In 1997, the New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) was created by the Supreme Court of New Mexico to improve the performance of judges and provide useful, credible information to voters on judges standing for retention.  The JPEC was established after the New Mexico Judiciary went from a system of strict partisan elections to a “hybrid” system of one partisan election followed by retention elections. The JPEC is a taxpayer and State funded Commission created by the New Mexico Supreme Court to improve the performance of all state judges

2024 RETENTION ELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS

On September 13, 2024, the New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission issued the following press release making recommendations as to what Judges should be voted to be retained in the November 5 elections:

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – September 13, 2024

ALBUQUERQUE – The New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) today recommended voters retain 35 of 39 judges who are standing for retention on the 2024 General Election ballot. The other four judicial retention candidates have not served sufficient time for JPEC to make a recommendation to voters. Under state law, the judges must receive at least 57 percent approval to remain on the bench.

“We are pleased that all the judges we evaluated earned retain recommendations this year, due to mostly positive evaluations from those they interact with including other judges, lawyers, resource staff such as law enforcement and probation/parole officers, CASA volunteers, CYFD, interpreters and, in some cases, jurors. A number of judges had improved their survey scores since their previous evaluations,” said Denise Torres, chair of JPEC.

Lee Hunt, vice chair of JPEC, added, “Some judicial candidates expressed a willingness to address any weaknesses and a sincere desire to continue improving their performance during our personal interviews with them.”

This year, JPEC’s recommendations to voters statewide are:

Retain Honorable Briana H. Zamora, Supreme Court of New Mexico

Retain Honorable Jennifer L. Attrep, Megan P. Duffy and Shammara H. Henderson of the New Mexico Court of Appeals

For the District Court, JPEC’s recommendations are:

First Judicial District Court – Serving Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and Santa Fe counties
Retain Honorable Bryan Paul Biedscheid, Shannon Broderick Bulman and Matthew Justin Wilson.

Second Judicial District Court – Serving Bernalillo County
Retain Honorable Denise Barela-Shepherd, Cindy Leos, Victor S. Lopez, Brett R. Loveless, Daniel E. “Dan” Ramczyk and Courtney Bryn Weaks.

Insufficient time to evaluate Honorable David Allen Murphy and Emeterio L. Rudolfo.

Third Judicial District Court – Serving Doña Ana County
Retain Honorable Richard M. Jacquez, James T. Martin and Conrad F. Perea.

Fourth Judicial District Court – Serving Guadalupe, Mora and San Miguel counties
Retain Honorable Floripa “Flora” Gallegos.

Fifth Judicial District Court – Serving Chaves, Eddy and Lea counties
Retain Honorable James M. “Jim” Hudson and Lisa B. Riley.

Insufficient time to evaluate Honorable Ann Marie Cherokee Lewis.

Sixth Judicial District Court – Serving Grant, Hidalgo and Luna counties
Retain Honorable James B. “Jim” Foy.

Seventh Judicial District Court – Serving Catron, Sierra, Socorro and Torrance counties
Retain Honorable Shannon L. Murdock-Poff.

Eighth Judicial District Court – Serving Colfax, Taos and Union counties
Retain Honorable Jeffrey B. “Jeff” Shannon.

Ninth Judicial District Court – Serving Curry and Roosevelt counties
Retain Honorable Fred Travis Van Soelen.

Eleventh Judicial District Court – Serving McKinley and San Juan counties
Retain Honorable Sarah V. Weaver.

Twelfth Judicial District Court – Serving Lincoln and Otero counties
Retain Honorable Daniel A. “Dan” Bryant.

Thirteenth Judicial District Court – Serving Cibola, Sandoval and Valencia counties
Retain Honorable Cindy M. Mercer and Allen R. Smith.

Insufficient time to evaluate Honorable Allison P. Martinez.

For the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, JPEC’s recommendations are:

Retain Honorable Felicia Blea-Rivera, Rosemary Cosgrove-Aguilar, Michelle Castillo Dowler, Asra I. Elliott, Yvette K. Gonzales, Nina Aviva Safier and Renée Torres.

Judges are evaluated on their overall performance in four main areas: 1) legal ability; 2) fairness; 3) communication skills; and 4) preparation, attentiveness, temperament and control over proceedings.

JPEC also reviews statistics from the Administrative Office of the Courts for each judge including caseloads, excusals (reasons a judge is excused from hearing a case) and the time it takes to get cases resolved.

In addition, JPEC meets one-on-one with each judge being evaluated to review the survey results as well as his or her self-assessment of performance.

JPEC has posted evaluations in English and Spanish on its website, www.nmjpec.org. Individuals may download voter’s guides for their judicial district or call 1-800-687-3417 to request information by mail. In addition, JPEC will inform voters about its evaluations through advertising and social media.

“We encourage each individual to vote in all elections for which they are eligible – including the judicial retention elections. These elections are near the end of the ballot, so please take the time to go all the way through the ballot. Your vote does matter,” Torres concluded.

JPEC has 15 volunteer members, including seven lawyers and eight non-lawyers who are appointed to staggered terms. Members are appointed to represent diverse professions, backgrounds and geographical areas of the state.”

The link to the press release is here:

https://nmjpec.org/en/news/122-2024-nmjpec-news-091324

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/nonpartisan-commission-recommends-35-of-39-judges-for-retention-in-this-years-election/

ABOUT THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION COMMISSION

The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) is a nonpartisan volunteer commission.  The JPEC is made of up 15 individuals, 7 lawyers and 8 non-lawyers, who are appointed to staggered terms by the Supreme Court of New Mexico and who are from all over the State of New Mexico.  Commission members are selected from nominations by the Governor, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore, House Minority Leader, Senate Minority Leader and President of the State Bar.

Members are appointed to represent divergent professions, backgrounds and geographical areas of the state.  Members go through an approval process and agree to donate a significant amount of time to evaluate judges midway through their terms in office as well as when they are standing for retention.

https://nmjpec.org/en/

https://nmjpec.org/en/staff/jpec-commissioners

PARTISAN ELECTIONS FOLLOWED BY RETENTION ELECTIONS

New Mexico Court Judges at all levels are initially elected in partisan elections to full terms and then after serving the term, they must go before voters thereafter for retention to serve another term.  Every election cycle where Judges appear on the ballot, the JPEC evaluates judges by sending out a confidential survey to all licensed attorneys who grade the Judges.  The Commission then rates the judges and recommends to voters who they should retain.

Once a judge is appointed or is elected first in a partisan race by 50% plus one of the vote, that judge faces a retention vote for subsequent terms and must garner 57% of the vote to be retained. Any Judge who does not secure a “YES” vote from 57% of those voting on their retention are removed from office and the Governor then appoints a judge to fill the vacancy.

To perform the evaluations, the JPEC distributes confidential surveys to licensed attorneys, court jurors and others who interact with the court. The commission also interviews the judges, reviews statistics from the Administrative Office of the Courts and sends observers into the courtroom. New Mexico judges who are up for retention must receive approval from 57% of voters to keep their seat on the bench and not the 50% plus one required in contested partisan.

The JPEC posts all their results and recommendations to vote “YES” to retain or vote “NO” to retain on its web site. Historically, judges who JPEC recommends not be retained receive about 12% fewer votes than judges who are recommended for retention.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is believed that this is the first time in a very long time, and it may be the very  first time,  that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC)  has recommended retention of all judges for election.  In the past there have been a number of controversial “do not retain” judge recommendations and those judges have gone on to be voted out of office.  Past “do not retain” recommendations have included removal of a long term Metro Court Presiding Judge and another Judge with decades of trial experience and the commanding officer to the New Mexico National Guard. The JPEC has sent out mailers advertising what judges should and should not be retained using taxpayer funding appropriated to the commission.

All State of New Mexico Judges are strictly prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct from holding any elected or appointed positions in political parties. All State Judges are strictly prohibited from endorsing any candidate for office and cannot solicit donations for elections.

Candidates running for Judge must have a confidential finance committee set up to raise money for them, the committee is prevented from disclosing to the judicial candidate names of donors to prevent the Judges from knowing who donated to their campaigns to avoid the appearance and accusation of giving preferential treatment in decisions rendered.

A Judge is also prevented by the Code of Judicial Conduct from making “extrajudicial comments” to the media or groups that may reflect on their fairness and impartiality. Judges are prohibited from defending their decisions and sentencings and their job performance in a public forum outside of their courtrooms so criticizing judges is like “shooting fish” in a barrel.

The JPEC recommendations do have a definite impact on any Judge’s chances for retention. Once the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission issues its ratings, there is virtually very little or no recourse for any Judge to dispute the no retention recommendation given to them by the JPEC. The JPEC does not give “equal time” on their web page to the Judges who are recommended not to be retained as would be the case at a debate on an incumbent candidate’s job performance.

The JPEC  is suppose “to provide useful, credible information to voters on judges standing for retention”, yet there is nothing in great detail on its web page.  It is doubtful that confidential surveys and interviews from those who may have a personal axe to grind against any judge are much of a use to give a complete and accurate picture of any judge’s job performance every day they are on the bench.

The JPEC wants voters to accept as gospel without challenge the recommendations they make on retention.  JPEC goes so far as to boast when it releases its evaluation results that it will inform voters about its evaluations through advertising and social media. It is essentially campaigning on behalf of or in opposition to Judges.  It is totally inappropriate for a government agency, funded with taxpayer money, to be telling people how to vote.

Elected officials working in other branches of government aren’t subjected to similar evaluations and that is what political elections are all about.  There has to be a better way for JPEC to seek removal of Judges for poor job performance than to go to voters with recommendation and removal should be done by the Supreme Court.

If there is indeed a problem with the job performance of any judge that would justify removal, the appropriate remedy would be an investigation by the Judicial Standards Commission and result in the Judge’s removal by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The JPEC is a threat to the independence of the Judiciary and the New Mexico Supreme Court should abolish it.  The New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is nothing more than a “political hit squad” that uses taxpayer money to actively campaign for or against Judges.

 

On August 25, it was reported that that the New Mexico court system is launching 4 pilot programs in the state intended to divert people with serious mental illness into treatment who otherwise would face prosecution for minor crimes. The pilot programs will be implemented by the Administrative Office of the Courts and initially will address only people charged with misdemeanor crimes. Candidates for the program are people who previously have had criminal charges dismissed because they were found incompetent to stand trial.

New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Briana Zamora is the chairperson of a court-affiliated working group responsible for proposed legislation that would give judges more options in cases where criminal defendants are deemed incompetent to stand trial. The working group was created 2 years ago.  It is made up of various city officials, law enforcement officers, mental health advocates and attorneys.  Zamora is a former Albuquerque Metro Court Judge.

Justice Zamora said this:

“This is the first time we’re doing anything with this group of individuals [ who are criminal defendants with severe mental illness]. … It will be challenging because they are high need. … But just being complacent and doing nothing is no longer an option. … My hope is that we create a court-based program to provide individuals the services and behavioral health treatment they need. … And as a result, we reduce recidivism.”

A pilot program was launched on August 16 in the 4th Judicial District in Las Vegas to serve people charged with misdemeanor crimes in San Miguel County Magistrate Court. The 3rd Judicial District in Las Cruces started a similar program 6 months ago. Two additional pilot programs are slated for the 12th Judicial District, serving Otero and Lincoln counties, and a fourth site in the 1st Judicial District in Santa Fe.

Jail personnel will perform an initial screening to determine if the person is severely mentally ill.  If all parties agree that a criminal defendant is eligible for the voluntary program, a licensed professional will perform an evaluation to determine the person’s needs.

Needs may include behavioral health treatments and support services, such as housing, food and transportation. The person then is assigned a navigator to devise a treatment plan.  The courts have contracts with behavioral health providers to perform evaluations and provide treatments.

