On June 21, the Albuquerque City Council voted 6  NO to 3 YES to reject and place on the November 7 ballot a City Charter amendment that would have created a city-manager form of government. The city’s Mayor-Council form of government has existed for over 50 years and was implemented by voters in 1972 in a landslide vote to replace the city commission-city manager form of government.

The Charter Amendment was sponsored by first term city councilors Democrat City Councilor Louie Sanchez and Republican Renee Grout. The charter amendment if past by voters would have transferred all the mayor’s executive and city management duties and authority to a city manager chosen by the city council. The mayor would preside over city council meetings and vote at council meetings only in the event of a tie. The city council appointed city manager would assume the powers held by the mayor, including the authority to appoint the police chief and other department directors and organize city government.

According to the proposed legislation, the mayor would “be recognized as the head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes.” It is commonly referred to as a “weak-mayor” form of city government.  On June 5, the city council voted to amend the resolution to make the Mayor a 10^th voting member of the council which could have resulted in tie votes.

At least 6 of the 9 city councilors were required to vote to put the measure on the November 7 ballot. Voting YES were Conservative Democrat City Councilor Louis Sanchez and Conservative Republicans Renee Grout and Dan Lewis. Voting NO were Progressive Democrats Tammy Feibelcorn, Pat Davis, Isaac Benton, moderate Democrat Klarissa Pena and Conservative Republicans Trudy Jones and Brook Basaan.

Had the Charter Amendment been approved by voters, the change would not have gone into effect until the next mayoral election in 2025.  The measure would have affected future mayors, not current Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller. Keller was first elected in 2017 and was elected to a second term in 2021.

COUNCIL DEBATES

During the debate on the resolution, City Councilor Louis Sanchez argued that the change in government was needed saying “This system isn’t working.” He pointed to several issues as proof.  He included the housing crisis and lack of affordable housing, the homeless crisis, the city’s high crime rates and the  shortage of police officers.  Sanchez argued that  a city council-city manager system, without an administration turnover every 4 years with a mayoral election, would provide more long-term solutions and stability.

Republican Brook Bassan and Democrat Pat Davis both expressed concerns about the amendment adding the mayor as a 10th voting member, saying that legislation could get stuck in a 5-5 vote gridlock and grind the city to a halt. Davis called the amendment a “poison pill” to the resolution that made him unable to vote for it and  send it to voters.

Other city councilors expressed the concern that if the charter amendment went before voters in November as proposed, voters would misunderstand it and view the vote as a referendum on Mayor Tim Keller  or  think a “yes” vote might remove him from office. City Councilor Brook Bassan said this:

“There are more people than not that think this will get rid of Mayor Tim Keller. … That is not what this is a proposal of. This is a proposal to take away the democratic process.”

KELLER OPPOSITION

The Keller Administration argued against the charter amendment resolution saying the move would be a step backward, and that having an elected mayor in charge ensures better accountability. Mayor Tim Keller strenuously opposed the Charter Amendment measure early on when it was first introduced and at the time  his office issued the following statement:

“We are committed to working with Council and taking a hard look at how we can work more efficiently, but an extreme change to our form of government is not the answer.  This proposal would drastically alter Albuquerque’s local government, eliminating individual accountability and checks and balances, placing all city power into a committee and an unelected city manager.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2599155/albuquerque-city-council-takes-up-weak-mayor-proposal.html

UNION OPPOSTION TO CHARTER AMENDMENT

What was not at all surprising is that the charter amendment drew major opposition from city union members and representatives. Mayor Tim Keller  both times he has run for Mayor has gotten union endorsements.  At the beginning of the meeting, at least one third of the city council chamber seats were filled with members of the Carpenters Local Union 1319 wearing orange T-Shirts to stand in opposition to the charter amendment.

Union government affairs consultant for the Southwest Mountain Regional Council of Carpenters Matthew Capably, said the charter amendment proposal was the city council looking  for somewhere where  the “grass is always greener.” Capably told the council this:

“I have dealt both with strong mayor municipalities and strong manager-council municipalities. … And I have to say, the strong mayor structure is better. It’s more accountable. It’s more transparent. You don’t have an unaccountable, appointed bureaucrat that isn’t accountable to the voters.”

Fire Department Miguel Titman, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 244, echoed Capalby’s statements, saying that he’d spoken with labor leaders across the Southwest about their relationship with a council-manager form of government. Titman said this:

“What I found is that there was one city that enjoyed (it) because they had a good relationship with their city manager. …  The rest did not … so when in my position, I would like to negotiate, I’d like to deal with someone with executive authority.”

Links to the quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-city-council-votes-down-weak-mayor-proposal/article_b2afe3b2-1101-11ee-bd13-e721a2056692.html

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

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/albuquerque-city-council-makes-decision-over-mayoral-powers/

POLITCAL DRAMA THROWN IN FOR GOOD MEASURE

The final vote came with a little political drama thrown in for good measure during the debate leading up to the final vote. Conservative Democrat Louis Sanchez, co sponsor of the charter amendment resolution, had a little hot temper tantrum when it was revealed that University of New Mexico Political Science Professor Paul Krebs was paid by the Keller Administration to do research and to who testified in opposition to the city council-city manager Charter Amendment.  Krebs has a history of being hired by the Keller Administration to do research and give his opinions. Krebs  did so with Mayor Keller’s ABQ Housing Forward Plan and the  proposed amendments to the city’s zoning laws to increase housing density.

Krebs had testified before the city council and made the very strong case that the city’s existing Mayor-City Council form of government represented the “best of both worlds”.  Krebs pointed out that the city’s existing strong Mayor-City Council form of government requires the appointment of a Chief Administrative Officer who is required to be approved with a vote by the city council. The Chief Administrative Officer oversees the day-to-day operations of the city and the city’s personnel rules and regulations with the duties and responsibilities being identical to that of a city manager.  The current Chief Administrative Officer is Lawrence Rael who has served under 3 Mayors and is paid over $200,000 a year.

UNM Politcal Science Professor Timothy Krebs went so far as to write a guest opinion column published on May 18 by the Albuquerque Journal.  In his Journal guest opinion column, Krebs said a city council-manager system would weaken democracy in Albuquerque. Krebs  wrote that “Albuquerque’s strong-mayor council system is rooted is a separation of powers arrangement. The city council is the legislative branch, while the mayor is a strong executive with the power to appoint officials and veto.” Krebs argued a city council-city manager form of government concentrates too much power within the city council with no oversight by the Mayor.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2599698/council-manager-system-strong-mayor-council-system.html

The Keller Administration for its part defended the hiring of Krebs saying he was hired to do “factual research” on the city’s existing form of government and how it works. Councilor Sanchez was not having anything to do with what Krebs had to say.  Sanchez repeatedly referred to Krebs as a “paid advocate” and was very dismissive of all he had to say.

The mistake the Keller Administration and Krebs made from the get go was failing to disclose that Krebs was on contract and being paid. The problem is the deception.  The Keller Administrations failed to mention that Krebs was being paid for speaking and Krebs failed to make it clear he was not representing UNM. Failure to omit a fact is misleading and considered a lie.  City Council President Pat Davis had asked if Krebs was being paid to speak and was told by the administration he was not. 

What is very  disingenuous about the Sanchez outburst over Krebs is the fact the City Council retained the services of an out of state consultant to make a presentation on the benefits of a city council city manager form of government.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is very little doubt what was actually motivating Sanchez, Grout  and Lewis to vote for  the Charter amendment for a change in the City’s form government to a weak mayor form of government with a city manager appointed by the council. It is their  personal dislike for Mayor Tim Keller and many of his progressive policies.

Keller has repeatedly out maneuvered the City Council with his veto. In the last 17 months, Sanchez and Grout have tried and have failed to override at least 5 Keller vetoes. They failed to stop Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” which will allow 750 square foot casitas and duplexes in all residential back yards.  They have failed to hold Mayor Keller accountable for impropriety, such as the violation of the anti-donation clause with the $236,622 purchase of artificial turf for the Rio Rancho Events Center for the benefit of the privately owned New Mexico Gladiator’s.

AND THEN THERE’S DAN

What was not at all surprising with the Charter Amendment vote is that City Councilor Dan Lewis voted for it.  In case anyone has forgotten, Dan Lewis ran unsuccessfully for Mayor against Tim Keller in 2017 when Keller won the 2017 runoff by a decisive landslide with 62.20% to Lewis 37.8%. District 9 Conservative Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis previously served two terms on the City Council from 2009 to 2017. Never once for 8 years  did he complain that the strong Mayor form of government was not working as he supported and voted for all things Mayor Berry pushed including the disastrous ART bus project on central. On November 2, 2021 Lewis defeated incumbent Democrat Cynthia Borrego who had replaced him 4 years ago.

Since returning to the city council Dan Lewis has emerged as one of the harshest critics of Mayor Tim Keller so much so that once he was sworn into office, he immediately introduced 4 separate resolutions outlining what he intended to pursue to hold Mayor Tim Keller and his administration accountable for past actions. Those resolutions were:

1. Repeal the 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax enacted IN 2014.The city council enacted a 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax 5 years ago on an 8-1 bipartisan city council vote. Keller singned off on it breaking his pledge not to raise taxes, even for public safety, without a public vote. Lewis proclaimed the tax a financial crutch the city did not need and reversal would put money “back into the pockets of hard-working Albuquerque citizens.” During the April 4 city council meeting the Lewis resolution calling for the repeal of the gross receipts tax hit a “brick wall” when the legislation failed on a 1 to 8 vote. Lewis was the only city councilor to vote for his legislation.

2. Bar the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce. It was on March 21 that the Albuquerque the City Council passed the Dan Lewis City Council resolution that prohibited imposing an employee vaccine mandate and from penalizing those who do not. On April 2,  Mayor Tim Keller vetoed the anti-vaccine measure. In his veto message to the City Council, Mayor Keller wrote that city leaders have more pressing concerns than “manufactured ideological disputes” and noted that he has never imposed a COVID-19 vaccine requirement and Keller said “In this context a ban on vaccine mandates is an answer in search of a question.” The city council failed to override the veto not having the necessary 6 votes to override Keller’s veto

3. Repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency. The resolution revoked most of the mayoral public health emergency authority the City Council added at the onset of the pandemic. The resolution past the city council on a 5 to 4 vote, Mayor Keller vetoed it and the council failed to override the veto.

