Agua Fria Village

Agua Fria Village

Protecting Traditional Communities Through Planning

Agua Fria Village Association has been participating with the United Communities of Santa Fe County (http://unitedcommunitiessantafecounty.ning.com/) to protect Traditional Communities like Agua Fria. We are participating in the rewriting of Santa Fe County's Sustainable Land Development Plan


Although the Sustainable Land Development Plan routinely mentions the preservation of traditional communities there is really no detail as to how
this is done. The very survival of
“Traditional Communities” is in jeopardy, now. After existing over three hundred years,
development pressures effectively can dismantle the ability of a community to
retain its identity and independence.
Property taxes threaten to drive existing people out by making their
homes and vacant lots unaffordable; competition for traditional water sources
is also a community killer. There may be
a need for buffer zones of “no-growth” around traditional communities in order
to realistically protect them.



There is a need to better understand traditional communities and rural areas and the slow steady growth they have as each generation comes of age, and wants to “do their
own thing.” This type of growth is
different than a classic subdivision where in five years every lot is built on as
two or three phases are approved and no new houses are built; so no unplanned
infrastructure capacity can occur. In
traditional communities and rural areas, they may never stop growing in any
given area. In fact, many have been
doing this for over three hundred years.
By the mechanism of ‘family transfer’ in the Land Use Code more lots are
developed but larger public sewer and water lines are not planned for
(capacity). In order to address this
problem, we need to reserve 100 years of County infrastructure planning in the Sustainable
Land Development Plan
(i.e., water rights say through water banking) to
accommodate this growth before we promise it to developers in the next 15-20
years through “development agreements” recommended in the Code and Plan.



The ‘wet water’ belonging to the County of Santa Fe (1,700 acre feet) in the Buckman Direct Diversion project (and water rights which are being obtained to access this
water) should have a percentage held out for traditional communities; perhaps
as low as 25% (or 425 acre feet).



Our comments, input and suggestions for “Water Management” are being drafted by our “Water Resources Committee” and will be forwarded separately (portions have
previously been submitted in response to the Code). But basically, the fact that the Plan makes
development dependent on the ‘importation’ of water is totally unsustainable
and destructive; development should be more dependent on the amount of water
available ‘on site’, ground water and rain water, and not much else. So when considering the amount of water
available it should be proportionally apportioned not just to people but also
to the native flora and fauna of the specific ecosystem or bioregion,
including the portions needed for man-made natural environments like
landscaping, agriculture and ranching.




What we would also like to see is a sort of infill policy and utilizing the funds in the County’s Affordable Housing Ordinance fund (some seven million dollars),
Traditional Communities like Agua Fria Village could purchase the land from
potential developers, like the already approved but not developed Tavelli
Property, and hold it and then develop it themselves for village couples
starting off in life. Especially, involving
those families which have no more land available for family transfer to the
next generation.



To summarize, UCSFC stands ready to work side-by-side with the County in revising the Plan and in better understanding our input.



Views: 18

Comment by William Henry Mee on March 27, 2010 at 1:49pm
I would like to see the addition of a new Chapter 15 on Traditional Communities as follows:

Chapter 15 Traditional Communities:

15.1 Binding Principles
15.2 Critical Findings
15.2.1 Key Issues
15.2.2 Keys to sustainability
15.3 Growth Trends
15.3.1 Growth Projections
15.3.2 Preliminary Official Map
(to be written by County)

