Just about everyone in
And, especially after two city council elections in November and earlier this week polarized the community, backers of two competing proposals aren’t in the mood to compromise. But unless both sides agree to negotiate and give a little ground, protecting the mountains is an idea that doesn’t appear to be on its way to gaining traction in
The first proposal, from the Doña Ana County Wilderness Coalition, quickly earned a great deal of support when it was unveiled in late 2006. After it was slightly reworked in a compromise that earned it the endorsement of the Las Cruces Homebuilder’s Association in September, the proposal would designate 300,000 acres in the county as federally protected wilderness and make another 90,000 acres at the base of the
The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, which is behind the wilderness proposal, effectively sold it early on, earning the backing of every local government in the county, several newspaper endorsements and the support of a number of community organizations and hundreds of businesses. It appeared last summer that the proposal might be on its way to fruition.
But there are groups who oppose the restrictive wilderness designation, including ranchers, four-wheelers and some in the law-enforcement community. Last fall, U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, who is philosophically opposed to the wilderness designation, held a public forum in
Slowly, some of the proposal’s support has peeled away. The
Those who oppose the wilderness plan formed People for Preserving Our Western Heritage and, in December, unveiled their own proposal to protect about 300,000 acres with less-restrictive “preservation area” designations instead of the wilderness designation. That group, led by a number of leaders in the ranching community, has secured the backing of a number of community organizations and hundreds of businesses, but no support from government organizations or newspapers.
There isn’t consensus
The situation has divided the business community. The homebuilders association is joined by the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces in backing the wilderness plan, but the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce backs the ranchers’ plan.
Government leaders, with the exception of those in Hatch, remain fairly united behind the wilderness proposal, but it would be disingenuous to say that means the community is squarely behind it.
Both sides can accurately claim to have widespread support, but neither has earned the true consensus of the community.
Perhaps a compromise proposal would include designating some land as wilderness and giving other land a less-restrictive designation that would protect it from development but keep it open to other activities.
Working out a compromise could also be the first step toward healing the deep wounds from the divisive city elections that have just concluded. It could be a way to get polarized people speaking with each other and attempting to see other points of view. Such dialogue could only be productive for
Will any of the leaders behind either proposal have the maturity to begin such a dialogue? Or will they continue to delay building the consensus that would lead to action?
Update, 4:35 p.m.
I neglected to note earlier that the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce, while it backed the ranchers’ proposal, also asked the congressional delegation to facilitate arbitration between the two sides. There’s no doubt that some on both sides see the need for compromise. Now it’s time for them to step up.