CASHWELL: P&Z HEARING PROCEDURE

REMARKS ON THE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION’S PROCEDURE FOR HEARING THE CASHWELL REZONING REQUEST

Presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) meeting, August 25, 2011

Stephen M. Barro

October 2, 2011

This is a slightly edited version of remarks presented at the PZC hearing on the Cashwell matter, with some material added (shown in brackets) to clarify the context.  The hearing is to continue on October 27, 2011.  As yet, there has been no word on whether the PZC intends to make any changes in its procedure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Steve Barro.  I live at 1 Alto Court in Placitas.  I was going to comment on certain negative aspects of the proposed Cashwell development and on aspects of the Cashwell plan that do not meet the tests set forth in the zoning ordinance, but under the circumstances I believe that the procedural issues have priority, and those are the only things I am going to talk about.  I think the process we are going through right now illustrates the importance of the points that attorney Paul Livingston made at the beginning of this proceeding, [when he requested that the Cashwell matter be considered in a full quasi-judicial hearing, as the law requires.]

The Cashwell representatives and their County staff allies have spoken for over an hour and a half.  You have allowed them to offer an organized, uninterrupted presentation [in support of their application for Special Use zoning that would allow a clustered housing development on the Cashwell property.]  We, the opponents [of the rezoning request and the proposed development], who represent the overwhelming preponderance of opinion in the Placitas community, are being limited to fragmentary two- to five-minute remarks.  And on top of that, you apparently are ready to give the applicants the last word as well as the first.

Now, I have had the pleasure of reading the New Mexico Supreme Court decision in the Albuquerque Commons case, in which Mr. Flynn-O’Brien [the Cashwells’ attorney] played such a prominent role.  With respect to quasi-judicial procedure, the prominent themes in that decision are fairness, justice, and due process.  You are giving us none of those.  If you wanted to be fair, you would give our side the same one- to two-hour opportunity to present our own coherent, organized case, and then the full opportunity to rebut, point by point, everything that the applicants have had to say.  Short of that, this hearing does not come close to being fair or to giving us the due process that the law requires.

When Cashwell came up in 2009, we in the community did not know or understand our procedural rights in this matter.  This time we know them.  So I’m going to offer you a prediction.  If you go ahead and go through this process in the manner that Chairman Arango has outlined, without giving us equal time or an equal opportunity, I predict that this time Placitas residents will not roll over; that we will pursue the procedural question before all relevant bodies and in all relevant forums, however long it may take.  Thank you for your attention.