Albuquerque, NM - For over a quarter century, SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP) has worked to "empower disenfranchised communities in the southwest United States to realize racial and gender equality and social and economic justice." SWOP is now proud to bring you SWOPblogger - your blog for news and views with a community bias. We ask the question: Who pays and who benefits? Come back often for updates!
Wait a minute! What happened in March this year when the spaceport tax was up for a vote? He was quoted then saying "No Tax, No Spaceport" to the residents of Doña Ana County. It was that important. Check out his comments and push for a yes vote on the tax here: http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_5549521
What's the Spaceport going to do you ask? It will handle "Excursions of communters to the edge of space." To do what? Take small momentos, maybe the ashes of a loved one....looks like they got deals on those. Check out their blog about it. Oh yes, there is a blog about these "amazing excursions" that billionares and there dogs just love to take. http://nmspaceport.blogspot.com/
But not only were sky-high dreamers needed. Lots of political propulsion fueled by high-financing was crucial.
Tha'ts where in steps Bill Richardson with a tax increase, not to the billionaires who don't even live in NM, but to Doña Ana County Residents. They had to flip the bill.
Now let's visit today's paper. Front Page news "Governor won't back rail tax." This tax would be for the expansion of the RAIL RUNNER which means PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION for NM residents that we so desperatly need. I would GLADLY pay that tax.
I ask you Mr. Governor Richardson: Where are your priorities? Are you trying to appeal to the billionaire vote? The republican "no taxes, smaller government" party? Or the NM families that need a public transportation system that will get them to and from their jobs in an affordable way?
When you are president Governor Richardon? Will you build more spaceports around the country for so-called economic development? Or will you build appropriate public transportation for working people to get to their jobs?
The visit of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been all over the news. He’s been vilified, and treated with utter contempt and ridicule by the city of New York.
The primary thing he is being ridiculed for is his statement that “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.”
He’s being pilloried throughout the media for this statement…it would seem that in this country we find almost universally his statement to be, well, ludicrous. As in: "of course, there are gays in his country. It’s a fact that homosexuality exists everywhere."
But, wait, let’s back up for a minute.
Something doesn’t quite seem right here. It’s in these same media outlets that you hear the cries of outrage against the idea of gay marriage, claims that homosexuality is a choice not a natural state, that, indeed, it’s a sin against god. And, this viewpoint drives broad opposition to gay marriage among our politicians and the general public.
If the majority of the American public actually believed that homosexuality was a choice made against God, though, wouldn’t Ahmadinejad’s claim be perfectly legitimate to the majority of us? Indeed, if homosexuality is a choice, couldn’t we imagine a society that has a culture in which that choice is by and large not made? Actually, wouldn’t this aspect of Iranian culture seem superior to our own? In this case, his comment wouldn't be laughable, right?
But in reality, the majority of the American population thinks homosexuality isnot a choice, and for this reason Ahmadinejad's assertion is treated with the derision it deserves.
It would then follow, if we're fair, that the majority of us (which in this country overwhelmingly believes in God) don't think that homosexuality goes against God’s will, because God doesn't make mistakes, right? And if this is true, then we would have to agree that marriage between homosexuals is legitimate in the eyes of God. It should then follow that in this country our legal system discriminates against an entire class of people based on their genetic make-up, in our refusal to afford them all the social, economic and (dare I say it) emotional benefits of marriage.
Please, is my logic working? Am I using sufficient “intellectual rigor”? :-)
...of course, I don't believe the opposition to gay marriage here has anything to do with God, for most people anyway. God is just used as a cover (nothing new here) to promote a perspective that does not want to allow more liberatory concepts of gender to permeate our society.
And this particular instance is one of those moments when our utter hypocrisy blooms out in the daylight, and in our confusion we laugh. But, really, we're the laughable ones.
Youth Intern Emma Sandoval: Thoughts on KNME panel discussion about Guns in Schools
On Wednesday, SWOP youth intern Emma Sandoval was a panelist on KNME’s program “New Mexico in Focus” which airs tonight at 7pm. The panel topic was the issue of whether or not it’s a good idea to have around the clock armed security officers in APS schools, and the larger question of whether or not it’s a good idea to create an actual APS police department. To follow is an interview I conducted with Emma about her experience and her thoughts at the conclusion of the panel.
