OPINION: Talk of the Town

Hard to get specialty care in Las Cruces

My family doctor of 45 years retired. I contacted four doctors and could not get an appointment for two to three months. I finally found a doctor who could take me in a month. However, he was not satisfactory and would see me for about 15 minutes. I have multiple problems and needed an orthopedic doctor, who could not see me for two months. I had a 2 p.m. appointment with an ophthalmologist and waited two hours to see him. I have to go to El Paso, Texas, for treatment by an ophthalmologist who had to perform surgery because we do not have those doctors in Las Cruces. I waited one month to get an appointment with a cardiologist. Even doctors that I have for my other problems, have one- to two-hour wait times. Several doctors walked out of a hospital here because the hospital was bought out by a corporation.

Frances F. Williams

Las Cruces

Yearlong wait for hip consultation

I’m a 79-year-old senior and I usually go to University of New Mexico Hospital to get my health care. I got a call to make an appointment for a consultation with an orthopedic surgeon in the UNM system regarding a possible hip replacement. I was told the first available appointment was in July 2026. When I asked why it was so far out I was told that there’s only one orthopedic surgeon in the UNM system.

Eugenie Raff

Albuquerque

Make lawmakers fix NM’s broken system

The Journal should send every state senator and representative, as well as elected state officials, a copy of Journal Executive Editor Jay Newton-Small’s July 27 column about the real difficulty of finding a primary care physician in New Mexico. Those of us who have had similar experiences feel her pain and all New Mexicans should be ashamed of the current health care situation in our state. From this point forward, whenever a person who was sent that column is interviewed, he or she should be asked what he or she has done to improve health care in the state, and continue to be asked that question until there is actual improvement. Let us know who cares about this critical issue to address it and improve it, and those who wish to keep the status quo.

Jim Antosiak

Placitas

Albuquerque property owners be aware

On Wednesday, the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee (LUPZ) of the Albuquerque City Council will review Resolution, R-25-167, sponsored by City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn at the request of Mayor Tim Keller. The resolution will give some residential property owners the chance to “upzone” their properties. The city’s Planning Department begins its presentations by stating that zoning is rooted in racism, and that has led to segregation in Albuquerque.

The resolution aims to encourage multi-family development within single-family neighborhoods with limited parking requirements. The rationale for this measure is the “housing crisis” declared by the city’s paid consultants, which is not supported by current U.S. Census housing data, commercial research data and Housing and Urban Development data for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. The issue is a lack of affordable housing, which requires financial subsidies. Changing the definition of R-1 zoning, which currently allows one living unit per lot, will not magically create more affordable housing.

Property owners in single-family residential neighborhoods may find themselves in areas that are dotted or mixed with townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, multi-story apartments and commercial uses.

What happens to homeowners who purchased their homes expecting to live in a low-density single-family residential neighborhood? Tough luck.

Why should you care about this? This resolution allows zoning changes that significantly increase density and could alter the nature of residential neighborhoods without notifying property owners. This lack of notification shows contempt for homeowners, many of whom have worked for years to achieve the American Dream of home ownership. Sadly, instead of increasing the housing supply for first-time homeowners, this will reduce the number of single-family homes available for purchase.

What can you do? Contact your city councilor for more information and attend the next LUPZ meeting in the City Council Chambers on Aug. 13 at 5 p.m.

Evelyn Rivera

Albuquerque

Enforcing existing laws would deter crime

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different results. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham wants to hold a legislative special session to pass more laws on the presumption that this will prevent crime. Let’s examine the recent tragic shooting at the University of New Mexico and the many laws allegedly broken that did not prevent this atrocity.

First: An underaged teenager in possession of a handgun.

Second: Possession of a firearm on the UNM campus.

Third: Using illegal drugs.

Fourth: Being under the influence while in possession of a firearm.

Fifth: Operating a vehicle while under the influence.

Sixth: Unjustifiable homicide of a person.

So if we pass just one or two more laws, this senseless act of violence would not have happened?

Insanity.

Ron Smith

Albuquerque

End falsehoods about immigrants

City Councilor Dan Champine’s column, “ABQ needs balanced approach to immigration” in the July 29 Journal, seeks to balance public safety with recognizing the hard work and contributions of immigrants. But he fails to note the Trump administration’s false rhetoric, which portrays immigrants as violent criminals and the arrival of immigrants at our Southwest border as an “invasion.”

In fact, according to the Migration Policy Institute, “National studies have examined incarceration rates and prosecutions of immigrants in the country, overwhelmingly finding that immigrants of all legal statuses commit crimes at lower rates than those who were born in the United States.”

And according to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data gathering organization based at Syracuse University, “40,643 out of 56,816 — or 71.5% held in ICE detention have no criminal conviction according to data current as of July 13, 2025. Many of those convicted committed only minor offenses, including traffic violations.”

In reality, immigrants are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime than they are to be perpetrators.

Many were victims of violent crime in their countries of origin, or experienced family members being victimized, including murdered, which is why they left.

Many, especially women and children, have been victims of violent crime coming to the United States, including being kidnapped and held for ransom by Mexican cartels.

And, according to the Department of Homeland Security, immigrants may become victims of violent crime in the United States, including domestic violence and human trafficking, and may be eligible for U-visas or T-visas if they cooperate with law enforcement.

Deporting immigrants who committed violent crimes is certainly reasonable. But most immigrants at risk of deportation are no threat to public safety and are only seeking safety for themselves and an opportunity to contribute to our society. Let’s end the falsehoods and support more humane policies.

John Maddaus

Albuquerque

Ask GOP candidate about abortion stance

Journal Columnist Jeff Tucker’s enthusiasm for former health care executive Duke Rodriguez (Aug. 3 Sunday Journal) has some merit, but begs some questions. Rodriguez was secretary of our Human Services Department under Gov. Gary Johnson, a libertarian who said of abortion rights, “I support women’s rights to choose up until viability of the fetus. I’ve supported the notion of parental notification. I’ve supported counseling and I’ve supported the notion that public funds not be used. But I don’t want for a second to pretend that I have a better idea of how a woman should choose when it comes to this situation. Fundamentally this is a choice that a woman should have.”

Is this also the reasonable stance of Duke Rodriguez? Or like every other Republican in the country, has Rodriguez morphed into anti-safe-and-legal reproductive care for women. That should be the first, ultra-clear question posed to him should he become a candidate. Because it’s mighty clear that the bulwark of our very survival as free people under Trump will be at the state and local levels. Therefore, the voting public must demand of any and all respective candidates an answer to this question: “Do you support the policies and actions of the Trump administration?”

If the hopeful’s response is anything less than an unequivocal “no,” they should be summarily kicked to the curb. Sure, the Democrats in New Mexico and in Congress need to clean up their acts, but no one who truly cares to protect our fundamental democratic rights within a responsive republic should ever consider a Trumpian for leadership local, state, or nation. Ever again.

Margaret Porter

Albuquerque