On February 22, the New Mexico House of Representatives passed House Bill  HB 4 the Voting Rights Act, by the  very comfortable margin of 41-26.  The bill  will now go on to the Senate for consideration. If passed by the Senate, the new bill would do the following:

1.  Phasing in a system of automatic voter registration, such as during MVD  transactions, for citizens who are qualified to vote but aren’t registered.  Supporters say it would include an opt-out for those who don’t want to register, similar to what’s used in Colorado.

2. Creation of a permanent absentee voter list. Voters would have the option of opting in to receive ballots by mail before every election rather than  having to apply each time.

3.  Automatic restoration of voting rights for inmates exiting prison. Under the current system, they must complete probation or parole before registering to vote again. There are 21 states that automatically restore voting rights after incarceration. Another 16, including  New Mexico, require someone convicted of a felony to complete their entire sentence, including probation and parole, before registering to vote.

 4.  Establishing a Native American Voting Rights Act intended to better coordinate access to the polls on tribal land and allow the use of tribal buildings as a voter-registration address for people without a traditional  address.

 5. Calling for election day to be a state holiday.

House Majority Floor Leader Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque  is a bill co-sponsor and a licensed New Mexico Attorney. She had this to say about HB 4  during debate:

“There are threats to our sacred right to vote in this country. In this country, the franchise is a birthright or it’s the right of naturalized citizens of this country. It’s not a privilege. It is our civil right. It’s our most sacred civil right. … HB 4—co-sponsored with a number of individuals— includes important provisions for our communities and our state. We have here the opportunity to put into statute the Native American Voting Rights Act. There are critical improvements to streamline and make more secure our automatic voter registration system. The secure automatic voter registration system makes certain that election administrators have the most current address for voters so our voter rolls are kept up to date.” 

The state House debated for over 3 hours with the final voted concluded at  11:20 p.m. The bill passed mostly along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.  House passage of  HB 4 results in it being forwarded to the Senate where intense Republican opposition is expected.

AMENDMENTS AND CONTESTED PROVSIONS

Most of the debate on the House floor  and opposition to HB 4 Bill came from Republicans who strenuously opposed  voter rights expansions and oppose efforts to make voting more convenient.  It was Alamogordo Republican John Block who offered the first of many amendments from Republicans, all of which failed.  Block’s first amendment sought to require identification at polling places, which was tabled on a 42-22 vote.

ABSENTEE VOTER LIST CHALLENGED

Republican Representative Block questioned  the provision of the bill calling for the creation of a permanent absentee voter list where voters would have the option of opting in to receive ballots by mail before every election rather than  having to apply each time.  Block asked how the county clerk’s office would know and update its records if a voter moved out of state or died.

Majority Floor Leader Gail Chasey said that, having had to update the absentee ballot information for a relative who had recently died, that a survivor would have to take a death notice to the county clerk’s office.  In the case of a voter moving and therefore changing their residence, the voter would update the address with the USPS which would notify the county clerk’s office when any mail sent to the old address was returned to the county clerk’s office.

Bernalillo County Republican State Representative Alan Martinez, R-Bernalillo sponsored an amendment that would remove the voluntary permanent absentee voter list. Representative Chasey called the amendment unfriendly and noted that 9 states have absentee voting for almost every election, including Oregon, which began the program in 1995.  The House tabled Martinez’s amendment on a 42-24 vote killing the amendment.

DROP BOXES CHALLENGED

Rep. John Block, R-Alamogordo, repeated on the House floor many of the  same questions  he had  previously asked in a committee hearing for the bill. Attacks on the use of election “drop boxes” for ballots in particular have proven to be a very popular area of objection and accusations of fraud by Republicans after Der Führer former Der  President Donald Trump made it so in his 2020 election denying his loss.

Block asked about rural drop box usage in Otero County, a sprawling, rural county that Block represents.  Otero County has 2  secured ballot boxes: one at the Otero County Clerk’s Office in Alamogordo and another at the Tularosa Public Safety Facility.  Block asked a question about post offices in rural communities and how absentee ballots can also be submitted via the U.S. Postal Service rather than in a secured ballot drop box. Block wanted to know if the county clerk would need to request more secure drop boxes.

House Majority Floor Leader Gail Chasey responded to Blocks questions on drop boxes by saying:

“This is a floor, not a ceiling, and the Secretary of State’s office pays for it. So it’s up to the county clerk to add additional boxes according to the geographic nature.”

SECURED BALLOT BOXES CHALLENGED

Roswell Republican Greg Nibert sought to amend the bill to change the verbiage about secured ballot boxes to make it an option to have them rather than a requirement.  Floor Leader Gail Chasey Chasey called the amendment unfriendly and the chamber tabled the amendment on a 43-23 vote killing the amendment.

FELONS BEING ALLOWED TO VOTE CHALLENGED

Since 2001, convicted  felons who have served their time and sentence have been allowed to vote. HB 4 seeks to expand the right to vote by  allowing  felons to vote upon their release from incarceration in a prison, not wait until their full sentence of probation is completed.

HB 4 states:

“During the reentry phase of an inmate’s sentence, if the inmate is a voter or otherwise a qualified elector, the inmate shall be given an opportunity to register to vote or update an existing registration… prior to the inmate’s release from custody. …  The secretary of state shall maintain current information in the statewide voter registration electronic management system on the ineligibility status of an inmate to vote or register to vote pursuant to this section, as well as an inmate’s eligibility status to vote upon release and to register to vote or update an existing voter registration while preparing for release.”

Republican State Representative Andrea Reeb, R-Clovis, a former District Attorney objected to  felons having their right to vote restored upon release from a detention facility.  HB 4 only states that a felon’s right to vote is restored upon release from custody.

Reeb said this on this issue during the House Judiciary Committee on HB 4:

“I would just point out… with the person serving house arrest or on an ankle monitor, there’s quite a bit of case law out there that says that if you are serving a sentence, it is considered presentence confinement. …  So you really haven’t completed all your requirements and while you’re on probation or parole, you do have pretty strict conditions of, you know, reporting and no drugs and all those different things.”

In response to Reeb, House Majority Floor Leader Gail Chasey, who is also an attorney, said probation periods can last up to 5 years in some cases and parole periods can last up to 2 years. Chasey said an estimated 17,000 people would become qualified to vote should the bill succeed.

AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION CHALLENGED

The most intensely contested part of the bill is a provision phasing in automatic voter registration during some transactions at Motor Vehicle Division offices. An example would be when a person presents documents proving citizenship while applying for a driver’s license.   The newly registered voters would be told they’ve been added to the voter rolls and that they’ll get a postcard in the mail allowing them to decline the registration.

Republican Sen. Gregg Schmedes, R-Tijeras, an opponent of the bill said its inappropriate to register someone to vote, even if it’s briefly, over their objection. He said  said the will of the people, not the government, should drive voter turnout and not registration and he said this:

“It’s manipulative to do it without their consent.”

Aztec areas Republican House Minority Floor Leader T. Ryan Lane sponsored  an amendment that would allow people to opt in to register to vote rather than opting out as the bill currently states. As written, bill states”

“A qualified elector may become registered to vote by automatic voter registration at the motor vehicle division of the taxation and revenue department or other state or local public offices designated by the secretary of state.”

Arguing against the amendment Democrat Representative Christine Chandler of Los Alamos said options are provided such as unregistering by contacting their county clerk’s office, going online to unregister or by answering the postcard that says they do not wish to be registered to vote. Once again, Democrat Floor leader Chasey considered the amendment unfriendly and the amendment was tabled on a 41-25 vote thereby killing it.

ADOPTED AMENDMENT  REMOVING TRIBAL ABSENTEE BALLOT ASSISTANTS

Gallup Democrat Representative D. Wonda Johnson, a co-sponsor of HB 4  offered an amendment that removes the tribal absentee ballot assistants ostensibly after it was determined to be unnecessary.  Under the bill, a tribal absentee ballot assistant is defined in the bill as a “person designated as a tribal vote coordinator or community health representative by an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo or by the federal Indian health service.” The House voted to adopt the amendment.

Representative Johnson, who is a Diné native American, said this about the original intent of the provision:

“The goal here was to ensure that our tribes and elders have the same access to their vote and ballot box as those living off reservation and with the many differing needs in tribal communities, it is going to take a little more time to make sure we find the solution that works for tribal nations.”

REACTION TO HOUSE PASSAGE

House Majority Leader Gail Chasey, an Albuquerque Democrat who presented the bill, described the legislation as “a major step forward for protecting the right to vote for our citizens in New Mexico.”

Senator Katy Duhigg, an Albuquerque Democrat and a former Albuquerque City Clerk is a co-sponsor of Bill 4.  Duhigg had this to say about the House passage of the bill:

“[Democrats]remain dedicated to getting the New Mexico Voting Rights Act passed and signed into law. … Democracy thrives when we eliminate the unnecessary and cumbersome barriers to being involved in the process and the New Mexico Voting Rights Act reaffirms our state’s commitment to safeguarding the sacred right to vote.”

Representative  Susan Herrera, D-Embudo, had this to say:

“Letting every voice be heard, that’s what we want.”

 LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP REACT

New Mexico  House Speaker Javier Martínez made it clear at the beginning of the 2023 Legislative session that  the protection of voting rights would  be a priority. Martínez said this:

“As other states are rolling back voting rights and restricting access to the ballot box, New Mexico will continue to work hard to ensure that we remove unnecessary barriers so that all eligible voters can make their voices heard. … Our government works better when all people, no matter their walk of life, have a voice in who represents them.  [The  bill provisions are] critical to safeguarding our democracy.”

Democrat House Majority Leader Gail Chasey  called the legislation  a “game-changing piece of legislation.” Chasey and said this at the beginning of the session:

“At its core, it modernizes our elections and empowers our voters, making it easier for thousands of New Mexicans to register and to vote. … There’s simply too much at stake for our state and for our country — from reproductive rights to climate change to social justice to our economy — to allow only a portion of our citizens to have a vote.”

Republicans for their part argued they were right to block last year’s voting bill.  However, they expressed willingness this year to pursue a bipartisan compromise on election security during this year’s legislative session.  Republican Senate Minority Leader Greg Baca said this:

“Election security and integrity are more important than ever, and we will continue to engage in good faith efforts to make needed changes to our Election Code. …  Last year, we followed the lead of our County Clerks and unanimously passed a bipartisan election bill out of the Senate that strengthened voter rights and improved election security. … Unfortunately, that consensus bill was hijacked and derailed in the House by the majority party.”

