On this week’s show Paul sits down with activist and independent candidate for Gov. Jacob Smith. Jacob was active in fighting anti-gun legislation (SB 17) in the 2026 legislative session. We discuss his activism, his plans for New Mexico, and why he’s running as an independent. Check out this great conversation!

Find Jacob’s campaign website here: https://www.smithfornm.com/

You can find his Twitter account here: @GovernToChange

The folks at American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) do an annual report called “Rich States, Poor States” in which they rank a number of economic policy factors as seen above. On the plus side New Mexico doesn’t rank dead last as it so often does. At a ranking of 35th we are definitely towards the bottom, but not as bad as usual.

On the flip side, New Mexico lags its neighbors by quite a bit in the rankings. Arizona is 5th, Utah 1, Colorado 29, Oklahoma 8th, and Texas is 13th. New Mexico lags behind at 35th. 

Finally, the following chart which was produced by RGF. Since a #1 ranking is better than 50th, it is better to be lower than higher on the chart below. New Mexico’s overall ranking has been rather stagnant in the 30s over the years.

It has been awhile since anything of importance happened with Virgin Galactic at Spaceport America. Back in August we discussed what we believe to be a deeply flawed economic “study” of the facility’s economic impact, but the company last launched on June 8, 2024 and we have been waiting for the company to resume its space tourism flights out of their taxpayer-funded New Mexico facility ever since.

Well, according to USA Today, the company is still planning to launch this year. (we have our doubts, but only time will tell). According to the article:

Virgin Galactic still expects to resume its space tourism operations by the end of 2026 as it looks to begin ground testing for its new spaceplane in April.

The commercial suborbital spaceflight company founded by billionaire Richard Branson hasn’t conducted a mission taking civilians to the edge of space in nearly two years. But in a recent earnings call, company leaders indicated that plans remain on track to resume those operations later this year now that its new suborbital spaceplane is in the final stages of assembly in Phoenix, Arizona.

Up next? testing from the ground before transitioning to the flight test phase in New Mexico.

Will the company really be able to go from ground testing to flight test and ultimately manned launches within the span of 8 months? They have certainly not hit ambitious targets like this one over the years. Time will tell, but this is one of MANY examples where New Mexico politicians have chased some BIG economic development dream by throwing tax dollars at it rather than making necessary reforms to make New Mexico a more attractive place to do business. The Spaceport and so many other big-spending policies/projects have either failed completely or had at best limited success.

The worst article you’ll see today was written by a New Mexico state Rep.

A new report finds that New Mexico is a disaster for families.

UNM offering a class on the fashion of singer “Bad Bunny.”

Paul and Wally take a “deep dive” look at 10 realities on taxes.

New Mexico ranked 4th heaviest in a Wallethub Tax burden report.

The Mayor of Albuquerque says his proposed budget is being cut. Here are further details along with comments from Councilor Dan Lewis.

KOB TV recently covered New Mexico’s plans for rail over the next 20 years. Along with that plan, Colorado’s Gov. Jared Polis announced a new “front range” passenger rail system that will connect Denver as far south as Trinidad.

So, the question is: What is New Mexico planning to do and how much is it going to cost? After all, far left Democrat Sen. Bill Soules has been pushing for high speed rail from Denver to Mexico (crossing NM North to South). This despite the fact that New Mexico’s current passenger rail system (the Railrunner) has seen ridership collapse and emits more CO2 than driving a car.

The good news is that New Mexico has no plans to join Colorado’s passenger rail plans. Also, the Rail Runner is not being considered for expansion though a Las Cruces/El Paso passenger line is at least discussed. That would certainly not be cheap but it is a long way from serious planning.

Perhaps more exciting and interesting is the plans for freight rail. Currently plans for (separate) rail spurs to San Juan and Lea counties are being considered as well as for the Santa Teresa border crossing. Those are all reasonable ways to build New Mexico’s transportation network. A spur to Spaceport America seems a bit wild considering the lack of action at that facility from the largest tenant Virgin Galactic.

