What's going on, Albuquerque?

That was a close one

The Albuquerque City Council voted 5-4 Monday night to award city landmark status to El Vado Motel, giving it some protection against being torn down to make way for luxury townhouses. The vote followed more than two hours of sometimes-disjointed discussions that Councilor Don Harris labeled “a train wreck.”

The city landmark vote came to the council again after an appeals court ruled the Landmarks and Urban Conservation Commission filed to consider economic viability reports during the first designation. El Vado was given city landmark status shortly after owner Richard L. Gonzales purchased it in October 2005.

A lot of strange stuff occurred during the meeting Monday. I’ll try to summarize them briefly:

– The council clearly had grown impatient about the lack of a settlement concerning El Vado and Gonzales after about two years of inactivity. Some councilors pointed fingers at the city attorney’s office for the lack of progress. But, in fairness, Gonzales also held the property in limbo much of that time because of appeals and similar finagling.

– At one point, the council moved to defer action on the city landmark application for two weeks so they could try to reach a settlement. However, one official pointed out that a demolition application on El Vado was slated to be decided on Jan. 15 and that a judge could grant it because the council had taken no action on the city landmark proposal. The deferral motion failed.

– After hearing about how El Vado Motel was no longer an economically feasible business, Councilor Michael Cadigan suggested that the motel’s shutdown shortly after Gonzales purchased it — and two years of no maintenance — led to its declining value. “What we have here is demolition by neglect,” Cadigan said.

– Because of a recently passed bond issue, the city has about about $700,000 available for a buyout of the property.

– Gonzales’ attorney asked for the council to turn down the landmarks designation and, in return, Gonzales pledged he would not tear down El Vado Motel for 60 days in an effort to reach a compromise. Councilors seemed reluctant to give Gonzales that much of an advantage.

– Councilor Isaac Benton discussed one proposal floated in 2005 in which parts of El Vado would be demolished, but leave standing the most visible parts facing Central Avenue and New York Avenue. But City Planner Ed Boles said if that occurred, “I guarantee” El Vado would be removed from the National Register of Historic Places.

– Gonzales, after making a fool of himself at a recent LUCC meeting, wisely let his attorney do most of the talking Monday. I think the attorney’s strategy was the cloud the councilors’ minds with dubious talk about property rights and accusations that the city hadn’t negotiated in good faith. The gameplan nearly worked.

– I found out less than 24 hours before the meeting that the El Vado item would be a quasi-judicial hearing that didn’t allow public comment, nor did it allow anyone to even contact the councilors by letters or e-mail. Does that strike anyone as being wholly unconstitutional?

In conclusion: El Vado is safe for now, but it will be in jeopardy again if the council doesn’t aggressively pursue a settlement. I think Gonzales’ attorney is trying to wear down the city so his client will eventually get his way. Here’s hoping the city puts that potential buyout money to use quickly.

That’s all I have for now from watching the proceedings on a live Internet feed from 700 miles away. If you attended the meeting, feel free to chime in with your observations.

(Cross posted from Route 66 News. Photo courtesy of Guy Randall.)

0 members like this

Comment by missy on January 7, 2008 at 10:06pm: i was at the meeting tonight and i, too, was shocked at the handwritten sign on the door informing us that there would be no public comment on the el vado. it was a bit disjointed, but there are so many facets to this case that must be considered. although, i have to say much of what was talked about had absolutely nothing to do with landmark designation, but whatever. there were also many things left out (that i was prepared to present!):

1. pueblo revival architecture, also known as spanish pueblo revival architecture or santa fe style (this probably doesn't help the el vado's case) is ONLY found in new mexico. and, it is only found in albuquerque and northwards, to be exact. and to be true pueblo revival architecture it needs to be pre-WWII, preferably pre-WWI. the el vado fits this designation. it is called santa fe style because the majority of the buildings are located in santa fe, with albuquerque a close second. the el vado is an excellent example.

2. mr. gonzales purchased a functioning motel and shuttered it, forcing the site to ruin. there should be no reward to a "developer" (a misnomer if ever there was one) who tries to force a city to declare his property a blight by ruining it himself. it is a dangerous precedent to set.