Democrat Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver who strenuously promoted last year’s legislation only to see it go down to defeat called this year’s proposal “a strong step forward for New Mexico.”  Toulouse Oliver said this:

“This legislation, I think, is even better because it has really been spearheaded and brought to life by the advocacy community [that wants] to continue to sort of pick up the ball and continue to move it forward on advancing voting rights here in New Mexico.”

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

Link to NM Politcal Report article “Voting rights expansion passes House” written by  Nicole Maxwell dated February 22, 2023.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2575648/debate-on-new-mexico-voting-bill-moves-to-the-senate.html

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/voting-rights-protections-act-moves-forward-in-new-mexico-legislature/

resurrect-voting-rights-bill-with-backing-of-democrats/article_684c1094-9bf8-11ed-9083-33e6e9ca61ab.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2567409/democrats-launch-new-campaign-for-nm-voting-rights-bill.html

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/lawmakers-advocate-for-proposed-bill-to-expand-voting-rights-in-nm/ 

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Last year during the 2022 legislative session, a short 30  day session, the Voting Rights Bill failed in the Senate after passage in the House despite endorsement from Governor Michell  Lujan Grisham, Secretary of State  Maggie Talouse Oliver and Democratic leadership. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver had made passage of last year’s bill a huge priority because of election deniers only to see it go down in defeat as Republicans out maneuvered them.

Democrats and the voting public need to remember that it was  Republican Senator William Sharer, R-Farmington, who effectively killed the measure last year with a filibuster on the Senate floor. In order to run out the clock on the legislative session, Sharer talked about San Juan River fly-fishing, baseball rules, Navajo Code Talkers and the celestial alignment of the sun and moon during his lengthy filler buster on the Senate floor. Sharer’s antics are a prime example of the lengths Republicans will go to in order to interfere with a person’s right to vote and make it as difficult as possible  to vote and to disenfranchise people.

Democrats in the 2023 legislative session hold a 45-25 majority in the House and a 27-15 edge in the Senate and this year’s session is a 60 day session so there is ample time to get it enacted.  Contributing to the likely passage is that the most controversial provisions have now been removed including the removal of allowing 16-year-olds to vote in school and city elections. With a little more than 3 weeks left of the 2023 legislative session, Senate Democrats need to move as quickly as possible to get a final vote on Voting Rights Act passed by the House in order to avoid another embarrassing Republican filibuster.

On February 22, the on-line news publication “New Mexico Political Reports” published the following news article written by its staff reporter Susan Dunlap

HEADLINE: Bill to protect reproductive, gender-affirming healthcare passes House

“A bill that would prohibit discrimination in reproductive healthcare and gender-affirming healthcare passed the House by a 38 to 31 vote on Tuesday evening.

HB 7, Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Healthcare, will, if enacted, prohibit municipalities and counties from passing ordinances that directly or indirectly discriminate against either reproductive and gender-affirming care. The bill is sponsored by state Rep. Linda Serrato, D-Santa Fe.

The bill seeks to enable the attorney general or district attorneys to sue an entity responsible for a violation. The court could apply remedies, including monetary damages. The court can also apply a $5,000 civil penalty or actual damages against the entity responsible for the discrimination.

The cities of Clovis and Hobbs and Lea and Roosevelt counties have passed anti-abortion ordinances that impact abortion clinics’ ability to apply for licenses in those political subdivisions and also place restrictions on medication abortion.

Serrato said in her opening remarks that “our state remains a place where we can make complex decisions with doctors.” 

State Rep. Kristina Ortez, D-Taos, a bill cosponsor, said 80 percent of transgender individuals consider suicide because of the stigma and shame.

Majority Whip Reena Szczepanski, D-Santa Fe, also a bill cosponsor, said the bill will, if enacted, “prevent any criminalization of providers at the local level.” 

“I can’t imagine a more chilling effect,” she said. 

Republicans tried to amend the bill on the House floor multiple times. Minority Floor Leader T. Ryan Lane, R-Aztec, introduced two amendments. The first amendment would have limited HB 7 to only apply to an emancipated minor or individuals 18 years or older. Lane expressed concern about children disclosing a desire for pharmaceutical gender-affirming care or a 10 year-old girl needing an abortion and confiding in a teacher rather than a parent. That amendment failed 44 to 23.

Serrato said it was an unfriendly amendment and that teachers are already expected to report a crime or talk to the child’s parents. She added that it is “important to acknowledge children are people as well.”

Lane’s second attempted amendment would have inserted conscientious objection for abortion care for teachers. That amendment failed 43 to 24. Serrato said it was an unfriendly amendment and that it would prevent individuals from getting the healthcare they need.

State Rep. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, tried to amend the bill to require parental consent if a child under the age of 18 seeks an abortion or gender-affirming care. Serrato said that was also an unfriendly amendment because research shows that “efforts to enforce parental notification often has the opposite effect” and said that being able to access care can reduce drug usage and be “life saving.”

“This bill primarily deals with discrimination, so this would be logrolling,” Serrato said. Logrolling refers to when a bill attempts to address multiple topics within one piece of legislation.

That amendment failed 44 to 25.

State Rep. Cathrynn Brown, R-Carlsbad, tried to amend the bill to include language that would require standards of care for abortion to be applied to “surgical clinics, maintain the same level of medical malpractice insurance as clinics that provide obstetrics and gynecology, that abortion facilities would have to employ emergency care staff and equipment on site or admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and that an abortion clinic will provide 24-hour medical care.”

Serrato called that amendment unfriendly and said that abortion clinics are highly regulated, like all standards of care.

That amendment failed 44 to 23.

State Rep. Randall Pettigrew, R-Clovis, asked if firefighters would be vulnerable under this bill. Serrato emphasized that under this bill, no one’s scope of work would change.

State Rep. Nathan Lane, D-Las Cruces, asked if the bill is enacted, “do you think it will save a New Mexico kid’s life?”

Serrato said “100 percent.” Serrato said gender-affirming care can include things such as using the correct pronouns and a person’s correct name.

“It will save lives in our state,” she said about the bill

State Rep. Charlotte Little, D-Albuquerque, asked Serrato to explain hormone therapy as healthcare. Little is also a co-sponsor on the bill.

Serrato said individuals use hormone therapy “for everything,” and then named off examples such as some forms of birth control and menopausal medicines.

State Rep. Janelle Anyanonu, D-Albuquerque, who is also a cosponsor on the bill, asked about how a lack of access to reproductive healthcare can harm women of color in particular.

“I’ve seen from national statistics, women of color are disproportionately affected medically, women of color have much higher rates of maternal mortality and…Black women are four times more likely to die in childbirth,” she said.

Serrato said women who are low income are also disproportionately affected.

The House Judiciary Committee amended the bill last week to clean up some language to ensure that agents are acting on behalf of a public body, that any moral concerns a provider might have are not violated and that they have all the protections already in existing statute to prevent providers from having to provide care they object to performing. The committee also amended the bill to clarify that if a civil suit arises, it could only do so against the public body, not against an individual.

The bill now heads to the state Senate.”

The link to the New Mexico Politcal Report where the article appears is here:

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/

In a related news article published by the  Albuquerque Journal article entitled “House endorses proposal intended to strengthen abortion rights in New Mexico” written by Journal staff reporter Dan Boyd, it was reported as follows:

“Protecting abortion rights was a centerpiece of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s reelection campaign last year. She announced Tuesday that she is one of 20 governors establishing a multi-state network intended to strengthen abortion access.

“This historic alliance will continue to work to guarantee reproductive freedom in each of our states and to restore that right to every woman in America,” Lujan Grisham said in a written statement.

In addition to the House bill acted on Tuesday, lawmakers are also considering legislation, Senate Bill 13, that would put into law an executive order issued last year by Lujan Grisham. It would prohibit state agencies from sharing the reproductive health care information of patients or providers for an out-of-state investigation.

U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., expressed support for the House bill during a Tuesday speech to lawmakers, and she said during a subsequent interview the proposal comes at an important time.

“We’ve had the undermining and eroding of our basic rights at the federal level,” Stansbury said, referring in part to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.

The link to the full Journal article is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2575273/house-endorses-proposal-intended-to-strengthen-abortion-rights-in-new-mexico.html

A link to a related news article is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-house-abortion-protection/43032878

BACKGROUND REQUIRING NEED FOR LEGISLATION

It was on February 26, 2021, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill repealing the 1969 abortion ban. The 1969 law criminalized abortion to end a woman’s pregnancy except in certain circumstances, such as rape and incest. The 1969 state statute had not been enforced in the state due to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade in the 1970s, which legalized abortion nationwide. The repeal of the 1969 law was necessitated by the fact the repeated attempts had been made over the years to have the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of Roe v Wade.

On June 22, 2021 the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization wherein the Supreme Court  overruled and reversed the cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and 50 years of constitutional law precedence ruling  that a woman does  not have constitutionally protected right to an abortion.  The US Supreme Court ruled the authority to regulate abortion was  returned to the individual states and their elected representatives.

As a direct result of the Supreme Court’s Dobb’s decision, abortion and woman’s reproductive rights became a defining issue in New Mexico’s 2022 Gubernatorial race between incumbent Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Republican Mark Ronchetti.  Republican Mark Ronchetti made abortion and imposing limits on a woman’s right to choose a center piece of his campaign and suggested a “reasonable policy” that proposed banning abortion after 15 weeks of gestation, with exceptions for rape, incest, and to preserve the life of the mother.  Ronchetti went so far to call for a constitutional amendment where voters would decide whether abortion should be illegal.

2022 GENERAL ELECTION POLL ON ABORTION

On August 29, 2022, the Albuquerque Journal published the results of poll taken on the issue of abortion rights for the November 2022 general elections.  The link to read the full unedited Journal column is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2528326/nm-voters-divided-on-abortion-restrictions.html

The poll found thar New Mexico voters are 3 times more likely to say abortion should always be legal than they were to say it should always be illegal.  According to the poll, 35% of statewide voters surveyed said abortion should always be legal, 22% said the procedure should be legal, for a combined total of 57%.

