Edgewood P&Z falls short on procedure and substance.

Perhaps it is time for the Town Commission to make American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) certification a condition of hiring or continuing employment with the town’s planning office. Edgewood long ago annexed itself into a position of needing to set high professional standards for its development review process. 

Edgewood’s latest development review vagary can best be understood as another instance of the cargo cult inspired thinking which has been a feature of Edgewood town government from the very beginning. While the influence of the cargo cult has waxed and waned during the last 25 years, at present Edgewood’s development review process has a distinct flavor of cronyism and deference to anyone perceived as offering big prospects for development. The April 17, 2025 P&Z Commission meeting was a clear example of this tendency. [I would post a link to those meeting minutes, but at this time only information on current and future meetings is available on the website.]

For those interested in finding THE issue of the May 15, 2025 public hearing with regard to substance, I suggest reading through the email exchange between former town counsel, Nann Winter, and Edgewood Planning Director Brad Hill. Since the institution of the Commission/Manager form of government, it has become obvious that the Town of Edgewood prefers to hear only from those willing to tell both Commissions’ “itching ears” what they want to hear as opposed to those who can tell them what they need to know in order to govern wisely. Is it a coincidence that after issuing her opinion Ms. Winter was replaced? 

It is former P&Z Chair Doyce Wilhite who deserves credit for attending Open Meetings Act workshops in 2010, and then encouraging both P&Z and the Town Council to adopt the New Mexico Attorney General’s checklists for conducting public hearings. Unfortunately, while the current P&Z Commission uses some kind of checklist, it missed at least two important due process items on May 15. How could the Commission perform its obligation to exercise due diligence with regard to a voluminous staff report which does not appear to have been made available to the public or commissioners prior to the meeting?  

Former Planning Director and Town Administrator, Karen Mahalick, always summarized the need for high standards and the use of best practices at every stage of development review as being primarily questions of fairness, openness, and what we as a community want Edgewood to be. One thing which made Ms. Mahalick stand out was her willingness to expand her skill set by pursuing AICP credentials. She started as a P&Z Commissioner, and volunteered in the Planning Office before being hired by the Town. Need I add that she was not popular with Edgewood’s cargo cultists?  

Cronyism never has and never will promote excellence. When the town’s elected officials embraced high standards, the town has been able to see positive results. When they have not, the results have proven unsatisfactory.  

Page Update: Public Hearing FAQ’s

 The FAQ page has been updated to include the following information about the options for making decisions and the role played by questions during a public hearing. 

Q:  What options does a land use commission or board have with regard to its decisions?

A:  Many parties may try to assert that their facts as presented compel a particular decision. That is not true. Public bodies always have options, but for any given case, the options vary with respect to whether or not or the degree to which a decision is legally defensible. It is to be expected that interested persons offering testimony may try to assert otherwise, but for staff or legal counsel to do so should be regarded as an indication of undue influence and such raises the possibility of a legal challenge.  

Most land use decisions fall under four general categories: (1) to approve as presented with no conditions attached, (2) approve with conditions so long as any conditions are consistent with applicable ordinances, resolutions, or court decisions, or (3) to deny if approval of the application is not consistent with the aforementioned legal instruments. (4) In addition, a land use board may table a matter to a date certain or table a matter indefinitely. The former is preferable as indefinitely tabled items must be taken up again in the same form; after a long interval, doing so may be difficult if circumstances have changed.

*****

Q:  What role do questions from a land use commission or board play in public hearings?

A.  Questions may be asked of those offering testimony, staff, or legal counsel in order to clarify testimony, ask questions about staff contributions such as meeting packets or reports, and of counsel to evaluate available options with regard to the legal defensibility of potential decisions.  

*****

Q:  Why do members of land use commissions or boards sometimes ask questions for things they should be expected to know?

A.  The ordinary reasons for such questions are fairly simple: (1) New members may need to ask for clarification if they are unsure about something under discussion. (2) During long hearings, it is wise to ask for clarification especially if the topic is unusually complex and/or the hour is late. (3) The least understood reason by both public officials and the general public is that the proper role for members of a public body is to hear, clarify, and evaluate testimony and exhibits. They should not offer testimony as doing so is confusing in that it blurs the line between providing testimony and evaluating it. However, if a board member has reason to believe that something relevant is being left out or ignored they may ask questions designed to elicit further testimony. The distinction is obvious, but in during long or contentious hearings it is difficult to maintain. 

Edgewood P&Z conjures something from nothing?

Last night’s P&Z remand hearing managed to achieve two things during a meeting lasting more than six hours: (1) A bulk plat land division mechanism was conjured from a long outdated ordinance in which no such process exists. (2) The Commission's lack of understanding of land use issues was displayed in excruciating detail. 

