On January 17, 2023, the 2023 New Mexico Legislative Session begins its 60 day session. The biggest legislative priority will be passage of the state’s annual budget.  The state’s fiscal year begins on July 1, 2023 and ends on June 20, 2024.

On January 10, 2023 Governor Michell Lujan Grisham released her proposed 2023-2024 fiscal year budget submitted to the New Mexico Legislature for the upcoming legislative session. It is a nearly 200-page document.

On January 12, the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) released it own proposed budget. The LFC budget plan is the final result of months of hearings conducted in communities around the state. It includes funding requests made by the Governor’s Cabinet officials and finance experts used to identify ongoing needs and demands of state government

GOVERNOR MLG’S PROPOSED BUDGET

The Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) released the FY24 Executive Budget Recommendation totaling $9.4B in recurring spending, an 11.9% increase from the last fiscal year. The executive recommendation will maintain reserves at 34.9%, among the highest in state history, while increasing investments in priority areas like housing and homelessness, health care and behavioral health, education and child well-being, public safety, and economic development and tax rebates.

The Governors proposed 2023 state budget plan will use the historic state revenue windfall to increase yearly spending by upwards of  $1 billion.  If enacted as outlined, the Governor’s proposed budget would represent a nearly 12% increase in spending compared to the 2022 fiscal year that ends on June 30, 2023.

Governor Lujan Grisham’s  budget recommendation includes tens of millions of dollars for housing, hundreds of millions for healthcare, hundreds of millions for education, and over $100 million for law enforcement.

The Legislative Finance Committee (LFC)  will release its own spending plan the two proposals will be studied as lawmakers build a new state budget for the fiscal year that starts on July 1, 2023.

REBATES AND TAX RELIEF

Under the Governor’s proposed budget, more tax reduction and rebates have emerged for second year in a row as major priority.

Under the Governor’s proposed budget, residents would get tax rebates  of $750 per taxpayer.  Using the state’s historic state windfall from the oil and gas revenue surplus has received bipartisan support. The rebates would be the second time rebates would be provided for since last year.   In 2022, most New Mexicans received three payments total, worth either $250 or $500 per payment. The biggest rational for the rebates is to help state residents to deal  with inflation and the high cost of gas, food and other supplies.  The new round would cost an estimated $1 billion and rebates would be provided for all New Mexico taxpayers, not just lower-income ones, under the governor’s plan.

The Governor is also seeking changes to New Mexico’s tax code in her proposed budget. The Governor’s tax code changes include reducing the state’s gross receipts tax base rate by an additional 0.25 percentage points.  This tax reduction is identical to the one that was enacted last year.  However, the governor’s plan  does not   include  a “trigger mechanism”  that would automatically undo the tax cuts if projected revenue levels fail to materialize. The tax code changes also include adjusting brackets in the state’s personal income tax code. The tax package favored by the governor could cost the state upwards oof  $500 million in lost  revenue.

PAY RAISES FOR STATE EMPLOYEES

Under the Governor’s proposed budget, 4% pay raises for all state workers, teachers and other education workers in New Mexico would be funded. The proposed pay raises come New Mexico state government agencies have dealt with high employee vacancy rates attributed to  the COVID-19 pandemic.  The 4% pay raises would take effect on July 1  and would cost the state an estimated $202.4 million annually.

The governor’s plan calls for $100 million to allocated to cover the cost of health care premiums for education employees.  According to Legislative Finance Committee (LFC),  starting teachers in New Mexico pay  an average of $4,223 per year on health insurance costs as of August 2021.  Just last year, New Mexico starting teacher pay was increased to $50,000 per year.  The state paying. for educators’ health insurance premiums will no doubt go a long way in attracting new teachers given the fact the state is suffering from a major teacher shortage and skyrocketing health care premiums contribute to the shortage.  The proposal to cover health insurance premiums would only apply to educators and not other state workers, but the legislature could change that.

Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (LFC), said his Committee would be proposing slightly larger salary increases for state workers and teachers than the governor. Muñoz questioned the long-term feasibility of the plan to pay for teacher’s health insurance. Muñoz said this:

“I don’t think we can afford to pick up every teacher’s health insurance. … It’s not sustainable.”

OTHER PRIORITIES

The Governor proposed budget calls for spending infusions in order to extend the school year in New Mexico by up to 10 days annually, expand a college scholarship program, hire more law enforcement officers statewide and create mobile response teams to deal with homeless individuals.   Governor Lujan Grisham  also included in her spending plan more funding for economic development initiatives and mental health treatment for children held in state protective facilities.

Major highlights from the Governor’s proposed budget recommendation include the following:

HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS

• $25 Million for rental assistance and eviction prevention
• $13 Million to incentivize development and zoning updates
• $10 Million  the state’s Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program
• $6 Million for a new comprehensive landlord support program to work directly with landlords to encourage them to use housing vouchers
• $4 Million  for “Mobile Homelessness Response Teams” at the Department of Health that would deploy to homeless encampment’s to connect individuals quickly and directly with support services

 HEALTH CARE & BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

• $200 Million to establish the Rural Health Care Delivery Fund to expand health care services and build new hospitals in rural New Mexico.
• $28 Million for the Health Professional Loan Repayment Program
• $10 Million for the New Mexicare senior caregiver support program
• $10 Million a full-spectrum reproductive health clinic in southern New Mexico, a promise the Governor pledged in August.
• $5 Million for additional support for alcohol abuse prevention and treatment
• $32.5 Million for graduate medical education programs across the state
• $7.7 Million for nursing programs at New Mexico’s higher education institutions
• $5.8 Million to maintain existing school-based health centers and expand access to more than 25,000 students

EDUCATION AND CHILD WELLBEING

• $220.1 Million for extended in-classroom learning time by increasing the number of minimum instructional hours per year in public schools
• $30 Million to provide healthy universal school meals and to eliminate school meal costs for every New Mexico child
• $2.9 Million to the Children, Youth and Families Department for 60 new protective services staff, to be supported by additional federal matching funds
• $277.3 Million for continued investments in affordable, high-quality child care
• $131 Million to maintain and expand access to high-quality pre-k education
• $40.4 Million for the continued expansion of early childhood home visiting
• $111.1 Million to provide a four percent salary increase for all school personnel
• $100 Million for health care premium costs for public school personnel
• $157.4 Million for the Opportunity Scholarships

PUBLIC SAFETY

• $100 Million continued law enforcement recruitment funding. In 2022, lawmakers approved $50 million for the fund and the money has already been dispersed in two rounds of funding. The city of Albuquerque has use the money it was given to give $18,000 in longevity pay to police officers with 18 more years of experience, not for recruitment.
• $4 Million for Law Enforcement Survivors Benefits
• $4 Million for Firefighter Survivors Benefits
• $2.2 Million to create two hotshot forest fire crews that could be dispatched to fight to fight wildfires within and without state borders

Economic Development & Infrastructure

• $1 Billion in economic relief through tax rebates
• $128 Million improving  water infrastructure improvements in part by improving river flows into Elephant Butte Reservoir
• $146 Million for continued statewide broadband expansion
• $35 Million for Local Economic Development Act funding
• $75 Million for the Land of Enchantment Legacy Fund

GOVERNOR’S STATEMENT

In a statement issued in conjunction with the release of her proposed fiscal year 2023 budget, Governor Lujan Grisham said this:

“Today, we have a historic opportunity for change in the state of New Mexico. … This budget builds upon the immense progress and success of the last four years, continuing to improve the lives of the people of New Mexico by funding programs, policies and initiatives that we know are working. It also empowers the state to continue to take on new and innovative strategies that are disrupting the status quo, that help our children, our families, our schools, our small businesses and our entire economy to grow and prosper.”

 Links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2023/01/10/gov-lujan-grisham-releases-fy24-executive-budget-recommendation/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2563462/governor-calls-for-rebates-tax-cuts-and-increased-school-spending-in-budget-plan.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/ahead-of-2023-legislative-session-new-mexico-governor-releases-budget-suggestion/

LEGISLATIVE FINANCE COMMITTEE PROPOSED BUDGET

On January 12, the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) released its proposed budget for the upcoming 2023 legislative session to compete and be reconciled with the Governor’s proposed budget plan.

Click to access LFC%20Press%20Packet%20FY2024.pdf

The LFC budget calls for spending $9.44 billion from the state’s general fund, a 12%, or $1.04 billion, increase over FY23 planned spending. Reserves would be 30%  of planned spending, safely above the levels that served the state well during the plunge in income at the start of the pandemic and with room for additional recommendation for fund transfers and tax changes.

Following are the major takeaways of the LFC proposed budget:

REBATES AND TAX CUTS

The LFC budget plan does not specifically call for rebates or tax cuts but it sets aside up to $1.5 billion for them. This is the identical amount proposed in the governor’s budget blueprint. The LFC budget plan, like the Governor’s plan, earmarks funding for tax rebates and changes to the tax code, including reducing the gross receipts tax rate that’s levied on retail purchases New Mexicans make.

EDUCATION SPENDING

Forty five percent (45%) of the state’s current spending is for education.  The LFC proposed budget includes $109 million to expand prekindergarten and $263 million recurring and $261 million nonrecurring more for public schools, primarily for a new K-12 Plus factor in the public school funding formula and school-year calendar changes.

The plan for public education is a total of $4.14 billion, or 6.8 percent more than the current year. In addition to extended school time, the recommendation funds increases for services aimed at students identified as at risk for failure, the educator pipeline, reading interventions, and implementation of the Indian, Bilingual Multicultural, and Hispanic education acts.

The new spending would be used to extend New Mexico’s school year to require a minimum of 1,140 instructional hours per year  which is  about 190 days of classroom learning.   The state’s 89 school districts would have some flexibility to determine how to adopt the requirement.

General fund appropriations for the Early Childhood Education and Care Department would increase by nearly 72%  with the additional funding from the constitutional amendment approved by voters in November. In addition to the major expansion of prekindergarten, the spending plan includes $8 million for Home Visiting parent education and support services for new families. Early childhood services would get an additional $70 million from the early childhood trust fund for childcare for infants and toddlers and other child services, including behavioral health.

STATE EMPLOYEE RAISES

The Governor’s proposed pay raises for state employees is   4% pay raises for all state workers, teachers and other education workers in New Mexico.  The LFC proposed budget plan released calls for average 5% pay raises for state employees.  $328 million is set aside for average pay raises of 5 percent for state and education employees.  All state workers would get the same size pay increases, though agencies would have the ability to give larger increases to some employees and smaller raises to others.  The LFC proposed budget contains additional funding to increase the employer contributions to the public employee and educator retirement funds.  The LFC budget contains targeted salary increases for university faculty, judicial agency staffs, child protective services workers, forensic scientists, and public-school principals in addition to the 5 percent average salary increase for all public employees

HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS FOR EDUCATORS

The governor’s proposed budget plan  calls for $100 million to be earmarked to cover the cost of health care premiums for education employees. The LFC spending plan, in contrast, calls for $32 million to be spent to boost the state-paid share of educators’ health care costs, so that employee-paid premiums would align with those paid by other public employees.

MEDICAID SPENDING

Both the Governor’s and the LFC proposed budgets are essentially identical when it comes to Medicaid spending. Both proposed budgets both call for increasing provider rate reimbursements and boosting state spending to offset a possible drop in federal Medicaid funding if a pandemic-related public emergency is lifted. The LFC proposed budget includes $80 million to backfill federal Medicaid spending, which will drop with the official end of the public health emergency.

STATE TRUST FUNDS

The LFC proposed budget  calls for $1 billion to be deposited  into a state permanent fund the been stymied by funding being diverted to fund public works projects.  The LFC plan would allocate upwards of  $800 million be used to set up new state trust funds. One such savings account might be an environmental trust fund that could be tapped when New Mexico faces wildfires or other natural disasters. Last year, Lujan Grisham was forced to issue dozens of executive orders authorizing nearly $60 million in emergency funds for firefighting efforts in seven different counties as the two largest fires in state history.

Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, said the creation of new state endowment funds could help diversify the state’s revenue base and prepare the state for the possibility of cash-lean future years.  As it stands now, 40% of the state’s tax collections are from  the oil and natural gas industries.

MAJOR EXPENDITURES

The major expenditures in the LFC proposed budget worth noting and highlighting are as follows:

• $328 million to provide average 5% salary increases to state workers and  teachers
• $109 Million  to expand pre-kindergarten programs statewide
•  $1 Billion diverted to state Severance Tax Permanent Fund
•  Up to $1.5 Billion for  tax rebates and enact changes to state tax code
•  $82 million  to fund expansion of Opportunity Scholarship program
•  $197 million to improve state roads and highways. In addition to recurring spending, the LFC proposal includes $1.145 Billion spending for special projects such as roads and information technology.

