On February 12, 2024 the New Mexico legislature enacted House Bill 129 entitled the Firearm Sale Waiting Period Act. The New Mexico House initially approved a 14-day waiting period but a floor amendment cut the wait time to 7 days before the final passage. Rhode Island, Maryland and New Jersey have adopted a seven-day waiting period, with four states, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and Vermont opting for three days. California has a 30-day waiting period. In New Mexico, supporters argued that the waiting period would help reduce gun violence and gun deaths in New Mexico. On March 4, 2024 Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the legislation into law and it went into effect on May 15, 2024.

Two New Mexico residents, Paul Ortega a gun owner from Albuquerque and Rebecca Scott, a Farmington woman who owns guns, sued Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez over the law on May 15, 2024, the day the law  took effect. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Mountain States Legal Foundation, an advocacy group for gun rights, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Ortega and Scott citing concerns about delayed access to weapons for victims of domestic violence and others.

Plaintiffs Ortega and Scott said they were forced to wait to purchase guns despite quickly passing background checks and contended the New Mexico statute is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Their attorneys argued in part that to keep and bear arms, a prospective gun owner needed to acquire the firearm in the first place and therefore purchasing a gun was covered by the Second Amendment United States Constitution providing for the right to bear arms.

DISTRICT COURT RULING 

On July 22, U.S. District Judge James Browning of Albuquerque refused to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) barring enforcement of New Mexico’s 7 day waiting period for purchasing firearms in New Mexico. Judge Browning sided with attorneys for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and state Attorney General Raùl Torrez and ruled against the two-gun owners who contended the state’s 7 day waiting period violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The US Supreme Court in June upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence. Judge Browning’s ruling followed a hearing held on the TRO in June.

Judge Browning found that while gun-related deaths in the United States were higher in 2022 than in any other year on record, he found “the situation is worse” in New Mexico with gun death climbing significantly in the last few years. Judge Browning wrote the age-adjusted gun death rate increased by 87% between 2010 and 2021.  Judge Browning found that “The Defendants adduce significant evidence that waiting period laws may help reduce this tidal wave of gun violence.”  The judge noted that testimony given during the hearing that the Waiting Period Act is likely to save about 37 lives per year.

Browning wrote in part:

“On balance … the harm that the Defendants stand to suffer if the Court were to enjoin the Waiting Period Act — the loss of New Mexican lives — significantly outweighs the Plaintiff’s threatened injury. Moreover, the public’s interest in the preservation of dozens of New Mexican lives cannot be understated.”

Browning wrote that having to wait 7 days, as required by the new law, to purchase a handgun is “minimally burdensome” on the plaintiffs’ ancillary right to acquire firearms.  Browning wrote the waiting period is a “commercial firearm regulation” that is “presumptively Constitutional.” Judge Browning wrote in part:

“… [T]he Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s Second Amendment Claims fails because it doesn’t cover the conduct of purchasing a firearm. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed that the ‘most important rule in constitutional interpretation is to heed the text — that is, the actual words of the Constitution — and interpret that text according to its ordinary meaning as originally understood. …  Today and in 1791, the normal and ordinary meaning of ‘keep’ is to possess and the normal and ordinary meaning of ‘bear’ is to carry. … [The historical understanding of the Second amendment] provides further confirmation that the Second Amendment was not drafted to protect the right to purchase arms.”

Browning denied the NRA’s effort to secure a TRO on three grounds:

1. That the case would not succeed on its merits because the Second Amendment does not cover firearm sales.  The waiting period is not “presumptively unconstitutional” because it is a condition or qualification on firearm commercial sales and the waiting period is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of commercial firearms regulations, which licensed and prohibited the sale of firearms to sections of the populace out of a concern that a purchaser might use the firearm to harm the public.”
2. The NRA and it’s fellow plaintiffs did not show Browning that “they are likely to suffer irreparable injury if the Court does not temporarily enjoin the Waiting Period Act… and the harm that they stand to suffer should they seek to purchase another firearm is slight.”
3. That the plaintiffs did not “establish that the balance of the equities weighs in their favor nor that an injunction is in the public interest, because the Plaintiffs’ interest in purchasing a firearm without delay is minimal compared to the public’s interest in keeping the Waiting Period Act in effect.”

TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES LOWER COURT

On August 19, the three-member panel of the Denver-based federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period on gun purchases infringes on citizens’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, putting the law on hold pending a legal challenge. In a 2-1 split decision the Appeals Court reversed Federal District Judge Browning’s decision to deny injunctive relief.

Judge Browning, after hearing legal arguments and testimony from historian witnesses, considered the plain language of the Second Amendment. He concluded that the right to acquire a firearm in New Mexico, which mandated the waiting period, didn’t impede the right to “keep and bear” a firearm. However, the appeals court held the opposite view, stating that “the constitutional injury to the Plaintiffs is so broad and clear that they have met their higher burden entitling them to an injunction changing the status quo.” The court reversed Browning’s ruling, and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Court of Appels Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote in part for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals majority:

“Even though the potential to reduce impulsive gun violence might be true, once we acknowledge that the Waiting Period Act likely burdens Second Amendment activity, that potential is outweighed. … [The  law applies] a blanket burden across all of society, assuming that everyone is dangerous or unstable before they can exercise their Second Amendment right. … Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms. Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope. In this preliminary posture, we conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.”

In his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Scott M. Matheson said New Mexico’s waiting period “establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends.” Matheson noted the majority opinion of the court  ignored a prior Tenth Circuit ruling that upheld Colorado’s law barring gun purchases by anyone under the age of 21, or “a law that requires 18-year-olds to wait three years to purchase a weapon.”

However, the majority opinion acknowledges the precedent and acknowledged that “courts have only partially fleshed out the boundaries of these commercial conditions. … even in this murky territory, the Waiting Period Act falls far short of a presumptively constitutional law.” The “historically grounded exceptions” framework was created by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 in a decision that overturned decades of precedent allowing for reasonable regulations on gun purchases.

NEW MEXICO MOVES FOR RECONSIDERATION

On August 26, the online news agency Source NM reported that that New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, on behalf of the State of New Mexico will be filing with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals a “Motion To Reconsider” the three-member panel ruling that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period on gun purchase infringes on citizens’ Second Amendment rights and enjoining the state from enforcing the law.

New Mexico Department of Justice Spokesperson Lauren Rodriguez confirmed to Source NM that Attorney General Raúl Torrez intends to ask the full 19 federal court appeals court to reconsider the ruling “en banc’. Rodriguez said this in an email statement:

“We are actively working with the Governor’s office on the petition for rehearing.”

A request for the  entire 19 member 10^th Circuit Federal Appeals to convene “en banc” is an exceptional request. It refers to the practice where the entire appellate court sits together to hear a case, rather than the usual smaller panel of three judges. This happens in exceptionally important cases of public importance, or when prior decisions need reconsideration or where the circuit court needs to try to keep decisions consistent.

The 3 member panel’s split decision goes against a prior Tenth Circuit ruling that upheld Colorado’s law barring gun purchases by anyone under the age of 21, or “a law that requires 18-year-olds to wait three years to purchase a weapon.”  Federal Court of Appeals Judge Scott M. Matheson’s dissenting opinion also points to this inconsistency. In the meantime, the waiting-period law remains in effect.

As of Tuesday morning, August 26,  New Mexico had not yet filed the petition for rehearing, according to court records.

https://sourcenm.com/briefs/new-mexico-to-ask-appeals-court-to-reconsider-7-day-gun-buy-waiting-period/

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON GUNSHOT VICTIMS

Simply put, New Mexico is suffering a major crisis when it comes to gun violence and gun deaths. New Mexico’s  gun violence crisis was laid to bear for all to see on September 28, 2023 when  the New Mexico Department of Health released its “Comprehensive Report on Gunshot Victims Presenting at Hospitals in New Mexico.”  The report spans the time period from 1999 to 2023. The report provides a detailed analysis of firearm-related violent deaths and injuries in New Mexico. It encompasses data from various sources, including New Mexico’s surveillance systems, state behavioral risk factor surveys, and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) data.

The key findings and conclusions detailed in the report are as follows:

INCREASE IN FIREARM-RELATED DEATHS

• Over the past two decades, New Mexico’s firearm death rates rose from 7^th highest nationwide in 1999 to 3^rd highest in 2021 with the age-adjusted firearm death rate increasing by 87% between 2010 and 2021.
• While suicide remains the predominant cause of firearm-related deaths, a notable surge of 70% in the homicide rate is driving the overall increase in firearm fatalities.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DISPARITIES

• Men of all age groups were found to be at highest risk for firearm-related injuries and deaths.
• Racial/ethnic inequities: Non-Hispanic American Indian, Non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics, experienced substantial increases in firearm injury death rates between 2017 and 2021.
• The Northeast and Metro Health Regions experienced a substantial increase in firearm injury emergency department (ED) visits over the past two years (Northeast: +30%; Metro: +22%).

INCREASED SEVERITY OF HEALTH OUTCOMES OF FIREARM INJURY

Between 2019 and 2022, there was a 16% increase of patients being admitted to intensive care and a 61% increase in patients being transferred to the operating room.

SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE USE CONTRIBUTING TO INCREASED FIREARMS DEATHS

• Between 2019 and 2020, there was an 89% increase in alcohol dependence for homicides involving firearms. Additionally, from 2018 to 2020, there was a 475% increase non-alcoholic substance dependence for homicides involving a firearm.
• Between 2018 and 2020, there was an 85% increase in alcohol dependence and a 120% increase in non-alcoholic substance abuse for suicides involving a firearm.

LOADED AND UNLOADED FIREARMS AS RISK FACTOR FOR FIREARM INJURY AND DEATH

• In 2022, 37% of New Mexican households have a firearm, 15% of New Mexican households have a loaded firearm, and 8% have a loaded and unlocked firearm.
• In 2022, households with a firearm and a child less than 18 years old, 38% have a loaded firearm and 15% have a loaded and unlocked firearm.

RISING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FIREARM INJURY TO NEW MEXICO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

• The annual estimated overall cost of firearms injuries and deaths in New Mexico is $6 billion or $2818 per capita.
• Medicaid claims for firearm injuries in New Mexico increased by 85% from $6.5 million in 2018 to $12 million in 2022 (Figure 12).
• Between January 2023 and September 2023, Medicaid expenditures totaling $5.6 million have been spent on firearm injuries in New Mexico.
• Medicaid was the primary payer for 76% of gun injury hospital discharges in 2022 In 2021, the Department of Health with support of the CDC, developed a Statewide Strategic Plan for the Prevention of Firearm Injury (FASTER Report FINAL (unm.edu)) which is an important supplement to this document. Demographic Data on Firearm Injury.

HEALTHCARE OUTCOMES FOR GUNSHOT VICTIMS

Gunshot injuries have wide-ranging and severe implications on individual well-being, often necessitating immediate and extensive medical care. Delving into the healthcare outcomes for gunshot victims reveals a concerning picture:

SEVERITY OF INJURIES

• Between 2019 and 2022, the number of patients in New Mexico’s trauma centers with firearm injuries has increased by 39%.
• The number of trauma center patients with firearm injuries being discharged from the ED to the intensive care unit has increased by 16%
• There has been a concerning 61% increase in gunshot injuries that required surgical interventions
• New Mexico ranked seventh highest in the U.S. in 1999 and 2011. The rank increased to third highest in the U.S. in 2021
• New Mexico has consistently had a larger age adjusted1 firearm death rate than the rest of the country. Moreover, the age adjusted firearm injury death rate for New Mexico has also increased at a higher rate compared to the U.S. For example, New Mexico’s firearm injury death rate was 48% higher than the U.S. in 2010, compared to being 90% higher in 2021.

TYPE OF FIREARM AND AMMUNITION INVOLVED IN FIREARM DEATHS

The following data was pulled from pooled data in the New Mexico National Violent Death Reporting System (NM VDRS) from 2018 to 2020:

TYPE OF FIREARM IN DEATHS

• Handguns were implicated in 77% of violent firearm-related deaths (Figure 6).
• Rifles and shotguns were involved in 7% and 6% of such incidents.

COMMON FIREARM MANUFACTURERS IN DEATHS

• An unknown manufacturer was noted in 61% of cases of the New Mexico National Violent Death Reporting System (NM VDRS) pooled data from 2018 to 2020.
• Smith & Wesson firearms were linked to 8% of violent deaths, followed by Ruger (6%), Glocks (5%), and Taurus (4%).

AMMUNITION CALIBERS IN VIOLENT DEATHS

• The 9-millimeter (mm) caliber was the most prevalent, associated with 25% of violent firearm deaths. PAGE 7
• Other notable calibers included .38 (10%), .22 (9%), .45 (8%), and .40 (7%)

NUMBER OF VIOLENT CRIMES IN NEW MEXICO

According to FBI statistics, the number of violent crimes in New Mexico for the  11 years available for the “Comprehensive Report on Gunshot Victims Presenting at Hospitals in New Mexico” were reported as follows:

• 2012: 11,660
• 2013: 12,990
• 2014: 12,465
• 2015: 13,672
• 2016: 14,585
• 2017: 16,300
• 2018: 17,637
• 2019: 17,302
• 2020: 16,393
• 2021: 17,373
• 2022: 16,494

Editor’s Note: Final numbers for New Mexico’s overall violent crimes in 2023 and 2024 are not yet available from a single source, but preliminary data for the state shows a high violent crime rate. In 2023, the state’s violent crime rate was 749 per 100,000 people, which is significantly higher than the national average.

According to data released by the New Mexico Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 2010 to 2021, the age-adjusted death rate from firearms rose by 87%. In the same time span, New Mexico rose from the 7th to the 3rd highest rate of firearm deaths in the country.

Overall, there was a 34% increase in overall firearm fatalities from 2018 to 2021, with a 70% increase in homicides with a firearm in the same time period.

Not only has death from firearms in New Mexico increased, but so have injuries related to firearms. From 2018 to 2022, the rate of people visiting the emergency room from firearm related injuries rose 35%.

According to the latest stats from the FBI, there were 11,550 instances of shoplifting In New Mexico. It’s a trend that’s been increasing since 2018.

FIREARM INJURY – EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS

Emergency room firearms injuries are on the uptick in New Mexico  and are reported as follows for 5 years of available data:

• 2018: 968
• 2019: 914
• 2020: 1,129
• 2021: 1,263
• 2022: 1,306

 https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-crime-stats-town-hall/60513537

Following the death of a child near Isotopes Park in 2023, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued a public health order that was aimed to reduce gun violence. Data released by the governor’s office from September 2023 – March 2024 is as follows:

• TOTAL ARRESTS: 7,649
• FELONY ARRESTS: 4,701 (61.46%)
• MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS/ WARRANTS:  2,948 (38.54%)
• FIREARMS SEIZED: 614
• TRAFFIC CITATIONS: 9,669

https://www.nmhealth.org/publication/view/report/8463/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is  clear New Mexico is suffering a major crisis when it comes to gun violence and gun deaths and there is a critical need for gun control legislation, including a waiting period to purchase guns. Given what is at stake, and the lives that could be saved with a 7 day waiting period, requesting the entire 19 member 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the  2 to 1 split ruling is necessary and appropriate.

MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE OTHER THAN WAITING PERIOD

Much more must be done by the New Mexico legislature other than a waiting period to curb and reduce the proliferation of guns in the state of New Mexico and to reduce gun violence. If Governor Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico Legislature are truly concerned about the New Mexico’s violent crime crisis, both need to regroup and take and even more aggressive approach than enacting waiting periods. They should work on building a consensus on the enactment of enhance sentencings for crimes and gun control measures.

The message that must be sent out loud and clear by our elected officials to violent criminals is that New Mexico has a zero tolerance of violent crimes committed with firearms and the only way to do that is with enhanced sentencings. Also, the availability and proliferation of guns must be recognized as a big part of the state’s violent crime problem.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT MEASURES

The following crime and sentencing provisions should be enacted:

Strengthen penalties for a felon convicted of possessing a firearm, making the crime a second-degree felony, punishable by a minimum of nine years in prison.

Allow firearm offenses used in a drug crimes to be charged separately with enhance sentences.

Making possession of a handgun by someone who commits a crime of drug trafficking an aggravated third-degree felony mandating a 10-year minimum sentence.

Increase the firearm enhancement penalties provided for the brandishing a firearm in the commission of a felony from 3 years to 10 years for a first offense and for a second or subsequent felony in which a firearm is brandished 12 years.

Create a new category of enhanced sentencing for use of a lethal weapon or deadly weapon other than a firearm where there is brandishing  of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony with enhanced sentences of 5 years for a first offense and for second or subsequent felony in which a lethal weapon other than a firearm is brandished 8 years

Increase the penalty of shooting randomly into a crowded area a second-degree felony mandating a 9-year sentence.

Increase the penalty and mandatory sentencing for the conviction of the use of a fire arm during a road rage incident to a first-degree felony mandating a life sentence.

Update the Children’s Code to deal with charges, increasing penalties and prosecutions of minors as adults as consequences of children using firearms in the commission of violent crimes and aggravated assaults with use of deadly weapon.

Change bail bond laws to statutorily empower judges with far more discretionary authority to hold and jail those pending trial who have prior violent crime reported incidents without shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

GUN CONTROL MEASURES

Gun control measures that should be enacted include an assault weapons ban lawfully regulating the manufacture, possession and sale of weapons of war, most often the gun used in mass casualty events and  prohibiting guns in parks and playgrounds making it illegal to carry a firearm in county or municipal parks, playgrounds, and their accompanying parking lots.

Restrict the sale, manufacture and possession of AR-15-style rifles along with semiautomatic firearms and make it a second-degree felony to purchase, possess, manufacture, import, sell or transfer assault weapons in the state.

Prohibited magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Prohibited the possession of semiautomatic firearm converter that allows the weapon to fire more rapidly.

Enact a  14-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm and requiring  a prospective seller who doesn’t already hold a valid federal firearms license to arrange for someone who does to conduct a federal background check prior to selling a firearm.

Established a minimum age of 21 for anyone seeking to purchase or possess an automatic firearm, semiautomatic firearm or firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.

Ban the manufacture, sale, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of semiautomatic pistols that have two or more defined characteristics.

Revised the state’s Unfair Practices Act to target the sale of illegal firearms and parts, allowing the filing of lawsuits to enforce the act.

Prohibit in New Mexico the sale of “ghost guns” parts. Ghost guns are guns that are manufactured and sold in parts without any serial numbers to be assembled by the purchaser and that can be sold to anyone.

Require in New Mexico the mandatory purchase of “liability insurance” with each gun sold as is required for all operable vehicles bought and driven in New Mexico.

Mandate the school systems and higher education institutions “harden” their facilities with more security doors, security windows, and security measures and alarm systems and security cameras tied directly to law enforcement 911 emergency operations centers.

CONCLUSION

The Governor and the New Mexico legislature need to recognize waiting periods to purchase guns are only one small step. They need to get serious about New Mexico’s gun violence crisis and enact reasonable gun control measures in conjunction with crime and punishment measures. Until then, we can expect our violent crime rates to be out of control.

Links to related articles are here:

Federal Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeals Blocks State’s 7 Day Waiting Period; Appeal To Trump’s US Supreme Court May Be Futile; Governor And Legislature Should Consider Other Measures

NM Federal District Court Denies Temporary Restraining Order Barring Enforcement Of State’s 7 Day Waiting Period; New Mexico’s Gun Violence Crisis; Legislature Should Enact “Omnibus Violent Crime Sentencing And Gun Control Act.”

 

Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman, the city of Rio Rancho and lawyers representing unhoused Plaintiffs have filed briefs with the New Mexico Supreme Court in a pending lawsuit which seeks class action status on behalf of the homeless.  The lawsuit stems from the August 18, 2022 city closure of Coronado Park and the eviction of upwards of 150 homeless.

The lawsuit alleges in part that the city of Albuquerque is denying the unhoused rights to due process of law, and that their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is being violated. The lawsuit is a major test before the New Mexico Supreme Court of all municipalities authority to enforce municipal and state of public camping laws, trespassing laws and vagrancy laws against the homeless.

The City of Albuquerque has filed a Petition for a “Writ of Superintending Control” against District Judge Joshua Allison, the judge assigned to the case, who ruled a  US Supreme Court case allowing cities to enforce criminal laws against the homeless was faulty and did not apply to the city. Judge Allison has also filed a responsive pleading to the “Writ of Superintending Control”.

The link to the relied upon news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_86c9bee1-645b-41bf-84d5-3121316bc170.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

EDITORS NOTE: The postscript to this article contains information on the Coronado Park closure, summary of the class action lawsuit and a link to the US Supreme Court case of GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON.  

DISTRICT COURT RULING  

On March 18, 2024, District Court  Judge Joshua Allison ruled the United States Supreme Court case of  GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON that gave cities the green light to enforce criminal laws against the homeless for living and sleeping outside on public property did not apply to the City of Albuquerque. Judge Joshua Allison specifically found the high court ruling was “flawed”. Judge Allison concluded and ruled the New Mexico Constitution provides greater protections against such cruel and unusual punishment than the U.S. Supreme Court considered in its decision.

In his March 18 ruling, Allison wrote that the plaintiffs are challenging what they say are the city of Albuquerque’s unconstitutional practices of relocating them, and involuntarily unhoused people like them, from “place to place, taking and destroying their belongings in the process.”

Plaintiffs in their class action lawsuit against the City allege that the city intentionally deprived them, as involuntarily unhoused people, of the belongings they need to survive. In his March 18 ruling, Judge Allison wrote the allegations, if proven during the course of the case, would be “sufficient to demonstrate the City’s deliberate indifference to the precarious existence of homeless individuals when they live outside.”

Judge Allison wrote:

“Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the Court must at this stage in the proceedings, the City’s alleged actions of destroying the means that homeless people need to survive outside, actions that are taken in the course of seeking to enforce criminal laws against homeless people, shock the conscience of the Court.”

PETITION FOR “WRIT OF SUPERINTENDING CONTROL”

On July 11, the City of Albuquerque filed with the New Mexico Supreme Court  a “Petition for Writ of Superintending Control” against Judge Joshua Allison requesting the court to reverse Allison’s ruling to prevent the “proliferation” of homeless encampments within the city and other municipalities and towns in New Mexico. A city spokesperson said this in a statement:

“We filed this appeal because we dispute the judge’s ruling. This is the only judge in the country to make this ruling, and we are the only city in America having to live under these rules. … The city will keep doing everything in its power to get people the support they need and to manage illegal encampments promptly. We will continue sending staff to conduct welfare checks at encampments and offer support services.”

John Anderson, a Santa Fe lawyer who is a former United State Attorney for New Mexico, is defending  the city of Albuquerque in the class action lawsuit, states this in the petition for the  “Writ of Superintending Control”:

“[The issues involving the prevention of  illegal encampments have] serious public safety implications and, the district court’s decision flouts the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent guidance. … The City needs [ the New Mexico Supreme Courts] … direction in weighing how to enforce its laws … to resolve legal questions of statewide importance.  If allowed to stand, the district court’s decision will leave the City of Albuquerque and cities and towns throughout New Mexico, with no means to prevent the proliferation of encampments within their borders.”

In its “Petition for Superintending Control” filed with the New Mexico Supreme Court, the city of Albuquerque contends that nearly two years ago, “a large group of cities and states put out a clear and forceful call” by asking the U.S. Supreme Court “to relieve them of the burdens imposed by a misguided interpretation of the Eighth Amendment by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which left cities unable to clear encampments from, or otherwise maintain order in, public property.”

The “Petition for Superintending Control” asserts in part:

“[Judge  Allison’s] novel and unprecedented standard cannot stand. The City simply does not know, at this time, when or how it can enforce its laws.”

ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PARTIES

According to the cities of Albuquerque and Rio Rancho, and Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman, the stakes involve “serious public safety implications” involving the ability of New Mexico municipalities to protect public property and public welfare. The city of Albuquerque is asking the state Supreme Court to reverse Allison’s ruling in its filing for a “Petition for Writ of Superintending Control” against Judge Joshua Allison.

Attorneys for eight plaintiffs in the case who are involuntarily homeless and live outdoors say the city’s attempt to regulate homelessness is violating their civil rights. Those attorneys asked the Supreme Court to deny the City of Albuquerque’s request for reversal of Judge Allison’s ruling.

DISTRICT JUDGE JOSHUA RESPONDS

District Judge Joshua Allison filed a response to the writ and said he wanted to clarify that his ruling was only denying a motion to dismiss filed by the city,  despite the city’s contention that he had adopted a novel and unprecedented legal standard. Allison wrote in his response:

“The legal basis for those constitutional claims survived a motion to dismiss. It did not adopt a specific legal standard.”  He added that the suggestion he would grant the relief the plaintiffs seek in the future is “premature.”

DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAM BREGMAN’S BRIEFING

DA Bregman and city officials believe that Judge Allison’s ruling will make it more difficult for Albuquerque and other New Mexico cities to manage public health and safety concerns tied to growing number of encampments. Bregman said this in an August 12 press release:

“This is about giving cities the ability to maintain safe and accessible public spaces while still respecting individual rights. … Many of our crime victims are people who are living on the streets. We not only want to protect them, but also the public and businesses.”

District Attorney Sam Bregman’s brief filed with the NM  Supreme Court contains the following conclusion:

“The [March 18, 2025 ruling of District Judge Josh Allison]  inexorably embraces a striking usurpation of policymaking authority from the City of Albuquerque in that it accepts the validity of a legal landscape in which City must surrender the vast majority of its outdoor public spaces to occupation by unhoused individuals – and the teachings of Grants Pass make clear that the consequences for public health and safety will be devastating.  The Petition and the Amicus briefs from the Grants Pass litigation collectively and consistently explain the disastrous impact that such a regime had on the ability of localities to implement policy-based solutions to address problems associated with homelessness and homeless encampments in public spaces.

The Grants Pass filings also describe a resulting proliferation of homeless encampments on public lands as authorities became powerless to disperse them, and a resulting down spiral into jaw-dropping, heart-wrenching conditions within the encampments and the areas surrounding them.  The localities reported being hamstrung in their ability to address conditions associated with the growing encampments such as: (1) drug overdoses (from fentanyl, meth, and heroin, among other drugs); (2) deaths from hypothermia and excessive heat; (3) a high volume of calls for medical help; (4) increasingly volatile behavior; (5) murders; (6) sexual assaults; (7) subjugation to sex work and physical abuse; (8) fights, assaults, thefts, and armed robberies; (9) fires; (10) filthy and unsanitary living conditions, including massive amounts of debris such as needles and human excrement polluting the environment; (11) heightened risks of disease transmission, and a resurgence of “medieval” diseases such as typhus and tuberculosis; and (12) for areas surrounding the encampments – increased crime, the flight of businesses, decreasing property values, and an overall loss of habitability. …  

The City of Albuquerque already faces many challenges in addressing issues surrounding homelessness.  … The lessons of Grants Pass teach that an approach such as what the district court has adopted in this case will ultimately worsen [Albuquerque’s] …  ability to implement policy based choices to address homelessness and to regulate the use of public spaces.

Although crime affects everyone whether housed or unhoused, [the Bernalillo County District Attorney] is painfully aware that the homeless that the district court seeks to protect with its ruling are a subset of the population that is at least as vulnerable as any other to criminal victimization.  The unhoused and housed alike must not be subjected to additional criminal victimization due to the adverse effect the district court’s ruling will have on public safety.”

CITY OF RIO RANCHO

The city of Rio Rancho’s brief states that as the third-largest municipality in New Mexico, Rio Rancho will be “significantly impacted by the recent decision of the Second Judicial District Court.”

The City of Rio Rancho states in its brief:

[As it presently stands, the ruling] inserts confusion into how (Rio Rancho) can legally address the health, wealth, and safety of its citizens when dealing with the difficult circumstances surrounding involuntarily unhoused persons and their use of public places. …  The potential for different district courts to reach different decisions relating to the application of Grants Pass creates uncertainty and will result in the ineffective use of public bodies’ limited resources across New Mexico.”

The link to  quoted or relied upon news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_86c9bee1-645b-41bf-84d5-3121316bc170.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The City was 100% correct in seeking a Writ of Superintendent Control against Judge Allison to compel him to apply the principals announced in the Supreme Court case of Grants Pass vs. Johnson. It is very difficult to understand or even try to comprehend Judge Joshua Allison’s ruling that the Supreme Court case of Grants Pass v. Johnson does not apply to the class action lawsuit filed against the city given the fact that the case is essentially identical to the issues the US  Supreme Court decided in GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON. Judge Allison essentially bends over backwards to declare that the Supreme Court Ruling is “flawed” in order not to apply it to the case brought against the city and to prevent the city from enforcing state law and municipal ordinances.

District Judge Josh Allison’s injunction and ruling that the city “cannot threaten to arrest, cite, or otherwise punish unhoused people for their mere presence in outdoor public spaces in order to forcibly move them from one outdoor public place to another” is  a clear usurpation and interference with the city’s legitimate law enforcement authority. Judge Allison usurped and interfered with the city’s right to take necessary action to protect public health, safety and welfare with the enforcement of public safety laws, both state laws and city ordinances.

Judge Allison’s rulings and findings simply do not make sense on many levels and need extensive clarification. The Preliminary Injunction he issued is confusing and contradictory. Judge Allison’s orders were sweeping in nature and enjoined the city “from enforcing, or threatening to enforce as a means of seeking compliance with, any statutes and ordinances against involuntarily unhoused people that prohibit a person’s presence in, or the presence of a person’s belongings on, outdoor, public property”.

The order did not make it clear that “outdoor, public place” includes  vacant, open space land owned by the city, county, state or federal government nor if it includes outdoor open space areas of government owned buildings such as city hall and the various courts. The court order provides the city is not enjoined from “enforcing any statutes, ordinances, or other laws affecting private property or the rights of others”.

