Ten Reasons to Shut the Rail Runner Down Now

Paul Gessing

Ten Reasons to Shut the Rail Runner Down Now
At last, more than five years after it went into service, New Mexico taxpayers are being given a clearer picture of the Rail Runner’s finances. And, far from costing $400 million to build (as contemporary estimates led the public and legislators to believe), the latest information available indicates that the train will cost $843.3 million for infrastructure costs alone. These payments include two lump sum payments of $230 million per year in 2025 and 2027 which enabled then Governor Richardson to take credit for the project while sticking future elected leaders and taxpayers in with the bill. This “buy now,” pay later mentality is what got so many American homeowners into trouble and it is why the nation’s credit rating has been downgraded. The practice must be stopped. As if putting off the actual payment of infrastructure costs were not enough, the aforementioned tally of expenses does not include annual operating costs of $23.8 million, of which only about 14 percent are paid by fares. The following is a list of ten reasonsthat it makes sense for Gov. Martinez to do the current and future taxpayers of New Mexico a favor by shutting down the Rail Runner. Read full column here: New New Mexico

READ MORE - Ten Reasons to Shut the Rail Runner Down Now

Endangered Species Regulatory Process: Filled with Secrecy, Speculation, and Contradiction

Marita Noon

History tells us that listing a critter as an endangered species does little for the species and can do a great deal of harm to the local economies—the spotted owl and the delta smelt are two oft-cited cases. But there is not a big body of evidence showing how the listing decisions were made. It was just assumed that the species plight warranted protection. But that was before the listing proposal for the dunes sagebrush lizard threatened a large segment of U.S. domestic oil production and the economies of Southeastern New Mexico and West Texas. Rallies in opposition to the listing have drawn hundreds of irate citizens, hearings on the matter have had overflow crowds, and the public register has pages and pages of public comment. Both ABC and Fox News have done stories on the lizard.

Sand Lizard

Acting on the outrage of his constituents and using his law enforcement background, New Mexico State Representative Dennis Kintigh gathered a group of independent scientists—several from area universities—who have spent the last several months reviewing the science underlying the listing. Their report will be released in a public meeting on Monday, August 15, in Artesia, New Mexico, in a roundtable format with the scientists available for questions.

Combining Kintigh’s FBI skills with the scientists’ expertise, the team is exposing fatal flaws in the proposed rule that should bring every previous listing, and the entire process, into question.

Dennis Kintigh

While the complete report will be available online on Monday, I’ve met with Kintigh and have a draft copy.
One of the biggest concerns is the supposedly independent peer review of the science on which the proposed rule is based. The Federal Register states: “It is the policy of the services to incorporate independent peer review in listing and recovery activities.” To the average citizen, the underlying science may appear to have independent peer review as five different universities are listed as offering review—however, no names of the individuals or their qualifications are provided.

Desert Pupfish

The anonymous peer review process is routine in scientific journals, but in such settings, there is an established and trusted editorial board and reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest. But in Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings, the public should be appalled by the shroud of secrecy. This decision involves public money and has a large potential for direct economic impact on the surrounding communities, and, to a lesser extent, the whole country. At the least, peer review needs to be transparent. Better yet would be a process where advocates from each side can clash openly before independent decision makers. Read rest of column here: News New Mexico

READ MORE - Endangered Species Regulatory Process: Filled with Secrecy, Speculation, and Contradiction

Harbison: The Odds Are Against You

Jim Harbison

If you attended Monday’s Las Cruces City Council meeting it was clearly obvious that the odds do not favor jobs, business, or the citizens. The City Council imposed impact fees on new construction at a time when building trade jobs continue to disappear and their unemployment continues to rise. Even though the opponents of impact fees outnumbered the proponents by about 50 to 1 the Council chose to ignore the will of the people and implemented additional job killing impact fees.

Las Cruces City Hall

 When building trades jobs disappear other businesses are adversely affected. The restaurants have fewer customers and lay off waiters and cooks. Retail establishments sell fewer goods and are forced to reduce both staff and inventory. When inventory is reduced other businesses have to reduce production staff and the vicious cycle continues its downward spiral.

Unemployment is destructive for workers and their families. They struggle to provide food, clothing and housing for their families and are reduced to surviving on various forms of public assistance. Since they have limited income their spending habits change which negatively impacts other local businesses. For more than two years we have heard from all levels of government that their most important concern is job creation. And yet local governments continue to impose every possible constraint to successful job creation. They continue to pass ordinances that constrain, restrict, or prohibit business development and job creation. And yet they wonder why the gross receipts tax revenue is declining or why large businesses choose to locate their operations and jobs in other cities.

