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

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

POINT IN TIME COUNT EXPLAINED

The 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. The PIT count is done in communities across the country. The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help understand the extent of homelessness at the city, state, regional and national levels. This year’s PIT  count occurred from January 31st through February 3rd.

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 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.

2023 POINT-IN-TIME (PIT) REPORT

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

ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

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

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

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS:  1,980

PERSONS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

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

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

TOTAL PERSONS: 2,394.

ALBUQUERQUE’S 2009 TO 2023 STATISTICS

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

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

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

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

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWNS

The following demographic breakdowns are given for Albuquerque 2023 UNSHELTER count:

GENDER (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• MALE: 648
• FEMALE: 314
• A GENDER OTHER THAN SINGULARLY FEMALE OR MALE: 5
• QUESTIONING: 3
• TRANSGENDER: 7

AGE CATEGORIES (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• Under 18: 26
• 18-24: 67
• 25-34: 242
• 35-44: 303
• 45-54: 198
• 55-64: 11
• 65 and over: 30

ETHNICITY (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• HISPANIC: 525  (53.7%)
• NON HIPANIC: 452  (46.3%)

RACE (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• HISPANIC:40.7%
• WHITE: 29.8%
• AMERICAN INDIAN, INDIGENOUS:14.5%
• AFRICAN AMERICAN: 8.6%
• OTHERS: 6.4%

 REASONS GIVEN FOR NOT USING SHELTERS IN ALBUQUERQUE

Respondents were asked, “Why do you not use the shelter system?” Common themes identified in the qualitative data collected include the following:

• Previous negative experiences (121)
• Safety concerns (109) 
• Unhygienic (94)
• Stringent shelter policies (88)
• Accessibility issues (83)
• Criminal activity (51)
• Overcrowding (49)
• Staff conduct (39)
• Impact on mental health (39)
• Would rather stay on streets or in car (26)
• Separation of households (25)
• Like a prison or jail (21)
• Substance use at shelters (21)
• Uncomfortable/Stigmatized (17)
• Don’t know how it works/about shelters (16)
• Predatory behavior (sexual assault, rape, etc) (16)

SURVEYS AGREED TO VERSUS SURVEYS DECLINED

For the first time in 2023, the PIT survey reported the total number of individuals from whom surveys were taken and the total number of individuals who refused to participate. It was argued that these statistics are but one of the many reasons to believe the PIT is an undercount.

• Agreed to and submitted surveys taken: 623
• Refusals: 346

ALBUQUERQUE’S UNSHELTERED COUNT OVER TIME

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

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

BALANCE OF STATE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

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

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN BALANCE OF THE STATE

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

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

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS:  1,075

INDIVIDUALS COUNTED IN BALANCE OF STATE

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

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

TOTAL PERSONS: 1,448

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 to establish a graphic trend line:

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

BALANCE OF STATE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

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

GENDER  (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• MALE: 421
• FEMALE: 189
• A Gender other than singularly female or male: 4
• Questioning: 4
• Transgender: 5

AGE CATEGORIES  (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• Under 18: 35
• 18-24: 55
• 25-34: 143
• 35-44: 157
• 45-54: 136
• 55-64: 69
• 65 and over: 28

ETHNICITY (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• HISPANIC: 314 (50.4%)
• NON HIPANIC: 309 (49.6%)

RACE  (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• WHITE: 62.4%
• AMERICAN INDIAN, INDIGENOUS: 28.3%
• AFRICAN AMERICAN: 6.6%

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

RACIAL DISPARITIES

The 2023 PIT survey for the first time examined RACIAL disparities.

UNSHELTERED IN ALBUQUERQUE

• In Albuquerque, Native Americans comprise 4.8% of its population, while they comprise 21.1%  of the total unsheltered for 2023.
• In Albuquerque, African Americans comprise 3,2% of its population, while they comprise 11.9%  of the total unsheltered for 2023.

EMERGENCY SHELTER IN ALBUQUERQUE

• In Albuquerque,  Native Americans comprise 4.8% of its population, while they comprise 11.5% of the total sheltered for 2023.
• In Albuquerque, African Americans comprise 3,2% of its population, while they comprise 10.4%  of the total sheltered for 2023.

BALANCE OF THE STATE

UNSHELTERED IN BALANCE OF STATE

• In the Balance of the State, Native Americans comprise 11.2% of the total population, while they comprise 28.3% of those unsheltered.
• In the Balance of the State, African  Americans comprise 2.7% of the total population, while they comprise 6.6% of those unsheltered

 EMERGENCY SHELTERED IN BALANCE OF STATE

• In the Balance of the State, Native Americans comprise 11.2% of the total state population, while they comprise 22.9% of those in emergency shelter.
• In the Balance of the State, African Americans comprise 2.7% of the total state population, while they comprise 11.7% of those in emergency shelter.

SUMMATION OF STATISTICS

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

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

 TOTAL PERSONS: 2,394.

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

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

TOTAL PERSONS: 1,448

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2023 PIT REPORT OVERVIEW

The  newly released  Point In Time count  done by the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness shows there are now 2,394 people experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque. A nearly 83% increase from last year. When the Coalition released the annual PIT count report, it announced it had found in 2023 more than 1,000 more people experiencing homelessness than in 2022.  It’s the highest count in the 14 years tracked in the report.

Tony Watkins and William Bowen are both affiliated with New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness and were involved with the 2023 PIT survey.  Both Watkins and Bowen were interviewed by the Albuquerque Journal when the 2023 PIT report was released.  Both representatives cautioned that the 1,000-person increase might not mean 1,000 more people are homeless for the first time.

William Bowen, a Continuum of Care Program officer for the Coalition who organized the 2023 count on January 30, said there are three  major reasons for the massive jump:

First the group added about 50 volunteers this year, expanding the survey’s reach throughout the city.

Second the approach was also more targeted when it came to divvying up neighborhoods.

Despite those changes, Bowen said the Coalition to End Homelessness   believes the number of homeless people living in the city is increasing for two major reasons:

FIRST: Increasing rents and home prices.

SECOND: The end of several pandemic-era relief programs, including an eviction moratorium. Data from the Eviction Lab, a nationwide database that tracks eviction filings, shows there have been more than 9,000 filings in the past year in Albuquerque.

MASSIVE UNDERCOUNT PROCLAIMED

Bowen said this year’s elevated number of 2,394 individuals is still a massive undercount.  The PIT 2023 report acknowledges that the final count represents a small snapshot of time and that it consistently undercounts the actual number of people experiencing homelessness.

Limitations can include winter weather, which can make it more challenging for volunteers to find people living on the streets, as well as encampment sweeps that Bowen said continued during the PIT count.  Bowen added that people with children might also try and seclude themselves, fearing that their kids will be taken away, he continued. In the past, COVID-19 restrictions were an obstacle.

Sam Watkins said data on the number of people signed up for McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants takes into account what Watkins calls the “invisible homeless” which can include people who are couch-surfing or otherwise displaced from their homes.

Watkins also noted the racial disparities contained for the first time in the 2023 PIT report.  Although Native American and Alaskan people make up 5% of Albuquerque’s population, according to census data, they represent 1 in 5 of the homeless people surveyed in the count. In the city, just more than 3% of residents are Black, but of the homeless people surveyed, about 12% were Black.

Because of the difficulty finding a definitive number of people experiencing homelessness, the value of the PIT count has at times has been questioned.  Bowen in response said there are few alternatives to collect similar data.

NOT JUST THE DATA

Watkins and Bowen themselves said the goal of the count has been a discussion at the Coalition but they said the report has value beyond the data. For example, PIT count volunteers surveyed people living on the street and asked certain questions, including why people didn’t use available shelters. Many raised safety and cleanliness concerns about shelter spaces. Bowen said many people have had negative experiences that can make them wary of large emergency shelters.

Of the more than 2,000 people included in the report, about 45% were staying in emergency shelters and 12% were using transitional housing services. The remaining fraction were completely unsheltered.

Watkins and Bowen identified areas where progress can be made, including increased affordable housing, intervention programs to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place and improved delivery of certain services to turn the tide. But Watkins said one important factor is bringing people with personal experience with homelessness into public policy positions. If that happens, Watkins said this:

“I think things will shift. I don’t know how they’ll shift, but they’ve got to shift for the better.”

