The  second session of the 57th New Mexico Legislature began on January 20 and it will end on February 19 when “sine die” or adjournment is declared. Thirty-day sessions are  focused on state budget matters and bills introduced by request of  the Governor or bills introduced by legislators that have a message from the governor identifying them as priorities for the session. February 4  marked the deadline for lawmakers to introduce new legislation for the remainder of the 30-day session.

Nearly 700 bills were filed in advance of the filing deadline with  378 in the House and 313 in the Senate along with roughly a dozen proposed constitutional amendments.  Many of the bills will simply not be considered since only budget-related measures and bills authorized by the governor can be considered in 30-day sessions, which are held in even-numbered years.  As of the filing deadline,  Governor Lujan Grisham had issued executive messages for 130 bills so far to be heard during this year’s session.

According to the Source NM Bill Tracker, Sen. Pete Campos (D-Las Vegas) has sponsored the most bills, with 41 sponsorships as of Wednesday morning. Sen. Elizabeth “Liz” Stefanics (D-Cerillos) is second with 29 bills and Rep. Andrea Reeb (R-Clovis) rounds out third with 26 bills.

HALFWAY POINT OF SESSION

February 4 marked the halfway point of the 2026 legislative session. Only 6 bills out of 533 bills introduced for the session won legislative approval at the hallway mark of the 30-day session. The six measures approved at midpoint are:

• House Bill 1:  Feed bill to pay for session expenses.
• House Bill 9:  Bars local governments from participating in federal civil immigration detention system.
• House Bill 50: Interstate medical compact for social workers.
• Senate Bill 1: Interstate medical compact for physicians.
• Senate Bill 2:  Increases funding for statewide road repairs and construction.
• Senate Bill 19: Allows Public Education Department to reset unit value for school funding after session concludes.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/lawmakers-hit-midway-point-of-the-session-with-some-key-bills-dispatched-others-in-limbo/2974573

https://www.lascrucesbulletin.com/stories/halfway-through-the-30-day-legislative-session,156822

GOV. MLG SIGNS INFRASTRUCTURE, MEDICAL COMPACT BILLS AT MID-SESSION;  BIPARTISAN BILLS ADDRESS HEALTH CARE ACCESS, INVEST IN ROADS STATEWIDE

On February 5,  Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham  signed into law four bills that will strengthen New Mexico’s infrastructure, expand the state’s health care workforce and address concerns about immigrant detention.

The bills Governor Lujan Grisham signed into law are:

 Senate Bill 1: Interstate Medical Licensure Compact.   This bill allows physicians licensed in other compact states to practice in New Mexico more easily. This will help address the state’s health care workforce shortage and improve access to care, particularly in rural and underserved areas.

House Bill 50: Interstate Social Work Licensure Compact.   This bill similarly streamlines the licensure process for social workers, expanding the workforce available to support children, families, and vulnerable populations across New Mexico.

Senate Bill 2: Transportation Bonding Bill. This bill is a  $1.5 billion bonding package to improve New Mexico roads.  The bill provides a reliable source of funding for infrastructure projects across the state, supporting road improvements, bridge repairs, and transportation systems that connect New Mexican communities and drive economic growth. While Senate Bill 2 didn’t receive unanimous approval in either chamber, it did receive bipartisan support.

House Bill 9: Immigrant Safety Act.  This bill  is the most politically divisive measure  to reach the governor’s desk for signature so far. The bill bans local governments in New Mexico from contracting with the federal government to detain undocumented immigrants and others with pending civil immigration cases.  House Bill 9, creates a “bright line” between state and local resources and federal immigration enforcement, potentially forcing the closure of three detention facilities that collectively hold more than 1,000 people.

The bill  sparked heated debate about job and economic losses in the three rural counties that currently house immigration detention facilities. It was opposed unanimously by the Legislature’s Republican minority. A  handful of Democrats, mostly from the Cibola County area where one of the jails is located, also voted against it.

The bill also bans local law enforcement from entering formal partnerships with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement allowing police to help carry out federal civil immigration enforcement efforts.

HB 9 will go into effect May 20, 2026.

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2026/02/04/gov-set-to-sign-bill-closing-ice-facilities-in-new-mexico/

GORVERNOR THANKS LEGISLATURE

During the February 5 bill signing ceremony, Governor Lujan Grisham thanked the bill sponsors and legislative leadership for their partnership in moving the legislation forward quickly and efficiently during the session. Governor Lujan Grisham said this:

“Halfway through the session, we’re showing what’s possible when we focus on getting things done for New Mexicans.  … These bills represent major progress on issues that matter to working families, including safer roads, and more doctors and social workers to serve our communities. I look forward to getting even more done with lawmakers during the second half of the session.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2026/02/05/governor-signs-infrastructure-medical-compact-bills-at-mid-session-bipartisan-bills-address-health-care-access-and-invest-in-roads-statewide/

PROGRESS OF OTHER LEGISLATION

The progress of other major legislation and committee votes worth noting are as follows:

HOUSE BILL 2

On February 2, the House Appropriations and Finance Committee approved House Bill 2 on a bipartisan 15-3 vote a $11.1 billion spending plan that could pave the way for a high-profile New Mexico universal child care initiative to receive a funding infusion for the coming year. Three Republicans cast dissenting votes.

The House Appropriations and Finance Committee’s approved bill requires child care co-pays for higher-earning families.  The budget bill would increase year-over-year state spending by upwards of  $294.5 million, or 2.7%,  over current levels. This is  a smaller increase than in recent years, as state spending has increased by more than 70% since 2019. The  initiative would provide state-subsidized child care to all working New Mexico families, regardless of income levels.  The child care expansion, which made New Mexico the first state with universal child care when it took effect in November, has drawn national attention but also criticism from some legislators.