The poll found that 25% felt there should be some limitations and said it should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or when a mother’s life is in danger.  Just 12% of voters surveyed said abortion should always be illegal, while 4% would not say and 2% said they did not know.

According to the Journal poll results, Democrats are firmly behind a woman’s right to choose with 55% of Democrats saying abortion should always be legal and 24% of Democrats said it should be legal with some limitations for a whopping 79% combined percentage.

Republicans’ opinion are dramatically opposite with 8% saying abortion should always be legal, while 24% said it should be banned and 41% said it should be illegal with exceptions for cases of rape, incest and to save a mother’s life, with a 65% combined total to make it illegal or illegal with the exceptions of rape, incest or threat to the life of the woman.

The difference by party affiliation shrinks to a 6% difference when it comes to how voters they felt if abortions should be legal with some limitations.  Interestingly, more Democrats, 24%, felt that there should be some limitations while fewer Republicans, 18%, felt there should be some limitations.

The Journal Poll did not find a big difference in attitudes on abortion between New Mexico voters based on their gender, ethnicity and age.  There was little difference in voters’ views on abortion based on their education level with one exception, voters with graduate degrees were far more likely than other groups of voters to say abortion should always be legal.

NEW MEXICO COUNTIES AND TOWNS TRY TO INTEFERE WITH WOMEN’S REPDUCTIVE RIGHTS

On November 4, 2022 it was reported that the City Commission of Clovis, New Mexico put off a vote on an ordinance designed to ban abortions within the New Mexico town fearing challenges to the move in a state where the procedure remains legal. Clovis was set to become the first town to pass a so-called “sanctuary city for the unborn”

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-mexico-town-delays-banning-abortion-2022-11-04/

On November 8, it was reported that the Hobbs City Commission unanimously passed an ordinance designed to ban abortions, despite the procedure being legal in the state. The so-called “sanctuary city for the unborn” ordinance blocks abortion clinics from operating.  At least one nearby county has approved an anti-abortion resolution.  The ordinance will surely be challenged in court and set aside.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-mexico-city-passes-ordinance-block-abortion-clinics-operating-2022-11-08/

ATTORNEY GENERAL RAUL TORREZ FILES CHALLENGE TO MUNXIPAL AND COUNTY ORDINANCES

On January 22, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed an emergency petition with the New Mexico Supreme Court that challenges the anti-abortion ordinances passed by communities in eastern New Mexico. Torrez is asking the New Mexico Supreme Court strike down the ordinances, arguing they violate civil rights guaranteed by the state Constitution.

The legal challenge was filed as a direct result of the cities of Hobbs and Clovis, and the counties of Lea and Roosevelt passed local ordinances targeting abortion. According to the lawsuit filed the city and county ordinance infringe on the state’s authority to regulate health care.

Democrat Attorney General Torrez contends in the lawsuit that the city and county ordinances misinterpret a 19th-century federal law on the mail and conflict with state law regulating the practice of medicine.  He also argues the ordinances violate the state Constitution’s guarantees to equal rights, liberty and privacy which he said are more robust than what’s outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYISIS

Republicans oppose any efforts by Democrats to protect a woman’s right to choose and to expand woman’s health care rights in the state. Republican lawmakers and candidates are proclaiming Democrats are going too far.  They argue that New Mexico voters will support some of the abortion restrictions imposed in other states, such as parental notification for minors.

Governor Lujan Grisham and Democrats on the other hand in general campaigned heavily on safeguarding abortion rights and woman’s reproductive rights. Republicans  ignore and are totally out of touch with just how strongly people feel about the issue.

New Mexico Republicans have every intent to do what they can to deprive a woman of their right to choose and to deprive a woman from making her own decision on reproductive rights.  Simply put, no person, no candidate, no elected official, no voter and no government has any right telling a woman what she must do when it comes to abortion and what she must do when it comes to her own body.

Democrats in the 2023 legislative session hold a 45-25 majority in the House and a 27-15 edge in the Senate.  Democrats would be damn fools not to deliver on their promises to protect a woman’s right to an abortion and access to reproductive health given the attempts by some Republican controlled municipalities and counties in the state to do whatever they can to make abortion illegal or inaccessible to woman.

Midway through the 2023 New Mexico Legislature, there are 9 new major gun-control measure bills introduced in the New Mexico House or Senate. Democratic legislators are pursuing aggressive new gun-control measures intended to address mass shootings and violent crime.   Republican lawmakers and other opponents are saying the restrictions would interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to deter crime. Lawmakers had until February 16 to introduce new bills.

The 9 measures are  as follow:

House Bill 9, sponsored by Albuquerque area Democrat Representative Pamelya Herndon makes it a crime to store a firearm in a way that negligently disregards the ability of a minor to access it. Criminal charges could be brought only if the minor later brandishes or displays the firearm in a threatening way or uses it to kill or injure someone. House Bill 9 would make it a misdemeanor to negligently allow a child access to a firearm, and would make it a felony if that negligence resulted in someone dying or suffering great bodily harm.  On February 9, House Bill 9 passed the House on a 37-32 vote after a three-hour debate and it now goes to the Senate.

House Bill 50 prohibits magazines with more than 10 rounds.

House Bill 72 prohibits possession of semiautomatic firearm converter that allows the weapon to fire more rapidly.

House Bill 100  would establish 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. The bill includes exclusions for sales between law enforcement officers and between immediate family members. The proposal passed its first committee along party lines and is currently scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee.

House Bill 101 as written  would make it a fourth-degree felony to purchase, possess, manufacture, import, sell or transfer assault weapons in the state.  It would restrict the sale, manufacture and possession of AR-15-style rifles along with semiautomatic firearms with certain characteristics, such as semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines, or semiautomatic pistols with a fixed magazine capable of loading more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The bill would prohibit the sale or possession of assault weapons, which are defined as semiautomatic rifles and handguns with certain characteristics. House Bill 101 also states any semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity for a large magazine would be considered prohibited in addition to attachments like grenade launchers and flash suppressors. The legislation does include limited exceptions to the ban including police officers and members of the armed forces. A substitute bill introduced during a committee hearing included a clause to allow current assault weapon owners to keep those firearms, provided they register them with the New Mexico State Police. The bill has raised concerns from the New Mexico Attorney General that it could be contested in court due to potential Second Amendment violations.

House Bill 306 is sponsored by Minority Floor Leader Ryan Lane, a Republican from San Juan County. It seeks to prevent gun straw purchases, a type of firearm purchase where someone buys a firearm for another person who is legally banned from owning firearms, such as a convicted felon.

Senate Bill 44 would make it a misdemeanor to carry a firearm within 100 feet of a polling location on election day or during early voting. On-duty law enforcement officers and security personnel would be exempt.  On February 16, the New Mexico Senate voted on a 28-9 vote to approve Senate Bill 44 after lengthy debate where Republicans lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted to amend the bill to extend exceptions to individuals who have permits to carry a concealed firearm. The amendment failed on  13-23 vote

https://www.abqjournal.com/2573520/senate-endorses-firearms-ban-at-new-mexico-polling-places.html

Senate Bill 116 would establish 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. The bill would effectively raise the minimum age for buying an AR-15-style rifle from 18 to 21.

Senate Bill 171 seeks to ban the manufacture, sale, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of semiautomatic pistols that have two or more defined characteristics. Those characteristics include a detachable magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip, a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip or silencer; or a shroud that is attached to the barrel that allows the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned. The legislation also applies to firearms that can be modified to shoot automatically by a single pull of the trigger, and it would prohibit the sale of ammunition coated with materials designed to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor, along with ammunition designed to explode or segment on impact. Ammunition coated with materials designed to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor is often referred to as “cop killer” ammunition in that such ammunition is not necessary for hunting or target practice.

BAN ON AR-15-STYLE RIFLES ADVANCES

On February 7, it was reported that with a series of 4-2 party-line votes, members of the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee voted to advanced legislation to establish a two-week waiting period for firearm purchases and prohibit the sale and possession of certain semiautomatic rifles and handguns. The ban would go into effect in March 2024 with exemptions for people who already have the prohibited firearms.  The bills will now go to the House Judiciary Committee potentially for their final committee hearings before reaching the full House chamber for a final vote by the House.

House Bill 100 proposes a 14-day waiting period. House Bill 101 would ban the sale and possession of “assault weapons”, defined as semiautomatic rifles and handguns with certain characteristics but with a grandfather clause. Among the items restricted would be a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip.

People who owned the prohibited firearms before the law took effect could keep them but would face limits on where they could take them. They would have to submit paperwork to the state.  Possession would be permitted at firing ranges and sport shooting competitions.

Santa Fe Democrat State Representative Andrea Romero who is sponsoring the assault weapons ban and waiting period for gun purchases said she has seen the “tide change” at the Capitol in recent years. For her, the massacre of children in Uvalde, Texas,  was the  tipping point that motivated her to propose new restrictions.  Representative  Bottom of Form

Romero called the legislation a “mass-shootings prevention bill” and said the legislation would reduce suicide by establishing a “cooling off” period for gun purchases and help prevent the massacre of children at schools by removing “weapons of war” from city streets.  Romero said this:

“These are really smart pieces of legislation. …We’re not just trying to take away guns. … We have seen far too many mass shootings carried out using these weapons. … As state lawmakers, we have the power to take this important step to prevent these senseless tragedies.”

SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION VOICED

Supporters appeared before the House Consumer and Public Affairs committee in force to support the legislation. Allen Sánchez, executive director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged lawmakers to keep in mind the damage caused by mass shootings and said this:

“We bury the victims. … These are real people with real mourning families.”

New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence is backing the legislation this year. Miranda Viscoli, co-president of  New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, said she’s optimistic about significant legislation making it to the governor’s desk this year. Viscoli said the political environment in the state has changed over the last decade as lawmakers have seen the impact of bills already passed. She said this:

“We’re realizing we passed some pretty good gun-violence prevention laws. … They’re working, and they’re not taking everybody’s guns away. … People are literally tired of the gun violence.”

STONG OPPOSITION EMERGES

Not at all surprising, Republican lawmakers and other opponents showed up in force and packed the House Consumer and Public Affairs committee room to testify on the proposals and said that in no uncertain terms the restrictions would interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to actually deter or reduce crime.