Click to access LFC%20Press%20Packet%20FY2024.pdf

https://www.abqjournal.com/2564079/key-legislative-budget-panel-has-big-ideas-for-how-to-handle-nms-revenue-bonanza.html

HISTORIC REVENUES

On December 12, 2022 the Legislative Finance Committee released its Consensus Revenue Estimate for fiscal year 2024 which begins July 1, 2023. It was reported that New Mexico’s revenues have ballooned to historic levels from oil and gas production and  consumer spending.

The new estimates released project the state will have an astonishing $3.6 billion in “new” money available for the budget year that starts on July 1, 2023. The term “new money” is the amount that represents the difference between forecasted revenue and current spending levels. The total revenue was forecasted to rise from $9.2 billion in the fiscal year that ended on June 20, 2022 to nearly $10.9 billion for 2023.

During the last two years, New Mexico’s revenue levels have steadily increased due to surging oil and natural gas production. The spike in revenue is expected to continue over the coming year.  According to the Consensus Revenue Report  the latest projections by fiscal year for the last 2 full years are:

2022 – $9.7 billion, up from $9.2 billion in August
2023 – $10.8 billion, up from $9.8 billion in August
2024 – $12 billion, up from $10.9 billion in August

Click to access ALFC%20121222%20Item%201%20General%20Fund%20Consensus%20Revenue%20Estimate%20December%202022.pdf

Links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2023/01/10/gov-lujan-grisham-releases-fy24-executive-budget-recommendation/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2563462/governor-calls-for-rebates-tax-cuts-and-increased-school-spending-in-budget-plan.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/ahead-of-2023-legislative-session-new-mexico-governor-releases-budget-suggestion/

REACTION TO SURPLUS

In August, Gallup Democrat Senator George Muñoz called the $2.5 billion in additional revenues a “once-in-a-century” opportunity and said at the time:

“If we want to really change, for once and for all, and keep our commitment to reducing tax rates, lowering the [gross receipts tax and] making New Mexico competitive with other states, this is one of the greatest opportunities we could have. … You can change the complete path of this state … Your phones are going to be ringing off the hook [with demands on how to use the new revenues].”

On December 12, Muñoz had this to say about the $3.6 billion increased revenues:

 “With this revenue forecast, there’s an opportunity knocking at our door. … No one in our state’s history has ever had this opportunity.”

When the LFC proposed  budget was released, Munoz  also said lawmakers should be nervous about the scope of the budget windfall, citing a revenue roller-coaster ride over the last decade that has caused lawmakers to alternate spending increases with budget cuts.

Representative  Patricia Lundstrom, D-Gallup, the LFC’s chairwoman, said “The more money there is, the higher the pressure.”  She said members of the budget committee resisted the urge to spend money like “drunken sailors.”

Cabinet Secretary Debbie Romero of the Department of Finance and Administration told the LFC that risks exist to the record-high revenue forecast.  Those risks include supply chain shortages and the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. She also suggested to limit future spending obligations.  She urged lawmakers to target spending during the upcoming legislation session to one-time needs like water projects, rural health care and broadband expansion.  Romero said this:

“Those are the once-in-a-lifetime things we should invest in while not growing our recurring budget.”

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

While hundreds of bills dealing with crime, the economy, public schools and more will be filed during the session, the state’s revenue bonanza will be at the forefront of many Roundhouse debates.  During the 2023 legislative session, there is little doubt that  debate will be  hot and heavy on how to spend the historic surpluses.

There is indeed a lengthy list on what the surplus can be spent upon. The list includes:

Major infrastructure needs such as roads and major  bridge repair across some of the most rural parts of the state with an estimated cost of $500 million, funding for wastewater projects, dams and acequia projects, the courts, law enforcement and the criminal justice system, funding for our behavioral health care system, job creation endeavors,  economic development programs, funding for the Public Employee Retirement funds to deal with underfunded liabilities and benefits are all likely topics of discussion during the upcoming 2023 legislative session. All merit serious consideration and funding with the historic surplus.

Not at all surprising, some lawmakers have called for spending restraint despite the revenue windfall, saying a drop in oil prices and a possible global recession could mean a big drop in state revenue collections within the next several years. Senator Stuart Ingle, R-Portales, the state’s longest-serving legislator, had this to say:

“I think we better be real, real careful. … We just need to make sure we don’t overspend so much that down the road we have to find ways to fund or cut.”

What is also not at all surprising are fiscal conservatives, especially Republicans, calling for tax cuts and rebates.  Whenever surpluses in state revenues occur, such as this year especially, Republicans always begin to salivate and proclaim all taxation is bad and that rebates and tax reform are desperately needed and the only way to go.

The Republican tired and old political dogma has always been that tax revenues are the people’s money and anything in excess of what is actually needed over and above essential government services should be returned to the taxpayer. It appears the Governor has bought into the argument. It is a short-sighted philosophy believing that only essential, basic services should be funded with taxpayer money such as public safety.  If that were the case, there would be no public libraries, no museums, no zoos, no mass transit expansions and no memorial monuments.

MAJOR CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTS SHOULD BE IN THE MIX

The reality is that most if not all of the major priorities being identified in both the Governor’s proposed budget and the LFC proposed budget  for the 2023 legislative session will require reoccurring funding and revenues from taxation. What all too often is totally ignored because lack of revenues are major capital outlay projects that are for the benefit of the general public and that improve the overall quality of life. Roads and water projects are such priorities, but are not exclusive.

It is very disappointing is that Governor Michelle  Lujan Grisham and the Legislative Finance Committee budgets totally ignore  advocating for major capital outlay projects that could be transformative for the state and that improve the overall quality of life. Roads and water projects are such priorities, but are not exclusive.  Most if not all of the major priorities identified in both the Governor’s and the LFC Budget for the 2023 legislative session will require reoccurring funding and revenues from taxation.

Given the sure magnitude of the surplus, it is likely municipalities, citizens and interest groups will be asking for funding for special capital projects such as swimming pools, parks, recreation facilities, sport facilities, such soccer stadiums, and entertainment venues. Some lawmakers have already come forward with different ideas on how to spend some of the state’s budget surplus, including the building of a high-speed train crisscrossing New Mexico from north to south.

The Governor and the legislature should listen and fund such projects while they can. For the last two years, the New Mexico United soccer team has been trying to get taxpayer money to build a soccer stadium. In 2020, the soccer team was able to secure $4 million in state funds.  In 2021, Albuquerque taxpayers were asked to support a bond to pay for the stadium, but it was rejected. With a $3.8 in surplus revenue, the legislature should consider fully funding the facility which will be about $16 million.

Other major capital outlay facilities  and projects  that has been discussed for decades is improving the New Mexico State Fair and all of its aging facilities.  In particular, demolishing the 60-year-old Tingly Coliseum and building a multipurpose entertainment and sports facility with the capacity of upwards of 20,000  has been a dream of many a Governor, State Fair Commission and Fair Managers.

On February 25, 2019 it was reported that there is a need for such a facility and EXPO New Mexico was in  the final stages of conducting a feasibility study on the construction of a new arena on the state fairgrounds.  Tingley Coliseum has been around since 1957 with capacity for 11,000. Over the years it’s been remodeled and upgraded but it is still a state fair rodeo venue. The state and Albuquerque for decades has needed a large capacity, multipurpose entertainment venue of upwards of 20,000.

https://www.krqe.com/news/officials-want-to-build-new-arena-on-state-fairgrounds/

https://www.krqe.com/news/expo-new-mexico-looking-into-new-arena-to-replace-tingley-coliseum/

FINAL COMMENT

During the 2023, 60 day legislative session that begins on January 17 , there will be a consolidation and a consensus budget formulated that lawmakers will then approve for the fiscal year that will start on July 1, 2023 and end June 30, 2024.

Indeed, the 2023 legislative session could very well turn out to be a “once in a century opportunity” to really solve many of the state’s problems that have plagued it for so many decades.  It should also be viewed as an opportunity to build facilities that are needed and that will have a lasting impact on the state’s quality of life for decades to come.

The Code of Ethics governs the Board of Ethics, as well as disclosures required of the Mayor and City Councilors.  The Code of Ethics sets clear guidelines regarding campaign complaint timelines. Over 3  years ago on October 22, 2019, the Albuquerque City Council voted unanimously  to change the ethics and lobbying ordinances  in Albuquerque and the changes were significant reforms,

The reform of the Lobbyist Ordinance made public disclosure more meaningful, ensuring the public knows who has hired lobbyists and what issues they are hired to lobby on. It also increases the frequency with which lobbyists must file reports from one annual report to quarterly reports, making access to information timelier.

https://www.cabq.gov/clerk/news/mayor-tim-keller-signs-reforms-of-city-code-of-ethics-lobbying-oversight-ordinance

NEW MORE VIGOROUS DISCLOSURE RULES

On December 5, the Albuquerque City Council voted unanimously  to update  the   City Charter’s Code of Ethics provisions regarding how much financial information the Mayor and  City Councilors must reveal. Councilors Brook Bassan, Pat Davis and Klarissa Peña sponsored  the legislation at the Keller administration’s request. The updates include mandatory disclosure of information about immediate family members.  On December 15, 2022, Mayor Tim Keller, without great fanfare, signed the updates.

Under the ordinance changes, the Mayor and all City Councilors will have to disclose the following information not only for themselves but as well as their spouses and dependent children:

• “Identity and location of all real property they own and its purpose
• A list of all assets worth more than $50,000, including trust funds, stocks, bonds and other investments
• All sources of income, including unearned income like rental property revenue and capital gains
• Liabilities over $5,000, including the amount of debts/liabilities, the person to whom they are owed and payments made over the last year, though some debts — like mortgages on a primary residence — are excepted
• The name, location and nature of privately held businesses in their control
• All professional licenses, board memberships/offices/positions within corporations, trusts, nonprofits, political organizations and more (elected official and spouse only)
• All gifts worth over $50 — including meals, tickets to events, use of personal property or a preferential rate on goods and services — received from any lobbyist, restricted donor, government contractor or person bidding on city work.”

Councilors Brook Bassan said  it makes sense that officials now have to report information about their immediate family members as well as themselves and said this:

“You have someone like me,  technically as a stay-at-home [mom], self-proclaimed household CEO …  I don’t have income, so where would my money be coming from? …  I share our finances with my husband.”

The City Clerk will be responsible for fully implementing the changes. According to City Clerk Ethan Watson, the new rules are identical  with financial disclosure standards once proposed for state of New Mexico officials but never adopted by the legislature.   City Clerk Watson had this to say:

“I think we identified there was room for improvement in the level of disclosure the city has required of elected officials in the past, and we were excited that the mayor and City Council were interested in pursuing this.”

Jeremy Farris , the New Mexico State Ethics Commission’s Executive director spoke in favor of the stronger disclosure rules during the City Council’s December 5 meeting. He said the new rules are consistent with the American Law Institute’s principals of government ethics. Farris told the council:

“In many ways, the passage of this ordinance would make Albuquerque a model in the area of financial disclosure law.”

CURRENT  FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The current financial disclosure statement is  a one-page form that asks  about sources of income,  real estate interests,  but only those in Bernalillo County, their memberships/positions inside professional organizations and any business relationships they already have or may have with the city of Albuquerque.  Each candidate for elective office within the City must  file this statement with the Board of Ethics and Campaign Practices within two days after filing the declaration of candidacy with the County Clerk.

Following is the content of the current disclosure statement:

“List your membership(s) and position(s), if any and all, in professional organizations:

List any and all sources of income that presently account for five percent (5%) or more of your income or which accounted for five percent (5%) or more of your income during the past year. Attach additional sheets as necessary. (For the purpose of responding to this provision, “source of income” includes the identity of the entity from which you received the income)

List any known present business relationships you have or may have with the City of Albuquerque

List any and all real estate interests* held by you within Bernalillo County, excluding your home:

*Active or passive investments in real property, including but not limited to: partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, closely-held corporations, which have real estate investments or interests located in Bernalillo County”

Click to access candidate-financial-disclosure-1.pdf

City Clerk Eathan Watson said his office is working on a new form that encompasses the newly required information.

Bottom of Form

https://www.abqjournal.com/2561474/albuquerque-officials-will-have-to-reveal-more-about-their-personal-finances-in-2023.html

 CHARTER PROVISIONS

It is Article XII, Section 5 of the City Charter and Section 3-3-5 of the city ordinances that  provides for 3  tiers of disclosure requirements for city officials and employees. Article XII, Section 5 of the City Charter provides as follows:

 “Section 5. DISCLOSURE.

