The curious case of the missing motion…

… The missing motion is neither a straightforward affirmative nor a negative motion, but a little known variant of an affirmative motion known as a converse motion. Every few years, someone comes forward to insist that the Edgewood town government must always, and without exception, offer its motions “to approve” an application because they are operating from a mistaken impression that motions “to deny” are negative motions.  The advice sounds good in theory, but in practice it sometimes turns what should have been a routine public hearing into a circus. This is yet another instance in which Edgewood’s political instability and its recurring losses of institutional memory have resulted in confusion. 

NB: What follows has been revised and edited for clarity: 

• The issue has been raised again on July 30, 2026 during the PZC’s special meeting. 
• The authority cited for this practice of “always and only” affirmative motions is Roberts Rules of Order which is a frequently used guide for discussing legislative proposals during public meetings.  The concept gets its fuel from a valid and often-cited reference to the unsuitability of offering negative motions which are awkward and typically worded to “not approve” some proposed action. A true negative motion implies an intent to take no action. [1]
• While this admonition to make only affirmative motions “to approve” makes sense when an agenda item is legislative in nature, the deliberations and motions sometimes get mired in absurdity when the matter under consideration is not legislative, but quasi-judicial. In theory, under the “affirmative motions only-and-always” rule, an unsuitable proposal may properly be allowed to die for lack of a motion and/or second. 
• However, even before a land use application is brought forward for a public hearing, considerable resources have already been expended by both the town and the applicant in order to reach that point. The general legal advice given to local governments is that once the testimony and exhibits have been presented, the deliberation phase of the public hearing should begin with a motion and second. Understandably, following all that effort neither the applicant nor the general public will find it acceptable for the proposal to simply be allowed to die without discussion.  
• Indeed, only a few people would consider this an acceptable way to conclude a quasi-judicial hearing, but by following such ill-informed advice, we have seen both Edgewood’s governing body and its planning commission fall into an abyss worthy of Charles Dickens’ fictitious character Mr. Thomas Gradgrind. 
• The most common (and ultimately ill-advised) attempt to resolve the situation of a clearly unsuitable application is to have preliminary discussion before the motion, and then for two members to offer a motion followed by a second “to approve” the application. This is often followed by further discussion and a vote. 
• Possible less than desirable outcomes may vary: One or both persons who offered the motion and second may end up voting against approval. In some instances a majority votes against the motion, and occasionally every member votes against the motion which was offered “to approve” the application.
• In its well-intentioned attempt to avoid falling into the ditch of making a “negative” motion, the public body then risks falling into the other ditch by violating the Roberts Rules injunction against offering a motion or second for which one does not intend to vote.  
• Furthermore, these convoluted discussions give the impression that members of the board are not acting in good faith. 
• Eli Mina’s practical tools for managing minutes and meetings addresses the fact that while useful, Roberts Rules was primarily intended for and is most suitable for legislative deliberations. He believes that more specialized public hearings may benefit from following different procedures. [2]
• With Mina’s commentary having raised the question of special situations, David J. Allor attempts to find middle ground by introducing a third type of motion which he calls a converse motion. By using his process, the public body can avoid falling into either ditch by allowing for a motion “to deny” the application based on legally defensible reasons which pertain to the particular application under consideration. [3]
• There is no hard and fast rule of how to handle the special situations generated by quasi-judicial hearings and their unique requirements. Each public body has to examine the options, consult with its legal advisors, and craft a policy that best fits its needs.  
• One example of how this question has been dealt with in the past can be found in Edgewood’s PZC minutes of October 24, 2011. 
• One reason that a converse motion may legitimately be described as a variant of an affirmative motion is that, unlike a negative motion which is stated in a way which signals that the deliberative body is proposing to refrain from taking action, a converse motion “to deny” implies that a deliberative body has weighed evidence and intends to take action, but that such action may be either to approve or to deny an application. Not everyone agrees with Allor’s reasoning, but his method is often found to be more straightforward than dictating that only motions “to approve” are to be used for quasi-judicial hearings. 
• In order to better understand the operational uses of terms such as affirmative, negative, and converse some basic knowledge of formal logic is helpful; specifically definitions of relevant terms and the means for converting statements from one form to another while retaining logical equivalence. It is subject which may not be of interest to general audiences, but Martin Cothran’s textbooks on Traditional Formal Logic (Volumes I and II) are resources which I have used in the past and found helpful for exploring this topic. 