Opponents say the proposals will not be an effective way to combat crime or protect the public. Opponents also said the proposals would keep domestic violence victims from arming themselves in an emergency and would restrict the rights of gun enthusiasts who legally bought their firearms.

Sandia Park Republican Stefani Lord  said the proposals to  ban  the possession of AR-15-style rifles or magazines with more than 10 rounds will  turn law-abiding gun owners into felons just for having property they legally purchased. Lord said it’s entirely the wrong approach and said this:

“The criminals are going to have access to whatever they want. … I’m trying to make sure that our legal gun owners still have a way to defend themselves, their home, their property, their livestock.”

San Juan County Sheriff Shane Ferrari, an opponent, said this about the legislation:

“A right delayed is a right denied. … This is going to prevent people from protecting themselves against their aggressors. … Let’s go after the bad guys, not law-abiding citizens.”

OVER THE TOP REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION 

All the gun control legislation is facing fierce opposition from Republican lawmakers and New Mexico Sherriff’s.  Most New Mexico sheriffs strenuously opposed the 2021 “red flag” gun law bill advocated by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham that allows law enforcement officers, contingent on a judge’s approval, to seize guns from individuals that are found to pose an immediate safety risk.  The Sheriffs falsely argued the law was “unconstitutional” and then politically retaliated against the Governor by supporting or endorsing her Republican opponent Mark Ronchetti.

Sandia Park Republican Stefani Lord said Democrt sponsored gun safety proposals focus on a “tool” used to commit crimes, but not the issues that are driving the increase in New Mexico violent crime rates.  Lord said that it is drug addiction, mental illness and illicit firearm trafficking that need to be addressed.  Lord said this:

“I feel the gun bills they present are consistently going after responsible gun owners and are not addressing crime issues.  … On the Democrat side, they are constantly pushing to focus on just the tool, the tool that is used to commit a crime, and not the issues that are actually behind all the reasons that we have very high levels of crime. We are lacking severely on behavioral health and rehabilitation.  … I know that there’s some bills being drafted for mental health and for rehabilitation, for drug addiction, and maybe those will get through, or maybe we can actually work together. Because I feel if the Republicans and the Democrats could work together on some of these issues, we might actually do what is best for New Mexico.”

Republican State Representative Stefani Lord relies on the traditional Republican dogma argument that gun legislation will  turn law-abiding gun owners into felons just for having property they legally purchased. She said that would be the case with bans on AR-15-style rifles or magazines with more than 10 rounds.  Lord said this:

“The criminals are going to have access to whatever they want. … I’m trying to make sure that our legal gun owners still have a way to defend themselves, their home, their property, their livestock.”

Lord went so far to say that even some of the less expansive, reasonable gun proposals are problematic.  She said a gun storage requirement might leave a woman without enough time to defend herself against a violent ex-husband. She said this:

“They need to be able to protect themselves.  … Especially in rural America, it takes a while for law enforcement officers to get there.”

EDITOR’S COMMENTARY:  AR-15 style rifles are not “defensive weaponry” nor used for hunting  but are assault “weapons of war” designed to kill as many as possible within seconds.  Why in gods name does any law-abiding citizen need an AR-15 style rifle to “defend themselves, their home, their property, their livestock” from an aggressor or for that manner  from an abusive ex-husband?  

Advocates for gun owners say the number of gun proposals this year is unusual.  Zac Fort of the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association said none of the legislation is an effective way to combat crime. Fort said this:

“We’re used to seeing a lot of bills  … but I think the severity of the bills has definitely increased this year. … We’re not able to hold criminals accountable right now. … I don’t think it’s a problem that we don’t have enough laws. I think it’s a problem of prosecution.”

 GOVERNOR LUJAN GRISHAM REACTS

Before becoming Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham was a strong advocate of gun control during her years in congress.   During her first term as Governor, Lujan Grisham pushed lawmakers to pass gun safety legislation.  She said she planned to continue that effort during the 2023 legislative session. Lujan Grisham spokeswoman Maddy Hayden said this:

“The governor will pursue a robust package of common-sense gun safety legislation in the upcoming session, the details of which will be decided in the coming weeks. … The governor is clear: New Mexicans are beyond sick and tired of crime, and gun violence continues to be a nationwide scourge that warrants immediate and outcomes-focused attention.”

Governor Lujan Grisham announced in her January 17 “State of the State” address she is supporting enactment of further gun control measures.  She has announced support of the following 4 gun control measures in this year’s 2023 60 day legislative session:

• Banning the sale of AR-15-style rifles.
• Allowing crime victims to sue gun manufacturers.
• Making it a crime to fail to properly secure a firearm that’s accessible to an unsupervised minor.
• Closing a loophole in state law to allow prosecution when a person buys a gun for a someone who isn’t legally able to make the purchase themselves, a transaction known as a straw purchase.

Santa Fe Democrat State Representative Reena Szczepanski said this about the gun safety storage bill:

“Firearms have increased to become the leading cause of death for children. …This is a huge public health crisis now for children. …  [The safely storing firearms]  bill … is really geared at keeping children safe, keeping children safe in their homes, and really addressing responsible storage. …  I think we can do this in a way gun owners can support and that addresses safety.”

In her State of the State address, she told lawmakers this:

“We all know that we cannot keep our people safe, [we] can’t keep our police officers and their families safe if weapons of war continue to flood our neighborhoods.”

Links to quoted news sources relied on are here:

https://source.com/2023/02/14/legislature-takes-up-multitude-of-gun-bills-sure-to-face-a-tough-road/

https://www.koat.com/article/lawmakers-regulation-guns-newmexico/42971240

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2023-02-08/legislators-in-new-mexico-have-proposed-7-new-gun-laws

https://www.abqjournal.com/2571169/ar-15-ban-waiting-period-advance-at-new-mexico-capitol.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2566549/legislature-2023-lawmakers-pursue-gun-restrictions.html

NEW MEXICO’S HIGH CRIME RATES

The backdrop to the introduction of the 9 new measures is New Mexico’s and Albuquerque’s high crime rates.  Every year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) compiles data from police agencies across the nation.  The data from 2021, with 2022 data yet to be released, showed New Mexico had the nation’s second highest rate of total crimes against persons.

The FBI numbers show New Mexico’s per-population kidnapping and abduction rate was the highest in the nation. New Mexico’s firearm ownership and fatality rate is among the nation’s highest. In 2016 over 37% of adults in the state lived in a household with a firearm which is 5% higher than the national average according to the think tank Rand Corp.

In 2021 New Mexico law enforcement reported over 28,000 crimes against persons. That includes crimes such as murder, rape, assault, and kidnapping.  Given New Mexico’s population, the state’s crime rate against persons per population is the second highest in the nation. FBI data shows for every 100,000 people in New Mexico, law enforcement reported 2,189 crimes against persons in 2021. The only state with a higher rate was Arkansas, which reported 2,276 crimes per 100,000 people.

New Mexico law enforcement agencies reported nearly 25,500 instances of assault in 2021. That’s 1,872 more than the state reported in 2020. New Mexico law enforcement also reported more homicides in 2021 than the year before. Across New Mexico, police reported 193 homicides to the FBI in 2021. That’s 67 more than in 2020.  Not at all surprising is that the majority of the state’s reported homicides were in Albuquerque.

New Mexico isn’t at the top of the list in all crime categories. While New Mexico law enforcement reported 1,663 instances of sex offenses in 2021, 6  other states had higher rates of sex offenses per population. That includes states like Alaska, Utah, and Montana.

New Mexico law enforcement reported 822 kidnappings and abductions to the FBI in 2021. That puts New Mexico at the top of the list regarding kidnappings and abductions per 100,000 people. Kansas, Colorado, and Utah also rank high on the list of kidnappings and abductions per population.

New Mexico’s firearm fatality rate is among the nation’s highest. According to the New Mexico Department of Health, there were a total of 562 state residents who died in 2021 due to firearm-related injuries.  This figure is up significantly from the 481 firearm-related deaths in 2020. Of the 562 state residents who died in 2021 due to firearms, 319 cases, were classified as suicides and 243 were classified as homicides. In New Mexico, the rate of 14.9 firearm-related deaths per every 100,000 residents in 2010 nearly doubled over the last decade and there were 23 such deaths for every 100,000 residents in 2020.

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

https://www.krqe.com/news/fbi-data-new-mexico-ranked-1st-in-nation-for-kidnapping/#:~:text=That%20includes%20crimes%20such%20as,in%202021%2C%20FBI%20data%20shows.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2567672/governor-calls-for-bipartisanship-step-by-step-approach-to-deal-with-nms-high-violent-crime-rate.html

https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-state-government-michelle-lujan-grisham-albuquerque-crime-554450b5d88bd59a3e1f9c9259159cf3

ALBUQUERQUE AT FOREFRONT OF CRIME WAVE

Albuquerque is at the forefront of New Mexico’s high violent crime rate.  According to legislative data released, the city had about half of the state’s violent crime in 2022 but has just 25% or so of its total population.  The Albuquerque Police Department reported that in November, gun law violations spiked 85% this year alone. The last two years have also been two very violent years for Albuquerque.  The number of homicides in the city have broken all-time records.  In 2021, there were 117 homicides, with 3 declared self-defense reducing homicide number to 114. In 2022, there were 121 homicides, a historical high.  

It has been reported that there have been more APD police officer shootings in 2022 than during any other year before.  In 2022, there were 18 APD Police Officer involved shootings,10 of which were fatal.  In 2021 there were 10, four of which were fatal.

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

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

Links to quoted news sources relied on are:

https://www.volunteerworld.com/en/review/travellers-worldwide

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/new-mexico-lawmakers-to-propose-gun-safety-bills/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/apd-stats-show-increase-in-shootings-with-police/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2556861/gun-safety-bills-could-spark-debate-at-roundhouse-amid-rise-in-firearm.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2023-02-08/legislators-in-new-mexico-have-proposed-7-new-gun-laws

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

All the identified legislation has passed at least one committee and are waiting for their day before their respective Judiciary committees that will scrutinize the legal ramifications of these proposals, including if they are constitutional. All 9 of the legislative measures introduced and now being debated in the 2023 New Mexico State Legislature in and of themselves are first good steps to help curb gun violence. Taken together they mean a major and effective approach to reduce gun violence.