Check out the full story here:

A policy blogger named Maria Davidson recently started posting a series of charts contrasting the growth in state spending vs the growth in the same state’s population over the past decade (one for California is linked). I asked for a New Mexico version of her chart, but none was forthcoming, so I made my own. But then I realized that growth over the past decade isn’t nearly as interesting as growth under the current Gov. MLG, so here we are.

But first we have to define what state spending actually means and it isn’t JUST the FY 2027 General Fund budget of $11.1 billion which has grown by 81% under the current Gov. However, with the oil and gas driven growth of New Mexico’s permanent funds and continued reliance on federal spending, New Mexico’s total budget is MUCH bigger than just the general fund.

How big? According to the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), in FY 2019 MLG’s first budget was a robust $19.5 billion. That already large number has grown to $29.7 billion under MLG’s FY 2025 budget. In other words, New Mexico’s total spending has grown 52% under Lujan Grisham (excluding the last two fiscal years). See below

How’s New Mexico’s population doing? In 2019 using simple google searches it was 2,096,829. As of 2025 that number had grown to 2,136,838. That’s total growth of just 2.48%. Needless to say, New Mexico’s budget has grown massively under the current administration fueled by oil and gas revenues. This number will likely continue to grow rapidly in the years ahead driven partially by state expenditures from the permanent funds for pre-K and state-funded “free” childcare.

You can see the chart along with source data on both below:

I saw the following post from the Freakonomics Facebook page. And, since we are obsessed with economics here at the Rio Grande Foundation and Errors of Enchantment (but sometimes we need a change of pace from New Mexico’s failed policies) I’d like to take an opportunity to dissect this list:

1. Tax cuts generally do NOT pay for themselves. But, some tax cuts like reducing/eliminating the capital gains and corporate income tax ARE able to boost overall economic growth enough to repay a significant portion of the cut.
2. There is no evidence “starve the beast” works.
3. The rich in the US pay much MORE than their “fair” share.
4. Correct, loopholes and deductions eliminated much of the “bite” of the top income tax of years’ past. Worse, they were economically inefficient.
5. European middle and lower classes pay much higher taxes than Americans of similar incomes.
6. Spending and especially spending on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid drive US budget deficits. 
7. NO, “taxing the rich” cannot balance the budget. Reforming so-called “entitlements” as seen in #6 is the only surefire way to balance the budget.
8. This one is somewhat contentious, but if you understand that the US tax code is already so “progressive” as to collect disproportionate revenues from “the rich” the TCJA contained many tax cuts for those at lower income levels. 
9. Correct, the tax code prior to 1980 was inefficient and anti-growth.
10. Currently, US corporate taxes are in line with international averages. In recent years they have been higher than in other countries.
11. 

According to a new report from Wallethub with the map below provided by Visual Capitalist, New Mexico has the 4th-heaviest tax burden in America at 10.8%. The Land of Enchantment burden ranks lower than only other ultra-blue states including Vermont, Hawaii, and New York.

The methodology involves taking property tax, income, and excise/sales tax burdens and measuring them a percentage of personal income. You can find the information for yourself here. For years the Rio Grande Foundation has worked to reduce New Mexico’s tax burdens, but Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and the “progressive” Legislature have preferred to spend the money or sock it away for future spending instead.

The Rio Grande Foundation has been very active in pushing Gov. Lujan Grisham to sign onto the $1,700 federal school choice tax credit contained in the federal “Big Beautiful Bill.” You can click here to read our post on that AND send the Gov. a note asking her to include New Mexico in the program. The Gov. after initially rejecting the plan has since insisted that she’ll make a decision once the regulations are written. That could take some time, but ultimately she’ll need to make a final decision before leaving office. You can see our recent writing with links to others here, but Democrat Rep. Raymundo (Rocky) Lara just had the weakest possible article published in the Santa Fe New Mexican attempting to convince MLG NOT to get New Mexico into the program.

