On behalf of village residents, we challenged the illegal construction approvals that the Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque’s previous administration and Palindrome Communities LLC conspired to obtain behind closed doors and behind the villagers’ backs.

Thankfully, New Mexico Judge Barela Shepherd ruled on May 2 that the development agreement between the village and Palindrome was illegal on two fronts. First, approval by other than the Board of Trustees and Planning and Zoning Commission was unlawful. Second, allowing the approvals to be done other than at properly-noticed public meetings was unlawful.

Now Palindrome is engaging in a media campaign of intimidation, falsely claiming ignorance and innocence of this illegality while threatening village residents with a $40-plus million lawsuit if construction is halted. They blame the village for leading them astray.

But Palindrome was a knowing party to the illegal agreement, having modeled it after their El Vado agreement with the city of Albuquerque. They were the party best positioned to recognize the unlawful removal of public oversight from the approval process that instead substituted secretive, private approvals by unelected village staff only, violating New Mexico laws and village ordinances.

It’s hard to believe that Palindrome missed those very important changes from its previous development agreement. But even if their due diligence failed to expose this illegality, they can’t blame the village for signing an obviously illegal agreement.

Moreover, the contract that Plaindrome signed states that “no party … will seek to obtain any judgment imposing personal liability against the Village, Village’s Parties,” etc. It also states that Palindrome will “at their own expense, comply” with all laws, including state and municipal.

Friends of Los Ranchos first notified Palindrome of the illegality of their agreement long before the judge’s ruling, filing an appeal within 30 days of the village issuance of permits for the Palindrome project. But Palindrome began construction before the permit appeals deadline had passed, a clear breach of contract.

They have subsequently ignored all notice of the illegality of their construction, including the judge’s ruling on May 2. Their current scare tactics, using the imposing illegal structure as leverage, are unacceptable.

When Palindrome initiated construction prematurely, they were the first to breach the agreement. They cannot now sue the village for a breach they initiated. The village has not breached the agreement, and acknowledging its illegality is not a breach. Palindrome violated the agreement intentionally.

We won the court case to benefit the village and good government. Palindrome’s development is illegal.

The illegal structure can and should be torn down as per Village Ordinance 9.1.13, which plainly states: “Construction which violates any provision of this Article is strictly prohibited …” and “Violations without authorization by the Commission shall be cause for legal action by the Village to have the construction violation stopped, corrected and/or removed and a penalty assessed.”

It is the village’s responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of all village citizens, and to stop and correct the illegal construction. Palindrome knew what it was doing when it took the risk to continue construction after we notified it in May of 2023, before any construction on any building began, that it was proceeding illegally.

To follow the law cannot and will not injure the village. We will not allow Palindrome’s bullying tactics to prevail.

- Marsha Adams, president of Friends of Los Ranchos.

- Nancy Nangeroni, secretary of FOLR.

6/18/24: Los Ranchos needs affordable housing for working families

As a resident of Los Ranchos, I have followed the debate and litigation surrounding the Village Center Project. Though many aspects have been addressed, I have not heard anyone ask, “What are the outcomes of the housing policies we choose? Who is welcomed, and who is excluded?”

The most vocal perspective on the project argues for no high density housing in order to preserve open spaces and an “agricultural and rural way of life.” If you take into consideration the village’s needs and responsibilities as well as the actual and complete Village Center Project design, the arguments simply fall flat.

The design — located in a decidedly non-rural, commercially-focused area — follows research-backed, federal and other local guidelines for fostering appropriate growth in small towns. It has also creatively incorporated agricultural learning and engagement, housing, economic stimulation, arts, recreation, and culture, and access to walking, biking, and public transportation.

A search of house-hunting websites shows the median cost of a home for sale in Los Ranchos right now is over $1 million. Using a mortgage calculator, a family’s annual income would need to be $224K to afford a home here, more than three times the median income in the metropolitan area.

There are practically no properties for rent. Comparative data on the census.gov website demonstrates Los Ranchos is older, wealthier, and is home to fewer minorities than the surrounding city of Albuquerque and the state of New Mexico as a whole. Clearly village housing policies and their outcomes are already exclusive.

The idea that we could have affordable but not high density housing is unrealistic. Housing policies that favor single-family homes while restricting subdivision and multi-purpose developments were historically designed with the intention to maintain division in our communities along racial and economic lines.

See Richard Rothstein’s “The Color of Law” for an in-depth discussion.

Whether or not Los Ranchos holds that intention, the outcome is the same. These policies raise the cost of housing, reduce access to affordable homes and other opportunities, and lengthen commute time for workers. Through the current absence of affordable housing, we have, by default, excluded many types of people from our community.

In fact, policies restricting high density housing mean that educators, police officers and firefighters, health care workers, and restaurant and small business employees, amongst others, cannot become residents in our community.

