68 Days and Counting…

 …Because Santa Fe County is NOT the problem. The bias against the county is coming from a small group of vocal and influential people, but as the Commission found out the hard way, this group NOT a majority; not even close. 

The buck stops with the Edgewood Commissioners who voted for the Budget Adjustment Resolutions in 2024 and again in 2025. Was there a  plan to provoke a blow-up, pretend the town had been left with no choice, and then dazzle us with their less than brilliant DIY plan? If so, someone miscalculated. 

A Look Back at the Campbell Ranch Annexation: Part 2

[A news report from 2002 saying that Campbell Ranch offered to de-annex.] 

The only definite source I can find for the claim that Campbell Farming had ever offered to go away in exchange for money following the vote to annex the land in December of 2001 comes from a story in The Independent dated  May 8, 2002. It is possible that town correspondence still exists somewhere in the Planning Office’s permanent files or perhaps the personal files of former members of the governing body which might provide more information. [See also the separate pages for the Campbell Ranch Master Plan and the Hillcrest Master Plan with timelines of significant events.] 

March 2002:  A coalition of town council candidates made up of incumbent Robert (Bob) Stearley, former P&Z Commissioner Donzil Worthington, and Paul Hoffman campaigned as a group proclaiming “No Campbell Ranch” during the municipal election season. They soundly defeated the pro-annexation coalition made up of incumbents Gary Chemistruck and Frank Lasky who were joined by Bradley (Brad) Hill.  The town council had voted 3-0 to annex Campbell Ranch in December of 2001 during a special Saturday meeting held at a time when Stearley was unable to attend. At that time, Stearley had not yet retired, and his work entailed significant travel time.  

May 2002: Council member Bob Stearley, newly re-elected and serving as Mayor Pro Tem, is quoted in The Independent story as saying that the $1.1 Million as reported in the headline might eventually be twice or three times that amount. Regardless of which, if any amount were to be considered, the town could not have afforded to buy its way out of the situation. In an unexpected pivot from having campaigned against the annexation only three months earlier, Stearley appears to contradict opinion of the then town legal counsel, David Henderson, who believed that there might be a way to undo the annexation. 

Henderson’s theory about how that might happen depended upon the fate of the lawsuit filed against the annexation by Santa Fe County.  It appears that at the time this story was written, the Town of Edgewood had already filed a motion to dismiss the County’s lawsuit; the filing may have taken place before the 2002 municipal election which altered the balance of power of the Governing Body.  The story also notes that Campbell Farming Corporation had filed an intervention in the case which further complicated the legal situation. 

Stearley’s change in tactics was based on his estimation (which eventually turned out to be correct) that Santa Fe County’s appeal would not succeed, thus leaving the annexation intact. Therefore, he saw no reason to delay changing tactics. His preference, given the realities of state laws and the legal situation, was to find a way for the young town to manage the unpopular master plan. His principal focus at that time was on challenging the validity of Section 4 of the development agreement between the Town of Edgewood and Campbell Farming Corporation. He also proposed changing town ordinances to place a moratorium on building golf courses and codifying a one acre minimum for residential lot sizes. 

Given the information available to him at the time, Stearley’s change of course appeared reasonable. However, it was not politically expedient. His actions angered three important groups, and the consequences of their disillusionment are still relevant: 

(1)  Those who had supported his re-election to the Town Council specifically because of his opposition to the the town’s expansionist annexation policy in general (and it’s annexation of Campbell Ranch in particular) were inclined to be sympathetic, but they felt that he gave up too much, too soon.  

(2)  The group which had begun printing petitions calling for an election to disincorporate the newly formed town government before the Stearley, Worthington, and Hoffman coalition members announced their candidacy were less inclined to give Stearley the benefit of the doubt. Their take was that he was too closely allied to the local real estate faction, and they believed that Stearley had not campaigned in good faith.  

(3) Of greater long-term political consequence, he alienated several members of the Hill Family, who at that time were in the beginning stages of creating what eventually became the Hillcrest Master Plan. Their ambitious plan, which has been modified several times since it was approved, allowed for a wide mix of residential lot sizes as well as commercial development areas with at least one golf course. Stearley’s plans for changing town ordinances were viewed as a threat to their efforts.

