What's going on, Albuquerque?

Morning Fix - Snapped Ankle Ligament

I always thought the landscape was ill-advised, but this embodies everything wrong with earmarks. The prototypical local news take can be found here.
In the interest of full disclosure, I serve on the marketing committee for the AAIBMF, but nonetheless, this new exhibit is worthy of a look-see.
Apparently, public bathroom pipes are worth money. I just like pics of urinals.
CSI Aviation donates a PLANE to the State Police. Does former state Republican Chairman Allen Weh still own that company? Dare is say there could be a possible ulterior motive?
THANK YOU, John Strader, for bringing the Shovel Racing Championship Crown back to the Duke City!
Local unsung civil rights hero George Sanchez is finally set to receive his due kudos here in NM.
As much as he may leave a bad taste in people's mouths, Paul Gessing may be onto something with the transparency of public salaries made available via the web.

1 member likes this

Comment by once banned twice shy on February 11, 2013 at 8:45am: I don't think that courthouse landscape fix had anything to do with earmarks. The story in the Journal said that there was money in the budget to fix the leak, so the judges asked the GSA to fix the leak. The GSA went all medieval all over it.

Indeed, though, my main question throughout this whole thing has been "why in the hell didn't they put in xeric landscaping in the first place--and did they need a fountain?"

Comment by Hunter on February 11, 2013 at 9:07am: As I recall the issue of xeric was raised during the construction. However, the then Chief Judge at the time apparently took umbrage at any notion that any nod should be given to City policy by a Federal fiefdom and decided in favor of the lawn.

Comment by Kelly on February 11, 2013 at 10:15am: Albuquerque won another crown: http://geekswhodrink.com/546 (The first place team should look familiar to ABQ quizzers.)

Comment by Benny the Icepick on February 11, 2013 at 11:34am: I think it's misleading to say that the leak cost $3.4m or that the GSA went "medieval." They identified a problem and, instead of putting a bandaid on it, took a proactive approach and seized an opportunity to make some real improvements to the property to reduce long-term operating costs.

When you consider that a public building has a life expectancy of at least fifty years, lifetime operating costs often approach 4-5 times the initial capital cost of constructing the building. Any efforts made to reduce these expenses - such as the water cisterns and solar panels - save a lot of money in the long run.

Sure, it's not what the judges were expecting when they made their initial complaint about the leak, but I think it is a good project with sound reasoning behind it.