Here’s the crux of his argument:

1. We don’t want “a fragmented system where funding is driven by individual preference rather than student need.” Simply put, why? “Individual preference” gets us what we want when it comes to food, cars, and housing. Why can’t that work in education. Oh, and New Mexico kids are suffering in the WORST schools in the NATION!
2. “In New Mexico, we have worked deliberately to build a funding system that prioritizes fairness.” Yes, that same system has given everyone access to the worst education system in the nation.
3. “They (public schools) are accountable to the communities they serve. How so?” The Yazzie v. Martinez case was decided because New Mexico’s schools were considered “inadequate.” The “solution” was to pour more money into the schools while students have fled the biggest district in New Mexico and the State’s schools as a whole. Shouldn’t “accountability” empower families rather than forcing them to home school, leave New Mexico, or pay (twice) for private school?

The chart below put together by Rio Grande Foundation highlights how Albuquerque’s budgets have grown under Mayor Tim Keller from: $997,720,000 during Keller’s first term to over $1.5 billion in the current 2026 fiscal year. Keller has proposed a modest reduction in spending for FY 2027 which is currently under consideration.

The City population has been stagnant over that time (around $560,000) while, if the budget had increased at the same rate as the Consumer Price Index would be closer to $1.3 billion, not in excess of $1.5 billion. Keller’s latest budget would see a slight drop in spending to $1.47 billion. Keller has said he plans to eliminate 247 positions with the City to cut the $35 million needed due to slower revenue growth.

A chart illustrating the growth in City of Albuquerque spending can be found below.

There is plenty of wasteful at the City starting with the outrageous $10 million/mile bike trail. 

Free buses are another issue. So is out-of-control spending on the homeless which hasn’t made a dent in the problem. The proposed FY27 budget would increase funding by 9.5% to $48.9 million for the city’s Health, Housing and Homelessness Department. Homeless is widely considered to have worsened dramatically under Keller with a doubling in the population. 

The remodel of City Hall is yet another project that has grown overbudget and the book about COVID in Albuquerque while small in amount only highlights the ridiculous spending at the City.

UPDATE: We received the following from ABQ City Councilor Dan Lewis: “The Mayor’s budget shows a 2.7% increase in revenue year over year, yet spending all of it. There is no spending cut. We are spending more than the year before. The decrease in revenue was from some shell game adjusting to aviation and other departments of revenue that’s not there and never was.

They eliminated 247 untilled positions that were never going to be hired in the first place but always budget for, and then added 80 positions – s0 net -167. Again, no reduction in revenue or spending. This is a Mayor that raises taxes, raises fees, spends every penny, and has nothing to show for it. Most of the increased spending goes to Health, Housing & Homelessness for failed housing programs.”

On this week’s interview Paul talks to Neeraja Deshpande, policy analyst at Independent Women. Among other things they discuss her latest op-ed on the New Mexico education crisis in The Daily Wire. The piece comes on the heels of Independent Women’s Features documentary: Give Teachers a Break: The Hidden Crisis Inside New Mexico’s Classrooms. In the documentary,  a veteran school teacher gives a breakdown on just how bad it has gotten: chronic absenteeism, affirming gender ideology to kids as young as five, and deep-seated behavioral issues are just the tip of the iceberg.

Neeraja Deshpande is:

• Former middle and high school math, English, and financial literacy teacher
• Author of Independent Women’s latest report: “Give Teachers a Break”, which was featured in an article in American Family News
• Featured in RealClear Education, The Daily Wire, The Federalist, The Hill, and other national publications for her work on education reform

Don’t miss this important conversation about what is taking place in New Mexico classrooms.

Michelle Lujan Grisham and many Democrats in New Mexico’s Legislature seem to believe that the best way to support families is more government handouts. As part of their “cradle to career” agenda we’ve seen the establishment of taxpayer-funded “free” childcare, pre-K, and college and massive increases in K-12 spending as well.

But are these government programs enough to “move the needle” and make New Mexico a better place for families? Not so much. For exhibit A you need look no further than the NM DoJ’s recent report detailing myriad failings at CYFD. You can watch an hour long press conference of AG Raul Torrez announcing his lawsuit against CYFD and the agency’s myriad failings.

