This blog article is an in-depth report on Albuquerque’s homeless numbers, the city’s policy adopted to remove homeless encampments from public and private property and the need for the city to enforce its vagrancy laws as allowed by the United State Supreme Court.

THE POINT-IN-TIME COUNT

The Point-In-Time (PIT) count is the annual counting individuals and families experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness within a community on a single night in January.  On July 31, the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness released the 2024 Point-In-Time (PIT) Report for the numbers of unhoused in Albuquerque. This year’s PIT count occurred on the night of January 29.  The link to review the entire 62-page 2024 PIT report is here:

 https://www.nmceh.org/_files/ugd/ad7ad8_4e2a2906787e4ca19853b9c7945a4dc9

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The 2024 PIT survey reported that the total count of HOUSEHOLDS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,248. (Households include those with or without children or only children.)  The breakdown is as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 1,018
• Transitional Housing: 174
• Unsheltered: 1,056

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS: 2,248

PERSONS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The 2024 PIT survey reported that the total count of PERSONS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,740 broken down in 3 categories.

• Emergency Shelters: 1,289
• Transitional Housing: 220
• Unsheltered: 1,231

TOTAL PERSONS: 2,740

UNSHELTERED BREAKDOWN

The data breakdown for the 2024 Albuquerque UNSHELTERED was reported as follows:

• 960 (78%) were considered chronically homeless.
• 727 (22%) were not considered chronically homeless.
• 106 (8.6%) had served in the military.
• 927 (75.3%) had NOT served in the military.
• 669 (56.6%) were experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 525 (42.6%) were NOT experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 5% of all respondents said they were homeless due to domestic violence with 49.2% of those being women..
• 4% said they were adults with a serious mental illness.
• 0% said they were adults with a substance abuse disorder.
• 8% said they were adults with another disabling condition.
• 3% were asdults with HIV/AIDS.

THOSE WHO MOVED TO NEW MEXICO FROM ELSWWHERE

For the first time, the PIT tried to gage the migration of the unhoused to New Mexico from other states.  Individuals who stated they moved to New Mexico from somewhere else were asked whether or not they were experiencing homelessness when they moved to the State. They responded as follows:

• 82 (24.8%) said they were homeless before moving to the state.
• 212 (63.8%) said they were not homeless before moving to the state.
• 77 (11.4%) refused to answer

BARRIERS TO HOUSING LISTED

Unhoused respondents were asked to list the barriers they are currently experiencing that are preventing them from obtaining housing. The response options were developed during multiple meetings with community planning groups and based on responses to a similar 2023 survey question. The responses were as follows:

• Access to services: 439 responses (42%)
• Access to communication: 263 responses 25%
• Available housing is in unsafe neighborhoods: 119 responses 11%
• Credit issues: 150 responses 14%
• Criminal record: 220 responses 21%
• Deposit/Application fees: 316 responses 30%
• Lack of vouchers (rental subsidies: 333 responses 32%
• Missing documentation: 374 responses 35%
• No housing for large households: 33 responses 3%
• Pet deposits/Pet Rent: 57 responses 5%
• Pets not allowed/Breed Restrictions: 48 responses 5%
• Rental history: 144 responses 14%
• Rental prices: 340 responses 32%
• Safety/Security: 77 responses 7%
• Substance Use Disorder: 283 responses 27%
• Lack of employment: 45 responses 4%
• Disabled: 34 responses 3%
• No mailing address: 31 3%
• Lack of income: 30 3%
• Homeless by choice: 30 responses 3%
• Ineffective service landscape: 25 responses 2%
• Lack of transportation: 14 responses 1%
• Discrimination: 8 responses 1%

ENCAMPMENT CLEANUPS AND REMOVAL

For the very first time, Albuquerque’s Unhoused were asked how many times has their encampment been decommissioned (removed) by the city over  the last year. Following are the statistics:

• 69 reported once
• 98 report twice
• 67 reported three times
• 55 reported 4 times
• 497 report 5 time or more

EDITOR’S NOTE: During the July 29 Town Hall meeting held by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on “Public Safety”, Mayor Tim Keller proclaimed the city of Albuquerque is cleaning up and removing upwards of 1,000 encampments a month. Keller gave no further information and his claim appears to be an embellishment when compared to the PIT survey results.

ITEMS LOST AS A RESULT OF CITY CLEAN UPS

The unhouse surveyed were asked what types of items they lost during encampment removals. Losing these items can hinder progress toward housing and cause emotional distress, especially when sentimental items are involved.  The response categories are not mutually exclusive and respondents were allowed to select more than one that applied.

• 81% said they lost their birth certificate.
• 5% said they lost a phone or tablet.
• 4% said they lost personal or sentimental items.
• 5% said they lost prescription medications.
• 9% said they lost social security cards.
• 6 said they lost a state ID or driver’s license.

NEW MEXICO STATUTES AND CITY ORDINANCES

New Mexico Statutes and City Ordinances that have been enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property rights. All the laws cited have been on the books for decades and are applicable and are enforced against all citizens and not just the unhoused. The specific statutes cited in the lawsuit are:

1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
2. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
8. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors.  The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence.  The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department has agreed that only citations will be issued and no arrests will be made for violations of the 8 statutes and city ordinance as part of a court approved settlement in  a decades old federal civil rights lawsuit dealing with jail overcrowding.

US SUPREME COURT CASE GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON

On June 28, the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The case is strikingly similar in facts and circumstances and laws to the case filed against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park.

The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass, a town with just one 138-bed overnight shelter,  criminalized them for behavior they couldn’t avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.

Meanwhile, municipalities across the western United States argued that court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments.  The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds.

The United States Supreme Court considered whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking. The case is the most significant case heard by the high court in decades on the rights of the unhoused and comes as a rising number of people in the United States are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court  reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets.  The Supreme Court ruled  that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking.

CITY PROCESS IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH REMOVAL OF HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS

The City of Albuquerque has adopted a written  policy for responding to encampments on public property.  The policy was first adopted in October, 2021 and then revised October, 2022. The link to review the entire 16-page policy is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/health-housing-homelessness/documents/final-fcs-encampment-policy-11-7-22.pdf

Following is a summary of the process followed by the city for the removal unhoused encampments.

BALANCING ACT OF COMPETING INTERESTS

The City’s policy on encampment removals states in part:

“There are particularly high rates of homelessness among Native Americans, Black and Hispanic populations, people with disabilities, and people with mental health or substance use disorders. People experiencing homelessness are frequently victims of crime and certain populations are especially susceptible to human trafficking, sex crimes, and other crimes of violence. The City of Albuquerque recognizes that there are no “homeless people,” but rather people who have lost their homes and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

The goal of the City of Albuquerque policy on encampments is to balance multiple, and sometimes competing, priorities from a diverse group of stakeholders. The stakeholders include homeowners, business owners, public health and safety officials, and the unsheltered themselves.

The city policy on encampment removal provides in pertinent part as follows:

“In order to strike the right balance, the City must ensure that the rights of people who are unsheltered are given equal protection under the law. As cities struggle to accommodate rising numbers of unsheltered people and encampments, the courts have also weighed in on how to balance public safety and constitutional rights.

While this is a rapidly evolving area of the law, courts have recognized that there are legitimate public safety reasons for removing or cleaning up encampments, such as the safety of unsheltered people, unsanitary conditions, and public health concerns. However, courts have also identified several constitutional concerns that must be addressed [when an encampment is dispersed]  including

1. Adequate notice provisions prior to removal,
2.  Due process for retrieving personal property,
3. Assessment of individual needs such as mental or physical disability, and
4.  Whether appropriate shelter beds exist in the community as a condition prior to removal of an encampment.”

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The City of Albuquerque has enunciated 4 major guiding principles for removal unhoused encampments. The 4 guiding principles are:

1. HARM REDUCTION: This Refers to policies, programs, and practices that aim to minimize negative health, social, and legal impacts associated with drug use, drug policies, and drug laws. Harm reduction is grounded in justice and human rights. It focuses on positive change and on people without judgement, coercion, discrimination, or requiring that they stop using drugs as a precondition of support.
2. TRAUMA-INFORMED: Trauma-informed approaches emphasize safety, trustworthiness, peer support, collaboration, empowerment, and a focus on cultural, historical and gender issues.
3. HOUSING FIRST: The Housing First principle recognizes that the primary need of people experiencing homelessness is housing. This Housing First approach is based on the premise that people are best able to address their needs, such as substance abuse and mental health treatment and employment, once they have a home.
4. PERSON-CENTERED RESPONSE: The City aims to provide person-centered, trauma-informed care that respects the dignity and ensures the safety of all individuals and families seeking assistance. Progressive engagement that is respectful of participant choice and attuned to participant safety and confidentiality needs will inform data collection efforts, level of services provided, and location/type of housing accessed.

CLEARING OF ENCAMPMENTS BY CITY

The City of Albuquerque no longer relies on the Albuquerque Police Department (APD)  as the primary or only city department for removal of unhoused encampments. There are 4 other city departments working together that are now primarily responsible for homeless encampment removals. Those 4 city departments are:

1. The Health, Housing & Homelessness Department
2. The Albuquerque Community Safety Department
3. The Planning Department Code Enforcement
4. Solid Waste Department

When an encampment is reported and a complaint is filed, it is usually first handled by the Albuquerque Community Safety Department.  The city sends outreach providers to speak to the homeless to see what services they might need or want and what services can be offered. A member of the city outreach team will visit the reported site to address the encampment and offer resources including shelter, transportation, and personal storage.

The city has an “encampment team” made up of seven people. Their job is to respond to reported encampments set up on public property, and give the people living there the written “notices to vacate.” After the assessment, written “notices to vacate” are issued.  The homeless are given a full 72 hours to clear the area of their personal property and belongings.

The camps are then cleared by the city Solid Waste.  Once the 72 hours time is up, the encampment team checks in to make sure the people have in fact moved. Once the encampment has been vacated, the city cleans up whatever is left behind at the camp which includes many times trash and needles for illicit drug use.

311 CITIZENS CONTACT CENTER FIRST STEP

The preferred method for the general public or City employees to report an encampment is through the 311 citizens contact center. Encampments within city limits can be reported by calling 311 (505-768-2000) or using the ABQ311 App.    However, members of the public and City employees can report encampments directly to other City departments.

The 311-citizen contact sends referral reports on encampments that appear to be on public property to the Family and Community Safety Department (FCS) designee. The 311-citizen contact center sends referral reports on encampments that appear to be on private property to the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department.

“PRIVATE PROPERTY” is defined as any property that is not owned by a governmental entity, such as an individual, business, or non-profit organization, including but not limited to business parking lots and private residences.

“PUBLIC PROPERTY” is defined as any real property owned by any governmental entity within the municipal limits of the city, including but not limited to, the public way, right-of-way, roads, streets and public alleys.

The 311 citizens contact center is required to collect information from callers or via the 311-application process to enable the Family and Community Safety designee to determine the priority level of encampments reported to 311.

RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS

After the 311 citizens contact center receives a report of an encampment, the Family and Community Safety Department Designee determines whether the encampment is located upon public or private property and conducts a “Risk Assessment Analysis”.

If the FCS Designee identifies the property on which the encampment is located is on private property, it  must coordinate with the Code Enforcement Division, which will then address the encampment following their own protocol for addressing encampments on private property.

If the FCS Designee identifies the property upon which the encampment is located as public property, they must take actions in accordance with the city’s encampment removal policy.

RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS & PRIORITIZATION OF RESPONSE

The FCS designee conducts a “Risk Assessment Analysis” of each encampment located on public property based on the information reported about the encampment. The Risk Assessment Analysis considers the following:

• The location of the encampment
• The risk to encampment occupants and other users of the public space in which the encampment is located
• The number of encampment occupants and
• The presence of needles and/or human waste

Based on the risk analysis, encampments are prioritized as a 1, 2, or 3 priority.  The FCS Designee responds to encampments identified as “priority 1” first, then “priority 2” and so on.  Based on the risk assessment analysis, encampments on public property are defined and prioritized as follows:

PRIORITY ENCAMPAMENTS OUTLINED

The city has defined and prioritized encampments as follows:

 PRIORITY 1 ENCAMPMENTS are those that meet the definition of immediate hazard or obstruction or are:

1. Located in a public park where children’s programming occurs.
2. Located at or adjacent to a community center, senior center, multigenerational center and early childhood development center.
3. Located adjacent to or in the median of a roadway or obstructing any street, sidewalk, bus stop, crosswalk, bicycle lane, bicycle path, foot path, areas of City-owned property within 10 feet of a street without sidewalks, or other public way.
4. On a footbridge over a roadway.
5. Where an Albuquerque Police Department (“APD”) officer observes felony possession of narcotics or other felonious activity.

“IMMEDIATE HAZARD” is defined as a situation where an encampment creates an immediate and articulable risk of serious injury or death to either the residents of the encampment or others. Immediate Hazard includes encampments within 10 feet of any public facility where children are present or children’s programming occurs. Immediate Hazard also includes encampments within the Rio Grande Valley State Park, or any public property where fire restrictions have been imposed.

“OBSTRUCTION” means people, tents, personal property, garbage, debris or other objects related to an encampment that interfere with areas that are necessary for or essential to the intended use of a public property or facility.

PRIORITY 2 ENCAMPMENTS meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. Located in an underpass near a roadway
2. Five or more encampment residents and/or structures are present
3. Human waste present
4. Significant quantities of hypodermic needles present

PRIORITY 3 ENCAMPMENTS are all encampments that do not meet the criteria above.

INITIAL ENCAMPMENT CONTACT

The Health, Housing & Homelessness Department (FCS) or the Albuquerque Community Safety Department (ACS) goes to the encampment location in person to attempt to engage the homeless encampment residents.   The first priority of the FCS or ACS Designee is to engage encampment residents, assess their basic needs, and provide any notice required by the policy to vacate the area.

The FCS or ACS Designee is required to attempt to educate encampment residents regarding resources and provide basic referral information to such resources, including but not limited to meals, showers and bathroom facilities, emergency shelter, medical services and supportive housing programs. If appropriate, the ACS Designee may transport individual(s) to shelter, provider, or location in which long term care can be provided.

When an encampment resident requests medical assistance or has an injury that poses a risk of death or serious bodily harm, the FCS or ACS Designee is required to contact the 9-1-1 emergency dispatch center.

If the FCS or ACS Designee observes any weapons at the encampment the FCS or ACS Designee is not to engage with the unhoused  encampment residents and may request APD assistance.

REMOVAL OF ENCAMPMENTS – IMMEDIATE HAZARD OR OBSTRUCTION

The City is not required to provide notice to remove an encampment constituting an immediate hazard or obstruction.  Immediate hazards are not typical encampments because an encampment that is an immediate hazard must present an imminent risk of serious injury or death. Immediate hazards are an emergency exception to the general rule that notice is required before requiring the removal of an encampment.

If unhoused are present at the encampment when the FCS Designee identifies that an encampment is an immediate hazard or obstruction, the city personnel must work collaboratively with the homeless to allow for them to collect and remove their own Personal Property, connect them to social services and shelter, identify and offer to store any Personal Property, identify where Personal Property will be stored if removed by the City, and explain how Personal Property may be claimed by its owner.

All trash or debris that are in the immediate area of the encampment may be removed and disposed of. An FCS designee will ask the persons at the encampment to assist with the clean-up.   If the resident has difficulty complying due to underlying behavioral health issues, the FCS Designee may request an ACS Behavioral Health Responder.

If persons are not present at the encampment when City staff identify the encampment as an immediate hazard or obstruction, the City shall take steps to identify and coordinate with the appropriate responsible entity to preserve Personal Property, provided that doing so does not pose a danger to the City Employees present.

All trash or debris that are in the immediate area of the encampment may be removed and disposed of immediately.

The City will not attempt to collect or store, and may instead immediately remove and dispose of, Personal Property that exceeds any storage limits established by the City.   The City will not attempt to collect or store, and may instead immediately remove and dispose of, the following items:

• Any items that are not deemed to be Personal Property.
• Any items that are deemed to be hazardous.
• Shopping carts.
• Large collections or items, including collections of bicycle parts.
• Large furniture items.
• Building materials such as wood products, metal, pallets, or rigid plastic.

72 HOUR NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR ENCAMPMENT REMOVAL

If individuals are not present and the encampment is not an immediate hazard or obstruction, the FCS Designate will post a written notice on or near the encampment stating:

• The date and time the notice was posted.
• The date and time by which the individual is required to vacate the area, which shall be 72 hours at minimum after the date and time notice was posted.
• Contact information for outreach providers and shelter alternatives.
• That the encampment is subject to removal and cleanup.
• Where Personal Property will be stored if removed by the City; and
• How Personal Property may be claimed by its owner.

If individuals are present and the encampment is not an immediate hazard or obstruction,  the FCS Designee shall give verbal and written notice to the individuals that the encampment is subject to removal.

ENCAMPMENT OUTREACH MEASURES

At the time homeless encampment residents are informed that an encampment is an immediate hazard or obstruction, or at the time notice is posted, the FCS Designee shall engage encampment residents and assess their basic needs. The FCS Designee shall attempt to educate encampment residents regarding resources and provide basic referral information to such resources, including but not limited to meals, showers and bathroom facilities, emergency shelter, medical services and supportive housing programs.

Before the encampment is removed, the FCS or ACS Designee shall take reasonable steps to determine if there is shelter space available for the encampment resident(s).

For all encampments that are not an immediate hazard or obstruction, FCS shall refer the encampment to the ACS Designee or personnel using a shared database. The ACS Designee shall conduct outreach to the encampment residents in accordance with ACS protocol.

The FCS or ACS Designate shall assess whether removing the encampment will disrupt the encampment resident’s current connection to services. If so, the FCS or ACS Designee shall take steps to mitigate that impact.

For the removal of encampments that constitute an immediate hazard or obstruction, the FCS Designee shall contact ACS Designee to see if an outreach specialist is immediately available to conduct outreach prior to the encampment removal. If an ACS Designee is not available, FCS Designee may proceed with the removal of the encampment after providing information about resources.

To effectively communicate with those experiencing homelessness and providers who assist with long term care, ACS provides community outreach and provides updates on policy or personnel changes.  Outreach and education efforts include:

• Staff and leadership will regularly meet and work with local community organizations, providers and those experiencing homelessness.
• The Community Safety Department will also solicit input from community and its representatives through facilitations and surveys.

ENCAMPMENT REMOVAL & SITE CLEAN-UP

 Encampments that are not an immediate hazard or obstruction shall not be removed without the required notice provisions and verifying whether available emergency shelter beds exist in the community. After these steps have been completed, if the encampment is still present, the City may initiate removal of the encampment.

Except for an immediate hazard or obstruction, the FCS or ACS Designee shall take reasonable steps to confirm whether available emergency shelter beds exist prior to any enforcement action, including removal of an encampment.

The FCS or ACS Designee shall use their observations of the encampment resident(s) and information reported by the encampment resident(s) to make this determination, including to determine whether there is a shelter bed that can reasonably accommodate the individual’s mental or physical needs or disabilities.

If available emergency shelter beds do not exist, the FCS Designee may not require the removal of the encampment. If available emergency shelter beds do exist, FCS or ACS Designee shall inform the individuals where beds are available, provide contact information for facility and provide transportation to such facility if requested.

If persons are present at the encampment when FCS Designee return to the site after the period specified in the written removal notice has expired, the following protocol is to be followed:

1. FCS Designee shall work collaboratively with such persons to allow reasonable time for them to collect and remove their own Personal Property and to identify and offer to store any Personal Property.
2. The FCS Designee shall educate encampment resident regarding resources, and provide basic referral information to such resources, including but not limited to meals, showers and bathroom facilities, emergency shelter, medical services and supportive housing programs.
3. All trash or debris that are in the immediate area of the encampment, and any items that are deemed hazardous, may be removed and disposed of immediately.
4. As part of the removal of any trash and / or debris, the City shall not destroy any materials of apparent value which appear to be the Personal Property of any individual, except that the City may immediately remove and destroy any items that cannot be stored by the City. Those items that may be immediately removed include items that are deemed hazardous, any shopping carts, large collections of items including collections of bicycle  parts,  large furniture items, and building materials such as wood products, metal, pallets, or rigid plastic;
5. Personal Property and Special Personal Property must be collected and stored as provided by the policy.
6. The FCS Designee shall be responsible for identifying what is Personal Property, Special Personal Property, trash or debris, hazardous items, or items that otherwise cannot be stored by the City; and
7. If any Personal Property or Special Personal Property is stored, FCS designee shall provide written notice indicating where the property has been stored and how to retrieve the property.

“PERSONAL PROPERTY” means an item that is reasonably recognizable as belonging to a person that has apparent utility in its present condition and circumstances or is identified by an owner as personal property. Examples of personal property include but are not limited to tents, bicycles, radios and other electronic equipment, crutches, wheelchairs, and all items of Special Personal Property. Personal property does not include trash or refuse, including empty plastic or paper bags. The relevant City Employee or contracted entity shall determine whether an item is personal property, and in cases when the status of an item cannot be reasonably determined under the totality of the circumstances, the item shall be treated and handled as personal property.

“SPECIAL PERSONAL PROPERTY” means personal property that is specifically identifiable or of readily identifiable unique value and would be difficult to replace, including, but not limited to, identification documents, birth certificates, photographs, address & phone number books, paperwork including notebooks with writing, mail, and any notices from governmental agencies, eyeglasses, or prescription medication. Special personal property does not include weapons, contraband or illegal items such as illicit drugs.

“LOST OR ABANDONED PROPERTY” means property that has been physically
relinquished or affirmatively disclaimed by encampment resident, when encampment
resident is present; trash and debris left in a public area; and property deserted beyond
a reasonable period of time, when considering the totality of the circumstances, is
abandoned. Property left in someone else’s care is not abandoned.

If persons are not present at the encampment when the FCS Designee returns to the site after the period specified in the written removal notice has expired the following protocol is to be followed:

1. The City shall take reasonable steps to identify and coordinate with appropriate responsible agencies to preserve Personal Property, provided that doing so does not pose a danger to the City Employees present.
2. All trash or debris that are in the immediate area of the encampment, and any items that are deemed hazardous, may be removed and disposed of immediately.
3. As part of the removal of any trash and/or debris, the City shall not destroy any materials of apparent value which appear to be the Personal Property of any individual. There are exceptions that the city may immediately remove and destroy items that cannot be stored by the city, including items that are deemed hazardous, any shopping carts, large collections of items, including collections of bicycle parts, large furniture items, and building materials such as wood products, metal, pallets, or rigid plastic.
4. Personal Property and Special Personal Property, other than items identified that cannot be stored by the City, shall be collected and stored as provided by the policy.

The FCS Designee shall be responsible for identifying what is Personal Property, Special Personal Property, trash or debris, hazardous items, or items that otherwise cannot be stored by the City vi. If any Personal Property or Special Personal Property is stored, FCS designee shall provide written notice indicating where the property has been stored and how to retrieve the property.

The FCS Designee shall work with the appropriate City department or other entity to clean the area where the encampment was located. When the Department of Solid Waste is the appropriate City department, the FCS Designee shall notify the Department of Solid Waste in writing with the location of the encampment prior to any site cleanup as well as the time for notice.

Whenever possible, City staff shall work collaboratively with residents of an encampment to clean up the area where an encampment is located.

90 DAY STORAGE OF COLLECTED PERSONAL PROPERTY

Personal Property collected by the City must be stored for 90 days without charge, during which time the property shall be available to be reclaimed by the owner. After the expiration of 90 days, any unclaimed property will be destroyed.