3. (this wasn't for presentation) mr. gonzales helped orchestrate the atrisco land grant sale, and if anyone has followed that debacle then you can easily read his style of "development."

mr. gonzales made it exceedingly clear through his and his lawyer's comments that the only plan on the table for the el vado was demolition. it was very sad, but not surprising. he played the "poor me" card many times--he's spent upwards of $200,000 on attorney/professional fees; he spent $680,000 on a property he ruined and can't sell it for the $2,250,000 he's asking for it; this is dragged on for 27 months...etc. he dragged it on, no one made him spend that kind of cash on attorneys and what did he think he would happen when he announced he was going to tear down a nationally-listed property? he went into the deal with open eyes and is crying crocodile tears over his mistreatment. sadly, a couple of the councilors (debbie o'malley, in particular) seem to have bought his story.

if you are interested, the vote was:

debbie o'malley
ken sanchez
trudy jones
brad winter, all against;

rey garduño
ron harris
michael cadigan
sally mayer
isaac benton, all for designating it a landmark. THANK YOU!!!

Comment by Snak on January 7, 2008 at 10:33pm: Bummer that O'Malley wasn't in favor of the landmark designation. So, what happens now? Is this ruling any less vulnerable than the one in 2005? And thanks for such good info on tonight's developments.

Comment by SNM on January 7, 2008 at 10:45pm: The issue now is that we the people have to buy out the developer and that will likely cost us more than the property is worth. Hope for the best! And thanks to those who showed up to support and update the rest of us.

Comment by Izquierdo on January 7, 2008 at 11:16pm: At 11:13pm on January 7th, 2008, Benito said…
At the 12-21-05 dedication of El Camino Real International Heritage Center dedication in south Socorro County, Gov. Bill Richardson, after cutting the ribbon, reminded visitors that this was the second State Monument ribbon cutting of the year. The first was on June 4 05 when he cut the ribbon at the new Bosque Redondo State Memorial, part of Fort Sumner State Monument. "I’d like to do one a year during my watch,” he said. Well, he hasn't done another historic property since so he's at least a year behind. Although El Vado might not be worthy of state monument status, perhaps the Guv could come to QQ's aid on El Vado, now that the city has shown some interest, and get his preservation record back on schedule

Comment by John on January 8, 2008 at 1:35am: I too was surprised when I found out the public wasn't allowed to comment on the El Vado case. But that didn't stop us supporters in the audience from applauding the council's decision after the 2+ hour discussion. ;)

I was glad to see that no one on the City Council thought that demolishing the El Vado was acceptable, although many of them didn't seem to realize the importance of getting the landmark status on the El Vado as soon as possible. Councilor Benton was dead on: If we don't make this a landmark, we could very likely lose it. When you're dealing with a guy like Gonzales, you can't take any chances.

Comment by Johnny_Mango on January 8, 2008 at 1:50am: Did Debbie O'Malley give her reasons for voting against the designation?

Comment by Adelita on January 8, 2008 at 6:14am: I'm dissappointed in O'Malley. I'd like to know her reasons as well.

Comment by missy on January 8, 2008 at 7:40am: what o'malley kept saying, over and over, last night was that she couldn't believe it had been two years of arguing and we're still in this limbo-esque position. she did some very strange things last night that really made me question her allegiances: mainly, she left the room as soon as the city finished making their (EXCELLENT) presentations. she didn't even bother listening to gonzales or his attorney or to his appraiser. she returned to the room almost 20 minutes later, once the council was starting to question everyone. i found that odd--she had obviously already made up her mind about the issue at hand and/or has had conversations with gonzales and his reps outside of the council context. in any event, it was concerning.

Comment by missy on January 8, 2008 at 7:40am: also, it should be noted that the reason it has taken two years is because gonzales has determined it do so....

Comment by missy on January 8, 2008 at 7:58am: as to purchase/preservation, the el vado was purchased by gonzales for $680K; it has been appraised for as little as $300K and as much as $800K during the time that he has owned it. the city indicated last night, through their attorney, that $700K is available that could be used to purchase the el vado. mr. gonzales currently has the property listed at a ridiculous $2.2 million (see the listing here: http://www.placitasrealestate.com/address.php?property_ID=668).

yes, this has gone on forever but bear in mind it is gonzales' doing--he bought a property with a clear yet inappropriate plan for the site. he wants to demolish a historic structure with no engineering/condition problems that could not be easily remedied. and, he intends to build townhouses, which that site is not even zoned for. the deal was ridiculous to begin with--an experienced, concientious developer would have known better. mr. gonzales' attitude is that of a spoiled child who is forced to play with a really nice toy he no longer likes--time for him to get reasonable and negotiate a sale.

his attorney stressed "subsidy" for whatever development mr. gonzales would undertake many times during the discussion--i am more concerned about paying for crap townhomes on the el vado site than in preserving the current structures.

Comment