The 2023 PIT report also provided a better understanding on how many unsheltered people on the streets of Albuquerque are from outside of the United States. Out of 252 people interviewed, 14 said they were from countries like Cuba, El Salvador, Mexico and Panama. The survey acknowledged that the overall numbers are an undercount, as more than 700 people reportedly refused to answer.

The city of Albuquerque issued the following statement in response to the 2023 PIT report:

“We know there is a need for additional shelter and resources for the unhoused, and the City of Albuquerque continues to build capacity in our system of care by expanding wraparound services at Gateway and adding Medical Sobering and Medical Respite care, in addition to improving the westside shelter and working with our community partners. We have plans in place to shelter additional people in the winter months, as well as migrants passing through our city.”

The links to quoted news source materials are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/this-years-point-in-time-count-identified-2-394-people-experiencing-homelessness-in-albuquerque-organizers/article_072d451c-630d-11ee-8b29-17db0ad4a084.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.koat.com/article/homeless-increase-in-albuquerque/45462181

CITY’S FINANCIAL COMMITMENT AND SERVICES TO HOMELESS

It is the city’s Family Community Services Department (FCS) that provides for assistance to the homeless.  In fiscal year 2021-2022, the department  spent $35,145,851 on homeless initiatives.  In 2022-2023  fiscal year the department spent $59,498,915 on homeless initiatives.

On June 23, 2022 Mayor Tim Keller announced that the City of Albuquerque was adding $48 million to the FY23 budget to address housing and homelessness issues in Albuquerque. The City  also announced it was working on policy changes to create more housing and make housing more accessible.

The key appropriations passed by City Council included in the $48 million are:

• $20.7 million for affordable and supportive housing   
• $1.5 million for improvements to the Westside Emergency Housing Center
• $4 million to expand the Wellness Hotel Program
• $7 million for a youth shelter
• $6.8 million for medical respite and sobering centers
• $7 million for Gateway Phases I and II, and improvements to the Gibson Gateway Shelter facility
• $555,000 for services including mental health and food insecurity prevention

The link to the quoted source is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/family/news/mayor-keller-signs-off-on-major-housing-and-homelessness-investments

The 2022-2023 enacted budget for the Department of Community Services is $72.4 million and the department is funded for 335 full time employees, an increase of 22 full time employees.  A breakdown of the amounts to help the homeless and those in need of housing assistance was as follows:

• $42,598,361total for affordable housing and community contracts with a major emphasis on permanent housing for chronically homeless. It is $24,353,064 more than last year.
• $6,025,544total for emergency shelter contracts (Budget page 102.).
• $3,773,860total for mental health contracts (Budget page105.).
• $4,282,794total for homeless support services. 
• $2,818,356total substance abuse contracts for counseling (Budget page 106.).

The 2022-2023 adopted city contains $4 million in recurring funding and $2 million in one-time funding for supportive housing programs in the City’s Housing First model and $24 million in Emergency Rental Assistance from the federal government.

The link to the 2022-2023 budget it here:

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

The 2023-2024 approve city budget for the  Family and Community Services budget lists forty five (45) separate affordable housing contracts totaling $39,580,738, fifteen (15) separate emergency shelter contracts totaling $5,575,690, and twenty seven (27) separate homeless support service contracts totaling $5,104,938 for a total of $50,261,366. The Fiscal Year 2023- 2024 Family Community Services includes the following line-item funding:

• $14 million in non-recurring funding for supportive housing programs in the City’s Housing First model.
• $736,000 in non-recurring to fully fund the Assisted Outpatient Treatment program.
• $730,000 in recurring and $500,000 in non-recurring funding for a partial year of operating a Medical Sobering Center at Gibson Gateway Homeless Shelter and Health Hub, which will complement the social model sobering facilities available at the County’s CARES campus.
• $1.2 million for Homeless Support Services
• $1.7 million for Mental Health for service contracts for mental health
• $200 thousand for Substance Abuse, early intervention and prevention programs, domestic violence shelters and services, sexual assault services, health and social service center providers, and services to abused, neglected and abandoned youth.
• $1.5 million in recurring and $500,000 in non-recurring funding for a Medical Respite facility at Gibson Health Hub, which will provide acute and post-acute care for persons experiencing homelessness who are too ill or frail to recover from a physical illness or injury on the streets but are not sick enough to be in a hospital.
• $3 million in recurring funding to operate the first Gateway Center at the Gibson Health Hub, including revenue and expenses for emergency shelter and first responder drop-off, facility operation and program operations.
• $1.2 million for the Westside Emergency Housing Center.
• $500,000 non-recurring to fund the development of a technology system that enables the City and providers to coordinate on the provision of social services to people experiencing homelessness and behavioral health challenges.
• $500,000 non-recurring to funding for Albuquerque Street Connect, a program that focuses on people experiencing homelessness who use the most emergency services and care, to establish ongoing relationships that result in permanent supportive housing.
• $1,300,000 for Emergency Shelter
• $1,200,000for Gateway Phase one and Engagement Center, and a net of $500 thousand for Medical Respite.
• Recurring funding of $3,500,000 for Family Housing Navigation Center/Shelter (Wellness-2) which has been using non-recurring emergency/COVID funding
• Capital Improvement Projects  coming-on-line expenses are budgeted to increase by $500,000  for Gateway Homeless Shelter, Phase one, and Engagement Center and $500,000 thousand for the Sobering Center at the Gibson Homeless Shelter Health Hub.

You can review all city hall department budgets at this link: 

Click to access fy24-proposed-web-version.pdf

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 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 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 2,394 (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  1,448 (counted in 2023) 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 city’s 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 2023 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  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.

On Friday, October 6, after a weeks long trial, State  District Judge Fred Van Soelen of the 9^th Judicial District based in Clovis, ruled in a 14 page decision to strike down a lawsuit file by State Republicans alleging Democratic lawmakers gerrymandered New Mexico’s three congressional districts to favor and elect Democrats, especially in the southern congressional district. Judge Van Soelen in siding with Democrats ruled Republicans’ votes were diluted, but it did not  rise to an “egregious gerrymander” and upheld the legislature’s approved redistricting maps. Republicans have vowed to appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

JUDGE VAN SOELEN’S RULING

In his ruling, District Judge Fred T. Van Soelen wrote in part:

“[The] predominant purpose of redrawing CD 2 [the southern district] in Senate  Bill  1 was to entrench the Democratic Party in power by diluting the votes of citizens favoring Republicans. … Because ‘entrenchment’ is the touchstone of an egregious partisan gerrymander which the New Mexico Constitution prohibits, the court finds that the congressional redistricting map enacted under Senate Bill 1 does not violate the plaintiff’s equal protection rights.”

Van Soelen wrote that there is sufficient evidence to say Republicans were “cracked.” In other words, the evidence showed the maps split up Republican voters into multiple districts in order to dilute their voting power.  As an example Van Soelen noted Lea and Eddy Counties were split into two separate congressional districts.

During the trial, Democrats argued the contrary and said the boundaries in the map approved were meant to allow the oil industry in the southern portion of the state to have multiple voices in Washington, D.C. To accomplish this, the map adds land from southeast New Mexico to both Congressional District 1 and Congressional District 3.  Judge Van Soelen wrote that the defendants didn’t prove that splitting up that land was beneficial for residents.

Judge Van Soelen pointed to the 2022 congressional election, the only one held since the boundaries were redrawn, as evidence that Democratic and Republican candidates have a competitive chance to win in Congressional District 2. In the 2022 race for the District 2 U.S. congressional seat, Democrat Gabe Vasquez defeated Yvette Herrell, a first-term Republican incumbent, by the slim margin of 0.7%  The Republican Party countered that Herrell’s “very high name recognition” makes that race an unfair test of District 2’s competitiveness.

Judge Van Soelen wrote  that  while the case shows evidence of partisan political vote dilution, the dilution itself “does not rise to the level of gerrymandering that violates the rights of voters.” Van Soelen wrote that while the maps were intended on “intrenching” Democratic power, there was not  sufficient evidence to prove that they were actually successful in entrenching their power.   Judge Van Soelen concluded that the legislative approve  map does not  violate residents’ equal protection rights under the state’s constitution.

REVISITING LAWSUIT ALLEGATIONS

The lawsuit was filed back in 2021 when the New Mexico legislature redrew all 3 of New Mexico’s political boundaries in the process know as redistricting.  The process of congressional redistricting occurs  every 10 years to keep political voting boundaries relatively fair as local populations change.