The city has property rights that are equal to private property rights when it comes to real property it owns and manages including government buildings such as city hall and court houses, as does the county and state, yet Judge Allison makes a distinction and gives preference in enforcement of  private real property rights. The court also ruled that the city is not enjoined from enforcing any statutes or ordinances concerning any other criminal acts of the unhoused people, but that is very limited because APD has a no arrest policy when it comes to the misdemeanor crimes of trespass and camping on public property.

The Albuquerque Police Department is currently under a court approved settlement in the federal lawsuit of McClendon v. City of Albuquerque wherein the city has agreed not to make arrests for nonviolent crimes, such as trespass on public and private property, illegal camping on all city parks and streets, rights of way, alleyways and open space.  As a result, APD is relegated to merely encouraging or telling the homeless to move on and camp elsewhere, falling short of making an arrest and taking them to jail. Judge Allison enjoined such conduct.

The glaring defect of the injunctions issued by Judge Allison against the city is that the Court essentially ruled that the unhoused, because of their status of being unhoused and because there is insufficient  housing available and offered by the city, they have the right to violate the law and illegally camp wherever they want for how long as they want without government interference or threat of arrest.  While Judge Allison says “the City is not constitutionally obligated to provide housing for homeless people” he rules the city cannot “threaten” to enforce the laws against the homeless until the city provides sufficient satisfactory shelter and housing to them implying the city is not doing much of anything, which is completely false.

FINAL COMMENTARY 

District Attorney Sam Bregman is commended for intervening in the case.   All municipalities, and for that matter District Attorneys, have the obligation and every right to enforce the  criminal laws on behalf of its citizens, whether it be felony or misdemeanor. No municipality and no District Attorney should be forced to 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 or for that matter make arrests for other crimes identified other than vagrancy crimes.

With the filing of the Writ of Superintendent Control, the New Mexico Supreme Court is now forced to address head on the issue if the banning of outdoor camping by the unhoused is “cruel and unusual punishment” and to what extent all municipalities can enforce state and municipal laws.

 ___________________________

POSTSCRIPT

CORONANDO PARK CLOSURE

It was on  August 18, 2022, the City of Albuquerque closed Coronado Park because it had become a de facto city sanctioned homeless encampment with the city evicting up to 100 unhoused who camped there nightly.  The city cited numerous reasons for closure of the park including lack of sanitation posing a severe health risks, overall damage to the park and extensive drug trafficking and violent crime, including rapes and murders at the park having reached crisis proportions. The city was spending upwards of $50,000 a month to clean up Coronado  Park.

The city park had an extensive history lawlessness including drug use, violence, murder, rape and mental health issues. In 2020, there were 3 homicides at Coronado Park. In 2019, a disabled woman was raped, and in 2018 there was a murder. APD reported that it was dispatched to the park 651 times in 2021 and 312 times  in 2022. There had been 16 stabbings at the park in 2 years.  In 2023, APD had 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. All the seized drugs were tied to a single bust that occurred at a nearby motel, not the park, though an APD spokeswoman said the suspect was “mainly doing all their distributions [at the park].”

HOMELESS  CLASS ACTION LAWSUITE  FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

On December 19, 2022 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 to be homeless. All 8, along with upwards of 100 unhoused, were evicted by the city from Coronado Park. Not one of the 8 plaintiffs allege they were charged nor arrested for refusing to leave Coronado Park on the day it was closed nor were they jailed. The lawsuit contends it is unconstitutional to punish or threaten to punish unhoused people for the “crime of being in an outdoor public space when there are inadequate indoor spaces for them to be.”

The Plaintiffs allege they were displaced from Coronado Park when the city closed it and that the city did not provide satisfactory shelter options to them.  According to the ACLU the lawsuit was filed to stop the City of Albuquerque from destroying encampments of the unhoused all over the city and preventing the city from seizing and destroying personal property and jailing and fining people for being unhoused.

The lawsuit alleges the city unlawfully seized personal property, denied due process of law, and violated constitutional rights by destroying 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 sought court orders that required the city to cease and desist enforcement actions to stop the unhoused from camping in public spaces which include public streets, public rights of ways, alleyways, under bridges and city parks unless the city has shelter or housing for them.

GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON 

On June 28, 2024 the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The link to the Supreme Court opinion is here:

Click to access 23-175_19m2.pdf

The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. Local governments wanted to enforce ordinances making it a crime to sleep on public sidewalks, streets and alleyways, camp on public property as a temporary place to live, or camp or park overnight in the city’s parks. The case is strikingly similar in facts and circumstances and laws to the case filed against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park.

This article is a report on the August 21 State Fairground District Board’s second meeting and the presentations made to the board followed by Analysis and Commentary.

BACKGROUND

It was on March 21 that  the New Mexico legislature passed Senate Bill 481 creating the “State Fairgrounds District” and a governing board which has redevelopment authority over the existing State Fair grounds area. The “State Fairgrounds District” Board is empowered to raise property taxes and issue up to $500 million in bonds to fund future development of the property, to make improvement or even relocate the fairgrounds and repurpose the property. The bonds are backed primarily by future gaming revenue taxes generated at the Downs Racetrack and Casino which holds a multi-decade lease on  the  property until 2045 within the fairground’s perimeter. According to the legislation, the board will govern the development of the district for six years.

Voting members of the State Fairgrounds District governing Board are:

• Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, chair.
• Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller
• Senator Mimi Stewart, Senate President Pro-Tempore, International District, #17
• State  Representative Janelle Anyanonu whose district the fair grounds is located
• City Councilor Nichole Rogers whose district the fair grounds is located
• County Commissioner Adriann Barboa whose district the fair grounds is located
• Dr. Peter Belletto, President, District 6 Neighborhood Coalition

STATE FAIRGROUNDS DISTRICT HOLDS SECOND MEETING

On August 21, the State Fairgrounds District held its second meeting. The meeting was chaired by former Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez who was designated by the Governor to run the meeting because she could not attend. Appearing in person were Senate Pro Temp Mimi Stewart, City Councilor Nichole Rogers, State Representative Janelle Anyanonu, Mayor Tim Keller  and District 6 Neighborhood Coalition President  Dr. President Peter Belletto. Appearing by phone was Bernalillo County Commissioner Adriann Barboa.

The two and a half hour meeting was dedicated to both administrative matters and presentations. Administrative matters included adopting resolutions appropriating $30,000 on a communications plan, a budget overview and adoption of a budget.

HISTORICAL CRIME STATISTICS PRESENTED

A presentation of historical crime statistics for the four directional areas surrounding the State Fair Grounds was made by retired APD Captain Rob Debuck using a map and  data provided by the Albuquerque Police Department. Although the statistics were provided by APD, they did not include recent statics released by APD in July comparing crime statistics for 2025 and 2024 that show a marked decline in crime and following national trends.

The statistics did not include the monthly crime statistics for the Southeast Area command, wherein the State Fairgrounds is located, for the last year which are provided routinely and monthly by area commanders to neighborhood associations. Those statistics show a decline in crime. No discussion was made of the enforcement actions taken by the city to deal with homeless encampments nor calculations of the number of the unhoused in the area.

City Councilor Nichole Rogers voiced objections noting that the board needed current data, a request noted by the chair and acknowledged by Mayor Tim Keller. The postscript to this article contains the link to an article on the July midyear crime statistics released by APD.

UPDATES ON WORK

One presentation was an update on the work performed on the State Fair Grounds Mater Plan by Stantec Consulting Services Inc, the firm contracted by the state to create a master plan for repurposing the 236-acre tract of land.

A second presentation was on economic data relating to the project.

Both presentations merit review.

COMMUNITY ENGAGMENT

A subcontractor that specializes in public affairs and strategic communications working for Stantec Consulting Services Inc. reported to the State Fair Grounds District governing board that it completed 14 in-depth interviews with board members, key stakeholders and community leaders and will be conducting further interviews. It was announced that three meetings will be held with the Stakeholders to discuss the overall plans for the area. It was also announced that a website has been completed and that it will be launched in the week of August 15. A community survey will be conducted from September 1 to September 17. Community meetings will be held the week of September 8.

INSIGHTS FROM IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

A report was given on the following four major insights given by the stakeholders during interviews:

1. DESIRE FOR SAFE WALKABLE FAIRGROUND

Stakeholders stated that they felt the top priority for the fairgrounds is a safe walkable greenspace that connects the neighborhoods on all sides of the Fairgrounds and that provides a shared community space. Stakeholders said they want neighborhoods on all sides of the Fairgrounds to be connected to create a shared community space. Environmental considerations include having tree coverage reducing the heat index and reducing “inhalable pollution.” Stakeholders said they want the ability to walk to grocery stores, schools, neighborhood restaurants and retail stores.

2. ACCESSABLE HOUSING WITH CAVEATS

Stakeholders said a close second priority is accessible housing but with caveats. Stakeholders said they would like to see prioritizing renovating existing structures within neighborhoods and infill housing. New housing on the Fairgrounds itself must be mixed income. There must be supported pathways for the first time homeownership, including in the surrounding neighborhoods as well as the fairgrounds. There is a measurable sentiment for a “Community Land Trust” which would allow for the neighborhoods to have “skin in the game” and own land and property.

3. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Stakeholders emphasized that Economic and Business Development is a tertiary priority. Stakeholders expressed widespread acknowledgement of the importance of an anchor tenant on the fairgrounds itself, but the nature of the tenant is not clear.

4. HEALTHY AND SAFE COMMUNITIES

Stakeholders stressed there is a need to address the proliferation of violent crime, property crime and the presence of unhoused, open drug use and behavioral health challenges. Stakeholders believe there is “power and progress” in the communities surrounding the fairgrounds. Stakeholders said more community services are needed, but it’s complicated on how to achieve them and saying communities must be an authentic part of the work.

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A preliminary report presentation was made to the State Fairgrounds District governing board estimating the economic, fiscal and social impacts of redevelopment of the fairgrounds. The presentation was made by economist Dr. Kelley O’Donnell, Phd. where she discussed her preliminary findings from a regional analysis of the State Fair redevelopment project.

Dr. O’Donnell stated that there were three very distinct but interrelated impacts that would be associated with the redevelopment of the state Fair Grounds:

The First Impact would be the Social Impact of the Sate Fair redevelopment. This would involve housing, public safety, access to services and potential displacement of residents in the area.

The Second Impact would be the Fiscal Impact of the State Fair redevelopment. This would involve tax revenues generated by the project and the required bonding to raise funds for the redevelopment.

The Third Impact would be the Economic Impact of the State Fair redevelopment. This involves the creation of jobs and income in the short term and long term.

DEVELOPMENT TRADE OFFS

Dr. O’Donnell discussed three very specific development tradeoffs, presented in a slide projection, that are under consideration or being proposed for the redevelopment of the existing state fairgrounds.

The slide presentation stated that proposed housing development on the property, which would include affordable housing, would have a HIGH social impact of providing necessary housing but a very LOW long term fiscal impact and very LOW long term economic impact.

The slide presentation stated that the construction of a new stadium to replace Tingley Coliseum would have a LOW social impact and that it would have an UNKNOWN long term fiscal impact and UNKNOWN long term economic impact.

EDITOR’S COMMENTARY: The social, fiscal and economic impact of a multipurpose stadium facility cannot be correctly gaged nor predicted without definitive information on size, purpose and dedicated functions of such a facility.

The slide presentation addressed the development of retail business on the property and concluded that retail development would have moderate social impact but high long term fiscal impact and moderate economic impact.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

EDITOR’S DISCLOSURE: In the interest of full disclosure, the author and editor of this article was born and raised in Albuquerque, has lived directly North of the State Fair Grounds since 1985 and has raised a family there and for over 40 years has seen and experienced what has happened to the area and the Fairgrounds.

The author has served as an Albuquerque City Councilor for the area, is a former Bernalillo County Chief Deputy District Attorney and a former Albuquerque Chief Public Safety Officer and former Director of the Safe City Strike Force. The Strike Force took  enforcement actions against nuisance commercial and residential properties in the surrounding areas of the State Fair Grounds.

For the last 6 years, the author has published a “news and commentary” blog  at www.PeteDinelli.com which has an average annual readership and views of upwards 70,000 a year.

SURROUNDING AREAS UNDEREPRESENTED

A glaring observation that can be made after attending the August 21 meeting of the State Fairgrounds District Board and listening to comments from board members is that the board its extremely “top heavy” with representation of elected officials who represent  the International District and the neighborhoods in the International District. They appear to be providing only one perspective for the entire area surrounding the State Fairgrounds.

It is very disappointing that there is only ONE appointed member of the public appointed to the State Fairgrounds District Board by the Governor to represent the interests of the numerous neighborhoods. The appointed civilian member of the board is the President of the District 6 Coalition Of Neighborhood Associations, with all those neighborhood associations in the International District or City Council District 6. Virtually all of the elected officials who have the fairgrounds in their district have a seat at the table with the Governor.

Thousands of residents who have lived in the areas West, North and East of the Fair Ground for decades, in established neighborhoods and who truly understand the area are essentially being ignored and cut out of the process. Hundreds of affected businesses in the same areas are also being ignored and are not represented on the board.

The impression given during the meeting is that only the problems, best interests and needs of the International District will be addressed by the State Fair Grounds District governing board. The neighborhoods to the North and the West have virtually no representation on the board with the Governor and residents of the other areas are relegated to trying to make their opinions known to the board who take no public comments or questions during their meetings.

INFLAMATORY NARRATIVE

The preliminary report presented to the board contains an extremely inflammatory and an insulting introductory narrative that paints with an extremely broad, negative brush. It contains misleading and false information. It states in part as follows:

“In December 2024, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declared that the state of the area around the New Mexico State Fair was unconditionally unacceptable. Once an area of great schools, thriving small businesses and vibrant neighborhoods around, the neighborhoods around the Fairgrounds have descended into what is today the statewide epicenter of homicide, violence, homeless despair, drug addiction, and other criminal activity.  As part of her plan to stem the tide of human misery and revitalize this part of Albuquerque, the Governor requested that the New Mexico State Fairgrounds District …  be established. … “ (Emphasis added.)

The above narrative is a false and misleading narrative ostensibly being used to justify moving the State Fair Grounds or to totally repurpose the fairgrounds and to include affordable housing. The narrative reflects a gross ignorance of all 4 areas and neighborhoods that border the fairgrounds. The four neighborhoods to the North, South, East and West are established neighborhoods built around the fairgrounds over many decades as the city grew and encompassed it. All four areas are as different as night and day representing varying and even extreme decrees of social, economic and ethnic makeup.

Proclaiming  “the neighborhoods around the Fairgrounds have descended into what is today the statewide epicenter of homicide, violence, homeless despair, drug addiction, and other criminal activity”  is insulting. It is not accurate as to all four areas surrounding the fairgrounds. The inflammatory statement ostensibly is an effort to dramatize the conditions of East Central that boarders the State Fairgrounds on the South between San Pedro on the West and Louisiana on the East. It is an obvious effort to avoid identifying and making any characterization of the International District South of the State Fairgrounds to avoid controversy with the elected officials who represent the International District and who dominate the State Fair District Board.