Chief Public Defender Bennett Baur said that done correctly, a diversion program for people with severe mental health problems could save money because arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people is costly. Baur said this about the diversion programs:

“If we see that it’s successful, then we could expand it to possibly nonviolent felonies. … But you want to see whether it works, and you have to build trust and cooperation and then expand from there.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/courts-launch-novel-program-for-mentally-ill-defendants/article_c2d69502-6195-11ef-9ace-5f07f683df43.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COURTS, CORRECTIONS AND JUSTICE INTERIM COMMITTEE

It was on August 13 that Justice Briana Zamora testified before the New Mexico Legislature’s Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee on the state’s mental health competency laws as they relate to criminal defendants. The Committee is one of the most influential committees of the legislature and consists of 32 House and Senate members and meets year-round and vets proposed legislation.

Justice Zamora presented a bill drafted that could be debated by lawmakers during the 60-day legislative session that starts on January 21 and ends on March 22, 2025. The bill takes a different approach to criminal competency than the bills backed by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham that would have required temporarily detaining of criminal defendants who are deemed to be incompetent to stand trial in certain felony cases, so that mandatory treatment orders could be prepared. The Governor’s bills were introduced during the July 18 Special Session she called on public safety, but lawmakers refused to take up and debate any of the proposals during the special session.

The new legislation crafted would allow judges to assign non-violent criminal defendants to outpatient or residential diversion programs, where they could get treatment and counseling for mental health issues or substance abuse treatment. While few such programs exist or are being implemented, a larger-scale effort would require new programs be established in a state already struggling to fill vacant social work and counseling positions.

One problem identified with the proposed legislation is that the changes to the state’s competency laws being proposed will not, on their own, bring about a quick fix.  Justice Zamora told the Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee this:

“The statute alone will not be sufficient. …This [legislation] will lay the groundwork to create programs.”

GOVERNOR PROMOTES REFORMS TO THE CRIMINAL COMPETENCY

It was on April 17 that Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced she was calling state legislators into a Special Session on July 18 to focus on addressing public safety proposals. There were two major bills the Governor proposed on mental competency she wanted the legislature to enact during the special session.

The first measure would have made changes to the state’s criminal competency law. This bill involved involuntary civil commitment for criminal defendants charged with a serious violent offense, a felony involving the use of a firearm, or those defendants who have been found incompetent two or more times in the prior 12 months. Judges would have been required to order district attorneys to consider filing “involuntary commitment” proceedings and giving judges the ability to detain a defendant for up to seven days for the petition to be initiated and then mandate long term mental health care. The intent was to prevent mentally incapacitated individuals from harming themselves or the public and simply being released.

Supporters say there are far too many suspects who are arrested, deemed incompetent to stand trial, and then simply released back on the streets only to commit more crimes.  It’s a bill designed to address in part the so-called “revolving door” where defendants are arrested only to be found incompetent to stand trial and then released and who never go on trial for criminal charges. The legislation was intended to strengthen a 2016 law and a program originally signed into law by former Governor Susana Martinez that allows district judges to order involuntary treatment for people with severe mental illness who have frequent brushes with law enforcement. It involves a program called the “Assisted Outpatient Treatment” (AOT).

The second measure would have broadened the definitions of danger to oneself and danger to others in New Mexico’s involuntary commitment statute that mandates involuntary treatment for people with mental illness. The bill would allow a judge to mandate out-patient treatment. It would allow individuals, whether first responders, family members or community members who work with mentally ill individuals on the streets to request involuntary out-patient treatment.

During the 3 months before the session, the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee conducted a number of extensive day long hearings on the legislation with the Governor’s Office making presentations and stake holders offering research and analysis.  At one point the Governor withdrew legislation and offered substitute legislation.

On July 18 lawmakers started and ended the session without considering the governor’s measure but appropriated $3 million to support competency diversion pilot programs.

SUBSTITUTE BILL ANNOUNCED

On June 26 a substitute proposal was presented to the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee interim legislative committee that would broaden eligibility for someone who could be ordered by a judge into involuntary mental health treatment. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office announced she scrapped the proposal to expand court-supervised outpatient treatment for people with mental illness for debate during the July 18 Special Session.  The bill the governor withdrew was intended to strengthen a 2016 law that allows district judges to order involuntary treatment for people with severe mental illness who have frequent brushes with law enforcement. It would have required each of the state’s 13 judicial districts to create a program called Assisted Outpatient Treatment overseen by a civil court judge.

The Governor was proposing to broaden eligibility for involuntary commitment by tweaking definitions in existing law. The existing involuntary commitment law essentially limits commitment to people who are suicidal. The proposed change would broaden the definition of “harm to self” and “harm to others” to cover more people eligible for involuntary treatment.

Under the new definition, “harm to self” would include a person unable “to exercise self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of the person’s daily responsibilities and social relations” or “to satisfy the person’s need for nourishment, personal or medical care,” housing and personal safety.

The proposed definition of “harm to others” would cover a person who “has inflicted, attempted to inflict or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm on another” or has taken actions that create “a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to another.” Harm to others could also apply to someone who has engaged in “extreme destruction of property” in the recent past.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/governor-pulls-bill-to-expand-involuntary-treatment/article_bc1fa51a-34df-11ef-ae36-4f7a022267af.html

ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCY LEGISLATION

On June 26, an analysis of the number of people released back into the community after being found incompetent to stand trial was provided to the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee which held all day hearings for 4 days to consider all 5 of the Governors measures. The analysis was not completed and was unavailable when the competency bill legislation failed in the 2024 legislative session.

Major findings of the analysis are as follows:

• More than 3,200 people charged with crimes since 2017 in New Mexico have been released back to the community after being found incompetent to stand trial, according to an analysis that fueled Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s call for a special session.
• More than 5,350 of the 16,045 dismissed charges were felonies, according to the analysis. The dismissals included those charged with first-degree murder, trafficking controlled substances, kidnapping, and abuse of a child, according to data of the state Administrative Office of the Courts.
• Other defendants charged with lesser crimes have been repeat offenders caught in a cycle of being charged and released only to be arrested again, charged, and let go after court-ordered evaluations showed they cannot participate in their defense and a judge ruled they were mentally incompetent to stand trial.

After seeing the analysis, Lujan Grisham called the number of criminal case dismissals “frankly, shocking.” The Governor said this:

“Some of these have been in court up to 40 times in a year. If we don’t interrupt that, the status quo that you see playing out in our communities every day will stay. … I’m trying to break that cycle [and] focus on the criminal competency loophole. … The notion that we would have 3,200-plus individuals reoffending for another year is more than I think any New Mexican should have to bear”.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The New Mexico court system launching 4 pilot programs in 4 separate counties in the state to divert people with serious mental illness into treatment who otherwise would face prosecution for minor crimes is an excellent first start, but far more needs to be done. Warehousing the mentally ill, drug addicted or the unhoused who are mentally ill or drug addicted in jails for crimes committed is not the answer and does not address treatment nor is it much of a solution. The court’s must be looked to as part of the solution.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the legislature should strengthen and expand the state’s mental health commitment laws coupled with full funding for mental health facilities and the courts. The District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office need to be made a part of the solution with the expansion of the state mental health commitment laws with mandatory filing of civil mental health commitments that go beyond the 3-day, 7-day and 30-day commitments that are already allowed by state law.

The 2025 legislature should enact the Governor’s proposal for the involuntary civil commitment of criminal defendants charged with a serious violent offense, a felony involving the use of a firearm, and those defendants who have also been found incompetent to stand trial two or more times in the prior 12 months. Judges should be required to order district attorneys to file “involuntary commitment” proceedings against criminal defendants who are found incompetent to stand trial and who would be released without further criminal prosecution for crimes committed.

The 2025 legislature should also enact the Governor’s proposed bill that will broaden the definitions of danger to oneself and danger to others in New Mexico’s involuntary commitment statute that mandates involuntary treatment for people with mental illness. The bill should mandate District Attorneys to initiate involuntary civil commitments and allow judge to mandate out-patient treatment. It should allow individuals, whether first responders, family members or community members who work with mentally ill individuals on the streets to request involuntary out-patient treatment.

The legislature during the 2025 regular session should seek to create a 14^th Judicial District Court and specialty “Mental Health Treatment Court” functioning as outreach and treatment court for the drug addicted and the mentally ill in a mandatory hospital or counseling settings and not involving jail incarceration.  The creation of a new 14^th Judicial District Court designated as a Mental Health Court should have 3 separate regional divisions: one located in Albuquerque, one in Las Cruces and one in Las Vegas, New Mexico with the creation of at least 3 District Court Judge positions with 6-year terms.

The Assisted Outpatient Treatment program should be consolidated with the Mental Health Court so as to achieve one singular court with statewide jurisdiction.  The Administrative Offices of the Courts must play a pivotal role in setting up the new court process, including locating the new Mental Health Treatment Court in existing court houses in all 3 locations.

There is a major need for the construction and staffing of a mental health facilities or hospitals to provide the services needed to the mentally ill or drug addicted. As it stands now, there exists less than adequate facilities where patients can be referred to for civil mental health commitments and treatment.

In other words, there is nowhere for people to go or be placed to get the mental health and drug treatment needed. There is glaring need for a behavioral health hospital and drug rehabilitation treatment facilities.  The Bernalillo County Behavioral Health Center and the Las Vegas Mental Health hospital could be expanded to accommodate court referrals and a new behavioral health facility could be constructed in Las Cruces to handle mental health commitments and treatment.

New Mexico is currently experiencing historical surplus revenues and this past legislative session the legislature had an astonishing $3.6 Billion in surplus revenue. Now is the time to create a statewide Mental Health Court and dedicate funding for the construction of behavioral health hospital and drug rehabilitation treatment facilities the courts can rely upon for referrals.  Creation of a new court system must include funding for District Attorneys and Public Defenders with dedicated personnel resources for the filing and defending of civil mental health commitments as prescribed by law.

A statewide mental health court with mandatory civil commitments will get treatment to those who need it the most, help get the unhoused off the streets and help families with loved ones who resist any mental health treatment.

Links to related blog articles are here:

ABQ Journal Dinelli Guest Opinion Column: “Lawmakers should set up statewide mental health court”; Related Column: Laws, Statistics, and Resources Needed To Create 14th Judicial District Court For Mental Health Commitment Court

 

Gov. MLG’s Special Session Will Focus On Mental Health Treatment Laws Ignoring Need For Mental Health Treatment Facilities And Funding; Special Session Should Concentrate On Creating Statewide Mental Health Court And Building And Staffing Facilities To Provide Mental Health Services

On September 10, the national news agencies CNN and NBC published news articles that when read together capture all the major takeaways of the Presidential Debate between Vice President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Following are both edited articles:

CNN NEWS HEADLINE:  “Takeaways from the ABC presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris”  by CNN staff reporters Eric Bradner, Arit John, Daniel Strauss, Betsy Klein and Gregory Krieg.

“Kamala Harris baited Donald Trump for nearly all of the 1 hour and 45 minutes of their first and potentially only debate on Tuesday night – and Trump took every bit of it.

The vice president had prepared extensively for their debate, and peppered nearly every answer with a comment designed to enrage the former president. She told Trump that world leaders were laughing at him, and military leaders called him a “disgrace.” She called Trump “weak” and “wrong.” She said Trump was fired by 81 million voters – the number that voted for President Joe Biden in 2020.

“Clearly, he’s having a very difficult time processing that,” she said.

Trump was often out of control. He loudly and repeatedly insisted that a whole host of falsehoods were true. The former president repeated lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election. He parroted a conspiracy theory about immigrants eating pets, and lied about Democrats supporting abortions after babies are born – which is murder, and illegal everywhere.

He painted a dire picture of the United States, reminiscent of the “American carnage” he’d warned of when he was inaugurated in 2017.

“We have a nation that is dying,” Trump said Tuesday night.

As the debate ended, Harris got another boost: Musician and pop culture icon Taylor Swift posted on Instagram that she was backing the Democratic ticket. She signed her post “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady” — a reference to controversial comments by Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, that have alienated many women.

Here are some quick takeaways from the first portion of the debate:

Harris used the first question to lean into her plan for an “opportunity economy,” seeking to cut into Trump’s advantage on the issue with swing voters by presenting herself as the candidate of the middle class while calling Trump a corporate tax-cutter.