The plaintiffs in the case include the New Mexico Republican Party, Republican State Senator David Gallegos and Roswell Democrat Mayor Tim Jennings. It was filed against Governor Michell Lujan Grisham, Lt. Gov. Howie Morales and all Democrat State Senate and House legislative leaders.

In 2020, the state asked an independent redistricting committee to recommend new maps to the legislature. After considering 3  maps for redrawn congressional districts, New Mexico’s Democratically controlled legislature was not satisfied with what was submitted and  approved  a fourth map instead, one drawn up by the lawmakers.

For decades, New Mexico has had 3 congressional districts.  The First Congressional District (CD1) was based almost entirely in Albuquerque. The 2^nd Southern Congressional District (CD2) was the entire southern portion of New Mexico.  The 3^rd Northern Congressional District (CD3) covered Santa Fe and entire northern New Mexico.  The Albuquerque and Northern New Mexico Districts have been decidedly Democrat leaning while the Southern-most district has been decidedly Republican. The new congressional map for District 3  moves southern  parts of Albuquerque into the Southern Congressional District, creating a Democratic leaning district. Following its adoption, Republican Yvette Herrell lost her reelection bid in 2021.

The lawsuit controversy centered primarily around the new Congressional District 2 approved by state officials and signed into law by Lujan Grisham in 2021 during a special session of the Democrat-controlled Legislature.  The map divides Lea County in half.  Lea County now straddles the border between the Second and Third congressional districts and adds parts of Albuquerque to the southern Second Congressional District (CD2).

Republicans argued this change to Congressional District 2 was the cause of former U.S. Representative Yvette Harrell losing the seat to U.S. Rep Gabe Vasquez in 2022.  Herrell had previously won the seat in 2020 against former-U.S. Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, who defeated Herrell in 2018 after Republican Party of New Mexico Chairman Steve Pearce vacated the seat in a losing bid for the governorship.

The Republican Party argued that the map was developed to intentionally curb Republican influence.  The map once approved drew immediate backlash from the state Republican Party and Republican local officials in southeast New Mexico who argued that its conservative stronghold was being diluted.

REACTIONS TO RULING

Steve Pearce, chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, said the Republican Party will appeal its case to the New Mexico Supreme Court. Pearce  said the gerrymandered districts disenfranchise the votes of all conservative voters, regardless of their party affiliation Pearce said  this:

“Judge Van Soelen agreed that there was partisan gerrymandering in the district map for CD2, but we disagree with his ruling that it was not an egregious gerrymander.”

Las Cruces area Democrat State Senator Joseph Cervantes, the primary sponsor of the senate bill that changed congressional district boundaries had this to say:

“I’ve maintained that we met every legal and constitutional requirement and the court has affirmed the exceptional legal work that goes into lawmaking done right. …  We clearly got it right. … With more competitive districts, we will send to Washington representatives more closely aligned with all New Mexicans, not just party loyalists.”

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s  Office released the following statement statement in reaction to the Court’s verdict:

The governor signed these maps with full belief in their constitutionality, and we are pleased to see the court’s decision today.

New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s  Office released the following statement:

“Our interest in this case is that we needed clarity about the map in order to properly plan for the 2024 elections. We’re pleased that the issue has now been decided so we can continue planning for the 2024 elections.”

The Republican Party of New Mexico issued  the following statement:

“Today’s decision was bigger than Republican or Democrat. It struck at the heart of our Republic, the form of government that allows all beliefs to have a voice.

Judge Van Soelen agreed that there was partisan gerrymandering in the district map for CD2, but we disagree with his ruling that it was not an egregious gerrymander. Our legal team presented a clear case that the legislature intended to and, in fact, did egregiously gerrymander the congressional maps to shift the second district by 18 points in favor of Democrats.

Text messages provided during discovery from Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart reveal her bragging, ‘The People’s Map was 51.8%. That’s not enough for a mid term (sic) election.’ In order to get a big enough Democratic swing, she claims, ‘we adjusted some edges, scooped up more of abq and are now at 53%.’

The Democrat expert witness also testified that the Democrat lawyers instructed him to design 1,000 maps that resembled the gerrymandered map that the legislature drew.

The legislative redistricting map and all 1,000 of his so-called “random” maps split Lea and Eddy counties, thereby “cracking” the conservative vote in the southeast part of the state. The witness admitted under oath that he had never been instructed to divide a state in the fashion he had been directed to in New Mexico.

The gerrymandered districts disenfranchise the votes of all conservative voters: Hispanic, Native American, Black and all other pro-family, pro-parent, pro-gun, pro-life voters, farmers, and oil and gas workers. Democrat, Republican, and Independents alike have lost their voice. New Mexico’s primary industry is undermined, and jobs are at stake.

The Republican Party of New Mexico believes the fight is too important to accept this setback without contest.

On behalf of all disenfranchised voters in the state of New Mexico, RPNM will be appealing our case to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”

The Democratic Party of New Mexico also provided the following statement:

“It is no surprise that the New Mexico Republican Party lost its bogus lawsuit attempting to throw out competitive, fairly-drawn maps. Steve Pearce’s defunct New Mexico Republican Party is merely looking to place blame somewhere for their recent election losses.

“Crafting of the current maps followed a non-partisan, deliberative process that was informed by and invited expert and public input from communities across the state and subsequently went through the complete legislative process in committees and both chambers. In fact, these districts were intentionally crafted to be less partisan and more competitive than the previous ones.  

“Unfortunately for New Mexicans, the GOP in our state has become so beholden to the conspiratorial far-right that they continue to try to discredit the electoral process when they lose instead of running candidates who work to improve the lives of everyday New Mexicans.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/new-mexico-judge-says-redistricting-map-doesnt-violate-state-constitution/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/judge-rules-against-republican-challenge-to-new-mexico-redistricting-map/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/republicans-vow-to-appeal-judges-ruling-upholding-new-mexico-congressional-redistricting-map/article_bd83ab96-6491-11ee-9cf2-db3427075e14.html

https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-congressional-redistricting-e411438a6988774c1a531a447a288c93

https://www.kunm.org/local-news/2023-10-06/judge-upholds-nm-congressional-map-as-constitutional-siding-with-dems

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is more likely than not that Republican efforts to appeal State District Judge Fred Van Soelen’s decision will fail and the appeal will fail miserably all because of a previous ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

It was in February, 2022 that  a Motion to Dismiss the case was filed by attorneys for Defendants Governor Lujan Grisham and Lt. Governor Howie Morales. The New Mexico’s Supreme Court denied the Motion To Dismiss and the case was remanded back to Judge Van Soelen for a trial on the merits. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled the equal protection clause of the New Mexico Constitution allows the state courts to take up claims of illegal partisan gerrymandering.  The New Mexico Supreme Court rejected the arguments made by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and other high-ranking Democrats who said the courts had no way to determine what constitutes illegal “partisan” gerrymandering.

The New Mexico Supreme Court  acknowledged the “inherently political nature of redistricting” and said some partisan gerrymandering is permissible.  The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled  the three-part test outlined by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in her dissenting opinion in the US Supreme Court case of RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE should  be used in the case to determine whether the map goes too far and violates the law. This means the Republican  plaintiffs had  to prove Democrats redrew the map to keep them in power, and that they achieved what they wanted to degree that was “egregious in intent and effect.”

Judge Van Soelen has now applied  the three-part Kagan test and other criteria and he evaluated the maps and has made a decision that there was no “egregious in intent and effect.”  .

The postscript to this blog article provides a report on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE and provides an explanation of the Kagan 3 part test.

___________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE

In 2019, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote in the case of  Rucho v. Common Cause ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims  cannot be brought under the U.S. Constitution. The Ruch decision was a major set back for voting right advocates but in her dissent Justice Elena Kagan’s outlined and provided a blueprint on  how state judges can set aside and kill the practice of gerrymandering by legislatures under their own constitutions. Every state constitution protects the right to vote or participate equally in elections, and the Kagan dissent shows how state courts can enforce those protections under state law.

In her dissent, Justice  Kagan annunciates the precise harms inflicted by partisan gerrymandering and explains how they can be measured and remedied. Kagan identified two distinct but intertwined constitutional violations. First, gerymandered maps “reduce the weight of certain citizens’ votes,” depriving them of the ability to participate equally in elections. Second, they also punish voters for their political expression and association. Kagan concluded that these dual injuries, implicate fundamental principles of both equal protection and freedom of speech. Kagan illustrated the ease with which courts can address them.