CURRENT CRIME DATA

The crime data presented were the historical crime statistics for the four distinct areas to the North, South, East and West that border the state fairgrounds. The most recent July and August crime statistics for the neighborhoods North, South, East and West of the state fairgrounds were NOT included. Had those statistics been presented, they would reflect a decrease in crime in the entire APD Southeast Area Command.

In July, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) released the city’s 2025 first sixth months crime statistics. The crime statistics for the first half of 2025 reveal significant decreases in many crime categories compared to the same period in 2024. Specifically, homicide, aggravated assault, auto theft, and other property crimes have had significant reductions. APD also noted that felony arrests have increased, and they attribute these positive trends to factors like technological  upgrades such as gunshot detection, surveillance cameras, and targeted enforcement actions.

According to APD’s midyear crime statistic for 2025, all major categories of crime are down compared to the same period in 2024. Auto theft has dropped 40%, residential burglary dropped 14%, and commercial burglary has dropped 24%. Major nonviolent crime is down by 25% when shoplifting is added. The three main categories of violent crime of  aggravated assault, sex crimes, and robbery are down 12%. Homicides which are identified as a totally separate category, have declined 28%. Murders went from 47 in the first half of 2024 to 34 the first half of 2025 year putting the city on track to finish the year below 80 homicides. In 2024, the city recorded 89 total homicides.

The link to review the APD crime statistics is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/crime-statistics

A link to a published column on crime statistics is in the postscript.

FAIR GROUNDS NOT CAUSE, NOT MAGNET FOR CRIME

No statistics were  given on the extent of crime that occurs on the State Fairgrounds itself. No discussion was held or proof offered as to what extent the State Fair grounds is responsible for crime in the area. The blunt reality is the Fair Grounds cannot be characterized as the cause or as a magnet for crime.

The International District, which is bordered by Central South of the State Fairgrounds has had for decades some of the highest violent crime, property crime and drug offense rates, so much so that it was at one time referred to as the WAR ZONE.  The International District continues to be plagued by high crime rates but now has become a magnet for the unhoused with encampments constantly popping up, cleaned up by the city only to pop up again.

To blame the State Fair Grounds of the crime in the area or for the unhoused is inflammatory and simply a lie. The problem is that Governor Lujan Grisham herself  said all the crime on East Central and the unhoused crisis is “unsustainable” to justify moving the State Fair Grounds and redeveloping the area.

ANGER IN THE INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT RECALLED

On February 26, Bernalillo County Government  held meeting to discuss and provide information on a proposed Tax Increment Development District (TIDD) for the New State Fairgrounds. Upwards of 200 residents attended.

The Governor’s proposal of moving the State Fair has been met with opposition from the residents of Albuquerque’s International District, which has dealt with rampant drug use and homelessness in recent years. Most if not all of  the public present for the February 26 meeting were very hostile to the State moving the state fair and spoke out against moving the state fair to another location.

Audience members were given the opportunity to speak after the presentation on the proposed Tax Increment District (TIDD). Audience members said that the City and the Mayor Keller Administration have been a total failure in cleaning up Central and the city has failed to address the homeless crisis on Central. Audience members argued that before anything is spent on improving or moving the Fair Grounds, money would be better spent cleaning up Central, dealing with the homeless, drug addicted and mentally ill and providing them with services to get them off the streets.

CITY NEEDS TO TAKE AGGRESSIVE ACTION TO DEAL NUISANCE PROPERTIES AND THE  UNHOUSED

The City of Albuquerque must and can, as it has in the past, take aggressive action to deal with nuisance properties that are magnets for crime in the  surrounding neighborhoods, especially in the International District. The City needs to aggressively enforce the city’s vagrancy laws to deal with the homeless, including making arrests if need be and to provide services to them designed to get them off the streets.

From 2001 to 2009, East Central that borders the State Fair grounds on the South and North of International District was in fact cleaned up before by the Safe City Strike Force with aggressive code enforcement action against Central motels and violent bars that the city tore down or closed. The bars located near the State Fair that were closed or torn down by the Safe City Strike Force included the Blue Spruce Bar (Central and Louisiana), Rusty’s Cork and Bottle (San Pedro and Central) and the Last Chance Bar and Grill (Central and Louisiana).

The Safe City Strike Force took code enforcement action against 48 of the 150 motels along central, many near the State Fair grounds and forced compliance with building codes and mandated repairs to the properties. Residential properties located to the East and South  in the International District that were used to promote, facilitate or involved with criminal activity were targeted and declared nuisances and bordered up and posted substandard for code violations.

RACETRACK AND CASINO ARE GOING NOWHERE

Although very interesting but very academic in nature, the three scenarios involving the moving of the racetrack, the casino or both as outlined by the economist are not grounded in reality.

The Albuquerque Downs Racetrack and Casino, along with its stables, occupies upwards half of the state fairgrounds and it is not going anywhere for the next two decades. What will prevent moving of the racetrack and casino is the existing lease of the property for the racino that will not expire until 2045. The lease is a one billion dollar lease and a buyout is too cost prohibitive. Attempts to break the lease by the state will no doubt result in prolong litigation.

Prominent and respected Albuquerque businessman Paul Blanchard is one of the owners of the Downs Race Track and Casino. There is little doubt he will try and have major say on what is to be developed on the remaining fairgrounds areas that may affect the casino or racetrack.  Further, the federal gaming compact act will prohibit separating the casino operations from racetrack operations taking the option to move one or both off the table.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF PROPERTY

Efforts to address affordable housing continue to be a major topic of discussion for the State Fairgrounds District Board and were part of the presentations made to the board in the redevelopment plan for the property.  Proposing to commandeer a good portion of the Expo NM State Fair Property for affordable housing is as absurd as it gets. Affordable or low-income housing is not the highest and best use of any portion of the 236 acres of prime property for development in the center of Albuquerque. It would put a small dent in a projected 55,000 shortage of housing.

BUILDING A NEW MULTI PURPOSE ARENA

One major project that is being suggested that merits serious discussion is building a new arena as part of the redevelopment of the existing Expo New Mexico property. The new venue would be a modern arena that would have the capacity to support year-round large-scale concerts and events. It would replace the existing Tingley Coliseum. Demolishing the 60-year-old Tingly Coliseum and building a multipurpose entertainment and sports facility with the capacity of upwards 20,000 has been a dream of many a Governor, State Fair Commissions and Fair Managers.

Tingley Coliseum was built in 1957 and has a  seating capacity for 11,000 people. Over the years it’s been repeatedly remodeled and upgraded. Tingley Coliseum last year had $2 million worth of upgrades geared toward replacing old seats and fixing the electrical system. The work that began in November permanently removed the benches and outdated 80’s-era seats for new, wider ones. In the process, the coliseum lost roughly 700 of its total 10,000 seats, but officials plan to make up the loss with more standing-room availability.

The City of Albuquerque for decades has needed a large capacity, multipurpose entertainment venue after demolition of the 30 year old Albuquerque Civic Auditorium in 1986. It was back on February 25, 2019 that 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. Absolutely nothing ever happened with the feasibility study and its collecting dust somewhere in the State Fair manger’s office.

HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF PROPERTY IS EXPO NEW MEXICO

Expo New Mexico can be revitalized into an Entertainment and Commercial Hub  that could revitalize the entire SE Heights and surrounding area with creation of all new commercial property areas leased by the State Fair for shops, restaurants, theaters and entertainment venues that would also be used for operations of the annual State Fair and during the State Fair itself.

There should be no affordable housing and no other housing on the property. No portion of the State Fair acreage should be sold to any developer. Efforts to revitalize adjoining neighborhoods should only be undertaken by private developers perhaps with state and city development and tax incentives.

FINAL COMMENTARY

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller, Senate Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart, State Representative Janelle Anyanonu, City Councilor Nichole Rogers and County Commissioner Adriann Barboa who are the elected officials and politicians on the “State Fairgrounds District Board” need to keep their greedy little hands off the State Fair grounds and abandon any effort to move it. Simply put, the surrounding neighborhoods, businesses and their constituents want the State Fair to remain where it is.

Affordable housing is not the highest and best use for the property. The highest and best use of the 236 acres of property is the State Fair itself and keeping it as Expo New Mexico and developing a year-round Entertainment District and to preserve the New Mexico State Fair and Expo New Mexico where it is now.

NOTICE OF MEETING

The next meeting of the State Fair Grounds District Board is scheduled for September 25 on the State Fair Grounds with time and location to be announced.

Links to related blog articles are here:

“State Fairgrounds District Board” Holds First Meeting; Gov. MLG Merely Suggests State Fair May Not Be Moved Contrary To Her Expressed Thoughts; Development Of Master Plans Moves Forward; Highest And Best Use Of Property Is “Expo New Mexico” And Creation Of Year Around Entertainment District With No Affordable Housing   

 

City’s 2025 First Sixth Months Crime Stats Reveal Crime Is Down Compared To 2024; Part Of National Trend Having Nothing To Do With Mayor Tim Keller’s Failed Violent Crime Reduction Policies

On February 12, 2024 the New Mexico legislature enacted House Bill 129 entitled the Firearm Sale Waiting Period Act. The New Mexico House initially approved a 14-day waiting period in early 2024, but a floor amendment cut the wait time to 7 days before the final passage. Rhode Island, Maryland and New Jersey have adopted a seven-day waiting period, with four states, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and Vermont opting for three days. California has a 30-day waiting period. In New Mexico, supporters argued that the waiting period would help reduce gun violence and gun deaths in New Mexico. On March 4, 2024 Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the legislation into law and it went into effect on May 15, 2024.

Two New Mexico residents, Paul Ortega a gun owner from Albuquerque and Rebecca Scott, a Farmington woman who owns guns, sued Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez over the law on May 15, 2024, the day the law  took effect. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Mountain States Legal Foundation, an advocacy group for gun rights, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Ortega and Scott citing concerns about delayed access to weapons for victims of domestic violence and others.

Plaintiffs Ortega and Scott said they were forced to wait to purchase guns despite quickly passing background checks and contended the New Mexico statute is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Their attorneys argued in part that to keep and bear arms, a prospective gun owner needed to acquire the firearm in the first place and therefore purchasing a gun was covered by the Second Amendment United States Constitution providing for the right to bear arms.

DISTRICT COURT RULING 

On July 22, U.S. District Judge James Browning of Albuquerque, in an 104-page ruling, refused to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) barring enforcement of New Mexico’s 7 day waiting period for purchasing firearms in New Mexico. Judge Browning sided with attorneys for Governor  Michelle Lujan Grisham and state Attorney General Raùl Torrez and ruled against the two-gun owners who contended the state’s 7 day waiting period violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The US Supreme Court in June upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence. Judge Browning’s ruling followed a hearing held on the TRO in June.

Browning denied the NRA’s effort to secure a TRO on three grounds:

1. That the case would not succeed on its merits because the Second Amendment does not cover firearm sales.  The waiting period is not “presumptively Unconstitutional” because it is a condition or qualification on firearm commercial sales and the waiting period is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of commercial firearms regulations, which licensed and prohibited the sale of firearms to sections of the populace out of a concern that a purchaser might use the firearm to harm the public.”
2. The NRA and it’s fellow plaintiffs did not show Browning that “they are likely to suffer irreparable injury if the Court does not temporarily enjoin the Waiting Period Act… and the harm that they stand to suffer should they seek to purchase another firearm is slight.”
3. That the plaintiffs did not “establish that the balance of the equities weighs in their favor nor that an injunction is in the public interest, because the Plaintiffs’ interest in purchasing a firearm without delay is minimal compared to the public’s interest in keeping the Waiting Period Act in effect.”

EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND COURT’S LEGAL ANALYSIS

During the injunction hearing to prevent the state from enforcing the new law, experts on the history of guns in America testified on both sides. The 7 day waiting period was presented as a way to curb impulsive gun violence, such as suicides, and address New Mexico violent crime rates. Judge Browning considered the plain language of the Second Amendment. He concluded that the right to acquire a firearm in New Mexico, which mandated the waiting period, didn’t impede the right to “keep and bear” a firearm.

Judge Browning found that while gun-related deaths in the United States were higher in 2022 than in any other year on record, he found “the situation is worse” in New Mexico with gun death climbing significantly in the last few years. Judge Browning wrote the age-adjusted gun death rate increased by 87% between 2010 and 2021.  Judge Browning found that “The Defendants adduce significant evidence that waiting period laws may help reduce this tidal wave of gun violence.”

Judge Browning  noted that testimony given during the hearing that the Waiting Period Act is likely to save about 37 lives per year.

Browning wrote in part:

“On balance … the harm that the Defendants stand to suffer if the Court were to enjoin the Waiting Period Act — the loss of New Mexican lives — significantly outweighs the Plaintiff’s threatened injury. Moreover, the public’s interest in the preservation of dozens of New Mexican lives cannot be understated.”

Browning wrote that having to wait 7 days, as required by the new law, to purchase a handgun is “minimally burdensome” on the plaintiffs’ ancillary right to acquire firearms. Browning wrote the waiting period is a “commercial firearm regulation” that is “presumptively Constitutional.”

Although the lawsuit challenging the law is still pending, Judge Browning found the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the Second Amendment claims which was a major factor in his ruling to deny a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Browning wrote this:

“The central question the Court must address here is whether the right … to keep and bear Arms’ encompasses the right to obtain firearms. … In concrete terms, the Waiting Period Act does not limit an individual’s ability to keep firearms in their home nor carry those firearms with them in public for self-defense.”

According to the ruling, to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must also make “a clear and unequivocal showing it will likely suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief”.  Judge Browing wrote that waiting a week to buy a handgun “is insufficient to qualify as irreparable harm.”  Browing added that “there is divergence of opinion among United State District Courts regarding whether the Second Amendment’s plain text includes only a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to buy them.”  The Ninth Circuit Court and the 5th Circuit Court appellate courts found that right didn’t cover “the conduct of purchasing a firearm”.

Judge Browning wrote in part:

“… [T]he Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s Second Amendment Claims fails because it doesn’t cover the conduct of purchasing a firearm. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed that the ‘most important rule in constitutional interpretation is to heed the text — that is, the actual words of the Constitution — and interpret that text according to its ordinary meaning as originally understood. …  Today and in 1791, the normal and ordinary meaning of ‘keep’ is to possess and the normal and ordinary meaning of ‘bear’ is to carry. … [The historical understanding of the Second amendment] provides further confirmation that the Second Amendment was not drafted to protect the right to purchase arms.”

According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only three states have longer waiting periods:  California, Hawaii and Washington, along with the District of Columbia — that range up to 14 days. Rhode Island also has a seven-day waiting period.

