We at the Rio Grande Foundation remain busy and active in this trying time and we also are working to keep government accountable and push back against government overreach. Here in Albuquerque an ordinance was passed that expands the Mayor’s powers to include times of health emergencies. This ordinance was passed very quickly and without a single public meeting on the issue and that concerns us.

But, thanks to State laws now in place, local ordinances dealing with guns and liquor provisions in the local ordinance that existed prior to its being amended last night WILL NOT impact gun rights.  See our analysis here. 

This story (in which RGF’s Paul Gessing is quoted) from KOB 4 TV deals with the ordinance prior to it being voted on:

This story which does not include video quotes RGF after the vote.

This story for which Gessing was quoted discusses the economic impacts of what is happening right now.

Finally, you ‘ll note that the video of Mr. Gessing is not in the usual setting. KOB TV requested a Skype interview due to virus concerns.

At last night’s (Monday’s) Albuquerque City Council meeting the Council passed this ordinance which expands the Mayor’s emergency powers. Among the specific provisions was an expansion of when these powers can be used. Here is the language, “[An actual or eminent outbreak, or reasonable threat of an actual or eminent outbreak, of any infectious disease that presents an unusual threat to the health or safety of the residents of the City, or threatens to unreasonably strain the medical or emergency service resources available in the City.”

The ordinance goes on to allow the Mayor to do the following:

(C) Order the closing of all retail package liquor stores and outlets.

(D) Order the closing of all bars and other establishments selling intoxicating liquor or beer by the drink.

(E) Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing or giving away gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other than a gasoline tank properly affixed to a motor vehicle said sale to be limited to not more than one gallon per motor vehicle, or in the alternative, order the closing of gasoline stations and other establishments, the chief activity of which is the sale, distribution or dispensing of liquid flammable or combustible products.

(F) Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of any firearms or ammunition of any character whatsoever, or in the alternative, order the closing of all establishments or portions thereof where arms and/or ammunition are kept for sale or distribution.

So, how does the City claim that the expanded ordinance “Does not allow the prohibition of sales of any item during a public health emergency.”

Simply put, the regulation of guns/ammo and liquor are preempted by the State of New Mexico and State laws supersede local laws. At least as it currently stands, these provisions of the expanded ordinance cannot take effect.

Of course, the existence of a national abortion policy (Roe v. Wade) has not stopped advocates on both sides of the abortion issue from having heated public debates over a 1969 New Mexico law which restricts abortion.

It would seem that many of these concerns and problems could have been avoided if City Council had taken some time to formulate this policy rather than introducing a bill on Friday and passing it on Monday in a meeting that was closed to the public.

Rahm Emmanuel once said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

The Albuquerque City Council is considering a “new” ordinance (actually amending its existing ordinance) to dramatically expand the powers of the Mayor to regulate or outright ban certain activities including public meetings and assemblies in times of civil unrest or potential civil unrest (or threatened epidemics).

The City ALREADY has a broad ordinance on the books which allows the Mayor to “Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of any firearms or ammunition of any character whatsoever, or in the alternative, order the closing of all establishments or portions thereof where arms and/or ammunition are kept for sale or distribution.”

The new version would expand those powers to allow for the Mayor to act in “An actual or eminent outbreak, or reasonable threat of an actual or eminent outbreak, of any infectious disease that presents an unusual threat to the health or safety of the residents of the City, or threatens to unreasonably strain the medical or emergency service resources available in the City.

The entire ordinance (which is currently the information that is not underlined or struck, that is the new material) is pretty aggressive. Do we want the Mayor to be able to take on a lot of new powers due to the “reasonable threat of an ’eminent’ outbreak?” It is a big question. There has been zero public debate or discussion on the issue and it will be voted on at the Council meeting the evening of Monday, March 16.

Because of said epidemic public comment is NOT being done in person at the meeting Monday night. Instead, you can use the following link specifically for this meeting to contact your City Councilors to let them know what you think.

Can elected officials use taxpayer-funded websites to campaign for and against local ballot measures? That’s what Mayor Keller’s Administration did using the City of Albuquerque’s website in the November 2019 election and the Rio Grande Foundation called “foul” and filed a complaint against the Mayor.

We won. Channel 13 covered the situation in the story below:

Just a few days ago Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis told local media outlets that he was planning to “close a loophole” in the City’s plastic bag ban which took effect this year. Davis wants the Mayor to get rid of plastic bags that are thicker than 2.25 thousandths of an inch. The thicker bags were exempted from the law for the simple reason that they are considered “reusable.”

Instead of mandating “reusable” products, retailers (like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts) concerned about potential health implications of reusable items are banning them. Davis cares about politics whereas the retailers are doing what is sensible.