Democrats in the 2023 legislative session hold a 45-25 majority in the House and a 27-15 edge in the Senate and this year’s session is a 60-day session. New Mexico Democrats would be damn fools not to enact all 9 measures as New Mexico Republican legislators continue with their national party’s failure to do anything but cater to the National Rifle Association not believing the country has a gun crisis.

Any change made by one chamber requires the bill to go back to the first chamber for agreement before the 60-day session ends.  Lawmakers have until noon on March 18 to finalize changes and send bills to Lujan Grisham. If signed by the governor, the bills then become law.

On November 10, 2022, Mayor Tim Keller announced his “Housing Forward ABQ” plan to add 5,000 housing units to the existing housing supply by 2025.  Keller called his plan “transformative” and it includes updates to Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) to carry it out.  A critical component of Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” are Motel Conversions.

CITY BUYS SURE STAY HOTEL

On February 11, it was reported that the City of Albuquerque has executed a purchase agreement for the purchase of the Sure Stay hotel located at 10330 Hotel NE for $5.7 million to convert the 104-room hotel into 100 efficiency units. The $5.7 million purchase price for the 104-unit complex translates into $53,807.69 per unit ($5.7 Million ÷ 104 = $53,807.69 per unit). At a December 6 meeting on motel conversions, city officials said that the city’s estimated cost is $100,000 per unit to fix up or remodel existing motels.  Therefore, using the city’s own estimated remodeling costs for the Sure Stay Motel, an additional $10 Million will be needed to remodel the motel for low income housing. ($100,000 per unit X 100 efficiency apartments = $10 Million). Therefore, the entire Sure Stay conversion project will have an estimated cost of $15,700,000.  ($5.7 purchase cost + $10 Million remodeling cost = $15,700,000)

The City Department of Family & Community Services purchased the Sure Stay Hotel by using Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding of $3,059,662.12 in Community Development Block Grant and available funding from the city’s  Public Facilities monies and from Foreclosure Prevention  monies for a total property purchase of $5.7 million.  The Department of Family and Community Services submitted a request to the HUD Albuquerque Field Office for the release of CARES and HOME American Rescue Plan funding to be used to purchase Sure Stay Hotel and the renovation project for the permanent housing with supportive services.

City officials said the purchase should close this spring and said the project’s total cost, including necessary renovations of the Sure Stay hotel will not be known until later this year as the city still must put the work out to bid. The goal is to have the housing open within a year. City officials have said funding is available for at least one additional motel purchase and is asking the New Mexico Legislature for funding. The city officials have also said it is continuing to look at additional properties but has declined to identify them.

MOTEL CONVERSIONS

 “Motel conversions” is   the creation of affordable housing where the City’s Family & Community Services Department will acquire and renovate existing motels to develop low-income affordable housing options. Mayor Keller’s plan calls for hotel or motel conversions to house 1,000 people with low and moderate incomes by 2025.

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

The existing layout of motels makes it cost-prohibitive to renovate them into living units with full sized kitchens. A zoning change already enacted by the city council earlier this year eased the process for city-funded motel conversions by allowing microwaves or hot plates to serve as a substitute for the standard requirement that every kitchen have a cooking stove or oven. The zoning code update reduces the kitchen requirements for such affordable housing conversions that receive city funding.  The zoning changes allow the substitution of a microwave or hot plate for a standard oven or range.  The exception applies only to those conversions using city money, but the city council is considering a proposal to expand it to all housing developments.

TARGETED AREA IDENTIFIED

One area of the city has been targeted in particular by the Keller Administration for motel conversions is “Hotel Circle” in the North East Heights. Located in the area are a number of motels in the largest shopping area in SE and NE Albuquerque near I-40. The businesses in the area include Target, Office Depot, Best Buy, Home Store, PetCo and the Mattress Store and restaurants such as  Sadies, the Owl Café, and Applebee’s and other businesses. In December, 2022, confidential sources with the city confirmed the Keller Administration was negotiating to buy the former  Sure Stay Hotel and also has  its eye on purchasing the abandoned and boarded up Ramada Inn for a motel conversion.

Strong neighborhood and business opposition emerged and galvanized around the city’s attempted purchase of the Sure Stay Motel, with some petitioning the city to change the zoning code to disallow motel conversions. A petition with well over 250 signatures of business owners and residents in the area was secured within a few days has been submitted to the city. The city and the Keller Administration essentially ignored the opposition and has now proceeded with the purchase of the Sure Stay Motel.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2572591/city-negotiates-57m-deal-to-buy-hotel-property.html

CITY HOLDS MEETING TO GET INPUT,  ANSWERS FEW QUESTIONS

It was On December 6, with only a 4-day public notice and reservations required, the City’s Family and Community Services Department and the Planning Department held a public meeting at the Albuquerque Convention Center to discuss the Keller Administration’s motel conversions plans.  A little over 100 people attended the meeting which had a mediator oversee the meeting. In attendance to present the program were Family Community Service Director Carol Pierce,  Deputy  Director Lisa Huval and Albuquerque Police and APD Deputy Chief Josh Brown.  Notably absent from the meeting was Mayor Tim Keller with no explanation given. Not a single Albuquerque City Councilor attended.

PATHS FORWARD

The City presented a short “power point” slide to the audience entitled “THE PATH FORWARD”.  The power point said in part that there are “several possible paths all of which the Department of Family and community services is exploring” to deal with the housing shortage. Those options listed in the power point were:

“The city can acquire motels, contract with a contractor/architect to complete renovations and then identify an entity to own and operate the facility through a Request for Proposal (RFP), which is the city bidding process.

The city can acquire motels and then identify and entity to rehabilitate, own and operate through an RFP process.  The RFP would include funding to rehab the motel.

The city can use an RFP to select one or more entities to acquire, rehab, own and operate a motel.

Currently, [the]  City has funding available to complete at least two motel conversions.”

CITY VISION OUTLINED FOR MOTEL CONVERSIONS

City officials outlined in the power point the vision it has for hotel conversions as follows:

Creation of “basic but safe” apartments.

There will be “Public-Partnerships”.

Conversions would be located throughout the city and not in one location.

Conversions will be in  mixed communities. Some will have rental units with lower rents affordable to low-income households while other units will be rented at fair market rates.

The converted motels will be professionally managed by a property management company.

The conversions will have “onsite service” coordinators.

They will be sustainable.

KITCHEN REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTEL CONVERSIONS

The city officials noted that kitchen requirement for conversions would be changed dramatically. Under recent zoning changes, there are reduced kitchen requirements for projects funded by the Family Community Services Department. With motel conversions under taken by the Family and Community Services Department, stoves, ovens or ranges are not required. However, refrigerators, countertops, and kitchen sinks are still required. Proposed changes to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) will allow the same to all conversions by the private sector.

TARGETTED POPULATION

Another power point slide identified the “qualifying incomes” of the population that would be served by the motel conversions in terms of income levels.  Those qualifying income levels listed were “Supplemental Social Security Income” recipients, “Social Security Disability” recipients, “Warehouse Workers”, “In Home Care” workers and “Tipped Workers”.   The power point noted that the fair market value for an efficiency apartment in Albuquerque is approximately $666 per month.

According to the power point, the monthly cost of $666 is “naturally affordable for single adults who earn $27, 000 a year” which is 50% of the city’s Median Income level.  It was noted that some of the units will be for subsidized or for affordable housing for those making $16,000 a year which is 30% of the city’s Median Income.

CITY’S FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO HELP LOW INCOME HOUSING AND NEAR HOMLESS

The city has increased funding to the Family Community Services Department for assistance to the homeless with $35,145,851 million spent in fiscal year 2021 and $59,498,915 million being spent in fiscal 2022  with the city adopting a “housing first” policy.  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 is as follows:

$42,598,361 total 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.

$6,025,544 total for emergency shelter contracts (Budget page 102.).

$3,773,860 total for mental health contracts (Budget page105.).

$4,282,794 total for homeless support services. 

$2,818,356 total 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

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The first biggest take away from the City’s plans for motel conversions is that they are not intended to be used as “homeless shelters” such as the new Gateway Homeless Shelter on Gibson, but there is no guarantee that will not happen.  The intent is that those who will be housed in them must have some sort of income, either through social security or other government assistance or be gainfully employed, and they must pay rent. The city has yet to publicly identify the screening criteria that will be utilized for occupants and the minimum income levels.

The second biggest takeaway from the city’s plans for motel conversions is that the motel conversion program has been haphazardly put together  in order to make it part of Keller’s  “Housing Forward ABQ” plan.  The city officials were clearly on the defensive feeling there was need to have a professional mediator who announced repeatedly how people should conduct themselves and not be confrontational with city officials.

The third major and most serious takeaway from the city’s plans for motel conversions is that the city’s estimated cost of $100,000 per unit to fix up or remodel existing motels is likely a waste of taxpayer money and financing. If the city in fact spends $100,000 per unit to fix up or remodel as it has stated, the estimated cost for the planned 1,000 units  will be $100,000,000 not including purchase price of the motels.

Simply put, many times it is cheaper and makes more sense to demolish and rebuild motels.  Approximately 15 years ago, the city’s Safe City Strike Force took civil code enforcement action against a number of the 150 motels up and down central with many ordered shut down.  The motel owners were ordered to bring their properties into code compliance that usually cost thousands before they were allowed to reopen.

The Safe City Strike Force was responsible for the demolition of at least seven (7) blighted motels that were beyond repair. Those motels were demolished because it was cheaper and made more sense to tear them down rather than spends hundreds to remodel. The Central motels that the Safe City Strike Force took action against include the Gaslight (demolished), The Zia Motel (demolished), The Royal Inn (demolished), Route 66 (demolished), the Aztec Motel (demolished), the Hacienda, Cibola Court, Super-8 (renovated by owner), the Travel Inn (renovated by owner), Nob Hill Motel (renovated by owner), the Premier Motel (renovated by owner) the De Anza (purchased by City for historical significance), the No Name, the Canyon Road (demolished), Hill Top Lodge, American Inn (demolished), the El Vado (purchased by City for historical significance), the Interstate Inn (demolished).