These new impact fees will add more than $600,000 to the cost of a Wal-Mart sized store or business. Why would HP, Intel, or a “green” industry want to expand their business in Las Cruces? For the small business owner the impact fees will add approximately $30,000 to the costs of a 10,000 square foot building. In each case long term financing will substantially increases their cost. According to a prominent local developer these impact fees will increase the average new apartment rental by $20 per month.
The Mayor claimed that the fees would only add a few dollars each month to the cost of a new home and that there would be significant insurance savings from improved fire protection and flood control. These statements were refuted by members of the public who deal with investment financing every day and truly understand amortization costs. One Councilor made the comment that we do not need more housing or commercial space and that realtors and developers should go find “green” jobs - how insulting to their professions.

The arrogance and ignorance of this City Council is appalling. Apparently the Council fails to understand that impact fees are only collected from new construction and when you halt new construction you halt collection of impact fees. It doesn’t matter what the public wants because this Council believes the public is ignorant and they know what is best for us even if we don’t recognize it. Their progressive agenda prevents growth in Las Cruces and severely limit its citizens from ever improving their economic situation. It also unfortunately forces citizens to become economically dependent on the benevolence of the City Council.

A truly benevolent City Council would go out of its way to improve the employment opportunities within the City rather than discouraging them. It’s time to elect a new City Council and Mayor who will genuinely be concerned about the economic prosperity and the general well being of the citizens rather than protecting their special interest groups and pet projects.

READ MORE - Harbison: The Odds Are Against You

Harbison: What is Your Mayor Doing?

Jim Harbison

The 79th Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors held its meeting in June 17-21, 2011 in Baltimore, MD. Mayors from across the nation attended and “represented” their cities. From my perspective I would say they misrepresented my values and supported positions I strongly oppose. The Mayor of Las Cruces was there and it is a good chance your mayor was a participant as well. The record of their proceedings can be found here.
These mayors get together each year to discuss issues and build consensus to formulate national policy initiatives. They are a powerful group that lobbies, individually and collectively, for more money for their cities. Money that by the way is collected from the tax payers. The resolutions they pass send strong messages to the U.S. Congress about the type of legislation they want to be passed and the social programs that should be retained or created.

I would bet you are unaware of some of the resolutions adopted during this last conference. Without going into great detail of all the resolutions contained in this 192 page document I will highlight some of those that impact our freedoms or property rights, increase government control or raise our taxes. Most of them can be directly linked to the social programs enumerated in the various chapters in UN Agenda 21. They cover nearly all aspects of our daily lives including open space, nuclear weapons, immigration, public funded housing, urban redevelopment, climate change and environmental protection, controls over public lands, educational policies, public transportation and high speed rail, restrictions on residential and commercial development, agricultural reform, electric vehicles and even red-light cameras.

There is a common trend in all the adopted resolutions. They propose expansion of both the national and local governments and greater government control over our daily lives. They are clearly designed to restructure America. It seems it will be impossible to satisfy the unquenchable demands for more of your tax dollars to support these programs. The “wealthy” middle class taxpayers will again be contributing a disproportionate share of the financial burden to support their mayor’s liberal policies.

They passed a resolution to implement the Dream Act expeditiously and adopt comprehensive immigration reform and asked for $1,825 billion next year for affordable housing. Another resolution assumes we are all advocates of the electric vehicle and willing to contribute significant taxpayer funding for research and development to get 1-million electric vehicles on the highways by 2015. They also requested $556 billion for high speed rail.
There were a host of climate change and environmental resolutions that each mayor adopted on your behalf including funding Climate Showcase Communities at $20 million per year.

Did your mayor seek your opinion when they voted to reaffirm the right of state and local governments to exercise liens or assess special taxes or other property obligations for energy efficiency improvements? I didn’t think so. And if the costs of goods and services weren’t high enough they proposed creating an Affirmative Sustainable Procurement Program where all products purchased will need a third party validated climate neutral certificate guaranteeing that there are no hidden carbon liabilities And lastly, I know we must be thrilled to know that our mayors recognized the vital work of United Nations Association of the United States of America in cities across America and encouraged us to become well-informed about international issues and how they affect our communities. Finally, something I can agree with. We all need to know what our mayors, as well as the United Nations, are doing to fundamentally change and dismantle our society.