The problem in this age of Coronavirus is that Davis’ preferred reusable bags are KNOWN vectors for viruses in grocery stores. Don’t take my word for it, check out this report from Loma Linda University.

A 2018 report from Loma Linda University was based on an experiment in which researchers purposely “contaminated” a reusable bag with a harmless form of a virus. A single shopper then went through a typical grocery store and the research team tracked the spread of the virus.

Quoting directly from the executive summary of the report, “The data show that MS2 spread to all surfaces touched by the shopper; the highest concentration occurred on the shopper’s hands, the checkout stand, and the clerk’s hands.” The graphic below which was taken directly from the report reflects this.

Instead of pushing to make the plastic bag ban even more onerous and aggressive, Councilor Davis, Mayor Keller, and Bernalillo County Commission should ALL reconsider their bag bans…at least for the duration of this public health emergency.

On this week’s interview, Paul talks to Jason Espinoza. Jason is the New Mexico State Director for the National Federation of Independent Businesses. The organization and the interests of small businesses are in line with the Rio Grande Foundation, but what issues/bills did Jason and his members target this session?

Health care, in particular, is of concern to small business groups. What, if anything, happened in the Legislature on that and other small business issues?

With the onset of the Coronavirus outbreak there has been an increasingly-loud outcry for mandatory paid sick leave. This is of course a policy that the Rio Grande Foundation opposed when it was voted on in a 2017 referendum the City of Albuquerque. A proposal for mandatory paid sick leave was proposed in the 2020 Legislature, but it died without significant discussion or debate.

Should the US, New Mexico, or city/county governments impose mandatory paid sick leave? Before answering that question, it is notable that major corporations including Wal Mart, the Darden restaurant chain (Red Lobster, Olive Garden), and  McDonald’s have recently adopted new paid sick leave policies to deal with the outbreak.

The private sector, especially big corporations, are definitely reacting to the Virus and trying to protect their employees and customers alike.

As with so many economic regulations, we at the Rio Grande Foundation are not fans of blanket federal proposals. However, state level proposals to mandate paid sick leave during a public health emergency, including the current threat would appear to be a reasonable compromise. Attempts to shove mandatory paid sick leave through just because you have wanted that policy in place for years is simply overreach.

Assuming that there is a clearly-defined way to ensure that a public health emergency is not adopted indefinitely (as the left attempted with the food stamp waivers) it would seem like that is a reasonable compromise. We’ll see. Lots happening these days.

With everything going on in the US and the world right now including the Coronavirus panic, the Democratic primaries, plunging stock market, and oil price collapse, what does it all mean for New Mexico and its economy (not to mention the US economy)? Paul and Wally take a thoughtful and reasonable approach to the long list of issues playing havoc with the economy.

We are giving our “awards” to the best performers in our Freedom Index. Wally and Paul discuss who the top performers are.—

Gov. Lujan Grisham signs HB 364 (the union giveaway bill) despite concerns expressed by transparency/good government groups.

Las Cruces Public Schools hires left-wing activist to promote “equity:”

In last November’s election the Rio Grande Foundation noticed that Mayor Tim Keller had put a message on the City’s website cabq.gov calling on voters to support the various bond measures and Democracy Dollars. The Rio Grande Foundation has had long standing concerns over government’s use of tax dollars to lobby the public for even more of our tax dollars. So, when we saw the complaint we filed an ethics complaint against Mayor Keller.

Recently, we WON! You can find the Agreement here. The text of the agreement is found in the image below. In it Keller admits he was wrong and that he will not use the website to campaign in the future. While this victory against Mayor Keller won’t completely solve the issue which is a problem at all levels of government, it is an important step towards limiting City of Albuquerque government’s use of your tax dollars to plead for even more of your money. We remain vigilant on this important issue.

The actual posting by Keller that was made on the City’s website prior to the November election can be found below:

Who in the Legislature voted in favor of freedom and personal responsibility in 2020? We tracked it all on our Freedom Index and you can find out for yourself by clicking the link and plugging in your address (if you don’t already know who your legislators are). While 2020 was another tough year in terms of government spending and taking our freedoms, here are a few of the points of light in the Legislature. We’ll be highlighting a few of the best and worst from this session in the days ahead.

Is “equity” an inherently left-wing value? See definition below and then consider this announcement from the Las Cruces Public Schools in which the District has hired left-wing activist Sarah Silva (formerly the head of the left-wing activism group CAFé) to head up the District’s Equity Council.

