Public land deal goes behind closed doors

by Kathleen Sloan | April 26, 2020
4 min read
​The Truth or Consequences City Commission held a public hearing on a landowner’s application to change lot boundaries that would take public land—a violation of the state anti-donation law—a fact obscured by the inadequate documentation provided by staff. 

The public was expected to give comment on the application, a copy of which was not included in the agenda packet, leaving the owner-applicant anonymous. 

The only documentation supplied were two smeary plat surveys that were unreadable, as well as a citation to city code on minor amendments to plats that can be done “administratively.” 

Nearby property owners were supposed to be notified of lot-line changes, but those notifications were not included in the packet. 

The biggest omission was failure to reveal the eastern lot-line change would give away public land, the size and value of which was not given. 

Traci Burnett, the City Zoning Administrator, presented the item to the City Commission. She briefly explained she had sent letters to nearby landowners and had not heard back from a few of them, evidently unaware that does not absolve the city of its notification requirement. 

Burnett said the only landowner directly affected would be Tonya Kehoe and Sarah Jones of 845 Van Patten, who share a lot line with the applicant, Nate Stevens of 825 Van Patten. She said Kehoe and Jones approved of the western lot-line change, their letter included in the City Commission packet, which was not made available to the public. 

Burnett did not point out the other landowner affected is the public. 

Burnett asked the applicant, Nate Stevens, to explain the action to the City Commission. 

Stevens said he was unaware his lot lines did not run with the fence lines until he tried to get financing on the property, which required a plat survey. Stevens said both he and Jones and Kehoe want to sell their properties and want the lot-line changes approved before the first of the year. Stevens said he would have to redo his taxes again if approval were delayed. 

The plat survey revealed he and Jones and Kehoe have fences and structures overlapping their property lines. 

It also revealed the prior owner encroached on public property when he put a fence up an unknown number of years ago, which Stevens did not point out. 

Although Stevens said Jones and Kehoe and the City would get an equal amount of land back if the lot lines were amended, only Jones and Kehoe would get an equal exchange of land. 

After nearly an hour of board discussion, only City Commissioner George Szigeti, among the City Commission members and city staff, understood public land could not be given away. 

“They are taking over a piece of city property and that is in violation of the anti-donation clause. We cannot approve that today,” Szigeti said. 

In her surprise, Mayor Sandra Whitehead, who had been calling for a motion to approve the lot-lines change, asked Burnett, “Is that true?” Burnett didn’t answer. 

City Attorney Jay Rubin asked that the boundaries be explained again, “and what you are trying to do,” demonstrating the inadequacy of information provided by Burnett on the public-hearing item. 

During the public hearing following the City Commission discussion, Ron Fenn noted “This is exactly the kind of issue the Planning and Zoning Commission should deal with. . .None of these procedures are in your bailiwick until the P&Z have gone into it. Otherwise you are doing something illegal.” 

There was a preceding public hearing at the Dec. 11 meeting on whether to reduce the P&Z from five to three members. The City Commission decided to keep the number at five and to reactivate the board after blocking it for more than six years. 

The City Commission voted unanimously to approve the western lot-line change to allow Kehoe and Jones to sell and the Stevenses to gain financing. 

Szigeti proposed the motion for the eastern lot-line change. “We cannot resolve the issue of the east side of the property at this meeting. We can tell the City to proceed to negotiate. We approve of the position of that line, but the actual transfer of that property has to be resolved.” 

His motion was approved unanimously. Therefore it appears public land will be disposed of behind closed doors after inadequate notice and information was provided to the public to enable them to comment during the public hearing. 

Nate Stevens of 825 Van Patten and Traci Burnett, City zoning administrator, present Stevenses’ application to the City Commission.

TAGS: |
author
Kathleen Sloan is the Sun’s founder and chief reporter. She can be reached at kathleen.sloan@gmail.com or 575-297-4146.
Share this:
HAVE YOU SEEN?

Understanding New Mexico's proposed new social studies standards for K-12 students

“The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”
—National Council for the Social Studies 

Reader Michael L. Hayes of Las Cruces commented: What impresses me is that both the proposed standards and some of the criticisms of them are equally grotesque. I make this bold statement on the basis of my experience as a peripatetic high school and college English teacher for 45 years in many states with many students differing in race, religion, gender and socioeconomic background, and as a civic activist (PTA) in public education (My career, however, was as an independent consultant mainly in defense, energy and the environment.)

The proposed social studies standards are conceptually and instructionally flawed. For starters, a “performance standard” is not a standard at all; it is a task. Asking someone to explain something is not unlike asking someone to water the lawn. Nothing measures the performance, but without a measure, there is no standard. The teacher’s subjective judgment will be all that matters, and almost anything will count as satisfying a “performance standard,” even just trying. Students will be left to wonder “what is on the teacher’s mind?” or “have I sucked up enough.”

Four other quick criticisms of the performance standards. One, they are nearly unintelligible because they are written in jargon. PED’s use of jargon in a document intended for the public is worrisome. Bureaucrats often use jargon to confuse or conceal something uninformed, wrong or unworthy. As a result, most parents, some school board members and more than a few teachers do not understand them.

Two, the performance standards are so vague that they fail to define the education which teachers are supposed to teach, students are supposed to learn, and parents are supposed to understand. PED does not define words like “explain” or “describe” so that teachers can apply “standards” consistently and fairly. The standards do not indicate what teachers are supposed to know in order to teach or specify what students are supposed to learn. Supervisors cannot know whether teachers are teaching social studies well or poorly. The standards are so vague that the public, especially parents or guardians, cannot know the content of public education.