It’s uncertain  whether the House Appropriations and Finance Committee’s proposal to require child care co-pays for higher-earning families will be approved by the full House. Governor Lujan Grisham has consistently opposed the measure and called on lawmakers to fully fund free child care for all New Mexico families.

SENATE BILL 241 (UNIVERSAL CHILD CARE)

On  February 6,  Senate Bill 241 authorizing  universal child care statewide passed the Senate Education Committee  on a 6-3 vote.  SB 241 was  filed last  week.  SB 241 was sponsored by Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup.  Republican State Senator Gabriel Ramos from Silver City joined Democrats in voting in favor of the legislation. The committee’s remaining Republican members cast “no” votes.

Universal child care exists now after being implemented by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham with a governor’s  Executive Order. New Mexico became the first state to offer state-subsidized child care for all working families when Governor Lujan Grisham announced the program in September.

Lawmakers initially balked at the Lujan Grisham administration’s request for an additional $160 million in the coming year to pay for the universal child care initiative.  The approval of SB 241 by the Senate Education Committee signals a growing embrace of the program by the legislature along with more than $60 million in state funds earmarked in a separate budget bill.

The state appropriated funding to provide no-cost child care to 32,000 children last year.  According to a legislative analysis of the bill, that number is projected to increase to 58,000 children by the 2029 budget year under the universal child care program,  Already, roughly 10,000 more New Mexico children have enrolled in the state’s child care assistance program since November.

Senate Bill 241 as passed by the Senate Education Committee contains built-in “triggers” as follows:

• Allowing co-pays for higher-income families and child care wait lists.
• A state early childhood agency would be required to take certain steps if any of four different conditions occur.
• Those conditions are higher-than-expected child care enrollment, less than $50 per barrel oil prices, higher than 3% inflation and state revenue growth lagging behind inflation.
• Under any of those scenarios, the agency would either have to enact a waiting list or charge co-pays for working families making more than 600% of the federal poverty level. That amount is currently $198,000 per year for a family of four.

Early Childhood Education and Care Secretary Elizabeth Groginsky, who’s been tasked with implementing the universal child care rollout, told the Senate Education Committee the legislation would ensure state-paid child care remains in place even after Lujan Grisham leaves office at the end of this year.

Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, one of the bill’s sponsors, told the Senate Education Committee  the legislation will provide lawmakers and state residents with stability as the state expands child care assistance. Muñoz said it is important lawmakers build a steady “runway” for the initiative with triggers if economic conditions deteriorate or if enrollment in the child care assistance program exceeds expectations. Muñoz said  the expansion would put “real money” in New Mexicans’ pockets by not forcing them to choose between working and expensive private child care.

Making universal child care a reality will require an estimated 5,000 additional early childhood workers around the state, and supporters of the idea say pay raises are a key part of making that happen.

Supporters of SB 241 said the creation of the early childhood trust fund in 2020 could provide a financial lifeline for the program. The trust fund has seen its value skyrocket over the last several years. It has gone  from $300 million to nearly $11 billion  thanks to record-high oil production levels in southeast New Mexico. Sen. William Soules, D-Las Cruces said even if $100 million is taken out of the fund every year to help pay for child care assistance, it would still remain solvent for decades even if investment income over that time period is flat.

The bill now advances to the Senate Finance Committee with 10 days remaining in this year’s 30-day legislative session.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/bill-would-enshrine-universal-child-care-in-state-law-with-a-few-economic-off-ramps/2976125

HOUSE BILL 99 (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM)

On Friday, January 30, (HB-99)  known as the Medical Malpractice Reform bill passed the House Health and Human Services Committee by a vote 7-3, but only after the committee passed an “unfriendly amendment” that  eliminated  caps on punitive damages for corporately owned hospitals. An “unfriendly amendment” is one  that the bill’s sponsor does not support. House Bill 99 is a bipartisan attempt to overhaul New Mexico’s medical malpractice laws.

House Bill 99 would set caps on punitive damages in malpractice cases, pay for plaintiffs’ medical costs as they’re incurred and increase the standard of proof needed to award damages. The amendment excludes hospital systems and hospitals owned by out-of-state corporations from a proposed $6 million cap on punitive damages. A smaller $1 million cap would be put in place for independent doctors.  The medical malpractice reform bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos) and as originally introduced is backed by New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, who crafted  House Bill 99 and is sponsoring  it along with  two dozen other lawmakers, called the  amendment  to the bill “short-sighted.”  Chandler  pointed out most of New Mexico’s hospitals, including those run by Presbyterian Health Services,  would not be covered by the proposed punitive damages cap. According to the New Mexico Hospital Association, the only hospitals covered by the cap would be hospitals in Taos, Grants, Gallup, Farmington and Las Cruces. Chandler told the Albuquerque Journal this  after the  hearing:

“I don’t think it strikes the right balance in the legislation we need. ”

 Supporters of House Bill 99 argue that the bill is a key step in fixing the state’s health care worker shortage. Republicans and Democrats worked on the original  bill  in a unified effort. The unified effort was destroyed when Representative  Liz Thomson (D-Albuquerque), who proposed the amendment, said she believed it was important not to cap punitive damages for hospitals owned by out-of-state corporations or private equity firms. Thomson said this:

“We want to tell these huge national corporations that they cannot cut corners on medical care and leave people damaged.”

Feliz Rael, President of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association,  an organization that historically and consistently has opposed medical malpractice reform, said this:

“While the bill isn’t perfect, we are very pleased to see protection for patients that are harmed by multi-billion-dollar corporations.”

 State Rep. Alan Martinez, R-Bernalillo, warned that the last-minute amendment was simply unfair because Republicans and Democrats had agreed to the original bill text and it was “gutted” by the amendment.

House Minority Whip Alan Martinez, R-Bernalillo, who voted against the committee amended bill, said this:

“It’s very hard for me to support the amended bill, because I think we gutted a good bill with that. … We were going to fix medical malpractice. Now we’re carving out certain people. … You have taken a good, negotiated bill and poisoned it with this amendment.”

