|
Posted Jun 12, 2024, 2:06 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 668
|
|
Here's an update on the Los Ranchos Village Center saga. Chad Rennaker and Palindrome have now responded in the media and I'm so glad to see how they've responded and that they are willing to stick up for themselves. They absolutely did nothing wrong here, yet these people are trying to injure them completely. They are also defending themselves while still being completely reasonable and willing to seek compromise and a better solution to the issues.
They are clearly the good guys here, I don't care how anybody tries to smear them.
That's in stark contrast to the NIMBY pieces of sh!t, especially the leader of the Friends of Los Ranchos, who is insistent that the project be torn down no matter what. This woman is a real nasty piece of work. I'd like to see her pay personally for her attitude and obstruction. Let her be on the hook personally to make the developer, lenders and contractors whole. She and her group need to be financially affected and held liable for all this trouble they've created.
https://www.bizjournals.com/albuquer...s-ranchos.html
Quote:
A controversial, multi-use project under development in Los Ranchos could be headed toward a more peaceful resolution with both the developer and Village agreeing to try and find common ground — at least for now. The Village's board of trustees will meet on June 12 during a closed session to discuss next steps.
Village Administrator John Avila said in an email statement on June 10 that Mayor Pro Tem Franklin Reinow has been busy "visiting with residents and reviewing Palindrome issues with the hope that the Village can find a negotiated solution that all parties can work with."
In 2002, the Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque established the "Village Center Zone" for development along Fourth Street and Osuna Road — the site of the building now in question — that outlined permit uses and restrictions. Responding to blight in 2018, Palindrome Communities LLC, the project's developer, submitted a proposal to undertake the Village Center project, aimed at boosting economic activity along the intersection. The plan was approved by former Mayor Donald T. Lopez in 2020; construction commenced in 2022.
The legal crux of the dispute centers on the application of the Village Center zoning code, which was specifically developed for this site. On May 2, Second Judicial District Court Judge Denise Barela Shepherd issued a decision to overturn the approval of the project, citing a violation of the state Open Meetings Act (OMA), which requires public policy decisions be made in meetings that are open to the public, according to the New Mexico Department of Justice.
Palindrome was under the impression that no public hearing was needed since the project complied with zoning regulations and had Lopez's approval, said Chad Rennaker, CEO of Palindrome.
“In most cases, we go through a public process if we're seeking a variance of a code,” Rennaker said. “If we're not seeking any variance and we're meeting the code requirements, there is no public hearing as a result of that.”
On May 28, the Village’s board of trustees voted 2-1 in favor of pursuing injunctive relief to halt construction on the Village Center project. Reinow said the Village's decision to seek injunctive relief against Palindrome was not an indication of an anti-development stance.
As a result of the vote held on May 28, Palindrome also filed a temporary restraining order and injunction request against the Village. However, a hearing scheduled for June 10 was postponed after the two entities had a "productive" meeting on June 7, Rennaker said. An initial mediation between the Village, Palindrome and the Friends of Los Ranchos (FOLR) was held May 14.
"Both parties are interested in trying to resolve this as opposed to going down a very expensive and drawn-out legal path," Rennaker said on June 7 following the meeting. "Essentially, we're talking about alterations to the existing building that are reasonable, but perhaps more importantly, how we handle the approval process on future phases of the development. We all agreed to postpone the hearings to give us time early next week to try and reach a more formal settlement. We'll pick [discussions] back up [June 10]."
In Avila's June 10 email to Business First, he did note that Village litigation attorney Vincent Ward was authorized by the Board of Trustees to pursue an injunction. But said, "I don't have the date of filing."
As of today, Palindrome has invested $40 million into the site, Rennaker said. The total project cost is expected to hit $55 million.
"If we have to stop construction, the damages may become insurmountable," he said. "We're incurring about $100,000 a week in interest carrying costs."
Should Palindrome be forced to stop or demolish the project, the development firm said it
"If we were to file a damages lawsuit today, we would include future revenues that were not received as a result of them tearing the project down," Rennaker said. "That's a $15 million loss and that would become part of the damages lawsuit."
The project, which began in 2022, stands three stories tall and is about 85% complete.
In recent years, Palindrome has been involved with other projects in the Albuquerque area including the renovation of El Vado Motel at 2500 Central Ave. SW. Despite the current turmoil in Los Ranchos, Rennaker said he wasn't opposed to working with the Village in the future.