“I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. “We know that we have a shortage of homes and housing, and the cost of housing is too expensive for far too many people. We know that young families need support to raise their children, and I intend on extending a tax cut for those families of $6,000, which is the largest child tax credit that we have given in a long time, so that those young families can afford to buy a crib, buy a car seat, buy clothes for their children.”

Trump blasted the Biden-Harris economy, saying, “I’ve never seen a worse period of time.” He also defended his tariff plans and called Harris “a Marxist,” even as he accused her of copying his policies: “I was going to send her a MAGA hat.”

A TURNING POINT WHEN HARRIS JABS TRUMP OVER THE SIZE OF THE CROWDS AT HIS RALLIES

Harris came onstage with a clear plan: Throw Trump off his game.

It was, by any measure, a dramatic success. When the vice president mentioned Trump’s criminal conviction and outstanding legal issues, he bit. When she called him out for sinking a bipartisan immigration bill, he bit harder. And when Harris suggested Trump’s rallies were boring, he nearly choked on the bait.

Rather than engage on the issues raised by the moderators, including a few that Trump considers some of his political strengths, the former president went on at length about the entertainment value of his rallies, claims the Biden administration was legally targeting him and, in a long, bizarre spell, insisted – against all available evidence, that migrants were eating Americans’ pets.

“They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there,” Trump said, after Harris criticized him for tanking the immigration bill.

Harris looked on as though she was puzzled, but rarely returned to the claims, apparently content to allow Trump go off.

Trump seemed especially aggrieved by the vice president’s aside about his campaign events. Even after Muir sought to redirect the debate to immigration – again, one of Trump’s preferred topics – the former president refused to let it go.

“First, let me respond as to the rallies,” Trump said, mocking Harris’ crowds before returning to his own. “People don’t leave my rallies, we have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.”

The first hour of the debate then ended much like it began – with Trump off on a long, narrowcast tangent about the 2020 election, which he claimed, falsely once again, was stolen from him.

“In Springfield,” Trump said, after Harris criticized him for tanking the immigration bill, “they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats.”

Harris looked on as though she was puzzled, but rarely returned to the claims, apparently content to allow Trump go off.

Trump seemed especially aggrieved by the vice president’s aside about his campaign events. Even after Muir sought to redirect the debate to immigration – again, one of Trump’s preferred topics – the former president refused to let it go.

“First, let me respond as to the rallies,” Trump said, first mocking Harris’s crowds, then turning back to his own. “People don’t leave my rallies, we have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.”

The first hour of the debate then ended much like it began – with Trump off on a long, narrowcast tangent about the 2020 election, which he claimed, falsely once again, was stolen from him.

HARRIS SETS THE TONE

“When Harris and Trump walked onto stage in Philadelphia, it was the first time they’d met in person. Trump, after all, skipped Biden’s inauguration.

Harris set the tone by walking across the six feet separating her podium from Trump’s and reaching out for a handshake. She introduced herself and said, “Let’s have a good debate.”

“Nice to see you,” Trump responded.

It was the first handshake in a presidential debate since Trump and Hillary Clinton squared off in 2016. Trump famously loomed uncomfortably close to Clinton during their town hall-style debate.

Trump generally looked forward as Harris spoke, while the vice president communicated through facial expressions. She laughed at some Trump comments, smirked at others, shook her head at some and at times appeared bemused.

When Trump repeated a debunked myth about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Harris laughed mockingly while shrugging and pointing at Trump.”

TRUMP INDULGES IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES

 “Despite signals from even his running mate, Trump did not refrain from repeating the conspiracy theory du jour during the debate.

The former president brought up the unfounded conspiracy theory that migrants from Haiti living in Springfield, Ohio, are eating people’s cats and dogs. He said at one point “in Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of people who live there.”

When ABC moderator David Muir pointed out that city officials denied any evidence that migrants in Springfield were actually eating pets, Trump doubled down saying “the people on television” were saying it. When pressed, Trump just said, “We’ll find out.”

When the debate moved to crime, Trump claimed that crime was up in the United States contrary to the rest of the world. There too Muir pointed out that, according to FBI data, crime had actually declined in the past few years.

Trump, again, deferred to a different conspiracy theory that the FBI is deeply corrupt and issuing “defrauding statements.” He argued “it was a fraud.”

Later in the debate, Trump argued that US elections are “a mess” and claimed that Democrats are trying to get undocumented immigrants to vote in elections.”

FIERCE ARGUMENT OVER ABORTION, A KEY ISSUE FOR BOTH CANDIDATES

“Few moments highlighted the difference between Biden’s June debate performance and Harris’ on Tuesday as much as the abortion debate.

The vice president, who has long been one the administration’s strongest surrogates on reproductive rights, was able to respond to the former president’s defense of his abortion policy in a way Biden was not.

The former president, who appointed three of the Supreme Court judges who overturned federal abortion protections, has sought to moderate his stance on the issue by criticizing six-week abortion bans and reiterating his support for exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. But he has also defended the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

“Now it’s not tied up in the federal government,” Trump said. “I did a great service in doing it. It took courage to do it.”

Trump repeated several of the arguments he made about abortion during his June debate with Biden. He argued that “everyone” wanted the issue returned to the states, despite widespread resistance from Democrats and some independents. He argued inaccurately that a former governor of Virginia said that babies should be executed – a reference to comments former Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, a doctor, made about care for births after nonviable pregnancies.

And Trump repeated the false claim that some states allow abortions to be performed after a baby has been born, which drew a fact check from ABC News’ Linsey Davis.

“There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born,” Davis said.

Harris responded by highlighting cases where women have been unable to get abortions after being victims of rape or struggled to get miscarriage care.

“You want to talk about this is what people wanted?” Harris said. “Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term, suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail, and she’s bleeding out in a car in the parking lot – she didn’t want that.”

VICE PRESIDENT CASTS TRUMP AS OUT FOR HIMSELF

 Seeking to introduce herself to voters, Harris set the tone early, drawing contrast with Trump by framing herself as an advocate for middle-class Americans – and framing her opponent as self-absorbed.

“Donald Trump has no plan for you,” Harris said in response to a question on the economy, looking into the camera in a direct appeal to voters.

Leaning into her personal biography as she cast herself as a “middle class kid,” Harris outlined an economic vision including tax cuts for families and tax deductions for small businesses, while Trump, she said, will “do what he has done before, which is to provide a tax cut for billionaires and big corporations.”

Trump, Harris continued, “actually has no plan for you, because he is more interested in defending himself than he is in looking out for you.”

Her campaign has argued in its ads and talking points that Trump is a candidate looking out for himself, and Harris took that message to the debate stage Tuesday.

“I will tell you, the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. And I’ll tell you: I believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first,” she said.

TRUMP’S COMMENTS ABOUT HARRIS’ RACE, PAST CONTROVERSIES UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

 When Trump was asked about his comment last month falsely claiming Harris only recently started to identify as Black, the former president defended his remarks as something he’d read somewhere.

“I couldn’t care less,” Trump said. “Whatever she wants to be is OK with me.”

In the weeks since those comments, the vice president has avoided engaging in that personal attack beyond calling it the “same old tired playbook.”

At the Philadelphia event, however, Harris responded to Trump’s attacks on her identity a meaningful way. But instead of defending her indisputable racial identity, the vice president laid out the former president’s history of past racial discrimination and racist behavior.

That history includes investigations of housing discrimination, calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five – young teenagers of color falsely accused and convicted of raping and assaulting a woman in the New York park – and fueling the false birther allegation that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United states.

“And I think the American people want better than that. Want better than this,” Harris said. “We see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor. We don’t want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other.”

Trump pushed back, arguing that others, such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, also supported the case against the Central Park Five. He called the Biden-Harris administration divisive and argued that the vice president’s examples were outdated.

“This is a person that has to stretch back years – 40, 50 years ago – because there’s nothing now,” he said.

TRUMP AND HARRIS DIG THEIR HEELS IN ON MAJOR GLOBAL FLASHPOINTS

 If anyone on stage Tuesday has a clear, point-by-point plan for ending the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, they did not share it with the viewers at home.

Asked how she would secure peace in Gaza, Harris first recalled the horrors of Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks inside Israel. She offered some mild criticism of Israel’s response, an ongoing bombardment that’s killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, before pivoting to her support for a two-state solution, Israel’s right to defend itself and a commitment to rebuilding Gaza.

“We need a ceasefire deal and we need the hostages out,” Harris declared. Biden and others recently conceded such an agreement is a long way off.

Trump offered even fewer details.

“She hates Israel,” he said of Harris, adding that she also hates “Arabs.”

Trump has occasionally sought to inflame anger among Arab Americans over Biden’s handling of the conflict. But on Tuesday he quickly abandoned the tactic, instead chiding Harris for slighting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a recent visit to Capitol Hill – she did, in fact, meet with him; she did not attend his speech to Congress – and declaring again that none of it “would have never happened” if he were still in the White House.

Ditto for the Russian war in Ukraine, per the former president, who – after stopping to note that he “know(s) Putin very well – said “Russia would have never ever … have gone into Ukraine” on his watch.

“I’ll get it done before even becoming president,” Trump added, claiming his election would reset the geopolitical state of play and, almost by definition, herald a deal.

Harris, for her part, used the Russia-Ukraine talk to attack Trump over his well-documented fondness for international strongmen and despots.

“It is well-known that these dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again,” Harris said, “because it is so clear they can manipulate you with flatter and favors.”

Trump fought back there, recalling his push to get NATO member nations to pay more into the alliance and slamming Harris for Biden’s refusal to do the same, before saying the vice president “does not have the courage to ask.”

Harris replied that she believed Trump might, in fact, put a quick end to the war – by capitulating to Putin. And in so doing, she added, endangering Poland on Ukraine’s western border.  (Pennsylvania has a large Polish-American population, Harris noted.)

After more back-and-forth on additional flashpoints, like the US’ disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, Trump – having been accused repeatedly of going starry-eyed for strongmen – quoted the one running Hungary, Prime Minister Victor Orban.

“Orban said it, he said, ‘The most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president,’” Trump said.

The link to read the unedited news item with photos and captions is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/politics/debate-takeaways-trump-harris/index.html

NBC NEWS HEADLINE:  Six Takeaways From The First Harris-Trump Presidential Debate

By Sahil Kapur, NBC Saff Reporter

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump clashed in their first presidential debate Tuesday in Philadelphia, less than two months before Election Day.

Heading into the debate, Harris appeared to have more to gain — and more to lose. A New York Times/Siena College poll found that 28% said they “need to learn more about Kamala Harris,” compared with just 9% who said the same about Trump. Overall, Trump led Harris by 1 point among likely voters, with 5% unsure or not backing either.

The debate covered a wide range of issues and featured a series of intense exchanges between the two bitter rivals. Harris presented herself as a pragmatic problem-solver and diminished Trump as a wannabe dictator who can’t keep his rally crowds engaged. Trump attacked Harris as a radical and frequently returned to his theme of criticizing migration, sometimes veering into conspiracy theories.

Here are six key takeaways from the debate.

1. HARRIS LEANS IN QUICKLY ON LOWERING COSTS

Harris used the first question to lean into her plan for an “opportunity economy,” seeking to cut into Trump’s advantage on the issue with swing voters by presenting herself as the candidate of the middle class while calling Trump a corporate tax-cutter.

“I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. “We know that we have a shortage of homes and housing, and the cost of housing is too expensive for far too many people. We know that young families need support to raise their children, and I intend on extending a tax cut for those families of $6,000, which is the largest child tax credit that we have given in a long time, so that those young families can afford to buy a crib, buy a car seat, buy clothes for their children.”

Trump blasted the Biden-Harris economy, saying, “I’ve never seen a worse period of time.” He also defended his tariff plans and called Harris “a Marxist,” even as he accused her of copying his policies: “I was going to send her a MAGA hat.”

2. BOTH CANDIDATES SEEK THE MANTLE OF CHANGE

In the opening minutes, both rivals sought to claim the mantle of change in a country full of voters who are hungry for it.

“In this debate tonight, you’re going to hear from the same old, tired playbook: a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling,” Harris said of Trump. “What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected.”