2004-2007: Despite the validity of his arguments, Stearley’s pivot created the impression within his coalition and among the wider public that he was not dependable. [ETA: Santa Fe County’s challenge to the annexation was dismissed first by a district court and later by the state’s court of appeals for lack of standing in July of 2004; the dismissal was not appealed to the state’s highest court.] Stearley’s controversial decision in 2006 to appoint Brad Hill to fill a vacancy on the Town Council did not have the calming results he expected. 

The overall result of Stearley’s decision to drop his opposition to the annexation was to give Howard Calkins the means to make a credible challenge in the 2004 mayoral election despite his having been a vocal advocate for the still unpopular annexation. While Stearley was originally declared the winner and sworn into office, Calkins challenged the results. A state district court eventually declared the close race a tie. Stearley decided against appealing the decision, and after he lost the highly publicized card draw held in late 2007, Calkins returned briefly as mayor.  

Summary: There have been many questions asked in the years since 2002 about the fate of Stearley’s plan to change the Campbell Ranch development agreement. It would appear that while Stearley hoped to modify the development agreement where his primary focus was on modifying Section 4, it never happened. He also proposed significant changes to town ordinances and land use policies designed to rein in some of the most problematic features of the proposed development.  

Stearley was successful in making some good changes in several of the town’s ordinances and land use policies during his time in town government; some of them remain in place to this day. However, I can find no mention in the public record that there was ever any real attempt to modify the original development agreement. There is some indication in meeting minutes from January 2005 for both P&Z and the Town Council that several conceptual changes were made to the Campbell Ranch Master Plan. 

Because the changes were deemed “minor,” the Zoning Ordinance in place at that time did not require a public hearing which means that discovering exactly what changes were made would depend on consulting the development review documents which should still be available in the permanent files of the town’s Planning Office. However, it is not required that the town preserve every scrap of paper generated for land use matters; meeting minutes provide some hints at what changes were presumably made. 

Partly because of the turmoil surrounding the controversy over who should be mayor, heated debates over the Hillcrest Master Plan application, and the dismissal of Santa Fe County’s challenge of the annexation, Campbell Ranch brought no significant development proposals forward until late 2007.

Future actions? The Town already has sufficient legal authority over zoning matters to clean up the mess. Whether or not the current governing body possesses the level of expertise and political will to do so remains to be seen.

Because the original development agreement does make provision for future changes, perhaps the time has come for the parties to re-examine both the Campbell Ranch Master Plan and the general provisions of the town’s Master Plan section of its Zoning Ordinance.  None of the three major Master Plans, all of which were approved in Edgewood’s early years, have performed as advertised. 

Perhaps Master Plans, like preliminary subdivision plats, should carry an automatic expiration date with provisions made for possible extension if conditions warrant doing so. Of course, the interval should be significantly longer for master plans. Edgewood’s Cargo Cult faction has had great success in seeding the town map with lands bearing Master Plan Zoning for which no plans have ever been presented. The town needs to take another look at the zoning on those parcels as well.  

Coming soon: A look back at the Campbell Ranch Annexation Part 2

[Part 1 (below) sets the stage: The May 8, 2002 edition of The Independent serves as a time capsule for looking at the municipal government’s early years.]

A few things have changed, mostly the dramatis personae, but the fundamentals have not. Meanwhile, I suggest a visit to EMPAC’s homepage featuring a slide show where one image shows Edgewood’s Great March North along with the Bride and Groom at the top of the wedding cake: Campbell Ranch.  

While looking for something else, I found an old paper copy of The Independent (May 8, 2002 Volume 4, No. 19). The front page (above the fold) features the headline Campbell price to leave Edgewood: $1.1 million followed by a detailed story on the offer written by Theresa M. Oderman. Bracketing the Campbell headline is a larger one Drought, export imperil water under which Kevin Bean outlines Export on the left with Drought on the right. One of the best things about reading The Independent in those days was venturing into lower Edgewood, picking up a paper copy, and analyzing how the staff employed all of the classical rhetorical canons week after week. (The advent of the e-mail pdf version was still several years in the future.)  

