institutions than they otherwise would have attended”  and where they may be less likely to succeed academically. Thomas wrote that even if they do succeed, they may still be harmed by the stigma that race-conscious admissions programs create.  Rather than solving existing issues of inequality, Thomas argued, these policies themselves divide students and “lead  to increasing racial polarization and friction.”

Republican  officials celebrated the decision as Democrats decried the courts decsion. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said the justices “just ruled that no American should be denied educational opportunities because of race.” Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement, “This is a great day for all Americans.” Former President Donald Trump also called the decision a “great day for America.”

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions/index.html

Democrat Vice President Pamela Harris, who is the first African American Vice President and who is an attorney and former prosecutor, suggested the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action undermines the importance of equal opportunity. She said the court did not “fully understand the importance of equal opportunity for the people of our country. … “And it is, in so very many ways, a denial of opportunity.”  Harris also rejected as a “complete misnomer” a narrative suggesting the ruling was about so-called colorblindness in admissions.  Harris said “In fact, it is about being blind to history, being blind to data, being blind to empirical evidence about disparities, being blind to the strength that diversity brings to classrooms to boardrooms.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/supreme-court-decisions-live-updates-rcna91671

Democrat President Joe Biden said in a short speech at the White House scheduled specifically for him to react to the decision slammed the US Supreme Court as “not a normal court” after it ruled to end  race-conscious admissions at universities across the country.  He announced he will ask the Department of Education to look into ways to maintain student diversity in higher education. Biden said “The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court’s decision Biden noted that “the court once again walked away from decades of precedent” after its six-strong supermajority of conservative justices prevailed over the opposition of the bench’s three liberal-leaning justices.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/29/joe-biden-affirmative-action-supreme-court-reaction

FREE SPEECH RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE

On June 30, the Republican Supreme Court ruled in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to work on same-sex weddings in the case of  303 Creative LLC.,  ET AL vs Elenis, ET. AL.  The glaring problem is that it was based on a “hypothecal” scenario where no one was force to provide a service.   Lorie Smith, who opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and who wanted to run a  business designing websites, sued the state in 2016 because she wanted  to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples wanting the same service. Smith has strongly held beliefs that “marriage is between one man and one woman — and that union is significant.” The problem is she offered no evidence that any gay couple sought her services nor took action to force her to provide services.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23865226-supreme-court-303-creative-opinion

Smith sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and other state officials concerned that she could be sanctioned under its antidiscrimination law that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations. Lower courts ruled against Smith, prompting her to appeal to the Supreme Court. Smith was never penalized for rejecting a same-sex couple but sued on hypothetical grounds.  Smith argued that as a creative professional she has a free speech right to refuse to undertake work that conflicts with her religious views of marriage.

The justices voted  6-3 on ideological lines  ruling that Lorie Smith, as a creative professional, has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to refuse to endorse messages she disagrees with. The Supreme Court ruled she cannot be punished under Colorado’s antidiscrimination law for refusing to design websites for gay couples. The ruling could allow other similar business owners to evade punishment under laws in 29 states that protect LGBTQ+ rights in public accommodations in some form. The remaining 21 states do not have laws explicitly protecting LGBTQ rights in public accommodations, although some local municipalities do.

Republican Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court majority:

“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”

It was Gorsuch who wrote a 2020 ruling that expanded LGBTQ rights in the employment context.  However, he said that public accommodation laws play a vital role in protecting individual civil rights and wrote:

“At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”

Civil rights groups argued that  Smith was asking the Republican conservative-majority court for a “license to discriminate” that would destroy  public accommodation laws that require businesses to serve all customers. David Cole, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court had for the first time found that some people have a “green light”  to violate antidiscrimination laws. Smith said this:

“The court’s decision opens the door to any business that claims to provide customized services to discriminate against historically-marginalized groups.”

Democrat Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the dissent, said the court’s ruling was part of “a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities” and a type of “reactionary exclusion,” calling it “heartbreaking.” Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench, saying in court that the decision allowing Smith to sell her product only to opposite-sex couples “makes a mockery of the law.”

She compared Smith’s situation to historic cases of racial discrimination in which restaurants would refuse to serve Black people inside but would allow them to collect pick-up orders from a side counter, effectively treating them like second-class citizens.  Sotomayor noted that Smith will still sell her services to LGBTQ+ people only if it is for an opposite-sex wedding. For LGBTQ+ customers, Sotomayor said, “she will sell at a side counter.”  Democrat liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, both joined Sotomayor’s dissent.

Smith’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, said the court had simply reaffirmed that Americans cannot be forced to say things they do not believe. Waggoner said this:

“This is a win for all Americans. The government should no more censor Lorie for speaking consistent with her beliefs about marriage than it should punish an LGBT graphic designer for declining to criticize same-sex marriage.”

This was the second case that gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to rule on the question of whether goods and services can be denied by a business owner based on religious grounds. The Supreme Court ruled in a similar case in 2018 in favor of a Christian baker, also from Colorado, who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The court ruled then that the baker, Jack Phillips, did not receive a fair hearing before the state Civil Rights Commission because there was evidence of anti-religious bias.

The Supreme Court ruled on the Colorado  baker case before the retirement of Republican Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted in favor of LGBTQ rights in key cases.  Following 3 appointments made by then-President Donald Trump, the court has now has six  Republican conservative and three Democrat liberal justices. Kennedy was in the majority when the court legalized gay marriage on a 5-4 vote. In another major victory for LGBTQ rights, the Supreme Court in 2020 ­— to the surprise of many court-watchers ­­— ruled in the decision written by Gorsuch that a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment protects LGBTQ employees.

A year later the court ruled in favor of an agency affiliated with the Catholic Church that the city of Philadelphia had barred from its foster care program because of the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage. In other cases in recent years the conservative majority has consistently backed religious right

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-web-designer-refused-work-sex-weddings-rcna68629

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-website-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5

COURT INVALIDATES BIDEN’S STUDEN LOAN DEBT RELIEF PLAN 

On June 30, the  Supreme Court invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan.  The Republican Supreme Court was once again  divided 6-3 on ideological and politcal party lines.  It ruled in one of two cases that the program was an unlawful exercise of presidential power because it had not been explicitly approved by Congress. One case was brought by 6 states, including Missouri, and the other was  brought by 2 people who hold student loan debt. The Supreme Court  ruled that the program was unlawful in the case brought by states and  found in the second case that the challengers did not have legal standing.

The Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s arguments that the plan was lawful under a 2003 law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act. The law says the government can provide relief to recipients of student loans when there is a “national emergency,” allowing it to act to ensure people are not in “a worse position financially” as a result of the emergency.

Republican Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority said the HEROES Act language was not specific enough and  the court’s precedent “requires that Congress speak clearly before a department secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.”

The Biden plan would have allowed eligible borrowers to cancel up to $20,000 in debt and would have cost more than $400 billion and it  has been blocked since the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary hold in October.  Upwards of 43 million Americans would have been eligible to participate.  The student loan proposal is considered politically critical to Biden because  tackling student loan debt was a  pledge he made on the campaign trail in 2020 to energize younger voters.

The ruling immediately puts pressure on the Biden administration to find an alternative avenue to forgive student debt that could potentially withstand legal challenge.  Biden is likely to announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers, according to a White House official.

Advocates, as well as some Democrats in Congress, say the Education Department has broad power to forgive student loan debt under the 1965 Higher Education Act, a different law than the one at issue in the Supreme Court cases.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer  said the ruling was “disappointing and cruel” and noted that the Biden administration has “remaining legal routes to provide broad-based student debt cancellation.”

Not at all surprising  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was delighted at the ruling saying Biden’s “student loan socialism plan would be a raw deal for hardworking taxpayers.”

The three Democrat  liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan saying that by ruling against the plan, the court had “exceeded its proper limited role in our nation’s governance.” Kagan wrote  the states bringing the challenge did not have legal standing to even bring the case, and in analyzing HEROES Act, the conservative Republican  justices ignored the clear language of the law. Kagan wrote:

“The result here is that the court substitutes itself for Congress and the executive branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness.”

The court decided the case in part based on a legal argument made by the challengers that the conservative majority has  embraced called the “major questions doctrine.”  Under the theory, federal agencies cannot initiate sweeping new policies that have significant economic impacts without having express authorization from Congress.

The conservative majority cited the major questions doctrine last year in blocking Biden’s Covid vaccination-or-test requirement for larger businesses and curbing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to limit carbon emissions from power plants.

The challengers argued that the Biden administration’s proposal violated the Constitution and federal law, partly because it circumvented Congress, which they said has the sole power to create laws related to student loan forgiveness. The  Biden administration  proposed forgiving up to $10,000 in debt for borrowers earning less than $125,000 a year (or couples who file taxes jointly and earn less than $250,000 annually). Pell Grant recipients, who are the majority of borrowers, would be eligible for $10,000 more in debt relief.

The administration closed the application process after the plan was blocked by a federal court. Holders of student loan debt currently do not have to make payments as part of Covid relief measures that will remain in effect until after the Supreme Court issues its ruling. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in September that Biden’s plan would cost $400 billion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rule-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-friday-rcna76874

ABC NEWS POLL

On July 2, ABC news released a ABC News/Ipsos poll.   A majority of Americans,  53%, believe that the nation’s highest court rules mainly on the basis of their partisan political view, 33% believes the court rules on the basis of the law while 14% said  they don’t know.  The poll found that 76% of Democrats  and  51% of independents believe that the Supreme Court rules mainly on the basis of their partisan political view.  36% of Republicans who believe that the court makes rulings based on their political views. These margins have shifted from a January 2022 ABC News/Ipsos poll, where 38% of Americans believed that the justices rule mainly on the basis of law, versus 43% who believed that the court rules on the basis of their political views.

The link to read the full ABC poll story is here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-approve-supreme-court-decision-restricting-race-college/story?id=100580375

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The United States Supreme Court has been viewed with a unique “sense of awe” and respect because it consistently interpreted the United States Constitution as a “living, evolving document” meaning one that evolved and ensured and protected civil rights and remedies to conform with changing times, changing norms, changing viewpoints.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”

Without such constitutional evolution, slavery would still exist in the United States, woman would not be allowed to vote, discrimination based on a person’s gender, race, color or religion would be allowed, interracial marriage would be illegal, and the doctrine of “sperate but equal” and Jim Crow laws would still be the law of the land.

The United States Supreme Court’s legitimacy has always depended upon the public perceiving the court and its decisions as being based on the rule of law, prior precedent known as “stare decisis” and not partisan politics. So much so that labels such as “liberal”, “progressive”, “moderate” and “conservative” are used in referring to Supreme Court Justices’ philosophies instead of party affiliations. Supreme Court Justice’s and federal judge’s party affiliations are never identified or reported by the media and it’s a charade.

The Supreme Court’s decision last year overturning Roe v. Wade striking down 50 years of a woman’s right to choose an abortion and this year’s decision to eliminate affirmative action in higher education has been major goals of the Republican conservative legal movement for decades. In the span of a mere 370 days, the current United States Supreme Court with the appointment of 3 supreme court justices by President Donald Trump has made both a reality. Fifty years of Supreme Court precedents have now been overturned to the delight and celebration of the far hard right.

THE  REPUBLICAN TRUMP COURT

The very nature of the process of selecting a Supreme Court Justices is as partisan as it gets. The overlap between “judicial ideology” and the “political ideology” and party affiliation of those who select supreme court justices is undeniable to the point that they have come to be one and the same. The President nominating and the Senate having a confirmation process leads to the selection of Supreme Court Justices whose political and ideological approach to interpreting the law is identical with the views shared by the political party in power in the White House and the US Senate.

Ryan C. Williams, assistant professor of law at Boston College Law School, put it in perspective in a column written for MSNBC when he wrote:

“The polarized nature of our politics has contributed to a court that is closely divided on numerous hot-button political issues — such as abortion, gun rights, campaign finance regulation and affirmative action. In the 1980s and 1990s, the partisan nature of these divisions was mitigated to some extent by justices whose views did not match the ideology associated with the political party of the president who appointed them, such as David Souter and Byron White. But since the 2010 retirement of [the very liberal] John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Gerald Ford, all of the Justices appointed by Republican presidents have been recognizably more conservative than the justices appointed by Democrats.

The court’s perceived partisan orientation has been further exacerbated by the gamesmanship and spectacle surrounding confirmations. The court’s three most recent appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett — have each taken office amidst controversy. Gorsuch’s appointment was made possible by the Republican-controlled Senate’s decision to deny a hearing or vote to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, resulting in a 14-month vacancy on the court.

 Kavanaugh’s confirmation was placed in jeopardy by accusations of sexual assault that he denied, leading to a highly contentious and much-publicized confirmation hearing. Barrett’s confirmation was rapidly pushed through the Senate shortly before the 2020 election by the same Republican Senate leaders who had earlier used the pending presidential election as an excuse not to vote on Garland.

The willingness of Republican politicians to play hardball with the confirmation process and the resulting shift in the balance of power on the court has left raw feelings on the left and led to increasing calls for retaliatory measures — including court-packing. The nominees were not themselves the architects of these strategies. But nor were they mere passive bystanders. Their willingness to accept and press forward with their nominations involved at least a degree of cooperation with the sharply partisan methods through which their appointments were secured.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-justices-say-institution-must-be-nonpartisan-they-make-ncna1279280

NO LONGER VIEWED AS ETHICAL

The Supreme Court’s eclectic mix of decisions over the past two years by the super majority conservative Republican court has raised concerns about its legitimacy. Attacks on the court’s legitimacy have been aided by the ethical missteps and challenges of court members  and the supreme court not having any code of ethics as is the case with all other federal courts. There have been repeated reports of undisclosed vacations, jet travels and gift payments to family members of Justice Clarence Thomas and Samiel Alito from billionaire Republican donors. The appearance of impropriety is unmistakable to the public  despite their defense that they have done nothing wrong nor unethical.