4. Direct the city administration to consider and “to the extent advisable,” push to renegotiate the terms of the federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement was entered into on November 14, 2014 after a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation found that APD engaged in a pattern of excessive use of force and deadly force and had a “culture of aggression.”The City Council Resolution can only be considered “for show” by Lewis in that it will have no affect on the settlement. The settlement is a Federal Court Order that the City Council has no authority over.

More recently City Councilor Dan Lewis gave a rebuttal of Mayor Tim Keller’s 2023 State of the City address that falls in line with his personal vendetta against Keller. The rebuttal was published by the Albuquerque Journal wherein Lewis proclaimed that Keller was out of touch and did not recognize what the city has become.

Privately Lewis has made it known to many of his supporters that he intends to run for Mayor again in 2025, especially against Tim Keller if Keller seeks a third term. From the very get go of his return to the city council, Lewis has made it is clear he intends to be as disruptive as possible on the city council in order to generate the news coverage he so covets to run for Mayor again in 2025.

If Dan Lewis is indeed running for Mayor in 2025, the only real reason why he would  vote to change the city’s form of government to a weak mayor form of government is  to embarrass Mayor Tim Keller forcing Keller to campaign.  Dan Lewis no doubt wants to argue things have gotten so bad under Keller that the city needs to change its form of government or get rid of Keller in 2025 and elect Dan Lewis.

 On Wednesday June 21 the Albuquerque City Council has schedule a final vote on O-22-54  and the casita and duplex amendments  to the city’s zoning code and laws known  as the Integrated Development Ordinance.  The council will limit public comments at the June 21 meeting to 1 minute per person. The meeting will begin at 5:000 and will be  held in the Vincent E. Griego Council Chambers, basement level of the City of Albuquerque Government Center, 1 Civic Plaza NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. 

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.

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 amendment will allow one “casita” and one “duplex addition” with a kitchen and separate entrance to an existing structure on all built out lots which could double density to 240,000 housing units or triple density to 360,000 housing units.

GUEST OPINION COLUMNS PUBLISHED

The following 3 guest opinion columns were published by the Albuquerque Journal, www.PeteDinelli.com and the New Mexico Sun on June 20, June 19 and May 10 respectively:

DIANNE TERRY ABQ JOURNAL GUEST COLUMN

June 20, 2023

ABQ JOURNAL HEADLINE: “ABQ Housing Forward Zone Change Will Downgrade Our City”

By Dianne Terry

Albuquerque Resident

“Regarding the mayor’s Housing Forward proposed changes to single-family zoning that would allow anyone to build duplexes and casitas, aka tiny homes, in backyards, the mayor wants to say the lack of affordable housing is the cause of homelessness. We all know there are various factors, with generational lack of education being right up there at the top of the list.

Don’t be fooled. I wish these proposals were sincerely and totally about affordable housing, but these proposed changes to R-1 zoning show that they have more to do with real estate investors and developers making money and with questionable results as to the affordability of the housing created.

According to one internet site, the cost of living in Albuquerque is 2% lower than the state average and 7% lower than the national average. Albuquerque housing is 12% cheaper than the U.S. average, while utilities are about 8% less pricey.

People moving here from out of state have no problem with affordability. What our city should be tending to are the causes of why are residents can not afford these rates. It is more than questionable that these changes to R-1 zoning will solve the education, salary and drug problems that are influencing housing problems.

This process has tried to fly under the radar to deny thousands of homeowners their input. Major zone changes are not updates. The Housing Forward proposals to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) are a change, not an update, and should not have been approved at the Environmental Planning Commission update hearing in November. Blanket approval for duplexes and casitas is not appropriate.

The city wants to cram people together to create more density to get more federal money. Is this for housing, and how are they accountable for it?

Ventana Fund was awarded $580,405 by the U.S. Treasury to fund rehabilitation and construction of small affordable rental projects throughout the state. Mom-and-pop property owners can now get loans to rehabilitate them. There are a number of new affordable apartments under construction. There are abandoned strip malls that could become apartments. There are houses up for auction that will bolster the housing supply. I question why you have to take our housing.

The current IDO has some beautiful language about recognizing our distinct communities and neighborhoods. If the city destroys existing single family housing, none of it will be desirable. Is this what we want to achieve? It is not the desired outcome for me. Change R-1 zoning under this proposal, and there is only a downgrade to our city.

I would like the city to give more attention to maintaining the neighborhoods’ character and safety. Neighborhoods and the people in them are the heart and mystique of Albuquerque, not the nationally created slogans like One Albuquerque and Housing Forward. Try harder to find an Albuquerque solution to housing. …

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/where-are-casitas-permitted-in-the-albuquerque-metro-area/article_c8856068-0ee0-11ee-83cc-efa31b7ab91b.html

GUEST COLUMN BY PATRICIA D. WILLSON 

 JUNE 19, 2023

DINELLI BLOG HEADLINE: “KELLER’S HOUSING FORWARD ORDINANCE SETS A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT!”

By PATRICIA D. WILLSON

“The Mayor’s Housing Forward Initiative, O-22-54, is a package of six transformative zoning changes that were tag-teamed along with the 49 Citywide Amendments in the 2022 IDO Annual Update. By law, the Integrated Development Ordinance must be updated every year. This update has a specific 3-step process—a process that was side-stepped by Housing Forward.

 “A comprehensive plan contains the vision, goals, and policies for growth and development, and the zoning code contains the regulations to implement that vision.” ¹

 “The purpose of the IDO is to: Implement the adopted Albuquerque / Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan, as amended.”²

 After the adoption of IDO, nearly every presentation by the Planning Department included an image of a table covered with stacks of plans, then the same table with only two plans on it. The out-of-state consultant that reduced this stack of sector plans to two documents—the Comprehensive Plan and the IDO—was paid at least $1.5 million.³ 

The revised two documents are only five years old. And yet we are now being told by Mayor Keller they are out of date and in need of transformative changes.

Since the IDO’s first annual update in 2019, residents have been asking for a better process. For three years residents have been asking for Council to:

 Establish metrics to determine a status of technical or substantive for all IDO amendments.

 Require all substantive IDO amendments to be addressed through the CPA Assessment process.

 Analysis by the Planning Department would provide:

 Impact and beneficiary statements

• Review of unintended consequences
• Examples including maps and diagrams
• Pro and Con public comments

 Using the IDO Annual Update process to pass major substantive zoning changes sets a terrible precedent. Last year’s Safe Outdoor Space amendment clearly showed the unintended consequences of poorly written, ill-conceived crisis legislation. That fracas will pale in comparison to Housing Forward—once it’s passed and people see what’s in it…

The taxpayers of Albuquerque paid good money for a good Comprehensive Plan with a valuable long-range Community Planning Area assessment process. Please do not throw that out.

There are options that would provide for more ADUs permissively: for example, at the first EPC hearing, I suggested an amendment to double the width of Premium Transit Corridors. What about the stalled multi-family project planned for Central and Vassar, and the 130 apartments planned for the conversion of the 10-story office tower at 300 San Mateo NE?  Those two projects alone will add ≈ 230 units.

 According to the Apartment Association of NM, there are currently 40 communities—5,328 new apartments—under construction.⁴   Finish those and re-vamp the 1,200-1,300 vacant, abandoned or substandard houses in Albuquerque.⁵   That puts us well over the Mayor’s goal of 5,000 housing units.

 Everyone agrees we have a housing problem in Albuquerque. Everyone agrees we have a homeless problem. Private equity firms owning dozens of multi-family apartments cause more harm to housing availability than the lack of ADUs permissively in R-1 zoning. Many of our unhoused population need Permanent Supportive Housing, not a casita.

 As I have repeated ad infinitum, I am not against casitas, duplexes, infill, gentle density, missing middle housing. Somehow this argument has morphed into ‘Opposition to O-22-54 = you hate my grandma’. 

  There is a 50+ year history of valuable planning efforts in the city; shelved plans, disregard of ideas and loss of institutional memory is just sad…

 At the June 5^th Council meeting, O-22-54 was “continued” rather than “deferred.” That means on June 21^st,  Councilors will pick up the ordinance right where they left off; discussing eleven confusing and contradictory Floor Amendments.

 Unlike a deferral, a continuance does not allow additional public comment. Because the package of Citywide Amendments (O-23-77) was approved on June 5^th, the IDO update requirement has been fulfilled. Council does not need to pass Housing Forward, nor should they—changes this dramatic should be the purview of the next Council that will have to deal with the ramifications of this legislation.

 I urge you to call and/or write your Councilor. Go here to learn more and sign this petition asking your Councilor to Vote NO on O-22-54:

https://www.change.org/p/ask-city-council-to-vote-no-on-housing-forward-o-22-54?redirect=false”

 WILLSON GUEST COLUMN FOOTNOTES

¹  https://abq-zone.com/abc-z-frequently-asked-questions-faqs (under question ‘How does a Comprehensive Plan relate to the Zoning Code?’)

² https://abq-zone.com/integrated-development-ordinance-ido Part 14-16-1 General Provisions, 1-3 Purpose

³ https://cabq.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2099303&GUID=2297F7BA-5FE4-4A8E-9845-8056F22558B3&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=Comprehensive+Plan (click on EC-14-219)

⁴ https://www.aanm.org/news/list-of-apartments-under-construction-in-albuquerque

⁵ https://www.cabq.gov/council/documents/vacant-abandoned-houses-task-force-final-final-report-1-17-18.pdf

NEW MEXICO SUN DINELLI OPINION COLUMN

MAY 10, 2023

NM Sun Headline: “Tim Keller’s Shanty Town Of Casitas, Duplexes And Homeless Encampments”

BY: Pete Dinelli

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

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

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

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

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

The Keller Administration has never discussed the actual cost of construction of 750 square foot casitas and duplex remodeling. They simply presume property owners will be able to afford to do it themselves which is not 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 and duplex development.  To build and construct a 750 foot casita or duplex at the $175 foot construction cost would be $131,425 (750 sq ft X 175 = $131,421) and to build both $262,848.  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.