Plaintiffs Paul Ortega and Rebecca Scott appealed Judge Browning’s ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PAUSES 7 DAY WAITING PERIOD

On August 19, the three-member panel of the Denver-based federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period on gun purchases likely infringes on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, putting the law on hold pending a legal challenge. In a 2-1 split decision  the Appeals Court reversed Federal District Judge Browning’s decision to deny injunctive relief.

Browning, after hearing legal arguments and testimony from historian witnesses, considered the plain language of the Second Amendment. He concluded that the right to acquire a firearm in New Mexico, which mandated the waiting period, didn’t impede the right to “keep and bear” a firearm. However, the appeals court held the opposite view, stating that “the constitutional injury to the Plaintiffs is so broad and clear that they have met their higher burden entitling them to an injunction changing the status quo.” The court reversed Browning’s ruling,  and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Court of Appels Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote in part for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals majority:

“Even though the potential to reduce impulsive gun violence might be true, once we acknowledge that the Waiting Period Act likely burdens Second Amendment activity, that potential is outweighed. … [The  law applies] a blanket burden across all of society, assuming that everyone is dangerous or unstable before they can exercise their Second Amendment right. … Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms. Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope. In this preliminary posture, we conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.”

In his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Scott M. Matheson said New Mexico’s waiting period “establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends.” Matheson noted the majority opinion of the court  ignored a prior Tenth Circuit ruling that upheld Colorado’s law barring gun purchases by anyone under the age of 21, or “a law that requires 18-year-olds to wait three years to purchase a weapon.”

However, the majority opinion acknowledges the precedent and acknowledged that “courts have only partially fleshed out the boundaries of these commercial conditions. … even in this murky territory, the Waiting Period Act falls far short of a presumptively constitutional law.” The “historically grounded exceptions” framework was created by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 in a decision that overturned decades of precedent allowing for reasonable regulations on gun purchases.

GOVERNOR MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM REACTS

Governor Lujan Grisham was quick to react to the Court of Appeals decision and issued the following statement:

“Today’s decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is deeply disappointing, plainly wrong and likely to cost lives in New Mexico. New Mexico’s waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights. The dissenting opinion in today’s ruling even notes that New Mexico’s law “is likely to save approximately thirty-seven lives per year.”

“This ruling ignores a recent binding Tenth Circuit precedent that upheld Colorado’s law barring gun purchases by anyone under the age of 21 — a law that requires 18-year-olds to wait three years to purchase a weapon. The ruling also mischaracterizes New Mexico’s gun purchase waiting period, saying it applies to “everyone” when, in fact, it doesn’t apply to those who sell guns to immediate family members, those with a concealed carry permit, and law enforcement officers.”

“The evidence is clear––waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis. I’m disappointed that today’s ruling doesn’t take this into account.”

“We are reviewing our legal options in reaction to today’s misguided ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2025/08/19/gov-lujan-grisham-statement-on-court-ruling-against-7-day-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ISSUES STATMEMT

Not at all surprising, the National Rifle Association (NRA)  issued a statement commending the decision. NRA-Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director, John Commerford said this in a statement:

“In courtrooms across America, the NRA is successfully leading the charge to protect law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. … The 10th Circuit has sided with the NRA and held that radical waiting period laws are indeed unconstitutional. This decision not only impacts gun owners in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma, but serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country.”

https://sourcenm.com/briefs/federal-appeals-court-bars-new-mexicos-7-day-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

OTHERS REACT

Democrat State Senator Joseph Cervantes of Las Cruces, who co-sponsored the cooling off period measure during the 2024 legislative session, said the 10th Circuit’s conclusion was unexpected, considering that a number of other courts at the same level as the 10th Circuit have upheld such waiting periods as constitutional. Cervantes said this:

“We have tried very hard in the Legislature to stay within the lanes that the U.S. Supreme Court has put up.  The challenge is that the Supreme Court keeps changing the goal posts.”

Brandon Harris, spokesperson for the state Senate Republican Leadership office, said Republican legislators predicted this outcome during debate on the bill in 2024. Democrats nonetheless passed HB 129 without a single Republican vote.

Senate Republican Leader Bill of Farmington welcomed the appeal court ruling.  Sharer said this:

“The clear language of the 2nd Amendment says that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. … Criminals certainly don’t wait seven days before breaking into our homes and threatening our families and properties… What sense does it make to require law-abiding citizens to wait seven days before being able to defend themselves?”

Republican State Senator Crystal Brantley of Truth or Consequences said the court’s  decision came as no surprise to her and said this: .

“The Second Amendment clearly says shall not be infringed. It was an overreach that targeted law-abiding citizens. It did nothing to push back on the crime in New Mexico.”

Gun shop representatives lauded the court of  appeals decision. Jason Archie, manager of Right To Bear Arms gun shop at 11200 Montgomery NE said  enforcement of the waiting period was a “hassle”  and that most of his customers weren’t happy about. Archie said this:

“Justice delayed is justice denied. … It was represented as a way to prevent crime, but I didn’t see that crime went down at all.”

Links to relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

https://apnews.com/article/new-mexico-gun-purchases-waiting-period-da509d979b11af8d3bdeeee224b24adf

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/19/us/new-mexico-gun-waiting-period-blocked

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/new-mexico-lawmakers-react-to-judges-decision-on-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-appeals-court-blocks-7-day-wait/65823291

https://www.kob.com/news/top-news/federal-appeals-panel-blocks-waiting-period-to-buy-firearms-in-new-mexico/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_1ec8ef5f-f75f-45ba-b87a-1143979757da.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2025/08/19/appeals-court-blocks-new-mexicos-new-7-day-whttps://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-appeals-court-blocks-7-day-wait/65823291aiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

https://sourcenm.com/briefs/federal-appeals-court-bars-new-mexicos-7-day-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is  clear New Mexico is suffering a major crisis when it comes to gun violence and gun deaths and there is a critical need for gun control legislation, including a waiting period to purchase guns. New Mexico’s gun violence crisis was laid to bear for all to see on September 28, 2023 when the New Mexico Department of Health released its “Comprehensive Report on Gunshot Victims Presenting at Hospitals in New Mexico.”  The report spans the time period from 1999 to 2023. The report provides a detailed analysis of firearm-related violent deaths and injuries in New Mexico. It encompasses data from various sources, including New Mexico’s surveillance systems, state behavioral risk factor surveys, and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) data.

The link to read “Comprehensive Report on Gunshot Victims Presenting at Hospitals in New Mexico” is here:

https://www.nmhealth.org/publication/view/report/8463/

The Governor’s office says it is reviewing its legal options for responding to the ruling. The Governor and the Attorney General need to think long and hard if appealing the ruling  to the United States Supreme Court is wise or just a waste of time given the current makeup of the Republican Trump controlled Supreme Court.

The New Mexico legislature is not prevented from enacting other forms of gun control legislation because of  the Court of Appeals ruling, including repealing the existing 7 day waiting period. The New Mexico Legislature could enact another version of a waiting day period with sufficient safeguards to pass constitutional muster.

MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE OTHER THAN WAITING PERIOD

Much more must be done by the New Mexico legislature other than a waiting period to curb and reduce the proliferation of guns in the state of New Mexico and to reduce gun violence. If Governor Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico Legislature are truly concerned about the New Mexico’s violent crime crisis, both need to regroup and take and even more aggressive approach than enacting waiting periods. They should work on building a consensus on the enactment of enhance sentencings for crimes and gun control measures.

The message that must be sent out loud and clear by our elected officials to violent criminals is that New Mexico has a zero tolerance of violent crimes committed with firearms and the only way to do that is with enhanced sentencings. Also, the availability and proliferation of guns must be recognized as a big part of the state’s violent crime problem.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT MEASURES

The following crime and sentencing provisions should be enacted:

Strengthen penalties for a felon convicted of possessing a firearm, making the crime a second-degree felony, punishable by a minimum of nine years in prison.

Allow firearm offenses used in a drug crimes to be charged separately with enhance sentences.

Making possession of a handgun by someone who commits a crime of drug trafficking an aggravated third-degree felony mandating a 10-year minimum sentence.

Increase the firearm enhancement penalties provided for the brandishing a firearm in the commission of a felony from 3 years to 10 years for a first offense and for a second or subsequent felony in which a firearm is brandished 12 years.

Create a new category of enhanced sentencing for use of a lethal weapon or deadly weapon other than a firearm where there is brandishing  of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony with enhanced sentences of 5 years for a first offense and for second or subsequent felony in which a lethal weapon other than a firearm is brandished 8 years

Increase the penalty of shooting randomly into a crowded area a second-degree felony mandating a 9-year sentence.

Increase the penalty and mandatory sentencing for the conviction of the use of a fire arm during a road rage incident to a first-degree felony mandating a life sentence.

Update the Children’s Code to deal with charges, increasing penalties and prosecutions of minors as adults as consequences of children using firearms in the commission of violent crimes and aggravated assaults with use of deadly weapon.

Change bail bond laws to statutorily empower judges with far more discretionary authority to hold and jail those pending trial who have prior violent crime reported incidents without shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

GUN CONTROL MEASURES

Gun control measures that should be enacted include an assault weapons ban lawfully regulating the manufacture, possession and sale of weapons of war, most often the gun used in mass casualty events and  prohibiting guns in parks and playgrounds making it illegal to carry a firearm in county or municipal parks, playgrounds, and their accompanying parking lots.

Restrict the sale, manufacture and possession of AR-15-style rifles along with semiautomatic firearms and make it a second-degree felony to purchase, possess, manufacture, import, sell or transfer assault weapons in the state.

Prohibited magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Prohibited the possession of semiautomatic firearm converter that allows the weapon to fire more rapidly.

Enact a  14-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm and requiring  a prospective seller who doesn’t already hold a valid federal firearms license to arrange for someone who does to conduct a federal background check prior to selling a firearm.

Established a minimum age of 21 for anyone seeking to purchase or possess an automatic firearm, semiautomatic firearm or firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.

Ban the manufacture, sale, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of semiautomatic pistols that have two or more defined characteristics.

Revised the state’s Unfair Practices Act to target the sale of illegal firearms and parts, allowing the filing of lawsuits to enforce the act.

Prohibit in New Mexico the sale of “ghost guns” parts. Ghost guns are guns that are manufactured and sold in parts without any serial numbers to be assembled by the purchaser and that can be sold to anyone.

Require in New Mexico the mandatory purchase of “liability insurance” with each gun sold as is required for all operable vehicles bought and driven in New Mexico.

Mandate the school systems and higher education institutions “harden” their facilities with more security doors, security windows, and security measures and alarm systems and security cameras tied directly to law enforcement 911 emergency operations centers.

CONCLUSION

The Governor and the New Mexico legislature need to recognize waiting periods to purchase guns are only one small step. They need to get serious about New Mexico’s gun violence crisis and enact reasonable gun control measures in conjunction with crime and punishment measures. Until then, we can expect our violent crime rates to continue to increase.

The link to a related article is here:

NM Federal District Court Denies Temporary Restraining Order Barring Enforcement Of State’s 7 Day Waiting Period; New Mexico’s Gun Violence Crisis; Legislature Should Enact “Omnibus Violent Crime Sentencing And Gun Control Act.”

On Friday, June 20 the City Clerk qualified 7 candidates out of 11 total candidates running  for Mayor for the November 4 ballot. The seven candidates who have qualified for the ballot are:

1. Incumbent Mayor Tim Keller.
2. Eddie Varela, a retired Albuquerque firefighter and former California fire chief.
3. Alex Uballez, the former U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico.
4. Louie Sanchez, a retired APD police officer and current city councilor.
5. Darren White, the former sheriff of Bernalillo County and former CEO of medcal cannabis company PurLife.
6. Daniel Chavez, president of Parking Company of America was the very first to qualify for the ballot.
7. Mayling Armijo, the former director of Economic Development for Bernalillo County and deputy county manager for Sandoval County.

On June 20, the City Clerk determined that Mayor Tim Keller was the only candidate to qualify for public finance, and he was given $755,946 in public finance. The remaining six candidates are privately financed.

On August 11, the 7 of the candidates for Mayor were required to file with the City Clerk their fifth  Mayoral Campaign Finance report on contributions and expenditures covering the time period of July 14 to August 11. Following is a summary review of those reports:

1. TIMOTHY KELLER

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions                $757,147.57
• Total Expenditures                   $72,910.00
• In-Kind Contributions                 $1,396.25
• In-Kind Expenditures                     $248.16
• Current Cash Balance           $684,237.57
• Current Debt Balance                     $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

1. City of Albuquerque               $733,968.00
2. Tim Keller                                    $2,500.00
3. Garcia Realty                                $781.25
4. Tim Keller                                    $650.00
5. Ona Porter                                   $615.00

Tim Keller lists 191 contributors for a total of $733,968.00

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS:  Mayor Tim Keller is  the only candidate to qualify for public financing. His reelection campaign has been given  $733,968 in public funding on July 17. He ends the period with $684,237 on hand after spending $26,000 with a Chicago-based campaign consulting firm and paying $12,945 to his longtime political  consultant Neri Holguin, among other smaller expenses.

The link to a relied upon or quoted news source is here:

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/yoees8S9dosDI1OaCKWi1JP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/2/null/2/2025

2. MAYLING ARMIJO

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions                    $77,666.65
• Total Expenditures                    $39,939.18
• In-Kind Contributions                 $2,257.72
• In-Kind Expenditures                     $0.00
• Current Cash Balance              $37,727.47
• Current Debt Balance               $15,175.65

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

1. Mayling Armijo                           $15,175.65
2. Beelien Armijo                              $6,000.00
3. Mia Armijo                                    $6,000.00
4. Walter Grodahi                             $6,000.00
5. Joseph J. Armijo                          $6,000.00

Mayling Armijo lists 70 contributors for a total of $77,666.65.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS: Mayling Armijo secured $39,500 in new donations from 42 donors. Almost half of her total donations came from Armijo family members, including $6,000 each from Joseph, Mia and Beelien Armijo, and $4,000 from Beeling Armijo, all of Albuquerque. Her largest non-Armijo donor was $6,000 from Walter Groadhi, a housing developer based in Oregon. She has just $37,727 cash on hand.

The link to a relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for MAYLING ARMIJO:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/lRnEYQd4H9z-h4QAAWqHPZP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/2/null/2/2025

3. EDDIE VARELA

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions                   $6,377.66
• Total Expenditures                   $6,820.76
• In-Kind Contributions               $7,800.00
• In-Kind Expenditures                 $300.00
• Current Cash Balance              -$443.10
• Current Debt Balance                   $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

1. CIPGAW                                   $4,000.00
2. Eddie Varela                             $2,827.06
3. CIPGAW                                   $1,500.00
4. Angie Custom Design               $1,300.00
5. Chester & Diana Stewart          $1,000.00

Eddie Varela lists 30 contributors for a total of $6,377.66.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS:  Eddie Varela reported a negative cash balance of -$443 at the end of the reporting period. He reported spending over $1,000 on “Food, Beverages and Meals” and raised just $227 for the reporting period.