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice has done the Supreme Court’s reputation and challenges to its legitimacy no favors as he has resisted instituting a Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court. Roberts goes as far as to say that Congress has no authority to impose a code of ethics on the court. Roberts merely promises that the Court will do more to show it will adhere to high ethical standards, but has yet to condemn the actions Thomas and Alito.

NO LONGER FAIR AND IMPARTIAL

Part of the greatness of the Supreme Court has always been that the public has had a tremendous respect for the Supreme Court because it has been viewed by and large as “fair and impartial” and “a political” not subservient to any political party nor religious philosophy. With the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the reversal of a well settled constitutional rights for women, voting rights and civil rights, the United State Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy and credibility with the American people.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The 2024 elections are once again shaping up to be one of the most consequential elections in our history where recent Supreme Court decisions will be on the ballot as well as the control of congress, not to mention our basic right to vote in an election.

A story has been told and retold about  founding father Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin supposedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

What we have now is  a “politcal judicial monarchy”  complete with 9 people all dressed up in black ropes with gavels replacing scepters and a courtroom replacing a royal thrown room as they render their decrees of justice to carry out the will of the Trump Republican Party.

 

On January 4, Sam Bregman was appointed Bernalillo County District Attorney by Governor Mitchell Lujan Grisham to serve out the remaining two years of the 4-year term of Raul Torrez who was elected Attorney General in 2022.  When appointed, Bregman said he would serve only 2 years and not run for reelection.

BREGMAN DISCLOSES TO PRESS RUNNING FOR FULL TERM

On Thursday, June 29, a full 6 months after his appointment as District Attorney, Sam Bregman held a press conference to “update” the public on the District Attorney’s Office. The press conference was complete with a slide presentation on the city’s crime statistics as provided by the Albuquerque Police Department. The press conference was called to highlight the success of his office over his 6 months as District attorney.

Not withstanding the purpose and intent of the press conference, DA Sam Bregman was asked by the press if he intended to run for District Attorney in 2024.  Bregman responded:

“Yes, I will be running for district attorney. When I got into this office, I was sincere in the sense that I didn’t think I would. But we have put things in place … that I believe are starting to make a difference. …  I believe things are starting to get better when it comes to crime.”

BREGMAN ANNOUNCES FOR DISTRICT ATTTORNEY

On Friday, June 30, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman made it official and announced he was indeed running for a full 4 year term as District Attorney. In his announcement Bregman said this:

“Six months ago, I received the greatest honor of my professional career when Governor Lujan Grisham appointed me as District Attorney. … New Mexico, especially Albuquerque, has given me so much since I moved here many years ago. I received a great education here. I married my loving wife and raised an amazing family here. I have been able to serve our community through my work as an attorney and my time in public office here. And now, it is a true privilege to have the opportunity to serve our community once again in this role. When I was appointed to serve as District Attorney in January, I understand that I did so with the belief that I would not run for a full term. However, the past 6 months have created more opportunities for this office than I could have ever imagined. Whether it is being able to hire so many new attorneys to the office; or developing new procedures that make our office more efficient and effective; or being asked to serve as the chair of the Governor’s organized crime task force – I realized that we were just getting started with creating true reform in the office. I felt that leaving the District Attorney’s office, just as these reforms were getting started, would be tantamount to quitting. And I will never quit on the people of Bernalillo County.” 

In his announcement, Bregman proclaims in the 6 months he has been District Attorney he has implemented reforms and procedures that have led to significant improvements, within the office including:

“Hiring of 35 new attorneys – more than double the number of attorneys hired in all of 2022

 Nearly 60% of pre-trial detention motions being granted – the highest percentage since 2017

 408 criminal indictments – there were a total of 601 in all of 2022

 A criminal conviction rate of 66.7% – nearly 10% higher than in 2022”

 The link to read the full, unedited  campaign announcement is here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/656685248/Bregman-Announce

“BLACK HAT” CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL MINUS THE “WHITE HORSE”

In addition to making a formal written announcement, Bregman released a campaign launch video on social media announcing he is running for a full 4-year term.  The video is a slick 90 second campaign commercial outlining his accomplishments as District Attorney. In his campaign launch video, Bregman touts all the successes of the office since he was appointed and proclaims he has made a difference. Bregman says this:

“I took this job to fight crime. … I’m running for district attorney to protect my family and yours. …” 

The Bregman commercial is more than little hoaky at times with Bregman wearing a large rimmed, black cowboy hat with a very serious look on his face as he is shown talking and giving directions to police officers and as he walks the streets of Albuquerque talking with his fans and supporters.  At the end, Bregman stands with his arms crossed in front of police officers with a serious look on his face conveying the image that he means business.  It is as if he was announcing he is the new sheriff  in town.  All that is missing from the commercial is Bregman riding a white horse wearing a six shooter on his hip and going to the rescue, but then again there is still time to work one into any future commercial. Not bad for someone who was born in Washington, DC.

On June 30, KOAT TV Channel 7 reported that using the Go Daddy search tool Who Is,  it found  that Bregman’s campaign website was registered on May 25. Bregman’s website shows he is already asking and taking donations of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500 or more.  A search of the New Mexico Secretary of State’s website also shows he registered his campaign on June 1.

The link to Bregman’s web page is here:

https://www.bregmanforda.com/

The FACEBOOK link to Bregman For DA is here:

https://www.facebook.com/BregmanforDA

PROMISE NOT TO RUN RECALLED

On January 4 of this year  when he was appointed by the Governor,  Bregman said during  a press conference,  with law enforcement officials, United States Attorney Alexander M.M. Uballez,  Attorney General Raul Torrez  and Mayor Tim Keller,  standing by his side he would not run in 2024 for DA. Bregman said this:

“It’s very liberating not to have to worry about politics, not to have to run a campaign starting next March … .  I don’t have any problems [with that]. I can just focus on getting things done.”

At the time Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham appointed Bregman District Attorney she also said Bregman would not run for re-election. The Governor’s press release at the time said in part:

“Bregman will serve the remaining two years of the existing term. He will not run for re-election to the office, focusing on the office’s work to combat crime and build stronger, safer communities.”

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2023/01/03/governor-appoints-second-judicial-district-attorney/

On June 30, KOAT TV contacted the Governor Mitchell Lujan Grisham’s Office office and asked if she expected Bregman to run.  The Governor’s office did not answer the question but said this in a statement:

“Gov. Lujan Grisham wanted to make sure that whomever she appointed as Bernalillo County DA would be squarely focused on the work of the office, and not a re-election bid. In his first six months in office, DA Bregman has illustrated his commitment to fighting crime, resulting in a safer New Mexico. Our expectation is that he will continue that focus moving forward.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/sam-bregman-announces-run-da-said-he-wouldnt/44404182#

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/bernalillo-county-district-attorney-announces-election-bid/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Absolutely no one who knows and who has watched Sam Bregman over the years was shocked to hear that he has decided to run for a full term as District Attorney.  The Governor’s press release in reaction to Bregman running and changing his mind was by all measures  a cold shoulder reaction to his candidacy  and it had  no endorsement. The Governor did not wish him well in her press release which begs the question if Governor Lujan Grisham appointed Bregman in exchange for his commitment not to run for a full 4 year term in 2 years.  Such a concession and agreement has happened before when Governor Lujan Grisham appointed Jim Collie Bernalillo County Commission for 2 years in exchange for his commitment not to seek a full 4 year term.

There is little doubt that DA Bregman’s change of heart and his announcement was  an embarrassment to Governor Lujan Grisham. Ostensibly, Bregman did not give the Governor the proper courtesy of her office by telling her in a private meeting he had changed his mind and was running and going back on his promise.  The Governor is known to have a little vindictive streak in her. The tone of her press release was no accident and makes her displeasure known to him.  She is not at all above going out of her way to find a candidate to run against him, especially a Hispanic or a female. Before she appointed him, it was said she was a little uncomfortable with Bregman and  wanted to appoint a female to the job, so much so that the application time period was extended that allowed others to apply.

It’s highly questionable that Bregman really was sincere when he told the Governor he would serve only 2  years and said he would not run for a full 4 year.  Bregman is smart enough to know he became a lame duck or caretaker upon his appointment and would not be able to do much with the office over 24 months.  It is more likely than not it was his intention from the get go from when he was appointed by the Governor.

The blunt truth is that it was ridiculous for the Governor to have asked  Bregman  to give up his private practice to serve only 2 years. The Governor owes Bregman more than he owes her and that was the reason for his appointment in the first place.  Bregman was known to have campaigned heavily to get the Governor elected not once but twice, as he raised money for her and he donated  as much as $10,000 to her campaign.

It is not at all likely voters will hold Bregman’s change of heart against him nor going back on whatever commitment he made to the Governor. Voter’s by and large are very forgiving of politicians going back on their word not to run and are more concerned about results.

The one thing that did come as a surprise to more than a few politicos is that he released a campaign announcement video and had already made up his mind back in May and registered with the Secretary of State’s Office as a candidate on June 1.

Bregman was able to keep his plans and intentions under wraps until it was reported exclusively on June 28 by www.PeteDinelli.com that Bregman had a get together for all of his staff at his home for a pool party around June 16 and that he told his deputies he intended to run for District Attorney next year. Bregman was said to have also told others that he had already begun to put his campaign together and that he had gone so far as to begin preparing TV commercials. It’s no secret that Bregman is financially  well off having made a lucrative living as  a high profile defense attorney and he is willing to spend it on a campaign.

No other person has declared a run for 2nd Judicial District Attorney, but then again, the primary is a full year off. Bregman’s early announcement no doubt was made to “clear the field”  and to set himself up without opposition in next year’s June Democratic Party primary and perhaps run unopposed assuring an easy election.

https://www.koat.com/article/sam-bregman-announces-run-da-said-he-wouldnt/44404182#

JUNE 29 OFFICE UPDATE

Now that DA Sam Bregman has made it official that he is running for a full term, it fully explains why he held his June 29 press conference to give an update on the office and to highlight the successes of the office. The June 29 press conference was nothing more than a percussor to his June 30 announcement.  For that reason, what he reported during his June 29 press conference merits review and analysis of his record over the last 6 months.

Bregman said the biggest challenge of the job thus far has been filing chronic attorney vacancy’s getting more prosecutors hired. Bregman said this:

“We needed more prosecutors when I got in this office. We now have hired 35 prosecutors in 6 months. In the entire last year, before this year in 2022, this office hired 12 total.”

Bregman said the total number of attorneys in the office is now at 97. Bregman says he  hopes to hire up to 20 more lawyers. According to the 2023-2024 approved budget, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office is funded for 120 full time attorneys.  The hiring  up to 20 more lawyers  will coincide with what the office is funded for in the current fiscal year which began on July 1, 2023.

He was able to accomplish the hiring with a very aggressive ad campaign, both in the bar bulletin sent to all licensed attorneys and TV commercials, that featured him promoting the office as a place to get trial experience and to serve the community.

With nearly 3 times more attorneys hired, Bregman said attorney  caseloads have now been reduced.  In the DA’s major crimes division, which prosecutes homicides,  Bregman reported there are 365 open cases this year. For prosecutors dealing with cases ranging from car burglary to drug trafficking, Bregman said  the average caseloads are now 30% less compared to 2022.

Bregman reported:

“The average number of open cases per attorney is 32, and the average number of homicide cases per attorney is 27….I can tell you anecdotally when I first got in here and this job, my understanding was homicide attorneys had around 50 cases a piece. … The reason these statistics are so important is because the more we bring in new attorneys, the more we unclog the bottleneck, the more opportunity for each attorney to spend on each case. Therefore, we’re doing better justice by making sure people are, in fact, taking the time necessary to prepare and present that case.”

INDICTMENTS, TRIALS AND CONVICTIONS

According to Bregman, the DA’s office indicted 408 felony criminal defendants from January through June, compared with 601 in the full year 2022. The District Attorney’s Office has tried 137 cases in the last 6 months with 88 of  those trials resulting in convictions which translates into a nearly 65% conviction rate. Bregman noted in all of 2022 the office tried 57 felony cases with a 58% conviction rate.

DA Bregman spoke about his successes with pretrial detention motions, indictments and trials. Bregman said this:

“We’ve indicted, in the six months, 408 people. We’ve launched over 820 cases since we’ve been [in office], 800 and some felonies, let me add. And I’m very happy with that.  Number of trials in this office: Felony trials in the entire year of 2022 was 57. In the six months in 2023, we’ve tried just about the same number in six months as we did all last year.”

Bregman touted funding for a pre-prosecution diversion program in his office which is designed and meant to keep people out of the criminal justice system.  He said this about the program:

“We have literally just received one of the biggest grants they’ve ever given, the $580,000, for the diversion program, and that’s going to make a difference in a lot of people’s lives. …  We had 308 total active participants in this office last year. Today, in six months, we have 357 active participants.”

Bregman spoke about his Zero-Tolerance Policy towards guns on school  campuses and the current caseload involving juveniles with guns. Bregman said this:

“We have juvenile cases involving a firearm just in 2023 of 150. We have 150 different cases in this community where juveniles were found with a firearm or used a firearm.”