So how did it feel to be a panelist on television? Have you done this before and who were your co-panelists?
Nerve-wracking. It was my first time doing something like this and it was kind of awkward being the only young person as well as the only female. All my co-panelists were much older men in positions of power in our community. They were Marty Esquivel, a school board member who voted in favor of an armed APS police force; Roberto Lucero, a school board member who voted against it; and Sergeant Robert Romero. It was moderated by David Alire Garcia.
This is a highly charged topic in Albuquerque. Did you feel it received a balanced approach on the panel?
Aside from the gender and age imbalance, I thought KNME did a great job addressing both sides of the issue. We each got an opportunity to give a little bit of our piece, but because the panel was large and there wasn’t much time I was disappointed that there were some issues I didn’t get the opportunity to address. And also, there was one moment when I felt I really needed to respond to something and I wasn’t given the opportunity to do so. But all in all, I appreciated that they included me. It was a real learning experience and I feel passionate about the issue.
What was it you didn’t have the opportunity to respond to?
Well, like I said, there were a lot of things I would have responded to given time. But most importantly was the comment made by Marty Esquivel in which he attempted to invalidate my use of the word “ludicrous” to describe his statistic that 80% of Albuquerque wants to arm APS security. He told me on the air that he was offended that I would call him ludicrous, and he said my use of the word was hyperbole and emotional. First let me say, he ran for office just 8 months ago on the stance that he was opposed to arming officers. Given the fact that he was elected after having said that, you could reasonably assume that more than 20% of his district is opposed to arming guards.
Hyperbole? That’s a big word. Isn’t that a synonym for exaggeration?
Yes, I believe so which I find funny because I find his 80% to be quite an exaggeration.
Tell me about that. Why do you think the number is much less?
For one his statistic was not based on fact. For myself, my sense of the numbers comes from my work in the week prior to the vote in which I and other students went to four high schools to circulate a letter asking the school board to vote no. These letters were individually signed by almost 300 students. Our approach was to get conversations going with students to ask them what they thought about the issue. We had many great discussions with students, and in almost all cases the students we spoke to wanted to sign a letter. I understand that this also, like Marty Esquivel’s numbers, is not a scientific poll, but it does demonstrate real voices and real proof that opposition to armed police officers does exist among the student body. And I would also like to note what Robert Lucero said, that a survey of high school student body leaders in all the high schools demonstrated a roughly 50/50 split on the subject.
What were the high schools you went to?
Albuquerque High, Highland High, West Mesa, and Rio Grande.
What were some of the other things you would have liked to respond to?
Well, a big part of the show was devoted to the “what if” argument, as in “Look at Virginia Tech. Look at Columbine and what if…yada yada yada.” We can not allow “what if’s” to be the basis of our argument. There is not a legitimate argument without facts and a “what if” statement is not a fact. So I think we should cease with the “what if” fear driven nonsense because it is not credible.
Also, the idea that officers need guns as a tool is not an argument I agree with. To often it is compared to not allowing a teacher to use chalk. This is a horrible argument because you can’t compare a piece of chalk to a gun.A piece of chalk doesn’t have the potential to kill somebody. I think it’s really sad that we are getting into this discussion of providing tools for officers in APS when we are failing our students in terms of education and providing them the tools they need to be successful in their education. New Mexico students were recently deemed least likely to succeed in the nation by Education Weekly Magazine. And yet we want to spend millions of dollars that’s coming out of funds for books and more teachers to create an armed police force, supposedly to keep students safe but without anything that shows we have an increased problem with violence. If we want to talk about keeping students safe, we need to be providing students with the tools to stop that violence from happening, which will also provide them much needed life skills. And, APS officers should be trained in how to de-escalate violent situations without having to use a gun on a school campus.
Tell me, what is the current state of the state on this issue? I thought it was a done deal but here we have KNME having a debate about it this week.
The vote by the school board happened, but they are unsure if it’s legal to create an armed police force for APS and they are waiting for a decision by the state attorney general. If the AG says no, it will have to be something that wins approval by the state legislature in 2009. Let’s be clear, beyond the guns in school issue, the idea that we should create a separate bona fide police department for APS is a really, really bad idea. It’s basically saying that our schools are so bad that they can’t function without their own police force. If that’s true, it means we are failing not only our students but our society as a whole. Anyhow, if the police department idea is shot down, the school board can still arm APS security guards around the clock through a simple policy change. So what if we do have guns in school? What then? Is it going to improve our educational standards? What purpose is it going to serve in terms of education? None. And then there will be armed people walking around, which in my opinion is crazy. Better yet, who does it really serve, our students or our security officers? The day after the vote happened, the headline in the Journal was “APS Cops get their Guns.” So what does this say about who we’re doing this for? Cops or students?
