|
|
|
|
Villagers Speak Out Against Increased Traffic |
|
|
|
Written by Jeff Radford
|
|
Sunday, 25 November 2007 |
|
Second in a series
As the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee and teams of volunteers
sorted through replies to a public opinion survey last month, a number
of common, recurring themes were evident about how Corraleños perceive
their community and why they live here.
One of those was respondents’ urging Village officials to increase
municipal revenue by setting up toll booths for outsiders using
Corrales Road. “Charge tolls on through traffic on Corrales Road and
Loma Larga,” said one. Another suggested, “Toll roads for Rio Rancho
residents,” adding “People who drive 5 to 10 miles per hour under the
speed limit should be fined.” Another suggested raising Village revenue
“via toll booths for traffic Monday through Friday 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and
4 p.m. to 6 p.m. for non-Corrales residents.”
Still another wrote in “road toll for non-residents,” as well as user
fees for non-residents of the TopForm Arena and bosque trails.
Still another villager replied this way to the survey question “How
should Corrales pay for existing services and any expanded services?”
His answer: “Charge Rio Rancho to cut through Corrales! Toll booth:
you’d make lots of money. If they visit Corrales businesses, then they
get a refund.”
And while a preponderance of such replies felt Corrales could be
improved by restricting traffic, one respondent offered a totally
opposite idea, writing “We need a thoroughfare tying Todos los Santos
with Tramway, with a new bridge over the river.”
Over all, comments mailed back with the survey seemed to reinforce many
of Corrales residents’ long-held attitudes about low-density
residential development, keeping businesses out of residential areas
and reducing traffic impacts.
Village officials mailed out 4,705 survey forms, presumably to all
residents but one per household. Sent back in were 948 completed
surveys, many with marginal comments and even detailed letters.
Many of the comments addressed the question of how to fund municipal
services, since that open-ended question was asked specifically. Most
suggested the obvious such as property tax, gross receipts tax and
municipal bonds. Perhaps a surprising number favored increasing
property taxes, especially if the taxes were applied to
Corrales-specific benefits. One said “Increase taxes: most people
living in Corrales can afford to pay higher taxes. Provide tax breaks
to long-time Corrales residents living on low, fixed incomes, if
necessary.”
Another suggested “an additional ‘property tax’ for the benefit of Corrales only.”
Another called for “Property taxes on residents to maintain existing
village ambiance which is reason why I and other residents are here. I
see no need to expand Village services to support commercial
development. We did not move here to support realtors and MainStreet.”
The person was “opposed to Village expending taxpayer funds to attract
additional businesses by resident-funded projects, especially a sewer
system to serve commercial district.”
One respondent took a calm perspective: Paying for existing and
expanded municipal services is a real problem, but “if we continue as
is without excessive ambition we should be fine. Corrales is, in my
view, a principally residential area of unique character — it is that
character which distinguishes it.”
Another, Christina Stone, really put some thought into how to fund
municipal services. She attached a separate sheet with the following
ideas:
“• Double current traffic fines and enforce the existing speed limit on northern Corrales Road;
• Adopt a volunteer police unit to enforce speeding; if a volunteer
fire department is good enough, so should a volunteer unit to hold
radar guns and issue fines;
• have parents who insist on driving their children to the elementary
school instead of making them use the bus system buy annual parking
passes;
• adopt and enforce fines for signage, i.e., Steve Stribling has three billboards located on Corrales Road and Todos los Santos;
• establish heavy fines for pet owners who neglect their animals and
have to pick up their animals from Animal Control repeatedly;
• require burn permits for residents burning weeds and trash;
• fine construction vehicles for dumping mud on Corrales Road;
• fine contractors for not having water trucks on-site and maintaining some sort of dust control; and
• re-evaluate the ‘need’ for a skate park.”
Another respondent offered an array of measures, writing:
“• Control density; housing demands more of tax-based services than does open space and farmland;
• Limit housing size: housing the size of commercial buildings should
be expected to provide for fire suppression. Over-coverage of lots
creates drainage problems;
• Support efforts to allow small communities to swap gross receipts tax dollars for property tax dollars;
• Reduce overhead: solar panels on municipal buildings [will] slow down the meter;
• Support public and private grants by consistently billing for reimbursement; and
• Focus projects and organize for yearly legislative requests. Involve the community in communicating with Santa Fe.”
One respondent suggested a “municipal parking fee” to raise revenue,
perhaps implying a municipal parking lot. That is an unimplemented idea
that has been floated for more than a decade.
Quite a few respondents objected to the idea of gaining more tax
revenue by attracting more tourists and shoppers from outside. Said
one: “I do not want more business; I do not want more people
coming in this area.