Simply put, the city’s “motel conversion” plan is severely lacking on many levels.  It appears Mayor Keller rushed to have it included as part of his “Housing Forward ABQ” plan without it being completely formulated or vetted.  There has been a total lack of transparency by the city with the public and it has been very sketchy and short on details as to what motels have been targeted, the projected overall funding for the program, no details as to the private-public partnerships and no identifying those in the real estate and development community and the construction industry the Keller administration is working with.

The city is spending between $60 million and upwards of $100 million a year on affordable and supportive housing.  The biggest unanswered question is does the city have any business going into the “hotel conversion” business and begin operating such facilities in addition to what it is already being spent?  It is not at all likely that the city has a realistic plan in place to achieve its goal of 1,000-units relying on motel conversions.

The link to news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2572591/city-negotiates-57m-deal-to-buy-hotel-property.html

On October 18, Mayor Tim Keller declared that the city is in need of between 13,000 and 33,000 housing units to address the city’s short supply of housing and that upwards of 40 new people move into the Albuquerque area every day who are in need of housing, Mayor Tim Keller announced his “Housing Forward Abq” plan.  According to Keller, the city needs to work in close conjunction with the city’s residential and commercial real estate developers to solve the city’s housing shortage crisis.

Keller said the goal of his Housing Forward ABQ plan is for the city to bring 5,000 new housing units to the city by 2025. He is proposing to do so mostly through the redevelopment of hotels, or conversions to permanent housing,  and changing zoning codes to allow for the development of “casitas”.

AMENDING THE INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

On November 10, the  Keller Administration released what Mayor Keller called “transformative” updates to Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO)  to carry out Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ”.   At Mayor Keller’s request, the legislation is being sponsored by Democrat Isaac Benton, a retired architect, and Republican Trudy Jones, a retired realtor. The bill states the main goal is to lower the cost of construction, thus increasing the supply of multi-family dwellings. The ultimate goal is to increase the city’s housing stock with Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO)  amendments enabling greater density.  The proposed legislation has already been introduced at city council and it was referred to the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) for hearings and to make recommendations to the City Council on the changes

AMENDMENT HIGHLIGHTS

Mayor Keller’s  “Housing Forward ABQ” involves  six major amendments to Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance which is the City’s Zoning laws.  The amendments include:

1) Allow two family dwellings/duplexes in R-1/residential zones, permissively, without a public hearing, citywide. 

2) Allow Accessory Dwelling units (ADUs)/casitas with kitchens in all R-1 residential zones, permissively citywide.

3) Exempt office/hotels that convert to multifamily apartments from having to put in a full kitchen.

4) Eliminate building height limits in R-ML and MX(mixed use zones). This would  affect much of the west side, as well as the rest of the City.

5) Exempt affordable housing from parking requirements.

6) Reduce parking requirements for multi-family/apartments by 75 %.

The first 2  will  allow more, limited developments in areas currently zoned for single-family homes.  Keller wants to open up those areas to multi-family units like duplexes and make it easier for homeowners to build guest housing called “casitas”.

The third proposal will simplify plans to convert hotels into affordable housing. It would loosen restrictions that require each unit to have a stove or oven inside, and city planners said there’s a market for that.

The fourth proposal would get rid of building height restrictions for multi-family developments.  The final two proposals would reduce or eliminate street parking requirements for multi-family and affordable housing developments.

The fifth and Sixth loosen and reduce parking restrictions at affordable housing and apartment complexes.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/city-leaders-propose-major-changes-to-albuquerques-zoning-laws/

“CASITAS” TO INCREASE DENSITY

The proposed legislation will dramatically increase options in  “R-1” residential zones.  “R-1”zoning  is  single family home lot zoning.   Upwards of 68% of all residential property zoned in the city is zoned R-1 encompassing 23% of the city’s total geographic area. The proposed legislation will allow detached “casitas” up to 750 feet and duplexes on lots in the zone.  This amendment will impact areas zoned for single-family homes by allowing duplexes and  “casitas” accessory dwelling units on lots with sufficient available space.

Right now, the only R-1 properties, or single-family home lots, allowed to build a casita, are downtown and along parts of Central meeting the proper requirements. This proposal would expand that to much of Albuquerque. Maya Sutton, the President of the Inez Neighborhood Association near Pennsylvania and India School, is against a proposed bill that would allow more people in Albuquerque to build a casita on their property.  Sutton had this to say:

“How would people have access? We all have high walls and closed lock gates. We’d have to open those and have people come into the backyards, and what would their address be? How would they get mail and packages? How would police and fire service them if there was an emergency?”

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/proposed-zoning-changes-could-mean-more-casitas-in-albuquerque/

According to Planning Department official Mikaela Renz-Whitmore, the new amendments to the IDO will not override existing special “casita” rules and zoning regulations already in place in areas such as Barelas, High Desert and South Broadway.  Development anywhere in the R-1 zone remains subject to rules about yard size and setbacks.  According to the legislation, it could potentially triple density on the lots and address the zone’s inherent “exclusionary effects.”

EASING RESTRICTIONS FOR DEVELOPERS ON CONVERSIONS

This zoning  change  will make  it easier to  convert commercial office space into residential dwellings and in particular efficiency apartments or  loft apartments  with no bedrooms and  a single  combined living,  cooking  and sleeping area.  Developers converting non-residential buildings to multi-family housing would not have to meet the existing kitchen standard of having a cooking stove, range or oven in each unit. They would only have to provide a microwave, hotplate or warming device. The bill seeks to extend the existing exemption that currently applies only to city-funded projects to developers to replace the standard kitchen oven or stove with a microwave or hot plate when turning hotels or other commercial buildings into permanent housing.

ELIMINATING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS

The bill a relaxes rules for apartment development and eliminates height limits for mixed-use development and for multi-family housing such as apartments in the highest-density residential zone. Currently, height limits in those areas vary. In the high-density residential zone today, caps range from 48 to 65 feet, though certain types of projects earn bonuses that raise the limit to 77 feet. In mixed-use zones, present limits range from 30 to 75 feet, though they could reach 111 feet with structured parking and other project bonuses.

CHANGING PARKING REQUIREMENTS

The bill will change parking requirements. It will exempt projects where at least 20% of the residential units will be affordable housing from providing off-street parking and reduces current requirements for other multi-family and mixed-use developments by 75%.  Under existing zoning requirements, a multi-family development needs 1-1.8 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit generally based on the number of bedrooms per apartment.

“MOTEL CONVERSIONS”

Mayor Keller’s “Housing Forward ABQ” places great emphasis on “motel conversions”.   “Motel conversions” includes affordable housing where the City’s Family & Community Services Department would acquire and renovate motels to develop low-income affordable housing options. The existing layout of the motels makes it cost-prohibitive to renovate them into living units with full sized kitchens. An Integrated Development Ordinance amendment will provide an exemption for affordable housing projects funded by the city, allowing kitchens to be small, without full-sized ovens and refrigerators. It will require city social services to regularly assist residents.  The homeless or the near homeless would be offered the housing.

“SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES”

Mayor Keller has advocated and in full support of the amendment to the IDO that allows for the land use known as “Safe Outdoor Spaces” to deal with the homeless crisis. “Safe Outdoor Spaces” are city sanctioned homeless encampments located in open space areas that will allow upwards of 50 homeless people to camp, require hand washing stations, toilets and showers, require a management plan, 6-foot fencing and provide for social services.

Under an adopted amendment to the IDO, Safe Outdoor Spaces are allowed in some non-residential and mixed-use zones and must be at least 330 feet from zones with low-density residential development. The restrictions do not apply to campsites operated by religious institutions. Under the IDO amendments, Safe Outdoor Spaces are allowed for up to two years with a possible two-year extension.

On September 15, the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) voted to repeal “Safe Outdoor Spaces” from the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) by deleting  all references of “Safe Outdoor Spaces” effectively outlawing the conditional land use anywhere in the city.

On December 5, the City Council voted on a 5-4 to remove all references to Safe Outdoor Spaces within Albuquerque’s zoning code thereby outlawing the land use.  Mayor Tim Keller vetoed the legislation. It was the councils third attempt to reverse its own decision in June to allow Safe Outdoor Spaces with one vote defunding them.

On January 4, the city council attempted to “override” Keller’s veto, but failed to secure the necessary 6 votes.

MAYOR KELLER AND SPONSORING CITY COUNCILORS OUTLINE POSITIONS

In requesting the sponsorship of the legislation, Keller wrote in an October 28 memo to City Council President Isaac  Benton:

“The proposed changes are intended to be transformative, which is fitting for the crisis facing our local government, thousands of families in our community, and our housing partners.”

Democrat City Councilor Isaac Benton said the proposed changes, especially the residential zone changes, will result in public outcry and objections.  Notwithstanding the public’s anticipated objections, Benton said the housing shortages the city is experiencing demands the changes be made and the public will have ample opportunity to comment. Benton said this:

“These are things that have been discussed over the years with regard to housing affordability, so it’s not new. … A lot of cities are doing this — just really taking a look at their low-density zoning and seeing if there are any opportunities there for more density.”

Republican City Councilor Trudy Jones, a cosponsor of the changes to the IDO, said she fully expects the proposals to generate backlash. Notwithstanding, Jones said the city needs to set the stage for more housing development and density in certain places or risk losing new workers and younger generations. Jones said density will promote housing affordability and the city may not want “sprawl” but it should welcome growth and she said this:

“Some of us want to keep our families here, want to keep our children and grandchildren here. … We can’t stay the little town that we were forever.”

The link to quoted news sources is here

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/city-leaders-propose-major-changes-to-albuquerques-zoning-laws/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2548502/keller-seeks-transformative-changes-to-zoning-code.html

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING

On December 8,  the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) held a hearing on the on the proposed amendments  to the Integrated Development Ordinance  written by the Keller  Administration and co-sponsored by City Councilors Isaac Benton and Trudy Jones.  The EPC in  an appointed citizen committee of 9  tasked with making a recommendation to the City Council on all land use and zoning matters. The hearing lasted for 5 hours where the general public were given an opportunity voice their support and opposition to the legislation.

Real estate professionals, academics, people who work with low-income and homeless populations voiced support for Mayor Tim Keller’s proposal that will dramatically change the city’s zoning code and neighborhoods.  Those who spoke in favor of the zoning amendments said the amendments were a way to reduce barriers to new housing. One relator said  recent housing cost increases have priced some of her clients out of the market.  The head of the nonprofit Albuquerque Housing Authority spoke in favor of the zoning changes said the housing shortage is resulting in taking months  for people to find a place to use a rental-assistance vouchers.

