On August 20, the national news agency CNN published on the internet the following news article entitled “Takeaways from the first night of the Democratic National Convention”  written by CNN staff reporters Eric Bradner and Gregory Krieg:

”Democrats opened their convention in Chicago on Monday by sending off Joe Biden. And then the president closed the night – which ran significantly behind schedule – with a hand-off to Vice President Kamala Harris.

Biden said choosing Harris as his running mate in 2020 was “the best decision I made my whole career.”

“She’ll be a president our children can look up to. She’d be a president respected by world leaders, because she already is. She’d be a president we can all be proud of. And she’d be a historic president who puts her stamp on America’s future,” Biden said.

His passing of the torch demonstrated the shift for Democrats. The party, which was deeply fractured just last month as pressure mounted on Biden to exit the race, was united Monday night behind Harris – and against her Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump.

Democrats attacked the GOP nominee over abortion rights. They highlighted the former president’s legal troubles and questioned his morality. And they argued that his policy beliefs would benefit the wealthy while Harris’ would better serve working people.

“A vote is a kind of prayer for the world we desire for ourselves and our children, and our prayers are stronger when we pray together,” said Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, who is also a pastor at the Atlanta church where Martin Luther King Jr. once preached.

The party also emphasized – in personal and historic terms – the potential for Harris to become the first woman to win the presidency.

Hillary Clinton said that though she’d fallen short eight years ago, she wanted her grandchildren and their grandchildren to know she’d been there for Harris when the “glass ceiling” finally shatters.

“This is when we break through,” she said. “The future is here.”

[Following are six major takeaways from the first night of the Democratic National Convention]:

1. BIDEN TAKES A BOW

“A month ago, they were clamoring for him to go. But on Monday night, Democrats in Chicago were singing – and chanting – a different tune. One of gratitude for his decades of public service, personal kindness and, less comfortably, for passing the baton to Harris.

Biden in his own speech, which only began after a four-minute ovation, delivered a spirited message of support for Harris and running mate Walz, before dedicating his remarks to familiar yet scathing criticism of Trump and a detailed recollection of his administration’s legislative achievements.

He began by recalling the angst that gripped the country in 2020, as he campaigned during a global pandemic and national racial reckoning.

He then began a valedictory wave, weaving in jabs at Trump and, in true Biden fashion, an assortment of aphorisms about the value of good government and the scourge of greed, guns, disease and authoritarianism.

“Because of you – and I’m not exaggerating – because of you, we’ve had one of the most extraordinary four years of progress ever, period,” Biden said. “When I say we, I mean Kamala and me.”

And when the president flagged, or stumbled over a phrase, the audience willed him through. The anxiety and gripes of the spring and early summer, in the wake of his ultimately campaign-dooming debate with Trump, were gone. Democrats once again had a chance to enjoy Joe being Joe.

“I love my job,” Biden said at one point, “but I love my country more.” It was the closest he came to explaining why he chose, in the end, to give up his own campaign.”

2. HILLARY CLINTON: “THE FUTURE IS HERE”

“Eight years after Clinton made history as the first woman to be a major party’s presidential nominee, she was back at the Democratic National Convention, urging Americans to finally break the “glass ceiling.”

She said Americans who backed her in 2016 had “voted for a future where there are no ceilings on our dreams.”

And after her loss, “we refused to give up on America. Millions marched. Many ran for office. We kept our eyes on the future,” Clinton said. “Well, my friends, the future is here.”

“I wish my mother and Kamala’s mother could see us. They would say, ‘Keep going,’” Clinton said. She invoked Shirley Chisholm, the first woman to run for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman nominated for vice president. “Shirley and Geri would say, ‘Keep going,’” Clinton said, as the crowd echoed her with chants of “Keep going!”

She also connected her own life – and her loss, and legacy – with Harris’ hopes in November.

Clinton said she’d put many cracks in the “highest, hardest glass ceiling,” and now Harris is “so close to breaking through once and for all.”

“When a barrier falls for one of us, it falls – it falls and clears the way for all of us,” Clinton said. “I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to know I was here at this moment, that we were here, and that we were with Kamala Harris every step of the way. This is our time, America. This is when we stand up. This is when we break through. The future is here. It’s in our grasp. Let’s go win it.”

3. CLINTON ON TRUMP’S ATTACKS: “SOUNDS FAMILIAR”

“Though Clinton’s speech was largely an affirmative case for Harris, she seemed to revel in taking a few shots at her 2016 rival.

Referring to Trump’s convictions in New York, she said that the former president “made his own kind of history: the first person to run for president with 34 felony convictions.”

The crowd responded with chants of “Lock him up!” – Democrats’ spin on the “Lock her up” chants about Clinton that were omnipresent at Trump’s 2016 campaign rallies.

Clinton paused and smiled.

Later, she said it was “no surprise, is it, that (Trump) is lying about Kamala’s record. He’s mocking her name and her laugh.”

“Sounds familiar,” Clinton deadpanned.

“But we have him on the run now,” she said. “So no matter what the polls say, we can’t let up. We can’t get driven down crazy conspiracy rabbit holes. We have to fight for the truth. We have to fight for Kamala as she will fight for us.”

4.  A FOCUS ON ABORTION RIGHTS

 “Among the most poignant moments of the convention’s first night came as Democrats lambasted Trump for appointing conservative Supreme Court justices helped undo Roe v. Wade’s protections for abortion rights – resulting in a state-by-state patchwork of reproductive rights laws.

Amanda Żurawski, a Texas woman who underwent life-threatening pregnancy complications but couldn’t have an abortion in the deep-red state, said Americans “need to vote as if lives depend on it, because they do.”

Kaitlyn Joshua, a Louisiana woman who was denied health care after a miscarriage in another state with a near-total abortion ban, said that “no woman should experience what I endured, but too many have.”

Hadley Duvall, who was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant when she was 12, said she “can’t imagine not having a choice.”

“But today, that’s the reality for many women and girls across the country, because of Donald Trump’s abortion bans,” Duvall said.

Support for abortion rights has been Democrats’ most potent issue at the ballot box since Roe v. Wade’s reversal two years ago.

Duvall’s story was featured last year in a powerful ad by Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat who won reelection in one of the nation’s most heavily Republican states in large part by emphasizing his support for abortion rights.

“Donald Trump brags about tearing a constitutional right away from Hadley and every other woman and girl in our country,” Beshear said Monday night. “That’s why we must tear away any chance he can ever be president ever again.”

5. DEMOCRATS DOWNPLAY WAR IN GAZA

 “There are few issues that have divided Democrats – by age, by ideology, sometimes by identity – than Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza.

Not that you would have known it from watching Monday night.

Earlier in the day, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed to a “bridging proposal” that could lead to a ceasefire. The next step in the negotiations, Blinken said, “is for Hamas to say yes.”

In Chicago, it was Biden who spoke at the greatest length about Israel and Gaza, striking a sympathetic chord for all involved, from Israelis killed by Hamas on October 7, 2023, to civilians in Gaza now.

“Those protesters out in the street, they have a point,” Biden said. “A lot of innocent people are being killed, on both sides.”

Biden’s remarks capped a day in which anti-war protesters filled the streets outside the convention; ceasefire advocates from the Uncommitted National Movement, so far unsuccessful in wresting a speaking slot from convention organizers, held a sanctioned panel about the issue earlier in the day; and activists in the hall unfurled a banner demanding the US government “STOP ARMING ISRAEL.”

But for most of the speakers in prime time, the conflict in Gaza barely warranted a mention. Pro-Palestinian voices were absent, as were, in large part, mentions of support for Israel or condemnations of the antisemitism that has arisen during some protests. It is, quite clearly and unsurprisingly, an issue Democrats see little electoral upside in highlighting.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive lawmaker most likely to address the matter, largely kept on message during her remarks, only veering into talk of Gaza to cheer Harris’ work to end the fighting.

“She is working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and bringing hostages home,” Ocasio-Cortez said to loud cheers.”

6. SPOTLIGHT ON PROJECT 2025

 “Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow stepped onstage Monday night with a large prop: a book containing the conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” agenda, so big that it barely fit on the podium.

The moment reflected how eager Democrats are to tie Trump to what McMorrow called “a Republican blueprint for a second Trump term.”

Though the former president has disavowed it, Democrats have framed Project 2025, a 900-page playbook for a second Trump term drafted in part by six of his former Cabinet secretaries and at least 140 people who worked in his administration, as the former president’s agenda.

“Whatever you think it might be, it’s so much worse,” said the 37-year-old McMorrow, who shot to stardom after a viral 2022 speech pushing back against anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from a Republican colleague.

She highlighted one portion of the agenda that would give the White House more control of nonpolitical government jobs. Another, she said, would allow Trump to weaponize the Justice Department and “turn the FBI into his own personal police force.”

“That is not how it works in America,” she said. “That’s how it works in dictatorships. And that’s exactly what Donald Trump and his MAGA minions have in mind: an expansion of presidential powers like no president has ever had or should ever have.”

McMorrow left the stage with a pledge that the book would return Tuesday night, with an emphasis on what the Project 2025 agenda would mean for “your pocketbook.”

The link to the unedited CNN report with accompanying photos is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/20/politics/takeaways-dnc-day-1/index.html

GOVERNOR MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM TO SPEAK IN PRIME TIME SECOND NIGHT OF CONVENTION

A spokesperson for Governor  Michelle Lujan Grisham has confirmed that she will deliver a prime-time speech focused on health care issues at the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in downtown Chicago on Tuesday evening, August 20. Governor  Lujan Grisham will join a select group of high-profile Democrats including former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama in delivering speeches.  The governor’s speech is expected to take place sometime around 6 p.m. Mountain Standard time although the exact timing is not certain.

Lujan Grisham’s remarks have initially billed as focus on health care. However, abortions rights are expected to big a big part of the speech. As governor, Lujan Grisham has staunchly advocated for abortion rights, including signing a 2021 bill that overturned a long-dormant state abortion ban. Recently, the governor’s administration has launched a campaign seeking to recruit Texas doctors and nurses to New Mexico, as the state has struggled with a chronic health care provider shortage.

Governor Lujan Grisham was among 9 candidates who were asked to undergo vetting as Vice President Kamala Harris began the process of selecting a running mate.  While Harris ultimately picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her vice presidential nominee, the Lujan Grisham’s vetting showed connections between Lujan Grisham and  Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris officiated Lujan Grisham’s wedding to Manny Cordova in May 2022, and she traveled to Albuquerque later that year to drum up support for the governor’s reelection campaign.

In addition to the governor’s prime-time speech, Lujan Grisham is also expected to take part in a panel discussion with actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus and the nation’s seven other female Democratic governors on Wednesday, August 21 at the DNC.

A spokeswoman for the governor said that the Governor’s political campaign committee, New Mexicans for Michelle, will pay for the travel costs of the governor and her staff.

The link to relied upon and quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/governor-to-speak-about-health-care-issues-in-prime-time-dnc-slot/article_910e4852-5e44-11ef-ba1f-1f70de813988.html

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/harris-vetted-lujan-grisham-for-vp-slot/article_c3e63f80-5405-11ef-82b3-b747ee07e547.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is little doubt that the first night of the Democratic National Convention was a success. The only glitch was the fact that President Biden’s speech occurred late in the evening. Notwithstanding, he delivered a very powerful and effective speech highlighting his accomplishments as President and successfully passing off the torch to a new and younger generation of Democrat to take this nation into the future. One notable and emotional  remark that  summarized the span of his politcal career was when he said that he began his political career he was not old enough to be sworn in as a U.S. Senator, at age29,  and he is now too old to be President at age 82.

As for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham being given a prime-time spot to speak at the convention, it has already begun speculation that she will be tapped to serve as a cabinet secretary should Kamala Harris win the Presidency. When President Biden was elected 4 years ago, it was common knowledge that Lujan Grisham was under consideration for a cabinet position but a cabinet appointment went to Debra Haaland as Interior Secretary. Lujan Grisham is now a second term Governor and a lame duck who has a deteriorating relationship with the New Mexico Legislature. Given her close personal ties with Vice President Kamala Harris, watch the Governor say goodbye to New Mexico. If that in fact happens, Lt.  Governor Howie Morales would become Governor and serve out the remaining 2 years of Governor Lujan Grisham’s second term and he would likely run for Governor in 2026.

On Tuesday, August 13, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Briana Zamora testified before the New Mexico Legislature’s Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee on the state’s mental health competency laws as they relate to criminal defendants. The Committee is one of the most influential committees of the legislature and consists of 32 House and Senate members and meets year-round and vets proposed legislation.

Justice Zamora is the chairperson of a court-affiliated working group responsible for proposed legislation that would give judges more options in cases where criminal defendants are deemed incompetent to stand trial. The working group was created 2 years ago.  It is made up of various city officials, law enforcement officers, mental health advocates and attorneys.

Justice Zamora presented a bill drafted by the working group that could be debated by lawmakers during the 60-day legislative session that starts on January 21 and ends on March 22, 2025. The bill takes a different approach to criminal competency than the bills backed by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham that would have required temporarily detaining of criminal defendants who are deemed to be incompetent to stand trial  in certain felony cases, so that mandatory treatment orders could be prepared. The Governor’s bills were introduced during the July 18 Special Session she called on public safety, but lawmakers refused to take up and debate any of the proposals during the special session.

The new legislation crafted by the working group would allow judges to assign non-violent criminal defendants to outpatient or residential diversion programs, where they could get treatment and counseling for mental health issues or substance abuse treatment. While few such programs exist or are being implemented, a larger-scale effort would require new programs  be established in a state already struggling to fill vacant social work and counseling positions.

One problem identified with the proposed legislation is that the changes to the state’s competency laws being proposed will not, on their own, bring about a quick fix.  Justice Zamora told the Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee this:

“The statute alone will not be sufficient. …This [legislation] will lay the groundwork to create programs.”