Bregman spoke about the District Attorney’s Office focus on organized retail crime. Bregman said this:

“In the past, shoplifting cases that are misdemeanors are officer-prosecuted cases. … They will continue to prosecute misdemeanors; however, this office before and this has changed now. We are going to track, which we didn’t do before, every single person who is charged with shoplifting…We’re going to keep an eye on it. So, if they meet a certain threshold, we’re going to charge them with a felony; but let’s say they don’t meet that threshold, but they’re constantly shoplifting, we’re going to jump in those cases.”

DA Bregman repeated several times that his press conference was not a “victory lap” but he said  the “needle on crime”  is moving in the right direction. Standing in front of a rolling slide of mugshots of those detained, convicted, and sentenced by his office to dramatize his point, Bregman said this:

“I’m telling you, I believe things are starting to get better when it comes to crime in Bernalillo County.”

Bregman closed his news conference  with a nod toward statistics provided by the Albuquerque Police Department and he said this:

“Robbery’s down by 53%, Homicides are down by 20%. Auto theft is down by 16%. Burglaries are down by 18%. Is this a victory lap? No. This is just the beginning.”

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/bernalillo-county-district-attorney-gives-six-month-update-on-office/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/sam-bregman-plans-to-run-for-district-attorney-next-year/article_24eefa48-16ad-11ee-b9bd-1b6c333d98a4.html?fbclid=IwAR2TDnnJWVFiMYRyOTbGDeV8WHs1aCnQSRJ2gF6IWgYrPjGwJzgD0WnSWnw

MORE PRETRIAL DETENTION MOTIONS FILED

Since 2019, judges had  only been granting around half of all pretrial preventative detention motions. This year, those numbers are drastically up and more people are being held for trial in Bernalillo County.

Bregman said the DA’s office has stepped up filing “Pretrial Detention Motions”. The office is filing about 95 such motions a month, with an average of 60% being granted. Bregman said this:

“We file [pretrial detention motions] on the people that we believe are a threat to the safety of the community. … And we explain to the court why we’re doing things like bringing more witnesses to these hearings.”

On June 27, it was reported by KRQE News 13 that according to a report from the UNM Institute for Social Research, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office is filing about 95 pretrial preventative detention motions a month this year. Research shows around 60% of them are granted.

According to the data, the number of pretrial preventative detention motions, which are used to keep suspected criminals behind bars until trial, is up by nearly 20% since last year and is about 50% higher than five years ago. While the percentage of motions granted is rising, the number of motions filed has remained steady over the past year.

In May, around 60% of these motions were granted. DA Sam Bregman credits this to his prosecutors  doing things a little differently in the courtroom. Bregman explained it this way:

“We’re not filing pretrial detention motions on everybody. We’re not filing them, taking them for granted and just say, ‘Hey, detain him.’ These are people that need to be detained for the safety of the community, and I think this process is beginning to work and show some results.

We are focusing very heavily on the threat to the safety of the community. We are making sure that when we present our case, the court understands what a danger this person is to the community.   …. We’re having actual witnesses attend these and bringing out testimony as opposed to just lawyers arguing. …

We are beginning to move the needle in this town when it comes to crime. I mean, it may not feel like it overnight, but I think if we continue to grind it out, we’ll get done what we need to get done.”

The report also shows last month the prison population at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) is nearly 15% higher than last year.  However, Bregman said  this isn’t their biggest concern:

“If people need to be incarcerated, and there’s more, so be it. We’re going to keep doing our job.”

Bregman  said the work of his officer  is far from over and he said this:

“I’m pleasantly encouraged, let me say that, but our work is not done. We’re not taking a victory lap. We are continuing to want to see those numbers go up.”

The report also showed about a quarter of offenders will be re-arrested within three months after release from MDC, and 35% within six months. The report said MDC has about 200 more inmates than it did in May of last year, and they’re staying an average of three days longer.

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/unm-report-shows-more-people-are-behind-bars-before-their-trial-in-bernalillo-county/

APD CRIME STATS

It was on Thursday, March 16, 2023 that Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina  released the 2022  crime statistics along with crime statistics for 2021 for a comparison.  According to Chief Medina there was  3% drop in the overall total of crime and stated it was a fueled by  the 4% decrease in CRIMES AGAINST  PERSONS (murder, rape, and assault) and the 2% drop in CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY (robbery, bribery, and burglary).  

The slight 3% decrease in overall crime was over shadowed by a 24% spike  in CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY (gambling, prostitution, and drug violations)  and the  dramatic  71% increase in murders over the last 6 years.  In addition to reporting that there has been a 71% spike in homicides,  Chief Medina also reported that over the past 6 years there has been a 28% increase in Aggravated Assaults which by definition includes the use of a firearms.

Links for quoted news sources are here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/news/apd-releases-2022-crime-stats-violent-crime-down-8-after-increase-in-2021

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-crime-stats-2022/43338599

https://www.abqjournal.com/2582509/albuquerque-police-touts-decrease-in-property-violent-crime-in-2022.html#:~:text=There%20was%20a%200.3%25%20drop,of%20drug%20and%20gun%20offenses.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

District Attorney Sam Bregman can indeed point to and take credit for the changes he has made within his office as he runs for a full 4 year term. He can take legitimate credit for hiring more prosecutors, the office filing more indictments and having more trials, the  successful prosecution of criminals and  an increase in pretrial detentions.  He is following through with promises he made to the general public when the Governor appointed him.

However, the statics DA Bregman reported by  APD regarding the downward trend of homicides, robbery’s, auto theft was  downright  misleading.  By using APD’s statistics, he gave the impression that the DA’s office had something do with the reduction in the city’s overall crime and to an extent he was taking credit for it.

The numbers are in fact reported incidents, offenses and cases investigated by APD before the cases are forwarded to the District Attorney for prosecution. The APD statistics have nothing to do with changes made by Bregman within his office over the last 6 months nor the prosecution of cases.

 

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

— Matthew 19:13-14

On June 14, 2023, the New Mexico Voices for Children released the “2023 Kids Count Data Book, State Trends In Child Well Being.” The annual “Kids Count” Data Book is prepared by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Casey foundation is a nonprofit based in Maryland focusing on improving the well-being and future of American children and their families. It assesses how New Mexico children are faring in a number of areas including economic well-being, education, health, and family and community. The “Kids Count Data Book” this year is a 50  page document with an extensive number of tables, graphs charts and statistics

The link to the 2023 Kids Count Data Book is here:

Click to access aecf-2023kidscountdatabook-2023.pdf

 KIDS COUNT 2023 DATA DOWN LOAD

 New Mexico ranked 50^th in child well-being  in the 2023 report and ranked 50^th  in  child well-being in 2020, 2019 and 2018, and  ranked 49th from 2017 through 2014.

There are 4 major areas of concentration in the Kids Count Data Book with each having 4 indicators. The 4 areas of concentration are:

Economic Well Being

Education

Health

Family and Community.

The nutshell breakdown of the national statistics and New Mexico statistics in the 2023 Kids Count Data Book are as follows:

1. ECONOMIC WELL BEING

“Children in poverty” is the percentage of children under age 18 who live in families with incomes below 100% of the U.S. poverty threshold, as defined each year by the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2021, a family of two adults and two children lived in poverty if the family’s annual income fell below $27,479.

Children whose parents lack secure employment is the share of all children under age 18 who live in families where no parent has regular, full-time, year-round employment. For children in single-parent families, this means the resident parent did not work at least 35 hours per week for at least 50 weeks in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Children living in households with a high housing cost burden is the percentage of children under age 18 who live in households where more than 30% of monthly household pretax income is spent on housing-related expenses, including rent, mortgage payments, taxes and insurance.

Teens not in school and not working is the percentage of teenagers between ages 16 and 19 who are not enrolled in school (full or part time) and not employed (full or part time).

Nationally when it comes to ECONOMIC WELL BEING,  17% (12,243,000) of children in the country live in poverty (year 2021),  29% (21,143,000)  of children nationally have parents who lack secure employment (year 2021), 30% (21,857,000)  of children live in households with a high housing cost burden (year 2021) and 7% (1,234,000) of teens were not in school and not working. (Page 12)

New Mexico ranked 49^th in ECONOMIC WELL-BEING RANKING, with 24% (111,000) of New Mexico children living in poverty, 35% (165,000) of New Mexico Children whose parents lack secure employment, 26% (125,000) of New Mexico children living in households with a high housing cost burden, and 12% (14,000) of teens not in school and not working.  (Page 34)

2. EDUCATION

Young children not in school is the percentage of children ages 3 and 4 who were not enrolled in school (e.g., nursery school, preschool or kindergarten) during the previous three months.

Fourth-graders not proficient in reading is the percentage of fourth-grade public school students who did not reach the proficient level in reading as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Eighth-graders not proficient in math is the percentage of eighth-grade public school students who did not reach the proficient level in math as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

High school students not graduating on time is the percentage of an entering freshman class not graduating in four years

Nationally, from 2012 to 2016,  53% (4,380,000) of young children (ages 3 and 4)  were not in school and from 2017 to 2021 the number increased by 1%  to 54%. In 2019, the number of 4^th graders not proficient in reading was 66% and it increased and got worse in 2022 and was 69%.  In 2019,  67% of eighth-graders nationally were not proficient in math and that number became worse in 2022 with 74% of eighth-graders nationally were not proficient in math.  For the two years of 2018 to 2020, the number of  High school students not graduating on time remained the same at 14%.  (Page 12)

New Mexico ranked 50^th in education, with 59% (30,000) (years 2017 to 2021) young children ages 3 to 4 not in school,  4^th graders not proficient in reading (year 2022) grew from 76% to 79%, 87% of eighth graders not proficient in math (year 2022) and 23% of high school students not graduating on time (years 2019 to 2020).  (Page 35)  Fourth graders not proficient at reading

3. HEALTH

Low birth-weight babies is the percentage of live births weighing less than 5.5 pounds (2,500 grams).

Children without health insurance is the percentage of children under age 19 not covered by any health insurance.

Child and teen deaths per 100,000 is the number of deaths, from all causes, of children between ages 1 and 19 per 100,000 children in this age range.

Children and teens who are overweight or obese is the percentage of children and teens ages 10 to 17 with a Body Mass Index (BMI)-for-age at or above the 85th percentile.

Nationally, in 2021  the number of low birth-weight babies was 8.5% (311,932) of all births.  In 2021, the number of  children without health insurance was 5% , a decrease of 6% from 2020, with 4,165,00 children do be without health insurance. The number of  child and teen deaths per 100,000 went from 25 in 2019 to 30 in 2021. Children and teens (ages 10 to 17) who are overweight or obese went from 31% in 2018-2019 to 33% in 2020-2021. (Page 13)

New Mexico 44^th in health rankings , above Alabama (45),  Wyoming (46) South Carolina (47) Texas (48) Louisiana (49), Mississippi (50). New Mexico had 9.4% (2,009) low birth rate babies in 2021, 6% (32,000) children without health insurance in 2021, 217 child and teen deaths per 100,000 in 2021 ranking the state 43, and with the state ranking 36 in children and teens (ages 10 to 17) who were overweight or obese. (Page 36)

4. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

Children in single-parent families is the percentage of children under age 18 who live with their own unmarried parents. Children not living with a parent are excluded. In this definition, single-parent families include cohabiting couples.

Children in families where the household head lacks a high school diploma is the percentage of children under age 18 who live in households where the head of the household does not have a high school diploma or equivalent.

Children living in high-poverty areas is the percentage of children under age 18 who live in census tracts where the poverty rates of the total population are 30% or more. In 2021, a family of two adults and two children lived in poverty if the family’s annual income fell below $27,479.

Teen births per 1,000 is the number of births to teenagers ages 15 to 19 per 1,000 females in this age group. Data reflect the mother’s place of residence, not the place where the birth occurred.

Nationally, the number of children in single-parent families was 34%  23,626,000  for 2019 to 2021.  Children in families where the household head lacks a high school diploma was 12% (8,269,000)  in 2019 and 11% in 2021. Children living in high-poverty areas was 13% from 2012 to 2016 and 8% (6,086,000) from 2017 to 2021. Teen births in the United State per 1,000 US went from 17% in 2019 to 14% (146,973) in 2021. (Page 13)

New Mexico ranked 48^th in family and community (above  Louisiana (49) and Mississippi (50))  with 44% (196,000) children living with single parent families,  12% (59,000) of children living in families where the household head lacks a high school diploma in  the years 2017 to 2021,  and the state having a 19% teen birth rate per 1,000 births, 1,324 births in 2021.  (Page 37)

Click to access aecf-2023kidscountdatabook-2023.pdf

PROGRESS MADE HIGHLIGHTED

The annual Kids Count report did highlight progress made in New Mexico.  According to the report:

The share of children in living Children in poverty in poverty fell 7% from 31% in 2015 to 24% in 2022.  The improvement came despite the national trend remaining flat in the same time period.

The share of children living without health insurance dropped from 10% in the 2012 report to 6% in this year’s report.

The rate of teen births per 1,000 population fell from 24 to 19 between 2019 and 2021.

The share of high school students not graduating on time also improved.

The share of high school students not graduating on time also improved, as did the percentage of children living in households where the head adult lacks a high school diploma.

Share of children in single-parent families was 44%  and was unchanged between 2019 and 2021.

Since 2010, New Mexico has seen a 20% improvement in child poverty. New Mexico students not graduating high school on time has improved by 38% since 2010. The number of New Mexico children who lack health insurance has improved by 45% and teen births in the state have improved by 64% since 2010.

DETERIORATION NOTED

The report also outlines deterioration in the following areas:

The percentage of children whose parents lack secure employment climbed from 32% in 2019 to 35% in 2021.

Fourth graders not proficient at reading grew from 76% to 79% between 2019 and 2022. Eighth graders not proficient in math jumped from 79% to 87%, figures that reflect changes between 2019 and 2022.

