SOURCE: Santa Fe County
Area 1B consists of about 1,100 acres of land mostly governed by Santa Fe County, including the Coyote Ridge subdivision. Homewise owns a little more than 200 acres of that land, in some instances under a different business name. The company’s executive director says it one day intends to build housing there. The State of New Mexico owns about 120 acres and a company called Sunspear owns about 70 acres.
Santa Fe County and the City of Santa Fe remained embroiled in a fight over future annexation near the Agua Fria Traditional Historic Community as county commissioners on Monday night punted a vote until at least May 30.
The two jurisdictions have recently been at odds over completion of promises made in a court settlement more than two decades ago, with matters coming to a head in mid-April when the city filed a District Court injunction against the county to attempt to stop a vote. The commission voted unanimously at the special meeting to continue the hearing at its regular meeting at the end of the month.
Residents of an area between Alameda and NM 599 near the Agua Fria village boundaries have petitioned the county to adopt about 1,100 acres into the village as a way of avoiding formal annexation by the city. Large landowners in the area, however, want to see the annexation go through and told county commissioners they plan to sue if the county approves the change.
The area, identified in the city/county annexation settlement agreement from 2008 as “1B,” has been under the city’s zoning jurisdiction since the initial agreement, but that document called for the city to annex the area by 2018. The annexation never took place, and people who live in the area and who participated in a petition drive now say they don’t ever want to be part of the city limits.
Monday’s single-topic commission meeting lasted well beyond six hours and consisted of about four hours of public comment along with two separate executive sessions to consider threatened or pending litigation—one before and one after the public testimony.
Ed Crocker, who owns 42 acres of land in 1B and who grew up in Agua Fria, said he disagreed with dropping the area from annexation plans and hinted that he would consider it a taking if his property is effectively downzoned.
“If the Agua Fria Village people are going to go around door-to-door and start collecting, they better be collecting something more than signatures because I’m going to put up a fight,” Crocker told commissioners.
Homewise owns several tracts in the area and claims rights to other tracts that are owned by different entities. Attorney Frank Herdman told commissioners he represents Homewise and two other corporate entities with a total of more than 200 acres in the area and warned of a “trainwreck” if the commission added the land to the Agua Fria territory. Herdman cited an agreement between the city and the county establishing the city has jurisdiction over zoning issues and raised county zoning laws that he says would upend the current designations in the area.
“There are some very serious legal consequences of what is being proposed this evening,” Herdman warned.
Meanwhile, the city’s court filing on April 21 sought to pre-empt the county from voting on the boundary change, with attorneys making the case, among other arguments, that it makes more sense to incorporate the area into the city because residents can tie into city water, use city trash services and because the land and houses don’t actually fit in with the historically rich village to the south.
“Area 1B is not identifiable as part of the current Agua Fria [Traditional Historic District] any more than any other part of the land surrounding it, much of which is already part of the city,” the legal filing reads.
The county filed its response this past weekend asserting the city was attempting to exercise prior restraint and disallow the rights of residents.
Much of the public testimony included passionate pleas from both sides that sometimes included tears and terse words.
“For 14 years, we’ve been unable to vote in city elections, yet the city has gone ahead by its own admission in planning behind the scenes in how it’s going to develop our area,” said Tamar Banar, a former school teacher who has lived in the area with her husband since 1988 and wants to join Agua Fria. She pointed to lack of services and noted the original agreement allowed for a petition like the one she and her neighbors have submitted: “The city..., in my opinion, has acted in bad faith and betrayed us and the residents of the other 17 areas, many of whom are frankly still awaiting services promised to them all those years ago.”
James Borrego, a developer who has completed housing projects in both the city and the county, chastised city leadership for failures even outside Area 1B, pointing specifically to a portion of West Alameda collapsing earlier this month.
“This annexation reminds me of a kid whose eyes are bigger than his stomach,” Borrego said. “If we look around the City of Santa Fe right now, what can we see that the city has done correctly?”
Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber, city manager John Blair and city Councilor Jamie Cassutt all spoke to the commission. The city also submitted a letter as public comment, urging commissioners to step back from considering the ordinance to allow negotiations to continue.
“I can understand and I can appreciate the frustration of residents in area 1B. They feel that they haven’t been heard, they look back on the record of annexation and wonder why it has not happened…,” Webber said, adding later that the vote could “profoundly change the future of an entire section that has agreed to be part of the city, environmental as well as human.”
Homewise CEO Mike Loftin called on those seeking to cut ties from the city out of frustration to consider that a separation might cause “more problems than it solves.” Though no formal plans have been filed, Homewise aims to develop homes in the area, a project Loftin says requires urban density and services.
“I’d really like us to calm down and focus on what is best for county and what is best for the community,” Loftin said.
Commissioners made few comments during the hearing. Commission Chair Anna Hansen, who called the matter a “challenging situation,” explained that during the second executive session the board determined to continue the hearing on May 30 and plans to seek testimony only on whether the proposal from residents meets legal criteria.
“We need more information and we appreciate what everyone has brought to us,” said Commissioner Anna Hamilton.
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story was updated to add context.
