ABQ City Council Will Meet Feb.18 For Final Vote On Integrated Development Ordinance Amendments Including Up Zoning All Residential Properties; Contact Your City Councilor And Tell Them To Vote NO On Residential Up Zoning

Posted on by

The Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) is essentially all of the city zoning laws on how properties are zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use. The Integrated Development Ordinance includes zoning and subdivision regulations to govern land use and all development within the City of Albuquerque. It establishes the City’s system of planning citywide. The IDO allows the Albuquerque City Council to amend it every two years. This amendment process has resulted in upwards of 140 amendments the last two years resulting in mass confusion to the public.

CITY COUNCIL LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITEE

The Land Use Planning, and Zoning Committee consists of 5 City Councilors appointed by the City Council President. The LUPZ Committee reviews all ordinances, resolutions, or other matters pertaining to the city’s zoning code known as the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO), land use appeals, historical designation process, annexations, sector development plans, and general land use, planning and redevelopment policies and zoning restrictions.

https://www.cabq.gov/council/committees

In January, the Land Use Planning, and Zoning Committee (LUPZ) met twice, on January 14 and then on January 18 to debate and discuss 140 amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance. The committee’s make up changed as a consequence of the 2025 municipal elections and the election of a new City Council President.

For the January 14 meeting, the former LUPZ committee appointed by City Council President Brook Bassan was:

  • Tammy Feibelkorn, Chair
  • Nichole Rogers
  • Dan Champine
  • Renée Grout
  • Brook Bassan

For the January 18, the new LUPZ Committee appointed by City Council President Klarrisa Pena was:

  • Brook Bassan, Chair
  • Dan Champine
  • Renée Grout
  • Nichole Rogers
  • Stephanie W. Telles

STEVE HOLMAN REPORT ON JANUARY 18 LUPZ COMMITTEE HEARING

EDITORS NOTE: The below report on the January 18 meeting of the LUPZ committee was written District 7 City Council resident Steve Holman who attended the meeting. He was not compensated for his report. 

 On Wednesday evening the Land Use Planning and Zoning (LUPZ) committee had their second hearing on proposed Upzoning in the city’s Integrated Development Ordinance.

Councilors Brook Bassan, Dan  Champine, and Renee Grout supported amendments to remove permissive use of townhomes and duplexes in R1 zoning, as well as removing retail elements (Bodegas). They also supported amendments removing zoning changes along transit corridors and activity centers that could have increased taxes on thousands of residents. This is already on top of a major amendment proposed by Councilor Nichole  Rogers in the first LUPZ meeting removing forced rezonings  on nearly all single family properties, with that item being passed in the first hearing.

District 7 City  Councilor Fiebelkorn who was sitting in for City Councilor  Stephanie Telles in the committee hearing and District 6 City Councilor Nichole Rogers both chose to openly question every amendment added and voted in opposition to every single item proposed during the hearing, offering no alternative options or compromise. Councilor Fiebelkorn herself declared that she would not stop advocating for this type of legislation, essentially doubling down on her stance instead of showing a willingness to cooperate or collaborate with others for solutions.

There was a large presence at the hearing of approximately 80 people signed up to speak.  Many were associated with the National Organization Strongtowns, with some speakers  openly berating the committee in their disappointment at the changes passed during the hearing. Strongtowns local chapter founder Brandi Thompson became upset in apparent disbelief in the changes to the IDO that were passed, citing their physical presence in opposition at hearings and distorting information about pre-made forms they used to generate comments on the Environmental Planning Commission section in the IDO process.  She even went as far as to say about the opposition that the city council is getting “yelled at by a small local minority in the community.”

At the end of the public comments for the hearing, councilors Fiebelkorn and Rogers again expressed their disappointment and opposition to the way the votes went.   Then councilor Grout decided to clear the air.  She thanked the people who showed up and spoke during the evening but  advised everyone that the city councilors have received “hundreds of emails and calls” in opposition to the Up-zoning changes to the IDO and that their duty is to listen to their constituents.