Harris returned to that message later in the debate: “The American people are exhausted with the same old, tired playbook.” She went back to it later in criticizing Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 riot.

“Let’s turn the page on this. Let’s not go back,” she said.

Trump sought to portray Harris as a continuation of President Joe Biden on immigration and the economy.

On migrants coming into the U.S. illegally, he said: “These are the people that she and Biden led into our country, and they’re destroying our country. They’re dangerous.”

And on the economy, he said: “She copied Biden’s plan. And it’s, like, four sentences. Run, Spot, run.”

3. TRUMP ATTACKS AS HARRIS DEFENDS POLICY SHIFTS

A significant weakness for Harris in the campaign has been the left-wing positions she took as a Democratic presidential primary candidate in 2020 that she has since abandoned or backtracked from — such as banning fracking, mandating buybacks of semiautomatic firearms and decriminalizing border crossings. She was asked about her evolution again.

I made that very clear in 2020, I will not ban fracking,” Harris said. “I have not banned fracking as vice president. In fact, I was the tiebreaking vote on the inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking,” an ecologically controversial way to extract oil and natural gas.

Harris added, “My values have not changed.”

Trump sought to capitalize.

“She wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison. This is a radical left liberal that would do this. She wants to confiscate your guns, and she will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania,” he said. “If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on Day One.”

4. TRUMP DODGES ON VETOING FEDERAL ABORTION BAN

Trump and Harris engaged in a lengthy clash over abortion, during which Trump declined twice to say whether he would veto a federal abortion ban if Congress passed one.

“Well, I won’t have to,” Trump replied. He said he’s “not signing” such a ban because there’s “no reason to,” arguing that “everybody” is happy with the termination of Roe v. Wade.

When told that his vice presidential nominee, Sen. JD Vance, of Ohio, said he would veto such a ban, Trump contradicted Vance, who made his comments recently on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

“Well, I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. JD — and I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me,” he said, arguing that Congress won’t pass any major abortion bill.

Harris said: “I pledge to you: When Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it in to law. But understand, if Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban.”

5. HARRIS BAITS TRUMP INTO MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

Harris came into the debate with the hope of rattling Trump, and she appeared to succeed at some moments, baiting him into a defensive posture rather than highlighting his strongest issue: concerns about inflation and the cost of living.

She attacked him on abortion rights, linked him to the right-wing policy blueprint Project 2025 and highlighted his praise for Chinese President Xi Jinping around the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Both times, he jumped in to defend himself. She invited Americans to watch a Trump rally.

“He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about ‘windmills cause cancer.’ And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom,” Harris said, looking into the camera.

That didn’t sit well with Trump, who said he has “the most incredible rallies in the history of politics” and went on a tangent by citing a debunked conspiracy theory about some migrants’ eating pets. “They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats,” he said.

6. TRUMP BASHES BIDEN, SPARKING PITHY HARRIS REPLY

Trump’s performance included a wide sprinkling of attacks on Biden, who dropped out after his disastrous late-June debate showing against Trump. He criticized Biden’s handling of classified documents, knocked him for opposing the Keystone XL pipeline and called the Biden’s administration “the most divisive presidency in the history of our country.”

“Where is our president? We don’t even know if he’s the president,” Trump said toward the end of the debate. “They threw him out of a campaign like a dog. We don’t even know. Is he our president? We have a president that doesn’t know he’s alive.”

Harris replied, “It is important to remind the former president: You’re not running against Joe Biden; you are running against me.”

When Trump said later, “She is Biden,” Harris responded: “Clearly, I am not Joe Biden. And I am certainly not Donald Trump.”

The link to read the unedited news item with photos is here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/presidential-debate-takeaways-trump-harris-rcna169060

POLL: VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS WINS THE DEBATE

“Registered voters who watched Tuesday’s presidential debate broadly agree that Kamala Harris outperformed Donald Trump, according to a CNN poll of debate watchers conducted by SSRS. The vice president also outpaced both debate watchers’ expectations for her and Joe Biden’s onstage performance against the former president earlier this year, the poll found.

Debate watchers said, 63% to 37%, that Harris turned in a better performance onstage in Philadelphia. Prior to the debate, the same voters were evenly split on which candidate would perform more strongly, with 50% saying Harris would do so and 50% that Trump would. And afterward, 96% of Harris supporters who tuned in said that their chosen candidate had done a better job, while a smaller 69% majority of Trump’s supporters credited him with having a better night. … ”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/11/politics/election-poll-trump-harris-debate/index.html

On September 4, the Albuquerque City Council unanimously approved tax abatements for major housing development projects in the city plagued by a shortage of housing. One of the projects is exclusively an affordable housing project. The tax abatements will be a “freeze” for seven years on developers’ tax payments at the level being paid before any development took place on the property.

With the tax abatements in place, the developers will be able to move forward and secure building permits and financing.  According to a city staff report, the tax abatement will save developers hundreds of thousands of dollars of at least $744,332 in property taxes. The tax abatements are meant to incentivize the development projects.

PROJECTS OUTLINED

One of the projects is the 10-story Two-Park Central Tower near the corner of San Mateo and Central. For decades the building was commercial office space.  It has been vacant for a number of years, and it will now be converted into housing. Developer Route 66 Multifamily plans to turn the vacant office building into 101 apartments. Some of the apartments will be market value, and some might become affordable housing.

Another housing development projects is the old Bank of the West Tower located at Central and San Mateo. It is a 17 story a high-rise office building completed in 1963 and when it was built it was the tallest building in the city. It is now the fifth tallest building in the state, and the tallest outside of Downtown Albuquerque. Developer Route 66 plans to turn the commercial building into apartments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_West_Tower_(Albuquerque)#References

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/housing-planned-for-vacant-albuquerque-building-at-central-and-san-mateo/

The third and only project dedicated to affordable housing will be built at the corner of Central and Alcazar SE. The 70-unit Somos affordable housing complex is being developed by Sol Housing. The nonprofit plans to set aside 84% of the units for income-restricted affordable housing. The tax abatement on this project will save the developer an estimated $514,376.  The city already owns the land that the Somos project is being built on and will transfer ownership to Sol Housing after the abatement period ends.

Felipe Rael, the executive director of Sol Housing, said this  in a statement:

“With the construction of 70 apartment homes and commercial space to support local small businesses, SOMOS can achieve the vision of the international marketplace, providing much needed housing and economic benefits to the International District. … The city’s support furthers this vision as we work to stabilize housing for 70 senior households.”

Another housing development project will be undertaken by Titan Development.   Titan Development is planning for a new long-term resident inn and food hall at the corner of Central and Cedar NE across from the Presbyterian Hospital complex.  It is being proposed that the 126-unit residential development could be used by traveling nurses working across the street at Presbyterian Hospital.  The tax abatement should save the developers an estimated $998,128 over seven years.

Sunlight Properties and Garfield Townhomes also received council approval for a tax abatement for a townhome project in the University Heights neighborhood. The developers plan to build 16 townhomes on a vacant lot on Garfield. The tax abatement should save the developer $151,209.

MAYOR TIM KELLER ISSUES STATEMENT

Mayor Tim Keller issued the following statement in response to the council’s tax  abatement actions:

“We’re short up to 30,000 housing units in our city. There’s no question about it; we need to build more houses so everyone can find a place to live that they can actually afford … The city can’t build it all alone, but we can provide incentives to support developers who want to invest here and help us build the future of Albuquerque.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-city-council-approves-tax-breaks-for-four-housing-development-projects/article_d033adf2-6bc2-11ef-9058-cfc7cd776125.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

KELLER’S HOUSING FORWARD PLAN

It was on October 18, 2022, Mayor Tim Keller announced his “Housing Forward ABQ Plan.” It is a “multifaceted initiative” where Mayor Keller set the goal of the City of Albuquerque being involved with 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 as many as 33,000 new housing units immediately.

To add 5,000 new housing units across the city by 2025, Keller proposed that the City of Albuquerque fund and be involved with the construction of new low-income housing.  The strategy included a zoning code “rebalance” to increase population density in established neighborhoods. It included allowing “casitas” which under the zoning code are known as “accessory dwelling” units and duplex development on existing housing and other major changes relating to parking and height restrictions.  It included “motel conversions” and conversion of existing commercial office space to housing.  It also included enactment of ordinances to regulate the rental and apartment industry and promoting city sanctioned tent encampments for the unhoused.

MOTEL CONVERSIONS INTO HOUSING 

“Motel conversions” is where the city acquires and renovates existing motels to develop low-income affordable housing options. Keller’s plan calls for hotel or motel conversions to house 1,000 people by 2025.  City officials have said that the city’s estimated cost is $100,000 per unit to fix up or remodel existing motels for permanent housing.

Mayor Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” places great emphasis on “motel conversions”.  A zoning change already enacted by the city council in early 2022 year eased the process for city-funded motel conversions by allowing microwaves or hot plates to serve as a substitute for the standard requirement that every kitchen have a cooking stove or oven. The existing layout of the motels makes it cost-prohibitive to renovate them into living units with full sized kitchens.  An Integrated Development Ordinance amendment provides an exemption for affordable housing projects funded by the city, allowing kitchens to be small, without full-sized ovens and refrigerators. It will require city social services to regularly assist residents. The homeless or the near homeless would be offered the housing.

The Keller Administration proclaims that motel conversions are a critical strategy for addressing the city’s housing shortage. The city proclaims motels conversions are a simpler, lower-cost alternative to ground-up construction. It will require city social services to regularly assist residents. The homeless or the near homeless would be offered the housing likely on a first come first served basis and with rules and regulations they will have to agree to.

On February 11, 2023 it was reported that the City of Albuquerque executed a purchase agreement for the purchase of the Sure Stay Hotel located at 10330 Hotel NE for $5.7 million to convert the 104-room hotel into 100 efficiency units. The $5.7 million purchase price for the 104-unit complex translates into $53,807.69 per unit ($5.7 Million ÷ 104 = $53,807.69 per unit). The renovations and remodeling of the Sure Stay Motel have already been completed.

The city has also acquired the old San Mateo Inn near I-40. For decades, the old motel was formerly the La Quinta  The city purchased the building for nearly $5 million earlier this year, with plans to convert it into the city’s first Youth Homeless Facility. Renovations and remodeling are now underway by the city. A recent report found a significant group of 15- to 25-year-olds experiencing homelessness never utilize the city’s existing resources.

COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE CONVERSIONS

According to Keller’ plan, the city wanted to convert commercial office space into to residential use. The Keller administration proposed $5 million to offset developer costs with the aim of transitioning 10 commercial properties  and creating 1,000 new housing units.

The Keller Administration early on announced that the conversion office space plan is a heavy lift for the city and the city has yet to acquire a single commercial office building to be converted into residential use.

CITY COUNCIL GETS UPDATE ON HOUSING GOALS

On September 19 the Albuquerque City Council was given an update on Keller’s  Housing ABQ Forward Plan and  the city’s efforts to bring 5,000 housing units to Albuquerque by 2025 with city support.   City Councilors had repeatedly asked for an update from the City to no avail.  The update report was on the city’s housing projects from the last 5 years  as well as plans to increase unit production before 2025.  The Keller Administration again cited a 30,000-unit shortage of housing and a need for 15,500 affordable housing units. The topic of the unhoused was also brought up by city councilors.

Joseph Montoya, the city’s new Deputy Director of Housing, made an in-depth presentation that laid out what the city has been doing and how they plan to address the affordable housing shortage.  Montoya said the goal was 30,000 units of new housing over the next 5 years. Out of that number, at least 5,000 units of affordable housing are needed. The 5,000 units of affordable housing by the city has from the get-go been the goal of the “Housing Forward ABQ Plan.”

STATISTICS PRESENTED

Over the past 5 years, the city has supported the construction of 2,224 housing units, 1,021 of which are subsidized for low to moderate income tenants. On average, the city has been producing between 200 and 250 affordable units per year, for about 450 units total. The city now has a goal of producing 1,000 affordable housing units per year. To reach that goal, the current housing output will have to at least quadruple.

