On September 2, Jaemes Shanley filed his  Declaration of Intent to be a write-in candidate for City Council District 7 along with 500 nominating petition signatures of registered voters. The Bernalillo County Clerk verified the signatures as registered voters and certified Jaemes Shanley’s write in candidacy.

City Council District 7 is the mid heights city council district currently represented by first term City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn. The district includes the uptown retail business district including the Commons, Winrock and Coronado Shopping Center. The District boundaries are generally Montgomery Boulevard on the North, I-25 on the West, Lomas on the South and Eubank on the East.

Jaemes Shanley is the President of the Mark Twain Neighborhood Association located in the mid heights and is the Vice President of the District 7 Coalition of Neighborhoods which boasts membership of 14 neighborhood associations. His complete biography is in the postscript.

Jaemes Shanley submitted the following announcement of his candidacy to  be published as a public service announcement with no charge by www.PeteDinelli.com:

“I AM RUNNING A WRITE-IN CAMPAIGN FOR DISTRICT 7 CITY COUNCIL – THIS IS WHY

The choice to mount a write-in campaign for public office is not a trivial pursuit, regardless of age or political experience. 

Neither is it easy to watch and experience the city you have known for 56 years fall into decay, neglect, and functional stasis in the face of what is, figuratively speaking, a three-alarm fire.

I believe Albuquerque’s elected governance is well intentioned. Yet it has failed to deliver needed remedies for a city-wide crisis that is unraveling the fabric of an orderly and thriving urban life.

Big problems are typically complicated and often interconnected.  That does not make them insoluble.  It simply demands more outreach and collaboration within the community to apply talent, experience, resources and commitment with laser focus to define and implement the solution.

 In 1983, as a resident of Australia, I witnessed and experienced a nation tackle and resolve an existential crisis by doing that.  A newly elected Prime Minister gathered all parties with capacities and interests bearing on  intractable stagflation and produced an “Accord” which unshackled the economy and remained in effect for 13 years.

 The salient problem facing Albuquerque today is that public safety, commercial vitality, and growth are all being checked by the failure to resolve the emergency level crisis of thousands of people living unsheltered and unprotected on our streets, subject to a host of depredations that include weather and temperature extremes, squalor, addiction, behavioral health impairment, petty to major criminality and worse.

Over the past 8 years, our city government has built a massive Gateway System at great cost to address this problem yet, as can be seen on our streets and, too frequently in our neighborhoods, street homelessness remains essentially unchanged, if not worse.

Failed strategies should have a short lifespan, not be permitted to grow into an “unhoused building/industrial complex”.

 Perceived anxiety among Albuquerque’s residents drives local government to endorse approaches to these unhoused populations that can be as cruel as they are ineffective.  Pushing people from one unhoused location to another is relocation not resolution.  Too often the methods used add more layers of trauma to afflicted individuals as they watch their already meagre belongings crushed in the back of a Solid Waste truck.

 There are those who believe this issue can be resolved by a shift in priority from “unhoused industrial complex” to “carceral industrial complex”.   That might clear the streets in the short term but what are the costs and long-term implications for Albuquerque of maintaining a “factory” that is virtually guaranteed to transition thousands from petty to hardened criminality?

 We can do better.   The resources, experience and skills exist in Albuquerque to formulate and implement a practical plan of action to end street homeless at its present scale so we can recover the vast areas of our city that have been surrendered to this crisis.  If that requires innovative outside-the-box approaches and an unprecedented degree of engagement, coordination and collaboration between city, county, and state government and the non-government individuals and organizations able to contribute value, effectiveness, and alacrity, why not?

Albuquerque City Council should be working in tandem with a Mayoral administration dedicated to the proposition that Albuquerque is a city that deserves and must have the unimpaired and unimpeded potential to build flourishing, safe, and vibrant community throughout.

That requires Ordinances and Resolutions that are carefully and honestly crafted to address real problems, not to push hidden agendas or “fix” what is not broken, like single family neighborhoods.

It requires monitoring and holding accountable the Administration to deliver efficiently on its core mission to service the community, be that public safety or Planning Department execution of Permitting, Inspections, and Code Enforcement.

It requires the entire city government to recognize, support, and celebrate locally owned business enterprises.

Making Albuquerque whole and healthy again is neither mission impossible nor is it a rewind back to the better days I have witnessed. It is the essential first step required to realize a future Albuquerque that combines its incomparable and unique magic with rational adaptation to future needs so that it becomes the best it has ever been.

I do not accept that Albuquerque should remain so far short of its potential.  It must once again become a compelling home and destination for business entrepreneurs, skilled professionals, young families, providing well—paying jobs with future-defining sustainable industries and innovative businesses.  

There is urgent work to be done to make that happen…….and that is why I am running a Write-in campaign for District 7 City Council.”

I respectfully ask for the vote of all District 7 residents  on November 4.

SINCERELY

Jaemes Shanley

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It would be a major mistake to discount the write in candidacy of Jaemes Shanley against Tammy Feibelkorn given her unpopularity within  District 7. Jaemes Shanley’s emerging support from voters who want change and are tired of Feibelkorn’s failure to represent their best interests are the reasons for his write in candidacy. This is why Shanley was able to secure over 500 qualifying petition signatures by going door to door with supporters in just a few weeks.

First term City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn is considered highly unpopular within City Council District 7 because of her sponsorship or support of controversial major legislation that has failed to be enacted by the city council during her four year tenure. The legislation has included her unwavering support of city sanctioned “safe out door spaces” for the homeless and her sponsorship of legislation  to increase density in establish neighborhoods.

City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn sponsored R 25-167 which was the “opt in” zoning law ordinance to create a voluntary rezoning process that would let property owners switch to higher-density zoning if they want to build more housing on their residential properties. The Planning Department would have very broad authority to increase density with adjoining property owners having no rights to object. It would allow duplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods to increase density.  Feibelkorn proclaimed  it will increase affordable housing. It will not. Feibelkorn has a “Field of Dreams” zoning philosophy of  “if we rezone it, they will build it,” ignoring adjacent property owner rights, favoring developers and investors.  Feibelkorn “opt-in” zoning ordinance is clearly “overkill” that will affect all quadrants of the city favoring developers and investors. It will destroy the character of established neighborhoods and lead to gentrification. It will be developers and investors on the prowl who will purchase existing homes for the development of duplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods.

Feibelkorn stubbornly supported and voted for changes to the city’s zoning laws that eliminated adjoining property owner’s rights to appeal zoning changes and requiring appealing neighborhood associations to pay the attorney fees of developers who prevailed in seeking zoning changes.

City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn is the major proponent of the Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) “pilot project” in District 7 that proposes to “retrofit” older neighborhoods with a destructive burden strenuously opposed to by area residents. GSI involves extensive excavations of streets the city claims are needed to capture stormwater and infiltrate it to groundwater. Opponents say it won’t and that studies show the  bio swales need to be located above the water table within 5 to 18 feet. The water table is too far down for this to work yet millions will be spent.

When asked by her constituents to reconsider her positions, she simply says NO and says she has made up her mind even before the legislation is debated by the full city council. It is her votes, actions and her overt hostility to constituents who disagree with her that has resulted in voters believing she is not acting in their best interests.

New Mexico law requires elections to allow for write-in candidates, but only if they have been properly qualified for the election to allow their votes to be counted. A write-in candidate must be considered a candidate for all purposes and provisions relating to candidates in the Local Election Act, except that the write-in candidate’s name shall not be printed on the ballot nor posted in any polling place. On election day November 4 registered voters must physically write Jaemes Shanley name on the ballot in the blank space provided and not vote for Tammy Fiebelkorn.

On November 4, voters of District 7, which includes the author of this blog, are encourage to write in the name of Jaemes Shanley on the ballot in the blank space provided.