Today, Isidoro "Izzy" Hernandez, executive director of the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (MFA) said during a interview with Albuquerque Business First on May 29.
|
https://www.abqjournal.com/news/now-...2e09e7704.html
Quote:
Lawsuits seeking damages of more than $50 million from the Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque are possible if a controversial affordable housing project at Fourth and Osuna is terminated and razed.
“That is ultimately what a damages claim would be in the worst-case scenario of tearing it down altogether,” said Chad Rennaker, chief executive officer of Palindrome Communities, the Portland, Oregon, company building the project — 204 apartment units divided among three three-story structures plus micro-retail spaces — on the southeast corner of Fourth and Osuna.
On May 29, village trustees voted 2-1 to seek a court injunction to stop the project.
But during a phone interview from Portland on Friday, Rennaker told the Journal that Palindrome and the village met Friday to discuss the situation and agreed to continue working this week toward an agreement about what can be done with the current phase of the Village Center Project and to come to terms on an approval process for future phases.
Also, the village issued notice that it will meet in closed session at 6 p.m. Wednesday to discuss a possible resolution of pending litigation between the village and Palindrome. Following that session, there will be a special meeting of the board of trustees to vote on any matters arising from the closed session that require a vote.
Rennaker said Palindrome wants to avoid legal action.
“It costs a lot of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on making better things for the project,” he said. “It is just such a waste.”
A turn of events
The Village Center Project broke ground in the summer of 2022 during a previous village administration headed by Mayor Donald Lopez.
Even as the project got underway, some village residents were protesting the intrusion of a high-density project into a village incorporated in 1958 with the goal of retaining a rural and agricultural lifestyle.
From that point, the complexities of the dispute stacked up almost as quickly as the development itself, which is nearing completion after nearly two years of construction.
The Friends of Los Ranchos, an organization that favors the preservation of open space, filed a number of lawsuits against the village aimed at stopping the project.
Among the issues raised in the suits was the charge that the village violated the state Open Meetings Act by failing to discuss the project in public meetings before the village’s Planning and Zoning Commission and its Board of Trustees.
Another charge in the lawsuits was that the village improperly condemned the site of the project so it could sell the ground and the buildings on it to Palindrome for a few dollars, a violation of the state anti-donation clause.
“The Friends have filed multiple lawsuits against the village, but Palindrome stands to lose the most after having followed all the village’s guidance, processes and requirements,” Rennaker said. “We assumed we had met all the requirements and it was approved.”
Joe Craig, president of Friends of Los Ranchos, spearheaded the lawsuits. But in November, Craig was elected mayor, defeating incumbent Lopez and village trustees Gilbert Benavides and George Radnovich.
Jennifer Kueffer and Frank Reinow, campaigning on pro-open space platforms, were elected to vacant seats on the board of trustees.
Trustees Benavides and Radnovich lost their respective bids for mayor, but retained their seats on the board because those terms have not expired.
When elected mayor, Craig resigned as president of Friends of Los Ranchos. But the board, counting the mayor who votes to break ties, had a pro-open space, anti-high-density development edge of 3-2 at the start of this year. Craig, who had played an integral role in suing the village, was then the village’s top elected official.
Strict schedules
On May 2, state District Judge Denise Barela-Shepherd, acting on one of the lawsuits filed by the Friends, ruled that the process used by the previous village administration to approve the Village Center Project violated the state’s Open Meetings Act.
That was a victory for Craig. But on May 21, following treatment for a medical condition that began to emerge just after he took office, Craig died.
Now, the village board of trustees was back to a 2-2 divide, two trustees from the previous administration and two elected in November after campaigns that stressed their opposition to the Village Center project.
The 2-1 vote in favor of seeking an injunction to stop the project was achieved only because Trustee Radnovich, whose company has the landscape architecture contract for the Village Center Project, recused himself.
Rennaker said just stopping the project will cost $100,000 a week.
“We have spent $40 million to this point,” he said. “Two years of litigation at $100,000 per week would add to that figure. Fifteen million for future lost revenue would be part of the damages suit.”
Rennaker said Palindrome never considered delaying the start of the project, even though rumblings against it were gaining force as work on it was starting.