Two agendas and the packet for 12/23/2025 Updated

It appears that this event has been cancelled and tentatively rescheduled to Dec. 30, 2025. The first agenda is for the 5:00 pm swearing-in ceremony of newly elected/re-elected town officials. For those who have asked why this takes place before 1 January 2026: State law calls for newly elected officials to be sworn in within a certain number of days following the town’s receipt of the official certifications of election results.  

The second agenda and packet is for the regular 6:00 pm meeting. The items of interest following the consent agenda and departmental reports include:

Item G: which consists of a series of 8 public hearings required to complete several zone changes previously approved by the Town Commission, but for which the Planning Office failed to include the important follow-up of also amending the Town’s official Zone Map. The situation resulted in a situation for property owners akin to a clouded title for a vehicle or real estate. 

Kudos to the town employee who discovered the problem in October of this year and took prompt steps to correct the oversights. Unfortunately, the town incurred more legal fees required for researching the extent of the problem and giving advice on the proper way to correct the situation.  The omission highlights the need for the town to hire qualified employees in all departments. As has been the case for much of the last four years, the new Commission Manager government tried to blame the omission as having been begun during the “The Preeeevioussss Administrashun.” That dog won’t hunt: The blunders first manifested after the change in government.  

Item H: New Business which includes the proposed purchase of new cassettes for the wastewater plant, a change order for the West Venus paving project, and recognition of service for departing Town Commissioner Filandro Anaya. There will also be a discussion and possible action regarding the town’s ongoing problems with meeting IPRA requirements.

Item I: Various legal matters to be discussed during closed session featuring two personnel matters and three of the current suite of lawsuits in which the town is currently involved (Santa Fe County, Campbell Farming Corporation, and Berg et al).  

For those who are concerned about the town’s continuing high legal bills, there are several ways the town can correct the problem by (1) avoiding cronyism and hiring qualified employees, (2) hiring a Town Manager capable of effectively overseeing the activities of each department, (3) electing at least three Town Commissioners who won’t involve the courts in their political differences of opinion, and (4) hiring a legal firm specializing in advising local governments. 

The firm of Robles, Rael, and Anaya served the town well for many years during the tenures of Mayors Calkins, Stearley, Hill, and Bassett. Unfortunately, the first iteration of the Edgewood Town Commission did not appreciate their custom of dispensing prudent legal advice, and so that bridge may have been burned.  

Upcoming Activities: Tuesday January 6, 2026 at 5:00 pm will be an opportunity for the public to meet with Town Commissioners in the meeting chambers at Town Hall.  

Campbell Ranch update

EMPAC and Bernalillo County have filed a motion to intervene as interested parties in Campbell Ranch’s suit against the Town of Edgewood. Campbell Ranch filed suit in State District Court after the Edgewood Town Commission vacated the Planning & Zoning Commission’s approval of a “minor subdivision.”

Edgewood P&Z meeting: Thursday September 18, 2025

Hat tip to the regular reader of the blog who suggested I take time out from other things to review the latest PZC publication.  

You can download or view the agenda/packet at the town website. The packet for this meeting is more substantive than those published in the past few years. In another change reflective of best practices advice, the town appears to have resumed publishing staff reports in advance of meetings.  

For those whose land use interests include the subdivision process and Edgewood’s early love affair with Master Plan Zoning, this agenda ticks several boxes. It appears that the applicant’s packet is not complete, so I would suggest focusing attention on possible discussion by the PZC regarding a conditional approval of the subdivision application. 

Unlike the Campbell Ranch MP, the Hillcrest MP is governed by the current Subdivision Ordinance despite an attempt in 2011 to persuade the town to allow Hillcrest to also use the 1999-9 Subdivision Ordinance. [Although discussions for approval of the Hillcrest MP had begun during the time when 1999-R was in force, a new zoning ordinance was adopted prior to final approval. The 2011 request to use the 1999-R Subdivision Ordinance was rejected on legal grounds: (1) a newer Subdivision Ordinance had been adopted since the MP was approved, (2) neither the approved Master Plan, nor the Stipulated Settlement Order mention use of 1999-R, and (3) the Zoning Ordinance in force at the time Hillcrest was approved called for subdivision applications being processed according to the subdivision ordinance in force at the time an application was submitted.]

The next regular PZC meeting is scheduled for October 16, 2025. 