There are thirty-three “Traditional Communities” in Santa Fe County: Agua Fria Village, Arroyo Seco, Canada de los Alamos, Canoncito, Cerrillos, Chimado, Chupadero, Cienguilla, Cuartelez (Cuatro Villas), Cundiyo, Cuyamungue, El Rancho, Galisteo, Glorieta, Jacona, Jamonita, Jacona Land Grant, La Bajada Village, La Capilla-Canon, La Cienega Valley, La Mesilla, La Puebla, Lamy, Madrid, Nambé, Pojoaque, Rio En Medio (Dos Rios), San Pedro, Santa Cruz, Sombrillo, Stanley, Tesuque (Las Tres Villas), and Upper San Pedro. Included in this number are five Traditional Historic Communities (THC) protected by state statute (3-7-1.1. Traditional historic community; qualifications; annexation restrictions http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document...
3-2-3. Urbanized territory; incorporation limited within urbanized territory C. http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document...
): Agua Fria Village, Arroyo Seco, Cerrillos, La Cienega and Tesuque. The approximate population of a few of these areas, since not all are Census Designated Places (County can fix this in 2010), is in figure X:

Agua Fria CDP 2,051 persons; 760 households
Chupadero CDP 318 persons; 145 households
Rio en Medio CDP131 persons; 43 households
Tesuque CDP 909 persons; 541 households
About 20,000 population
http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/files/SUB-EST2008-35.csv
La Cienega CDP, New Mexico 2000 (Includes Cieneguilla)
Total population 3,007
Galisteo CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 265
Canada de los Alamos CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 358
El Valle de Arroyo Seco CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 1,149
Cedar Grove CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 599
Madrid CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 149
Pojoaque CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 1,261
Glorieta CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 859
Cuyamungue CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 421
Jaconita CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 343
El Rancho CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 817
Cundiyo CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 95

Rio Chiquito CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 103
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=DEC...
Geographic Area: La Puebla CDP, New Mexico 2000
Total population 1,296

Traditional Communities are a resource and opportunity to Santa Fe County that can be utilized to maximize existing county resources. There is a reason these areas became places of settlement. They are desirable areas of the county, and capable of sustaining life; from the time of pre-historic tribes through the Pueblos, through the Conquistadors and colonization to the present day. Usually, founded near a permanent water source with clear access routes (for trade or defense purposes), and some type of natural resources (forest, mining, flat fields, etc.); they remain a place of settlement that is seemingly permanent. While historically communities have risen and fallen based on their ability to flourish (i.e., the mining and railroad communities of: Waldo, Carbonateville, Bonanza, Turquesa, Colorado, Ojo de la Vacá, Ojo Abajeños, Dolores, Ortiz, Kennedy, Buckman, etc.), only traditional communities have survived. Traditional Communities are based on three main elements:

- centralized purpose;
- cultural functions; and
- mixed uses.

Jack Kolkmeyer is fond of asking: As a community what do you want to do and what do you need?

The definition of a community is related to a boundary and these boundaries are described historically and through land records. For instance, Agua Fria Village has existed on maps as a map point without ever having a distinct village boundary. Maps dating back to 1700 have the name Agua Fria Road although the place of settlement is not actually defined. What exists in the minds of Santa Feans as the boundaries of Agua Fria is disputed by old-timers of the boundaries of Cieneguitas and Acres Estates. Communities that are over 100 years old are considered traditional communities and are fairly easy to document their existence. So many of our traditional communities have no formal method of governance, like a proclaimed mayor, but there is a quasi-governance provided by the mayordomo system of the acequias, a system of elders, and the church and school boundaries. The church parish council and the parent-teacher association along with the acequia commission governed the village without a lot of formal record keeping. There is a semi-autonomous nature of traditional communities that has existed for centuries without being intrusive. There is an independent spirit of rugged individualism in traditional communities that has existed for years and has resisted the creation of formal governance.

The 1980 Santa Fe County General Plan first created the term “traditional communities” in Ordinance form. But, the research and willingness to preserve villages started in 1975. The 1999 Santa Fe County General Plan reaffirmed traditional communities and gave them the ability to create a “Community Plan” that protects them and proposes what they want to do in the future.

Traditional communities like Chimayo and Canada de los Alamos have refused to develop community plans and the County is fine with that and recognizes that this is a choice and based on a tradition of self-sufficiency and independence.