(a)   An official of the city who shall have any private financial interest in any contract or other matter pending before or within the governmental body of which the official is employed or of which the official is a member, shall disclose such private financial interest to the governmental body.

    (b)   Any Councilor who has a direct or indirect interest in any matter pending before the Council shall disclose such interest on the records of the Council. The existence of a direct or indirect private financial interest on any matter coming before the Council, including approval of a contract, shall disqualify a Councilor from debating and voting on the matter. A majority of the remaining members of the Council shall determine whether a Councilor has a direct or indirect interest and whether the Councilor shall be allowed to participate in the decision making process related to the matter and vote on the matter. A Councilor who has a conflict of interest may voluntarily decline to participate in the decision making process related to the matter and vote on such matter.

    (c)   The Mayor and each City Councilor, during their term of office, shall file contribution and expenditure disclosure statements on the second Monday in May and November of each year setting out all contributions and expenditures, as defined in the City Election Code, during the previous period, raised or spent in connection with any campaign or pre-campaign activity for any elected office. Expenditures of public funds in the regular course of the Mayor or Councilor’s official duties are not contributions and expenditures subject to such disclosure under this section. The Mayor and Councilors are not required to file a biannual statement if there have been no campaign or pre-campaign contributions or expenditures during the previous period by or for the particular Mayor or Councilor. These reporting requirements shall be in addition to the reporting requirements of the Election Code, provided that any information filed with the City Clerk pursuant to City Charter Article XIII, Section 4(c) need not be included in the subsequent biannual reports required in this section. The contributions and expenditures identified in biannual statements that are to be applied to a campaign for election to a city office shall be included in the first campaign disclosure report that the candidate files pursuant to the Election Code.

    (d)   All elected officials shall file with the City Clerk an annual statement listing all of the changes or additions to the disclosure information provided by the elected official at the time of filing his or her declaration of candidacy, pursuant to Section 3 of the Election Code. If no changes have occurred, the elected official shall so state in the annual statement. The annual statement shall be due on the first city work day of July and shall be submitted on a form approved by the City Clerk. The annual statement shall be a public record.

    (e)   In addition to the information disclosed pursuant to Section 3 of the Election Code, the disclosure of financial interests for all elected officials shall include the following information for the preceding calendar year in regard to the official required to file the statement:

       (1)   The names of all businesses with which the official is associated;

      (2)   All sources of income, including the name of each employer, with a description of the type of income received, in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000), without specifying amounts of income;

      (3)   All real property and its location, whether owned by such official or held in the name of a corporation, partnership or trust for the benefit of such official;

      (4)   Any leases or contracts with the city or a quasi-public agency held or entered into by the official or a business with which the official was associated;

   (f)   The statement of financial interests filed pursuant to subsection (e) shall be a matter of public information.

   (g)   Any individual who is unable to provide information required under the provisions of subsection (e) of this section by reason of impossibility may petition the Board of Ethics for a waiver of the requirements.”

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/albuquerque/latest/albuquerque_nm_admin/0-0-0-34937

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is clear that that the City does in fact have strong financial disclosure law that  promotes significant transparency. The law looks good only on  paper. The real question that remains  to be seen is to  what degree the law will be enforced and what action will be taken if they are not honored?   Simply put, enacted laws and ordinances may be model legislation but are worthless unless enforced.

 

On January 10, the online news outlet New Mexico Sun published a 750 word  Pete Dinelli guest opinion column entitled “ACLU lawsuit vs ABQ: false and inflammatory”.  It is a highly  condensed and edited version of a previously published Dinelli blog article.  Below is the guest column followed by the link:

HEADLINE: “ACLU lawsuit vs ABQ: false and inflammatory”

By Pete Dinelli

“On Monday, December 19, the ACLU and the NM Center on Law & Poverty filed a “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” against the City of Albuquerque on behalf 8 Plaintiffs alleging they are homeless. They claim they were displaced from Coronado Park when the city closed it and that the city did not provide satisfactory shelter.  According to the ACLU, the lawsuit was filed to stop the City from destroying encampments of the unhoused, seizing and destroying personal property and jailing and fining people.

The closure of Coronado Park was absolutely necessary because of what it had become which was a violent, crime invested, ground contaminated park that posed an immediate threat to the unhoused, the surrounding neighborhood and to the general public. The unhoused have reached crisis proportions, not because their numbers have increased, but because they have become far more visible and aggressive by illegally camping in parks, on streets, in alleyways and in city open space, whenever they want and refusing city services, medical attention and city shelter. The overwhelming majority of the Coronado Park unhoused declined the services and shelter offered. Many told the city they planned to move to another park or street location.

The lawsuit makes sweeping allegations of civil rights violations that are highly inflammatory that should be challenged by the city in no uncertain terms as being false. 

The suit alleges that “the City regularly enforces City ordinances and state laws against unhoused people in a manner that criminalizes their status as homeless, the City deprives them of the means to survive.  The destruction of people’s tents, tarps, blankets, and sleeping bags leaves them completely exposed to the elements. The destruction of people’s medicine, food, and water deprives them of some of the most essential conditions for life.”   

Stolen grocery store baskets brimming with abandoned items found in business dumpsters or residential garbage bins are not “meager, essential necessities for life.”

The ACLU complaint asserts the unhoused, because of their status and because there is no city housing available, they have the right to violate the law and illegally camp wherever they want for how long as they want without government interference.  The unhoused are not above the law and do not have the right to violate the law because they are homeless 

The complaint alleges that the city is “jailing and fining” the unhouse because of their status of being homeless. This allegation is FALSE.  APD has a “no arrest” policy for nonviolent homeless crimes such as trespass on public and private property, illegal camping in city parks and streets, rights of way, alleyways and open space. When the unhoused are cited for such crimes, they are given a 3-day notice to vacate their encampment along with their belongings.  When APD arrests or detains the unhoused it’s for felonies such as illicit drugs, stolen property, stolen or unlicensed guns or weaponry, individuals with outstanding arrest warrants or unhoused who pose an immediate threat to the public or themselves.

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

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

Unlawful encampment squatters who refuse city services and all alternatives to living on the street, who want to camp at city parks, on city streets in alleys and trespass in open space give the city no choice but to take action and force them to move on. The city needs to seek the immediate dismissal of the case and the 8 plaintiffs unsubstantiated or questionable claims for a failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted.”

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

______________________________

POSTSCRIPT

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO SUN

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

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

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

https://newmexicosun.com/

The link to a related Dinelli blog article is here:

Unhoused Sue City Over Coronado Park Closure; City Should Seek Immediate Dismissal;  Unhoused Cannot Be Allowed To Violate The Law As They Refuse City Shelter And Services

Unhoused Sue City Over Coronado Park Closure; City Should Seek Immediate Dismissal; Unhoused Cannot Be Allowed To Violate The Law As They Refuse City Shelter And Services

On Monday, December 19, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, the NM Center on Law & Poverty, and the law firms of Ives & Flores, PA and  Davis Law New Mexico filed a  “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” against the City of Albuquerque on behalf  4 men and 4 women identified Plaintiffs alleged to be homeless. According to the complaint, not one of the 8 plaintiff’s allege they were charged or arrested for refusing to leave the park on the day it was closed nor were they jailed.  They allege they were displaced from Coronado Park when the city closed it and that the city did not provide satisfactory shelter.  According to an ACLU press release, the lawsuit was filed to stop the City of Albuquerque from destroying encampments of the unhoused, seizing and destroying personal property and jailing and fining people.

This blog article is an in-depth analysis of the lawsuit quoting the complaint followed by analysis and commentary supported by news accounts.

The link to review the full unedited complaint is here:

https://www.aclu-nm.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/final_complaint_class_action.pdf

GENERAL NATURE OF THE CLAIMS

The lawsuit was filed in State District Court.  Only the City of Albuquerque is specifically named as a Defendant.  Mayor Tim Keller, APD and the Family and Community Service Department are not named as defendants.  The 46 page lawsuit alleges that all 8 plaintiffs were displaced from Coronado Park on August 27 when the city permanently closed the city park. The lawsuit is seeking the case be certified as a class action lawsuit with allegations regarding each of the individual 8 plaintiffs made to create sperate classes to represent themselves and others yet to be identified and who may be in the class and who are unhoused throughout Albuquerque.

The lawsuit alleges the city unlawfully seized their personal property, denied them due process of law, violated their constitutional rights by destroying their property and forced all the unhoused at Coronado Park out with nowhere for them to go and with the city not providing shelter for them.   The lawsuit is seeking court orders that will require the city to cease and desist enforcement actions to stop the unhoused from camping in public spaces which includes public streets, public rights of ways, alleyways, under bridges and city parks unless the city has  shelter or housing for them.

ALLEGATIONS OF HOUSING SHORTAGES AND HOMELESSNESS

The general allegations of homelessness contained in the complaint are as follows:

“The problem of a lack of affordable, safe, stable residences in Albuquerque has been ongoing for years and has been caused in part by the City’s own policies and practices. …  Residential permitting and development within the City have long focused on single family, detached homes, which are generally less affordable than multifamily units, like apartment buildings, or smaller attached units, such as townhomes and duplexes. …

Albuquerque Mayor Timothy Keller recently acknowledged that there is a housing crisis in the city, noting that the Albuquerque area needs between 13,000 and 33,000 new units to address the housing supply.  …

In recent years, an upward shift in home prices nationally has put home ownership out of reach for many people, pushing them into the rental market and driving up rents. …  In addition, there is an increasing trend of institutional investors, rather than homeowners, buying single-family homes that first-time home buyers might otherwise purchase, and renting them out at sky-high rates.  …

Since 2000, median rents have increased by 112% in the Midwest, 135% in the South, 189% in the Northeast, and 192% in the West. …    In 2021, rents increased by an average of 17% nationwide.  Rents in Albuquerque increased between 10% and 19.9% in just the first quarter of 2022.  …  Rent increases have outpaced income growth, decreasing the supply of rental units that are accessible to lower-income individuals and households.

The lack of affordable housing has an even greater impact on people with disabling conditions. A 2016 study showed that the national average rent for a modest one-bedroom unit exceeded 100% of monthly Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, and the national average rent for a studio or efficiency apartment was equivalent to 99% of monthly SSI payments..

The unavailability of affordable housing is a primary cause of homelessness. … A second major factor is a lack of employment opportunities and jobs that don’t pay an adequate living wage. … 

The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that a “housing wage,” which is the hourly wage a full-time worker must make to afford an apartment without spending more than 30% of their income, is $25.82 an hour in order to afford a modest two-bedroom residence. The current minimum wage in New Mexico is $11.50. 19. Many unhoused people are employed, but still cannot afford housing.

Other common contributors to homelessness include: domestic violence against women and children; health issues; and mental health issues, including trauma; and addiction. …  The percentage of adults with disabilities (including difficulties with hearing, vision, cognition, mental health, ambulation, self-care, and independent living) is higher among the unhoused than it is among the general population.

The percentage of adults with a substance abuse disorder is also higher among the unhoused than it is among the general population. In Albuquerque, 44% of surveyed unsheltered adults self-reported having a substance abuse disorder. … People with complex health needs, often require supportive services in addition to housing.  

Although some individual characteristics, such as mental illness, disabilities, or substance abuse are contributing factors to some people’s homelessness, the essential problem that many unhoused people face is a lack of affordable housing.

 The lack of affordable housing and adequately paid employment in Albuquerque has not only caused precariously housed individuals and families to lose their housing, but it has also presented a barrier for currently unhoused people to exit homelessness. 

The federal government requires states receiving certain federal funding to conduct an annual “point-in-time” count of people experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness on a single night in January each year. Point-in-time counts are the best available data for determining the number of unhoused people, but they are known to provide gross undercounts because of the difficulties in finding all of a location’s unhoused individuals on a single night. …

The 2022 point-in-time count report prepared by the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness reflected a total of 2,594 individuals who were in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or unsheltered in New Mexico.  The New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness estimates that the actual number of New Mexicans experiencing homelessness is between 15,000 and 20,000—a number that captures residents who are temporarily living with others, living in unsafe housing conditions, sleeping in cars, or staying in motels, in addition to those staying in shelters or outdoors.

 Of the 2,594 unhoused individuals counted in the 2022 point-in-time survey, over half of these—some 1,311—were in Albuquerque. …  If the actual numbers of unhoused people estimated by the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness are correct, and if over half of the unhoused people in the state live in Albuquerque, the real number of unhoused people in the city would be between 7,500 and 11,000.  Of the 1,311 homeless individuals counted in Albuquerque during the 2022 point-in-time count, 270 of these were children under the age of 18.   However, the number of homeless youths is likely closer to 2,300. …”

Paragraphs 5 to 34, “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief”.

