PAC has not donated to Las Cruces City Council candidates

As they said during watergate, Follow the Money.

I was told over the phone by Wes ( a worker at the BIA) that if I wanted to give money to Gil Jones using the Jobs for Las Cruces PAC that I could send it to the BIA.

So the BIA decided to form a PAC after the last city council election and with all their money they are setting this one out as David Roewe said. Ya right.

Follow the money is right. There are anti-jobs groups that have adopted bogus names. These groups actually betray their stated purposes. and these groups routinely direct outside money into Las Cruces to influence our local elections. The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance is at the top of this corrupt list. This particular group is made up primarily of people who are hypocrites. They have not paid impact fees to own their homes, but now would willingly destroy jobs in this area by slapping ridiculously high impact fees on others buying homes. If you see a flyer in the mail that comes from The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance ignore the lies and distortions it will contain and recycle the paper it is printed on immediately.

"Facts Only" - you clearly dont care about facts, as you are spreading misleading lies. Spare us your propaganda

The reports speak for themselves. And still, some candidates and their supporters won't accept the facts. I suggest that Sharon Thomas campaign on the issues instead of the negative, and false, statements about her opponent. I've chosen to get more involved in the political process because of how it seems to operate. Stick to the issues...that is what is in the best interest of the citizens of Las Cruces.

Pleeese, my post contains facts. Your post amounts to two sentences of vague attack labels. Please tell us all about the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, particularly how much money the group is spending on our Las Cruces elections. Also tell us where this cash comes from. No doubt the next round of liar flyers from NWA are in production right now and due to hit our mailboxes down here in Las Cruces right before the city council election. We just need to know more about the source of the money trying to kill the jobs that Jobs for Las Cruces is trying to save.

If Jobs for Las Cruces hasn't put any money or influence into this race then how are they trying to save jobs?

Well the Jobs for Las Cruces will be putting money into the races.

Jim, it would seem that supporting the killing of jobs is hard to defend isn't it? The truth is simple. Up until now the clueless votes cast by Sharon Thomas have been defended by the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance without any scrutiny. Now the word is out and many people realize the NWA is an insidious organization that knowingly violates the spirit of election laws by clogging the Las Cruces mail system with lies and distortions in its fliers. This crap is disguised as "educational material" so the perpetrators cannot be prosecuted for violating election laws. What bugs you NWA guys about Jobs for Las Cruces is that you have known all along you really do not have any logical answers for the fair questions on issues like impact fees. And up until now you have been safely hiding behind all the big money the NWA has been plowing into the elections down here. Your only recourse when challenged is to toss around vague accusations aimed at responsible people who make payrolls and keep housing affordable here. It must be suddenly a bit un-nerving to see local people in favor of working families finally starting to stand up to all of the crazy crap you are trying to peddle. Get used to it pal. People with common sense here in Las Cruces are on to your dangerous games. And we are not going to let you destroy jobs in our area without a long hard fight.

A fact not explained are the push polls against Dr. Thomas - who is paying for this - BIA, Chamber of Commerce, etc. It is expensive.

Practical people with common sense are paying for the drive to remove the clueless (Sharon Thomas) from power. Removing her may well be expensive. But people with common sense have learned the hard way that it will be far less expensive to Las Crucens to remove her now, than it will be to leave her in place for another term and watch her cast one idiotic job killing vote after another.

Read about Roewe and the controversial PAC in Washington. Will this happen in Las Cruces?

Local builders gave to controversial fund
Kathie Durbin, Columbian staff writer
The Building Industry Association of Clark County contributed $122,650 to a political arm of the state Building Industry Association of Washington that the Public Disclosure Commission says committed "multiple apparent violations" of the state's election finance law in trying to influence this year's governor's race.

The PDC ruled Monday that the builders set aside $585,000 in July 2007 to support Republican Dino Rossi in this year's governor's race, but the money and its sources weren't reported until Aug. 20, when the funds were deposited in a BIAW-backed committee called ChangePAC. Rossi did not formally announce his campaign for governor until last October.

The state commission, a campaign finance watchdog, voted unanimously to ask Attorney General Rob McKenna to investigate. Commission chairman Ken Schellberg called the tactic "an egregious lapse of judgment."

The Clark County association was the eighth-largest donor among the 11 local builders' groups that contributed.

David Roewe, executive director of the Clark County association, dismissed the PDC finding as a political ploy by backers of Gov. Chris Gregoire.

"BIAW is the most effective pro-business organization in the state," he said.

