E-mail Story
Print Friendly
Send E-mail
Reprint story
Journal North: Home | Sports | Opinion | Obits | Entertainment
Sunday, June 21, 2009
In the Dark About Plans
By Karen Peterson
Of the Journal
About three months ago, to some fanfare, Gov. Bill Richardson signed a bill that would require county governments to notify tribes about nearby planned subdivisions and take tribal views into account when deciding whether to approve future developments.
The new law was greeted as “logical and sensible,” by one Santa Fe County Commissioner and hailed by the Navajo legislator who carried the bill as proof that “everyone is committed to sitting at the table” to work out reasonable and equitable solutions to what are, after all, common problems.
Sounds great. But here's the key question: Where's the reciprocity on this issue? There isn't a law (federal, tribal or whatever) requiring tribes to notify counties (or other local governments on their borders, for that matter) about their development plans. And they rarely do so.
Most of the territory from Santa Fe north to Taos qualifies as Exhibit A in this discussion, since eight of the state's 19 pueblos lie in the area. Santa Fe County alone includes four pueblo reservations and parts of two others. In the city, the Santa Fe Indian School, owned by the All Indian Pueblo Council, is on federal trust land, as are reservations. State and local development and zoning regulations and the like don't apply in these areas.
The Indian School property has been the center of controversy for nearly a year, ever since Santa Feans woke up one morning last July to find the fine old Pueblo Revival-style buildings, some of which had been decorated inside with historically significant murals and other art, were in the process of being torn down. Over the course of the next few months, they were gradually reduced to rubble, which was then trucked away. Finally, the big, old trees that had shaded the old campus were all cut down.
What will be built there? Nobody appears to know, and All Indian Pueblo Council and school officials have refused to comment except to say that whatever it is, it must bring in revenue for the school, now installed in an adjacent set of new buildings some distance away from the Cerrillos Road frontage. For Mayor David Coss and others, that revenue stipulation hints at commercial development of some type, but that's about all anyone can figure out.
“They've been pretty tight-lipped about it,” Coss said of school officials.
The city has very little jurisdiction over what happens in any case — as tribal trust land, the school acreage is subject to federal oversight. Coss says the city does control water and sewage service, and thus, in the “absolutely worst case,” could refuse to supply these services to the new development. But, said Coss, “that's not something we're contemplating.”
The Department of Transportation hopes to have some say about traffic access to the site from Cerrillos Road, which is a state highway.
Regis Pecos, from House Speaker Ben Lujan's office, said “discussions over time” among DOT, city and Indian School officials “have underscored the need to develop a more formal relationship” among all the entities involved. Lujan's office brokered a meeting among the parties last fall, according to Pecos and the mayor. But nothing has happened since then.
Late last month, Pecos, a former director of the state's Office of Indian Affairs, said he was planning to arrange another meeting among the parties sometime this summer. Because the site is close to a new Rail Runner commuter train station and what may become a new, commercial-residential development on the current Department of Transportation headquarters, Pecos said, all the entities in the area have some “really unprecedented opportunities” at coordinating their plans. The New Mexico School for the Deaf is also remodeling its campus and will probably tear down some of its aging buildings, and should probably be involved, too, Pecos said.
“One question is how we should collectively work toward redesigning traffic, different modes of transportation, and make Cerrillos more pedestrian friendly,” Pecos said.
Again, it sounds great. But will it happen?
“The idea is, we should have frequent and frank discussions about what we're all planning, and maybe a memo of understanding,” Pecos said. “The speaker felt it would be timely to bring all the folks together in hopes what might come about would be a movement toward a formalized relationship between the two school, the city and the DOT, that they would sustain a dialogue about the master-planning process.”
“Everyone might have the benefit of the opportunity to understand what each was doing,” he continued, “and in doing so, it might be possible to share — respect our independence, but if each knows what each is doing, the planning processes might complement each other.”
And well they might, but not if all that happens is talk about talking. And not even that is happening yet. Pecos said last week that he hasn't yet succeeded in setting up the next meeting. “It's been difficult trying to coordinate with the entities,” he said. “They've expressed desire to have a dialogue.”
You also can send comments via our comment form
|
|