Special Personal Property shall be in a designated area, in order to make it easier for encampment residents to retrieve these items.

The FCS Designee determines whether an item is Personal Property and whether it is lost or abandoned.

In the case of lost or abandoned property, the FCS designee shall attach a written notice where the encampment was located indicating that Personal Property has been stored and how to retrieve the property.

Written notice is given to the individual instructing them how to claim their property.  The Solid Waste Department shall dispose of any items that have been unclaimed for 90 days.

COORDINATION WITH APD

City Employees may request APD assistance at any point if they believe it is necessary. This may include, but is not limited to, situations in which the resident(s) of the encampment refuses to cooperate with the removal of the encampment after the appropriate notice period has passed or threatens the safety and security of the Designee.

The link to review the entire 16 page policy for responding to homeless encampments  is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/health-housing-homelessness/documents/final-fcs-encampment-policy-11-7-22.pdf

The links to relied upon news sources are here:

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

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

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-is-continuing-to-push-to-clean-up-city-streets-and-parks-filled-with-homeless-encampments/46136128

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Being unhoused is not a crime. Government, be it federal or local, have a moral obligation to help and assist the unhoused, especially those that are mentally ill or who are drug addicted.  The city has spent or is spending upwards of $100 million a year on homeless services including for two emergency shelters, subsidized housing, food and medical care and drug counseling. The vast majority of the chronically unhoused refuse or decline city shelter, housing, services and financial help offered or simply say they are not satisfied with what is being offered by the city.

The unhoused are not above the law. They cannot be allowed to just ignore the law, illegally camp wherever they want for as long as they want and as they choose, when they totally reject any and all government housing or shelter assistance. The City has every right to enforce its laws on behalf of its citizens to preserve and protect the public health, safety and welfare of all its citizens.

Unlawful encampment squatters who refuse city services and all alternatives to living on the street, who want to camp at city parks, on city streets in alleys and trespass in open space give the city no choice but to take action and force them to move on.

Allowing the homeless to use, congregate and camp anywhere they want for as long as they want in violation of city laws and ordinances should never be considered as an option to deal with the homeless crisis given all the resources the city is dedicating the millions being spent to assist the homeless.

The homeless crisis will not be solved by the city nor by Mayor Keller, but it can and must be managed. The management of the crisis 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 and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Association of New Mexico, 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.  No county and no municipality should ever be required to just simply ignore and to not enforce anti-camping ordinances, vagrancy laws, civil nuisance abatement laws and criminal laws designed to protect the general public’s health, safety and welfare of a community.

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 and citations, arrests are in order.

The link to a related blog article is here:

City Has Upwards Of 2,740 Unhoused, Balance Of State Has 1,907 Unhoused; Numbers Should Be Manageable But Only Getting Worse; Survey Includes Data On ABQ’s Efforts To Dismantle Encampments And Personal Belongings Of Unhoused; City Should Enforce Vagrancy Laws

On July 31, it was reported that the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness released the 2024 Point-In-Time (PIT) Report for the numbers of unhoused in Albuquerque and in the balance of the state. The PIT survey is performed once a year. This year’s PIT count occurred on the night of January 29.  This blog article is an in-depth report on the 2024 survey results.

The link to review the entire 62 page 2024 PIT report is here: 

Click to access ad7ad8_4e2a2906787e4ca19853b9c7945a4dc9.pdf

POINT IN TIME COUNT EXPLAINED

The Point-In-Time (PIT) count 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, as defined by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD).   HUD requires any community receiving funding from Federal homeless assistance grants to conduct the biennial counts.

HUD requires that any community receiving federal funding from homeless assistance grant programs conduct the annual count. In even numbered years, only sheltered homeless are surveyed. In odd numbered years, both sheltered and unsheltered homeless are surveyed. Only those homeless people who can be located and who agree to participate in the survey are counted.

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.

The New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness (NMCEH) has conducted the count annually since 2021. There are two Continuum of Cares (CoC) that operate inside New Mexico, each covering a specific service area. The Albuquerque CoC covers the City of Albuquerque. The New Mexico Balance of State CoC (BoS CoC) covers all parts of New Mexico outside of Albuquerque.

With two CoCs covering the entire geographic area of New Mexico and with the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority distributing federal funds statewide, both Continuum of Cares work with participating communities to implement the PIT counts to  meet HUD’s requirements. Each count is planned, coordinated, and carried out locally on the community level.

DEFINITION AND CATEGORIES OF HOMELESSNESS

The PIT count requires the use of the HUD definition of “homelessness”. PIT counts only people who are sleeping in a shelter, in transitional housing program, or outside in places not meant for human habitation. Those people who are not counted are those who do not want to participate in the survey, who are sleeping in motels that they pay for themselves, or who are doubled up with family or friends

HUD defines sheltered homeless as “residing in an emergency shelter, motel paid through a provider or in a transitional housing program.” It does not include people who are doubled up with family or friends.  HUD defines “unsheltered homeless” as those sleeping in places not meant for human habitation including streets, parks, alleys, underpasses, abandoned buildings, campgrounds and similar environments.

The PIT count has the following 3 major categories of homelessness it reports on:

SHELTERED COUNT:  The sheltered count represents all people residing in Emergency Shelters (ES) and Transitional Housing (TH) projects.

UNSHELTERED COUNT uses surveys and street outreach to account for individuals and families experiencing unsheltered homelessness on the night of the count.  The New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness coordinated a number of street outreach teams and volunteers across the state, canvassing neighborhoods, alleys, parks, high-traffic areas, known encampments and points of congregation, meal service sites, and general service sites to engage and survey people who identified as being in a homeless situation.

HOUSING INVENTORY COUNT (HIC): The Housing Inventory Count is an inventory of provider programs that provides a total number of beds and units dedicated to serving people experiencing homelessness, and, for permanent housing projects, individuals who were homeless at entry.  The HIC counts beds in four Program Types: Emergency Shelter; Transitional Housing; Rapid Re-Housing; and Permanent Supportive Housing.

The Sheltered, Unsheltered, and Housing Inventory counts attempt to paint a complete picture of our homelessness response system, with the sheltered and unsheltered counts illustrating the need for services and the HIC demonstrating capacity for providing those services.

HIGHLIGHTS OF 2024 PIT SURVEY

On the night of January 29, 2024, the PIT survey found at least 2,740 people in Albuquerque that didn’t have a permanent home to reside in. Of that number, about half were totally unsheltered, sleeping outside with no roof over their heads. Last year, the number was 2,394.  The Point-In-Time (PIT) count identified hundreds more people who were sleeping in an emergency shelter or unsheltered in Albuquerque.

With the exception of 2022, the number of homeless individuals in the city has been increasing since 2013. There was one notable category in which numbers dropped and that was individuals in transitional housing programs where temporary housing is offered along with other resources to ultimately move people into permanent housing. In 2011, the PIT count identified 594 individuals living in transitional housing, or 36% of the individuals counted that year. In 2024, that number was just 220 or about 8% of those counted in the January survey.

The PIT report indicates that in recent years, the number of providers for transitional housing programs has dropped in the city. In 2015, there were 5 transitional housing providers funded through the federal Housing and Urban Development Continuum of Care (CoC) program. In 2024, that has dropped to 2.

In the past year, Continuum of Care programs were able to successfully house close to 700 individuals, more than 450 households and almost 200 children.

UNHOUSED ANSWER QUESTIONS

Survey respondents answered a number of questions about their experience with homelessness. More than 50% of the unsheltered respondents said they were homeless for the first time. Of surveyed individuals who were from outside of New Mexico, the majority were from Texas and California. Most said they were not homeless when they moved to New Mexico.

A third of the women surveyed said they were homeless due to domestic violence. About 16% of all respondents said domestic violence contributed to their sleeping situation.

The most common barriers to housing chosen by respondents were access to service, application fees or deposits for housing, no housing vouchers, high rental prices, missing documentation and substance-abuse disorders.

When asked about items lost in encampment clearings, documents like social security cards, birth certificates, and drivers’ licenses were commonly cited.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The 2024 PIT report revealed that certain demographics were overrepresented in the data. Of the more than 1,200 people who were unsheltered on January 29, 3 out of 4 identified themselves as veterans.

Despite making up about 5% of the Albuquerque population, close to 16% of the unsheltered population counted were Indigenous. Blacks represent 3.2% of Albuquerque’s population but more than 8% of people sleeping outside on Jan. 29.

IMPERCISE COUNT

The PIT report cautions that the 2,740 number is imprecise and that it is likely an undercount. If someone happened to be housed for the night of January 29 such as sleeping on a friend’s couch, scraping together enough for a one-night motel stay, in a hospital, or in jail, they would be excluded from the count.

The PIT report states that children are often undercounted as “parents will often do everything in their power to make sure their child has a place to sleep inside, even while the parent is forced to sleep on the street or in a vehicle.”

Sweeping encampments could also affect the count, the report said. Many unhoused people simply just say no to responding to surveys. According to the report “many individuals experiencing homelessness do not have the time of desire to complete a survey, resulting in hundreds of refusals and incomplete surveys”.

MAYOR KELLER REACTS TO SURVEY RESULTS

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller responded to the survey results by issuing the following statement:

“Given the amount of 311 calls, knowing we house 900 people every night in our system, along with what we all see around town, it’s likely a big undercount. That’s why we continue our historic investments in housing and services. We converted a rundown hotel into housing, just bought another for young adult shelter, and are planning a new recovery housing center on top of the critical work at the Gateway — which is on schedule to help 1,000 people a day next year. It’s clear we need even more resources and partners.”

The link to the relied upon and quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/abq-study-shows-almost-3-000-unhoused-on-jan-29/article_c040a6d2-4e91-11ef-bc60-d78ab21e4abe.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

2024 POINT-IN-TIME DATA DOWNLOAD

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 2024 Point In Time Survey released 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

The raw data breakdown of Alburquerque’s homeless is as follows:

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The total count of HOUSEHOLDS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,248. (Households include those with or without children or only children.)  The breakdown is as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 1,018
• Transitional Housing: 174
• Unsheltered: 1,056

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS: 2,248

PERSONS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The total count of PERSONS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,740 broken down in 3 categories.

• Emergency Shelters: 1,289
• Transitional Housing: 220
• Unsheltered: 1,231

TOTAL PERSONS: 2,740

ALBUQUERQUE’S 2009 TO 2024 STATISTICS

Total number of PEOPLE counted during the Albuquerque Point-in-Time counts from 2009 to 2024 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
• 2024: 2,740

The data breakdown for the 2024 Albuquerque UNSHELTERED was reported as follows:

• 960 (78%) were considered chronically homeless.
• 727 (22%) were not considered chronically homeless.
• 106 (8.6%) had served in the military.
• 927 (75.3%) had NOT served in the military.
• 669 (56.6%) were experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 525 (42.6%) were NOT experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 5% of all respondents said they were homeless due to domestic violence with 49.2% of those being women.
• 4% said they were adults with a serious mental illness.
• 0% said they were adults with a substance abuse disorder.
• 8% said they were adults with another disabling condition.
• 3% were asdults with HIV/AIDS.

Individuals who stated they moved to New Mexico from somewhere else were asked whether or not they were experiencing homelessness when they moved to the State and they responded as follows:

• 82 (24.8%) said they were homeless before moving to the state.
• 212 (63.8%) said they were not homeless before moving to the state.
• 77 (11.4%) refused to answer.