_________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

BIOGRAPHY OF JAEMES SHANLEY 

Jaemes Shanley first arrived in Albuquerque in August 1969, after graduating High School in England, to attend UNM from which he graduated in 1973.  His parents followed a year later, and his father retired in Albuquerque after a 30-year career as a US Naval aviator.  In 1971 they purchased a home in the Mark Twain neighborhood where they resided for the remainder of their lives.  Jaemes worked in the private sector in sales, marketing, and business strategy for U.S. corporations in Australia, Japan, and the United States.  His work required extensive travel throughout Asia Pacific and Latin America, routinely on the ground in more than 30 countries.  Jaemes and his wife returned to Albuquerque in September 2006 to renovate and take up residence in his parent’s Mark Twain neighborhood home where they reside today on their family “compound” along with 5 rescued cats.  Jaemes drives the corridors of Albuquerque on an almost daily basis to deliver carrots to his horse, Rembrandt, who resides in Corrales.

Links to guest columns written by Jaemes Shanley:

Jaemes Shanley Guest Opinion Column: Councilor Fiebelkorn’s “Opt In” Zoning Proposal Reflected Willful Ignorance Of Our City’s Obvious Needs

Jaemes Shanley Guest Opinion Column: A Mark Twain Neighborhood Perspective Of Albuquerque

Jaemes Shanley Guest Opinion Column: The Audacity of Contempt

The Albuquerque Journal Editorial Opinion pages feature 5 types of opinion columns submitted for publication: those by the paper’s Editorial Board, those by the paper’s Community Council, those by Syndicated Columnists, those by Local Columnists and those by Local Voices.

“Local Columnists are tasked with carrying a heavy load of responsibility to help readers scrutinize issues impacting them, their community and their country. It is the Journal’s goal to publish columnists from all walks of life and varying political viewpoints to give readers exposure to all sides of local issues.”

All headlines for Albuquerque Journal guest opinion columns published are written by Journal editors and not the columnists. 

On September 8 the  Albuquerque Journal published on its editorial opinion page the below “Local Columnist” opinion column by Pete Dinelli:

JOURNAL EDITOR’S HEADLINE: Keller Proposed Policies Would Violate Property And Contract Rights

BY PETE DINELLI, LOCAL COLUMNIST

Mayor Tim Keller requested sponsorship and promoted enactment of three controversial pieces of legislation that divided the City Council and the community. The legislation generated hostility and mistrust. The legislation would interfere with people’s property rights and contract rights, increase the number of sanctioned homeless encampments and destroy established neighborhoods by increasing density. On Aug. 13, the City Council Land Use, Planning and Zoning committee voted to kill all three measures. The full City Council should do the same.

The Renter’s Empowerment and Neighborhood Transparency (RENT) ordinance is government overreaching, interfering with real property rights and the right of contract with the ultimate goal being rent control. There is no need for the RENT ordinance. The Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act enumerates the responsibilities, rights and remedies of both owners and tenants which are enforced by the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court. The RENT ordinance constitutes an abusive interference with the operation and management of rental properties. Requiring more of property owners and landlords and less of tenants amounts to interference with property contract rights and obligations. One point of major contention is that renters should not be mandated by landlords to carry “renters insurance” and not be subject to extensive background and credit checks. These requirements are reasonable and necessary to manage rental properties and to protect the property owner and renters.

“Safe Outdoor Spaces” are organized, managed homeless encampments. Current zoning law allows two homeless encampments for upward of 50 people in all the nine City Council districts with regulations mandating hand-washing stations, toilets and showers, 6-foot fencing and require 24/7 security. Keller’s proposed legislation would relax or eliminate regulations to allow expansion of the Safe Outdoor Spaces program with the goal of increasing the number. Keller said the city needs to “scale up” by allowing smaller encampments. Keller wants as many as 100 smaller Safe Outdoor Spaces to accommodate 1,000 homeless. “Safe Outdoor Spaces” represent disaster for the city. “Safe Outdoor Spaces” will destroy neighborhoods, make the city a magnet for the homeless. They undercut the city’s efforts to manage the homeless through shelters and permanent housing and the integrated shelter system of five shelters.

R 25-167 is Keller’s proposed ordinance to create a voluntary rezoning process that would let property owners switch to higher-density zoning if they want to build more housing on their residential properties. The Planning Department would have very broad authority to increase density with adjoining property owners having no rights to object. It would allow duplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods to increase density. Keller proclaims it will increase affordable housing. It will not. Keller has a “Field of Dreams” zoning philosophy of  “if we rezone it, they will build it,” ignoring adjacent property owner rights, favoring developers and investors. Keller’s “opt-in” zoning is clearly “overkill” that will affect all quadrants of the city favoring developers and investors. It will destroy the character of established neighborhoods and lead to gentrification. It will be developers and investors on the prowl who will purchase existing homes for the development of duplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods.

Voters must decide if Keller is acting in their best interests or simply promoting and doubling down on his failed policies. Voters will decide Nov. 4 if Keller is elected to a third term. It’s time we elect a new mayor for a new direction.

Pete Dinelli is a former Albuquerque city councilor, former chief public safety officer and former chief deputy district attorney. You can read his daily news and commentary blog at www.PeteDinelli.com

The link to the Albuquerque Journal guest column is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/article_3ce473a9-9883-44f2-a066-9db48ca6acd4.html

 POSTSCRIPT

The Albuquerque Journal has a 600-word limitation on all opinion columns submitted for publication by the paper. The forgoing opinion column is a condensed version of the August 18 article published on the News and Commentary blog  www.PeteDinelli.com entitled “Mayor Tim Keller’s “Renters Right Ordinance”, Relaxation of Safe Outdoor Space Restrictions, And “Opt-In” Zoning Ordinance Each Voted Down By City Council’s LUPZ Committee; Keller Doubles Down On His Failed, Divisive Policies As He Seeks A Third Term; It’s Time We Elect A New Mayor”. The original article was relied upon for fact checking purposes and provides greater detail on the 3 ordinances that Mayor Keller was promoting, the City Councilors who sponsored the ordinances, providing Analysis and Commentary on all 3 ordinances  and the final vote. Below is the link to the original article:

Mayor Tim Keller’s “Renters Right Ordinance”, Relaxation of Safe Outdoor Space Restrictions, And “Opt-In” Zoning Ordinance Each Voted Down By City Council’s LUPZ Committee; Keller Doubles Down On His Failed, Divisive Policies As He Seeks A Third Term; It’s Time We Elect A New Mayor

On September 4, after two months of speculation and hinting that she would call the New Mexico legislature into Special Session, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced by press release that she has called lawmakers back to the capital starting October 1 for a special session. The Special Session will be focused on a state-level response to federal spending reductions to Medicaid and food assistance programs.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham began suggesting  the possibility of a special session even before July 4, when President Donald Trump signed H.R.1, the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Trump’s spending bill that contains significant cuts to New Mexico’s  Medicaid and nutrition programs.

Following is the press release:

“As deep federal budget cuts threaten to compound the challenges facing New Mexico communities, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced … that she will call lawmakers into a special session starting Oct. 1 to find solutions and mitigate harm.

“New Mexicans should not be forced to shoulder these heavy burdens without help from their elected officials,” Lujan Grisham said. “After discussions with legislative leaders, we’ve resolved to do everything possible to protect essential services and minimize the damage from President Trump’s disastrous bill.”

 Lawmakers plan to consider a package of measures that could include:

 Funding to the Rural Health Care Delivery Fund to allow stabilization grants for quality health care providers.

• Taking action to make health insurance premiums more affordable in the marketplace and for New Mexicans losing Medicaid coverage.
• New investments in food assistance for children, seniors and families in need.
• Funding for public broadcasting.
• Additional resources to help the Health Care Authority prepare for upcoming Medicaid enrollment changes.