CAFé is based in Las Cruces and, while their primary focus these days is fighting the Trump Administration’s immigration policies, their efforts have involved pushing Las Cruces to adopt its current minimum wage which is now $10.25.

It’s not that folks like Silva shouldn’t be able to work for government bodies like the School District. Rather, if you read Silva’s background and job description (available again here)  it is clear that Silva is simply taking her political activism from the private sector to the public sector. She’ll now be paid by New Mexico taxpayers to be a political activist. To say this kind of arrangement would not work for a conservative candidate is to state the obvious.

Of course, rather than obsessing about how much funding is allocated and to which racial or ethnic group, New Mexico schools would be better off adopting reforms like a student-centered school choice program, but that would actually require political courage.

On this week’s interview, Paul interviews law professor Josh Blackman. Blackman and Gessing discuss several important current and past legal issues involving the Supreme Court. Blackman’s book “100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know” is an important read for anyone interested in legal issues in the United States.

Paul also asks Josh about ObamaCare, guns and the Constitution, and whether President Trump will get to name additional justices to the Court if he wins the election.

This story from the Santa Fe New Mexican caught my eye. Long story short, members of the Navajo and Hopi tribes in northeastern Arizona have long relied on coal to heat their homes are looking to other sources after last year’s closure of a coal mine.

We know that closing coal mines is a top priority of the environmental movement. But, as the article notes, this mine closure has made life more difficult for tribal members who, “In the first winter without it, are having to travel farther for coal, switching to firewood or even burning household items to stay warm.”

Burning “household items” for warmth is likely not very “green” (even less so than burning coal in a home stove for heat).

In other tribal news from the same are of our State, Navajo lawmakers opted to support a much smaller buffer around Chaco Canyon than had been supported by environmentalists and members of New Mexico’s Congressional delegation (or do I repeat myself?)

On an 18-1 vote the buffer size approved by the Tribe is half of that supported by the NM Congressional delegation. An inability to benefit from oil and gas (and mineral) leasing on the land was the primary reason for the Tribe’s decision.

The Rio Grande Foundation’s vote tracking tool, the Freedom Index, has been available all throughout the 2020 legislative session with bills ranked and legislators’ votes scored in what amounts to “real time.”

At the Rio Grande Foundation website you can access bill rankings and votes going back to the 2015 session.  Click the logo below to find out who your legislators are (if you don’t know already) and for the 2020 Index and votes.

Bills are rated anywhere from -8 (worst bills) to +8 (for the very best). Some of the most important bills that made it to the floor of at least one house of the Legislature for a vote and their respective ratings and a short description are found below:

SB 5; -7 (worst of the session): Red Flag Bill infringes on gun rights, due process, and creates new opportunities for costly lawsuits against local governments;

HB 364; -6 Public Employee Give away

HB 83; -6 Creates new $320 million fund for early childhood

HJR 1; -5 Taps the Land Grant Permanent Fund for pre-K and early childhood programs

SB 98; -4 Changes New Mexico’s Davis Bacon (prevailing wage) law to provide costly new fines and penalties for businesses working on public works projects

Best Bills Passed

SB 72; +6 Makes changes to PERA pension system to bring it closer to full funding.

SB 96, +3 Increases school budget transparency

A few notes about this year’s scores:

Rep. Larry Scott (R-Hobbs) had the top overall score of +104.

Sen. Mary Kay Papen (D-Doña Ana) had the lowest overall score of -72.

Other top scorers include: Rep. Schmedes, +86, Rep. Candy Ezzell +83, Rep. Rod Montoya and Rep. James Townsend +82, and Rep. Jane Powdrell +80.

The highest scoring Senator was Bill Sharer +42.

Rep. Candy Sweetser was the top scoring Democrat at +6.

How did YOUR legislators vote? Check the index and tell them what you think of their voting record.

On this week’s podcast discussion Paul and Wally discuss the Governor’s signing of SB 5 the Red Flag Bill. They also note the conflict inherent in her “Enforce it or resign” rhetoric relative to her plans to legalize marijuana.

A recent social media exchange with a left-wing activist group highlights the fact that the left has dominated New Mexico for decades, but they disavow the results of liberal policies.

The rising cost of Bernalillo County’s new headquarters shows why voters are and should be skeptical any time government embarks upon big capital construction efforts. The Rail Runner and Spaceport are additional examples.

Some New Mexico tribes are being forced to burn “household items” now that a coal mine has closed cutting off their primary source of home heating. And, in a separate case in the same geographical area Paul and Wally note that Navajo Nation tribal representatives recently voted to shrink a barrier prohibiting oil and gas development around Chaco Canyon. This is contrary to the desires of environmental groups and NM’s congressional delegation.

