On Thursday, May 1 it was reported that the City of Albuquerque shut down, boarded up and posted as “substandard” with yellow signs the Court John Motel. City Planning Department Code Inspectors found several housing code violations including:
- Numerous plumbing and sanitation failures like non-functional or missing toilets, sinks, and showers, leaking plumbing fixtures, and unsanitary drainage conditions.
- Electrical hazards, including overloaded circuits, recessed and exposed wiring, and damaged outlets in several units.
- Fire code violations, including the lack of proper fire detection and hazardous waste storage.
- Unsanitary conditions with pest infestations and water leaks.
- Operating without a valid Certificate of Occupancy.
- Unpermitted construction and serious structural damage
Fifteen people were living in the motel at the time the motel was closed and boarded up, including a 97-year-old veteran. Fourteen of them accepted help from Albuquerque Community Safety.
It was reported that last year, Albuquerque Police responded to 940 calls for service within a two-block radius of the motel. Incidents at the motel itself include:
- 16 calls involving assault or battery
- 26 reports of auto theft or stolen vehicles
- 2 shooting incidents
- 3 rape cases
- 6 narcotics-related offenses
- 10 ShotSpotter activations in the immediate area, with 35 rounds detected
Mayor Tim Keller said this at a press conference:
“This property has been a challenge for many years, if not decades. …This essentially has just become a hotbed for drug trafficking, violence and prostitution.”
Because of the numerous code violations and the calls for service to APD, the city had the legal authority to declare the property a nuisance, that the motel had become a magnet for crime allowing the city to shut the motel down and board it up.
The link to a relied upon or quoted news source is here:
Since October 2024, City of Albuquerque code enforcement has shut down the Tewa Lodge, Loma Verde Motel, Bow and Arrow Lodge, the Motel 6 and Days Inn on Iliff Rd, and the Court John Motel on 4th St. Each of the motels were deemed unsafe with unsanitary living conditions, high numbers of calls for service, and criminal activity that put the tenants and surrounding neighborhoods at risk. The City actions are an effort to hold negligent property owners accountable and prioritize public safety. Angelo Metzger, the Planning Department Code Compliance Manager, said that many of the motel properties are repeat code violators, leading to potentially dangerous conditions for tenants.
CITY COUNCIL ENACTS “DISTRESSED LODGING PROPERTY ORDINANCE”
On May 5, 2025 as a continuation of the city efforts to address nuisance properties along central and other parts of the city, the Albuquerque City Council voted to enact City Ordinance O-25-75 known as the “Distressed Lodging Property Ordinance” on a 5 to 4 vote. Voting YES for the Ordinance were Republican City Councilors Brook Bassan, Dan Lewis, Renee Grout, and Democrats Klarissa Pena and Tammy Fiebelkorn. Voting NO were Democrat Councilors Joaquín Baca, Nichole Rogers and Louie Sanchez and Republican Dan Champine. A spokesperson for Mayor Tim Keller’s office said he intended to sign the bill into law and once signed it would take effect within the month.
The City Council adopted the ordinance primarily to address deteriorating motels, or lodging properties, that have become magnets for crime plagued with calls for service to the Albuquerque Police Department (APD), the Fire Department (AFR) and complaints to the Planning Department for code violations. It is intended to address issues like unregistered lodgings and public nuisances associated with certain lodging establishments. By clarifying regulations and providing a framework for enforcement, the Distressed Lodging Property Ordinance aims to improve community safety and quality of life in Albuquerque.
TARGETS OF THE NEW ORDINANCE
The new city ordinance targets establishments with a history of tax evasion, city code violations, or nuisance activity. The nuisance activity is tied to nefarious conduct like drug trafficking, violence, and dangerous living conditions. Under the enacted ordinance hotels and motels meeting any of the following criteria will face enhanced oversight:
- Skipping hospitality tax payments for three straight months
- Repeated violations of the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance
- Three or more separate City ordinance violations in a year
Properties in violation of the ordinance will be required to log guest stays, retain vehicle info, and maintain records for at least 45 days. Failure to comply can result in a fine of $500 per day for each violation of the ordinance, a lien being filed against the property, or closure of the establishment.
