Thanks for Commenting
The only way Albuquerque can avoid growth is by being surrounded on all sides by other cities. I actually think that might be a good idea, competition is a good thing.
Dear Mr. Burgos:
Thank you very much for playing the "laid back southwest game." Please go back to California. We don't need your type ruining NM.
Another thing: please move closer in to the city and bike, walk or ride the bus to work. You and your ilk are ruining what were once very beautiful skies here.
Hmm, I take it you're not one of my fans, but I do appreciate you taking the time to read my blog and share your thoughts and feelings. I hate to disappoint you, but I won't be leaving NM. We love it here. Plus, our family has ties to NM going back more than 400 years.
I"m sorry I couldn't tell from your post, exactly how deep are your family roots in the Land of Enchantment?
Mario,
Controlled growth is necessary as people from the east and west mive to our little home state. Sprawl is inevitable but is also hard to swallow.
*move
Several problems with this whole controlled growth discussion.
First, let's say you want to slow down or stop growth. If you are successful, the next thing that happens is, as a result of supply and demand, property values go through the roof, and people complain they can no longer afford to live in their homes due to ever increasing property tax assessments - think Santa Fe. The stark difference between the "haves" and "have nots" grows.
Ok, let's say you're not a member of the no growth crowd. Instead, you're an in-fill advocate. Well, to accomodate the migration of people that will come to New Mexico in the next 20 years, you are going to have to build up and up. Then the complaints will be that the architecture no longer reflects the culture of New Mexico, the neighborhood is now congested with too many people, and the views of Mt. Taylor are obstructed.
I don't live in a sprawl development. I live in home that is nearly thirty years old.
Oh, I almost forgot. Our "little home state" is the fifth largest state in the country when it comes to land mass.
yes, it is a large state but the county I live in is 97% public land. That gets rid of the largeness and prices do go through the roof.
Mr. Burgos:
Once again, you are dispersing the well-travelled talking points of the big-pro development community. I wonder if you have some financial motivation for continuing to distort the growth debate in Albuquerque?
To my knowledge, there is no organized "no growth crowd" and to imply such, is absurd and shows how willing you are to reduce this complex issue to its most base terms, eliminating the chance for productive, informed discussion.
Smart growth advocates don't want to stop growth, they seek to integrate it more fully into the urban landscape- to create human spaces that don't rely so heavily on the vehicle.
Sprawl is deemed such because it is inherently detrimental to the urban environment. Growth for the sake of growth, I'm sorry to inform you Mr. Burgos, is not sound or sustainable economic development policy.
It's funny how you fail to mention the City of Albuquerque's and APS's combined $2+ billion infrastructure backlog or how homowners in es
First, please call me Mario. I can't think of any reason for formality on a blog. Second, your comment got cut off. You'll need to do multiple posts when you have a lot to say. Finally a response to your thoughts.
For the record, I don't have any financial motive. My only land holdings are the property on which our home resides. However, I do strongly support property rights. I also believe in the free enterprise system. If you want people to live in urban in-fill projects, you should build and sell them (i.e. Downtown Redevelopment Project). By the same token it is wrong to attempt to legislate away the competition.
If the "sprawl property" outsells the urban projects, it means the majority of homeowners do not share your view of what constitutes the best lifestyle. Last I checked, we still live in a Democracy. This means the majority wins.
As far as infrastructure backlogs are concerned, you can read some of my other posts to see how I feel about fiscal responsibility exhibited by APS and the City of Albuquerque.
Mario:
I believe in consumer choice, free enterprise, and fiscal responsibility just as you, but where we differ is your belief that sprawl has a positive effect on the urban community.
I, too, am a homeowner, and I'm not happy that significant portions of my tax dollars are being spent to line the pockets of big developers.
For the millions in subsidies we fork over to developers- we could instead use to fund innovative financing, revolving and reverse mortgages and other programs to ensure affordability for working families. Spawl development should not be what we rely on to keep the market affordable----
Further----
It is unrealistic to declare that building homes for the sake of building them, however unplanned they may be, will directly result in positive economic development.
Survey after survey of top national CEOs and other executives cite quality education as the number one criteria for selecting new places to set-up shop.
In fact, most of high-paying, creative industries, the companies we really want to attract because they have the highest potential for growth, consider sprawl a detractor, and instead locate in cities with a more cohesive, dynamic landscape.
On the mico level, affordable homes in sprawl communities seem too good to be true for working families and new parents. But let's factor in the other "costs" of pooly-planned fringe communities: Traffic congestion, the necessity for owning a second vehicle because of unreliable public transit, multiple vehicle fuel and maintenence costs, time away from family for longer commutes, lack of nearby services.
Affordability is one thing, but livability is quite another.
Amy,
I doubt this is going to surprise you, but I am not a supporter of welfare, be it for corporations or individuals. Governments, municipal or otherwise, should not be providing susbsidies to businesses of any kind. I have no problem with tax relief, but I believe it should be across the board. I have a real problem with industry specific tax incentives. These are wrong on so many levels, and have a lot to do with why our tax code is so complicated.
Last I checked, what the City of Albuquerque is doing has nothing to do with subsidies and everything to do with attempting to change growth patterns through taxes, an impact fee is just another way to increase tax revenue.
However, if by subsidies you were referring to infrastructure costs such as roads, that is precisely the role of government. I'm sorry you don't like to pay for it, but somebody did not like to pay the taxes that went to build the roads and school around your home either. This is the way the system
--- works, and overall it is a good system.
Another option would be to just start cutting taxes. This would leave your money in your pocket and eliminate the need of the government to spend it, and make no mistake, that is what governments do. They try to spend every cent of it every year, so they can ask for more the next year.
Now would this stop the type of growth you dislike? No. Overall costs would drop and then the developers would build the roads out of their own pockets. They just might not be paved. You would have dirt roads like in my neck of the woods. Which, by the way, hasn't stopped growth in the East Mountains. Nor, for that matter, has a lack of trash pickup, or a sewer system. In fact, growth has continued at a rapid pace and will for a long time to come.
I'll leave you with this. If instead of opposing growth, people embraced it. A very healthy dialogue could occur about what type of mixed use might occur to alleviate traffic congestion and make s
--- sure the infrastructure and local service exist. An ever growing number of people who live in Rio Rancho, work, play and shop in Rio Rancho. The city doesn't really appeal to me, but it sure seems to make a whole lot of other folks happy.
Commenting by HaloScan