Fourteen community plans were done and approved by county ordinance, and seven local Development Review Committees (LDRC) existed in each of the traditional communities, whichreally didn’t have enough of a function to serve their home communities. LDRCs were limited to hearing variances and average citizens in the area were under the mistaken impression that they were a public forum where all development would be heard. Many projects offensive to the communities were approved administratively and the communities felt that they never had a say-so like when a project went to the LDRC.

Traditional communities had a well defined and planned sense of sustainability to them. It was a connectivity and longevity that became keys to sustainability. They used native building materials like the non-food-producing soil for adobes, mud plaster and dirt roof insulation. They used willows which clogged the acequias for latillas in the roof. They oriented their houses to the south to capture the Earth’s solar energy. They clustered housing around churches, plazas and centers of human activity which reduced transportation impacts. They utilized a minimum of land for housing and roads so as to maximize food production (consequently, in the twentieth century, this has frustrated the Fire Marshall because of houses too close together and driveways too small for a ladder truck to pass through). They used acequias based on gravity flow (no energy usage) and surface water which did not impact limited ground water resources (but in fact, under the 2002-9 NMSU study by Dr. Sam Fernald (http://newscenter.nmsu.edu/news/article/?page=article&action=sh...), has been found to greatly recharge ground water wells).

The traditional communities had a unique common sense to them:
- they were self-contained with a church, school, blacksmith who doubled as a horse shoer and farm equipment repairman, carpenters, etc. In Agua Fria Village for example, oral histories show that no one traveled outside of the village for employment or goods until after World War Two. People went to town to buy steel or wire for repairs or even just once a year for sugar and salt.
- smaller houses that could be added onto quickly as more children were born (sweat equity and family transfers were our original and continuing “affordable housing” program).
- houses were also “dismantled” to provide quick materials for newly weds.
- root cellars and back porches screened and facing north where they were cooler and out of the sun (where meat was dried and salted) were common place.
- what we consider to be decorative, red chile ristras, where a method of preserving food for year-round use (squash and apples were sliced and dried on strings on front porches and where later stored in burlap bags).
- shade trees on the south of the house and evergreens on the north for stopping winter winds.
- areas of the forest were set aside by the King of Spain in common land grants for their use and were not to be denuded but thinned.
- farmers were all organic farmers utilizing livestock manure, native/heritage seed exchanges and George Washington’s seven field rotation (check Code of the West Indies) until U.S. Soil and Conservation Service advocated a three crop rotation and commercial fertilizer and hybrid seed.
- outhouses were shut down then harvested for organics until lime started to be used as a “health precaution.”
- common areas off the road held dumps where parts were recycled off of equipment, wagons, bicycles, and automobiles.
- thicker green waste like tree branches were stored in arroyos to prevent erosion and were harvested as compost and fuel until county dumping restrictions were imposed.
- and, farm equipment was held in the “commons” and was loaned out.

Ann Murray and Ross Lockridge shared with us Elinor Ostrom’s writings on the “Tragedy of the Commons” that earned her the Nobel Prize in Economics (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/10/elinor...; http://ourdinnertable.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/great-write-up-of-el...). Whereby, the common lands and uses like: land grants, acequias, community centers, plazas, road turn-arounds, drainage fields and tanks, farming equipment, and common grazing lands; are turned into private property or are privatized. Fences go up that prohibit acequia maintenance and common grazing lands.

The very survival of “Traditional Communities” is in jeopardy, now. After existing over three hundred years, development pressures effectively can dismantle the ability of a community to retain its identity and independence. Property taxes threaten to drive out existing people by making their homes and vacant lots unaffordable; competition for traditional water sources (acequias and streams) is also a community killer. There may be a need for buffer zones of “no-growth” around traditional communities in order to realistically and permanently protect them. Similar to what we have proposed for agricultural areas. We recommend the addition of a “7.5 Protection of Traditional Communities” under Factor Group 7; and the addition of a goal statement “Policy 2.9 Protect and support Traditional Communities” in the SLDP.