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWNS

The following demographic breakdowns are given for Albuquerque 2024 UNSHELTER count:

GENDER OF THOSE COUNTED (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• MALE: 763
• FEMALE: 446
• QUESTIONING: 2
• TRANSGENDER: 3
• Non-Binary: 5
• More than one identity: 7

AGE OF THOSE COUNTED (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• Under 18: 30
• 18-24: 94
• 25-34: 286
• 35-44: 381
• 45-54: 256
• 55-64: 145
• 65 and over: 39

RACE OF THOSE COUNTED (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• HISPANIC: 534 (43.4%)
• WHITE: 288 (23.4%)
• AMERICAN INDIAN, INDIGENOUS: 196 (15.9)
• AFRICAN AMERICAN: 96 (7.8%)
• Multiple races 103 (8.4%)

HISTORY OF ALBUQUERQUE’S EMERGENCY SHELTER COUNT

The 2024 PIT report contains the count of the number of people residing in EMERGENCY SHELTER in Albuquerque during the PIT Counts for the years 2011-2024.  Following are those numbers:

• 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
• 2024: 1,289

BARRIERS TO HOUSING LISTED

Unhoused respondents were asked to list the barriers they are currently experiencing that are preventing them from obtaining housing. Following are the responses:

• Access to services: 439 responses (42%)
• Access to communication: 263 responses 25%
• Available housing is in unsafe neighborhoods: 119 responses 11%
• Credit issues: 150 responses 14%
• Criminal record: 220 responses 21%
• Deposit/Application fees: 316 responses 30%
• Lack of vouchers (rental subsidies: 333 responses 32%
• Missing documentation: 374 responses 35%
• No housing for large households: 33 responses 3%
• Pet deposits/Pet Rent: 57 responses 5%
• Pets not allowed/Breed Restrictions: 48 responses 5%
• Rental history: 144 responses 14%
• Rental prices: 340 responses 32%
• Safety/Security: 77 responses 7%
• Substance Use Disorder: 283 responses 27%
• Lack of employment: 45 responses 4%
• Disabled: 34 responses 3%
• No mailing address: 31 3%
• Lack of income: 30 3%
• Homeless by choice: 30 responses 3%
• Ineffective service landscape: 25 responses 2%
• Lack of transportation: 14 responses 1%
• Discrimination: 8 responses 1%

CITY ENCAMPMENT CLEANUPS AND REMOVAL

Albuquerque’s Unhoused were asked how many times their encampment has been removed by the city over the last year. Following are the statistics:

• 69 reported once
• 98 report twice
• 67 reported three times
• 55 reported 4 times
• 497 report 5 time or more

EDITOR’S NOTE: During the July 29 Town Hall meeting held by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on “Public Safety”, Mayor Tim Keller proclaimed the city of Albuquerque is cleaning up and removing upwards of 1,000 encampments a month. Keller gave no further information, and his claim appears to be an embellishment when compared to the PIT survey results.

TYPES OF ITEMS LOST FROM ENCAMPMENT REMOVALS

The unhouse survey were asked what types of items they lost during encampment removals. Losing these items can hinder progress toward housing and cause emotional distress, especially when sentimental items are involved.  Note that the response categories are not mutually exclusive, and respondents could select all that applied.

• 81% said they lost their birth certificate.
• 5% said they lost a phone or tablet.
• 4% said they lost personal or sentimental items.
• 5% said they lost prescription medications.
• 9% said they lost social security cards.
• 6 said they lost a state ID or driver’s license.

BALANCE OF STATE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

The 2024 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 29, 2024 was 1,547 broken down as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 587
• Transitional Housing: 76
• Unsheltered: 884

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS: 1,547

INDIVIDUALS COUNTED IN BALANCE OF STATE

The total count of PERSONS experiencing homelessness in the Balance of the State on January 29, 2024, was 1,909   broken down as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 746
• Transitional Housing: 156
• Unsheltered: 1,011

TOTAL PERSONS: 1,909

BALANCD 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 and 2024 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 
• 2024: 1,907

BALANCE OF STATE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

• 564 (55.8%) were considered chronically homeless
• 85 (8.4%) served in the military 
• 756 (75.4) did not serve in military
• 390 (38.6%) were experiencing homelessness for the first time
• 591 (58.4%) have experienced homelessness before
• 79% of all respondents said they were homeless due to domestic violence while 62% were woman only 
• 9% were adults with a serious mental illness 
• 2% were adults with a substance use disorder
• 9% were adults with another disabling condition

GENDER OF THOSE COUNTED (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• MALE: 678
• FEMALE: 320
• Questioning: 1
• Transgender: 3
• Non-Binary: 4

AGE OF THOSE COUNTED (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• Under 18: 34
• 18-24: 73
• 25-34: 238
• 35-44: 274
• 45-54: 198
• 55-64: 136
• 65 and over: 58

RACE OF THOSE COUNTED (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• HISPANIC: 385 (38.1%)
• WHITE: 349 (34.55)
• AMERICAN INDIAN, INDIGENOUS: 179 (17.7%)
• AFRICAN AMERICAN: 38 (3.8%)
• MULTIPLE RACES: 54 (5.3%)

BALANCE OF STATE SHELTERED COUNT TOTALS from 2011 TO 2023

• 2011: 1,035
• 2012: 759
• 2013: 876
• 2014: 795
• 2015: 728
• 2016: 567
• 2017: 548
• 2018: 657
• 2019: 881
• 2020: 895
• 2021: 702
• 2022: 785
• 2023: 665

BALANCE OF STATE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING COUNT FROM 2011 TO 2023

• 2011:  466
• 2012: 594
• 2013: 488
• 2014: 413
• 2015: 343
• 2016: 203
• 2017: 204
• 2018: 142
• 2019: 144
• 2020: 160
• 2021: 116
• 2022: 107
• 2023: 292
• 2024: 152

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Every year that the Point In Time survey is released, the city and service providers always proclaim it is a massive undercount of the city and state’s homeless population. The accuracy of the numbers are repeatedly called into question with some arguing that the city’s homeless numbers are as high as10,000 or more as demands are made for more and more spending.

Government and charitable providers who rely on federal government funding to assist the homeless to an extent are motivated to make claims that the numbers they serve are much greater than they really are because government funding or even donations are dependent on the numbers they actually serve. This is especially so when federal funding is at stake.

One problem is that the city and the charitable providers do not all have one singular definition of homeless. They tend to count all that walk through their front doors who they assist, be it for food, clothing, shelter or a combination thereof. Many of the charitable providers serve 300 to 500 people a day.

CONSISTENCY IN THE NUMBERS

The Point in Time survey is criticized because everyone at risk of or experiencing homelessness through the course of the entire year is not included. The point-in-time count is typically done over the course of one to two nights, with volunteers canvassing neighborhoods, alleys, parks, places like the Bosque in Albuquerque, meal service sites, and general service sites.

The PIT report does not include those who are referred to as the “hidden homeless” which is defined as people who may be sleeping in their cars, overcrowded homes, vacant buildings or staying “on and off” with friends or relatives for short periods of time or in other unsafe housing conditions or in undetected campsites and those who have no permanent address.

Notwithstanding questioning the accuracy, the overall numbers found each year by the PIT over the last 12 years has been very consistent.

Albuquerque’s total number of chronic homeless is between 2,002, counted in 2009  and  2,740 counted in 2023 in Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing and Unsheltered.

The Balance of the State total number of chronic homeless are between 1,473 counted in 2009 and 1,907 counted in 2024 in Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing and Unsheltered.  

It’s Albuquerque’s numbers that have spiked dramatically.  The numbers should not be confused at all with the cities and state’s affordable housing needs.

CONCLUSION

Until government and all homeless providers come up with an ongoing method of calculating the homeless throughout the year, the annual Point In Time is the only count that is reliable and should not be dismissed as inaccurate.  The blunt reality is that homelessness will never be solved until the underlying causes are resolved including poverty and the mental health and drug addiction crisis.

During the past 5 years, the city has established two 24/7 homeless shelters, including purchasing the Loveless Gibson Medical Center for $15 million to convert it into a homeless shelter. The city is funding and operating 2 major shelters for the homeless, one fully operational with 450 beds and one when fully operational will assist upwards 1,000 homeless and accommodate at least 330 a night. Ultimately, both shelters are big enough to be remodeled and provide far more sheltered housing for the unhoused.

Given the numbers in the 2024 PIT report and the millions being spent on the homeless crisis it should be manageable. Yet the crisis is only getting worse and is a continuing major drain on city resources. During the past few years, the unhoused have become far more dispersed throughout the city and have become far more aggressive in camping where they want and for how long as they want.

The problem the city has failed to solve is how to deal with the homeless squatters who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers from the city or alternatives to living on the street and who want to camp at city parks, on city streets in alleys and trespass in open space. In those cases of refusal of assistance, the city should not hesitate to enforce its vagrancy laws with citations and even arrests after repeated warnings given to the unhoused.

The link to related blog articles are here:

Point In Time Survey Reveals ABQ’s Homeless Encampment Clean Up Efforts; City Policy And Process To Remove Homeless Encampments Outlined; More Must Be Done Enforcing Vagrancy Laws As Allowed By The United States Supreme Court

 

https://www.petedinelli.com/2023/10/09/2023-point-in-time-count-of-homeless-finds-3842-unhoused-in-new-mexico-2394-unhoused-in-albuquerque-83-increase-from-last-year-city-spends-millions-a-year-as-homelessness-increases/

 

On Sunday, August 11, the Albuquerque Journal published on its editorial pages the following Pete Dinell guest opinion column along with a screenshot from an APD lapel camera:

JOURNAL HEADLINE: “City leaders should be very disturbed by officer’s remarks”

By Pete Dinelli, city resident

“APD Internal Affairs is investigating audio from one officer’s body camera that recorded a racist conversation between officers after the April 11 police officer killing of a suspect resisting arrest. Unbeknownst to the officers, their conversation was recorded when one officer who had fatally shot the 30-year-old suspect forgot to turn off his lapel camera.

The officers disparage the man just killed as a “honky” with “a weird accent” expressing relief that the man wasn’t black “because of the optics.”  The comments included referring to Native Americans as “savages”.  Officers were not segregated separately for interviews with one ostensibly being coached on what to say to the Multi-Agency Task Force called in to investigate.

The most disturbing comments on the audio made by one officer are these:

“I like violent encounters with violent people. That’s why I became a cop. I didn’t come to [F-expletive] help old ladies who can’t cross the [F-expletive]  road.  I want to take actual shitheads that are actually doing stuff off the street. If it means you shoot some of them, so be it.”

Remarks on police violence like these from any APD cop should be the most disturbing to the APD high command, elected officials and the general public. The comments reflect a philosophy that should disqualify any person from becoming a police officer in the first place. The comments reflect that APD’s Culture of Aggression found by the Department of Justice 10 years ago is alive and well within APD rank and file.

 All the comments were severely condemned by Mayor Tim Keller, the ACLU and Native American rights advocates.  The police union president disgustedly defended the comments saying “These guys were joking around, they were decompressing, they were saying inappropriate stuff, like a lot of us do with our friends and family when we’re not in public.”

For upwards of 10 years, APD has been under a federal court approved settlement agreement mandating 271 reforms after a Department of Justice investigation found that APD had engaged in a pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force” and finding a “culture of aggression.” The city has spent millions on reform efforts, has created and staffed new divisions to hold APD officers accountable, rewrote use of force policies and procedures and trained APD officers in constitutional policing practices. APD is on the cusp of the case being dismissed.

Despite the significant gains made by APD in the implementation of the reforms, APD police officer shootings and the killing of civilians is occurring at a deeply troubling rate.  The nonprofit Mapping Police Violence reported that last year that APD was ranked No. 1 in police officers killing civilians in a listing of 50 largest cities in the United States.

Racist remarks and glorification of police violence made by any APD officer must be condemn in no uncertain terms. Remarks such as these by police cannot be tolerated. They must be dealt with swiftly and decidedly.

It’s likely the Multi-Agency Task Force investigating the police shooting will ultimately find that the shooting was justified and that the officers will not be disciplined for use of deadly force. However, such a finding does not excuse APD officers from not following required protocol after the use of deadly force or the use of racial slurs and the glorification of violence.  

APD may be on the verge of dismissal of the federal court approved settlement agreement, but this incident and the fact that APD is ranked number one in the country for deadly force police shootings is a reflection APD’s Culture of Aggression is alive and well.”