The zoning change that drew the most attention involved “casitas” which are standalone structures of  up to 750 feet that would be allowed to contracted on existing residential property.  “Casitas” are  currently only allowed in certain areas, as a way to foster multigenerational living, more diversity in established neighborhoods and extra income for residents who may otherwise struggle to afford home ownership.

The proposed zoning changes also drew strong backlash and sharp criticism .  In particular, homeowners argued the changes deserved far more scrutiny and expressed fears they would alter neighborhood character, block views and increase the number of cars parked on the street.   Several people affiliated with neighborhood associations and coalitions raised concerns, saying they did not know about the significant proposal until reading it in the Albuquerque Journal.  They complained that the public has had little opportunity for comment and said it could detrimentally impact existing homeowners, who needed to be considered.

The EPC voted to delay any action until its January 19 meeting. The panel discussed several minor changes  but made no final decision.  Only councilors can change the bill itself.  Once the EPC votes and proposes changes to the legislation, it will be referred to the City Council’s Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee which will in turn for on it and then and then refer it to the  full city council for a final vote.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2556236/public-weighs-in-on-mayor-tim-kellers-sweeping-zoning-code-proposal.html

REVISTING THE INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

It was in 2015 that former Mayor Richard Berry during his second term started the rewrite process of the city’s comprehensive zoning code and comprehensive plan to rewrite the city’s entire zoning code. It was initially referred to as the  ABC-Z comprehensive plan and later renamed the Integrated Development Ordinance (ID0) once it was passed.  In 2015, there were sixty (60) sector development plans which governed new development in specific neighborhoods. Forty (40) of the development plans had their own “distinct zoning guidelines” that were designed to protect many historical areas of the city.

Former Mayor Richard Berry said the adoption of comprehensive plan was a much-needed rewrite of a patchwork of decades-old development guidelines that held the city back from development and improvement.  The enactment of the comprehensive plan was a major priority of Berry before he left office on December 1, 2017. The Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce and the construction and development community, including the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP), pulled all stops to get the plan adopted before the October 3, 2017 municipal election.  IDO was enacted with the support of Democrats and Republicans on the City Council despite opposition from the neighborhood interests and associations.

The stated mission of the re write of the comprehensive plan was to bring “clarity and predictability” to the development regulations and to attract more “private sector investment”. The city’s web site on the plan rewrite claimed the key goals include “improve protection for the city’s established neighborhoods and respond to longstanding water and traffic challenges by promoting more sustainable development”. Economic development and job creation was argued as a benefit to rewriting the Comprehensive Plan.

Under the enacted Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) the number of zones went from 250 to fewer than 20, which by any measure was dramatic. Using the words “promoting more sustainable development” means developers want to get their hands-on older neighborhoods and develop them as they see fit with little or no regulation at the lowest  possible cost to make a profit. The IDO also granted wide range authority to the Planning Department to review and unilaterally approve development applications without public input.

https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1581-impacts-of-gentrification-a-policy-primer/for-students/blog/news.php

The enacted Integrated Development Ordinance has provisions to allow the City Council to adopt major amendments  and make major changes to it. The IDO blatantly removes the public from the development review process, and it was the Planning Department’s clear intent to do so when it drafted the IDO.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

 It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone, especially established neighborhood associations for historic areas of the city like Barelas and the South Broadway and Martineztown area, that Democrat Isaac Benton and Republican Trudy Jones are carrying the water for Keller and are the sponsors of Keller’s Housing Forward ABQ plan legislation amending the IDO.  Both city councilors had a distain for the previous comprehensive zoning code that was replaced by the IDO.   Both voted for the enactment of the IDO in 2017.  Both Benton and Jones have voted for and are in support of “motel conversions” and “Safe Outdoor Spaces”.

Democrat Benton is a retired architect and Republican Jones is a retired real estate agent and both have contempt for many of the sector development plans that placed limitations on developers, especially  in historical areas of the city.

Benton for years has advocated for major changes to ease up on restrictions on secondary dwelling unit in backyards over the objections of his own progressive constituents and the historical areas of the city he represents.  Benton admitted it when he said this:

“We’ve had these arguments over the years with some of my most progressive neighborhoods that don’t even want to have a secondary dwelling unit be allowed in their backyard or back on the alley. … You know, we’ve got to change that discussion. We have to open up for our neighbors, of all walks of life, to be able to live and work here.”

Republican Jones throughout her 16 years on the city council has always been considered in the pockets of the real estate and the development communities over the interests of property owners and neighborhoods. Over the years, she has received literally thousands of dollars in contributions from both the real estate industry and the development industry each time she has run for city council.  She has never gone the “public finance” route and has always privately financed her city council campaigns.  She was also the sponsor of the amendment to the IDO that removed the mandatory requirement for public input for special uses giving more authority to the planning department.

KELLER CATERING TO DEVELOPERS

The IDO was enacted a mere few weeks before Tim Keller was  elected Mayor the first time in 2017. When then New Mexico Auditor Tim Keller was running for Mayor he had nothing to say publicly about the IDO and gave no position on it.  He did proclaim he was the most uniquely qualified to be Mayor despite lacking any experience in municipal affairs and city zoning matters.   The likely reason for not taking a position on the IDO was his sure ignorance of municipal land use planning and zoning matters, something he was never exposed to in his career as a State Senator and State Auditor.

Five years later, Keller as if he has had an some sort of  epiphany and education, proclaims the IDO is outdated. It’s very difficult, if not outright laughable, to take Mayor Tim Keller serious when he proclaimed the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO), which lays out highly complicated zoning and subdivision regulations, as being outdated given that it was enacted in 2017 by the city council on an 8-1 vote.

What is really happening with Mayor Tim Keller’s “transformative changes” to  the Integrated Development Ordinance and his  “Housing Forward Abq” plan is that Keller is catering to the development community as he  pretends  to be an expert in the field of housing development and zoning matters.  Keller is relying on the city’s housing crisis and homeless crisis to seek further changes to the city’s zoning code to help the development community and using city funding to do it.

IDO IS AN ABOMINATION THAT SHOULD BE REPEALED

Simply put, the IDO is and has always been an abomination that favors developers and the city’s construction industry. The 2017 rewrite was a rush job.  It took a mere 2 years to rewrite the entire zoning code and it emerged as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO).  It was in late 2017, just a few weeks before the municipal election and the election of Mayor Tim Keller, that the City Council  rushed to vote for the final adoption of the IDO comprehensive plan on an 8-1 vote.  Outgoing City Councilor Republican Dan Lewis who lost the race for Mayor Tim Keller voted on the IDO refusing to allow the new council take up the IDO.

Critics of the Integrated Development Ordinance said it lacked public discussion and representation from a number of minority voices and minority communities.  They argued that the IDO should be adopted after the 2017 municipal election, but they were ignored by the City Council.

There is no doubt that IDO is now having a long-term impact on the cities older neighborhoods and favors developers. The intent from day one of the Integrated Development Ordinance was the “gutting” of long-standing sector development plans by the development community to repeal those sector development plans designed to protect neighborhoods and their character. The critics of the IDO argued that it made “gentrification” city policy giving developers free reign to do what they wanted and to do it without sufficient oversight.

The City’s development community got all it wanted when the IDO  was first enacted which was to gut as many sector development plans as possible and remove zoning restrictions that protected neighborhoods. The enacted Integrated Development Ordinance has provisions to allow the City Council to adopt major amendments and make major changes to it. The IDO blatantly removes the public from the development review process, and it was the Planning Department’s clear intent to do so when it drafted the IDO.

Since the enactment of the Integrated Development Ordinance, at least 250 amendments have been past by the City Council.  Now that the development community has gotten what it wants, we have a Mayor and at least 2 city councilors who think they can salvage the unworkable Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) by amending it repeatedly when repeal is likely in order with the reinstatement of those select  sector development plans that were designed to protect the historical character of neighborhoods.

At a bare minimum, the public should tell city councilors to oppose “CASITAS”, “Motel Conversions”  and “Safe Outdoor Spaces”  and denounce them for the zoning abominations that they are which is a threat to established neighborhoods and historical areas of the city.  The public can email Mayor Keller, Planning Department Officials  and City Councilors at the following email addresses

MAYOR TIM KELLER

mayorkeller@cabq.gov,

tkeller@cabq.gov,

MayorKellerIQ@cabq.gov

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

planningdepartment@cabq.gov

avarela@cabq.gov  (Alan Varela, Director of Planning)

CITY COUNCIL EMAILS

lesanchez@cabq.gov
louiesanchez@allstate.com
bmaceachen@cabq.gov,
ibenton@cabq.gov,
namolina@cabq.gov,
kpena@cabq.gov,
rmhernandez@cabq.gov,
bbassan@cabq.gov,
danlewis@cabq.gov,
galvarez@cabq.gov,
patdavis@cabq.gov,
seanforan@cabq.gov,
tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov,
lrummler@cabq.gov,
trudyjones@cabq.gov,
azizachavez@cabq.gov,
rgrout@cabq.gov,
rrmiller@cabq.gov,
LEWISABQ@GMAIL.COM,
nancymontano@cabq.gov,
cortega@cabq.gov
cmelendrez@cabq.gov

On January 18, the Albuquerque City Council voted unanimously to abolish the Citizens’ Police Oversight Board (CPOB) and substitute it with a much smaller civilian board calling it the “Civilian Police Oversight Advisory  Board with far less authority. The new version of the volunteer board will have less power and fewer members.

The legislation had as co-sponsors Republican City Councilors Renee Grout and Brook Bassan and Democrat City Councilors Isaac Benton and Pat Davis. The sponsors  referred  the action as update legislation.

Sponsoring City Councilors said it is necessary to clarify the volunteer board’s role, particularly in relation to the paid staff who work in the Civilian Police Oversight Agency, including the full-time executive director charged with overseeing investigations into citizen complaints about alleged officer misconduct.