This prodigy sprang fully formed like Athena from Brad Hill’s side during the hearing. The staff report appears to be nothing more than series of opinions dressed up as immutable legal facts, it was unveiled at the last minute, and it was swallowed whole by the Commissioners. The vote was unanimous; no conditions attached. In choosing the least defensible of the options available to it, the Commission has all but guaranteed that resolution will take years. 

Rhetorical Blunder: When prevarication goes wrong.

Spoiler Alert: Quite a few recipients of the SaVe SoutH MounTaiN postcard mistakenly assumed it was the product of EMPAC. In order to get the full flavor of the effort, you had to visit a website featuring pulp-fiction scare p**n, and asking for readers’ contact information without disclosing who it is who is asking. I do not recommend downloading any material from the site given the lack of identifying information.  

One of the foundational assumptions of classical rhetoric has long been that unless it is founded on truth, rhetoric is at best useless— and at worst harmful. The prevarication is the flaw that makes the postcard and its associated website such obvious examples of bad rhetoric. 

The premise that South Mountain is in danger, or that it is “ours” is ridiculous. South Mountain is owned by Campbell Farming. It is technically within Edgewood boundaries, but the process which led us to that point was anything but straightforward. In fact, it lies adjacent to lands bordering North 14 and few, if any actual Edgewood residents have access to or use of South Mountain. How many residents know or care who governs the privately owned land of South Mountain? Edgewood residents already have an abundance of walking trails and open space on Sections 16, 32, and 34. There are more future trails identified in the town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 

The actual worth of the provision in the agreement between the Town of Edgewood regarding future development plans can be evaluated by looking at South Mountain on a topographical map: it is not now and never has been suitable for extensive development. The “highest and best use” of South Mountain always was, and likely always will be as open space. That would have been the case even if Edgewood Town government never came into being, Today, the one pending “minor” subdivision application does not involve South Mountain. 

The “outsiders” referred to at the SaVe SoutH MounTaiN website are our neighbors and many of them shop in Edgewood, which makes it possible for Edgewood residents to enjoy lower property taxes than would be the case if our Gross Receipts Taxes didn’t largely fund the town. One of the most frustrating things about the version of Edgewood which came into being with incorporation is its historical political instability coupled with a propensity for shooting itself in the foot at critical junctures. 

In the usual way of such things in these times, the persons responsible will eventually be doxxed on one social media platform or another. It is only a matter of time. Meanwhile, the Town of Edgewood Planning & Zoning Department  is responding to the prospect of higher than usual attendance by once again trying to restrict access to the meeting room.  

Possible scam? “Save South Mountain” added but later removed from the Links List in the left sidebar

I’ve added removed a link to the site, but have to wonder if it’s anything more than a desperation PR move for fear that Edgewood P&Z won’t handle the pressure of the May 15 re-hearing. The big tell is that the website asks people for their contact information without revealing who they are. I won’t provide a direct link, but savesouthmountain.org is the listing for those who want to have a look.  

Confirmed: Edgewood is stuck in a time loop: 2,4,6,8. (Possible scam alert)

If you know; you know. If you do not; you don’t need to. 

Note before connecting: The website called savesouthmountain.org asks for contact information without revealing any solid information about who is asking. 

The mailers have gone out for what appears to be a new organization but one that is certainly carrying a familiar message. I still have the paper mailers paid for by Campbell Ranch proponents as well as opponents from the 2002 municipal elections. 

The Pro-Campbell Ranch message didn’t fare well in the 2002 election which stranded pro-Campbell candidates Brad Hill, Frank Lasky, and Gary Chemistruck in the losing column, and even though it did not immediately end his political career, effectively ended Howard Calkins’ ability to govern. However, a lot of time has passed, and with four of Edgewood’s five Town Commission seats on the ballot for November the campaigning may be interesting. 

Why launch now and not closer to municipal elections? Edgewood’s Planning & Zoning Department mishandled the original subdivision hearing in November, 2024 as well as the March 2025 appeal. Given the significant turnover on the P&Z Commission since the first of this year, there will be a lot of pressure on the town for the May 15 public hearing. Watch for the following possible outcomes on or just before the hearing date: Another postponement/cancellation ostensibly on procedural grounds, a last-minute withdrawal by the applicant, or a failure of the P&Z Commission to assemble a quorum.  

Campbell Ranch Minor* Subdivision Hearing Scheduled for May 15, 2025

The Town Commission remanded the November 2024 “minor” subdivision approval to the P&Z Commission with a list of items which it wants addressed. Based on the meeting packet posted at the ToE website, it looks as though the public notifications have been done more systematically this time. 