Joseph Montoya, the city’s Deputy Director of Housing, reported the following statistics to the city council:

• Nearly half of renters are rent-burdened.
• Rents have increased 20% since 2021.
• The median house price is $360,000.
• The city’s current waiting list for help with housing is about 800 people long.
• The city needs to produce 1,500 new units a year to keep up however only 200-250 units are being produced.

Montoya said this:

“[These are] the worst stats I’ve seen to date.”

In addition to the initiatives already in place, Montoya outlined additional strategies the city would like to use. Those  strategies include:

• Expediting planning approvals for affordable housing developments,
• Opening request for proposals, known as RFPs, to “for-profit” as well as nonprofit developers,
• Creating a loan fund for homeowners building affordable accessory dwelling units.
• Align the city’s RFP process with the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency and to create funding packages for developers.

Montoya is asking for a $20 million per year budget to focus on housing initiatives in the city.

NEW MEXICO MORTGAGE FINANCE AUTHORITY REPORT ON HOUSING NEEDS

On July 24, the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (NMFA) officials reported on the findings of the state’s most recent housing needs assessment.  It outlined how $84.6 million in state funding will be allocated to address those needs.  The New Mexico Housing Needs Assessment is a comprehensive annual report produced by New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. It comprises an array of housing indicators describing affordable housing needs in the state.

MAJOR FINDINGS OF REPORT

Following is an edited version the major findings of the 2024 MFA Housing Needs Report deleting graphs and figures:

NEW MEXICO’S DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

“There are 2,112,463 people residing in New Mexico and 812,852 households in the state. New Mexico’s population grew 1.3% over the last five years, a rate which lags its neighboring states: Utah (9.7%), Nevada (7.5%), Texas (6.6%), Colorado (6.2%), and Arizona (5.3%).

New Mexico’s working population, defined as persons 16 years and older, is primarily employed in education and healthcare, at a rate of 25.7%.  This rate is consistent with national trends.

 The poverty rate in New Mexico’s poverty is 18.3%,  higher than the national rate of 12.5%.

New Mexico’s median household income is $58,722, which is lower than the national median household income of $75,149.

The percentage of the population living with a disability in New Mexico totals 34.4%, which is higher than the national rate of 26.4%.

The rate of households with seniors, which are defined as households with one or more people 65 years of age or older,  in New Mexico is 33.8%. Nationwide, the rate of households with seniors is 11.5%.

Many New Mexico senior households are low or moderate income with 41.8% earning less than $40,000 annually. The national rate is 37.7%.

The Homeownership rate in New Mexico is 70.9%, which is higher than the national rate of 64.8%.

43.2% of New Mexican households earn less than $50,000 annually. This rate for the country is 33.8%. Renters in New Mexico, like the rest of the nation, are more likely to be low-income compared to homeowners.

The state’s median household income increased from $48,059 to $58,722, or  22.2%.  from 2018 to 2022.

The median home price increased by a whopping 50% from $200,000 to $306,000.”

EDITORS NOTE:  Home price increases surpass wage growth, which results in difficulty achieving homeownership.

HOMEOWNERSHIP MARKET AND DEMOGRAPHICS

“In New Mexico, the median sale price of a home in 2023 was $323,230 which increased 5.6% from the prior year.   As home price increases outpace wage growth, the ability to achieve homeownership becomes more difficult.

Inequities in homeownership persist with respect to race:

• White households comprise 37.8% of homeowners but 35.6% of the population.
• Hispanic households account for 35.2% of homeowners but 49.8% of the population.
• The relative rates for Native American households is 5.2% of homeowners and 8.5% of the population.
• Black or African American, Asian and households of two or more races are underrepresented among homeowners.”

RENTAL MARKET DISPARITY

“In New Mexico, the median monthly gross rent in 2022 was $966, which increased 7.7% from the previous year and 16.7% from 2018.

The state’s renter median income increased from $34,837 to $37,408 or 7.4% from 2021 to 2022, which lagged behind rent price increases.”

DECLINE IN HOUSING PERMITS

“Single-family detached homes comprise the majority of New Mexico’s housing stock, followed by a high percentage of mobile or manufactured homes.  The number of building permits for residential construction issued in 2023 decreased by 2.2% from the prior year.  Despite this dip in the pace of construction, the decades-long trend of depressed building has abated in recent years, with a 71.7% increase from 2019 to 2023.”

DECLINE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

“Cost-burden among renters (43.9%) is higher than homeowners (28.4%), largely due to lower income levels among renters. A decreasing supply of affordable housing options, for both renters and homeowners, coupled with increasing demand as the state’s population grows, threatens to worsen cost burden rates.”

PRESERVATION AND REDEVELOPMENT NEEDS

“43.2% of houses in New Mexico were built prior to 1980, which indicates a high need to preserve the stock of existing homes.

15.3% of homes are mobile or manufactured housing units.  Mobile homes built before 1976 do not meet HUD’s Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, which are federal standards for the design and construction of manufactured homes to assure quality, durability, safety, and affordability. Thus, HUD only allows for the replacement of these units rather than rehabilitation.

3.3% of households are overcrowded.

1.0% of households do not have sufficient plumbing facilities and 1.0% lack complete kitchen facilities.”

FUNDING APPROVED

At its May and June meetings, the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority Board of Directors approved a $50 million allocation, along with the $34.6 million in state fiscal year 2025 severance tax bond funding. The breakdown includes:

• $26.6 million to create more housing.
• $20 million for down payment assistance.
• $10 million to preserve existing affordable housing.
• $1 million to create stable housing environments.
• $27 million in reserve to use based on particular demands.

MFA Executive Director Hernandez said this about the allocations:

“Whether it’s building homeownership and wealth, creating more housing, preserving existing affordable housing or creating stable housing environments, our efforts and programs directly align with the key findings in the housing needs assessment report. … I appreciate our board of directors, the governor and legislators for their support and funding for these much-needed programs in our state.”

The full housing needs assessment is available here.

The links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://housingnm.org/about-mfa/news/new-mexico-mortgage-finance-authority-announces-findings-from-housing-needs-report-84.6-million-in-funding-and-an-updated-brand-for-the-states-housing-authority

https://www.koat.com/article/monday-breaks-record-for-hottest-day-ever-on-earth/61688417

https://citydesk.org/2024/homelessness-has-increased-by-50-affordable-housing-is-scarce/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is clear that the City of Albuquerque and the state of New Mexico are suffering from a significant shortage of affordable housing.   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.

The blunt reality is that it is not at all realistic for the City nor the State to try and attempt to solve the housing crisis on their own with nothing but government financing,  construction and ownership. Government’s responsibility is to provide essential services, such as police protection, fire protection and utilities and not to directly compete with the housing industry.  It’s the market forces that must be relied upon to get the job done when it comes to affordable housing.

The approach that the City and the State has taken in the form of tax deferrals, subsidies and low interest loans to the private sector as incentives to construct housing are the reasonable and responsible approach to help solve the current housing crisis in the city and the state. City and State government can further help the private sector to build more affordable housing by eliminating policies and zoning restrictions that unnecessarily drive-up housing costs so long as there is a preservation and respect for adjoining property owners’ rights and remedies. One area of reform to help the housing industry would be to address and reduce the states gross receipts tax on construction materials in order to bring down construction costs.

Links to related blog articles are here:

NM Mortgage Finance Authority Releases Housing Needs Assessment Report; Unhoused Has Increased By 50%; New Mexico’s $4.4 Billion Surplus Would Be Well Spent On Affordable Housing | (petedinelli.com)

Mayor Tim Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” And Efforts To Increase Affordable Housing Failing; Will Not Likely Produce 5,000 Units Of Affordable Housing By 2025 As Keller Caters To Developers | (petedinelli.com)

Albuquerque Police Department Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos is back at it again using  APD’s  “X ” Account (formerly known as TWITTER), to engage in personal attacks against 3 private citizens. The problem is that APD spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos is engaging in unprofessional conduct to attack critics with the approval of Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina. The conduct has become so egregious that the Albuquerque City Council has for a second time weighed in and condemned the conduct in no uncertain terms.

This blog article is an in-depth report on the controversy.

CONTROVERSIAL SOCIAL MEDIA EXCHANGE

Controversial social media posts took place on Monday, September 2. The exchange began with APD’s posts attacking the on line  news agency  ABQ RAW that a story it posted on a shooting was inaccurate.  The social media attacks then turned to personal attacks against 3 private citizens who are known critics of APD. Those 3 private citizens are:

1. Darren White who is a former APD Sargeant, a former Bernalillo County Sherriff, a former Public Safety Cabinet Secretary under Governor Gary Johnson and a former Albuquerque Chief Public Safety Officer under Mayor Richard Berry. White has 30 years of law enforcement experience and taught police media relations at Northwestern University.  After leaving the City, White became a principal owner in a recreational marijuana business which he is no longer affiliated with.  He also hosts a radio talk show on KKOB.

 

2. Tom Grover is a private attorney and a former APD police officer. He has sued the city repeatedly and often represents APD police officers on personnel matters. One of his clients is former APD Chief Michael Geier who Mayor Tim Keller terminated and then appointed APD Chief Harold Medina to replace. The Geier termination resulted in litigation file by Grover.

 

3. Doug Peterson is a commercial Real Estate Investor and Broker who is the primary principal of Peterson Properties which is the single largest commercial property owner and commercial landlord in the city. Peterson has been a consistent critic of APD and Mayor Tim Keller and their handling of the homeless. Peterson is known for repeatedly complaining about how the homeless overrun and damage his commercial properties and affecting his renters and property values.

Below are X postings made on the @ABQPOLICE X page

Why did you resign? posted to @darrenPwhite.

Why did Darren White resign? posted to @ThomasRGrover and @darrenPwhite

Bit defensive Tom? Why did Darren White resign? posted to @ThomasRGrover and @darrenPwhite.

These 3 tweets referencing Darren White resigning were  ostensively referring to when Darren White was Albuquerque’s Chief Public Safety Officer. White was appointed Chief Public Safety Officer for the City of Albuquerque on December 1, 2009 by then newly elected Albuquerque Mayor Richard J. Berry. Two years later, White announced his retirement from the City on July 15, 2011 more than a week after a crash involving his wife where he showed up at the scene and then drove her to the hospital. First responders never gave Kathy White a blood test even though a police report indicates she showed signs of impairment.

https://www.koat.com/article/darren-white-retires-from-city-post/5036906

Another X posting was:

“Oh Doug. Nice to hear from you about harassment.” posted @MrDougPeterson

The APD post sent  to “Doug” was to Douglas Peterson who criticized APD for “harassing a local news organization over a meaningless detail.”  Peterson for his part said that APD’s post is “unprofessional”.  Peterson also took issue with Mayor Tim Keller’s previous support of the department fighting “misinformation” on social media. Peteson said he and the other account posts that APD responded to were not posting misinformation. Peterson also called the posts a form of intimidation and said the department seeks to disparage people who criticize its work.

CITY COUNCILORS REACT

At the September 4 city council meeting, a bipartisan group of 5 Albuquerque City Councils aired grievances and criticized APD’s conduct on social media. Those criticizing APD were Republican City Councilors Renee Grout, Dan Champine, Brook Bassan and Democrats Klarissa Peña and Nichole Rogers.

Councilor Renee Grout was the first city councilor to bring the controversy up for discussion during the council meeting. Grout said this:

“I want to talk about mean tweets. They’re not OK. And recently we had some from the PIO  [Public Information Officer] from APD.  … We had this conversation a year ago, and it’s serious. We have to take a higher road, and sometimes we have to bite our tongue and suck it up.” 

The incident Councilor Grout was referring to was from January 2023, when some slammed the conduct of APD on X as bullying and intimidation.  In a separate written statement Grout said this: “I’m very disappointed. It’s never OK to respond like this. As City representatives, we need to take the higher road.”

