Baseless.
That was the conclusion I reached after reading a copy of the formal appeal filed by new El Vado Motel owner Richard Gonzales. He’s protesting the Albuquerque Landmarks Commission’s recommendation to designate El Vado at city landmark.
I’ll address Gonzales’ complaints one by one briefly:
That El Vado is not economically and socially viable.
— If El Vado was so economically lousy, why did it operate continously since the 1930s? The fact Gonzales recently put El Vado up for sale for $3.25 million — nearly five times his purchase price — in just three months tells me it’s pretty darned viable.
The socially viable argument is based mostly on a few transients and the “lack of amenities.” With that reasoning, you might as well bulldoze all motels that date to 1955 or older.
The Landmarks Commission needed all seven members to vote on it.
— The commission had five members present, which was a quorum. There’s no need for all members of a governmental body for it to convene. And it’s a moot point when the five voted unanimously. Two more members wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
That Gonzales didn’t give his permission for the landmark application.
— Gonzales states: “The justification for applying without the owner’s consent was based on their fear that I would demolish the motel.” The fear was justified when Gonzales made his intentions to the Albuquerque Tribune:
“It’s been a real eyesore for awhile,” Gonzales said. “I’m sick of looking at it. … I’ve talked to quite a few people who want to see that thing gone. …
“If I don’t get the zoning, that doesn’t stop the project,” he said. “As far as demolishing it, nothing will prohibit me.”
Gonzales’ own words undermine his argument.
No comments came from the safety, health and building departments about El Vado’s suitability as a city landmark.
— The Landmarks Commission noted that other city landmarks were in much worse shape before they were renovated. So this seems to be another specious argument.
Gonzales says the landmark application could have been modified as he requested.
— The argument is moot because the mayor of Albuquerque, not Gonzales, was the applicant.
More half-truths, convoluted arguments and unsubstantiated allegations are contained in the appeal, and I don’t have the energy to list them.
It also should be noted that the Landmarks Commission’s recommendation is not legally binding. So it seems an appeal of a nonbinding resolution is a curious move.
I predict the Land Use Hearing Officer will quickly deny this appeal — when he stops laughing.