On Sunday, November 1, the Albuquerque Journal published two separate guest opinion columns on the Albuquerque City Council passage of city ordinances that eliminates formal city recognition of neighborhood coalitions and impacts appeals to prevent developments. The two opinion columns were submitted separately and unbeknownst to each other.
One opinion column was written by Albuquerque City Councilors Tammy Feibelkorn, and Stephanie Telles entitled “Local Neighborhoods should have the strongest voices.” The other opinion column was written by Pete Dinelli entitled “ Mayor, City Council sold out Albuquerque neighborhoods.”
The headlines and accompanying photos were written and provided by the Albuquerque Journal. Read together, the columns complement each other and highlight major differences. Many thanks to the Albuquerque Journal for publishing the articles together. Following are the unedited opinion columns with links followed by additional commentary:
HEADLINE: “Local neighborhoods should have the strongest voices”
BY: Stepahnie Telles and Tammy Feiebelkorn
“Albuquerque families are priced out of neighborhoods where they want to plant their own roots. Young entrepreneurs and local business owners lack investment opportunities, yet they persist, and when they find ways to grow and reinvest into the communities they were raised in, their resilience is rewarded by coalitions blocking their ambition.
Seniors whose children have grown up and moved on can’t find housing that lets them downsize without being forced to leave the neighborhoods they’ve called home for decades. And our most vulnerable residents, people experiencing homelessness, are being swept from place to place because emergency shelters and safe outdoor spaces are blocked or shut down entirely, displacing people who have already been displaced.
Burqueños ask us every day to do something about these challenges, begging us to work together, across political ideological lines, to find solutions. Yet when we answer that call and do exactly that, we’re accused of silencing neighborhood voices.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
On Oct. 5, after working with the bill’s sponsor on a slate of amendments to address the concerns heard from coalition members, the City Council passed one of two critical measures: O-26-61. There is quite a bit of confusion about what the ordinance does, so we want to be clear. It does not disband coalitions, and it does not silence neighborhood associations or individual residents. And it does not remove anyone’s right to appeal.
What it does is return recognition and focus on the neighborhood associations that residents make the choice to join directly. Since 2022, coalitions granted recognition could appeal projects in neighborhoods far from where their members actually live. In some cases, coalitions have presented themselves as speaking for entire neighborhoods, including residents and neighborhood associations, without demonstrating that those communities actually authorized them to do so.
Consider what that means. A neighborhood association or an individual resident could find an organization they have never joined, never consulted — and perhaps never even heard of — claiming to represent their interests. That organization could then use its recognized status to challenge a project affecting their community, even without evidence that the community asked it to speak on its behalf.
That is the problem this ordinance addresses.
Residents should be able to choose who represents them. Neighborhood associations should be able to speak for their own members. Coalitions should be able to express their views and advocate for their priorities. But no organization should automatically be entitled to claim it represents people who have not chosen to be represented by it.
As city councilors, we believe in democracy and that the democratic process should extend to any organization that claims to speak for anyone.
The ordinance is about who has the right to speak for you and your neighborhood. The answer is simple: the people who live there. Whether it’s a family trying to stay in the neighborhood where they grew up, a local business owner investing in their community, a senior looking to downsize close to home or a shelter serving people in need, the people who live in that neighborhood should have the strongest voice in decisions affecting it. Neighbors — not outside interests — should determine what their community needs and what is best for its future.
Neighborhood associations and residents keep their voices and coalitions keep theirs, and every resident keeps the right to appeal. It simply draws a clearer line between advocating for a position and claiming to represent an entire community.
Democracy begins with the people. In Albuquerque, that means the people who live in our neighborhoods must have the right to speak for themselves.”
Stephanie W. Telles represents District 1 and Tammy represents District 7 on the Albuquerque City Council.