Pete Dinelli is a former Albuquerque city councilor, former chief public safety officer and former chief deputy district attorney. You can read his daily news and commentary blog at www.PeteDinelli.com.

Many thanks to the Albuquerque Journal for publishing the guest column.

The link to a related blog article with greater detail on the facts of shooting and what was said is here:

Activated APD Video Camera And Open Mike Captures Racial Slurs And Glorification Of Violence By APD Officers Immediately After Civilian Killing; APD’s Culture Of Aggression Still Lives On After 10 Years Of Court Approved Settlement Agreement Reforms; Racism Within APD Must Be Condemned And Eradicated

 

On July 16, the Albuquerque Police Department released the city’s  mid-year homicide numbers. According to APD, the city has recorded 13 fewer people killed this year than at the same point a year ago. Forty-seven people have been killed, most of them in shootings, as of July 16. By the same time last year, there had been 60 people killed, and 70 in 2022.

Justifiable homicides, which are defined as shootings done in self-defense, have also dropped, from 10 in mid-year 2023 to 3 this year.

Of the homicides as of July 16, detectives have solved 34 cases and arrested 43 people in the crimes. As in years past, some cases involved multiple suspects. Detectives have also charged or arrested 26 people from previous years’ homicides, dating back to 2017.

In general, the City’s gun violence continues to show a decrease, a trend that has been happening since 2022 when APD recorded a record-high 120 homicides. There has also been a 7% decrease in  nonfatal shootings going  from 172 in mid-year 2023 to 160 so far in 2024.

Notwithstanding the decline in homicides, APD reported that many of the trends within the homicide numbers have stayed the same with most of the cases involve guns.  Hispanics, Blacks and Native Americans are overrepresented as the majority of those killed.

The trends stayed similar for the age range of those doing the killing, most of them being 18-35, while 30% of victims were 36-45, followed by those 18-35.

Robberies and domestic violence are the  two  largest categories of crime involving homicides.

ROLE OF FENTANYL

APD Commander Kyle Hartsock oversees APD’s Criminal Investigation Bureau.  He said fentanyl is playing  a bigger role in homicides in recent years, with drug robberies-turned-fatal shootings becoming a bigger trend. Hartsock also said social media is  fuel to the fire.  Hartsock said this:

“If you go five years or 10 years back, fentanyl didn’t exist or was minorly involved. … The amount of social media influencers who are showing the illegal trading and exchange of firearms, drugs and things like that has just increased tremendously. …  What used to be tagging in an arroyo with a gang moniker is now on Instagram, with followers, so we see these influencers starting to come up more and more in our gun cases.”

But Hartsock said APD has gotten better at detecting it on social media and taking action against those involved. Going forward, he said, “the organism maybe evolves again and we evolve with it.”

APD Police Chief Harold Medina for his part said this:

“As you saw from the peak of the pandemic till now, it has dropped off. And if we could keep this pace up, you know, we could hopefully be somewhere in the 80s by the end of the year.”

Chief Medina credited the drop in homicides in part  to APD’s targeted warrant roundups and programs such as the Violence Intervention Program.  According to Medina, the department is working proactively to get and serve warrants, and get dangerous people behind bars. But he says it’ll take input from lawmakers to really bring our homicide numbers down.

Medina said this:

“Now, we’re trying to pick them up as soon as possible before they commit another shooting . Pretrial detention is the big issue that needs to be addressed. And at some point we need to keep the right individual — I think we’ve gotten better at it, but we do have to do a better job at keeping some individuals in custody. There’s still a lot of work to be done. … We’re still higher than we want it to be as a city. We still have room to improve.”

Medina also  said APD’s detective academy, established in recent years, has led to successes in solving cases as well as relying more on digital evidence which is  gleaned from social media and phone records. Medina said in the past, there were people on the streets tied to multiple homicides.  Medina said this:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-police-see-mid-year-decrease-in-homicides/article_0e4f8eca-43c9-11ef-91cf-4b0c0567be07.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-police-say-homicides-are-down-in-mid-year-report/

2023 CRIME STATISTICS RELEASED

It was on  February 29, 2024 that the Albuquerque Police Department released the city’s crime statistics for 2023 compiled using the FBI’s National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS).

STATISTICS RELEASED

The overall statistics released by APD showed a very small decrease in overall property crime and a small increase in violent crime.  The statistics showed APD officers made more felony arrests and wrote more traffic citations last year.

The statistics showed property crime has leveled off in the city since measuring large decreases from 2018 to 2020. Property crime saw its largest increase, 43%, in shoplifting, with about 2,100 more offenses reported. Auto theft, burglary and robbery saw decreases of 13%, 16% and 41%, respectively.

The data showed that, from 2022 to 2023, there was a 0.18% decrease in Crime Against Property and a 3% increase in Crime Against Person.

Violent crime has ebbed and flowed from 2022 to 2023 rising and falling marginally. Violent crime saw 5% increases in both aggravated and simple assault. There was and a 9% drop in sex crimes. Homicides, which hit a record-high of 121 cases in 2022, decreased 19%, and nonfatal shootings dropped 6%.

The city also saw a 6% drop in nonfatal shootings, according to Albuquerque police data, from 353 in 2022 to 332 in 2023. Last year’s total still remained well above the 265 and 285 shootings recorded in 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Crimes Against Society include gambling, prostitution, and drug violations, and represent society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types of activity and are typically victimless crimes. Crime Against Society  had  a 49% spike, driven mainly by increases of 69%, 42% and 15% in drug offenses, trespassing and weapons violations, respectively.  Since 2018, the Crime Against Society category has skyrocketed by 136%.  According to APD Spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos,  the spike in drug offenses is due to more trafficking investigations, but also “much more aggressive” enforcement on “low-level fentanyl possession.”

APD Spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos said some of the largest crime increases,  such as the increases in drug offenses and shoplifting, go hand in hand. Gallegos said this:

“Obviously, we know that a lot of these offenses … those are people who go into jail (and) come right back out. …To actually make a difference … it’s going to take a concerted effort to address the addiction and those [issues] that’s driving this crime.”

Statistics also showed large jumps in APD’s felony arrests, cleared felony warrants and traffic citations with 14%, 26% and 28% increases, respectively.  According to the data released, crimes reported over the phone and online were 64% and 159% higher last year than in 2018 and 2019, respectively, when the technology was in its infancy.

The link to quoted news source materials is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-police-release-data-showing-overall-crime-hasnt-budged-much/article_1f3acfb2-d757-11ee-a31f-b3f0da812de9.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.cabq.gov/police/news/apd-releases-2023-crime-stats-1#:~:text=Crimes%20against%20property%20remained%20the,National%20Incident%2DBased%20Reporting%20System.&text=In%20the%20Crimes%20against%20Person,19%25%20between%202022%20and%202023.

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/crime-stats-2023-presentation.pdf

HOMICIDES DROP BY 19%

The most significant statistic reported is that the city’s homicides are down 19% from last year going from 121 in 2022 to 98 in 2023. It marked Albuquerque’s largest annual decrease since 2010, when homicide totals hovered in the 30s.

According to APD, the downward trend in homicides is a result of better staffing, making more arrests in violent crime and solving cases. Police Chief Harold Medina attributed an improving solve rate to boosting the homicide unit to 16 detectives and training them better. He said he believed the sheer number of homicide suspects arrested — 117 in 2023 alone  has driven down new cases.

APD detectives solved 53 of the 84 homicide cases from 2023 for a 63% clearance rate. Some involved multiple victims, and several suspects have since died or are on the loose.

Medina said getting thousands of stolen and pandemic-purchased guns off the streets is a major hurdle in reducing violent crime and homicides.  Medina  said the surplus of guns means more people are armed when a “simple conflict” arises.  The “simple conflict” defined  by APD as “individual disrespect” accounted for 57% of 2023’s killings.

The Albuquerque Police Department also solved 31 homicide cases from previous years, including a case that had long gone cold, a 2014 killing of a local homeless advocate.

The city also saw a 6% drop in nonfatal shootings from 353 in 2022 to 332 in 2023. Last year’s total still remained well above the 265 and 285 shootings recorded in 2021 and 2020, respectively.

HISTORICAL TREND

The city’s recorded 19% drop in homicides last year marked Albuquerque’s largest annual decrease since 2010, when homicide totals hovered in the 30s. Following are the numbers from the 7 years:

• 2017: 70 homicides
• 2018: 69 homicides
• 2019: 80 homicides
• 2020: 78 homicides
• 2021: 110 homicides
• 2022: 120 homicides
• 2023: 93 homicides

Following are the Aggravated Assaults numbers for the past 7 years also reflect a slight decline:

• 2017: 4,213
• 2018: 5,156
• 2019: 5,337
• 2020: 5,592
• 2021: 5,669
• 2022: 5,399
• 2023: 4,961

The trend downward mirrored those seen nationally, even in the most violent cities. Across the country, the decrease has been attributed to an easing of the societal impacts of the pandemic. Locally, authorities say it is a result of better staffing and making more arrests in violent crime.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2024/03/04/apd-releases-2023-crime-statistics-reflecting-19-decline-in-homicides-reflects-national-trend-not-success-of-mayor-tim-kellers-programs-to-bring-down-crime/

INTERTPRETING THE DATA

Paul Guerin, director of the University of New Mexico’s Center for Applied Research and Analysis was asked by the Albuquerque Journal to review the APD-provided data on the city’s 2023 homicides. The statistics detailed motive (“individual disrespect,” drug-related and domestic violence took the top three categories), victims’ ages (most were between 36 and 45), suspects’ ages (most were between 18 and 25), weapons used (80% involved a gun) and victim and suspect race/ethnicity (the majority involved Hispanics, but Black people were disproportionately represented).

Guerin said the data lacked case-by-case specifics to “paint a better picture of murders in Albuquerque. ” He said such information could be used to bring the death toll down but also solve more cases. He said nationally and locally, the previous increase in homicides and violence is often blamed on what he called “the degrading of the social contract.” Guerin said this:

“There’s this general idea of this change in behavior that the pandemic kind of accelerated … [such as more] reckless driving, suicides, drug use and overdoses.  …  Homicides could just be another example.”

Guerin said that whatever the causes, the upside is that the trend reverted last year in many cities, including Albuquerque. Guerin said:

“Things always just revert to the norm. …The problem is, our norm is always higher than everyone else’s.”

FBI data shows that when homicides and violent crime decreased in the United States in the 1990s, Albuquerque and New Mexico never caught up. The homicide rate, save for in three distinct years, never fell as low as the national rate over three decades.

Even in comparison to violent locales like Baltimore and Chicago, which were high but steady, the homicide rate in New Mexico, driven largely by Albuquerque as the biggest city, vacillated greatly from year to year. Guerin said this:

“There’s something unique about Albuquerque. What is it about our location? … Why do we always have more murders? … [Is the nexus of Interstate 25 and Interstate 40 invited crime, or if violence is somehow ingrained in the state’s culture.”

In his 32 years conducting studies at UNM for government agencies and policymakers, Guerin said nobody has studied those particulars.

“Right now, all we can do is we can say, ‘Here’s our (homicide) count, here’s what they look like, they kind of follow trends.’ But to get down to the nuances of this, like, ‘why?’ we’ve never done it,” he said. “It’s not like math, where something equals something. We’re taking our best understanding of these things with the information that was available.”

Guerin said crime, in general, is always underreported but there’s no indication the data available doesn’t give an accurate picture.

A 2023 Gallup survey found that 77% of those polled think crime was higher than the previous year. The national poll found 63% believed “the crime situation in the U.S. is extremely or very serious.” Guerin said of the poll “That’s not true, but they perceive it to be true. …It’s always been a problem, and the problem goes both directions. People telescope either way … exaggerate either way.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-sees-shootings-decrease-in-2023-even-as-gun-violence-tears-families-apart/article_46cfaa60-c60a-11ee-9c68-530f06c95c43.html

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

The Major Cities Chiefs Association report shows in 2022, there was a 5% drop in homicides nationwide. According to the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Albuquerque had one of the worst homicide rates in the nation and is one of 27 cities across the nation that saw an increase in homicides. The report shows in 2021, there were 106 homicides. In 2022, there were 115, an 8% increase. Other nearby cities like Phoenix saw a 13% increase in homicides. Meanwhile, to the north, the Denver Police Department reported an 8% decrease in homicides. Just four hours south, the city of El Paso saw a 28% decrease in homicides, one of the highest drops in the report.