First term Republican City Councilor Dan Champine, who is a retired APD officer, had this to say about the APD posts generated by APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos:

“It’s inappropriate. It is. Your police department, it’s just coming out of a DOJ control over the past 10 years, and you’re trying to rebuild with the city and its citizens. When you have — what I assumed, or the way I took it last night — was high school kids bickering. It doesn’t help your cause of building in that reform with the citizens that you serve. … Being a retired [APD] officer …  I’ve seen officers get disciplined for less. This isn’t the first time [and it] happened last year. It was obviously before I was elected, and if I seem to recall, the [city council] president back then had mentioned stuff about it, and, I think they set protocols that are supposed to be followed now. … With last night’s [tweets], [I ask] were they followed?

“You’re dealing with a murder, people involved in a shooting, and you’re going to have a pissing match, if you will, over social media. I can’t speak for the entire council, but I myself, as a city representative — as a city councilor — I’m not going to just react to it and fly off the handle. … You need to take a step back — In my opinion, [Gilbert Gallegos] …  should have last night. Everybody has the right to say those things. Their opinion, their ideas. You have to be better than that, really. That’s what it comes down to. Know that you’re a professional, and then everybody gets to speak their mind, and you take that with grace.”

During the September 4 city council meeting, Democrat first term City Councilor Nichole Rogers pressed the issue with the city’s Chief Administrative Officer Samantha Sengel. Following is what was reported by KOAT TV:

Councilor Nichole Rogers:

“The community deserves a response to what is going to happen moving forward with communication from APD on social media.”

CAO Samantha Sengel:

“I don’t have a statement about a personnel matter to be made here and I won’t discuss that portion of it, but I also am not going to sit here and imply that this was a one-sided discussion, that there was only one individual involved and the only person involved worked for the city of Albuquerque. I think we had a lot of individuals engaged and I think there was a lot of misinformation. I’m justifying it by any means. I’m not stating anyone was right. I’m not saying any of those things. I think the public comments that imply that one individual was wrong, in this case, was misguided.”

Councilor Nichole Rogers:

“I don’t think we’re talking about fact checking and correcting the record. We’re talking about specific tweets that are bullying, that are disrespectful, that are rude, that are condescending.”

Councilor Nichole Rogers mentioned PIO Gilbert Gallegos by name and asked APD Internal Affairs Commander Dodi Camacho if Gallegos was punished for controversial posts by the department in 2023.

THE KELLER ADMINISTRASTION RESPONDS

Ava Montoya, spokesperson for the mayor’s office, issued the following statement on behalf of Mayor Tim Keller in response to the controversy:

“We’re focused on big issues, we don’t micromanage twitter banter. We support the department and their ability to push back on misinformation online.”

APD Chief Harold Medina issued the following statement:

“These are not random people. We are pushing back against the same individuals who use their positions to pursue a political agenda against APD. If these men [referring to White, Grover and Peterson] can’t be fair and objective, how can KOAT use them over and over to provide opinions about APD?”

CIVILIAN POLICE OVERSIGHT AGENCY RESPONDS

On September 5, KOAT TV reached out to Civilian Police Oversight Agency executive director, Diane McDermott regarding Gilbert Gallegos’s X postings from APD’s account. She was asked if there has been any form of discipline following Gallegos’s use of the department’s twitter [X page]? If not, she was asked if there was a reason as to why? Also, she was asked what’s next, in terms of handling the situation?

McDermott made the following statement to KOAT TV over the phone:

“The Civilian Police Oversight Agency no longer investigates complaints regarding civilian employees. Due to an ordinance change, they’re investigated by the internal affairs within Albuquerque Police Department. We received a complaint, and it was forwarded to Internal Affairs Professional Standard.”

McDermott  also sent KOAT TV the following statement:

“The Civilian Police Oversight Agency must receive a citizen complaint to initiate an investigation. Due to an ordinance change in 2023, the CPOA Agency does not generally investigate APD civilian employees. Civilian employees such as operators, administrative personnel, or, in this instance, the PIO are investigated by Internal Affairs Professional Standards. The Council wanted the CPOA’s primary focus to be on policing within the community. If a complaint is received regarding a civilian employee, it is transferred to IAPS unless it also involves the activities of sworn personnel, and then the CPOA will retain that investigation. Non-sworn employees will also be investigated by the CPOA performing similar police functions, such as Police Service Aides or APD Transit Safety personnel.

Regarding the question of discipline for Mr. Gallegos, the CPOA only recommends discipline, and so the question would have to be directed to the Office of Police Reform to determine if discipline has been imposed.

What is next would also be directed to the Department, but if a citizen complaint is received, it will be evaluated and, if it only concerns PIO responsibilities of non-sworn personnel, forwarded to IAPS for investigation.”

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-department-chief-medina/62049109

https://www.koat.com/article/student-reaction-georgia-apalachee-school-shooting/62059179?utm_source=koat&utm_medium=recirc&utm_campaign=top-picks-koat

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-social-media/62073908

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/apd-slammed-for-social-media-conduct-this-time-by-city-councilors/article_7237b1ca-6ba0-11ef-9627-b3193d3a73c5.html

A HISTORY OF MEAN TWEETS

It was in February and March of 2022 that the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) was first taken to task for its social media posts by APD Communications Director Gilbert Gallegos.  Many considered the posts inappropriate and constituted intimidation and harassment of members of the general public. It was reported that the Albuquerque Police Department’s Twitter account had been used by Gilbert Gallegos to poke fun at former APD Chief Michael Geier falsely accusing Geier of  having  dementia, attacked property owners who have complained about crime and made fun of crime in an affluent neighborhood. APD for its part made no apologies for the tweets on its TWITTER and FACEBOOK page with Chief Harold Medina and Mayor Tim Keller defending the conduct.

The most egregious tweets by APD Public Information Officer Gilbert Gallegos worth noting are as follows:

VILIFYING A PRIVATE CITIZEN

Last year, Doug Peterson took to Twitter to complain about crime and homelessness in Downtown Albuquerque. He spoke to the media about his frustrations over how the unhoused are affecting property values and destroying businesses.  Doug Peterson said this about his tweets:

“I was vehemently complaining about the lack of response that my company has been getting from APD, mostly about property crime.  The information that I put out there is straight from our properties and what we’re experiencing.”

APD responded to the tweets by Peterson on its Twitter account and posted the following:

“Calling out your b.s. [bull shit] is public service.”  (May 24, 2022 at 9:25 AM,)

“You only complain and never offer solutions.”  (October 13, 2022 at 3:52 PM)

“Your racism aside, we have charged 99 murder suspects this year.”  (October 6, 2022 at 9:33 pm)

APD Police Chief Harold Medina was asked at the time to respond to the propriety of the APDs tweets against Peterson.  Medina admitted that some of the tweets violated the city’s social media policy.  The policy states when replying to posts on city accounts, city employees are supposed to “keep it professional and avoid confrontation.” 

Medina referred to the Peterson tweets as “cyberbullying” and said this:

“At times, yes, we push back and sometimes people don’t like the way we push back.  I think [the tweets] were appropriate for the individuals that they were meant for. … They bluntly point out differences [and] I’m OK with that. … There are some individuals who, politically, for political reasons or a variety of reasons, are resort to cyberbullying, which is something real. And I don’t think that it’s necessarily fair.”

Another APD tweet that generated controversy came in July 2022 after the death of a 15-year-old boy caught in a SWAT standoff in a home that later caught fire. Some used Twitter to blame the police for the boy’s “murder.” In response, APD Spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos tweeted to all:

“Didn’t know a fire could murder someone.”

In that case, APD Chief Medina said he told department spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos to tone it down.  Notwithstanding, Medina stood behind Gallegos proclaiming that APD was responding to what he deemed “inaccuracies.”

Mayor Tim Keller voiced no problem with the confrontational tweets and said this:

“APD has its own social media policy. … We support their efforts to push back on misinformation on social media.”

City Councilor Louie Sanchez is a retired APD Officer. He demanded that APD tone down their tweets.  Councilor Louie Sanchez said this:

“The department thinks that harassing and intimidating people is community policing; they’re on the wrong path.” 

https://www.abqjournal.com/2570384/albuquerque-police-tweets-slammed-by-some-as-intimidation.html

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-twitter-tweets/42748358

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-mean-tweets/43387226

https://www.abqraw.com/post/city-council-looking-to-defund-apd-s-twitter-and-the-troll-who-runs-it

APD SPOKEMAN POKES FUN OF FORMER CHIEF’S RUMORED DEMENTIA

On March 22, 2022,  a  KOAT TV Target 7 Investigation reported that APD Public Information Officer Gilbert Gallegos posts had reach a new low.  This time the tweets poked fun at former APD Chief Michael Geier and rumored dementia as well as crime in affluent Tanoan.

Former APD Chief Geier was forced to retire on September 10, 2020, some would say terminated, by Mayor Tim Keller and replaced him with APD Chief Harold Medina.  It was Geier who recruited Medina to return to APD as a Deputy Chief of Field Services. A few days after Geier “retired” it was revealed that Geier was indeed forced out by Mayor Tim Keller.  Chief Geier was summoned to a city park by Mayor Tim Keller during the Labor Day Holiday weekend where Geier was told that his services were no longer needed. It was also revealed then First Deputy Chief Harold Medina helped orchestrate Geier’s removal. He did so with the help of then CAO Sarita Nair.

Medina became insubordinate to Geier and learning Geier was going to take disciplinary action against him and demote and transfer him, Medina struck back.  Geier also hired Gilbert Gallegos as an APD Spokesman and Gallegos was a Medina loyalist.  As soon as Gieir left, Gallegos and Medina both unleashed a torrent of criticism towards Chief Geier blaming him for all of APD’s mismanagement.  Medina himself refused to take any responsibility for any of his mismanagement as Deputy Chief of the Field Services.

On March 16, 2023, a TWITTER exchange began when APD held a press conference to release the city’s 2022 crime statistics and announced that property crime had dropped 40%.  Private attorney Tom Grover who represents former APD Chief Michael Geier  posted a response on TWITTER to APD’s statistics and said this:

“Or another way to look at this is under Chief Geier there was a 23% drop in property crime while under @abqpolicechief there was only 12%”

APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallego’s responded to Grover’s post on TWITTER, now X,  saying this:

“Ask your client who is responsible for lower property crime? Oh wait, he probably isn’t aware.”

In an interview with Target 7, Grover said this about Gallego’s APD TWEET:

“There’s been this really disgusting theory that somehow Chief Geier has dementia or pre-onset Alzheimer’s and that he was forgetful on certain occasions. … They’re just these grotesque aspersions towards the chief. He [Gilbert Gallegos]  was making fun and he was acting in a manner totally inconsistent with what we would expect from the largest law enforcement agency in the state.”

On the same day APD released the city’s crime statistics, downtown property owner Doug Peterson tweeted that the crime stats released by Gilbert an “absolute joke.”

APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallego’s responded to Peterson’s TWEET by posting “how’s crime in Tanoan” referring to the affluent gated community where Peterson ostensibly lives.

KOAT Target 7 contacted former Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White and asked him about the APD Tanoan TWEET and APDs policy of “pushing back” on social media.  After seeing the APD TWEET, White said this:

“I don’t think the family of James Hogan who was murdered in a home invasion in Tanoan would think this tweet is funny. … Which I felt was completely insensitive. …  Pointing out the failures of the mayor and the chief is not misinformation. It’s just criticism.  You’re going to be criticized no matter what you do, good or bad. There are always going to be people that criticize you. And that’s just part of the game.”

Target 7 reached out and specifically asked if Mayor Keller condoned tweets that were reportedly making light of someone’s alleged medical condition and crime in an affluent neighborhood. A spokeswoman for Mayor Keller said in an email:

“As stated previously, we support the department in their efforts to push back against misinformation on social media.”

 https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-city-council-police-mean-tweets/43511199#

COUNCIL TAKES KELLER ADMINISTRATION TO TASK THE FIRST TIME

On April 3, 2023, the Albuquerque City Council took to task the Keller Administration and the nefarious conduct of APD Public Information Officer Gilbert Gallegos.  District 9 City Councilor and Vice President of Council Renee Grout asked Keller administration officials about the offensive tweets posted by Gilbert Gallegos. Grout showed on the city council chambers big screen the tweet where Gallegos attacked Doug Peterson.  Grout told Medina and Rael she numerous complaints from her constituents about Gallegos poking fun at crime in the gated community of Tanoan.  Grout said this about the TWEET:

“I think it’s unacceptable. … And, I wouldn’t put up with it in my business, an employee that I had. And, so it needs to change. … We are all here to serve the citizens of Albuquerque.”