I want to deviate just a minute from the broader issue of guns in schools, and go back to the moment in the show when Marty Esquivel charged that you were full of hyperbole and emotion. At the School Board meeting when they voted on this issue, he also told those on the opposing side to not be emotional or full of rhetoric, and to demonstrate intellectual rigor. What are your thoughts on these words that he uses to describe those on the other side of the issue?
I think his use of words like this are an attempt to devalue not only myself but others in terms of class and gender. Especially in this case, being on the panel as the only woman, and a very young one at that, I took it as him trying to devalue me as a stereotypical “young, emotional woman” who because of who she is can’t make a valid and strong argument. He did not address the actual substance of what I said, instead he personally attacked me for using the word ludicrous to describe a statistic he used. He wasted that time on the panel, which could have been used to substantively discuss the guns in schools issue.
Yeah, I immediately noticed his use of the word “emotion” in both instances. As most women know, it’s a charge that is commonly used to dismiss us, not to mention disenfranchised peoples in general.
Yes, it insinuates that there is a lack of education and a lack of an ability to make a valid argument if you are someone who expresses yourself differently. It was to me a low blow because I know very well that I am very informed on this issue. Possibly even more so than Mr. Esquivel seeing as how easy it is to become disconnected to youth with age. As a young person myself I can relate and identify with students about their concerns. I just graduated from an APS high school in 2005, only 2 years ago. I think my age provides the perfect opportunity for me to gain some real insight into the opinions of students because when they speak with me about the issue they can open up to me and more closely relate to me as someone who just finished going through the same educational system that they are going through now.
Thanks Emma! I thought you did a great job on the panel. ~Marjorie
For those of you who haven't seen the show, you can see it here: KNME
Yet I heard CNN anchors gush all day that it was "the biggest civil rights demonstration in a generation."
Just so we're clear. The Jena6 demos WERE NOT the biggest civil rights demonstrations in a generation. The biggest were, of course, the May 1st marches for the civil rights of immigrants the past couple of years.
Now, the question isn't which were bigger. The question is how we connect these movements.
* A clean environment in which to raise our families & * A Smart Planned Growth Strategy for Albuquerque's West Side
I must admit, I live on the West Side, and I really like our community. But I would love it even more if we could have amenities like other communities do. Four years ago, we were the last street in the Southwest Heights ("make a right where the street ends" were the directions we gave our friends to get to our house"). Now there are tracks and tracks of homes that almost appear to hit the mesa, and it's close to getting there.
We moved there because it was affordable, and we needed a bigger house because we were starting a family. But now I realize why it was so affordable: No amenities, poorly planned roads, poorly maintained roads, broken traffic lights, no libraries, no parks, no community centers....you get the picture. I cannot help but get the picture. The selling point was, "oh but there will be." Although some parks have been built, we have yet to see the others realized. And it's becoming more and more time consuming getting to and from our house to our jobs across town.
A study just came out on Tuesday in the Santa Fe New Mexican that ranked Albuquerque 36th for its traffic congestion. ABQ drivers are delayed an average of 33 hours a year (almost a full work week). Ten years ago we were 30th.
This means that the drivers in the metro area, such as myself, have wasted an average of 21 gallons of fuel each year because of travel delays.
In Los Angeles, a metropolitan area with more than 12.9 million people, drivers are delayed 72 hours a year. How is it that in the Albuquerque metropolitan area we are at half that delay with only 800,000 people! That's outrageous!
This clearly shows that our city has not had the foresight for proper public transit oriented planning.
Along with the delays and consequent impacts on our standard of living, this unplanned urban sprawl is destroying our environment. One of the primary connections we make, along with many many others, is that urban sprawl and its associated high automobile gas emissions is a major detriment to our climate change crisis.