Very few people have the financial ability to invest another $130,000 to $250,000 in homes they already own. The casitas and duplexes will be used predominantly by 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.

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 is using the short-term housing “crunch” to declare a “housing crisis” to shove his Housing Forward ABQ Plan down the throats of city property owners.

 Keller is advocating zoning changes to increase density by severely relaxing zoning restrictions to favor investors and the developers that will destroy entire neighborhoods.  Tell City Council to vote NO on Keller’s plan.”

The link to the New Mexico Sun column is here:

https://newmexicosun.com/stories/642064765-tim-keller-s-shanty-town-of-casitas-duplexes-and-homeless-encampments

FINAL COMMENTARY

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 duplex addition, which in all likelihood will be rentals on single family properties, will seriously damage the character of any  neighborhood.  This will be a breach of trust between home owners and the city. 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.

Supporters of casita and duplex development argue it is needed to increase density, create affordable housing and to get away from “urban sprawl”.  They repeatedly make 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. 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 city council should defer action on the amendments until after the November municipal election and let the new council decide.  If not, the council should vote NO on Mayor Keller’s casita and duplex amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance.

CONTACT YOUR CITY COUNCILOR

The email addresses and phone numbers to contact each City Councilor and the Director of Counsel services to voice your opinion are as follows:

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

EMAIL ADDRESSES

lesanchez@cabq.gov
louiesanchez@allstate.com
ibenton@cabq.gov
kpena@cabq.gov
bbassan@cabq.gov
danlewis@cabq.gov
LEWISABQ@GMAIL.COM
patdavis@cabq.gov
tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov
trudyjones@cabq.gov
rgrout@cabq.gov
cmelendrez@cabq.gov

On November 14, 2014, the City, APD and Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a stipulated Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement was the result of an 18-month long investigation that found APD had engaged in an pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force”,  and  found a “culture of aggression” existed within the APD.   The settlement mandates 271 police reforms, the appointment of a Federal Monitor and the filing of Independent Audit reports (IMRs) on the reforms.  Over 9 years, 17 audit reports have been filed with the Federal Court.

Under the terms of the CASA, once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in 3 identified compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed. APD was supposed to have come into compliance within 4 years and the case was to be dismissed in 2018, but because of delay tactics from APD management and the Police Union, the case has dragged on for 5 more years.

On May 10, 2023 the 17th audit report was filed and reported APD’s compliance levels were reported as follows:

• Primary Compliance 100%
• Secondary Compliance 100% 
• Operational Compliance 92% 

The 3 compliance levels are explained as follows:

PRIMARY COMPLIANCE

Primary compliance is the “policy” part of compliance. To attain primary compliance, APD must have in place operational policies and procedures designed to guide officers, supervisors and managers in the performance of the tasks outlined in the CASA. As a matter of course, the policies must be reflective of the requirements of the CASA; must comply with national standards for effective policing policy; and must demonstrate trainable and evaluable policy components.

SECONDARY COMPLIANCE

Secondary compliance is attained by implementing supervisory, managerial and executive practices designed to and be effective in implementing the policy as written, e.g., sergeants routinely enforce the policies among field personnel and are held accountable by managerial and executive levels of the department for doing so. By definition, there should be operational artifacts such as reports, disciplinary records, remands to retraining, follow-up, and even revisions to policies if necessary, indicating that the policies developed in the first stage of compliance are known to, followed by, and important to supervisory and managerial levels of the department.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency e.g., line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance, not by the monitoring staff, but by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies.

Operational Compliance is considered the most difficult to implement and achieve. The 15^th and 16^th  reports released in 2022 saw significant gains in Operational Compliance but the 17^th  has brought APD  the closest it has ever been to full compliance with 92% reported and with 95% needed to be achieved and sustained for 2 years in all 3 compliance levels.

JUNE 6 STATUS CONFERENCE

On June 6, United State Federal District Cour Judge James Browning, who is assigned the case, held a hearing on the 17^th Federal Monitor’s Report. Federal Monitor James Ginger gave a report on the contents of his 17^th Monitor’s report.  The City, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD), the Department of Justice and other stakeholders gave updates into what the progress APD made in implementing the reforms and what is left to do for APD to reach full compliance with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) mandated reforms.

During the June 6 hearing, Independent Monitor James Ginger noted that in his 17^th quarterly report he found APD had reached 92% “operational compliance” which is 12% higher than his 16^th report. This by far is the highest percentage reached by APD in the last 9 years.  It was a mere 3 years ago that Ginger said APD was on the brink of “catastrophic failure”.

It was in 2020 and 2021 when APD had set backs and had a backslide in the 3 compliance levels.  Things began to turn around only after APD    leadership changed along with the creation  of the External Force Investigation Team ( EFIT)  which was brought in to clear a case backlog intentionally caused by APD’s failure to investigate 667 use of force cases  and train IAFD investigators on how to conduct quality and timely investigations. The delay in the investigations was so bad that no disciplinary action could be taken for policy violations per the police union contract.

During the June 6 hearing, Ginger applauded APD’s progress  with the reforms as “remarkable”.  Ginger also cautioned  against complacency.  Ginger told Judge Browning this:

“The progress that we’ve seen of late is true progress. It’s not window dressing, it’s not I say ‘we’ll do it’ and it doesn’t happen. … Things are changing at APD and that’s reflected by those compliance findings.”

Ginger reported it was a “major milestone” that the Internal Affairs Force Division could soon be working without the oversight of the independent contractor.

Alexander Uballez, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, said despite the department’s “apparent numerical proximity” to full compliance, its sustained efforts post-CASA will be critical. Uballez told the court this:

“Most of all, I know that no compliance percentage will convince us that this decade long journey has been a success if use of force is unabated. …  I have cautious optimism [over] …  significant drops in APD’s use of force over the past three years. … Now, this is not a ‘mission accomplished’ banner. But this is great evidence… that, despite the rocky road that we have traveled to get here, there is hard evidence that APD and the City of Albuquerque is back at the table willingly and with a full heart.”

PROGRESS REPORTED

During the June 6 hearing, Ginger’ monitoring team and DOJ attorneys gave reports on the progress made with the settlement reforms.  All lauded the improvements APD made in investigating use of force cases, officer training and its ability to monitor itself in many areas, as well as to the city for diverting thousands of calls for service involving those in crisis to the Albuquerque Community Safety department. It was reported that some problems remain such as with the civilian oversight process, use of force cases still being misclassified and issues within the Force Review Board’s operations.

The monitoring team found that APD remains out of compliance in 23 paragraphs of the CASA and of those, 11 involve civilian oversight, 8 involve use of force investigations, 3 involve the early intervention system, which collects data on individual officers’ use of force, and 1 involves discipline.

Stephen Rickman, with the monitoring team, said compliance with civilian oversight has been marred by lack of leadership and low staffing at the Civilian Police Oversight Agency. This lack of leadership led to a trickle-down effect of large caseloads and untimely investigations of complaints.  Rickman said a new ordinance passed by the Albuquerque city council in January should help gain compliance in the long run, fixing flaws in the initial ordinance and clearing up confusion on board members’ roles. Rickman said to gain compliance in those 11 paragraphs the Citizens Police Oversight Agency must be fully staffed, revise the training curriculum and put in place an audit process for the cases the board had investigated.

Jared Hager, and attorney with the Department of Justice told the court that APD’s remaining compliance in use of force relies on clearing the 667 case backlog of use of force cases, improvements in the Force Review Board’s operations and the Internal Affairs Department (IAFD) operating without the oversight of the External Force Investigation Team (EFIT). Hager said IAFD is closer to operating on its own with 8 investigators having graduated from EFIT’s supervision, although 2 of those have since left IAFD.  He said 5 more are on the verge of graduating.  Once all investigators are graduated, EFIT can devote those supervisors to clearing the case backlog.

Phil Coyne, with the monitor’s team, said the Force Review Board still showed some deficiencies with engagement, sparse documentation of meetings and misclassifying use of force in the last monitoring period.  Notwithstanding, Coyne said there have been a lot of improvement in the Force Review Board (FRB), but he cautioned against “complacency.”  He said the FRB sets the tone of reforms and “has a cascading effect of intent through”.

Taylor S. Rahn, and attorney with the law firm of Robles, Rael and Anaya,  PC that has been contracted by the city, said APD had achieved compliance with 30 new paragraphs in the most recent quarter.  She reported that recent amendments made to the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) accounted for only 2% of the 12% compliance gained. Rahn said a third of the CASA, or 80 paragraphs, is now being self-monitored by APD and the department is tracking its own compliance in those areas. She said another 50 paragraphs are eligible for self-assessment, which has to be signed off on by the DOJ.

Paul Killebrew, the Deputy  Chief over the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, said the department had reached compliance in 215 of the 238 paragraphs of the CASA. Killebrew told the court:

“That is a significant achievement and the city and APD are to be commended for their hard work on this. … It is possible, if all current efforts remain on track, that Albuquerque will reach full compliance with the consent decree during this calendar year.”

Killibrew said APD’s early intervention system, which he called a “frustrating, massive” technology project, is finally operational. He said to gain compliance the department will need to prove that supervisors are using the database “appropriately in their day-to-day supervision.”  Killibrew said the monitor’s team also identified 3 cases of a sampling where discipline was not handed out in a timely manner, keeping APD out of compliance in one paragraph.  He noted, “Those timeliness issues we expect to be resolved going forward, because the operations of internal affairs are vastly improved.”

Killebrew said the DOJ is in talks with the city to terminate those paragraphs of the CASA that have been in sustained compliance and self-monitoring for 2 years. He said APD would have to sustain full compliance in all paragraphs for two years before the consent decree would be fulfilled.  Killebrew estimated that could happen as early as 2026.

