On June 27, the New Mexico Sun published the following guest column provided by www.PeteDinelli.com:

HEADLINE: Godfather-like shake down by Keller for police protection

By Pete Dinelli
Jun 27, 2022

“On June 21, Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina held a news conference to announce a new law enforcement initiative they dubbed “Targeted Enforcement Action Monitoring” (TEAM). The new program is tailored specifically for the Central Downtown Business area. Extra police officers will be assigned to focus on traffic enforcement, DWIs, modified car exhaust citations, illegal firearms and to patrol parking lots where after parties and violence break out after the numerous bars close. The city is planning to open a new substation on Central between Third and Fourth in the Rosenwald Building.

Instead of kissing Keller’s ring and paying more for police protection, Downtown business owners should demand Keller and Medina deliver on the police protection they are already paying for.”

Pete Dinelli is a native of Albuquerque. He is a licensed New Mexico attorney with 27 years of municipal and state government service including as an assistant attorney general, assistant district attorney prosecuting violent crimes, city of Albuquerque deputy city attorney and chief public safety officer, Albuquerque city councilor, and several years in private practice. Dinelli publishes a blog covering politics in New Mexico: www.PeteDinelli.com.

The link to the New Mexico Sun guest column is here:

https://newmexicosun.com/stories/627861998-godfather-like-shake-down-by-keller-for-police-protection

ALBUQUERQE JOURNAL EDITORIAL

On June 28, the Albuquerque Journal published the following editorial repeating many of the argument made in the Dinelli blog article above:

Editorial: ABQ’s Downtown police OT scheme like TV mob plot
BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD
PUBLISHED: TUESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2022 AT 12:02AM
UPDATED: TUESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2022 AT 10:40AM

It sounds a lot like a deal they can’t refuse: Pay police a little extra and they’ll protect your Downtown business. If it sounds somewhat shady, that’s because it’s the stuff of gangster movies and TV shows.

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2512102/webhedline-96.html

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

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

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

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

https://newmexicosun.com/

When Benjamin Franklin was asked after a session of the Constitutional Convention, “What kind of a government have you given us?” he is said to have replied “A democracy, if you can keep it.” From recent events, the United States is on the verge of losing its democracy.

The United Sates House Committee hearings probing the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden as President and 2 United States Supreme Court decisions reveals without any doubt that elections have consequences. What is even more sinister is that the radical conservative right has a strangle hold over the United States Supreme Court and the Republican party that has now become a threat to our Democracy.

ROE V. WADE OVERTURNED

On June 24, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court ruling takes away a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, abandoning almost 50 years of precedent, and paves the way for individual states to ban abortion. It is a decision rendered by the 6-3 conservative majority. The ruling is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. According to opinion polls, the Roe v. Wade reversal puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving a woman’s right to choose.

The decision was the culmination of 50 years of efforts by abortion opponents. It was made possible by an emboldened, very conservative United States Supreme Court that has been fortified by 3 appointees of former President Donald Trump. Those conservative judges are Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. The ruling came a month after the leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito saying the court would reverse Roe v. Wade.

Supreme Court Justice Alito wrote that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned. Alito wrote the authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, the individual states, not the courts. Alito wrote:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”

Joining Alito in the majority opinion were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett with the latter three justices appointed by Donald Trump.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. The dissenting justices wrote:

“With sorrow–for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection–we dissent.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2510997/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-states-can-ban-abortion.html

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a “strict constructionist” in interpreting the United States Constitution. “Strict constructionist” stands for the proposition that that a constitutional right does not exist if it is not specifically provided for in the constitution and such rights are reserved for the states to decide. Such rights include same sex marriage, access to birth control, the right to privacy and perhaps even inter racial marriage.

Justice Thomas writes that the Supreme Court should reconsider rights like birth control and same sex marriage in future decisions. Thomas agreed that the Roe v. Wade reversal ruling itself does not apply to other cases saying “the court’s abortion cases are unique” because they involve protecting a life and justices only considered this one set of circumstances, rather than rights granted through “substantive due process” as a whole.

However, Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion:

“In future cases, we should follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away. … Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.”

Justice Thomas specifically said the court “should consider” reversing other precedents and he wrote:

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. … After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”

Thomas argued that using the due process clause to uphold these rights is a “legal fiction” that’s “particularly dangerous” and believes the court should issue a ruling saying the court cannot grant civil rights using that legal argument.

Thomas’ concurring opinion tracks with an argument abortion rights groups made for months leading up to the court’s abortion decision to reverse Roe v Wadesaying that the Constitution doesn’t protect a right to an abortion. The reversal will likely jeopardize other rights the court established under the 14th Amendment. Thomas referred to landmark opinions that blocked states from banning contraception, sex by same-sex couples and gay marriage.

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, but a 7-2 majority opinion in Roe v. Wade held that the 14th Amendment’s protection of “liberty” includes the right to terminate a pregnancy. Several of the justices in Roe v. Wade drew on another landmark opinion decided eight years earlier that legalized contraception for married couples.

With his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas invites a reversal of many constitutional rights not found in the constitution, including gay marriage. The United States Constitution also does not contain any provision that marriage is a constitutional right. Thomas is married to a white woman and the question is if he will also want to reverse the case of Loving v. Virginia where the United Sates Supreme Court case struck down state laws banning interracial marriage in the United States.

The plaintiffs in the case were Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and Black woman whose marriage was deemed illegal according to Virginia state law. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that “anti-miscegenation”statutes were unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The decision is often cited as a watershed moment in the dismantling of “Jim Crow” race laws.

STATES TO DECIDE

With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the issue of a woman’s right to choose must now be decided by each individual state.

“More than 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and more than half are now done with pills, not surgery, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

In roughly a half-dozen other states, including West Virginia and Wisconsin, the fight will be over dormant abortion bans that were enacted before Roe was decided in 1973 or new proposals to sharply limit when abortions can be performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute.”

The link to quoted source material is here:

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0

ABORTIONS STILL LEGAL IN NEW MEXICO BUT IMPACTS STATE HEALTH CARE

In 2021, the New Mexico Legislature repealed a 1969 abortion ban which made abortion a crime to end a pregnancy except if the pregnancy endangered the health of the mother or incest. The 1969 criminal law had been unenforceable because of the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, but the law would have been reinstated with the Supreme Court’s reversal.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade will result in a health care crisis and have a major impact on New Mexico’s woman’s health care system. Of the four states sharing a border with New Mexico, 3 have already placed or will soon place restrictions on abortions. In September, Arizona enacted a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest. Since Texas passed a law banning most abortions after six weeks, New Mexico’s abortion providers have been dealing with an increase of Texan patients seeking abortions.