Legal status of the Campbell Ranch Master Plan?

A rumor which has circulated in Edgewood for many years without being publicly challenged until recently says that, an unnamed state district court judge on an unspecified date, ruled that the Development Agreement between Campbell Farming and the Town of Edgewood must be followed without modification. I am not the only person who has investigated this assertion, but failed to find any evidence that such a thing ever happened. The question, then, needs to be re-framed: What did happen?  

• In late 2001 and early 2002 following the annexation and subsequent approval of the development agreement, then town council member Robert Stearley, candidate Paul Hoffman, and Linda Sparling considered filing a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the annexation and, by extension, the development agreement. However, the contemplated lawsuit was probably never filed, or may have been withdrawn before being placed on a court schedule. There have been no court records found to date indicating that such a case was ever heard.  
• Following the March 2002 municipal election, Stearley was re-elected, and Hoffman joined him on the town council. 
• Had the proposed lawsuit gone forward, neither Stearley nor Hoffman would have been able to vote on any Campbell Ranch matters such as creation of the Public Improvement District (PID) or subdivision applications. This situation would most likely have resulted in former town council member Donzil Worthington, who had opposed the annexation, voting one way, and Chuck Ring another, thereby allowing then Mayor Howard Calkins to break a tie vote. It was assumed that since both Calkins and Ring were openly supportive of the town assuming responsibility for Campbell Ranch, that their combined two votes would have resulted in approval of any Campbell Ranch matters that might have come before the town. 
• Furthermore, Santa Fe County did file suit challenging the annexation. It was believed at that time that the county had a strong case, making Stearley’s plan redundant. 
• However, Santa Fe County’s challenge to the annexation was eventually denied in state district court on the grounds that the County lacked standing. An appeal was later dismissed for the same reason in July of 2004. Santa Fe County decided against any further appeals.
• The ramifications of the county’s failure to prevail have been misrepresented since that time either through a misunderstanding of the law, or a desire to shape the narrative by making it seem that the denials were affirmations of the annexation and the development agreement.
• When a lawsuit is denied because of a “lack of standing” that is the end of the matter. The Campbell Ranch annexation in 2001 and subsequent approval of the development agreement in 2002 were allowed to remain in place, but without comment as to the merits of either the annexation or the development agreement. 
• If a state district court judge or appeals court had ever issued any additional stipulations beyond dismissals for lack of standing, then there would be some record of the action. However, no record of such an action has been found to date.
• It is possible that the people spreading the misinformation have confused the challenge to the Campbell Ranch Master Plan with the challenge to the approval of the Hillcrest Master Plan which was settled after an out- of-court agreement was reached. The agreement on Hillcrest was later confirmed by a detailed “stipulated settlement order” issued by the judge in that case which took place in late 2003 through early 2004.

What, then is the legal status of the Campbell Ranch Annexation and Development Agreement? 

• Neither has ever been successfully challenged, making Campbell Ranch part of Edgewood, and administration of any future development will be the responsibility of the town. 
• As such, Campbell Ranch has achieved vested right to the master plan zoning category for the property. The assigned zoning cannot be modified without the consent of the owners unless the town were to show cause that a compelling reason exists to revisit the matter. In order to revisit the zoning as Master Plan, the town would have to convene a public hearing under that portion of the Zoning Ordinance governing zone changes. 
• What having Master Plan Zoning does not establish, is vested right to actual development; that comes later in the process and is established through compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.

Is it possible to change Master Plans once they have been approved?

• The Town of Edgewood’s Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for amending master plans by the Planning & Zoning Commission during a public hearing. An interesting addition to the current Zoning Ordinance’s table assigning responsibilities with regard to land use ordinances would appear to give the Town’s P&Z director power to approve Master Plan amendments administratively. However, the ordinance itself does not describe such an action.  
• Approved Master Plans are modified from time to time, as has been the case for both the Hillcrest and Section 16 Master Plans. 

Edgewood in the News: Campbell Ranch Subdivision Denied

Kevin Hendricks’ article summarizing the July 24, 2025 appeal hearing provides good information about the hearing itself as well as some history and context of the subdivision application. 

Providing news coverage of issues relevant to the East Mountain region of New Mexico is difficult, and many of the issues facing individual residents and local governments are complex. If you are looking for a more efficient way of keeping up with a variety of current events, the nm.news subscription page is a good place to start.  

