Study officials trying to out-maneuver opposition
July 22, 2009
Officials leading the study of where to place a new interchange along Interstate 25 and a bridge across the Rio Grande to relieve congestion on Main Street in Los Lunas say they’re taking steps to out-maneuver any potential opposition to the study’s eventual proposal before the opposition can gain momentum.
During their first comments made to a community group, David Pennington of D. Pennington & Associates and Loretta Tollefson of the Mid-Region Council of Governments were confronted about possible opposition to the study’s proposal.
Valencia County Commissioner Ron Gentry, in attendance at the Rio Communities Association meeting, wanted to know how this new study was different from one done more than eight years ago that addressed the same topic. He wondered out loud how they intended to actually get the interchange and bridge approved and built this time.
“The corridor study was done,” Gentry said of the previous study. ”The highway department did all the work. There was over $30 million dollars sitting in the bank that came out of the federal government. It didn’t cost the Valencia or the state taxpayers a dollar. It sat there ready to go to construction, and you let probably 20 to 30 people protest every meeting of the county commission until they turned it down.”
Gentry said he worked on the previous effort led by the New Mexico Department of Transportation because he was a state legislator at the time.
Back then, the federal government provided tens of millions of dollars to build a new roadway and bridge, but opposition from people in Tome stopped it. He said the people who formed the opposition are still active in the community and even on the new study’s citizens advisory committee.
The committee is made up of nearly 18 locals, including several individuals who have expressed a need to protect the farming communities of Los Chavez and Tome-Adelino from a new river crossing.
“They all have very strong opinions. They don’t necessarily agree with each other or with us,” Pennington said. “But they’re providing very good input on the things we need to consider.”
Pennington acknowledged that two-thirds of the citizens advisory committee is made up of people “adamantly opposed to this project” but said the committee is by design not a decision-making body. He said the committee is being used to understand the opposition and their concerns.
“We want to understand exactly why they’re opposed to it,” he said, adding, “Quite frankly, if the community overall, if the bulk of the community doesn’t want this, then the money should be spent somewhere else.”
He acknowledged he doesn’t yet know whether or not the final study proposal, which is months away, will have majority opposition or majority support.
He said, however, the opposition will “overwhelm the process if others don’t get involved.” He urged interchange and bridge supporters to not remain silent but openly express their opinions.
He said the study officials are “avoiding” any type of public meeting that might allow “someone to stand up and speak and try to dominate the crowd.” He is opting instead for open houses, where the questions are asked and answers are given one-on-one. He also said they will use a workshop format where data is provided but opinions aren’t expressed.
The strategy suggests an effort to avoid public debate of the issue.
“I had some involvement in the previous study here,” Pennington said. “This is a tough community in terms of how they approach things.”
Pennington said that original study was set aside “because there was considerable political disagreement on the issue.” The county commission, because of public pressure, killed the bridge and returned the millions appropriated for it.
While the strategy toward public debate of the issue has obviously changed, Tollefson explained other changes. She said the county has a transportation plan — the Valencia County Mobility Plan — which reached consensus on the bridge in general terms, with buy-in from local governments.
“That was a major accomplishment,” she said.
She also said this time there’s a new commission, with a good chance the proposal can be approved by it. Gentry expressed skepticism, saying he would support it, but he wasn’t sure his fellow commissioners would. He also didn’t think Rep. Andrew Barreras would support it.
“You’re reinventing the wheel now and there’s no money now,” Gentry said, reiterating several times, “What are we going to do different?”
Pennington pointed out that the county has grown and the traffic has gotten worse since that original study.
“Is there somebody who’s going to have the backbone to say this is progress and we’re not going to yield to the little local political pressure?” Gentry asked.
He never received an answer to that question.
When Gentry said he knew exactly where the new bridge would be proposed, telling Pennington “I bet I can draw it for you,” Pennington said he, too, knew, but he wanted the study process to play itself out.
“I have a pretty good idea in my mind, based on my experience, on some potential solutions here,” he said, adding that he likes to consider all of the analysis, which is what the study will continue to develop over the next approximately 16 months.
But he offered to bet anyone $5 about what and where the congestion solution will be.
Posted in: Infrastructure