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

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

INTERTPRETING APD  DATA

Paul Guerin, director of the University of New Mexico’s Center for Applied Research and Analysis was asked by the Albuquerque Journal to review the APD-provided data on the city’s 2023 homicides. The statistics detailed motive (“individual disrespect,” drug-related and domestic violence took the top three categories), victims’ ages (most were between 36 and 45), suspects’ ages (most were between 18 and 25), weapons used (80% involved a gun) and victim and suspect race/ethnicity (the majority involved Hispanics, but Black people were disproportionately represented).

Guerin said the data lacked case-by-case specifics to “paint a better picture of murders in Albuquerque. ” He said such information could be used to bring the death toll down but also solve more cases. He said nationally and locally, the previous increase in homicides and violence is often blamed on what he called “the degrading of the social contract.” Guerin said this:

“There’s this general idea of this change in behavior that the pandemic kind of accelerated … [such as more] reckless driving, suicides, drug use and overdoses.  …  Homicides could just be another example.”

Guerin said that whatever the causes, the upside is that the trend reverted last year in many cities, including Albuquerque. Guerin said:

“Things always just revert to the norm. …The problem is, our norm is always higher than everyone else’s.”

FBI data shows that when homicides and violent crime decreased in the United States in the 1990s, Albuquerque and New Mexico never caught up. The homicide rate, save for in three distinct years, never fell as low as the national rate over three decades.

Even in comparison to violent locales like Baltimore and Chicago, which were high but steady, the homicide rate in New Mexico, driven largely by Albuquerque as the biggest city, vacillated greatly from year to year. Guerin said this:

“There’s something unique about Albuquerque. What is it about our location? … Why do we always have more murders? … [Is the nexus of Interstate 25 and Interstate 40 invited crime, or if violence is somehow ingrained in the state’s culture.”

In his 32 years conducting studies at UNM for government agencies and policymakers, Guerin said nobody has studied those particulars.

“Right now, all we can do is we can say, ‘Here’s our (homicide) count, here’s what they look like, they kind of follow trends.’ But to get down to the nuances of this, like, ‘why?’ we’ve never done it,” he said. “It’s not like math, where something equals something. We’re taking our best understanding of these things with the information that was available.”

Guerin said crime, in general, is always underreported but there’s no indication the data available doesn’t give an accurate picture.

A 2023 Gallup survey found that 77% of those polled think crime was higher than the previous year. The national poll found 63% believed “the crime situation in the U.S. is extremely or very serious.” Guerin said of the poll “That’s not true, but they perceive it to be true. …It’s always been a problem, and the problem goes both directions. People telescope either way … exaggerate either way.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-sees-shootings-decrease-in-2023-even-as-gun-violence-tears-families-apart/article_46cfaa60-c60a-11ee-9c68-530f06c95c43.html

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

The Major Cities Chiefs Association report shows in 2022, there was a 5% drop in homicides nationwide. According to the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Albuquerque had one of the worst homicide rates in the nation and is one of 27 cities across the nation that saw an increase in homicides. The report shows in 2021, there were 106 homicides. In 2022, there were 115, an 8% increase. Other nearby cities like Phoenix saw a 13% increase in homicides. Meanwhile, to the north, the Denver Police Department reported an 8% decrease in homicides. Just four hours south, the city of El Paso saw a 28% decrease in homicides, one of the highest drops in the report.

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

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

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

When the city’s mid-year 2024 homicide statistics were released, Chief Medina credited the drop in homicides in part to APD’s targeted  programs such as the Violence Intervention Program.  One thing that is very certain is that the downward trend in Albuquerque’s homicides has nothing to do with the Mayor Tim Keller’s failed Violent Crime reduction programs, including Keller’s Violence Intervention Program.

KELLER’S FAILED VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PROGRAMS

It was in 2019 that Mayor Tim Keller reacting to the spiking violent crime rates, announced 4 programs in 9 months to deal with and bring down the city’s high violent crime rates. Keller also launched his “Community Safety Department” and his “Metro Crime Initiative” which he claimed would fix the “broken criminal justice” system.

All 4 initiatives involve early intervention and partnership with other agencies and are summarized as follows:

1. THE SHIELD UNIT

In February 2018 the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) created the “Shield Unit”. The Shield Unit assists APD Police Officers to prepare cases for trial and prosecution by the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1325167/apd-expands-unit-that-preps-cases-for-prosecution.html

2.   DECLARING VIOLENT CRIME A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS

On April 8, 2019, Mayor Keller and APD announced efforts that will deal with “violent crime” in the context of it being a “public health crisis” and dealing with crimes involving guns in an effort to bring down violent crime in Albuquerque.

3.  THE “VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PLAN” The “Violence Intervention PLAN (VIP program)

On November 22, 2019 Mayor Tim Keller announced what he called a “new initiative” to target violent offenders called “Violence Intervention Plan” (VIP). Mayor Keller proclaimed the VIP is a “partnership system” that includes law enforcement, prosecutors and social service and community provides to reduce violent crime. Mayor Keller stated:

“… This is about trying to get these people not to shoot each other. …This is about understanding who they are and why they are engaged in violent crime. … And so, this actually in some ways, in that respect, this is the opposite of data. This is action. This is actually doing something with people. …”

The “Violence Intervention Plan” can be described as a “fantasy land” experiment especially when there is little that can be done to prevent the violent crime of murder by “trying to get these people not to shoot each other” and “understanding who they are and why they are engaged in violent crime.”

4.   THE METRO 15 OPERATION PROGRAM

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference to announce a 4th program within 9 months to deal with the city’s violent crime and murder rates. At the time of the press conference, the city’s homicide count was at 72, matching the city’s record in 2017.

FAILED PROGRAMS

Simply put, all 4 of Keller’s programs can be described simply as failures and not having any real statistical impact on reducing crime. The truth is that for a good 3 years before the COVID pandemic hit the city hard in 2020 under Keller’s watch, violent crime rates were spiking, so much so that 6 years ago then candidate for Mayor Tim Keller made reducing the city’s crime rates a cornerstone of his campaign.

Notwithstanding the 19% reduction in homicides in 2023, the sure spike in homicides during Keller’s 6 year tenure as Mayor is an obscene reflection that the city is  one of the most violent cities in the country under his tenure.  This is our new norm as the city follows national trends.

Keller’s promise 7 years,  ago when he ran for Mayor the first time,  of  1,200 sworn police has never materialized and currently the city has  about 860  sworn police. The city and APD never once in his 6 years as Mayor even  had 1,000 sworn police. Keller himself has said the 1,100 figure is unrealistic and no longer even mentions his original goal of 1,200 sworn.

There has been a decrease in homicides in big cities including Los Angeles and Detroit, but also in those long besieged by gun violence, like Chicago. Baltimore, with a similar population and reputation as Albuquerque for years has been known as one of the most violent American cities.  Last year, Baltimore recorded a 22.5% drop in homicides, its largest single-year decrease, and a 7% drop in nonfatal shootings.

Albuquerque’s trend downward in homicides reflects an identical downward trend nationally, even in the most violent cities. Across the country, the decrease has been attributed to an easing of the societal impacts of the pandemic.

Mayor Tim Keller’s is expected to run for a third term in 2025 and has already made it know to his executive staff he is running. There is no doubt Mayor Tim  Keller will try and  take credit for the City’s declining crime rates when in fact all of his efforts have been a failure.  Albuquerque is worse off today with Tim Keller as Mayor than when he was elected the first time in 2017. Hope springs eternal that he will move on and not seek another 4 years.  A full 8 years of Tim Keller as Mayor is enough.

On April 11 Albuquerque Police Officers (APD) were involved in an officer-involved shooting that left one suspect man dead. The shooting took place in the Walmart parking lot on Wyoming Boulevard near Menaul Boulevard.  At the time of the shooting, APD officers were looking for Adriana Gonzales, who is believed to be involved in several Albuquerque armed robberies. They located her, as well as a man, identified by APD as Mark Benavidez, at around 11:35 a.m. on April 11 in the Walmart parking lot. Gonzales and Benavidez had warrants out for their arrest.

DETAILS RELEASED ON SHOOTING

On May 30, APD held a news conference to release details on the April 11 officer-involved shooting.  APD Chief Harold Medina said officers were searching for 25-year-old Adriana Gonzales, who they believed was involved in several armed robberies. Police located Gonzales around 11:35 a.m. in the parking lot of the Walmart near Wyoming and Menaul.  Adriana Gonzales was with a man identified as 30-year-old Mark Benavidez.

APD Commander Kyle Hartsock said robbery detectives were able to identify Adriana Gonzales on April 10 and secured an arrest warrant for robbery with a deadly weapon and 3 counts of conspiracy to commit robbery. Benavidez was not identified at that time.  On April 11, Gonzales and Benavidez were tracked to the Walmart at 2266 Wyoming Blvd., N.E. Detectives observed Benavidez leave a vehicle and enter the Walmart, leaving Gonzales in the car. Detectives then arrested Gonzales without incident.

Detectives waited by the Walmart entrance waiting for Mark Benavidez to come out. Commander Hartsock said that Mark Benavidez had an unrelated warrant out for his arrest and was suspected of being involved with the armed robberies. As Benavidez left the store, two APD detectives attempted to take Benavidez into custody. When Mark Benavidez attempted to flee into the parking lot, one of the detectives grabbed Benavidez and they both fell to the ground.

As they fell, Benavidez grabbed the detective’s rifle and put his finger on the police rifle. Mark Benavidez then used his other hand to turn the safety off on the rifle. The rifle went off into the ground and the second detective shot Benavidez with a taser. A third detective then got involved and pushed the rifle into the ground and tried to get Benavidez’s hands off the rifle.  The police rifle was fired 7  more times into the ground during the incident. The first two detectives fired their handguns at Benavidez, striking him five times. Medical aid was given but Mark Benavidez  died on the scene.  On the day of her arrest, Adriana Gonzales admitted to the armed robberies she was being charged with and told detectives that Benavidez had also been involved. She is currently being held in custody until trial.  The Multi-Agency Task Force was called in to investigate the shooting which is required with all APD officer involved shootings.

During the press conference, APD Chief Harold Medina said this:

“This is just one of those reminders. Our officers are confronted with life-and-death situations every day, and it is very concerning when you see the type of videos of what happened today and the position that our officers were placed in. And, like I said, I am just so grateful for their bravery and the fact that none of them were injured or killed.”

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/apd-one-dead-after-police-shooting-in-northeast-albuquerque/

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/apd-to-release-details-on-police-shooting-that-left-suspect-dead/

INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESITGATION INITIATED

On August 4, multiple city news outlets reported that an APD Internal Affairs investigation is underway after audio from one officer’s body camera captured a racist conversation between officers after the April 11 police officer killing of 30-year-old Mark Benavidez.  Not known to the officers was that the April 11 conversation was recorded when the officer who had just fatally shot 30-year-old Mark Benavidez forgot to turn off his lapel camera.  The officers are heard disparaging the man they had just killed as a “honky” with “a weird accent” expressing relief that the man wasn’t Black “because of the optics.”

The lapel body camera video is almost 90 minutes long. It is unclear who is saying what in the lapel video, as several officers appear to get in or out of the vehicle and talk to others through the window, all while the still-running lapel camera sat tucked behind a seat. It’s unknowingly recording and is placed inside an officer’s police car in what looks like a backseat. APD redacted conversations between an officer and their union attorney, a conversation with their psychotherapist and a city employee’s personal cellphone number. It’s unclear exactly who is speaking in the footage, but the officers don’t hold back.