In his Rucho majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts insisted that federal courts were unable to determine when a partisan gerrymander goes “too far.” Kagan pointed out that, in fact, plenty of lower courts have already done exactly that. These courts deployed a three-part test. First, they ask whether mapmakers intended to entrench their party’s power by diluting votes for their opponents. Second, they ask whether the scheme succeeded. Third, they ask if mapmakers have any legitimate, nonpartisan explanation for their machinations. If they do not, the gerrymander must be set aside and declared void.

Justice Kagan wrote:

“If you are a lawyer … you know that this test looks utterly ordinary. It is the sort of thing courts work with every day.”

In practice, the most important part of the test is its evaluation of a gerrymander’s severity and that boils down to an analysis and hard look at the data.  The North Carolina’s congressional map contained 10 Republican seats and 3 Democratic ones. Experts ran 24,518 simulations of the map that used traditional, nonpartisan redistricting criteria. More than 99% of them produced at least one more Democratic seat. The exercise verified that North Carolina’s map isn’t just an outlier but “an out-out-out-outlier.”

Chief Justice Roberts rejected Kagan’s reasoning and asserted  that her test was “indeterminate and arbitrary.” But the North Carolina Superior Court rested its decision precisely on the three-part test that Kagan proposed. The North Carolina court adopted Kagan’s methods to demonstrate that North Carolina’s legislative gerrymander was indeed an “out-out-out-outlier.” Experts ran thousands of simulations to gauge the severity of the map’s partisanship and found that the current gerrymander is more favorable to Republicans than about 99.99 percent of maps drawn using nonpartisan redistricting factors.

This fact would not matter if North Carolina courts were powerless to stop partisan gerrymandering. But state courts are free to interpret their constitutions differently from the United States Supreme Court  and are not bound by the Rucho decision. The North Carolina Superior Court therefore refused to adopt Roberts’ rejection toward the judiciary’s competence to defend voting rights.

The North Carolina Court agreed that  Kagan’s view of gerrymandering is  an assault on equal protection and free speech. The North Carolina Court wrote the state constitution safeguards “the fundamental right of each North Carolinian to substantially equal voting power.”  The Northe Carolina court also found that the state constitution  protects citizens’ ability to engage in “core means of political expression,” including “voting for the candidate of one’s choice and associating with the political party” without retaliation. Partisan gerrymandering infringes upon these freedoms, diluting citizens’ vote on the basis of their political expression. In short, the court ruled  the North Carolina constitution contains the same protections that Kagan sought under the First and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The North Carolina court took a step further than Kagan, because unlike the U.S. Constitution, the North Carolina constitution declares that “all elections shall be free.” This clause, the court held, means “that elections must be conducted freely and honestly to ascertain, fairly and truthfully, the will of the people.” Partisan gerrymandering violates that guarantee by “specifically and systematically designing the contours of the election districts for partisan purposes and a desire to preserve power.”

The link to quoted new source material is here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/partisan-gerrymander-kagan-state-courts.html

 

On October 5, the on line News Agency New Mexico Sun published the following guest column written by Pete Dinelli.

HEADLINE: Judge Enjoins APD From Enforcing Laws Against Homeless To Remove Them From Public Spaces

By Pete Dinelli

“On September 21, District Court Judge Josh Allison issued a Preliminary Injunction against the City of Albuquerque from “enforcing or threatening to enforce” statutes and city ordinance to displace the homeless from public spaces. The Court enjoined the city from seizing and destroying homeless belongings and mandates a warrant and post deprivation hearings regarding personal belongings seized.

The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against the City over the closure of Coronado Park. The Plaintiffs allege they were displaced from Coronado Park when the city closed it on August 17, 2022 and that the city did not give proper notice nor provide satisfactory shelter options. The city says it did give notice, offered shelter and services, including housing vouchers, that were declined.  According to the ACLU  the lawsuit was filed to stop the City from destroying encampments of the unhoused all over the city, seizing and destroying personal property and jailing and fining unhoused.

The closure of Coronado Park was absolutely necessary. The city had no choice but to close it. Over 3 years, crimes involving the homeless spiked at the park including murder and rape. In 2020, there were 3 homicides at Coronado Park, in 2019, a disabled woman was raped, and in 2018 there was another murder. APD reports that it was dispatched to the park 651 times in 2021 and in 2022 at least 312 dispatches and over 400 calls up and until its closure in August. There were 6 stabbings at the park over 2 years and in 2022 APD seized from the park 4,500 fentanyl pills, more than 5 pounds of methamphetamine, 24 grams of heroin and 29 grams of cocaine.

The Albuquerque Police Department is under a court approved settlement in the federal lawsuit of McClendon v. City of Albuquerque involving jail overcrowding wherein the city agreed not to make arrests for nonviolent crimes, such as trespass on public and private property, illegal camping on all city parks and streets, rights of way, alleyways and open space to prevent jail overcrowding. APD is relegated to merely encouraging or telling the homeless to move on and camp elsewhere with no arrest and no taking them to jail.  Judge Allison is now enjoining such conduct.

The injunction usurps and interferes with the city’s right to take necessary action to protect the public health, safety and welfare with the enforcement of public safety laws, both state laws and city ordinances. Judge Allison has essentially ruled the unhoused, because of their status and because there is insufficient housing available and offered by the city, they have the right to violate the law and illegally camp wherever they want for how long as they want without government interference or threat of arrest.  While Judge Allison says “the City is not constitutionally obligated to provide housing for homeless people” he rules the city cannot “threaten” to enforce the laws against the homeless until the city provides sufficient satisfactory shelter and housing to all implying the city is not doing much of anything for them.

The city has increased funding for assistance to the homeless with $35,145,851 million spent in fiscal year 2021, and $59,498,915 million spent in fiscal year 2022, with the city adopting a “housing first” policy.  In the 2023-2024 budget, the City Council added $48 million to address housing and homelessness issues in Albuquerque. The city expends upwards of $8 million a year to operates 2 homeless shelters. Over two years the city will be spending upwards of $100 million to help the homeless or near homeless.

The City has the responsibility to enforce criminal laws on behalf of its citizens, be it felony or misdemeanor. The City cannot simply ignore laws that have the purpose of preserving and protecting the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Unlawful encampment homeless squatters who have no interest in any offers of city shelter, beds, motel vouchers 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 give the city no choice but to take action and force them to move on. Judge Josh Allison’s injunction now prohibits the city from instructing the homeless to move on by labeling it a “threat of an arrest” that will never happen because of a federal jail overcrowding case. 

The city is appealing Judge Allison’s ruling. The Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office should arrest the homeless for misdemeanors that APD cannot nor will not make arrests on and the District Attorney should start prosecuting those cases. 

The  link  to the related Dinelli Blog article with comprehensive analysis of the court orders is here:

Judge Enjoins City From “Enforcing Or Threatening To Enforce” Laws Against Homeless To Displace Them From Public Spaces, Seizing And Destroying Homeless Belongings Without Warrant, Mandates Post-Deprivation Hearings; Injunction Usurps And Interferes With City’s Legitimate Enforcement Of Public Safety Laws; City Will And Should Appeal; County Sheriff Should Start Arresting And DA Should Start Prosecuting

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

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

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

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

https://newmexicosun.com/

 

On September 13, the online news agency NM Sun published the below guest column:

HEADLINE: Political Pressure Overrides Safety: Mayor Keller’s Legacy Project Exposes Workers to Asbestos

By Pete Dinelli

“The City of Albuquerque and Consolidated Builders face record fines for ignoring asbestos risks at Mayor Keller’s pet project, the Gateway Homeless Shelter, according to a damning report by New Mexico’s OHSB.

On September 1, the New Mexico Environment Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB) cited the City of Albuquerque and Consolidated Builders of NM, LLC for workplace safety issues for failure to test and remove asbestos at the Gateway homeless shelter. The investigation found both violated the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Act by exposing employees to asbestos.  

The most damning finding made by OSHA was that safety concerns were raised multiple times but the remodeling project was politically driven with stop orders from the City’s Risk Management ignored to allow work to continue. The fine levied by OHSB against the city is the largest fine ever filed against the city.  