Mayor Tim Keller said the new ordinance is part of a broader public safety strategy and said this:
“This is about holding bad actors accountable and going after problem properties who allow crime and unsafe conditions to fester. … We’re sending a clear message: crime-friendly properties have no place in our city…. We’re also understanding that not necessarily the hotels, but the individuals using these hotels seem to be connected.”
DISTRESSED PROPERTIES DEFINED
The ordinance defines what constitutes a “distressed lodging property”. The definition is based on factors like safety hazards, public nuisance, or city code violations or violations of housing code regulations. The ordinance outlines requirements for all lodging establishments, including record-keeping for guest identification, which now includes a photo ID or a clear, discernable photo if a photo ID is unavailable.
The new ordinance requires the retention of guest photo identification or alternative clear images for a minimum of 45 days and mandates that these are made available to the city upon request. The ordinance includes provisions for enforcement, such as inspections, fines, or other penalties for violations. It also affords procedure for appealing decisions made under the ordinance by objecting property owners and managers.
Properties in violation of the ordinance will be required to log guest stays, retain vehicle info, and maintain records for at least 45 days. Failure to comply can result in a fine of $500 per day for each violation of the ordinance, a lien being filed against the property, or closure of the establishment.
TRIGGERS CREATED
It is the Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division, that will be primarily responsible for enforcement of the “Distressed Lodging Property Ordinance”. The ordinance creates “three triggers” for a motel to be subjected to “enhanced operational requirements” by the Planning Department Code Enforcement.
Those triggers are:
- Failure to make lodgers’ tax or hospitality fee payments to the city for three consecutive months,
- At least three violations of any city ordinance within a 12-month period, or
- At least one violation of the city’s Nuisance Abatement Ordinance.
Planning Director Alan Varela said the 3 triggers were chosen because they’re often warning signs for motels with problematic activity. Varela said this:
“The ordinance is very clear. It is targeted at problematic properties. This, hopefully, is a small minority of properties out there. … Most hotels operate legally, but the few who do not will be subject to these basic rules that will help protect their guests and the community. … What we’ve noticed, especially in the last year when we’ve started shutting down these most problematic hotels in town — all of them at one point were very legitimate operations, probably in very good condition and a good and safe place for guests to stay. … Code enforcement does all its investigations based on complaints. We do not drive around the city, putting our noses into businesses that are not on the complaint list.”
Varela said the city does not know how many motels might meet the criteria, and added that it will not seek out problematic motels.
Once on the list for “enhanced operational requirement” enforcement, the city can issue civil fines of up to $500 per day, place liens on the property or prohibit occupancy. Additionally, motels on the list must keep information about their guests for 45 days, so the city can review it. That information includes
- A copy of the guest’s photo identification if available, or if not available, a picture of the guest’s full face;
- Vehicle information like make, model and license plate number and
- Information about the source of payment.
The rationale behind this, Varela said, is to give police information. Varela said this:
“Each of the hotels that have been shut down so far has had some elements, whether it’s a large element or maybe to just a minor degree, of human trafficking. … And some of these items are designed entirely to help prevent human trafficking or make it much more difficult to do.”
LINKS TO QUOTED OR RELIED UPON NEWS SOURCES
WORK OF SAFE CITY STRIKE FORCE RECALLED
From 2002 to 2009, the Safe City Strike Force was created and formed under then Mayor Marty Chavez to combat blighted commercial and residential properties that had become magnets for crime. Mayor Chavez appointed then Deputy City Attorney Pete Dinelli as Director of the Strike Force who organized the program from the ground up. Thirty (30) to forty-five (40) representatives from the City Attorneys office, Albuquerque Police Department, the Albuquerque Fire Department, the Fire Marshal’s Office, the Planning Department residential and commercial code inspectors division, the Family Community Services Department and the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office participated and comprised the Safe City Strike Force.
Seventy (70) to one hundred fifty (150) properties a week, both residential and commercial properties would be reviewed by the Safe City Strike Force. The Albuquerque City Council would be given weekly updates on the progress made in their districts on the nuisance properties identified by the Strike Force. The Safe City Strike Force routinely prepared condemnation resolutions for enactment by the Albuquerque City Council to tear down substandard buildings, including commercial buildings.