We’d ALSO recommend a new report from the Institute for Family Studies. Sadly, the report (as so many do) ranked New Mexico dead last and it isn’t particularly close. The report uses  a composite measure of three variables: the share of adults ages 25 to 54 who are married, the share of teens living with married parents, and the total fertility rate. 

The key chart associated with the report can be seen below with the following quote from the report explaining the situation: “New Mexico ranks last in the 2026 Family Structure Index. In many low-ranking states, low levels of religion, a tradition of family instability, low education, or a high cost of living are associated with scoring lower on one or more measures of the FSI.”

It is worth noting that while government policy can’t improve upon ALL of these issues it CAN move them in a positive (or negative) direction. Once the child winds up with CYFD it is almost always due to one or more family failures. More government programs are simply not likely to improve ANY of these issues and thus are doomed to fail while spending untold sums of taxpayer dollars.

On this week’s Tipping Point conversation Paul and Wally discussed the defeat of ranked choice voting at Albuquerque City Council the evening before and the role RGF played in the victory.

As president of the Rio Grande Foundation and having been in New Mexico for 20 years (albeit having grown up elsewhere) one of the most infuriating things about New Mexico politics is the undue emphasis on being a “native New Mexican.” That said, Deb Haaland has played the game and touted her being a “35th generation” New Mexican. And indeed she is an enrolled member of Laguna Pueblo.

But, as Sean Davis of The Federalist points out, she was actually born in Winslow, AZ to parents who were ALSO not born in New Mexico (he actually was and RGF’s president knew Davis when both worked on Capitol Hill).  Does it MATTER that Deb Haaland wasn’t born in New Mexico? Quite frankly, we don’t think so. The election for New Mexico SHOULD be on policies and ideas for moving New Mexico forward, not past events that were simply not under the control of the person seeking the office.

But, on the flip side, people like Deb Haaland should also be campaigning on her vision for New Mexico, not her “New Mexico” lineage.

Speaking of New Mexico, and setting your constitutional and historical illiteracy aside, given that neither you (AZ), nor your mother (AZ), nor your father (MN) were born in New Mexico, why do you falsely claim to be a “35th-generation New Mexican?”

Kinda weird to get all high… https://t.co/d6qJg5W08z pic.twitter.com/NQksMOZ4t1

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) April 2, 2026

Recently, we wrote a post in which we outlined how Gov. Lujan Grisham seems to be willing to consider joining the federal school choice tax credit program set up in 2025 under President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” Although not ALL details are confirmed the tax credit is $1,700 and could be used for various schools of choice.

GOP Rep. Rebecca Dow recently sent a letter to Lujan Grisham in which she laid out a compelling case in support of New Mexico participating in the law.

The Albuquerque Journal covered that and quoted the unions in opposition (no surprise there):

Whitney Holland, the president of the American Federation of Teachers union in New Mexico, said this week she was planning to reach out to the Lujan Grisham administration with information from the national union.

“From our point of view, it’s a disastrous program,” said Holland, who said the federal program could specifically disenfranchise students in rural New Mexico communities that lack school choice options.

This opposition is rich considering that the US Department of Education amounts to just 4% of the federal budget and less than half of that money even goes to K-12 education. That’s because most education funding is done at the state, not federal level. The unions don’t like ANY competition at all because they and their politician friends in New Mexico have destroyed the education system  and don’t want to see ANY competition or way out.

Finally, Rep. Dow, RGF, and other education advocates are NOT alone. The Catholic Archbishops of New Mexico recently sent the following letter to the Gov. advocating in support of the tax credit. MLG is a graduate of St. Michael’s HS in Santa Fe (a Catholic School). Yet, while benefitting personally from a Catholic education she has been allied with the unions throughout her time in office leading New Mexico to its abysmal 52nd ranking in the NAEP. On the other hand, if Catholic schools were considered a state, they would rank first in the nation in NAEP reading and math for 4th and 8th graders. 

You can send the Gov. a letter of support for the program here. 