87% of eighth graders were reported as not proficient in math last year, an 8 point decline since 2019.

Child and teen deaths per 100,000 population increased from 36 in 2019 to 43 in 2021.

Teens not in school and not working increased by 1%, up from 11% in 2019 to 12% in 2021.

REACTION TO 2023 KIDS COUNT REPORT

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’ s office  reacted defensively to the 2023 Kids Count Report and the states 50th in child wellbeing  ranking.  Governor spokeswoman Caroline Sweeney said the report largely reflects data from 2021, halfway through the governor’s first term and in the middle of the pandemic. Sweeny said the administration has carried out policies recommended in the report, including the allocation of federal relief funds to stabilize child care during the pandemic, waiving copays for families and boosting the pay of child care workers. Sweeney said this in a statement:

“It is not an accurate representation of today’s data related to child welfare.”

House Speaker Javier Martínez, D-Albuquerque, for his part said the 2023 Kids Count Report helped show why lawmakers and others pushed so long for the 2022 constitutional amendment.  Enactment of the amendment is expected to generate an extra $240 million a year for early childhood education and K-12 schools. Speaker Martinez had this to say in a statement:

“While we know that the 2021 data in this report does not reflect all of our recent progress. … These numbers do underscore the urgent need for continued investment in our kids and working families, so that every kid in our state gets the education and the opportunities they deserve.”

Amber Wallin, the executive director of New Mexico Voices for Children that released the 2023 Kids Count Report also noted that much of the report is based on 2022 statistics.  Wallin noted  the state is outpacing the nation in its overall progress and in several individual categories. She said that as the state has improved, so have other states in individual categories and that states such as Vermont or Pennsylvania have “very different challenges than we do.”

Wallin said the state has launched new programs that will  take time to show up in the annual report and  many of the state policies recently implemented will create generational change and New Mexico might not see the real impacts of some recent policy changes until children under the age of five now have kids of their own.

Wallin noted the state dramatically expanded a child care assistance program in mid-2021,  the year much of the data is based on and noted voters just last year authorized major  increases in the funding available for early childhood education and K-12 schools. Wallin said the COVID-19 pandemic blunted some of the state’s improvement, but she credited New Mexico for expansion of a child tax credit and other policy changes that should make a difference.

Wallin said in a statement:

“The data show that the state must keep pushing itself to create opportunities for all New Mexico kids to thrive. …  We’ve also seen progress in most indicators, and many recent family-focused state policy changes give us strong reasons to expect that we’ll continue to see improvements in the future. … If we were strictly comparing New Mexico to itself from a decade ago, it’s clear we’ve made remarkable progress.”

Wallin also highlighted some recent New Mexico tax policy change which replaced a temporary federal child tax credit available to qualifying families for the last six months of 2021. New Mexico replaced that temporary federal policy in the 2022 legislature with a state tax credit that allows for up to $600 per child annually for qualifying families. Wallin said New Mexico was one of the first five states in the nation to make that state child tax credit available.

Wallin said it is also important for the state to diversify its economy to avoid the boom and bust budget cycles impacted by the boom and bust nature of oil and gas revenue. Wallin said this:

“We want to diversify the economy so we have financial resources to invest in programs now and well into the future.”

REPUBLICAN BLAME GAME

The Republican Party of New Mexico in response to the “2023 Kids Count Data Book” report  said Democrats deserve blame for the rankings  following the legislature’s failure of proposals to overhaul the state’s child-welfare agency.  Democrats control the Governor’s Office and both legislative chambers.

On Twitter, the Republican  party said this:

“[These] rankings  fall on their shoulders. It is in no way acceptable to hold children in this dire situation year after year.”

On its own website, the conservative Rio Grande Foundation, a group that advocates for limited government, said the decline in academic outcomes can only  be partially attributed to pandemic policy choices, such as school closures.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2606107/worst-for-child-well-being-new-mexico-50th-in-annual-kids-count-report.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/worst-for-child-well-being-new-mexico-50th-in-annual-kids-count-report/article_ebebd9a8-0b1e-11ee-ab18-037ff26dbf43.html

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

New Mexico’s ranking of dead last at number 50,  just behind Louisiana at 49 and Mississippi at 48, is very disheartening.   New Mexico has ranked 49th or 50th every year since 2012. What guaranteed  the state to come in last was its  deteriorating academic outcomes in reading and math. This year’s ranking took into account the state’s worsening rates of reading and math proficiency among students with an analysis that compared 2019 outcomes to 2022.

REPUBLICANS IGNORE THIER CULPABILITY

What is do damn laughable is how the Republican Party plays the blame game and says “[These] rankings  fall on the  shoulders [of democrats]. It is in no way acceptable to hold children in this dire situation year after year.” Republicans conveniently and simply ignore the damage done to the state’s public education system during the full 8 years of Governor Susana Martinez (2011–2019) who engaged it a full throttle attack on and practically destroyed the New Mexico’s public education system.

During her 8 years in office, Republicans had control of the House for a period of time and aided and abetted Martinez in all the disastrous public education policies she wanted.  Martinez’s reelection victory in 2014 helped Republicans seized control of the New Mexico House of Representatives for the first time in 60 years. Republicans ended up with a 37-33 advantage in the House.

https://www.abqjournal.com/491495/control-of-70-seat-new-mexico-house-hangs-in-balance.html

Throughout her 8 years as Governor, Martinez was at odds with teachers over the controversial Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, tests.  Republican Governor Susana Martinez, with her policies and her Secretary of Public Education appointments, especially the appointment of Secretary Hanna Skandera, contributed and resulted in a failing education system.

Things for New Mexico’s children historically got worse during the 8 years under Governor Martinez’s leadership. According to 2018 Kids Count Data Book, for the first time  New Mexico  fell  last among states when it came to the economic, educational and medical well-being of its children.  The most troubling decline reported was  New Mexico’s steep drop in ranking for health care measures which previously was a bright spot for the state.

According to the 2018 Kids Count Data Book, 30% of New Mexico’s children were living in poverty in 2016, compared to 19% nationwide that year, the earliest figures available. In educational measures, the report said  75% of the state’s fourth-graders were not proficient in reading in 2017, compared to 65% nationally, and 80% of eighth-graders were not performing up to par in math in 2017, compared to 67% across the U.S.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/education/report-new-mexico-ranks-last-in-child-well-being/article_0f6865fc-d34a-5050-9f74-21680e98a2a5.html

The 2023 Kids Count Data Book now reports New Mexico ranks  49^th in ECONOMIC WELL-BEING RANKING, with 24% (111,000) of New Mexico children living in poverty while under Martinez it was reported as 30%. 

REVISITING YAZZIE V. MARTINEZ 

On Friday, July 20, 2018, Santa Fe District Court Judge Sarah Singleton ruled in the case of Yazzie v. State of New Mexico and Governor Suzanna Martinez that the state of New Mexico was violating the constitutional rights of at-risk students by failing to provide them with a sufficient education.  In her 75-page decision, the court rejected arguments by Governor Susana Martinez’s administration that the education system was improving and for that reason it did  not need more funding. The Court found that the New Mexico Public Education Department (PED) did not do the best it could with the funding it was given by the legislature to the education system.

The Court ruling centered on the guaranteed right under the New Mexico Constitution to a sufficient education for all children. The lawsuit alleged a severe lack of state funding, resources and services to help students, particularly children from low-income families, students of color, including Native Americans, English-language learners and students with disabilities.

The Judge found that it was clear that many New Mexico students were not receiving the basic education in reading, writing and math they should be receiving in our public-school system. As a matter of law, Judge Singleton wrote the “lack of funds is not a defense to providing constitutional rights.”

In her blistering written opinion, Judge Singleton wrote:

“[The evidence presented at trial] proves that the vast majority of New Mexico’s at-risk children finish each school year without the basic literacy and math skills needed to pursue post-secondary education or a career. … Indeed, overall New Mexico children rank at the very bottom in the country for educational achievement. … The at-risk students are still not attaining proficiency at the rate of non-at-risk students … and the programs being lauded by [the Public Education Department] are not changing this picture.”

According to the judge’s ruling, in New Mexico, at the time, 71.6% of the state’s public school students come from low-income families, and 14.4% are English-language learners. Further, 14.8 percent of students have disabilities, and 10.6 percent are Native American. Judge Singleton addressing proficiency rates for Native American students said that in the previous 3 years, those students’ reading proficiency was at 17.6% and their math proficiency was at 10.4%.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1200069/questions-surround-ruling-on-nm-education-funding.html

Judge Singleton faulted the lack of access to technology in rural districts. The Court also found that New Mexico does not have enough teachers and that New Mexico teachers are among the lowest paid in the country and stated:

“The evidence shows that school districts do not have the funds to pay for all the teachers they need. … [An example is] Gadsden, one of the better performing school districts in the state, has had to eliminate over 53 classroom positions and 15 essential teachers since 2008.”

DESTRUCTION OF NEW MEXICO’S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

One of the cruelest things that Governor Martinez did as Governor that  had a direct impact on New Mexico children’s  health and well being  was that she ordered an “audit” of mental health services by nonprofits in New Mexico which devastated New Mexico’s behavioral health system. More than 160,000 New Mexicans received behavioral health services in 2014, with most of those services funded by Medicaid, according to the Human Services Department.

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

The Martinez Human Services Department agency brought in the 5 Arizona providers to take over. In early 2016, at least 13 of the 15 nonprofits that were shut down were exonerated of fraud by New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas.

Then Attorney General Hector Balderas found no fraud and cleared the nonprofits of fraud but  the damage had been done to the nonprofits and many just went out of business. Three of the five Arizona providers brought in by Governor Susana Martinez’s administration in 2013 to replace the New Mexico nonprofits pulled up stakes in the state and the mental health system is still recovering from the damage.

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

NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE FUNDING

The New Mexico legislature has been very aggressive when it comes to funding to try and turn things around for New Mexico’s children as a result of Yazzie v. Governor Suzanna Martinez.

In fiscal year 2019, public education funding spiked. The biggest accomplishments of the 2019 Legislative session were the dramatic increases in public education funding, creation of the Early Childhood Department (CYFD), the mandates to Children, Youth and Families and Public Education departments, not to mention raises for educators and increasing CYFD social workers by 125 were clearly the biggest accomplishments of the 2019 Legislative session.

Funding  spike in 2019  and was up to $306 million, including the following:

$64 million for Pre-K to better prepare children for elementary school.

$45 million for family, infant, toddler programs to help families with children with developmental delays.

$30 million for K-3 Plus to add 25 days to the school year.

New Mexico is 1 of just 4 states with a stand-alone department dedicated to services targeting children through age 5. The initial operating budget for the new department was $419 million for the 2020-2021 fiscal year. The new department is tasked with overseeing the state’s growing investment in prekindergarten, home visiting programs for new parents, childcare and similar services that previously were scattered across several departments. One of the key goals is to better coordinate the state’s network of early childhood services by housing them in one department rather than having them overseen separately by other departments.

In 2020 the New Mexico Legislature created a $320 million early childhood education trust fund.

In 2021, lawmakers and the governor agreed to up the spending on early childhood programs to $500 million.

During the 2022 New Mexico Legislative session, a trio of bills were enacted  to fund programs to help Native American students succeed in school. The house bills provided more than $70 million to tribal entities to help offer culturally relevant lesson plans and access to virtual and after-school programs for those students.

The first bill appropriated $20 million from the state’s general fund to the Indian Education Act to be used to create culturally relevant learning programs, including Native language programs, for students in the K-12 system.

A second bill appropriated $21.5 million to help tribal education departments develop learning plans and programs for students, extend learning opportunities and support tribal school libraries.

The third bill was aimed at higher education and  appropriated $29.6 million to four state colleges and three tribal colleges for 53 initiatives.

In 2022, voters approved tapping the state’s Land Grant Permanent Fund for roughly another $240 million annually for early childhood education and K-12 schools. The additional distribution of funding from the Permanent Land Grant Fund goes into effect on July 1. The Early Childhood Education and Care Department recently reported it will experience a 68% increase in funding for Fiscal Year 2024.

The link to news source on funding is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/money-doesn-t-make-kids-count/article_65c5ecd8-0ca4-11ee-917e-93ee3771e5b3.html

FINAL COMMENTARY

It has been  5  years since the July 20, 2018 landmark ruling of Yazzie v. State of New Mexico and Governor Suzanna Martinez.  The original court opinion was a confirmation of what went on for the full 8 years of the prior Republican Administration. The 5 years since the July 20, 2018 landmark education case has not been enough time to turn things around and pull the education car out of the ditch and make the necessary repairs. The blunt truth is it will take years for the state to get on track, perhaps a decade to implement all the changes mandated.

The rankings and financial numbers are depressing and staggering and it has been going on for way too many years. The pandemic no doubt has had an impact on implementing the public education reforms and has contributed to the state’s dismal ranking in the Kids Count Report ranking.  Notwithstanding, sooner rather than later the public has the right to demand tangible results and ultimately our public education system needs to produce and can no longer use the excuse that there has not been enough spending.

The link to a related blog article is here:

 

After Over 3 Years, Court Mandated Education Program Funding Advances In 2022 NM Legislative Session; Yazzie v. Martinez Court Ruling Revisited

NEWS UPDATE: On Thursday, June 29, it was reported that District Attorney Sam Bregman was asked if he had changed his mind and would be running for District Attorney in 2024. In response to the question Bregman said this:

“Yes, I will be running. … We have put things in place that I believe are starting to make a difference. I believe things are starting to get better when it comes to crime.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/sam-bregman-plans-to-run-for-district-attorney-next-year/article_24eefa48-16ad-11ee-b9bd-1b6c333d98a4.html

A legendary story involving former 3 term New Mexico Governor Bruce King was when a politician was seeking support on an issue they felt very important and  they had already secured Governor King’s support. It turned out that Governor  King had changed his mind.  When confronted with his “flip flop” by the upset politician, Governor King reportedly said with a twang in his voice “Well, I may have promised, but I never gave a firm commitment.” It sure does look like Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman has told Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham that he may have promised not to run for District Attorney but he never gave her a firm commitment!

