Saturday, May 16, 2009


Anybody see a connection between the following stories:
The Railyard is not bringing in the money the Council expected
The City Council is rushing to buy a money losing operation with revenue bonds
The City Council is rushing to annex residential land although the cost is unknown
Do these stories reveal an attitude that has shaped public policy too long -- the City Council never sees an expensive project that it doesn't like.
Are we are surprised that:
The City is cutting vital public services.

Ever notice how often we here this from our local governments? The decision is announced prior the public hearing.This sounds like a lose-lose for everybody. Ex-county residents will pay more to get services they don't want, but these residential areas are not going to generate enough revenue to pay for the services. The City will have a tax increase to pay for it.The County will lose some revenue -- but certainly won't make any cuts -- so they will need some more revenue also.My mistake -- that is win-win for the politicians.

Notice the lead: "Like it or not". I, along with numerous other residents that are going to be affected by this annexation, have met with the appropriate city/county officials to obtain specific answers - to no avail. The reply has always been "wait, we will tell you when the annexation takes place". At some meeting those in attendance were predominately developers, with lawyers in tow.This article only addresses the first phase in what will be a multi-phase, massive annexation.BTW: The proposed zoning would allow one DU per 2.5 acres if neither public water or sewage are provided, one per acre if one is provided, and two per acre if both are provided. It would not allow for accessory dwelling units, but (hidden in a footnote), it would allow "multiple family dwellings limited to four per lot." (Except for those items, the proposed zoning would track with R1 city zoning.) I would note that, if the City ever chose to urbanize the area, this would permit it to go for very high density, indeed. One of the city staffers remarked that the city did not plan to change densities right away, but its eventual goal would be to urbanize the area. If there are like-minded residents, now is the time to speak up. Attend the May meeting - and bring your neighbors.

When it comes down to providing infrastructure, like fire and police personnel, if the City gets thier way, who will provide it for the new annexation areas? As you know, the state legislature continues to support the developers by not forcing them to provide new fire or police stations everytime they build a new residential subdivision. The New Mexico Development Impact Fee Act needs to change to reflect the needs of the entire community and pushing the developers to pay up thier part too! So, for the time being, we get the short end of the stick every time a new residential subdivision goes up on the southside because thier is NO NEW POLICE OR FIRE STATION IN SIGHT. Have you people had a chance to visit the elementary, middle schools and High School in this area? Man, we have kids everywhere in those schools and overcrowded is a big issue. This is not a brand new idea of building new homes with overcrowded schools, etc. By the way, not all illegals live in these new homes being built by wealthy developers but its all a mix of every day living people of all kinds that are moving down southside and who also travel on Airport Road and surrounding areas daily. So, the illegal argument that many of these posters keep bringing up does not sit too well with me. This is not about illegal immigration on the southside. It is about how are we going to take care of ourselves with public safety, public welfare and health issues that relates to poor urban planning by the City of Santa Fe?

Let's see, I am happy with my deep well, and the septic works fine.Cops already live in the neighborhood. Road maintenance is already in place. Fire protection from the County, no complaints.So what we get is:1) Tax increases. 2) Code enforcement- you mean some petty bureaucrat will tell me the coyote fence is too tall? 3) And they'll want to put some kind of "traditional hiking path" through my property consistent with their zoning plan? 4) We're zoned rural now, does that mean I should make sure that the goats and chickens are in place for the exemption?Alternatively, if Agua Fria can declare its independent status, maybe our area can setup its own 'traditional village'.

No comments:

Post a Comment