“We couldn’t have,” he said. “It’s not just Palindrome in the project. There are investors and lenders that have strict schedules that we have to adhere to. Frankly, we were a little behind to begin with.”
He said Palindrome is characterized as big-shot developers from out of state who don’t care about local communities, but that’s far from the truth.
“The Friends of Los Ranchos are very vocal, but there may be other people in the village who don’t share their opinion,” Rennaker said. “I was having informal meetings with concerned citizens about what could be done in future phases of the project, or even in the initial stage. Then it got litigious. There was talk about lawsuits, and people were told to quit talking to the enemy.”
Tear it down
In May, following Judge Barela-Shepherd’s ruling on the Open Meetings violation, Palindrome, the village and the Friends of Los Ranchos met in a mediation session.
Rennaker said Palindrome was willing to make concessions such as allowing public input on colors selected for the development, adding trees to the site, making open-space areas more appealing by adding benches, community gardens and other features and allowing larger retail spaces along Fourth Street.
“We could accommodate that,” he said. “In addition, we were open to allowing more public input in future phases.”
But he said Friends insisted on removing the third floor on several units and demolishing a building in the center of the site, actions that would considerably reduce the number of units in the project and add more than $10 million to the development’s price tag.
Marsha Adams, who succeeded Craig as president of Friends, said the organization did not make any of those demands.
“There have been proposals for modification, but that’s not what we are advocating for,” she said. “We want it torn down. That’s basically it. We want it gone. Palindrome was aware all through this that they did not have the proper approval and proper permits and they continued to build — even faster. They are accountable.”
She said that as far as Palindrome suing the village for damages goes, she has heard more than once, and believes it to be true, that there is language in the contract that protects the village from such action.
Rennaker disagrees.
“There are differences of opinion on the interpretation of the indemnification clause,” he said. “We obviously don’t believe it exempts the village from financial responsibility.”
Totally wrong
Rennaker said Palindrome is getting a bad rap for some things it is not responsible for and for other things that are not true — for example, he said, complaints that the project is built too close to the sidewalk and there will not be enough parking spaces on the site.
“We actually had the buildings set back farther from the sidewalk, and we were forced by the village code to put them closer to the sidewalk,” he said. “As part of the first phase of construction, we will have 427 parking spaces when it is completed. As future phases (a hotel, brewpub, grocery store, housing) are added, we will retain a one-to-one ratio for affordable housing residents. One parking space for one unit.”
Rennaker said Palindrome’s mission is to create high-quality affordable housing opportunities.
“The attitude of Friends against building affordable housing in an affluent community is just plain wrong,” he said. “We already have a waiting list for prospective residents eager to move in, including educators, first responders and fixed-income seniors. With housing costs skyrocketing and income levels not keeping up, New Mexico has a dire need for affordable housing.”
Adams said Rennaker’s comment is off base.
“It is totally wrong that we are against affordable housing,” she said. “We are against the way this project was done without proper permits.”
|
This woman is clearly deranged and horribly misinformed. Sorry, no, you absolutely cannot be a party to and have an agreement and then cause that agreement to be ended in such a way and not be liable for damages. The village put out this RFP outlining a dense development that would include affordable housing, retail and other commercial elements. Palindrome responded with exactly such a project. The village accepted their proposal and agreed to the terms.
Even though the village leadership has now been taken over by members of her group they still have an agreement in place that they must uphold. Forcing construction to be stopped is a violation of that agreement. Tearing down the project and scrapping it altogether is an even bigger violation and it's a financial liability for which they must and will be held accountable.
Elections don't invalidate agreements that were made by previous office holders. New office holders take on the responsibility for those agreements and are just as liable and obligated to carry them out in good faith.
As for that last line of hers, she's completely full of sh!t. People in her group have openly posted on Facebook that they did not want affordable housing in their village. Members of her group have liked or reposted comments stating as much on Facebook and elsewhere.
Opposition to this project is based upon not wanting "highrises" (3-story buildings ![Roll eyes](images/smilies/rolleyes.gif) ) but it's also clearly about not wanting poor people living in Los Ranchos. These people are rabidly opposed to those two things.
They clearly have no problem with the commercial development that is being built directly across the street. So all this talk about traffic, parking and ruining the character and rural nature of the village is nothing more than a fake argument.
"Tall" buildings and poors is really all that has motivated this rabid, determined and deranged opposition.
|
|
|