Justice Zamora, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2021, acknowledged the complexity of the issue. She described the working group’s efforts as a “highlight of her career.” She also said she frequently dealt with repeat offenders with mental health issues during her time as a Metro Court Judge.  Justice Zamora said this:

“I knew their names and their faces because they were in front of me so often. … And we were doing nothing.”

Justice Zamora told the committee that most states do have provisions for outpatient and residential competency restoration in their criminal laws.

LEGISLATOR’S HARSH REACTION TO PROPOSED CHANGES

During the August 13 Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee hearing, Albuquerque area Democrat State Senator, Mimi Stewart, the president pro tempore of the Senate, said lawmakers need more time to address incompetency in New Mexico’s criminal statutes.  Many consider criminal competency a major loophole in the criminal justice system allowing for the release of criminals without standing trial.  Lawmakers discussed an “off-ramp” to the governor’s proposal of requiring the temporary detention of criminal defendants who are deemed incompetent in certain felony cases, which a working group is calling “outpatient competency restoration.”

Senate President Pro Temp Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, had this scathing assessment  of the idea of expanding diversion programs:

“We’re all struggling to understand this and come up with solutions. … What does an outpatient competency restoration look like, and are they really doing this in other states? … It sounds good, but I can’t imagine what it looks like. …  We don’t have a good behavioral health system already. … We don’t have enough assisted outpatient treatment, so instead we’re going to focus on an outpatient competency restoration? … It just sort of screams immediately to me that these are people who need treatment. They need treatment, they need housing, they need to pull themselves out of poverty … It just seems backwards and crazy making to think that that’s what we’re going to focus on.”

Clovis Republican State Representative Andrea Reeb, a former prosecutor, expressed concern about dangerous criminal defendants who are determined to be incompetent to stand trial. Under the current system, when a defendant is found by a court evaluator to not be competent, there are essentially two options for prosecutors: dismiss the charges or seek to have the defendant sent to the state Behavioral Health Institute in Las Vegas.

Karl Swanson, the Deputy District Attorney for the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office told the committee that criminal defendants are determined to be incompetent in about 5% of the total number of felony cases.  He said competency cases can sometimes take years to play out, frustrating some who are victims and frustrating even parents who call the police when one of their children is experiencing a mental health episode. Swanson said this:

“All they want is treatment for this individual.”

Lawmakers did not vote during Tuesday’s meeting of the Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee on whether to endorse the competency legislation proposed by Justice Zamora. They are expected to further study the proposal during meetings over the next several months.

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/lawmakers-study-possible-changes-to-states-criminal-competency-laws/article_f237dc16-59a7-11ef-aee7-df8dab293ad7.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-if-excuses-solved-crime-albuquerque-would-be-the-safest-city-in-america/article_2b0a16cc-5c0e-11ef-ad47-ebdcf5565900.html

REVISITING THE GOVERNOR’S SPECIAL SESSION MEAUSRES ON PUBLIC SAFETY

There were 5 measures Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham asked the legislature to enact during the Special Session. All 5 of the measures were not given a hearing and all 5 failed. Those measures can be summarized as follows:

The first measure would have made changes to the state’s criminal competency law. This bill involved involuntary civil commitment for criminal defendants charged with a serious violent offense, a felony involving the use of a firearm, or those defendants who have been found incompetent two or more times in the prior 12 months. Judges would have been required to order district attorneys to consider filing “involuntary commitment” proceedings and giving judges the ability to detain a defendant for up to seven days for the petition to be initiated and then mandate long term mental health care. The intent was to prevent mentally incapacitated individuals from harming themselves or the public and simply being released.

Supporters say there are far too many suspects who are arrested, deemed incompetent to stand trial, and then simply released back on the streets only to commit more crimes.  It’s a bill designed to address in part the so-called “revolving door” where defendants are arrested only to be found incompetent to stand trial and then released and who never go on trial for criminal charges. The legislation was intended to strengthen a 2016 law and a program originally signed into law by former Governor Susana Martinez that allows district judges to order involuntary treatment for people with severe mental illness who have frequent brushes with law enforcement. It involves a program called the “Assisted Outpatient Treatment” (AOT).

The second measure would have broadened the definitions of danger to oneself and danger to others in New Mexico’s involuntary commitment statute that mandates involuntary treatment for people with mental illness. The bill would allow a judge to mandate out-patient treatment. It would allow individuals, whether first responders, family members or community members who work with mentally ill individuals on the streets to request involuntary out-patient treatment.

The third measure would increase the crime of felon in possession of a firearm from a fourth-degree felony to a second-degree, and would set a new mandatory minimum term of 9 years for the offense. Current law provides for a sentence of “up to three years for an offender.” Serious violent felons in possession of a firearm would face a mandatory 12 years in prison, an increase from the current nine-year term. The New Mexico legislature has already increased criminal penalties 6 times since Governor Lujan Grisham has taken office.  It is highly uncertain what impact the legislation would really have, if any, when it comes to reducing violent crime.

The fourth measure would prohibit pedestrians from occupying highway medians, on-ramps, and is ostensibly directed at prohibiting panhandling and the homeless from occupying medians and off ramps. Albuquerque already has such an ordinance and the first version of it was declared unconstitutional after the ACLU challenged it. It is more likely than not the State’s version would also be challenge as unconstitutional. The offense is classified as a nonviolent misdemeanor and the Albuquerque Police Department is under a federal court approved settlement agreement in a decades long civil rights case involving jail overcrowding where APD has agreed not to make arrests for such misdemeanors in order to prevent jail overcrowding.

The fifth measure would require law enforcement agencies to report certain monthly crime incident reports and ballistic information to the state Department of Public Safety on crime incidents and ballistics information. It is unclear what impact, if any, this legislation would have on reducing crime. It’s a measure that could just as easily be accomplished by executive orders and memorandums of understanding between law enforcement agencies.

SUBSTITUTE BILL ANNOUNCED

On June 26 a substitute proposal was presented to the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee interim legislative committee that would broaden eligibility for someone who could be ordered by a judge into involuntary mental health treatment. Representative Andrea Reeb, R-Clovis, responded that a shortage of behavioral health treatment options is an underlying problem that makes any changes in the law difficult to enforce.

Reeb is a prosecutor in the 9th Judicial District.  She recently had difficulty finding in-patient treatment for a serial arsonist in her district. Reeb said this after hearing the new proposal:

“We don’t really have any facilities in our area to treat anybody except as an outpatient. … You can divert people all you want to different things, but you don’t have places to send them”.

On June 27, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office announced she has scrapped the proposal to expand court-supervised outpatient treatment for people with mental illness for debate during the July 18 Special Session.  The bill the governor withdrew was intended to strengthen a 2016 law that allows district judges to order involuntary treatment for people with severe mental illness who have frequent brushes with law enforcement. It would have required each of the state’s 13 judicial districts to create a program called Assisted Outpatient Treatment overseen by a civil court judge.

Holly Agajanian, the governor’s chief general counsel, told lawmakers that the governor was responding to concerns from legislators that the AOT bill was a “big lift” for a special session.  Agajanian told members of the interim Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee this:

“What we’ve decided instead to do is condense the goals here. [The substitute measure will take] small, necessary steps to help those people who are either a true danger to themselves or an extreme danger to others”

The Governor was proposing to broaden eligibility for involuntary commitment by tweaking definitions in existing law. The existing involuntary commitment law essentially limits commitment to people who are suicidal. The proposed change would broaden the definition of “harm to self” and “harm to others” to cover more people eligible for involuntary treatment.

Under the new definition, “harm to self” would include a person unable “to exercise self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of the person’s daily responsibilities and social relations” or “to satisfy the person’s need for nourishment, personal or medical care,” housing and personal safety.

The proposed definition of “harm to others” would cover a person who “has inflicted, attempted to inflict or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm on another” or has taken actions that create “a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to another.” Harm to others could also apply to someone who has engaged in “extreme destruction of property” in the recent past.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/governor-pulls-bill-to-expand-involuntary-treatment/article_bc1fa51a-34df-11ef-ae36-4f7a022267af.html

ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCY BILL

On June 26, an analysis of the number of people released back into the community after being found incompetent to stand trial was provided to the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee which held all day hearings for 4 days to consider all 5 of the Governors measures. The analysis was not completed and was unavailable when the competency bill legislation failed in the 2024 legislative session.

Major findings of the analysis are as follows:

• More than 3,200 people charged with crimes since 2017 in New Mexico have been released back to the community after being found incompetent to stand trial, according to an analysis that fueled Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s call for a special session.
• More than 5,350 of the 16,045 dismissed charges were felonies, according to the analysis. The dismissals included those charged with first-degree murder, trafficking controlled substances, kidnapping, and abuse of a child, according to data of the state Administrative Office of the Courts.
• Other defendants charged with lesser crimes have been repeat offenders caught in a cycle of being charged and released only to be arrested again, charged, and let go after court-ordered evaluations showed they cannot participate in their defense and a judge ruled they were mentally incompetent to stand trial.

After seeing the analysis, Lujan Grisham called the number of criminal case dismissals “frankly, shocking.” The Governor said this:

“Some of these have been in court up to 40 times in a year. If we don’t interrupt that, the status quo that you see playing out in our communities every day will stay. … I’m trying to break that cycle [and] focus on the criminal competency loophole. … The notion that we would have 3,200-plus individuals reoffending for another year is more than I think any New Mexican should have to bear”.

HOUSE SPEAKER PUBLICLY CHASTISES GOVERNOR AND ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL

House Speaker Javier Martínez is not a member of the Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee. Notwithstanding, he has appointed many to the committee and monitors the committee deliberations.

On August 13, Speaker Martinez made a rare appearance before the committee and summed up Democrats reasons for rejecting all of the Governor’s proposed public safety measures during the July Special Session called by the Governor.  While he was at it, he blasted both Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the Albuquerque Journal.

Speaker Martinez told the committee this:

“This is the first opportunity I get to address some of the misconceptions and misinformation that took place post-special session. … These are complicated issues and not only are we trying our best, we are doing a damn good job of addressing these issues.”

Speaker Martínez was clearly offended or at least angered by the Albuquerque Journal’s July 21 editorial entitled “NM Dems appear to care more about criminals than their victims” to the point that the Speaker read excerpts of the Journal editorial to the Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee.  You can read the entire Albuquerque Journal unedited editorial here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-new-mexico-democrats-appear-to-care-more-about-the-criminals-than-their-victims/article_f473b12e-4612-11ef-a000-a7f62428b0f0.html

Speaker Martinez told the committee this:

“[The Journal Editorial]  goes on to say ‘How hard is it to require court-ordered behavioral health treatment for repeat offenders accused of a serious violent offense? … Clearly it is very difficult!  This is the kind of process, madame chair, that quite frankly should have been invested in, time-wise, by the executive, and it just was not. This is the kind of process that it takes to really get to a point where you can have a substantive proposal that we can all debate, and that we can all amend, and that we can all work collaboratively on to get across the finish line. This is how much work it takes, and this is just one group. There have been several processes playing out throughout the state, through a number of different agencies, working their way through whatever process gets set forth.

“It goes on to say, back to the [Journal]  editorial, ‘How hard is it to pass a law prohibiting loitering on a median no wider than 36 inches?’ … Very hard! I was in Silver City this weekend and I saw a group of kids from Silver High fund-raising, and I looked at the median … and that’s probably about 18 inches. That would have been made illegal [by one of the governor’s proposals] and I’m wondering would local police departments have been enforcing that? I seriously doubt it, because as they always tell me, they have bigger fish to fry.”

Speaker Martínez turned his ire directly at Governor Lujan Grisham and said this:

“Had we rubber-stamped those proposals during the special, first of all, I guarantee you there would be lawsuits left and right, so these things wouldn’t have actually been implemented for a while. … And even if they were implemented, the unintended consequences of depriving someone of their constitutional liberties, simply because a member of government drove past an intersection and saw somebody smoking fentanyl and their sensibilities were so impacted that they cast such a wide net is, is, would be a tragedy.”

Speaker Martínez announced he was canceling his Albuquerque Journal subscription.

ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL RESPONDS

On Sunday, August 18, not to allow House Speaker Javier Martínez remarks to go unchallenged, the Albuquerque Journal did a follow up editorial that said in pertinent part:

“Excuses, excuses, excuses.  If excuses for inaction on crime are good campaign issues, Democratic candidates for the Statehouse are poised for another landslide victory in November.

The excuses for not taking action during July’s special legislative session on any of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s public safety proposals were flying like Frisbees at last week’s meetings of the Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee — an interim bicameral committee of 32 state lawmakers that meets between legislative sessions.

Lawmakers [said they] need more time, more research into the unintended consequences of crime proposals, more expert testimony, more discussion, more doughnuts and coffee from the nearby table that sustained them throughout the day-long hearings Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and for which they automatically receive a daily per diem of $231, plus mileage.

…

Comparing a group of students raising money in the median in Silver City for an hour or two on a weekend to the daily sight of people standing in the medians of Albuquerque shows how much the speaker and other Democratic leaders are flailing in the wake of the failed special session.

… 

…  House and Senate Democrats did not give any of the governor’s proposed bills a single committee hearing during the special session. … What is factual is that 3,217 defendants charged with 16,045 crimes since 2017 have had their cases dismissed after being found incompetent to stand trial. What is not complicated is that U.S. News & World Report ranks New Mexico the most dangerous state in America based on violent and property crime rates.

Listening to state lawmakers talk about crime can be dismaying. Progressive Democrats have become as soft on crime as the jelly-filled doughnuts that sustain them throughout their day-long jeremiad lamentations about why they can’t really do anything about crime.

Fortunately, there’s an election on the horizon and all 112 legislative seats are up for grabs, even in Albuquerque’s House District 11, where Speaker Martínez is being challenged by Republican Bart Kinney.

Voters have a clear choice in November: More excuses and the status quo with the defund-the-police special interest groups running the state, or fundamental change on public safety.

We’re rooting for fundamental change.”