LAPEL CAMERA RECORING

At  the beginning of the lapel video recording one of the officers who shot Benavidez gets into a police vehicle with a “buddy officer,” who pairs with another after a shooting. At that point, the lapel camera is thrown into the back of the vehicle, but the officer did not realize he did not turn off his lapel camera.

A police union delegate, who speaks with officers after shootings, walks up to the vehicle and says, “Crazy fucking day, huh? … Up here at Walmart in the Northeast Whites.”

The union representative  tells the officers this:

“That’s why I live in Rio Rancho.”

Another officer chimes in:

“That’s why I live on the other side of the mountain.”

The union representative explains what happens next to the officer, goes over attorney options and tells him this:

“If you need to decompress, get out of town for a little while, we will reimburse you up to $500.”

Over the next 20 minutes, the police officers talk about being given a tough assignment as “a pawn in the game called APD. ” They discuss new recruits being softer and “super-sensitive” and decry officers being used to clear homeless encampments as a “bad idea,” with the department being so close to the end of the federal court mnadated reforms.

They continually ask the officer who shot Benavidez if he needs anything and, at one point, one officer says he doesn’t have any cigarettes to offer but has “enough Zyn to fly you to the moon.”

Eventually, it sounds as if the officer is alone with his buddy officer, who gives him “the best advice I got from my first shooting.” The officer says it was given to him by his stepfather, ostensibly one who is or was a police officer, and who has “been in a couple shootings.”  The officer says to the other:

“Feel the way you feel, nothing wrong with it. … Some people are going to be in here fucking crying, some people go home and fall right to sleep. Nothing wrong with it, super normal.”

The buddy officer tells him to keep a journal of what he remembers from the shooting and to prepare for his official statement to the investigating Multi-Agency Task Force, which he says will ask “stupid questions” when they interview him about the incident. He tells the officer this:

“This is going to be the scariest statement you’ve ever given in your life; it just is.  It’s the most important statement you’ll probably give in your life.”

Several minutes later, the conversation changes to family. Specifically, one of the officer’s sons.  One officer tells the other, “Got to get a savage in his life.” The comment is followed by laughter and unintelligible conversation.

It’s roughly a one-minute-long conversation that can only be described as racist. Multiple officers are inside the police car, with the body camera still recording when they said the following referring to another officer:

One Officer is heard saying:

“My son’s dating a Native from Isleta. …  She’s going to get a check. He’s going to get a fucking free trailer and some fucking couple acres of land, a farm down there.”

An officer replies “dope!”

A third officer appears to jokingly chime in on the conversation:

“What’s going on over there now? Fucking talking about dating savages. It’s getting out of control.”

As the conversation progresses, one officer appears to mock someone who think police should be sorry, or feel sorry, for shooting “a guy who was fucking shooting at us.”

Afterward, the officer mentions why he became a cop and says this:

“I like violent encounters with violent people. … That’s why I became a cop. I didn’t come to fucking help old ladies who can’t cross the fucking road. I want to take actual shitheads that are actually doing stuff off the street. … If it means you shoot some of them, so be it.”

Then another officer mentions how they didn’t have a warrant for Benavidez in the robbery, and “he was going to walk.”

An officer replies, “My only concern coming over here was that he was Black, literally, just because of the optics of it, you know what I mean? If it wasn’t that fucking honky out here shooting people, with his weird ass accent.”

Within seconds, the officer who shot Benavidez grabs his lapel camera and realizes it’s still on, saying, “They never turned my fuckin camera off.”

APD RESPONDS TO MEDIA

APD spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos sent KOAT this statement:

“An Internal Affairs investigation has been initiated to determine the source and context of the comments, and whether any officers violated APD policies. … Chief Medina is particularly concerned. As a former tribal police chief, Medina has made it a priority to build relationships with tribal agencies and educate APD officers about cultural differences.”

https://www.koat.com/article/racist-conversation-albuquerque-police-shooting-savage-body-camera-orbd-lapel/61649394

Officials with the Albuquerque Police Department said the two detectives who shot Benavidez work undercover in APD’s Gang Unit. For that reason, APD would not release their names and photographs, as has become common practice after police shootings.

REACTION TO BODY CAMERA RECORDINGS

The Coalition to Stop Violence Against Native Women released a statement saying it was “outraged and appalled by the recent revelations of deeply racist and dehumanizing language” by  APD Police Officers. The organization issued a statement calling  for an “immediate, public and unreserved” apology, an action plan to address violence against indigenous communities and a review of APD policies “to root out discriminatory attitudes.”  The statement reads in part:

“These vile remarks are not isolated incidents but are emblematic of the systemic failures within law enforcement that devalue and dismiss the lives of Indigenous people. … Such derogatory attitudes directly contribute to the inadequacies in solving and preventing cases of violence against Indigenous communities.”

Mayor Tim Keller said this in a statement:

“This behavior is unacceptable and it is a disservice to the officers who do the right thing. We try to support our officers and their hard work and sacrifices to keep the community safe; that’s why it’s especially disappointing to hear conversations that suggest a callous disregard toward the people we all serve.”

Shaun Willoughby, president of the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association, said the police officers comments were made “in jest” after a particularly stressful situation including multiple shots fired in close quarters to a degree where hurried gunshot wound checks were done on the officers involved. Willoughby said this:

“This was about as real and as stressful as it gets.  These guys were joking around, they were decompressing, they were saying inappropriate stuff , like a lot of us do with our friends and family when we’re not in public. … We see things that are hard to deal with, we see things that are challenging, we see things that are disappointing, we see the decay of society 40 hours a week, 365 days a year.  These guys are just human beings. They are no different than anybody else. … [Cops have some of the]  darkest humor that is imaginable.”  

Willoughby added that the officers are likely embarrassed and frustrated as they had no idea they were being recorded.

During the August 5 Albuquerque City Council meeting, APD Deputy Chief Josh Brown was asked point blank by Democrat Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn Councilor  if Willoughby’s comments  saying the officers “… were saying inappropriate stuff like a lot of us do with our friends and family when we’re not in public. … They’re no different than anybody else”  was  the position of APD?   Brown responded “It’s not.”  Brown then issued an apology to the Native American community and Albuquerque residents in general. Brown said “Some of those comments that you see, they’re not acceptable”. Deputy Chief  Brown then referenced “disparaging remarks” from another part of the APD lapel camera conversation during which the officers appeared to criticize new APD recruits as being too soft and “super-sensitive.” Referring to the new cadets coming through APD’s academy, Brown told Fiebelkorn this:

“If you look, those are the officers that are — that reflection in our culture change, the broader understanding and empathy that those officers see”.  

Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, called the video “a letdown of dramatic proportions.”  He said he was “particularly disturbed” by the use of racial slurs “so flippantly” as well as the expressed attitudes toward violence, which he said gives the impression of APD as “just another gang vying for control over our streets.” Simonson said this:

“It seems that we have some number of officers who really don’t aspire to be community guardians, they just want to be warriors on a field of battle.  Why should any Albuquerquean feel safe calling APD knowing that’s the kind of response that they’re going to get — the officer that could show up at their doorstep is one who’s just looking to get into a gunfight with someone.”

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/multimedia/listen-to-the-conversation-between-albuquerque-policeman-at-scene-of-fatal-police-shooting/video_e5042f9c-5261-11ef-8050-db43a045df03.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/city-councilor-blasts-albuquerque-police-conversation-caught-on-lapel-camera/article_4c68b08c-5450-11ef-bbc5-431dd7bf2124.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.koat.com/article/racist-conversation-albuquerque-police-shooting-savage-body-camera-orbd-lapel/61649394

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/body-camera-captures-apd-officers-using-racial-slurs-glorifying-violence-after-fatal-shooting/

DEPRTMENT OF JUSTICE REFORMS

For over  the past 9 years, the Albuquerque Police Department has been operating under a Court Approved Settlement Agreement mandating 271 reforms after a Department of Justice investigation found that APD had engaged in a pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force” and finding a “culture of aggression.”

Over nine years, the city has spent millions on reform efforts, has created and staffed new divisions to hold APD officers accountable, rewrote use of force policies and procedures and trained APD officers in constitutional policing practices. The reform has been accomplished under the watchful eye of the federal court and an appointed Federal Independent Monitor.

On June 4, a federal court hearing was held on the 19th Federal Independent Monitor’s Report and APD’s progress in implementing the mandated reforms of the CASA. The federal monitor reported that APD has reached 100% primary compliance, 100% secondary compliance and 96% operational compliance of the 271 reforms mandated by the settlement. Under the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, once APD sustains a 95% compliance rate in all three identified compliance levels and maintains it for two consecutive years, the case can be dismissed.

APD RANKS #1 IN CIVILIAN KILLINGS OUT OF THE 50 LARGEST CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN THE COUNTRY

On April 10, the on line news publication Searchlight New Mexico published a remarkable story researched and written by its staff reporter Josh Bowling.  The article is entitled “Can the Albuquerque Police Department ever be reformed?”  The article goes into great detail explaining the Court Approved Settlement Agreement, what has been done to reform APD and the role of the Federal Monitor. The link to read the full, unedited Searchlight New Mexico article with photos and graphs is here:

https://searchlightnm.org/can-the-albuquerque-police-department-ever-be-reformed/?utm_source=Searchlight+New+Mexico&utm_campaign=ca4e266790-4%2F10%2F2024+-+Albuquerque+Police+Department+Reform&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8e05fb0467-ca4e266790-362667516&mc_cid=ca4e266790&mc_eid=ccd9412715

The Search Light New Mexico article reported that last year, the Albuquerque Police Department killed 10.6 people per million residents, more than any other sizable police department in the nation, according to data tracked by the national nonprofit Mapping Police Violence.

The Search Light New Mexico article contains a horizontal graph listing the 50 largest cities in the United States. According to the graph, among the 50 largest cities, Albuquerque Police killed people at the highest rate than all the other city police departments in 2023  at the rate of  10.6 per 1 Million population. It is worth comparing Albuquerque’s 10.6 kill rate to the largest cities in the surrounding border states of Texas, Colorado, Arizona and also including Oklahoma and Nevada:

• Albuquerque, NM: 10.6
• San Antonio, Texas:  9.8
• Phoenix, Arizona: 8.7
• Austin, Texas: 7.3
• Denver, Colorado: 5.6
• Tucson, Arizona: 5.5
• Fort Worth, Texas: 5.4
• Houston, Texas: 5.2
• Colorado Springs, Colorado: 4.2
• Dallas, Texas: 3.1
• El Paso, Texas: 2.9
• Las Vegas, Nevada: 2.6
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: 2.0

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The most disturbing comments captured on the lapel camera are these:

“I like violent encounters with violent people. … That’s why I became a cop. I didn’t come to fucking help old ladies who can’t cross the fucking road. I want to take actual shitheads that are actually doing stuff off the street. … If it means you shoot some of them, so be it.”

It’s remarks like these from any APD cop that should be the most disturbing to the APD high command, elected officials and the general public. The comments reflect a philosophy that should disqualify any person from becoming a police officer in the first place. The comments reflect that APD’s Culture of Aggression found by the Department of Justice is still alive and well within APD rank and file.

INAPPRORIATE COACHING LIKELY OCCURRED

As part of the Department of Justice reforms, APD rewrote use of force policies and procedures.  APD has also established standard operating procedures that must be followed after a police officer involved shooting, which includes the assignment of a “buddy officer”.  The protocol mandates that  a Multi-Agency Task Force is called in to immediately to investigate the shooting to determine if was a justified shooting done in self-defense  and to interview the officers who were involved with the shooting.  According to the protocol, police officers who are involved with a shooting are to be segregated separately for interviews so as not to jeopardize or taint the investigation and to prevent coordination of statements.