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

The Plaintiff’s allegations relating to residential development is absurd and very misleading.  It reflects a level of sure ignorance of the permitting and development process of a growing city.  The complaint alleges “The problem of a lack of affordable, safe, stable residences in Albuquerque has been ongoing for years and has been caused in part by the City’s own policies and practices. …Residential permitting and development within the City have long focused on single family, detached homes, which are generally less affordable than multifamily units, like apartment buildings, or smaller attached units, such as townhomes and duplexes”.  This allegation suggests the concentration on residential development was wrong or misguided.  It is the housing market, private investment, the real estate development community, the banking community and construction industry that decides the focus of  housing construction and where to invest and build based upon market demands and conditions and not the  dictates of  the city. The city role is to see that development conforms with zoning laws and construction codes.

The civil complaint devotes one half of the complaint to general allegations of homelessness in the City of Albuquerque, the unavailability of shelter for the homeless and how the city is enforcing state and city laws that apply to all residents of the city. The complaint cites statistics that are 3 years old alleging there are only 8 service providers and the number of shelter beds available in Albuquerque is 633.  It alleges that the number has not substantially changed since 2019.

There are in fact 16 service providers and shelter providers in the city.  New shelter space is available or is being constructed in the city, including the new city Gateway Shelter. The complaint fails to disclose the extent of shelter space and various services available in both the public and private sectors including shelter and services available in both the city and the county.

The complaint makes the questionable conclusions and lays blame on the city that “The unavailability of affordable housing is a primary cause of homelessness” and that “A second major factor is a lack of employment opportunities and jobs that don’t pay an adequate living wage…”.  The complaint alleges that economic conditions, unemployment, drug addiction and mental illness are merely “contributing factors” to homeless and fails to acknowledge that city government has very little or no control over these factors.

The complaint places blame on the city’s policies and practices for causing a housing shortage, along with escalating home prices that have put ownership out of reach and have resulted in more pressure on the rental market.  The complaint points to the trend of institutional investors buying single-family homes and renting them at sky-high rates.

In Albuquerque, unemployment is not a major contributing factor to the unhoused. Studies and surveys of the unhoused have shown that it is mental illness and drug addiction  that are the 2 major causes of homelessness. The 2022 Point In Time Survey of the unsheltered in Albuquerque found that a whopping 90% combined of the unsheltered are suffering from mental illness or drug addiction.

2022 “POINT IN TIME” SURVEY

The lawsuit goes to great length to disparage the Point In Time Survey (PIT)  that found in 2022 there were 1,311 homeless in the city.  The law suit alleges that Point in Time Surveys “are known to provide gross undercounts because of the difficulties in finding all of a location’s unhoused individuals on a single night”.  The lawsuit makes the sweeping allegation “The New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness estimates that the actual number of New Mexicans experiencing homelessness is between 15,000 and 20,000”.  The allegation is made without providing any definitive survey information nor count and the inflated claim has been discredited by the PIT surveys over the years.

The PIT survey statistics have never supported the allegation that the actual number of New Mexicans experiencing homelessness is between 15,000 and 20,000. Each year the statistics are released, charitable organizations and unhoused advocacy groups downplay or disparage the numbers no doubt knowing increased federal funding is dependent on the numbers.  The more unhoused, the more funding they get.

The “Point in Time” (PIT)  survey is conducted to determine how many people experience homelessness on a given night in Albuquerque, and to learn more about their specific needs. The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help understand the extent of homelessness at the city, state, regional and national levels and for governments to qualify for federal funding.

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

This year, the PIT count and survey was taken on January 31, 2022. The PIT report is 40 pages long and includes graphs and pie charts outlining the statistics reported.  You can review the entire PIT report at this link:

https://www.nmceh.org/_files/ugd/6737c5_4ecb9ab7114a45dcb25f648c6e0b0a30.pdf

CITY UNHOUSED NUMBERS

In even numbered years, only sheltered homeless are surveyed for the PIT survey. In odd numbered years, both sheltered and unsheltered homeless are surveyed.

In August, the 2022 the Point In Time (PIT) homeless survey reported that the number total homeless in the city was 1,311 with 940 in emergency shelters, 197 unsheltered and 174 in transitional housing. Surprisingly, the survey found that there are 256 fewer homeless in 2022 than in 2021 which was 1,567.  In 2019, the PIT found 1,524 homeless.

The 2022 PIT report provides the odd number years of shelter and unsheltered homeless in Albuquerque for 8 years from 2009 to 2019 and including 2022.  During the last 12 years, PIT yearly surveys have counted between 1,300 to 2,000 homeless a year.  Those numbers are:  2011: 1,639, 2013: 1,171, 2015:1,287,  2017: 1,318, 2019: 1,524, 2021: 1,567 and 2022: 1,311.

The 1,311 figures in the 2022 PIT report is the lowest number of unsheltered reported for the last 5 years. According to the 2022 PIT report there were 256 fewer homeless in January 2022 than in January 2021, yet the public perception is that the city is overrun by the homeless likely because they have become far more aggressive, more assertive  and more visible.

The 2022 PIT data breakdown for the unsheltered for the years 2009 to 2022 in the city is as follows:

• Chronic homeless:  67% (homeless 6 months to a year or more)
• Veterans:  9%  
• First-time homeless:  38%
• Homeless due to domestic violence:  16%
• Adults with a serious mental illness:  46%
• Adults with substance use disorder:  44%

(2022 PIT Report, page 7)

Note that a whopping 90% combined of the unsheltered are suffering from mental illness or substance use disorder.

NEW MEXICO UNHOUSED NUMBERS

The 2022 Point In Time Report provides what it referred to “BALANCE OF THE STATE” statistics where the Albuquerque Homeless numbers were excluded. The total estimated number of HOUSEHOLDS experiencing homelessness in the  BALANCE OF STATE on January 31, 2022 were reported are as follows: Emergency Shelters:  574, Transitional Housing: 70, Unsheltered: 366.  TOTAL: 1,010  (Page 17, Point in Time Survey)

The total estimated number of INDIVIDUALS with one child, without children and with only children experiencing homelessness in the Balance of State on January 31, 2022  were reported as follows: Emergency Shelters:  785, Transitional Housing: 107, Unsheltered: 391.   TOTAL: 1,283  (Page 17, Point in Time Survey)

https://www.nmceh.org/_files/ugd/6737c5_4ecb9ab7114a45dcb25f648c6e0b0a30.pdf

ALLEGATIONS OF UNIHABITABLE WESTSIDE SHELTER AND SHELTER SHORTAGE

The lawsuit details a litany of alleged problems with the Westside Emergency Housing Center (WEHC). The specific allegations are:

“Under the Eighth Amendment, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter”  citing the federal case of Martin v. Boise, 920 F.3d 584, 604 (9th Cir. 2019)

Shelter space in Albuquerque is inadequate to provide beds for all of the city’s unhoused individuals.  A 2019 report prepared for the City reflected that between City-run shelters and private shelters, there were only 633 beds available.

… 

Of the available shelter beds, the greatest number is at the Westside Emergency Housing Center (“Westside shelter”), a facility housed in a former temporary jail that the City stopped using in 2003. The City variously represents the Westside shelter as being able to house between 300 and 450 people.

The Westside shelter is unsafe, unhealthy, and unfit for human habitation. The building does not meet the essential fire safety and building codes of applicable local codes and state regulations and law, including state fire safety codes …  and the City’s own building safety codes.

A recent report from the Albuquerque Fire Department indicates that there are no working fire hydrants on the property. … Federal funds have been used to finance the operation of the Westside shelter, but, on information and belief, the City’s assurances to federal authorities regarding the fitness of the facility have not been, and currently are not being, met.

… The shelter is infested with black mold. …  On information and belief, residents have been scalded in the showers at the Westside shelter due to defective mixing valves. At times as few as one shower in the building has been working, such that residents must bathe in mobile showers on trailers out back.

…  The shower doors in the women’s pod cannot be closed, such that women do not have privacy while bathing. …  On information and belief, showers have, at times, not been accessible for people who use wheelchairs. … 

The kitchen is not operable, and the facility cannot pass a health and safety inspection. There is no oven, stove top, or working refrigerator available for use by people residing there. …  No certificate of occupancy has been issued to operate the building as a homeless shelter. The last such certificate was issued in 2006.

 There is no washing machine or clothes dryer available for residents to clean and dry their clothing. They must wash their clothes in the bathroom sinks and hang them outdoors on the cyclone fencing. … There are bed bugs and parasites in the bedding, and there is no effective method in use to “sanitize” the sheets, blankets, mattresses, and bedding. … 

No secure storage space is available for people’s belongings. There are lockers in the building, but residents cannot use them. Residents’ personal property lies directly on the floor under the bunk beds on which they sleep. …

Chronically overcrowded, there are not enough beds for everyone, so people sleep on plastic “boats” on the floor. On information and belief, a complaint was filed with the City Inspector General in March 2022 due to problems with staff misbehavior, including allegations of extortion. 

The Westside shelter is in a location that is on the outskirts of the City and is far from services, jobs, and support systems such as family and friends. People who sleep there are separated from case managers, social workers, treatment providers and employment support and 10 other social service programs, and often cannot obtain timely transportation to appointments in town that could help them obtain employment, housing and other supportive services.

…

Many residents have mental illness and behavioral health disabilities, but, on information and belief, mental health therapy is not provided there. …  On information and belief, many unhoused people are banned from the shelter on a permanent basis; sometimes for possession or use of drugs, which are common causes for being banned. … 

Couples who are partnered or married cannot stay together if one member of the couple is a man and the other is a woman, since men and women must stay in separate parts of the shelter, causing these people to lose one of their primary forms of social and emotional support.

This separation is particularly difficult for people who have disabilities and rely on their partner for help.  People living with minor children are not permitted to stay at the shelter.  Women and people whose gender presentation is nontraditional or nonbinary are often harassed at the shelter.

Paragraphs 35 to 62,  “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief”.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The complaint degrades to the utmost extent the Westside Shelter making inflammatory, unsubstantiated or outlandish hearsay allegations that it is “unsafe, unhealthy, and unfit for human habitation”.   It makes the outlandish allegation that the west side shelter can “trigger  mental health conditions” the homeless may suffer from, including “post-traumatic stress disorder” ignoring the fact the unhoused can not be forced to use the shelter facility.   It does not disclose to what extent the facility has actually been upgraded and remodeled for the unhoused, the extent of services provided by the city, the number of city employees at the facility nor the fact the shelter cite  does have a Safe Outdoor Space for the unhoused to park and live out of their vehicles.

The plaintiff’s citation and reliance on the federal case of  Martin v. Boise, 920 F.3d 584, 604 (9th Cir. 2019) that ruled  in part “ as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter”  is dubious at best and is not applicable to the case.  The city does  offer options of sleeping indoors and financial assistance for housing, but the unhoused reject it.

During the past 5 years, the city has established two 24/7 homeless shelters, including purchasing the Loveless Gibson Medical Center for $15 million to convert it into a homeless shelter. The city is funding and operating 2 major shelters for the homeless, one fully operational with 450 beds and one that will be fully operational by the spring of 2022 that will assist upwards 1,000 homeless and accommodate at least 330 a night. Ultimately, both shelters are big enough to be remodeled and provide far more sheltered housing for the unhoused.

WESTSIDE EMERGENCY HOUSING CENTER

It was on October 22, 2019 that Mayor Tim Keller announce that the Westside Emergency Housing Center (WEHC) would become a 24/7 homeless shelter. The shelter has been upgraded and remodeled to accommodate the homeless and expand the services offered.  $1.5 million has been allocated for improvements to the Westside Emergency Housing Center during the current fiscal year. It is a “one-stop-shop” with service providers providing medical services, case management and job placement services. It costs about $4.5 million a year to operate the shelter with about $1 million of that $4.5 million invested in transporting people to and from the facility.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-plans-on-expanding-services-at-westside-emergency-housing-center/

The Westside Emergency Housing Center has  immediately available upwards of 450 beds to accommodate the homeless on any given night. The shelter offers shelter to men, women, and families experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque. While staying at the WEHC, the homeless have access to a computer lab, showers, medical examination rooms, and receive three meals a day. The WEHC is a 24/7 operation and has a staff of 80 to assist those who stay at the shelter.  The shelter does connect men and women to permeant housing and other resources.

A ”Safe Outdoor Space”  has been established at the city of Albuquerque’s Westside Emergency Housing Center.  It is a managed site where people who are homeless can sleep overnight, with access to toilets, showers and more. Outdoor camping by the unhoused in the area in all likelihood can be permitted.