Finally, an environmental group funded “think tank” recently called Enchant Energy’s plan to save San Juan Generating Station and use carbon sequestration technology a “boondoggle.” Wally and Paul explain why the assertion that Enchant’s plan is a “boondoggle” is simply irrelevant.

Amy Swearer is a Senior Legal Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Here is a recent Tweet she made about New Mexico’s red flag bill. She made a series of tweets on the topic detailing her serious concerns over the legislation.

I cannot overstate just how bad New Mexico’s new red flag law is…it uses “preponderance of the evidence” as the standard by which your fundamental rights are revoked.

Preponderance of the evidence.

You can’t even order someone to treatment on that basis.

— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) March 3, 2020

Virgin Galactic plans to start launching people, starting with Richard Branson, into space “later this year,” or so we are told.

But check out the Albuquerque Journal’s recent piece “Virgin Galactic Edges Toward Launch” and you get a very different impression of where things stand at Spaceport America. For starters, the article states “Before (Branson launches), the company will conduct a series of glide tests in southern New Mexico, followed by rocket-powered flights.” Okay, but we’re in March now and we’d likely be hearing about those glide tests and definitely about any rocket-powered flights, but we haven’t heard anything to date.

A few paragraphs later the article notes, “Branson’s first flight could still be many months off…” due to additional testing. Following that up with “It’s unclear how much testing Virgin Galactic will conduct before allowing Branson to board, much less paying passengers,” and the statement “Pilots will need to build experience flying in New Mexico” is the coup de grace.

The article contains even more disclaimers and language indicating they have no clue when manned launches will actually begin. Heck, according to the article they don’t even have the license from the government they’ll need to fly passengers into space.

Perhaps their claims that somehow the Spaceport HAS ALREADY turned a profit are designed to take the pressure to launch off of Branson and Virgin Galactic. The fact is that we are still a long way off from Richard Branson or anyone else flying into space out of Spaceport America. Will they launch before the 10th anniversary of the facility’s grand opening (October 18, 2011)? I wouldn’t bet on it.

The Trump Administration has continued to push to reform and deregulate throughout its first term. The latest effort involves needed reform of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).  Here is a discussion from Heritage Foundation of some of the Law’s many problems.

As with so many regulatory proposals, public comments are a part of the process and left-wing groups, in this case environmental groups, will turn out in full  force to provide negative comments.

The following link allows YOU to make comments (they don’t require technical expertise at all). Below that you can see the RGF’s comments along with a link to our actual comments.

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=CEQ-2019-00031k4-9faq-s7dc

The Rio Grande Foundation is a non-profit public policy research organization based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Our mission is to research and advocate for free market public solutions on public policy issues that will lead to a better New Mexico’s economy. A big issue facing New Mexicans and their economy involves overregulation.

While we all want a clean environment public policy must balance economic and environmental conditions. The Rio Grande Foundation believes that as currently enforced, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) suffers from arbitrary standards, politicized enforcement, and protracted litigation. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the potential environmental effects of public works projects and other major government actions.

President Trump’s proposed modernization of NEPA will maintain a clean environment while reducing the negative impact of red tape and unnecessary, costly regulation.

NEPA regulations have not been comprehensively updated in over 40 years. Meanwhile, the time taken to complete an environmental impact statement is now almost 5 years on average, and for highways has averaged over 7 years. Securing approval for roads, bridges, airports, railways, and waterways has been significantly hindered under the existing regulations. The NPRM would, among other changes, establish time limits of 2 years for completion of environmental impact statements and one year for completion of environmental assessments.

The primary thrust of the proposed NEPA revisions involves ensuring that opponents of various projects don’t use process-related issues in order to stall the process and prevent projects from moving forward. Obviously, not ALL proposed projects should be approved, but we strongly support the regulatory and decision making process being limited insofar as it can be used to prolong the process, not guide it to an ultimate conclusion.

New Mexicans will benefit from improved processes relating to roads and freeways, land and forest management. Its fast-growing energy sector will also benefit greatly in ways that continue to bring tax dollars into the State, further supporting America’s energy independence.

The proposed NEPA regulations are a reasonable, common sense approach to ensuring that environmental and economic concerns are balanced in a more thoughtful, timely fashion.

1k4-9faq-s7dc

As the State capital of New Mexico Santa Fe is not known as a manufacturing town and the Legislature is not always know for fast and efficient action, but the Roundhouse (as the capitol building is known) definitely “manufactures” plenty of legislative sausage and can do so rapidly when the political incentives line up.