 H.R.1, which Trump signed into law on July 4, will reduce state revenues, and force the state to spend more by shifting costs from the federal government to the states. The reduction in federal Medicaid and SNAP funds alone will result in multi-billion-dollar losses annually that threaten household budgets and the survival of New Mexico’s health care system, particularly in rural areas.

 “New Mexico cannot stand by while Washington’s reckless budget cuts inflict generational harm on families and communities across the state,” Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth said. “A special session is essential to protect our rural healthcare providers, safeguard Medicaid coverage, and ensure that New Mexicans don’t bear the burden of federal failures.”

 “New Mexico is not going to allow Trump and the radical right to take food off your table or kick your family off your healthcare plan,” Speaker of the House Javier Martínez said. “We have been hard at work evaluating how this federal budget will impact New Mexico and how we can best fight back. Now, we’re ready to roll up our sleeves to protect access to the services you and your families need most.”

 The governor is also in discussions with the legislature to address behavioral health challenges that affect our criminal justice system and community safety in the special session and the upcoming 30-day session.”

The link to the press release is here:

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2025/09/04/governor-announces-special-session-to-begin-oct-1/

Special sessions are limited to no longer than 30 days under the state Constitution. The October 2025 session will be the seventh special session of the legislature called by Governor Lujan Grisham.  According to the Legislative Council Service  and going back to 2020, the average daily cost of a special session is $57,000. Last year’s single-day special session cost $92,883. That figure includes compensation for necessary session staffers. No one can say for certain how long the October 1 special session will last.  Most special sessions called in recent years have ended after a few days.

The October 1 special session will be the first called by Lujan Grisham since a July 2024 session focused on crime-related issues that ended with the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourning without taking action on most of the governor’s proposed agenda. In an effort to avoid the same fate with the October 1 session, the Governor’s Office top staffers have been meeting with Democratic legislative leaders in recent weeks about a special session spending package that could exceed $400 million. That funding would come from nearly $3.5 billion in unspent money in state reserve funds, as state revenue levels have surged to record-high levels in recent years.

Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” is in fact a large tax reduction package signed into law that  trimmed close to $1 trillion from Medicaid, Medicare and subsidies from the Affordable Care Act and $230 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, spending over the next 10 years  to pay for the tax reductions.  State health officials are warning that Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” he signed in July  could lead to more than 90,000 New Mexico residents losing health care coverage and the possible closure of rural hospitals. According to state executive and legislative branch economists the federal budget bill is projected to cost the state an average of $206 million per year over the next five years.

HOT BUTTON CRIME  LEGISLATION NOT  INCLUDED

While announcing the special session’s start date of October 1, the Governor’s Office  confirmed that hot-button legislation dealing with crime will be deferred  until the start of the 30-day regular session in January. Bills dealing with juvenile crime and firearm restrictions are  expected to be delayed until next year’s 30-day session. The governor’s office says she is  in discussions with the Legislature to address behavioral health challenges that affect the criminal justice system and community safety in the special session and during the upcoming 30-day session.

Michael Coleman, the governor’s chief spokesperson, said this:

“Lawmakers can expect a comprehensive list of requests from the governor in the 30-day session specific to public safety, such as juvenile justice, increases to penalties for various firearm crimes, and human trafficking changes, among other items.”

Other legislation expected not to be included in the Special Session is legislation targeting New Mexico’s three federal immigrant detention centers, which generated testy debate during a recent interim committee hearing. The three detention centers run by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are located in Chaparral, Estancia and Milan.

The governor’s chief general counsel told lawmakers in July that legislation banning New Mexico local governments from entering into contracts with federal agencies to detain immigrants for civil violations could be included in the special session mix.

Rep. Andrea Romero, D-Santa Fe, one of the sponsors of that legislation, said on September 4 there were ongoing discussions about specific bill details. She  said she believes there is growing momentum for such legislation.  Romero said this:

“I feel like our legislative body is definitely seeing the realities of why we need to address ICE detention in our state.”

Lujan Grisham’s Communication Director Michael Coleman confirmed that legislation to ban Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention would not be on the agenda, a possibility previously mentioned by the governor’s chief counsel that prompted renewed debate on the topic among lawmakers.

REPUBLICANS REACT

Republican lawmakers reacted to the Democrat Governor Lujan Grishams’ calling a special session by criticizing the  governor for not including crime-related issues and changes to New Mexico’s child welfare system on the special session agenda.

Senate Republican Leader Bill Sharer issued the following statement in response to the governor’s special session announcement:

“We appreciate any opportunity to provide real solutions for New Mexicans. Just as we did during last year’s failed public safety special session, Republican legislators are prepared to address the pressing issues facing our state. Based on countless conversations with constituents and concerned New Mexicans, our efforts remain focused on restoring the safety of our communities, protecting our state’s vulnerable children, and improving our access to quality health care. Democrats in the legislature have opposed our common-sense proposals to improve public safety, including needed changes to juvenile justice laws and an end to the revolving-door release of repeat violent offenders. Democrats have also refused to hold CYFD accountable for the ongoing abuse and even deaths of children under their care. And, at the urging of their trial attorney friends, Democrats have rejected efforts to reduce medical malpractice costs and to have New Mexico join the interstate medical licensure compact—both actions which would drastically improve health care access in New Mexico. We remain hopeful that Democrat lawmakers will decide to come to the table ready to collaborate on the real issues New Mexicans are concerned about, rather than engage in unproductive political theater.”

Sharer said this in a separate interview:

“It appears to me to be a taxpayer-funded anti-Trump rally. … If we’re going to have a special session and try to solve a problem, then we should try to solve a problem.”

Sharer pointed out most of the federal funding changes to Medicaid and food assistance programs contained in Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” are not scheduled to take effect until 2027 or later showing as he showed no reservations and absolutely no disdain for the cuts that are coming to the state. Republican lawmakers also questioned the extent of the funding cut estimates and cite tax breaks and other provisions in the federal bill that could benefit New Mexico residents.

Leading Republican lawmakers said they still plan to draft bills dealing with criminal penalties, New Mexico’s child welfare system and the state’s medical malpractice system, even if Lujan Grisham does not include the issues on the special session agenda.

House Minority Leader Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena, described those topics as “real emergencies” facing the state.  Armstrong said this:

“New Mexicans deserve a special session that takes these issues seriously — not another round of political theater dictated by the 4th floor of the Roundhouse.”

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-governor-legislative-special-session-2025/65984999

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/governor-announces-special-session-to-begin-oct-1/

https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/new-mexico-governor-announces-special-legislative-session-beginning-in-october/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_a8e3e153-84b0-4ac9-8d0c-9c62752e6a6b.html

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/governor-calls-lawmakers-for-special-session-starting-oct-1/article_232cf3ae-a000-465c-b074-76a7a0845f52.html

https://sourcenm.com/2025/09/04/nm-gov-announces-oct-1-for-special-session-tackling-federal-cuts-to-healthcare-nutrition-public-broadcasting/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It should come as absolutely no surprise that the Governor is not including any legislation for the special session dealing with crime-related issues. The Governor learned a harsh lesson when she called a special session in July 2024 focused on crime-related issues without a consensus reached before the session with lawmakers and it ended with the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourning without taking action on any of her proposed agenda. Simply put, unless a clear consensus can be reached on changes to the juvenile justice laws, firearm restrictions and increased criminal penalties, including such measures in a special session would simply be a waste of time.

It is absolutely clear from the Governor’s press release announcing the October 1 Special Session and the comments made by Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth and New Mexico Speaker of the House Speaker Javier Martínez a strong consensus  has been reached on how to deal with the severe budget cuts and damage done by Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” to New Mexico. The October 1 special session is designed to find ways to offset the impact of federal funding cuts passed by Congress and approved by President Trump in July. The goal is to ensure initiatives like the rural health care delivery fund and food assistance programs can continue operating and make sure Medicaid recipients do not lose health coverage.

What Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth and Speaker of the House Javier Martínez said about the Special Session is worth repeating.  

Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth said this:

“New Mexico cannot stand by while Washington’s reckless budget cuts inflict generational harm on families and communities across the state.  …. A special session is essential to protect our rural healthcare providers, safeguard Medicaid coverage, and ensure that New Mexicans don’t bear the burden of federal failures.”

Speaker of the House Javier Martínez said this:

“New Mexico is not going to allow Trump and the radical right to take food off your table or kick your family off your healthcare plan.  … We have been hard at work evaluating how this federal budget will impact New Mexico and how we can best fight back. Now, we’re ready to roll up our sleeves to protect access to the services you and your families need most.”

It is downright pathetic and so very typical of New Mexico Republican lawmakers to try and deflect the actual damage being done to the New Mexico by President Trump. Minority Republican Floor Leader Senator Bill Sharer shows just how out of touch he is with the average New Mexican when he says this:

“I’m confused as to why this burning need for a special session, especially when it doesn’t appear there’s anything special needed.”

It’s nauseating that Sharer and his Republican colleagues totally approve of all things Trump and what Trump is doing to the State and its people. To Sharer and New Mexico Republicans there is nothing special needed to protect rural health care delivery, food assistance programs and make sure Medicaid recipients do not lose health coverage until it actually happens and it’s a crisis and even then they may not act.

New Mexico Republican legislators also harp on the need to increase efforts to deal with public safety to reduce crime, especially violent crime, with those efforts  usually concentrating  on increased penalties and more incarceration and what they refer to as the revolving-door of release of repeat violent offenders. Republicans never acknowledged the need for common sense gun control legislation to reduce  the proliferation of guns used to commit violent crimes. The availability and proliferation of guns must be recognized as a big part of the state’s violent crime problem, something Republicans will never understand or they just choose to ignore.

Governor Lujan Grisham and the Senate and House leadership are correct to concentrate during the Special Session on  how to deal with the severe budget cuts and damage done by Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” to New Mexico during the Special Session. At this point, there is no need complicate a Special Session with crime legislation that no consensus can be arrived at during  what will likely be a short one or two day Special Session.

Following is a guest opinion column written by Jaemes Shanley. Mr. Shanley is the President of the Mark Twain Neighborhood Association located in the mid heights and is the Vice President of the District 7 Coalition of Neighborhoods which boasts membership of 14 neighborhood associations. You can read his full bio in the postscript below. Mr. Shanley gave consent to publish his guest column on www.PeteDinelli.com and he was not compensated for it.

COUNCILOR FIEBELKORN’S “OPT IN” ZONING PROPOSAL REFLECTED WILLFUL IGNORANCE OF OUR CITY’S OBVIOUS NEEDS

Sometimes you get to the point where you “just can’t take it anymore”.

I reached my breaking point in June when I read City Council Resolution R-25-167, sponsored by my City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn, concluding she was not acting in the best interests of my District 7 nor of the city.  She was using her perceptions of Albuquerque’s housing needs to promote an agenda that would destroy established neighborhoods in the interest of randomly increasing density to benefit developers at the expense of homeowners.

FIEBELKORN’S OPT IN ZONING

The Councilor’s Resolution 25-167 proposed “Opt-in Zoning” whereby anyone owning a single-family home could apply to “upzone” their R-1 zoned home and redevelop to increase density by converting the home to a duplex or townhouse. If you owned a  corner lot on any block of any neighborhood, you could “upzone” and build 3 story multi-family apartments next to single family homes. The most offensive provision of the “Opt-In” zoning is that adjacent homeowners or neighborhood associations would not be given any notice of the opt-in to increase density and essentially not be able to oppose or appeal the resulting development which would then be “permissive use”.  If they did find an avenue for appeal, adjoining property owners or Neighborhood Associations would risk being penalized $1,000 if they lost, thanks to Ordinance O-24-69 for which Councilor Fiebelkorn voted “yes” in January.

Developers or investors, when judgements go against them, face no corresponding risk or penalty.

The ultimate goal of the Opt-in zoning ordinance was to increase “affordable housing”, however, there is no data to support the theory that upzoning properties creates affordable housing.  The Ordinance was based on out-of-date 2022 population and housing data.  It predicated housing needs on reality-defying projections of 2% annual population growth over the next 20 years. This is a city which has lost 4,500 residents since 2020.  It excluded mention of current vacancy rates over 6% in Albuquerque’s multi-family dwellings and the fact there are presently 3,137 apartments or townhouses now under construction and another 9,593 at various stages of proposal.

Simply put, Opt-in zoning would destroy the character of existing neighborhoods and would have favored developers and investors who could care less about the character of existing neighborhoods.  It was far more likely to lead to gentrification and destabilization of property values as lenders were challenged to determine lending limits on properties no longer located in contiguous context.

Fortunately, this measure was voted down by the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee on August 13^th, with only Councilor Fiebelkorn voting in favor.

BUS ROUTE TO NOWHERE

Undeterred by the failure of R-25-167, Councilor Fiebelkorn pressed forward with another Resolution that was also ultimately about up zoning. This Resolution proposed amending the Comprehensive Plan to change Menaul from Louisiana west to Rio Grande from a Multi-modal to a Major Transit (MT) corridor. At a meeting this summer organized by the Near North Valley NA, the City Transportation Department clearly stated that this shift is unnecessary for increasing bus frequency. Bus service will increase when the driver shortage is solved. Claims about the need to fix a ‘broken corridor’ also rang hollow.

This proposed change is not about transit, it is about increasing density along the corridor without adequate public notification or input from residents. There are several changes to MT corridors proposed in the 2025 IDO Biennial Update, soon to be submitted to the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC). If this package of amendments passes as currently written, MT corridors will have—permissively—higher allowable building heights and shorter distances for height limits protecting Neighborhood Edges.

A request at Council to defer R-25-175 failed after Councilor Fiebelkorn grilled the Staff Planner about the design standard differences between Multi-Modal and Major Transit, pedantically repeating “so, no change?” after each item noted.

She thus very skillfully, and to my mind duplicitously, managed to avert any airing or discussion of the “hidden agenda” of this legislation.  That hidden agenda being Items 32, 33 and 44 on the Pre-EPC Submittal Spreadsheet for the 2025 IDO Biennial Update (available to view here: https://abq-zone.com/ido-update-2025-citywide-ammendments-pre-epc-submittal ) These amendments, when adopted, will make these changes to MT corridors permissive, thus removing public notification. The network of MT corridors thru-out the city, now including Menaul from Louisiana west, creates wide swaths available for increased density. Where this is in keeping with the long-accepted Comprehensive Plan vision of Centers and Corridors; great! Where it runs across historic areas of established R-1 neighborhoods; not so great!

While Councilor Fiebelkorn will point to the Menaul MRA and other de-invested sections of Menaul as the target zone for higher density development, market reality will drive developer interest to locations in closest proximity to established residential neighborhoods able to contribute to the economic potential of the commercial components of mixed-use development.  Residents of Quigley Park, Bel-Air, Santa Barbara-Martineztown, Wells Park, Near North Valley, and even Los Duranes neighborhoods all face the prospect of living, quite literally, in the shadow Resolution 25-175 will be permitted to cast over our community in the name of an ephemeral bus service that cannot be presently delivered.

DEEP DIVE TAKEN TO UNDERSTAND OUR CITY’S PROBLEMS

What makes Councilor Fiebelkorn’s attempted “Opt-in Zoning” and forcefully promoted “Bus Route to Nowhere” resolutions and actions most offensive are their willful ignorance of the very real problems that afflict our city. We can and must do better.