“About 1,700 patients from Texas have accessed abortion services at Planned Parenthood clinics in New Mexico since the restrictions were enacted. Previously, the clinics saw about 400 Texas patients each year. At the University of New Mexico Center for Reproductive Health, wait times increased from 24 hours to two to three weeks after the enactment of the Texas legislation in September, according to Dr. Lisa Hofler, clinical vice chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and chief of the division of Complex Family Planning at the University of New Mexico. This resulted in a 150% increase in patients seeking abortion care services over the previous year.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2511574/roe-v-wade-reversal-could-have-ripple-effect-on-nm-health-care.html

GAY RIGHTS’S IN NEW MEXICO

One case specifically cited by Justice Clarence Thomas as one he wants to revisit and reverse is Obergefell v. Hodges. On April 28, 2015, the United State Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges over whether or not gay marriage is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, and whether or not gay marriages performed in states where it has been legalized must be recognized in states which ban the practice. On June 26, 2015, the Court ruled 5-4 that gay marriage is a constitutional right, meaning that all 50 states must allow it and that all existing bans are invalid. The decision concluded a decades-long battle over whether gay marriage should be legalized.

Even if in the future the United States Supreme Court revisits gay marriage, the reversal will likely be one where the United Sates Supreme court rules that it an issue, like abortion, to be decided by the states. On December 19, 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state must provide same-sex couples with the same marriage rights as different-sex couples, making New Mexico the 17th U.S. state to recognize same-sex marriage. In 2019, the New Mexico legislature enacted legislation that codified same-sex marriage legislation. The same sex marriage bill passed unanimously in the New Mexico House and Senate and was signed into law by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. Although the NM Supreme Court upheld same sex marriage in its 2013 ruling, the added protection was viewed as essential and a protection to court reversal.

WOMANS’ RIGHT TO CHOOSE FRONT AND CENTER IN NM GOVERNORS RACE

With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, a woman’s right to choose for now will be the dominate issue in the New Mexico Governor’s race. Both Democrat Governor Michell Lujan Grisham and Republican nominee Mark Ronchetti quickly staked out their positions on the issue.

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham characterized the decades-long fight to roll back abortion rights as a “war on women”. Lujan Grisham had this to say:

“The moment we have long dreaded has arrived, and our nation will be the worse for it. … This ruling will destroy both lives and livelihoods. Make no mistake: this is a war on women. The effort is not to protect life but to diminish it, to control women and relegate them as second-class citizens. Today, a new generation of women will be forced to face a future where they cannot seek safe, legal abortons. A future where they must navigate an increasingly draconian patchwork of restrictions to get care; a future where they live in perpetual fear that they may be required to carry a pregnancy against their will — conceived under horrific circumstances like rape or incest, or that may risk their very life; a future where they fear that their neighbor might report them or their doctors to the police if they attempt to seek care in another state.”

Republican nominee for Governor Mark Ronchetti had this to say:

“Today’s court ruling paves the way for a measured dialogue on the issue of abortion that will save lives and should result in policies that are more mainstream and reflect our shared values. As governor, I would seek a middle ground with our legislature that ends the practice of late-term and partial-birth abortion.”

SUPREME COURT EXPANDS GUN RIGHTS

On June 23, the United States Supreme Court expanded gun rights and ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. The decision came out as Congress and states debate gun-control legislation. About one-quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, which struck down a New York gun law. The high court’s first major gun decision in more than a decade split the court 6-3, with the court’s conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.

The US Supreme Court decision struck down a 100 year old New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry a gun in a concealed way in public. The justices said that requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” That right is not a “second-class right,” Thomas wrote. “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

President Joe Biden said in a statement:

[I am]“deeply disappointed … [the Supreme Court ruling] contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.”

About one-quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, which struck down a New York gun law.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8

UNITED SATES HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARINGS PROBING THE JANUARY 6, 2021 CAPITAL RIOTS TO OVERTURN 2020 ELECTION

The United States House Committee hearings investigating the January 6 attack on the United States capitol to stop the congressional certification of President Joe Bidden is laying out sufficient evidence that should allow prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump.

The 5 hearings have also made it abundantly clear how close the country came to a coup but for the actions of dedicated public servants that put the country, the constitution and their oaths of office over the interest of fascist Donald Trump.

The main themes that have emerged so far:

“AN UNSETTLING NARRATIVE: During the first hearings, the committee described in vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol. At the heart of the gripping story were three main players: Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.

STRONG ARMING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.”

The link to the full unedited New York Times article is here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/jan-6-hearling-takeaways.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

In 2016, this country elected a President who after he lost reelection in 2020, lied that the election was rigged and stolen and tried to overturn the election. The same President appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices who were hell bent on overturning a woman’s right to choose and who ruled the second amendment gun rights are far more important than woman’s right to choose. A Republican President who was impeached but who Republican Senators put party loyalty and loyalty to Trump over loyalty to their country and refused to vote to confict.

United Sates House Committee hearings probing the January 6, 2021 and the two Supreme Court decisions, one abolishing the constitutional right to choose and one expanding gun rights, reveal in no uncertain terms that the conservative radical right are in full control of the Supreme Court and in turn our democracy and that we are on the verge of losing it. It appears that the only way to stopping it is to vote, and even then there remains doubt in we can keep it.

On June 21 and June 22, the United Sates House committee held its fourth and its 5th day of hearings probing the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden as President. The hearings focused on President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign on state, local and Department of Justice officials to aide him in overturn the 2020 election results, along with Trump’s “fake electors” plot.

JUNE 21 HEARING TAKEAWAYS

On June 21, the Washington Post published its report providing an analysis by staff writer Aaron Blake. Following are the 4 major takeaways reported:

1. ARIZONA HOUSE SPEAKER RUSTY BOWERS’S COMPELLING TESTIMONY: MORE EVIDENCE THE TRUMP TEAM KNEW ITS EFFORT WAS ILLEGAL

“Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers (R) provided some of the most compelling testimony at Tuesday’s hearing — and of any hearing thus far. In doing so, he added to the growing volume of evidence that Trump’s team was told its plot to overturn the election was illegal.