Young families are not able to move in, and seniors are not able to remain if they wish to downsize. Even people who grew up in the village have been priced out as adults.

Our neighborhood schools don’t have enough children to support full-time employment in critical positions. Any sustainable community has to have places for workers to live, but to a huge extent we do not.

Effectively saying, “we don’t want you living here,” is undeniably part of the “character” of our village.

Multiple studies show that affordable housing, especially in already safe neighborhoods, is not correlated with an increase in crime or a decrease in property value. In fact, it can positively impact property value, and as it provides stability for people, it can also decrease crime and increase public safety.

Perhaps without conscious consideration, those that argue for keeping Los Ranchos rural, agricultural, and without any high density structures are nonetheless fighting for outcomes that will further discriminate against minorities and people who are not wealthy.

Maintaining our current housing policies not only sends the message that we don’t want anyone who can’t afford a million-dollar home to be our neighbor, it ensures that into the future.

- Carolyn Fresquez, Los Ranchos

6/14/24: Palindrome Bears Responsibility

I am a Village of Los Ranchos resident and active observer of the process that has brought the Village Center Project into being. From the Village’s director of finance in 2003-2004 to actively engaged in responding to the Village’s actions of the last couple of years.

I agree with Fred Sturm and the Albuquerque Journal’s editorial board’s Los Ranchos Village Center editorials. The Village officials carry a heavy burden for having violated their oaths of office to uphold the laws of the state of New Mexico, the Village’s ordinances and to represent the residents of the Village.

Now if a developer was developing a typical development where it’s all their project and followed all the rules, only to find out they were grossly misapplied by the government officials, then they would have a good reason to say they did things in good faith and shouldn’t be held accountable for government officials’ misdeeds.

But Palindrome was hired by Village’s representatives of the residents to develop a project for the Village. So the developer has responsibility to the residents. Palindrome chose to enter into an agreement to build a village center the residents wanted.

The animosity towards Palindrome exists because Palindrome spoke with residents and held a public meeting to share what it had planned which was overwhelmingly disapproved. Palindrome chose to ignore that input, the input of its partners and investors

In terms of legality, there is the fact that the Journal and Mr. Sturm seem unaware the development contract specified the permits for building weren’t finalized until “all appeal periods and/or periods of time during which the Permits could be challenged or set aside, if any, have expired.” Palindrome choose to continue construction even though the Permits were not finalized. When the appeal of the approval of the permits was filed, the foundations had just been started. Palindrome argued at the Planning and Zoning Commission’s and Board of Trustees’ appeal hearing that how the permits were approved had no bearing on their validity. So that means Palindrome choose to take the risk that the permits would be found invalid. They lost, along with the Village, in District Court on that point.

To put this in terms of a Journal Center development, say the CEO of the Journal’s development company entered into a contract with a developer to build a board-wanted development. The agreement said the CEO could make all decisions. Then the CEO and developer decided to change it to a different development. The development company’s board found out about the change and contract and told the CEO and the developer they didn’t approve of the development and the CEO was without authority to enter into the contract. Still the developer went ahead and built a substantial portion of the development before the courts ruled in the board’s favor and said the contract was invalid.

In this case, should the Journal Center project started in “good faith” be finished? If the board wanted to remove the illegal construction, should the board bear all of the costs?

I think Palindrome bears responsibility for the construction after the appeal was filed. I think, in any case, once the court ruled the construction was illegally approved, construction should stop until folks are back on the same page and the illegal construction is resolved. Just seems reasonable.

- Tom Donelan, Los Ranchos

6/10/24: Village would bear all costs of Palindrome project removal

I was pleased that the Friends of Los Ranchos prevailed in their open meetings lawsuit against the Village of Los Ranchos. The village administration failed to follow procedures, and it was good to make that plain.

Does it follow, though, that the village should file a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop construction?

Let’s be clear, fault was found with the village, not with Palindrome. Palindrome was courted by the village, asked to make a proposal for a mixed-use development conforming with village zoning ordinances. Such a plan was negotiated. A contract was signed, Palindrome relying on the good faith of the village.

Palindrome has spent millions of dollars, preparing the site, installing infrastructure, constructing buildings. There is no way a village lawsuit will magically undo all of this. Instead, the village will be on the hook for lawyer’s fees, and will be doomed to failure.

The only way the project under construction could be removed would be at the expense of the village, including reimbursing Palindrome for all its investments.

The Village Center zone, focused on the intersection of 4th and Osuna, seeks mixed-use retail and high density residential, and originated in the 2020 village master plan. I served on the Citizens Advisory Committee that developed that concept as an alternative to the sea of asphalt a la Guadalupe Plaza, anchored by Smith’s just south of us, that would have been inevitable under the commercial zoning then in place.