[The sources which are shown below were current when a previous PZC dealt with the issue in 2010-11] 

Note 1: Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed. (Cambridge, Mass. Perseus Publishing, 2000).

Note 2: Mina’s Guide to Minute Taking: Principles, Standards & Practical Tools. Eli Mina; Published by Eli Mina Consulting in 2004. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Note 3: David J. Allor Planning Commissioners Journal Reprints: A Planning Commissioner Journal Special Collection. Champlain Planning Press 2010.]

Upcoming meetings (updated with links added)

The Agendas and Minutes page at the Town website is currently showing four upcoming Meetings:

• July 8: Two advisory Committees: Parks & Rec and the Economic Advisory group  both of which have posted agendas.
• July 14: Town Commission meeting. [Agenda & Packet link]
• Also on July 14: The Town Commission meeting will be preceded by an informational meeting on the Berrenda Pipeline proposal. [Agenda] 
• July 16: the Planning & Zoning Commission has a preliminary agenda which was posted well in advance of several land use public hearings which appear on it. [Agenda] [Packets: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]
• My take on the FAQ section at the bottom of the Berrenda Pipeline page is that the language has been curated so as to tease and create a bandwagon effect; it conceals more than it reveals. 
• Based on its past performance and now some chatter from the usual sources, I have little confidence in this governing body’s ability to get past the inevitable hype that always accompanies such proposals.
• While not as immediately urgent as was the Fire/EMS JPA, this proposal could either be a much needed advance for the area, or just another in the long series of the pipe-dreams which have beguiled Edgewood’s Cargo Cult since before 1999. 

71 Days and Counting…

…County versus Town government: What options are available to Edgewood residents? In late 2013, one of the first regular readers of this blog contacted me to suggest following Santa Fe County’s process of amending its land use code. (Search the tag cloud in the left sidebar for more posts about Santa Fe County.)

One of the reasons often given by the proponents of incorporating Edgewood into a municipality was the SFCo. Land use Codes as they existed in the late 1990’s. As is typical of astroturf based PR campaigns, the presentation of information about SFCo was as precisely curated as were the boundaries of the proposed incorporation map.   

Many people, and now the town government have stated that if the town were to disincorporate, Edgewood residents would lose local control over development decisions in Edgewood. But, that begs the question of exactly how should Edgewood be defined? Is it the historical community which is relatively small, or the bloated irregular outline so beloved by Edgewood’s “swaggering braggart” faction that they have unironically posted news accounts of Edgewood’s incorporation in its meeting chambers. Unfortunately, town’s the chief accomplishment was gaming the system of New Mexico’s land use laws for incorporations and annexations. I can assure you that people outside the community do not view the town with the same enthusiasm as do Edgewood’s tireless promoters.  

When multiple doors are open to the town, choosing one necessitates closing other options. More than two decades on, many residents are evaluating what we gained as opposed to what was lost by incorporation. With a proposal now on the table to undo 1999 via a legal dissolution,  it might be worthwhile to look at what Santa Fe County has to offer small rural, unincorporated communities. 

The answers might be surprising as is the history of how long these options have been available and how they have changed over time. The link posted above is for one particular community, but it contains some intriguing history and dates. There are different categories of community specially designated areas available. There is a lot more information available at the Santa Fe County website for those willing to do their own research, ask questions on social media, or question the town’s official pronouncements.  

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. 

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.  

Link added for EMPAC

I’ve added EMPAC (East Mountains Protection Action Coalition)to the links list located the sidebar at the left side of the page. The page was created by our neighbors in the far northwest part of Edgewood who are directly impacted by Edgewood’s decisions on the Campbell Ranch Master Plan.  However, this group is not single issue and it is monitoring information on other land use questions which are of interest to the East Mountains. 