In 2010, Republican Mayor Richard Berry and his appointed Chief Public Safety Officer Darren White began to dismantle and reduce funding for the Safe City Strike Force. Confidential sources reported the Real Estate community objected to the aggressive code enforcement. In 2018, newly elected Mayor Tim Keller continued with dismantling the Safe City Strike Force despite efforts to restore it. In 2019, the Safe City Strike Force was fully dismantled and defunded by the Keller Administration.
Over 8 years, the Safe City Strike Force took civil enforcement action against some 6,500 properties, both commercial and residential. The success of the Safe City Strike Force is clear and unmistakable and can be summarized in part as follows:
CENTRAL MOTELS
The Safe City Strike Force required commercial property and motel owners to make repairs and they were required to reduce calls for service and address security on their properties.
The Safe City Strike Force took code enforcement action against 48 of the 150 motels along central and forced compliance with building codes and mandated repairs to the properties. The Central motels that were demolished were not designated historical and were beyond repair as a result of years of neglect and failure to maintain and make improvements. Central motels that had historical significance to Route 66 were purchased by the City for renovation and redevelopment.
The Central motels that the Safe City Strike Force took action against include the Gaslight (demolished), The Zia Motel (demolished), The Royal Inn (demolished), Route 66 (demolished), the Aztec Motel (demolished), the Hacienda, Cibola Court, Super-8 (renovated by owner), the Travel Inn (renovated by owner), Nob Hill Motel (renovated by owner), the Premier Motel (renovated by owner) the De Anza (purchased by City for historical significance), the No Name Motel, the Canyon Road (demolished), Hill Top Lodge, American Inn (demolished), the El Vado (purchased by City for historical significance), the Interstate Inn (demolished).
The Safe City Strike Force was responsible for the demolition of at least seven (7) blighted motels that were beyond repair. When people were displaced by enforcement actions taken by the Safe City Strike Force, the City’s Family and Community Services Department would provide vouchers to the displaced and assist in locating temporary housing for them.
VIOLENT BARS
The Safe City Strike Force acted against violent bars on Central that were magnets for crime. Many Central bars have hundreds of calls for service a year placing a drain on law enforcement resources.
A few of the bars located on or near Central that were closed or torn down by the Safe City Strike Force include the Blue Spruce Bar, Rusty’s Cork and Bottle, the Last Chance Bar and Grill and Club 7. The Safe City Strike Force closed Club 7 and the owner was convicted of commercial code violations.
The city attorney’s office in conjunction with the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s office brought criminal charges against and convicted the Club 7 downtown Central Avenue bar owner that hosted a “rave” that allowed under age participants to mingle with adults and where a young girl was killed.
CONVENIENCE STORES
The Safe City Strike Force took enforcement action against a number of convenience stores on Central that had substantial calls for service to APD. In 2005, The Safe City Strike Force identified convenience stores that had an unacceptable number of “calls for service” which resulted in the convenience stores being considered a public nuisance by the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). Outdoor phones at the convenience stores used for illicit drug transactions were identified.
APD felt the convenience stores were relying upon APD to provide security at taxpayer’s expense rather than hiring their own private security company. In 2005, the Strike Force negotiate a stipulated settlement agreement with three major convenience store corporate owners of seventeen (17) convenience stores throughout Albuquerque and they agreed to pay for private security patrols.
FLEA MARKETS
The Safe City Strike Force was responsible for the closure of Louie’s Flea Market and the Star Flea Market, two Westside flea markets both on Old Coors Road South of Central. The flea markets brought down property values. Both flea markets had been around for decades and caused extreme traffic congestion on weekends they operated causing problems for the established or developing residential areas. Both flea markets were found by the Albuquerque Police Department to be locations where stolen property was being sold and both had an excessive number of calls for service.