During the past 10 months, I have engaged in a “deep dive” to seek and to understand our city’s problems, which were not here 40 years ago. My efforts have included the following:

• Riding the entire bus route of the Albuquerque Rapid Transit (ART), to experience the nature of the service and the people who use it, and to observe the reality of its Central corridor, compared to the extravagant projections offered by Mayor Berry when he first proposed it 2014. The salient contribution of the ART Bus project was to degrade Central as business after business shut down never to return.
• Participating in 3 survey teams on the annual Point-In-Time count of homeless people living on the street one night in January.
• Attending since December last year, all the monthly Transformative Neighborhood Planning meetings held at the Gateway Center Homeless facility on Gibson.
• Attending every public meeting regarding the proposed redevelopment of the State Fair Grounds and connecting with the appointed consultant Stantec to ensure their community outreach includes the District 7 neighborhoods, like mine, on or adjacent to the Fairground’s northern border.
• Listening to and learning from numerous organizations, coalitions, non-profits, and committed individuals who work tirelessly to make our city a better and safer place to live.

One of the most informative things I did was a property-by-property survey of five of our major commercial corridors from end to end: Central, San Pedro, Menaul, 4^th Street, and San Mateo.  This project involved confirming by visual inspection the nature and status of 3,816 properties of which 2,223 were commercial premises.  21%, or 626 of those premises were closed, for lease, vacant, or abandoned.

Central, San Pedro, Menaul, 4^th, San Mateo Corridors  

Properties                               Count

• Apartment Complex                        69               1.8%
• Town Houses                                 262               6.9%
• Mobile Home Park                             9               0.2%
• Single Home Lot                             295              7.7%
• Motel / Hotel                                     38              1.0%
• Vacant Lot                                       118              3.1%
• Parking Lot                                       39              1.0%
• Construction Site                              13              0.3%
• Self-Storage                                     24              0.6%
• Total Operating Businesses          2,323            60.9%
• Closed Businesses                          626            16.4%

Total Properties                                    3,816           

% businesses closed                             21%

Access to and download of the full surveys and summaries is available to anyone with a Google enabled email address

ADDRESSING THE CITY’S HOUSING NEEDS

When driving the streets of our city with eyes open, it becomes very obvious where remedy is required.  It is NOT the re-zoning of our neighborhoods to increase development and population density as Councilor Fiebelkorn advocates.

To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s the Corridors, Stupid!”. 

We do have housing needs. To address those housing needs, we need to do the following:

First, we need Transitional Housing/Shelter into which the people residing on our streets and sidewalks can be located, with supportive services and case management, as the first essential step to recovery from the horrific conditions in which they are living. There are people in Albuquerque who know how to “curate” communities of these folks. Stability, security, basic utilities and sanitation should be accessible to anyone living in the state with the 38^th largest total GDP in the richest country on earth.

Second, we need more affordable housing, especially for those earning 60% or less of the Area Median Income. Unfortunately, that cannot be “built” given the cost of building housing today.  It can only be subsidized into existence.  Required financial resources are finite and the federal component is less secure today than ever.  That requires surgical precision in the application of the funds available.

Third, we need housing that can be priced to permit people to get a foot on the ladder of home ownership and equity accumulation as early as possible.  That is crucial to resuscitation of the American middle class dream of upward mobility and it requires higher density residential development, which has been going on all over Albuquerque, and needs to continue.  There are 12,730 units in apartment or townhouse developments at various stages of construction or proposal in Albuquerque right now.  The City is spacious enough to realize them without “blotting out” views of the Sandias or horizons which are such a signature feature and pleasure of living in our Albuquerque.

Fourth, we need to acknowledge that there is an overflowing abundance of available unused property and vacant lots on our major corridors dying for transition from an increasingly obsolete commercial/strip mall model to the kind of mixed-use higher density walkable communities with proximity to bus services and bike lanes for which organizations like StrongTownsABQ and BikeABQ are advocating.  Our neighborhoods also desperately need this, to restore the perimeter corridor connectivity and vitality that was once an integral part of neighborhood character.

Fifth, we need to do whatever we can to promote, support and nurture small locally owned business formation and growth.  We cannot reverse the trends of online shopping and the lower prices allure of national big box retail chain stores, but we can put more priority on and be more engaged in making heroes of locally owned business operations that create jobs at all levels of their organizations including mid-level and executive and, unlike their big national competitors, do not export out of New Mexico’s economy all of their profits, executive salaries, and headquarters investments.

WHAT THE CITY DOES NOT NEED AND NEEDS

In the corporate world where I lived my professional career, the lifespan of failed strategies is measured in quarters, not in years.

Albuquerque does not need an “unhoused industrial/building complex” with a price tag to date of over $300 million and no visible impact observable on the street.

The city does not need a “prison industrial/building complex” that can only result in trauma and distrust that impedes people, brutalized by a lifestyle unimaginable to most of us, from taking an offered hand to assist that first step toward a better life.

Albuquerque does not need to assign the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) the mission impossible task of responding to a criminal element that is able to embed and hide among its victims in a nomadic population numbering in the thousands.  Nor does it need to be perpetually diverted from its core mission by petty criminality, trespass, theft and vandalism that is driven fundamentally by the desperation and behavioral maladies induced by intolerable unsheltered living conditions.

What the city does need is a practical, high priority program, fully measured and accountable, to transition people from the streets into shelter as  quickly as it can be done. That program must be informed, advised, and assisted by the people in Albuquerque who have the experience and insights gained by having done it.

I believe Albuquerque can succeed in ending the crisis of street homelessness. The city can do so by taking a disadvantage and turning into an advantage. Albuquerque has more empty standalone buildings than there are people living on our streets.  That can be the seed for a real solution.  Our City, County, and State Government have the resources and tools to enable faster and more effective action to convert unused commercial properties into functional and transitional housing.

WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DO

City Council is a representative body.  From my perspective that should also make it a body that is consultative with its constituents. District 7 residents deserve a City Councilor that:

• Prioritizes issues by the scale of their impact on D7 and the City,
• Bases their actions on facts rather than generalities or wishful thinking,
• Proactively communicates with constituents about measures of impact BEFORE voting,
• Commits to Ordinances & Resolutions that clearly and understandably reveal all their provisions and their direct implications for the community,
• Solves or measurably improves real problems,
• Performs rigorous due diligence in advance of voting on measures,
• Demands factual accountability for major expenditures,
• Has an unwavering commitment to a vision of Albuquerque that is economically thriving, socially cohesive, sensibly sustainable, and in visual harmony with its unique heritage.

I have the best motivation to be a more proactively engaged citizen: the inspiration gained in observing, listening to, and learning from the people, remarkable in thought and deed, I have been privileged to meet and observe in my “deep dive” into the reality of Albuquerque.

In doing so, I have also come to understand profoundly why my parents, who moved and retired here in 1970, after living all over the world, believed to the end of their lives they had parachuted into paradise.

Albuquerque does not need to fix what is not broken.

It does need to engage the entire community to fix what is broken.

We can restore Albuquerque’s integrity and vitality with the right vision, strategy, and fully accountable tactical plan of action.

Respectfully for your consideration,

Jaemes Shanley

President Mark Twain Neighborhood Association

Vice-president – District 7 Coalition of N.A.’s

_________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

Jaemes Shanley first arrived in Albuquerque in August 1969, after graduating High School in England, to attend UNM from which he graduated in 1973.  His parents followed a year later, and his father retired in Albuquerque after a 30-year career as a US Naval aviator.  In 1971 they purchased a home in the Mark Twain neighborhood where they resided for the remainder of their lives.  Jaemes worked in the private sector in sales, marketing, and business strategy for U.S. corporations in Australia, Japan, and the United States.  His work required extensive travel throughout Asia Pacific and Latin America, routinely on the ground in more than 30 countries.  Jaemes and his wife returned to Albuquerque in September 2006 to renovate and take up residence in his parent’s Mark Twain neighborhood home where they reside today on their family “compound” along with 5 rescued cats.  Jaemes drives the corridors of Albuquerque on an almost daily basis to deliver carrots to his horse, Rembrandt, who resides in Corrales.

