INTRODUCTION
[Note on page edits March 2025: Several thoughtful readers pointed out areas where those unfamiliar with Edgewood’s history might find the section on Cargo Cults lacking in context. I have added details and broken that section into two parts. I have also followed their suggestions on rewording awkward sentences in other sections. I have placed an addendum at the bottom of the page with a brief summary for 2022-2025.]
This page is an attempt to explain the origin and development of Edgewood’s land use policies. The first section (EARLY HISTORY) is based on my recollections of what Edgewood was like before 1999. That Edgewood still exists. For most residents, the town government is only marginally important. Many choose to ignore it altogether. As municipal governments go, Edgewood has managed to provide some nice amenities. However, the first three years set the new town onto some potentially harmful trajectories with regard to land use policies. It may be possible for Edgewood to change course in the future, but doing so will be difficult.
With the exception of the first section, the rest of the page is based mostly on town records and attendance at many (mostly boring) town meetings. I have attempted to frame my descriptions of the town’s land use policies according to the requests for information made to me in the years since 2013.Those questions allow for viewing the the town’s land use history through three different filters; the cargo cult mindset, annexations, and master plan zoning.
- EDGEWOOD BECOMES A CARGO CULT: Whatever was the town thinking when they voted to _________? Several observers have noticed similarities to cargo cults.
- THE CARGO CULT GETS A WAKE-UP CALL: How the cargo cult mindset has affected the wastewater plant.
- THE ANNEXATIONS BEGIN: How did I end up living in Edgewood? I want no part of it! No one ever told me I was annexed! [The only exception I’m aware of is that former Mayor John Bassett sent letters to new residents upon the completion of the infill annexation which began in 2015, but was not finalized until early 2016 after he was sworn in.]
- THE MASTER PLAN TRIFECTA: Most of the questions I get on master plans are related to Campbell Ranch, but there are two others. All three have been unpopular with town residents.
EARLY HISTORY
Descriptions of Edgewood’s history during the homesteading era can be found elsewhere, so I will begin by describing the Edgewood my family experienced in the ten years before 1999 when a small number of voters brought the town government into existence. During the dry years in the 1950’s, some of the homesteading families converted their bean fields into pasture land and moved into Albuquerque. Others stayed on and diversified. In the 1970’s and 80’s some of those who left returned and began developing land. Their efforts helped transform Edgewood from a farming and ranching community into a bedroom community for Albuquerque.
On one of my early shopping trips into Edgewood’s small grocery store, I received an enlightening lesson about several fault lines underneath the surface. I had expected there to be distinctions between long-time residents and commuters, but soon found out that there were divisions not only between families but also within families based on who left and who stayed put in the 1950’s. The relevant question was where a person graduated high school.
I also learned about Edgewood’s real as opposed to its “dress-up” cowboys who had moved in, set up shop and commenced selling Edgewood as a gateway to living what they describe as an authentic western lifestyle. Edgewood at that time didn’t have a drugstore or a sale barn, but having grown up in a farming and ranching family I was pretty well versed in the distinction between the real and wannabe cowboy. The former ordered coffee to carry out to old beat up Chevy trucks. They wore baseball caps and work boots. Fancy western attire was saved for special occasions. The latter could be found in the local restaurant just about any time of day attired in clothes that evoked a movie set. They were the ones driving the shiny deluxe-trim trucks that smelled of the dealership’s show room.
In those days people got to know one another and looked out for their neighbors. When I went to the Edgewood Community Center to vote, dropping my young son into the welcoming arms of Betty Hill or Jo Bassett was the first part of the signing-in process. Going to vote in Edgewood was never the same after they retired from registering voters and working the polls.
As the 1990’s drew to a close, people began showing up asking for my signature on various petitions against the latest “outrage” being imposed on us by Santa Fe County. I asked little from county government, expected little in return, and was reasonably satisfied with the relationship. When the chatter about incorporation began in earnest, our neighborhood didn’t take it too seriously because the proposed incorporation area was small and centered around the NM 344/I-40 axis. At that time, there seemed to be little reason to think we were in danger of being swallowed up.
