Contact
Subscribe
Voters give progressives a mandate in Las Cruces
With her re-election victory over Jim Harbison, Thomas, right, is one of five progressive-backed candidates elected to the six-member city council. Mayor Ken Miyagishima was also backed in his 2007 campaign by progressives. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
District 6 Councilor Sharon Thomas thinks she knows why progressive-backed candidates won every city council race in Las Cruces on Tuesday.
“I think it says that (voters) want to be involved in their city government and they want opportunities to participate, and that they support our attempts to move toward a really sustainable community,” she said.
Progressive-backed candidates have now sounded that theme through two election cycles. In 2007, that argument won them the mayor’s race and two council seats. They picked up another seat when Thomas won a special election in early 2008, and that gave them a slight majority on the council.
With Tuesday’s victories by Olga Pedroza over incumbent Dolores C. Archuleta, Gill M. Sorg over incumbent Gil Jones, and Thomas over James Harbison, candidates who were backed by the progressive movement now hold the mayor’s office and five of six seats on the council.
Doña Ana County Commissioner Scott Krahling, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Las Cruces’ east mesa, wrote on a New Mexico Independent live blog that while the progressive movement is clearly well organized, the real reason for its success is its focus on more sustainable growth policies.
“In Las Cruces we’ve seen a strong movement toward better planning and tonight we see that the movement is still strong,” Krahling wrote. “Right or wrong, those that won represent the hope for better planning for the growth here. The voters in the community are demanding a better plan for the future.”
Voter turnout was better than it has been in some past elections. In the District 6 race won by Thomas, it was 22 percent. In the District 5 race won by Sorg, it was 15 percent. In the District 3 race won by Pedroza it was 10 percent.
When Thomas first won the office last year, turnout in her district was also 22 percent. The last time all three districts were up for grabs – in 2005 – overall turnout was just under 6 percent. Before that, in 2001, it was 10 percent.
Noting that turnout wasn’t as high in her district as some others, Pedroza said District 3 residents still want good representation.
“People in the district seem to be a little less politically involved but I think that, nevertheless, given the opportunity to vote for somebody who will make a difference, they will vote for them – and I think that’s what happened here,” she said.
Sorg echoed Thomas’ sentiment about voters supporting the progressive agenda.
“I think it makes a statement about what’s going on here in Las Cruces,” he said. “There needs to be a change — a change for better planning, smart growth.”
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
11 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“the issue of job growth and creation”
Ok, you tell us how this would be accomplished. Jobs are becoming more scarce all across the nation.
@Luna. Reading comprehesion is useful tool. Its about priorities and balance. The model place for this “progressive” agenda is California and while its resources are enormous, its financial situation is very likely to end of costing the rest of huge amounts of money for a long time to come.
Thse folks have no problem burdening everyone for the utopian world they insist we must live in.
Well Luna, obviously bike lanes mean alot to you, you must be retired and have no worries about jobs.
This is what congress is doing, putting spin on things they think we need (government-run healthcare) and ignore reality (a tanking economy and double-digit unemployment percentages).
@Ramirez – I know, right?
Bike lanes destroy jobs! And so does wilderness designation!
I’m fairly convinced that the bike-lovers in Las Cruces have caused the world-wide economic crisis that cost Ramirez his Las Cruces job, and if it weren’t for progressives, we’d have more jobs everywhere.
Less bikes =s more jobs. Such a simple equation. Why doesn’t anyone seem to get it?
Onecity-
Nobody is complaining about the openness of the city government; it is the agenda we have a problem with.
I would have loved to stay in Las Cruces, but I could not find a decent job.
That is because these “progressives” who have already made their living are focused on making Las Cruces a utopia for bikers and dog lovers. Bike lanes and wilderness designations (among other things) do nothing more than serve a collective handful of individuals that choose to be active in city elections. These issues do not help the issue of job growth and creation.
But that’s not what the progressives want.
These crazy radicals want bike lanes in this town. Bike lanes? Can you imagine what our town will look like in five years? It will be strewn with needless bike lanes. These radical environmentalists will probably want bike lanes in their bike lanes!