PROGRESS CHALLENGED

Towards the end of the June 6 hearing, the overall positive reports presented by the Federal Monitor and the DOJ Attorneys were marred by reports of last year’s record high of 18 APD police officer shootings of civilians.   Private civil rights attorney Peter Cubra, an attorney representing the McClendon subclass, recalled for the court the killings by APD of  Jesus Crosby and Keshawn Thomas. Cubra questioned how the Crosby killing was a “justifiable” shooting, alleging that APD  made another controversial police shooting “look clean.” He called the Keshawn Thomas killing  a “calculated killing.”

In Crosby’s case, an Internal Affairs detective, his supervisor, the CPOA’s director and EFIT contractors all disagreed that the shooting was in policy. APD’s chain of command heard those concerns but ultimately ruled it in policy. A review by APD leadership identified several shortcomings in the officers’ actions leading up to both shootings.

Cubra asked Judge Browning to reject recent amendments made to the CASA, some of which concerned police interactions with those in crisis.  Cubra said the CASA cannot solve police “making mistakes in a panic” but that it was “flat wrong” for APD to determine the shootings as in policy.

Attorney  Cubra said the sheer number of APD  shootings of civilians, several which involved those suffering from mental health crisis,  showed “we haven’t made a dent in the culture of aggression that was identified in 2014.”  Cubra told the court:

“Everybody here is singing Kumbaya and saying ‘we’re going to have a declaration that we’re good enough in a year and then we’ll leave the police department to oversee itself. … So when these people are gone, when the Justice Department is gone, and when the monitor and his team, they’re all gone, who’s going to protect people like Jesus [Crosby]? … There’s nobody here but me, who’s saying, ‘you know, we are really far from compliance with the law and compliance with this consent decree … I just have to say, I think it’s time for me to stop coming because I can’t take this anymore.” 

Those who responded to Cubra’s criticisms or separately addressed the rash of shootings.  The court was told  2 of the shootings  were found out of policy and led to an officer being fired, noted that APD’s use of force, in general, had dropped significantly and the department had updated training, policies and processes after a review of the shootings.

Attorney Taylor Rahn who represents the city said this:

“The city is by no means throwing in the towel or doing a victory lap.  … We know that there is work that is left to be done and we remain committed to reform both inside and outside the scope of the court approved settlement agreement.”

COURT’S TURNS ATTENTION TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

After Cubra’s remarks and responses made, Judge Browning asked  Paul Killebrew, the Deputy  Chief over the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division:

“Do you ever in your job, either here in Albuquerque or elsewhere, feel like all the boxes are being checked but the result is not much change in the community or the police department?”

Killebrew said he had felt that way in the past with APD, where compliance was “begrudging.” Killebrew said he believed the decrease in use of force incident and APD’s increasing compliance with the CASA indicated that things were changing.  Kilebrew told Judge Browning this:

“When we see incidents like the ones that Mr. Cubra discussed, we ask ourselves, have we seen a change to those systems? Have we eliminated the pattern or practice? Right now, we’re not moving to terminate this consent decree, so I don’t have an answer to that question. … But that is the overarching goal… It’s a difficult picture. I’m not saying this is an easy decision for any of us to make. And I’m grateful to Mr. Cubra for reminding us the moral force of this litigation, which is to stop having police officers violate people’s rights. That’s what we’re here for.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/apd-applauded-for-reform-progress-but-groups-caution-against-complacency/article_79d7c4c6-0b87-11ee-aec4-c767693b11c7.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2606156/apd-applauded-for-reform-progress.html

PUBLISHED REPORT ON 18 APD SHOOTINGS

It was on December 23, 2022, the Albuquerque Journal published on its front page, above the fold, a remarkable story entitled “APD looks to curtail police shootings” with the sub headline “Officers have shot 18 people so far this year, resulting in 10 deaths”.  The news story reads in part as follows:

“In the midst of a spike in shootings by its officers the Albuquerque Police Department is working to change policies so they can use “less-lethal” force earlier in an encounter – in the hope of preventing the need for deadly force.

Additionally, the department’s executive staff and city attorneys will review this year’s 18 shootings by officers to see if they can identify and address any trends. Among those incidents 10 people were killed and three were injured. In five cases no one was struck.

The number of shootings has alarmed advocates, and discussions of the increase dominated a recent federal court hearing on APD’s reform effort. Last year APD officers shot at 10 people, killing four, injuring five, and missing one.

But Chief Harold Medina said he’s been contemplating changes for a while and APD has already been working on them with the Department of Justice and the independent monitoring team overseeing the reforms.”

Medina said he wants APD’s executive staff and city attorneys to meet and look for trends among this year’s 18 police shootings and identify changes to be made.  Medina said this:

“We had already been trying to change the policy. …  But as we heard everybody’s concerns during the [December 6 federal Court] hearing, I really felt there was a way we could do this better. That’s when we got these ideas of we should meet to look at all the cases at once as a whole. …  One of my big frustrations right now is our processes take so long – like we identified issues but by the time we get everything approved through everybody it takes months.”

“Right now they go through the individual cases and if somebody there can remember or they tie into something in the past, that’s a benefit and they could try to make it a trend. … We are now purposely putting all the cases in front of them … and they’re going to have little different data points that we could look at and the goal is to look at them all together at the same time and see if they can identify anything that’s of a concern.”

The link to them full Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2559458/apd-to-address-spike-in-police-shootings-by-changing-policies-looking-for-trends.html

REFORMS ACHIEVED UNDER THE CASA

On November 16 , 2023, it will be a full 9 years that has expired since the city entered into the CASA with the DOJ. It was originally agreed that implementation of all the settlement terms would be completed within 4 years, but because of previous delay and obstruction tactics found by the Federal Monitor by APD management and the police officers’ union as well as APD backsliding in implementing the reforms, it has taken another  5 years to get the job done. Now after almost 9 full years, the federal oversight and the CASA have produced results.

Reforms achieved under the CASA can be identified and are as follows:

1. New “use of force” and “use of deadly force” policies have been written, implemented and all APD sworn have received training on the policies.
2. All sworn police officers have received crisis management intervention training.
3. APD has created a “Use of Force Review Board” that oversees all internal affairs investigations of use of force and deadly force.
4. The Internal Affairs Unit has been divided into two sections, one dealing with general complaints and the other dealing with use of force incidents.
5. Sweeping changes ranging from APD’s SWAT team protocols, to banning choke-holds, to auditing the use of every Taser carried by officers and re-writing and implementation of new use of force and deadly force policies have been completed.
6. “Constitutional policing” practices and methods, and mandatory crisis intervention techniques an de-escalation tactics with the mentally ill have been implemented at the APD police academy with all sworn police also receiving the training.
7. APD has adopted a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for all use of force incidents with personnel procedures implemented detailing how use of force cases are investigated.
8. APD has revised and updated its policies on the mandatory use of lapel cameras by all sworn police officers.
9. The Repeat Offenders Project, known as ROP, has been abolished.
10. Civilian Police Oversight Agency has been created, funded, fully staffed and a director was hired.
11. The Community Policing Counsels (CPCs) have been created in all area commands.
12. The Mental Health Advisory Committee has been implemented.
13. The External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) was created and is training the Internal Affairs Force Division on how to investigate use-of-force cases, making sure they meet deadlines and follow procedures.
14. Millions have been spent each year on new programs and training of new cadets and police officers on constitutional policing practices.
15. APD officers are routinely found using less force than they were before and well documented use of force investigations are now being produced in a timely manner.
16. APD has assumed the self-monitoring of at least 25% of the CASA reforms and is likely capable of assuming more.
17. The APD Compliance Bureau has been fully operational and staffed with many positions created dealing directly with all the reform efforts and all the duties and responsibilities that come with self-assessment.
18. APD has attained a 100% Primary Compliance rate, a 100% Secondary Compliance rate and a 92% Operational Compliance rate.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

During the June 6 hearing, Federal Monitor James Ginger made it clear that APD continues to make impressive gains in the compliance levels over the past year.  This is a complete reversal of the downward trend found and reported in 3 previous monitor’s reports.

Although it was reported during court hearing that APD is making gains in in implementing the reforms, it was also clear that there have been more APD police officer shootings in 2022  than during any other year before.  In 2022, there were 18 APD Police Officer involved shootings,10 of which were fatal.  In 2021 there were 10, four of which were fatal.

A review of shootings by APD police officers between 2018 and 2022 identified three common circumstances:

1. When officers are attempting to apprehend violent suspects;
2. When individuals are experiencing some kind of mental health episode;
3. When people with little criminal history are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and make bad decisions.

Albuquerque Police Department has released data before  that shows  there have been 56  police shootings dating back to 2018. Of the cases reviewed, 85% involved people who were armed with a gun or a weapon that appeared to be a firearm.  About 55% of the cases involved people under the influence of drugs or alcohol, while only 2 cases in which intoxication did not play a role. Without toxicology tests, it was unknown whether drugs or alcohol played a role in the remainder of the cases.  Statewide, authorities said the number of shootings in which officers opened fire stands at 50 for the year 2022.

The link to the quoted news source article is here:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/albuquerque-marks-record-number-police-shootings-2022-93084096

THE CITY HAS BECOME A MORE VIOLENT CITY OVER 9 YEARS

There is no doubt that the community should be absolutely alarmed over the fact that there has been a spike in police officer involved shootings given the fact such shootings, and accompanying litigation and judgements against the city, is what brought the Department of Justice to the City in 2013 in the first place. When it comes to APD Police Officer Involved shootings, history is repeating itself despite millions spent and implementation of the settlement reforms over the last 9 years.

It’s because of the city’s dramatic increase in overall crime rates that there have been more police officer involved shootings as police officers are finding themselves in more predicaments where they feel the need to protect themselves and not attempt to deescalate a situation and use  force or deadly force.  The reality is that the city can expect the trend of police officer involve shootings to continue even if APD achieves 100% compliance of all 271 mandated police reforms under the settlement.

Albuquerque  has changed and APD has changed over the 9 years since the CASA was negotiated. The city has become more violent and APD has been trained in constitutional policing practices.