Committee Democrats who voted to support the bill after the  “unfriendly amendment” said they believed it would empower plaintiffs. Rep. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces) said the amendment would give “the right back to the jury to hold multi-billion dollar corporations accountable.”

Representative Chandler  told reporters she believes the majority of physicians in the state work at the corporately owned hospitals that the amendment would impact. Although the amendment still extends protections to those practitioners, Chandler said she believes the lack of a cap for their employers could still affect whether doctors want to work there.

HB 99  approved as amended by the committee did make several other changes in addition to the punitive damages cap. That includes clarifying how many medical malpractice claims can be filed for a single medical injury and extending hospitals’ participation in a patient compensation fund through 2029.

House Bill 99 as amended will now be heard by the House Judiciary Committee which bill sponsor Rep. Christine Chandler chairs. The bill must pass the full House and Senate before the session ends Feb. 19.

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

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/house-panel-advances-111-billion-budget-bill-that-includes-co-pays-for-universal-child-care-plan/2973156

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/lawmakers-promise-more-big-wins-for-new-mexico-as-governor-signs-years-first-bills/article_960040ba-4868-4e21-891f-3d9930aa29c0.html

https://sourcenm.com/2026/02/04/nm-legislature-day-16-recap-last-minute-bills-and-long-running-debate-over-11b-budget/

https://www.kanw.org/new-mexico-news/2026-02-05/nm-legislature-day-16-recap-last-minute-bills-and-long-running-debate-over-11b-budget

Senate Bill 17: (“STOP ILLEGAL GUN TRADE AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WEAPONS ACT”)

On February 7, after six hours of heated debate, and a few failed amendments, the New Mexico Senate passed on a 24-17 vote Senate Bill 17 (SB 17) known as the “Stop Illegal Gun Trade and Extremely Dangerous Weapons Act. ” The bill is sponsored by several Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Debbie O’Malley and Heather Berghmans, both of Albuquerque. Senators Joseph Cervantes of Las Cruces, Benny Shendo Jr. of Jemez Pueblo and Angel Charley of Acoma Pueblo were the lone “NO” votes among Democratic lawmakers.

It was on February 4 that the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance SB 17.  Democrat Committee Chair Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces), a prominent trial attorney, voted to advance the bill to the full Senate for a vote.  Cervantes said this after his committee vote:

“I think that the provisions of the bill that relate to dealer regulations are very appropriate, and I could support those …  [But] I think this is unconstitutional.”

SB 17 aims to stop firearms from getting into the wrong hands and ban the sale of certain types of weapons. SB 17 would require licensed gun dealers to keep inventory records and implement security measures, similar to those placed on state-authorized recreational cannabis dispensaries. The bill also would ban the sale or possession of certain “military-grade weapons,” including machine guns and gas-operated semiautomatic firearms.

SB 17 would more closely regulate gun dealers across the state.  SB 17 particularly targets straw purchases which is where someone buys a gun from a reputable retailer and then sells it under the table to someone who is not legally allowed to own a firearm. It would require gun stores to maintain thorough records of each sale, only employ people 21 or older and put employees through an annual training program.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives trains gun store owners on red flags for straw purchases, such as someone buying guns in bulk, or a single person breaking away from a group in a gun store to purchase the weapon. SB17 would extend that training beyond store owners to employees who are on the sales floor. It would also ban the sale of certain weapons.

Two amendments, from Republican respectively, sought to strike a section that banned specific types of weapons and, separately, add a clause that would allow a person under 21 to work at a gun store if they took a hunter safety course or were a veteran. Both amendments failed.

As lawmakers debated in the Senate Chamber, more than 100 people, some with rifles slung across their chests, took part in a Second Amendment rally outside the Roundhouse in Santa Fe. In the Capitol Rotunda, dozens bill supporters gathered to listen to stories from those who lost loved ones to gun violence and advocates with Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action.

Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action, said this in a statement after the vote:

“[The Senate] took an important step to stop illegal guns from flooding our communities. … SB 17 is about holding gun traffickers and bad actors accountable so fewer guns — including dangerous military-grade weapons — end up in the hands of kids and in our neighborhoods. … Moms, students, and families showed up at the Roundhouse today because we’re tired of inaction, and today, lawmakers listened.”

In a statement after the bill’s passage, Senate Minority Leader William Sharer, R-Farmington, said this:

“Today, Democrats in Santa Fe decided that the rights of New Mexicans to protect themselves and their families should be eliminated. …  Listen to the words they say, they have repeatedly admitted this bill is unconstitutional, yet they are forcing it upon law-abiding citizens.  New Mexicans deserve to be represented by elected officials who take their oaths of office seriously, not by activists who hate our Constitution and who promote fringe radical policies designed to undermine the very foundation of our Nation.”

In a statement, Governor Lujan Grisham applauded the passage of the bill and said this:

“I’m grateful for the Senate’s vote today and I encourage the House to follow suit at the earliest opportunity.  … [This legislation] holds gun dealers to the same basic standards expected of any responsible business — securing inventory, training employees, and preventing illegal sales.”

The firearm death rate in New Mexico has historically had higher than average violent crime rates. New Mexico’s violent crime rate was the nation’s fourth highest as of 2023, according to Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health. Of the 530 gun-related deaths in the state that year, there were slightly more suicides than homicides. Firearm-related deaths also represented the largest cause of death for state children between the ages of 1 and 17.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who has supported several gun laws passed by the Legislature in her tenure, urged for the passage of Senate Bill 17 during her State of the State address. Since first taking office in 2019, lawmakers have passed bills expanding mandatory background check requirements for gun purchases and allowing guns to be seized from those deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others.  At least one piece of past legislation, a 2024 law implementing a seven-day waiting period for gun purchases, is in limbo after a Denver-based federal appeals court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Senate Bill 17 will now be referred to the New Mexico House for committee hearings and potentially a full vote by the House of Representatives.