The link to a relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for EDDIE VARELA:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/Z9RllTzngK2bi6GfQSm9AJP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/2/null/2/2025

4. DARREN WHITE

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions                     $179,993.67
• Total Expenditures                       $63,506.77
• In-Kind Contributions                   $16,029.16
• In-Kind Expenditures                       $25.00
• Current Cash Balance                $116,486.90
• Current Debt Balance                  $20,000.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

1.  Darren White                                 $20,000
2. Progress Healthcare, Inc               $10,000
3. Darren White                                   $8,765
4. RGL Investments                             $6,000
5. Peterson Properties                        $6,000

Darren White lists 544 contributors for a total of $179,993.67 contributions.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

 ANALYSIS: Darren White ends the period with $116,486 in cash. White led individual fundraising with 116 new donations totaling $105,993. White’s largest contributors were $6,000 from Pierre Amestoy, a local developer, and $5,000 each from entities associated with the Pitre family’s automotive businesses, cannabis companies Truforia and Elevated Labs, and Peterson Properties run by Doug Peterson. White also reported a $10,000 donation from Progress Healthcare based in Louisiana, though the city’s limit for contributions to mayoral candidates is $6,000. White told the on line news outlet City Desk the extra $4,000 has been returned, but since the check was sent back after the reporting deadline, it won’t appear until next month’s report. Only Darren White and Louie Sanchez enter the next fundraising period with more than $100,000 in cash on hand.

The link to a relied upon or quoted news source is here:

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for Darren White:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/L7j64Ew1a0rWwbrOJFbL4JP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/2/null/2/2025

5. ALEXANDER M.M. UBALLEZ

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions               $98,411.80
• Total Expenditures                $68,633.09
• In-Kind Contributions                   $88.70
• In-Kind Expenditures                     $0.00
• Current Cash Balance          $29,778.71
• Current Debt Balance                    $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

1. Aleli  Colon                              $3,610.72
2. Haley Murphy                          $2,407.27
3. Brian Colon                             $1,203.22
4. Diane  Cox                              $1,203.22
5. Gabriela Gomez                      $1,200.00

 ALEXANDER M.M. UBALLEZ lists 503  contributors for a total of $98,411.80 in contributions.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS:  Alex Uballez  ended the reporting period with $29,778 in cash on hand after raising over $19,000 in new contributions. He also  spent  over $40,000 during the same period. Among 103 new donations, Uballez’s largest contributors were $962 from Miranda Viscolli, leader of the nonprofit New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, $1,203 each from Brian Colón, former state auditor and managing partner of the Singleton Schreiber law firm’s New Mexico office, and his wife Aleli Colón and multiple donations under $500 from local attorneys.

The link to a relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for Alexander M.M. Uballez:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/YjD7dBPe243VBfqRi2eazQpRrh19RviUIoO4CmCWDAE1/2/null/2/2025

6. LOUIE SANCHEZ

 COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions                       $222,488.83
• Total Expenditures                          $58,519.69
• In-Kind Contributions                        $1,000.00
• In-Kind Expenditures                           $0.00
• Current Cash Balance                  $163,969.14
• Current Debt Balance                   $152,500.00

 TOP CONTRIBUTORS

• Sanchez, Louie                             $150,000
• Sanchez, Louie                               $10,000
• Peterson Properties                          $6,000
• Thomas P. Tinnin                              $6,000
• Alarid, Vanessa                                 $6,000

LOUIE  SANCHEZ lists 111  contributors for a total of $222,488.83 in contributions.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

 ANALYSIS:  Sanchez raised $6,746 in new donations for the  period running from July 8 through August  4. Over $5,800 of Sanchez’s donations came from a single donor from Texas. But Sanchez ends the period with $163,969 with a $150,000 loan he provided to his campaign. Only Louie Sanchez and Darren White enter the next fundraising period with more than $100,000 in cash on hand.

The link to the quoted or relied upon news sources are  here:

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for Louis Sanchez.

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/t4aI25Nr9EiUnEI8lwunGApRrh19RviUIoO4CmCWDAE1/2/null/2/2025

7. DANIEL CHAVEZ

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions                           $114,375.00
• Total Expenditures                           $106,107.47
• In-Kind Contributions                             $0.00
• In-Kind Expenditures                            $0.00
• Current Cash Balance                      $8,267.53
• Current Debt Balance                          $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

1. 1. Kathleen Chavez                              $6,000
2. Peterson Properties, LLC                     $6,000
3. Ava Bataglia                                         $1,000
4. John Martin Bradley                                $600
5. Phillip Ward                                             $500

Daniel Chavez lists 10 contributors for a total of $114,375.00 in contributions.

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

ANALYSIS:  Daniel Chavez launched his campaign with a $100,000 donation from personal funds. He ended the reporting period with $8,267 in cash available. He had previously reported spending over $40,000 on paid signature collectors and campaign consultants. Daniel Chavez is considered by many as the only candidate that is capable of self-financing his campaign and has the ability to donate much more if he chooses.

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

Click here to review the financial disclosure statement and to download all filed contributions and filed expenditures for Daniel Chavez:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreDetails/3XlNxpvg2kPbP3TGLUHobwpRrh19RviUIoO4CmCWDAE1/2/null/2/2025

KELLER’S FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE IN A NUTSHELL

In a nutshell, the campaign contributions for all seven candidates stand as follows:

• Tim Keller: $757,147 (Raised) Current Balance: $684,237
• Louie Sanchez: $222,483 (Raised) Current Balance: $163,969 Personal Contribution: $160,000
• Darren White: $179,993 (Raised) Current Balance: $116,486 Personal Personal Contribution: $29,000
• Daniel Chavez: $114,375 Current Balance: $8,267 Personal Contribution: $100,000
• Alex Uballez : $98,411 Current Balance: $29,778
• Mayling Armijo: $77,666 Current Balance: $37,727
• Eddie Varela: $ 6,377 Current Balance:   – $443.00

Mayor Keller’s campaign manager Neri Holguin said public campaign financing gives Mayor Keller edge in the race pointing out that four of the other six candidates tried unsuccessfully to qualify for the public cash. Holguin said this:

“The Keller campaign enters the fall with the clear advantage of having earned public financing. … Unlike our opponents, we’re not chasing dollars — we’re focused on meeting voters where they are and talking about the future of Albuquerque.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_ebb19528-3b80-40c4-bad7-7965cb36638b.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

Brian Sanderoff, the President of Research and Polling and KOAT-TV political expert said this about the current  status of the race:

“It’s not a partisan race between one Democrat and one Republican. We’ve got seven candidates running for mayor who have qualified for the ballot. Some of these candidates aren’t exactly household names. Some of them are still working hard to get their name out there. So, the voters actually know who they are. … If a candidate does not receive 50% or more of the vote, there will be a runoff. So, with all these candidates in the race, it’s a very high likelihood that we’ll be having a runoff election one month after the November election.”

“The top three candidates right now in terms of campaign funds — Tim Keller, Louie Sanchez and Darren White, but they’re far behind Keller because they didn’t get the public campaign financing. Louie Sanchez has raised over $200,000, but much of that money came from his own personal contribution to the campaign. Darren White has received a lot of individual campaign contributions, but because the numbers are relatively small, it adds up to about $180,000. … Tim Keller starts out with a big advantage because he was the only candidate who qualified for public campaign financing. That means he received nearly $750,000 of taxpayer money to help out in his campaign, but what counts on election day is the number of votes, not the number of dollars.”

“Tim Keller starts out with a big advantage because he was the only candidate who qualified for public campaign financing. That means he received nearly $750,000 of taxpayer money to help out in his campaign, but what counts on election day is the number of votes, not the number of dollars.”

The link to the quoted KOAT TV news report is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-mayoral-race/65811613

MEASURED FINANCE COMMITTEE FINANCIAL REPORTS

There are three measured finance committees (MFA) formed to promote 3 individual candidates for Mayor . On August 11,  the 3 committees filed finance reports for the period of  July 14 to August 11 with the City Clerk as follows:

1. ASEND ALBUQUERQUE MEASURED FINANCE COMMITEE

Ascend Albuquerque is the measured Finance Committee which has been formed for the sole purpose “to support the election of Tim Keller as Mayor of Albuquerque.” On July 14, 2025, Ascent Albuquerque filed it fourth financial disclosure statement as required by the City’s election code. Following is a summary of the Financial Report for Ascend Albuquerque:

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions                                                                $132,350.00
• Total Expenditures                                                                   $30,276.44
• In-Kind Contributions                                                                    -0-
• In-Kind Expenditures                                                                   – 0-
• Current Cash Balance                                                           $102,073.56
• Current Debt Balance                                                                $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

• Council of Carpenters, Brotherhood of Carpenters                    $20,000
• New Mexico Building and Construction Trades Council:            $20,000
• Fresquez Concessions, Inc                                                        $15,000
• Sangre De Cristo Hotel Investment, LLC                                   $10,000
• IBEW PAC Voluntary Fund                                                         $10,000

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

The city link to review the Financial Disclosure Statement for Ascend Albuquerque is here:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreCommitteeDetail/VMQvJiHXaP1z-Iz2eL_papP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/null/null/2/2025

2. Safer Albuquerque Committee (Safer ABQ)

Safer Albuquerque Committee (Safer ABQ) is the measured finance committee formed to “advocate for Mayling Armijo’s candidacy for mayor during the Albuquerque 2025 mayoral race and align with values that reduce crime, reduce homelessness, and promote job growth.”

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions                                  $135,080.00
• Total Expenditures                                  $133,363.75
• In-Kind Contributions                                   0.00
• In-Kind Expenditures                                   0.00
• Current Cash Balance                            $1,716.25
• Current Debt Balance                                  $0.00

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

1. Katrina Tracy                                              $55,000
2. Chauling Mary Armijo                                 $40,000
3. Four Winds Mechanical HTC/AC               $40,000
4. Charles Rolison                                           $80.00

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

The city link to review the Financial Disclosure Statement for Safer Albuquerque Committee (Safer ABQ) is here:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreCommitteeDetail/M3FjOgNU2Z3h9u5VXBTrEgpRrh19RviUIoO4CmCWDAE1/null/null/2/2025

3. CIPGAW: Committee to Elect Eddie Varela Mayor of Albuquerque

CIPGAW: Committee to Elect Eddie Varela Mayor of Albuquerque is the measured finance committee which has been formed “for the purpose to Elect Eddie Varela Mayor of Albuquerque.”

COMBINED FINANCIAL TOTALS

• Total Contributions:                    $7,500,00                                           
• Total Expenditures:                     $6,924.83                                         
• In-Kind Contributions:                     -0-                                                      
• In-Kind Expenditures:                      -0-                                                        
• Current Cash Balance:                 $575.17                                               
• Current Debt Balance:                      -0-                                                       

TOP CONTRIBUTORS

       Bradley William  Day                         $7,500

Download All Filed Contributions
Download All Filed Expenditures

The city link to review the Financial Disclosure Statement for CIPGAW: Committee to Elect Eddie Varela Mayor of Albuquerque is here:

https://campaignfinance.cabq.gov/#/exploreCommitteeDetail/feXJuXAYkFJVGJBhl95rMZP4048PFnxLXRUfdOLcQk01/null/null/2/2025

OPINION POLL RELEASED

 On July 30, 2025 the New Mexico Business Coalition issued a press release announcing the results of an opinion poll in the 2025 race for Albuquerque Mayor.

The first biggest take away from the opinion poll is that each of the 6 candidates running against Mayor Tim Keller could beat Keller in a runoff. All 6 candidates outpoll Keller in a runoff in the following order:

• Darren White with 43% to Tim Keller’s 38% and 19% undecided.
• Louie Sanchez with 40% to Tim Keller’s 33% and 27% undecided.
• Alex Uballez with 39% to Tim Keller’s 25% and 36%  undecided.
• Daniel Chavez with 37% to Tim Keller’s  32% and 31% undecided.
• Mayling Armijo with 37% to  Tim Keller’s 27% and 35% undecided.
• Eddie Varela with  34% to  Tim Keller’s 33% and 33% undecided. 

The very high number of undecided voters of between 19% and 36%, depending on the candidates who make it into the runoff with Keller, will ultimately decide the election in a runoff.

The second biggest take away from the opinion poll is that the two candidates for Mayor who have the highest Unfavorable Ratings are more likely than not will be the ones facing off against each other in a runoff. Mayor Tim Keller has a 60% Unfavorable Rating while Darren White has a 39% Unfavorable Rating. 

It is clear from the poll that voters have very strong and negative opinions of  both Mayor Tim Keller and Darren White. However, it is the favorable ratings that are the biggest indicator of the level of strength they have with the electorate and who will actually show up to vote for them.

The unfavorable and favorable ratings of all seven candidates compared are:

• Tim Keller’s unfavorable rating is 60%, his favorable rating is 33%and a mere 7% have no opinion of him.
• Darren White’s unfavorable rating is  39%  and his favorable rating is 35%  and26% have no opinion of him.
• Louis Sanchez’s unfavorable rating  24% and his favorable rating is 16% and  60%have no opinion of him.
• Eddie Varela’s unfavorable rating is 16%, his favorable rating is 9%and 74% have no opinion of him.
• Daniel Chavez’s unfavorable rating is 13%, his favorable rating is 6% and81%  having no opinion of him.
• Alex Uballez’s unfavorable rating is 12%, his favorable rating is 19% and 69% having no opinion of him.
• Mayling Armijo’s unfavorable rating is10%, her favorable rating is 8% and 81% having no opinion of her.

Based on the poll Democrat Mayor Keller as the incumbent is likely to get into the runoff given his 33% favorable rating which likely represents his base of support among progressive Democrats who will vote for him no matter his unfavorable rating and because of his progressive policies dealing with the homeless and his strong opposition to President Trump and federal cutbacks.

Based on the poll Republican Darren White is likely to get into the runoff given his 35% favorable rating which likely represents his base of support among Conservatives and MAGA Republicans because his stance on immigration, the homeless and crime.

PREVIOUS POLL AND SURVEY RECALLED

On November 2, 2022, the Albuquerque Journal reported and  released the results of  an opinion poll it commissioned that reported that  Mayor Tim  Keller at the time had a 40% disapproval rating and 33% approval rating.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/local/article_ecd8f917-ee43-5ce4-b235-85c1a34a2b03.html

On April 16, 2024, the results of the annual City of Albuquerque Citizen Perception Survey were released. The City’s Citizens Satisfaction survey found as follows:

• 63% of citizens are concerned over the direction the city is going.
• 61% “disagree” and 35%“agree” that “the Albuquerque City Government is responsive to our community needs.”