Councilor Grout questioned then Chief Administration Officer Lawrence Rael about the behavior of Gallegos’s tweets and asked him “Do you think that that response is good customer service?”

Rael stammered with his answer and said this:

“Look, I have gotten the point of what you all have made and we will visit with that. I am in the opinion we should always be professional and stick to the subject matter. … I would commit to you that we will have the conversation with the individual and with the utmost importance that it is about being professional and treating people with respect as you requested.”

Rael then went on to defend Gilbert Gallegos saying he was a very dedicated individual public employee and thanked the Councilor for bringing the conduct to his attention.

Then Council President and District 6 Councilor Pat Davis, who has since left office, called upon APD Chief Harold Medina to answer questions about Gallegos’s behavior and why they have not disciplined him for violating APD’s social media policy.

Chief Medina never said if Gallegos was ever disciplined or if there was any plan to discipline Gallegos. When asked about the Gallegos tweets, Medina responded that Gallegos was responding to private citizens who are attacking APD officers, and the tweets were a way to fight back.  Medina said this:

“All of our responses are geared to facts and our responses are geared toward supporting our officers.”

Davis asked Medina who Gallegos reports to and followed up asking who has access to the APD’s PIO Twitter account. Medina said this:

“He answers to the Chief of Police. I would say there is about three who could have access to the PIO account.”

It turns out that Gallegos is the sole person who has exclusive access to all of the APD run PIO Twitter accounts, now X, and changed the login credentials when he was first appointed to  the position. The Tweets and response tweets indicate Gallegos is the sole person running the account.

Then President of Council Councilor Pat Davis went on to say during the city council meeting that he and then CAO Lawrence Rael talked about Gallegos behavior at least 6 times prior to the meeting. He addressed Rael and Chief Medina with a stern and strong tone about Gallegos’s behavior and said this:

“It is very clear that this account in the way it engages with our community is disruptive, is unhelpful to our engaging with the community and our positive relations. … It is not that we are just bringing this to your attention. We have brought it to your attention. Channel 7 has brought it to your attention.

This issue has been going on for quite some time. We have had personal conversations and news stories. It is very clear this account that engages with our community is disruptive and unhelpful in engaging the community. It is time to stop! Will you commit that person will no longer be allowed to operate that account until they are retrained or will you continue to allow this person to do so in violation of policy that specifically says they must treat people with respect.”

Rael responded saying that more conversations with Gallegos about being professional would be held.

Davis doubled down and said this:

“Let me make this clear. We are not Qanon trolls but we are participating in it and encouraging it, and elevating all those people by responding to it and it is beneath the dignity of you, and this department. …And we’ve had this conversation. People are allowed to disagree with us. … We do not make fun of our former police chief’s health conditions on Twitter. That is too far and someone needed to be disciplined for it. As near as I can tell, it hasn’t happened. That’s enough. We’ve done with this.”

When asked if the tweets followed city policy, Medina told Target 7 in a separate interview:

“Some of them may not, but some of them bluntly point out differences. And I’m okay with that.”

The mayor’s office told Target 7 multiple times they “support the department in their efforts to push back against misinformation on social media.”

The links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2570384/albuquerque-police-tweets-slammed-by-some-as-intimidation

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-twitter-tweets/42748358

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-police-mean-tweets/43387226

https://www.abqraw.com/post/city-council-looking-to-defund-apd-s-twitter-and-the-troll-who-runs-it

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-city-council-police-mean-tweets/43511199#

https://www.abqraw.com/post/city-council-looking-to-defund-apd-s-twitter-and-the-troll-who-runs-it

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The City of Albuquerque employs between 30 and 35 Public Information Officers (PIOs) who are paid as low as $35,000 a year and as high as $65,000 a year. Some are classified employees who can only be terminated for cause while others are at will employees and can be terminated without cause and for no reason at the discretion of Mayor Keller and his Administration.

The function of PIO’s is to interreact with the press and the public and distribute accurate information to the public and the press and give interviews where necessary. The APD Spokespersons historically have been sworn police officers assigned APD vehicles with the rational that they understand the duties and responsibilities of police work and they wear a police uniform when being interviewed by the press.

Gilbert Gallegos is a civilian at will employee and is paid $120,000 a year. Gallegos has no law enforcement training, he is a former Albuquerque Tribune reporter and worked for Governor Bill Richardson and Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham when she was a congresswoman. When Governor Richardson left office, Governor Susan Martinez terminated him.

APD Police Chief Harold Medina and Mayor Tim Keller have never taken any action to put a stop to the tweets by Gilbert Gallegos and have gone as far as to say they have no problem with his tweets even though they acknowledge it violates city policy which states when replying to posts on city accounts, city employees are supposed to, “keep it professional and avoid confrontation.”  

When asked if the tweets followed city policy, Medina said “some of them may not, but some of them bluntly point out differences. And I’m okay with that.”  Mayor Keller for his part has said through spokes persons that his office “supports the department in their efforts to push back against misinformation on social media.”

Gilbert Gallegos has engaged in outrageous conduct with the public that cannot be tolerated of any public employee and would normally be grounds for termination. There is no doubt that APD Chief Harold Medina and his APD Public Information flack Gilbert Gallegos know exactly what they are doing with their social media attacks on private citizens.

Calling a businessman who is exercising his right of free speech a racist as Gilbert Gallegos did of Doug Peteson is not keeping it professional nor is it avoiding confrontation and it’s likely libelous. Chief Medina enabling and backing up a public relations flack to attack a private citizen because he is critical of APD performance is not at all appropriate nor is it cyberbullying as Medina proclaims. Gilbert and Medina have a real warped understanding of the concept of “to protect and serve”.  They know damn well their social media posts generate extreme hostility and mistrust towards private citizens and we have a Mayor who is allowing them to get away with it.

There is no legitimate reason to allow APD to have its own social media policy other than allowing it to say what it wants and to attack who they want on social media. If anything, APD should not be allowed to post on FACEBOOK or “X” without the post being reviewed by a city attorney to ensure it conforms to city policy and does not violate the laws of libel and slander.

A citizen who has what they believe are legitimate complaints about APD does not mean APD has the right to vilify them or take issue with them and just presume that what they say is inaccurate requiring a public “push back”. It does not mean APD has the right to engage in libel and slander nor violate people’s first amendment rights of free speech.

Chief Medina and APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos also have a warped misunderstanding of their role when it comes to dealing with the general public and processing citizens’ complaints and talking to citizens in general.  Their attitude as reflected by the TWITTER posts is that unless you agree with APD and all of its actions, you are “anti cop” and you are a “cop hater”.

 It is painfully obvious that Gilbert Gallegos has absolutely no respect for the wishes of the Albuquerque City Council as he continues with his attacks on private citizen and the media with post on social media. It is also painfully obvious that Mayor Tim Keller and  APD Chief Harold Medina likewise have no respect for the City Council in that they have condoned and supported the conduct of Gilbert Gallegos.

Simply put, the City Council needs to be far more aggressive in dealing with APD Communications Director Gilbert Gallegos. The City Council Needs to take a vote no confidence and demand the termination of Gilbert Gallegos and go so far as defund the position if Mayor Keller fails to act.

Links to related blog articles are here:

APD Public Relations Flack Gilbert Gallegos And Chief Harold Medina Engage In Social Media Bullying To Vilify Citizens And Judges; Stoop To All Time Low; Done With Backing Of Mayor Tim Keller  

https://www.petedinelli.com/2023/04/05/city-council-challenges-the-nefarious-conduct-of-apd-public-relations-flack-gilbert-gallegos-and-chief-harold-medina-on-social-media-bullying-to-vilify-citizens-and-judges-done-with-backin/

 

 

The New Mexico Legislature created the New Mexico Finance Authority (NMFA) in 1992 as a mechanism for accessing low-cost capital for home ownership in New Mexico cities, counties and certain departments of state government. The MFA administers hundreds of millions of dollars each year among 40 programs that range from homeless services to homeownership. It includes new housing, down payment assistance and home rehabilitation. The agency works with hundreds of partner organizations that represent developers, realtors, landlords, nonprofits, for-profits, local governments and tribal governments. Twenty-five of its partners provide homeless services.

On July 24, the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (NMFA) officials reported on the findings of the state’s most recent housing needs assessment.  It outlined how $84.6 million in state funding will be allocated to address those needs.  The New Mexico Housing Needs Assessment is a comprehensive annual report produced by New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. It comprises an array of housing indicators describing affordable housing needs in the state.

MAJOR FINDINGS OF REPORT

Following is an edited version the major findings of the 2024 MFA Housing Needs Report deleting graphs and figures:

NEW MEXICO’S DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

“There are 2,112,463 people residing in New Mexico and 812,852 households in the state. New Mexico’s population grew 1.3% over the last five years, a rate which lags its neighboring states: Utah (9.7%), Nevada (7.5%), Texas (6.6%), Colorado (6.2%), and Arizona (5.3%).

New Mexico’s working population, defined as persons 16 years and older, is primarily employed in education and healthcare, at a rate of 25.7%.  This rate is consistent with national trends.

 The poverty rate in New Mexico’s poverty is 18.3%,  higher than the national rate of 12.5%.

New Mexico’s median household income is $58,722, which is lower than the national median household income of $75,149.

The percentage of the population living with a disability in New Mexico totals 34.4%, which is higher than the national rate of 26.4%.

The rate of households with seniors, which are defined as households with one or more people 65 years of age or older,  in New Mexico is 33.8%. Nationwide, the rate of households with seniors is 11.5%.

Many New Mexico senior households are low or moderate income with 41.8% earning less than $40,000 annually. The national rate is 37.7%.

The Homeownership rate in New Mexico is 70.9%, which is higher than the national rate of 64.8%.

43.2% of New Mexican households earn less than $50,000 annually. This rate for the country is 33.8%. Renters in New Mexico, like the rest of the nation, are more likely to be low-income compared to homeowners.

The state’s median household income increased from $48,059 to $58,722, or  22.2%.  from 2018 to 2022.

The median home price increased by a whopping 50% from $200,000 to $306,000.”

EDITORS NOTE:  Home price increases surpass wage growth, which results in difficulty achieving homeownership.

HOMEOWNERSHIP MARKET AND DEMOGRAPHICS

“In New Mexico, the median sale price of a home in 2023 was $323,230 which increased 5.6% from the prior year.   As home price increases outpace wage growth, the ability to achieve homeownership becomes more difficult.

Inequities in homeownership persist with respect to race:

• White households comprise 37.8% of homeowners but 35.6% of the population.
• Hispanic households account for 35.2% of homeowners but 49.8% of the population.
• The relative rates for Native American households is 5.2% of homeowners and 8.5% of the population.
• Black or African American, Asian and households of two or more races are underrepresented among homeowners.”

RENTAL MARKET DISPARITY

“In New Mexico, the median monthly gross rent in 2022 was $966, which increased 7.7% from the previous year and 16.7% from 2018.

The state’s renter median income increased from $34,837 to $37,408 or 7.4% from 2021 to 2022, which lagged behind rent price increases.”

DECLINE IN HOUSING PERMITS

“Single-family detached homes comprise the majority of New Mexico’s housing stock, followed by a high percentage of mobile or manufactured homes.  The number of building permits for residential construction issued in 2023 decreased by 2.2% from the prior year.  Despite this dip in the pace of construction, the decades-long trend of depressed building has abated in recent years, with a 71.7% increase from 2019 to 2023.”

DECLINE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

“Cost-burden among renters (43.9%) is higher than homeowners (28.4%), largely due to lower income levels among renters. A decreasing supply of affordable housing options, for both renters and homeowners, coupled with increasing demand as the state’s population grows, threatens to worsen cost burden rates.”