The IDO amendments with their changes to remove the majority of Up-zoning were then voted on by the committee to go to full council for a vote.  This passed the committee on a 3-2 vote, with City Councilors Fiebelkorn and Rogers in opposition.

Prior to the LUPZ hearing, a petition of  892 petition signatures from residents in opposition to Up-zoning [was presented to the city council.]  The City Council was also sent an alternative path forward urging the implementation of Community-Based Planning principles. Community-based planning directly addresses housing inventory, affordability, as well as measures to prevent gentrification.

STEVE HOLMAN ANLAYSIS

We have to ask why if the city has over 125,000 pre-platted lots for residential construction, they can’t sell at least 50% to stimulate growth?  We have 192 vacant buildings with 1.8 million + sq ft along 7 corridors in the city, so why can’t that be utilized for housing?  Why don’t we require that 50% of new housing construction be mixed types (townhomes, duplexes, and apartments)?  Why don’t we require permanent affordable housing of any type?  Why aren’t we trying to prevent corporate ownership of homes and their price speculation?

The housing issue can be addressed through community input and planning and doesn’t require broad discretionary zoning changes.  The only ones who benefit from Upzoning are developers because the majority of everyday residents can’t afford to convert residential properties.

In light of this I asked the council to leave the IDO as it was prior to these updates in 2025 and use these 7 principles to address growth in our city;

  • Community Empowerment
  • Pro-Active Anti-Displacement Measures
  • Diverse and Affordable Housing
  • Equitable Amenity Distribution
  • Community Wealth Building
  • Targeted Investments
  • Zoning with Equity and Protection

During the public comments section of the hearing, I spoke directly to these as a way to address our unique needs.  I also spoke about how the lesson to learn from the events of the hearing is that we need the city and residents to be collaborative again, instead of the city taking a dictatorial stance against communities due to rigid ideology.  I asked us to move forward together and collaborate on a better future for Albuquerque.  I meant those words and I was extending them as an olive branch to members of Strongtowns and councilors Fiebelkorn and Rogers because we want many of the same things, its just the methods to get there are opposites.

After the LUPZ hearing, the amended IDO that removes much of the dangers of Up-zoning will be submitted to the full city council for a vote.  It is very likely that all the changes from the previous hearings could be removed or reverted with proposed amendments during full council hearings.  So we still need to be strong and continue to contact our city councilors and tell them we don’t want Upzoning in the IDO.

Your outreach as citizens is what has pushed the needle in a different direction for this legislation and your voices need to continue to put pressure on our city officials to follow the will of the public.

Political allies to Up-zoning are taking this to the current state legislative session in an attempt to enact similar policies state-wide.  The next step is that we need to come together and place pressure there as well.  Please  write your state representatives and tell them you don’t support Up-zoning legislation.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYS

With the re-election of Mayor Tim Keller and a new Albuquerque City Council, a major controversy has emerged within the city and on the Albuquerque City Council involving Mayor Tim Keller, his Planning Department and a few members of the Albuquerque City Council who want to enact another wave of blanket amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance. Mayor Tim Keller and the City Planning Department want to double or triple housing density in established neighborhoods as a way to address what they claim is the City’s affordable housing shortage.

According to a recent study by Root Policy Research, Albuquerque is 13,000 to 28,000 housing units short of meeting the demand for housing for low-income residents. When supply doesn’t meet demand, rents go up for residents. Mayor Keller, the Planning Department and supporters of the changes say the changes would improve quality of life and address Albuquerque’s housing shortage, which is worst for low-income renters. The emphasis is increasing affordable housing at the expense of established neighborhoods with expectation that established neighborhoods and residential property owners will simply go along and increase density on their properties and pay for it themselves.