The city was issued a $761,112 fine for five Willful-Serious citations and two Serious citations. Consolidated Builders was issued a $331,475 fine for 8 Willful-Serious citations and 1 Serious citation.

The “willful-serious citations” to the city include:

• Failing to conduct asbestos work within a regulated area;
• Failing to ensure that an exposure assessment was conducted at the beginning of the project before potential exposures could occur;
• Failing to ensure that an asbestos “competent person” was present to supervise certain types of work;
• Failing to determine the presence, location, and quantity of asbestos-containing material at the Gateway Women’s Shelter prior to work beginning; and
• Failing to ensure that all waste material was properly contained and disposed of.

The “serious citations” to the city include:

• Failing to communicate the hazards associated with exposure to respirable asbestos fibers to employees;
• Failing to designate a “competent person” with the qualifications and authorities to ensure worker safety.

The “willful-serious citations” to Consolidated Builders include:

• Failing to notify other employers that asbestos work was being conducted;
• Failing to conduct asbestos work within a regulated area;
• Failing to ensure that an exposure assessment was conducted at the beginning of the project;
• Failing to dispose of asbestos materials in a leak-tight container;
• Failing to use wet methods to clean up asbestos-containing materials;
• Failing to communicate the hazards associated with exposure to respirable asbestos fibers to employees;
• Failing to train employees on properly performing asbestos removal;
• Failing to protect employees from the release of asbestos when removing floor tiles. 

The “serious citation” to Consolidated Builders include:

•  Failing to implement a respiratory protection program for employees using respirators.

 There are three specific areas of incompetency and ineptness that that fall squarely on the shoulders of Mayor Tim Keller relating to the Gateway Homeless Shelter, its selection and remodeling:

The first was the selection and purchase of the massive 572,000 square-foot complex, for $15 million to convert it into a 24-7 homeless shelter.  The complex has a 201-bed capacity, physician offices, treatment rooms, administration offices, lobby areas and a 300-person auditorium.  A site selection process identified 3 appropriate sites:

1. University of New Mexico (UNM) land near Interstate 25 and Camino de Salud
2. Coronado Park at 3rd Street and Interstate 40
3. The former Lovelace hospital on Gibson

Mayor Tim Keller did a press conference to exert pressure on the UNM regents to allow use of university land, but UNM regents said no. Keller quickly move to purchase the Gibson Medical Center and affected neighborhoods protested.

The second is the Keller Administration did not do due diligence to determine if the facility had the proper zoning to allow a 24-7 overnight shelter.  After the purchase it was discovered, the facility was zoned for a hospital and a conditional use for an overnight shelter was required.  The city refused to rely on the existing zoning to use it as a mental health treatment and substance abuse hospital facility for the homeless and the building sat vacant. 

 The third sign was the discovery of asbestos on the property that required remediation.  The City Planning Department, Municipal Development Department and the Environmental Health Department did not realize that when the Lovelace Hospital was built in the 1950’s asbestos was commonly used in building insulation, ceiling tiles, and flooring.  The Occupational Health and Safety Bureau  investigated after receiving complaints that allege “No inspection or testing was done prior to demolition work” and the city covered it up.

The most obvious explanation for city departments failing to act is that the Gateway Homeless is one of Mayor Keller’s legacy projects.  Keller likely exerted great pressure on his department heads to get the project done and be damned OSHA requirements, hence the finding that the project was politically driven.”

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

___________________________

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

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

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

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

https://newmexicosun.com/

 

On Friday, September 8, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declared gun violence and illegal drugs a public health emergency with the issuance of a sweeping Emergency Public Health Care Order.  The original Emergency Public Health Order banned the carrying of firearms, concealed or openly, in any public space in Bernalillo County and any state property in New Mexico. The governor issued the restriction in the Emergency Health Order after the recent homicides of three children in Albuquerque, including an 11-year-old boy killed while he and his family drove away from an Albuquerque Isotopes baseball game.

The link to the September 8 Emergency Health Order is here:

Click to access 090823-PHO-guns-and-drug-abuse.pdf

During the one week after the Emergency Public Health Care Orders were issued, all hell broke loose consisting of protests by armed citizens, 5 federal and 1 state lawsuits were filed, calls for impeachment, and calls for a special session to deal with the state’s high violent crime rates. Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina, Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen, Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman and New Mexico Attoerney General Raul Torrez all announced that they felt the Governor’s Emergency Public Health Order was unconstitutional and proclaimed they had no intention of enforcing it.

On September 13, U.S. District Court Judge David Herrera Urias held a hearing on a request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Injunction and granted he granted  the TRO. Judge Herrera Urias ruled that the gun restrictions in the governor’s original order were likely to cause irreparable harm to people deprived of the right to carry a gun in public for self-defense and granted a temporary restraining order blocking it.

On Friday, September 15, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced an Amended Public Health Emergency Order. The amended order scales back the original order by banning firearms only in “public parks and playgrounds” where children and their families gather.  The amended order eliminates sweeping bans on the public carry of firearms in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. The link to the September 15 Emergency Health Order is here:

Click to access NMAC-EO-2023-130-132-Amended.pdf

SECOND HEARING, SECOND INJUNCTION

On Tuesday, October 3, U.S. District Court Judge David Herrera Urias held a hearing on the Governors Amended Public Health Emergency Order.  Judge Herrera Urias  extended the  Temporary Restraining Order effectively blocking the Governors  ban on the carrying firearms at public parks, playgrounds and other areas provided for children to play in.

The Judge further said he will decide on October 11 whether the Governor’s  latest temporary public health order from the Governor administration can be enforced in Bernalillo County  after he reviews the  written briefs and arguments from both sides.

During the October 6 hearing on the amended public health order,  Plaintiff  groups representing gun owners again argued  the latest mandate is unconstitutional and vague and again asked the judge for a preliminary injunction to block it.  During the September 13 hearing the same plaintiffs succeeded in convincing Urias to block the  broader firearm restriction imposed by the Governor’s Emergency Health issued on Sept. 8.

CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS MADE

During Tuesday’s October 3 hearing, Governor Lujan Grisham’s Chief General Counsel Holly Agajanian,  who also represented the State,  argued that the Amended Emergency Health Order is narrow enough that it conforms with  constitutional restrictions allowed by recent United States Supreme Court case law.   The United States Supreme Court in 2022 found the government must justify its firearms regulations and restrictions by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical traditions. That rationale could permit states to prohibit the possession and carrying of firearms in “sensitive places,” like election polling places.  However, the Plaintiff gun advocates countered by saying that public parks, playgrounds and other areas provided for children to play don’t qualify.

Agajanian argued the aim of the amended order is to keep children safe from the increasing gun violence across the state’s biggest metropolitan area.  She contended  that children need places where they don’t have to be afraid of people carrying guns “where they don’t have to worry about whether the person with a gun is a bad guy.”  The amended order affecting playgrounds, parks and other areas expires Friday October 6, but Agajanian told the judge that there will be at least one extension of the order.

Agajanian told the Judge Herrera Urias the state of New Mexico has “partners in the fight against violence” who make political decisions at the expense of people’s lives.  At the same time, she said, young children are learning “active shooter drills” in schools. Agajanian added “what are children to think when someone shows up at their neighborhood park carrying an AR-15?”

Only 2 of the original 7  plaintiffs filed new motions against the governor’s updated order. During the October 3 hearing, those were the only attorneys the judge allowed to talk in court.  Both argued the governor’s newest order is still too broad. Dudley Brown, plaintiff and president of the National Association for Gun Rights said this: .

“The simple fact is, as you look at the PHO (Public Health Order), it cannot apply to the areas where the governor is suggesting where kids might play, how could that possibly ever be enforced?”

Plaintiff Attorney Cameron Atkinson, a Connecticut attorney representing We The Patriots USA, Inc., responded to  Agajanian by saying this:

“The amended public health order suffers from the same defect as the original public health order.  The Defendants have made absolutely no effort to justify it under any of the exceptions to the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to public carry that the United States Supreme Court recognized. …  Instead, the Defendants continue to restrict the Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights to carry firearms in the places where the Plaintiffs need firearms the most to protect themselves and their families.  … Governments are going to react when judges tell them that they screwed up, and that’s what Governor Grisham did. We think she still screwed up, and we’re still here to teach her that the constitution actually matters in the state of New Mexico.”