GATEWAY HOMELESS SHELTER

On January 4, 2022, the city announced that on January 10, the Gateway shelter will open for “emergency shelter” use.   Outreach teams will work specifically to bring in people from unsanctioned encampments around the city and give them an indoor place to stay during the coldest months of the year.    The city said the emergency shelter is needed as an alternative to the existing West Side where the unhoused refuse to go.  On January 4, The City Council approved a $1.1 million contract with the nonprofit Heading Home to run the emergency shelter through April 3, and then to operate elements of the Gateway Center for three months after that.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2562074/old-lovelace-to-open-as-emergency-shelter-ex-opening-next-week-the.html

It was on April 6, 2021, Mayor Tim Keller officially announced the city had bought the massive 572,000 square-foot building that has a 201-bed capacity, for $15 million.  Keller announced that the massive facility would be transformed into the Gateway Center Homeless Shelter.

Interior demolition and remodeling of the 572,000 square foot building has been going on for a number of months to prepare the facility for a homeless shelter.  The ABQ Gateway Center will likely to open sometime in the Spring of 2023.  Beds for 50 women are planned for the first phase and for the first responder drop-off is to come online early 2023. The city plans to launch other elements of the 24/7 shelter by next summer.  According to the 2022-2023 approved city budget, $1,691,859 has been allocated for various vendors to operate Westside Emergency Shelter Center.

The city is planning to assist an estimated 300 unhoused and connect them to other services intended to help secure permanent housing. The new facility is intended to serve all populations of men, women, and families. Further, the city wants to provide a place anyone could go regardless of gender, religious affiliation, sobriety, addictions, psychotic condition or other factors.

The city facility is to have on-site case managers that would guide residents toward counseling, addiction treatment, housing vouchers and other available resources.  The goal is for the new homeless shelter to provide first responders an alternative destination for the people they encounter known as the “down-and-out” calls.

The city estimates 1,500 people could go through the drop-off each year. The “dropoff  for the down and outs” will initially have 4 beds.  It is primarily imagined as a funnel into other services.  While that likely will include other on-site services, city officials say it will also help move people to a range of other destinations, including different local shelters, or even the Bernalillo County-run CARE Campus, which offers detoxification and other programs.

The city’s plan is to continue adding capacity, with ultimate plan to have a total of 250 emergency shelter beds, and 40 beds for medical sobering and 40 beds for medical respite beds for a total of 330 bed capacity.  Counting the other outside providers who lease space inside the building, city officials believe the property’s impact will be significant.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2529657/abq-gateway-center-likely-to-open-some-time-this-winter-ex-mayor-say.html

CITY’S FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITMENT TO HOMELESS

Plaintiff’s complaint concentrates on the lack of shelter offered by the city.  It  simply ignores all the financial assistance the city offers the unhoused and fails to disclose what the unhoused reject.

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

CORONADO PARK ALLEGATIONS AND CLOSURE

The complaint addresses the August 17 closure of Corondo Park in the following manner:

“In part because of a lack of viable shelter space, for many years, the City permitted unhoused people to set up tents or other temporary living sites at Coronado Park. … 

A community of up to approximately 120 people was established there with a set of self-enforced rules and norms. … For example, it was understood that if a person needed to leave the park—to go to work, to access services, to get food, to visit family and friends, or to engage in any of the other normal activities of daily life—their belongings would be protected and no other resident would take or disturb them for a period of three days. If, after three days, the owner had not returned, it was understood that the belongings were considered to be abandoned and could be claimed by others in the park. …

This system ensured that people had a stable home base where their few possessions would be preserved, such that they could safely leave in order to function within the larger society outside of the park. …

The City maintained the park by cleaning it every other week. On cleaning days, residents had notice that they were required to leave the park between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., while City personnel cleaned the park and removed any trash.

On July 25, 2022, Mayor Keller announced that the City of Albuquerque intended to close Coronado Park, but he did not provide a date for the closure. … Shockingly, Mayor Keller stated that there was no plan for where the residents of Coronado Park would go after the park was closed.

On August 17, 2022, City employees arrived and began throwing people’s tents and other belongings into garbage trucks and destroying them in the compactor. …  Residents tried to remove as many of their possessions as they could, but City employees were throwing items into the garbage trucks quickly and without giving residents the opportunity to collect their things. …

The scene was chaotic. People were crying and attempting to get their belongings away from the City employees. …  Some people who managed to get some of their possessions out onto the street had City employees follow them, take their things, and throw them into garbage trucks. …  

After everyone was out of the park, the City flooded the park with water, fenced it, and permanently closed it as an encampment. … Because the City lacks adequate shelter space and because even the available shelter space is not a viable option for some people, the people evicted from Coronado Park had nowhere to go. …  People have looked for other locations, but the City continues to sweep unhoused people from wherever they land, making it impossible for people to settle anywhere. …

Prior to the closure of Coronado Park, when City employees wanted unhoused people to move from where they had set up camp, the employees generally directed them to the park. … After the closure of the park, City employees have not told unhoused people where they should go when the City forces them to move along. …

 When the City closed the park without providing additional beds or available housing, unhoused people living in the park dispersed with their belongings and took shelter where they could: under bridges, in alleys, around cemeteries, and in unused public lots. …  

With the onset of winter and dropping temperatures, people sheltering outdoors are in immediate jeopardy of dying of hypothermia.”

Paragraphs 63 to 82, Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief”

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

The civil complaint makes specific allegations regarding Coronado Park and its closure.   It alleges how the unhoused themselves took possession of the city owned park and established their own management, rules and regulations of the public park without city authorization.  The suit alleges the plaintiffs felt safer at Coronado Park, but its closure left them nowhere to go, which is false.  City officials at the time of the park’s closure said there was sufficient space at the Westside Shelter for all park residents but the lawsuit alleges that the city overall lacks enough shelter beds for its entire homeless population.

Plaintiffs  make the false claim the city did not provide sufficient notice that city employees were displacing the unhoused from the park for good rather than temporarily closing the park for what had been, until then, routine cleanings. Plaintiffs allege many residents lost their belongings as a result. The truth is at least 4 weeks’ notice and outreach was conducted by the city  and  the unhoused at the park actually declined any and all city offered services.

CLOSURE OF CORONADO PARK JUSITIFIED AND RIGHT THING TO DO

The closure of Coronado Park was the right thing to do because of what it had become which was a violent, crime invested, ground contaminated park that posed an immediate threat to the unhoused, the surrounding neighborhood and the public.

Over the last 10 years, Coronado Park became a homeless encampment with the city repeatedly cleaning it up only for the homeless to return the next day. City officials said it was costing the city $27,154 every two weeks or $54,308 a month to clean up the park only for the homeless encampment to return.  Residents and businesses located near the park complain to the city repeatedly about the city allowing the park to be used as a homeless encampment.  At any given time, Coronado Park had 70 to 80 tents crammed into the park with homeless wondering the area.

Criminal activity spiked at Coronado Park over the past 3 years with an extensive history of lawlessness including drug use, violence, murder, rape and homeless suffering from mental health episodes. In 2020, there were 3 homicides at Coronado Park. In 2019, a disabled woman was raped, and in 2018 there was a murder. APD reports that it was dispatched to the park 651 times in 2021 and in 2022  at least 312 dispatches  and over 400 calls up and until its closure in August. There have been 16 stabbings at the park in the past 2 years and in 2022  APD  seized from the park 4,500 fentanyl pills, more than 5 pounds of methamphetamine, 24 grams of heroin and 29 grams of cocaine. APD also found $10,000 in cash.

The city also cited lack of sanitation posing a health risk to those at Coronado Park and playing a role in the park closure, as well as overall damage to the park. Virtually all the trees in the park were dead and the city had cut them down. An analysis of the city park grounds revealed a level of mold contamination that posed a major, immediate health risk to the unhoused.  Drug trafficking at the park had reached a crisis proportions. Albuquerque Police Department announced that they recovered several different firearms at the park, as well as narcotic drugs like fentanyl, methamphetamine and heroin.

According to the complaint, not one of the 8 plaintiff’s allege they were charged or arrested for refusing to leave the park on the day it was closed nor were they jailed. The complaint does not allege any one was arrested or taken to jail on the day Coronado Parke was closed.

On July 25, calling it “the most dangerous place in the state of New Mexico” Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference standing in front of Coronado Park to discuss his reasons for ordering the parks closure and saying it was imperative to close the park.

Keller said this:

“We’re not going to wait any longer. We have all the evidence we need that says that we have to do something different. … It is not going to be something where every question is answered, and every plan is thought out. … We do not have the luxury of a perfect plan. … At this point, if we don’t close the park now, it will never be a park again. … There was unanimous consensus that at a minimum, temporarily, this park has to close. … This is the first step. We welcome everyone to help us problem-solve, but someone has to step up and make a decision … And that’s what people elected me to do.”

City officials said upwards 120 people camped nightly at the park and said homeless occupants were told of other housing options offered by the city. The city also said it would continue to offer services and housing options to those using Coronado Park, including making limited property storage available to those who are interested or in need of it. Chief Administrative Officer Lawrence Rael said the city would start posting flyers of the pending closure and that the city will alert the homeless squatters of available services and other housing options.

THE MAYOR OF CORONADO PARK

In an interesting twist to the closure of the Coronado Park, APD Commander Nick Wheeler said many of the people who lived at the park were “afraid to get services”, and he made the disclosure:

“When I asked about what they were afraid of, they explained to me that they were afraid of the self-proclaimed ‘mayor.’ … The most vulnerable folks, the unhoused, that were living in Coronado Park, every day they were victimized [by this guy.]”

Wheeler was alluding to Joseph Garcia, who called himself “the Mayor of Coronado Park.”  Police arrested Garcia in the shooting death of Andrew Aguilar, who was killed inside the park. Wheeler said Aguilar was shot because he didn’t want to pay rent to live in the park.  Wheeler made it clear that those living at the park felt safer after Garcia’s arrest.

CITY NOTICE OF CLOSURE AND OUTREACH SURVEY

On July 25 when Keller announced the closure of the park, between 120 and 150 homeless would camp in the park nightly. By Tuesday, August 17 when the park was officially closed and after weeks of what the city has called “intensive outreach” and contact with the homeless campers telling them of the impending closure, the number was down to 30 to 40 and 15 subsequently accepted transportation to a shelter.

Spokeswoman for Family and Community Services Katie Simon said that part of the city’s intensive outreach, the city did more than 110 surveys of those who had been living at Coronado Park.  She said that 24 were either given a motel voucher or transported to a shelter, 2 were given tickets to travel housing out of state and 2 were taken to the hospital.  More than half of the 94 Coronado Park residents who took a city-funded survey before the closure said they planned to move to another park or street location.

On Wednesday, August 18, Mayor Tim Keller held a press conference and officially closed the park  to the public making good the  promise he made on June 27 to close the park by the end of August.  Keller said this:

“The actions taken today by the City of Albuquerque are made necessary by the threats to public health, safety and the environment that this encampment has created. …

SWEEPING ALLEGATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

The complaint makes sweeping claims the city is illegally punishing people for sleeping in public spaces when they have nowhere else to go ignoring the fact that the chronically unhouse refuse shelter made available to them by the city.  All 8 of the identified plaintiffs accuse the city of “cruel and unusual punishment” against people who are homeless and prosecuting them “for simply existing on public property with their personal belongings.”  The plaintiffs also accuse the city of unlawfully seizing their personal property and denying them due process of law. The suit alleges the plaintiffs felt safer at Coronado Park, but its closure left them nowhere else to go. All these  allegations  are simply not true.   The city spent weeks of outreach and offered placement and assistance.

The law suit makes specific allegations of the “consequences of the city’s polices” and alleges as follows:

“In confiscating unhoused people’s few meager possessions, the City deprives them of the means to survive: The destruction of people’s tents, tarps, blankets, and sleeping bags leaves them completely exposed to the elements. The destruction of people’s medicine, food, and water deprives them of some of the most essential conditions for life. …

The City’s actions in denying unhoused people any stable place to be causes the unhoused to live in an unremitting state of uncertainty and fear. The constant threat of being forced to relocate creates stress and can have significant negative health effects, causing individuals to lose sleep and contributing to worsening mental and physical health conditions.

The combination of being endlessly on the move and living under the threat of having all of one’s worldly possessions seized and destroyed means that unhoused individuals must spend their time and energy transferring their things from place to place and guarding their belongings from seizure, rather than engaging in more productive pursuits such as going to work or securing employment, seeking treatment for mental and physical health conditions, or gaining access to permanent housing.

In addition, the criminalization of homelessness actually promotes the cycle of homelessness by making it harder for people to find housing or to keep jobs. Even misdemeanor convictions can make someone ineligible for subsidized housing, and criminal records are routinely used to exclude applicants from employment and housing.  …”

Paragraphs 96 to 99, “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief”.

The lawsuit outlines specific allegation of the city destroying the personal property of the unhoused as follows:

“Although the City has had at least one written policy regarding the collection and safeguarding of personal property when the City removes an unhoused person’s encampment, the City regularly fails to adhere to this policy. … The City regularly forces people to move from their encampment location without notice or without adequate notice, and in doing so, the City regularly takes their personal property and discards it. … 

When the City does give notice, it also regularly throws away or destroys the property of unhoused people who were unable to move their belongings within the time frame given by the notice. …  The City also regularly discards or destroys personal property that is temporarily unattended, including when unhoused people leave their belongings in order to tend to life sustaining activities, such as working, or obtaining food or water. … The City does not store property collected from unhoused people so that it may later be retrieved, and instead throws away unhoused people’s property indiscriminately.”

Paragraphs 91 to 95, “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief”

CONDEMNATION OF CITY FOR CRIMINALIZING THE STATUS OF BEING UNHOUSED

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

The specific statutes cited in the lawsuit are:

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

The lawsuit does not challenge the constitutionality of any of the state statutes nor city ordinances but makes the very broad allegation that “the  City regularly enforces City ordinances and state laws against unhoused people in a manner that criminalizes their status as homeless … [and] …  Unhoused people who erect tents or makeshift shelters around the City are routinely cited and/or arrested for violations of [the state laws and city ordinances].   Violations of these statutes and ordinances are punished as misdemeanors.

The lawsuit condemns the city alleging it is criminalizing the status of being unhoused with the following specific allegations:

As an illustration of the City’s ongoing practice of criminalizing the status of being unhoused, in the brief period between August 15, 2022, just before Coronado Park was closed, and October 2, 2022, two-and-a-half months later, the City enforced these provisions over 220 times— either by citation, summons, or arrest. On information and belief, most of these instances involved people who were unhoused. …  

Even when the City does not actually cite or arrest unhoused people for violations of these provisions, it enforces them by telling unhoused people that they must move or they will be cited or arrested for their violation. …  Because unhoused people have no lawful place to relocate to, they are continually pushed from place to place, and their presence anywhere in Albuquerque with the belongings they need in order to be sheltered—such as tents and tarpaulins—and to survive—such as sleeping bags, clothing, toiletries, medicine, food, and water—is criminalized by the City. …  

When private property owners have permitted unhoused people to set up their tents or place their belongings on the owners’ property, the City has cited or threatened to cite such private property owners pursuant to Albuquerque City Ordinance …  which prohibits camping in particular zoning districts, and …  which imposes a civil fine of up to $500 per day for violations. As a result of these threats and citations, the owners are forced to direct the unhoused people to pick up and leave.

Even when the owners themselves do not ask unhoused people to leave their property, City employees have a practice of ordering unhoused people off of private property where they have the owners’ permission to be.

Paragraphs 83 to 90, “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief”.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The unhoused have reached crisis proportions, not  because their numbers have increased, but because they have become far more visible and aggressive by illegally camping in parks, on streets, in alleyways and in city open space, whenever they want and refusing city services and shelter.

Simply put, the unhoused are NOT a protected class under Title 7 of the Federal Civil Rights Act and not under the New Mexico Human Rights Act.  The unhoused do not have the right to violate the law.  The lawsuits sweeping allegations of civil rights violations that  are highly inflammatory, emotional and should be challenge by the city in no uncertain terms as being false.

It alleges   “the  City regularly enforces City ordinances and state laws against unhoused people in a manner that criminalizes their status as homeless  possessions, the City deprives them of the means to survive.  The destruction of people’s tents, tarps, blankets, and sleeping bags leaves them completely exposed to the elements. The destruction of people’s medicine, food, and water deprives them of some of the most essential conditions for life”.   Stolen grocery store baskets brimming with abandoned items found in business dumpsters or residential garbage bins are not “meager, essential necessities for life.”

CITY HAS NO ARREST BUT CITATION POLICY

The complaint alleges that the city is “jailing and fining” the unhouse  because of their status of being homeless. This allegation is not true.  According to the complaint, not one of the 8 plaintiff’s allege they were charged or arrested for refusing to leave the park on the day it was closed nor were they jailed. The complaint does not allege any one was arrested or taken to jail on the day Coronado Parke was closed.  When the City and APD  arrest or detain the unhoused,  what is  involved are  illicit drugs, stolen property, stolen or unlicensed hand  guns or weaponry, individuals with outstanding arrest warrants  or individual’s who pose an immediate threat to the public or themselves.

The Plaintiff’s allege conduct by the city is totally contrary to city policy and procedures and financial commitment the city has made to assist the unhoused. The truth is the city has a “no arrest” policy for non violent homeless crimes such as trespass on public and private property, illegal camping on all city parks and streets, rights of way, alleyways and open space.

When the unhoused are cited for such crimes, they are given a 3-day notice to vacate their encampment along with their belongings. No belongings are seized.  Arrests are for felonies such as illicit drugs, stolen property, or unlicensed guns, outstanding arrest warrants or individual’s who poise an immediate threat to the public or themselves because of their actions.  When an APD officer arrests or detains the unhoused, the officer  can only do so if the  circumstances warrant it and makes it necessary and it must be legally justified in writing.  

For the last 5 years, the city and APD have had a “no arrest” policy when it comes to nonviolent misdemeanor charges.  The “no arrest” policy is the result of a settlement reached in the 1995 federal case of McClendon v. City of Albuquerque that involved overcrowding and racial discrimination at the jail and was filed  to reduce  overcrowding at the jail.

It was on May 10, 2018 that APD Department Special Order 17-53 was issued as part of the settlement of the 20-plus year McClendon Lawsuit.  Special Order 17-53 states:

“[A]ll officers shall issue citations when appropriate in lieu of arrests on non-violent misdemeanor offenses. … officers shall issue citations when appropriate in lieu of arrest on non-violent misdemeanor offenses when there are no circumstances necessitating an arrest.”

All the criminal trespass and loitering state statutes and city ordinances cited in the Plaintiff’s civil complaint are affected by Special Order 17-53.  The APD memo makes it clear that officers may make an arrest only if it is necessary and if they do, an incident report must be prepared, and the incident report must include the reasons why an arrest was made.

Channel 4 reported that during the June 22 meeting of the Albuquerque City Council’s meeting a city attorney explained the federal pressures the city is operating under. The city attorney cited federal cases arguing that they place limitations on the city. The main case cited by the city attorney when it comes to enforcing the law and the homeless was McClendon v. City of Albuquerque. The city attorney said this

“[When it comes to] “quote, unquote” homeless crimes, those offenders are not allowed to be arrested as a primary intervention”.

The city attorney explained that when it comes to “homeless crimes”, meaning illegal camping, criminal trespassing and loitering, those offenders are not to be arrested as the primary intervention. Under the settlement terms, police still have the option to issue citations and still have the discretionary authority to make felony arrests as they deemed appropriate and where the circumstances warrant it.

The city attorney said this:

“We are trying to advise the best we can [of] the least expensive means to be the most productive and respect people’s civil rights. ”

KOB 4 interviewed UNM law professor Joshua Katzenberg and asked how much power does the city and APD really have when it comes to enforcing the law against the homeless. Professor Kastenberg had this to say:

“The City’s hands and the Police hands are tied to a certain extent, that’s true. … Coronado Park you could put in any major city and we would be having this discussion right now. … I have talked to police officers and there is a fear of lawsuits, there is a sort of sense of hopelessness. That’s the sad state of affairs. …”

KOB 4 contacted APD and asked them to quantify how they are enforcing the law when it comes to the low-level, nonviolent offenses committed by the homeless. An APD spokesman told KOB that since the beginning of 2022 there have been issued 2,308 citations to the homeless and issued 614 trespassing notices with 3 trespassing stops revealing outstanding warrants.

The link to the full 3 minute, 34 second unedited KOB story is here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/unm-law-professor-weighs-in-on-mayors-claims-about-homelessness/

ALBUQUERQUE COMMUNITY SAFETY DEPARTMENT

The city has created a whole new department that relies on outreach and service providing to the unsheltered with the biggest obstacle being the unhoused refusing the services and the shelter being offered.

In fiscal year 2021, the Keller Administration created the Albuquerque Community Safety Department (ACS) with an initial budget of $2.5 million. The ACS consists of social workers and mental health care workers to deal with the unhoused and those suffering from a mental health crisis or drug addiction crisis and they are dispatched in lieu of sworn police or fire emergency medical paramedics.

The fiscal year 2022 budget for ACS was $7.7 million and the fiscal year 2023 approved budget doubles the amount to $15.5 million to continue the service of responding to calls for service and perform outreach for the unhoused, those suffering mental illness episodes, drug and other issues that do not require police or EMT response. The Fiscal Year 2023 approved funding added 74 new positions to make it a 24/7 round-the-clock operation across the city.

ACS is taking hundreds of calls per month, easing the burden on police and paramedics and improving outcomes on behavioral health calls.

CITY’S AND MAYOR’S INITIAL RESPONSE TO LAWSUITE

The city of Albuquerque responded to the allegations on the closure of Coronado Park by issuing the following statement:

“The City and our partner organizations conducted weeks of intensive outreach, service offerings and notice, prior to closing Coronado Park. 72 people were connected to services, including local shelters, motel vouchers, pathways to permanent housing, personal storage, and medical treatment. Coronado Park had become a hub for narcotic usage, trafficking and organized crime. Closing the park was the right thing to do. People living there deserved better, safer alternatives, and connecting people with the help they needed was our priority. The City is investing more money than ever in solutions to reduce chronic homelessness and create affordable housing.”

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-facing-lawsuit-over-injustice-towards-homeless/42311673

Mayor Tim Keller for his part said the city tried to take a thoughtful approach to closure of Coronado Park and he said this:

“I think at a high level we did this the best that we could, which is we took action but we took it in a way that was appropriate, effective and compassionate.”

Links to news source material are here

https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/press-releases/unhoused-residents-sue-city-albuquerque-unlawfully-destroying-homes-and-belongings

https://www.abqjournal.com/2558712/former-coronado-park-residents-sue-the-city.html

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-facing-lawsuit-over-injustice-towards-homeless/42311673

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/new-lawsuit-alleges-city-violated-rights-of-homeless-people-at-coronado-park/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/aclu-new-mexico-sues-albuquerque-treatment-homeless/story?id=95615227

https://www.kokomotribune.com/news/nation_world_news/albuquerque-sued-by-aclu-for-hounding-harassing-homeless/article_8b8aa299-37ff-56b4-9f40-29b3ed523a55.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The underlying and glaring defect of the civil complaint is that it asserts the unhoused, because of their status and because there is no housing available, have the right to violate the law and illegally camp wherever they want for how long as they want without government interference.  The glaring defect of the complaint is the unhoused in general refuse or decline city shelter, housing, services and financial help offered or simply say they are not satisfied with what is being offered by the city such as the case with the Westside Emergency Shelter.

Over the last two years,  the city has spent or is spending upwards of $100,000,000 million  on homeless services including for shelter operations, meals, transportation, workforce development and dental care.  The overwhelming majority of the Coronado Park unhoused declined the services and shelter offered when the park closed. The majority displaced from Coronado Park said in a survey they planned to move to another park or street location.

The Plaintiff’s complaint paints with a broad brush to disparage the city and place it in the worse possible light it can.  It fails to fully disclose the facts and circumstances surrounding the closure of Coronado Park. It contains a number of allegations that are misleading as to the actual number of unhoused throughout the city.  It fails to disclose the city’s efforts to deal with the unhoused and the city’s financial commitment to help the unhoused.  It alleges that the “city’s own policies and practices” have caused “a lack of affordable, safe, stable residences” and have caused the increase in the unhouse numbers and the homeless crisis.

Although the complaint blames economic conditions, unemployment, drug addiction and mental illness as contributing factors to the homeless crisis, it fails to acknowledge that the city has essentially no control over such factors.  An overwhelming majority of the factors that are the root causes of homelessness involve mental illness, drug addiction, unemployment, social and economic conditions, all of which are out of the control of the city.

Being unhoused is not a crime. Government, be it federal or local, have a moral obligation to help and assist the unhoused, especially those that are mentally ill or who are drug addicted. However, the unhoused are not above the law. The unhoused are not a protected class under Title 7 of the Federal Civil Rights Act nor the State Human Rights Act.  They cannot be allowed to ignore the law, illegally camp wherever they want for as long as they want and as they choose, when they totally reject any and all government housing or shelter assistance.