HOARDERS
Some of the most tragic and heart-breaking cases that the Safe City Strike Force dealt with involved “hoarders”. Hoarding is not classified as a mental illness but rather is a pattern of behavior that is characterized by excessive acquisition and an inability or unwillingness to discard large quantities of objects or animals that cover the entire living areas or exterior of a home or property. Being an “eccentric” or different is a good description of a hoarder.
The Strike Force dealt with a number of cases of hoarders.
The saddest case the Safe City Strike Force City dealt with was an elderly woman who was housing over 60 cats in her 1,400 square foot, three bedroom home. The home was not fit to be lived in as a result of contamination by the animals. Dead cats who she could not part with were found in her kitchen freezer. The main bathroom was found to be storage space for stacks of used feminine napkins stacked floor to ceiling used to urinate in while the main bath tub was used as a cat litter box and the tub was a quarter full of feces. The City removed the cats, cleaned up the property and placed a $40,000 lien on the home for the cleanup of the contamination. The house had to be completely gutted to the studs throughout and sanitized and remodeled and placed on the market for sale.
Another hoarder had accumulated an extensive number of items in his front and backyards to the extent that the area had become rat infested and the City was forced a cleanup op the area. Still another hoarded accumulated papers, magazine and printed material floor to ceiling to the point you literally had to crawl through pathways in the house to get around.
TEAR-DOWNS AND BOARD UPS
The Safe City Strike Force was responsible for the tear down of an entire residential block of homes located at 5th Street and Summer in the Wells Park neighborhood area located north of downtown Albuquerque. There were a total of 21 abandoned and vacant, boarded up properties that could not be repaired, owned by one elderly woman who agreed allowed a tear down of the structures by the City. The city tore down all 21 structures and placed a lien on the property. A few years later, the woman paid cash to release the lien. A few years later the woman sold the property to the city and the property is now part of the Wells Park.
A voluntary tear down of an entire strip mall was negotiated by the Strike Force. The strip mall had been boarded up for years, beyond repair, located near the former Octopus Car Wash on Menaul Street and Eubank. The strip mall was constantly being broken into, with fires being set by the homeless, and at one time a dead body was found at the location.
Two long vacant and vandalized restaurants, the Purple Plum and a Furr’s cafeteria, both on far North-East heights Montgomery, were torn down by the Safe City Strike Force.
One year, Albuquerque experienced a large spike in meth labs where almost 90 meth labs were found and identified and where the Safe City Strike Force was asked for assistance with contamination cleanup.
KELLER’S ADAPT PROGRAM
It was six years ago in July, 2019 that Mayor Tim Keller completed dismantling and defunding the Safe City Strike Force despite the fact that it was nationally recognized as Best Practices program. Keller announced the creation of the “Addressing Dilapidated and Abandoned Property Team” (ADAPT) which was a far more conciliatory approach to code enforcement. Sources confirmed at the time that Mayor Keller felt the Strike Force was “too aggressive” and the work of the Strike Force did not fit in with his “One Albuquerque” philosophy and slogan that he promoted.
The ADAPT program relies on new data to target the worst 100 properties in the city while the Strike Force concentrated on all commercial and residential properties that had become magnets for crime. ADAPT is a program in the Fire Marshal’s Office that focuses on abandoned and dilapidated properties that have a pattern of serious criminal activity or pose an immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.
According the city’s web site for the ADAPT Program:
“Utilizing the ArcGIS mapping system, ADAPT will compile and filter information from the data systems of Albuquerque Fire Rescue, Albuquerque Police Department, the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department, 311, and other referrals. ADAPT will assign a point value to each specific response type based on the severity. Properties [are] in four sub- categories:
Residential
Multifamily
Non Residential
Undeveloped
Each category has a different point value threshold that will be considered critical. This point system will be a fair and equitable way to help identify criminal nuisance properties that will be placed into the ADAPT program.
ADAPT … leads a full inspection of the property with other City departments. The first step is to attempt to work with property owners to clearly identify the source of the criminal activity, and to assist in establishing a plan of action to correct any violations and to improve the property. If the owner cannot improve the property or fails to meet the plan of action goals, ADAPT will move to legal action.
