Judge Denies Town Motion to Dismiss County lawsuit

At District Court on Wednesday, July 26, 2013, Judge Jeff McElroy denied the Town of Taos’s motion for summary judgment. The motion aimed at dismissing a lawsuit brought by Taos County, El Prado Water and Sanitation, and the Acequia del Prado del Rio Lucero against the town’s ordinance annexing six miles of Highway 64 to the Taos Airport. The town’s attorney Brian James argued that none of the parties qualified for “standing” because they weren’t land or property owners.

But the judge said that, according to statutes, the acequia owned land beneath the state highway, which rights could not be abrogated by the highway right away. Further, the judge granted Taos County and the El Prado Water and Sanitation a right to be heard under the rules governing declaratory judgment.

Let me say that the arguments in court were highly technical and though I took copious notes, I’m not sure I really understand the nuances of administrative and legislative review. Basically, the judge asked James and County Attorney Bob Malone to submit stipulated or agreed to facts and will hold an evidentiary hearing if necessary. Ultimately, the judge said he was limited by the filings to rule on matters of law regarding the constitutionality of the statutes and whether or not the statute was applied in terms of due process.

When the Town annexed the highway strip and airport, the county argued that the town ignored due process by not issuing a record of the decision with details and by not noticing the public or property owners. The Town has not issued an accurate map of the annexation or survey of boundaries, etc. So, according to the County, nobody really knows what the Town has done except in vague terms. County Attorney Bob Malone made the point that the Town has refused “to file the record in the court.”

The County has raised a further constitutional issue re: the petition process and challenged the town’s status as both petitioner and decider of the annexation process. In general terms, annexation is usually sought by a private property owner, who petitions the Town. Then the town, acting as a separate party decides or as in a recent case, the boundary commission, a third party makes the decision. But in the case of the airport, the town represents itself as both petitioner and judge, which raises questions of propriety, third party objectivity and fairness.

The town’s actions re: annexation parallels the attitude of the Mayor and council, the town cops and judicial department toward the Sign Man, a critic of the mayor and government. After pursuing the protester three times in municipal court and losing, claiming they had jurisdiction over the state highway right away, the legal department decided nobody had jurisdiction over the state highway right away. So the Town has turned a blind eye toward law and order and allows thugs to steal the protesters signs, referring the matter to the mythic authority under the aegis of Aphrodite, the beauty queen, as the ruling party.

Nobody knows why the Town ignores county offers to work in good faith, expressed in financial terms, by the county to subsidize, financially, the airport. Meanwhile, the Town has also ignored common sense provisions regarding the safe and financially prudent operation of E911—Dispatch. In the interests of real public safety, the county has been forced to duplicate and improve on the town’s incompetent service. Ironically, the County, unlike the Town, has the cash “ready at hand” to back up its proposals. The town is banking on a wing and a prayer.

Meanwhile Judge McElroy said he’d clear his docket and get to a final ruling on the merits of the town-county annexation matter as soon as the attorneys were ready to stipulate and meet for another hearing. The town has nobody to blame but themselves regarding delays. I am reminded of what Winston S. Churchill said of Russia in terms of the town’s motives: “The town is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”