ETA:I will not be opening the blog to comments again any time soon. Moderating comments adds yet another layer to maintenance. For now, new material and updating links is challenge enough.  Feel free to contact me via email. 

Spotlight on the Comp Plan: Appendix D

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.

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. 

GO Bond question on the ballot in November

Voters in Santa Fe County will see several GO Bond questions on the ballot for the 2016 General Election in November. One of the questions involves proposed funding for two medical clinics, one of which would be located in Edgewood. Area residents will have two opportunities to attend informational meetings. The first Edgewood meeting will be held on Friday October 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. and the second on Saturday October 22, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Both meetings will be held in the Edgewood Community Center located at 27 East Frontage Road. (East of Dairy Queen at the intersection of Cactus Road and the Frontage Road.)

Fireworks and drought conditions

The Town of Edgewood has approved Resolution 2016-08 which affects the sale and use of fireworks within the town boundaries.

From the town website's civic alerts page:

The Town of Edgewood has a resolution proclaiming extreme or severe drought conditions within the Town of Edgewood, and has banned the sale and use of certain fireworks within the boundaries of the Town and its wild-lands.

In the news: The Independent's new website

The Independent is locally owned and operated.  It is published weekly and appears on Wednesdays; the new website features options for following posts via RSS and Facebook with a mobile version that is a breeze to navigate.

The price for an email subscription (a PDF version of the paper and ink format) is reasonable, and the cost will be prorated at the time a subscription is purchased. I've found the service for e-subs reliable and convenient.  The e-version includes ads and legal notices in full color with the added benefit of adjustable print size.

You can also purchase a regular mail subscription or pick up a single copy at most area businesses if you prefer the paper and ink version.  For more information call 286-1212.

In the news from 10/14/2015 and 10/21/2015

The Independent:  Oct. 14-20, 2015 Vol. 17, No. 41

• Edgewood sewer: 'a bucketload of money' (p.1)
• I'm Losing It! Junk food junkie (p.2)
• Tractor Supply launches fundraiser for 4-H (p.3)
• OPINION: Dispatch New Mexico: Think New Mexico's latest brilliant brainstorm (p.6)
• LETTERS: Edgewood Library seeks survey participants (p.6)
• LEGAL NOTICES: (None in this week's edition.)

The Independent:  Oct. 21-27, 2015 Vol. 17, No. 42

• Alleged Open Meetings violations answered (p.1)
• Moriarty continues water, sewer, road work (p.1)
• I'm Losing It! Regroup and keep moving (p.2)
• OPINION: Dispatch New Mexico: Who will win over the state in 2016 (p.6)
• LETTERS: Raising concerns about cell towers and health risks (p.7)
• LEGAL NOTICES: The Town of Edgewood has submitted no legal notices for this week's edition (p.14) 

[The Independent is locally owned and operated.  It is published weekly and appears on Wednesdays; the front page of the current edition appears on its website.  The price for an email subscription is reasonable and the cost will be prorated at the time a subscription is purchased. I've found the service for e-subs reliable and convenient.  The e-version includes ads and legal notices in full color with the added benefit of adjustable print size. You can also purchase a regular mail subscription or pick up a single copy at most area businesses if you prefer the paper and ink version. For  more information call 286-1212.]

Study session announced by the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners

On Friday, October 9, 2015 the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners notified county residents that it has scheduled a special study session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday October 13, 2015.  The announcement of the meeting specifies that no action will be taken.  The following items are on the agenda for presentation/discussion:     

1. Presentation on proposed new Development Review Fee Ordinance
2. Presentation on proposed amendments to the Sustainable Growth Management Plan (SGMP)
3. Presentation on proposed amendments to the Sustainable Growth Management Plan (SLDC)
4. Presentation on draft of 2015 Zoning Map 

The agenda and packet materials are available for viewing/downloading at the county website: www.santafecountynm.gov

