Question 37 from page 30 may explain why Appendix D seems to have gone missing from the Town's website, and why the town wants a Comp Plan do-over without the assistance of the Mid-Region Council of Governments. Question # 37 in particular doesn't support the current highly politicized narrative. However, there are numerous other questions and individual comments which are far more damaging; when examined closely, they explain the inherent weakness that has been evident from 2000 on. The town government was grafted onto an existing community which was, at best, lukewarm to the idea. Some 20 years on, it's apparent that outside a few core issues such as roads, the competing ideas of what Edgewood should be (and become) have not resolved into a working consensus.
An unofficial collection of web links to information & public documents from municipal, county, and state government as well as non-government organizations. The primary focus is land use matters.
Pages
- HOME
- DISCLAIMER AND DATA COLLECTION
- ToE Documents on Drive
- Meeting Packets (2016; updated August 2022)
- Campbell Ranch Master Plan
- Section 16 Master Plan
- Hillcrest Master Plan
- Water & Wastewater
- Town of Edgewood Elected Officials beginning in 1999
- Understanding Edgewood’s Land Use Policies 1999-2021 (updated)
- Public Hearing FAQs
Tuesday, August 30, 2022
Spotlight on the Comp Plan: Appendix D
Comprehensive Land Use Plan folder has been updated.
I've uploaded copies of the current Comprehensive Plan as well as its Appendix D which reproduces the questionnaire and individual comments.
Two of my favorites from Appendix D:
From p. 70: "A balance of road maintenance versus taxes is hard to reach, but Edgewood should focus more on keeping taxes low even if it means keeping the rural roadways. We all have trucks and Subarus anyway!"
My observations on the preceding comment:
- The town often hears impassioned pleas from people wanting roads paved, but my experience is that a preference for gravel is shared by many residents.
- I don't like dust, but the smell of sun warmed asphalt doesn't go well with morning coffee on the patio.
- The "you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to" refrain is pretty much the norm on most issues in Edgewood.
From p. 107: "Those responsible for generating this Survey Monkey Survey should have known that Mac users whose browser is Safari, CANNOT even BEGIN the Survey. A simple advisory to use Fire Fox should have been provided BEFORE the survey was begun - an example of careless planning and resulting ineffective communication. Do not take my word for it; ask a KNOWLEDGEABLE IT person! A public acknowledgement of this error should be made at the next Council Meeting so that disenfranchised people thus affected can have an opportunity to express their input as the Town intended."
My observations on the preceding comment:- This comment was was left in response to an optional question asking where the respondents work.
- In spite of the difficulties, this intrepid person did manage to respond.
Saturday, August 27, 2022
Stone Mountain Estates: Clearing out an old "zombie" approval
The Planning & Zoning agenda for September 8, 2022 features an application for a zone change for a proposed development called Stone Mountain Estates. The land was annexed on June 20, 2007, but in the matter of zoning for the parcel, the council was unable to reach agreement. There had been an earlier attempt to annex and zone the property, but the hearing ended without a decision after two members of the governing body disclosed ex parte contacts with the applicant. The second public hearing before the Town Council was tense with angry words behind the table as well as in the audience. More than one loud dispute spilled out into the parking lot of the Community Center. The hearing was concluded with a vote to annex the land with no zone designation, and the applicant was advised to consider the options available and return at a later date. Since that time, the Residential Estates (R-E) zone category has been added to the town's ordinance, and that is the request in the current application.
The applicant indicated in the original application that he intended to construct the roads in the subdivision, and would then request that the town take over maintenance. The design submitted at that time showed an entrance some distance up a graveled road on West Venus; however, those are issues which are typically determined at such time as the applicant commits to subdivision. The P&Z hearing on September 8 will be for the purpose of recommending a zone category to the governing body.
Edgewood Incorporation Map: some history and context [corrected & updated]
Why do various neighborhood groups in the North 14 area remain so vehemently anti-Edgewood after more than 20 years? Perhaps this photo which shows the original incorporation map will help explain. It could serve as an example of what gerrymandering looks like in practice. The areas which participated in that incorporation vote are outlined in bold black ink. Compare that to the Edgewood boundary map which achieved most of its present outline with the annexation of Campbell Ranch a bit less than three years later in December of 2001. The majority of annexations which took place after 2001, with the exception of Section 32, have been infill which did not substantially alter the boundary map's general outline. The idea that such a small number of people so many miles away should be allowed to dictate land use along North 14 was, and still is abhorrent to many residents in those neighborhoods.
The vote to annex Campbell Ranch in December of 2001 was preceded by a series of annexations which legal counsel would later instruct the town's officials to refer to as a "bridge" annexation. When asked for the reason, the reply given was because state law does not permit "shoestring" annexations. This admonition was greeted by snickers and catcalls from the audience. The town officials in attendance reserved their amusement for the parking lot.
The Campbell Ranch annexation was soon followed by a hotly contested town election in March of 2002 which resulted in the defeat of a pro-Campbell slate consisting of two incumbent Town Council members Frank Lasky, Gary Chemistruck, and political newcomer Brad Hill. The alternate slate of candidates opposed to the annexation was composed of council member Robert (Bob) Stearley, P&Z Commissioner Donzil Worthington, and Paul Hoffman. They won easily in an election which saw a turnout of just over 38% of eligible voters. Stearley and Hoffman joined another Edgewood resident, Linda Sparling, in a lawsuit which sought to nullify the annexation, but their challenge was ultimately denied in State District Court in 2004. [Correction: the challenge which was denied in state district court was a different, and by that time, the only remaining challenge which had been filed by Santa Fe County. The fate of the Stearley/Hoffman/Sparling challenge is unclear: it may have been dismissed at an earlier date or withdrawn to clear the way for Santa Fe County’s more substantial challenge and also to clear obstacles to Stearley’s and Hoffman’s participation in Campbell Ranch’s business with the town government.]
The 1999 vote to incorporate was taken within precisely curated geographic boundaries which excluded neighborhoods where residents were reluctant to add another layer of government. Later, residents outside the original boundary map watched in dismay as the town annexed more and more territory without considering how to pay for services or accommodate new residents who were ambivalent about the prospect. In both instances, state law is partially to blame: both for allowing such blatant gerrymandering and for favoring number of acres owned rather than number of residents when considering annexation requests. After more than twenty years, most Edgewood residents still view the town government with polite skepticism when they notice it at all.
The town's first effort at consolidating a confusing checkerboard into a coherent whole was rejected by the Boundary Commission which described Edgewood as reckless and territory-hungry. The second attempt at an infill annexation was successful. The fact that it was John Bassett whose name appeared on documents finalizing a process begun by his predecessor, Brad Hill, is likely a better explanation for the results of the two most recent town elections than the collective ego of the new town government is willing to admit.
The principal actors in the incorporation were a group of real estate agents and small-scale developers who were frustrated by Santa Fe County's “performance based” land use criteria which they found difficult to navigate. Like many other largely rural/small town governments, Santa Fe County has since moved to a more traditional land use code.

