By Todd R. Hathorne Ciudad Opponent
Thank you for covering issues surrounding Ciudad Soil and Water Conservation District. I am the one who circulated the petition to dissolve the district. I want to correct misconceptions about my intentions and to solidify the rights of voters. Three points follow:
* Solutions: Voters want conservation within a framework of taxation priorities. What is paramount is that all governmental and private agencies work together to prioritize conservation spending.
I pledged to Ciudad officials that I support changing legislation so that the law does not grant taxing authority to the district and enhances efforts of conservation. Where are the private entities desiring to contribute to this effort? Why aren't they included in this formula?
Let's face it. Ciudad frames their job by saying the Rio Grande is the third dirtiest river in America. We have water that runs through a sand pile. How do you clean that up? More importantly, why is it that dirt is included in the definition of pollution? Sedimentation issues require separate discourse here.
* Taxes: Ciudad is a taxing authority. Let's be clear. 73-20-46 section A NMSA 1978 grants such authority. It is disingenuous to say no mill levy on the current tax bill means they do not have taxation authority. They are no different from other taxing authorities that have to get permission to tax. When a general obligation bond fails, counties or municipalities do not surrender taxing authority. Ciudad is a mechanism for spending taxes. A group of citizens writes grant proposals, using tax dollars from budgets obtained from the counties and state, to obtain grants from the federal and state government. Monies supplied to the grants come from the federal and state government coffers. Look at the list of grants for which Ciudad has applied. The lion's share is tax money.
What is so wrong with asking that fewer layers of government be involved? Ciudad has actually argued that there is a need for more taxes to be spent.
* Rights of the Voters/Property Owners: The law allows voters to dissolve the district and to vote on a mill levy when properly placed on the ballot. No other provisions exist in the statutes. Voters can only act on these two opportunities. Adding insult to injury is that the law allows only one venue for the voting public, albeit an anachronistic version of the electorate since property ownership is the criteria for eligibility to cast a ballot.
Ciudad's criterion for eligible voters creates a conflict: How do you explain that a non-registered voter cannot vote for president yet Ciudad will allow that person to vote if they own property? A renter is allowed to vote on general obligation bonds, but not on property tax issues for Ciudad. To the district's credit, they appear to be more prepared for the voters that will show on Sept. 17.
We have the right as voters to say who taxes us and for how much. Ciudad is pressured into prioritization with all other entities competing for tax dollars.
Changes work for the public in that Ciudad can be accountable for high funding levels. Voters get a much more focused effort from state and federal officials on water conservation. Officials at the Legislature will be cognizant of the need in light of all our spending.
Send a clear signal to Santa Fe. Vote YES to dissolve.
opinion 
E-mail Story
Print Friendly