Plaintiff Attorney Atkinson cited the example of his client Albuquerque resident Dennis Smith, who regularly carries a loaded handgun in a holster on his body for self-defense,  when he goes to Los Poblanos Open Space. Smith carries the weapon to protect himself from wild coyotes, stray dogs, and potential human attackers, Atkinson contends, and doesn’t want to stop. But the $5,000 penalty for violating the public health order would exceed his financial means.

Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, said this:

“Do we have to look at crime statistics before you carry a firearm for self-defense with your kids in a public area? Or when your neighbor places a sign in the street that says, ‘Kids at play.’ Is that now a gun-free zone. … This was the most egregious ban ever proposed in modern America.”

At the conclusion of the  hearing, Judge Herrera Urias agreed with the Plaintiff’s and issued the TRO. Notwithstanding,  Herrera Urias lamented and said this:

“Nobody knows more about rising gun violence  than the judges sitting here in this courthouse [presiding over  prosecutions involving firearms.] … My hands are tied. I can’t go back and say it’s such a terrible situation that I will allow the governor to go forward.”

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/state-ban-on-guns-in-parks-playgrounds-halted/article_5955bcba-6232-11ee-9668-13ae956964b1.html

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/legal-battle-continues-over-governors-health-order-that-included-temporary-gun-restrictions/

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-governor-gun-ban/45433028

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/judge-extends-temporary-restraining-order-on-governors-amended-gun-ban/

ABQ CITY COUNCIL ENACTS 2 RESOLUTIONS

On October 3,  the Albuquerque City Council  enacted 2 resolutions in response to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s public health order which  prohibits  the carrying of  both concealed and open carry of firearms in Bernalillo County for 30 days.  Both City Council resolutions were sponsored by 4 of the 9 councilors: Conservative Republicans Renée Grout, Brook Bassan, Dan Lewis and Conservative democrat Louis Sanchez.

The first resolution passed on 7-2 vote and asks the governor to convene a special legislative session on crime. It also calls for a legislative focus on funding behavioral health programs, existing warrant enforcement programs and changing the pretrial detention process.

The second resolution asked city councilors to “reaffirm” their commitment to Second Amendment rights and urge the governor to abstain from limiting the rights of gun owners. It passed more narrowly, with the 4 bill cosponsors Conservative Republicans Renée Grout, Brook Bassan, Dan Lewis along with Conservative Republica Councilor Trudy Jones and conservative Democrat  voting in favor.

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR SPECIAL SESSION

The first resolution which  passed on 7-2 vote asking  the governor to convene  a special legislative session on crime was not particularly controversial.  Notwithstanding, city councilors drafted and debated changes to the language of the bill.  Progressive Demcrate Councilor Isaac Benton and Moderate Democrat Klarissa Peña criticized certain language used in the original resolution in regards to mental health and addiction, but after a handful of alterations, both ultimately voted in favor.

Although Moderate Democrat Councilor Peña voted in favor of the first resolution, she raised concerns about seeming to advocate for an increase in prison populations. In the resolution, a declining statewide prison population was cited, with a projected 3% decrease in 2024. In response, Peña said the majority of incarcerated people are jailed for minor infractions, or could be homeless or struggling with addiction. She added that people of color are disproportionately imprisoned for minor offenses. Peña said this:

“Are we saying that the prison population should be full?”

The two city councilors  who voted against the resolution calling for the Governor to call a special session were Progressive Democrats Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn.  Progressive Democrat  Council President Pat Davis  expressed reservations about directing the actions of another body of government. Progressive Democrat Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn said she would like to see a special session but called the bill “political posturing” for demanding the governor call one. Fiebelkorn said this of Lujan Grisham:

“She has said no. … Instead of antagonizing her … telling her how she should do her job, I think now is really the time to come together.”

NO CHANGE OF MIND

Caroline Sweeney, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham, said the governor has not changed her mind on the special session in light of the city council resolution. Sweeny said this in  a statement:

“The governor has been clear — she does not intend to call a special session. … She is working with legislative leadership to prepare for the upcoming legislative session … the governor welcomes input on legislative changes and policy investments from partners around the state.”

The link to quoted news source are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque-city-council-urges-governor-to-call-a-special-session/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-city-councilors-call-for-special-session-on-crime/#:~:text=ALBUQUERQUE%2C%20N.M.%20%E2%80%93%20The%20calls%20continue,that%20message%20loud%20and%20clear.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/city-council-passes-resolution-calling-for-special-legislative-session-on-crime-governors-office-says-no/article_6991b73c-6223-11ee-8d39-efac464c729d.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is difficult to understand let alone justify Governor Lujan Grisham’s stubbornness when it comes to both of her Emergency Health Orders banning  the carrying of firearms, concealed or openly, in public places.   Simply put, there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the United States Constitution. The orders were found to so broad as to be a clear violation of US Constitutional Rights and the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.  The truth is the Governor’s orders have accomplished absolutely nothing other than ginning up the Republicans and Second Amendment Rights advocates ire that in turn will contribute nothing to the discussion of real solutions to the state’s gun violence and high violent crime rates.

The Governor has indeed united Republicans, Democrats and Independents against her with her actions. The law and public sentiments are not on her side and she needs to accept that reality. Now that the court has ruled, Governor Lujan Grisham should immediately cancel and withdraw her Executive Order as well as the first Emergency Public Health Order and the Amended order. Such action will render moot all 6 lawsuits.

With respect to calling a special session, at this point in time, that should now be considered a real waste of time. The blunt truth, the regular session of the New Mexico legislature is now a mere 3 month away. Rather than issuing executive orders declaring a public health crisis that are clearly unconstitutional and defending them in court, the Governor’s efforts would be better spent on proposing meaningful legislation she wants in the upcoming 2024 legislative session which begins on January 16, 2024.  The session is the 30 day short session where the Governor will dictate what measures can be considered.

If Governor Lujan Grisham is indeed sincere about the State’s crime crisis and wants more immediate action, she should call for the enactment of an “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing Act.” The message that must be sent out loud and clear to violent criminals by our elected officials is that New Mexico has a zero tolerance of violent crimes committed with firearms and the only way to do that is with responsible gun control measures to reduce the availability of guns and to enhance criminal sentencings.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT MEASURES

The following crime and sentencing provisions should be included in the “Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing  Act”:

• Allow firearm offenses used in a drug crime to be charged separately with enhance sentences.
• Making possession of a handgun by someone who commits a crime of drug trafficking an aggravated third-degree felony mandating a 10-year minimum sentence.
• Increase the firearm enhancement penalties provided for the brandishing a firearm in the commission of a felony from 3 years to 10 years for a first offense and for a second or subsequent felony in which a firearm is brandished 12 years.
• Create a new category of enhanced sentencing for use of a lethal weapon or deadly weapon other than a firearm where there is blandishment of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony with enhanced sentences of 5 years for a first offense and for second or subsequent felony in which a lethal weapon other than a firearm is brandished 8 years
• Increase the penalty of shooting randomly into a crowded area a second-degree felony mandating a 9-year sentence.
• Increase the penalty and mandatory sentencing for the conviction of the use of a fire arm during a road rage incident to a first degree felony mandating a life sentence.
• Change bail bond to statutorily empower judges with far more discretionary authority to hold and jail those pending trial who have prior violent crime reported incidents without shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

GUN CONTROL MEASURES

Gun control measures that should be included the “Omnibus Gun Control And  Violent Crime Sentencing  Act” would include legislation that failed in the 2023 legislative session and other measures and would include the following:

• Call for the repeal the New Mexico Constitutional provision that allows the “open carry” of firearms. This would require a public vote and no doubt generate heated discussion given New Mexico’s high percentage of gun ownership for hunting, sport or hobby, but what is the real rational for allowing side arms and rifles to be carried down the street other than to intimidate others.
• Restrict the sale, manufacture and possession of AR-15-style rifles along with semiautomatic firearms and make it a fourth-degree felony to purchase, possess, manufacture, import, sell or transfer assault weapons in the state.
• Prohibited magazines with more than 10 rounds.
• Prohibited the possession of semiautomatic firearm converter that allows the weapon to fire more rapidly.
• Established a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm and requires a prospective seller who doesn’t already hold a valid federal firearms license to arrange for someone who does to conduct a federal background check prior to selling a firearm.
• Established a minimum age of 21 for anyone seeking to purchase or possess an automatic firearm, semiautomatic firearm or firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.
• Ban the manufacture, sale, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of semiautomatic pistols that have two or more defined characteristics.
• Revised the state’s Unfair Practices Act to target the sale of illegal firearms and parts, allowing the filing of lawsuits to enforce the act.
• Prohibit in New Mexico the sale of “ghost guns” parts. Ghost guns are guns that are manufactured and sold in parts without any serial numbers to be assembled by the purchaser and that can be sold to anyone.
• Require in New Mexico the mandatory purchase of “liability insurance” with each gun sold as is required for all operable vehicles bought and driven in New Mexico.
• Mandate the school systems and higher education institutions “harden” their facilities with more security doors, security windows, and security measures and alarm systems and security cameras tied directly to law enforcement 911 emergency operations centers.
• Require a permit to purchase all rifles and handguns.  There are 15 other states require a permit to purchase or licensing.  The best predictor of future performance is past performance. Firearm licensing has past performance.  A John Hopkins University study in a comparative analysis, describes licensing as the most effective firearm policy. Connecticut notes a 28% decrease in homicides, 33% decrease in suicides 10 years post licensing. When you compare states with and without licensing, there is a 56% decrease in mass shootings. Studies reveal a decrease of gun trafficking of more than 60% after licensing.  Missouri found similar increases in homicides and suicides when removing their purchase restrictions.  Licensing is constitutional it has broad public support.  Licensing brings in revenue to the state vs simply cost the state money.

The Omnibus Gun Control And Violent Crime Sentencing  Act Omnibus Gun Violence And Sentencing  Act  must include funding for the criminal justice system. This would include funding District Attorney’s Offices, the Public Defender’s Office, the Courts and the Corrections Department and law enforcement departments across New Mexico.

FINAL COMMENTARY

Until the Governor and the New Mexico legislature get serious about New Mexico’s gun violence crisis and enacts reasonable gun control measures in conjunction with crime and punishment measures, we can expect our violent crime rates to continue to increase, and God forbid, yet another killing of a child which is what prompted the Governor to issue her executive orders in the first place.

On Friday, September 29, Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference to announce that the City of Albuquerque intends to lease 7 acres of the 365 acres of land at Balloon Fiesta Park Balloon Fiesta Park to the New Mexico United Soccer Team for a multi-purpose soccer stadium. According the city, the stadium would be located in a lot that is not on the field of the park but is a lot just east of the field.  United New Mexico currently subleases city-owned Isotopes Park from its primary tenant, the Triple-A baseball Albuquerque Isotopes.  The USLC  (United Soccer League) has mandated that its clubs must be based in soccer specific stadiums by 2026.

The lease will require the soccer team to invest at least $30 million into the site to build the stadium. No city funding will be used for the construction of the stadium.  However, Keller said the city will spend at least $10 million of existing city, state and federal funding for infrastructure upgrades on the site including ground, electric, and sewer work and other foundational work for the stadium, as well as improvements for the park as a whole.

The city says no parking spots will be lost, but they just might be moved. This year, the city added a 250-spot parking area, and plans to add more parking facilities in the future to address concerns expressed by Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta management.  Keller said this:

“We’re opening a new 250 car lot this year, that we practiced last year. So that is going to be open. So, we can replace that parking in other areas.”

Balloon Fiesta currently leases the park from the Tuesday after Labor Day to the end of October. This year’s Fiesta runs Oct. 7-15.

TERMS AND CONDTIONS OF LEASE

Mayor Keller announced that the lease will be introduced on Monday, October 2, and must be approved by the Albuquerque City Council on October 16. Its a take it or leave it approval without negotiation of terms the City Council may want.  If the lease is approved by the City Council, construction for the new stadium will begin within 90 days.

The lease term will be for an initial period of 30 years with the option to renew and extensions for two 15-year terms which means the lease could be for a full 60 years.

The lease agreement contains the following terms and conditions:

• Seven acres of land, which is currently for parking at the park, will be leased by United New Mexico for $35,000 a year with a 2% rent increase each year.
• United will pay the city 10% of revenue from parking fees it charges.
• United New Mexico must initially invest at least $30 million of private funds to design and build the stadium.
• The city is obligated under the lease to build certain features that remain open to the public during Balloon Fiesta, including shade areas and public restrooms.
• United will not be allowed to host games during the annual Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta
• The planned stadium  will not interfere with ballooning in the area.
• The city will be able to use the stadium 10 days a year for free.
• At the end of the lease, New Mexico United is obligated to sell the stadium for $1 to the city of Albuquerque, unless the lease is extended by mutual agreement.

Keller said he pushed for high school soccer tournaments to be held at the stadium.

A spokesperson for New Mexico United said details about the design, size or cost are yet to be determined. The city will not be involved with the stadium design.

Mayor Keller issued the following statement:

“Albuquerque families deserve world-class amenities, and we won’t give up on projects like a stadium that fulfill these quality-of-life needs. Leasing underutilized land at Balloon Fiesta Park not only helps United grow, but also enriches one of our most frequented areas and provides new economic opportunities – a significant win for our city and a potential game-changer for our community.”

Keller said this at the press conference:

“We’re using state money, federal money, and existing money that we had to do the utilities, the earthwork, the electrical work that it takes to put in the stadium. … We mostly had to do that anyway because we want to do those improvements at the Balloon Fiesta that have to do with Vendors Row. … Now it’s real. And, now, it’s also mostly out of my hands. …

This is going to be a private stadium, and so what we have allowed for in the lease agreement is roughly ten days where the city can use it for city events. … We have also built into this lease agreement, by request, that it be used and available for soccer championships.  … [The lease] also means bathrooms. …We might actually have permanent bathrooms at Balloon Fiesta Park.”

Peter Trevisani, the owner of New Mexico United, did not attend the Keller press conference.  Instead, he was interviewed at the teams locker room  practiced field and he issued the following statement about the stadium plans:

“It should come as no surprise that we’ve been working relentlessly for several years to find a location and a plan that would not only be a catalyst for our community but also ensure the longevity of New Mexico United. This plan does that. We’re excited to privately build a stadium that creates jobs and economic impact, improves Balloon Fiesta Park, and shows that New Mexicans can do whatever they set their minds to.”

On October 2, in an interview with the Albuquerque Journal, Trevisani said United has not finalized plans for a potential Balloon Fiesta Park stadium, including its initial size and even whether the playing surface would be grass or artificial turf.  Still, Trevisani said he is confident the project will receive City Council approval. Trevisani said this:

“I think the City Council has been great along the way. … I’m not a politician, but I truly believe they want to make Albuquerque the best version of itself possible. This is not a red-blue issue — it’s not even a red-green issue. This is about building a stadium with private funding that makes the city better. I think it’s a win-win.”

On other issues relating to the stadium, Trevisani said this:

HIGH SCHOOL SOCCER GAMES AT THE STADIUM:

“We want to have high school games. There are things in (the lease agreement) that call for that, things that benefit United and things that benefit the city and Balloon Fiesta Park, including us not playing games during Balloon Fiesta and hosting high school games at the stadium.”

HOW A STADIUM WOULD FIT INTO THE BALLOON FIESTA PARK AREA:

“Working with Balloon Fiesta has been amazing. We’ve found that working together can be collaborative. They’re lacking things like bathrooms and water hookups, which this will address. … We want the stadium to help the area develop in a way that’s respectful to the neighbors and businesses who are there now.”

NATURAL GRASS VERSUS ARTIFICIAL TURF:

“My heart says grass, my wallet says turf. Everyone likes playing on grass, but there’s a balance to consider because we want to have women’s games and high school games and you can’t play on grass every day. There’s also the expense of watering to consider. We’ll probably make that decision as late in the process as possible.”

BRINGING A WOMEN’S PROFESSIONAL SOCCER TEAM TO ALBUQUERQUE:

“We have to bring forward a women’s team. Exactly what level that will be initially, we’ll see. But I know in my heart of hearts we will have a women’s team with New Mexico on its jerseys. We can’t have that now because of space and scheduling at Isotopes Park. A new stadium makes it possible.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/now-its-real-lease-agreement-puts-united-soccer-stadium-at-balloon-fiesta-park-a-step/article_483d36e2-5f17-11ee-8af8-6bf74e6e6b79.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

REACTION TO LEASE AGREEMENT

Initially, Balloon Fiesta leadership had concerns about the stadium being built at the park.   Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta Media Relations Team issued the following statement:

The Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta’s Board of Directors met with representatives of the City of Albuquerque and New Mexico United last month to learn more about the impact of a potential United stadium on Balloon Fiesta’s operations. Three key areas of concern were raised during that meeting: parking, access to Balloon Fiesta Park and infrastructure improvements. We continue to receive these assurances and look forward to continuing the conversation to achieve these goals.