READ MORE - Harbison: What is Your Mayor Doing?

Harbison: Individuals vs. the Community

Jim Harbison

We are in a world of shifting political and social concepts and institutions. Daily we hear about stakeholders, visioning, and consensus. We hire consultants to conduct focus group meeting to determine the ideal society. They devise what represents the community good or community values. Each is trying to manipulate the data in support of some preconceived objective. We are experiencing increasing regulatory actions at all levels of government to create better communities according to some stakeholder group’s vision. Hilary Clinton wanted us to all believe that it “takes a village” and we are all part of that village.

Hillary Clinton

This “village” is now politically known by another term – “Communitarianism”. A generally acceptable definition is that it is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the rights of the community or “common good” above those of the individual. Others would say it is the balancing of the rights of the individual against those of the community and “civil society”. It is also the current politically correct term for socialism.
Communitarianism is also a major component of Agenda 21 where the community is now defined as the global village and anything identified as serving the community common good takes precedence over the rights of the individual. Under the U.S. Constitution the “community” has no rights and society is reflective of the rights and responsibilities of the individuals.

Communitarians believe that behaviors in civil society must be regulated. They want to impose values and beliefs that constrain families, residential communities, schools, religious organizations, businesses, development, and voluntary organizations according to their social norms. The problem is that there is no standard of good but different goods for different communities. Some communities can recognize polygamy, others stoning or honor killings, or as in the movie Footloose ban music and dancing. Your freedoms will become subservient to the local community good.
There is a constant struggle between liberals demanding community common good and conservatives struggling for maximum individual freedom. Communitarians believe that there is an undue emphasis on individual rights and are concerned that excessive individualism leads to selfishness (personal responsibility), egocentrism and a belief in American exceptionalism. According to Agenda 21 sustainable development policies you are selfish if you insist on your constitutionally guaranteed individual rights and freedoms.

Karl Marx

For communitarians it is necessary to demand that society be a balance of their moral core values of common good and individual rights. Unfortunately, their community values often trample individual rights. To create their utopian society more activities are identified as unacceptable or criminal such as diabetes, smoking, name calling, heavy energy consumption, neglect (in their view), driving when you could ride your bike or take public transportation. Other examples include areas of public health versus individual privacy, prayer in school, advocate taking your child away because of obesity, or codes enforcement that criminalize behaviors like failure to cut your weeds or recycle your trash.

U.N. Headquarters

Their actions always result in more restrictive laws that adversely impact personal freedoms. The lines between government and non-government groups blur and unelected stakeholder groups will use manufactured consensus to create more policies that will increase the loss of more individual rights and freedoms. Adoptions of Agenda 21 “smart growth” policies advocated by communitarian impose their visions upon those who oppose this increasing government control and intervention.

It is important to remember that our Constitution guarantees the rights of the individual, and not those of the community, to life and liberty. This puts our property and personal liberties in direct opposition to communitarianism and the goals of Agenda 21 and its sustainable development.

READ MORE - Harbison: Individuals vs. the Community

Harbison: Restore Voter Confidence

Jim Harbison

I was pleased to see the Sun News recent support for Secretary of State Dianna Duran’s investigation of potential voter fraud. What started out as a few incidents has now grown to more than 64,000 cases. The perception of voter fraud that disenfranchises anyone is disturbing and it increases the lack of confidence in the integrity of our election process. Any investigation must be non-partisan and I think most of us agree the State Police is the appropriate agency to investigate it. Like most New Mexicans, I am very interested in what the state police will find and hopefully nothing will be “swept under the rug.”

Dianna Duran

Unfortunately, our election laws are so lenient it is impossible to detect the depth of the fraud that may occur during any given election. Our voter registration process is a joke. Those registering to vote do not need to present any form of identification and they can simply make up a Social Security number, name, address, and age. We know that fictitious voters have registered because county clerks occasionally catch them. Unfortunately, the odds of being caught are profoundly in favor of those who want to cheat and prosecution is rare.

Dianne Hamilton

Having worked at the polls I am convinced fictitious people have voted. Friends who also worked the polls commented that when they asked for the year of birth, some voters have had to guess multiple times. Even if it took 10 tries to get it right, our laws demand they get a ballot. It makes me wonder if someone doesn’t know the year they were born if they should be voting.