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

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/senate-passes-gun-bill-after-lengthy-debate/2976590

https://www.kob.com/politics-news/new-mexico-politics/senate-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-increase-regulations-for-gun-dealers/

https://sourcenm.com/2026/02/05/nm-senate-committee-advances-anti-gun-trafficking-bill/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYIS

During the February 5 bill signing ceremony, Governor Lujan Grisham said this:

“Getting legislation passed is hard.  Even with an interim and years of work, it’s hard. … I am really proud of the Legislature. They don’t need that, but I think the public needs to know that they are getting incredible things done.”

There is no doubt that the two most defining issues of the 2026 New Mexico legislative session are medical malpractice reform and free universal childcare to New Mexico families, regardless of income.  If enacted, both measures will be the final defining and enduring legacy of Governor Michell Lujan Grisham.

If one or both fail to get enacted by the legislature, you can expect Governor Lujan Grisham will likely call a special session to get passage before her term ends on January 1, 2027, when the new Governor is sworn in. Such is the fate of a Lame Duck Governor who cannot influence enough votes from her own party to get legislation she wants passed.

On Sunday, February 8, the Albuquerque Journal published the below article on the death of former Bernalillo County DA Jeff Romero.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Jeff Romero  was a very close personal family friend. I was deeply honored to have worked for him as his Chief Deputy District Attorney and helped him manage the largest District Attorney’s Office in the state employing upwards of 110 trial attorneys, paralegals, secretaries and support staff. Jeff’s dad Efrain (Frank) and my dad Paul were both barbers and actually worked as barbers together many decades ago at the Hoffmantown Barbershop in Hoffmantown Shopping Center on Menaul. Jeff was a true gentleman and an exceptional trial attorney. I already miss him deeply. My thoughts and prayers go out to him and his lovely wife Evangelina and all of his family during this difficult time.

ABQ Journal Headline: “Epitome of a public servant”: Former Bernalillo County DA Jeff Romero dies

BY GREGORY R.C. HASMAN, JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

JEFF ROMERO / 1945-2026

Albuquerque native was a lawyer for over 50 years.

Former 2nd Judicial District Attorney Jeff Romero is remembered for “bringing hardened criminals to justice” and successfully advocating for the construction of the Bernalillo County DA’s modern office building.

Romero died Jan. 28 of complications from Parkinson’s disease. He was 80.

“He was the epitome of a public servant,” said Pete Dinelli, Romero’s longtime friend and former chief deputy district attorney. “He was very concerned about prosecutions and bringing hardened criminals to justice.”

During his 50-plus-year career in law, Romero convinced county commissioners to fund the current Bernalillo County district attorney’s building and alleviated caseloads for attorneys. He also prosecuted high-profile cases such as the Hollywood Video murders and cracked down on businesses considered to be public nuisances.

“He understood the law, the rule of law and making sure the law was enforced and protecting the citizens of Bernalillo County,” said current 2nd Judicial District Attorney Sam Bregman, who worked for Romero.

Romero was born on Dec. 5, 1945, in Albuquerque.

As a Highland High School student, Romero’s friend Baker Morrow said, “Jeff was always fair-minded” and he thought Romero would grow up to be a “very good lawyer.”

“He had a very keen intellect and was interested in fairness and seeing if he could help people with their problems,” Morrow said.

After high school, Romero attended Michigan State University and the University of New Mexico School of Law. He would become a prosecutor, Bernalillo County assistant district attorney and statewide special prosecutor for the Attorney General’s Office before being elected district attorney in 1996.

Bregman described his former boss as a “good leader.”

“I think he was right for the times,” he said. “I mean, we had to innovate a little bit in the office … and he was very much on the forefront of a lot of things.”

Among the things Romero did was successfully lobby to get a new district attorney’s office building and implement a new system “to get a handle on the caseloads at the time,” Dinelli said.

“Some of the cases the office handled were some of the most difficult the city has ever seen,” he said.

One of those cases was the 1996 Hollywood Video murders in which five people — including three store employees — were shot and killed.

“(After Shane Harrison’s trial was moved to Las Cruces,) we made sure that our prosecutors got all the necessary resources to have a successful prosecution,” Dinelli said.

During his tenure, Romero reinstated the repeat-offender division that he headed as assistant district attorney.

“We need to draw the line when we talk about repeat offenders,” the then-DA-elect said in a Dec. 28, 1996, Albuquerque Tribune story. “When you talk to cops (on) the street, they keep saying, ‘We see the same people over and over again.’ We need to put a stop to that.”

Romero’s office also cracked down on businesses considered public nuisances like Five Points Hall, a once-popular South Valley dance hall that was notorious for its late-night parking lot drag races, public drunkenness and brawls, according to an April 16, 2000, article in the Journal.

No one has a “right to engage in a business that is a public nuisance that disturbs the peace, tranquility or economic health of a neighborhood,” Romero said in a Sept. 11, 1997, Journal article.

During his career, Romero received multiple honors, including being named president of the New Mexico District Attorney’s Association.

After leaving the DA’s office, Romero returned to private practice and continued working until 2024.

“He was a gentleman and he was truly an individual that cared about his community,” Dinelli said.

Romero is survived by his wife, Evangelina Trujillo Romero; sons David Romero and Michael Romero; daughter Rebecca Jarvis; stepson Edmund Trujillo; and stepdaughters Donna Levi, Ursula Richards and Charlene Grasty.

Gregory R.C. Hasman is a general assignment reporter and the Road Warrior. He can be reached at ghasman@abqjournal.com or 505-823-3820.