*There really is no such thing as a minor subdivision. Subdivision approval (along with the required schedule for construction of improvements) is the point at which zoning concepts become reality. The road to substandard development usually begins with lax subdivision regulations. In Edgewood, calls for allowing/expanding minor subdivisions start off with tear-jerker anecdotes about grandma and grandpa gifting land to family members. The reality? More often it’s a developer trying to cut costs. 

Special Meeting Posted: Roads (Re-arranged with additional information included)

The Town Commission will meet on May 5, 2025 to consider one item: A request for an extension on LGRF grants for Horton Road from (1) Venus to Frost, (2) W. Venus from Horton running east for approximately 0.75 miles, and (3) Nugent Road from Horton to NMSR 344.  

History, Details and Precedent Matter: 

West Venus: In the town government’s early years there was talk of having the developer of Stone Mountain Estates pave W. Venus from NMSR 344 past Horton as far as the ingress to the proposed development. However, that project has been delayed for many years over zoning issues. [ETA a clarification suggested by one of the blog’s original readers: The first section of W. Venus (approx. 0.25 miles) was eventually paved as part of the improvements agreement which was required by Santa Fe County of the developer who built the Hermosa Montaña Subdivision across from Edgewood Middle School.]

A town paving project for paving more of W. Venus to Horton was suggested by former Mayor Bob Stearley in 2011, in order to mitigate dust generated from heavy traffic coming from Horton Road on the way to Edgewood Middle School. There had been numerous complaints from parents about the poor condition of the road and the fact that large amounts of dust was settling on students during early morning and afternoon practice sessions on the athletic fields. 

The Town Council chose West Hill Ranch Road instead even though three of the four Council Members at that time stood to benefit from the project (Brad Hill, Rita Loy Simmons, John Abrams). The argument in favor of choosing Hill Ranch over W. Venus was that this would benefit more residents while the worst effects on W. Venus were only of limited duration on week days. 

[ETA: I checked with former Councilor and Mayor Pro Tem, John Abrams, who was able to offer more information. He gave permission to use his name and added the following additional considerations which influenced his choice of W Hill Ranch: (1) A petition bearing >300 signatures gathered from people who used the road by volunteers who stood at a stop sign at the intersection of Horton and Hill Ranch. (2) A traffic counting machine survey showing an average of just under 500 TPD on the road. (3) Complaints by the road crews that they could not keep up with maintenance due to heavy traffic. Abrams also added that the paving on W Hill Ranch is beginning to fall apart and that if not repaired soon the remediation costs will only increase.] 

My note: Councilors Abrams, Simmons and Hill all disclosed at the time that they stood to benefit. However, it was clear that many more residents also benefitted. Former Mayor Stearley believed that the three had conflicts of interest, and therefore insisted that W Hill Ranch should not have been chosen for that reason. One person who collected signatures asked Stearley a good question: why she should be penalized simply because two of the three (Abrams and Hill) lived in the area and a third (Simmons) owned land there? 

East or West Venus? In 2013, Mayor Brad Hill waved off the option given to the town by former Governor Martinez and the late State Rep. Stephen Easley to spend its 2013 Capital Outlay funds to complete the remaining 0.75 mile paving of W. Venus to Horton instead of Hill’s preference to pave just under a mile on E. Venus.

The E. Venus project ran through the Hillcrest Master Plan. At that time, members of the Hill family were still responsible for property taxes, and the OSE showed that the family-owned corporation (Highland Stock Farm) retained 50% of the original water rights.) 

The remedy for a questionable decision in this case was political as reflected by results of the 2016 town elections. People who were eating dust in their neighborhoods were not amused by the finished project  nor were they impressed with the quality of work which failed to address the poor drainage where E. Venus meets NMSR 344. (See also Town Council minutes from February 6, 2013.)

Horton and Nugent? The paving of Horton from the I-40 Frontage Road to Frost has been listed in a succession of Comprehensive Land Use Plans as a priority in order to establish an alternate evacuation route, and also a means for relieving congestion along NMSR 344.  Nugent Road has long been identified as a generator of “fugitive dust” and residents in the area will benefit from improvements as will the owners of vehicles who use the road.           

Today, the current projects listed on the agenda lie in the town’s “Shoestring/Bridge” annexation. Does the fact that a few current and former town officials stand to benefit from these projects make them in any way illegal? The answer is no unless it can be objectively demonstrated that there was a failure to properly disclose potential or actual conflicts of interest, or that the projects solely (or primarily) benefited one or more town officials at the expense of the wider community.  

Something the current town government might want to keep in mind is that for over 25 years, the town has established a body of legal precedent in such matters which may serve to undermine its arguments for the propriety of Edgewood’s intervention in current litigation.