We know election fraud occurs because the perpetrators have become careless. Across the nation groups have been found to have registered non-existent people. Unfortunately, a well organized group, keeping accurate records of the mythical voters they registered, and intent on influencing an election, could cast countless fraudulent ballots without detection. There is simply no way currently to catch them.

What is most disturbing about the voter fraud question is the contempt Democrats seem to have toward the public. They indignantly demand absolute proof of voter fraud and yet oppose Voter Photo I.D. Their opposition continues to make it even easier to cheat and undermine the integrity of our election process.

Legislation is submitted by Democrats nearly every year to allow people to register without ID and enable same day voting. Democrats have repeatedly claimed that simply producing a bank statement or a utility bill should be enough to safeguard our elections. Oh, really? Using today’s technology it is easy for anyone to produce counterfeit statements, bills, or even birth certificates on a home computer. Using these phony documents individuals could complete multiple illegal registrations and vote in different precincts with impunity. With our extended early voting period, a tremendous amount of damage could be done to undermine any election.

Victor Contreras

I have long been a supporter of Hispanos Unidos, a non-partisan Dona Ana County based PAC that runs commercials statewide telling their fellow citizens of the crimes committed against our democracy by way of voter fraud. Victor Contreras, the chairman of the group, has become a good friend. Recently he told me, “The people of New Mexico are wonderful, Jim. They hear us and are joining our fight for fair elections.” Recent polls show that now more than 85% of our electorate want a photo ID requirement at the polls.

State Representative Dianne Hamilton, from Silver City, has introduced legislation for three years in a row requiring a photo ID at the polls to insure fair and clean elections. Her bills have always provided that a citizen who doesn’t have a photo ID and can’t afford one will be provided one free of charge by the state.

Sadly, she has been verbally attacked on the House floor, maligned by the liberal media, and accused of lying about the need for election reform. I applaud her for her courage and commitment to all New Mexicans as she continues to travel around the state articulating the need for photo ID at the polls. At this point, voters no longer have confidence in our election process. Our voter rolls are inflated with deceased voters, people who no longer live in our state and non-existent people. No effort will totally eliminate this problem. Voting is one of our most important and sacred freedoms and Voter Photo I.D. is not only reasonable but necessary.

READ MORE - Harbison: Restore Voter Confidence

Time for Responsible Forest Management

Steve Pearce

For New Mexico and Other Western States, Cost of Fires is too High - By U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce - Fires of unprecedented size and severity continue to plague the west. For residents of New Mexico, this has already been a difficult and expensive summer, marked by evacuations, forest closures, and even loss of property and homes. This year, 876 individual fires have burnt a total of over 652,800 acres in New Mexico alone. On the state’s western border, the largest fire in Arizona history has now crossed into New Mexico, forcing evacuations and costing millions. Fires have burned in the Organ Mountains at the southern end of the state, temporarily forced the closure of the world-famous Carlsbad Caverns in eastern New Mexico, and have led to evacuations of Los Alamos National Labs to the north. Even where fires aren’t burning, forest use is restricted or completely closed.

Scorched Mountainside at Ruidoso Downs

The impacts on local communities are immense, as tourism and recreation are primary sources of income for the area. Tourism is likely to drop significantly in Lincoln County this summer if the forest remains closed, dramatically affecting local jobs and paychecks. But unfortunately, the fires impact far more than tourism. New Mexico, already facing a drought, relies on watersheds to feed our rivers and streams, and aquifers. Many of the fires ravaging New Mexico are burning through mountains and watersheds that supply our drinking water and irrigation. Our state’s agricultural sector—vital to our local economy—relies on the health of these watersheds, as do our people. It seems that no one in New Mexico is left untouched by these fires.

Last weekend, I spent time with constituents, local officials, and firefighters in Luna, which was recently evacuated due to fire. With lives and livelihoods on the line, it is important to ask the tough questions about how we got here. Healthy forest management has been prevented by a barrage of environmental lawsuits that advocate reckless policies and hamstring responsible and effective use of taxpayer dollars. As a result, logging is banned, we lose thousands of jobs, and forests become heavily overgrown, creating ideal conditions for a quickly-spreading, uncontrollable fire.

Thousands are left without work, and the forest becomes even more imperiled. A recent article by Ted Williams, a self-proclaimed “environmental extremist,” said that groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and the WildEarth Guardians give “every environmentalist a bad name,” with their lawsuits and agendas that cripple forest management. He said that these have turned suing the government into an industry, and do so completely at the expense of wildlife.