The link to read the published Albuquerque Journal column is here:
HEADLINE: Mayor, City Council sold out Albuquerque neighborhoods
BY: Pete Dinelli
The Albuquerque City Council has enacted four measures misleadingly labeled the Better Neighborhoods package. The legislation was passed under the guise of cutting red tape to allow development projects. The Better Neighborhoods package consists of two ordinances and two memorials. The two ordinances make dramatic changes to the Neighborhood Association Recognition Ordinance and severely limit the rights of appeals to stop developments. The two memorials request the New Mexico Legislature to define who has standing and the right to appeal developments and mandates direct and costly appeals to the courts.
The most egregious of the four measures is O-26-61. This ordinance eliminates formal city recognition of neighborhood coalitions and eliminates automatic development notices to them. It eliminates the requirement for developers to act in good faith and to cooperate with the very neighborhoods they want to develop in. O-26-61 strips standing from neighborhood coalitions to appeal developments. It requires neighborhood associations to redraw boundaries, adding extensive appeal conditions. Loss of city recognition of neighborhood coalitions means loss of notification to individuals and neighborhoods that are likely to be harmed by any development. Thirteen neighborhood associations will now lose city recognition or will have to kick out their county neighbors as members.
Ordinance O-26-61 was introduced and moved forward within two weeks for a full council vote without a committee hearing and no community discussion. It passed on a 5-4 vote. Voting “yes” were Republican councilors Dan Lewis, Dan Champine and Renee Grout and Democrats Stephanie Telles and Tammy Fiebelkorn. Voting “no” were Democratic City Council President Klarissa Peña, Democratic councilors Joaquín Baca and Nichole Rogers and Republican Brook Bassan. Mayor Tim Keller signed O-26-61 into law, falsely arguing that neighborhood coalitions were legally representing neighborhood associations without their consent.
Also last month, the Albuquerque City Council approved ordinance O-26-60, which increases fees for appealing certain projects. The ordinance increases the filing fees to $300 for anyone appealing a development application that was denied, and $1,000 for appealing an approved project.
The two memorials sponsored by Lewis and enacted by the council do not officially end Albuquerque’s Home Rule authority, but they do undercut the “quasi legal” review process for appeals within the city. By inviting the state Legislature to alter the process of zoning appeals, the city is clearing the way for fast-tracked developments. It makes it much harder, and far more expensive, for regular people to have a voice in how their neighborhoods develop.
The Better Neighborhoods package benefits the development, real estate and investment community to the determent of established neighborhoods. It will have a major impact eliminating the rights of neighborhood coalitions to challenge developments. When a new apartment complex or commercial development is proposed in neighborhoods that will have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood, especially historical or established neighborhoods, individual property owners often look to neighborhood coalitions to help appeal or challenge the projects because the individuals do not have the financial resources of their own to oppose developers.
Passage of the Better Neighborhoods package within two weeks of its introduction and without public hearings was underhanded. It continues with the City Council’s dangerous practice of amending the city’s zoning laws prohibiting or limiting extensive public input.
Passage of the Better Neighborhoods package is an effort to deconstruct guardrails and protections. It marginalizes the voices of neighborhoods and city residents. Passage of the Better Neighborhoods package was a sellout by Keller and the Albuquerque City Council of the citizens of Albuquerque, property owners and neighborhood associations and coalitions in favor of the development community.
Pete Dinelli is a former Albuquerque city attorney and chief public safety officer.
The link to read the published Albuquerque Journal column is here:
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS
City Councilors Stepahnie Telles and Tammy Feiebelkorn and Mayor Tim Keller falsely claim that Neighborhood Coalitions are representing neighborhood associations without individual neighborhood association consent to appeal developments. The truth is neighborhood associations are not required to join neighborhood coalitions. They can withdraw at any time they want for any or no reason at all. Neighborhood coalitions by laws govern appeals and mandate a vote and neighborhood association representatives have every right to vote NO on an appeal and cease membership because they disagree with an appeal.
Both city councilors falsely argue that the legislation will lead to more affordable housing and types of housing. It will not. It removes rights to appeal developments that will have direct impact on established neighborhoods and in all likelihood lead to gentrification. The legislation will have no impact on affordable housing and it contains no provisions mandating affordable housing. The only thing the legislation does is to stifle public opinion and prevent appeals in order to allow developers to do what they want.