The City has every right to enforce its laws on behalf of its citizens.  The city cannot simply ignore those laws that have the purpose of preserving and protecting the public health, safety and welfare and the rights of all its citizens.  Unlawful encampment homeless squatters who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers from the city or alternatives to living on the street and who  want to camp at city parks, on city streets in alleys and trespass in open space give the city no choice but to take action and force them to move on.

The city needs to seek immediate dismissal of the case in no uncertain terms for the plaintiffs unsubstantiated or questionable claims and for a failure state claim upon which relief can be granted.

POSTSCRIPT

The links to quoted news sources materials are here:

https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/press-releases/unhoused-residents-sue-city-albuquerque-unlawfully-destroying-homes-and-belongings

https://www.abqjournal.com/2558712/former-coronado-park-residents-sue-the-city.html

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-facing-lawsuit-over-injustice-towards-homeless/42311673

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/new-lawsuit-alleges-city-violated-rights-of-homeless-people-at-coronado-park/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/aclu-new-mexico-sues-albuquerque-treatment-homeless/story?id=95615227

https://www.kokomotribune.com/news/nation_world_news/albuquerque-sued-by-aclu-for-hounding-harassing-homeless/article_8b8aa299-37ff-56b4-9f40-29b3ed523a55.html

https://www.aclu-nm.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/final_complaint_class_action.pdf

https://www.koat.com/article/coronado-park-closed-homeless/40724118

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/mayor-keller-reaffirms-plans-to-close-coronado-park/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2519423/were-not-going-to-wait-any-longer-mayor-says-of-coronado-park.html

https://www.neighborhoodjournal.com/coronado-park-to-close-in-august/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=coronado-park-to-close-in-august

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Albuquerque-park-that-s-been-a-homeless-17328221.php

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-close-coronado-park/40711216

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-mayor-announces-closure-of-coronado-park-in-august/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2519038/keller-city-will-close-coronado-park.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2525180/city-coronado-park-is-officially-closed.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/city-of-albuquerque-closes-coronado-park/ar-AA10MmYX

City of Albuquerque closes Coronado Park (koat.com)

Coronado Park is officially closed – KOB.com

 https://www.aclu-nm.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/final_complaint_class_action.pdf

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-facing-lawsuit-over-injustice-towards-homeless/42311673

 

Over last year, nothing divided the Albuquerque City Council and Mayor Tim Keller more than “safe outdoor spaces” with the city council first supporting the land use, then reversing its support only to have Mayor Tim Keller  prevail in allowing them by use of his veto pen and the city council lacking  the required  6 votes  to override him.  A “safe outdoor space” is a lot, or a portion of a lot, developed to permit homeless encampments with 40 designated spaces for tents, allow upwards of 50 people, require hand washing stations, toilets and showers, require a management plan, fencing and social services offered.

“SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES” A KELLER INTIATIATED POLICY

It was Mayor Tim Keller who in his Apri 1 proposed city buget, which was approved by the city council, that initially came up with the “Safe Outdoor Spaces” concept when he included and received city council approval of $950,000 in his 2022-2023 budget for establishment and development of the city sanction tent encampments. The budget approved includes the following line-item funding:

“$750,000 for proposed “safe outdoor spaces”. … If approved by Council, will enable ultra-low barrier encampments to set up in vacant dirt lots across the City. There is an additional $200,000 for developing other sanctioned encampment programs.”

On Saturday, June 25, Mayor Tim Keller gave his “State of The City” address. Keller bought up the city’s homeless crisis. Keller noted that homelessness is “on display in so many areas in our city”. Keller had this to say:

“We have to open new ways, new pathways, to longstanding problems and try new approaches. We’ve got to be agile, we’ve got to learn, and we’ve got to keep creating pathways to stability. That is why we are revisiting our approach to homelessness and encampments.”

On July 6, after intense public outcry and objections over the homeless, Mayor Tim Keller again announced that his administration was “revisiting” its policies on how it addresses homeless encampments that are increasing in number throughout the city. Keller expressed the intent to initiate major changes on how to deal legally with homeless encampments. However, Keller showed absolutely no interest and did not reconsider his support  of Safe Outdoor Spaces to deal with the unhoused.

The links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/city-of-albuquerque-revisits-policy-in-hopes-to-combat-homelessness/

COUNCIL ENACTS SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES, HAS SECOND THOUGHTS AND KELLER VETOS

It was on June 6, the Albuquerque City Council enacted a bill on a 5-4 vote that  amended the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) which is the city’s zoning code laws, that allows  “safe outdoor spaces” . It sets  a limit of two in each of the city’s 9 council districts. Mayor Tim Keller signed into the law the legislation.  The enactment resulted in a severe backlash of public opposition.  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.

ARGUMENTS MADE AGAINST SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES

Representatives from neighborhood associations, including the Santa Barbara Martinez town Neighborhood Association, Wells Park Neighborhood Association and business organizations  have made the following arguments  in opposition to  Safe Outdoor Spaces :

1. The City Council amendment for Safe Outdoor Space is not well planned out.  Safe Outdoor Spaces will not be safe despite security plans and they will be magnets for crime.

 

2. Safe Outdoor Spaces in the form of “tent encampments for the homeless” constitute temporary housing that has been found to be the leasteffective means with dealing with the homeless. Many city’s that once embraced city sanctioned homeless encampment such as tent encampments are abandoning them in favor of more permanent housing.

 

3. Safe Outdoor Spaces will be detrimental to the neighborhoods and surrounding business and interfere with the peaceful use and enjoyment of property, both private and public property, and will reduce property values and interfere with redevelopment efforts.

 

4. The Safe Outdoor Spaces provisions are not in conformity and contradict the numerous provisions of the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO), including relating to “higher and best use”of property and the intent and goal of the IDO to have reasonable, responsible redevelopment provisions that do not hinder development.

 

5. Annual updates and amendments to the IDO, such as is the case with Safe Outdoor Spaces, are enacted without public support or input. The Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) annual amendment process undertaken by the City Council is seriously flawed and is defective and does not allow for community input for major types of amendments affecting communities, such as Safe Outdoor Spaces.   There is no complete review of data coming from the Planning Department to the EPC for IDO Amendments.  Substantive amendments to the IDO are not being fully investigated and vetted by the Planning Department for recommendations to EPC as was the case with Safe Outdoor Spaces.

 

6. Safe Outdoor Spaces as adopted City Wide will be catastrophic to business districts. A good example given is the Menaul Metropolitan Redevelopment Area (MRA) Plan, an area where the Dawn Legacy homeless encampment will be if allowed. The Menaul Blvd corridor within the MRA boundaries is identified as blighted, with shuttered buildings, business that have closed, with no ability to attract new capital investment.  A study and survey involving the Menaul MRA  identified the homeless impact to businesses as a top problem by 93% and crime at 97%. The homeless issues identified by the Menaul MRA study are not unique.  There are 20 other MRAs identified within the City that are also subject to the same “systemic homeless” crises.

 

7. The Keller Administration has adopted a housing first policy when it comes to dealing with the homeless crisis. Safe Outdoor Space encampments are contrary to the city’s “housing first” policy by not providing a form of permanent housing. Safe Outdoor Spaces violates the city’s “Housing First”policy jeopardizing millions of dollars in federal funding by offering temporary housing and tent encampments to the homeless.  In the 2021 fiscal year, the city spent $40 million and in the 2022 fiscal year will be   spending $60 million to assist the homeless and much of the federal funding will be placed in jeopardy because of Safe Outdoor Spaces.

 

8. Safe Outdoor Spaces are nuisances and are in violation of city ordinances dealing with nuisance abatement on real property, especially property owned by the city.

APPROVED SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES

The city Planning Department has approved 3 Safe Outdoor Spaces and they will be allowed to exist and operate.  Two are designed for people to sleep in cars rather than tents and are located outside existing homeless shelters.  The first is operating outside the city’s Westside Emergency Housing Center.  The second a is due to open in January outside the Albuquerque Opportunity Center shelter at 715 Candeleria NE. The city has partnered with the nonprofit Heading Home to launch the first two.

A third  Safe Outdoor Space is Dawn Legacy Point homeless encampment to be located at 1250 Menaul Blvd, NE.  It is intended to provide accommodations for upwards of 50 women who are homeless and who are “sex-trafficking victims” and other vulnerable populations.  It would operate under a 6 month licensing agreement with a possible 6 month renewal.  It was first approved by the Planning Department behind closed doors without giving proper and legally required  notice to surrounding property owners. 

The Dawn Legacy Point  safe outdoor space homeless encampment has generated major opposition and there are 6 appellants.  Opposing it are the   Santa Barbara Martineztown Neighborhood Association, the nonprofit LifeROOTS , the Crowne Plaza hotel, Sunset Memorial Park cemetery, the Greater Albuquerque Hotel & Lodging Association and the company that runs the Ramada Plaza hotel.

Last month, the Planning Department once again granted approval for the safe outdoor space at the Menaul  site.   At least 7  entities are fighting Dawn Legacy Pointe’s new approval. They argue that the project will harm an area already grappling with problems, that Dawn Legacy Pointe’s plans, including for security, are all insufficient and that the city is not protecting the community.

The Legacy Point encampment is within walking distance of Menaul School, across the street from the T-Mobile Call Center and a Quality Inn & Suites, it borders Sunset Memorial Park and one block Carrington College and two apartment complexes and immediately East of the Freeway is the massive TA Travel Truck which is known in law enforcement circles for prostitution and illicit drug activity. Immediate south of the truck stop on University Blvd is the Crown Plaza Hotel. Six appeals have been filed and a hearing officer sent the approval back to the Planning Department and finding that the city had not required the operator to first notify all the necessary property owners nearby.

LifeROOTS, one of the appellants, wrote in its appeal that the city “has no plan whatsoever to address and mitigate the impacts on the surrounding property owners and community at large.”

Menaul School and the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Association have argued that the City Planning Department and the Family Community Services Department gave the Dawn Legacy Point applicant preferential treatment by searching for and  identifying city own property to be used for the Safe Outdoor Space and  with the Family Community Services Department committing funding for the safe outdoor space before it was approved,

Menaul School wrote in its appeal:

“It is clear that the issuing of the permit to Dawn Legacy Pointe has been tainted from the start by the weighing of the (city’s) Department of Family & Community Services’ thumb upon the scales.”

Dawn Legacy Pointe for its part has said its operations plan, including the cite’s security plan, underwent a review as part of its approval process  and all such projects must have fences with lockable gates, background checks for operators and residents and 24/7 staffing. Katie Simon, a spokesperson for Dawn Legacy Pointe, said this:

“Data from other cities demonstrate that Safe Outdoor Spaces do not contribute to an increase of crime. … Safe outdoor spaces are a useful resource for people living on the street and to mitigate unsanctioned encampments.”

Links to news source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2561731/mayor-kellers-veto-put-safe-outdoor-spaces-on-the-city-council-agenda-again.html

MENAUL PROPERTY  BEING LOOKED AT FOR  GARBAGE TRANSFER STATION

In addition to the Dawn Legacy Pointe plan to establish and operate a “safe outdoor space” at 1250 Menaul Blvd, NE  to provide a tent encampment for 50 women who are homeless and who are “sex-trafficking victims”, the city’s Solid Waste Department wants to use 1 of the 2 adjoining city owned parcels  of land for a garbage transfer station.  The transfer station would allow individual city trash trucks to drop off their loads so larger vehicles could then transport the garbage to the landfill. It has been reported that while the city  has looked at other sites for the garbage transfer station, the Menaul property is the only location currently under consideration. Solid Waste spokeswoman Emily Moore said  the city has not taken steps necessary as of yet  to open a transfer station, such as seeking the requisite zone change or the state permit needed for such a facility.

Both KOAT Channel 7 and KRQE News 13 have reported that city bought the 14-acre property on the Northwest corner of the interchange for $6.8 million with the intention of turning it into a solid waste transfer station. There are concerns about the school, businesses, and hotels just across the street as  well as the cemetery next door.

Albuquerque Solid Waste Director Matthew Whelan  had this to say:

“It’s a great location because it’s centralized in the city and it’s near both of the freeways.  … And, by having a centralized location, not only are you going to save time, you’re going to save truck wear and tear, and you’re going to save emissions because now we’re just going to be putting the refuse there, and they’re going to be sending one truck to the landfill.  … Our goal is to make it more appealing looking  …  [This one] … will look like a normal industrial building, you know, it’ll be, like, brown. It’ll have landscaping. … It’ll be,  it won’t be like an open pit where we’re just dumping into.”

