A sidebar to the open space election is the request, by state sen John Ryan (R-dist 10) for around $4 million to enable Los Ranchos to acquire the Anderson fields open space. This, together with the $3.5 million that might come from the bond, should be enough to buy around half of the property (its about 50 acres, and goes for around $300k per acre).
The question is, how likely is it that we will get even a portion of that money? Answer: not very. 4 mill is a big capital outlay request, and LR is only one part of Ryan's district. In fact, Ryan LOST the village precincts in the last election to John Hooker. He won due to overwhelming support on the other side of the river. What is more, Ryan is a freshman senator who is a member of the minority party. There is no way his colleagues will let him have that kind of money to throw around, so you can bet on the amount being slashed or even eliminated entirely. And Ryan, having lost the village to Hooker, probably will not be motivated much to fight for the money. He needs to service his west-side supporters. When the cash gets yanked from his capital outlay request, he can still claim that he "tried" to help Los Ranchos and can blame the democrats for taking the money away, leaving him with cash to throw at the west side. He'll then have a good chuckle over martinis with John Dendal about how he made himself to look like a hero in the village, while actually screwing them and delivering nothing.
El Picador's prediction: Almost nothing from Ryan's capital outlay request for open space. Maybe we get the paltry amount Dede Feldman has asked for (a small corner of the village off of RGB is in her district, gerrymandered by the republican to keep Janice Paster from running against Ramsey Gorham. The area includes Paster's house). Feldman cannot be blamed for the small sum. We're lucky she put in anything at all, as she has most of the rest of her district to the south to consider.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Election for Open Space Taxes on March 13
In case it has escaped your notice (a likely scenario, given the short time since the resolution calling for the election was passed with little notice during the holidays), we're having a special election in Los Ranchos in just a few weeks---Tuesday, March 13, to be exact. There is one question on the ballot----Shall the property owners in the Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque agree to levy a tax on themselves of one mil for a $3.5 million bond for the purpose of purchasing open space?
First, a translation of the legal mumbo-jumbo----what is a mil, anyway? It is one-tenth of a percent, or a "thousandth". That would come to $1 per $1000 of taxable value. To put in more understandable terms, that comes to $100 per year for every $300,000 of assessed value (not market value). That is because in NM your taxable value is 1/3 of the assessed value. The bond is for 20 years, so the village is asking us to pony up a few thousand each for "open space".
Sounds great, someone else with their hands in our pockets for "public works". But we all love our open space and pastoral vistas--that is probably why we were willing to shell out such ungodly sums to buy homes here. And we all rightly decry the daily loss of old alfalfa fields to obscene McMansions. Soon the place is going to look like Tanoan with a few cottonwoods. Wouldn't it be nice if some land was set aside and left open, for the public to enjoy, before its all gone?
Yup, it would be great. But there are a few problems to consider. First, what land are we going to buy? And what are we going to do with it? Use it to stash more tasteless junk donated to the village, like we do at the park by village hall? Or maybe, since it would be village property, we could put up more $ell towers, disguised as Walmart artificial Christmas Trees! ! No one seems to be taking much about that. Sounds like they want us to sign a big blank check.
More ominously---whoever owns this "open space" may be getting set up for a big windfall if there isn't a fair and independent appraisal and open public disclosure of the deal. If you were around when McCall made out huge with the lower Anderson deal, then you know what I'm talking about. The opportunity for corruption is obvious. With Larry and Juan at the helm---remember, these guys shelled out $750,000 for a seedy, run-down junk yard on 4th street with almost no public notice, and agreed to lease a land-locked lot near Paseo for $38,000 per MONTH--this makes me pretty nervous. It should make you that way also.
It has been rumored that the gang on Rio Grande have a deal in the works already to use the bond plus some capital outlay money to buy some of the old Anderson Winery property on RGB---for a cool $350k per acre, more or less. Now, that is a nice piece of land. Beautiful and serene. It makes for a relaxing view for all of the landed gentry as they drive to their palatial estates after a hard day. But what about those of us who are also paying the tax, and live a hardscrabble existence to the east? Where are our grassy fields? Our peaceful vistas? I'm not wild about shelling out my hard-earned bucks so some gizillionaire can look at the geese through his beemer windows.