Former CPOA executive director Deirdre Ewing told the council she supported the bill, referring to herself as one of three past directors, two permanent and one interim, who were “run off” by the volunteer board. Ewing said this about the new board:

“It allows the current agency [and]  the professionals who focus on the day-to-day task of investigations that is at the heart of this,  to continue doing their job unimpeded by a board that sometimes gets a little focused on personal issues and vendettas rather than the task at hand. ”

City Councilor Brook Bassan,  a co-sponsor of the update legislation,  cited as reasons for the changes recent turnover in the CPOA’s executive director  and a heavy turnover in the  nine-member board and severe understaffing.  With  recent board resignations,  it is now at just six members.

Bassan said the new advisory board  is intended to fix a disconnect between what the board should be doing and what it has been doing. Bassan said this:

“Right now, things are not really working as we intended them to work. …  I believe our job is to find that balance of how to make sure the board has the authority to oversee and protect the community, while also not over-reaching with their authority.”

Councilor Isaac Benton, who co-sponsored the proposal, said finding the best setup has been an ongoing challenge, but it is clear that change is necessary. Benton said this:

“This is a tough nut to crack and I think we’ve tried very hard,” he said. “It’s not out of disrespect to any particular board member, present or past, but it hasn’t worked and it does need a revamp.”

Councilor Renee Grout had this to say:

“This ordinance simplifies the role of the CPOA board and also gives a greater role in policy review to our community policing councils.”

City Councilor Pat Davis said the ordinance reflects the evolution that has occurred over the years.   The board’s role is no longer to investigate claims of officer misconduct, but rather to keep an eye on the professional investigators. Davis said this:

“It’s the next generation of what we need it to be.”

PROVSIONS OF NEW CIVILIAN POLICE OVERSIGHT ADVISORY  BOARD

The changes called for in the new bill include:

1. Adding the term “advisory” to the volunteer board’s name; it would become the Civilian Police Oversight Advisory Board.
2. The Executive Director would no longer report to the board, nor need the board’s approval before making officer disciplinary recommendations to the Albuquerque Police Department administration.
3. No longer requiring the CPOA executive director to report to the board or get board permission before making officer disciplinary recommendations to APD leadership.
4. Reducing board membership to five from nine.
5. Shifts certain responsibilities from the board to either the CPOA executive director or a new independent “contract compliance officer” hired by the City Council; for example, the board would no longer lead the vetting process when hiring a new director nor set the director’s salary.
6. The legislation also transfers what has been the board’s responsibility for vetting Executive Director applicants and sending a list of three top candidates to the City Council for a final decision  to a new contract employee hired by the City Council.
7. Alters how CPOA makes policy recommendations to APD; it allows the board to comment on policy proposals that originate with APD, but strikes existing language outlining the board’s process for recommending CPOA-generated policies.
8. It provides for compensation to board members, including $500 for completing orientation and the initial training and $100 per board meeting.
9. Requires  the board to consider policy input from the city’s Community Policing Councils.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2565457/proposal-would-abolish-replace-albuquerques-civilian-police-oversight-agency-board.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2565908/council-votes-to-replace-citizen-police-oversight-board.html

SWIFT ADOPTION RESULTS IN CONDEMNATION

The proposal moved swiftly through the City Council , going from introduction to final vote in two weeks without the normal hearing before a council committee. The council also suspended its own rules in order to take a final vote after having accepted a substitute version of the bill during the meeting.

No current board members spoke during the January 18  meeting as if protesting the council actions.  However  CPOA board member Rashad Raynor said he was “disgusted” by what he saw  as a rushed job process to gut citizen oversight. Raynor said he did not know about the proposed board overhaul until  a month before the bote, noting that it is headed to a full council vote without having gone through the council committee process.

Raynor said  this:

“As much as there’s a lot of talking about wanting to get better, the writing on the wall is we don’t want anything to change. … From everything we’ve heard, this [was] a done deal. … They just [had]  to do the vote.”

Raynor  said the councils rush job to abolish the CPOA  should concern the whole community, particularly given the cost of the ongoing U.S. Department of Justice-mandated reform effort in Albuquerque, as well as the number of police shootings.  In 2022, Albuquerque Police Department officers shot at 18 people, killing 10, injuring three and missing five.

Bassan disputed charges that it moved to fast, saying the sponsors consulted the necessary people and said this:

“It’s not necessary for us to negotiate the update of this ordinance with the board.”

CITY COUNCIL SNUBS APD FORWARD

One group that the City Council did not consult with and essentially snubbed is the APD Forward Coalition. APD Forward includes 19  organizations who have affiliated with each other in an effort to reform APD and implement the DOJ consent decree terms and reforms. APD Forward is one of the main stakeholders who appears during the court hearings. Members of APD Forward include Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless, American Civil Liberties, Bernalillo County Community Health Council, Coalition to Stop Violence Against Native Women, Common Cause New Mexico, Disability Rights New Mexico, Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande, Equality New Mexico, La Mesa Presbyterian Church, League of Women Voters of Central New, Mexico New Mexico Conference of Churches, New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, Street Safe New Mexico, the Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico.

On January 18, the APD Forward Coalition emailed all 9 City Council requesting that they defer enactment of the new ordinance.  APD Forward Coalition wrote the City Council:

“The APD Forward coalition, representing 19 organizations led by concerned Albuquerque citizens, has been actively engaged with the reform process at the Albuquerque Police Department since we formed in 2014. We believe that voices like ours—voices from across the community that want to see APD become the responsible, community-friendly police department we know it can be—are vital as the City charts it path toward compliance with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement and, more broadly, toward a deeply entrenched culture of constitutional policing at APD.

 We are aware that legislation has been introduced as O-22-67 to amend the Police Oversight Ordinance. We believe that rigorous civilian oversight of policing in Albuquerque is an essential component of long-lasting reform. As such, we hope that any changes contemplated with regard to the Civilian Police Oversight Agency or Civilian Police Oversight Agency Board will be decided upon only after a careful, deliberate process that includes meaningful opportunities for feedback from the community, including individuals and groups who have a strong interest in the police reform process.

 We strongly urge the Council to postpone any final action on O-22-67 until you have been able to seek and receive broad input and feedback from stakeholders in the reform process and from the community at large.”

 Respectfully,

The APD Forward Coalition

The City Council ignored the APD Coalition thereby snubbing it.

THE CPOA AND THE DOJ

On November 14, 2014, the City of Albuquerque and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Court Approve Settlement (CASA) mandating 271 reforms of the Albuquerque Police Department APD. The settlement was a result of a year’s long investigation of the APD and findings of “excessive use of force” and deadly for and a “culture of aggression.”

The link to the settlement is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/cpoa/documents/465-1-190730-2nd-amended-restated-casa.pdf

A major reform measures mandated the creation of a full time, professional Civilian Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) with a full time Director and investigators and with a 9-member, all-volunteer, civilian Police Oversight Board appointed by the city council. The CPOA board is ultimately responsible for investigations of police misconduct and making recommendations to the Chief of Police for disciplinary actions. The board also reviews investigations and examines APD policy and procedures.

The major goal of the Civilian Police Oversight Agency and its board is that it was to be the outside entity watching over the APD department when the Federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement is finally dismissed and the Federal Court appointed Independent Federal Monitor is no longer necessary. As it stands, it will likely be another 5 years before the case can be dismissed primarily because of APD’s failures to implement the reforms and met the compliance levels mandated.

Since its inception, the CPOA and it’s all volunteer board has been in a constant state of turmoil. The turmoil has included sharp turnover of board members and understaffing at the agency. At one point there were only two investigators with the agency, leading to a dramatic decline in the number of cases they completed.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Ever since the creation of the Police Oversight Board and the Police Oversight Commission in 2014, both have been plagued by political turmoil, resignations and membership and staffing turnover. Both have been plagued with constant resistance from the Albuquerque Police Department management and all too often completely ignored by the APD Chief and executive staff as well as the Mayor and City Council. From September 1, 2021 to March 1, 2022, the Police Oversight Agency and its civilian police oversight board has seen the resignation of its Executive Director the Chairman of the CPOA board and 3 members of the civilian oversight board.

One of the most scathing letters of a Chairman of the CPOA Board came from Chairman Eric Olivas’ who outlined the numerous problems.  Olivas is a newly elected Bernalillo County Commissioner sworn into office on January 1 to a 4 year term.  The link to his resignation letter is here:

https://www.abqraw.com/post/civilian-police-oversight-agency-board-chairman-eric-olivas-quits-post

The Albuquerque City Council began efforts to try and fix the Police Oversight Agency ordinance by amending the ordinance creating the agency and the board. On February 23, 2022, the Albuquerque City Council voted to defer all action on amending the Civilian Police Oversight Agency Ordinance for two weeks to allow consideration of other changes. Amendments to the CPOA ordinance were eventually enacted  on March 7, 2022. The blunt truth is that the Albquerquerqu City Council was attempting to fix the unfixable.

After the passage of a full 8 years of the court approved settlement agreement as well as the tumultuous history of the Citizen’s Police Oversight Commission that was mandated by the Court Approved Settlement Agreement, it has become painfully obvious that CPOA and its board of voluntary citizens has become so dysfunctional as to be irreparable and irrelevant. It is painfully obvious that changes and  amendments to the CPOA ordinance had no  impact on any of the numerous problems identified of Civilian Police Oversight Agency.

It is personalities and hidden agendas that make both the agency and the civilian volunteer board dysfunctional. Adding to the disfunction is more than a little politics thrown into the mix by the Mayor, the City Council, the Chief and his high command and union opposition to any and all kind of civilian police oversight. The civilian board has never had any ability to persuade APD to change policies or improve their training given the extent the Mayor and APD ignore it and undercut it.

The investigation of police misconduct cases and all use of force cases and serious bodily harm cases should be done by “civilian” personnel investigators not by Internal Affairs nor by the Citizens Police Oversight Agency or the Board. The function and responsibility for investigating police misconduct cases and violations of personnel policy and procedures by sworn police should be assumed by the Office of Inspector General in conjunction with the City Human Resources Department and the Office of Internal Audit where necessary. The Office of Independent Council would make findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police for implementation and imposition of disciplinary action.

Link to former APOA Executive Director Ed Harness’ resignation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvE37sN–dM

Link to Former CPOA Board Chairman Eric Olivas’ resignation letter:

https://www.abqraw.com/post/civilian-police-oversight-agency-board-chairman-eric-olivas-quits-post