He also said that, as late as the morning of Jan. 6, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) called and asked him to sign a letter supporting decertification of Arizona’s electors.”

2. RNC CHAIR LINKS TRUMP TO FAKE-ELECTOR PLOT

“At one point in Tuesday’s hearing, the committee shared evidence that Trump was pretty directly involved in the fake-elector plan.

Johnson’s office responded to the committee evidence by saying Johnson himself “had no involvement in the creation of an alternate slate of electors and had no foreknowledge that it was going to be delivered to our office.”

3.OFFICIALS TALK ABOUT INTENSE PRESSURE, PROTESTERS NEAR FAMILIES

“The Jan. 6 committee on June 21 showed a produced video of President Trump’s efforts to pressure election officials to unlawfully undo his loss

This all drove home that it wasn’t just Jan. 6, and it wasn’t just Sterling. Officials, including some Republicans, were under intense pressure at the time — the kind of pressure that could be compelling to those who weren’t dug in or didn’t have to abide by certain laws by virtue of their positions.”

4. ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE GOP TESTIFIES ABOUT TRUMP’S FALSE STATEMENTS

“On top of the evidence that Trump and his team were told that their voter-fraud claims were false and made them anyway, we now have evidence that they have not told the truth about what their own GOP allies were saying.

On Tuesday, Bowers called out another example. Shortly before Bowers’s testimony, Trump put out a statement attacking him. Trump claimed that Bowers told him in November 2020 that the Arizona vote was “rigged” and that he won the state. Bowers said it never happened. “I did have a conversation with the president; that certainly isn’t it,” he said, calling the allegation “false.”

The link to the quoted full, unedited Washington Post news report is here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/21/fourth-january-6-hearing-takeaways/

JUNE 22 HEARING TAKEAWAYS

On June 22, the New York Times published its report on the June 22 hearing providing an analysis written by staff writer Michael S. Schmidt. Following are the 7 major takeaways reported:

1. IT WAS THE MOST BLATANT ATTEMPT TO USE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR POLITICAL ENDS AT LEAST SINCE WATERGATE

“Mr. Trump aggressively pursued a plan to install as acting attorney general a little-known Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, who was prepared to take actions to reverse the election results. As they fought to head off the move, a group of White House lawyers and the leadership of the Justice Department feared that the plan was so ill-conceived and dishonest that it would have spiraled the country into a constitutional crisis if it had succeeded.

The president came so close to appointing Mr. Clark that the White House had already begun referring to him as the acting attorney general in call logs from Jan. 3, 2021. Later that day, Mr. Trump had a dramatic Oval Office showdown with top Justice Department officials and White House lawyers, who told Mr. Trump that there would be a “graveyard” at the Justice Department if he appointed Mr. Clark because so many top officials would resign.”

2. TRUMP LEANED ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE ELECTION FRAUD CLAIMS

“The House Jan. 6 committee painted a picture of how President Donald J. Trump schemed to pressure the Justice Department into overturning the 2020 election.

In the meeting, Mr. Trump chastised the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, for refusing to do more to help him find election fraud. Only after hours of argument — partly about the lack of substance behind Mr. Trump’s claims of election fraud but also about the political ramifications for him if he took action that led to the exodus of top Justice Department officials — did Mr. Trump relent and back off his plan to replace Mr. Rosen with Mr. Clark.”

3. THE HEART OF THE SCHEME WAS A DRAFT LETTER TO OFFICIALS IN GEORGIA

“At the center of the plan was a letter drafted by Mr. Clark and another Trump loyalist that they hoped to send to state officials in Georgia. The letter falsely asserted that the department had evidence of election fraud that could lead the state to rethink its certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory there. The letter recommended that the state call its legislature into session to study allegations of election fraud and consider naming an alternate slate of electors pledged to Mr. Trump.

“For the department to insert itself into the political process this way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country,” Mr. Donoghue said. “It may have spiraled us into a constitutional crisis.”

4. TRUMP WOULD NOT GIVE UP ON HIS CLAIMS OF FRAUD

“Time after time, the White House brought baseless and sometimes preposterous claims of election fraud — including internet conspiracy theories — to Justice Department officials so that they could use the nation’s law enforcement powers to investigate them. And time after time, the department and the F.B.I. found the claims had no validity.

About 90 minutes after Mr. Donoghue had helped persuade Mr. Trump not to install Mr. Clark as acting attorney general, Mr. Trump would still not let go, calling Mr. Donoghue on his cellphone with another request: to look into a report that an immigration and customs agent in Georgia had seized a truck full of shredded ballots. There turned out to be nothing to it, Mr. Donoghue testified.”

5. TRUMP CONSIDERED NAMING A LOYALIST LAWYER AS A SPECIAL COUNSEL

As Mr. Trump searched for any way to substantiate the false fraud claims, he tried to install a loyalist as a special counsel to investigate them. One of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers, Sidney Powell — who had become a public face of Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the election — said in testimony played by the committee that Mr. Trump discussed with her the possibility of taking on that position in December.

Mr. Kinzinger added: “All of President Trump’s plans for the Justice Department were being rebuffed.”

6. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SOUGHT PARDONS — AND TRUMP CONSIDERED THE REQUESTS7.

In the days after Jan. 6, several of Mr. Trump’s political allies on Capitol Hill, who had helped stoke the false election claims and efforts to overturn the results, sought pardons from Mr. Trump, who considered granting them, according to testimony on Thursday.

“The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you’ve committed a crime,” he said.

7. MAKING A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST TRUMP

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack appears to be laying out evidence that could allow prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump, though the path to a criminal trial is uncertain.

STRONG ARMING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.

The link to the quoted full unedited New York Times report is here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/jan-6-hearling-takeaways.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Any and all doubts that Donald Trump is a fascist should be laid to rest by the evidence presented by the United State House Committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. There is little doubt that the testimony presented by member’s of Trump’s own administration revealed a man so desperate to hold onto power that he attempted to interfere with the peaceful transition of power and to overthrow the United States democracy. It is could and will happen again if Der Führer Trump runs for President again, unless of course he is indicted and convicted for the crimes he committed with his failed attempt to overthrow our democracy.