BERNALILLO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAM BREGMAN 

Sam Bregman was appointed Bernalillo County District Attorney by Governor Mitchell Lujan Grisham on January 4 to serve out the remaining two years of the 4 year term of Raul Torrez who was elected Attorney General in 2022. After being appointed DA, Bregman made it known he would serve only 2 years and not run for reelection. Bregman disclosed to more than a few within the legal community when he was applying for DA, it was his intent to run for Mayor in 2025.

Sam Bregman is a 1989 graduate of the University of New Mexico Law School.  He  is a former Democratic Party State Chairman. Bregman  served as an Assistant Bernalillo County District Attorney from 1994 through 1997. Bregman was an elected Albuquerque City Council from 1995 until 1999 and has a served as Deputy State Auditor for the State of New Mexico.  Bregman unsuccessfully ran for Commissioner of Public Lands and Mayor of Albuquerque.  Bregman also  served  on the New Mexico Racing  Commission and was Chairman of the Commission.  Bregman has trial experience in both civil and criminal defense’ with 3 decades of trial experience.

The January 3, 2023 press release announcing Bregman’s appointment said this in part:

“A former prosecutor with extensive experience in litigation and case oversight, Sam Bregman will bring a fresh perspective to the Second Judicial District Attorney’s office,” said Gov. Lujan Grisham. “I am confident that he will serve as a dedicated and effective District Attorney focused on improving public safety and supporting the people of Bernalillo County.”

“I am honored to be appointed as Second Judicial District Attorney. I realize the great responsibility of the role and am committed to relentlessly pursuing justice for the residents of Bernalillo County,” said Bregman. “I look forward to joining the hardworking staff of the DA’s office and will prioritize fully staffing the office to support their ongoing critical work. Together we will serve the people of central New Mexico and deliver real results and improve public safety.”

 Bregman will serve the remaining two years of the existing term. He will not run for re-election to the office, focusing on the office’s work to combat crime and build stronger, safer communities.”

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2023/01/03/governor-appoints-second-judicial-district-attorney/

POLITICAL DRAMA RECALLED

The Governor’s appointment of Sam Bregman Bernalillo County District Attorney came with a lot of political drama  when on December 2, the Governor’s office released the names of 10 attorneys who applied for the appointment and Bregman’s name was one of the 10.  On December 12, the deadline for attorneys to file applications was extended to December 23.  No explanation was given for the extension of time for applications. On December  28,  the names of 4 additional attorneys who applied were released  bringing the total number of applicants to 14. Speculation was rampant that the Governor was not at all satisfied with the 10 original applicants and she wanted to appoint a female which was the reason for extending the deadline to recruit and allow others to apply.

Notwithstanding the politcal drama, the appointment of Sam Bregman did not come  as a surprise to politcal insiders. Since announcing  the names of  all 14 applicants, insiders said the appoint was Bregman’s  for the asking and that he had the “inside track” on the appointment because of his politcal connections, association and fundraising for  the Governor.  There are no term limitations for the office of Bernalillo County District Attorney.

CHANGING ONE’S MIND

Sources within the District Attorney’s office have confirmed that Sam Bregman had a get together for all of his staff at his home a few weeks ago. It was at that time that he called in his deputies for a meeting  and disclosed to them that he intended to run for District Attorney next year. Bregman was said to have also told others that he is already begun to put his campaign together and has gone so far as to begin preparing TV commercials.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The big question is if Governor Lujan Grisham appointed Bregman in exchange for his commitment not to run for a full 4 year term in 2 years.  Such a concession and agreement has happened before when Governor Lujan Grisham  appointed Jim Collie Bernalillo County Commission for 2 years in exchange for his commitment not to seek a full 4 year term.

What did come as a surprise to many is that  Bregman would even agree to serve only the remaining 2  years of Raúl Torrez’s  4 year term and say he would  not run for a full 4 year term in 2024.  Essentially Bregman became a lame duck or caretaker upon his appointment and would  not be able to do much with the office over 24 months.

There is little doubt that Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham will be upset if Bregman has reneged on a commitment not to run he made to her. The Governor is known to have a little vindictive streak in her and it is likely she will make her displeasure known to him and perhaps go so far as to find a candidate to run against him.

Then there is the matter of others running within the Democratic Party against Bregman. Chief Deputy District Attorney Josh Boone announced last year he was running and went so far as to create web page.  Another name that has been circulating as wanting to run for Bernalillo County District Attorney is Damon Martinez, the former United States Attorney for New Mexico who ran for congress. Martinez was among one of the 14 original applicants for District Attorney but was passed over by the Governor. Martinez’s credential’s made him the most qualified choice for Bernalillo County District Attorney, but Governor Lujan Grisham chose politics over qualifications to appoint Bregman.

A KELLER BREATHS SIGH OF RELIEF

With a full two and a half years left before the 2025 municipal elections, people are already talking about and are in fact looking for candidates for Mayor. This is  in large part because of Mayor Tim Keller’s exceptionally low approval ratings.  On November 3, the Albuquerque Journal released a poll on the job performance of Mayor Tim Keller. The results of the poll showed Keller has a 40% disapproval rating, a 33% approval rating an with 21% mixed feelings. The low approval rating was attributed to Keller’s continuing failure to bring down the city’s high crime rates despite all of his promises and programs, his failure to deal with the homeless crisis and his failure to fully staff APD after promising to have 1,200 sworn police during his first term.

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

Keller did himself no favors with the recent enactment of his Housing Forward ABQ Plan by a divided city council which passed it on a 5-4 vote. Keller has now opened himself up to the allegation that he is a “profits before people” politician favoring developers and investors over neighborhoods and property owners.

There is little doubt that District Attorney Sam Bregman would be the most formidable candidate to run for Mayor in 2025 on a platform of  the city’s spiking homicide rates that have occurred under Mayor Tim Keller’s years in office.  The one person who benefits the most with Bregman running for District Attorney obviously is Mayor Tim Keller who is already saying privately to his supporters and some staff members he is running for a third term. Notwithstanding, Keller’s  popularity has waned and is still declining dramatically. Many view him as being over his head and a failure in solving the city’s problems.

OTHER CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR

In addition to Tim Keller, there are  4 other  potential candidates already being mentioned as running for Mayor:

TWO TERM DEMOCRAT BERNALILLO COUNTY CLERK LINDA STOVER

County Clerk Linda Stover has already told Mayor Tim Keller she intends to run for Mayor in 2025. Stover has been elected twice to 4-year terms as Bernalillo County Clerk with very comfortable margins.  She is term limited and she is well like within the Democratic party. She has not at all been shy on FACEBOOK indicating she wants to run for Mayor and billboards with her image encouraging people to vote only stoked speculation she wants to run for Mayor.  She has made it known to more than a few county employees she is running for Mayor. Keller is ostensibly concerned over her candidacy having admonished his constituent services liaison officer Alan Armijo and others from taking photos with her that could wind up in her campaign materials and on FACEBOOK.

REPUBLICAN CITY COUNCILOR DAN LEWIS

Then 2 term City Councilor Dan Lewis ran for Mayor in 2017 and was among 8 candidates that year.  Lewis and Keller made it into the runoff to run against each other. Keller won by a landslide securing 62.2% of the vote to Dan Lewis at 37.8% of the vote.  Lewis returned to the City Council when he was elected on  November 2, 2021 after defeating first term Democrat City Councilor Cynthia Borrego. Soon after being elected to city council, Lewis made it known privately to many of  his supporters he is running for Mayor in 2025. He is champing at the bit to have a rematch with Keller so much so that he has gone out of his way to be one of the main critics of Keller on city issues.

FIRST TERM DEMOCRAT CITY COUNCILOR LOUIS SANCHEZ.

Sources within APD are saying he is eyeing running for Mayor. Democrat Councilor Sanchez, along with Dan Lewis, has become the media go to city councilor to object to all things Tim Keller.  Since commencing his term on the City Council on January 1, 2021 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. Sanchez raised more than a few eyebrows in 2022 when it was reported on March 14, 2022 he had established a political action committee called the Working Together New Mexico PAC that was formed to back “moderate” Democrats in a host of contested Democratic Party primary races.

FIRST TERM REPUBLICAN CITY COUNCILOR BROOK BASSAN

Bassan’s name as potential candidate for Mayor in 2025 began to circulate 1 year ago. However, her initial support and then withdrawal of support of city sanctioned safe outdoor space tent encampments resulted in loss of support of many of her constituents. Bassan’s District 6 City Council seat is one of 4 council seats that will be on the November 7 ballot.

FINAL COMMENTARY

Bregman will in all likely be difficult to beat. But then again, it has been decades since he has run for office and no one has yet announced they are running, and no one knows what the Governor will do.

With a full two and a half years left before the 2025 municipal elections, it is more likely than not that there will be more candidates for Mayor as Mayor Keller continues to try and turn his favorability ratings around which will be very difficult to do at best.

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: On May 22, the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) held one of its regularly scheduled meetings. A report on the state’s homeless and the affordable housing shortage was delivered to the committee for review and discussion.  The report included the preliminary estimates yet to be  finalized 2023 Point In Time (PIT) annual homeless count. It’s expected the final report will be released in August. This is the second  of two separate reports on the LFC’s Report on Homelessness and Affordable Housing. The link to first article can be found in the postscript.

This blog article provides a report on the Governor’s appointment of a Housing Investment Council in response to the shortage of affordable housing with Commentary and Analysis. It is also an in-depth analysis of the state’s affordable housing shortage, its causes, solutions and what is being spent to address the issue.

GOV. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM CREATS HOUSING INVESTMENT COUNCIL

On May 23, and in response to the shortage of affordable housing in New Mexico  Governor  Michelle Lujan Grisham created by  executive order a Housing and Community Revitalization Investment  Council and appointed 11 members to serve.  The executive order signed by the governor directs the council to create a Statewide Investment Plan by no later than January 15, 2024. 

In her executive order, the Governor proclaimed in part as follows:

“New Mexico does not have enough affordable housing to meet the need, which is driving up rates of homeless. Reports show a need for 15,500 affordable units to house the number of people living at 30% or below the local median income and a shortage of 3,000 vouchers for permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing.

Rapid costs of rents and mortgages are increasing the number of homeless in New Mexico, and the cost of homelessness is great and inextricably link with the costs of health care and other supportive services in our State.

There are large homeownership disparities among Black/African Amercan and Indigenous households, reaching greater rates than existed when the Fair Housing Act was put into place and we see these disparities reflected in rates of homelessness among minorities.

Development of housing in New Mexico is slowed down by barriers in zoning, inefficiencies in inspections and permitting, workforce shortages, and lack of  public resources,

Local governments and tribes have limited resources and capacity to boost community revitalization without supplemental assistance from state resources.”

According to the Governors Executive Order, the Statewide Investment Plan is to provide recommendations to address the following identified areas:

1. Gaps in available housing resources
2. Priority focus areas for meeting the State’s housing shortages
3. Inefficiencies in regulatory and zoning that impact housing development and zoning that impact housing development
4. Investments in housing development
5. Guidelines and standards for homeless services
6. Investments and programs to improve disparities in home ownership
7. Creation and facilitation private partnerships to address housing
8. Lack of infrastructure related to housing,
9. Lack of creative housing options that move from assistance to ownership’
10. Service programs to address housing stability.
11. Workforce and business shortages in the housing development industries
12. The facilitation of public-private partnerships.

The members of the council appointed by Governor Lujan Grisham are:

Brian Egolf, Former House Speaker, Chair Senator

Michael Padilla Representative

Meredith Dixon Lorrie Chavez, CEO Santo Domingo Housing Authority

Kent Thurston, CEO KT Homes LLC

Natalie Green, City of Las Cruces

Rachel Biggs, Strategic Albuquerque Healthcare for the Homeless

Gary Housepian, Executive Director Disability Rights New Mexico

 Randy Traynor, Randy Traynor Associates

 Daniel Werwath, Executive Director New Mexico Interfaith Housing

Laura Long, Jorgensen Builders

According to the Executive Order, members of the council shall not be compensated for their services.

The link to review the executive order is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pxGnNO5ElsTM-DgpUg95viihV46rXzoH/view

Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

“I think this could be the most important work we do in the next couple of years … It is time to go big on affordable housing. We need thousands of homes to meet demand and give New Mexicans a stable foundation … We secured more than $82 million in the last legislative session to address housing, and an investment plan is the next step in ensuring we make the most of every housing dollar in our state.”

Former House Speaker Brian Egolf of Santa Fe, who was appointed chairman of the Housing and Community Revitalization Council Investment said he believes local governments should have a lesser say on permitting for new housing developments. He noted several proposed projects in Santa Fe where he lives were recently stymied amid neighborhood opposition.  Egolf also  said  a greater state involvement in housing issues, perhaps by issuing loans or other incentives to developers, could bolster New Mexico’s affordable housing supply. Egolf said this:

“I think there are opportunities to shift some of that risk off the private sector onto the government.  … I think there are opportunities to shift some of that risk off the private sector onto the government.”