However, some of the landowners who returned from Albuquerque began forming what has proven to be an enduring, albeit uneasy, relationship with the “dress-up” cowboys. That relationship largely defined the incorporation process and the town’s early years. Their influence has always been present and at times dominated the town government.
I believe it was Wally Gordon, the founder of The Independent newspaper, who described Edgewood as more a state of mind than any particular place on the map. Like the Town of Edgewood, The Independent began in 1999 and Gordon found a lot of material for his regular Mountain Musing column in the often raucous town meetings which characterized the town’s early years. There never has been, and still is not any general agreement about what Edgewood is or what it should become. Anyone who has seen acrimonious discussions between people who moved to the East Mountains for peace and quiet, and others who moved here so their children could ride dirt bikes will understand.
EDGEWOOD BECOMES A CARGO CULT
“If we build it, they will come!” That slogan became the rallying cry in town meetings from those who preferred building a wastewater plant to buying the local water company. The TL;DR version: We did. They did not—at least not in sufficient numbers. It was/is complicated. It was/is expensive.
Another manifestation of cargo cult inspired reasoning is a belief that large developers are willing to play Santa Claus and provide the infrastructure. Members of the pro-Campbell Ranch faction were convinced that Campbell would build our wastewater plant in return for annexation and approval of their master plan. The expected wastewater plant never materialized, and the town made other arrangements for building the facility. Even so, the cargo cult still turned out for the September 2021 master plan amendment hearing to remind us of the prosperity which will accrue once things get rolling. Similar benefits have been touted for the Hillcrest and Section 16 Master Plans as well.
Former Councilor Glenn Felton provoked the animosity of Edgewood’s cargo cult by pointing out an unwelcome truth; over time residential development schemes will cost the local government far more than initial fees collected. When all is said and done, it is the local government on which the responsibility rests for providing essential services. Master Plans are long-term conceptual projects; however the intent is that sooner or later subdivision requests will be brought forward. It is upon the granting of subdivision approvals that what began as a concept takes its first steps towards reality. Two questions which will have to be dealt with at some point are whether or not Edgewood’s town government has sufficiently matured to the point where its political will and tax base are sufficient to both oversee the development process and pay for expanding essential services.
Edgewood’s town government was brought into existence by a group of people whose skill-sets are predominantly based on advertising, promotion, and sales.Their philosophy produces a convincing narrative, but requests to back up the narrative with facts are often greeted with hostility. Many in this group have made a living by selling and reselling the same properties as Edgewood’s commuter residents tend to cycle in and out of town every few years. They do an outstanding job of advertising and promoting Edgewood; their primary fault is that their thinking tends to focus on short term achievements which have popular appeal. Land use planning and developing infrastructure require different skill sets and time preferences.
The early town government developed a habit of conflating change with progress, and along with it cultivated a fervent belief that simply by approving a flurry of zone changes, subdivisions, and master plans that the necessary supporting infrastructure would somehow follow. To ask by what means all of this was to be conjured into reality and who would pay for it condemned the questioner to outer darkness for the presumed sin of being against progress. No matter how unrealistic the original assumptions may have been, once a land use application is approved, it has legal reality even when the necessary pre-conditions to make development viable such as access, water, and utilities are not present. The same holds true when applications are approved for land that is topographically unsuitable for a proposed use. Edgewood can boast of approvals (mostly done prior to 2002) in all these categories.
That narrative which dominated from 1999-2001 collided head-on with reality in the backlash against the Campbell Ranch annexation. The 2002 municipal election brought in two new councilors, Paul Hoffman and Donzil Worthington. Their arrival shifted the balance of power on the council. The council now had three members who worked in a variety of engineering fields. They and their supporters added a focus on technology related fields into to the town government mix. For the next 18 years, an uneasy truce existed between the two factions with each balancing the weaknesses of the other but neither gaining outright control for any length of time.
By 2015, the swings of the pendulum following each election had begun to sour expectations among that subset of Edgewood residents who consistently pay attention. The changes which have been made for putting the town on a more rational footing have also enabled the cargo cult mentality to live on and hitchhike on the back of the town’s undeniable accomplishments. [Unfortunately, those accomplishments have mostly been in areas other than land use policy.]
