This letter is provided as opinion/commentary from the author. You can submit your own letter to editor@abq.news

I am a Village of Los Ranchos resident and active observer of the process that has brought the Village Center Project into being. From the Village’s director of finance in 2003-2004 to actively engaged in responding to the Village’s actions of the last couple of years.

I agree with Fred Sturm and the Albuquerque Journal’s editorial board’s Los Ranchos Village Center editorials. The Village officials carry a heavy burden for having violated their oaths of office to uphold the laws of the state of New Mexico, the Village’s ordinances and to represent the residents of the Village.

Now if a developer was developing a typical development where it’s all their project and followed all the rules, only to find out they were grossly misapplied by the government officials, then they would have a good reason to say they did things in good faith and shouldn’t be held accountable for government officials’ misdeeds.

But Palindrome was hired by Village’s representatives of the residents to develop a project for the Village. So the developer has responsibility to the residents. Palindrome chose to enter into an agreement to build a village center the residents wanted.

The animosity towards Palindrome exists because Palindrome spoke with residents and held a public meeting to share what it had planned which was overwhelmingly disapproved. Palindrome chose to ignore that input, the input of its partners and investors

In terms of legality, there is the fact that the Journal and Mr. Sturm seem unaware the development contract specified the permits for building weren’t finalized until “all appeal periods and/or periods of time during which the Permits could be challenged or set aside, if any, have expired.” Palindrome choose to continue construction even though the Permits were not finalized. When the appeal of the approval of the permits was filed, the foundations had just been started. Palindrome argued at the Planning and Zoning Commission’s and Board of Trustees’ appeal hearing that how the permits were approved had no bearing on their validity. So that means Palindrome choose to take the risk that the permits would be found invalid. They lost, along with the Village, in District Court on that point.

To put this in terms of a Journal Center development, say the CEO of the Journal’s development company entered into a contract with a developer to build a board-wanted development. The agreement said the CEO could make all decisions. Then the CEO and developer decided to change it to a different development. The development company’s board found out about the change and contract and told the CEO and the developer they didn’t approve of the development and the CEO was without authority to enter into the contract. Still the developer went ahead and built a substantial portion of the development before the courts ruled in the board’s favor and said the contract was invalid.

In this case, should the Journal Center project started in “good faith” be finished? If the board wanted to remove the illegal construction, should the board bear all of the costs?

I think Palindrome bears responsibility for the construction after the appeal was filed. I think, in any case, once the court ruled the construction was illegally approved, construction should stop until folks are back on the same page and the illegal construction is resolved. Just seems reasonable.