 The link to the Albuquerque Journal article with photos can be found here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/epitome-of-a-public-servant-former-bernalillo-county-da-jeff-romero-dies/2973272

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:

• stelles@cabq.gov
• stephenchavez@cabq.gov
• joaquinbaca@cabq.gov
• bacajoaquin9@gmail.com
• namolina@cabq.gov
• kpena@cabq.gov
• cquezada@cabq.gov
• bbassan@cabq.gov
• dawnmarie@cabq.gov
• danlewis@cabq.gov
• galvarez@cabq.gov
• nrogers@cabq.gov
• district6@cabq.gov
• tfiebelkorn@cabq.gov
• seanforan@cabq.gov
• dchampine@cabq.gov
• eromero@cabq.gov
• rgrout@cabq.gov
• rrmiller@cabq.gov

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

On February 3, with no debate, the New Mexico House of Representatives voted unanimously to pass Senate Bill 1, the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Act.  SB 1 expands access to healthcare by allowing licensed, qualified providers in other states to serve New Mexicans through the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact.  The bill  will go a long way in addressing the state’s health care worker shortage.

The 64-0 vote comes after the New Mexico Senate approved the bill also with no opposition. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham  has 72 hours to sign the bill to make it law.  Once signed by the Governor, New Mexico would become the 38th state in the compact.

The House has passed seven additional compacts that would give patients access to out-of-state physical and occupational therapists, dentists, and social workers. Those bills are in the New Mexico Senate. State Representative Liz Thomson said the law will  increase access to telehealth options so people don’t have to travel far for appointments that can be held remotely.

Supporters, including co-sponsor Sen. Linda Trujillo (D-Santa Fe), have also been quick to acknowledge that SB1 isn’t a cure-all. She has  previously said  that she believes other measures, including loan forgiveness for health care workers and affordable housing, are sorely needed to attract and retain physicians.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle share that sentiment. In one of the only comments lawmakers issued from the floor of the House Tuesday, Rep. Gail Armstrong (R-Magdalena) said that entering the compact will make it exceedingly easy for New Mexico doctors to leave the state unless lawmakers also enact meaningful medical malpractice reform.

Representative Armstrong, who was a co-sponsor of SB 1,  said this after she voted yes to pass the bill:

“This is not a silver bullet. … We are with the signage of this, and if the governor signs it, we are giving them a full tank of gas to be able to go to other states, as well. Without medical malpractice reform, we will not fix this, and I am a little disappointed this has come before the other.” 

A medical malpractice proposal cleared its first hurdle in the Legislature when the House Health and Human Services Committee voted to advance it, but not before Republicans objected to an “unfriendly amendment” that would not cap punitive damages for corporate-owned hospitals. Physicians who practice in those hospitals would still be covered, though.

Patient safety advocates argue that giving hospitals more protection under the state’s medical malpractice laws will  undermine other necessary changes, such as improved hospital staffing levels.

Fred Nathan, the  founder and executive director of Think New Mexico, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for New Mexicans, expressed strong support for Senate Bill 1. Nathan said this:

 “We have a serious doctor shortage in New Mexico. We’re the only state that’s lost doctors for the last five years, and Senate Bill One is an easy and smart way to begin to address that doctor shortage. … But with the compact, they’re accepted as if they’re New Mexico doctors.”

Nathan said  the bill will help alleviate the state’s doctor shortage by automatically licensing out-of-state doctors when they come to New Mexico. It also benefits patients who have specialists in other states, as currently, out-of-state doctors cannot provide advice over the phone without a New Mexico license

Kathy Love, who represents patients suffering due to malpractice, also supported Senate Bill One, provided that all doctors are held to the same standards as those licensed in New Mexico. Love said this:

 “As long as there are guardrails to make sure that if we’re bringing in doctors from out of state, we’re bringing in good doctors and not doctors who are running from problems in other states.”

Currently, 42 other states, along with D.C. and Guam, are part of the compact. Kathy Love, who represents patients suffering due to malpractice, also supports Senate Bill One, provided that all doctors are held to the same standards as those licensed in New Mexico.

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-bill-aims-to-tackle-doctor-shortage-with-medical-compact/70239021

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/legislature/bill-making-it-easier-for-medical-workers-to-work-in-new-mexico-heads-to-the-governors-desk/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/roundhouse-rundown-interstate-medical-compact-immigrant-safety-act-greenhouse-gas-reduction/

https://sourcenm.com/2026/02/03/nm-house-unanimously-approves-interstate-medical-compact-bill/?fbclid=IwY2xjawPvl3xleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeDBwZX8Nd8V8LNL61WKj0tzi0oUbGaQagy2zX-vRQU-SBXz05HpT6dJYKwc4_aem_Q28OU-UBqxzS2ly8O3dkHg

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The fact that the  New Mexico House of Representatives and the New Mexico State Senate both unanimously and with little to no debate enacted  the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Act is testament to the seriousness of the shortage of licensed medical professionals in New Mexico. With any luck, the New Mexico legislature will also enact meaningful medical malpractice legislation which is still pending.

2026 NM Legislative Update: Bipartisan Medical Malpractice Reform Bill “Gutted” In Committee; Advances To Second Committee For Further Consideration; Governor MLG Threatens Special Session If No Legislation Past

On Friday, January 30, a bipartisan attempt to overhaul New Mexico’s medical malpractice laws cleared its first assigned NM Legislature committee, but only after a sweeping change was made to the bill over the sponsor’s opposition. House Bill 99 known as the Medical Malpractice Reform bill passed the House Health and Human Services Committee by a vote 7-3, but only after the committee passed an “unfriendly amendment” that  eliminated  caps on punitive damages for corporately owned hospitals. An “unfriendly amendment” is one  that the bill’s sponsor does not support.