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2023/05/23/governor-signs-executive-order-creating-affordable-housing-investment-council/

CAUSE OF HOUSING SHORTAGE

The housing shortage is related to economics, market cost of home, the development community’s inability to keep up with supply and demand and the public’s inability to purchase housing or qualify for housing mortgage loans.

In April 2023, the median listing home price in  was $375,000, trending up 13.6% year-over-year. The median listing home price per square foot was $200. The median home sold price was $349,500.000.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Albuquerque_NM/overview

Home Builder Digest is a national online magazine dedicated to the residential housing industry. According to Homebuilders Digest, the United States market rate to build is at $207 per square foot.  Home builders serving the Albuquerque area estimate the cost to build in Albuquerque between $175 to $275 per square foot. A value-based custom home would start around $175 per square foot. A mid-range home would start at around $225 per square foot. A high-end custom home would start at around $275 per square foot.

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

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

In response to the spike in the number of homeless in the state and the unavailability of low-income housing, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has now created an all-volunteer Housing and Community Revitalization Investment Council.  The Governor’s Executive Order creating the Housing and Community Revitalization Investment Council states in part:

“There are large homeownership disparities among Black/African Amercan and Indigenous households, reaching greater rates than existed when the Fair Housing Act was put into place and we see these disparities reflected in rates of homelessness among minorities.”

Despite her proclamation, there are no appointed representatives of either the “Black/African Amercan and Indigenous” communities on her Housing and Community Revitalization Investment Council.  This is called politics over inclusion.

The council includes legislators, homebuilders and nonprofit leaders and homeless advocates who will be tasked with coming up with recommendations on how to spend the appropriated housing funds and other initiatives that could be proposed during next year’s 30-day legislative session.  It’s makeup and charge is very disappointing and seriously lacking in expertise and has representation from organizations that will have their hands out for state funding.

The Housing and Community Revitalization Investment Council is what is called by politicos as “Government by Committee”. It looks good, sounds good and designed for the publicity but has very little authority and will likely accomplish very little other than a sound bites and produce a report that very few will likely read or rely upon. What is troubling about it is to what extent the appointed members already have pre conceived thoughts and a politcal agenda already set out for them and each lack a degree of knowledge to deal with both the housing shortage and the homeless crisis.

Complicating the creation of the commission is that a final Statewide Housing Investment Plan must be produced by January 15, 2024.  The 12 areas identified in the Governor’s Executive Order that must be included in the Statewide Investment Plan are so broad, so complicated and so interwoven with each other to the point that a mere 8 months  in no way should be considered  enough time  for an all-volunteer commission.

Many of the areas, such as investments in housing development, investments and programs to improve disparities in home ownership, service programs to address housing stability and  lack of creative housing options that move from assistance to ownership, are  all areas that have confounded the experts for decades and require exceptional expertise.  Most if not all of the appointees lack the background and expertise in both the areas of residential development and investment and the homeless.  There are no experts from the banking, investment and real estate development community on the appointed commission, let alone from affected “Black/African Amercan and Indigenous households” that have   “greater rates … of homelessness among minorities.”

Of particular complexity the Governor wants the council to tackle is  “inefficiencies in regulatory and zoning that impact housing development.”  Simply put, zoning and development laws are highly complex and are within the authority of ever county commission and municipal government and not the New Mexico legislature. There are 33 counties and 106 municipalities consisting of cities, towns, villages in New Mexico with each having their own zoning laws to address the particular needs of their individual communities. 

Former Speaker of the House, the appointed chair of the council, revealed his biasness when he said he believes local governments should have a lesser say on permitting for new housing developments. In other words, he wants developers to have a much bigger say over land use issues as opposed the needs of the community and property owners.  There are no appointees that have been identified as experts in land use and planning issues and no representation for the Municipal League nor county governments.

All the 11 members of the Housing and Community Revitalization Investment Council most likely have their own personal biasness, political agendas and concerns they are advocating for and want themselves or what the Governor wants. The Governor could have done much better and relied upon the real experts within her administration and the experts with the Legislative Finance Committee to come up with a viable Statewide Investment Plan for affordable housing in the state.

The Governor’s 11 member Housing and Community Revitalization Investment Council is simply not needed. The May 23, 2023 LFC  Report on Homelessness and Affordable Housing already provides the necessary template for experts within her administration and the experts with the Legislative Finance Committee to come up with a viable Statewide Investment Plan for affordable housing in the state.

Instead Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham punts, appoints 3 politicians (former Speaker Egolf, Senator Michael Padilla, Representative Meredith Dixon) and representatives from vested stakeholders that will want state funding for their programs, such as Santo Domingo Housing Authority, Albuquerque Healthcare for the Homeless, the New Mexico Interfaith Housing and the City of Las Cruces.

What Governor Lujan Grisham has done is to  create  just another commission for “Government by Committee” that looks good, sounds good and designed for the publicity and that will likely produce a final report within 8 months with little new information and  to hold another meaningless press conference.

NEW MEXICO’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS: CAUSES, SOLUTIONS AND WHAT THE STATE IS DOING TO SOLVE IT

On May 22, the Legislative Finance Committee  (LFC) held one of its regularly scheduled meetings. A  report on homelessness and affordable housing  was delivered to the committee.   It was reported that rent statewide has increased by 70%, while wages have only grown by 15%. As a result, nearly half of all renters are cost-burdened and pay more than 30% of their incomes for housing.

Amy Whitfield, the governor’s housing and homelessness adviser, said New Mexico’s current lack of affordable housing compromises economic development efforts in the state and forces some state residents to commute long distances to work. She said the administration’s efforts would focus on home ownership and not rentals and will be targeted at housing stability for state residents.

During the LFC hearing, Santa Fe Democrat Tara Lujan cited the issue of gentrification in the state’s most expensive city, which prompted legislation aimed at minimizing annual property tax increases for homeowners. Lujan said this:

“I can’t afford to buy a house in my own district in Santa Fe.”

Mosquero Republican State Representative Jack Chatfield expressed concern over the lack of coordination of resources saying the large number of federal, state and local agencies involved with administering housing programs and it makes it difficult to effectively provide services. Chatfield said this:

“I think as a state we need to take better control of coordination of these resources to make sure we’re getting them out there.”

Senator Siah Correa Hemphill, D-Silver City, asked if the proliferation of vacation rentals in some New Mexico cities and towns is contributing to the affordable housing shortage. Siah said this:

“As soon as a house comes on the market, someone from California will come and buy it and convert it into a vacation rental.”

In response, state housing officials said the issue does appear to be contributing to the state’s housing problem, but is not the sole factor.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gXYy4y9ILSImXApZh__ZZfcs4xhTk-kh/view

https://www.sfreporter.com/news/morningword/2023/05/24/homelessness-rises-48-in-new-mexico/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2601214/homeless-surge-new-mexico-affordable-housing-tough-to-find.html

LFC  REPORT ON HOMELESSNESS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The 4 key take aways of the LFC report on affordable housing are:

1. Since 2017, rent in New Mexico has increased by 70%, while wages have grown by 15%.
2. Almost half of all renters are cost-burdened, paying more than 30% of their income for housing.
3. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development standards, virtually all renters with household incomes under $20,000 are cost-burdened.
4. New Mexico stands to lose 5% of its 29,000 publicly assisted rental units over the next 5 years and double that in 10 years as affordability commitments expire or the condition of units deteriorates.

The major highlights that can be gleaned from review of the report relating to the affordable housing shortage in New Mexico are quoted as follows:

LOW-INCOME RENTERS HAVE BEEN MOST IMPACTED BY RISING RENTS AND FACE THE MOST ACUTE HOUSING SHORTAGES.

“In New Mexico, about 30% of households are renters. Those households tend to have lower median household incomes than those that own homes ($35,289 for renter households and $65,720 for owner-occupied households).  Since 2017, New Mexico household income grew by 15% while rents and home values grew by 70% and 66% over the same period.”

“In many places in the state, the income needed to pay for the fair-market rent for a small apartment is higher than the median renter’s income … . HUD establishes annual fair-market rents to set limits for federally funded rental subsidies. Fair-market rent is based on the 40th percentile of gross rents for non-substandard rental units occupied by recent movers in a local housing market. However, actual average rents in a locality may vary substantially from these values. For example, Zillow’s recorded average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Las Cruces, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe in May 2023 are higher than HUD’s fair-market rent for these cities ($1,334, $1,223, and$2,015, respectively).”

“The New Mexico Housing Strategy report estimates New Mexico has 32,000 too few affordable rental units to meet the needs of low-income renters (those with incomes of 30% of the area median income or less.) 78%  percent of that gap is in four counties: Bernalillo (17,748 units), Doña Ana (4,146 units), Santa Fe (1,630 units), and Sandoval (1,299 units).

Even though declining birth rates are projected to continue to flatten statewide growth overall by 2035, regionally, these urban counties are projected to grow faster, while the more rural counties will have offsetting population losses.”

NEW MEXICO HAS A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AVAILABLE FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES ARE TAKING UP HOUSING THAT COULD BE AFFORDABLE TO LOWER-INCOME FAMILIES

“In addition to an overall shortage of affordable housing units, a …  dynamic is at play that crowds out low-income renters from affordable housing. They generally pay more than what is considered affordable for them for housing, while higher-income renters almost always pay less.

The New Mexico Housing Strategy used 2019 data to show that higher-income people were “renting down,” occupying housing units that would be affordable to lower-income households. At the time, nearly 21,000 housing units with rents affordable to those with household incomes between $35,000 and $50,000  were being rented to people with household incomes over $50,thousand.”

 “Using updated 2021 data, a similar mismatch still existed between what renters should be able to pay for rent, and what they are paying for rent. Further, the New Mexico Housing Strategy report noted that, between 1970 and 1990, multi-family housing was a significant part of the mix of new residential buildings in the state. However, multi-family development dropped off in favor of single-family homes in the 1990s, and new building of all housing types decreased significantly around the recession of 2008 and has yet to return to the levels seen in prior decades. This drop in construction as indicated by the drop in building permits …  has significantly constrained the supply of housing, particularly multi-family housing.”

IN FY22, NEW MEXICO SAW OVER $300 MILLION IN FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING DEDICATED TO HOMELESSNESS SUPPORTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

“New Mexico’s housing system is fragmented, consisting of multiple public and private entities dominated by federal funders and local implementers. The state can play a role in prioritizing needs and filling funding gaps. The Legislature has made significant investments in homelessness and housing supports over the past 2 years. Thus, the state would benefit from increased transparency and reporting regarding performance of programs.”

“The federal government supplies the majority of that funding—$255 million. This funding flows through numerous federal, state, and local government agencies and private entities … . These entities all serve different functions, including funding, services, coordination, and oversight. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Authority (MFA), the state’s housing agency, other state agencies, local and regional housing authorities, and other local entities  administer the  federal programs. These include the low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC), the housing choice voucher program (formerly known as Section 8), public housing, emergency solutions grants for homeless shelters and other supports, and the community development block grant for local governments. Department of Agriculture (USDA) fund the New Mexico Mortgage Finance.”

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REMAINS THE LARGEST SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR HOMELESSNESS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS IN NEW MEXICO

“In FY22, HUD provided over $90 million for housing choice and project-based rental assistance vouchers alone, and local entities administer the funding with mixed result .  The USDA also administers several rural-focused housing assistance and development programs. In FY21, the most recent year available, USDA provided $28.4 million for rental housing development and assistance in rural New Mexico. Other federal programs, like HOME and the community development block grant, also provide significant funding for affordable housing.”

“Federal programs rely on state and local entities to administer federal funding. However, overlapping funding is a potential issue, and underutilized funding— for example, rental assistance vouchers and tax credits— could be better leveraged. State funds often fill gaps where federal funding has fallen short of need. For example, the state’s Linkages permanent supportive housing program is for people with severe mental illnesses, complementing HUD- funded permanent supportive housing grants administered by the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness (NMCEH) and the city of Albuquerque (the state’s two HUD-defined continuum of care organizations).”

“In another example, MFA administers the state’s housing trust fund, mainly used to provide additional low-interest financing for low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects. …  LFC staff did not have access to local funding amounts for 2022. However, the New Mexico Housing Strategy report estimated that in 2021, all public sources of funding for rental assistance and production totaled $219 million. Of that amount, less than 2%, $4.6 million in federal funding went directly to Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Farmington, and Las Cruces for affordable rental supports. Albuquerque and Santa Fe allocated $25 million and $1.5 million respectively in local funds to rentership, accounting for 12% of total public funds.”

“This mix of federal, state, and local funding, and administration of affordable housing and homelessness response, has resulted in good outputs in some areas, such as ensuring emergency shelter capacity. However, performance in other areas, such as housing choice vouchers and coordination of resources for housing preservation, could be improved.”

LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES COULD PROVIDE RENTAL ASSISTANCE TO AN ADDITIONAL 2,381 LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITH EXISTING FEDERAL FUNDING

“Federal housing choice vouchers (formerly known as Section 8) are the primary form of rental assistance in New Mexico and the nation and ideally provide housing security and mobility for low-income households. Fifteen of the state’s 26 public housing authorities administer the voucher program, which provides rental assistance to over 11,000 of the state’s lowest-income renters. However, almost one in five of these federal vouchers in New Mexico goes unused. As of December 2022, HUD reported housing authorities in New Mexico had enough budget to fund an additional 2,381 vouchers, mostly in Albuquerque, which has the largest housing authority in the state and has the most unused vouchers.”

“Reasons for voucher underutilization include a lack of landlords willing to accept vouchers and lack of units that meet HUD’s standards of fair market rent and health and safety standards. Given the low rental vacancy rates statewide, finding any units, let alone units meeting HUD’s requirements, can be difficult. Further, the large number of public housing agencies (26) that administer vouchers and restrictive service territories also potentially limit the ability of voucher holders to find housing where they want to live due to cumbersome portability processes and a lack of coordinated outreach and intake services.”