Despite what certain sectors of our community would have folks believe, we know that growth is going to happen. We can't change the fact that our population size is going to become much bigger. But we can plan for that increase in size in a way that protects our environment and that doesn't force people to spend unnecessary hours on end in their cars. As a city, we have a responsibility to insist that those (developers) who build the future neighborhoods of tomorrow do so with our water, land, air, and health in mind. A central question should be how we plan our city in a way that places the future of our climate (literally the ability of us to perpetuate our species) and the health of our families at the core.
It's time we stopped letting developers pressure our elected officials to permit this uncontrolled sprawl happening on ABQ's west side. A moratorium needs to be put in place immediately before any more high rollers come into our state and sell off tracts of homes without planning for the future of our environment.
That would be pretty silly actually. We need ordinances in place that require certain amenities in all future developments, period, especially those in which we are giving public tax money to corporations.
We're calling for a moratorium and proper community based planning that is transit oriented for all new development. Not to mention our need for workforce housing, small business, parks and permanent schools. In short all the things that makes life livable for our communities.
We support our city councilors who fight to negotiate development plans that are appropriate for our city.
Hopefully, in the future we won't be shamed when studies come out showing that we're competing with LA when it comes polluting our earth.
Oh, and by the way, in addition to being a victim of the unplanned development on the west side, I grew up in LA and in LA traffic, so I know what I'm talking about.
September 20th marks a pivotal point in the Jena 6 case. Thousands of people from across the country will descend on Jena in a major show of support for Mychal Bell and the other five young men. But you don't have to go to Jena to make a difference--you can make a major impact on the 20th by taking action in your own community.
Our friends over at the Center for Civic Policy let us in on the Alibi's take of Mayor Marty Chavez great quote in the Journal last week. It's just too good to not repost.
“I have one of those jobs where you actually have to do things. The lieutenant governor has a job that I think she would even concede doesn’t require a lot of heavy lifting.”--Mayor Martin Chavez, quoted in the Albuquerque Journal
Like many others, I too am skeptical about this new Attorney General. The Associated Press gives a bi-partisan review, and states he is the best candidate to restore faith in the justice department. HA!
Click on the link and see a bit of analysis on this guy, not to mention his "bi-partisan" support for the Patriot Act.
Giuliani's non sequitur convolutes immigration debate
In an interview with Glenn Beck on CNN last Friday, Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, amazingly, spoke the truth about the racist right’s core frame of the immigration debate. Yes, I know, it was a surprising exception for the former NY Mayor.
"It's not a crime," Giuliani said Friday. "I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's [illegal immigration] not a federal crime."
"I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York," he said. "So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding."
“One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is to make it [illegal immigration] a crime, which indicates that it isn't.”
How interesting. You mean we’ve been having this debate, and the core frame of the debate is wrong?
How can something that’s not illegal be a crime? How then can people call immigrants “illegal?" How is legalization an answer if “illegal immigration” is…not illegal? It doesn't square.
Illegal immigrant vs Undocumented
As most folks who have followed this debate know well, the use of the term “illegal immigration” is central to the debate waged in media about immigration.
I’ve brought this up with immigrant rights advocates and organizers repeatedly. ‘How can you ask for legalization?’ I often ask. By accepting the premise of the racist right, you start the debate at a disadvantage. And the solution to that premise is simple to much of America. Deport all those law-breakers.
That’s why the demagogues fought so hard to make sure the media picked up the “illegal” spin and frame.
What’s the solution if folks are called “undocumented?” That’s right. Get them documents.
It’s about time the media use a new phrase to describe immigrants who over stayed their visas or, yes, crossed in the desert somewhere. Or embrace the “undocumented” frame – it’s more accurate, and will get us closer to solutions. This is really an issue of civil and human rights.
It makes one wonder how often Lou Dobbs, O’Reilly, or Rush actually said “illegal.” For that matter, damn, what about all those ‘respected’ journalists?
Karlos Schmieder, former communications organizer at SWOP, is a media strategist for Youth Media Council, based in Oakland, CA. YMC is a leader in the emerging international movement for media justice. Karlos was recently co-chair of the Communications working group of the United States Social Forum, and is currently working on "Displacing the Dream," a content analysis of displacement and housing issues in the Bay Area scheduled for a late October release.
SWOP has started hitting the doors. It's election time.