“Some services need to be expanded, such as emergency [and] fire
[response] water drainage, concrete roads into residential areas to
prevent mudslides, but expanding business and pulling more people into
this village is very much a negative. I realize the Village has to be
financially supported, but I would rather pay more taxes than see this
village ruined by pulling in more business.
“It would seem that we cannot ‘have our cake and eat it too,’ so I say
that maybe the people that live in this community need to start
supporting what they love: pay more taxes to assist the gross receipts
tax from the businesses [already here]. Otherwise, we can just kiss our
way of life away. With more business and more expansion, we will become
Rio Rancho.”
Another respondent wrote similarly: “Corrales needs to stop being a money-machine for MainStreet….”
In a similar vein, another villager wrote: “why is this desirable?” to
retain or attract businesses to the commercial district. The
respondent, a Corrales business person, wrote: “Developers and
‘MainStreet’ types should not be entrusted with anything
pertaining to long-term land use and environment questions. Businesses
succeed because they are good businesses. I strongly oppose
underwriting commercial enterprises that should be able to generate
taxable revenue through good business practices.
“Resident taxpayers should not have to shore up the hobby businesses
that constitute far too many enterprises here. Make sure that
home-based businesses have home occupation permits. Many seem not to be
aware of the requirement.
“Increase the gross receipts tax rate. Make sure that contractors,
developers and ‘MainStreet’ businesses pay their share, so that the
infrastructure they require to make their money is not foisted
off on the residents. I am, by the way, the owner of a successful,
registered, tax-paying, home-based business. The only thing my business
requires of the Village is a competent, honest administration, one that
is no bigger than it needs to be.”
But some villagers spoke up for municipal projects they wanted. Typical
was one that stated, “We need a safe pathway and sidewalk along main
street Corrales Road. We need tennis courts and a skate park…what
happened to these projects?”
Wrote another: “I will favor a municipal water system and waste water
system when and if there is sound scientific proof that the current
on-site wells and/or on-site septic systems are not adequate to ensure
the health and well being of Corrales residents.”
That cautious stance was contrasted by this one: “We don’t want
sewer!!! Won’t pay for it. Only a few idiots want [it]. Nothing wrong
with my water. Leave [it] alone. New people from California or
Connecticut or Iowa can go back if don’t understand: houses are too big
now.”
That last sentiment was echoed by other writers. “Stop the building of
trophy homes: maximum square footage required,” said one. Another
wrote, “I do not support the construction of homes that ‘do not fit,’
i.e. huge two-stories. They degrade the natural surroundings and take
away the scenic views of other homeowners.”
Several other commenters specifically opposed “Tuscany”-style homes and wanted them banned.
A respondent called on Village officials to “take a stand against McMansions.”
Corraleños seemed as clearly divided over the need for a sewer system
as they are over the need to promote business. One respondent put it
this way: “We don’t need marketing and promotion for Corrales!” while
another suggested, “Corrales needs to become a destination site for
Albuquerque and tourists.”
More predominant were sentiments such as “Do not expand commercial
area,” and “Corrales’ best value and character relate to an
agricultural and residential community. Limit commercial. Corrales
should not be in the business of fostering additional commercial
development.”
Another wrote in, “No more commercial; the streets are too busy and we are losing rural character and farmland.”
With the opposite view, one suggested “promoting tourism and more business in the business district.”
Another suggested modifying restrictions on commercial operations to be
more flexible about lot coverage. “Increase commercial retail space
(flexible allowances) for more gross receipts tax.”
Said another: “If the Village did anything to promote businesses there
would be more money. The Village Council is a bunch of bystanders. Make
decisions that bring money into the village.”
Probably the dominant view was “Small businesses are okay. I don’t want
to see the business area expanded. We live here because it’s quiet. We
can travel outside Corrales and find all the businesses that we need.
We don’t need more traffic.”
A Corrales couple asked for a “catalog of sorts listing the willing
home occupation businesses so that we can see what is available
in our community, and add to the internal economic growth of Corrales.”
In general, Corraleños’ responses suggest they are still adamant about
restricting business so it does not erode the community’s character.
Said one: “Corrales needs to get dollars from the people who live here,
not from business. I don’t want to see any new businesses.”
That idea was echoed by a couple who wrote in, “As a higher income
household, we are prepared to pay for preserving and enhancing our way
of life in Corrales.”
Perhaps the predominant view is expressed in the following two comments
which sum up much of villagers’ desires as the Comprehensive Plan is
revised. One said simply, “Don’t change anything. Leave Corrales the
way it is.”
The other pleaded, “Please leave Corrales alone. Protect what it is and has been. It needs no improvement.”
One villager urged Village officials to adopt a “zero population
growth” policy. Would we set up a national waiting list, like that for
heart implant recipients, for new people to move in only after a
Corraleño dies? |
|
|
|
|