I recently spoke with representatives of the Mescalero Apache Tribe, whose land borders the Lincoln National Forest. They tell me that the spotted owl is flourishing on the reservation because they have been responsible in cutting and thinning their forest over the years. The Mescalero Tribe’s success story should be implemented in the Lincoln National Forest.

The failure of the Forest Service to manage one of our nation’s greatest resources is a disgrace. I have submitted a bill in Congress calling for the immediate return of logging to the area while protecting the spotted owl in sanctuaries. If action is not taken soon to change the course of our unhealthy forests around these local communities, our fate will almost certainly be the same as that of our friends west of here, where the Wallow Fire is devastating hundreds of thousands of acres. Otero County in New Mexico has shown initiative and leadership in this matter. Otero County officials recently approved the creation of an “Emergency Forest Plan” to protect the safety and welfare of citizens in the county. The plan calls for the commencement of logging ten to twenty thousand acres of forest around Cloudcroft. This commonsense decision will lead to responsible forest management, reducing the threat of fire and bringing much-needed jobs to the area. The Otero County Commission should be commended for their efforts, and other local governments should follow suit by refusing to tolerate reckless mismanagement of their lands.

Instead of fighting fires and watching our homes and resources go up in flames, imagine where we could be if the Forest Service would harvest our valuable timber, create jobs, and save our forests. Instead of policies that make economic sense and protect our forests, we continue to spend Forest Service revenues fighting fires created by decades of failed policies. It is time for the government to change course—or we will continue to watch our forests burn and our jobs go overseas.

READ MORE - Time for Responsible Forest Management

Harbison: What Does Your Elected Official Want?

Jim Harbison

I recently had an opportunity to have a long conversation with one of our City Councilors. I would encourage everyone to try to meet with a locally elected City or County representative. Sit down and enjoy a cup of coffee and learn what motivates them and what their vision is for your community. You may be surprised, dismayed, puzzled, or reassured. In order to preserve his/her identity I will use the unisex name of “Dana” to refer to this Councilor. We began our discussions talking about our backgrounds and where we had similar or seemingly conflicting beliefs. The conversation was friendly and we agreed to disagree without any hostility, threats, or personal attacks. This made for a very open, free, and enjoyable discussion that seemed to have no limits.

As we spoke we both realized a mutual our love for our community and genuine concerns about making it a more wonderful place to live. Our differences included what the future City should look like. We moved here because of the warm welcoming attitude of everyone we encountered on our first visit and it’s a beautiful City. It offered just about everything we could want including affordable housing, amazing weather, friendly people, historic culture, sports, arts, music, theater and unbelievable scenic panoramas.

As retirees who lived in cities around the world we found the city had its own unique character. Never did it occur to me to move here and try to recreate any of the communities of my past. I do not understand why the incoming migrant retirees want to redesign the city. I asked why the Councilors were determined to increasingly manage the activities of the residents (cell phones, red lights, lighting, flags, zoning, etc) to change the character of the city.

Are they are dissatisfied or embarrassed with the city’s cultural heritage? If it needs so much change why did they move here? Councilor “Dana” commented that growth requires change. The real question is what is the purpose of the change? I asked what changes were necessary but no response was forthcoming. I expressed my beliefs that less government is better government and that I failed to understand why the Council felt it necessary to regulate nearly everything. I wanted to know the purpose of the City code restricting business advertising flags. Was it a safety issue as the mayor claims? If so, why does the City allow flags if the owner purchases a permit. Obviously, it’s not about safety but revenue. Allowing the business to prosper and generate increased gross receipts tax would produce greater economic prosperity, good will and revenue for the city than the fees collected from the permits. Requiring people to appear in court rather than allowing them to pay redlight tickets by mail without court costs is not about safety but about revenue generation. Reluctantly, “Dana” agreed.

We discussed “affordable housing” and both agreed that creating blocks of “affordable housing” was less desirable than integrating families into regular apartments and housing units. Creating rental agreements with owners of apartment or condo complexes and issuing vouchers to the families would remove the stigma of living in public housing areas. We agreed it would integrate them into communities of various socio-economic levels and enhance their self-esteem.

After several hours of discussions “Dana” and I acknowledged that our values were not that much different and that both of us genuinely were concerned about our fellow citizens and our city. We don’t need to create a different city we just need common solutions to maintain the rich cultural heritage and traditions.

READ MORE - Harbison: What Does Your Elected Official Want?