There won’t be any room for cars anymore, and because we won’t have cars anymore, we won’t be able to import food and goods. This city will die from this radical, progressive, insane “bike lane” idea.
And Las Cruces will get a new “bike tax”. I’m sure of it.
These “progressives” are probably the most radical progressives on the planet… because they ride bikes.
I agree with onecity that the people have spoken. I do not know they gave a mandate; they gave each person elected the ability to fulfill that office. The strategy now is called “Progressive.” What are the tactics? Will there be more open land withheld from the marketplace? Will the city actively discourage businesses that are not “green” in their product or methods? Will this council mandate curbside recycling? And, on and on it goes.
But those questions really beg the actual question. The Las Cruces City Council, like the Las Cruces School Board and the Dona Ana County Commissioners are all a “weak” form of government in which the elected members only have two actions in reality: they can fire the manager and they can hire a new manager. They cannot get involved with the specifics in city management, that is the city manager’s role.
I like the city manager very much and think he has done a great job. He did so in a different non-progressive era. It remains to be seen if he can satisfy the now overwhelmingly progressive city council. The only valid question a day after the election is: how will a progressive agenda change the employment and actions of the city government employees? And, what will any changes in those employees mean for each citizen?
What a bunch of soreheads. After a half dozen elections – including the ones last night — in which the citizens have clearly voted for good growth policies, you guys still whine about how the voters just can’t understand your superior view of how things should be.
Las Cruces government is more open than it’s ever been under the new mayor ad council, more and more people are getting involved, and life here is getting better every year. Too bad you guys are so busy complaining that you can’t see it.
Las Cruces was in a mess under the progressives before, but now we have a world of problems. The city has not kept up with the infrastructure, they have let neighborhoods that were built thirty years ago, go without proper sidewalks, drains or sewers, while they continue to build things like bike paths for recreation that are not used that often. In the meantime they make excuses why they don’t have the money to do something that needs to be done to promote safety and health, while spending money on things that aren’t needed.
The city and county should get together on a way to build a decent 911 facility with enough operators that can take care of the city and county needs. The building they are in is old and in a flood zone. The operators are taking close to 900 calls per shift, and the dispatching is not up to national standards. What’s happening to rectify this problem? This is not a mandate to stop growth in int the city, but to grow with forethought and control.
On top of that they cry for more money to run the city and expand their beautification programs while the whole country is in a crunch for money. I ask you, is this to the benefit of living? I thought the quality of life was meant to take second place over the necessities that are needed for safety and for health, while we can hardly even drive down Roadrunner after a heavy rain because of the sand that washes across it.
The ideas that Miyagashima and the progressives are interested in are a waste of taxpayer money. I do not think the city officials have their priorities straight and I only hope they don’t wreck the city and turn it into a ghost town. Who needed a bigger city hall? who needed excessive bike trails for only a few who use them? Where is the safety to the public when the bike and walking trails are used after dark?
If one wants to see how much they are used, take a look at the one on Triviz. During the day there are very few people on it, either walking or cycling. After dark there is no one on it. Then the city wants to pass another tax for quality of life and they put in camera lights that do nothing for safety, but bring in a small amount of money every year to cover pork barrel projects, while promoting quick stops that can cause rear end collisions. Again I ask, what has happened to the priorities in this city, or for that matter in this state.
“Doña Ana County Commissioner Scott Krahling, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Las Cruces’ east mesa, wrote on a New Mexico Independent live blog that while the progressive movement is clearly well organized, the real reason for its success is its focus on more sustainable growth policies.”
Well that’s just wishful thinking. With turnouts that low its clearly about organization. Not one in a thousand people could provide a decent explanation of what “sustainable growth policies” are and in any case don’t understand its just code words for government control, and a negative impact on job growth and the local economy. Among other things.
“a change for better planning, smart growth.”
More like the opportunity to stifle growth. Las Cruces is sadly becoming the next Santa Fe. No jobs for anyone, an economy that continues to lag; all because 200 “progressives” turned out to vote.
That’s what we get, if we don’t turn out, we get handed a government that can proceed with a minority agenda while having a “progressive” voice sitting in every city council seat.