Saturday, April 12, 2008

Village files lawsuit over historic wall

Kenn Rodriguez News-Bulletin Staff Writer; krodriguez@news-bulletin.com

Santa Fe Complaint alleges wall does

not meet inclusion criteria

The months-long fight over the wall surrounding the historic Luna Mansion is set to move into the courts soon now that the Village of Los Lunas has filled a civil complaint against the State Historic Preservation Division, state preservation officer Katherine Slick and the New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee in the state's First Judicial Court in Santa Fe.

The lawsuit, filed on March 27 by Santa Fe attorney Stephen S. Hamilton, who is representing the village, says there is "no reasonable and prudent alternative" to the relocation of the wall in front of the (Luna)Mansion. The village maintains that a portion of the wall would need to be torn down and moved back to accommodate a right turn lane. Village officials argue that it's needed to make the intersection of Main Street and Highway 314 more safe.

The lawsuit alleges that the addition of the wall to the Luna Mansion's listing on the State and National Register of Historic Properties does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the historic registries.

The village is requesting the court to order an injunction prohibiting the historic preservation division from maintaining the Mansion wall on the State Register.

Slick, the SHPD and the CPRC are all being represented by the state New Mexico Attorney General's office in the litigation.

Los Lunas Village Administrator Phillip Jaramillo said the lawsuit was brought in part because the village feels it has no other alternative because the appeals process would bring it before the New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee, the very board that denied its request to reconsider the addition of the wall to the State and National Historic Registries.

"We started after the first hearing because we felt there were no rules, no policies nothing that we could follow," Jaramillo said. "We asked them for information from them; they sent us some information. We asked them if there was a way to appeal their decision, and their answer was 'Yes, you can appeal it.' But you end up appealing to the same board.

"Obviously (the December hearing) was wasn't a fair hearing. So I think there are some due process concerns and there's some concerns that a board like that can make decisions without following any policy."

The Luna Mansion was added to the State and National Historic Registries in April 1975. The addition of the Luna Mansion wall was approved by the CPRC in August 2007. The village asked the board to reconsider the decision in early December 2007, but the board declined to reconsider the issues.

Now, as then, the village is looking for a solution to its traffic problems, trying to ease congestion at the busy intersection at Main Street and N.M. 314.

According to owner of the Luna Mansion Earl Whittemore, the wall was reconstructed on its original foundation using stones from the original wall in the late 1970s.

At the December hearing, Hamilton and John Murphey, the State Registrar of Cultural Properties, argued over two separate sets of criteria that were used to determine whether the Luna Mansion wall should've been added to the registry.

Murphey cited two criteria that allowed for amendments to the properties, while Hamilton argued the committee should've used criteria that would prohibit adding properties that have been reconstructed.

Jaramillo, like Hamilton, said the committee was wrong to use the criteria it used. He also said he felt the committee ignored the village's point of view.

"We didn't feel like our arguments were looked at at all," he said. "They weren't even really considered."

Jaramillo said when the village asked the committee about a possible appeal, they were told there was no other appeals process.

"Therefore; there is no other appeals process, there is nowhere else we can take it," he said. "So the way it looks like is that's it. Once you've had the hearing there's no place else to go within the state to appeal the decision, like we (the village) do."

Attorneys for the State Attorney General's office were unavailable to comment on the case, but Whittemore said this week to expect a vigorous defense from the state.

Whittemore says he doesn't expect that the Cultural Review Committee to quit, and neither will he. He said he has retained two attorneys to defend his interests in the matter and has said in the past that moving the wall would irreparably harm the property.

He said his reaction to the lawsuit, which does not include him or the Luna Mansion, was a "mix of curiosity and lack of ability to understand where they're coming from.

"I guess I was kind of surprised at the arrogance that the village is showing; essentially, it knows more about historic preservation than the Cultural Properties Review Committee," he said. "The village doesn't seem to be looking for a method to reconcile the problem other than the design that they've come up with. They seem bound and determined to go through with their plans. Now taxpayers are paying a high-priced legal firm in Santa Fe to pursue this, and the AG's office by law is going to have to defend the Cultural Review Committee. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me."

Jaramillo said the village simply wants for the board to follow its policies. He said the village's goal is to the the board to follow what he says are appropriate policies.

"You have to follow these policies and have a hearing directly related to them, and either (the decision) meets those requirements or it doesn't meet those requirements," he said. "And (the CPRC) should have to justify that, just like our boards have to justify what they approve. We just want a hearing on that."

Asked what he thought the outcome would be, Jaramillo said he expected one of two outcomes.

"One, either the judge believes that the policies they (the Cultural Review Committee) have weren't followed and would issue a ruling," he said. "That potentially means that they would have to go back to step one and have a hearing and consider all the arguments both ways and then consider the policies that they have to follow and then make a decision based on that. We think that would be the best scenario, obviously."

Jaramillo said the village hopes to not have another hearing, however.

"Probably for us the best scenario is for the judge to say, 'They didn't follow the policy, we don't think it qualifies and that's it,'" Jaramillo said. "That would be the best thing. But if nothing else, we should have a re-hearing and make sure the board follows the policies it's adopted in determining this. That gives us the best shot at proving our point."

No hearing date has been set yet for the lawsuit.

E-mail this story Printer-friendly version