Nuisance properties that do not rise to the level of the ADAPT program are referred to the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department to address the deficiencies or problems affecting it. Suspected criminal activity may also be referred to APD.”
https://www.cabq.gov/fire/adapt-program
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS
The “Distressed Lodging Property Ordinance” as well as Keller’s ADAPT program are nothing more than a pathetic attempt to replicate the work of the Safe City Strike Force that was so successful for a full 8 years under then Mayor Marty Chavez. The truth is the City of Albuquerque, and the State of New Mexico have some of the strongest nuisance abatement laws in the county that simply need to be enforced. A summary of those laws are provided in the postscript below.
FAILURE OF THE CITY IN COURT
The problem is that under Mayor Tim Keller the city, the planning department and the City Attorney for the last 8 years have been reluctant to go to court and have been a failure to secure court orders to shut down nuisance properties, board them up and even tear them down with condemnations. The City Council is likewise reluctant to initiate condemnation proceeding against substandard properties.
Confidential sources have confirmed that the City Attorney’s office under Keller has been extremely ineffective in going to court and have been unable to secure court orders for temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and even permanent injunctions and been unable to prove their cases in court. This failure is in sharp contrast to the work of the Safe City Strike Force when it went to court.
The Safe City Strike Force had a 100% success rate in court and that is because the Strike Force was organized and headed up for 8 years by trial attorney and Deputy City Attorney Pete Dinelli who was also the Director of the Safe City Strike Force. Planning Code Inspectors and the APD Code Teams were just as successful out of court with administrative actions know as “Notice and Orders” where inspections were conducted and Orders were issued to close and board up properties. Crime rates can be brought down with civil nuisance abatement actions that protect the public health, safety and welfare of the public and force property owners to take action to bring their properties into compliance.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN DO MORE
Planning Director Alan Varela said this about the “Distressed Lodging Property Ordinance”:
“Code enforcement does all its investigations based on complaints. We do not drive around the city, putting our noses into businesses that are not on the complaint list”
Varela’s comments reflect sure laziness on the part of the Planning Department Code Enforcement, and it reflects to an extent a dereliction of duty.
Inherent in housing code enforcement is the duty to be very proactive to protect the general public health and safety and welfare. It is the responsibility of the Planning Department Code Enforcement to make sure that all properties, residential and commercial alike, are in compliance with city codes and not just those propertied people complain . All too often, tenants are fearful to complain, especially about slum lords, for fear of eviction.
CONCLUSION
If Mayor Tim Keller the City Council are truly serious about targeting nuisance properties, both residential and commercial, they would not hesitate to reinstate and fully fund the Safe City Strike Force and reinstate the code teams to enforce existing nuisance abatement ordinances and state laws. That is not at all likely because Mayor Keller would have to admit how wrong he was to defund the Safe City Strike Force in favor of his ADAPT program that goes easy and promotes cooperation and communication with slum lords and derelict property owners who have no intention of bringing their properties in compliance.
______________________
POSTSCRIPT
NEW MEXICO STATUTES ON NUISANCE ABATEMENT
New Mexico statute defines a “public nuisance” as consisting “of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either:
“A. Injurious to public health, safety and welfare; or
B. Interferes with the exercise and enjoyment of public rights, including the right to use public property.
Whoever commits a public nuisance for which the act or penalty is not otherwise prescribed by law is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.”
(30-8-1, NMSA 1978, Public Nuisance defined).
The New Mexico legislature has also empowered municipalities very broad authority to define a nuisance, abate the nuisance and impose penalties and initiate civil causes of action.
State statute provides that “A municipality may by ordinance … define a nuisance, abate a nuisance and impose penalties upon a person who creates or allows a nuisance to exist. …”
(3-18-17 Nuisances and Offenses; Regulation or prohibition)
State statute also grants municipalities with broad powers and provides that:
“A municipality may:
A. sue or be sued; ….
F. protect generally the property of its municipality and it inhabitants;
G. preserve peace and order within the municipality; …”
(3-18-1 General Powers (of Municipality)”
Note that the creating, performing or maintaining a public nuisance is a crime under state law, which would be prosecuted in a magistrate court or metropolitan court. Under New Mexico law, a petty misdemeanor is the very least serious crime for which a person can be sentenced to time in jail. The sentence for a petty misdemeanor in New Mexico can never be more than six months in jail or a fine up to $500, is usually up to 30 days in jail and a $100 fine or both, depending on the offense and the penalties can also be suspended by the court.