The link to a related blog article is here:

Take Aways From 3rd Day of January 6 Capitol Riot Congressional Hearinings; Der Führer Trump Lashes Out And Claims January 6 Riot “A Simple Protest That Got Out Of Hand”; Trump: The Once Future Fascist Who Wants To Be President Again

On June 20, the New Mexico Sun published the following guest column provided by www.PeteDinelli.com:

HEADLINE: “APD two step on DOJ reforms justify need to remove sergeants and lieutenants from police union”

By Pete Dinelli
Jun 20, 2022

“APD is struggling mightily with implementation of 271 mandated reforms to eliminate APD’s “culture of aggression” found by the Department of Justice in 2014. APD has now taken 2 major steps forward and 2 major steps backwards in its continuing 7-year saga to come into compliance with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

Police sergeants and lieutenants cannot serve two masters of APD management and union that are in conflict when it comes to the reforms. To achieve compliance, sergeants and lieutenants need to be removed from the police union and made at will employees. The removal will allow APD management to take appropriate measures to ensure the reforms are accomplished and hold those who resist the reforms accountable.”

Pete Dinelli is a native of Albuquerque. He is a licensed New Mexico attorney with 27 years of municipal and state government service including as an assistant attorney general, assistant district attorney prosecuting violent crimes, city of Albuquerque deputy city attorney and chief public safety officer, Albuquerque city councilor, and several years in private practice. Dinelli publishes a blog covering politics in New Mexico: www.PeteDinelli.com.

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

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

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

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

https://newmexicosun.com/

On Tuesday, June 21, Mayor Tim Keller and APD Chief Harold Medina held a news conference at Central and Third to announce a new law enforcement initiative they are calling “Targeted Enforcement Action Monitoring” or “TEAM” program. The new program will begin after July 4.

According to Don Tim Keller, extra police officers will be assigned to focus on traffic enforcement, DWIs, modified car exhaust citations, illegal firearms and to patrol parking lots where after parties and violence break out after the numerous bars close. The city will also be adding more streetlights and is planning to open a substation on Central between Third and Fourth in the Rosenwald Building by the end of the summer.

THERE’S A CATCH

Keller and Medina’s message to downtown businesses is that if you are concerned about crime and public safety issues and you want police protection, you need to pay extra for it. Mayor Tim Keller and APD Police Chief Harold Medina announced that they want businesses to contribute to a fund to pay for a program modeled after “chief’s overtime.”

Due to the officer shortage in Albuquerque, officers participating in this program will do so on a volunteer basis at first through the chief’s overtime program. Main Capo Chief Harold Medina explained that the TEAM program will build and expand off the Chief’s overtime program. Medina had this to say:

“The TEAM concept will build off of our Chief’s overtime program. What’s different about this is, in the past, we’ve always gone out and allocated resources to big box stores and protected one industry or one location. In a way it was hampering our ability to put the resources where we wanted to, to protect the whole city. So we did make adjustments to our chief’s overtime program earlier this year and we cut out our involvement at so many big box stores to ensure we would be prepared for this next step.”

According to Medina, this TEAM program will also be of no cost to the taxpayer. Instead, it will be funded by the city, downtown business owners, and private donations. Medina said he has noticed that the big box stores are hiring private security instead.

Typically, chief’s overtime consists of private businesses, organizations or event organizers paying for officers to be stationed in certain areas. In anticipation of the implementation of the plan, APD Chief Harold Medina began moving officers off assignments at big box stores.

Don Tim Keller had this to say:

“What we are announcing today Downtown is that we are going to do something very different. We are going to treat Downtown, essentially, like a neighborhood that has an acute crime problem. … Now I want to mention not all of the businesses are supporting this. … We want them to, we need them to. We have enough funding to get started and try this out this summer. That’s all the funding we have. But we hope we’re going to demonstrate how important this is and then we’ll get enough funding to run this year round.

The challenge is we are in a resource-constrained environment. … Downtown has to take control of their own future, too [ by creating a business improvement district.] … We’re there to help them and we’re going to get it started but they cannot be dependent on the City of Albuquerque to continue to do everything for them every year. … Because that is exactly why we’ve gotten into this spot right now.

Chief Capo Harold Medina was asked during the press conference why private businesses should be asked to pay for extra police presence instead of the city itself. Capo Medina said he must choose where to spend public funds and have to be fair to the rest of the city. Chief Capo Harold Medina had this to say:

“This is a way for people to fund Downtown, specifically, and not us devoting all our resources and money to just one specific part of town. … Because the moment I devote our resources and funding to Downtown, I guarantee there’s going to be another part of town asking ‘where’s my cut?’”

The use of the term “where’s my cut?” by Capo Medina is embarrassing but reflects that he thinks police protection is some sort of ill gotten gain a person in not entitled to.

Officials said PNM has contributed $15,000. So far there is a total of $90,000 pledged. President of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce Terri Cole said the chamber supports the plan. Cole had this to say:

“We think this proposal helps level the playing field for smaller businesses in the Downtown area, which we’re obviously supportive of. … Right now businesses like Home Depot and Lowe’s pay chief’s overtime during the day and it seems reasonable to us that Downtown businesses ought to be able to use the same model.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2510241/officials-announce-new-plan-to-address-downtown-crime.html

https://www.ksfr.org/criminal-justice/2022-06-21/downtown-albuquerque-gets-a-new-t-e-a-m-to-combat-crime

ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET

On May 16, the Albuquerque City Council voted 7 to 2 to approve the 2022-2023 city budget that will commence on July 1, 2022 and runs through to June 30, 2023. The overall budget approved by the Albuquerque City council is for $1.4 Billion and with $857 million in general fund Appropriations. The budget approved by the council was increased by 20% over the current year’s budget which ends June 10, 2022.

The Keller administration projected that the city will have over $100 million more in gross receipts tax to spend in 2023 than it budgeted for this year. Gross Receipts Tax is the tax assessed on the sale of most goods and services and GRT revenues have been much stronger than expected creating a balance of funding that can be applied to the 2022- 2023 budget cycle.

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

APD’s general fund budget of $255.4 provides funding for 1,100 full time sworn police officers, with the department fully funded for 1,100 sworn police for the past 3 years. However, there are currently 875 sworn officers in APD. The APD budget provides funding for 1,100 in order to accommodate growth.

