{"id":1576,"date":"2007-04-10T13:31:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-10T19:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/04\/developers-city-need-to-engage-residents-in-a-true-dialogue-on-massive-city-changing-development\/"},"modified":"2007-04-10T13:31:00","modified_gmt":"2007-04-10T19:31:00","slug":"developers-city-need-to-engage-residents-in-a-true-dialogue-on-massive-city-changing-development","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/04\/developers-city-need-to-engage-residents-in-a-true-dialogue-on-massive-city-changing-development\/","title":{"rendered":"Developers, city need to engage residents in a true dialogue on massive, city-changing development"},"content":{"rendered":"

In recent days, there\u2019s been a lot of controversy surrounding an application to the City of Las Cruces<\/st1:city> to annex more than 4,200 acres on the East Mesa<\/st1:place> as part of a planned 6,000-acre development that could double or triple the population within 20 years.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The controversy mostly surrounds the fact that the public didn\u2019t know much about the development until a little more than a week ago, even though final approval of the annexation and master plan is scheduled for April 23.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

If you haven\u2019t heard about the proposal for The Vista at Presidio, you can find a lot of information by clicking here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

My first opportunity to listen to a public presentation on the development was at today\u2019s meeting of the Do\u00f1a Ana County<\/a> Board of Commissioners. Their role is to make a recommendation to the city council on the annexation, but they have no actual say in the approval process.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

I was struck at the meeting by how much work has gone into the project. The developers, Solo Investments<\/a> and Logos Development<\/a>, have been working with the New Mexico Land Office<\/a> for a year on the current proposal. They presented a master plan to the commission that includes zoning and land set aside for schools and fire and police stations. They\u2019ve already met with staffers from the city and Las Cruces Public Schools to determine how many public facilities are needed and where they should be located.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

What struck me even more was the fact that all this has already been done without the public, and even a number of public officials, knowing about it.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

I\u2019m not accusing anyone of anything improper. As far as I can tell, the developers are following all the laws in seeking approval of this development. They plan to build the roads and utilities within the development with their own money. They are considering building the schools and fire and police stations and then leasing them to the city and school district, if that\u2019s feasible. They plan to include affordable housing as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

This is a city-changing project<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

But this isn\u2019t a 50-acre annexation. This is a development that will change Las Cruces<\/st1:city>, that will mean it grows from a medium-size city to one that, coupled with growth that could result from development of the space industry and another massive annexation on the city\u2019s desolate West Mesa, could someday make Las Cruces<\/st1:city>\u2019 population rival that of Albuquerque<\/st1:place><\/st1:city>.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The developers have been working on this for a year. They should have spent the past year conducting an ongoing dialogue with the community on the project.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Very few of the residents who attended the commission meeting complained about the development plans. They recognize the benefit of a large master plan as opposed to piecemeal annexation. They realize the city is going to continue to grow toward the Organ<\/st1:placename> Mountains<\/st1:placetype><\/st1:place>, and this is probably the ideal way to do it.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

But they are upset that they haven\u2019t had input. They have a number of excellent questions and concerns that could have been addressed before now.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

For example, the developers have set aside four sites for schools. The development will have a minimum of 25,000 homes. The City of Carlsbad<\/st1:city><\/st1:place>, which has a similar number of homes, has 10 schools. How did the developer and the school district agree on four sites? Why aren\u2019t there more?<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The developers defended themselves during the meeting by saying this is the seventh public hearing they\u2019ve had. Their defense indicates their lack of understanding of what is needed.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

This is a development that will forever change Las Cruces<\/st1:place><\/st1:city>, and the residents of the city should have real input into how it\u2019s done, not token time to share their thoughts after the plan is already drafted. The usual public input opportunities at hearings at which developers are seeking approval don\u2019t exist for dialogue and generally aren\u2019t opportunities for the public to have real input into the project.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Commissioners want a public dialogue<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Commissioners, who have become increasingly divided on development issues in recent months, were united today in expressing concern about a number of aspects of this project. They voted to make several recommendations, but the primary recommendation was that the city, as the project proceeds, require the developers to participate in a series of public meetings to address the following issues:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 Roads and public transit, including the impact on roads outside of the development area.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 Affordable housing.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 Trails, open space and identification of natural and cultural areas for accommodation or preservation.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 Appropriate land for schools and other public facilities.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 Order of development for the planned area, including the determination of a final eastern boundary for the development. Commissioners don\u2019t want homes too close to the mountains.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 Water and drainage, specifically dealing with future water conservation and reuse.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

There\u2019s still time for input<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

There is still plenty of opportunity for input. Though the city council will likely approve the annexation and master plan later this month, for construction to begin, more specific plans will have to be approved for each phase. Keep in mind, also, that this is a 20-year plan, so development won\u2019t move at lightning speed.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

But the public needs assurance that it will be involved. There will be opportunity for public input at the city council\u2019s meetings on April 16 and 23. People need to show up at those meetings and ask for additional meetings for each topic suggested by the county commission. If the city\u2019s councilors are responsible, they\u2019ll require such meetings, above and beyond the usual public hearings, as a condition of approval of the annexation and master plan.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The council and developer need to take seriously the fact that they\u2019re about to change this community and be sensitive to what that will mean for residents. The developers held a public meeting last week, but it was really only a forum for them to share their plan with the public. Future meetings need to focus on the developers questioning and listening to members of the public and attempting to address their concerns, albeit without compromising the project\u2019s cohesion and viability.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In recent days, there\u2019s been a lot of controversy surrounding an application to the City of Las Cruces to annex more than 4,200 acres on the East Mesa as part of a planned 6,000-acre development that could double or triple the population within 20 years. The controversy mostly surrounds the fact that the public didn\u2019t […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}