For a lot of, people sitting through a city council hearing is a long way down the list of things they like to do. No argument here, but it’s hard to argue how important a body city council is when it comes to the basic premise of being represented, not in the broad strokes, but for the kind of decisions that impact lives.

And so it was last Monday as the council took on the 2000 Gold condo project.

From my seat in the audience, sitting with Marjorie Childress from the wonderful New Mexico Independent blog, and Nerissa Whittington, whose family develops commercial properties here, there was much to glean from a lot of fronts.

I must say first that in hindsight, New Mexico In Focus panelists Margaret Montoya got it exactly right when she framed the position from the Silver Hill Neighborhood Association as, and I’m paraphrasing, being about, “civic engagement” in what the neighborhood was essentially seeking. When you take that premise and apply it to the ramifications of not just the impact of the project in the neighborhood, but as a harbinger of how we consider density in the city, perhaps we have seen a new era of this kind of decision making.

That said, my observation is that the neighborhood and their advocates against the project made a more compelling case in their testimony. By laying out a narrative on the day to day, minute to minute impact of a structure that size in their neighborhood, they were able to give councilors pause.

On the other side of it, my sense of the argument from the developer side was a tad too esoteric in comparison. Additionally, the framework of the debate, as laid out in the opening, was to determine if the EPC, “erred,” in it’s ruling to turn down the project. That was a big hill to climb, and obviously did not do so given the results.

Scott Darnell made a solid point on this during our segment last week. While we are all concerned about carbon footprint and the environment - and that would include the residents in that neighborhood - density and such, at the end of the day it is and was not a compelling enough case. It hit me as a bit too abstract, and as Scott pointed out, did not include the classic ‘kitchen table” elements it could have, such as how their property values could potentially rise with this project.

One aspect is now abundantly clear however. Some, if not many, neighborhoods are working under 20 plus year old sector plans that are now in conflict with the goals of the Planned growth Strategy, among others. The EPC and council both are profoundly hamstrung on its decision making for infill projects because of it.

So, where do we go from here? It was a watershed moment, as pointed out by councilor Benton. And by sending the situation back to the drawing table, so to speak, the moment continues.

- Gene Grant