The following appeared in the Albuquerque Journal on April 4, 2026

Albuquerque’s “progressives” are at it again. Ever since Republican RJ Berry won a three-way election for mayor in 2009 (against two Democrats), Albuquerque has had runoff elections requiring candidates to achieve more than 50% of the vote. These runoffs can be costly. The city spent $1.6 million to administer last year’s runoff election, which included the mayoral showdown between incumbent Tim Keller and challenger Darren White, along with two council races.

But progressives still aren’t happy. Now they are pushing so-called “ranked choice voting.” Final passage of this plan could come as soon as the April 6 council meeting.

The idea behind ranked-choice voting is to get voters to express “preferences” about multiple candidates, rather than just voting for one. Ranked choice voting raises questions about one-person, one-vote, but that’s only the beginning of the problems. The system makes elections more difficult from start to finish, slowing the process and introducing new possibilities for errors and irregularities.

It starts with the ballot. In a normal election, a voter can vote once for each office. If there are six offices up for election, that means voting for six candidates — one for each office. With a ranked-choice ballot, however, if there are five candidates running for each of those offices, then a voter is supposed to “vote” 30 times, ranking all five candidates for each of the six offices.

This requires a longer, more complicated ballot with more instructions, more pages and more ways to make mistakes. The process takes longer, which means more ballots are left incomplete. Many voters simply don’t have opinions about who is their third, fourth or fifth choice in most elections. Yet leaving rankings blank creates the possibility of a ballot being excluded from the final results.

Counting ranked-choice ballots must be centralized and can only proceed after all ballots are returned and adjudicated. Initially, only first-preference votes are counted. If a candidate has a majority, he or she wins (and the whole ranked-choice process becomes irrelevant). If not, then the least popular candidate is eliminated, ballots with that candidate first are “adjusted” to move up the second preference to be counted as a first preference, and there is a new round of counting. Any of those ballots that have no second preference are eliminated.

This means that some ballots are counted for the same candidate in every round, while voters who prefer the least popular candidates may be counted for several different candidates as their choices are eliminated. If a voter’s preference is eliminated with no more rankings, then that voter’s ballot is considered “exhausted” and is not included in any further counting or in the final results.

In the wake of the 2025 city election, the Santa Fe New Mexican carried the headline “Nearly Eight Years Later Ranked Choice Voting Still Causing Confusion Among the Electorate.” No wonder voters in neighboring Arizona and Colorado both rejected ranked-choice voting ballot measures in 2024.

It turns out that Americans prefer elections where it is easy to vote, simple to count the votes, and easy to understand and verify the results. Albuquerque City Council should abandon efforts to foist ranked choice voting onto local elections.

Paul Gessing is President of the Rio Grande Foundation and Trent England is an elections expert and the founder and executive director of Save Our States.

In this week’s Tipping Point interview Paul talks to Ramona Goolsby who is running as a Republican to be New Mexico’s next Secretary of State (SoS). What is the job of the SoS? How does she plan to use the role to address election issues in New Mexico like voter ID and the State’s voter rolls? Are New Mexico elections really “corrupt” as President Trump says? What is the economic role of the Secretary in regulating New Mexico businesses? How does Ramona believe that can be improved? Find out more about Ramona and her campaign here.

The Environmental Improvement Board (appointed in their entirety by the Gov.) have become a useful tool for Gov. Lujan Grisham as she finishes out her time in office the same way she started: by attacking businesses. You can provide your own comment to the EIB in opposition to harmful fee increases here. The deadline for comments is April 24, 2026. 

State statute 8-303.15 clearly outlines permit fees, late fees, penalty fees, and expiration dates. It explicitly provides that permit fees shall be: $200 for food establishments, mobile food establishments, servicing areas, and food processing plants; $100 for home-based food processing operations; and $25 for temporary food establishments for each event or celebration. The statute reflects the Legislature’s clear intent regarding the fee structure for these operations. Administrative rulemaking cannot supersede established state law or the intent of the legislature.

The Food Safety Program was instituted to protect public health; it was never intended to function as a revenue-generating enterprise.