Exactly two months before the November 4 municipal election where voters will be voting on the offices of Mayor and City Council in Districts 1,3,5,7 and 9, two Albuquerque City Council candidates are facing lawsuits with the goal of having them kick off the ballot for their failure to submit the required 500 qualifying nominating petition signatures.

Two separate lawsuits have been filed. One is against  Stephanie Telles  in City Council District 1. The second is against Teresa Garcia in City Council District 3.  Both lawsuits were filed on November 3 by private attorney and former State Senator Jacob Candelaria and Senator Antonio “Moe” Maestas with the  Candelaria Law firm LLC in the 2nd Judicial District Court. In addition to Telles and Garcia, Bernalillo County Clerk Michelle Kavanaugh is identified as a defendant in both cases. Both cases are asking for an expedited hearing within 10 days of filing of the lawsuits which is on or before September13.

Both lawsuits are straight forward challenges to the validity of the signatures collected and contend that several of the signatures accepted by the City Clerk’s Office are invalid for a variety of reasons. Those reasons include being incomplete, duplicative signatures, signatures from people who are not registered to vote in the district or signatures collected after the deadline to collect rendering them invalid.  A person identified in the lawsuits as Nathaniel Sierra, ostensibly a private investigator contracted by Candelaria Law firm, allegedly examined the petition signatures to determine validity.

Both lawsuits  allege in part the following process used by the Albuquerque City Clerk to verify the nominating petition signatures:  In order to determine the validity of the petition signatures submitted, the City Clerk searched the voter registration records of the Bernalillo County Clerk’s office and searched the name and address provided on the petition to determine the eligibility of each listed voter that signed the petitions. The City Clerk also utilized the statewide voter file, the official database of registered voters in New Mexico that is maintained by the Secretary of State. It is known as the “SOS NM Centralized VR” or “Servis.”

Nathaniel Sierra, a contractor of Candelaria Law LLC, used “Servis” and “Vote Builder” which is a software system of registered voters to verify signatures. Each week during the petition process the city clerk would send an email with a spreadsheet that had the results of the verifications of signatures. The spreadsheet included both accepted and rejected entries. If a paper entry was rejected, the reason was listed in the spreadsheet. Candidates were given the opportunity to rehabilitate rejected signatures by submitting a “Rehabilitation Request Form” within seven calendar days of rejection.

Plaintiff attorney Jacob Candelaria said this about filing the lawsuits:

“If you are running for public office to make the law, you should be expected to follow the law. … Being on the other side of petition challenges no one likes it but that’s why our process exists in an adversarial way because if people have the incentive to call each other out hopefully that’s how the rules are enforced and the truth comes out.”

Candelaria said under state law, the court will need to decide on the cases within the next 10 days.

DISTRICT 1 CHALLENGE TO STEPHANIE TELLES

City Council District 1 is the centrally located Westside District between City Council District 5 on the North and City Council District 3 on the South. The geographical borders generally include Central Avenue on the South, Coors and the Rio Grande River on the East and “zig zags” on the North to include  Atrisco Dr., Tesuque Dr. and Buterfield Trail  and with the West border jetting outwards to the city limits and vacant land. City Council District 1 is currently represented by first term Democrat City Councilor Louie Sanchez who did not seek reelection and who is one of 7 candidates running for Mayor.

In the race for District 1 City Councilor, there are  four candidates running: Ahren Griego, Daniel Leiva, Joshua Taylor Neal and Stephanie Telles. Candidates Ahren Griego, Daniel Leiva, Joshua Taylor Neal were found by the City Clerk  to have submitted the required 500 qualifying signatures. However, Stephanie Telles was found by the Albuquerque City Clerk to have failed to collect the required 500 qualifying donations by 7 and she appealed her disqualification to the City Clerk and her appeal was denied.

Notwithstanding the Albuquerque City Clerk’s finding that Telles failed to submit the required number of verified petition signatures, Stephanie Telles filed her Declaration of Candidacy with the Bernalillo County Clerk. On August 28, 2025, Bernalillo County Clerk Michelle S. Kavenaugh notified Stephanie Telles by letter that the Bernalillo County Clerk’s Office qualified her Declaration of Candidacy. The August 28, 2025 letter from the Bernalillo County Clerk to Stephanie Telles states as follows:

Dear Ms.Telles:

“Pursuant to NMSA 1978, §1-22-10 (A), the Bernalillo County Clerks Office has qualified your Declaration of Candidacy. Therefor, you will appear as a candidate for the 2025 Regular Election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2025.

You shall appear on the ballot as follows:

                OFFICE:  CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE COUNCIL, DISTRICT 1

                NAME: STEPANIE TELLES

Ballot position is determined pursuant to NMAC 1.10.7, Randomization of Candiate Names on Ballots.  For your convenience, you may view the New Mexico Election alphabet randomization at: [link given deleted]

If you have further questions, please contact Nathan Jaramillo, Bureau of Elections Administrator … [phone number given deleted.]

Sincerely,

Michelle S. Kavenaugh, 

Bernalillo County Clerk

The August 28, 2025 letter from the Bernalillo County Clerk does not mention what efforts were made by the county clerk’s office  to verify the 500  signatures or if in fact they were verified.

ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN LAWSUITE

Two men, Danny Gonzales and Vincent C. Sanchez, are named as plaintiffs in the suit against Telles. The lawsuit alleges Telles submitted 581 signatures, but the City Clerk’s Office accepted only 493 as valid, leaving her seven signatures short to qualify for the ballot. According to the lawsuit, Nathaniel Sierra, a contractor of Candelaria Law LLC, identified an additional 42 signatures as invalid. Those people are either not city voters or live outside District 1.

The Telles lawsuit  alleges of the five-hundred, seventy-three (573) signatures turned into the city by Stephanie Telles, the City Clerk rejected eighty (80) of them. Of the eighty (80) that were rejected by the city clerk, the lawsuit alleges  seven (7) were “duplicates”  with her own submissions;  twenty-one (21) were “incomplete” or missing dates or zip codes; twenty-eight (28) were “not in jurisdiction” (verified as voters, but not residing in District 1); and twenty- four (24) were “not registered” at all and could not be found on any voter rolls.  Eight (8) were collected after the deadline and submitted to the County. The lawsuit alleges Nathaniel Sierra discovered forty-two (42) additional signatures that were not rejected by the City Clerk but are duplicates with the other District 1 candidates Daniel Leiva, Joshua Neal and Ahren Griego.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

The relief the Plaintiffs are requesting from the District Court in their case against Stephanie Telles is as follows:

• Rule that  all the signatures collected by Stephanie Telles that are invalid do not count toward the required number of signatures (500) that she was required to collect
• Enter an order declaring that the number of valid nominating petition signatures submitted by Stephanie Telles is insufficient to qualify her to appear as a candidate for City Council District 1 and that she cannot appear on the ballot on the November 4, 2025
• Enter an order directing Defendant County Clerk Michelle S. Kavanaugh not to certify Stephanie Telles as a candidate or permit his placement on the 2025 local election ballot.

TALLES REACTS TO COMPLAINT

Stephanie Telles  issued the following statement in reaction to the complaint:

“This lawsuit is more politics as usual. West Siders deserve better. That’s why I am running a grassroots campaign focused on ensuring that all West Siders feel safe in their community, making affordable housing a key part of our thriving neighborhoods, and championing government transparency to ensure City Hall works for everyone. I look forward to a robust debate on the issues and to serving as the next City Councilor for District 1.”