In the news 10/07/2015

The Independent:  Oct. 7-13, 2015 Vol. 17, No. 40

• RETRO 66 eyes 'picker's paradise' route (p.1)
• Free training for emergencies (p.1)
• I'm Losing It! Gizmos, gadgets and apps (p.2) 
• MOUNTAIN MUSING: Power & politics New Mexico style (p.6) 
• OPINION: Dispatch New Mexico: Harper Lee's book highlights 'gradualism' and its flaws (p.8)
• LETTERS: Various topics (p.8)
• LEGAL NOTICES: The Town of Edgewood has submitted no legal notices for this week's edition (p. 15)  

[The Independent is locally owned and operated.  It is published weekly and appears on Wednesdays; the front page of the current edition appears on its website.  The price for an email subscription is reasonable and the cost will be prorated at the time a subscription is purchased. I've found the service for e-subs reliable and convenient.  The e-version includes ads and legal notices in full color with the added benefit of adjustable print size. You can also purchase a regular mail subscription or pick up a single copy at most area businesses if you prefer the paper and ink version. For more information call 286-1212.] 

In the news 10/01/2015

The new Mountain View Telegraph website has been launched with an updated appearance and several new features. Visitors to the site will find more photos and better access to content from mobile devices. The full site displays tabs for different sections at the top of each page; scroll down the page to find links to subscriber services. 

In the news 09/30/2015

The Independent:  Sept. 30-Oct. 6, 2015 Vol. 17, No. 39

• Torrance Co. website gets score of 52/100 (p. 1)
• Fuelwood permits now on sale (p. 1)
• I'm Losing It! Two steps forward, one step back (p. 2) 
• Cash payments, liens on property and new insurance plan for Torrance (p. 3) 
• OPINION: Conflicts are pervasive and accepted in our legislative system (p. 8)
• LETTERS: [There are no letters in this week's edition.]
• LEGAL NOTICES: The Town of Edgewood Governing Body has scheduled a public hearing on October 21, 2015 to consider the adoption of amendments to the Uniform Traffic Code. See page 14 of this week's edition for more details. 

[The Independent is locally owned and operated.  It is published weekly and appears on Wednesdays; the front page of the current edition appears on its website.  The price for an email subscription is reasonable and the cost will be prorated at the time a subscription is purchased. I've found the service for e-subs reliable and convenient.  The e-version includes ads and legal notices in full color with the added benefit of adjustable print size. You can also purchase a regular mail subscription or pick up a single copy at most area businesses if you prefer the paper and ink version. For more information call 286-1212.]

In the news from September 17 and September 24, 2015

The MVT sometimes uses a feature for the online edition similar to that used by the Albuquerque Journal in which readers are asked to answer 1or 2 survey questions and/or share the page via social media before going on to individual stories. Be sure to look for the new web format which is expected to debut in October, 2015.  To subscribe or renew a subscription, call (505) 823-7100

From the September 17, 2015  Mountain View Telegraph Volume 13, Number 5 

• MainStreet program could spur new park for Mountainair
• Edgewood Council OKs hotel for town
• Animal ordinance vote delayed
• Tijeras council OKs Legislative requests
• Sports league request blows up
• Food pantry to use county fair building
• Meeting probes San Pedro Open Space 
• Overhaul afoot for restaurant atop Sandia Peak
• OPINION: EPA water rule is another overreach on private rights
  
• LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Various topics

From the September 24, 2015  Mountain View Telegraph Volume 13, Number 6

• Tijeras Council to seat four
• Meetings act was violated, man says 
• Edgewood animal shelter hit by virus
• Tijeras rejects bookkeeping split 
• Estancias approves Ayers Road repave  
• Flea market being planned for local area
• OPINION: Campaign accountability in NM as elusive as piñata
• LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Various topics 

[The MVT is published weekly in paper form, and is also delivered to subscribers to The Albuquerque Journal with Thursday's edition. You may also read news, sports, opinions and letters to the editor, obituaries, legals, and classifieds online at the website. If you're reading the online version, don't forget to check the links to shorter topics such as the calendar, upcoming events, milestones, news briefs, police reports and this weekend notes which are interspersed in the news headlines.]