Then, there is this fishy business about a lawsuit settlement. The owners of Anderson sued the village after Larry slapped a big front-yard setback on RGB, which impacted the number of McMansions that could be slapped on the property. This was settled. I wonder if a promise to but the land by the village was part of the deal?
On the other and, I also am sick of these McMansions. Its tragic what happened at poblanos orchards. I'd hate to see that cancer expand. Maybe I'll vote for the tax. Or maybe not. It depends on whether or not Larry and Juan can convince me that they will use this money fairly.
First, a translation of the legal mumbo-jumbo----what is a mil, anyway? It is one-tenth of a percent, or a "thousandth". That would come to $1 per $1000 of taxable value. To put in more understandable terms, that comes to $100 per year for every $300,000 of assessed value (not market value). That is because in NM your taxable value is 1/3 of the assessed value. The bond is for 20 years, so the village is asking us to pony up a few thousand each for "open space".
Sounds great, someone else with their hands in our pockets for "public works". But we all love our open space and pastoral vistas--that is probably why we were willing to shell out such ungodly sums to buy homes here. And we all rightly decry the daily loss of old alfalfa fields to obscene McMansions. Soon the place is going to look like Tanoan with a few cottonwoods. Wouldn't it be nice if some land was set aside and left open, for the public to enjoy, before its all gone?
Yup, it would be great. But there are a few problems to consider. First, what land are we going to buy? And what are we going to do with it? Use it to stash more tasteless junk donated to the village, like we do at the park by village hall? Or maybe, since it would be village property, we could put up more $ell towers, disguised as Walmart artificial Christmas Trees! ! No one seems to be taking much about that. Sounds like they want us to sign a big blank check.
More ominously---whoever owns this "open space" may be getting set up for a big windfall if there isn't a fair and independent appraisal and open public disclosure of the deal. If you were around when McCall made out huge with the lower Anderson deal, then you know what I'm talking about. The opportunity for corruption is obvious. With Larry and Juan at the helm---remember, these guys shelled out $750,000 for a seedy, run-down junk yard on 4th street with almost no public notice, and agreed to lease a land-locked lot near Paseo for $38,000 per MONTH--this makes me pretty nervous. It should make you that way also.
It has been rumored that the gang on Rio Grande have a deal in the works already to use the bond plus some capital outlay money to buy some of the old Anderson Winery property on RGB---for a cool $350k per acre, more or less. Now, that is a nice piece of land. Beautiful and serene. It makes for a relaxing view for all of the landed gentry as they drive to their palatial estates after a hard day. But what about those of us who are also paying the tax, and live a hardscrabble existence to the east? Where are our grassy fields? Our peaceful vistas? I'm not wild about shelling out my hard-earned bucks so some gizillionaire can look at the geese through his beemer windows.
Then, there is this fishy business about a lawsuit settlement. The owners of Anderson sued the village after Larry slapped a big front-yard setback on RGB, which impacted the number of McMansions that could be slapped on the property. This was settled. I wonder if a promise to but the land by the village was part of the deal?
On the other and, I also am sick of these McMansions. Its tragic what happened at poblanos orchards. I'd hate to see that cancer expand. Maybe I'll vote for the tax. Or maybe not. It depends on whether or not Larry and Juan can convince me that they will use this money fairly.
The Picaresque Launches!
Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Los Ranchos de Albuquerque Picaresque---the successor to the short lived, but well loved Los Ranchos Picayune. A on-line newspaper in interactive blog form, where the citizens of Los Ranchos can get REAL news that you won't find in that glossy throw-away you get in the mail from village hall every month. And also where you, the reader, get to actually talk an HAVE SOMEONE LISTEN FOR A CHANGE---an experience you just can't get at the board of trustee meetings (unless, of course, you happen to be hizzoner himself, or a well-heeled developer bent on derailing floor area ratio restrictions. But I digress). Stay tuned for news and commentary on the many pressing issues here in LR, including:
1. The upcoming special election to approve a new property tax for open space
2. Larry's big plans for 4th and Osuna
3. The ongoing fire station saga
4. $ell (yup, its spelled correctly) tower shenanigans
5. The floor area ratio fight
And many others.
1. The upcoming special election to approve a new property tax for open space
2. Larry's big plans for 4th and Osuna
3. The ongoing fire station saga
4. $ell (yup, its spelled correctly) tower shenanigans
5. The floor area ratio fight
And many others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
