BY JAMES WERNICKE
Local Business & Community Advocate
Government plays an important role to step in where free markets cannot operate efficiently or equitably on their own. Careful intervention strengthens the community and enables private enterprise and civic organizations to thrive. Problems arise, however, when government becomes a competitor instead of a partner. Because government can compel payment through taxes and regulation, it can easily displace markets and weaken the civic fabric it should support.
The County’s municipal broadband project illustrates this challenge. Officials argued that unreliable internet service justified building a taxpayer-funded municipal broadband network. Yet the outages cited during public discussion were caused by contractors severing the community’s single fiber backbone connection. The underlying issue was the lack of redundancy in the regional fiber network—not a failure of local internet providers.
In this case, government intervention could have been appropriate. Ensuring redundant backbone infrastructure is exactly the type of foundational investment markets sometimes struggle to coordinate on their own. Instead, the County chose to build and operate an entirely new municipal broadband network.
The project—which has no guarantees to be more reliable or affordable—is expected to cost taxpayers $40 million over its first decade. Although residents and Council were initially told the project would not require new taxes when they approved it, it was later used to justify a 0.6825% Gross Receipts Tax increase on local businesses. This places the County in direct competition with local internet providers that have already invested in infrastructure, employ residents, and pay the very taxes now being used to compete against them.
As a longtime customer of one of these providers, I have seen something markets often do better than bureaucracies: respond quickly and personally to community needs. When my own family experienced financial hardship due to medical bills, our ISP quietly gave us a break on our bill until we recovered. It was simple, fast, and did not cost taxpayers anything. Government assistance programs, by contrast, often take months or years to establish, create significant administrative friction, and are frequently too narrowly designed to reach the people who actually need help.
A more collaborative model would be for the County to invest in redundant backbone infrastructure while partnering with local providers to expand middle- and last-mile service. That approach would strengthen the market rather than replace it.
A similar opportunity for partnership exists in local recreation. Both community pools in White Rock recently closed. This was not a case where online retail displaced local retail. Community pools must charge what it costs to operate a pool. The County’s aquatic center operates at an average loss of over $10 per use, undercutting community pools and using taxes to subsidize the difference. This distorts price signals and places volunteer-run organizations at a structural disadvantage.
People often ask why community pools don’t offer day passes to the public. It’s because they are left to fend for themselves with regulatory burdens that make it economically impossible, similar to the challenges faced by healthcare, childcare, and housing providers. Community pools operate on the thinnest margins, relying heavily on volunteer labor, carefully deferring maintenance, and paying the taxes government uses to displace them.
While the County’s aquatic center undergoes renovation, at least one community pool expressed interest in partnering with the County to host swimmers and employ displaced staff. It was an opportunity to keep recreation available with self-supporting facilities. Instead of partnering, the County chose to reopen Piñon Pool—at taxpayer expense—and compete with the pools that must charge the full cost of operation.
Another challenge arises when bureaucratic rules unintentionally weaken the community organizations that fill in the gaps government cannot. Los Alamos County often cites New Mexico’s anti-donation clause when requests arise to support legitimate community initiatives. While the clause exists to prevent misuse of public funds, it often becomes a convenient reason to avoid creative collaboration.
Government decisions can sometimes compound the problem. When the County unexpectedly terminated a long-standing food and beverage service contract with a local business, a community service organization lost the venue for a fundraiser that supports direct assistance in the community. Because no alternative venue could obtain the necessary permits in time, the fundraiser had to be canceled.
Look at almost any Council agenda and it begins to feel like the County operates on a double standard. Public funds flow readily toward outside consultants—often delivering nothing more than reports that are quickly shelved—while comparatively modest contracts for local organizations delivering measurable community benefit remain difficult to secure.
These examples suggest an important lesson: local government does not need to replace community institutions in order to serve the public good. Resilient communities are built not by government alone, but by businesses, volunteers, community organizations, and public institutions working together.
Disclosure: I am a board member or officer for multiple organizations mentioned in this commentary.