{"id":2755,"date":"2008-01-17T17:05:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-17T23:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/01\/protecting-our-mountains-will-require-compromise\/"},"modified":"2008-01-17T17:05:00","modified_gmt":"2008-01-17T23:05:00","slug":"protecting-our-mountains-will-require-compromise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/01\/protecting-our-mountains-will-require-compromise\/","title":{"rendered":"Protecting our mountains will require compromise"},"content":{"rendered":"

Just about everyone in Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename> agrees that it\u2019s time to protect the Organs and other mountains surrounding Las Cruces<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> from development. But there isn\u2019t consensus on how to do it.<\/p>\n

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

And, especially after two city council elections in November and earlier this week polarized the community, backers of two competing proposals aren\u2019t 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\u2019t appear to be on its way to gaining traction in Washington<\/st1:place><\/st1:state>.<\/p>\n

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

The first proposal, from the Do\u00f1a Ana County Wilderness Coalition<\/a>, 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\u2019s Association<\/a> 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 Organ<\/st1:placename> Mountains<\/st1:placetype><\/st1:place> a national conservation area.<\/p>\n

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

The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

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

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<\/a>, who is philosophically opposed to the wilderness designation, held a public forum in Las Cruces<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> that gave credibility to those who opposed the wilderness proposal.<\/p>\n

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

Slowly, some of the proposal\u2019s support has peeled away. The Village<\/st1:placetype> of Hatch<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place> has rescinded its endorsement.<\/p>\n

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

Those who oppose the wilderness plan formed People for Preserving Our Western Heritage<\/a> and, in December, unveiled their own proposal to protect about 300,000 acres with less-restrictive \u201cpreservation area\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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

There isn\u2019t consensus<\/span><\/p>\n

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

The situation has divided the business community. The homebuilders association is joined by the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces<\/a> in backing the wilderness plan, but the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce<\/a> backs the ranchers\u2019 plan.<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

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

Both sides can accurately claim to have widespread support, but neither has earned the true consensus of the community.<\/p>\n

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

U.S.<\/st1:country-region><\/st1:place> Sens. Pete Domenici<\/a> and Jeff Bingaman<\/a> know it. They have said all along that they won\u2019t take any action until the community gets behind a plan to protect the mountains.<\/p>\n

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

Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename> has an opportunity to protect its mountains, but action in Washington<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> can take time. Every day wasted on boasting about widespread support instead of seeking compromise and consensus allows development to move closer and closer to land that should be protected in some way.<\/p>\n

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

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.<\/p>\n

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

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 Las Cruces<\/st1:city><\/st1:place>.<\/p>\n

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

\n

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?<\/p>\n

\n

Update, 4:35 p.m.<\/p>\n

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

I neglected to note earlier that the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce, while it backed the ranchers\u2019 proposal, also asked the congressional delegation to facilitate arbitration between the two sides. There\u2019s no doubt that some on both sides see the need for compromise. Now it\u2019s time for them to step up.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Just about everyone in Do\u00f1a Ana County agrees that it\u2019s time to protect the Organs and other mountains surrounding Las Cruces from development. But there isn\u2019t consensus on how to do it. And, especially after two city council elections in November and earlier this week polarized the community, backers of two competing proposals aren\u2019t in […]<\/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-2755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2755","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=2755"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2755\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}