Governor’s stinging words frame a tough challenge for Webber
Lyndon Johnson knew the gig was up in Vietnam when he’d lost Walter Cronkite, the respected if not beloved CBS News anchor whose familiar and familial tenor set the inner gyroscope of a nation. Mayor Alan Webber must’ve had a similar moment last week when he lost Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, the most powerful person in the state. Her words — “There is an obvious leadership problem at the City of Santa Fe” — are little short of staggering for a guy who once considered himself gubernatorial material.
As with all things Santa Fe, there’s plenty of background here, much of it chewed, like a cud, over and over again: Webber’s call to remove controversial (and in some circles, beloved) public monuments. … Indigenous Peoples Day 2020, and the felling of the obelisk on the Plaza . ... The months and years of controversy and recrimination that followed . ... And finally, last week’s public revelation of Webber’s deposition in a lawsuit, in which he claimed the governor advised him “not to try to solve the problem” amid the furor over historical markers.
His words elicited the full fury of Lujan Grisham, whose big megaphone and palpable anger about Webber’s testimony in the deposition revealed a skepticism, if not animus, rarely if ever seen on a public stage. It wasn’t a brass-knuckles newspaper columnist or addled blogger or ill-informed letter writer questioning the mayor’s ability to lead. It was the state’s governor, a member of his own political party.
For most, Lujan Grisham’s withering comments would be a crushing blow from which there is no recovery. And that may be the case for Webber, who if he wants, or if he dares, can try for the Mayor’s Office again in 2025.
But in the meantime, it’s important to remember Webber has a city to run, not just an image to rehabilitate. For any chance to accomplish the latter, he has to recommit to the former. Which comes down to this:
Webber — and his administration — must start executing at the rudimentary basics of government. That means paving streets, cutting weeds, eliminating trash, beautifying parks, completing audits and, most of all, building bridges with everyone from critical city councilors to neighboring governments like Santa Fe County, with which the city is in litigation.
To be sure, Lujan Grisham’s ire last week wasn’t all about a deposition; her unhappiness about how Webber portrayed a years-old conversation in a room of lawyers. No, it was her belief — read between the lines and it’s clear in her previous public statements — the state’s capital city doesn’t live up to its gaudy reputation, at least not aesthetically.
It’s not just the governor who feels this way. Many residents, even those who don’t have strong feelings about public monuments or the mayor, complain about the state of their town. Exaggerated or understated, their concerns are real. And to some, Webber seems far away, seemingly more interested in something else that allows perception, rather than performance, to hold sway.
If he’s so moved, Webber can change some of this, and change it now.
A suggestion: It’s budget season for the 2025 fiscal year. Webber and his slimmer-than-before majority on the City Council could commit to a program that hits Santa Fe residents where they really live: on the roads of our fair burg. A Santa Fe with well-paved streets and more effective cleanup, and not just in downtown, would do wonders both for the city’s psyche and Webber’s own standing in the community, politically and otherwise.
It doesn’t have to be streets. Create a Marshall Plan for something, anything, that matters to most people, dig even deeper on residents’ worries and complaints on items like streetlights and parks, and Webber’s favored mantra — “A budget reflects a community’s values” — could actually be relevant.
On the same day Lujan Grisham leveled the mayor, councilors called for a special meeting to discuss a murky proposal to spend $30 million in reserve funds. Several councilors, caught off guard, want to know more, as well they should. Asked about the money, Webber said reserve funding could go toward maintenance items that aren’t “sexy” but necessary. Council members’ wariness about the details makes you wonder if there’s more to this — or less to this — than meets the eye.
And that’s the problem. For a long, long time, it’s been Webber’s actions that got him into trouble. Now, it’s his words. He’s got to fix both disconnects if he’s to save his administration, and yes, image.