The proposed amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance are supposed to address the city’s so called “housing crisis” and to increase affordable housing. The term affordable housing is about as misleading as it gets. It is a term often used by politicians, elected officials and developers to promote their own personal or political agendas to gain support for their positions and government funding for development projects. When the term “affordable housing” is used by the politicians, elected officials and developer’s, what they actually mean is “subsidized government housing” also known as Section 8 Federal Subsidized Housing.

EXISTING HOMEOWNERS CANNOT AFFORD UPZONING CONSTRUCTION COST

Mayor Tim Keller, his Planning Department and all the City Councilors  who support up-zoning want to double or triple housing density in established neighborhoods over strenuous objections from property owners and neighborhood associations. They want “up-zoning  development”  by existing residential property owners to increase density and allow casita, duplex development and townhome development in virtually every established neighborhood in the city. Ostensibly, they believe existing property owners can afford to build on their own properties whether they own the home outright or if there is a mortgage.

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 homes. It allows only single-family homes, which city officials say has contributed to exclusionary patterns and limits housing options for lower-income households. The new rezoning process proposed is designed to loosen those restrictions and allow to double or triple housing development in established neighborhoods ignoring what the neighborhoods want.

Construction costs are consistent when it comes to building an entire house or adding a free-standing casita or converting a residence to a duplex or town home. There is no real differentiation between the basic construction costs to construct “affordable housing” and other types of housing.

According to the Homebuilders Digest construction costs cover everything from materials to the actual construction.  In Albuquerque there are four basic categories of construction:

  1. A value-based custom home would start around $175 per square foot. This is a home that would have builder-grade finishes, such as ceramic tile, laminate flooring, basic cabinets, level one granite or quartz, aluminum or builder-grade vinyl windows, value series appliances, and basic plumbing and electrical fixtures.
  2. A mid-range home would start at around $225 per square foot. Mid-range finishes would include porcelain tile, engineered wood, mid-level cabinets with soft close, level two or three granite or quartz, and a moderate budget for plumbing and electrical fixtures. It would also have premium vinyl or fiberglass windows and higher-end appliances.
  3. Ahigh-end custom home would start at around $275 per square foot. This home would have all high-end custom finishes, fiberglass or wood windows, and professional appliances.
  4. A home with energy efficiency features would range between $200 to $400per square foot depending on selections for mechanical systems, windows, plumbing and lighting fixtures, cabinets, appliances, flooring, and more.

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

https://www.homebuilderdigest.com/cost-guides/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house-in-albuquerque/

The minimum hard construction cost to build a 750 square foot free standing casita or convert an existing residence to a duplex by adding on 750 square feet of living space at the value base cost of $175 or the mid-range cost of $225 would between $131,250 (750 square ft. X $175) or $168,750 (750 X $225). The homeowner who does not have the cash savings to pay the construction costs, a second or third mortgage on the residence would be required.

The overwhelming majority of existing homeowners cannot afford the construction costs of a free-standing casita or the conversion of their homes to a duplex or townhome. Simply put, only developers and investors who speculate will be able to double or triple density by buying up existing homes for purposes of building casitas or converting residences to a duplex or townhome.  After that is done, the profit motive will be to sell or rent at the highest level and not for affordable housing.

ZONING CHANGES WILL DESTROY NEIGHBORHOODS

Mayor Tim Keller, the  City Planning  and City Councilors who want to allow apartment development or retail business development (i.e small convenience stores or “bodegas”) on all corner residential lots in all established neighborhoods to benefit developers and to deprive adjacent property owners the right to object and appeal. Such development will no doubt result in magnets for crime and heavy traffic patterns destroying the tranquility, livability and character of established neighborhoods.

Keller and the Planning Department erroneously believe that increased density will increase affordable housing as they simply ignore the market forces and the profit motive. They argue in essence that “flooding the market” with more housing than what is needed will result in lower cost of housing and make available more housing for sale and rent. It’s a false and very misleading narrative.