The easiest and smartest way to vote is early or absentee and you can do that right now. Here are the places you can do that:
1. City/County Building Basement level 2. The Records Center - 604 Menaul NW (at 6th St) 3. APS City Center - 6400 Uptown (at America's Parkway) 4. Ladera Plaza - 5300 Sequoia Ste G (at Coors)
Would you like to vote in the comfort of your own home? Call 768-3030 and request and absentee ballot.
The deadline for early or absentee voting is September 28th. So, take a break and vote today.
Also.... Check out what the candidates are saying in district 6, published the Journal.
And remember, the easiest and smartest way to vote is early or absentee.
Opportunity is the answer, not armed security guards on campuses
The debate around school security has been controlled, for the most part, by a small vocal group of security guards. These big, tough, super trained professionals are afraid of the students in APS schools.
A look at the Journal's coverage on the issue shows most of the debate is centered on anecdotal tales of unruly students and the threat of some unlikely, yet potentially catastrophic and tragic event. It comes up every few years following some scary thing on some campus, somewhere. Now, I'm not trying to downplay the fear people have. We're bombarded with it by the media when it happens, often with little to no context. And, damn, it's scary...no doubt. It's easy to go down the slippery "what if" slope.
But I really want to talk about threats, just in case the media is listening.
The biggest threat to New Mexico's children isn't some Columbine or Virginia Tech like incident, or even the occasional flash of violence. The biggest threat to the state's and the district's children is that they've been deemed the "least likely to succeed in the nation." The state's young people have the least access to opportunity of any in the country.
When we look at it like this, the insecurities of a few security guards seems petty - and their demand for guns a waste of resources. Guns just aren't the solution to lack of opportunity. Healthy schools means more resources -- not only for the fundamentals of a solid education, but also for after school programs, extra curricular activities and innovative, participatory counseling, amongst other proven preventative solutions.
While guns surely aren't the solution to the bigger threat facing the district's students, more opportunity may be a solution to creating an environment where the threat of an unlikely event becomes even more improbable.
I'd like to see the board leave the policy in limbo. Beyond having to overturn a 2001 policy restricting the use of firearms to outside of normal school hours, there also seems to be legal uncertainty around the creation of a stand alone department.
It's time the district adminstration and the board start proposing solutions to the biggest threat facing the students. More, better-paid teachers. More books. The best technology. Hope.
It's time the district creates and nurtures the opportunity that the state's young people deserve.
It's also time the local media broaden the debate and ask questions about solutions to the systematic failures of the state's institutions for young people.
by Karlos Schmieder, former SWOP communications organizer and current media strategist for Youth Media Council, based in Oakland, California.
At last night’s APS School Board meeting, Paula Maes voted to create an independent and fully armed APS police force that would patrol all Albuquerque schools 24/7. Her vote tipped the scales in favor of the pro-gun advocates…namely Gordon Rowe, Mary Lee Martin and Marty Esquivel. Plus the police of course. Maes’ position can be summed up thusly: I’m not for guns. I’m just not. But, Ok, let’s arm them.
We'd like to recognize the three Board members who stayed firm in their positions that an armed police force for APS is bad for youth, and bad for the community at large. Thanks very much to Berna Facio, Dolores Griego, and Robert Lucero for their stewardship on the APS School Board. As for the others...
It was very, very depressing to see a shift, or more accurately a cave-in, toward an ever-increasing punitive approach to dealing with social issues. Marty Esquivel decried what he called rhetoric, and called for “intellectual and emotional rigor” instead of “ad hominem attacks” in one of his speeches in favor of arming police. Given his steely approach to negating his own campaign position on this topic when running for office just 8 months ago, we figured he must be talking about those of us on the opposing side. Well, let me tell you…the ad hominem approach, not to mention rhetoric, was definitely out in force but from my vantage point it was most prevalent on the pro-gun-throw-them-in-jail side. Now, how’s that for some rhetoric? :-)
Esquivel went on to give an indignant speech about how insulting it was to suggest that any police officer, all of whom are “highly trained professionals”, would shoot someone pulling a pen out of his pocket. As if we are all mindless, irrational idiots. (FYI: this is an “appeal to authority” argument and an “ad hominem” attack…at the same time…if there ever was one!)What’s insulting is that someone in his position would turn a blind eye to actual scenarios very similar to that. Amadou Diallo isn’t “rhetoric.” He’s a dead black man. The Diallo case represents the tip of the iceberg—think of the base of it as the prison system. Frankly, this school board member’s refusal to engage on this topic with intellectual honesty given his obvious ability to do so is confusing. That’s the most generous assessment I can make of it.
