Thursday, June 22, 2023ABQ's Strong Mayor-Council Is Here To Stay; Council Rejects Plan To Send Big Switch To Voters, Plus: Council Okays Casitas, Also: Space Flight Refunds Eyed And Spending The Surplus Such a vote to change the City Charter required six of the nine councilors to send it to the voters who would then have to approve it at the city election in November. Last night the proposal was rejected 6 to three. Republican Councilors Lewis and Grout and conservative Dem Sanchez voted in favor but Republicans Bassan and Jones did not join them. Those two joined Dems Feibelkorn, Benton, Davis and Pena in voting not to forward the measure to voters. The debate over the switch saw Councilor Sanchez--one of the sponsors of the switch--getting hot tempered when it was disclosed that UNM poly sci professor Tim Krebs--who has been advocating against Sanchez's proposal--was being paid under a city contract to do so. Sanchez repeatedly dismissed Krebs as "a paid advocate." The administration defended Krebs' contract, saying he was hired to do factual research on what such a change would mean for the city. However, the administration not disclosing at the start that Krebs was being paid gave Sanchez some ammo. For his part Krebs made a persuasive case for the current form of government, saying that it represents the "best of both worlds." That's because the Charter mandates that a Chief Administrative Officer--akin to a city manager--be hired to run the day to day affairs of the city who must be approved by the council and mayor. The current CAO is Lawrence Rael who also held the post under Mayor Chavez. One of the useful things that came out of the debate last night was an increased interest in consolidating the city and county governments a proposal that has been repeatedly rejected by voters but the last time was 20 years ago. Maybe another try in 2024? SI TO CASITAS The Council gave its stamp of approval for allowing more single family homeowners in the city to build small casitas on their property but nixed the plan to also add duplexes. More here. NO REFUND? Reader Mike Davis raises a relevant question arising from the news of the day: I wonder if Ocean Gate and the pursuant massive media coverage with no end in sight will cause any of the scheduled passengers for June 27-June 30 launch of Virgin Galactic and subsequent scheduled monthly ones to do any soul searching? I suspect the liability waiver they signed also had a clause about death as per the one for Ocean Gate. I wonder if a person gets their $250,000 refunded by Sir Richard should they decide to stay earth bound? My bet says no refund. We searched and found this answer regarding space flights by Virgin from the WaPo. Back in 2014, after a Virgin Galactic space plane crashed during a test flight, several passengers reportedly asked for — and received — a refund of their $250,000 tickets. But today, Virgin Galactic’s refund policy is nowhere to be found on its site. Nor is a ticket contract or any mention of the company’s obligations to passengers. I asked Virgin Galactic about its passenger rights provisions. The company publishes basic pricing for its spaceflight on its site. The total cost of a trip to space is $450,000, beginning with a $150,000 fee that includes and a nonrefundable deposit of $25,000. A spokeswoman said it has a “standard” refund policy and can give your money back if you decide not to fly. THINKING SURPLUS  Joe, In your June 12th blog you stated that the state is overwhelmed with "Billions in Surplus" of revenue forthcoming due to oil production and higher interests rates. The big question for the upcoming legislative session will be what to do with the money. I suggest we give it to the children of low income families and especially single mothers with no strings attached, just as was done by the Feds during the pandemic. All the stats reported how effective it was in moving children and low income families out of poverty. It worked. As a poor state, this makes sense versus giving everyone another tax bonus or break on their taxes. The younger the child the larger the assistance. Another use of the money would be to improve the plight of foster care, the families that take unwanted youth and the youth themselves--more training and education for families and more options and support to the foster kids. Create a financial bank account for the foster kids that cannot be touched by the adults available to them when they turn 18 or even 21. Just thinking. And thanks for those thoughts, Ken. This is the home of New Mexico politics. E-mail your news and comments. (newsguy@yahoo.com) Interested in reaching New Mexico's most informed audience? Advertise here.   (c)NM POLITICS WITH JOE MONAHAN 2023 |
|