PRESERVATION AND REDEVELOPMENT NEEDS

“43.2% of houses in New Mexico were built prior to 1980, which indicates a high need to preserve the stock of existing homes.

15.3% of homes are mobile or manufactured housing units.  Mobile homes built before 1976 do not meet HUD’s Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, which are federal standards for the design and construction of manufactured homes to assure quality, durability, safety, and affordability. Thus, HUD only allows for the replacement of these units rather than rehabilitation.

3.3% of households are overcrowded.

1.0% of households do not have sufficient plumbing facilities and 1.0% lack complete kitchen facilities.”

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING CONDITIONS CREATE HEALTH RISKS

“Housing condition issues are exceptionally high in Native American or Tribal areas. Lack of complete plumbing, complete kitchens, sub-standard heating, electrical, and design is more widespread and severe in the homes of Native Americans than the state overall.

These conditions create health risks, such as household air pollution and extreme heat and cold. Poor housing conditions are associated with increased risk of contracting asthma and cancer, increased chance of housing-related injuries, and even poorer cognitive development in children.”

NUMBER OF NEW MEXICO HOMELESS INCREASES BY 50%

The total number of homeless individuals in New Mexico increased by 50% from 2022 to 3,842 in 2023, based on HUD’s Point in Time (PIT) count.  While PIT count data is one of the main measures of homelessness, it does not completely capture the extent of homelessness.

PIT count estimates cover the number of people in homeless shelters, transitional housing and unsheltered locations during a single night in January. However, for example, many families and children staying in hotels, living in their vehicles or staying in other places not meant for shelter are unlikely to be included in the PIT count.

The number of sheltered homeless individuals totaled 2,242 and the number of unsheltered homeless individuals totaled 1,600.

New Mexico’s homeless population copes with different needs:

• 8% (1,031) of the state’s homeless population are families with children.
• 2% (240) are unaccompanied homeless youth.
• 7% (256) are veterans.
• 1% (1,694) are chronically homeless individuals (1,694).

Chronically homeless individuals have experienced homelessness for at least one year and have a severe physical or mental health condition. This segment of the homeless populationis likely to live in unsheltered locations.

The link to  full, unedited  housing needs assessment is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SzAnXnO_nHI5ef3onk_5tPKhKrIaIQLc/view

NMFA Executive Director and CEO Isidoro Hernandez said this about the MFA housing needs report:

“The housing needs assessment findings provide us with a reality of what the affordable housing necessities are in our state. … Along with our partners, we have assisted over 500,000 families across the housing spectrum for close to 50 years. By signing House Bill 2 earlier this year, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham appropriated $50 million to support the New Mexico Housing Trust Fund. This funding allows us to continue our pursuit to do even more to help New Mexicans get into safe, affordable homes.”

FUNDING APPROVED

At its May and June meetings, the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority Board of Directors approved a $50 million allocation, along with the $34.6 million in state fiscal year 2025 severance tax bond funding. The breakdown includes:

• $26.6 million to create more housing.
• $20 million for down payment assistance.
• $10 million to preserve existing affordable housing.
• $1 million to create stable housing environments.
• $27 million in reserve to use based on particular demands.

MFA Executive Director Hernandez said this about the allocations:

“Whether it’s building homeownership and wealth, creating more housing, preserving existing affordable housing or creating stable housing environments, our efforts and programs directly align with the key findings in the housing needs assessment report. … I appreciate our board of directors, the governor and legislators for their support and funding for these much-needed programs in our state.”

The full housing needs assessment is available here.

The links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://housingnm.org/about-mfa/news/new-mexico-mortgage-finance-authority-announces-findings-from-housing-needs-report-84.6-million-in-funding-and-an-updated-brand-for-the-states-housing-authority

https://www.koat.com/article/monday-breaks-record-for-hottest-day-ever-on-earth/61688417

https://citydesk.org/2024/homelessness-has-increased-by-50-affordable-housing-is-scarce/

NEW BRAND: HOUSING NEW MEXICO

On July 24, it was announced that the MFA has been rebranded after almost 50 years in operation.  The name Housing New Mexico  will now be used.  The new name is intended to better describe the agency and keep confusion to a minimum. The MFA is often mistaken for the New Mexico Finance Authority (NMFA), which was created by the Legislature in 1992 to finance infrastructure projects. The NMMFA headquarters and its 128 employees are located at 344 Fourth St. SW in Downtown Albuquerque. 2023

POINT-IN-TIME (PIT) REPORT

The POINT-IN-TIME (PIT) REPORT is the annual process of identifying and counting individuals and families experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness within a community on a single night in January. The PIT count is done in communities across the country. The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help understand the extent of homelessness at the city, state, regional and national levels. This year’s PIT  count occurred from January 31st through February 3rd.

In the last week of August, 2023, The New Mexico Coalition End Homelessness released the 2023 “Point In Time” (PIT) survey on New Mexico homelessness.  The link to review the entire 31-page 2023 PIT Report with graphs and charts is here:

https://www.nmceh.org/_files/ugd/ad7ad8_6d9bf66e3a5d407eaad310cc44ecaf82.pdf

 The total number of the unhoused in the city of Albuquerque dwarfs in sure numbers the total number of the unhoused in the state of New Mexico. For this reason, the 2023 Point In Time Survey release by the New Mexico Coalition End Homelessness first reports on the unsheltered and sheltered people experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque. It then reports on the unsheltered and sheltered people experiencing homelessness in the State referred to as the Balance of the State.

ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The total count of HOUSEHOLDS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 30, 2023 was 1,980. (Households include those with or without children or only children.)  The breakdown is as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 864
• Transitional Housing: 187
• Unsheltered: 928

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS:  1,980

PERSONS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The total count of PERSONS  experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 30, 2023 was 2,394 broken down in 3 categories.

• Emergency Shelters: 1,125
• Transitional Housing: 292
• Unsheltered: 977

TOTAL PERSONS: 2,394.

ALBUQUERQUE’S 2009 TO 2023 STATISTICS

Total number of PEOPLE counted during the Albuquerque Point-in-Time counts from 2009  to 2023 to establish a graphic trend line for the period  are as follows:

• 2009: 2,002
• 2011: 1,639
• 2013: 1,171
• 2015: 1,287
• 2017: 1,318
• 2019: 1,524
• 2021: 1,567
• 2022: 1,311
• 2023: 2,394

The data breakdown for the  2023 Albuquerque UNSHELTERED was reported as follows:

• 790 (81%) were considered chronically homeless
• 78 (  8%) were veterans
• 387 (40%) were experiencing homelessness for the first time 
• 150 (15%) were homeless due to domestic violence
• 488 (50%) were adults with a serious mental illness
• 436 (45%) were adults with a substance abuse disorder

 ALBUQUERQUE’S UNSHELTERED COUNT OVER TIME

The 2023 PIT report  contains the count of people experiencing UNSHELTERED homelessness in Albuquerque during the years 2009-2023 to establish a graphic trend line for the period. The yearly numbers are as follows:

• 2011: 658
• 2012:  621
• 2013: 619
• 2014: 614
• 2015: 659
• 2016: 674
• 2017: 706
• 2018: 711
• 2019: 735
• 2020: 808
• 2021: 940
• 2022: 940
• 2023: 1,125

BALANCE OF STATE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

The 2023 PIT survey provides the estimated number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the Balance of State.  (Households include those with or without children or only children.)

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN BALANCE OF THE STATE

The total count of HOUSEHOLDS experiencing homelessness in the Balance of State on January 30, 2023 was 1,075  broken down as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 452
• Transitional Housing: 58
• Unsheltered: 565

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS:  1,075

INDIVIDUALS COUNTED IN BALANCE OF STATE

The total count of PERSONS  experiencing homelessness in the Balance of the State on January 30, 2023 was 1,448.

• Emergency Shelters: 665
• Transitional Housing: 160
• Unsheltered: 623

TOTAL PERSONS: 1,448

BALANCE OF THE STATE 2009 TO 2023 STATISTICS

Following are the number of unsheltered people counted in the BALANCE OF THE STATE for the odd number years 2009-2023 to establish a graphic trend line:

• 2009: 1,473
• 2011: 1,962
• 2013: 1,648
• 2015: 1,342
• 2017: 1,164
• 2019: 1,717
• 2021: 1,180
• 2022: 1,283
• 2023: 1,448 

BALANCE OF STATE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

• 315 (51%) were considered chronically homeless
• 68 (11%) were veterans 
• 219 (35%) were experiencing homelessness for the first time 
• 99 (16%) were homeless due to domestic violence 
• 78 (13%) were adults with a serious mental illness 
• 81 (13%) were adults with a substance use disorder

TOTAL DATA BREAKDOWN: EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, UNSHELTERED

Relying on the total numbers found for the number of HOMELESS, those in Emergency Shelters, those in Transitional Housing, and those Unsheltered contained in the 2023 PIT Survey, the following is calculated:

1. The total number of HOMELESSas reported by the 2023 Point In Time Survey is 3,842 calculated as follows:

• 2,394 persons counted HOMELESS in Albuquerque
• 1,448 persons counted HOMELESS in Balance of State
• 3,842 TOTAL PERSONS COUNTED AS HOMELESS

2. The total number persons in EMERGENCY SHELTERSreported by the 2023 Point In Time Survey is 1,790 calculated as follows:

• 1,125   persons counted in emergency shelters in Albuquerque
• 665   persons counted in emergency shelters Balance of State
• 1,790  TOTAL PERSONS IN EMERGENCY SHELTERS

3. The total number persons in TRANSITIONAL HOUSING reported by the 2023 Point In Time Survey is 452 calculated as follows:

• 292 persons in transitional housing counted in Albuquerque
• 160 persons counted in transitional housing in Balance of State
• 452  TOTAL PERSONS IN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

4. The total number persons reported UNSHELTEREDby the 2023 Point In Time Survey is 1,500 calculated as follows:

• 977  persons counted unsheltered in Albuquerque
• 623  persons counted unsheltered in Balance of State
• 1,500  TOTAL PERSONS COUNTED UNSHELTERED

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The 2024 MFA Needs Assessment Report includes a number of indicators that are very sobering when it comes to the state’s housing realities. Those harsh realities include the following:

1. The state’s median household income increased 22.2% from $48,059 to $58,722 from 2018 to 2022 while the median home price increased 53.05% from $200,000 and bloated to $306,000.

 

3. Renters also face daunting increases. The median monthly gross rent in 2022 was $966, an increase of 7.7% from 2021 and an increase of 16.7% from 2018. Almost 44% of renters and 28% of homeowners are cost-burdened, meaning households pay more than 30% of their income on housing costs.

 

3. New Mexico’s Homeless Coalition point-in-time count reportshows an increase in homelessness over a three-year span in Albuquerque. The point-in-time count report reveals 1,152 people experienced homelessness in 2021 compared to 1,311 in 2022, a 13.8% increase from the year before. In 2023, the report revealed 2,394 people experienced homelessness, which more than doubled its original numbers with an 83% increase from 2022. 2024’s report is not available.

 

4. There is clearly and urgent need in New Mexico for affordable housing. There are an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 people in New Mexico who experience homelessness each year. There is a shortage of 32,000 low-income rental housing units, and there are more than 40,000 housing units across the state in need of rehabilitation, such as a functioning kitchen or adequate plumbing.

New Mexico’s financial reserves have reached upwards of 52% of ongoing state spending resulting in a financial cushion of nearly $4.4 billion. The financial cushion is being fueled by the incredible oil and gas boom and along with strong consumer spending generating gross receipts tax revenues. The windfall is expected to continue. If there ever was a time for the state to afford making a difference in affordable housing now is the time.

Links to related blog articles are here:

New Mexico’s Financial Reserves Reach 52% Of Ongoing State Spending; Déjà vu All Over Again; State Needs To Shed “Saving For Rainy Day” Mentality; Invest Surplus In Transformative Projects

2023 Point In Time Count Of Homeless Finds 3,842 Unhoused In New Mexico, 2,394 Unhoused In Albuquerque; 83% Increase From Last Year; City Spends Millions A Year As Homelessness Increases