THE CARGO CULT GETS A WAKE-UP CALL
Problems with the town’s wastewater plant began to manifest shortly after Brad Hill was elected mayor in March 2012. Many of the problems can be traced to the political instability which has plagued the town almost from the beginning. Howard Calkins promoted the idea initially, but it was Bob Stearley who oversaw the design and planning. Calkins returned after a card draw brought the contested 2004 mayoral race to a conclusion, and so it was he who was in charge during most of the construction phase. Stearley returned as the system was coming on line, but was replaced by Hill before the problems with construction, water quality, and over-reliance on commercial effluent became apparent.
Wastewater issues dominated Hill’s time in office. His attempt to abandon and replace the system with one less complex, and then run additional collection lines north to Hillcrest and Section 16 never came to fruition. His successor, John Bassett, took the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) commissioned by Hill to Santa Fe to see if building a simpler system might provide resolution to what had degenerated into an expensive mess. The reply was swift and blunt. The state refused to consider replacing the system because there are other towns in greater need. However state government was (and remains) willing to help fund repairs and upgrades to the original system.
Following the election of John Bassett as mayor in 2016, the town council’s decision to explore the possibility of buying back what was once known as the Edgewood Water Company unleashed a deluge of law-fare and histrionics against the town which made the contested 2004 mayor’s race between Stearley and Calkins look like toddlers fighting over a toy.
Many of the problems plaguing the town government from 2020 to the present can be traced to the re-emergence of the cargo cult mentality that dominated the town’s first three years. Those who backed the 2022 change in the form of government in the expectation that the constant turmoil would lessen have been disappointed. Voters were promised new and better; what was delivered was an attempt by the cargo cult to revive their pre-eminence and vision of 1999.
With their potential opposition having stepped away from the constant disputes either by choice or legal necessity, the new Commissioners began turning on each other once the fallacies inherent in cargo cult thinking begin to bear fruit. For many years, we were assured that “the political maturation process” would eventually even out the worst of the conflicts. Sterling Donner’s replacement will certainly change the dynamic on the governing body; whether the addition of a second unelected Commissioner will help or hinder the hoped for political maturation remains to be seen.
THE ANNEXATIONS BEGIN
Many of the first annexations were confined to small infill areas within or contiguous to the original incorporation map. However, it wasn’t long before what would become known as “bridge/shoestring” annexations needed to justify the Campbell Ranch annexation began showing up on council agendas. The acquisition of Campbell Ranch has often been called “the elephant in Edgewood’s living room.” While that is an apt description in some ways, it has been the series of “shoestring/bridge” annexations which have proven more detrimental to the town’s attempts at developing and sustaining consistent land use policies. With the exception of the annexation of Section 32, Edgewood’s current boundary outline was substantially formed within the two and a half years following the 1999 incorporation.
From 2000-2001, the Campbell Ranch annexation sharply divided the town. In 2002, the defeat of pro-Campbell Ranch candidates Gary Chemistruck, Frank Lasky, and Brad Hill shifted the balance of power on the town council away from those who favored the annexation. The difficulties experienced by Campbell Ranch in obtaining sufficient water rights along with questions about who would pay for a water delivery system have now dragged on for more than two decades.
Today, the threats to Edgewood posed by implementation of the Campbell Ranch MP seem more theoretical than real for many Edgewood residents. However, if Campbell does obtain sufficient water rights and a delivery system for that water, the weaknesses in the 2001 Development Agreement and the 2005 Public Improvement District (PID) will soon become apparent. Residents of Bernalillo County who would be among the first affected by construction are more engaged with the issue than are residents of Edgewood.
The town’s early annexation efforts suffered from the same defects as the original vote to incorporate: A small number of people wielded influence out of proportion to their numbers as the “shoestring/bridge” annexation petitions began to come forward. Many residents preferred county government and were skeptical of the lofty promises made by the town. However, state law regarding annexations favors acres over people. With several large landowners convinced that annexation was a good idea, the outcome was never in question.
