Albuquerque City Election issues

[elegantelbow]

Thanks to erisedsmirror, I went and looked up the Albuquerque issues that will be on the November 2 ballot:

There will be a two issues:

1) A change in the charter. Currently the city charter says that councilors are paid annual salaries equal to one-tenth of the annual salary received by the Mayor. The Council President shall receive double the annual salary

Comments

Yes, but...

[buddhafiddle]

For my part, I would feel totally differently about the Paseo extension if there were a binding moratorium on new housing permits in the west side until such time as schools, water, and road infrastructure supports it.

Rewarding real estate speculators who build sprawl development by building the infrastructure at public expense after the fact is the main thing that makes urban sprawl worse.

When you build out in the boonies where the water is arsenic-laden, and where there are no schools or roads, you are supposed to offset all the socialized costs of your building with impact fees. Impact fees in the Albuquerque area have been paltry at best, partly because a signifigant chunk of our city council and our mayor have a personal profit interest in encouraging west-side real estate sales even if it isn't in the public interest.

When Michael Cadigan and Joe Carraro show me a binding plan to stop sprawl on the west side and get some schools and community colleges out there, maybe I'll vote for their highway.

The usual pattern I see in fringe development goes like this:

(1.) Developer : give me tax breaks and permits to build lots of housing here.
Community : but there aren't bridges or roads to get people to the housing! Why don't you build more compact housing over here on this side of the river where most of the jobs and schools are?
Developer: Oh, there's plenty of infrastructure. My impact fees will pay for schools and stuff.

(2.) Developer and his friends: Hey! Look at all this housing with no roads, bridges, or infrastructure! How did you let this happen! We need lots of money right away to build bridges through some 100 year old houses and build a six lane road through this here park!
Community: Why didn't you build on this side of the river!
Developer and friends: Why do you people insist on living in the past!

Re: Yes, but...

[coffegrl]

I don't disagree with you on these things, but I do understand the flip side of the situation. I live in Rio Rancho and work on the west side. I currently pay less than $700/month for mortgage on a 1350sq ft house, sitting on 1/3 of an acre of land. I am in one of the better school districts in central NM. Just prior to moving up here I lived in a 1300 sq ft (maybe) house sitting on less than 1/6 an acre because of the apartments that were built on to the back of the house, and I was paying $775 in rent. If I had children they would have been able to go to Monte Vista (which I have heard is a decent school), but would have had to get across several major streets to do it. I am not suggesting that urban sprawl is acceptable, but can you blame people for going somewhere that they are going to get the bigger bang for their housing buck? I am only suggesting that the greater Albuquerque area needs to think about where those tax dollars are coming from in the first place. Think about it, 18% of the population pays 38% of the taxes, in addition to the gross reciepts taxes that people in Rio Rancho pay by shopping in Albuquerque. I can assure you that I am not in the minority when I spend most of my cash in Albuquerque. There simply isn't any place to spend it out here.

Want to stop urban sprawl? Find a way to make urban living the better bang for the buck.

Re: Yes, but...

[elegantelbow]

...there has to be at least a little physical growth to accomodate that.

Certainly. I think there's still plenty of space to infill around the city. The just built a whole complex over at Indian School and Washington.

I can't speak for buddhafiddle, but I would really like to see inexpensive homes and pricey homes living side-by-side. I think neighborhoods are healthiest when they're well mixed.

I'd much rather own a lovely, interesting, 100-year-old house in Nob Hill or down by the river, but, frankly, I don't have that kind of money.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this. Our house (100-year old house downtown) was about half the average cost of a house in the whole city. Yes, they take a while to find, but they are out there.

Not to mention, buying a small house in a new development is a much better investment than giving money to someone else's real estate mortgage every month.

I think I'd rather focus on "buying a house within the developed urban area" vs. "buying a house in a less developed area". If you compare buying to renting, there're too many factors to consider.

Re: Yes, but...

[elegantelbow]

Is it the case that the nearest elementary school to you (now) does not require crossing any major streets?

...can you blame people for going somewhere that they are going to get the bigger bang for their housing buck?

Certainly not. But you could argue that you're not getting a bigger bang if you spend twice as much time in traffic. The size of the house and lot are not the only considerations in purchasing a piece of property. As they say, "location, location, location."

I found two properties in the UNM/nob hill area:
http://realtor.com/Prop/1039142334?lnksrc=00045
http://cblegacyhomes.com/PropertyDetail.asp?L=8038214
one is 1360 SF one is 1600 SF, both would have a mortgage of about $500/mo.

You were paying a rent premium where you were because it was walking distance to the university (something you didn't especially care about). If you'd looked at buying a house in a larger area around the city, I'm certain we could have found you something lovely.

I know that you're happy in your mom's house, and that there are other reasons that you moved there, but I don't think that you're really giving a fair comparison to buying a house in a more urban area of the city.

Our house would have had a mortgage of only $650, even if we'd only put down 5%.

Re: Yes, but...

[coffegrl]

Yes, the closest elementary school as well as the middle school require crossing residential streets with low traffic, and no major streets at all.
I realize that there are many other considerations, and that my comparision is not completely fair.
I do infact spend less time in traffic getting to and from work now than I did when I lived down by UNM even though the drive is 13 miles instead of 6, simply because I take the over used Unser/Universe route instead of Coors or I-25/I-40.
Even though Unser/Universe takes me less time than other routes at this point, both roads are over used, and unsafe for the amount of traffic they see. Universe was built by a private group, and only rated for 1/2 the traffic it currently sees. Extending Paseo to Universe will mean that it gets rebuilt as well.
In addition, I guess I'm just a bit irritated with Albuquerque and it's attitudes towards west side roads right now anyways. Albuquerque and Rio Rancho had a deal worked out to improve Golf Course from Paseo to Southern. Both cities were going to improve their sections of the road at the same time, to minimize the duration of construction on the road knowing that it is one of 2 major routes into and out of Rio Rancho. RR completed its section on time, with minimal impact to drivers on the road. Albuquerque waited for a full 6 months after RR finished it's section to even begin construction, and are now claiming that it will take a full 2 years to complete it. I know have one major route out of Rio Rancho if I want to connect with Paseo or I-25.
At this point, I am trying to figure out how to spend more of my money in Rio Rancho, or at least out of Albuqerque because the gross reciepts taxes I pay there are doing nothing to benefit me.

Re: Yes, but...

[elegantelbow]

I take the over used Unser/Universe route instead of Coors or I-25/I-40

I've always preferred taking Unser instead of Coors, even though it adds many miles to the trip.

Albuquerque waited for a full 6 months after RR finished it's section to even begin construction, and are now claiming that it will take a full 2 years to complete it.

Bah. Construction on roads in this city is obviously still got a lot of bad deals. There's really no excuse for the way it works. (Or, more to the point, doesn't work.)