APD PROJECTED TO HAVE $12,390,000 IN UNSPENT SWORN POLICE SALARIES AT END OF FISCAL YEAR 2023

On Thursday, April 28, the City Council “Committee of the Whole” held its budget hearing on the 2022-2023 proposed Albuquerque Police Department Budget. Capo APD Chief Harold Medina presented the budget for his department to the Council.

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

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

During the budget hearing, the city council was told that as of the week of April 15, APD had a mere 878 sworn officers. During each of the last 4 years, APD’s budget has provided full funding for 1,100. In an interview, Medina had this this to say:

“It’s going to be very difficult for us to get to 1,100 [sworn officers] … But we want to start laying the groundwork with extra PSAs and helping find proper support for our officers.”

Over the last 4 years of city budgets under Keller, the City’s Finance Department that prepares the yearly budget has budgeted enough money to pay for 1,100 officers in APD. During the April 28 budget hearing APD Chief Harold Medina acknowledged for the very first time that APD employing 1,100 sworn police is likely unrealistic. Medina told the city council that APD estimates that it will finish the fiscal year 2023 that begins on July 1, 2022 and ends on June 30, 2023 with just 982 officers.

According to City officials, budgeted sworn officer positions carry a price tag of upwards $105,000 apiece when you include base salaries and add benefits such as the city’s portion of retirement pay. That means if by next year’s end there are only 982 officers as Medina told the city council, and APD is budgeted for 1,100 sworn positions, 118 salaries will go unspent.

That translates into $12,390,000 in unspent salaries calculated as follows: 118 vacant positions at $105,000 a piece equals $12,390,000 salaries will accrue as unspent.

MEDINA WANTS TO USE $12.4 MILLION FOR OTHER PERSONNEL

APD Chief Harold Medina told the City Councilors he intends to use some of the money to hire more Police Service Aides (PSAs). Medina told the counselors:

“We know that’s the best pipeline for us to add officers to this department. The vast majority of our police service aides become officers.”

During the April 28 budget hearing, Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis questioned APD for more information on its budgeting strategy on using unspent sworn police officers’ salaries for other priorities. Lewis said this:

“I think it’s good for us to understand this is not a budget that [actually] funds 1,100 police officers. … We’re going to give you [funding for] 1,100 officers this year. We’re going to fund [the amount] just like we did last year. We’re continuing to do that, but I think at the very least what this council is going to need and want is a very specific breakdown of where those salary savings went because we didn’t hire those officers.”

The link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/05/01/apd-projected-to-have-12390000-in-unspent-sworn-police-salaries-at-end-of-fiscal-year-2023-apd-has-20-fewer-sworn-police-officers-than-when-keller-and-medina-took-over-in-2017-13-pay-raises-fo/

CHIEF’S OVERTIME EXPLAINED

APD “Chief’s Overtime” is an APD overtime program where APD police officers work off-duty security assignments at businesses locations as Walmart, Target, gas stations and other local businesses or work special events. APD officers wear their APD uniforms and use city equipment to perform their security duties. The overtime can only be worked if approved by the Chief. The city receives between $57 and $77 an hour for each chief’s overtime shift worked, depending on the officer’s rank. Police officers from patrolman first class to lieutenants are paid between $31.32 an hour to $45.36 which is taken out of the Chief’s overtime paid with the balance kept by the city, with city essentially making a profit.

The arguments made in favor of Police Overtime include that it place officers out in the community while giving them an opportunity to make extra income using the valuable training and experience city taxpayers have invested in them. And the cost of their extra presence on the streets is more than covered by the businesses footing the bill. Arguments against Chief’s overtime is that the APD Force Review Board has found that officers working chief’s overtime are using force nearly 3 times more often. Further, working consecutive shifts of city shifts followed by Chief’s overtime shifts is a dangerous combination contributing to “burn out”.

The biggest problem with Chief’s Overtime is that it is essentially a program where city resources are being used to make a profit for the city. Any city program that uses public funded resources to make a profit is dangerous and is a ripe for corruption and severe public criticism and scrutiny. The now defunct city “red light camera” program and the defunct “vehicle forfeiture “ programs were two such programs.

DE JA VUE ALL OVER AGAIN

Almost 4 years ago on September 13, 2018, Mayor Tim Keller and the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) announced the creation of a “Downtown Public Safety District.” The creation of the “Downtown Public Safety District ”was in response to a petition drive by Downtown businesses and residents demanding such a substation. The substation for the Downtown Public Safety District is located at the Alvarado Transportation Center at First and Central SW. The location is a conversion of a prisoner transport holding area that required remodeling to remove jail cells.

The goal was to have more of a permanent police presence in Downtown Albuquerque. The congregation of the homeless in the area have been a chronic problem especially around the Alvarado Transportation Center. Consequently, a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) was to be assigned to the district to address homelessness and behavioral health needs.

According to the City website, the Downtown Public Safety District is committed to the principles of community policing. The officers walk, bike and drive the streets and alleys of the core downtown (Lomas to Coal, Broadway to 12th Street). The don’t drive by, they walk in and know the business owners, residents, office workers, service providers and people on the streets. They partner with the community to increase safety, address problems, provide training, assist with medical or mental health transport, de-escalate situations, find solutions and create a positive downtown environment.

https://www.cabq.gov/echo

https://www.abqjournal.com/1219908/keller-unveils-new-downtown-public-safety-district.html

https://www.koat.com/article/mayor-we-re-trying-to-move-beyond-the-notion-of-a-band-aid-solution-for-downtown/23109157

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The “Targeted Enforcement Action Monitoring” program requiring private funding is as about as messed up as any Mayor can get with police department. It is a program that will uses public funded resources, sworn police, to make a profit by charging the private sector for services rendered that it is already entitled to. The proposal to charge the public and private sector for law enforcement services they are entitled to is dangerous and is a ripe for corruption.

Simply put, APD is awash with unused funding that is dedicated to funding sworn police positions never filled. Public Safety and police protection are probably the most important city essential service that any city provides it citizens and which they pay for with taxes, yet Keller and Medina want private funding, telling Downtown business owners they need to take “control of their own future” which means in their eyes paying for police protection.