The link to the full unedited editorial is here:

EDITORIAL HEADLINE: If excuses solved crime, Albuquerque would be safest city in America

https://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-if-excuses-solved-crime-albuquerque-would-be-the-safest-city-in-america/article_2b0a16cc-5c0e-11ef-ad47-ebdcf5565900.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

New Mexico Speaker of the House Javier Martinez has emerged as one of the most effective leaders in recent memory. Speaker Martinez is more than capable of dealing with complex and divisive issues. The best example of this was his work on the legalization of marijuana. Rather than publicly taking issue with the Governor and the Albuquerque Journal, Speaker Martinez should buckle down and huddle with the Senate Leadership of Senators Peter Wirth and Joe Cervantes and address the festering issue of mental health competency and sponsor legislation for the 2025 session.

The blunt truth is that way too many excuses are being given by both the Governor as well as the legislature for their failure to address the festering criminal competency problem. It’s not just an Albuquerque problem as legislators are now fond of saying.  More than enough time has elapsed to come up with viable solutions and compromise legislation, but the legislature and the stakeholders have failed to do so wanting to maintain the status quo and simply do nothing.

It was on April 17 that Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced she was calling state legislators into a Special Session on July 18 to focus on addressing public safety proposals. During the 3 months before the session, the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee conducted a number of extensive day long hearings on the legislation with the Governor’s Office making presentations and stake holders offering research and analysis.  At one point the Governor actually withdrew legislation and offered substitute legislation.

Members of the Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee made it clear repeatedly that the changes to the mental health commitment laws were way too complicated for a Special Session and there was a need for more time and research on the proposals. The Governor rejected the arguments made and refused to listen and pushed forward.

Some of the presentations made by the Governor’s representatives, including the Governor’s general legal counsel, were woefully inadequate reflecting a misunderstanding of the civil judicial mental health commitment process and the resources that will be needed for the courts to carry out changes to the mental health commitment process.  It not surprising that the legislature rejected all of the Governor’s proposals.  What also is not surprising is the legislature itself has failed to come up with legislation itself to deal with the competency issue and instead gives excuses.

Justice Zamora’s working group of stakeholders have been working on solutions for at least 2 years. The legislature’s Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee has been working on legislation since the Governor call for the Special Session on April 16, a full four months ago, and the committee will continue to work on legislation for another 5 months until January 16 when the regular 2025 session begins. In other words, almost 3 years will have been spent on coming up with viable solutions by stakeholders and there still is nothing.

None of the legislation the Governor advocated for with respect to mental health commitment provided for funding for the courts and mental health facilities. The Court, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee has also failed to come up with consensus legislation and to provide funding for the courts and mental health facilities. The only thing the committee has come up with so far are excuses that “it’s too complicated”.

The Governor, her administration and the legislative leadership must accept full responsibility for a failure of leadership and a failure to reach a consensus on any legislation that could and should be enacted.  The Governor and the Legislative leadership need to regroup, set aside their differences and stop making excuses and come up with a consensus on a viable public safety package to deal with mental health commitment hearings to enact during the 2025 legislative session.

CONCENTRATE ON WHAT REALLY MATTERS

Warehousing the mentally ill, drug addicted or the unhoused who are mentally ill or drug addicted in jails for crimes committed is not the answer and does not address treatment. The court’s must be looked to as part of the solution. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the legislature should strengthen and expand the state’s mental health commitment laws coupled with full funding for mental health facilities and the courts. The District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office need to be made a part of the solution with the expansion of the state mental health commitment laws with mandatory filing of civil mental health commitments that go beyond the 3-day, 7-day and 30-day commitments that are already allowed by state law.

The 2025 legislature should enact the Governor’s proposal for the involuntary civil commitment of criminal defendants charged with a serious violent offense, a felony involving the use of a firearm, and those defendants who have also been found incompetent to stand trial two or more times in the prior 12 months. Judges should be required to order district attorneys to file “involuntary commitment” proceedings against criminal defendants who are found incompetent to stand trial and who would be released without further criminal prosecution for crimes committed.

The 2025 legislature should also enact the Governor’s proposed bill that will broaden the definitions of danger to oneself and danger to others in New Mexico’s involuntary commitment statute that mandates involuntary treatment for people with mental illness. The bill should mandate District Attorneys to initiate involuntary civil commitments and allow judge to mandate out-patient treatment. It should allow individuals, whether first responders, family members or community members who work with mentally ill individuals on the streets to request involuntary out-patient treatment.

The legislature during the 2025 regular session should seek to create a  14^th Judicial District Court and specialty “Mental Health Treatment Court” functioning as outreach and treatment court for the drug addicted and the mentally ill in a mandatory  hospital or counseling settings and not involving jail incarceration.  The creation of a new 14^th Judicial District Court designated as a Mental Health Court should have 3 separate regional divisions: one located in Albuquerque, one in Las Cruces and one in Las Vegas, New Mexico with the creation of at least 3 District Court Judge positions with 6-year terms.

The Assisted Outpatient Treatment program should be consolidated with the Mental Health Court so as to achieve one singular court with statewide jurisdiction.  The Administrative Offices of the Courts must play a pivotal role in setting up the new court process, including locating the new Mental Health Treatment Court in existing court houses in all 3 locations.

There is a major need for the construction and staffing of a mental health facilities or hospitals to provide the services needed to the mentally ill or drug addicted. As it stands now, there exists less than adequate facilities where patients can be referred to for civil mental health commitments and treatment.

In other words, there is nowhere for people to go or be placed to get the mental health and drug treatment needed. There is glaring need for a behavioral health hospital and drug rehabilitation treatment facilities.  The Bernalillo County Behavioral Health Center and the Las Vegas Mental Health hospital could be expanded to accommodate court referrals and a new behavioral health facility could be constructed in Las Cruces to handle mental health commitments and treatment.

New Mexico is currently experiencing historical surplus revenues and this past legislative session the legislature had an astonishing $3.6 Billion in surplus revenue. Now is the time to create a statewide Mental Health Court and dedicate funding for the construction of behavioral health hospital and drug rehabilitation treatment facilities the courts can rely upon for referrals.  Creation of a new court system must include funding for District Attorneys and Public Defenders with dedicated personnel resources for the filing and defending of civil mental health commitments as prescribed by law.

A statewide mental health court with mandatory civil commitments will get treatment to those who need it the most, help get the unhoused off the streets and help families with loved ones who resist any mental health treatment.

The link to a related blog article is here:

Convening Special Session Of NM Legislator For Public Safety Must Include Expanding Existing Mental Health Court; Create New 14th Judicial District Court With 3 Regional Divisions For Mental Health Commitment Hearings; Build Regional Treatment Facilities And Hospitals For Mandatory Treatment Ordered

 

On August 12, former President Donald Trump sat down with his billionaire supporter Elon Musk for a two-hour interview which aired on Musk’s social media platform X. Trump decided to do the interview after numerous polls have shown he is now trailing Vice President Kamala Harris. The goal of the interview was an attempt to slow the Vice President’s dramatic rise in the polls.

On August 13, the national news agency CNN publish a detailed fact check written by CNN reporters Daniel Dale with contributions to the article made by CNN reporters Tami Luhby and William Montes on the Trumps interview with Elon Musk. Even by Trump standards, he lied more than ever. Following is the article with the link:  

CNN HEADLINE: “Trump made at least 20 false claims in his conversation with Elon Musk”

Former President Donald Trump delivered his usual bombardment of false claims – at least 20 in all – during [the August 12] conversation with Elon Musk. Most of the falsehoods uttered by the Republican presidential nominee were claims that have been repeatedly debunked before, some of them for years. They spanned a broad range of subjects, from immigration to the economy to foreign policy to Trump’s record in office to Vice President Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent.

Here is a fact check:

CRIME 

Trump claimed, “Our crime rate’s going through the roof.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. Both violent crime and property crime dropped significantly in 2023 and in the first quarter of 2024. 

There are limitations to the FBI-published data from local law enforcement – the numbers are preliminary, not all communities submitted data and the submitted data usually has some errors – so these statistics may not precisely capture the size of the recent declines in crime. But other data sources make it clear crime has indeed declined to some extent.

The preliminary FBI data for 2023 showed a roughly 13% decline in murder and a roughly 6% decline in overall violent crime compared to 2022, bringing both murder and violent crime levels below where they were in Trump’s last calendar year in office in 2020. The preliminary FBI data for the first quarter of 2024 showed an even steeper drop from the same quarter in 2023 – a roughly 26% decline in murder and roughly 15% decline in overall violent crime.

Crime data expert Jeff Asher, co-founder of the firm AH Datalytics, said earlier this year that if the final 2023 figures show a decline in murder of at least 10% from 2022, this would be the fastest US decline “ever recorded.” And he noted that both the preliminary FBI-published data from the first quarter of 2024 and also “crime data collected from several independent sources point to an even larger decline in property and violent crime, including a substantially larger drop in murder, so far this year compared to 2023, though there is still time left in the year for those trends to change.”

After Trump claimed in June that “crime is so much up,” Anna Harvey, a political science professor and director of the Public Safety Lab at New York University, noted to CNN that the claim is contradicted both by the data from the FBI and from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents 70 large US police forces. She said: “It would be more accurate to say that crime is so much down.”

INFLATION

Trump said, “I think we have the worst inflation we’ve had in 100 years. They say it’s 48 years, I don’t believe it.”

Facts First: Trump framed this as an opinion, but it’s baseless nonetheless – wrong in two different ways. First, even when the inflation rate hit its Biden-era peak of 9.1% in June 2022, that 9.1% rate was the highest since 1981 – between 40 and 41 years prior, certainly not “100 years” and not even “48 years.” Second, inflation has declined sharply since the June 2022 peak, and the most recent available rate at the time he spoke, for July 2024, was 3.2% – a rate that, the Biden presidency aside, was exceeded as recently as 2011.

GLOBAL WARMING AND SEA LEVELS

Trump argued that the threat of the nuclear war is far more important than the threat posed by climate change. And he said: “The biggest threat? It’s not global warming, where the ocean’s gonna rise one eighth of an inch over the next 400 years … and you’ll have more oceanfront property, right?”

Facts First: Trump’s claim about the pace of sea-level rise is wildly inaccurate. The global average sea level is currently rising more per year than Trump claimed that it will rise in 400 years. 

NASA reported in March that the current global average sea-level rise in 2023 was 0.17 inches per year, more than double the rate in 1993. And a World Meteorological Organization report this year said the rate of sea level rise between 2014 and 2023 was about 0.19 inches per year.

In other words, sea level rise is already more than an eighth of an inch annually – and it is accelerating. NASA found a jump of 0.3 inches between 2022 and 2023.

Gary Griggs, a University of California, Santa Cruz professor of earth and planetary sciences who studies sea-level rise, said last year that Trump’s similar claims “can only be described as totally out of touch with reality” and that Trump “has no idea what he is talking about.”

Sea levels rise by different amounts in different locations. For the US, sea levels are expected to rise particularly fast for the east coast and Gulf of Mexico coast – and Trump’s state of Florida, which is bordered by both of those coasts, is expected to be affected more severely than many other coastal states.

In fact, Trump’s claims about sea levels are highly inaccurate for the area near Mar-a-Lago, which is on the Atlantic. Griggs noted in a June email that data from the closest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tide gauge to Mar-a-Lago shows an increase of an eighth of an inch roughly every nine months.

Trump has also previously made the joke about rising seas creating more oceanfront property. In reality, rising sea levels are expected to have devastating consequences not only for many seafront properties but for areas further inland – rendering some communities uninhabitable and others more dangerous, increasing the frequency and reach of flooding, making hurricanes more destructive and damaging infrastructure and ecosystems.

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION

Trump told Musk that “you got a lot of people listening” to the conversation – “like 60 million or something.” He then asked somebody what the number was, but he never corrected his initial estimate.

Facts First: Trump did express uncertainty about the number, but his “like 60 million or something” claim is false. At the time he made this remark, public data on X showed that there were 1.1 million accounts listening to the conversation. 

Trump appeared to be referring to something different: the number of views on his own X post sharing the “space” where the conversation was played. But the vast majority of the accounts that viewed the post did not actually listen to the conversation.

HARRIS AND PRISONERS

Trump claimed of Harris: “She wants to release all the prisoners that are in detention, and some of these guys are really bad. That just came out today.”

Facts First: This is false. There is no basis for the claim that Harris “wants to release all the prisoners that are in detention.” Trump appeared to be referring to news stories in conservative media that reported that Harris had said in 2019, while unsuccessfully running in the Democratic presidential primary, that she wanted to close privately-run immigration detention centers. 

Even if Harris continues to hold this position today – she has not addressed the subject since she began her presidential campaign in July – closing privately-run immigration detention centers would not result in the release of “all” prisoners in immigration detention, let alone all prisoners in regular US jails and prisons; Trump did not specify that he was talking about Harris’ past stance on certain immigration detention facilities rather than all prisons.

It’s possible Trump had been misled himself; a short clip shared by some Republicans on social media this week did not include the part of Harris’ 2019 remarks where she specified that she was referring to privately run immigration detention facilities in particular.  But articles by Fox News and The New York Post correctly noted that this was what she said.

HARRIS’ IMMIGRATION ROLE

Trump claimed of Harris: “She was the border czar, and people can’t allow them to get away with their disinformation campaign. Now, she’s saying she wasn’t really involved … she was totally in charge.”

Facts First: This is false. Harris was never made Biden’s “border czar,” a label the White House has always emphasized is inaccurate, and was never “totally in charge” of the border; Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is the official in charge of border security. In reality, Biden gave Harris a more limited immigration-related assignment in 2021, asking her to lead diplomacy with El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in an attempt to address the conditions that prompted their citizens to try to migrate to the United States.

Some Republicans have scoffed at assertions that Harris was never the “border czar,” noting on social media that news articles sometimes described Harris as such. But those articles were wrong. Various news outlets, including CNN, reported as early as the first half of 2021 that the White House emphasized that Harris had not been put in charge of border security as a whole, as “border czar” strongly suggests, and had instead been handed a diplomatic task related to Central American countries.