The New Mexico Environment Department’s Food Program exercises direct enforcement authority primarily in rural areas and jurisdictions outside of Bernalillo County. As a result, the proposed fee increases would fall most heavily on rural and small‑community operators, who often have fewer resources, lower sales volumes, and less access to capital than their urban counterparts. The proposed amendments in the draft document represent significant fee increases well beyond that statutory framework. For example, the late fee is proposed to be raised from $25 to $175, an increase that is excessively punitive and disproportionate to the underlying violation. Likewise, the reinspection penalty fee is proposed to increase from $100 to $500. In addition, new plan review application fees are proposed at $300 (0–1,000 sq. ft.), $600 (1,001–2,000 sq. ft.), and $ 900.00 (2,001+ sq. ft.). In practice, very few restaurants in New Mexico operate in facilities under 2,000 square feet, meaning most new or expanding establishments will be subject to the highest fee simply for the opportunity to build and operate a business in our state.

The regulatory agency does not have the authority to alter the clear intent of the Legislature. The statute is unambiguous about the fee structure, and any substantial deviation from that structure through rulemaking undermines the legislative process and the rule of law. These proposed fee increases will have a direct and harmful impact on
our members, the majority of whom are small, locally owned businesses operating on very thin margins in a challenging economic environment.

Take just a minute by clicking here to urge the New Mexico Environment Improvement Board and the New Mexico Environment Department to reject or substantially revise these proposed fee increases and to adhere to the fee structure established in state statute.

The idea of SE NM counties leaving New Mexico has continued to make waves in the media. Here’s the latest.

The editor of the Santa Fe New Mexican wants El Paso to come to NM. Would that be an even switch?

New Mexico’s taxpayer ROI is the worst in the nation. Why?

MLG (in office for over 7 years) says: The Status Quo isn’t working for New Mexico Families.

Plummeting student populations in Albuquerque Public Schools and statewide should be a warning to NM policymakers.

A recently-passed Albuquerque immigration bill contains some unfunded liabilities on local business.

Otero County votes (again) to contract with ICE.

Community Solar is yet another taxpayer-subsidized boondoggle.

The old Margaret Thatcher line is: “The Problem With Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” That may sound like a truism in a world of limited resources financial and otherwise, but it is increasingly clear that New Mexico’s Democrat politicians are looking to test the limits of just how much socialism they can pay for with resources generated by New Mexico’s oil and gas industry.

Under Lujan Grisham we’ve seen “free” childcare, pre-K, and college, and massive growth of K-12 spending even while outcomes worsened and the number of students declined.

Now, gubernatorial candidate Deb Haaland and speaker Javier Martinez are touting “single payer” health care to further advance the socialist agenda. A few weeks ago we discussed Martinez’s comments to this effect and pointed out that among the handful of states that had adopted “single payer” health care they had ALL abandoned it due to the high cost.

But, as reported in the Santa Fe New Mexican, “Speaker Javier Martínez said the state could use its permanent funds — investment funds largely derived from oil and gas royalties and other state land payments — to pay for a health care expansion, similar to how the state has funded universal child care and tuition-free college.” It’s true, $70+ billion COULD buy a lot of health care no matter how wasteful or problematic they system might be.

At their joint press conference, Martínez repeated his line (used during the session to justify the Cuban health care model) that the “original sin” of the American health care model was “adopting a for-profit system.” Conveniently Martinez “forgets” that nearly half of US health care and likely a far higher percentage of New Mexico’s health care is paid for by government and that doesn’t include the piles of regulations and tax policies that put government and insurance companies in the drivers’ seat.

Haaland, again taking a socialistic stance claimed “Health care is not a luxury; it is a right,” a position that implies a right to the labor of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists (to name a few). Ignores the fact that health care is a finite economic good. Because resources are limited, it cannot be a universal right in the same manner as “negative rights” (rights that prohibit interference). Finally, it is unclear if it covers all possible treatments or merely basic care. Do you REALLY have a “right” to breast implants, cosmetic surgery, and unproven treatments?

