Mayoral candidates’ differences were clear at debate

The differences between the two candidates for Las Cruces mayor were clear during this morning’s debate on The Morning Show with Alan Riehl.

Mayor Bill Mattiace believes Las Cruces is in great shape. He believes growth policies are moving the city in the right direction and that the city is doing a good job of involving residents in the process.

District 6 Councilor Ken Miyagishima, on the other hand, believes the city is growing too quickly. He wants the city to do a better job of planning and wants more requirements for developers to ensure better infrastructure in new neighborhoods. He believes the public is not being adequately involved in decisions, and says that needs to change.

Their similarities were also clear. Both pledge to do more for existing neighborhoods. Both support eventual implementation of a recycling program that doesn’t cost residents much. Both want to keep the crosses in the city’s logo.

That’s why the election has become about growth. It is the major difference between the candidates.

Voters who missed it can listen to a podcast of the 105-minute debate by clicking here. If you haven’t yet decided how you’ll vote on Tuesday, it’s worth your time.

Though the candidates agree that growth, and the public’s involvement in it, is not the only issue in the city’s election, both have made it the focus of their campaigns. Both have attacked the other repeatedly on that issue. The debate was no different.

Both on the offensive

During his opening statement, Miyagishima took a shot at Mattiace’s “people first” slogan.

“I want responsible growth, not haphazard growth,” he said. “We need roads first, not people first.”

Mattiace then took a shot at Miyagishima’s campaign slogan, “for a dynamic Las Cruces,” saying it means he and his backers want “to change everything” in Las Cruces. He citied the push by a small group to end the city’s use of the three crosses in its logo, implying they were part of Miyagishima’s campaign. He also implied, in saying he opposes a moratorium on growth, that Miyagishima supports one.

“Bashing me and beating up the staff gets a lot of attention, my friends, but it’s a lousy way to lead and govern this great city,” Mattiace said.

Miyagishima said later in the debate that neither implication by Mattiace is true. And, when Mattiace spoke about the Vision 2040 plan that is being developed to help the region plan its growth, Miyagishima accused him of saying it was already complete – which Mattiace didn’t say. But Miyagishima used that point to attack Mattiace for the other implications.

“The show would have been boring without his half-truths and propaganda that he’s spewing right now,” Miyagishima said.

More back-and-forth

Miyagishima missed one opportunity to go after Mattiace. Mattiace, asked about the city’s relationship with the county, said the commissioners are “very good” and said there is a more professional relationship than there has been in the past. He named Commissioner Oscar Vásquez Butler as someone with whom the city has a professional relationship.

But at the time of April’s spaceport tax election in Doña Ana County, Mattiace took cheap shots at Butler and Commissioner Karen Perez in public for their opposition to the tax, at one point saying the sprawl that would result from the sentiment of those who opposed a massive annexation on the East Mesa would lead to a separate city that could be called Butlerville.

Mattiace got in a credible point about Miyagishima during the debate that Miyagishima didn’t directly address. Miyagishima talks a lot about open government and the need for more transparency and yet, in 2003, when Mattiace was a councilor, then-Mayor Ruben Smith and the other councilors – including Miyagishima – agreed in secret to ask the ethics board to investigate allegations against Mattiace.

Their action was illegal, a violation of the state’s open meetings act, and was later overturned by a district judge. The city had to pay the legal costs of the Las Cruces Sun-News, which sued to prove the violation.

Who won the debate?

So who won the debate? Nobody. The discussion of growth and other issues was informative, but the growth issues are so polarizing that most listeners probably knew who they supported before the debate. Both candidates made some important points, took some valid shots at the other and got caught in some awkward and/or misleading statements.

I’ve been continually surprised throughout this campaign that Mattiace has engaged Miyagishima so frequently in attacks related to the city’s growth. He has not only responded to Miyagishima’s assaults, but has often been the one who instigated back-and-forth negativity.

Conventional wisdom suggests that, as the incumbent, Mattiace should have stayed above the fray, or, at most, only responded to Miyagishima’s attacks on growth, not initiated his own attacks. By engaging Miyagishima in such an emotional and negative way, he has created the appearance that he is worried about losing and given credibility to his challenger’s candidacy.

What will that mean on Tuesday? I have no idea. My best guess is that this is a 50-50 race, and many others who are watching closely – supporters of both candidates – agree. Election night should be interesting.

A prior version of this posting incorrectly stated that the council and mayor secretly decided to censure Mattiace.