The one thing Albuquerque does have is open space that can be developed. There is no need to increase density in established neighborhoods that will destroy a neighborhood’s character. Sources within the Planning Department have confirmed the city has already “pre-platted” residential development of 125,000 to 150,000 residential lots. If  Mayor Keller and City Planning want to allow “up-zoning” they should do so only on undeveloped, vacant land and vacant commercial properties and leave existing neighborhoods alone without forcing them to sue.

EXISTING RESIDENTAIL PROPERTY OWNERS CAN EXPECT PROPERTTY TAX INCREASES LEADING TO GENTRIFICATION

The Bernalillo County property tax code is clear. The taxable value of a property is 33 1/3% of the assessed value as determined by the Bernalillo County Assessor. Under the property tax code, residential property assessments may NOT rise more than 3% per year unless the property changes ownership, is improved or is REZONED. (Emphasis added.)

What should be alarming to all existing residential property owners is that the Planning Department has failed to take into account how the up-zoning zoning changes they are proposing will likely change Bernalillo County’s property value assessments and tax assessments.

Rezoning all residential property will affect the property tax cap of 3% and allow for increases in property taxes. Simply put, increasing density increases real property values for tax assessment. Government entities never resist the temptation to increase property taxes and property taxes historically never, ever come down.

The  “Up-Zoning” agenda of the Planning Department and Mayor Tim Keller will make gentrification an official city policy because real property taxes will soar and lower income property owners will not be able to afford the increase in property taxes and be forced to sell their properties to speculators and developers resulting in displacement and gentrification.

One thing is clear, there is absolutely no language in the existing Integrated Development Ordinance amendments that specifically require affordable housing. There is no language in the proposed amendments that address private equity and developer price speculation.

NOTICE OF HEARING

On Wednesday, February 18, the nine-member Albuquerque City Council will be meeting.  On the agenda will be the amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance. The meeting will be held in the  City Council Chambers in basement of city hall commencing at 5:00 p.m. You can sign up to speak at the meeting by going to the City Council web page or simply go to the meeting.

Please contact your city councilor and urge them vote NO on up-zoning of your property that will increase your property taxes.  The emails to contact all 9 City Councilors followed by their Policy Analyst to voice your opinions are:

Below is the link to the petition against the proposed amendments:

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-exclusionary-upzoning-of-mayor-keller-and-councilor-fiebelkorn

 

This entry was posted in Opinions by Pete Dinelli. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Dinelli

Pete Dinelli was born and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He is of Italian and Hispanic descent. He is a 1970 graduate of Del Norte High School, a 1974 graduate of Eastern New Mexico University with a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration and a 1977 graduate of St. Mary's School of Law, San Antonio, Texas. Pete has a 40 year history of community involvement and service as an elected and appointed official and as a practicing attorney in Albuquerque. Pete and his wife Betty Case Dinelli have been married since 1984 and they have two adult sons, Mark, who is an attorney and George, who is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Pete has been a licensed New Mexico attorney since 1978. Pete has over 27 years of municipal and state government service. Pete’s service to Albuquerque has been extensive. He has been an elected Albuquerque City Councilor, serving as Vice President. He has served as a Worker’s Compensation Judge with Statewide jurisdiction. Pete has been a prosecutor for 15 years and has served as a Bernalillo County Chief Deputy District Attorney, as an Assistant Attorney General and Assistant District Attorney and as a Deputy City Attorney. For eight years, Pete was employed with the City of Albuquerque both as a Deputy City Attorney and Chief Public Safety Officer overseeing the city departments of police, fire, 911 emergency call center and the emergency operations center. While with the City of Albuquerque Legal Department, Pete served as Director of the Safe City Strike Force and Interim Director of the 911 Emergency Operations Center. Pete’s community involvement includes being a past President of the Albuquerque Kiwanis Club, past President of the Our Lady of Fatima School Board, and Board of Directors of the Albuquerque Museum Foundation.