Three, many performance standards are simply unrealistic, especially at grade level. Under “Ethnic, Cultural and Identity Performance Standards”; then under “Diversity and Identity”; then under “Kindergarten,” one such standard is: “Identify how their family does things both the same as and different from how other people do things.” Do six-year-olds know how other people do things? Do they know whether these things are relevant to diversity and identity? Or another standard: “Describe their family history, culture, and past to current contributions of people in their main identity groups.” (A proficient writer would have hyphenated the compound adjective to avoid confusing the reader.) Do six-year-olds know so much about these things in relation to their “identity group”? Since teachers obviously do not teach them about these other people and have not taught them about these groups, why are these and similar items in the curriculum; or do teachers assign them to go home and collect this information?

Point four follows from “three”; some information relevant to some performance measures requires a disclosure of personal or family matters. The younger the students, the easier it is for teachers to invade their privacy and not only their privacy, but also the privacy of their parents or guardians, or neighbors, who may never be aware of these disclosures or not become aware of them until afterward. PED has no right to design a curriculum which requires teachers to ask students for information about themselves, parents or guardians, or neighbors, or puts teachers on the spot if the disclosures reveal criminal conduct. (Bill says Jeff’s father plays games in bed with his daughter. Lila says Angelo’s mother gives herself shots in the arm.) Since teacher-student communications have no legal protection to ensure privacy, those disclosures may become public accidentally or deliberately. The effect of these proposal standards is to turn New Mexico schools and teachers into investigative agents of the state and students into little informants or spies.

This PED proposal for social studies standards is a travesty of education despite its appeals to purportedly enlightened principles. It constitutes a clear and present danger to individual liberty and civil liberties. It should be repudiated; its development, investigated; its PED perpetrators, dismissed. No state curriculum should encourage or require the disclosure of private personal information.

I am equally outraged by the comments of some of T or C’s school board members: Christine LaFont and Julianne Stroup, two white Christian women, who belong to one of the larger minorities in America and assume white and Christian privileges. In different terms but for essentially the same reason, both oppose an education which includes lessons about historical events and trends, and social movements and developments, of other minorities. They object to the proposal for the new social studies standards because of its emphasis on individual and group identities not white or Christian. I am not going to reply with specific objections; they are too numerous and too pointed.

Ms. LaFont urges: “It’s better to address what’s similar with all Americans. It’s not good to differentiate.” Ms. Stroup adds: “Our country is not a racist country. We have to teach to respect each other. We have civil rights laws that protect everyone from discrimination. We need to teach civics, love and respect. We need to teach how to be color blind.”

Their desires for unity and homogeneity, and for mutual respect, are a contradiction and an impossibility. Aside from a shared citizenship, which implies acceptance of the Constitution, the rule of law and equality under the law, little else defines Americans. We are additionally defined by our race, religion, national origin, etc. So mutual respect requires individuals to respect others different from themselves. Disrespect desires blacks, Jews or Palestinians to assimilate or to suppress or conceal racial, religious or national origin aspects of their identity. The only people who want erasure of nonwhite, non-Christian, non-American origin aspects of identity are bigots. Ms. LaFont and Ms. Stroud want standards which, by stressing similarities and eliding differences, desire the erasure of such aspects. What they want will result in a social studies curriculum that enables white, Christian, native-born children to grow up to be bigots and all others to be their victims. This would be the academic equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

H.E.L.P.

This postmortem of a case involving a 75-year-old women who went missing from her home in Hillsboro last September sheds light on the bounds of law enforcement’s capacity to respond, especially in large rural jurisdictions such as Sierra County, and underscores the critical role the public, as well as concerned family and friends, can play in assisting a missing person’s search.

Reader Jane Debrott of Hillsboro commented: Thank you for your article on the tragic loss of Betsey. I am a resident of Hillsboro, a friend of Rick and Betsey, and a member of H.E.L.P. The thing that most distresses me now, is the emphasis on Rick’s mis-naming of the color of their car. I fear that this fact will cause Rick to feel that if he had only gotten the facts right, Betsey may have been rescued before it was too late. The incident was a series of unavoidable events, out of everyone’s control, and we will never know what place the correct color of her car may have had in the outcome. It breaks my heart to think that Rick has had one more thing added to his “what ifs” concerning this incident.

Diana Tittle responded: Dear Jane, the Sun undertook this investigation at the request of a Hillsboro resident concerned about the town’s inability to mount a prompt, coordinated response to the disappearance of a neighbor. From the beginning, I shared your concern about how our findings might affect Betsy’s family and friends. After I completed my research and began writing, I weighed each detail I eventually chose to include against my desire to cause no pain and the public’s right to know about the strengths and limitations of law enforcement’s response and the public’s need to know about how to be of meaningful assistance.

There was information I withheld about the state police investigation and the recovery. But I decided to include the issue of the car’s color because the individuals who spotted Betsy’s car emphasized how its color had been key to their identification of it as the vehicle described in Betsy’s Silver Alert. Because the misinformation was corrected within a couple of hours, I also included in this story the following editorial comment meant to put the error in perspective: “The fact that law enforcement throughout the state was on the lookout in the crucial early hours after Betsy’s disappearance for an elderly woman driving a “light blue” instead of a “silver” Accord would, in retrospect, likely not have changed the outcome of the search” [emphasis added].

I would also point to the story’s overarching conclusion about the inadvisability of assigning blame for what happened: “In this case, a perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances, many of them beyond human control, hindered the search that it would fall to Hamilton’s department to lead.”

It is my hope that any pain caused by my reporting will eventually be outweighed by its contribution to a better community understanding of what it will take in the future to mount a successful missing person’s search in rural Sierra County.

Scroll to Top