In the news from September 16 and September 23, 2015

The Independent:  Sept. 16-22, 2015 Vol. 17, No. 37

• Moriarty eyes more strict animal control; ups what city pays for trash (page 1)
• Parvo at Woofstock (page 1)
• I'm Losing It! Confronting Demons (page 2) 
• Independent to launch new mobile-friendly website (page 7) 
• Dispatch New Mexico: Americans and their vices (page 7)
• Torrance County gives funding to EMWT Regional Water Association(page 10)
• LETTERS: Various topics (page 8)
• LEGAL NOTICES: The Town of Edgewood's Planning & Zoning Commission will conduct public hearings on October 6, 2015 to hear a request from Dollar Tree for approval of an outside storage container.  The Commission will also hear a request for a lotline vcation/replat on property located at 1601 Old Hwy 66 in Edgewood. The town council will conduct a public hearing on October 7, 2015 to consider amending the cell tower siting ordinance. See page 22 of the Sept. 16 edition for more details.  
  

  The Independent:  Sept. 23-29, 2015 Vol. 17, No. 38

• Election: Tijeras council now 4 seats(page 1)
• More trash talk on board legality (page 1)
• I'm Losing It! Chasing an active lifestyle (page 2) 
• Tijeras Library hosts a 'hootenanny' (page 3) 
• LETTERS: Various topics (page 8)
• LEGAL NOTICES: [Legal notices for this week appear on p. 14; there are no land use related notices in this week's edition.]

[The Independent is locally owned and operated.  It is published weekly and appears on Wednesdays; the front page of the current edition appears on its website.  The price for an email subscription is reasonable and the cost will be prorated at the time a subscription is purchased. I've found the service for e-subs reliable and convenient.  The e-version includes ads and legal notices in full color with the added benefit of adjustable print size. You can also purchase a regular mail subscription or pick up a single copy at most area businesses if you prefer the paper and ink version. For more information call 286-1212.]

Campbell Ranch update

After observing an unusual amount of traffic entering the Portal from "Campbell Ranch" and related search terms for the past several weeks, I decided to look further into what might be the cause. This is what I found:

Santa Fe Ranch and Farms (a portion of Campbell Ranch) launched a promotional website earlier this year with an accompanying press release, but it has only been in the past few weeks that the project has been noticed by the general public. There is only a rudimentary area map on the official site, but several things indicated to me that the land being offered for sale lies entirely in unincorporated Santa Fe County.

I was able to confirm my impression using a map which shows the general location and several landmarks located at a commercial real estate website called Commercial Connected. By comparing landmarks on their map with those on a draft zone map of Edgewood's official boundaries, I concluded that the land being offered for sale does appear to be located entirely within Santa Fe County, but outside of Edgewood's present boundaries. It appears likely that the two southernmost parcels (Tract 5 and Tract 6) are adjacent to the northernmost boundary of the town's lands in Santa Fe County. 

In addition, the area map at Santa Fe Ranch and Farms shows plans to add a second phase consisting of 8 similar parcels east of North 14 and south of NM 344. Two of those parcels, tentatively numbered Tract 11 and Tract 12, are shown directly to the west of Tracts 5 & 6 and immediately north of Edgewood's boundary line. 

A shared water system, with its attendant complications, would not be needed for this project as a domestic well permit for each parcel should suffice. However, the question of obtaining sufficient water rights to serve a shared system proposed for the Master Plan development which is located inside Edgewood boundaries has proved elusive, and has held up development in that portion of Campbell Ranch for more than a decade.

In the news September 10, 2015

From the September 10, 2015  Mountain View Telegraph Volume 13, Number 4

The MVT has announced that a new online version, including a subscription option, will be ready on or about October 1, 2012.  For more information, see this week's story about the changes: 

• I keep up with tech, even in pink
• Mayor of Tijeras urges early voting
• OPINION: Question isn't need for election reform, it's how
• SunZia Transmission line remains a concern
• LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Various topics

[The MVT is published weekly in paper form, and is also delivered to subscribers to The Albuquerque Journal with Thursday's edition. You may also read news, sports, opinions and letters to the editor, obituaries, legals, and classifieds online at the website. If you're reading the online version, don't forget to check the links to shorter topics such as the calendar, upcoming events, milestones, news briefs, police reports and this weekend notes which are interspersed in the news headlines.]