APD’s general fund budget of $255.4 provides funding for 1,100 full time sworn police officers, with the department fully funded for 1,100 sworn police. For the past 4 years at least, APD has been fully funded for 1,100 but APD has fallen short of that goal each year by 100 sworn police or more . At the time the 2023 budget was enacted there are were 875 sworn officers. During the budget hearing for APD, Capo APD Chief Medina said there was no way APD would end the 2023 fiscal year with 1,100 sworn police and that he intended to use the savings from not hiring upwards of 100 sworn police for other priorities. This excessive unused funding from police vacancies should be used to fund the “Target Enforcement Action Monitoring”.

Don Keller and his Capo Chief Medina telling downtown business that if they are concerned about crime and public safety issues and they want police protection, they must pay extra for it amounts to nothing more than a godfather like “shake down.” In making the request for donations to fund police, both essentially concede that they are failures in managing the personnel resources of the largest budgeted department in the city despite a 14.7% increase in APD’s annual budget which is $255.4 million.

With the enactment of a $1.4 Billion Budget, and with a $857 million general fund appropriations budget containing a $255.4 million APD budget, Keller and Medina should be ashamed of themselves asking for private funding for their “Targeted Enforcement Action Monitoring” program. It is projected that the city will have over $100 million more in gross receipts tax to spend in 2023 than it did last year, yet Keller and Medina proclaimed they are working in a resource-constrained environment.

The only constraint that really exists is in the inability of Mayor Tim Keller and Chief Harold Medina to manage APD resources. The fact that APD has a shortage of police officers is Keller’s and Medina’s fault, not the taxpayer’s fault, and is a result of their failure, some would say, incompetence to staff APD at the levels that have been fully funded.

Instead of kissing Keller’s ring and paying more for police protection, Downtown business owners should demand Keller and Medina deliver on the police protection they are already paying for.

________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

On June 28, the Albuquerque Journal published the following editorial repeating many of the argument made in the Dinelli blog article above:

Editorial: ABQ’s Downtown police OT scheme like TV mob plot
BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD
PUBLISHED: TUESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2022 AT 12:02AM
UPDATED: TUESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2022 AT 10:40AM

It sounds a lot like a deal they can’t refuse: Pay police a little extra and they’ll protect your Downtown business. If it sounds somewhat shady, that’s because it’s the stuff of gangster movies and TV shows.

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2512102/webhedline-96.html

On June 22, Albuquerque City Councilor Brook Bassan made a “front page” apology to her constituents as she reversed her support the day before on city sanctioned homeless camps known as “Safe Outdoor Spaces.” In doing so, she lost credibility by showing a remarkable ignorance of what her constituents want and what the city is actually doing to combat the homeless crisis. She also showed a serious misunderstanding of the Albuquerque Police Department, the Department of Justice Reforms and the critical role law enforcement must play.

FRONT PAGE COVERAGE

On June 22, the Albuquerque Journal on its front page, above the fold with the headline “Bassan pulls back support for proposed outdoor sites” and sub headline “City councilor calls earlier vote backing safe spaces a mistake”, with a color photo of the councilor, published its report that read in part as follows:

“An Albuquerque city councilor is apologizing to her constituents for supporting safe outdoor spaces and says she is now working to fix her “mistake.”

Bassan met strong community opposition to safe outdoor spaces last week during a neighborhood meeting in her district. She said people who live around North Domingo Baca Park were under the false impression that an encampment was planned near the park. Though the zoning regulations the council had approved would have enabled a safe outdoor space in that area, she said none was planned or even discussed.”

BASSAN STATEMENTS MADE IN EXPLAINING REVERSAL

Bassan in a written statement and in other comments to news media outlets had this to about her reversal and now opposition to Safe Outdoor Spaces:

“I have always promised that, if I ever made a mistake such as this, I would apologize and work to correct my action. … I am sorry for not registering your opposition to this idea sooner.

We need more officers, we need the Department of Justice to leave Albuquerque because we are in compliance as a department as in a city, we need to do more for drug addiction and behavioral health treatment and services. We need to increase housing, we need to increase security for everyone in Albuquerque and that’s going to take working together.”

Bassan downplayed “safe outdoor spaces” when she said the City Council has put so many “barriers” in the zoning code that may have been more of an idea than a reality and said this:

“I would be surprised if these ever actually came about in the first place because Albuquerque has a really strong tendency to get in [its] own way. ”

MAYOR TIM KELLER ADMINISTRATION REACTS

Mayor Tim Keller spokeswoman Ava Montoya criticized Bassan’s reversal in a statement by saying this:

“Vacillating by passing legislation and then immediately repealing it doesn’t help anyone. … Council is the land use authority for our city and we need them to put forward solutions. Right now, when Coronado Park is cleared every two weeks, people have nowhere to go except right back to the park, and that won’t change without solutions from Council.”

The link to the full, unedited Albuquerque Journal quoted article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2510096/bassan-pulls-back-support-for-safe-outdoor-spaces.html

Links to other quoted news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/albuquerque-city-councilor-changes-stance-on-homeless-encampments-after-pushback/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/neighbors-city-councilor-protest-outdoor-safe-spaces-plan/#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9COutdoor%20Safe%20Spaces%E2%80%9D%20plan,for%20the%20city’s%20homeless%20population.

ORGANIZED PROTEST

“Women Taking Back Our Neighborhoods” (WTBON) is a citizen activist group founded in 2018 in the Albuquerque South East Heights to inform the public and demand greater accountability from elected and other civic leaders for preventing crime on Central Ave., in neighborhoods, and in public parks.

On Tuesday, June 21 “Women Taking Back Our Neighborhoods” held a protest on the corner of Academy and Eubank to protest the City of Albuquerque’s Council vote to institutionalize “Safe Open Spaces” and Motel Conversions in the City’s Zoning Code.

WTBON stated in a press release:

“As proposed, the city could designate two “Open Space” lots for each district, for a total of 18 lots in the city, and an untold number of motel conversions for unvetted homeless individuals coming to Albuquerque for the social benefits provided by the Family and Community Services Dept. The concept has never been brought to citizens for a vote, and the city does not have a plan of action in place, nor a budget for its implementation, which will be a tremendous amount of money as yet undefined which tax-payers will be responsible for. Considering the failure of the Tiny Homes to attract drug-free, homeless individuals to the campus, a city plan of 18 “Safe Open Spaces” will be another disastrous idea by the City that forces taxpayers to foot the bill and live with the consequences of crime to businesses and neighborhoods, decreasing property values and new residents, and reducing tourism.”