Albuquerque is at the forefront of New Mexico’s high violent crime rate.  According to legislative data released, the city had about half of the state’s violent crime in 2022 but has just 25% or so of its total population.  The Albuquerque Police Department reported that in November, 2022 gun law violations spiked 85%.

The last 2 years have also been two very violent years for Albuquerque.  The number of homicides in the city have broken all-time records.  In 2021, there were 117 homicides, with 3 declared self-defense reducing homicide number to 114.  In 2022, there were 120 homicides, a historical high.

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) released the 2022 crime statistics along with crime statistics for 2022 for a comparison. During his March 16 press conference announcing the City’s 2022 crime statistics, APD Chief Harold Medina embellished that a  3% drop in  overall total of crime and a 4% decrease in Crimes Against Persons and the 2% decrease in Crimes Against Property was positive movement.

The slight 3% decrease in overall crime was over shadowed by the 24% spike in CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY which are largely made up of drug and gun offenses and a 71% increase in murders over the last 6 years.  Chief Medina presented a vertical bar graph that revealed that over the last 6 years, Albuquerque has had a dramatic 71% spike in homicides.  The number of homicides reported over the last 6 years is as follows:

• 2017: 70 homicides
• 2018: 69 homicides
• 2019: 80 homicides
• 2020: 78 homicides
• 2021:  110 homicides
• 2022:  120 homicides

On March 16, in addition to reporting that there has been a 71% spike in homicides, APD officials 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. Following are the Aggravated Assaults numbers:

• 2017: 4,213
• 2018: 5,156
• 2019: 5,337
• 2020: 5,592
• 2021: 5,669
• 2022: 5,399

Crime rates in Albuquerque are high across the board. According to the Albuquerque Police’s annual report on crime, there were 46,391 property crimes and 15,765 violent crimes recorded in 2021.  These numbers place Albuquerque among America’s most dangerous cities.

All residents are at increased risk of experiencing aggravated robbery, auto theft, and petty theft.  The chances of becoming a victim of property crime in Albuquerque are 1 in 20, an alarmingly high statistic. Simple assault, aggravated assault, auto theft, and larceny are just some of the most common criminal offenses in Albuquerque. Burglary and sex offense rates In Albuquerque are also higher than the national average.

ALBUQUERQUE IS RANKED 17TH AMONG 70 OF THE LARGEST CITIES

On April 26, 2023  the Major Cities Chiefs Association released its Violent Crime Survey and national totals for the crimes of homicides, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults. According to the report, Albuquerque is ranked 17th among 70 of the largest cities in the nation looking at trends in the 4 categories.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association report shows in 2022, there was a 5% drop in homicides nationwide. According to the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Albuquerque had one of the worst homicide rates in the nation and is one of 27 cities across the nation that saw an increase in homicides.

The report shows in 2021, there were 106 homicides. In 2022, there were 115, an 8% increase. Other nearby cities like Phoenix saw a 13% increase in homicides. Meanwhile, to the north, the Denver Police Department reported an 8% decrease in homicides. Just four hours south, the city of El Paso saw a 28% decrease in homicides, one of the highest drops in the report.

Click to access MCCA-Violent-Crime-Report-2022-and-2021-Midyear.pdf

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-homicide-rate-increase/43702586

DRAMATIC TURN AROUND

One of the biggest complaints of all the 18 DOJ consent decrees that exist in the country to deal with police misconduct and excessive use of force cases is that they  go “on and on and on” for years with no end on sight. When the CASA was first agreed to in 2014, it was agreed that all the reforms under the CASA would be fully implemented within 4 years or by 2018. Instead, the case has been dragging on for 9 years after a period of time when the Federal Monitor found that APD repeatedly did a “backslide” in implementing the reforms and coming into compliance.

It was in November 12, 2020 that the 12th Compliance Report was filed and when Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger declared that APD was on “on the brink of catastrophic failure” in implementing the reforms. The 12^TH  Audit Report was for the period that ended on July 31, 2020.  The Federal Monitor found the following compliance levels:

• PRIMARY COMPLIANCE: 100% with no change from 11th report.
• SECONDARY COMPLIANCE: 91%, with a loss of -2.2% from the 11th report.
• OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE: 64%, with a loss of -3.0%.

It took APD  a full 2 years and 6 months from July 31, 2020, the end of the 12^th reporting period, to January 31, 2023, the end of the 17^th reporting period for APD to turn things around and it was not at all  easy.  Along the way APD and the city were forced to agree to a court order after the Federal Monitor found that APD intentionally did not investigate 667 of use of force cases and was forced to agree to the creation of the External Force Investigation Team EFIT.  On February 26, 2021, the City of Albuquerque and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Stipulated Agreement filed with the United States District Court to stay a contempt of court proceeding against the city for willful violations of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

APD HAS FULFILLED THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE SETTLEMENT 

Under the terms and conditions of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA), once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in the 3 identified compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed.  APD was to have come into full compliance in the 3 compliance levels within 4 years or by 2018.

Operational Compliance is the single most important compliance level of all 3 and it is where the “rubber hits the road” with respect to the reforms.  Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency. It is achieved when line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies. Operational Compliance still has to be achieved at a 95% level, with the other two compliance levels already at 100% and they must also be sustained for 2 years before the case can be dismissed.

After 9 years of implementing the mandating DOJ reforms, and millions spent on training, APD is finally on the verge of implementing the 271 mandated reforms under the CASA.  APD is commended for attaining a 100% Primary Compliance rate, a 100% Secondary Compliance rate and achieving a 92% Operational Compliance rate.   The 2 consecutive years for compliance in all 3 compliance levels should be waived or reduced dramatically given the fact that a 95% compliance rate or better has been achieved in Primary Compliance for a total of 24 months or two full years and a 95% compliance rate or better in Secondary Compliance for a total of 17 months.

APD has fulfilled the spirit and intent of the settlement.  The city can argue “full and effective compliance” with all material requirements of the CASA and with its continuing improvement in constitutional policing as demonstrated by the agreement’s outcome measures reported in the 17^th Federal Monitor’s Report. The two years of 95% compliance should be deemed as accomplished give the fact that the settlement has now gone on for over 5 years than what was originally agreed to.

CITY NEEDS TO MOVE TO DISMISS CASE

On July 27, 2022, the Albuquerque Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice announce they had agreed to suspend several paragraphs of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA.) According to APD, the agreement “essentially removes about a quarter of oversight requirements.” The city reached an agreement with the DOJ to suspend the monitoring of upwards of 25% of the paragraphs in the CASA. Those paragraphs have all been in operational compliance for more than 5 years.  Under the stipulated agreement between the City and the DOJ, the city is now self-monitor 62 paragraphs of the CASA.

Given the extent of the compliance levels, the work of the Federal Monitor can be declared a success and he should be winding down his work seeking to close out the case within the next 6 months and prepare his very last Independent Monitor’s report by the end of the year. With that in mind, the federal monitors contract should be renegotiated to include a reduction in pay and termination of the monitoring services.

The city should seek to negotiate a stipulated dismissal of the case with the Department of Justice (DOJ) by the end of the year. Should the DOJ refuse, the City Attorney should move to immediately to dismiss the case under the termination and suspension provisions of the CASA by filing a Motion to Dismiss the case and force the issue with an evidentiary hearing and let the assigned federal judge decide it.

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 30,000 new housing use.

To add the 5,000 new housing units, Keller is proposing 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.

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 amendment will allow one “casita” and one “duplex addition” with a kitchen and separate entrance to an existing structure on all built out lots which could double density to 240,000 housing units or triple density to 360,000 housing units.

COUNCIL DEFERS ACTION

On June 6, the Albuquerque City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting, took public comments on Mayor Keller’s  Housing Forward Initiative, O-22-54.  The proposed legislation is sponsored by City Councilors Isaac Benton and Trudy Jones.  Both Benton and Jones  as well as Democrat City Councilor Pat Davis have announced that they are not seeking re-election to the council with the municipal election scheduled for November 7 when 4 city council positions will be on the ballot. Republican City Councilor Brook Basaan is the 4^th city councilor whose position will be on the ballot.

On June 6, well over 100 people signed up to testify before the city council,  for and against the proposed amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO).  The annual update of the IDO has been pending since November of last year when Mayor Tim Keller announced that he wants “transformative changes” to the city’s zoning laws.  There have been at least 3 city council committee hearings on the changes and 5 public presentations by the Keller Administration where hundreds have attended to voice opposition.

 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.

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.

Should the proposed changes to the Integrated Development Ordinance pass without amendment, large swaths of the city zoned for single-family houses would be opened to casita and duplex development.  Other proposed changes include eliminating building height limits for multifamily and mixed-use buildings, and reducing parking requirements for multifamily housing.

The link to the news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2604484/proposal-zoning-overhaul-brings-out-crowds-to-albuquerque-city-council-meeting.html

NOTICE OF MEETING

The City Council has schedule a final vote on O-22-54  and the casista and duplex amendments on Wednesday June 21.  The council also decided to limit public comments at the June 21 meeting to 1 minute per person. The meeting will begin at 5:000 and will be  held in the Vincent E. Griego Council Chambers, basement level of the City of Albuquerque Government Center, 1 Civic Plaza NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. 

 PATRICIA D. WILLSON  BIOGRAPHY

Patricia D. Willson has lived in New Mexico since 1969 and has been a licensed Architect in the state since 1987. As a resident of District 6 for over 50 years, she has served on her neighborhood association board, District 6 Coalition and Inter-Coalition Council (ICC). The ICC (a coalition of neighborhood association coalitions formed by the late Dr. Joe Valles in 2014) has a committee of dedicated volunteers who review the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) amendments every year.

EDITOR’S DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest column written by Patricia D. Willson are those of Ms. Willson and do not necessarily reflect those of the www.petedinelli.com blog. Ms. Willson has not been paid any compensation to publish the guest column and has given her consent to publish on www.PeteDinelli.com.

PATRICIA D. WILLSON GUEST COLUMN

“KELLER’S HOUSING FORWARD ORDINANCE SETS A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT!”

