A page from the original 1964 Comprehensive Plan available at Mesa Public Library. Photo by James Wernicke
BY JAMES WERNICKE
Member
Plan Los Alamos Steering Committee
In 1964, Los Alamos adopted a Comprehensive Plan whose housing chapter was titled “hope for an end to a twenty-year shortage.” 60 years later, the County’s 2024 Affordable Housing Plan described our housing shortage as “acute.” At what point do we ask ourselves whether we need another plan, or simply need to hold our councilors and managers accountable for implementing the ones we already have?
I want to thank the many residents who have recently spoken up at meetings, submitted comments, and written letters. People disagree about housing, open space, development and local businesses, but that disagreement is healthy. Continuous civic engagement—not simply showing up to vote every few years—is how communities hold their government accountable.
That is why I joined the Plan Los Alamos Steering Committee, but after participating in the process and revisiting older plans, I am increasingly convinced that our problem isn’t identifying what Los Alamos wants. We have spent decades doing that.
The 1964 plan was remarkably concrete. Its authors estimated how many homes would be needed, identified where they could go, developed population forecasts, and scheduled roads, schools and public facilities with estimated costs. They understood forecasts could be wrong, but that did not stop them from making measurable assumptions.
Jump ahead to 2016, and many of the priorities were already there: more housing choices, increased downtown density, mixed-use development, redevelopment of vacant properties, streamlined development review, support for existing businesses, and protection of virtually all existing open space.
So what happened since the last plan? Did we streamline development review? Did we reconsider parking and height restrictions? Did we create substantially more housing choices? Did our downtowns become more vibrant? Which recommendations were implemented, which weren’t, and why?
Early in the process, steering committee members were asked whether Los Alamos should be “bold,” “cautious” or “innovative.” I objected that those words mean little without attaching them to actual choices.
Bold about housing density? Public subsidies? Open-space protection? Transportation? A plan that says we value housing, economic vitality, open space, sustainability and quality of life tells decision-makers little when those goals conflict.
The 2026 process promises “implementable strategies” aimed at “specific outcomes.” We should hold it to that standard. If residents can’t tell what outcome we are trying to achieve, how success will be measured, who is responsible, and when progress will be reviewed, then ten years from now we will once again be concluding that Los Alamos needs more housing, stronger local businesses, vibrant downtowns, adequate infrastructure and protected open space.
Review the draft Comprehensive Plan and make your comments by September 9 at https://www.losalamosnm.gov/