Notwithstanding being a criminal charge, actions to abate a nuisance are civil actions that must be filed in state district court. New Mexico statutory law provides that any action for the abatement of a public nuisance shall be governed by the general rules of Civil Procedure.
(30-8-8, NMSA 1978 Abatement of a public nuisance.)
Under New Mexico law, “a civil action to abate a public nuisance may be brought, by verified complaint by any public officer or private citizen, in state district court of the county where the public nuisance exists, against any person, corporation or association of persons who shall create, perform or maintain a public nuisance.”
(30-8-8, B, NMSA 1978, Abatement of a public nuisance, emphasis added)
Editor’s Note: A “public officer” under the State Statute inherently includes the City Attorney, Bernalillo County District Attorney or even the County Attorney.
When a plaintiff prevails and proves that a nuisance exists and a judgment is given against a defendant in an action to abate a public nuisance, the district court can order the defendant responsible for the nuisance to pay all court costs and attorney fees for the plaintiff’s attorney.
(30-8-8, C, NMSA 1978, Abatement of a public nuisance, emphasis added)
The huge significance is that both public officials as well as private citizens can bring an action for nuisance abatement.
Another major distinction is the burden of proof between a criminal charge and a civil cause of action. A criminal charge requires the state to prove a defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”. A civil case requires proof by “preponderance of the evidence” by a plaintiff.
In general, with few exceptions, only law enforcement or state prosecutors can bring petty misdemeanor charges for public nuisance. However, any private citizen or public official, such as a District Attorney or City Attorney, or any lay person with money for the court filing fee, can initiate a civil nuisance abatement action for injunctive relief and if they prevail can be awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
ALBUQUERQUE CITY ORDINANCES DEFINING NUISANCE
In 1994, exercising the authority granted to it by the state, the City of Albuquerque enacted its nuisance abatement ordinance and then amended it 2006 to add offenses under the state criminal code and city housing and construction codes.
The City of Albuquerque ordinance defines a nuisance property as “any parcel of real property, commercial or residential, on which …illegal activities occurs, or which is used to commit conduct, promote, facilitate, or aide the commission of … any … [crimes or housing code violations].” (See 11-1-1-3, city ordinance defining Public Nuisance)
The nuisance abatement ordinance lists misdemeanor and felony statutes and housing and commercial codes.
Albuquerque’s Nuisance Abatement Ordinance states:
“It shall be unlawful for any owner, manager, tenant, lessee, occupant, or other person having any legal or equitable interest or right of possession in real property … or other personal property to intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently commit, conduct , promote, facilitate, permit, fail to prevent, or otherwise let happen, any public nuisance in, on or using any property in which they hold any legal or equitable interest or right of possession.” (See 11-1-1-10, Public Nuisance Prohibited)
The City’s Uniform Housing Code defines a nuisance in part as “Any nuisance known at common law …” or “whatever is dangerous to human life or is detrimental to health, as determined by the health officer” or “any violation of the housing standards” required by the building and housing codes. (See 14-3-1-4, ROA 1994, Housing Code defining Nuisance).
In 2004 the city enacted the Vacant Building Maintenance Act which requires property owners to register their vacant buildings, repair them and keep them maintained. Albuquerque’s housing and commercial codes define substandard structures and there are provisions that allow inspections and civil code enforcement actions.
Under existing city ordinances, property owners can be cited for code violations for not maintaining their properties in compliance with city codes.
Under the nuisance abatement ordinance, aggressive code enforcement action against blighted properties, both residential and commercial, can be taken where it is found that that the properties have become a nuisance and magnets of crime resulting in calls for service to the Albuquerque Police Department.
The city’s nuisance abatement ordinance defines nuisance as:
“Any parcel of real property, commercial or residential, … on which
any of the following illegal activities occurs, or which is used to commit
conduct, promote, facilitate, or aide the commission of … any of
the following activities: …
At this point, the ordinance lists crimes in the state’s criminal code as well as the city’s building and construction codes.