Some landowners in the “shoestring/bridge” areas who wanted to develop and sell off land quickly have been impatient in demanding what they felt was their fair share of infrastructure spending. A few were not ashamed to be seen as trying to jump the queue even when their demands hampered projects already begun in Edgewood’s traditional core area. The most noticeable effects have been seen in three key areas:
- Road maintenance and improvements;
- Wastewater plant management;
- Frequent tweaks of land-use ordinances designed to relax standards for granting zoning and subdivision requests.
The financial implications of annexing so much land so quickly meant that the early promise of improving all the town’s roads has yet to happen. This was partly due to the cost, but also to a perception that road improvement priorities have degenerated into a zero-sum game.This has frustrated a series of mayors and councils and continues with the new town government.
The most recent step in the town’s ambitious annexation schemes came after it was no longer possible to ignore the problems created by the irregular boundary map which was the product of the first incorporation map followed by the “shoestring/bridge”annexations from 1999-2001. The “checkerboard” map was a significant factor in the contested mayoral race in 2004. Even more important, confusion over jurisdiction for providing essential services became a public safety issue.
The first effort at filling in the map came during Bob Stearley’s second term (2008-2012) as mayor. However, it was rejected by a special Boundary Commission which characterized Edgewood as a “territory hungry entity” incapable of effectively governing what had already been annexed. After the specific objections cited by the commission were dealt with, the project was successfully re-started during Brad Hill’s term as mayor (2012-2016). Completion of the infill annexation added more roads to the town inventory just as John Bassett was sworn in as mayor in March, 2016.
THE MASTER PLAN TRIFECTA
[Each of the three approved master plans has its own page with links found under the blog header.]
MP-Master Plan zoning was popular with Edgewood’s town government from 1999-2003. There have not been any new master plans approved since then. There are several reasons for this:
- The three master plans approved during the years 2000-2003 have been greeted with hostility by many residents.
- New faces on the town council following the March, 2002 town election resulted in changes regarding land use policies.
- The town’s first Planning & Zoning director was an enthusiastic promoter of master plans. Following his departure, emphasis switched from promoting new master plans to managing those already on the books.
- Following the Hillcrest MP approval in 2003, it became clear, even to the most determined members of the “cargo cult” faction that administering the three existing plans was already consuming a disproportionate share of town resources.
The Section 16 Master Plan was approved in 2000 and amended in 2013. There were several attempts to amend it between those years, but the proposals aroused so much controversy that the State Land Office and several different Town Councils failed to move forward. Unfortunately, the town’s documentation of important matters from the early years is rudimentary at best. All too often it is nonexistent. However, because Section 16 is state land, anyone who is interested in doing the research might be able to find more information through the State Land Office. (Edited to add a link to relevant Town of Edgewood documents which include the annexation petition Ordinance 2000-015 dated March 15, 2000.)
State statutes say that local governments are supposed to maintain permanent records of land use matters. However, there have been lapses in town procedures at crucial times which hindered the availability of documents for the Section 16 and Hillcrest Master Plans.
The Campbell Ranch Master Plan was approved in 2002, but due to ongoing litigation it was 2005 before the relevant documents package achieved its current form. Robert (Bob) Stearley, Paul Hoffman, and Linda Sparling had filed a suit challenging various aspects of the town’s actions on the Campbell matters. Santa Fe County also challenged the annexation, but the county’s case was eventually denied in state district court. After the county appeal of that decision was denied in 2004 (due to lack of standing), the town commenced work on the development agreement and the Public Improvements District (PID). Correction: While the town government in 2004-5 considered revisiting the development agreement, it appears that the effort may have been dropped due to objections by Campbell Farming. At this time, the town government was caught up in the turmoil surrounding the contested mayoral race of 2004.
Local records are sparse, and the fate of the Stearley, Hoffman, and Sparling challenge is not clear. It may have been dismissed prior to 2004 or withdrawn to clear the way for Santa Fe County’s filing. The suit certainly hindered Stearley’s and Hoffman’s ability to be effective members of town government. [See Council minutes July 21, 2004; although there was mention of the window during which the appellate court ruling might be challenged, Santa Fe County did not do so.]