To outsiders it is often confusing why certain issues make their way through the process and why others that are seemingly very popular (like Social Security tax cuts) do not. Take SB 110 introduced by Sen. Mimi Stewart, a “progressive” union-supported Democrat from Albuquerque who really represents the education bureaucracy and unions in Santa Fe.

Before the 2020 session began we at the Rio Grande Foundation labeled SB 110 “the worst bill of the session.” The bill was a laundry list of new powers and giveaways to government employee labor unions. Making it easier for them to unionize, giving them new benefits, and making it harder for those workers who wish to not be part of the union is the thrust of the legislation.

To make a long story short, in just a few weeks, SB 110 was “tabled” which typically means “killed.” It was resurrected only to be referred to the Senate Finance Committee where John Arthur Smith would have given it a closer look than the unions wanted. Immediately upon that referral the giveaway was dumped into a brand new “dummy bill” HB 364 (analysis here) which rapidly (within just four days) passed through the House and then the Senate. An attempt to refer the bill to Finance was thwarted because “moderate” Democrats in the Senate decided against such a referral which gave the bill an easy path through the Senate and onto the Gov.’s desk where she will presumably sign it.

You can look at the legislative progress (and death) of SB 110 and its fast-moving successor HB 364 here. The usual “good government” media outlets and interest groups are silent.

Paul recently sat down with Jim Williams of ABQ Connect to discuss a wide variety of issues that were discussed, addressed, and not passed in the 2020 New Mexico legislative session.

And, for an idea how YOUR legislators voted on the issues, check out our Freedom Index below the interview below:

Paul Gessing

It’s nothing new to us at the Rio Grande Foundation. Some left wing group or another (in this case ProgressNow) which had an annual budget of over $1 million in 2016 (more than 3 times the size of Rio Grande Foundation’s budget) takes credit for some metric showing how much support and influence they have. See Tweet and images below:

We’re almost #twinning with the @RioGrandeFndn today… with the exception of about 16,000 more progressives. 😂 #justice #WinningWednesday #nmpol https://t.co/F8NCdu6dXE pic.twitter.com/zTFTXA4sbm

— PROGRESSNOWNM (@ProgressNowNM) February 26, 2020

And of course there is also the partisan control by Democrats in this “blue” state. But, when you talk to them about New Mexico’s lousy results and being 50th on the left’s OWN measuring stick (see Voices for Children chart below), you get nothing but a bunch of excuses.

All we can say is follow us on Twitter @riograndefndn and if you’re not on Twitter, sign up. Get involved in the political process. Share RGF emails and information! New Mexico CAN be great, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

As we at the Rio Grande Foundation discussed in this space back in 2017, it is hard to argue with the PURCHASE price of $3 million for the planned Bernalillo County headquarters building, especially IF they consolidate and sell off other properties and office space around the City/County.

But, that $3 million price tag hid a number of needed repairs and other changes that were planned for the building. At the start the estimate was $33 million. That price tag has risen to $65 million.

It’s hard to believe that some of this information, like that the building as configured wouldn’t hold the Commission’s chambers. It is just a pattern in government (New Mexico and beyond) that involves an initial low-ball estimate followed by rapid cost increases. The Spaceport has required numerous additions and the Rail Runner’s costs also rose dramatically.  It just doesn’t engender much trust in government when the REAL price tag of the County’s HQ doubles.

RGF’s Paul Gessing gave a brief comment to KRQE below:

As Dan Boyd reported prior to the 2020 Legislature, The New Mexico United  were hoping for as much as $30 million to build a new soccer-specific stadium in Albuquerque. The Club did manage to obtain $4.1 million (see sports & cultural center on page 3 of this document) but $4.1 million  is a far cry from $30 million and according to league bylaws all expansion teams must be in soccer-specific stadiums within three years.

Estimates are that the stadium could cost $100 million. The City of Albuquerque is also expected to put money into a facility, but the State with its oil and gas money has the deepest pockets.

We understand that Mayor Keller is pushing hard for the stadium to be built at the Railyards. With a price tag of $50-$80 million to simply prepare the Railyards site the stadium could turn into a costly boondoggle VERY quickly.

Worse, the Railyards couldn’t be a worse location for a stadium as the site is tucked away by still-functioning railroad tracks, is not easily accessed from major highways (despite being near I-25, and isn’t really close to the City’s “wonderful” ART bus system.  Perhaps a new Rail Runner station is in the offing?

Recently, Paige Knight of the left-wing group “Voices for Children” claimed in a letter to the Santa Fe New Mexican that Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights had “devastated” Colorado. As Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing argued in response, New Mexico could desperately uses some of that “devastation.” The letter itself is below but can be found here.