“While the housing choice voucher program is federally funded and locally administered, the state could be more active in ensuring better use of the large and existing resources. For example, both Albuquerque and Bernalillo County passed “source of income” protection ordinances in mid-2022, which bar property owners from discriminating against potential tenants with vouchers.”

“If these ordinances prove to be enforceable and improve voucher utilization in those areas, the state may want to consider a statewide source-of-income protection law.  In concurrence with prior research, a 2018 HUD study found the presence of voucher nondiscrimination laws appear to be associated with reductions in the share of landlords that refuse vouchers. The study found 35% percent of landlords rejected vouchers in areas with nondiscrimination laws, compared with 77% of landlords in areas without such laws. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 11 states, and over 50 cities and counties, have enacted such laws.”

THE STATE HAS A ROBUST AFFORDABILITY TOOL KIT THAT CAN BE LEVERAGED TO PROMOTE PRODUCTION AND REHABILITATION TO MEET HOUSING SHORTFALLS

“Although much of the administration of the $300 million in funding for homelessness and housing support is the responsibility of local entities, state entities can play an important role. For example, MFA could consider ways to leverage underutilized resources to fill existing gaps in funding for rehabilitation and conversion projects. One way to accomplish this would be to give preference in the annual qualified access plan (QAP) to HUD to rehabilitation projects and encourage the use of project-based vouchers, the 4% low income housing tax credit (LIHTC), the New Mexico affordable housing tax credit, and donations through the Affordable Housing Act (6-27-1 to 6-27-8 NMSA 1978).”

“The QAP sets the terms for LIHTC awards and presents opportunities for the state to make the development process more affordable and transparent by capping development costs, allow layering of subsidies, and prioritizing housing for high-risk populations. Strategies to find and promote the purchase of opportunities for housing could also be explored. For example, the Taxation and Revenue Department often emails the public about delinquent property tax auctions. Some of these properties might be good candidates for affordable housing development.”

“Federal LIHTC 4 and 9%  tax credits encourage private investment in affordable rental construction and rehabilitation projects by providing a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal income tax liability. The 9% LIHTC is the primary subsidy used for new construction because it is the most lucrative, allowing tax credits to be bought and sold. However, total funding is allocated to the state based on population; in New Mexico there were six projects in 2022, totaling $6.1 million for 282 units, or approximately $20 thousand per unit.  The amount of 4% LIHTC credits is not limited, unlike the 9% percent tax credits, which are limited by the amount allocated to the state. The 4% tax credits are better suited to rehabilitation and purchase of existing housing, but must be paired with bonds.”

“MFA and TRD records indicate the state affordable housing tax credit is not being fully utilized by private developers or donors, but they and government entities could do more to market its use. The current tax credit ceiling is $5.1 million. In 2022, $500 thousand was awarded, about one-tenth of the allowable ceiling. Further, the expenditures for 2017-2021 show only $2.7 million claimed of the total eligible $8.7 million in contributions. MFA, which approves the projects, reports that 59 projects have supported 992 affordable units—365 single-family and 627 multi-family units. Taxpayers have five years to claim credits, transfer credits, or donate directly to the trust.”

“MFA could develop a plan to increase utilization of the state tax credit. The tax credits, which can be claimed alongside charitable donations, primarily benefit high-income individuals. In its affordable housing plan submitted to MFA, the town of Taos proposes to fund a marketing campaign to promote the value of the state tax credit. MFA could consider requiring reporting on performance from the 35 governmental entities participating in the Affordable Housing Act program. Currently, the agency only requires participating governments to report their donation amounts. According to MFA, the Affordable Housing Act (6-27-1 to 6-27-8 NMSA 1978) has facilitated approximately $17 million in total donations to affordable housing projects since 2018; donations totaled around $14 million in 2022 alone, potentially indicating an upturn in donations. Participating governments could potentially report on progress toward removing barriers associated with restrictive zoning and excessive impact fees, and increasing the supply of affordable units.”

THE STATE SHOULD PRIORITIZE THE $84 MILLION IN NEW FUNDING TO AREAS OF GREATEST NEED

The 2023 legislative session significantly expanded the resources available to the state for homelessness and affordable housing programs by $84 million. This funding should be targeted to areas of greatest need, but also to programs that prevent homelessness and increase the supply of affordable units, for example, eviction prevention, landlord support, and preservation and rehabilitation programs. The state’s enhanced investment would also benefit from guardrails to ensure that state money does not supplant federal and local funds.

A $20 MILLION GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND OTHER HOUSING INITIATIVES IN THE 2023 SESSION COULD BE USED TO TARGET POPULATIONS OF RENTERS MOST IN NEED

In response to the winding down of the state’s federally funded pandemic emergency rental assistance program (ERAP), the Legislature provided a one-time appropriation of $20 million to the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) for rental assistance and other housing initiatives for expenditure in FY23 and FY24 … . With ERAP, the average household in New Mexico received $2,439 in assistance to cover an average of two months of rent and utilities during the pandemic. Assuming this level going forward, the $20 million appropriation would be able to assist 8,200 households through the end of FY24. This is less than 10 percent of the cost-burdened renters in the state. As such, the executive could consider prioritizing the $20 million in state rental and housing assistance in a number of different ways based on needs and based on special populations.

THREE POTENTIAL OPTIONS IDENTIFIED FOR MOVING AHEAD

According to the LFC report, there are 3  potential options moving ahead. Those options are:

1. TARGETING RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR EVICTION PREVENTION.

 In a 2019 report, the Center for Evidence-based Solutions to Homelessness noted that some eviction prevention programs, especially those that provided financial assistance, had strong evidence of preventing homelessness. Pre-pandemic, the levels of court filings for eviction and foreclosure cases remained relatively steady year over year, averaging about 18 thousand eviction cases (referred toas “landlord-tenant” cases by the Administrative Office of the Courts) and 3,300 foreclosure cases. However, the large amount of federal rental and mortgage assistance, coupled with a stay on eviction cases issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the New Mexico Supreme Court between March 2020 and April 2022, meant case filings generally dropped by half in calendar years 2020 and 2021 and began rising again in 2022. However, unlike Oregon and Minnesota, New Mexico’s case filings have yet to return to pre-pandemic levels.

 2. TARGETING RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR ADDITIONAL FAMILY UNIFICATION.

 HUD has a small set aside of housing choice vouchers for (1) families with children whose lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in those children either being placed in foster or other out-of-home care or is keeping a family with children in foster care from being reunified and (2) for children aging-out of the foster system. Called Family Unification Program (FUP) vouchers, New Mexico has 150 of these vouchers, and they are all located under either the Bernalillo County or Las Cruces public housing authorities. Since 2015, the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) has also been appropriated $900 thousand of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding for supportive housing similar to the FUP vouchers. Just like regular housing choice vouchers, these vouchers are permanent as long as the family or individual has a low-enough income to qualify for them and only become available to a new family if an existing family stops using them.

 The 150 existing vouchers in the state are likely not enough to serve the needs of all families and children that would qualify for them. Federal data shows that in 2021, 182 child maltreatment victims had a parent with inadequate housing. Furthermore, according to the 2021 Kevin S. settlement report, CYFD placed 30 children in homeless shelters in December 2021 alone. Because these families and children are at heightened risk of new or continued homelessness, the state may want to consider if and how the housing and rental assistance funding could be used to provide housing to families and youth that are on the waiting list for an FUP voucher.

 3.  DEDICATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO THE EXPANDED LANDLORD SUPPORT PROGRAM IF IT SHOWS PROMISING OUTCOMES.

 The success of the state Linkages and federal housing choice voucher program depends on the willingness of private landlords to accept the rental subsidies. Many landlords choose not to rent to housing subsidy participants because of the costs associated with inspections and meeting HUD or state housing standards, bias against low-income tenants, and an unwillingness to participate in subsidy-related bureaucracy.

 To counter this, HUD recommends monetary incentives and reimbursements for landlords. Some state governments, including Maine and Washington, have successfully used these monetary incentives to encourage participation, mitigate perceived risk, and address delays in leasing and costs for repairs. In the 2023 session, the Legislature appropriated $2.5 million for such a comprehensive landlord support program, an amount that should be more than sufficient given the experience in other states… . 

State and local governments can also help renters pay for move-in costs and utilities, as BHSD does with its Move-In program for special populations, and assist property owners with security deposits and maintenance and upgrades, as Maine does with its landlord incentive program.

NEW MEXICO HAS INCREASED THE RECURRING FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH MORTGAGE FINANCE AUTHORITY

With the new severance tax bond (STB) money, in FY24 MFA will have about $74 million available in the New Mexico housing trust fund (NMHTF)13 to support affordable housing development—more than twice the amount in any given year prior. The fund has received over $61 million in legislative appropriations since 2005, about $25 million from federal pandemic funds. In addition to appropriations, the fund also earns interest on financed loans.

TRD economists estimate the STB earmark will provide approximately $40 million annually, available for expenditure beginning FY24. According to MFA staff, the STB money can be used generally for capital expenditures, including new rental and single-family development, rehabilitation, weatherization, and down payment assistance. MFA cannot use the money for non-capital expenses, including any services, rental assistance, eviction prevention, or rental vouchers. In the past, MFA awarded almost all NMHTF money as low-interest loans to finance housing development and rehabilitation.

MFA’s board has approved increased homeowner down-payment assistance by $5 million for a total of $8.5 million and dedicated $25 million over five years in funding for the rehabilitation and preservation of existing subsidized housing – both best practices recommended by the New Mexico Housing Strategy report. The authority could also consider how to use the NMHTF funds to support innovative affordable housing development such as motel conversions. Further, MFA could consider how new NMHTF recurring funding could be used to bring new units into the Linkages program with the severance tax bond portion of the NMHTF, or through programmatic incentives with the non-severance tax bond portion.

MFA is following best practices in dedicating new NMHTF funds for preservation and rehabilitation for funding. According to HUD, preservation typically costs only one-half to two-thirds as much as new construction. At its March 2023 meeting, the MFA board approved an allocation of $25 million of its new housing trust fund monies for a new fund dedicated to the preservation of at-risk affordable housing in rural and tribal areas.

MFA reported that 4,057 MFA-funded units are at risk of exiting affordability within the next five years. MFA estimated that about one-quarter of the owners of the at-risk units would take advantage of the funding and opportunity to rehabilitate and extend subsidized affordability restrictions. Staff estimated the program would cost $5 million a year for the next five years.

The link to review the entire quoted and unedited  May 22 Legislative Finance Committee  (LFC)  Report on On Homelessness and Affordable Housing is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gXYy4y9ILSImXApZh__ZZfcs4xhTk-kh/view

NEW MEXICO MORTGAGE FINANCE AUTHORITY ANNOUNCES $53 Million For 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.

On May 30, the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority announced approval of $53 million for 5 affordable housing projects.  The funding will come in the form of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. The credits will fund the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing across the state. The project will benefit a total of 281 affordable rental units. Those units will be in Bernalillo, Sandoval and Doña Ana counties with the projects identified as follows:

Farolito Senior Community in Albuquerque ($16,228,050): Developers plan to construct 82 units on Central and Eubank, through a land lease with the state’s land lease office.

Felician Villa II in Rio Rancho ($16,217,230):  These funds will go toward building 66 units in a three-story building. Furthermore, the Felician Sisters of the Southwest provided the land for it.  A senior center, offering reduced-cost meals and educational health and wellness seminars, will be within 500 feet of the building. This project is the second phase of the larger Felician Villa project for seniors, which received a $12,287,600 tax credit award last year.

Route 66 Flats in Albuquerque ($14,170,000 award):  This project will see the construction of 48 units near Central and Unser. 33 of those units will be for permanent supportive housing for people transitioning out of homelessness.

Calle Cuarta in Albuquerque ($3,162,860): This project received $10,785,400 last year. $13,948,260 will go toward building 61 units on 4th Street, where they’ll offer a range of studios to three-bedroom apartments.  The property will also have laundry rooms on each floor, computer labs, a social service office, a fitness room and more. There will also be five retail shops along 4th Street and four groundfloor live/work units off Fitzgerald Street and 21 for-sale townhomes.

Tierra Encantada in Anthony ($3,887,820):  This money will go toward renovating this development already in the southwestern New Mexico town. When the project is done, there will be upgrades to 24 units for households with agriculture industry employees. The upgrades will extend the usable life of the homes.

The link to the news source is here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-metro/affordable-housing-projects-in-new-mexico-to-receive-53-million/?utm_source=zetaglobal&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=thumbnails

_____________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

New Mexico Has 48% Increase In Homeless With  4,000 Reported Statewide; ABQ’s Homeless Goes From 1,311 To 2,091; LFC Report Emphasizes Need For  Affordable Housing;  Need For Mental Health And Behavioral Services Ignored

 

 

On  October 18, 2022,  Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference to announce his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”. It is a “multifaceted initiative” where Keller  set the goal of adding 5,000 new housing units across the city by 2025 above and beyond what private industry normally creates each year.  According to Keller, the city is in a major “housing crisis” and the city needs between 13,000 and 28,000 new housing units.

The “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” was embodied in amendments to the Integrated Development (IDO) which is the city’s zoning laws. The IDO was enacted in 2017 and can be amended  and updated once a year. Thus far, it has been amended by the City Council well over 250 times. The proposed legislation known as O-22-54 was sponsored by City Councilors Isaac Benton and Trudy Jones.  Both Benton and Jones as well as Democrat City Councilor Pat Davis announced that they are not seeking re-election to the council with the municipal election scheduled for November 7.