House Bill 99 would set caps on punitive damages in malpractice cases, pay for plaintiffs’ medical costs as they’re incurred and increase the standard of proof needed to award damages. The amendment excludes hospital systems and hospitals owned by out-of-state corporations from a proposed $6 million cap on punitive damages. A smaller $1 million cap would be put in place for independent doctors.  The medical malpractice reform bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos) and as  originally introduced is backed by New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, who crafted  House Bill 99 and is sponsoring  it along with  two dozen other lawmakers, called the  amendment  to the bill “short-sighted.”  Chandler  pointed out most of New Mexico’s hospitals, including those run by Presbyterian Health Services,  would not be covered by the proposed punitive damages cap.  According to the New Mexico Hospital Association, the only hospitals covered by the cap would be hospitals in Taos, Grants, Gallup, Farmington and Las Cruces. Chandler told the Albuquerque Journal this  after the  hearing:

“I don’t think it strikes the right balance in the legislation we need. ”

Supporters of House Bill 99 argue that the bill is a key step in fixing the state’s health care worker shortage. Republicans and Democrats worked on the original  bill  in a unified effort. The unified effort was destroyed when Representative  Liz Thomson (D-Albuquerque), who proposed the amendment, said she believed it was important not to cap punitive damages for hospitals owned by out-of-state corporations or private equity firms. Thomson said this:

“We want to tell these huge national corporations that they cannot cut corners on medical care and leave people damaged.”

Feliz Rael, President of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association,  an organization that historically and consistently has opposed medical malpractice reform,  said this:
“While the bill isn’t perfect, we are very pleased to see protection for patients that are harmed by multi-billion-dollar corporations.”  

State Rep. Alan Martinez, R-Bernalillo, warned that the last-minute amendment was simply  unfair because Republicans and Democrats had agreed to the original bill text and it was  partially “gutted” by the amendment.

House Minority Whip Alan Martinez, R-Bernalillo, who voted against the committee amended bill, said this:

“It’s very hard for me to support the amended bill, because I think we gutted a good bill with that. … We were going to fix medical malpractice. Now we’re carving out certain people. … You have taken a good, negotiated bill and poisoned it with this amendment.”

Committee Democrats who voted to support the bill after the  “unfriendly amendment” said they believed it would empower plaintiffs. Rep. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces) said the amendment would give “the right back to the jury to hold multi-billion dollar corporations accountable.”

Representative Chandler  told reporters she believes the majority of physicians in the state work at the corporately owned hospitals that the amendment would impact. Although the amendment still extends protections to those practitioners, Chandler said she believes the lack of a cap for their employers could still affect whether doctors want to work there.

HB 99  approved as amended by the committee did make several other changes in addition to the punitive damages cap. That includes clarifying how many medical malpractice claims can be filed for a single medical injury and extending hospitals’ participation in a patient compensation fund through 2029.

During the January 30  hearing of the House Health and Human Services Committee, Chandler said the bill would be pushed forward regardless of the amendments and said this:

“I know many of us are concerned about the real and perceived health care shortage in the state. ”

After the committee hearing, Chandler was asked by the media if she thought the amendment threatened her bill’s future.  She said this:

“Not clear. I have to assess. … We may keep talking about this for a while.”

Representative Chandler said that  if HB 99 fails to get enacted, she would not be surprised if Lujan Grisham calls a special session later in the year to address malpractice.

House Bill 99 as amended will now be heard by the House Judiciary Committee which bill sponsor Rep. Christine Chandler chairs. The bill must pass the full House and Senate before the session ends Feb. 19.

DEAL ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES DIFFICULT

The state does have a cap on compensatory damages that cover actual losses such as medical bills and lost wages. However, New Mexico has no limit on punitive damages which  are awarded to address reckless and willful misconduct.  HB 99 bill supporters of say punitive damages have led to disproportionate awards of damages  against hospitals, attracted out-of-state malpractice attorneys to New Mexico and driven up the cost of malpractice insurance.  A legislative analysis of the bill says medical malpractice insurance premiums could drop by 3% if the measure is enacted.

Trial lawyers, hospital administrators and physician groups have taken part in closed-door negotiations organized by the Governor’s Office to try to strike a deal on changes to the medical malpractice laws.  Those talks stalled  due to disagreements over whether some of the largest hospital corporations in the state should get the same limits on punitive damages as independent physicians.

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://sourcenm.com/2026/01/30/new-mexico-medical-malpractice-bill-clears-its-first-hurdle/

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2026/01/30/democrats-surprise-with-amendment-to-exempt-doctors-but-not-hospitals-from-punitive-lawsuit-damages/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/medical-malpractice-bill-advances-after-committee-excludes-most-hospitals-from-punitive-damages-cap/2971595

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

New Mexico’s medical malpractice laws have for decades been at the center of “tort reform” efforts to place caps on punitive damages and attorney’s fees in lawsuits filed in medical malpractice cases.  Medical malpractice reform has emerged as hot-button issue during 2026 thirty day New Mexico Legislative session predominately because of a statewide health care provider shortage and rising hospital insurance costs.

Supporters of changing the state’s current medical malpractice laws have cited a recent legislative survey that found 65% of currently practicing physicians are considering leaving the state to practice elsewhere. Of those doctors, most cited the potential of stiff punitive damages stemming from medical malpractice cases as the reason.

Patient safety advocates argue that giving hospitals more protection under the state’s medical malpractice laws will undermine other necessary changes, such as improved hospital staffing levels.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has urged lawmakers to act on the issue  before the session ends February 19.  She also has  said she will  consider calling a Special Session if no bill on medical malpractice reform is  approved by the 2026 Legislature.

It’s a damn shame that so much progress was made with the bipartisan attempt to overhaul New Mexico’s medical malpractice laws only to be gutted in committee. Such is the politics of New Mexico that plays out in Santa Fe.

This “News and Commentary” article is a report on legislation introduced to be considered during the 30 day session of the 2026 New Mexico Legislature. The article was researched and written by private citizen Steve Holman who is a concerned citizen and a homeowner who resides in Albuquerque. He is very concerned about what is in the best interest of  his community.  Mr. Holman has not been compensated for his article and it is being published as a public service by the News and Commentary blog www.PeteDinelli.com.