There is a need to better understand traditional communities and rural areas and the slow steady growth they have as each generation comes of age, and wants to “do their own thing.” This type of growth is different than a classic subdivision where in five years every lot is built on as two or three phases are approved and no new houses are built; so no unplanned infrastructure capacity can occur. In traditional communities and rural areas, they may never stop growing in any given area. In fact, many have been doing this for over three hundred years. By the mechanism of ‘family transfer’ in the Land Use Code more lots are developed but larger public sewer and water lines are not planned for (capacity). In order to address this problem, we need to reserve 100 years of County infrastructure planning in the Sustainable Land Development Plan (i.e., water rights say through water banking) to accommodate this growth before we promise it to developers in the next 15-20 years through “development agreements” recommended in the Code and Plan.

The ‘wet water’ belonging to the County of Santa Fe (1,700 acre feet) in the Buckman Direct Diversion BDD project (and water rights which are being obtained to access this water) should have a percentage held out for traditional communities; perhaps as low as 25% (or 425 acre feet). For Agua Fria we are planning a 100 year need of 200 acre feet from BDD. Note: our comments, input and suggestions for “Water Management” are being drafted by our “Water Resources Committee” and will be forwarded separately (portions have previously been submitted in response to the Code). But basically, the fact that the Plan makes development dependent on the ‘importation’ of water is totally unsustainable and destructive; development should be more dependent on the amount of water available ‘on site’, ground water and rain water, and not much else. So when considering the amount of water available it should be proportionally apportioned not just to people but also to the native flora and fauna of the specific ecosystem or bioregion, including the portions needed for man-made natural environments like landscaping, agriculture and ranching.

There is a loss of ‘community character’ that has happened over the years and needs to be reversed. It is recognizing the individual identity and value of each community. In Agua Fria we started this with simple signs that say: “Welcome to Agua Fria Village.” Santa Fe County’s “Community Planning” process has done this across the county and we are thankful for that.

Expansion and support of traditional communities by Santa Fe County fits with the “new ruralism” themes in the Sustainable Land Development Plan. Originally, traditional communities were put in the SDA-1 areas of the county because there are appropriate areas for infill and are natural areas where clustering has occurred over the years. Now a special designation has been created for communities on the County’s official land use map.

What traditional communities would like to see is a sort of infill policy and utilizing the funds in the County’s Affordable Housing Ordinance fund (some seven million dollars), whereby a Traditional Community like Agua Fria Village could purchase the land from potential developers, like the already approved but not developed Tavelli Property, and hold it and then develop it themselves for village couples starting off in life. Especially, involving those families which have no more land available for family transfer to the next generation. This could be done by making a land trust or corporation and then issuing shares in the corporation to prospective new purchasers.

We need to take into consideration that traditional communities have many residents with low income or who are elderly and on fixed incomes; and therefore there is no capital for infrastructure and economic development needs. In Agua Fria Village where most citizens are low income there is a need for the government to come forward and invest in infrastructure through grants or no-interest loans to hook people up to the city-county sewer system to protect groundwater by removing septic tanks. There is no “developer” in the picture to pay for it. The County has to step up to the plate and develop the long range plans and maybe even work with residents to consolidate land parcels so that the new parcels have better gravity flow to reach the public sewer systems. Residents have paid taxes for years without receiving any direct community benefit from them. The County can bring together neighbors and families where there was a mistrust to give up easements for infrastructure improvements. Even within one family there has been past occasions where a landowner felt cheated by where a fence or road was put. The County as an outside entity, and through the County Surveyor, can settle these disputes.

One of the overall themes of the Plan that was discussed in the Review Workshops was to add a binding principle of: spell-out the possibilities in each chapter of localized systems and services. Another binding principle is that people want choices. Like the choice of systems for service delivery and very often this means no large systems and more localized alternatives. In extending that theme to the traditional communities we examine what can and can’t be done locally in the next few paragraphs.