A White House “fact sheet” in July 2021 said: “On February 2, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order that called for the development of a Root Causes Strategy.
Since March, Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the Administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.”

Biden’s own comments at a March 2021 event announcing the assignment were slightly more muddled, but he said he had asked Harris to lead “our diplomatic effort” to address factors causing migration in the three “Northern Triangle” countries (he also mentioned Mexico that day). Biden listed factors in these countries he thought had led to migration and said that “if you deal with the problems in-country, it benefits everyone.” And Harris’ comments that day were focused squarely on “root causes.”

Republicans can fairly say that even “root causes” work is a border-related task. But calling her “border czar” goes too far.

VENEZUELA, CRIME AND MIGRATION

Trump claimed: “Venezuela – their crime is down 72%. They’re taking their drug dealers.  They’re taking – frankly, their prisoners, they’re emptying out their prisons. They’re taking their criminals, their murderers, their rapists and they’re delivering them…”

Facts First: Trump greatly overstated the Biden-era decline in crime in Venezuela, at least according to the limited statistics that are publicly available. And while it is certain that at least some criminals have joined law-abiding Venezuelans in a mass exodus from the country amid the economic crisis of the last decade, there is no proof Venezuela has deliberately emptied prisons for migration purposes or intentionally sent ex-prisoners to the United States.

Right-wing website Breitbart published a vague 2022 article about a supposed federal intelligence report warning Border Patrol agents about freed violent prisoners from Venezuela who had then joined migrant caravans. But this supposed claim about Venezuela’s actions has never been corroborated; experts have told CNN, PolitiFact and FactCheck.org that they know of no proof of any such thing having happened.

“We have no evidence that the Venezuelan government is emptying its prisons or mental health institutions to send them outside the country, in other words, to the U.S. or any other country,” Roberto Briceño-León, founder and director of the Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, an independent organization that tracks violence in the country, said in an email to CNN in June.

Venezuela’s government does not publish reliable official crime statistics, so it’s hard to get a complete picture. But Briceño-León’s group publishes annual data on violent deaths, which includes homicides, police killings and deaths still under investigation. It found a decline of roughly 26% in the number of violent deaths from 2021 to 2023.

That’s substantial, but not “72%.” Briceño-León noted in his email that you could find a decline of roughly 70% by 2023 if you compared 2018 to 2023 – but Trump was US president until early 2021.

And crime trends in any country always have a complex mix of causes; Venezuela is no exception. Briceño-León argued that while migration has been a factor in the decline, crime has dropped in large part because the economic crisis has reduced opportunities for crime.

“Bank robberies disappear because there is no money to rob; kidnappings decrease because there is no cash to pay the ransoms; robberies on public transportation stop because travelers have no money in their pockets and old cell phones [with] no value,” he said.

MIGRATION NUMBERS

While talking about illegal immigration, Trump claimed that, under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, “you have millions of people coming in a month.”

Facts First: This is false. There has not been any month under the Biden-Harris administration where even close to “millions” of people entered the country illegally. In the peak month during this administration for what the government calls border “encounters,” December 2023, there were 370,890 encounters nationwide. Even if you factor in so-called “gotaways,” people who evaded the Border Patrol to sneak into the country, there is no basis for the claim that “millions” of people are entering in a single month.

The number of nationwide encounters was 205,019 in June, the last month for which data is currently available to the public.

MIGRATION NUMBERS, PART TWO 

Trump said of migration under Biden and Harris: “I believe it’s over 20 million people came into our country, many coming from jails, from prisons, from mental institutions, or a bigger version of that is insane asylums.”

Facts First: Trump’s “20 million” figure is false, a major exaggeration. The total number of “encounters” nationwide from February 2021 through June 2024, at both legal ports of entry and in between those ports, was about 10 million – and an “encounter” does not mean a person was let into the country; some people encountered are promptly sent away. In addition, there is no basis for Trump’s claim that “many” of these migrants have come in from jails, prisons or mental health facilities.

Even if you added the estimated number of Biden-era “gotaways” (people who evaded the Border Patrol to enter illegally), which House Republicans said in May was nearly two million, “the totals would still be vastly smaller than 15, 16 or 18 million,” Michelle Mittelstadt, spokesperson for the Migration Policy Institute think tank, said in late June after Trump used those figures.

The “encounters” figures can’t be described as figures on people successfully entering the US. Some encounters involve people who are deemed inadmissible at legal ports and are refused permission to enter. Also, the same person can be “encountered” multiple times if they keep returning to the border to try again – which is what happened in many cases under Biden when the Title 42 rapid-expulsion authority invoked by Trump during the Covid-19 pandemic was in place into May 2023.

In 2023, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung cited one source for Trump’s claim about prisons being emptied for migration purposes – the Breitbart article that has not been corroborated. Even if Venezuela in particular had indeed freed prisoners to allow people to try to migrate to the US, that would be insufficient proof for Trump’s claim that some substantial number of Biden-era migrants are from prisons.

MIGRATION AND ‘THE CONGO’

Trump repeated a claim he has made before about “the Congo” and migration, again without specifying whether he was referring to the Democratic Republic of Congo or the neighboring Republic of Congo.

He said: “From Africa, from the Congo they’re coming, from the Congo. And, 22 people came in from the Congo recently and they’re murderers. And they drop ‘em. They take ‘em out of jails – which is very expensive, you know, to maintain the jails – they don’t do too much maintaining, I can tell you. But they take ‘em out of jails, prisons. They take ‘em out, and they bring them to the United States.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is baseless. Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo, plus both pro-immigration and anti-immigration organizations in the US, told CNN in March, after Trump made a similar claim, that they had not seen any evidence of Congolese prisons being emptied, let alone evidence of either country somehow having brought ex-prisoners into the US. Trump’s presidential campaign and an allied super PAC did not respond to requests to provide any evidence. A CNN search of two media databases turned up no evidence. 

“Everything he is saying isn’t true,” Democratic Republic of Congo spokesperson Patrick Muyaya Katembwe told CNN in a text message in March. Asked specifically about Trump’s claims about Congolese prisons being emptied of violent criminals, he said, “Never ever, it’s not true.” And, he said, “we want him to stop” telling these stories, since “it’s very bad for the country.”

Serge Mombouli, the Republic of Congo’s ambassador to the US, said in an email to CNN in March: “There is no truth or any sign nor a single fact supporting such a claim or statement.”

There were also some Congolese migrants apprehended at the US border under Trump. You can read a more detailed fact check here.

DEPORTATIONS TO CENTRAL AMERICA

Trump repeated a story he has told on numerous previous occasions about how, during President Barack Obama’s administration, it was impossible to deport violent criminals to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

“In the case of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, some others, you couldn’t get ‘em back … under Obama, you couldn’t get ’em back,” he said. He repeated, “They wouldn’t take ’em back for Obama.”

Facts First: This claim remains false. In 2016, Obama’s last calendar year in office, none of these three countries were on the list of countries that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) considered “recalcitrant” (uncooperative) in accepting the return of their citizens from the US.

The Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, noted to CNN in 2019 that in the 2016 fiscal year, ICE reported that Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador ranked second, third and fourth for the country of citizenship of people being removed from the US. The same was true in the 2017 fiscal year, which encompassed the end of Obama’s presidency and the beginning of Trump’s. ICE did not identify any widespread problems with deportations to these countries.

ICE officials said there were some exceptions to the three countries’ general cooperativeness, but Trump’s general declaration that the countries were uncooperative was never true.

THE LEGITIMACY OF THE 2020 ELECTION 

Trump repeated his usual lie about the legitimacy of the 2020 election, saying his opponents have attempted to persecute him through the courts even though he did “nothing wrong” and merely complained about a “rigged election.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim about the election remains false. The 2020 election was not rigged, Trump lost fair and square to Biden by an Electoral College margin of 306 to 232, his opponents did not cheat and there is no evidence of any fraud even close to widespread enough to have changed the outcome in any state.

We’ll leave aside Trump’s subjective claims about his legal cases.

EUROPE AND AID TO UKRAINE 

Trump again claimed that European countries are not pulling their weight with regard to aid to Ukraine. He said, “With Ukraine, so we’re in for $250 billion and they’re in for about $71 billion.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. Through June, European countries had committed and provided more aid to Ukraine than the US had during and just before the Russian invasion began in early 2022, according to data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy think tank in Germany.

The Kiel Institute, which closely tracks aid to Ukraine, found that, from late January 2022 (just before Russia’s invasion in February 2022) through June 2024, the European Union and individual European countries had committed a total of about $205 billion to Ukraine, in military, financial and humanitarian assistance, compared to about $108 billion committed by the US. Europe also exceeded the US in aid that had actually been “allocated” to Ukraine – defined by the institute as aid either delivered or specified for delivery – at about $121 billion for Europe compared to about $82 billion for the US. 

The US led Europe on military aid that had actually been allocated, but very narrowly – about $56.42 billion to $56.35 billion.

It’s important to note that it’s possible to come up with different totals using different methodology. But Trump’s claim that the US has committed or provided far more aid than Europe is not true regardless.

TRADE WITH EUROPE

Trump claimed, “If you build a car in the United States, you can’t sell it in Europe. You just can’t sell it. It’s impossible.”

Facts First: It’s not true that it’s impossible to sell a US-made car in Europe.

According to a December 2023 report from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, the EU is the second-largest market for US vehicle exports — importing 271,476 US vehicles in 2022, valued at nearly 9 billion euro. (Some of these are vehicles made by European automakers at plants in the US.) The EU’s Eurostat statistical office says that car imports from the US hit a new peak in 2020, Trump’s last full year in office, at a value of about 11 billion euro.

IRAN AND FUNDING FOR TERROR GROUPS

Touting his record in dealing with Iran, Trump claimed, “They had no money for Hamas, they had no money for Hezbollah, they had no money for any of these instruments of terror.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim that Iran had “no money” for terror groups during his presidency is false. Iran’s funding for these groups did decline in the second half of his administration, in large part because his sanctions on Iran had a major negative impact on the Iranian economy, but the funding never stopped entirely, as four experts told CNN in June. Trump’s own administration said in 2020 that Iran was continuing to fund terror groups including Hezbollah. 

The Trump administration began imposing sanctions on Iran in late 2018, pursuing a campaign known as “maximum pressure.” But Trump-appointed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said himself in 2020 that Iran was continuing to fund terror groups.

“So you continue to have, in spite of the Iranian leadership demanding that more money be given to them, they are using the resources that they have to continue funding Hezbollah in Lebanon and threatening the state of Israel, funding Iraqi terrorist Shia groups, all the things that they have done historically – continuing to build out their capabilities even while the people inside of their own country are suffering,” Pompeo said in a May 2020 interview, according to a transcript posted on the State Department’s website.

Trump could have fairly said that his sanctions on Iran had made life more difficult for terror groups (though it’s unclear how much their operations were affected). Instead, he continued his years-old practice of exaggerating even legitimate achievements.

You can read a more detailed fact check from June here.

CHINA’S PURCHASES OF IRANIAN OIL

Trump repeated his familiar claim that he successfully pressured China into no longer buying oil from Iran.

“Iran was broke because I told China, ‘If you buy from Iran…’ Oil, it’s all about the oil, that’s where the money is. ‘…If you buy oil from Iran, you’re not going to do any business with the United States.’ And I meant it, and they said, ‘We’ll pass,’ and they didn’t buy oil.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. China’s oil imports from Iran did briefly plummet under Trump in 2019, the year the Trump administration made a concerted effort to deter such purchases, but they never stopped – and then they rose sharply again while Trump was still president. “The claim is untrue because Chinese crude imports from Iran haven’t stopped at all,” Matt Smith, lead oil analyst for the Americas at Kpler, a market intelligence firm, said in November, when Trump made a similar claim.

China’s official statistics recorded no purchases of Iranian crude in Trump’s last partial month in office, January 2021, and also none in most of Biden’s first year in office. But that doesn’t mean China’s imports actually ceased; industry experts say it is widely known that China has used a variety of tactics to mask its continued imports from Iran.

Smith said Iranian crude is often listed in Chinese data as being from Malaysia; ships may travel from Iran with their transponders switched off and then turn them on when they are near Malaysia, Smith said, or transfer the Iranian oil to other ships.

Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, said in a November email: “China significantly reduced its imports from Iran from around 800,000 barrels per day in 2018 to 100,000 in late 2019. But by the time Trump left office, they were back to upwards to 600(000)-700,000 barrels.”

TRUMP’S TAX CUTS

Trump repeated his regular claim that his signature tax cuts, in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, were “the largest tax cut” ever provided.

Facts First: Trump is wrong. Analyses have found that his tax cut law was not the largest in history, either in percentage of gross domestic product or in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The act made numerous permanent and temporary changes to the tax code, including reducing both corporate and individual income tax rates.

In a report released earlier this year, the federal government’s Congressional Budget Office looked at the size of past tax cuts enacted between 1981 and 2023. It found that two other tax cut bills were bigger – former President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 package and legislation signed by former President Barack Obama that extended earlier tax cuts enacted during former President George W. Bush’s administration.

The CBO measured the sizes of tax cuts by looking at the revenue effects of the bills as a percentage of gross domestic product – in other words, how much federal revenue a bill cut as a portion of the economy – over five years. Reagan’s 1981 tax cut and Obama’s 2012 tax cut extension were 3.5% and 1.7% of GDP, respectively. Trump’s 2017 tax cut, by contrast, was estimated to be about 1% of GDP.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal watchdog group, found in 2017 that the framework for Trump’s tax cuts would make them the fourth largest since 1940 in inflation-adjusted dollars and the eighth largest since 1918 as a percentage of gross domestic product.

MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND AFGHANISTAN

After talking about the state of US military equipment, Trump said, “We gave $85 billion of it back to Afghanistan, if you can believe it. We gave them $85 billion.”

