NM list PING! Click on the flag to go to the Free Republic New Mexico message page.
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Posted on 03/30/2011 8:19:45 AM PDT by Crusher138
The voters of Rio Rancho voted down a $22 million bond proposal yesterday by a more than 2 to 1 margin.
The proposal - which was strongly opposed by the local Tea Party - would have raised money to repair roads and to expand and extend existing roads.
City officials claimed that the bond was needed as general revenues were not sufficient to maintain existing roads.
The Tea Party claimed that with recent increases in the Gross Receipt (Sales) Tax and property taxes general revenues should be sufficient. They also argued that the projects were poorly planned and that the city was being less than honest in portraying the cost of the bond issue.
The city advertised that the Bond Issue would not raise taxes, but neglected to point out that property tax bills on an average Rio Rancho home would drop by over $500 over five years if the bond were not passed.
The Tea Party fought the city with a grass roots effort that included door to door campaigning, shoe polish "graffiti" on car windows (voluntary), and ads in the local newspaper.
The city spent over $65,000 on the special election and the independent "Committee for Responsible Roads" spent an amount "in the thousands of dollars" to convince voters that the bond was needed.
Prior to this vote the local newspapers and television stations had many "be sure to vote" spots promoting the special election, but this morning there was scant coverage of the bond's defeat.
A local radio station, 770 KKOB, which tends to be conservative, is reporting the results and that officials in Albuquerque are now worried about the upcoming $150 million in bond issues that will be coming before voters in October.
Who needs roads?
/s
Thing is there IS money for roads. The city has just chosen to spend that money on other things.
The voters are sending a message that they want their officials to reassess their priorities.
NM list PING! Click on the flag to go to the Free Republic New Mexico message page.
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Rio Rancho has a problem with electing mayors who can actually do the job. Kevin Jackson was a complete disaster. Swisstack is a Dem hack. (Hey, that rhymed!)
The best mayor they’ve had in recent years is Jim Owen.
I say too flipping bad. I didn't realize Cabezon Sub was built after they used Eminent Domain to rip off the original owners of the properties there. I would never have moved in (rental, moved out in 6 months - crap house, crap development, crap crap) had I known that.
Agree... All communities, states and feds have to set the example an make deep cuts in budgets an get frugal fast or we all go Detroit dead.....
Public employees...8 hour day with two 15 minute breaks an a 30 minute lunch is a basic start. Bring back road gangs made up prison inmates. Weed hoe is a great rehab tool for the criminal mind as well as county an state budgets.
My opinion only....
Huh. Imagine that.
I'm sure it was an honest omission.
Some of the folks calling in on Bob Clark’s show this AM from the tea party made great arguments about why this failed.
Keep up the good work!
The eminent domain bill for Rio Rancho had some interesting restrictions in it:
They couldn’t eminent domain any developed property. Even if it just had utilities, it would be exempt.
The property owner would have a choice of a cash purchase or a stake in the profit of the development.
Most of the property in question (25,000 lots) is owned by over 30,000 individuals in 17 countries. Most are owned by second and third generation decedents who have no idea what they own. Many of these lots are actually on the sides of arroyos! There are no utilities and there won’t be any time soon. Offering $8K - $10K for these lots is generous. Unfortunately many of these “owners” think they have won the lottery when they hear that a development is in the works. They ask $80K- $100K for their lots and the developers back out.
Because Rio Rancho was founded on land fraud we need SOME way of consolidating these small lots or Rio Rancho will remain mostly undeveloped dirt with high property taxes for those who stay.
Hadn't heard this before. Please explain.
I have heard it mentioned that folks who bought out here thought they had water, and they didn't, but that was in the 70s, before Rio Rancho became an incorporated city.
As far as development goes, I agree there should be a way to reach an agreement, but really, developers come in, take a half-acre lot at $10,000-$15,000 and put four houses on that same lot (current development in Cabezon is 8 houses to an acre, with open space for a park). So, you know the developers were making coin on those lots when they sold them to the builders and the same when the builder sold the home/lot to the homeowner, no way should a dime-sized home on a penny-sized lot cost $200,000. I lived there, and it was a pain. No back-yard unless you had a two-story, and even then the lots were not big enough to play catch in.
Nowadays, most of those empty lots are going for anywhere between $10-50,000. The price goes up or down depending on how close they are to utilities and existing or new developments. I don't think $30,000 for a half-acre with utilities and paved roads to it is too high. The real issue I have with the half-acre lots is that they are mostly 80' wide by 272' deep. I'd much prefer a square lot.
Amrep, the original developer of Rio Rancho, started off as a telemarketing scheme selling retirement living to folks in the northeast and midwest. Amrep, however, had no intention of delivering on it’s promises of parks, roads, etc. They were convicted of fraud and, as part of the settlement, actually provided that which they promised. Ever seen the movie/play “Glenngary, Glen Ross?” In that movie they are working for Rio Rancho Estates.
Please understand, a large percentage of these lots are WORTHLESS. They cannot be developed because they are IN AN ARROYO! The only worth that they have is part of a larger whole.
I have actually suggested that the statues regarding property values be amended to allow the county to consider “statements of value” made by the lot owner when computing land value for property tax purposes. You can’t have it both ways - either your lot is worth the $80K you claim it is and it can be taxed at that amount, or it is work the $8K you have been currently paying taxes on.
I would counter-argue that, unless the property sold for that $80K, the value is what it was at the last purchase, including any lawfully-authorized increase in value for tax purposes. Where I live, there is very little land abutting the arroyos. Most of what is around me is out on the west mesa (Rainbow/Southern to Rainbow/Northern). I live on a half-acre lot in that area. Again, I'd have no problem paying for a single lot I'd want to build on, but agree there has to be something done - no empty half-acre lot in Rio Rancho is worth more than $30k to me, and that would have to be with paved roads and utilities, less for dirt/utilities. I hate the fact I live on a dirt road, but that's what I chose when I went looking - price was certainly a factor, as was lot size, and I'm only about 500 feet off the pavement, so it isn't that bad.
What irks me is the willingness the mayor has to take something from someone to give it to someone else for increased tax revenues and, despite the Kelo ruling, defying the spirit of eminent domain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.