House Bill 0103, Senate Bill 031 And HB-0138 Promote Statewide Real Property “Upzoning”; All 3 Bills Wrong For New Mexico, Favors Developers And Investors, Promotes Gentrification As State Policy

BY: Steve Holman, Albuquerque Resident

There is currently a major battle  brewing in the City of Albuquerque and now in the 2026 New Mexico Legislature over the enactment of major changes to all  zoning laws and to allow “upzoning” on how  all properties (residential, commercial and industrial property) are zoned for development. The upzoning will likely lead to gentrification and increased property taxes.

“Upzoning is a land-use planning tool that changes existing zoning regulations to permit more intensive development in specific areas already zoned. Zoning laws govern how property can be used, including housing density, minimum lot sizes, building heights, and parking requirements. Upzoning alters these rules to increase permitted density or intensity of use, allowing more units per acre, taller buildings, or different uses like commercial establishments in residential zones. This process does not directly create new housing but removes regulatory barriers, incentivizing new construction.”

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

https://legalclarity.org/what-is-upzoning-and-how-does-the-legal-process-work/

Gentrification is the  process in which wealthier, privileged, typically white individuals move into neighborhoods that are largely populated by poor and working-class residents who are frequently and predominantly people of colour, the newcomers ultimately displacing the original residents. The privileged group includes both individuals and businesses, and often their interests in occupying a particular neighborhood  diverge from those of the neighbourhood’s original residents. Proponents of gentrification sometimes argue that an influx of affluent residents to disinvested neighborhoods brings much-needed investment into the area; however, this process often displaces most of the area’s longtime residents and businesses because of rising costs of living. 

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

https://www.britannica.com/topic/gentrification

In Albuquerque, the attempt to implement upzoning was done via the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO) which is all the city’s zoning laws. It faced strenuous opposition. Hundreds of residents contacted the city council, with letters and petition signatures submitted in opposition and with local neighborhood associations and community advocacy groups standing in opposition. During the Land Use Planning and Zoning committee hearing on January 28, 2026, upzoning was gutted from the IDO  amendments. On February18, the full 9 member Albuquerque City Council will vote on the final 140 amendments to the IDO.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Residential zoning covers 27% of Albuquerque’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. The amendments to Albuquerque’s Integrated Development Ordinance was an attempt  to double or triple housing density in established neighborhoods by allowing duplex,  condominium or apartment development in all 120,000 residential lots in established and built out neighborhoods. The goal is to increase affordable housing. It will not. The proposed amendments to the IDO included a mandate for “upzoning” of all existing residential properties to double or triple density in established neighborhoods as permissive use requiring no city applications with no rights to contest nor appeal the upgrading by adjoining property owners. The mandatory upzoning would allow for the development of apartment or commercial use, such as bodegas, on all corner lots in residential areas bordering main thorough fares.

With Upzoning legislation thus far failing in Albuquerque, sinister political maneuvering has now begun with a few Democrat legislators sponsoring legislation to make Upzoning state-wide by introducing legislation into the 30 day 2026 New Mexico Legislature. Their goal is sweeping and dramatic. They want to remove many zoning powers from county governments and municipalities under the guise of increasing affordable housing. Powerful forces, both private and political, are at work seeking to ensure Upzoning and gentrification are  the new state policy under the false premise and in response to increasing affordable housing.

HB-0103 ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE STATE TAX LAW AFFECTING ALL COUNTY ASSESSORS

One controversy with Upzoning has been its impact on real property taxes, both residential and commercial property. The current state law says that if you re-zone a property, the 3% cap on how much your taxes may be increased would no longer apply. With Upzoning changes, many could see re-assessment on their taxes at market rate with significant property tax increases as a result.

House Representatives Cristina Parajon and Heather Berghmans have introduced house bill HB-0103 to make it so that zoning changes don’t take away the 3% cap. However, what is very damning to this bill is the fiscal impact report.

Within the fiscal impact report on HB-0103 much of its results are extremely worrying.  The report says this:

“Valuating the fiscal impact of this bill is difficult due to limited information on the scope of potentially affected properties and current assessor practices related to zoning changes. …  [T]he potential impact on property tax revenues cannot be reliably quantified.” 

The state is already seeing reduced personal property tax revenue due to expansions in exemptions. The collection of this revenue is important in funding public services. Because there is no reliable consistent data from any single county in the state, they cannot quantify how much of an impact this proposed change would have on tax revenue or how it could impact services.

Further into the impact report it points out several significant issues stating as follows:

“By removing zoning changes as a trigger for revaluation, the bill places greater emphasis on determining whether a change in use has occurred, which may require additional documentation, site review, or interpretation.” 

The report goes on to say this:

“The bill does not define “change in use,” which could increase administrative complexity, contribute to inconsistent application across counties, and result in additional valuation disputes or appeals.” 

By removing the zoning change as a trigger for reassessment this means that assessors would have to rely on their own interpretations of use and what could constitute a change of use as well. There is no single state-wide legal definition, so it varies between each municipality and county. 

It is more likely than not that this lack of definition and uniformity will lead to class action lawsuits and legal challenges against county assessors. This also means that your county assessor could potentially interpret change in use as the property now allowing for permissive uses like townhomes, apartments, duplexes, and retail if you were Upzoned.

Considering the impacts of these changes with unclear definitions and potential for loss of property tax revenue, local county assessors have thus far been derelict in their duties not to oppose the legislation.

The link to review House Bill 103 is here:

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/house/HB0103.html

SENATE BILL 0131 ATTEMPTS TO IMPLEMENT UPZONING STATE-WIDE

The purpose and concept behind Upzoning must be revisited.  The idea is that if you allow permissive use of townhomes, apartments, duplexes, and retail within single family zoning, it removes restrictions and allows for increased development that will hopefully lower costs and increase affordable housing. This is being touted as a solution to affordable housing, despite no mandate for any affordable housing to be built or any legislation to regulate price speculation.