The Mayor’s Housing Forward Initiative, O-22-54, is a package of six transformative zoning changes that were tag-teamed along with the 49 Citywide Amendments in the 2022 IDO Annual Update. By law, the Integrated Development Ordinance must be updated every year. This update has a specific 3-step process—a process that was side-stepped by Housing Forward.

 “A comprehensive plan contains the vision, goals, and policies for growth and development, and the zoning code contains the regulations to implement that vision.” ¹

 “The purpose of the IDO is to: Implement the adopted Albuquerque / Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan, as amended.”²

 After the adoption of IDO, nearly every presentation by the Planning Department included an image of a table covered with stacks of plans, then the same table with only two plans on it. The out-of-state consultant that reduced this stack of sector plans to two documents—the Comprehensive Plan and the IDO—was paid at least $1.5 million.³ The revised two documents are only five years old. And yet we are now being told by Mayor Keller they are out of date and in need of transformative changes.

Since the IDO’s first annual update in 2019, residents have been asking for a better process. For three years residents have been asking for Council to:

 Establish metrics to determine a status of technical or substantive for all IDO amendments.

 Require all substantive IDO amendments to be addressed through the CPA Assessment process.

 Analysis by the Planning Department would provide:

 Impact and beneficiary statements

• Review of unintended consequences
• Examples including maps and diagrams
• Pro and Con public comments

 Using the IDO Annual Update process to pass major substantive zoning changes sets a terrible precedent. Last year’s Safe Outdoor Space amendment clearly showed the unintended consequences of poorly written, ill-conceived crisis legislation. That fracas will pale in comparison to Housing Forward—once it’s passed and people see what’s in it…

 The taxpayers of Albuquerque paid good money for a good Comprehensive Plan with a valuable long-range Community Planning Area assessment process. Please do not throw that out. There are options that would provide for more ADUs permissively: for example, at the first EPC hearing, I suggested an amendment to double the width of Premium Transit Corridors. What about the stalled multi-family project planned for Central and Vassar, and the 130 apartments planned for the conversion of the 10-story office tower at 300 San Mateo NE?  Those two projects alone will add ≈230 units.

 According to the Apartment Association of NM, there are currently 40 communities—5,328 new apartments—under construction.⁴   Finish those and re-vamp the 1,200-1,300 vacant, abandoned or substandard houses in Albuquerque.⁵   That puts us well over the Mayor’s goal of 5,000 housing units.

 Everyone agrees we have a housing problem in Albuquerque. Everyone agrees we have a homeless problem. Private equity firms owning dozens of multi-family apartments cause more harm to housing availability than the lack of ADUs permissively in R-1 zoning. Many of our unhoused population need Permanent Supportive Housing, not a casita.

 As I have repeated ad infinitum, I am not against casitas, duplexes, infill, gentle density, missing middle housing. Somehow this argument has morphed into ‘Opposition to O-22-54 = you hate my grandma’.  There is a 50+ year history of valuable planning efforts in the city; shelved plans, disregard of ideas and loss of institutional memory is just sad…

 At the June 5^th Council meeting, O-22-54 was “continued” rather than “deferred.” That means on June 21^st,  Councilors will pick up the ordinance right where they left off; discussing eleven confusing and contradictory Floor Amendments. Unlike a deferral, a continuance does not allow additional public comment. Because the package of Citywide Amendments (O-23-77) was approved on June 5^th, the IDO update requirement has been fulfilled. Council does not need to pass Housing Forward, nor should they—changes this dramatic should be the purview of the next Council that will have to deal with the ramifications of this legislation.

 I urge you to call and/or write your Councilor. Go here to learn more and sign this petition asking your Councilor to Vote NO on O-22-54:

https://www.change.org/p/ask-city-council-to-vote-no-on-housing-forward-o-22-54?redirect=false

GUEST COLUMN FOOTNOTES

¹  https://abq-zone.com/abc-z-frequently-asked-questions-faqs (under question ‘How does a Comprehensive Plan relate to the Zoning Code?’)

² https://abq-zone.com/integrated-development-ordinance-ido Part 14-16-1 General Provisions, 1-3 Purpose

³ https://cabq.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2099303&GUID=2297F7BA-5FE4-4A8E-9845-8056F22558B3&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=Comprehensive+Plan (click on EC-14-219)

⁴ https://www.aanm.org/news/list-of-apartments-under-construction-in-albuquerque

⁵ https://www.cabq.gov/council/documents/vacant-abandoned-houses-task-force-final-final-report-1-17-18.pdf

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is expected that at the June 21 meeting of the City Council, it will take a final vote on the casita and duplex amendment to the city’s zoning laws after taking further public comment. It’s very disappointing that the council will allow members of the public only one minute each to voice their opinions. The city council could easily convene a special meeting of the council to take further  testimony from the public and to discuss the amendments.  That would be too difficult and uncomfortable for them.  Besides they all likely have made up their minds how they will vote and not interested in what the public has to say.

What is extremely disappointing is that outgoing City Councilors Isaac Benton, Trudy Jones and Pat Davis continue to sponsor and plan on voting on the amendments that many of their constituents so adamantly oppose.  All 3 should recuse themselves from the final vote or seek to defer final votes on the amendments until after the November 7 municipal election and allow their successors to deal with the ramifications of the dramatic change in the zoning laws.

FIEBELKORN REVEALS HOW SHE WILL VOTE AND WHAT NAIOP IS UP TO

On June 7, the District 7 Coalition of Neighborhood Association held its monthly meeting.  The District 7 Coalition of Neighborhood Associations is one of the largest and most active of all neighborhood association coalitions in the city.   It boasts membership of at least 11 neighborhood associations. The June 7 agenda included a report from District 7 City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn.

Fiebelkorn was asked point blank how she intended to vote on allowing changes to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) that will  allow for the construction of  casitas and duplexes in all existing neighborhoods of the city as permissive uses giving unilateral authority to the planning department.  Fiebelkorn  said  tersely she will vote YES for Mayor Tim Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”  which includes allowing  casitas and duplex development as permissive uses. She refused to consider making them conditional uses requiring adjacent property owners rights of appeal as a compromise saying such a compromise is an impediment delaying development.

A coalition board member challenged Fiebelkorn objecting to her voting to allowing casita and duplex developments in all neighborhoods to increase density. The board member argued forcefully that casitas and duplexes will destroy established neighborhoods, they will be too costly and will only benefit developers and that they will not solve the city’s affordable housing and rental shortage and only make it worse.  Fiebelkorn disagreed without elaborating.  She ignored the arguments made and said her mind was made up and she would vote YES despite any objections.

What was very revealing is that Fiebelkorn boasted and said the local chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Park (NAIOP) personnel would be taking  a bus tour of District 7 on June 8 to look at possible “investment sites and projects.”   Fiebelkorn disclosed that she would be giving NAIOP personnel the bus tour.  A source has confirmed that only NAIOP membership were allowed on the tour and that the organization intends to tour all 9 city council districts.

NAIOP has without any reservations 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 (PAC)  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 (IDO) a major priority which repealed many sector development plans enacted over 50 years that protected neighborhoods and historical areas of the city.

District 7 is the Mid-heights City Council District, it is one of the most stable districts with built out neighborhoods, apartments and retail shops with very little next to nothing in open space and lots available for development.   District 7 includes Coronado Shopping Center, the Commons Uptown Shopping area and Winrock and surrounding established residential areas and parts of the near northeast heights. A 200 unit, high rise apartment complex is currently being constructed across from 2 Park Square and apartments and luxury condos are under construction at Winrock.

It does not take a mental genius to figure out what NAIOP is 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.  Only in Albuquerque would you have and extreme left wing progressive Democrat such as Tamy Fiebelkorn throw her support behind the likes of developers and investors hell bent on changing the character of entire neighborhoods for the sake of making a buck. 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.

FIEBELKORN CONTINUES TO PERPERPETIATE FALSEHOODS IN NEWSLETTER

In her most recent “D7 Councilor Connection” news letter to her City Council District 7 constituents, City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn wrote that the ABQ Housing Forward bills will be voted on by Council on June 21st. She wrote in her news letter:

“Creating more housing in Albuquerque will create higher density housing, decrease urban scrawl (NOTE misspelling of sprawl), and aid in combating climate change. Albuquerque needs more housing for all income levels and this bill, along with the rest of the Housing Forward Initiative, will help provide that. This zoning change allows the flexibility the Albuquerque needs, we are currently zoned at two-thirds single-family detached homes, this is incredibly low density and doesn’t support our current population and demand. Councilor Fiebelkorn supports this bill because it will increase housing units while reducing the environmental and climate impacts of urban sprawl.”

Fiebelkorn’s newsletter arguments are a reflection of her sure ignorance of basic economics, market forces and zoning laws.  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.

City Councilor Fiebelkorn makes the false presumption that higher density will result in lower rents and more affordable housing being made available to the general public. Rental property owners will always charge the rent the market will bear.  Sellers of homes will also do the same.  Mayor Tim Keller and City Councilor Fiebelkorn are using the short-term housing “crunch” to declare a “housing crisis” to shove the  Housing Forward ABQ Plan down the throats of city property owners.  They are advocating zoning changes to increase density by severely relaxing zoning restrictions to favor investors and the developers that will destroy entire neighborhoods, especially historic areas of the city and lower income areas of the city.

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 duplex addition, which in all likelihood will be rentals on single family properties, will seriously damage the character of a neighborhood.  This will be a breach of trust between home owners and the city. 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.

Fiebelkorn  makes the out of left field false argument that “this bill will increase housing units while reducing the environmental and climate impacts of urban sprawl” is embarrassing. High density cities are known for extreme air pollution and suffer from air quality issues because of  high rise development and density.

HOUSING FORWARD ABQ PLAN SHOULD BE VOTED DOWN

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

The Keller Administration has never discussed the actual cost of construction of 750 square foot casitas and duplex remodeling. They simply presume property owners will be able to afford to do it themselves which is not 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 and duplex development.  To build and construct a 750 foot casita or duplex at the $175 foot construction cost would be $131,425 (750 sq ft X 175 = $131,421) and to build both $262,848.  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.

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

Very few people have the financial ability to invest another $130,000 to $250,000 in homes they already own. The casitas and duplexes will be used predominantly by 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.

Supporters of casita and duplex development argue it is needed to increase density, create affordable housing and to get away from “urban sprawl”.  They repeatedly make 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.

The city council should defer action on the amendments until after the November municipal election and let the new council decide.  If not, the council should vote NO on Mayor Keller’s casita and duplex amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance.

The email addresses and phone numbers to contact each City Councilor and the Director of Counsel services to voice your opinion are as follows:

CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100

EMAIL ADDRESSES

lesanchez@cabq.gov
louiesanchez@allstate.com
ibenton@cabq.gov
kpena@cabq.gov
bbassan@cabq.gov
danlewis@cabq.gov
LEWISABQ@GMAIL.COM
patdavis@cabq.gov
tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov
trudyjones@cabq.gov
rgrout@cabq.gov
cmelendrez@cabq.gov

On June 15, the online news agency New Mexico Sun published the below 750-word Dinelli opinion guest column on the state’s 48% increase in homeless and the need for a Behavioral Health Treatment Court.

Headline: Reversing the Homelessness Crisis: Is New Mexico Ready for a Behavioral Health Treatment Court?

By Pete Dinelli

Jun 15, 2023

On May 22, the NM Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) released a report on the state’s homeless and the affordable housing shortage which included the preliminary estimates of the 2023 Point In Time (PIT) annual homeless count. The “Point in Time” (PIT) survey is conducted once a year to determine how many people experience homelessness on a given night in communities across New Mexico. The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  

According to the LFC Report on Homelessness and Affordable Housing, New Mexico’s homeless numbers increased 48% in 2023 going from upwards of 2,600 people to 3,842. The increase was driven by an increase in the unsheltered count with 780 more people in Albuquerque and 232 more in the rest of the state.  About half the emergency shelter beds available were used indicating overall adequate bed numbers statewide. However, shelter accessibility was reported as significantly lowering utilization rates because some individual emergency shelters are full while others are extremely hard to reach.

LFC points to 7 risk factors for homelessness and housing insecurity as being poverty, unemployment, involvement criminal justice system, substance abuse, mental illness, lower physical health and educational achievement. People experiencing unsheltered homelessness are more likely to exhibit multiple risk factors. These individuals tend to have higher service needs, tend to be more frequent users of community services, such as emergency room visits and inpatient and outpatient treatments, and require more acute care.

The LFC report found the state lacks enough transitional and permanent housing to help people exit homelessness and found the need for an estimated 859 additional housing units for the state’s homeless population. The estimated cost would be $11.4 million annually. According to the LFC report, the state stands to lose an estimated 5% of its roughly 29,000 publicly assisted rental units over the next five years due to expiring affordability commitments or deterioration.

In 2023, the cost to New Mexico taxpayers, based on an estimated population of 3,842 individuals experiencing homelessness is $98.5 million to $192 million.  A 2022 NM Housing Strategy report found a need for 6,500 to 8,400 housing units for populations, including the chronically homeless, people on the state’s developmental disabilities list and people exiting prison or mental health institutions.

PIT data breakdown for the unsheltered for the years 2009 to 2022 reports 46% of the unsheltered suffer from serious mental illness and that 44% of the unsheltered suffer from substance abuse for a staggering 89% combined total. In Albuquerque, 30.19% of the homeless self-report as having a serious mental illness and 25.5% self-report as substance abusers for a 55.69% combined total. 

Getting mental health treatment and drug counseling to the homeless is just as critical as temporary shelter, transitional housing and permanent and affordable housing.  Much more can and must be done with the initiation of civil commitment hearings to deal with the homeless who are mentally ill or who suffer from drug addictions who are a serious danger to themselves and to others to ensure that they get the medical and mental health treatment services they desperately need. 

There is a critical need for a civil mental health and drug commitment court for the homeless suffering from mental illness and/or drug addiction and who pose a threat to themselves, their family or to the general public. Such courts do in fact exist in the other parts of the country and have proven to be highly successful. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the legislature should seek to create a specialty “Behavioral Health Treatment Court” functioning as outreach and treatment court for the drug addicted and the mentally ill in a hospital or counseling setting and not involving jail incarceration. 

There is an even bigger need for the construction and staffing of a mental health facility or hospital to provide the services. As it stands now, there exists less than adequate facilities where patients can be referred to for civil mental health commitments and treatment. There is glaring and absolute need for a behavioral health hospital and drug rehabilitation treatment facility.

New Mexico is currently experiencing historical surplus revenues and this past legislative session the legislature had an astonishing $3.6 Billion in surplus revenue. It likely the state will continue to see historic surpluses. Now is the time to create a “Behavioral Health Treatment Court” and dedicate funding for the construction of behavioral health hospital and drug rehabilitation treatment facility the courts can rely upon for referrals.

https://newmexicosun.com/stories/644343249-reversing-the-homelessness-crisis-is-new-mexico-ready-for-a-behavioral-health-treatment-court

BERNALILLO COUNTY BEVHAVIORAL HEALTH TAX FOR SERVICES

In 2021, studies suggested  that nearly 50% of Bernalillo County residents needing mental health or addiction treatment services were  not getting the help they need because of gaps in New Mexico’s behavioral health care. Untreated behavioral health conditions have led to increased and sometimes tragic interactions with law enforcement, over incarceration, overuse of hospital emergency and inpatient services, and unnecessary suffering on the part of patients and their families.

It was on  February 26, 2015, the Bernalillo County Commission approved a 1/8% gross receipts tax increase on a 3-2 vote to fund new behavioral and mental health services to improve access to mental and behavioral health care services in the county. When enacted, the county commission announced the intent for the tax was to invest the funding “in proven ways to better manage the high cost of addiction, homelessness and mental health problems”. According to a county commission announcement, “these issues impact families throughout the community and drive up the cost of public services, especially at the Metropolitan Detention Center.” The gross receipts tax costs shoppers one cent on a $10 purchase of goods and services.

The tax generates approximately $20 million annually.  The goal of the one-eighth of 1 percent gross receipts tax hike, according to the county website, was to “develop a comprehensive, well-networked and accessible continuum of care for children, youth, and adults in need of behavioral health services” in partnership with federal, state and local government partners, plus the nonprofit and private sector. It has yielded nearly $161 million in its first seven years. It moved $80 million out the door in that time, and has some of the balance committed to major projects.  The 1/8th% gross receipts tax was enacted to be used for the purpose of providing more mental and behavioral health services for adults and children in the Albuquerque and Bernalillo County area. The intent is to provide a safety net system for those in need of mental health not otherwise funded in New Mexico.

https://www.bernco.gov/uploads/files/BH%20news%20release%20PDF.pdf

Eventually, the county commission earmarked the bulk of what it had been  amassed over 5 years  for one-time expenditures. Those expenditures included  $30 million for a new crisis triage center, $12 million for supportive housing and $4 million for the Bernalillo County CARE campus, formerly known as the Metropolitan Assessment and Treatment Services center, or MATS. The renovations to the CARE campus  created  an outpatient behavioral health clinic and living room space for peer-to-peer counseling sessions.

NEW SYTEM TO AWARD FUNDING

It was in 2019 that the  Bernalillo County Commission established the Behavioral Health Initiative (BHI) representing a significant step forward in local efforts toward addressing and preventing the mental health, substance abuse, addiction, and homelessness crisis in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County and the middle Rio Grande region of New Mexico.

In November, 2019, County Manager Julie Morgas Baca asked the Bernalillo County Commission to approve a resolution that permits “stakeholders, providers, community members, staff, commissioners, or other interested parties” to propose behavioral health service ideas through a website. Up until then, only county staff had been authorized to propose behavioral health service ideas. All program appropriations  require final approval of the County Commission.

According to Bernalillo County Manager Morgas Baca:

“I just really think it needs to be opened up, and we need to realize there’s a lot of people out there who have real life experience. … I want to solicit their input to see how much of a difference we can make in addition to what we’re already doing.”

On November 12, 2019  the resolution creating the BHI passed by a 5-0 vote unanimous vote.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1391385/c

Under the new ordinance passed, each idea from stakeholders, providers, community members, staff and commissioners  goes through a vetting process. A county commission appointed committee ensures each proposal meets the criteria for an expenditure based on the behavioral health tax language approved by voters. A separate subcommittee of stakeholders and subject matter experts  also reviews the ideas and recommends the next steps.

The BHI currently funds 40 contracts throughout the community. The four primary focus areas are:

1. Crisis services, including the law enforcement and clinical support teams that respond to 911 calls for nonviolent incidents involving someone with a behavioral health issue.
2. Community supports, such as peer-to-peer services for those with behavioral health concerns.
3. Housing assistance with a voucher system.
4. Prevention, Intervention and Harm Reduction, such as suicide prevention programs and initiatives aimed at reducing “adverse childhood experiences.”

According to a 2022  Albuquerque Journal  news report “suicide rates in Bernalillo County are higher than they were before the tax …  and drug overdose deaths have soared. The number of people who are homeless in Albuquerque – which represents the vast majority of Bernalillo County – is higher today than in 2015 [when the tax was enacted], according to official counts. And while the tax has been described as a mechanism for working alongside others to develop a “continuum of care” in the community, the county and its most logical partner – the city of Albuquerque – showed “no effective collaboration at all levels to improve the lives of citizens,” according to a 2021 analysis the city and county ordered to identify local needs. 

“Bernalillo County Manager Julie Morgas Baca acknowledged the need for improvement. She said the county is now partnering with the city on multiple projects – including the city’s Gateway Center homeless shelter and services hub – reengaging community members in its BHI decision-making and developing a plan to better inform the public about available resources.”

The county says the BHI programs have served at least 131,732 individuals in just over seven years. County officials say they are confident the programs are making a difference in people’s lives.

Links to news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/local/2015-behavioral-health-tax-benefits-so-far-unrealized/article_bd0280c1-c1e7-5643-8dc8-a06de08b8115.html

https://www.bernco.gov/county-manager/news.aspx?2db258aa42a04430b8b8a83f4c866d4ablogPostId=0b8d62dfaab34851990ee817818ece04#:~:text=The%20Bernalillo%20County%20Department%20of,startup%2C%20and%20expansions%20of%20behavioral

The Bernallilo County Commission through its Behavioral Health Initiative (BHI)  should partner with the state of build a Behavioral Health Treatment Hospital to  assist with civil commitments.

