Closing arguments in truck stop drama
The tiebreaking vote on a much-debated truck stop now goes to the Santa Fe County Board Commission — watch for it in May and be ready to speak out again. After all, until a final vote is taken, the proposal remains alive.
At the center of the controversy is whether a Pilot Flying J truck stop can be built near Interstate 25 and N.M. 14, just outside the city limits of Santa Fe. This has been a torturous process, with initial public hearings and discussions leading to the more formal process this year. First, a hearing officer ruled that the proposal met county code regulations; the Planning Commission last week unanimously disagreed. Next stop: A full hearing before the County Commission.
We believe the Planning Commission is correct and strongly urge commissioners to uphold this decision. Opposing this truck stop at this particular location is not a case of much-maligned NIMBY-ism. Instead, opposition is rightly focused on what sorts of development can be allowed in the area designated as the Santa Fe Community College District. Truck stops do not seem to be one of the approved uses.
What’s more, looking at how the Community College District plan was created, it’s obvious that such a sprawling commercial enterprise (over 26 acres developed in three stages) is hardly what was envisioned.
Consider this language, taken from the plan’s introduction: “The plan seeks to create neighborhoods and a community which can sustain itself over time by building protection of resources and support and opportunity for residents into the development pattern before development occurs.” That’s hardly a description of a 24/7 truck stop/travel center with drive-thru fast food, hotels and other commercial businesses.
Planning Commissioner Frank Katz — someone who understands land-use laws as a former Santa Fe city attorney — summed it up well: “The staff has directed us to decide — quote — whether or not the use of a truck stop should be recognized as a conditional use. I find that a truck stop cannot be reasonably construed to be a conditional use. Within the [community college district], the plan can’t be approved as submitted.”
Of course, county commissioners must agree, and there could even be a legal challenge, with a court making the final decision. Opponents likely would sue if commissioners reversed the Planning Commission; this is a most contentious issue with much to consider. (And while that is happening, during a hearing that likely will take hours, we would recommend better seats for onlookers. Good for the county for moving the Planning Commission meeting to the gymnasium at Santa Fe High School. There was plenty of room. Bleacher seats for five hours however can be quite uncomfortable for anyone past high school age. Find a big enough space, yes, but provide better chairs.)
Or, members of the Santa Fe Gateway Alliance — the group most vocally opposing the truck stop — could tell members to wear their blue T-shirts and bring a folding chair. With more than 250 people at the Planning Commission meeting, a big crowd will be expected for the final decision later this spring.
Opposition has been smart, focused and, despite over-thetop emotional testimony, the anti-truck stop faction has been wise to keep attention on how the proposal doesn’t fit county code. It’s easy to become worked up over the pollution from idling trucks or a potentially dangerous, overburdened traffic interchange — or, heaven forbid, rising crime — but the way to beat a developer is not by tugging at the heart, but aiming for the head. The commission needs a legal basis for any denial.
The Planning Commission has made the right call. Now, it’s on to the Board of County Commissioners. The fight is still on.