National planning standards say that it takes: 2,500 people to support a convenience store-gas station; 10,000 people to support a supermarket; 40,000 people to support a major retail store (Wal-mart or Lowes); and 160,000 people to support a regional mall or downtown. Yet, all the traditional communities had a general store at their heart with much smaller populations until the invasion of the big box stores in the 1980-90’s, and their tax incentives and tax loopholes provided by government that made competition with general stores unfair.

The general store combined the qualities of a grocery store, hardware store, fabric shop, candy store, liquor and smoke shop, and gas station. In this sense, it provided a little of everything for everybody and could violate the “national planning standards” by avoiding the specialization and centralization that urban planners were seeking. The residents of traditional communities would go once a month or less into the City of Santa Fe or Albuquerque and would send the kids to the general store every couple of days for a quart of milk or some other necessary item. A few general stores were even pharmacies created by medics coming out of World War II and assessing the G.I. Bill for loans. The classic “mom and pop general store” was the center of the traditional community’s life and you often found kids hanging out on the front steps and a checker board on a card table on the porch (maybe a card game in the back room). A lot of teenage kids had their first job sweeping the general store. Some general stores created a micro-economy by extending credit and taking vegetables and livestock in trade for groceries. As profit margins were declining for the general stores, more emphasis was placed on liquor and cigarette sales which negatively impacted communities.

The question here is: can traditional communities bring back the general store to save transportation costs and bring back money into their local economy? Can the tax incentives and tax loopholes provided by government to big boxes be shifted to the mom and pop general store?

Most traditional communities had their own schools and this continued until the 1955 School Consolidation Act by the N.M. State Legislature. For example, Agua Fria had two one-room school houses. The idea was that the centralization of schools into bigger buildings would reduce costs and expand opportunities for children’s education in having more elective classes instead of just the 3-Rs. In studies of the effectiveness of modern education, we are finding that children are getting better education in smaller classrooms and in more localized settings (i.e., their home communities), hence the spread of Charter schools and home-schooling. Changing elementary schools to K-8 schools (kindergarten to eighth grade) can give a more local setting to education. Changing the warehousing of students at two large regional high schools into local high schools can also be a solution. Agua Fria Village Association proposed this in 1995 to the Santa Fe School Board in asking them to buy the La Paz Subdivision out and place a high school there financed by a local district bond.

Traditional communities have had mutual domestic water associations started in the 1920’s and 30’s (usually in conjunction with the Works Progress Administration). Most systems were based on gravity flow and required a minimum of energy/power to produce water.

Traditional communities are an economic base for Santa Fe County and they have sustainable qualities that endure economic recessions. As clustered communities and with a rural nature they cost less to provide services to from the County perspective. Economic recoveries can start here as residents have lower debt ratios and many have home businesses and victory gardens. Residents have extended families to provide no or low cost child care and supervision. Many residents are from multi-generational families that have been on their land for years and consider living there permanently as oppose to other county residents who may leave for greener pastures and just walk away from their house and debt. By encouraging energy efficiency, the revitalization of acequias and economic development, the County can make traditional communities even more self-sufficient.

Many traditional communities have small businesses and home-based businesses in them. Most done without a lot of fanfare about it. Encouraging communities to develop “Business Directories” could assist residents in buying local. Because the Gross Receipts Tax rates are lower in County areas rather than city areas this trend will continue.

Other issues to address in traditional communities are:

- Respect the semi-autonomous nature of traditional communities.
- Limit growth to what can be sustained.
- Most traditional communities are located in rural areas, they are dense clusters that might be confused as urban areas, but in fact have rural values. There are chickens, horses cows and goats; and this is not just noise and manure, but the sounds and smells of the country. There is an attitude of live and let live.
- Integrate the existing county system of open space and trails (including equestrian) and connect into the local community to encourage use.Need to protect view sheds.
- Mitigate noise and light impairments by development.
- Base all water policy on a net-zero change model instead of a depletion model.
- Protect acequia users and agriculture from out of zone water rights transfers.
- Traditional communities are offered 1.0 acre foot of water under domestic wells to foster agriculture as opposed to other areas held to ¼ acre foot.
- The CIP should involve traditional communities more.
- There is a need for utility assistance, utility line extensions and surveying (perfection of land titles) in traditional communities.
- Loss of buildable land in traditional communities (i.e., building sites not in agricultural belt and as families exhaust all 1/3 and 3/4 acre lots they must go up or start family compounds). The community plans can be vehicles for infill.
- The use of roundabouts in traditional communities will improve traffic flow and decrease traffic speeds---but there is a reluctance on behalf of residents to put them in and a lack of education on how to drive on them.
- Paul White participated in creating an “Agricultural Revitalization Initiative Resolution” by the Board of County Commissioners. County economic development planner Duncan Sill has used this theme to work in projects in La Cienega and Agua Fria.
- To have “context sensitive solutions” (Chapter 10) that utilize natural resources like the water running off a highway to water native landscaping or have cisterns for fire prevention. The old style/paradigm of stormwater runoff management was to collect it ASAP and move it to a big concrete channel which increased speed and erosion. The new style is like Brad Lancaster that waters native trees 100% in Tucson’s medians thus reducing the overall temperature increase by development from 7 degrees to 3 degrees (Tucson’s roads and black roofs have increased the natural temperature by 7 degrees Fahrenheit---which makes a hot place even hotter and drier).
- Involving more citizens in the planning process and thinking of more innovative and alternative planning (creativity and incentives).
- The U.S. Resource Conservation Service (old Soil and Water Conservation Service) allows for funding for weed districts. County might try plan of “mowing” vacant lots of more than two acres belonging to senior citizens and low income people who have no resources to keep on top of weeds. Such fire breaks can prevent the spread of fire. Recent outbreaks of Tumbling Mustard Weed are a large fire hazard. Fire starts and weed goes airborne spreading fire to other lots. Explosion of prairie dog population adds to weed invasions as they root out native grasses and spread weed seeds. Prairie dog is not native to Santa Fe County (reference journals of Coronado where he first sighted Prairie Dog about 100 miles east of Las Vegas, N.M.). The reduction of coyotes have contributed to expansion of gopher populations that kill native grasses and encourage weed growth.
- There are a lot of invasive tree species that were planted by the Civilian Conservation Corps and schoolchildren were given Siberian Elms at the Cerrillos, Pojoaque, Stanley, and Agua Fria schools on Arbor Day. Russian Olives were touted for erosion control until the 1980’s. Now we have Salt Cedar eradication programs. So we do things as communities on the best advice of the government and then live to regret it.
- There are 1,340 Post Offices in New Mexico and Pojoaque Valley, with a population of over 10,000, is in a postal void. A preliminary investigation indicates that Pojoaque Valley is the largest community in the state without a full-service Post Office (http://pojoaquenews.com/about/).
- The ability to convert existing single family homes into housing for extended families should be expanded (care of parents, children moving back in---i.e., medical hardships not in code).
- The person applying for a building permit or buying a home should be given a notice, right in County Land Use, that their property taxes may go up to a certain level so they don’t have sticker shock. This is particular crucial when it is an owner-builder that is putting in sweat equity and maybe making his own adobes (putting in 0$) and the finished product in the Santa Fe Market is $100-200 per square foot.
- The County has many green building design tips in existing code but these are often too expensive for the little guy in the traditional community. So we need to remember that even the “greenest” built new house is less green than a remodeled house that is made a little more green in its remodeling. Providing a little education about how a green house can save you money and offering incentives to do it will advance the county’s overall programs (the term “green” including water conservation).
- Each traditional community should work on ways that they can deliver financial or social benefits to all their residents, on a local scale, so that there is genuine value in being in the traditional community area. Financial benefits include really thinking outside of the box and having things that save or make them money for being in the area. Like developing a small electric cooperative that reduces energy costs. Social benefits include: reducing crime, improving education, increasing health care coverage, having a senior citizen’s center, etc. This list is really only limited by our imaginations. The big point is to have an answer to the question: What's in it for Me? to be a part of the traditional community planning process as opposed to being outside the boundary or just not participating. Such value could be: negotiating with various waste management companies to get a “district rate” rather than a higher individual rate that people have now; pool resources to obtain better rates on base course and/or maintaining equipment for non-County-maintained roads.
- Extension of infrastructure who pays for it? This is a question in limbo where traditional communities have paid taxes for decades to the County but have failed to reap the benefits since they don’t have a tax base dedicated to their needs.

