CURRENT ISSUES

By Patricia Willson 3.3.25 

Albuquerque’s zoning code was completely re-written in 2018 and renamed the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO). Since 2019 there have been 5 updates with over 500 amendments. Information can be found here: https://www.cabq.gov/planning/codes-policies-regulations/integrated-development-ordinance-1. Previously, IDO amendments followed a mandated three-step process that took about 8 months from start to finish, with lots of opportunity for review. 

O-24-69, sponsored by Councilors Dan Lewis and Joaquin Baca, was a batch of IDO amendments that ignored the City’s accepted three-step process. It was introduced and voted on in three weeks—over the holidays—with no Committee or public review. The final enacted version, as well as the Interactive IDO, are available here: https://abq-zone.com/ Perhaps because of controversy surrounding the compressed timeline of this bill, City has added a special FAQ page about it: https://abq-zone.com/o-24-69-frequently-asked-questions 

According to the City’s re-framing of this legislation (found here: https://www.cabq.gov/council/find-your-councilor/district-5/news/addressing-albuquerque2019s-housing-through-smart-policy-reform) the key changes include:

• Makes duplexes, townhouses, and multifamily housing permissive in Main Street and Major Transit Corridors

(see map below)

• Eliminates administrative appeals for projects on City property

• Requires petitions for Neighborhood Association appeals: A majority of property owners or tenants within 660

feet of the application site must sign a petition supporting the appeal

• Makes the losing appellant responsible for the appellee’s legal fees to reduce frivolous appeals *

While the “Smart Policy Reform” website proclaims that the purpose of these amendments is “to spur development of affordable housing”, nothing in the bill requires any percentage of new construction to be affordable. Also, not mentioned are sections in the bill that allow the City Council to submit changes to the IDO at any time, outside of the prescribed amendment update process, for both Citywide and Small Area Amendments. This means no review, oversight, or input by the Planning Department, the public, the EPC or the LUPZ committees. A sponsoring City Councilor is not required to recuse themselves from applications they sponsor or sponsor by request.

This ordinance is not about affordable housing. It is about marginalizing neighborhood associations and eroding the zoning amendment process. By removing the protections in place around IDO amendments, City Council may choose to upzone any area of town without oversight or proper notification. The areas shown on the map are just a foot in the door for similar upzoning along all the corridors marked in green. Data for any increase in affordable housing created by previous legislation has not been provided.

* O-25-73, a bill that proposes deleting the Section on Appeal Costs, passed at LUPZ on 2.26.25 and will be heard at full Council later in March.

Patricia Willson 

Victory Hills NA: Past President 

District 6 Coalition: Treasurer Inter-Coalition Council Representative  

PLANNING SHOULD BE DONE BY THE PLANNERS!

On Jan.6th, the City Council passed O-24-69: several amendments to the Integrated Development Ordinance (IDO); the City’s zoning code. These changes not only ‘upzoned’ a wide swath along Central, 4th Street, Broadway, and Bridge, but other parts of the bill make it nearly impossible for a neighborhood association or coalition to appeal a project. Upzoning is the process of allowing duplexes, townhomes and apartments permissively—often along transit corridors—to increase density. 

Upzoning has mixed reviews; see links to articles below. In some cases, it provides successful TOD (transit oriented development). In other instances, it harms the low-income people it was intended to help—creating gentrification, causing areas to become richer and whiter, and forcing lower income, transit dependent people further out.

O-24-69 was entirely drafted by the City Council; the Planning Department had no hand in it. The nine members of our City Council have a wide range of talent, skills, and backgrounds, yet none of them have professional expertise in urban planning, architecture, traffic engineering or transit design.

How can we assure that the upzoning created by the passage of O-24-69 will result in good outcomes, and not harm lower income people and further marginalize our neighborhoods?

O-24-69 does not truly address the issues of housing and homelessness. The development community successfully used that re-framing to get what they wanted—little to no oversight by Neighborhood Associations and Coalitions. The bill decimated the IDO amendment process (a carefully curated march through Committee and public review and input) and severely compromised your right of appeal. Who has the time and money to collect signatures and pay court costs? Members of Strong Towns ABQ are concerned about ever being able to buy a house, developers are concerned about their quarterly profit.

Approval for any development here should include an analysis of:

1) Water use sustainability

2) Its true role in the economy (cannabis dispensaries, car washes, drive-thru coffee shops and cheap apartments are real estate development, not economic development)

3) Labor market: our quality of schools does not attract high-wage jobs

4) Increased heat and fire danger—just look at Los Angeles...

5) Land carrying capacity (the U.N. reports how increasing density aggravates desert aridification)

While the bill passed with a veto-proof majority, Mayor Keller believes that neighborhood engagement is an important aspect of City government and has expressed his desire to repair the Neighborhood Association Recognition Ordinance (NARO) and the IDO’s exclusion of previously established sector plans. Again, how can we assure that the upzoning created by the passage of O-24-69 will result in good outcomes, and not harm lower income people and further marginalize our neighborhoods?

Information about upzoning:

A January 3rdarticle on Strong Towns, “The Best Evidence Yet for the “Housing Musical Chairs” Theory”, discusses the ‘migration chain’: the sequence of associated moves when someone moves into nicer market rate housing, then their older, less-nice place becomes available for someone with a lower income. Link to that article: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/1/3/the-best-evidence-yet-for-the-housing-musical-chairs-theory?fbclid=IwY2xjawHvaCJleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHa1i2HfN13BVKojNcX41To6U7Z32Eni5E1cJTgGGXG9rLt4JTrSBmk9DVA_aem_RnJRjUx1XE4HIzO3VlgaMQ

The source material for this is a study out of Sweden https://stephenhoskins.notion.site/Liang-Kindstr-m-2023-Does-new-housing-for-the-rich-benefit-the-poor-On-trickle-down-effects-of--982d9cca809b475b86faca56f131a99b (however, Sweden has a noticeably richer and more homogenous population).

This study presents a case for the dangers of up-zoning; that it can increase gentrification and actually cause neighborhoods to become richer and whiter. Here is a link to “Upzoning and gentrification: Heterogeneous impacts of neighborhood-level upzoning in NYC”: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00420980241298199

While the first two articles make a strong argument for this template, it may not translate well to a low-population, low-wage earning desert. New Mexico is facing unprecedented climate conditions that no state or country has solved.