DISTRICT 3 CHALLENGE TO TERESA GARCIA

Three candidates are running to represent Southwest Albuquerque’s District 3. The geographic borders are generally “Old Coors Road” on the East and the Valley area, Central on the North, and Dennis Chavez Road on the South, with the West side border jetting out to the city limits and mostly vacant area. In the race for District 3 City Councilor, there are three candidates running:  Incumbent Klarissa Peña, Christopher Sedillo and Teresa Garcia. 

ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN LAWSUITE

The sole Plaintiff who filed the lawsuit against Teresa Garcia and Bernalillo County Clerk Michelle Kavanaugh is former Bernalillo County Commissioner Steven Michael Quezada who resides in City Council District 3.

The lawsuit alleges Teresa Garcia turned in six-hundred and ninety nine (699) signatures to the City Clerk. According to the lawsuit the City Clerk identified and rejected one-hundred, sixty-nine (169) signatures as invalid.  These signatures were  alleged to be invalid because the names on these signature lines were names of people registered outside of the district boundaries or were the names of people not registered to vote at all.

Five-hundred thirty (530) signatures were accepted by the city clerk as valid. It is alleged by Nathaniel Sierra, the contractor with Candelaria Law LLC, that of the 530 signatures validated by the City Clerk, sixty-seven (67) additional signatures are invalid because the names on these signature lines are duplicate names found on the signature petitions of another candidate. The complaint alleges Teresa Garcia collected  an additional twenty-nine (29) signatures in the weeks leading up the declaration filing date but well over the legal deadline allowed by the city.  These twenty-nine (29) additional signatures are also alleged to be invalid

The complaint alleges Teresa Garcia turned in seven-hundred twenty-eight (728) lines of names and signatures with her declaration of candidacy to the county clerk with only four hundred, four-hundred sixty-three (463) valid petition signatures which is thirty-seven (37) signatures short of the five-hundred (500) necessary to satisfy the requirements of the City Election Code.

The complaint gives a breakdown and alleges of the five-hundred, ninety-nine (599) signatures that Garcia turned into the city, the clerk rejected one-hundred sixty-nine (169) of them.  Of the ones rejected by the city clerk,  nineteen (19) were “duplicates” (with her own submissions);  seven (7) were “incomplete” or missing dates or zip codes; thirty-three (33) were “not in jurisdiction” (verified as voters, but not residing in District 3); one-hundred eighteen (118) were “not registered” and could not be found on any voter rolls and  two were “not legible.”  Twenty-nine (29) were collected after the city deadline to collect. Nathaniel Sierra discovered sixty-seven (67) additional signatures that were not rejected by the city clerk but are duplicates with the two other District 3 candidates Christopher Sedillo and Klarissa Peña.

Plaintiff Steven Michael said this in a press release about his lawsuit:

“This lawsuit is about upholding the integrity of our elections.  Every candidate must adhere to the same legal standards. Allowing a candidate to bypass the signature requirement undermines the rules, the electoral process, and the voters of District 3.”

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

The relief  Plaintiff  former Bernalillo County Commissioner Steven Michael Quezada is requesting from the District Court in his case against Teresa Garcia is as follows:

• Rule that  all the signatures collected by Teresa Garcia that are invalid do not count toward the required number of signatures (500) that she was required to collect
• Enter an order declaring that the number of valid nominating petition signatures submitted by  Teresa Garcia  are  insufficient to qualify her to appear as a candidate for City Council District 1 and that she cannot appear on the ballot on the November 4, 2025
• Enter an order directing Defendant County Clerk Michelle S. Kavanaugh not to certify Teresa Garcia   as a candidate or permit his placement on the 2025 local election ballot.

TERESA GARCIA  REACTS  TO COMPLAINT

Teresa Garcia reacted to the complaint in a statement saying in part:

“This lawsuit is not about ‘integrity.’ It is about protecting entrenched power and silencing the voices of District 3. I will not be intimidated. I will continue fighting for the hardworking families of the Southwest Mesa who deserve safe streets, real investment, and leadership that listens.”

Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/two-albuquerque-city-council-candidates-face-lawsuits/

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/2-albuquerque-city-council-candidates-face-challenges-to-candidacies/

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_42b8c99d-21ab-4eaa-9451-da10d4e92343.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The biggest problem identified with both challenges to the candidacies of Stephanie Telles and Teresa Garcia is that there is no clarity under the law, or the election rules and regulations, as to who has the ultimate authority between the Albuquerque City Clerk and the Bernalillo County Clerk to decided the validity nominating signatures submitted.

Article 2,  Section 4, of the City of Albuquerque Charter dealing with Elections outlines the qualifications to run for Albuquerque City Council and states in part:

“Persons desiring to become candidates for District Councilor shall, before being placed on the ballot, file with the City Clerk a petition containing signatures of five hundred (500) registered voters residing in the district which the person desires to represent.”

It is clear that all candidates for City Council are required to gather 500 verified nominating petition signatures from registered voters within the city council district the candidate wishes to represent. The nominating petition collection period was from June 2, 2025, at 8:00am to July 7, 2025, at 5:00pm.

The Albuquerque City Clerk reviewed all signatures submitted and verified that those who signed the petitions were registered, qualified voters who live in the City Council District. (Article II, Section 4, of the City Charter. And City Ordinance § 2-4-10(2).)

Under New Mexico State Law, “A signature shall be counted on a nominating petition unless there is evidence presented that the petition is not a voter of the state, district, county or area to be represented by the office for which the person seeking the nomination is a candidate.”  Further, “A signature shall be counted on a nominating petition unless there is evidence presented that the petition signature has signed more than one petition for the same office.” [§ 1-1-7.2(C)(1) NMSA], § 1-1-7.2(C)(2) NMSA]

The Local Election Act (LEA) was passed by the New Mexico Legislature in 2018. It allows for consolidated local elections in nonpartisan municipal elections to be conducted every November of the odd-numbers years with the county clerk to administer the elections. The city’s November 4 election for Mayor and City Council will be conducted and administered by the Bernalillo County Clerk. For that reason, candidates for City Council were required to  file Declarations of Candidacies with the Bernalillo County Clerk as well as the 500 petition signatures collected.

The link to the City Charter and  Local Elections act is here:

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/albuquerque/latest/albuqcharter/0-0-0-131

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-1/article-22/section-1-22-3/

A “Declaration for Candidacy” for Albuquerque City Council along with the requisite signatures on nominating petitions were required to be filed with the Bernalillo County Clerk on August 26, 2025, between the hours of 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. (City Election Code § 1-22-7(A))

https://www.City.gov/vote/candidate-information/candidate-calendar-for-the-2025-regular-local-election

The problem is there is no clarity or rules and regulations agreed to between the City Clerk and the Bernalillo County Clerk as to who has the final  authority to certify municipal candidacies and to certify nominating petition signatures for the ballot.

Ultimately, it will be the District Court who will decide what needs to be done.  The Court could very well conclude that it should not have to do the job of either clerk and simply order the city clerk to go back, again verify the signatures of Stephanie Telles and  Teresa Garcia because its a city election and then tell the County Clerk who goes on the ballot and to administer the election.

The plaintiffs in both cases should consider filing Amended Complaints naming the Albuquerque City Clerk and the City of Albuquerque as necessary and proper parties and move to consolidate the cases to be heard by one judge. This would result in the court having complete jurisdiction over all the parties and issues and enable the court to issue consistent rulings and orders.

Elections for county officials do not require nominating petition signatures. In this day age with so few wanting to run for office, you would think the time has come for the city to get rid of the requirement of mandating nominating petition signatures for office and simply require declarations of candidacy.

A July 2024 study by Root Policy Research found that Albuquerque has a significant shortage of units for low-income renters. It is estimated that Albuquerque is 13,000 to 28,000 units short of meeting the demand for housing.