We saw very little “intellectual rigor” about the actual social reality of racial profiling at last night’s school board meeting. It seems that to them, the existence of a vast penal colony of brown men in this country…is a fiction residing in the irrational and deluded hearts of brown communities. Truly, we would have really liked to have heard just one of the pro-gun police types give just one thoughtful comment to this social issue, which is so clearly linked with policing (not to mention the legal and judicial system). Instead, we saw Paula Maes shaking her head “no” at a woman who bluntly suggested that racial profiling exists and would be amplified by the creation of a police force.
During public comment, a mother commented that the kind of safety she wants for her children is access to sports and to music. In other words, resources for young people to occupy their minds and develop their creativity. We fully endorse this idea of what safety entails. Speaking of, intellectual rigor on the part of the school board members, all of them, would have necessitated that they and the superintendent really address what “safety” means since they formed a commission explicitly charged with creating that. But instead, “safety” was just one of those words used to whitewash creating more police. Have a look at the recommendations from this commission. It’s all about police and guns. Not one thing about coordination between departments, about mental health, conflict resolution, or access to opportunity.
Despite what many pro-guns in schools folks believe, the word “safety” is not exclusively theirs. To us, safety begins by creating environments that foster personal and intellectual growth, that provide access to creative outlets, and that prioritize a public health approach rather than a punitive one to social problems. This is not an idealistic position, as one person suggested last night. It’s based in a reality that the so-called “safety commission” never addressed.
Safety is a primary concern of ours and the many, many people who agree that an armed APS Police Department is a bad idea. Thankfully, while the future’s of many lower-income youth are considered foregone conclusions by those who make these kinds of decisions, it should still not be a foregone conclusion that an APS Police Department will come into being. For this reason, we take heart that the victory, as ever, is in the struggle.
Albuquerque, NM – The Albuquerque school board will consider a recommendation tonight to create an independent school police force and to arm all officers. Rio Grande High School teacher Rosina Roybal says the idea has had a mixed reaction from students.
“A lot of the students are feeling like they’re in jail, like theyre not being trusted at school. They dont agree with the arming of our security guards. Then, in our class discussions, there have been students who are pro-gun, so we have some good conversations about it.”
Orlando Mancha is a junior at Albuquerque High. He says armed police wouldnt make him feel safer at school.
“We would be fighting fire with fire if something were to happen. There are a lot of other ways that we could prevent certain things from happening where we don’t need to use that type of force.”
Roybal says security guards can help make a school safer and can be good role models, but adding guns is too unpredictable and sends the wrong message to students. The Community Safety Commission recommended the armed force as the best option for “creating a safe learning environment.” However, Roybal says she’d like to see alternative approaches, including more resources for counseling and extracurricular activities.
Tonights school board meeting begins at 5 p.m.
NEW MEXICO NEWS CONNECTION A statewide news service for New Mexico 223 N. Guadalupe St #122 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Producer: Eric Mack Phone: 888-471-1722 Fax: 303-253-8905 E-mail: nmns@publicnewsservice.org
Albuquerque – A financial tool designed to revitalize blighted neighborhoods and run-down inner cities may end up expanding Albuquerques sprawl instead, according to critics. Developers are using something called tax increment financing to help fund the new Mesa Del Sol development near the edge of the city, and another developer is proposing a similar plan for an even bigger development on the West Mesa.
The developers say their plans will boost the citys economy, but Gabriel Nims, with 1000 Friends of New Mexico, says the projects will take public funding away from where its needed most.
“We should be focusing on re-investing in our core community. Weve identified a backlog of over $1.7 billion in infrastructure costs or needs. Why should we be throwing the bank at further development on the fringe?”
Eric Schmeider, from the Southwest Organizing Project, says the subsidies actually take money out of the states general fund and away from more needy rural communities.
“Taxpayers from Clayton to Carlsbad are subsidizing development in the Albuquerque – Rio Grande corridor.”
The new developments could increase Albuquerques population by over 20 percent. The Albuquerque City Council will consider a tax-increment financing measure at its meeting Wednesday.