During the June 21 protest, Colleen Aycock, the leader of ‘“Women Taking Back Our Neighborhoods” said “Safe Outdoor Spaces” will not work and she had this to say:

“There are solutions, but the solutions aren’t in tents. We need residential living situations and those living situations are number one incarceration, if you’re a criminal you need to go to jail. if you have a drug behavioral problem you need to go to a treatment facility.”

The link to quotes news source is here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/neighbors-city-councilor-protest-outdoor-safe-spaces-plan/#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9COutdoor%20Safe%20Spaces%E2%80%9D%20plan,for%20the%20city’s%20homeless%20population.

SAFEOUTDOOR SPACES EXPLAINED

On June 6, the Albuquerque City Council enacted upwards of 100 amendments updating the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). The IDO update legislation passed on a 5 to 4 vote. Democrat City Counselors Isaac Benton, Tammy Fiebelcorn, Pat Davis and Republicans Trudy Jones and Brook Bassan voted YES to approve all of the IDO update amendments. Democrats Klarissa Pena, Louie Sanchez and Republicans Dan Lewis and Renee Grout voted NO. The city sanctioned homeless encampment amendment called “Safe Outdoor “Spaces” was co-sponsored by Republican City councilors Brook Bassan and Trudy Jones and Democrat Isaac Benton.

The “Safe outdoor spaces” amendment passed will permit 2 homeless encampments in all 9 city council districts with 40 designated spaces for tents, they will allow upwards of 50 people, require hand washing stations, toilets and showers, require a management plan, 6 foot fencing and social services offered. Although the Integrated Development Ordinance amendment sets a limit of two in each of the city’s 9 council districts, the cap would not apply to those hosted by religious institutions.

A map prepared by the city detailing where “safe outdoor space” zoning would be allowed for encampments revealed numerous areas in each of the 9 City Council districts that are abut to or in walking distance to many residential areas. Upwards of 15% of the city would allow for “safe outdoor” spaces as a “permissive use” or “conditional use”.

Under the law, once such permissive uses are granted, they become vested property rights and cannot be rescinded by the city council. Also, there is no requirement of land ownership, meaning someone could seek a special use for a safe outdoor space and then turn around and lease their undeveloped open space property to who ever can afford to pay.

The map reveals a large concentration of eligible open space area that lies between San Pedro and the railroad tracks, north of Menaul to the city’s northern boundary. The map reveals that the encampments could be put at next to the Big-I, the northeast heights, and on the west side not far from homes. The map does not account for religious institutions that may want to use their properties for living lots or safe outdoor spaces.

The link to the map prepared by the City entitled “Map 1 Council Districts Selected IDO Zoning” is here:

https://documents.cabq.gov/planning/IDO/2021_IDO_AnnualUpdate/Council/Map1_SafeOutdoorSpaces-A12-Option3.pdf

On June 6 when the Safe Outdoor Space Amendment was presented to the City Council, 17 spoke out against it with only 4 supporting it. The council approved the plan with conditions. Those conditions include that no more than 18 camps in the city at one time and no more than two in a specific area of town will be allowed. Registered sex offenders will also not be able to stay in them.

After the vote to adopt the amendment to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO), including the “Safe Outdoor Spaces“ amendment, the council voted to defer to the June 22 meeting the Safe Outdoor Space amendment to the Keller administration to draft procedures for safe outdoor spaces. Mayor Tim Keller’s office has been instructed to look at locations and come up with the details of what resources would be available.

CITY FUNDING

The City of Albuquerque has adopted the Housing First policy as mandated by the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH Act) in order to secure federal funding. The HEARTH Act provides that in order to receive federal dollars, cities must adopt a “housing first” policy and, crucially, that homeless organizations had to work together in “continuums of care” under a single lead agency, coordinating their programs and sharing data.

On May 16, the Albuquerque City Council voted to approve the 2022-2023 fiscal year city budget which will begin on July 1,2022 . The 2022-2023 approved city budget provides major funding of upwards of $60 Million to deal with the homeless. Included in the adopted budget is funding for Safe Community programs that deal with issues such as substance abuse, homelessness, domestic violence and youth opportunity. Following is a listing of approved funding:

• $24 million in Emergency Rental Assistance from the federal government, which the City will make available in partnership with the State.

• $4 million in recurring funding and $2 million in one-time funding for supportive housing programs in the City’s Housing First model. In addition, as recommended by the Mayor’s Domestic Violence Task Force, the budget includes $100 thousand for emergency housing vouchers for victims of intimate partner violence.

• $4.7 million net to operate the City’s first Gateway Center at the Gibson Medical Facility, including revenue and expenses for facility and program operations.

• $500 thousand to fund Albuquerque Street Connect, a program that focuses on people experiencing homelessness who use the most emergency services and care, to establish ongoing relationships that result in permanent supportive housing.

• $1.3 million for a Medical Respite facility at Gibson Health Hub, which will provide acute and post-acute care for persons experiencing homelessness who are too ill or frail to recover from a physical illness or injury on the streets but are not sick enough to be in a hospital.

• Full funding for the Westside Emergency Housing Center which is operated close to full occupancy for much of the year. On October 23, 2019, it was announced that Albuquerque’s West Side Emergency Housing Center was expanded to provide a coordinated approach to homelessness. The homeless use that facility to get medical care, treatment for addiction and behavioral health, job placement and case management services. The west side shelter now has the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Presbyterian Hospital and Alburquerque Health Care for the Homeless providing medical services two days a week. It also has case management services being provided by Centro Savila, funded by Bernalillo County. Job placement opportunities are being provided by workforce connections.

• $500 thousand to fund the development of a technology system that enables the City and providers to coordinate on the provision of social services to people experiencing homelessness and behavioral health challenges.

The Fiscal Year 2023 budget includes the following funding for Safe Community programs:

• $1.8 million to develop what will be Albuquerque’s only medical substance abuse facility dedicated to youths likely housed at the Gibson Health Hub.

• Full funding for the Violence Intervention Program that deals with both APD and Family & Community Services departments, including the first phase of School-Based VIP in partnership with APS.

• $730 thousand for a partial year of operation of a Medical Sobering Center at Gibson Health Hub, which will complement the social model sobering facilities available at the County’s CARES campus.