Page Update: Campbell Ranch

I have updated the Campbell Ranch page to incorporate dates with brief descriptions of the latest decisions by Edgewood’s Town and P&Z Commissions. You will find a link to the Order of Decision signed on July 31, 2025 posted at the Town of Edgewood’s website. I would encourage anyone who wishes to keep a copy for future reference to save the document promptly as content at the town’s website tend to appear and disappear without notice. 

This usually happens after elections make significant changes in the makeup of the governing body as newly elected town officials often try to leave their mark on the website in the mistaken belief that the changes will be easy. Given that four of the five Town Commission positions will be on the ballot in November, expect more changes following January 1, 2026. Save any town documents of interest before that date. I have posted a summary of the decision in an earlier post.  

Campbell Ranch Notice of Decision (dated July 31, 2025)

Edgewood has issued a Notice of Decision following The Town Commission’s 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. Taken as a whole, the document is a clear indication for a review of the Planning and Zoning department’s policies and procedures which needs to be followed by corrective actions. The problems began with the town staff’s failure to correct obvious deficiencies in the application prior to submitting it to The P&Z Commission on November 21, 2024. 

The Town Commission issued several findings: 

• The  application was not consistent with the 1999-R Subdivision Ordinance’s requirements on platting, infrastructure, and water supply.
• The application was not consistent with the 2001 Development Agreement, or current Zoning Ordinances, and the Applicant has not established vested rights which would exempt it from current regulations. 
• The record as presented to the Town Commission was incomplete and deficient. 
• [With regard to P&Z’s approval,] there were procedural irregularities, and required findings were absent.  

The Town Commission also issued a series of requirements for any future applications which must: 

• Comply fully with relevant portions of 1999-R (or any successor ordinance in effect at the time of the application).
• Provide clear and convincing evidence of adequate water supply, infrastructure, and compliance with Master Plan and Zoning Ordinances.
• Be supported by a complete and reliable record. 
• Include all required documentation and public input. 

Results of last night’s appeal hearing:

The 4-0 vote to uphold the appeals and deny the subdivision application appears to have concluded this particular application. [Commissioner Milligan recused himself and did not participate.] However, the vote still needs to be ratified by approval of meeting minutes and findings of fact/conclusions of law before the appeal window officially opens. For some reason, the town continues to state that the appeal window opens upon taking the vote. However, an aggrieved party might very well argue that since the record is not complete until those documents are approved and signed, a court may find that the window within which an appeal may be filed should be extended accordingly.

While there were statements offered during the hearing to the effect that this matter would go to court “no matter what” that outcome is not certain. If the applicants’ legal advisors believe that the town’s decision is legally defensible, they may advise foregoing that option. In this or any instance, denial of an application need not be the end of the matter. The applicant is always free to return with a new or revised application which addresses the reasons for the previous denial.  

What I do expect to happen is that there will soon be a call for substantial revisions to the town’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. This could be a good thing (or not) depending on how the process works out. No ordinance is ever perfect; they can and should be reviewed as needed. However, the best use of ordinances is to consider them a road map designed to achieve certain goals. In the past, Edgewood has made reactive ordinance changes in response to a particular situation which ultimately served to turn the ordinance from a road map into a straitjacket. The prime example of this is the history of how so-called minor subdivisions are treated in the various iterations of the Subdivision Ordinance we have seen since 1999.  

Today’s special meeting on the Campbell Ranch subdivision appeal hearing.

I don’t see any updates or changes to the packet or schedule at this time. The meeting still appears to be scheduled for 3:00 pm, but I see that the YouTube placeholder thumbnail says 4:00 pm.  I’ve looked at the options for overflow viewing, and the town has made some attempt to accommodate the public. 

Whether or not it is adequate is another matter. The town has had at least since July 2, 2025 when notice of the hearing was posted to adjust the schedule. Did no one in the Planning Office think to consult the town calendar to see if the overflow room was available either then or since? Why was notice that the room would be unavailable posted only this week? 