Both survey findings directly reflect on the job performance of Mayor Tim Keller.

https://www.cabq.gov/progress/documents/albuquerque-yearly-survey-2023.pdf

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The fact that Mayor Keller is the only candidate to secure $755,946 in public finance and a measured finance committee that has raised another $132,350.00 to promote him for a grand total of $888,296 is a testament of the power of Keller’s incumbency. Keller has $888,296 that will be used to promote his candidacy while all the other candidates combined have raised $537,310. It is clear evidence Keller is running against a very weak field of candidates given that Keller was the only one who qualified for public finance. The measured fiancé committee will likely raise thousands more to promote Keller and to tear down his opponents. With the November 4 fastly approaching expect Keller to get very aggressive and go negative with his opponents given his unfavorable ratings.

Some politcal pundits and columnists are saying that if Keller’s opponents are unable to raise sufficient campaign donations, there is a possibility that Keller could capture 50% of the vote and avoid a runoff election between the top two finishers. That is likely wishful thinking given the poll results and given just how unpopular Keller really is amongst voters. Keller will need every penny of his public finance and the measured finance committee promotion to deal with and overcome his low approval ratings as the campaign drags on over the summer and into the fall and his opponents hit him hard on the issues until November 4.

Mayor Keller is a known quantity with extremely low approval ratings. No amount of money spent on his behalf to get him elected to a third term may be enough to reform his image in the eyes of voters who have simply had enough of his self-promotion ways with very little accomplished. Notwithstanding, all of Keller’s opponents are relegated to scrambling for private financing unless they are wealthy enough to self-finance. Only Daniel Chavez is believed to be able to self-finance but it’s still unknown to what extent he is willing to spend of his own money.

“ANY ONE BUT KELLER”

City Hall observers and political pundits are saying the election is Keller’s to lose. What they fail to take into account is the “any one but Keller movement”. It can also be called “Keller Fatique” which is what happened with “Chavez Fatique ” when Democrat Mayor Marty Chavez attempted to seek a third consecutive four-year term in 2009 and he lost to Republican Richard Berry with former Democrat State Senator Richard Romero splitting the Democrat vote with Chavez. The fact that the poll revealed that all 6 of Keller’s opponents beat Keller in a runoff is evidence that there is an “any one but Keller movement”. Simply put, people want change.

The “any one but Keller movement ” comes into sharp focus when the local news stations publish stories on FACEBOOK where Keller is interviewed at length about his candidacy and literally hundreds of public comments are made that are all negative and berating Keller for his failure to address and solve the city’s problems. Candidates who are running for city council and who were going door to door to collect nominating signatures and $5.00 for their own candidacies reported they were encountering strong anti-Keller sentiment at the doors with them being asked questions if they support Keller for reelection. One confidential source said they witnessed Keller himself encountering severe push back when he attended weekend public events to collect nominating petition signatures.  People refused  to sign his petition and refused to donate a $5 qualifying donation for public finance an insisted they would never vote for him again.

FINAL COMMENTARY

Long time and highly respected political pollster Brian Sanderoff  summed it up better than anyone:

“Tim Keller starts out with a big advantage because he was the only candidate who qualified for public campaign financing. That means he received nearly $750,000 of taxpayer money to help out in his campaign, but what counts on election day is the number of votes, not the number of dollars.”

The link to a quoted or partially  relied upon news source article is here:

Less than 90 days until election day, challengers post weak fundraising numbers in bid to oust Keller

This article is an in-depth report and analysis on the defeat of 3  major legislative initiatives introduced to the City Council at the request of Mayor Tim Keller. The 3 defeats were a major setback to Mayor Tim Keller’s aggressive approach to regulate the residential rental industry, to increase the number of sanctioned homeless encampments and to change the city’s zoning laws to increase density throughout the city by allowing property owners to “opt-in” to increase density. The 3 measures represent Mayor Tim Keller doubling down on his failed policies as he seeks of third 4-year term as Mayor by dividing the city council and ignoring voter’s opposition. It’s time we elect a new Mayor.

KELLER’S  “HOUSING NOW” PROGRAM

August 07, 2025, Mayor Tim Keller launched what he dubbed the “Housing Now” Program. It’s a program designed to alleviate Albuquerque’s housing crisis by reducing rents, preventing displacement, and increasing access to stable housing by making changes to the city’s zoning law that will allow for more development in established neighborhoods to increase density.

The first major piece of Keller’s “Housing Now Program” program is the proposed PATCH Program. It is a 0% interest, forgivable loan initiative that helps low-income homeowners make critical health and safety repairs, such as replacing a failing roof or fixing broken plumbing, so they can remain in their homes.

A second major piece of the “Housing Now Program” is to allow property owners  to “opted in” to increased zoning of their properties for development and to increase density in shaping the way housing is added. The “opted in” legislation  constitutes major zoning reforms to build on previous changes to the city’s zoning laws known as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) that allows “casitas” and will allow expanding housing types like cottage courts and corner duplexes in virtually every quadrant of the city.

The strategy includes a zoning code “rebalance” to double or triple density in established neighborhoods. According to the Keller Administration these zoning changes will expand affordable housing options in existing neighborhoods and helping multigenerational households.

https://www.cabq.gov/health-housing-homelessness/news/mayor-keller-launches-housing-now-campaign

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-metro/city-and-state-lawmakers-are-open-ears-for-new-housing-cost-solutions/

Mayor Keller is proposing  the enactment of a “renters rights ordinance” that would increase the duties and responsibilities of property owners to renters. It will  mandate enhanced rules and regulations for landlords dealing with fees, leases and living conditions.

Mayor Keller is advocating for the relaxation of rules and regulation governing Safe Outdoor Spaces for the homeless to allow the establishment of 100 Safe Outdoor Spaces by private property owners, charitable organization and churches to accommodate1,000 homeless throughout the city.

LAND USE PLANNING, AND ZONING COMMITTEE

The City Council’s Land Use Planning, and Zoning Committee (LUPZ) reviews all ordinances, resolutions, or other matters pertaining to the city’s Zoning Code known as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) that contains all the city’s zoning laws, land use appeals, historical designation process, annexations, sector development plans, and general land use, planning and redevelopment policies. The committee is appointed by the City Council President. The current members of the LUPZ committee are:

• Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn, Chair
• Republican Brook Bassan, City Council President
• Republican Renée Grout
• Republican Dan Champine
• Progressive Democrat Nichole Rogers

THREE MAJOR DEFEATS IN ONE NIGHT FOR KELLER’S “HOUSING NOW” PROGRAM AND ZONING LAW CHANGES

On Wednesday, August 13, the LUPZ committee held its regular scheduled committee meeting. On the agenda were three major items introduced by city councilors at the request of Mayor Tim Keller. All three agenda items failed. Each received a “DO NOT PASS” vote recommendation to the City Council.  “DO NOT PASS” recommendations by the committee are routinely adopted by the full City Council thereby killing the legislation.

Following are the three agenda items voted down in the order they were presented to the LUPZ committee:

1. Adopting the Renters Empowerment and Neighborhood Transparency (RENT) ordinance, (0-25-88).

The Renter’s Empowerment and Neighborhood Transparency  (RENT) Ordinance  is sponsored by Progressive Democrat City Councilor Tammy Feiblekorn at the request of Mayor Keller. The ordinance will give renters more rights and remedies over landlords and property owners. The Keller Administration argued that RENT Ordinance builds on the requirements outlined in the state’s Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act. It does not. It expands the rights of tenants to the detriment of property owner rights. It will increase the rules and regulations for landlords, prohibit hidden fees, mandate terms in the lease contracts, and mandate further maintenance of rental properties.

Some key provisions of the RENT Ordinance include:

• Require landlords to be upfront and clear about the rental application process, including what could disqualify someone, using plain language.
• Make all costs transparent, so renters know exactly what they’re paying for: base rent, fees, and any charges before or during the lease.
• Create a fairer application process, where landlords must review applications in the order they’re received: first-come, first-served.
• Ensure landlords accept all types of rent payment and ban fees for paying rent online.
• Stop landlords from charging “pet rent” or banning pets unfairly.
• Hold landlords accountable if they don’t maintain rental properties. Renters may be eligible for relocation assistance if housing isn’t up to legal standards as decided by the city.
• Require landlords to register their rentals with the City, including contact info and basic details about each unit.

Mayor Keller said this about his proposed “Renters Rights” Ordinance:

“Renters deserve clear information, safe homes, and protection from exploitation — nothing less. … This renters’ bill of rights is how we show that Albuquerque stands up for working families, seniors, and everyone who calls a rental home.”

https://www.cabq.gov/mayor/news/city-introduces-renters-bill-of-rights-to-protect-tenants

RENT ORDINANCE FAILS ON A 2 TO 3 VOTE

The RENT ordinance failed on a 2 to 3 vote with Progressive Democrats Tammy Fiebelkorn and Nichole Rogers voting “YES” and Republican Council President Brook Bassan, Renée Grout and Dan Champine voting “NO”.  The committee then voted 3 to 2 to send the ordinance on to the full city council with a “DO NOT PASS” RECOMMENDATION which will likely be approved by the council thereby killing the legislation.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS ON RENTER’S EMPOWERMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPARENCY ORDINANCE

Simply put, the new RENT Ordinance is a sneaky and pathetic rewrite and rebranding of the failed 2022 Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance sponsored by Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn that was ultimately rejected and voted down by the previous City Council. The postscript below contains the link to an article that analyzes Fiebelkorn’s Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance. The key provisions of Keller’s new RENT ordinance are identical to the requirements that were in Fiebelkorn’s Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance. The RENT ordinance is a major step towards rent control which was rejected by New Mexico legislature in 2023.

There is no need for the RENT Ordinance. The NM Legislature’s enacted Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act enumerates the duties, responsibilities, rights and remedies of both owners and tenants which are enforced by the Bernalillo County Metro Court. Requiring more of property owners and landlords and less of tenants amounts to interference with property rights and contract rights and obligations between tenants and property owners. The proposed RENT ordinance is too burdensome and constitutes classic government overreaching. The RENT Ordinance is a clear interference with the operation and management of rental properties  and it will have a detrimental impact on the rental industry. It will have the unintended consequence of increasing already high rents as property owners and landlords scrambled to take repeated steps to implement and comply with the ordinance each and ever time a new lease is negotiated or renewed.

There is no need to require registration with the city of rental properties in that the city already has much of the information that would  be required. The city only needs to consolidate the information on its own from the various city departments. Further requiring disclosure of lease contract information for tenants, property owners and landlords and basic details about each unit amounts to nothing less than interference with private contract rights and privacy rights. One point of major contention was that renters should not be mandated by landlords to carry “renters insurance” and not be subject to extensive background and credit checks. These requirements are reasonable and necessary to manage rental properties and to protect the property owners and renters.

2. Safe Outdoor Spaces (0-25-89, Amending “Safe Outdoor Space Operators Permits and 0-25-90 amending the Integrated Development Ordinance relating to Safe Outdoor Spaces, sponsored by City Councilor Nichole Rogers at the request of Mayor Tim Keller.)

Under the City’s Zoning laws collectively known as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO), “Safe Outdoor Spaces” are organized, managed homeless encampments. It was on June 6, 2022 that the City Council enacted a series of amendments updating the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). One of the amendments was for “Safe Outdoor Spaces.” The legislation passed on a 5 to 4 vote despite very angry opposition from citizens and neighborhood associations. Voting YES to allow Safe Outdoor Spaces were 3 councilors who did not seek reelection. Mayor Tim Keller signed off on the legislation allowing for Safe Outdoor Spaces.

The enacted legislation allows for 2 homeless encampments in all 9 city council districts with 40 designated spaces for tents. The Safe Outdoor Spaces allow upwards of 50 people, require hand washing stations, toilets and showers, require a management plan, 6-foot fencing and dedicated space for social service providers to offer food, mental and physical health services. Although the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) amendment sets a limit of two in each of the city’s 9 council districts, the cap does not apply to those hosted by religious institutions.

After being repeatedly confronted by angry constituents at neighborhood association meetings and functions, Republican City Councilor Brook Bassan, who voted to allow them, issued a formal apology to her constituents saying after her initial support of Safe Outdoor Spaces she had serious doubts. She went so far as to say that the city was not ready to implement them and that they would not provide the type of relief she initially had hoped for.

After tremendous public anger and objections to Safe Outdoor Spaces, Republican City Councilor Brook Bassan did an about face and changed her mind. On June 22, 2022 just a few weeks after helping pass the Safe Outdoor Space amendment, Bassan introduced legislation to repeal the IDO amendment.  She introduced two bills. One bill introduced would stop the city from accepting or approving safe outdoor space applications and the other would have eliminated safe outdoor spaces from the zoning code altogether. The legislation eliminating Safe Outdoor Spaces passed the City Council on a 5-4 vote, but Mayor Keller vetoed it and Safe Outdoor Spaces are allowed.

After over 3 years since the passage of the Safe Outdoor Spaces legislation, upwards of 8 applications have been made. Only one Safe Outdoor Space has been approved by the city. The primary reason given for the failure to establish more Safe Outdoor Spaces are what have been dubbed as onerous rules and regulations for them and the ultimate cost of providing 24/7 security.

On June 28, 2025 Mayor Tim Keller held a news conference to announce the legislation to make major changes to the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance governing Safe Outdoor Spaces. The legislation is sponsored by Progressive Democrat City Councilor Nichole Rogers at Mayor Keller’s request. Mayor Keller said he wants to ease costly rules that have stalled efforts to open more Safe Outdoor Spaces saying churches, nonprofits and others should be able to create legal encampments without facing any major financial barriers.

Mayor Keller said  he wants  to ease Safe Outdoor Space requirements to allow expansion of the program with the goal of  increasing the number.  Mayor Keller said the city needs to “scale up” by allowing smaller encampments all over the city. Keller said there are individuals either who are not ready for traditional shelters or can’t find available housing. Keller said to meet the need, the city may need as many as 100 smaller Safe Outdoor Spaces to accommodate 1,000 homeless.

According to Keller, there are many unhoused who would accept a Safe Outdoor Space and who have already turned down traditional shelters.  Keller said this:

“This kind of option could make a huge difference on our streets. … It’s always worth it to help 10 people. …  [Helping] even 10 people makes a huge difference in their lives and that’s never lost on me. … We think there’s at least 1,000 people on the street who would say yes to a Safe Outdoor Space and who currently say no to the Gateway system. … If you do the math, we’d need around 100 Safe Outdoor Spaces. … That’s a lot, but if each one shelters 15 or 20 people, the numbers add up fast.”

There are four major changes to the Integrated Development Ordinance governing Safe Outdoor Spaces Keller wants to make them more affordable and practical. The four changes are:

FIRST:  This change would ease the rule requiring 24/7 on-site security. Currently, sites must always have someone on duty.  It’s a cost that eliminates 99% of people who establish safe outdoor spaces on their property.

SECOND: This change would drop the rule requiring on-site showers 24/7. Instead, mobile trailers would rotate between locations throughout the week.

THIRD: This change would eliminate the requirement for a dedicated space for service providers.

FOURTH: This change would establish $100 application fees and $50 renewal fees, with permits lasting 12 months before requiring renewal.

