Rio Rancho in Focus

I live in Unit 17, and did during the flooding of 2006. Of course flooding occured in other parts of the state that summer in areas with paved roads. However, at least emergency and city vehicles were able to pass through the flooded areas in those neighborhoods. I don't think there will be a solution that involves not paving roads or putting in gutters and sewers. The roads washing away were a hazard to all neighbors that lived in the area. Electrical and gas lines were exposed, and roads were impassable in some areas. As far as private property, property owners do have to take some responsibility for having holding ponds and ensuring that water that drains off their property is not flooding others. We did not take off all the top soil and vegetation when we built our home, which helped keep the soil and water intact around our home. We were one of the few property owners that had the foresight to do this. I'm not sure why people think they know of a solution that doesn't involve some sort of payment out of their own pockets. Then there are some of our neighbors who are only concerned about their own little piece of the neighborhood. What happened to wanting to live in a community? We were affected minimally, and we don't have money to burn. However, we do feel that the whole neighborhood is impacted by flooding, and will be again. We will also be the ones to profit from these improvements to our area. It is just fool hardy to believe that you will be able to demand that the city pay for roads.. I hope that our city councillors will listen to reasonable people's voices and not the voices of a few who don't seem to care about anything but themselves. For those of you who do agree, please let your voices be heard by the city!

I too live in Unit 17, and I experienced the flooding that's caused this uproar. Frankly, it's difficult to see how any amount of paving will work to relieve the type of floods we saw awhile back. If you go to the "Citizen Journal" link on this page and click on the video link at the bottom of that page, you'll see how the flood waters ran over roads and hills and houses on the way to the river. Toward the end of the clip, you'll notice that the water has come down through the middle of the development, and isn't coming from the top of the hill that the road is on. No emergency vehicles would have made it through. Only properly built holding ponds and major infrastructure will stop that kind of flooding. By the way, the man that owns the house right next to where the water emerges on the video did have a ponding area on his property - it did nothing to stop the flood.

Water doesn't flow down roads to obey traffic rules. It runs wherever it wants to. If that means flooding down Northern, across roads, and through lots, that's what it will do. I really don't think paving will solve anything, and yet, that's exactly what's jacking up the price tag on the SAD 7 project. I think greed is the main factor the City wants to pave roads. By the way, what the heck do sewers have to do with any of this? What's next, street lights and park benches?

I own 3 properties in Unit 17. My burden here will be too great. I am still reeling back from the property tax jump this year. The problem is that the City decided to bankrupt itself building overly expensive libraries, city halls and arenas and charge us all with the results. They neglected infrastructure as is their number one responsibility. Now, to broaden their contempt they come up with a senseless and useless proposition that won't address the actual problem but will result in people losing investment properties at future tax auctions. We need to dump all of these councilors this election. Had any of these neophites a hint of proper governance they would have asked themselves 'How would I like to get hit with a $14,000 bill per property without regard to my own financial status?' No large uproar would have ensued from a time lapsed installment of the 'improvements'. This issue alone is proof of the clear unqualified stupor of our city council.

The focus could continue to be on why this happened in the first place or on what we can do about it now. Of course the flooding occurred on more than the roads. However, I'm not sure I understand how this would be the city's responsibility is for private property. If nothing is done at this point to make for passable roads, then the problem will wait until the next flooding that will occur. Then the price will go up for each home and land owner in Unit 17. The problem may not be corrected by paved roads, sewers and curbs. However, it is part of the correction. Private property owners are going to have to look at creating holding ponds and appropriate water channels for their property. From what I can tell, Unit 17 can blame everyone else and make sure nothing happens or be proactive about getting something done now as some of the other units in Rio Rancho are having done.

It's obvious that Sue bought in a flood zone and is now advocating that we should all come together to solve her problem. I'm sorry to be so rude. I have landscaping, a holding pond, systems that retain water on my property, I did not scrape the lot bare from perimeter to perimeter as all the builders do now. I paid extra to have the land "sculpted' by a local professional, not these current greedy mercenary builders -like Benavidez or Iliff etc. Most of all I did not build in a drainage area; it's called common sense and foresight. Consequently, I received little flood damage; most of which was repaired by a few hours of shovel work.
I say let's see how the recent drainage improvements perform and stop with the sky is falling routine.
On another note, Balmer was handed his ass at the election and that is a reason to rejoice. I doubt if Shaw will be that much better and I also have a deep foreboding about Swisstack. I think he'll screw us.
I cannot conjure any respect for the office much less the individuals. They're bought and sold by special interests, mainly the developers.

Actually Bill, you did build in a drainage area. Technically, all of the Rio Grande valley is located in a flood zone. All runoff from the west and east side drain to the river. It's good that you took steps to contain flooding, but no amount of landscaping or ponding would solve the problem. Take a look at the video on the Headlines page. I'm sure you relied on the flood cert you received when you bought your home. So did a lot of the folks that are having problems now. It's a joke, because no one is safe on the west side from flooding. Only large, internal infrastructure will make a dent in the situation, and the county and city should put it in place as common drainage. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't want to pay for paved arroyos near your home, now would you?

I agree with you on Balmer. Maybe Shaw will do something, but that remains to be seen.

Kudos to you Bill! It is unfortunate that some have built in flood zones, arroyos and other high risk areas and their homes and property have been damaged; however we were fortunate enough to have located a reputable builder and had the sense to determine that our lot was on high ground and was not constructed on an unnatural sandpile or in an arroyo. And yes. We too could be affected by a natural disaster of some type; however we would not even consider asking the City or our neighbors to pay for something that is out of our control.

Also, did everyone forget that most people who moved to these areas were probably initially attracted to the serne and rual beauty of the area? Black paved roads, street lights and crude, unfinshed cement block walls definitely ruin the setting!! If people are so "pro" pavement and development, they should have remained in the city!

I find that most people who are affected by the SAD assessments (both pro and con) understand that New Mexico is still ecologically "the Wild West", and would welcome "infrastructure", whether with a "light" touch on the land (soft drainage and ponding, etc.) or as it could ultimately appear 50 years in the future when we will each own 200 story skyscrapers complete with 7 story shopping malls and parking on our plots of land because there will be no more land to "in-fill"!
What has me so upset about this whole thing is the method behind their madness... to assume that without really doing their homework and research into all options, the city councilors and Wilson and Company thought that the citizenery would open there wallets then roll over and play dead, that this was a "faite accompli" and laugh all the way to the bank. I think they were really shocked when so many people turned up for the meeting Jan. 9th, and they seem to continue to feel the full value of "Of the People, For the people". They are "OUR" representatives... not Wilson and Companys's! Check out some of the other city council meetings and planning and zoning meetings to see how skewed this whole proceedure is!!
There are many other options that can be explored from both an ecological and economic standpoint! Let's encourage more community input!