September 10, 2007- June 16, 2010: Following a sketch plat review in September 2007, 2 preliminary plats were approved by the P&Z Commission in December of 2007. Beginning in December of 2008, a series of hearings were held to evaluate a request for extension of the plat. The matter did not conclude until June 16, 2010 when the Town Council upheld P&Z’s second denial of the extension request. (See the Campbell Ranch page for a timeline of specific dates and events.)
2021: The question of whether or not the original Campbell Ranch MP has ever been amended has no clear answer at this time. In September of 2021, Edgewood’s P&Z Commission approved several changes to the MP including a provision for non-conveyance bulk plat divisions of land and specification that current ordinances be used. P&Z subsequently approved the minutes and Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law in October of 2021. The decision was appealed, and the NMAG recommended that the town send the matter to its newly constituted P&Z for its review, but it appears that has not happened. Therefore, since the town has not affirmed, modified, or vacated the decision it exists, but remains in limbo.
2024-5: Meanwhile, Campbell Ranch has returned to the town and obtained a minor subdivision approval using [apparently] the original Master Plan and 1999 ordinances. The decision has been appealed and at the time this page was posted, a “quasi-judicial hearing” is scheduled for March 6, 2025. [Although there are exceptions, land use appeals are usually done as a “review of record” which is limited to materials already in the record as opposed to a “de novo” quasi-judicial hearing during which new testimony and information may be introduced.] UPDATE: The three governing body commissioners present on March 6 voted to remand the application to P&Z. There was some discussion of the question of how the meeting was posted, with town legal counsel advising that the current town ordinance calls for use of a “review of record” process rather than the advertised “quasi-judicial” hearing. August, 2025: Edgewood has issued a Notice of Decision following The Town Commission’s July 24 hearing on the appeal of P&Z’s second approval of a Campbell Ranch request for a “bulk plat subdivision.” The Town Commission granted the appeals filed by opponents of P&Z’s decision, and reversed and denied P&Z’s May 15, 2025 subdivision approval which had no conditions placed on it.
The Hillcrest Master Plan was approved in 2003, but the applicants went to court because the final document contained several items to which the applicants objected. The matter was resolved out of court by mutual consent and then ratified by means of a stipulated settlement order from a state district court judge which summarized the agreement. The language of the settlement order implied, but did not explicitly state, that the town’s 2003 Zoning Ordinance would govern the adoption of the MP instead of the 1999 ordinance requested by the applicant. The implied but not stated provision of the settlement order as well as the lack of any written record of the settlement agreement itself has left a cloud over the Hillcrest MP. [Out of court settlements are not required by state law to be entered into the record as a written document; however best practices advice is that any public body involved in such a matter should exercise its right to do so. In this case, the Town of Edgewood did not follow that advice.]
The original applicants sought to sell the approved master plan sometime around 2007-8, but the sale was never completed and eventually reverted to the original owners who were incorporated as Highland Stock Farm. Sometime between 2007 and the time the property reverted to the original owners, 50% of the water rights were transferred to EPCOR. By whom, by what means, and for what price is unknown. Given the value of those water rights, I expect to see a filing in state district court at some point.
Addendum: 2022-2025
There were few significant land use agenda items in the first three years following the change from a Mayor/Council to a Commission/Manager government. That changed in the fall of 2024, when Campbell Ranch requested and received a minor subdivision approval from Planning & Zoning. Opponents appealed the decision and the Town Commission remanded it to P&Z for a re-hearing. Following a second approval by P&Z, the Town Commission heard the subsequent appeals after which it voted 4-0 to grant the appeals, reversed the P&Z decision, and denied the application. The applicant indicated that it would appeal the Town Commission’s decision.
Edgewood’s 16 item list of Capital Outlay Requests for 2025 indicates that Cargo Cult thinking was influencing policy when the 2024 ICIP report was filed last fall. Instead of prioritizing two or three of the most urgent, every special interest in town seems to have been allowed to ask for funding of pet projects. The request for and apparent receipt of $617K for Rt. 66 sewer line design may also indicate reversal of town policy for the past ten years which had focused on placing new return lines in areas which have better potential for gradually adding much needed residential effluent into the system. ETA: The original request specified an area north of Rt. 66 and east of NM 344. The final version of the Capital Outlay funding bill omitted location specific language.