The very real consequences of passage of O-26-61 are clear and are as follows:
- Thirteen neighborhood associations will either lose recognition or have to kick out their county neighbors as members.
- Loss of recognition equals the loss of notification to those individuals and neighborhoods that are likely to be harmed by the development.
- It removes the requirement for developers to act in good faith and to cooperate with the very neighborhoods they chose to develop.
A DEGREE OF HYPOCRISY EHIBITED
Both so called progressive Democrats Tammy Feibelkorn and Stephanie Telles admit in their column they worked closely with the bill’s sponsor MAGA Republican Dan Lewis to get the legislation passed. They revealed an extent hypocrisy in favor of investors and developers. On the one hand they both say they want affordable housing and development, yet the legislation does nothing to guarantee it but stifles opposition. Both Feibelkorn and Telles wanted the legislation to pass in the dark of night believing that no one was paying attention, yet they say neighborhood coalitions are not “democratic.”
Feiblekorn in particular falsely holds herself out as Progressive Democrat and advocates for progressive causes. The truth is she promotes the interests of the real estate, investment and development communities. A few years ago she gave a tour of her district in a bus full of developers to show them properties and neighborhoods where development could occur in her district. She does not act in the best interests of her own constituents and voters. She ignores real property rights of homeowners and she promotes her own personal agenda.
Feiblekorn and Telles both have bought into the false narrative that increasing density in established neighborhoods will somehow create affordable housing and allow for needed commercial development when it will not. Market forces will prevail and developers will build to make a profit. They both ignore the millions, if not billions of dollars, that are already being spent and invested by the city and state to build and address affordable housing.
A SIGN OF THINGS TO COME
Simply put, the enacted ordinances and memorials are the very first step in seeking the 2027 New Mexico Legislature to repeal all the city zoning laws and home rule authority during the 2027 legislative session in the interest of promoting affordable housing.
During the October 5 City Council meeting, West Side State Sen. Antonio “Moe” Maestas appeared at City Council and spoke in support of the measures. Maestas said City Council memorials M-26-01 and M-26-02 will help him advance city zoning reform in Santa Fe which he has advocated for to in order to increase affordable housing.
It was during the 30-day session of the 2026 New Mexico Legislature that Senate Bill 131 was introduced and sponsored by Democrat Senators Antonio “Moe” Maestas and Heather Berghmans. Senate Bill 131 would have repealed and eliminated all real property zoning authority and regulation authority from local governments, including all municipal governments, including Albuquerque, and county governments and mandate uniform statewide zoning to allow for more residential development in an effort to increase affordable housing. The legislation was voted down in committee. Notwithstanding, it is expected the failed legislation will be introduced during the 2017 legislative session.
During the 30-day session of the 2026 New Mexico Legislature, Fiebelkorn testified during the legislative committee hearing that she “strongly” supported Senate bill SB-131 that would have repealed and eliminated all zoning authority of the City of Albuquerque, prompting one legislator to express dismay that and elected city official was advocating repealing the city’s zoning authority and laws.
CITY COUNCIL REPEAL“BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS” PACKAGE
The four City Councilors who voted “NO” to enact O-26-61 were Democrat City Council President Klarissa Peña, Progressive Democrats Jaquin Baca and Nichole Rogers and Republican Brook Bassan. One or all 4 should take immediate steps to repeal O-26-61 and the “Better Neighborhoods” package by sponsoring and introducing a resolution or ordinance repealing the legislation and demanding public hearings before the City Council’s Land Use and Planning committee to allow the public sufficient time weigh in and to avoid the two week rush job that came with enactment of O-26-61.
Contact your City Councilor and tell them to repeal O-26-61 and protest the underhanded way it was enacted.
CITY COUNCIL CONTACT INFORMATION
CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (505) 768-3100
CITY COUNCILOR AND SUPPORT STAFF EMAILS
ipadilla@cabq.gov (Director of Council Services)
mmmontoya@cabq.gov (Council Clerk)
The links to two related blog articles are here: