Rio Rancho in Focus

2007 Article Archive

Are Tired Residents Set to Give Up?

12/20/2007

By Mike Patrick

A recent article in the Observer had reporter Tom Treweek commenting:

“Wednesday night, the city of Rio Rancho invited the public to speak about eminent domain, but almost nobody came. Eminent domain was the hot topic last winter, with many residents speaking out last January about a blighting study of land in Unit 10, which is near Southern and Unser boulevards. The uproar continued during the legislative session as numerous bills were introduced aimed at curbing the use of eminent domain.

Now, however, it seems that the outrage has given way to apathy, as only a handful of people who land in Rio Rancho spoke up about the controversial tactic.”

Here’s the deal Tom: many residents have finally admitted to themselves that the powers that be in Rio Rancho simply don’t care what the citizens think. That’s right – they don’t care. You can look to several examples in recent years, and most citizens who have lived here long enough will remember.

Remember when there was an uproar awhile back because the city couldn’t account for how impact fees were being used? An investigation was started, but never came up with any answers, until finally the pressure got so great that officials blamed it on an administrator that skipped town. Plenty of people complaining, no answers - what else is new.

Remember how the city ripped away land from private individuals and gave it to big developers using eminent domain, and how they somehow attained exempt status under state statute, with plenty of people complaining, getting no answers, and finally being told #$*%& you by the council?

Remember the recent floods, and how residents complained that nothing was being done? Remember how the city manager and the council ignored pleas for help, told residents too bad because it was their fault for moving there, and came up with the SAD to get citizens to pay for infrastructure that should have been installed by the city in the first place?

That’s why nobody shows up to meetings like that anymore Tom. The Council does whatever it wants to do, without regard for citizen opinion. People are tired Tom; they just don’t care anymore, because what the people want doesn’t enter in to the equation.

Right now you should be asking yourself – “why don’t people care anymore?” Why is it that you can’t get them to get involved? Why is it that citizens in Rio Rancho are giving up? It’s because local government is motivated by only one thing – money. The eminent domain issue is all about money, not what people want, with no consideration given to how people want to live in the community. It’s about Rio Rancho stripping away land zoned R1, because years ago all of it was zoned R1. Rio Rancho was never meant to be anything more than a bedroom community for Albuquerque. Now it’s trying to be a grown up city, and the people living here often have to pay a price to live in the town that was once nothing more than a Ponzi scheme to make money. Today, because Rio Rancho’s economy is based on growth instead of industry or other reliable means, citizens find themselves in difficult situations. Our current Counsel is not much help.

Why didn’t anyone show up Tom? I think you know why.

Rio Rancho School Board Buckles under Pressure

12/4/2007

The Rio Rancho Public School Board of Education caved into pressure from opponents of policy 401 Monday night. It voted to rescind the current policy that has been in place for some time, which expanded on current state policy regarding the teaching of certain subjects in Rio Rancho schools (namely intelligent design), under threats of community division and legal action. What was astounding was how it was done. The tie breaking vote fell to RRPS Board President Lisa Cour. Cour admitted freely that her decision rested, at least in part, on what her son and his girlfriend thought of the policy! That’s right folks; a kid and his girlfriend are setting policy in our school system. It’s unbelievable, but true. Can things get any crazier than that? The answer is - yes they can.

It was clear from the comments of several board members that they simply didn't understand the issues, or if they did, they chose to make comments gleaned from sound bites and political diatribe rather than solid argument. Board member Divyesh Patel actually stated that he believes the theory of evolution is scientific “fact”, something even most school children know to be false. Kathy Cour made the comment that she didn't feel that theories that compete with Darwinian evolutionary theory belong in a science class. All of this from someone who claims to be an educator interested in the kids. How does not teaching a subject because some people are angry about it fall under education?

Calling the current policy redundant, several members of the audience claimed that policy 401 was a veiled attempt to introduce religion into the classroom, and they threatened legal action if it remained in force. You know, kind of like a kid that throws a tantrum and threatens to jump up and down in the mall if he doesn't get the lollipop. So what if some people want to see a creator in the evidence – so be it. It doesn't mean that the evidence for apparent design isn’t there, or that it will go away, or even that it should be ignored. It certainly doesn't mean that science teachers or school officials should act as the thought police. It is precisely because the evidence exists that the board meeting even took place.

The type of opposition that was brought against policy 401 last night was not opposition based on logic, or even science, but on emotion, and personal world views. What we saw were the same types of arguments that were brought against Darwinian's theory over one hundred years ago; pressure based on fear and ignorance. If Darwin’s theory had faced the RRPS School Board when it was first introduced, we wouldn’t be discussing it today, because they would have seen to it that it would never have been taught in the first place.

The school board missed one important fact: it isn’t whether a theory is “right” or “wrong” that you make a decision to include or exclude it in a school study program. What matters is that a theory stands up to examination and criticism, something Rio Rancho science teachers aren't willing to exercise on intelligent design theory. If a theory is not allowed to be challenged or even discussed, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The science teachers in the classroom that spoke out against teaching, or even discussing alternative theories also missed (or ignored) another important fact: true science can stand on its own. It doesn’t need any help from science teachers. If Darwin’s theory is credible, then any theory or idea that militates against it will collapse, fail on its own accord, and fade away as the scientific process proceeds, thereby increasing the strength of its claim. This is how real science works. The reason this hasn't happened to Darwinian theory is that it's never been challenged until now, and this is what scares many science teachers. The very fact that those who claim to be scientists argue their position based on the Establishment Clause (as many of them did in last night's meeting), indicates that they really have nothing to say scientifically on the matter, or at least don’t have full confidence in the scientific arguments they offer in favor of evolutionary theory.

Last night’s vote to rescind policy 401 was a vote against free expression, a vote against free thinking, and a vote for censorship. It was a vote based on ignorance, and the opinion of a kid and his girlfriend. Whether policy 401 was redundant or not was not the issue. If it was redundant, there was no harm leaving it in place. No valid argument against the policy was brought against it. There were no challenges to its outline or intent. There were no challenges to its application, nor were there any arguments made as to how it works against current state policy, or does harm to children. In short, there were no credible arguments made for the action that was taken last night, and members of the RRPS School Board demonstrated that it's political pressure that dominates and controls policy, not RRPS.

Re-elect Howard Balmer? Who's Howard Balmer?

11/22/2007

Mike Patrick - contributing editor

Howard Balmer is running for re-election this term. If it proves anything, it proves that Balmer has a lot of guts. Howard Balmer has been all but invisible since 1999 when he was first appointed to office by then Mayor John Jennings. His District 4 constituency would be hard pressed to tell you what he looks like, sounds like, or give you an example of anything he's done since 1999 - anything at all. At the time of this writing, he still has no bio page listing on the city website while all the other councilors do, and he never comes to public attention unless he's chastising citizens for being the main reason gross receipts are low, or he's trying to avoid spending any city funds to help flood victims. But enough of our opinion, let's take a look at Howard's record - if we can find one.

In the November 22 edition of the Rio Rancho Journal, Balmer gives his record as he sees it. It's an impressive listing of efforts. Unfortunately, Balmer had very little if anything to do with what he lists as his accomplishments. His comments read like he's running for another term as Mayor, not a council member.

Accomplishment: Balmer states that he focused on bringing the city better services, more gross receipts tax revenues, and better infrastructure. He claims that when he took office the city lacked adequate recreational facilities, gross receipts tax revenues were "anemic", and public services needed improvement. He claims that since then, the city has gained soccer fields at the Sportsplex, parks, a new library, and will enjoy the coming Aquatic center thanks to his efforts.

Reality: From what we can see, Balmer had very little if anything to do with the development of any of those pieces of infrastructure or services. The soccer fields at the Sportsplex were a general city project. If he claims he's improved gross receipts tax revenues, we ask how? Other than taking citizens to task on his perceived notion that very few of us spend our dollars in Rio Rancho, and that we should be ashamed, we see next to no evidence that Balmer has ever done anything to generate more gross receipts tax for the city. We haven't seen a new park in his district in some time. Unit 17 remains almost entirely void of quality of life infrastructure like bike paths or skate parks for kids. Recreational facilities? Where are the recreational facilities that Balmer has built? What has he done, other than maybe give his "yes" vote to projects that others have started and worked on? We see none of Howard's influence anywhere we look. He needs to give specifics.

Balmer claims he worked with former councilor David Bency and then-councilor Michael Williams to help get funding for projects. That's easy to say, but he doesn't say how he contributed to those efforts; he just puts his name to them. A simple nod of the head and giving a thumbs up would constitute working for funding in a broad sense; maybe that's what he means. Balmer gives no indication of what work, if any, he actually did to secure the funding and we don't think he can.

Accomplishment: Balmer claims he again worked with Bency and Williams to get better pay for firefighters and police officers.

Reality: What did you do Howard? You don't say. If anyone could track you down to ask you, it would be interesting to find out how you were involved with getting better pay for anyone. The increase in the number of firefighters and police officers is a natural occurrence, and is the result of growth. It happens in every town. Balmer cites the increase in public employees as "a benefit", and we couldn't agree more. We disagree that he had anything to do with it however.

It raises the question: how is it the responsibility of the councilor of District 4 to gain better pay for city employees? While this might be a noble thing to do, each councilor is charged first and foremost with representing those living in his or her district. District 4 residents rarely if ever hear from Balmer, and when they were in need during the severe flooding, Balmer answered their fears and concerns with threats of issuing a forced SAD, one of the first (if not the first) of its kind in the nation. He's an innovator all right. He set precedent by making use of a Special Assessment District to force citizens to pay for improvements to infrastructure that should have been in place before the areas in question became populated. Typical SADs are voted on - Balmer has worked to make that a non-requirement. Thanks Howard. Balmer is quoted in the paper as saying the way you address concerns like flooding is by way of SAD. We disagree. The way issues like flooding are addressed is that you put in place the proper infrastructure like retaining ponds, main arterial road drainage, and storm sewers with the money you collect from impact fees and other means. These things should be spear headed by city councilors like you. You did none of that. Instead you ignored the problems in your district, allowed unregulated building (presumably to increase gross receipts tax revenue), and then backed away from the problems that arose because of your inattentive style. Maybe you were too focused on doing the Mayor's job. Maybe you don't understand, or better yet, don't care about what your responsibilities are to your constituency as a representative of District 4.

A good example of Balmer's "just cash my check and leave me out" attitude is when the first Wal-Mart was constructed in the city. For a guy that's so concerned about gross receipts revenue, and has been so instrumental in improving the "anemic" state of the funds in the coffers, Balmer is still "humble" to the core, as we saw when Wal-Mart came to town and he wanted no credit - in fact, he didn't even make a showing. When reporting on the grand opening of the first Wal-Mart at Unser and Southern, the Rio Rancho Observer made the following notation: "

"Mayor Kevin Jackson also addressed the crowd, as did State Rep. Tom Swisstack and a few Wal-Mart managers, but many local officials merely stayed in the background. Former Mayor Jim Owen, who was in office for the entire negotiaiton process, attended the ceremony, along with the entire city council, save Howard Balmer."

At one of the first meetings former Mayor Kevin Jackson held after being elected - he ran through the roster and missed Balmer - (from the Rio Rancho Observer)

"I am pleased and humbled to be your new mayor," Jackson said. He continued by recognizing new councilor Delma Petrullo in District 3 and Larry Naranjo in District 5, the return of Patty Thomas in District 2, and mid-term councilors Mike Williams and Marilyn Salzman in districts 1 and 6, respectively. Jackson did overlook District 4 councilor Howard Balmer, his first error of the night and an oversight he said Balmer quickly forgave."

We're glad Balmer "quickly forgave" the Mayor. We do too, and we completely understand. It's hard to recognize someone who does such a great job of being invisible and ineffective. The pattern of invisibility Howard Balmer is noted for continues to this day. We couldn't even find a picture of the guy until today when it appeared in the paper. (no that's not his picture in the article below)

We think that anyone who doesn't have a clear understanding of what their role is as a city council member shouldn't be in the chair, cashing the paycheck, or running for re-election. In short Howard, we don't think you're the man for the job, and we'll do what we can to spread the word.

What can you do Howard? If you're really interested in benefiting our city, you'll drop out of the race. The "City of Vision" needs more than officials that do nothing, say nothing, and bring no benefit to the office. Step down Howard - before you're embarrassed in the next election. In fact, we'll give you this challenge: you send us a listing of your real accomplishments - you know - things you've accomplished on your own for your own voting base - the folks that will put you back in office. If you want to get re-elected, let us know why we should do so. We'll be glad to post your record right here on our website.

Here We Go Again - Looking Like Fools

11/10/2007

So the Rio Rancho Public School Board feels the need to revisit the never ending evolution debate, and will review Rio Rancho’s current evolution policy soon to discuss whether it will be permissible for students to discuss alternatives to evolutionary theory in class. Why? The current school policy has served well, following the established state standard, which protects student’s rights to discuss alternative views. What's the problem? Why have board members Divyesh Patel and Margaret Terry raised the issue again? Why not keep things the way they are?

It seems pretty clear that what we have is a “religion vs. religion” debate NOT a science vs. religion debate. In reality there is no friction between real science, and the theory of intelligent design. The argument is not between “scientists and creationists”, and it’s not a matter of God vs. science. What we have are “grown-ups” fighting over a silly issue – “there is a God" or "there is no God.” – all the while hiding behind their kids to fight it out.

Where does it stop? Let’s say that the teaching of the Jewish Holocaust offends someone, and they feel that it shouldn't be taught in our history classes. They point to some people in the world today that claim it never happened, and they feel they have sufficient scientific “proof” to back that position. Should we then bend to that argument? Should we stop teaching that terrible fact of history because its origin was based on religious bigotry? Should we also hide behind “separation of church and state” to avoid discussing it just to make sure the connection to religion is not discussed in a public school? Besides, intelligent design theory makes no comment on the religious aspects of what it implies - we do that on our own. If that's the conclusion some come to because they see apparent design in nature, then so be it. But intelligent design doesn't assert that a deity created what we see, just that it appears that design has been incorporated into what we find in nature. To most of us this seems pretty apparent, but to some it doesn't, and they assert their position with an almost "religious" zeal.

The fact is that we’re slowly going crazy. We’ve taken leave of our senses, and we’ve become good at chasing issues that are silly. We’ve stripped logic from our decision making processes, all the while convincing ourselves that we’re doing the right thing. It’s never right to silence an opposing viewpoint. It is never “science” to hide what is there. In fact, some of the best examples of history we have where ideas have been censored and blocked from public debate have been religion based, not science based. It makes one think, doesn't it? Who are the religionists in this picture - the dogmatic evolutionists, or the intelligent design folks who are asking for equal time? We MUST debate evolutionary theory for it to even exist as a valid scientific assertion. If it is not open up for debate in our schools (or anywhere else for that matter) it looses relevance, becomes dogma, and is then essentially a religion.

This is not a matter of separation of church and state; it’s a matter of the separation of us from our common sense. If, in fact, Darwin’s theory is true – it has nothing to fear from healthy debate. On the other hand, if it’s a lie, it has much to fear from school students discussing its merits. After all, our schools in Rio Rancho have demonstrated that they are some of the best in the country, and our students are smart, thoughtful, and ready for any challenge that comes to them. If our students are deprived any part of the information that’s out there, just because some people don’t like what it says, they’re necessarily deprived of knowledge, and then the very purpose of our school system comes into question. Not teaching intelligent design theory doesn't make it go away, and teaching evolutionary theory alone as if no other theories exist is indoctrination, not independent teaching.

The RRPS board should consider their roll well. Is their mission to promote learning within the school system, or to go beyond that and pander to certain groups? Is their roll to censor, or to encourage the examination of all views to facilitate learning? One thing the RRPS board should realize is that no one has the power to control their decision based on the church and state argument. There is no Constitutional basis for not teaching both views in school. the Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that students don’t check their first amendment rights at the school house door. Students are completely within their rights to discuss the differences between evolution and intelligent design theory within the classroom - regardless of school policy. That means that if I instruct my son or daughter to raise the debate on intelligent design in the class room, and he or she is silenced because of its intelligent design argument, the school is open to suit based on first amendment rights.

The debate is real, and the best place to discuss it is in the class room where all of the issues come together. Let’s wake up folks. Let's stop raising the issue. Let’s teach reality; the reality that there are at least two opposing points of view on this subject. Let’s stop acting like we’re so smart by fighting over these things and realize we must look like fools to the rest of the world, and most importantly, to our kids. I want my kids to know all sides of the issue, not just what certain people want them to hear. If this debate is causing so much tension, we should drop the teaching of evolutionary theory based on those grounds, not censor intelligent design. Let's just not teach either theory if it's going to cause so much heartburn. There are plenty of other science subjects that the school system can focus on.

Being that we don't like raising a problem without proposing a solution, we've come up with one that should please both sides of the debate. We propose that the students be allowed to debate the issue freely in the classroom – just make the teacher leave the room when they do.

Losing Money...and Losing Appeal.

11/4/2007

We said it early on, that it was unlikely that the Santa Ana Star Center would ever really be a money maker. However, when we said it, we didn't expect that to become clear so soon. Cancelled events, fading public interest, and bad management are all contributing to the sinking event center ship. Incredibly, city management says "We're very happy with the performance." What? Are you kidding? Happy with the performance? Unbelievable. City contracts manager Steve Ruger can't be serious when he uttered those words, can he? Unfortunately, he is. And herein lies the problem. While Mr. Ruger stated in Sunday's Rio Rancho Journal (Nov 4, 2007) "Like any business, it takes a while to get going," he's overlooking one important point; money making ventures NEVER get going if they don't generate any cash, and that's exactly what's happening to Santa Ana Star Center. While some money is being generated from an event here and there, the real money making projects just aren't producing. Why? Because they aren't happening. Big money making shows like Chicago, James Taylor, and Don Henley are canceling one right after the other. Why? Could it be poor ticket sales? We just can't believe that all of these acts (and more) are cancelling because of "scheduling conflicts" - it just doesn't fly. Big name acts don't appear if there's no money to do so. Here we go again, another leaking project.

Now, in all fairness, it does indeed usually take time for any venture to turn a profit. But, in this case, it's not an issue of when the Santa Ana Star Center will turn a profit, but if it ever will at all. Let's face it; were talking about people driving very far (in most cases), to the middle of nowhere, to a stadium that is really designed for hockey, to sit down in a seat that probably cost them $80.00 or more - depending on if they wanted a good seat or not.

What we find here is a city that's trying to grow up too fast. Rio Rancho is a city that is lead by people who really should be doing something else. With a city council that is more concerned with how to rip land away from land owners and preserving the modified eminent domain law to please developers than it is with providing the city with what it really needs, like schools and safety, we might never crawl out of the hole that's been dug in the middle of the desert.

Credibility Problem = No Sports Complex for Kids?

11/4/2007

Does the City of Vision have a credibility problem? It appears so, if the proposed sports complex in Enchanted Hills that was voted down recently is any indication. What was one of the major reasons given for voting down the bond that was needed to create the sports complex? Distrust. Voters just didn't believe that the city leadership was telling the truth when they tried to assure residents that their taxes would not increase to build the sports center. As incredible as it seems, people are smarter than the city leaders think they are when it comes to money.

Now, it's pretty clear from the results that this was not a divisional issue between residents - each council district canned the the idea. So what's going on here? Why would residents deny the city such a quality of life project? Could it be that residents of the city of vision see other projects that are more critical, like expanding the school system because of overcrowding, or placement of a flood control infrastructure? Could it be that they understand that projects like new city halls that generate no income, or sports arenas that fail because of terrible location might be draining our coffers?

Another reason the voters may have rejected the sports complex is misunderstanding. It may have been that they just didn't understand the issue. They didn't realize how badly it is needed, or what it was all about. This is what we'd like to think - but we don't. What we think is that, at a time when money is being wasted in the middle of the desert by our city leadership, there's just no room for things like parks, proper drainage, and recreation areas, unless of course you live next to big developers. The Loma Colorado area has seen an upsurge in recreational and infrastructure facilities in recent months. Near the new Pulte / DR Horton developments, you see a new library, a new aquatic center being built, and flood control facilities like the new dam. Not only that, you see Pulte and Horton capitalizing on those amenities. You'll see signs near their construction sites touting the fact that you can walk to the high school, and use the other features that have been built by tax dollars. Now, you might just chalk that up to building in the "right spot", but the fact is that a lot of that development (the library, the aquatic center, the dam, and some of the playing fields in the area) didn't exist before Pulte and Horton started to build. Coincidence? We don't know. Fortunate for the developers? Yes indeed. Enchanted Hills is an established area. They don't need stuff to attract anyone - so to heck with them, right?

The point is that there will be no quality of life if we don't start putting it there. And it won't get "put there" unless we put it there ourselves. Maybe voters are beginning to see that the money spent on facilities like the Santa Ana Star Center and the new city hall, both projects that don't generate revenue, line the Council's track record. It's unfortunate that the new sports complex was voted down, very unfortunate indeed. We need to start putting pressure on city management to help make Rio Rancho a nice place to live, and not just a revenue generating machine, or else we all loose.

City Manager? Where?

10/23/2007

We sure hope that the new city manager, James C. Payne, isn't going to follow in the footsteps of Pallenick, or take any lessons from Kolessar. It would be nice to interact with a city manager that was interested in the people, what we think, and how we feel. After all, we live here, and decisions made by a city manager can drastically impact your quality of life. Now, don't take this the wrong way. We know we often sound negative, picking out all the wrongs, and focusing on the injustices done in the city of vision. We don't want to sound that way now - honestly. The best policy is to interact in a civil way, with all of us coming to well thought out, logical conclusions that eventually arrive at actions that serve everyone well. This is exactly why we are putting up our vote for the new city manager - James Payne. James has held the position of City Manager for only a short time, so we want to give him ample time here to get focused. He needs time to settle in, get organized, and start out on the right foot. We even have is biography right here for your review, and it looks good to us: Biography of James Payne.

However - Jim made his priorities known right up front. He stated several months ago that one of his first actions would be to focus on the new retail space out by the new City Centre on Unser Blvd.. That's fine, no problem here, as long as that isn't the only focus. The city still has some major issues to tend to, not the least of which is putting out the flames from the recent Mayoral brush fire.

So - we'll wait. We'll give James time to speak out a little more. We'll give him time to show us what he plans to do about problems such as school overcrowding, gangs in the mid high, and flooding issues. As city manager James has influence as to how revenue will be spent, and if decisions are made like they were with the last city manager, who thought is was more important to build a new city centre in the middle of nowhere, with nice new offices for the city council members instead of trying to solve some of the problems mentioned above - we're in for a long haul. Take your time James, but don't wait too long, because the issues above are of paramount importance to most citizens. It's about more that just revenue - yes, even for a city manager. It's more than just pleasing the housing developers, and it's about more than figuring out ways to circumvent federal law such as eminent domain. Thanks James for stepping up. We wait anxiously for your efforts to bear fruit. Thank you James, and welcome to the city of vision.

Flood Hearing Postponed - And It's No Wonder

10/20/2007

It's not surprising that the City of Rio Rancho delayed the scheduled public hearing on the flood control and paving project. They have had months to come up with a plan to mitigate flooding problems, and still - no plan is in place. Why? Because there is much more at issue here than just figuring out how to channel water and pave streets. The real problems the council faces are legal and procedural in nature. How do you force a large number of citizens to pay for something that most of them are not asking for? How do you convince the public that what you're going to do is going to actually solve the problem? And if you do force payment on a project that is largely resisted by the public, and the solution you've forced them to pay for doesn't work, how will you explain your actions? Most importantly, how will you get re-elected?

These are the real questions facing the council. After months of debate, the council is at a turning point. This is where leadership is needed, and frankly, we're not so sure we'll see it. John Kolessar is under the gun here. He's the one that is essentially spear heading the initiative to forcefully take money for a project that is questionable at best. We noticed in Friday's edition of the Rio Rancho Journal (12/19/2007) that Kolessar is quoted as saying "It's a very complex process." We're sure it is -the funding process that is. The actual planning of the development isn't so bad, but the process of how to take the money from the citizens is proving problematic. Under typical SAD procedures, a group of citizens requests an improvement, and then a vote is taken to pass or not pass the SAD. In this case, a vote can't be taken among the majority of the citizens, because most of them in the area can't be found. On top of that, it would be very expensive to do so. So what do you do? - cram the SAD down the throats of the residents.

It's hard to come up with a plan that will charge millions of dollars for a project that most likely won't succeed. The part of the plan that puts in place drainage infrastructure, such as holding ponds and channels might do the job, but how do you justify paving? How is it that paving roads will channel the tremendous flood waters we see here in the city if it doesn't incorporate adequate curbing, storm drains, and pavement that will withstand extreme pressures over time (not just asphalt)? Only an adequate system will do.This won't be accomplished with simple blacktop paving. We believe this is what the council was aiming for, and we believe they are finding out that this won't be simple - or cheap. Cost numbers for each citizen have been floating around, everything from $5,000 per property owner to well over $20,000. So far no official numbers have appeared, but hold on to your hats - they're coming, and we're talking big dollars folks.

One thing is for sure; with all the money that will flood into the city coffers after the forced SAD, there will be a great temptation to "dip" into the funds. Several years ago, the city was audited on impact fees. In the end, we were told the records were "lost." We were then told that the manager of the project left town, and we never did get real results from the audit. Scary. Face it folks, the likely hood that you'll get what you pay for is very slim. The chances that the "paving" side of the SAD will have any real impact are next to nil. We can only hope that the real meat of what is needed, drainage infrastructure, will be enough given the fact that "paving" is also incorporated into the cost. We wait eagerly for the proposal council, whenever it appears - but don't try to tell us paving will solve the problem unless your meeting provides us with a real plan, with real infrastructure that demonstrates it will work.

With that said, we're sure there are at least a few residents that are in favor of the SAD as it's proposed because they believe the council when it says the paving improvements will solve their problems. All we can say is - GET INVOLVED. To insure your money is well spent, attend the council meetings, let them know you expect real changes and not just money for nothing. Make your voice heard and insist that the council act rightly. Put pressure on them, and do it now. If not, the SAD will cost you a lot of money, and give you little in return, if anything.

Is former Mayor Jim Owen on a Witch-hunt?

6/7/2007

We're not now, nor have we ever been interested in supporting, or unfairly characterizing any current or former political figures that have served the city of Rio Rancho. Our interest is you, the reader. We seek to inform you, and help you see what's really going on in the city of vision; but folks, we just can't take it anymore...

Several months ago, when Kevin Jackson was working to improve the intergovernmental structure of Rio Rancho's administrative system, it became necessary to remove the then current city manager Jim Palenick. Jackson had to make hard decisions with regard to that restructuring, and as a result, Palenick was let go. That's when former mayor Jim Owen made his move. In an obvious attempt to capitalize on the situation, Owen seized the moment,and began to accuse Jackson of mismanagement, among other things. He (Owen) came to the defense of his long time friend Jim Palenick, and we were forced to endure painful diatribes from Owen assailing the character and competency of Jackson.

Now it becomes clear why. In recent weeks, Jackson has been investigated for wrongdoing in both his non-profit dealings, and his work as the mayor of Rio Rancho. Should it come as any surprise that in the Rio Rancho Journal dated 6/7/2007, articles on both Jim Owen, and Jim Palenick are run side by side attacking Jackson, and talking up Palenick and Owen? With sickening statements from Palenick like "...I feel my heart was broken by some really bad people who made bad decisions..." we remember a childhood movie where the little girl runs away because of the "really bad people" that are after her. It's embarrassing. Other quotes from Palenick like "I feel like I really made my mark on the community, one that will last forever" assure us that Jackson did indeed make the right decision when letting Palenick go. Palenick did indeed make contributions to Rio Rancho, some that we'll be painfully feeling for sometime, if not "forever". But what's really interesting to us isn't Palenick's self-aggrandizing, or Owen's seemingly never ending admiration for Palenick, but Owen's incessant attacks. Why is Owen out for Jackson? read more...

___________________________

What’s up with the Council?

5/23/2007

Why is it so hard for our city council members to figure out? Why can’t they see the writing on the wall? What prevents them from seeing what the rest of us can see? I wish I knew, because every time one of them speaks, it’s hard to believe we have any real council at all.

In a recent Observer article, councilor Mike Williams stated: “Payne's two highest priorities, which the governing body discussed with him during interviews, should be communication and the City Centre.” That’s right folks. You heard it correctly. Williams believes that, of all the issues facing our city, Payne’s top priorities should be “communication”, and the “City Centre.” While there are many things the city needs, let’s take a look at one issue that appeared in the media right around the time Mike was making his feelings known; an issue the “city of vision” faces that might also need to be on that list – school safety and overcrowding.

School overcrowding and safety for our school children and neighborhoods far outweighs any need for a new city centre. And don’t tell us that predicted additional revenue created by a new city centre will help the schools, because we all know the money is already there to help alleviate school crowding. As this article is being written, there are several schools that are crammed full of kids, impacting education in a very negative way – and impacting what would otherwise be a safe and secure environment. Should the over crowding of our schools be of any concern to the new manager? Should the school issue be one of his priorities? We think so.

At least some revenue generated by gross receipts taxes should be channeled to schools – and some school concerns should be included in the “priority” decision making process. Given the city of vision’s explosive growth, this is pretty obvious to most of us. It’s often the case that those without children of school age don’t see it that way, and this myopia might carry over to some of the city councilors. Out of sight, out of mind you might say.

School overcrowding is something the city has been suffering from for some time. While Enchanted Hills elementary school recently underwent expansion, it wasn’t enough, and it's still relying on portable buildings way too much. Colinas elementary has been splitting at the seams for several years, and the council has done little if anything to mitigate the problem. And still we hear out of touch councilors who are focused on the new city centre ignoring what’s really important.

When will it all end? When will our government officials pull their heads out of the sand? Only time will tell. Maybe the thing to do is form an independent planning and development committee that will be driven by real needs and concerns instead of just money and the desire to be a city of “vision”. Maybe it’s time to call for a new council all together.

___________________________

Rio Rancho’s Infrastructure Manager can’t be bothered to Help Citizens - “It’s your problem” He says.

5/8/2007

John Kollessar, Rio Rancho's infrastructure director still doesn’t get it, and the way it looks he never will. He was quoted in the Rio Rancho Journal several days ago, as he commented on the SAD issue for the flooded areas of the city. After all this time, he’s still trying to make the case that those who moved there are out of luck when it comes to getting much needed assistance from the city to save their homes, and insure the safety of their children. The question is; how can one man be so out of touch with the needs of the community that he can’t see this is an issue the city needs to deal with - not the residents? Kollessar doesn’t see that no reasonable person is agreeing with his “tough luck folks – you moved out there” attitude. The fact is that he’s wrong – dead wrong.

When citizens decide to move to areas that have been issued building permits by the city; areas where the city has collected fees, and where the owners pay taxes, they don’t check their rights to common flood control and major roadway and drainage development at the door. Kollesar himself enjoys the benefits of common flood retaining and ponding areas, and general infrastructure drainage control – as does the mayor, and most of the city council. John doesn’t mind at all when kids all over the city are transported to school on roads that are located in the areas he deems “stupid” to build in. Enchanted Hills elementary school is located right in the middle of a designated flood zone, and because Kollessar feels citizens are stupid to live in these areas and send their kids there, he shows his contempt by making comments in the press that show his true colors. By the way, kids from all over the city attend these schools, even those who have parents that are against development in these areas.

We have to remember that John Kollessar was a good friend of Jim Palenick, the former city manager that was ousted from his post largely because he too was extremely out of touch with the public. In fact, he (Kollessar) got his job here thanks to Palenick. Palenick also stuck to his intractable position that he was going to do whatever it took to have his own way, and now we see John towing the same line. He’s hard to deal with, and residents are getting fed up with his “it’s my way or no way” method of dealing with the public. It’s unbelievable that the city infrastructure manager can’t get a grip on this issue. What's he doing to develop infrastructure? How's he earing his huge salary? We have a theory as to why he’s sticking to his guns:

Before an area can be developed, the city engineer (usually under the direction of infrastructure) needs to inspect the proposed development and either require the necessary area improvements addressing possible flooding and other issues be established by the city, or sign off as improvements not being needed. At least this is the way it works in most towns and cities. As far as we can tell, this was never done in the undeveloped areas of the city such as Unit 17, where building permits were issued “willy nilly”, presumably to garner more gross receipts taxes. This is, or should be, an embarrassment to Kollessar. The idea never crossed the minds of those in charge that heavy rains would require developed common areas to protect citizens. A sweet deal for the city as long as major flooding doesn't occur, and we all know what happed there. Even so, you do see these structures in other areas of the city, constructed by the city, for those living in areas that John sees as being "smart" to live in. Those areas would be any area that a major developer wants to build in. We just saw an example of that with the new dam that was built to protect developers and their interests northwest of the city proper.

John, you need to wake up. The citizens of Rio Rancho are tired of your excuse that those who moved into areas that were not surveyed properly by the city, and not regulated for development by the city, are to live with their decision to move there. They didn't "get the land cheaper", and most did their homework before moving there. The city and others mislead many of them. They aren't stupid. The residents have done all they can to help themselves, and paving roads at the expense of those asking for real help, not cosmetics, won't fix the issue. Your idea of how to treat people John doesn’t hold water – not at all. Maybe we should all move somewhere else, because in a town where people care more about the safety of ducks on a golf course than they do about the safety of their own children, it's time to move on.

___________________________

Will the New City Manager Bring New Life to the City?

4/20/2007

A new city manager is now going to take the seat that our last city manager was removed from, and he’ll be paid $121,000 a year to do so. That’s up from the $110,000 manager’s job he’s leaving in Waukesha Wisconsin . It’s rumored that one of Payne’s major jobs will be overseeing the new shopping district; something that is sorely needed in our town. Along with that he will face many challenges that need to be juggled since it’s commonly known that Rio Rancho has not been managed correctly in the past. Issues such as school overcrowding, flood control, and lack of public transit will be some of the issues that will need attention. And here's where it gets sticky. The new city manager might not understand that, even though Rio Rancho is a growing community with needs such as shopping centers and more gross revenue, it is sorely lacking in basic services for its citizens. Our town needs flooding infrastructure, and it can’t keep looking to its citizens to pay for it. We need public transit (buses not trains), and we need to address the overcrowding issues in our schools. The current administration is basically ignoring these issues, and it’s a shame.

The problem with hiring a government official is that the new employee is beholding to the person that did the hiring – in this case, Kevin Jackson. Mr. Jackson has drastically changed his tune with regard to the needs of the citizens, especially in the areas of safety and flood control. Just last month, another heavy rain storm drenched the city, and caused school buses to stick in the mud on undeveloped roads near several schools. Nothing is being done, and the safety of school children is at stake. But here we are, talking about revenue, the major focus of this town and its leaders.

Mr. Payne, what is your stand? Do you value the safety of our children and property? Are you concerned with the fact that this city is growing at such a rate that it can’t support its citizens by providing basic services such as public transit? Do you see a problem with government officials that have, and are, ignoring the needs of its citizens in favor of revenue generating projects that benefit developers?

You’ve got your work cut out for you sir.

___________________________

Why the Proposed SAD is Just Plain Wrong

Opinion 4/19/2007

The proposed SAD that is supposed to rescue residents in unimproved areas of the city from flooding is not only silly, but just plain wrong. On its face, it sounds reasonable; pave the roads, provide a little drainage, and wallah! Your flooding worries are washed away, right? Wrong. There are several reasons why a SAD may not be the answer to flooding issues in the city.

1: It might not do anything: While paving might sound like it will alleviate flooding problems, there’s no indication that just laying down asphalt will do much at all. So far, there has been no official study to show that paving will do anything to stop, or even slow down flooding. When you take into consideration what the city is planning to do (they have said they will put down blacktop and makeshift gutters as they did on Saratoga road), the only thing that will happen is that we’ll have chunks of blacktop floating down the road along with everything else.

2: No other SAD is like Rio Rancho’s: In every other case in the nation (that we have seen) SADs have been put into place to satisfy cosmetic requests of the town’s citizens. Technically, a SAD can be used for other reasons, such as sewer, and even services. Traditionally, however, citizens that have wanted to improve their property values petition the town they live in to pave the roads. Because those citizens are seeking cosmetic improvement and convenience, the city is by no means obligated to provide it, so the citizens asking for the change are charged for it. They alone benefit, they alone pay – fair enough. However, in the case of the flooded out Rio Rancho citizens, this is not a “cosmetic” issue – this is a survival issue on a very large scale. No matter how much the council wants to paint this as a case qualified for a SAD – it’s not. Citizens should not be made to pay for infrastructure the city has failed to install in the first place. Common drainage infrastructure should be put into place for the flood affected areas just as it has been for all other areas of the city. Not only will the citizens living in the affected areas benefit, but all citizens will benefit from flood abatement to protect major roads, schools, and businesses, all of which are used by everyone - not just those involved with the SAD. The flooding situation is unequitable because the benefits extend beyond the localized neighborhoods that are being charged. Some of the benefits even help the city, and it's unfair to require only certain citizens to pay for these benefits.

3: Piggyback funds: The council is trying to make the flooding issue a “road paving” issue to garner the funds to pay for basic infrastructure. This is obvious. If they broke the drainage infrastructure project out separately from the road paving issue, they should have to pay for it alone, just as they have in other areas. By combining the two, they can provide both, with no cost to them. The down side is that only a limited number of residents would be paying for drainage infrastructure that benefits all citizens for the reasons given above.

In addition, the city has already used public funds to help developers build basic common drainage infrastructure to protect the developer’s interests, why shouldn’t they do so for their citizens? They collected impact fess for infrastructure improvements, but tell the residents that those funds don't apply in this case. It's robbery. No - a SAD, as currently proposed by the city council, is not the answer to your flooding issues. It’s just not, and it’s just plain wrong.

___________________________

Who Sets the Priorities?

Opinion 2/3/2007

The glaring question these days is “who sets the project priorities in this town?” A cursory read of the news papers can get you very depressed and discouraged; wondering if your city officials have any clue as to what’s best for our city.Let’s take a look at what’s really going on.

While there are many factors entering into the problems we face, one of the major issues is the expansion of Albuquerque. The Duke City simply can’t grow anymore, and because of this, the overflow is impacting Rio Rancho dramatically, with hundreds of new homeowners flocking to our city every month. Albuquerque residents are moving out to the city of vision because there simply isn’t anymore room in their town. As a result, big developers are flocking to our area to build massive residential home developments at the behest of our city officials - as their thirst for gross receipts revenue impairs their better judgment. In addition, California residents have found out about our town. They’re selling their homes for big dollars, and moving here buying very expensive homes with the money they made on their west coast properties – thereby inflating our market.

Continue reading…

___________________________

Pave Alberta, Before it's Too Late!

Editorial Comment 2/1/2007

Alberta road is on a major bus route. Several buses travel over this road each school day, and the health, safety, and well being of the children that use those buses is in jeopardy, especially when you consider the coming monsoon season. Yet Alberta road is still not a paved thoroughfare. Why?

It’s unclear why Alberta is not paved. Saratoga was just paved through, but Alberta is just as well traveled, and it’s not clear why the city has not yet improved it. Several years ago, Idalia road was the scene of a serious accident involving a school bus. The bus slid into a ditch after a severe rain storm, and several people, including children, were hurt. You’d think that city hall would have learned from that incident. Again, just a few months ago, another bus (this time on Alberta road itself), fell into a crack in the road caused by the heavy rains - nearly tipping the vehicle over. It doesn’t take much to figure out that unpaved roads are dangerous, and that the danger is magnified as we think of innocent children that might be hurt. Citizens have warned the city that it has a responsibility to make sure all roads that are publicly traveled are maintained to a level of safety that mitigates dangers such as those encountered on unimproved roads. The city is not relieved from that responsibility, nor can it assume that occasional grading is adequate. If paving is needed, and it rises to the level of basic safety assurance, then the road must be paved.

Some citizens resent the fact that they might have to pay for such improvements, but what reasonable person would argue against such a preventative measure? It’s not just the citizens that live immediately around the schools that will benefit. Hundreds of parents, including those who live in improved areas, bus their children to Enchanted Hills. Several near collisions have occurred on Alberta in recent years, including one incident between two cars that nearly caused a very serious and possibly fatal accident at Monterey and Alberta.

It’s our opinion that this is strictly a money issue with the city. The safety of kids doesn’t enter into the equation – only monorail trains, sports arenas, and new offices for city officials matter. As far as we can tell, the Mayor has no advisory board on the matter of safety. If he does, they’re not getting the point across.

When you look at the dollars the Mayor is suggesting be spent on a train that goes nowhere, it’s incredible and disheartening that he doesn’t see the importance of paving major roads for safety – no matter what classification of road the city has put on it. My prediction is that someone will eventually get hurt, and possibly killed. The city has paved Saratoga road after years of pressure from local residents. That was the right thing to do. Now it’s time the city to do the same for Alberta. You’ll find the Mayor’s email address on this site, as well as the contact points for all council members. Contact them and let them know how you feel about this issue. Do it for the kids.

___________________________________________________________________________________