RELAXING SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES REGULATIONA FAILS ON A 2-3 VOTE

On August 13 upwards of thirty people attended the LUPZ committee hearing with many in support of the legislation. The Safe Outdoor Space legislation failed on a 2 to 3 vote with Progressive Democrats  Tammy Fiebelkorn and Nichole Rogers voting “YES” and Republican Council President Brook Bassan, Renée Grout and Dan Champine voting “NO”.  The committee then voted 3 to 2 to send the legislation on to the full city council with a “DO NOT PASS” recommendation which will likely be approved by the council thereby killing the legislation.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS ON SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES

Keller’s original legislation to allow two Safe Out Door spaces in each of the 9 city council districts has been an absolute failure with only one established. After doing nothing for 3 years to get more established, Keller wants to get rid of the rules and regulations. He calls for100 Safe Out Door spaces scattered throughout the city to accommodate1,000 homeless people. Keller’s proposal to relax rules and regulations of Safe Outdoor Spaces and eliminate restrictions on them reflects a Mayor who has learned absolutely nothing from his failures as he doubles down on his failure.

According to the 2024  Point In Time survey, there are 2,394  individuals experiencing homelessness. Therefor Keller wants to provide Safe Outdoor Spaces for 1,000, or 42%, of the chronic unhoused. This defeats and ignores the integrated shelter system of 5 shelters Keller has established at a cost of upwards of $300 million with annual operating costs and service contracts of $56 Million. The city’s goal should be to get the homeless off the streets into shelter or permanent housing and not into tents.

The Safe Outdoor Space restrictions are required to limit the proliferation of homeless encampments in virtually every nook and cranny of the city. The restrictions are designed to prohibit and prevent illegal activity, such as drug use, with criminal activity and even violent crime being a major problem within the unhoused community.

Safe Outdoor Spaces are Mayor Keller’s symbols and legacy of failure as the city deals with its most vulnerable population, its homeless. If Keller had a lick of sense, he would abandon his efforts to establish Safe Outdoor Spaces. He needs to acknowledge and understand that there is very little to no public support for such homeless tent encampments. Keller needs to cease his efforts to cram them down neighborhood’s throats.

“Safe Outdoor Spaces” represent disaster for the city. “Safe Outdoor Spaces” will destroy neighborhoods, make the city a magnet for the homeless and destroy the city’s efforts to manage the homeless through shelters and permanent housing.

3. Opt-In Zoning Ordinance (R 25- 167 entitled Establishing An Opt-In Process For Legislative Zoning Conversions for Properties Zoned R-1, R-T, or R-ML To Increas Housing Options Citywide And Allow Mixed-Use Development Along Collector And Aterial Streets And Within Established Metropolitan Redevelopment Areas.)

R 25-167 was sponsored by Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn, the LUPZ Chair, at the request of Mayor Tim Keller. The Resolution will  let property owners voluntarily rezone for higher-density or mixed-use development by simply applying for the rezoning with the Planning Department.

Residential zoning covers 27% of the city’s land and 68% of its properties. City officials have said that 68% of the city’s existing housing is single-family detached homes with 120,000 existing residential lots with already built residences. According to city officials, zoning law allowing only single-family homes has contributed to exclusionary patterns and limits housing options for lower-income households. The new rezoning process is designed to loosen those restrictions and support more housing development to increase density in already established neighborhoods.

According to the Pew Charitable Trust, last year there were about half as many homes available to buy as there where in 2018, driving up home prices by 78% in Albuquerque. According to a 2024 Roots Policy Research study, the city has a deficit of nearly 22,000 affordable units for low-income renters.

The new city ordinance would create a voluntary rezoning process that would let property owners switch to higher-density zoning if they want to build more housing on their residential properties, allowing duplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods. The Opt-In plan focuses on corner lots and busy streets to make room for more housing. The  application process does not allow adjoining property owners to object or challenge the “opt in” application.

The proposed resolution will let property owners in certain zones apply to change their zoning for more diverse development and increase density. Participation would be voluntary. Single-family homes zoned R-1 would have several options. Corner lots could switch to low-density multifamily zoning, raising the height limit from 26 to 38 feet. Properties on busy collector or arterial streets could move to mixed-use transit zoning allowing apartments and businesses up to 30 feet tall.

The resolution gives the Planning Department very broad authority to increase density in a neighborhood as they ignore adjoining property owner’s rights and remedies. The resolution requires the city’s Planning Department to establish a process and recommend requests, focusing on properties along busy streets and in designated redevelopment areas. Only eligible property owners who apply and agree to participate will have their zoning updated. Residential property owners must complete a participation form confirming eligibility and acknowledging that the new zoning could make existing uses nonconforming.

The city Planning Department would act as the official entity to accept  applications. Residential property desiring to “opt-in” for increasing their properties density would be  responsible for providing documents including surveys, site plans or easement agreements and covering costs. If property owners don’t qualify or disagree with the outcome, they would be allowed to request a zoning change through the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) that regulates land use, building standards and development procedures.

According to the Planning Department, eligible properties can apply to rezone based on their current zoning and location to allow more housing options and mixed uses. Under the new ordinance if passed by the city council, single-family homes zoned R-1 will have several options. Those options include:

• Corner lots on local streets could be converted to low-density multifamily which would allow duplexes, townhouses, and small apartments, and increase the maximum building height from 26 to 38 feet.
• R-1 homes along busier collector or arterial roads which are defined as streets that move traffic from neighborhoods to major routes would be allowed to “switch” to mixed-use development, allowing apartments and businesses with buildings up to 30 feet tall.
• Townhouses on busy streets would be allowed to convert to mixed-use low-intensity, focusing on townhouses and apartments but no longer allowing single-family homes or duplexes. Buildings could be built  up to 38 feet  to support more housing and businesses.
• Low-density multifamily properties would also increase. Corner lots may convert to high-density multifamily, while properties on collector or arterial streets could switch to medium-intensity mixed-use.
• The rezoning process would apply to Neighborhood Retail Properties zoned Neighborhood Retail Commercial Neighborhood Retail Business Park,  Neighborhood Retail Light Manufacturing or Neighborhood Retail General Manufacturing  and would allow conversion to high-intensity mixed-use.

On August 12, Mayor Keller held  a press conference outside the former Range Cafe on Menaul Boulevard to promote passage of R 25-167. Keller said this in part:

“The idea is that if you have your own private property, that you should have a mechanism to choose what you want to do with that property.  That maybe the government should not be the one telling you, you can only do one thing on your property. … Vacancy rates are still low and rents are too high. … If passed, this resolution will encourage development that expands housing options for a range of incomes and lifestyles.”

Keller made absolutely no mention of adjoining property owners or neighborhood association rights and remedies to deal the application process.

STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION

The August 13 LUPZ Committee meeting, after taking a 20-minute break at 7:30 pm, continued late into the night with upwards of 40 people speaking during public comment. Opponents clearly outnumbered supporters by at least a  2-to-1 ratio. Neighborhood association representatives from across the city turned out in force to oppose the R 25- 167  in no uncertain terms.

Past president of the Victory Hills Neighborhood Association Patricia Willson criticized the lack of neighbor notification and told the committee this:

“This resolution should be rejected out of hand. … Rather than continuing to pass crisis legislation… the city could do more to increase housing by providing casita grants.”

Willson aggressively  pushed back on claims about current zoning rules. In particular, she pushed back on what Strong Towns ABQ volunteer Joseph Greenwald said at Keller’s August 13 press event that many housing types are “literally illegal to build” under current codes. Willson called that “disingenuous,” saying the city “completely rewrote” its zoning codes in 2018. Willson said under the usual zoning amendment process “neighbors within 100 feet get written notice. This has no written notice, no yellow sign.”

Willson said the city should focus on new development rather than altering existing neighborhoods. Wilson told the committee this:

“If the city is really serious about us being less car centric and having less single family homes, they should concentrate on convincing developers to do better new development … [instead of]  targeting longtime homeowners who bought their house 50 years ago, have it paid for [and could see their most valuable asset change]  with no ability for them to have any input.”

Willson blamed high rents on corporate investment, not zoning rules and said this:

“Rents are high because private equity moved in the last 20 years from investing in commercial real estate to investing in multifamily real estate to investing in single-family homes. … We have become bulldozer bait for out-of-state investors.”

Jaemes Shanley, the president of the Mark Twain Neighborhood Association questioned the proposal’s underlying data. Shanley said this:

“Albuquerque has not grown. Our population decreased since 2020. …  The city’s projection of housing needs based on 2% annual growth through 2045 is pure fantasy. Albuquerque is not actually growing right now. It’s actually shrinking. … And yet the mayor and members of council insist we have an urgent need for 50,000 housing units by 2045. There’s no basis in fact to support that. …  What we have is a desperate need for affordable housing, particularly affordable for people earning 50% or less than the area median income. … But that kind of housing cannot be built. It can only be subsidized. ”

Shanley told the committee he did a survey of  major city corridors that showed 21% commercial vacancy rate. He argued the city should focus on repurposing empty commercial properties instead of changing residential zoning.

Both Willson and Shanley noted that 62% of Albuquerque residents live in single-family homes zoned R-1 that could be affected.

Jill Yeagley, president of the Molten Rock Neighborhood Association, said her board voted to unanimously oppose R 25-167. Yeagley told the committee this:

“We do not dispute the need for affordable housing. However, we do object to a shotgun approach that relies on inaccurate data.  [This proposal] does not meet the state-required process of notification for residents. … We sincerely want to increase affordable housing, and I applaud that. … One of the things that I think we need to look at is zoning changes in large developments, such as we have going on in the Westside. That’s an ideal place where major developers can very easily plat the lots to incorporate town homes and duplexes and deepen those four plexes and do it in a way that creates a coherent and visually pleasing neighborhood.”

Evelyn Rivera, a residential  appraiser, called R 25-167  “an attack on single-family homeowners [that] will not provide affordable housing.” Rivera criticized the city’s  outdated data and said she was “insulted as a multi-generational Hispanic New Mexican to be called a racist for wanting to protect my home and my value of my home.”

Not all neighborhood association representatives opposed R 25-167.  Marit Tully, speaking for the Near North Valley Neighborhood Association, said the group “has supported increases in density” and “supports affordable housing,” but  asked for a deferral because “none of us on our board thinks we have a handle on the impacts of this resolution.” Tully told the LUPZ committee that his association had tried to educate members about the proposal but got little response, suggesting that “few of our neighborhood residents and other city residents understand its scope.”

STRONG TOWNS ABQ SUPPORT FOR “OPTED IN” ZONING

Strong Towns ABQ is the local chapter of the national Strong Towns movement. It advocates for a bottom-up approach to community development, emphasizing walkable neighborhoods, affordable housing, and responsible infrastructure spending. The group works to address issues like housing affordability, transportation infrastructure, and local government finances through community engagement and policy advocacy. Strong Towns ABQ has emerged as a major advocate to increase density throughout the city by changing or repealing the city zoning laws. A link for more information on Strong Towns ABQ is here: https://www.strongtownsabq.org/

A representative from Strong Towns ABQ attended the LUPZ meeting and voiced strong support for R 25-16. Jordon McConnell, communications chair for Strong Towns ABQ, said the group collected supportive comments “from every zip code and council district in the city” without actually providing the hard data. McConnell called R 25-16  “a practical, bottom-up approach that allows property owners to opt into the next step up in zoning. It’s not a top-down mandate.”

“OPT IN” ORDINANCE FAILS ON 4-1 VOTE AGAINST

The opt-in zoning  legislation failed on a 4 to 1 vote with Progressive Democrats  Tammy Fiebelkorn voting “YES” and Republican Council President Brook Bassan, Renée Grout and Dan Champine  and Progressive Demoocrat Nichole Rogers  voting “NO”.  The committee then voted 4 to 1 to send the legislation  on to the full city council with a “DO NOT PASS” recommendation which will likely be approved by the council thereby killing the legislation.

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

https://www.cabq.gov/planning/news/opt-in-zoning-conversion-critical-for-more-housing

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_a3cbc09d-1f74-409c-b1f1-67d0aa717e65.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://citydesk.org/2025/08/14/opt-in-zoning-proposal-suffers-decisive-defeat-in-committee/

https://citydesk.org/2025/08/13/neighborhood-groups-clash-with-city-hall-over-voluntary-zoning-changes-in-albuquerque/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS ON “OPTED-IN” RESOLUTION

R-25-167 zoning opt-in resolution is nothing more than the same old scam and a sneaky rebranding of Mayor Keller’s failed “Housing Forward ABQ Plan” to help developers and destroy existing neighborhoods by increasing density. Keller wants to increase density by simply ignoring adjoining property rights and objections.

Keller is advocating for the increase in the city’s density in established neighborhoods by allowing for mixed use development on single residential homes and allowing duplexes, townhouses, and small apartments, and increasing the maximum building on the false premise that it will increase affordable housing. It will not. Keller’ and Fiebelkorn, the resolution’s sponsor, have a Field of Dreams zoning philosophy of “if we rezone it, they will build it” discarding the limited resources of residential property owners and the likelihood of invertors on the prowl.

Should R-25-167 pass the full 9 member city council, every single R-1 zoned lot in Albuquerque will be able to be up-zoned increasing density.  What this  means is that any single family home along or in the middle of any street, not just  a corner, not just on arterial or collector roads, can have a Townhouse built on it and it will be permissively enabled. Adjacent property owners, residents and neighborhood associations will just have to just  shut up and accept it, regardless of its visual impact on the character of their neighborhood.

R-25-167 plan is clearly “overkill” that would affect all quadrants of the city. It will  destroy the character of established neighborhoods and lead to gentrification. It will be developers and investors who will purchase existing homes for the development of duplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods.

FINAL COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Mayor Tim Keller selected and promoted  the 3 most controversial pieces of legislation that divided the City Council and  the community and were designed to destroy established neighbors by increasing density.

Voters need to remember on election day November 4 Mayor Keller’s promotion of all three pieces of legislation that have divided the city council and the community. Voters must decide if Mayor Tim Keller is acting in their best interest and in the best interests of the city or if he is acting in his own best interests and simply promoting and doubling down on his failed policies. Voters need to decide if Keller should be elected to a third four-year term.  It’s time we elect a new Mayor that will take the city in a new direction.

Links to related articles are here:

Fiebelkorn’s “Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance” And “Rental Permit Ordinance” Are Political Retaliation For Failure To  Impose Rent Control And To Subvert State “Owner-Resident Relations Act”

 

Mayor Keller’s And Councilor Feibelkorn’s New Opt-In Zoning Plan “Sneaky” Rebrand Of Keller’s Failed “Housing Forward ABQ Plan”; Goal Is To Increase Density Through Out Entire City; Adjoining Property Owners Have No Rights To Challenge Neighbors “Opt-In” To Increase Density

Mayor Keller Seeks To Relax Safe Outdoor Space Rules To Allow 100 Smaller Safe Outdoor Spaces And Accommodate 1,000 Homeless To Camp; Keller “Double Downs” On His Failed Safe Out Door Spaces Policy Despite Spending Over $200 Million On His Gateway Integrated System