More about El Vado hearing

The Albuquerque Journal had a story about the city’s Landmarks and Urban Conservation Commission’s decision Wednesday to recommend El Vado Motel be designated a City Landmark, thus protecting it from redevelopment.

(Note: I would have posted the story Thursday, except the Journal has the most difficult-to-navigate newspaper Web site I’ve seen, so I missed it.)

Owner Richard Gonzales wants to raze the historic Route 66 motel and build luxury townhouses on the site. According to the Journal, he indicated he may take the city to court over the landmarks decision.

Gonzales said he assumed the City Council would follow the commission’s lead to impose landmark status on the motel. He promised the issue would not be over with the council vote.

“You guys do what you have to do and I’ll do what I have to do,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’ attorney, John Kelly, confirmed further legal action by saying that placing the landmark status on El Vado amounted to a “regulatory taking” of the property, which city attorneys said is not the case.

“We’re not going to know for sure until this goes before a judge,” Kelly said.

Johnnie Meier, a longtime Route 66 advocate in New Mexico, attended the hearing and provided interesting details, including out-of-control behavior by Gonzales:

The public was allowed 2 minutes per speaker and nine members of the public made presentations, all in favor of landmarking. Highlights included testimony from the regional representative for the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Albuquerque Conservation Organization. In addition Route 66 preservation activists Johnnie Meier, Melissa Lea, and Claire Richardson made presentations that included the reading of an advocacy letter from the National Park Service, a reading of entries from the El Vado guestbook, and citations from 16 books referencing the importance of the El Vado.

Another member of the public spoke identifying himself as representing a group of investors prepared to offer $500,000 for the motel with the intent to renovate the motel. This testimony drew a series of outbursts from the property owner, Richard Gonzales. The outbursts consisted of storming to the podium microphone, interrupting testimony with objections. The outbursts resulted in admonishment and a call for order from the Commission chair, to which Gonzales responded that he had “no respect” for the commission and its members.

It is my view that Mr Gonzales’ uncivil behavior and insult to the Commission was essentially burning bridges with regard to any future appeals or requests for demolition. The consensus among the preservation proponents, based on the two previous years of proceedings, is that Gonzales is unlikely to be successful in dissuading the City Council from approving Landmarking status as recommended by the Land Use and Urban Conservation Commission (LUCC) and is unlikely to be successful on appeals to the City Council or the LUCC.

Also, although Gonzales has the right to apply for demolition under the newest Landmarking decision, the record is that his application for demolition was denied under the overturned Landmarking that was enacted in 2006. The consensus is that the Gonzales and his attorney may challenge the Landmarking Ordinance in a court proceeding. When asked by Commission member Heiser if the property owner’s attorney could cite any prior cases nationwide where landmarking or historical recognition was judged to be a “taking,” the attorney responded that he was not aware of any case precedent but noted that there may exist out-of-court settlements that had prevented a court ruling but therefore constituted a “taking” judgment. […]

The unanimous vote was an indication of solidarity on the issue. Upon reading the decision, the attending preservation proponents applauded the Commission.

Given the property owner’s unwillingness to develop the property using the existing structures, the practical option open to the property owner is to sell the property.

The Journal had an interesting angle about El Vado’s perceived lack of viability:

Kelly and Gonzales used the city’s economic impact study to make the point that while the buildings may be historic, the land is more valuable if it is cleared and redeveloped.

According to the city’s study, the value of the property would be about $800,000 if the land was cleared and developed. If the buildings are to remain and are not used, the value would stand at about $323,000. The study states that the cost of fixing up the buildings in order to use them as a motel once again would be “economically infeasible.”

The study does not make any recommendations on how the motel property could be financially viable. […]

Despite the economic impact to Gonzales, the commission voted unanimously to recommend landmark status.

“It’s more than a landmark, it’s an icon,” said Commissioner Robert Heiser.

Heiser’s point cuts across the economic feasibility issue. Seldom is a landmark saved because it’s going to make a buck for its owner. It’s saved because it’s an important part of history, and because it is loved. America would be a soulless place if everything were done solely for the sake of money.

However, Meier fleshed out those issues in an additional way. Essentially, the economics are not a factor in LUCC’s decision:

The property owner’s attorney did not dispute that the El Vado deserved Landmarking under the 10 criteria specified under the ordinance, which concerned the historic and cultural value of the property. The developer’s attorney instead dwelled on the economic impact on the property owner as a result of Landmarking. In fact, the entire 45 minutes of the property owner’s presentation dealt with their assertion that the developer would be denied the “highest and best use” valuation of the property, as townhomes, and that denying the property owner may be viewed as a “regulatory taking.” A regulatory taking in this context is a legal term that has to do with alleging that the city is seizing value from the property owner through the act of landmarking, in essence, an attack on property rights. The City Attorney characterized the entire testimony on behalf of the property owner as irrelevent to the ten criteria and that the testimony was a “red herring” tactic meant to divert the discussion from the real issue — the 10 criteria.

Factoring in Gonzales’ rudeness, a lack of legal precedent to fight the LUCC’s decision and that the LUCC closely followed its criteria, the odds that the landmark designation will be overturned by the City Council appear to be nil.

However, another letter and e-mail campaign will be organized on El Vado’s behalf when it is scheduled on the City Council’s agenda for final approval. Nothing like positive reinforcement to ensure the city continues to do the right thing.

(Photo courtesy of The Lope.)

4 thoughts on “More about El Vado hearing

  1. Although I would hope that at least some of the rooms could be preserved — for displays if not for actual use by guests. The style is unusual and, at least in the rooms I’ve seen there, uses heavy timber seldom seen these days. And when there’s a need for more emails, I’ll have my keyboard loaded and ready.

    Thanks, Ron

  2. I find the questions about economic feasibility pretty disingenuous. The motel operated continuously as a motel from its construction in 1937 until Gonzales bought it and closed it in 2005. That doesn’t say “not viable as a motel” to me. That says “developer thought he could make more money by tearing down motel so he deliberately closed it without ever trying to find out whether it was viable” to me.

    If I had the money, I’d buy it and turn it into a B&B. Stick a kitchen in the front office, put a big dining table in that gorgeous room with the fireplace in it, and charge whatever you like for rooms. People will happily pay $150 a night for a $40 room if you hang some Laura Ashley curtains in the windows and feed them $3 worth of bacon and eggs for breakfast.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.