The Rio Grande Foundation is pleased to be on board (albeit disappointed with the Trump Administration) alongside a coalition of amici in Burlap and Barrel and Basic Fun v. Trump, another case challenging illegal tariffs from the executive branch. Hot off their recent win in the Supreme Court, our friends at Liberty Justice Center, the group that represented the small businesses in V.O.S. Solutions, Inc. v. Trump, brings this case on behalf of two American companies, including a seasonings importer and the toy company that owns the rights to beloved toys like Tonka Trucks, Stretch Armstrong, Care Bears, and Lincoln Logs.

Check out the case filings here. 

As a free market organization the Rio Grande Foundation believes the following:

1. Tariffs are taxes;
2. Tariffs are economically-harmful;
3. Congress is constitutionally authorized to levy taxes, not the executive;
4. Allowing the executive to levy taxes will enable future executives (regardless of party) to attempt to enact taxes and tax increases on their own;

You can read our brief here or click on the image to read the full brief

The following was written by Doug Peterson a major downtown property owner and RGF board member.

For over a year now, proponents of a so-called “Business Improvement District” (BID) have engaged in a disingenuous campaign trying to enact a Downtown BID that breaks New Mexico law, runs contrary to experience and ignores the opposition of Downtown property owners. I own 74 properties in Downtown Albuquerque and write today to point out several misrepresentations and errors in the proposed BID and expose it as simply another layer of tax sought by local government.

The BID proponents sent a letter dated June 3^rd to Downtown property owners. It outlines a “plan” that violates the State of New Mexico Business Improvement District Act [3-63-1 to 3-63-16] (the “Act”) in four ways.

First, the proposed “district” does not comply with 3-63-3 (C) of the Act because less than 3/4 of the area is zoned and used for business or mixed commercial or retail use. Significant portions of the “district” include governmental, not-for profit organizations, parks and residential uses.

Secondly, the June 3^rd letter’s proposed petition tries to allocate one vote per property owner, regardless of how many properties within the district that owner owns. The appropriate allocation of votes is one per legal lot or legal commercial condominium unit, as set forth in 3-63-5, 3-63-6(A)(3) and 3-63-7(B) of the Act. This approach by the BID proponents is an intentional attempt to disenfranchise the BID’s opponents and concentrate more votes in a small sect of vocal owners pushing for this folly.

Thirdly, the June 3^rd letter states that the Act provides that “in no event shall annual assessments increase by more than five percent (5%)”. I am an attorney, I have reviewed the Act multiple times and nowhere does it say that.

Lastly, the documents mailed with the June 3^rd letter claim that the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County will both financially contribute to the BID. Section 3-63-5(C) of the Act states “The district benefit fee assessment schedule shall not include: (1) governmentally owned real property;”. Additionally, Section 3-63-13(A) of the Act states “The council … may annually assess a business improvement benefit fee … upon all real property owners and business owners, exclusive of governmentally owned real property.” So, the claim that “the City and County … will pay their ‘Fair Share’” is nonsense.

Albuquerque has tried this before. Twice, I served on the board of the Downtown Action Team which managed the previous Downtown BID. It failed because it did nothing to make Downtown safer and, instead, became another bloated bureaucracy that siphoned private funds to employ friends of the politicians in power at that time. The current BID’s proponents have suggested nothing to demonstrate that this new incarnation would differ. I already pay hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in gross receipts taxes and property taxes for law enforcement that does not enforce the laws. I also spend hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on security infrastructure and personnel Downtown as we struggle with constant trespassing transients, thieves and vandals despite there being Downtown headquarters for both APD and BCSO as well as a rarely-occupied APD substation at Central + 4^th.

After receiving the misleading June 3^rd letter, I contacted other downtown property owners. The owners of 62 properties then expressed, in writing, their opposition to the proposed BID. Combined with me, that makes 136 private properties whose owners do no want to be a part of this scheme.

I want downtown Albuquerque to thrive. But if this effort to ramrod a BID down the throats of unwilling subjects continues and becomes an ordinance,  I will defend my rights.