__________________________

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

The New Mexico Sun is part of the Sun Publishing group which is a nonprofit. The New Mexico Sun “mission statement” states in part:

“The New Mexico Sun was established to bring fresh light to issues that matter most to New Mexicans. It will cover the people, events, and wonders of our state. … The New Mexico Sun is non-partisan and fact-based, and we don’t maintain paywalls that lead to uneven information sharing. We don’t publish quotes from anonymous sources that lead to skepticism about our intentions, and we don’t bother our readers with annoying ads about products and services from non-locals that they will never buy. … Many New Mexico media outlets minimize or justify problematic issues based on the individuals involved or the power of their positions. Often reporters fail to ask hard questions, avoid making public officials uncomfortable, and then include only one side of a story. This approach doesn’t provide everything readers need to fully understand what is happening, why it matters, and how it will impact them or their families.”

The home page link to the New Mexico Sun is here:

https://newmexicosun.com/

The New Mexico Family Action Movement is a nonprofit, grass roots  organization that  holds itself out as being  dedicated to the “sole purpose is protecting families and preserving freedom in New Mexico.”  Its vision statement provides that its goal “is to  transform the culture of New Mexico to one that honors God as we Protect and cherish life from conception to natural end, safeguard the family unit and become an environment  in which it can thrive and boldly defend and preserve religious freedom, free from government interference.”   The New Mexico Family Action Movement works in association with the Family Policy Alliance (FPA) and Family Policy Alliance Foundation (FPAF) that are Christian ministries that defend faith and protect families by organizing, educating and mobilizing the social conservative movement in America.

A link to the web page for  New Mexico Family Action Movement is here:

https://nmfam.org/about-us

TARGETS FOR REPEAL BY REFERENDUM

The New Mexico Family Action Movement is targeting for repeal 6 laws in New Mexico passed during the 2023 sixty-day legislative session by the Democratic-controlled Legislature on abortion, elections and gender-affirming care. The 6  laws targeted for repeal  are set to take effect on June 16, including the bill barring discrimination against individuals seeking abortion services and a separate bill shielding nurses and doctors who provide abortions from criminal investigation.

The New Mexico Family Action Movement has said it is prepared to go to court to get the measures on the ballot.  The repeal effort is receiving significant support from the New Mexico Republican Party which strenuously opposed the legislation and other right-wing organizations such as Better Together New Mexico and the New Mexico Business Coalition that consistently opposes democrat initiatives.  The six bills targeted for repeal are:

House Bill 7: Prohibit public bodies from blocking access to abortion services and gender-affirming care.

Senate Bill 13: Shield doctors and nurses who provide abortion services and gender-affirming care from civil or criminal legal liability.

Senate Bill 397: Enshrine school-based health centers in state law.

House Bill 207: Expand scope of state’s Human Rights Act to cover gender identity.

House Bill 4: Change voting laws by expanding automatic voter registration and establishing permanent absentee voter list.

Senate Bill 180: Update state’s election laws by establishing mandatory training for poll watchers and clarifying process for updating voter rolls.

Jodi Hendricks, the executive director of the New Mexico Family Action Movement said the coalition has thousands of volunteers around the state gathering the necessary signatures to allow for a statewide vote on the targeted laws in 2024 and to block them from taking effect. Hendricks said this:

“We really believe that three of these bills … are major attacks on parent rights.”

REPUBLICAN PARTY, CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS ARGUE OVERREACH BY DEMOCRATS

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the six bills in question into law and her  also defended the six bills, saying they were passed by duly elected lawmakers to benefit state residents.  The Governor’s spokeswoman Caroline Sweeney said this:

“Gov. Lujan Grisham signed these six bills because she knows, unequivocally, they will do good for thousands of New Mexicans so they can have healthy, productive lives, and participate fully in their communities as their true selves.”

Not at all surprising, the New Mexico Republican Party is supportive of the attempt to repeal the legislation by petition referendum.  The Republican Party proclaims that citizen have the  right to pursue the referendum process so much so that the party’s executive director Leticia Muñoz has been helping individuals who want to sign referendum petitions. The Republican Party also criticized Toulouse Oliver for blocking the petitions from moving forward and state GOP spokeswoman Ash Soular said this:

“The secretary of state should refrain from putting up obstacles to this citizen effort and respond to this effort following state law.”

The conservative organizations “Better Together New Mexico”  and the “New Mexico Business Coaltion” are also behind the petition drive and referendum process to repeal the legislation.  Carla Sonntag, the founder of the nonprofit group “Better Together New Mexico” and the Executive Director of the “New Mexico Business Coaltion” said  supporters felt ignored by Democratic lawmakers, who hold strong majorities in both the state Senate and House of Representatives. Sonntag said this:

“They think it’s tremendous overreach and they’re exercising they’re right to have a say.”

UPHILL BATTLE

The New Mexico Family Action Movement is fighting an uphill battle with the petition-referendum process.  Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver has denied 23 referendum petitions since a 60-day legislative session ended in March due to technical problems with the paperwork and legal objections. The Secretary of State’s office has directed county clerks not to provide voter lists to those pushing the repeal effort, and warned voters that current petitions circulating are not valid since they have not been approved.

Secretary of State  Toulouse Oliver has also ruled the bill blocking local anti-abortion ordinances from being enforced is exempt from repeal. Toulouse Oliver said the law meets the constitutional exemption for laws that provide for the “preservation of the public peace, health or safety” of the state. The Secretary of State said the bill ensures New Mexico women and transgender individuals will not be discriminated against based on their health care choices.  On May 26, Toulouse Oliver wrote in her ruling:

“Such health and safety purposes are clearly within the state’s inherent police powers exempt from referendum”.

REFERENDUM PROCESS

New Mexico’s Constitution gives voters the ability to annul laws passed by the Legislature, but there are major exceptions. Those exceptions are bills dealing with public peace, health and safety. Other exceptions are  budget bills and legislation dealing with public school maintenance.

If successful, this year’s referendum efforts could put targeted laws on the November 2024 statewide ballot for possible repeal. Before that happens, however, the referendum petitions must met legal requirement and  be approved by the Secretary of State’s office.

Even if a repeal referendum measure is  approved by the Secretary of State, the State Constitution requires that  valid signatures must be obtained from  more than 71,470 registered  state voters or at least 10% of the number who voted in last year’s general election.  The State constitution also has  a geographic requirement that a certain amount of the signatures must come from at least 25 counties.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2604823/legal-fight-brewing-over-latest-nm-referendum-push.html

https://www.koat.com/article/petition-to-repeal-several-new-bills-in-new-mexico/44123219

STATE JUDGE UPHOLDS NM SECRETARY OF STATE’S AUTHORITY TO BLOCK REFERENDUM PETITIONS

Backers questioned Secretary of States Toulouse Oliver’s legal authority to decide whether the targeted laws are exempt from repeal, arguing it’s up to the court system, not the secretary of state, to make such a determination. Toulouse Oliver has denied 23 referendum petitions since a 60-day legislative session ended in March due to technical problems with the paperwork and legal objections.

Carla Sonntag, the founder of the nonprofit group “Better Together New Mexico” said this:

“We don’t feel like we need her blessing to move forward.  … We will see this through to the end [going to court if necessary].”

In April of this year, within weeks after the 60-day New Mexico  legislative session ended, a  court challenge against the Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver  was filed by Ramona Goolsby of Rio Rancho.  Goolsby is involved the coalition of groups seeking to get the targeted laws on the November 2024 ballot for a repeal vote. In her petition, she argued Toulouse Oliver overstepped her authority by ruling the abortion law is exempt from referendum, saying only the Legislature can determine whether laws or necessary for the public peace and welfare.

On June 8, 13th District Court Judge James Noel rejected a challenge by the New Mexico Family Action Movement to Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s authority to determine whether New Mexico laws targeted for repeal are exempt from referendum under the state Constitution. The specific challenge was to Toulouse Oliver’s ruling denying the referendum petition targeting House Bill 7 which prohibits public bodies from limiting access to abortion services and gender-affirming care.

Judge Noel granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Secretary of State’s Office.  The court upheld Toulouse Oliver’s determination that the bill meet the exemption for “public peace, health or safety” of the state.

Toulouse Oliver said this about the court ruling:

“This is a win for the rule of law and for all New Mexicans. … I’m pleased to see the court clarify this matter today with their ruling in favor of our  position that the laws currently being targeted for referendum are, in fact, exempted from the referendum process. Bottom of Form … It is very disappointing that New Mexicans are being misled about the referendum petition process by certain groups and individuals.”

Goolsby who filed the law suit and who is representing herself, responded to the case dismissal by Noel  by  citing his  appointment  to the judiciary by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in 2020 by saying this: .

“Partisan politics are alive and well in our courts.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2605077/state-judge-upholds-nm-secretary-of-states-authority-to-block-referendum-petitions.html

https://www.koat.com/article/petition-to-repeal-several-new-bills-in-new-mexico/44123219

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The petition drive by New Mexico Family Action Movement to use the referendum process to repeal the 6 laws enacted by the New Mexico legislature is totally within their rights and the rights of the Republican party. The lawsuit filed by against Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s challenging her authority is also a legitimate exercise of rights.

Notwithstanding, both are a reflection of the extreme length’s ultra right conservative organizations opposed to woman’s right to chooses and the Republican party will go to interfere with the legislative process and to interfere with a woman’s right to choose, access to abortion services and gender-affirming care, and to stop protections and expanding voters rights.  No politician, no voter, no government, and no one else has any right to tell a woman what she can do with her body and decide reproductive rights for her.

It is painfully obvious that when Republicans are not successful at the ballot box, not successful in the legislative process, they revert to the courts. When they are not successful in the courts, Republicans then call into question the motivations of the judiciary.  Thus far, New Mexico politics is experiencing a bumper crop of Republican “sour grapes”.