We need to plan for the Public Safety of Traditional Communities. Like to identify “hot spots” in traditional communities where roads are too narrow, trees have moved into cleared areas, household of ill or infirm residents, low water crossings, etc.; and, develop localized solutions like having fire departments that utilize more volunteers with intimate knowledge of their community (i.e., know who is infirm, etc.). They can know the locked gates and the codes and when to take the brush truck or the pumper. Community Organizations and neighborhood associations could be used for this data collection.

We need to understand the demographics and needs of our communities to address issues like:
- juvenile immigrant crime.
- there is no emergency response telephone “tree” in traditional communities place to alert county residents to potential emergency situations.
- there are not enough law enforcement officers to respond quickly to emergency situations, especially at night and in “911” situations..
- there are too few sub-stations to permit a “zoned” approach to law enforcement.
- there are too few code enforcement officers with too few resources to adequately up-hold the County’s land-use ordinances.
- there are many areas subject to wild-lands fires and we need creative solutions to the problem like cutting weeds with the county tractor as public service by the firemen in local communities.

Many traditional communities are “technology-challenged” with:
- Lack of fiber optics infrastructure;
- Older residents not computer literate; and
- Dead zones for cell phones and communication towers caused by remote and mountainous conditions.

There are conglomerations of communities like: Las Tres Villas (a.k.a., as Los Dos Rios--- Rio en Medio and Chuppadero, and Tesuque), Pojoaque Valley (Cuyamungue, El Rancho, Jacona, Jaconita, Jacona Land Grant, and Nambé; and the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque and San Ildefonso) and Cuatro Villas (Sombrillo, Cuartelez, La Puebla, and El Valle de Arroyo Seco); that are best served by broader community plans. When planning we need to remember that one size does not fit all---Galisteo and Stanley are very different traditional communities defined by the ranches adjoining them.

Traditional communities recognize that Santa Fe County cannot provide all things to all people, but what they are asking for is just a little expert advice on how to tap into resources and assistance in coordinating our planning activities.

In summary, traditional communities are special places that need the attention and support of County staff.


15.4 Goals, Policies and Strategies

Goal 1: Pursue a diverse and sustainable local economy for traditional communities that integrates environmental and community needs and supports the local workforce and provides new opportunities for local employers and residents.
Policy 1.1: Support incentives to encourage local small businesses to retrofit buildings to achieve code compliance.
Policy 1.2: Coordinate with local banks, mortgage companies, venture capital programs, and the small business administration to develop strategies for providing assistance to local businesses outside of traditional business parks (in homes and garages).
Strategy 1.2.1: Support Santa Fe Business Incubator and efforts to support start‐up
businesses, especially in smaller communities.
Strategy 1.2.2: Create model for how to create a “Business Directory” and buy local campaign in a traditional community.
Strategy 1.2.3: Promote Agricultural Revitalization Initiative Resolution.
Strategy 1.2.4 Encourage home-based businesses to buy a business license and be in compliance with Community Plans.

Goal 2:Support all traditional communities in planning for their future.
Policy 2.1 Support traditional community in its attempts to get organized.

Strategy 2.1.1: Encourage traditional communities to form a neighborhood association.
Policy 2.2 Assist traditional communities in creating and maintaining a Community Plan.

Comment

You need to be a member of Agua Fria Village to add comments!

Join Agua Fria Village

© 2017   Created by William Henry Mee.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service