The town’s planning director, Brad Hill, frequently cites his past work experience at the NMAG’s office when instructing the public, the Town Manager and the Town and P&Z Commissions on matters pertaining to to Open Meeting Act compliance. It appears that the town is relying on his expertise for managing this hearing as well. 

Campbell Ranch Appeal Hearing Packet Updated

Update: A regular reader of the blog forwarded a link to a town social media account post which reads as follows:

Due to summer youth programming, overflow room is not available for 7/24 Quasi-Judicial Hearing. Hearing to be livestreamed, free Wi-Fi (ECL) is obtainable from Town Hall parking area, if needed. Livestream: https://www.youtube.com/@thetownofedgewoodnm/streams

The town has also limited comments on its post. First Amendment as filtered through the Town of Edgewood’s recently adopted social media policy?

The town has posted a packet for the upcoming July 25 appeal hearing before the Town Commission. Its contents are minimal and more distinguished by what is absent than present.

Factors to consider when attending or watching the hearing:

• There is no staff report in the packet as it exists at the time of this post; therefore, if one is not provided before the meeting it will be important to attend carefully to Mr. Hill’s presentation. Look for the proportion of rhetorical elements v. logical elements in his presentation. Will his presentation be balanced, or does its structure imply intention for guiding the Commission’s decision making process into a particular outcome? 
• Generally speaking, politicians (when considered as a group) often respond best to rhetorical appeals while courts tend to rely more logical elements. However, there are legislators who do respond to logical appeals. Judges may be swayed by rhetoric, especially in cases where the relevant facts offer no clear path to resolution. The challenge in the present situation will be to balance the short term goal of convincing the Town Commission with the longer term goal of introducing evidence which will convince a State District Court Judge.  
• The abysmal failure of the ghost “Save South Mountain” PR campaign served only to highlight the fact that there is little, if any, interest in Campbell Ranch on the part of Edgewood residents. The so-called hoax emails did serve to put the spotlight on town employees and the latest version of Edgewood’s economic development committee.   
• The focus of the recent joint meeting of the Town and P&Z Commissions highlighting how, when, and under what circumstances approved master plans may be modified hints at behind the scenes maneuvering.  
• The letter written on behalf of Campbell Corporation, which is included in the packet, recalls the tone of the Edgewood Town Council meeting of July 21, 2004. 

Subdivision Appeal Hearing July 24, 2025 at 3:00 pm

A letter dated July 2, 2025 has been posted at the Town of Edgewood website. It lays out the procedure for the Campbell Ranch subdivision appeal hearing which is advertised as a quasi-judicial public hearing. At the time of this post, the meeting is scheduled for Thursday July 24, 2025 at 3:00 pm in the meeting chambers at Edgewood Town Hall.  

For more information on public hearings, see the Public Hearing FAQ page listed in the header under the blog title. 

Good coverage of the e-mail hoax at nm.news

The only thing I questioned in the story is that the author noted that the Town Commission still has to approve the P&Z Commission’s most recent action on the Campbell Ranch subdivision application. Edgewood’s P&Z has authority to approve or deny subdivisions. However, since it is almost certain that P&Z’s action has or soon will be appealed, I expect the Town Commission will decide to schedule a second appeal hearing.  

Edgewood Cargo Cult meets tonight!

For those readers who found my description of  Cargo Cults difficult to accept: A group which has been described by EMPAC as “ghosts” will presumably de-cloak at this evening’s meeting which has been announced for: 

June 11, 2025

6:00 pm

171-A NM 344 Edgewood

The published meeting location is at Edgewood Town Hall. The choice of meeting place again raises questions of whether or not one or more town officials are embedded in the organization. 

There is no mention of water in the group’s communique nor is there any discussion of who will pay for ongoing provision of services after the PID expires. The email announcing the meeting concludes with another rant against outsiders…and then points to an address on the west coast.

Short term gain often leads to long term pain: The sad “Truth about Edgewood” is that the town many residents hoped to achieve in 1999 died not with the formal annexation of Campbell Ranch in 2001, but with the prior shoestring annexations which made it possible. Since public prayers and declarations of religious “values” are now fashionable in Edgewood’s official discourse, I would invite those who are so inclined to meditate upon the truths expressed in Matthew 24:28. Vultures or Eagles? Take your pick, but the stench is getting harder to ignore.  

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.  

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.  

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.