"Because we support Rossi, all the little dirty tricks that the Gregoire campaign can find and throw up, they will."

Roewe said the complaint filed in July by two former Supreme Court justices was identical to a complaint filed in 1997 by the Washington State Labor Council. "The outcome was that there was no violation," he said.

McKenna, a Republican, is expected to announce by week's end whether he will pursue an investigation.

Been following along with all these posts over the weekend. Hemingway and Jim, both from Albuquerque in particular. Seems like good questions are posed to both of you and neither ever answers. Both of you seem to hate builders, developers, the Chamber of Commerce. Act like these people don't pay taxes, support charities, make payrolls, and support the schools. Maybe a good explanation of why after NOT paying impact fees you guys want to assess huge fees on others might be in order. I still can't quite figure out why what you both claim is good for others, was not good for either of you. Please explain the contradiction.

Just finished my post asking for answers to questions and find another long winded attack of this guy Roewe. Nothing in this hatchet job explains why Hemingway wants others to pay huge impact fees to live in a home when he didn't. These issues are what Las Crucens want to know. Some sort of vague mud sling job on Roewe is a diversion. Why not explain your contradiction regarding levying huge new fees?

Interesting article. Impact fees are vital

Economists question Home Builders study

By Bob Zientara, Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:37 PM CDT
An Iowa State University economist is challenging the premise of a new study measuring the economic impact of new home construction in Ames, while a second ISU economist said Tuesday the industry needs to be re-evaluated by the city.

David Swenson, an associate scientist for the ISU department of economics, wrote about the National Association of Home Builders study last year at the request of the city of Cedar Rapids.

"It's absolutely not possible for a community to grow itself into prosperity by building new homes," Swenson said Tuesday.

"What the (NAHB) did here in Ames is based on a flaw in fundamental thinking" about the economy and the home building industry, he said.

Released last week at a meeting sponsored by the Ames Association of Home Builders, the study suggests that new home construction generates enough revenue to more than pay its own way, in property taxes and in income earned by workers in housing and businesses that serve homeowners and their families.

In a response to a request from Cedar Rapids City Manager James Prosser last year, Swenson said the theory of the Home Builders Association was flawed.

"Housing, like the rest of our economy, is a response to economic growth," Swenson said. "It's not the idea that 'if you build it, they will come.' It's actually the idea that if people come, you build homes for them."

Swenson contended that U.S. communities that followed the "build-first" theory are now suffering in states such as Arizona, Florida and California.

He also said that unless cities closely gear taxes and impact fees to the real costs they incur when new housing is built, "it's pretty iffy to imagine that (the housing) will pay its own way."

Meanwhile, ISU economics professor Peter Orazem said that while the Home Builders Association rationale may be questioned, there are signs that the city of Ames isn't creating the kind of new home market the public wants.

"I think there's a message for Ames when Huxley and Gilbert are both growing, and Ames isn't," Orazem said.

"It's a question of allowing people to build the kind of homes they want to build. Instead of single-family, owner-occupied homes with yards, the city is encouraging high-density, multi-use property."

Orazem said he attended the Home Builders Association meeting where the study was released and discussed by its author, Elliot Eisenberg.

"The study put a lot of emphasis on how new homes pay off the investment that the city makes in a certain amount of time, but I'm not sure that really matters here," Orazem said.

"What matters more is the kind of homes people want to build. I think it's time for Ames to re-think its land use policy because it seems to be discouraging owner-occupied housing."

Here is what the Arizona League of Cities and Towns thinks about impact fees - excellent. I hope you read it.

http://www.azleague.org/pdf/press_releases/im...

Good website on impact fees - read and learn.


http://www.impactfees.com/

here is an excellent Brookings Institution Center study on impact fees.

http://www.brookings.edu/ES/urban/publication...

Following Along is right. Hemingway is playing diversion games on this discussion board. I'd like to learn more about these huge impact fees. Why does Hemingway think the idea that some guy in Washington might possibly pursue an investgation is relevant? Even if this hypothetical situation might eventually become sort of relevant, shouldn't we wait until the investigation, if it ever happens, is concluded? If whatever innuendo Hemingway is tossing around here, actually merits a legal process that actually gets ajudicated, then we can talk about any findings. You being so well prepared to lob a bomb at Roewe smells kind of funny Hemingway. Following Along is right. Here in Las Cruces we want to hear about these impact fees that are being discussed. Why do you insist that people who do not yet own a home be gouged in the future, when you weren't gouged? Please answer the question and stop all the head faking and character assasinations.