Instead, we wanted development that would encourage smaller scale retail by having large numbers of potential customers living right on site, within easy walking distance. We wanted development that would be designed based on negotiations with village planners.

Those concepts were incorporated in the zoning code, following Planning and Zoning Committee hearings and trustee discussion. Years passed, and nobody seemed interested in undertaking a project.

Eventually, then-mayor Larry Abraham pursued consolidating the site under village ownership, and actively sought proposals to develop it. It was only with considerable effort that he succeeded in attracting Palindrome and began to negotiate a plan that made economic sense.

All of this was discussed in detail in the monthly Village Vision magazine, sent to all village residents.

Upon the death of mayor Abraham, mayor Donald Lopez continued pursuing the project, writing about it regularly. Lopez was guilty of failing to put the plans before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then before the trustees for final approval, as required by ordinance, and he should have sought more public involvement in the planning, but it wasn’t a sudden surprise, for anyone paying attention.

Those village residents who claim to have been blindsided by all this have nobody but themselves to blame.

- FRED STURM, Los Ranchos

5/29/24: Joe Craig fought to preserve Los Ranchos

I want to thank the Journal, and especially staff writer Ollie Reed Jr., for several recent front-page columns about the determined fight in Los Ranchos to stop the massive, illegal, and hotly contested Palindrome development at Fourth and Osuna.

I especially commend you for (the May 22) article about the untimely death of Los Ranchos Mayor Joe Craig, one of the most adamant fighters against this offensive development and in defense of protecting and sustaining the village’s rural character against such intrusive developments that are imposed without villager approval.

I did not know Joe Craig until I joined hundreds of other Los Ranchos villagers in organizing to stop the Palindrome project, which Ollie’s article says is “popularly known as the Village Center,” though we in the village do not call it that.

Rather, it is an ugly, imposed construction that we had no voice in approving and now struggle to halt its offensive and illegal construction.

Joe Craig led us with passion in this fight. His sudden death is a great loss not only to his family, but also to this village whose rural nature he fought valiantly to protect, and to all the villagers who joined in the effort he led.

We join with his family in mourning his passing. In addition, I hope we have learned from his example and will continue this fight until the offensive Palindrome project, and any others like it, learn to respect our desire to grow and modernize in ways that respect our open spaces, our rural history, and our commitment to local voice and control.

- LOIS MEYER, Los Ranchos

6/19/2023 Mayor circumvented public participation

IN HIS June 11 guest column, Mayor Donald Lopez of Los Ranchos neglected to mention the development on the corner of Fourth and Osuna circumvented a key element of our democratic society – public participation. There was no public hearing for the actual design of what he calls the Village Center Project. No opportunity to see and comment on the plan. No chance to ask important questions, such as how the intersection will accommodate several hundred more residents and several thousand visitors. No review of site plans by the village Planning and Zoning Commission, nor approval by the elected board of trustees.

The site plans were signed off by two village employees, and construction rushes onward despite a site plan appeal. The administration of Mayor Lopez has intentionally disregarded the requests, pleas, demands and legal suits of residents of Los Ranchos to participate in what could have been a community vision. This egregious denial of the rights of people who live in the village undermines trust in local government. In his zeal to collect more taxes, Lopez seems to have forgotten he is an elected official with responsibilities to his constituents.

- KATHLEEN HALL, Los Ranchos

6/15/23: I doubt ex-mayor would OK project

UPON READING the arrogant letter from Don Lopez (Sunday Journal June 11), I am appalled at his inclusion of the late Mayor Larry Abraham as one of those responsible for the disaster now under construction in the Village of Los Ranchos.

As a long-time resident of the village and one who worked with Mayor Abraham during his four terms in office, I am quite sure a man of his intelligence, who loved the village’s open, rural atmosphere, would have (n)ever agreed to the sort of ugly and unwelcome development now, unfortunately, under way. Lopez is, as always, very wrong.

- LORILEE MCDOWELL Altamonte Springs, Florida

6/15/23: Village’s economic engine of betrayal

AS STATED in his (June 11 guest column) “Village Center the economic engine Los Ranchos needs,” Mayor (Donald T.) Lopez wants to turn our village into a city. But it was founded to resist urbanization. Residents prefer “no development at all” by a 2-1 margin according to the village’s 2035 Master Plan; a clear public preference being trampled.

The mayor prioritizes developing an “economic engine” when what we need is more sustainability. This project is not the village center envisioned over 20 years of planning or today. It is an affront to villagers and a betrayal of clearly expressed mandates. It was accomplished by approval shortcuts being challenged in court. It is toxic to what makes the village a great place to live. Residents will win in court, and then we will have to clean up this mess.

- NANCY NANGERONI Los Ranchos; Member, Keep Los Ranchos Rural