To add the 5,000 new housing units, Keller proposed that the City of Albuquerque fund and be involved with the construction of new low-income housing.  The strategy includes “motel conversions” where the city buys existing motels or commercial office space and converts them into low-income housing.   It includes allowing both “casitas” and duplex additions” on existing residential properties as permissive uses and not as conditional uses.

The most controversial provision of Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” plan  was  the introduction to  the City Council of City Council Ordinance 0-22-54.  Mayor Keller has called the legislation “transformative” updates to Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) to carry out his “Housing Forward ABQ”.  The amendments contained in 0-22-54 was to allow the construction of 750 square foot casitas and 750 square foot duplex additions on every single existing R-1 residential lot that already has single family house built on it  in order to increase density. The amendments as originally proposed would allow one “casita” and one “duplex addition” with a kitchen and separate entrance to an existing structure on all built out lots.   City officials have said that 68% of the city’s existing housing is single-family detached homes with 120,000 existing residential lots with already built residences.

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

CASITAS IN, DUPLEXES OUT, JONES FLIP FLOPS AGAIN

On June 5, the Albuquerque City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting, took public comments on Mayor Keller’s  Housing Forward Initiative, O-22-54.  Well over 100 people signed up to testify before the city council,  for and against the proposed amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO).  After the June 5 meeting, the council deferred enactment of 0-22-54 to June 21 for final action by the 9-member city council.

On June 21, after hearing more public comments from upwards of 40 people, Albuquerque City council  voted 5-4 to approve the  zoning code changes with amendments made to O-22-54.  The 5 City Councilors who voted in favor of the amendments were the bill sponsors progressive Democrat Isaac Benton and Conservative Republican Trudy Jones and Progressive Democrats Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn and moderate Democrat Klarissa Pena. Voting NO were Conservative Democrat Louis Sanchez, and conservative Republicans Dan Lewis, Renee Grout and Brook Bassan.

The version of the bill that ultimately passed on a 5-4 vote was amended extensively. The city council voted to allow casita construction a “permissive use” in all single-family R–1 zone and  reduce parking requirements for some multifamily properties and changing building height limitations.  The city council voted to strike the amendment and to not allow duplexes to be permissively zoned in R–1 zone areas, which make up about two-thirds of the city.

Other amendments adopted included additional setbacks for backyard casitas of 5 feet on either the back or side of a property’s lot lines and a limit on the height of accessory dwelling units,  but not other accessory buildings,  to the same height as the main building on the lot.  The enactment of the ordinance  also paves the way for converting motel properties into housing and includes provisions to ease parking challenges at developments.

A proposed reduction to multifamily parking requirements was removed, as well as additional building height “bonuses,” which would have allowed developers to build higher when building multifamily or workforce housing.  The current iteration of the zoning code does have some building height bonuses, but the original legislation would have greatly expanded them.

The biggest point of contention dealt with by the city council was  whether casitas would be allowed as a “conditional use” mandating and application process  or  a “permissive use” giving the planning department unilateral authority to grant construction  in R–1 zones.

The amendment making casitas a  zoning conditional use passed 5-4. However,  City Councilor Trudy Jones “flipped”  her vote changing her mind, and the measure failed. This is not the first time Trudy Jones has flip flopped on a controversial zoning change to the Integrated Development Ordinance. Last year she voted NO to allow city sanctioned tent encampments for the homeless known as Safe Outdoor Spaces in all 9 city council districts only to change her mind and vote YES for Safe Outdoor Spaces, which passed on a 5-4 vote.

Because casitas known as Accessory Dwelling Units  are now zoned permissively in R–1 zones, any home or property owner living in the area would automatically be qualified for a permit to build, so long as they meet the zoning and building standards, which include lot size, accessory structure size as well as setback and height requirements. Casitas will require water and sewer lines and electric hook ups which will be above and over mere construction costs.

Property owners, homeowners and neighborhood associations who opposed casita and duplex development advocated that they be conditional use zoning and not permissive use zoning as a compromise. During the June 21 council meeting, the Keller Administration said “conditional use”  zoning would only  slow down  the permitting process at a time when urgency exists to build more housing.  The Keller Administration said that even with permissive zoning, neighborhood associations would  still invited to participate in pre-submittal meetings. For neighborhoods that don’t have a recognized neighborhood association, the closest association would be invited.

Republican City Councilor Renee Grout, who ultimately voted No on the zoning changes  has advocated for neighborhood associations throughout the months-long process. She  said the city needed to do a better job at working with the neighbor hood associations.

MAYOR KELLER REACTS

After the city council vote, Mayor Tim Keller issued the following statement:

“As mayor, I proposed bold ideas to address our housing challenges, council made reasonable changes to address neighborhood aesthetic concerns raised through the nearly 9-month input process, and we came to a solution that might not give everyone exactly what they wanted, but strikes a balance to benefit Albuquerque.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/casitas-are-in-duplexes-are-out-abq-city-council-passes-amended-zoning-code-changes/article_2acbdee8-111e-11ee-8623-57854a273505.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-city-council-approves-zoning-changes-allowing-homeowners-to-rent-out-casitas/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-city-council-rejects-mayoral-power-overhaul-passes-housing-ordinance/

PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL

From December of 202 to March 20, 2023, the Keller Administration held 6 public meetings at various quadrants of the city to promote and educate the general public on the “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”. All 5 public meeting were very well attended and upwards 500 people attended in total. Keller Administration officials, including the Mayor’s Office, the Family Community Services Department, the Planning Department and the Albuquerque Police Department all made presentation on the various aspects of the “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” using slide presentations.

The presentations lasted for one hour and included explaining motel conversations, allowing casita and duplex development on 68% of the city zoned for residential development, changes to the nuisance abatement laws and low income housing efforts The proposals for motel conversions and casita and duplex development were met with hostility and mistrust by an overwhelming majority of property and homeowners. The Keller Administration repeatedly pointed out that if anyone objected to the “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” they would have to contact their city councilor. Not a single city counselor attended any one of the meetings and it is unknown to what extent the Keller Administration forwarded to the City Council public comments and concerns.  However, it is known that no changes were made to the “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” base on the public comments made at the meetings.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone, especially established neighborhood associations for historic areas of the city like Barelas and the South Broadway and Martineztown area, that so called Progressive Democrat Isaac Benton and conservative Republican Trudy Jones carried the water for Mayor Tim Keller and were the sponsors of Keller’s Housing Forward ABQ plan legislation amending the IDO.  Both city councilors had a distain for the previous comprehensive zoning code that was replaced by the IDO.  Both voted for the enactment of the IDO in 2017.  Both Benton and Jones have voted for and are in support of “motel conversions” and “Safe Outdoor Spaces”.

Democrat Benton is a retired architect and Republican Jones is a retired real estate agent and both have contempt for many of the sector development plans that placed limitations on developers, especially in historical areas of the city.

Benton for years has advocated for major changes to ease up on restrictions on secondary dwelling units, casitas, in backyards over the objections of his own progressive constituents and the historical areas of the city he represents.  Benton admitted it when he said this:

“We’ve had these arguments over the years with some of my most progressive neighborhoods that don’t even want to have a secondary dwelling unit be allowed in their backyard or back on the alley. … You know, we’ve got to change that discussion. We have to open up for our neighbors, of all walks of life, to be able to live and work here.”

Republican Jones throughout her 16 years on the city council has always been considered in the pockets of the real estate and the development communities over the interests of property owners and neighborhoods. Over the years, she has received literally thousands of dollars in contributions from both the real estate industry and the development industry each time she has run for city council.  She has never gone the “public finance” route and has always privately financed her city council campaigns.  She was also the sponsor of the amendment to the IDO that removed the mandatory requirement for public input for special uses giving more authority to the planning department.

A WINK AND A NOD TO DEVELOPERS

It is downright disgusting that so called Progressive Democrats Issac Benton, Pat Davis, and Tammy Fiebelkorn have thrown their support behind the real estate development and investment community who are more interested in “profit over people” to the detriment of their own Districts.  Benton, Davis and Jones are  leaving the City Council in 5 months, so they really do not give a s— what their constituents have to  say.  That is ditto for Fiebelkorn who has offended and insulted  many of her constituents with her condescending and abrasive personality.

Fiebelkorn even cozied up to developers by giving a bus tour for “investment sites and projects”. On June 7, City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn boasted to the District 7 Neighborhood Association Coalition that she would be giving the local chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Park (NAIOP) personnel a bus tour of District 7 on June 8 to look at possible “investment sites and projects”  and she followed through with the bus tour.

It does not take a mental genius to figure out what NAIOP was  up to when it takes a bus tour of District 7 for “investment sites and projects.” It is looking for residential properties to target for casitas and duplex development. NAIOP has endorsed allowing casita and duplex development on all residential property in the city. NAIOP is considered the most influential business and political organizations in the city. It boasts membership of over 300 of developers, contractors and investors. It has its own Political Action Committee for lobbying and supports candidates for office.

NAIOP membership consistently bids on city construction contracts and contributes to races for city council and mayor usually Republican candidates. In 2013, NAIOP made the enactment of the Integrated Development Ordinance a major priority which repealed many sector development plans enacted over 50 years that protected neighborhoods and historical areas of the city.

Lets hope those that replace Benton, Davis and Jones will actually listen to their constituents which would be a welcome change by any measure for all three of their districts.  Benton, Davis and Fiebelkorn all 3 falsely argue that more density will lower rents and create affordable housing. That is not how the market forces work and they know that. Landlords and realtors will always charge what the market will bear and  could not care less about low income housing let alone affordable housing. Rents and home values never come down, and the best that can be hoped for is that they stabilize.  Mayor Tim Keller calls himself a Progressive Democrat as he gives a wink and a nod to the business and development community with his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” that overwhelming favors developers over neighborhoods.

The housing shortage is related to economics, the development community’s inability to keep up with supply and demand and the public’s inability to purchase housing or qualify for housing mortgage loans.  The shortage of rental properties has resulted in dramatic increases in rents. Keller effectively used the short-term housing “crunch” to declare a “housing crisis” to allow the city council to shove his Housing Forward ABQ Plan down the throats of city property owners.  Keller  advocated  zoning changes to increase density by severely relaxing zoning restrictions to favor investors and the developers that will destroy entire neighborhoods.

Supporters of casitas  argued throughout the process they are needed to increase density, create affordable housing and to get away from “urban sprawl”.  They repeatedly made  the misleading representation that many within the community want additional housing for extended families making reference to “mother-in-law quarters”.  Calling casitas “mother-in-law quarters” is nothing more than a ploy to make the proposal palatable to the general public.

PREDICTION OF THINGS TO COME

Reclassification zoning of all R-1 single-family lots to allow for casita development will encourage large private investors and real estate developers, including out-of-state corporate entities, to buy up distressed properties to lease and convert whole blocks into casita rental areas.  This has already happened in the South area of the University of New Mexico dramatically degrading the character of neighborhoods and the city as a whole. It will now happen, or is already happening, in the South East Heights International District and historic areas of downtown.

To put the argument in perspective, an individual investor will be able to purchase single-family homes to rent and then build a separate 750-square-foot free-standing casita. The result is a one-home rental being converted into 2 separate rental units, doubling investment and income. Such development will increase an area’s property values and property taxes. It will also decrease the availability of affordable homes and raise rental prices even higher. It will increase gentrification in the more historical areas of the city as generational residents will be squeezed out by the developers and with increases in property taxes.

The Keller Administration has never discussed the actual cost of construction of 750 square foot casitas or even duplex remodeling. They simply presume property owners will be able to afford to do it themselves which is not at all  likely given the high cost of construction and materials.  Home builders serving the Albuquerque area estimate the cost to build residents in Albuquerque is between $175 to $275 per square foot. It’s a cost that equally applies to casitas.  To build and construct a 750 foot casita  at the $175 foot construction cost would be $131,425 (750 sq ft X 175 = $131,421). These are just actual construction costs.  The addition of plumbing, sewer, electrical and gas hook ups and permits will likely add an additional $30,000 to $50,000 to the final construction costs of a casita.

Very few people have the financial ability to invest another $130,000 to $150,000 in homes they already own. The casitas will be used predominantly by outside investors and developers as rental units. More outside investors are buying multifamily properties around the city. According to New Mexico Apartment Advisors CEO Todd Clarke, there are currently 1,999 investors looking in the Albuquerque multifamily market, a number that has increased sixfold since before the pandemic.

People buy single detached homes wanting to live in low density neighborhoods not high density areas that will reduce their quality of life and the peaceful use and enjoyment of their homes and families.  Allowing a casita or for that matter any duplex development, which in all likelihood will be rentals on single family properties, will seriously damage the character of any neighborhood.

FINAL COMMENTARY

People buy their most important asset, their home, with the expectation they can trust the city not to change substantially the density, quality and appearance of their neighborhood. What happened with the enactment of Keller’s Housing Forward ABQ Plan and amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance was a breach of trust between home owners, property owners  and the city and its elected officials who put “profits over people” to benefit the development and investment industry.

Links to related blog articles:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2023/04/11/an-in-depth-analysis-of-mayor-kellers-housing-forward-abq-plan-plan-met-with-hostility-and-mistrust-by-public-viewed-as-destroying-neighborhoods-to-benefit-developers-apr/

Mayor Tim Keller’s Heavy Hand Promotes Development Interests To Detriment Of Established Or Historical Neighborhoods As He Seeks Sweeping Changes To Increase Residential Density; “Safe Outdoor Spaces”, “Casitas” And “Motel Conversions” Are Zoning Abominations The City Council Needs To Reject