Facts First: Trump’s $85 billion figure is false. While a significant quantity of military equipment that had been provided by the US to Afghan forces was indeed abandoned to the Taliban upon the US withdrawal, the Defense Department has estimated that this equipment had been worth about $7.1 billion – a chunk of the roughly $18.6 billion worth of equipment provided to Afghan forces between 2005 and 2021. And some of the equipment left behind was rendered inoperable before US forces withdrew.

As other fact-checkers have previously explained, the “$85 billion” is a rounded-up figure (it’s closer to $83 billion) for the total amount of money Congress appropriated during the war to a fund supporting the Afghan security forces. A minority of this funding was for equipment.

THE SITUATION BEFORE RIGHT TO TRY

Trump claimed that before he signed a “Right to Try” law in 2018 to give terminally ill patients easier access to experimental medications that haven’t yet received approval from the Food and Drug Administration, such patients would have no recourse if they did not have the money to travel abroad.

He said: “You know, people – if they had money, they’d go to Asia, they’d go to Europe. If they don’t have money, they’d go home and die. That’s what happened, they’d go home and die.”

Facts First: It is not true that terminally ill patients would simply have to go home and die without any access to experimental medications or would have to go to foreign countries seeking such treatments until Trump signed the Right to Try law. Prior to the law, patients had to ask the federal government for permission to access experimental medications – but the government almost always said yes.

Scott Gottlieb, who served as Trump’s FDA commissioner, told Congress in 2017 that the FDA had approved 99% of patient requests under its own “expanded access” program.

“Emergency requests for individual patients are usually granted immediately over the phone and non-emergency requests are generally processed within a few days,” Gottlieb testified.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND TRUMP’S LEGAL CASES

Trump repeated a claim he has made on numerous occasions during his campaign – that the Biden administration orchestrated a criminal election subversion case that was brought against him by a local district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, a criminal fraud case that was brought against him by a local district attorney in Manhattan, and a civil fraud case that was brought against him by the attorney general of New York state.

Facts First: This is false. There is no evidence that Biden or his administration were behind any of these cases. None of these officials reports to the president or even to the federal government.

Attorney General Merrick Garland testified to Congress in early June about the Manhattan case in which Trump was found guilty: “The Manhattan district attorney has jurisdiction over cases involving New York state law, completely independent of the Justice Department, which has jurisdiction over cases involving federal law. We do not control the Manhattan district attorney. The Manhattan district attorney does not report to us. The Manhattan district attorney makes its own decisions about cases that he wants to bring under his state law.”

As he did in his conversation with Musk, Trump has repeatedly invoked a lawyer on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team, Matthew Colangelo, while making such claims; Colangelo left the Justice Department in 2022 to join the district attorney’s office as senior counsel to Bragg. But there is no evidence that Biden had anything to do with Colangelo’s employment decision. Colangelo and Bragg were colleagues in the New York attorney general’s office before Bragg was elected Manhattan district attorney in 2021.

The link to the full CNN article with photos is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/politics/fact-check-trump-musk-20-false-claims/index.html

TRUMP BEGINS TO LAY GROUNDWORK TO CONTEST ELECTION

It becoming more and more obvious that Trump is already laying the groundwork to challenge the election results if he is not elected to a second term. In his interview with Elon Musk, Trump said Harris’ elevation was “a scam” and accused top Democrats of forcing Biden out of the 2024 race.  Trump said this:

“This was a coup of a president of the United States. He didn’t want to leave, and they said, ‘We can do it the nice way, or we can do it the hard way,’”

The week before, Trump criticized Democrats in his news conference  stating that Harris replacing  Biden “seems to me, actually, unconstitutional. Perhaps it’s not.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson similarly claimed that Harris would face legal hurdles that have not materialized. Johnson told CNN’s Jake Tapper on July 21, the day Biden dropped out, that Democrats would face “real problems” and “legal hurdles” that would be litigated in a number of states. Johnson said this:

“In some of these states, it’s a real hurdle. They have a real problem with replacing the nominee at the top of the ticket.”

Harris has in fact faced no serious opposition on her path to the Democratic nomination.  and Johnson would not specify which laws Democrats would allegedly break with Harris atop the ticket. Speaker  Johnson backtracked and said this:

“I said that we have 50 different systems in each of the states when it comes to presidential elections and choosing electors and all the rest, and in some of the states, there are impediments to just switching someone out like that. …  This is not the way the system is supposed to work. … There’s a reason it’s unprecedented. You don’t just, you know, steamroll the rules in the process because you decide that your candidate is no longer suitable. That’s what’s happened here.”

According to a CNN survey in July election authorities in at least 48 states, both Republicans and Democrats, said that there were no obstacles that would prevent Harris from getting on their ballots once she became the Democratic nominee. Election authorities in the other two states, Florida and Montana, did not respond to requests for comment, but a review of those states’ ballot access rules suggests Harris is not likely to face an issue there either.

Legal experts also told CNN that the courts would be unlikely to go along with lawsuits that sought to challenge the addition of a new name on the top of the Democratic ticket.

“As a legal matter, it is up to the convention to nominate a candidate. And all the legal precedent is on courts deferring to the party’s choice for its nominee and then giving the voters the choice,” Ben Ginsberg, a Republican campaign attorney who has served as general counsel for several previous GOP nominees, said last month.

In March of this years at one of his rally’s Trump said this:

“Now if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. … It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it. … If this election isn’t won, I’m not sure that you’ll ever have another election in this country.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-bloodbath-loses-election-2024-rcna143746

 

This blog article is an in-depth report on Albuquerque’s homeless numbers, the city’s policy adopted to remove homeless encampments from public and private property and the need for the city to enforce its vagrancy laws as allowed by the United State Supreme Court.

THE POINT-IN-TIME COUNT

The Point-In-Time (PIT) count is the annual counting individuals and families experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness within a community on a single night in January.  On July 31, the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness released the 2024 Point-In-Time (PIT) Report for the numbers of unhoused in Albuquerque. This year’s PIT count occurred on the night of January 29.  The link to review the entire 62-page 2024 PIT report is here:

 https://www.nmceh.org/_files/ugd/ad7ad8_4e2a2906787e4ca19853b9c7945a4dc9

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The 2024 PIT survey reported that the total count of HOUSEHOLDS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,248. (Households include those with or without children or only children.)  The breakdown is as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 1,018
• Transitional Housing: 174
• Unsheltered: 1,056

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS: 2,248

PERSONS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The 2024 PIT survey reported that the total count of PERSONS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,740 broken down in 3 categories.

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

TOTAL PERSONS: 2,740

UNSHELTERED BREAKDOWN

The data breakdown for the 2024 Albuquerque UNSHELTERED was reported as follows:

• 960 (78%) were considered chronically homeless.
• 727 (22%) were not considered chronically homeless.
• 106 (8.6%) had served in the military.
• 927 (75.3%) had NOT served in the military.
• 669 (56.6%) were experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 525 (42.6%) were NOT experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 5% of all respondents said they were homeless due to domestic violence with 49.2% of those being women..
• 4% said they were adults with a serious mental illness.
• 0% said they were adults with a substance abuse disorder.
• 8% said they were adults with another disabling condition.
• 3% were asdults with HIV/AIDS.

THOSE WHO MOVED TO NEW MEXICO FROM ELSWWHERE

For the first time, the PIT tried to gage the migration of the unhoused to New Mexico from other states.  Individuals who stated they moved to New Mexico from somewhere else were asked whether or not they were experiencing homelessness when they moved to the State. They responded as follows:

• 82 (24.8%) said they were homeless before moving to the state.
• 212 (63.8%) said they were not homeless before moving to the state.
• 77 (11.4%) refused to answer

BARRIERS TO HOUSING LISTED

Unhoused respondents were asked to list the barriers they are currently experiencing that are preventing them from obtaining housing. The response options were developed during multiple meetings with community planning groups and based on responses to a similar 2023 survey question. The responses were as follows:

• Access to services: 439 responses (42%)
• Access to communication: 263 responses 25%
• Available housing is in unsafe neighborhoods: 119 responses 11%
• Credit issues: 150 responses 14%
• Criminal record: 220 responses 21%
• Deposit/Application fees: 316 responses 30%
• Lack of vouchers (rental subsidies: 333 responses 32%
• Missing documentation: 374 responses 35%
• No housing for large households: 33 responses 3%
• Pet deposits/Pet Rent: 57 responses 5%
• Pets not allowed/Breed Restrictions: 48 responses 5%
• Rental history: 144 responses 14%
• Rental prices: 340 responses 32%
• Safety/Security: 77 responses 7%
• Substance Use Disorder: 283 responses 27%
• Lack of employment: 45 responses 4%
• Disabled: 34 responses 3%
• No mailing address: 31 3%
• Lack of income: 30 3%
• Homeless by choice: 30 responses 3%
• Ineffective service landscape: 25 responses 2%
• Lack of transportation: 14 responses 1%
• Discrimination: 8 responses 1%

ENCAMPMENT CLEANUPS AND REMOVAL

For the very first time, Albuquerque’s Unhoused were asked how many times has their encampment been decommissioned (removed) by the city over  the last year. Following are the statistics:

• 69 reported once
• 98 report twice
• 67 reported three times
• 55 reported 4 times
• 497 report 5 time or more

EDITOR’S NOTE: During the July 29 Town Hall meeting held by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on “Public Safety”, Mayor Tim Keller proclaimed the city of Albuquerque is cleaning up and removing upwards of 1,000 encampments a month. Keller gave no further information and his claim appears to be an embellishment when compared to the PIT survey results.

ITEMS LOST AS A RESULT OF CITY CLEAN UPS

The unhouse surveyed were asked what types of items they lost during encampment removals. Losing these items can hinder progress toward housing and cause emotional distress, especially when sentimental items are involved.  The response categories are not mutually exclusive and respondents were allowed to select more than one that applied.

• 81% said they lost their birth certificate.
• 5% said they lost a phone or tablet.
• 4% said they lost personal or sentimental items.
• 5% said they lost prescription medications.
• 9% said they lost social security cards.
• 6 said they lost a state ID or driver’s license.

NEW MEXICO STATUTES AND CITY ORDINANCES

New Mexico Statutes and City Ordinances that have been enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property rights. All the laws cited have been on the books for decades and are applicable and are enforced against all citizens and not just the unhoused. The specific statutes cited in the lawsuit are:

1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
2. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
8. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors.  The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence.  The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department has agreed that only citations will be issued and no arrests will be made for violations of the 8 statutes and city ordinance as part of a court approved settlement in  a decades old federal civil rights lawsuit dealing with jail overcrowding.

US SUPREME COURT CASE GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON

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

The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The case is strikingly similar in facts and circumstances and laws to the case filed against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park.

The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass, a town with just one 138-bed overnight shelter,  criminalized them for behavior they couldn’t avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.

Meanwhile, municipalities across the western United States argued that court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments.  The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds.

The United States Supreme Court considered whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking. The case is the most significant case heard by the high court in decades on the rights of the unhoused and comes as a rising number of people in the United States are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court  reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets.  The Supreme Court ruled  that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking.

CITY PROCESS IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH REMOVAL OF HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS

The City of Albuquerque has adopted a written  policy for responding to encampments on public property.  The policy was first adopted in October, 2021 and then revised October, 2022. The link to review the entire 16-page policy is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/health-housing-homelessness/documents/final-fcs-encampment-policy-11-7-22.pdf

Following is a summary of the process followed by the city for the removal unhoused encampments.

BALANCING ACT OF COMPETING INTERESTS

The City’s policy on encampment removals states in part:

“There are particularly high rates of homelessness among Native Americans, Black and Hispanic populations, people with disabilities, and people with mental health or substance use disorders. People experiencing homelessness are frequently victims of crime and certain populations are especially susceptible to human trafficking, sex crimes, and other crimes of violence. The City of Albuquerque recognizes that there are no “homeless people,” but rather people who have lost their homes and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

The goal of the City of Albuquerque policy on encampments is to balance multiple, and sometimes competing, priorities from a diverse group of stakeholders. The stakeholders include homeowners, business owners, public health and safety officials, and the unsheltered themselves.

The city policy on encampment removal provides in pertinent part as follows:

“In order to strike the right balance, the City must ensure that the rights of people who are unsheltered are given equal protection under the law. As cities struggle to accommodate rising numbers of unsheltered people and encampments, the courts have also weighed in on how to balance public safety and constitutional rights.

While this is a rapidly evolving area of the law, courts have recognized that there are legitimate public safety reasons for removing or cleaning up encampments, such as the safety of unsheltered people, unsanitary conditions, and public health concerns. However, courts have also identified several constitutional concerns that must be addressed [when an encampment is dispersed]  including

1. Adequate notice provisions prior to removal,
2.  Due process for retrieving personal property,
3. Assessment of individual needs such as mental or physical disability, and
4.  Whether appropriate shelter beds exist in the community as a condition prior to removal of an encampment.”

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The City of Albuquerque has enunciated 4 major guiding principles for removal unhoused encampments. The 4 guiding principles are:

1. HARM REDUCTION: This Refers to policies, programs, and practices that aim to minimize negative health, social, and legal impacts associated with drug use, drug policies, and drug laws. Harm reduction is grounded in justice and human rights. It focuses on positive change and on people without judgement, coercion, discrimination, or requiring that they stop using drugs as a precondition of support.
2. TRAUMA-INFORMED: Trauma-informed approaches emphasize safety, trustworthiness, peer support, collaboration, empowerment, and a focus on cultural, historical and gender issues.
3. HOUSING FIRST: The Housing First principle recognizes that the primary need of people experiencing homelessness is housing. This Housing First approach is based on the premise that people are best able to address their needs, such as substance abuse and mental health treatment and employment, once they have a home.
4. PERSON-CENTERED RESPONSE: The City aims to provide person-centered, trauma-informed care that respects the dignity and ensures the safety of all individuals and families seeking assistance. Progressive engagement that is respectful of participant choice and attuned to participant safety and confidentiality needs will inform data collection efforts, level of services provided, and location/type of housing accessed.

CLEARING OF ENCAMPMENTS BY CITY

The City of Albuquerque no longer relies on the Albuquerque Police Department (APD)  as the primary or only city department for removal of unhoused encampments. There are 4 other city departments working together that are now primarily responsible for homeless encampment removals. Those 4 city departments are:

1. The Health, Housing & Homelessness Department
2. The Albuquerque Community Safety Department
3. The Planning Department Code Enforcement
4. Solid Waste Department

When an encampment is reported and a complaint is filed, it is usually first handled by the Albuquerque Community Safety Department.  The city sends outreach providers to speak to the homeless to see what services they might need or want and what services can be offered. A member of the city outreach team will visit the reported site to address the encampment and offer resources including shelter, transportation, and personal storage.

The city has an “encampment team” made up of seven people. Their job is to respond to reported encampments set up on public property, and give the people living there the written “notices to vacate.” After the assessment, written “notices to vacate” are issued.  The homeless are given a full 72 hours to clear the area of their personal property and belongings.

The camps are then cleared by the city Solid Waste.  Once the 72 hours time is up, the encampment team checks in to make sure the people have in fact moved. Once the encampment has been vacated, the city cleans up whatever is left behind at the camp which includes many times trash and needles for illicit drug use.

311 CITIZENS CONTACT CENTER FIRST STEP

The preferred method for the general public or City employees to report an encampment is through the 311 citizens contact center. Encampments within city limits can be reported by calling 311 (505-768-2000) or using the ABQ311 App.    However, members of the public and City employees can report encampments directly to other City departments.

The 311-citizen contact sends referral reports on encampments that appear to be on public property to the Family and Community Safety Department (FCS) designee. The 311-citizen contact center sends referral reports on encampments that appear to be on private property to the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department.

“PRIVATE PROPERTY” is defined as any property that is not owned by a governmental entity, such as an individual, business, or non-profit organization, including but not limited to business parking lots and private residences.

“PUBLIC PROPERTY” is defined as any real property owned by any governmental entity within the municipal limits of the city, including but not limited to, the public way, right-of-way, roads, streets and public alleys.

The 311 citizens contact center is required to collect information from callers or via the 311-application process to enable the Family and Community Safety designee to determine the priority level of encampments reported to 311.

RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS

After the 311 citizens contact center receives a report of an encampment, the Family and Community Safety Department Designee determines whether the encampment is located upon public or private property and conducts a “Risk Assessment Analysis”.

If the FCS Designee identifies the property on which the encampment is located is on private property, it  must coordinate with the Code Enforcement Division, which will then address the encampment following their own protocol for addressing encampments on private property.

If the FCS Designee identifies the property upon which the encampment is located as public property, they must take actions in accordance with the city’s encampment removal policy.

RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS & PRIORITIZATION OF RESPONSE

The FCS designee conducts a “Risk Assessment Analysis” of each encampment located on public property based on the information reported about the encampment. The Risk Assessment Analysis considers the following:

• The location of the encampment
• The risk to encampment occupants and other users of the public space in which the encampment is located
• The number of encampment occupants and
• The presence of needles and/or human waste

Based on the risk analysis, encampments are prioritized as a 1, 2, or 3 priority.  The FCS Designee responds to encampments identified as “priority 1” first, then “priority 2” and so on.  Based on the risk assessment analysis, encampments on public property are defined and prioritized as follows:

PRIORITY ENCAMPAMENTS OUTLINED

The city has defined and prioritized encampments as follows:

 PRIORITY 1 ENCAMPMENTS are those that meet the definition of immediate hazard or obstruction or are:

1. Located in a public park where children’s programming occurs.
2. Located at or adjacent to a community center, senior center, multigenerational center and early childhood development center.
3. Located adjacent to or in the median of a roadway or obstructing any street, sidewalk, bus stop, crosswalk, bicycle lane, bicycle path, foot path, areas of City-owned property within 10 feet of a street without sidewalks, or other public way.
4. On a footbridge over a roadway.
5. Where an Albuquerque Police Department (“APD”) officer observes felony possession of narcotics or other felonious activity.

“IMMEDIATE HAZARD” is defined as a situation where an encampment creates an immediate and articulable risk of serious injury or death to either the residents of the encampment or others. Immediate Hazard includes encampments within 10 feet of any public facility where children are present or children’s programming occurs. Immediate Hazard also includes encampments within the Rio Grande Valley State Park, or any public property where fire restrictions have been imposed.

“OBSTRUCTION” means people, tents, personal property, garbage, debris or other objects related to an encampment that interfere with areas that are necessary for or essential to the intended use of a public property or facility.

PRIORITY 2 ENCAMPMENTS meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. Located in an underpass near a roadway
2. Five or more encampment residents and/or structures are present
3. Human waste present
4. Significant quantities of hypodermic needles present

PRIORITY 3 ENCAMPMENTS are all encampments that do not meet the criteria above.

INITIAL ENCAMPMENT CONTACT

The Health, Housing & Homelessness Department (FCS) or the Albuquerque Community Safety Department (ACS) goes to the encampment location in person to attempt to engage the homeless encampment residents.   The first priority of the FCS or ACS Designee is to engage encampment residents, assess their basic needs, and provide any notice required by the policy to vacate the area.

The FCS or ACS Designee is required to attempt to educate encampment residents regarding resources and provide basic referral information to such resources, including but not limited to meals, showers and bathroom facilities, emergency shelter, medical services and supportive housing programs. If appropriate, the ACS Designee may transport individual(s) to shelter, provider, or location in which long term care can be provided.

When an encampment resident requests medical assistance or has an injury that poses a risk of death or serious bodily harm, the FCS or ACS Designee is required to contact the 9-1-1 emergency dispatch center.

If the FCS or ACS Designee observes any weapons at the encampment the FCS or ACS Designee is not to engage with the unhoused  encampment residents and may request APD assistance.

REMOVAL OF ENCAMPMENTS – IMMEDIATE HAZARD OR OBSTRUCTION

The City is not required to provide notice to remove an encampment constituting an immediate hazard or obstruction.  Immediate hazards are not typical encampments because an encampment that is an immediate hazard must present an imminent risk of serious injury or death. Immediate hazards are an emergency exception to the general rule that notice is required before requiring the removal of an encampment.

If unhoused are present at the encampment when the FCS Designee identifies that an encampment is an immediate hazard or obstruction, the city personnel must work collaboratively with the homeless to allow for them to collect and remove their own Personal Property, connect them to social services and shelter, identify and offer to store any Personal Property, identify where Personal Property will be stored if removed by the City, and explain how Personal Property may be claimed by its owner.

All trash or debris that are in the immediate area of the encampment may be removed and disposed of. An FCS designee will ask the persons at the encampment to assist with the clean-up.   If the resident has difficulty complying due to underlying behavioral health issues, the FCS Designee may request an ACS Behavioral Health Responder.

If persons are not present at the encampment when City staff identify the encampment as an immediate hazard or obstruction, the City shall take steps to identify and coordinate with the appropriate responsible entity to preserve Personal Property, provided that doing so does not pose a danger to the City Employees present.

All trash or debris that are in the immediate area of the encampment may be removed and disposed of immediately.

The City will not attempt to collect or store, and may instead immediately remove and dispose of, Personal Property that exceeds any storage limits established by the City.   The City will not attempt to collect or store, and may instead immediately remove and dispose of, the following items:

• Any items that are not deemed to be Personal Property.
• Any items that are deemed to be hazardous.
• Shopping carts.
• Large collections or items, including collections of bicycle parts.
• Large furniture items.
• Building materials such as wood products, metal, pallets, or rigid plastic.

72 HOUR NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR ENCAMPMENT REMOVAL

If individuals are not present and the encampment is not an immediate hazard or obstruction, the FCS Designate will post a written notice on or near the encampment stating:

• The date and time the notice was posted.
• The date and time by which the individual is required to vacate the area, which shall be 72 hours at minimum after the date and time notice was posted.
• Contact information for outreach providers and shelter alternatives.
• That the encampment is subject to removal and cleanup.
• Where Personal Property will be stored if removed by the City; and
• How Personal Property may be claimed by its owner.

If individuals are present and the encampment is not an immediate hazard or obstruction,  the FCS Designee shall give verbal and written notice to the individuals that the encampment is subject to removal.

ENCAMPMENT OUTREACH MEASURES

At the time homeless encampment residents are informed that an encampment is an immediate hazard or obstruction, or at the time notice is posted, the FCS Designee shall engage encampment residents and assess their basic needs. The FCS Designee shall attempt to educate encampment residents regarding resources and provide basic referral information to such resources, including but not limited to meals, showers and bathroom facilities, emergency shelter, medical services and supportive housing programs.

Before the encampment is removed, the FCS or ACS Designee shall take reasonable steps to determine if there is shelter space available for the encampment resident(s).

For all encampments that are not an immediate hazard or obstruction, FCS shall refer the encampment to the ACS Designee or personnel using a shared database. The ACS Designee shall conduct outreach to the encampment residents in accordance with ACS protocol.

The FCS or ACS Designate shall assess whether removing the encampment will disrupt the encampment resident’s current connection to services. If so, the FCS or ACS Designee shall take steps to mitigate that impact.

For the removal of encampments that constitute an immediate hazard or obstruction, the FCS Designee shall contact ACS Designee to see if an outreach specialist is immediately available to conduct outreach prior to the encampment removal. If an ACS Designee is not available, FCS Designee may proceed with the removal of the encampment after providing information about resources.

To effectively communicate with those experiencing homelessness and providers who assist with long term care, ACS provides community outreach and provides updates on policy or personnel changes.  Outreach and education efforts include:

• Staff and leadership will regularly meet and work with local community organizations, providers and those experiencing homelessness.
• The Community Safety Department will also solicit input from community and its representatives through facilitations and surveys.

ENCAMPMENT REMOVAL & SITE CLEAN-UP

 Encampments that are not an immediate hazard or obstruction shall not be removed without the required notice provisions and verifying whether available emergency shelter beds exist in the community. After these steps have been completed, if the encampment is still present, the City may initiate removal of the encampment.

Except for an immediate hazard or obstruction, the FCS or ACS Designee shall take reasonable steps to confirm whether available emergency shelter beds exist prior to any enforcement action, including removal of an encampment.

The FCS or ACS Designee shall use their observations of the encampment resident(s) and information reported by the encampment resident(s) to make this determination, including to determine whether there is a shelter bed that can reasonably accommodate the individual’s mental or physical needs or disabilities.

If available emergency shelter beds do not exist, the FCS Designee may not require the removal of the encampment. If available emergency shelter beds do exist, FCS or ACS Designee shall inform the individuals where beds are available, provide contact information for facility and provide transportation to such facility if requested.

If persons are present at the encampment when FCS Designee return to the site after the period specified in the written removal notice has expired, the following protocol is to be followed:

1. FCS Designee shall work collaboratively with such persons to allow reasonable time for them to collect and remove their own Personal Property and to identify and offer to store any Personal Property.
2. The FCS Designee shall educate encampment resident regarding resources, and provide basic referral information to such resources, including but not limited to meals, showers and bathroom facilities, emergency shelter, medical services and supportive housing programs.
3. All trash or debris that are in the immediate area of the encampment, and any items that are deemed hazardous, may be removed and disposed of immediately.
4. As part of the removal of any trash and / or debris, the City shall not destroy any materials of apparent value which appear to be the Personal Property of any individual, except that the City may immediately remove and destroy any items that cannot be stored by the City. Those items that may be immediately removed include items that are deemed hazardous, any shopping carts, large collections of items including collections of bicycle  parts,  large furniture items, and building materials such as wood products, metal, pallets, or rigid plastic;
5. Personal Property and Special Personal Property must be collected and stored as provided by the policy.
6. The FCS Designee shall be responsible for identifying what is Personal Property, Special Personal Property, trash or debris, hazardous items, or items that otherwise cannot be stored by the City; and
7. If any Personal Property or Special Personal Property is stored, FCS designee shall provide written notice indicating where the property has been stored and how to retrieve the property.

“PERSONAL PROPERTY” means an item that is reasonably recognizable as belonging to a person that has apparent utility in its present condition and circumstances or is identified by an owner as personal property. Examples of personal property include but are not limited to tents, bicycles, radios and other electronic equipment, crutches, wheelchairs, and all items of Special Personal Property. Personal property does not include trash or refuse, including empty plastic or paper bags. The relevant City Employee or contracted entity shall determine whether an item is personal property, and in cases when the status of an item cannot be reasonably determined under the totality of the circumstances, the item shall be treated and handled as personal property.

“SPECIAL PERSONAL PROPERTY” means personal property that is specifically identifiable or of readily identifiable unique value and would be difficult to replace, including, but not limited to, identification documents, birth certificates, photographs, address & phone number books, paperwork including notebooks with writing, mail, and any notices from governmental agencies, eyeglasses, or prescription medication. Special personal property does not include weapons, contraband or illegal items such as illicit drugs.

“LOST OR ABANDONED PROPERTY” means property that has been physically
relinquished or affirmatively disclaimed by encampment resident, when encampment
resident is present; trash and debris left in a public area; and property deserted beyond
a reasonable period of time, when considering the totality of the circumstances, is
abandoned. Property left in someone else’s care is not abandoned.

If persons are not present at the encampment when the FCS Designee returns to the site after the period specified in the written removal notice has expired the following protocol is to be followed:

1. The City shall take reasonable steps to identify and coordinate with appropriate responsible agencies to preserve Personal Property, provided that doing so does not pose a danger to the City Employees present.
2. All trash or debris that are in the immediate area of the encampment, and any items that are deemed hazardous, may be removed and disposed of immediately.
3. As part of the removal of any trash and/or debris, the City shall not destroy any materials of apparent value which appear to be the Personal Property of any individual. There are exceptions that the city may immediately remove and destroy items that cannot be stored by the city, including items that are deemed hazardous, any shopping carts, large collections of items, including collections of bicycle parts, large furniture items, and building materials such as wood products, metal, pallets, or rigid plastic.
4. Personal Property and Special Personal Property, other than items identified that cannot be stored by the City, shall be collected and stored as provided by the policy.

The FCS Designee shall be responsible for identifying what is Personal Property, Special Personal Property, trash or debris, hazardous items, or items that otherwise cannot be stored by the City vi. If any Personal Property or Special Personal Property is stored, FCS designee shall provide written notice indicating where the property has been stored and how to retrieve the property.

The FCS Designee shall work with the appropriate City department or other entity to clean the area where the encampment was located. When the Department of Solid Waste is the appropriate City department, the FCS Designee shall notify the Department of Solid Waste in writing with the location of the encampment prior to any site cleanup as well as the time for notice.

Whenever possible, City staff shall work collaboratively with residents of an encampment to clean up the area where an encampment is located.

90 DAY STORAGE OF COLLECTED PERSONAL PROPERTY

Personal Property collected by the City must be stored for 90 days without charge, during which time the property shall be available to be reclaimed by the owner. After the expiration of 90 days, any unclaimed property will be destroyed.

Special Personal Property shall be in a designated area, in order to make it easier for encampment residents to retrieve these items.

The FCS Designee determines whether an item is Personal Property and whether it is lost or abandoned.

In the case of lost or abandoned property, the FCS designee shall attach a written notice where the encampment was located indicating that Personal Property has been stored and how to retrieve the property.

Written notice is given to the individual instructing them how to claim their property.  The Solid Waste Department shall dispose of any items that have been unclaimed for 90 days.

COORDINATION WITH APD

City Employees may request APD assistance at any point if they believe it is necessary. This may include, but is not limited to, situations in which the resident(s) of the encampment refuses to cooperate with the removal of the encampment after the appropriate notice period has passed or threatens the safety and security of the Designee.

The link to review the entire 16 page policy for responding to homeless encampments  is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/health-housing-homelessness/documents/final-fcs-encampment-policy-11-7-22.pdf

The links to relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/city-official-answers-questions-on-homeless-encampments-in-albuquerque/6317454/

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/the-process-behind-removing-homeless-camps-from-public-places/

https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-is-continuing-to-push-to-clean-up-city-streets-and-parks-filled-with-homeless-encampments/46136128

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Being unhoused is not a crime. Government, be it federal or local, have a moral obligation to help and assist the unhoused, especially those that are mentally ill or who are drug addicted.  The city has spent or is spending upwards of $100 million a year on homeless services including for two emergency shelters, subsidized housing, food and medical care and drug counseling. The vast majority of the chronically unhoused refuse or decline city shelter, housing, services and financial help offered or simply say they are not satisfied with what is being offered by the city.

The unhoused are not above the law. They cannot be allowed to just ignore the law, illegally camp wherever they want for as long as they want and as they choose, when they totally reject any and all government housing or shelter assistance. The City has every right to enforce its laws on behalf of its citizens to preserve and protect the public health, safety and welfare of all its citizens.

Unlawful encampment squatters who refuse city services and all alternatives to living on the street, who want to camp at city parks, on city streets in alleys and trespass in open space give the city no choice but to take action and force them to move on.

Allowing the homeless to use, congregate and camp anywhere they want for as long as they want in violation of city laws and ordinances should never be considered as an option to deal with the homeless crisis given all the resources the city is dedicating the millions being spent to assist the homeless.

The homeless crisis will not be solved by the city nor by Mayor Keller, but it can and must be managed. The management of the crisis is to provide the support services, including food and lodging, and mental health care needed to allow the homeless to turn their lives around, become productive self-sufficient citizens, no longer dependent on relatives or others.

Too many elected and government officials and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Association of New Mexico, have a hard time dealing with the fact that many homeless adults simply want to live their life as they choose, where they want to camp for as long as they can get away with it, without any government nor family interference and especially no government rules and no regulations.  No county and no municipality should ever be required to just simply ignore and to not enforce anti-camping ordinances, vagrancy laws, civil nuisance abatement laws and criminal laws designed to protect the general public’s health, safety and welfare of a community.

Squatters who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers or alternatives to living on the street really give the city no choice but to make it totally inconvenient for them to “squat” anywhere they want and force them to move on. After repeated attempts to force them to move on and citations, arrests are in order.

The link to a related blog article is here:

City Has Upwards Of 2,740 Unhoused, Balance Of State Has 1,907 Unhoused; Numbers Should Be Manageable But Only Getting Worse; Survey Includes Data On ABQ’s Efforts To Dismantle Encampments And Personal Belongings Of Unhoused; City Should Enforce Vagrancy Laws

On July 31, it was reported that the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness released the 2024 Point-In-Time (PIT) Report for the numbers of unhoused in Albuquerque and in the balance of the state. The PIT survey is performed once a year. This year’s PIT count occurred on the night of January 29.  This blog article is an in-depth report on the 2024 survey results.

The link to review the entire 62 page 2024 PIT report is here: 

Click to access ad7ad8_4e2a2906787e4ca19853b9c7945a4dc9.pdf

POINT IN TIME COUNT EXPLAINED

The Point-In-Time (PIT) count is the annual process of identifying and counting individuals and families experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness within a community on a single night in January, as defined by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD).   HUD requires any community receiving funding from Federal homeless assistance grants to conduct the biennial counts.

HUD requires that any community receiving federal funding from homeless assistance grant programs conduct the annual count. In even numbered years, only sheltered homeless are surveyed. In odd numbered years, both sheltered and unsheltered homeless are surveyed. Only those homeless people who can be located and who agree to participate in the survey are counted.

The PIT count is the official number of homeless reported by communities to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help understand the extent of homelessness at the city, state, regional and national levels.

The New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness (NMCEH) has conducted the count annually since 2021. There are two Continuum of Cares (CoC) that operate inside New Mexico, each covering a specific service area. The Albuquerque CoC covers the City of Albuquerque. The New Mexico Balance of State CoC (BoS CoC) covers all parts of New Mexico outside of Albuquerque.

With two CoCs covering the entire geographic area of New Mexico and with the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority distributing federal funds statewide, both Continuum of Cares work with participating communities to implement the PIT counts to  meet HUD’s requirements. Each count is planned, coordinated, and carried out locally on the community level.

DEFINITION AND CATEGORIES OF HOMELESSNESS

The PIT count requires the use of the HUD definition of “homelessness”. PIT counts only people who are sleeping in a shelter, in transitional housing program, or outside in places not meant for human habitation. Those people who are not counted are those who do not want to participate in the survey, who are sleeping in motels that they pay for themselves, or who are doubled up with family or friends

HUD defines sheltered homeless as “residing in an emergency shelter, motel paid through a provider or in a transitional housing program.” It does not include people who are doubled up with family or friends.  HUD defines “unsheltered homeless” as those sleeping in places not meant for human habitation including streets, parks, alleys, underpasses, abandoned buildings, campgrounds and similar environments.

The PIT count has the following 3 major categories of homelessness it reports on:

SHELTERED COUNT:  The sheltered count represents all people residing in Emergency Shelters (ES) and Transitional Housing (TH) projects.

UNSHELTERED COUNT uses surveys and street outreach to account for individuals and families experiencing unsheltered homelessness on the night of the count.  The New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness coordinated a number of street outreach teams and volunteers across the state, canvassing neighborhoods, alleys, parks, high-traffic areas, known encampments and points of congregation, meal service sites, and general service sites to engage and survey people who identified as being in a homeless situation.

HOUSING INVENTORY COUNT (HIC): The Housing Inventory Count is an inventory of provider programs that provides a total number of beds and units dedicated to serving people experiencing homelessness, and, for permanent housing projects, individuals who were homeless at entry.  The HIC counts beds in four Program Types: Emergency Shelter; Transitional Housing; Rapid Re-Housing; and Permanent Supportive Housing.

The Sheltered, Unsheltered, and Housing Inventory counts attempt to paint a complete picture of our homelessness response system, with the sheltered and unsheltered counts illustrating the need for services and the HIC demonstrating capacity for providing those services.

HIGHLIGHTS OF 2024 PIT SURVEY

On the night of January 29, 2024, the PIT survey found at least 2,740 people in Albuquerque that didn’t have a permanent home to reside in. Of that number, about half were totally unsheltered, sleeping outside with no roof over their heads. Last year, the number was 2,394.  The Point-In-Time (PIT) count identified hundreds more people who were sleeping in an emergency shelter or unsheltered in Albuquerque.

With the exception of 2022, the number of homeless individuals in the city has been increasing since 2013. There was one notable category in which numbers dropped and that was individuals in transitional housing programs where temporary housing is offered along with other resources to ultimately move people into permanent housing. In 2011, the PIT count identified 594 individuals living in transitional housing, or 36% of the individuals counted that year. In 2024, that number was just 220 or about 8% of those counted in the January survey.

The PIT report indicates that in recent years, the number of providers for transitional housing programs has dropped in the city. In 2015, there were 5 transitional housing providers funded through the federal Housing and Urban Development Continuum of Care (CoC) program. In 2024, that has dropped to 2.

In the past year, Continuum of Care programs were able to successfully house close to 700 individuals, more than 450 households and almost 200 children.

UNHOUSED ANSWER QUESTIONS

Survey respondents answered a number of questions about their experience with homelessness. More than 50% of the unsheltered respondents said they were homeless for the first time. Of surveyed individuals who were from outside of New Mexico, the majority were from Texas and California. Most said they were not homeless when they moved to New Mexico.

A third of the women surveyed said they were homeless due to domestic violence. About 16% of all respondents said domestic violence contributed to their sleeping situation.

The most common barriers to housing chosen by respondents were access to service, application fees or deposits for housing, no housing vouchers, high rental prices, missing documentation and substance-abuse disorders.

When asked about items lost in encampment clearings, documents like social security cards, birth certificates, and drivers’ licenses were commonly cited.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The 2024 PIT report revealed that certain demographics were overrepresented in the data. Of the more than 1,200 people who were unsheltered on January 29, 3 out of 4 identified themselves as veterans.

Despite making up about 5% of the Albuquerque population, close to 16% of the unsheltered population counted were Indigenous. Blacks represent 3.2% of Albuquerque’s population but more than 8% of people sleeping outside on Jan. 29.

IMPERCISE COUNT

The PIT report cautions that the 2,740 number is imprecise and that it is likely an undercount. If someone happened to be housed for the night of January 29 such as sleeping on a friend’s couch, scraping together enough for a one-night motel stay, in a hospital, or in jail, they would be excluded from the count.

The PIT report states that children are often undercounted as “parents will often do everything in their power to make sure their child has a place to sleep inside, even while the parent is forced to sleep on the street or in a vehicle.”

Sweeping encampments could also affect the count, the report said. Many unhoused people simply just say no to responding to surveys. According to the report “many individuals experiencing homelessness do not have the time of desire to complete a survey, resulting in hundreds of refusals and incomplete surveys”.

MAYOR KELLER REACTS TO SURVEY RESULTS

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller responded to the survey results by issuing the following statement:

“Given the amount of 311 calls, knowing we house 900 people every night in our system, along with what we all see around town, it’s likely a big undercount. That’s why we continue our historic investments in housing and services. We converted a rundown hotel into housing, just bought another for young adult shelter, and are planning a new recovery housing center on top of the critical work at the Gateway — which is on schedule to help 1,000 people a day next year. It’s clear we need even more resources and partners.”

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

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/abq-study-shows-almost-3-000-unhoused-on-jan-29/article_c040a6d2-4e91-11ef-bc60-d78ab21e4abe.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

2024 POINT-IN-TIME DATA DOWNLOAD

The total number of the unhoused in the city of Albuquerque dwarfs in sure numbers the total number of the unhoused in the state of New Mexico. For this reason, the 2024 Point In Time Survey released by the New Mexico Coalition End Homelessness first reports on the unsheltered and sheltered people experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque. It then reports on the unsheltered and sheltered people experiencing homelessness in the State referred to as the Balance of the State.

ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

The raw data breakdown of Alburquerque’s homeless is as follows:

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The total count of HOUSEHOLDS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,248. (Households include those with or without children or only children.)  The breakdown is as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 1,018
• Transitional Housing: 174
• Unsheltered: 1,056

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS: 2,248

PERSONS COUNTED IN ALBUQUERQUE

The total count of PERSONS experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque on January 29, 2024 was 2,740 broken down in 3 categories.

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

TOTAL PERSONS: 2,740

ALBUQUERQUE’S 2009 TO 2024 STATISTICS

Total number of PEOPLE counted during the Albuquerque Point-in-Time counts from 2009 to 2024 to establish a graphic trend line for the period are as follows:

• 2009: 2,002
• 2011: 1,639
• 2013: 1,171
• 2015: 1,287
• 2017: 1,318
• 2019: 1,524
• 2021: 1,567
• 2022: 1,311
• 2023: 2,394
• 2024: 2,740

The data breakdown for the 2024 Albuquerque UNSHELTERED was reported as follows:

• 960 (78%) were considered chronically homeless.
• 727 (22%) were not considered chronically homeless.
• 106 (8.6%) had served in the military.
• 927 (75.3%) had NOT served in the military.
• 669 (56.6%) were experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 525 (42.6%) were NOT experiencing homelessness for the first time.
• 5% of all respondents said they were homeless due to domestic violence with 49.2% of those being women.
• 4% said they were adults with a serious mental illness.
• 0% said they were adults with a substance abuse disorder.
• 8% said they were adults with another disabling condition.
• 3% were asdults with HIV/AIDS.

Individuals who stated they moved to New Mexico from somewhere else were asked whether or not they were experiencing homelessness when they moved to the State and they responded as follows:

• 82 (24.8%) said they were homeless before moving to the state.
• 212 (63.8%) said they were not homeless before moving to the state.
• 77 (11.4%) refused to answer.

DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWNS

The following demographic breakdowns are given for Albuquerque 2024 UNSHELTER count:

GENDER OF THOSE COUNTED (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• MALE: 763
• FEMALE: 446
• QUESTIONING: 2
• TRANSGENDER: 3
• Non-Binary: 5
• More than one identity: 7

AGE OF THOSE COUNTED (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• Under 18: 30
• 18-24: 94
• 25-34: 286
• 35-44: 381
• 45-54: 256
• 55-64: 145
• 65 and over: 39

RACE OF THOSE COUNTED (ALBUQUERQUE UNSHELTER COUNT)

• HISPANIC: 534 (43.4%)
• WHITE: 288 (23.4%)
• AMERICAN INDIAN, INDIGENOUS: 196 (15.9)
• AFRICAN AMERICAN: 96 (7.8%)
• Multiple races 103 (8.4%)

HISTORY OF ALBUQUERQUE’S EMERGENCY SHELTER COUNT

The 2024 PIT report contains the count of the number of people residing in EMERGENCY SHELTER in Albuquerque during the PIT Counts for the years 2011-2024.  Following are those numbers:

• 2011: 658
• 2012:  621
• 2013: 619
• 2014: 614
• 2015: 659
• 2016: 674
• 2017: 706
• 2018: 711
• 2019: 735
• 2020: 808
• 2021: 940
• 2022: 940
• 2023: 1,125
• 2024: 1,289

BARRIERS TO HOUSING LISTED

Unhoused respondents were asked to list the barriers they are currently experiencing that are preventing them from obtaining housing. Following are the responses:

• Access to services: 439 responses (42%)
• Access to communication: 263 responses 25%
• Available housing is in unsafe neighborhoods: 119 responses 11%
• Credit issues: 150 responses 14%
• Criminal record: 220 responses 21%
• Deposit/Application fees: 316 responses 30%
• Lack of vouchers (rental subsidies: 333 responses 32%
• Missing documentation: 374 responses 35%
• No housing for large households: 33 responses 3%
• Pet deposits/Pet Rent: 57 responses 5%
• Pets not allowed/Breed Restrictions: 48 responses 5%
• Rental history: 144 responses 14%
• Rental prices: 340 responses 32%
• Safety/Security: 77 responses 7%
• Substance Use Disorder: 283 responses 27%
• Lack of employment: 45 responses 4%
• Disabled: 34 responses 3%
• No mailing address: 31 3%
• Lack of income: 30 3%
• Homeless by choice: 30 responses 3%
• Ineffective service landscape: 25 responses 2%
• Lack of transportation: 14 responses 1%
• Discrimination: 8 responses 1%

CITY ENCAMPMENT CLEANUPS AND REMOVAL

Albuquerque’s Unhoused were asked how many times their encampment has been removed by the city over the last year. Following are the statistics:

• 69 reported once
• 98 report twice
• 67 reported three times
• 55 reported 4 times
• 497 report 5 time or more

EDITOR’S NOTE: During the July 29 Town Hall meeting held by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on “Public Safety”, Mayor Tim Keller proclaimed the city of Albuquerque is cleaning up and removing upwards of 1,000 encampments a month. Keller gave no further information, and his claim appears to be an embellishment when compared to the PIT survey results.

TYPES OF ITEMS LOST FROM ENCAMPMENT REMOVALS

The unhouse survey were asked what types of items they lost during encampment removals. Losing these items can hinder progress toward housing and cause emotional distress, especially when sentimental items are involved.  Note that the response categories are not mutually exclusive, and respondents could select all that applied.

• 81% said they lost their birth certificate.
• 5% said they lost a phone or tablet.
• 4% said they lost personal or sentimental items.
• 5% said they lost prescription medications.
• 9% said they lost social security cards.
• 6 said they lost a state ID or driver’s license.

BALANCE OF STATE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

The 2024 PIT survey provides the estimated number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the Balance of State.  (Households include those with or without children or only children.)

HOUSEHOLDS COUNTED IN BALANCE OF THE STATE

The total count of HOUSEHOLDS experiencing homelessness in the Balance of State on January 29, 2024 was 1,547 broken down as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 587
• Transitional Housing: 76
• Unsheltered: 884

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS: 1,547

INDIVIDUALS COUNTED IN BALANCE OF STATE

The total count of PERSONS experiencing homelessness in the Balance of the State on January 29, 2024, was 1,909   broken down as follows:

• Emergency Shelters: 746
• Transitional Housing: 156
• Unsheltered: 1,011

TOTAL PERSONS: 1,909

BALANCD OF THE STATE 2009 TO 2023 STATISTICS

Following are the number of unsheltered people counted in the BALANCE OF THE STATE for the odd number years 2009-2023 and 2024 to establish a graphic trend line:

• 2009: 1,473
• 2011: 1,962
• 2013: 1,648
• 2015: 1,342
• 2017: 1,164
• 2019: 1,717
• 2021: 1,180
• 2022: 1,283
• 2023: 1,448 
• 2024: 1,907

BALANCE OF STATE UNSHELTERED DATA BREAKDOWN

• 564 (55.8%) were considered chronically homeless
• 85 (8.4%) served in the military 
• 756 (75.4) did not serve in military
• 390 (38.6%) were experiencing homelessness for the first time
• 591 (58.4%) have experienced homelessness before
• 79% of all respondents said they were homeless due to domestic violence while 62% were woman only 
• 9% were adults with a serious mental illness 
• 2% were adults with a substance use disorder
• 9% were adults with another disabling condition

GENDER OF THOSE COUNTED (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• MALE: 678
• FEMALE: 320
• Questioning: 1
• Transgender: 3
• Non-Binary: 4

AGE OF THOSE COUNTED (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• Under 18: 34
• 18-24: 73
• 25-34: 238
• 35-44: 274
• 45-54: 198
• 55-64: 136
• 65 and over: 58

RACE OF THOSE COUNTED (UNSHELTER COUNT, BALANCE OF THE STATE)

• HISPANIC: 385 (38.1%)
• WHITE: 349 (34.55)
• AMERICAN INDIAN, INDIGENOUS: 179 (17.7%)
• AFRICAN AMERICAN: 38 (3.8%)
• MULTIPLE RACES: 54 (5.3%)

BALANCE OF STATE SHELTERED COUNT TOTALS from 2011 TO 2023

• 2011: 1,035
• 2012: 759
• 2013: 876
• 2014: 795
• 2015: 728
• 2016: 567
• 2017: 548
• 2018: 657
• 2019: 881
• 2020: 895
• 2021: 702
• 2022: 785
• 2023: 665

BALANCE OF STATE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING COUNT FROM 2011 TO 2023

• 2011:  466
• 2012: 594
• 2013: 488
• 2014: 413
• 2015: 343
• 2016: 203
• 2017: 204
• 2018: 142
• 2019: 144
• 2020: 160
• 2021: 116
• 2022: 107
• 2023: 292
• 2024: 152

 COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Every year that the Point In Time survey is released, the city and service providers always proclaim it is a massive undercount of the city and state’s homeless population. The accuracy of the numbers are repeatedly called into question with some arguing that the city’s homeless numbers are as high as10,000 or more as demands are made for more and more spending.

Government and charitable providers who rely on federal government funding to assist the homeless to an extent are motivated to make claims that the numbers they serve are much greater than they really are because government funding or even donations are dependent on the numbers they actually serve. This is especially so when federal funding is at stake.

One problem is that the city and the charitable providers do not all have one singular definition of homeless. They tend to count all that walk through their front doors who they assist, be it for food, clothing, shelter or a combination thereof. Many of the charitable providers serve 300 to 500 people a day.

CONSISTENCY IN THE NUMBERS

The Point in Time survey is criticized because everyone at risk of or experiencing homelessness through the course of the entire year is not included. The point-in-time count is typically done over the course of one to two nights, with volunteers canvassing neighborhoods, alleys, parks, places like the Bosque in Albuquerque, meal service sites, and general service sites.

The PIT report does not include those who are referred to as the “hidden homeless” which is defined as people who may be sleeping in their cars, overcrowded homes, vacant buildings or staying “on and off” with friends or relatives for short periods of time or in other unsafe housing conditions or in undetected campsites and those who have no permanent address.

Notwithstanding questioning the accuracy, the overall numbers found each year by the PIT over the last 12 years has been very consistent.

Albuquerque’s total number of chronic homeless is between 2,002, counted in 2009  and  2,740 counted in 2023 in Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing and Unsheltered.

The Balance of the State total number of chronic homeless are between 1,473 counted in 2009 and 1,907 counted in 2024 in Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing and Unsheltered.  

It’s Albuquerque’s numbers that have spiked dramatically.  The numbers should not be confused at all with the cities and state’s affordable housing needs.

CONCLUSION

Until government and all homeless providers come up with an ongoing method of calculating the homeless throughout the year, the annual Point In Time is the only count that is reliable and should not be dismissed as inaccurate.  The blunt reality is that homelessness will never be solved until the underlying causes are resolved including poverty and the mental health and drug addiction crisis.

During the past 5 years, the city has established two 24/7 homeless shelters, including purchasing the Loveless Gibson Medical Center for $15 million to convert it into a homeless shelter. The city is funding and operating 2 major shelters for the homeless, one fully operational with 450 beds and one when fully operational will assist upwards 1,000 homeless and accommodate at least 330 a night. Ultimately, both shelters are big enough to be remodeled and provide far more sheltered housing for the unhoused.

Given the numbers in the 2024 PIT report and the millions being spent on the homeless crisis it should be manageable. Yet the crisis is only getting worse and is a continuing major drain on city resources. During the past few years, the unhoused have become far more dispersed throughout the city and have become far more aggressive in camping where they want and for how long as they want.

The problem the city has failed to solve is how to deal with the homeless squatters who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers from the city or alternatives to living on the street and who want to camp at city parks, on city streets in alleys and trespass in open space. In those cases of refusal of assistance, the city should not hesitate to enforce its vagrancy laws with citations and even arrests after repeated warnings given to the unhoused.

The link to related blog articles are here:

Point In Time Survey Reveals ABQ’s Homeless Encampment Clean Up Efforts; City Policy And Process To Remove Homeless Encampments Outlined; More Must Be Done Enforcing Vagrancy Laws As Allowed By The United States Supreme Court

 

https://www.petedinelli.com/2023/10/09/2023-point-in-time-count-of-homeless-finds-3842-unhoused-in-new-mexico-2394-unhoused-in-albuquerque-83-increase-from-last-year-city-spends-millions-a-year-as-homelessness-increases/

 

On Sunday, August 11, the Albuquerque Journal published on its editorial pages the following Pete Dinell guest opinion column along with a screenshot from an APD lapel camera:

JOURNAL HEADLINE: “City leaders should be very disturbed by officer’s remarks”

By Pete Dinelli, city resident

“APD Internal Affairs is investigating audio from one officer’s body camera that recorded a racist conversation between officers after the April 11 police officer killing of a suspect resisting arrest. Unbeknownst to the officers, their conversation was recorded when one officer who had fatally shot the 30-year-old suspect forgot to turn off his lapel camera.

The officers disparage the man just killed as a “honky” with “a weird accent” expressing relief that the man wasn’t black “because of the optics.”  The comments included referring to Native Americans as “savages”.  Officers were not segregated separately for interviews with one ostensibly being coached on what to say to the Multi-Agency Task Force called in to investigate.

The most disturbing comments on the audio made by one officer are these:

“I like violent encounters with violent people. That’s why I became a cop. I didn’t come to [F-expletive] help old ladies who can’t cross the [F-expletive]  road.  I want to take actual shitheads that are actually doing stuff off the street. If it means you shoot some of them, so be it.”

Remarks on police violence like these from any APD cop should be the most disturbing to the APD high command, elected officials and the general public. The comments reflect a philosophy that should disqualify any person from becoming a police officer in the first place. The comments reflect that APD’s Culture of Aggression found by the Department of Justice 10 years ago is alive and well within APD rank and file.

 All the comments were severely condemned by Mayor Tim Keller, the ACLU and Native American rights advocates.  The police union president disgustedly defended the comments saying “These guys were joking around, they were decompressing, they were saying inappropriate stuff, like a lot of us do with our friends and family when we’re not in public.”

For upwards of 10 years, APD has been under a federal court approved settlement agreement mandating 271 reforms after a Department of Justice investigation found that APD had engaged in a pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force” and finding a “culture of aggression.” The city has spent millions on reform efforts, has created and staffed new divisions to hold APD officers accountable, rewrote use of force policies and procedures and trained APD officers in constitutional policing practices. APD is on the cusp of the case being dismissed.

Despite the significant gains made by APD in the implementation of the reforms, APD police officer shootings and the killing of civilians is occurring at a deeply troubling rate.  The nonprofit Mapping Police Violence reported that last year that APD was ranked No. 1 in police officers killing civilians in a listing of 50 largest cities in the United States.

Racist remarks and glorification of police violence made by any APD officer must be condemn in no uncertain terms. Remarks such as these by police cannot be tolerated. They must be dealt with swiftly and decidedly.

It’s likely the Multi-Agency Task Force investigating the police shooting will ultimately find that the shooting was justified and that the officers will not be disciplined for use of deadly force. However, such a finding does not excuse APD officers from not following required protocol after the use of deadly force or the use of racial slurs and the glorification of violence.  

APD may be on the verge of dismissal of the federal court approved settlement agreement, but this incident and the fact that APD is ranked number one in the country for deadly force police shootings is a reflection APD’s Culture of Aggression is alive and well.”

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.

Many thanks to the Albuquerque Journal for publishing the guest column.

The link to a related blog article with greater detail on the facts of shooting and what was said is here:

Activated APD Video Camera And Open Mike Captures Racial Slurs And Glorification Of Violence By APD Officers Immediately After Civilian Killing; APD’s Culture Of Aggression Still Lives On After 10 Years Of Court Approved Settlement Agreement Reforms; Racism Within APD Must Be Condemned And Eradicated