City Council President Pat Davis was interviewed at a remote location by video conference call and  said for his part if United can uphold the terms of the lease, he sees no problem with the stadium. Davis said this:

“This becomes 100% on the shoulders of the team at this point to put up and build their stadium. If they do it, it’s a big attraction for the city. … But if there becomes a time when they’re not able to meet their obligations, and they’re not going to construct their building, you know, we should have the right to give it to somebody else.”

In a subsequent interview reported on October 3 by pollical blogger Joe Monahan, Davis said this:

This is a very straightforward lease deal, much like the others we’ve done. For example, Amazon leasing land to build a hanger at the airport. The Legislature allocated money for infrastructure support. I required the lease contract to include a “do or die” clause that requires United to break ground and meet deadlines or they would forfeit the lease. I like this lease because it places 100% responsibility on the team to build the stadium, and reverts the land back to us if they don’t. Other than that, it’s a pretty standard lease.

Links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-to-lease-balloon-fiesta-park-for-new-mexico-united-stadium/

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-united-new-stadium-location-albuquerque/45378348

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-to-lease-land-at-balloon-fiesta-park-for-new-mexico-united-stadium/

KELLER IS STADIUM PROMOTER IN CHIEF

For the last 4 years Mayor Tim Keller has been what only can be described as the “promoter in chief” for the building of a Soccer Stadium for United New Mexico with government financing and assets.

During the 2020 and 2021 legislative sessions, Keller was involved with lobbying the New Mexico legislature to earmarked $9 million for a stadium including $4 million from Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham during the 2021 legislative session. The cost of a $400,000 analysis was paid for by state money allocated in the 2020 session.

In 2021, Mayor Tim Keller was running for his second term. Seeing an opportunity to help with his reelection efforts and increase voter turnout, Keller pushed for a city bond initiative for voter approval to build a multiuse soccer stadium estimated to cost $65 million to $70 million for the issuance of up to $50 million in bonds to build the multiuse soccer stadium.  Keller made it clear that the stadium would not be built by the city without voter approval.

On July 24, 2021 Keller took part in pregame tailgate parties for a New Mexico United Soccer Team. Keller took to the field of Isotopes Park during halftime and in a campaign style speech to the crowd, Keller stood with New Mexico United owner Peter Trevisani to deliver the news of the results of the feasibility analysis for the stadium.  Keller announce to the crowd of 10,000 he was sending a resolution to City Council to place the proposal on the November 2 ballot.

The City Council did just that, but the bond measure failed miserably in November 2021 on a two to one vote with 65% voting NO while virtually all of the other bond requests passed by healthy majorities. The stadium bonds failed, despite a $1 million dollar ad campaign financed by New Mexico United soccer team that was to be the primary tenant of the facility.   Election night, Keller was reelected, expressed disappointment in the stadium vote and said his administration would respect the voters’ decision not to fund the stadium.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2442913/voters-to-decide-on-soccer-stadium.html

https://www.krqe.com/sports/local-sports/city-announces-lease-agreement-on-potential-stadium-with-new-mexico-united/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Mayor Tim Keller’s September 29 press conference to announce that he wants the City Council to approve the lease of 7 acres of Balloon Fiesta Park (BFP) to build a soccer stadium came as a surprise, ostensibly including one party to the lease.  It came as a surprise to United New Mexico, the Albuquerque City Council and the Balloon Fiesta Board of Directors for the reason that Keller made the announcement all by his lonesome self, even clean shaven and wearing a suit and tie for a change.  City Councilor Pat Davis was interviewed by video conference call, soccer team owner Peter Trevisani was tracked down by one station for an interview and the Balloon Fiesta public relations was relegated to issuing a statement.  Keller also made it a point to say “it’s mostly out of my hands” to peremptorily lay any and all blame on the city counsel when United soccer fans become enraged if the lease is not approved all the while Keller takes credit for some of the terms.

There are several concerns about the lease:

First: The lease agreement was introduced to city council on October 2 and it is scheduled for a  council hearing on October 16. The lease is being presented to the city council as a take it or leave it proposition without allowing a negotiation of terms the council may want.    A weekend, 3-day notice and 13 days asking for final approval of the lease does not come even close to sufficient notice to the Council for genuine debate and asking for additions or amendments to the lease. The city being able to use the stadium 10 days a year for free does not seem like a whole lot.  There is no mention of the stadium being used as an entertainment venue for concerts or allowing it be “sub leased” requiring city approval to other tenants to generate income with the city sharing in the income from other events. There is no mention as to who will foot the bill on maintenance and upkeep of the grounds.

Second:  The 3-day weekend notice allowed no time to give notice to area residents to secure their input and there is no mention if they will be told of the pending approval. Absent is any information on what traffic control and  noise studies have been done on a soccer stadium  in the area and what traffic control and road improvements will be needed and who will pay for them.

Third: Although Mayor Keller claims the City will not fund the stadium’s construction, the City website states that “the State has provided capital to the City of Albuquerque for infrastructure improvements that will provide needed upgrades at Balloon Fiesta Park.”  The stadium is not an upgrade to the park and the question is can the funding be diverted to an unrelated construction project or facility?

Fourth: Voter’s have already voted NO by a landslide that tax payer money should not be used for the construction of the stadium and all construction cost overruns. The lease should contain specific provisions that the Soccer Team will assume any and all costs for future improvements or remodeling to the facility without any city funding.

Fifth:  The regular 2023 municipal election to elect City Councilors for City Council Districts 2, 4, 6, and 8 will be held on November 7, 2023 along with $200 Million in bonds to be approved by city voters. Incumbent Progressive Democrat City Councilors Isaac Benton and Pat Davis and Conservative Republican Trudy Jones, big supporters of the Mayor’s legacy projects, are not running for another term. The November 7 municipal election could shift city council majority control from the current 5 Democrats to Republican control or perhaps a far more conservative shift to challenge Mayor Keller’s progressive agenda. The construction of a stadium has been an issue in the city council races, and Keller’s rush job to get a vote on the lease by 3 lame duck incumbents smacks of politics at its worse and signals Keller likely believes he may not have the 5 votes with the new council or at least does not want to risk it.

Sixth: Then there is the matter of location and it must be asked why was Balloon Fiesta Park chosen in the first place?  Sports stadiums are often buildt to serve as economic drivers for the area around them. Restaurants, bars and light retail usually result being built in the surrounding areas. That will not happen at Balloon Fiesta Park. There are other large tracts of land the city owns that could have been offered more centrally located for the stadium. One example is the Sun Port airport land  that is  the abandoned  South airport runway located south of Puerto Del Sol Golf Course on Gibson.

FINAL COMMENTARY

At first blush, the proposed lease is a classic public/private partnership that is often used and that can be a big  win-win proposition and go along ways to build a facility the city actually needs that will enhance the city’s quality of life. The best example that already exists of such a facility is the Isotopes Park, a city owned facility rented to a professional sports team.

The problem is that we have a mayor who always feels he has to be the absolute center of attention. Keller has a very bad habit of jumping the gun on projects he considers are his legacy projects that will benefit him politically. He refuses to confer with stakeholders to build a consensus to get things done, especially with the city council.

Good examples of this are Keller’s Gateway 24-7 homeless shelter where he pushed the acquisition of the old Lovelace Hospital, his 7-mile, $80 million rail trail that he announced all  by himself at an event with great fan fare making it a public relations event, his ABQ Housing Forward Plan, and his pushing to get the Soccer Stadium on the ballot in 2021 to help his re-election bid. Now he wants to push a vote on a 30 to 60 year lease by a lame duck city council. He takes it a step further by cautioning that  it is now out of his hands  implying people can place blame on the city council if they do not approve it.

The lame duck council should defer the final vote on the lease until the new council is sworn in. This will allow time for public input and perhaps needed changes to the lease. It is the new council that will have to deal with any problems associated with the lease, so let them vote on it.