Click to access albuquerque-region-2024-hna.pdf

The most recent  Point-In-Time (PIT) Report for the number of unhoused PERSONS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque is 2,740 broken down in 3 categories:

• Emergency Shelters: 1,289
• Transitional Housing: 220
• Unsheltered: 1,231

Mayor Tim Keller’s office estimates that there are upwards 5,000 people who are unhoused and who are living on the streets in Albuquerque.

Over the past two decades, rent and house prices have risen faster than income nationwide, meaning low-income Americans are getting priced out and spending, at times, more than 30% of their paycheck to keep a roof over their heads, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

“SUPPLY-SIDE PROGRESSIVISM” FOR HOUSING SHORTAGE

Increasing the supply of housing is considered a critical component to addressing affordability. “Supply-side progressivism” for housing is a concept that argues restrictive regulations and outdated zoning and land-use laws impede development and inflate housing costs. By streamlining permitting processes, reducing fees and restrictions on various housing types, like duplexes and accessory dwelling units, also called “casitas”, and incentivizing denser development near public transit, the housing supply can be expanded.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47617#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20main%20results%20of%20low,even%20when%20controlling%20for%20inflation%20and%20income.

ELEMENTS OF “SUPPLY-SIDE PROGRESSIVISM” FOR HOUSING

The main elements of “supply-side progressivism” have been described as follows:

Focus on regulatory reform. This emphasizes  the loosening of restrictive zoning and land-use regulations that hinder residential construction.

Allow for diverse housing types in established developments. This is allowing a wider variety of housing options, such as apartments, duplexes, and accessory dwelling units and not exclusively detached single-family homes.

Streamlining permitting and review processes. Eliminating bureaucracy that cause delays that add costs and time to housing development.

Government subsidies dedicated to affordable housing. Using government subsidies(municipal, state or federal) and public-private partnerships to incentivize private investment in housing that serves the public interest, particularly for affordable housing.

ARGUMENTS FOR “SUPPLY-SIDE PROGRESSIVISM” FOR HOUSING

Three main arguments have been made  for supply-side progressivism for housing:

1. Increasing overall housing supply, including market-rate development, can indirectly alleviate pressure on affordable housing markets by reducing competition and potentially leading to price stabilization or even reduction.
2. More efficient production of housing can contribute to broader goals like climate change mitigation and poverty reduction.
3. Government subsidies for housing construction can be a valuable tool to increase supply, especially where local construction industries are underdeveloped.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST  “SUPPLY-SIDE PROGRESSIVISM” FOR HOUSING

Four main arguments have been made against  supply-side progressivism for housing:

1. Focusing solely on private development might not sufficiently address the needs of the lowest-income households and could even result in gentrification in some areas.
2. The argument that increased supply will simply “trickle down” to benefit everyone is overly simplistic and ignores the complexities of housing markets and speculation.
3. Historical examples of using subsidies to incentivize private development have led to negative outcomes like displacement and segregation.
4. Zoning reform alone will not be sufficient to address the root causes of high land prices, particularly in high-demand areas where wealthy renters may drive up the value of potential developments.

“SUPPLY-SIDE PROGRESSIVISM” FOR HOUSING COMES TO ALBUQERQUE

On August 18, the online news agency City Desk ABQ published a news articled with the headline “From red tape to rapid construction: Councilors embrace “supply-side progressivism” to remove red tape delaying housing spending” with the sub-headline “How Albuquerque plans to build more homes faster.” The article was written by City Desk ABQ staff reporter Jesse Jones.

The City Desk ABQ article reports that “supply-side progressivism” has arrive to Albuquerque in the form of passage of city council Bill O-25-95  sponsored by District 2 City Councilor Joaquín Baca, whose district includes downtown Albuquerque, and co-sponsored by District 6 Councilor Nichole Rogers who represents the South East Heights area and includes the International District. What is impressive is that Bill O-25-95 passed unanimously 9-0 at the August 18  City Council meeting.

Quoting in part the City Desk ABQ article:

“Council Bill O-25-95 creates targeted procurement exemptions for affordable and transitional housing projects using state capital outlay funds, including money from [NM Legilature] House Bills 2 and 450, with “critical deadlines.”  The ordinance aims to simplify and streamline the process for getting housing built.

Rather than removing oversight, the measure introduces a “Request for Qualifications” process that can bypass traditional bidding when appropriate. Unlike competitive bids based on lowest cost, the RFQ evaluates contractors on “experience and qualifications,” according to city staff.  Projects over $100,000 still require City Council approval, maintaining democratic oversight while cutting months of bureaucratic delays. 

The ordinance … directs the Health, Housing and Homelessness and Municipal Development departments to review procurement policies and report back to the council within 30 days, identifying changes that would further streamline affordable and transitional housing development.

Instead of helping people afford high housing costs through subsidies, the supply-side progressive model aims to lower prices by increasing supply through regulatory reform.

When asked whether the ordinance prioritizes results over process—a central critique supply-side progressives make of traditional Democratic governance—Baca said, “100% yes, A, I’m a Democrat and B, you know, this is a series of changes.” He described a comprehensive approach to increasing housing supply through regulatory reform.

Baca explained how current procurement processes create delays:

“How it typically would work is the city would say, we’ve got this lump sum of money… And so then developers would apply, and there’d be a scoring process, ranking process, make sure they qualify, then they’d also be like the Development Commission. Oftentimes, you’d have to send it there for approval. It’s just a lengthy process to pick a winner, so to speak.” 

The ordinance clarifies and streamlines this process, allowing projects to move forward without going through the full competitive bidding cycle, cutting months—even up to a year—off typical timelines.

Baca said the changes are part of a three-phase strategy that reflects systematic supply-side thinking. The approach started with “[ordinance] 177 that we just passed [in the] previous council [meeting], that will identify three different projects within the downtown and [other] MRA zones [and] laid out just how much they need in gap financing so that they can… get housing done. And so this is the Procurement Code update to allow for that. Then we’ve got another bill coming, which will be the affordable housing code.”

The link to read the full City Desk ABQ article is here:

https://citydesk.org/2025/08/19/from-red-tape-to-rapid-construction/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Bluntly put, the term “affordable housing” is very misleading. It is a term way too often used by elected officials and politicians to simply declare a crisis with inflated numbers that shows there is not enough housing that allows the poor or low-income people to rent or buy a home and call their own. Housing prices and rental costs never come down. The more appropriate term that should be used is “subsidized” housing where it’s clear what is needed is subsidized funding for those who cannot afford to buy outright or rent and need assistance.

Albuquerque’s housing shortage is related to economics, the development community’s inability to keep up with supply and demand and the public’s inability to purchase housing or qualify for housing mortgage loans. The shortage of rental properties has resulted in dramatic increases in rents. It is clear that the City of Albuquerque and the state of New Mexico are suffering from a shortage of housing, but that does not mean it is all affordable housing.

The blunt reality is that it is not at all realistic for the City nor the State to try and attempt to solve the housing shortage on their own with nothing but government financing and construction. Government’s responsibility is to provide essential services, such as police protection, fire protection and utilities and not to directly compete with the housing industry. It’s the market forces that must be relied upon to get the job done when it comes to  housing of all kinds.

The approach that the City, the County and the State has taken in the form of tax deferrals, subsidies and low interest loans to the private sector as incentives to construct housing are the reasonable and responsible approach to help solve the current housing shortage in the city and the state.

City, County and State government can help the private sector to build more housing by eliminating policies and zoning restrictions that unnecessarily drive-up housing costs so long as there is a preservation and respect for adjoining property owners rights and remedies.  The enactment of Bill O-25-95 by the city council on a unanimous vote  is not a panacea to solve the city’s housing shortage, but it is a major step in the right direction.