• Full funding for service contracts for mental health, substance abuse, early intervention and prevention programs, domestic violence shelters and services, sexual assault services, health and social service center providers, and services to abused, neglected and abandoned youth.

The link to the enacted 2022-2023 proposed budget is here:

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

COMMENTARY ANALYSIS

Republican City Councilor Brook Bassan is commended for doing the right thing by scrapping her support of Safe Outdoor Spaces. Now it’s up to the rest of the city council as well as Mayor Tim Keller to do the right thing and back off totally on making any attempt at implementing Safe Outdoor Spaces.

There never was anything temporary about “city sanctioned” encampments with “safe outdoor spaces”. Allowing 18 “safe outdoor spaces” would be a major setback for the city and its current policy of Housing First seeking permanent shelter and housing as the solution to the homeless crisis

CITY FUNDING AND EFFORTS IGNORED

Throughout all discussions of the “Safe Outdoor Spaces” debate, not a word was spoken by any City Councilor nor Mayor Keller of the millions being spent each year to deal with the homeless crisis. Much of the funding the city gets to help the homeless comes in the form of federal grants under HEARTH Act. “Safe Outdoor Spaces” violates the city’s “Housing First Policy” in that “Safe Outdoor Spaces” are not permanent housing and will place into jeopardy federal funding. What is troubling is that Mayor Keller and the City Council in all likely have no idea if “Safe Outdoor Spaces” places federal funding in jeopardy.

Last year, the city spent upwards of $40 million to benefit the homeless in housing and services. The 2023 proposed budget significantly increases funding for the homeless by going from $35,145,851 to $59,498,915. The city contracts with 10 separate homeless service providers throughout the city and it funds the Westside 24-7 homeless shelter.

The city has bought the 572,000-square-foot Lovelace Hospital Complex on Gibson for $15 million that currently has space of 200 beds or more and transforming it into the Gateway Center Homeless shelter. City officials have said that the city is expected to launch multiple services on the property this winter, including a 50-bed women’s shelter, a sobering center and a space designed to deliver “medical respite” care for individuals who would have no place other than a hospital to recover from illnesses and injury. The massive facility could be remodeled even further to house the homeless and convert offices, treating rooms, operating rooms and treatment rooms into temporary housing accommodations. The onsite auditorium and cafeteria could also be utilized for counseling and feeding programs for service providers.

When City Councilor Brook Bassan says “… we need to do more for drug addiction and behavioral health treatment and services. We need to increase housing … “ she showed a remarkable ignorance of the fact the for the last 4 years the city has been scrambling to do just what she wants. She ostensibly does not realize she has already voted for such funding, yet she proclaims the city needs to do more.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REFORMS

It is downright pathetic that City Councilor Brook Bassan essentially lied about APD’s progress with implementing the Court Approved Settlement reforms. She did so as a means of trying to rehabilitate her reputation with her constituents and the mistake she made with her support of Safe Outdoor Spaces.

Bassan shot off her mouth with falsehoods to justify her reversal of her support of safe outdoor spaces when she said:

“We need more officers, we need the Department of Justice to leave Albuquerque because we are in compliance as a department as in a city … .”

APD is struggling mightily with implementation of 271 mandated reforms to eliminate APD’s “culture of aggression” found by the Department of Justice in 2014. The truth is APD is a longways off from being in compliance with the Department of Justice reforms. APD also has an extensive history of making significant increases in compliance levels only to experience significant decreases in those compliance levels.

On May 11, the Federal Monitor filed his 15th report. It was a dramatic reversal from the past 3 monitor’s reports. At the end of the reporting period, APD’s compliance levels are:

100% Primary Compliance
99% Secondary Compliance
70% Operational Compliance

When APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in the 3 identified compliance levels and maintains compliance for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed.

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

When the Federal Monitor released his 15th report, APD Police Chief Medina was quick to take credit for the latest improvements. Medina also set the goal for the department to be in full compliance with the settlement agreement in 2 years. Medina’s goal to attain full compliance within two years means the case will not be dismissed for at least 4 years with 2 years to achieve compliance and 2 more years of sustaining compliance.

CONCLUSION

The homeless crisis will not be solved by the city, but it can and must be managed. Providing a very temporary place to pitch a tent, relieve themselves, bathe and sleep at night with rules they do not want nor will likely follow is not the answer to the homeless crisis. The answer is to provide the support services, including food and lodging, and mental health care needed to allow the homeless to turn their lives around, become productive self-sufficient citizens, no longer dependent on relatives or others.

Too many elected and government officials, like Mayor Tim Keller and City Counselors Isaac Benton, Tammy Fiebelcorn, Pat Davis and Trudy Jones and Brook Bassan who voted for Safe Outdoor Spaces and who want to establish government sanction encampments have a hard time dealing with the fact that many homeless adults simply want to live their life as they choose, where they want to camp for as long as they can get away with it, without any government nor family interference and especially no government rules and no regulations.

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

The city has a moral obligation to help the homeless who suffer from mental illness and drug addiction. The city is in fact meeting that moral obligation with the millions it spending each year and huge financial commitment to help the homeless. The city needs to continue with the approach of offering programs, building shelter space and making beds available for its homeless population.

As for the political career of Brook Bassan, she is up for re election to a second term in 2023. Apologies from politicians are usually never enough to fully regain the trust of constituents they once experienced. What remains to be seen is if her front page apology was enough and if she has time to rehabilitate her reputation and get back the trust of her constituents to avoid opposition next year.

NEWS UPDATE

On June 22, two bills were introduced at City Council by Brook Bassan that could eventually repeal safe outdoor spaces. The city council also rejected on a 4 to 5 to kill the resolution that would have required city staff to develop operating procedures for safe outdoor spaces. Bassan was joined Renee Grout, Dan Lewis, Klarissa Peña and Louie Sanchez to kill the operating rules bill. Notwithstanding the rejection of the operating rules, the Integrated Development Ordinance amendment updates that allow for Safe Outdoor Spaces will take effect. Safe outdoor spaces may be allowed in Albuquerque as soon as August 1. Bassan in a statement said in a written statement she did not see that as a real possibility, given the number of elements an operator would have to have in place to actually launch one. The City Council will now be on summer break until August.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2510597/council-rejects-bill-for-safe-outdoor-space-planning-ex-councilor-is.html