(City of Albuquerque Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, Section 11-1-1-1, Section 11-1-1-3 of ordinance defining “Public Nuisance”)
The city’s nuisance abatement ordinance prohibits “public nuisances” as follows:
“It shall be unlawful for any owner, manager, tenant, lessee, occupant, or other person having any legal or equitable interest or right of possession in real property …or other personal property to intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently commit, conduct , promote, facilitate, permit, fail to prevent, or otherwise let happen, any public nuisance in, on or using any property in which they hold any legal or equitable interest or right of possession.”
(11-1-1-10 PUBLIC NUISANCES PROHIBITED, City of Albuquerque.)
The City of Albuquerque’s Uniform Housing Code also defines “nuisance” as:
“(1) Any nuisance known at common law …
(2) Any attractive nuisance which may prove detrimental to children whether in a building, on the premises of a building, or upon an unoccupied lot. This includes any abandoned wells, shafts, basements or excavations; abandoned refrigerators; or any structurally unsound fences or structures; or any lumber, trash, fences or debris which may prove a hazard for inquisitive minors.
(3) Whatever is dangerous to human life or is detrimental to health, as determined by the health officer.
(4) Overcrowding a room with occupants.
(5) Insufficient ventilation or illumination.
(6) Inadequate or unsanitary sewage or plumbing facilities
(7) Any violation of the housing standards set forth in this code.”
(14-3-1-4 ROA 1994 of Housing Code, Definitions)
NEW MEXICO CASE LAW ON DEFINING A NUISANCE
The New Mexico Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals has issued opinions and rulings on what constitutes a nuisance.
Under New Mexico court case law nuisances are classified as nuisances per se and nuisances in fact.
“A nuisance per se is generally defined as an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings … [A] nuisance in fact is commonly defined as an act, occupation, or structure not a nuisance per se, but one which may become a nuisance by reason of circumstances, location, or surroundings.” (Koeber v. Apex-Albug Phoenix Express, 72 N.M. 4; 380 P.2d 14; 1963, New Mexico Supreme Court).
Further, it is well settled that a court may enjoin a threatened or anticipated nuisance, public or private, where it clearly appears that a nuisance will necessarily result from the contemplated act or thing which it is sought to enjoin. (Koeber v. Apex-Albug Phoenix Express, 72 N.M. 4; 380 P.2d 14; 1963, New Mexico Supreme Court).
A public nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. (Environmental Improvement Div. v. Bloomfield Irrigation Dist., 108 N.M. 691, 778 P2d 438, New Mexico Court of Appeals 1989).
A common law “public nuisance” which is similar to the public nuisance statute, is the unreasonable interference with the right common to the general public, belonging to all members of the general public. It is not necessary that the entire community be affected by a public nuisance. If the nuisance will interfere with those coming in contact with the exercise of a public right or if the nuisance otherwise affects interests of the community at large. (State, ex rel, Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque, 889 P.2d 185, 119 NM 150.)
A public nuisance is a wrong that arises by virtue of unreasonable interference with the rights common to the general public. The Public nuisance statute applies to anything affecting “any number of citizens” meaning a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. (NMSA 1978, 30-8-1 and State, ex rel, Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque, 889 P.2d 185, 119 NM 150.
Public nuisance is one which adversely affects public health, welfare, or safety. A public nuisance affects the rights of citizens as part of the public and must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. A continuing nuisance is one which occurs so often that it can fairly be said to be continuing although it is not constant and unceasing. (Padilla v. Lawrence, 101 NM 556, cert. denied 683 P.2d 1341, 101 NM 419.
The fact that acts constituting a public nuisance are punishable criminally does not deprive a court of its power to enjoin a public nuisance where there is ample proof of irreparable injury to public health, welfare, or safety. (Town of Clayton v. Mayfield. 82 NM 596, (involved operation of a junk yard that was unfenced and contained old cars). See also, State, ex rel, Marron v. Compere, 103 P.2d 273, 44 NM 414.