The link to review APD Standard Operating Procedures is here:

https://public.powerdms.com/COA/tree/documents/2476781

The lapel camera voice recording  reflects that the officers who were involved with the shooting were not segregated immediately and at one time were all in the same patrol car and discussed the shooting.  They continually ask the officer who shot Benavidez if he needs anything and, at one point, one officer says he doesn’t have any cigarettes to offer but has “enough Zyn to fly you to the moon.”

Eventually, the officer is alone with his buddy officer, who gives him “the best advice I got from my first shooting.” The officer says it was given to him by his stepfather, ostensibly one who is or was a police officer, and who has “been in a couple shootings.”  The officer says to the other:

“Feel the way you feel, nothing wrong with it. … Some people are going to be in here fucking crying, some people go home and fall right to sleep. Nothing wrong with it, super normal.”

At one point the buddy officer tells one of the officers involved in the shooting to keep a journal of what he remembers from the shooting and to prepare for his official statement to the investigating Multi-Agency Task Force, which he says will ask “stupid questions” when they interview him about the incident.  He tells the officer this:

“This is going to be the scariest statement you’ve ever given in your life; it just is.  It’s the most important statement you’ll probably give in your life.”

RASCISM WITHIN APD MUST BE CONDEMNED

APOA President Shaun Willoughby’s defense of the officers comments on the lapel camera that “These guys were joking around, they were decompressing, they were saying inappropriate stuff , like a lot of us do with our friends and family when we’re not in public” was disgusting and way out of line. Police officers are supposed to be professionals. They are supposed to be trained to deal with stressful situations and there is no excuse for racism to deal with stress.

Racist remarks made by any APD officer, whether it be in private and even recorded by accident, must be condemn in no uncertain terms. Racism at any level within APD cannot be tolerated. It must be dealt with swiftly and decidedly. At a very bare minimum, all the officers who made the remarks need to be admonished in no uncertain terms and suspended without pay for a period of time.  Sensitivity and racial tolerance training is likely in order.

FINAL COMMENT

It is more likely than not, based on the reported facts, that the Multi-Agency Task Force called in to investigate the  April 11 killing of Mark Benavidez will ultimately find that the shooting was justified and that the officers will not be disciplined for use of deadly force. However, such a finding does not excuse them for not following required protocol that must be followed after the use of deadly force, the coaching of an officer involved with the shooting or the use of racial slurs and the glorification of violence.

APD may be on the verge of dismissal of the federal court approved settlement agreement, but this incident and the fact that APD is ranked number one in the country for deadly force  police shootings is a reflection of APD’s continued Culture of Aggression.

On June 17 the Albuquerque City Council voted  on a 6 to 3 vote and  passed a Charter Amendment that would eliminate all runoff elections for Mayor and City Council. It would mandated that whoever gets the most votes wins with no runoff between the two top vote getters.  Whoever secures the most votes of all the candidates running at the same time wins the election out right.

The charter amendment was sponsored Democrat Councilor Klarissa Peña  and Republican Dan Lewis.  Republican City Councilors Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout and Dan Champine and Democrat City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Klarissa Peña voted “YES”. Democrat City Councilors Tammy Fiebelkorn, Nichole Rogers and Joaquín Baca voted “NO”.

On June 17, Common Cause was quick to address the city council vote on social media this way:

“[The Albuquerque City Council]  took us backward by amending an already bad proposal. Rather than lowering the threshold to be elected mayor or city councilor from 50% to 40%, they’ve eliminated any threshold altogether. Candidates under this scheme could be elected with 10% for example. The 6-3 passage of this proposal means, voters will be confronted with a question on this November’s ballot to eliminate run-offs and move to a free-for-all voting process where fringe candidates and special interests will dominate our elections.”

 In a follow up post on its web page, Common Cause said this in part:

“The public needs confidence that our municipal leaders have been legitimately elected, and the best way to do that is with a secure, accessible electoral system that demands the winner receives the majority of votes. Our leaders cannot effectively govern without a strong mandate from the voters.”

https://act.commoncause.org/letters/dont-override-the-veto?source=direct_link&

On June 25 New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver wrote Mayor Tim Keller all nine City Councilors voicing her opposition to the proposed charter amendment. She wrote in part:

“Unlike state and federal elections in which there is a Primary Election that whittles down the pool of candidates, municipal runoff elections with winning majority thresholds help create important mandates for local officials in New Mexico.   I also recognize there are some substantive arguments against the city’s existing runoff structure.  These top-two runoff elections come with hefty price tags, and their timing typically means fewer eligible voters make their voices heard at the ballot box.

… . 

However, although not ideal, the current system is still preferable to the [proposed] charter amendment … . Albuquerque voters already approved the current 50% threshold for winning candidates in 2013, and having candidates receive at least 50% of the total votes provides the public with a clear winner who then has a mandate to lead. Changing the city’s election system to one where a candidate can be elected with a minority of votes is a big step in the wrong direction.”

On July 3, Mayor Tim Keller announced he vetoed the proposed charter amendment that if approved by voters would have returned municipal elections of Mayor and City Council to “plurality elections.”   In his July 2 veto message to the City Council, Keller said this in part:

“After careful legal review, I have identified … issues with the legislation R-24-47.   … . 

This resolution would lower the threshold for Mayor and City Council to be elected from the current system—50% plus 1—to a plurality, meaning most votes wins, and it would eliminate runoffs. Runoff elections are the norm in cities that employ nonpartisan ballots to select local officials. Peer cities such as El Paso, Oklahoma City, Denver, Phoenix, Colorado Springs, and Sacramento all use a 50% plus 1 threshold. 

Although we elect members of Congress and state legislators via plurality vote, these are partisan elections, where parties first select their nominees before they compete in general election. Because the plurality vote rule combined with single member districts tends to produce two strong political parties, general elections almost always have only two candidates, and thus a majority vote winner.  Cities by and large have nonpartisan elections, not party primaries, thus runoffs are often required to produce a majority winner.

I firmly believe a plurality system would give a significant advantage to incumbent candidates and remove a level of accountability our constituents deserve. With more support from voters, elected leaders have a clear mandate to govern. With a plurality, a Mayor or Councilor could be in office with 10% of the vote or less, making it challenging to represent the whole city or be held accountable to voters.

I want to remind everyone that in 2013, with a vote of 55% to 45%, voters spoke loud and clear on this  issue by changing the then 40% threshold to the current 50%. Current efforts nationwide to reform city elections are focused on promoting democracy and civic engagement, not anti-majoritarian policies like the current amendment, which would allow a minority of voters in the city to select our mayor, and a minority of voters in council districts to select city councilors. This is something I cannot ignore; I respect and support the will of the voters and all the members of our community who have pushed for more  accountability in our elections.

I want to recognize the overwhelming input from the public in opposition to this particular piece of  legislation. It has been clear in the last three City Council meetings, nearly every single community  member voiced their concern and opposition to this measure.

 …

R-24-47 as passed would drastically change the way we conduct elections in the City of Albuquerque. While no election system is perfect, this charter amendment moves Albuquerque in the wrong direction.”

CITY COUNCIL FAILS TO OVERRIDE KELLER VETO

Immediately after Mayor Keller announced he had vetoed the Charter Amendment, Republican Albuquerque City Council President boldly announced that the City Council would override the veto on August 5 after it returned from its summer break.  It was not meant to be.  On August 5, the Albuquerque City Council failed to override Mayor Keller’s veto of the  proposed Charter Amendment mandating a plurality election vote. It had been Republican City Councilors Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout and Dan Champine and Democrat City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Klarissa Peña who had voted “YES” to ask voters to eliminate runoff elections for city council and mayoral elections.  In order to override the veto, all six would have had to vote “YES” to override the the Keller veto.  However,  only 5 of those 6  councilors voted to override the Keller veto, one vote short, so no proposed changes to city election laws will appear on the November ballot. It was Democrat City Councilor Klarissa Pena who changed her vote and voted “NO” with Democrat City Councilors Tammy Fiebelkorn, Nichole Rogers and Joaquín Baca.

STAGGERED TERMS FAIL

City Councilor Klarissa Peña also sponsored  two charter  amendments abolishing staggered terms for City Council and mandating elections where all nine city councilors and the mayor would be up for election at the same time. The Council also voted NO on the staggered term measures. The purpose for having staggered terms for city councilor is stability and institutional knowledge. With all city councilors and mayor running at the same time, a 100% turnover at City Hall could happen, resulting in the election of officials who have very little or no knowledge of city government that is vitally needed for city policy and to get things done.

ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL GUEST OPINION COLUMN

On Sunday, August 4, the Albuquerque Journal published on its editorial pages the following Pete Dinelli guest opinion column:

HEADLINE: “Charter amendments are vendettas against Mayor, not good government”

BY: PETE DINELLI, Albuquerque Resident

“On June 17, the Albuquerque City Council voted to pass three charter amendments to be placed on the November ballot for voter approval.

The first gives the City Council more authority in the process for removing the chief of police and the fire chief.

The second creates a process to fill vacancies on a committee to resolve separation of powers mandating council representation.
The third eliminates all runoff elections for mayor and City Council and whoever gets the plurality vote wins, with no runoff between the two top vote-getters.

On July 3, Mayor Tim Keller vetoed the plurality vote measure but declined to veto the other two. The council plurality vote charter amendment has been severely criticized by the general public, Common Cause New Mexico and Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver as ill-advised and a big step in the wrong direction.

The Keller veto could be overturned on a 6-to-3 vote. Council President Dan Lewis immediately vowed an override of the veto at the council’s Aug. 5 meeting.

City Councilor Klarissa Peña is also sponsoring two amendments abolishing staggered terms for City Council and mandating elections where all nine city councilors and the mayor would be up for election at the same time.

The purpose for having staggered terms for city councilor is stability and institutional knowledge. With all city councilors and mayor running at the same time, a 100% turnover at City Hall could happen, resulting in the election of officials who have very little or no knowledge of city government that is vitally needed for city policy and to get things done.

The five charter amendments are not the first time the City Council has attempted to mess with our election process and our government structure itself.

In April 2023, first-term city councilors Democrat Louie Sanchez and Republican Renee Grout announced draconian legislation proposing a city charter amendment for a public vote that would have made the mayor of Albuquerque a member of the City Council. They wanted to transfer all the mayor’s executive and city management duties to a city manager chosen by the City Council.

All the proposed changes to the charter by the City Council have absolutely nothing to do with good government, nor improving our election process, but reflect a personal vendetta against Mayor Tim Keller. The more conservative City Council has shown significant resistance to Mayor Keller’s progressive agenda as going too far.

Repeatedly, the current more conservative City Council has attempted to repeal ordinances and resolutions enacted by the previous more progressive City Council, and to limit the authority of Mayor Tim Keller to no avail as he outmaneuvers them and vetoes measures with the council unable to muster the necessary six votes to override the vetoes.

Prime examples include the following:

1. A resolution to repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency.
2. A resolution barring the city from mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce.
3. Repeal of a quarter-cent tax increase in gross receipts tax enacted a few years ago.
4. Repealing or attempting to amend the city’s “immigrant friendly” policy, calling it a “sanctuary city” policy and requiring APD to assist and cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

It is no secret Mayor Tim Keller is preparing to seek a third term. Confidential sources say city councilors Louie Sanchez and Brook Bassan are contemplating a run against Keller.

The results are charter amendments to reduce Keller’s reelection chances and to improve theirs. The City Council should not override the Keller plurality elections veto and vote “no” to eliminate staggered terms.”

FINAL COMMENTARY

Simply put, the Charter Amendment to reduce the vote to win a City Council or Mayoral race with whoever gets the most votes with no runoffs is very bad government on many levels and will promote chaos in municipal elections. Initially when the Mayor-City Council form of government was created, it was common to have upwards of 15 candidates running for Mayor and who ever got the most votes won. The result was chaotic elections with fringe candidates diluting the vote. The city does not need to go back.

ABQ Journal Dinelli Guest Opinion Column: “Charter amendments are vendettas against Mayor, not good government”; Contact City Council And Tell Them To Vote “No” On Overriding Keller Veto And Charter Amendments