The Santa Barbara Martineztown Neighborhood Association and Crown Plaza Hotel,  two of the appellants  of the Dawn Legacy Point Safe Outdoor Space at 1250 Menaul Blvd, NE, are also strongly opposed to the city’s plans for a garbage transfer station at the same location.

Loretta Naranjo Lopez, president of the Santa Barbara Martineztown Neighborhood Association had this to say about the garbage transfer station:

“They’re hiding this from us and they’re not talking to us at all. … And, we’re outraged. I would be asking all these people here, what do you want to see here before they even consider it?  … We’re already dealing with the freeway. We have done a health impact statement study and it says 10 miles out, the impact to our health is bad from the freeway. Anything added to it is just going to be a catastrophe. …  Every 30 seconds, a [city garbage]truck coming down Menaul and people having their funeral services at the Sunset Memorial with all that noise [is a concern]. 

Joani Jones, general manager of the Crown Plaza Hotel, which sits just across Interstate 25 from the property said this:

“We’re the heart of the city. The Midtown area is truly in the heart of the city,” … We don’t need the smell. We don’t need people to see that.”

 The nearby Stronghurst Neighborhood Association is also opposed to both the Safe Outdoor Space and the garbage transfer station being located at 1250 Menaul Blvd, NE.   Bill Sabatini is a very well know and highly respected business person in Albuquerque and he is  the president of  Stronghurst Neighborhood Association.  He said  local business owners and others opposing the city’s plans have been meeting for months.

Sabatini said he would like to see the city establish the safe outdoor space and as well as the transfer station in another part of town. He said his organization and those he represents believes that a safe outdoor space will bring more unhoused to the area.  He also said a garbage transfer station will be a waste of prime real estate.  Sabatini argued that the site could be a showcase for Albuquerque given its location near several hotels and two interstates.

Bill Sabatini  had this to say this about the garbage transfer station:

“It’s a bad idea; it’s a dumb idea. … It’s just totally inappropriate for here. … We know it’s not going to smell,  they have figured out ways to do that,  but the amount of traffic, truck traffic, from the entire east side of the city to that location is ungodly.  … That’s just not a good location.  That’s a terrible location to put something of that nature right in the middle of the city – (it’s) a highly visible location! … It’s a perfect place to make a positive statement about Albuquerque. …  There could be a lot of things that happen here that could be much more beneficial. One idea, for instance, is this would be a great location for either a history museum or some kind of education center.”

Links to the quoted news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/city-wants-to-build-trash-transfer-station-at-the-big-i/41067692

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/its-a-dumb-idea-martineztown-residents-say-garbage-transfer-station-bad-fit-for-neighborhood/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2561741/city-could-use-menaul-property-for-garbage-transfer-station.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Only in the really screwed up “Burque World” of Mayor Tim Keller can it be imagined that  2 adjoining lots of prime commercial property own by the city worth upwards of $13 million would be used for a Safe Outdoor Space  for  a tent encampment for women who are “sex-trafficking victims” and the  city would  construct and run  a “garbage transfer station” next to it.  The optics are so very representative of the kind of a Mayor Tim Keller really is and how he operates and thinks.

First, Mayor Keller advocaats for “Safe Outdoor Space” and sneaks $950,000 in his general fund budget which the City Council haplessly agrees to and allocates.

Second, Mayor Keller takes steps asking for 100 amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance with one amendment allowing 2 Safe Outdoor Spaces in each of the 9 City Council Districts.  The amendments pass on  the slimmest 5-4 vote.  When the City Council  realizes the mistake they had made as a result of major public outrage and push back, the City Council seeks to reverse course, votes to defund the financing and votes to  remove Safe Outdoor Spaces as a permitted use but votes 5-4 for repeal.  Keller vetoes the repeal despite public opposition and outrage claiming he was elected to make the hard decision essentially ignoring the will of the voters and not wanting to admit how very wrong his policy actually is and the damage it will do.

Third, Keller’s own Family and Community Services Department and Planning Department Officials go out of their way to give preferential treatment and financial aid to the applicants for a Safe Outdoor Space for unhoused woman who are “sex-trafficking victims”. Never mind the fact that victims of sex trafficking need stable and permanent housing and services and placing such women in tents to live is very  degrading and revictimizes them again.

Safe Outdoor Space city sanctioned homeless encampments are not just an issue of “not in my back yard,” but one of legitimate anger and mistrust by the public against city elected officials and department employees who have mishandled the city’s homeless crisis and who are determined to allow them despite strong public opposition.  Safe Outdoor Space tent encampments will destroy neighborhoods and make the city a magnet for the homeless. The general public has legitimate concerns that Safe Outdoor Space homeless tent encampments will become crime-infested nuisances,  such was the case with Coronado Park. The homeless crisis will not be solved by the city but must be managed with permanent housing assistance and service programs, not nuisance tent encampments.

It’s Keller’s sneaky conduct like this  and  lack of communication and transparency and ignoring the general public  that has resulted in Mayor Tim  Keller and his Administration being viewed as very heavy handed and incompetent in dealing with the homeless crisis. In August of last year, the city released the Citizen Perception Survey.  The survey found that 70% of citizens surveyed  rate the city poorly for its performance in dealing with the homeless crisis.  This includes 41% who gave city hall the lowest possible rating.  Meanwhile, only 9% gave the city’s homelessness response a favorable review. In other words, 7 times more people rate the city poorly on the issue than offer a positive assessment.

With any luck, Tim Keller will move on  mid term of his second term, something he has done as State Senator and State Auditor,  because the city cannot afford 3 more years of his failed leadership.

On January 4, 2022, the city announced that it will use the future Gateway Center located at 5400 Gibson SE  for temporary winter “emergency shelter” use beginning on January 10.  The location is the  Gibson Lovelace Medical Center that was acquired by the city last year and that is being remodeled for the Gateway Homeless Shelter.  The January 10 opening will be the first time the city shelters people who are homeless at the site.

According to  city officials, emergency overnight space for 50 people, both men and woman, who are now sleeping on the streets or in unauthorized encampments will be made available. The city said the emergency shelter is needed now as an alternative to the existing West Side Shelter where the unhoused are refusing to go.

Outreach teams will be dispatched  to locate and identify unhoused from unsanctioned encampments around the city and offer them an indoor place to stay at the location during the coldest months of the year.  The unhoused will be transported to the site in the late afternoon and bused out each morning.

City Officials with the Family And Community Services Department said that the winter emergency shelter effort is totally separate from the “Gateway Center” which is scheduled to open in April or early Spring.  When the Gateway Center finally opens, it will initially have shelter beds for 50 women with services made available to them.

Elizabeth Holguin, deputy director in the city’s Family and Community Services Department,  said this:

“We wanted more options for people in town. … This is simply to help people survive the cold nights, and that’s it.”  

On January 4, the City Council approved a $1.1 million contract with the nonprofit Heading Home to run the emergency shelter through April 3.  Heading Home has also been contracted to operate the Gateway Center when it is scheduled to open in three months.  Outreach teams will work specifically to bring in people from unsanctioned encampments around the city and give them an indoor place to stay during the coldest months of the year.

City Council President Pat Davis raised questions about the city’s readiness to open the site for emergency overnight stays.  Davis’s city council district includes the Gateway Center property.  Davis  was among 3 city  councilors who voted against the contract, saying he did not believe the city had yet met its obligations under the “good neighbor agreement” it has with the community surrounding the Gateway Center. Family and Community Services Department Director Carol  Pierce said the city has met its “good neighbor agreement” responsibilities and that regular meetings with neighbors will allow them to voice any future concerns.  There was no mention  if the Family and community Services  Department gave a heads up to the various neighborhood associations in the area.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2562074/old-lovelace-to-open-as-emergency-shelter-ex-opening-next-week-the.html

“GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT”

The Good Neighbor Agreement explains the Gateway Centers purpose.   The agreement stipulates that the city will:

• Provide 24/7 professional security at the site, including a security car and closed-circuit TV cameras
• Improve exterior lighting, and keep the property “clean and orderly”
• Establish “clear and reliable” ways for the surrounding community to communicate about the site
• Hold monthly planning meetings with the neighborhood
• Set up an on-site office for the city’s encampment team, with two employees to monitor the area within a quarter-mile radius and remove illegal encampments, as permitted by policy
• Conduct a road audit of Gibson and San Mateo to assess conditions, reviewing and prioritizing recommendations “to encourage compliance with traffic laws and pedestrian safety”
• Study current public transportation access to the area and consider potential modifications

Despite the assurance of Family and Community Services Department Director Carol  Pierce, there exists real dispute by neighborhood associations in the area that the Good Neighborhood Agreement has been finalized for the  Gateway Center. Three neighborhood associations near the planned Gateway Center shelter and services hub have declined to sign the document, saying it did not address some of their chief concerns.

Three associations that  have signed the Gateway Good Neighborhood Agreement agreement are the Trumbull Village and South San Pedro Neighborhood Association and the District 6 Neighborhood Association Coalition.  However, the Elder Homestead Neighborhood Association,  the Siesta Hills Neighborhood Association and the Parkland Hills Neighborhood Association  have not signed saying it did not address some of their chief concerns. Talks ended on the agreement in mid-November, at which time Family and Community Services Director Carol Pierce said the city was done negotiating.

Siesta Hills President Rachel Baca said she and others wanted the city to include a facility capacity limit, a guarantee the city would not permit any sanctioned homeless encampments in the vicinity and language making clear the Gateway will not function as a walk-up meal site. None of those terms are included in the agreement.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2554306/the-city-says-it-has-a-good-neighbor-agreement-for-its-new-homeless-shelter-its-missing-3-signatures.html

THE GATEWAY CENTER HOMELESS SHELTER

It was on April 6, 2021, Mayor Tim Keller officially announced the city had bought the massive 572,000 square-foot building that has a 201-bed capacity, for $15 million.  Keller announced that the massive facility would be transformed into the Gateway Center Homeless Shelter.

Interior demolition and remodeling of the 572,000 square foot building has been going on for a number of months to prepare the facility for a homeless shelter.  The ABQ Gateway Center will likely to open sometime in the Spring of 2023.  Beds for 50 women are planned for the first phase and for the first responder drop-off is to come online early 2023. The city plans to launch other elements of the 24/7 shelter by next summer.  According to the 2022-2023 approved city budget, $1,691,859 has been allocated for various vendors to operate Westside Emergency Shelter Center.

The city is planning to assist an estimated 300 unhoused and connect them to other services intended to help secure permanent housing. The new facility is intended to serve all populations of men, women, and families. Further, the city wants to provide a place anyone could go regardless of gender, religious affiliation, sobriety, addictions, psychotic condition or other factors.

The city facility is to have on-site case managers that would guide residents toward counseling, addiction treatment, housing vouchers and other available resources.  The goal is for the new homeless shelter to provide first responders an alternative destination for the people they encounter known as the “down-and-out” calls.

The city estimates 1,500 people could go through the drop-off each year. The “dropoff  for the down and outs” will initially have 4 beds.  It is primarily imagined as a funnel into other services.  While that likely will include other on-site services, city officials say it will also help move people to a range of other destinations, including different local shelters, or even the Bernalillo County-run CARE Campus, which offers detoxification and other programs.

The city’s plan is to continue adding capacity, with ultimate plan to have a total of 250 emergency shelter beds, and 40 beds for medical sobering and 40 beds for medical respite beds for a total of 330 bed capacity.  Counting the other outside providers who lease space inside the building, city officials believe the property’s impact will be significant.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2529657/abq-gateway-center-likely-to-open-some-time-this-winter-ex-mayor-say.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The City’s announcement that it will use the future Gateway Center Homeless shelter for temporary  winter “emergency shelter” use beginning on January 10 no doubt took the surrounding neighborhood associations by total surprise.  Absent was any discussion as to what extent the Keller Administration reached out to them to go forward to use the facility for temporary winter emergency shelter use before it is even ready to shelter anyone.  It is not at all likely that any of the mandates of the “Good Neighborhood Agreement” are in place to operate the facility as an emergency winter shelter.

It’s conduct like this and the lack of communication with affected neighborhoods that has resulted in the Keller Administration being viewed as very heavy handed and incompetent in dealing with the homeless crisis. In August of last year, the City released the  Citizen Perception Survey.  The survey found that 70% of citizens surveyed  rate the city poorly for its performance in dealing with the homeless crisis.  This includes 41% who gave city hall the lowest possible rating.  Meanwhile, only 9% gave the city’s homelessness response a favorable review. In other words, 7 times more people rate the city poorly on the issue than offer a positive assessment.