Studies about Upzoning are still emerging and are limited in scope, but the data released is reflecting that Upzoning actually fosters gentrification.  It most often impacts low income and non-white communities. It also has been shown to have little impact on housing inventory and price.

This has been fought in Albuquerque, because it utilizes many tools of gentrification as Upzoning proposed in the IDO;

• Allows zoning changes for higher density
• Relaxes regulatory measures
• Does not mandate affordable housing of any type
• Excludes community involvement/empowerment by lawsuits being their only recourse
• Includes amenities like retail
• Places no measures against real estate price speculation
• Has no anti-displacement measures for existing residents
• Removes protections of historic neighborhoods and sites like The Petroglyphs via removal of height restrictions.

In essence, Upzoning is a deregulatory developer handout that removes many of the guardrails of zoning allowing developers to build what they want wherever they want.

Enter Senate Bill SB-0131 which has been proposed by Senator Antonio “Moe” Maestas.

SB-0131 seeks to implement Upzoning state-wide, but this bill has a massive amount of side effects.

THREE MAJOR DOWNSIDES TO SENATE BILL 0131

There are three major downsides to Senate Bill 0131 and they are:

FIRST: There would be the removal of powers from local municipalities by taking away their ability to manage the following:

 The height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures

• The percent a lot may be occupied
• The size of yards, courts, and other open space
• The density of population
• The location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes.
• The ability to divide the territory under its jurisdiction into districts
• Regulate or restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings, structures or land in each district

If SB-0131 is enacted, the above decisions on zoning would now reside with the state instead of local municipalities or counties, removing the ability of individual towns, cities and counties submitted to have any means of self-determination in addressing growth.

SECOND: The enactment of Upzoning by the state will require all county and state municipalities to:

• Accommodate one additional dwelling unit within each lot in a single-family zoning district as a permissive use;
• Eliminate restrictions on building height and number of stories
• Not prohibit residential apartments in commercial zones
• Not prohibit duplexes and townhouses in residential zones or on mixed-use lots
• Allow in residential zones development for small-scale commercial uses that provide neighborhood-scale convenience shopping, food, beverages, indoor entertainment or professional offices; provided that the uses comply with local rules governing traffic and noise
• Not implement minimum parking mandates (a law, a rule or an ordinance that specifies a minimum number of off-street vehicle parking spaces, including within a garage or other enclosed area)

THIRD: SB-0131 also seeks to move all disputes about zoning or complaints to state district courts instead of using local established means.  That means residents and municipalities only have filing a law suit as a response to any issues.

If you compare what SB-0131 enacts to what is currently being attempted in Albuquerque, you can see the desired results line up exactly, but now it removes local municipalities and counties of their autonomy and gives massive new zoning powers for the state to manage.

All of this is being done in the name of “affordable housing,” but it in no way allocates for any measures to address the affordability of homes and instead seeks to use our existing communities as a means for developers and investors to further buy up residential homes.  Now they can utilize existing infrastructure in established neighborhoods to build what they want wherever they want with market rate prices.

The link to review Senate Bill 0131 is here

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/senate/SB0131.HTML

HB-0138  REMOVES COUNTY AND MUCIPALITIES HISTORICAL POWER TO MANAGE LOT SIZE

Lastly, we have house bill HB-0138 introduced by State Representative Andrea Romero that adds to the list of legislative sleight of hand. Existing law gives all counties and municipalities the zoning authority to regulate and restrict building heights, number of stories and size of buildings on lots. Existing law gives counties and municipalities the authority to  regulate use and density and impose restrictions on the actual size of lots where development and construction can happen. HB-0138 would prohibit both county and municipal zoning authorities from imposing lot size requirements for residential property. HB-0138 essentially consolidates and gives power to the state and removes local self-determination from all counties and municipalities.

The link to review HB-0138 is here:

Click to access HB0138.pdf

ONLY DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CAN AFFORD AND WILL BENEFIT

Most regular citizens can’t afford to convert their properties with Upzoning.  Developers and corporate interests certainly can and they see value in Albuquerque’s single-family homes in the amount of $14.2 billion alone.

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-basedcustom 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. A high-endcustom 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 featureswould range between $200 to $400 per 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.

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.

It is no wonder support of Upzoning is backed by pro-real estate and pro-developer groups like NAIOP (a Commercial Real Estate Development Association), the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, the New Mexico Home Builders Association and the Apartment Association of New Mexico. These are all major players in our real estate market that have furthered policies that have led to our current crisis of housing affordability.  They also have all openly pledged their support behind SB-0131 and Senator Antonio “Moe” Maestas in a piece they wrote published in the Albuquerque Journal.

Follow the money and you will see that our state is currently up for sale to the highest bidder.  They are having a hard time passing this in Albuquerque, so now the entire state has been made the sacrificial lamb to slaughter.

If these pieces of developer handout legislation were to be passed, only time will tell how the legal response from residents, local municipalities, and county assessors offices could be.

CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR

Please email the State of New Mexico House and Senate and tell them NO to HB-0103 and SB-0131.

Please tell them that this handout to developer interests will allow for gentrification and takes power and self-determination away from residents and local municipalities.

house@nmlegis.gov

senate@nmlegis.gov

Senator Antonio “Moe” Maestas:

505-986-4373

antonio.maestas@nmlegis.gov

Representative Cristina Parajon:

505-986-4436

cristina.parajon@nmlegis.gov

Representative Heather Berghmans:

505-986-4726

heather.berghmans@nmlegis.gov

Representative Andrea Romero:

505-986-4327

andrea@andrearomero.com

Email Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/contact-the-governor/

Links to the legislation:

SB-0131 – https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/senate/SB0131.HTML

HB-0103 – https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/house/HB0103.html

Impact Report HB-0103 – https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/firs/HB0103.PDF

HB-0138 – https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26 Regular/bills/house/HB0138.HTML