Statement by Gillam Kerley, owner of Quirky Used Books & More, on proposed amendments to Albuquerque’s Safe outdoor Spaces ordinance
July 30, 2025
Two proposed amendments regarding Safe Outdoor Spaces (SOSs) are awaiting consideration by the Albuquerque City Council.
O-25-89 would amend the SOS Operator’s Permit Ordinance, while O-25-90 would amend the SOS provisions in the IDO itself. The intent is to make it easier to create SOSs in Albuquerque by removing some of the most burdensome and expensive regulations.
There are two versions of each amendment: One was proposed by Mayor Tim Keller and introduced by Councilor Nichole Rogers at his request. The other is a substitute ordinance introduced by Rogers.
These proposals have been referred to the Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Committee (LUPZ), whose next meeting is August 13 at 5:00 p.m. The agenda for that meeting hasn’t been posted yet, so we don’t know if these amendments will be discussed.
Please see my downloadable spreadsheet of the proposed amendments to the requirements for Safe Outdoor Spaces. (My apologies for the typos.) The proposed changes which are included in Keller’s version or which are present in both versions appear in red. Where Keller’s and Rogers’ versions differ, Rogers’ version is shown in green.
The four substantive differences between the versions which I have noted are:
Keller’s version would relax, but not eliminate, the cap of two SOSs per Council district, while Rogers’ version would maintain the existing cap.
Keller’s version would remove the background check for SOS operators; Rogers’ version would keep the existing language.
Keller’s version would remove the background checks on residents and the prohibition on residents convicted of felony assault/battery; Rogers’ version would keep the existing language.
Keller’s version would require SOS operators to meet with neighbors during the first year; Rogers’ version would require that they offer to meet.
Either version of these amendments, if passed as written, would go a long way toward eliminating the most burdensome requirements which have prevented creation of SOSs in Albuquerque. I prefer Keller’s version on points 1-3, and Rogers’ version on point 4.
Highlights:
Staffing. The proposed amendments would eliminate the requirement for 24/7 on-site support, replacing it with an on-call maintenance person 45 hours per week (for smaller SOSs) and 24/7 on-call support for larger SOSs. This would result in a dramatic decrease in operating costs. However, the provision allowing HHH to require on-site management for small SOSs (but not large ones) after a 90-day review lacks standards for either the review or the nature of the required on-site management, and is therefore problematic.
Capital improvements. The proposed amendments include two provisions which would reduce the cost of required capital improvements. First, SOSs would no longer require opaque screening, so less expensive fencing alternatives could be utilized. Second, plumbed toilets and hand-washing stations would not be required after 2 years. The extension of the initial time period to 5 years, from 2, would allow amortization of capital expenditures over a longer period.
District limits. Mayor Keller’s version would somewhat enlarge the number of SOSs allowed in each Council district by excluding SOSs on City land and small SOSs operated by religious institutions from the count. Councilor Rogers would maintain the existing limit of two SOSs per Council district. (Under both the existing ordinance and the proposed amendments, religious institutions would be allowed to open SOSs in districts where the cap has been met, but no one else could.) The district cap is a major obstacle to utilization of SOSs to assist unhoused people, and, if these proposals pass, would be the worst remaining barrier to creation of SOSs. It should be removed entirely.
Operational requirements. Both versions of the proposed amendments would reduce the requirements for providing social services, and would allow mobile and off-site services to fulfill the remaining requirements. In addition, record-keeping and other operating requirements, particularly for SOSs receiving no City funding, would be relaxed.
Aside from the cap on the number of SOSs allowed per Council district (discussed further below), the major remaining obstacle to the creation of SOSs is the requirement that applications go through the conditional use approval process in mixed-use zones and a temporary use approval process in non-residential zones. Both processes can lead to additional delays, expenses, and potential litigation. Neither Keller’s nor Rogers’ version would change this.
Given Albuquerque’s failure to address its severe shortage of affordable housing, unhoused people are not going to simply disappear. Right now, they have no option other than to camp in parks and alleyways, on sidewalks, under overpasses, and on private property where they are not welcome. The administration has been diverting the resources of an understaffed Solid Waste department from providing services to homes and businesses to conducting hundreds of encampment sweeps every month. Removing the most burdensome restrictions on Safe Outdoor Spaces, so that unsheltered people can stay in managed spaces designed and designated for them, would benefit both unhoused people and neighborhoods.
The New Mexico Constitution guarantees all people – including those experiencing homelessness - the right to seek and obtain safety and the right to acquire and protect property, and the right to assist others in exercising those rights. The burdensome and expensive requirements in the existing Safe Outdoor Spaces ordinance clearly violate those guarantees. While these amendments may not bring the regulatory framework for Safe Outdoor Spaces into full compliance with the requirements of our state constitution, they would be a significant step in that direction.
A word about district caps …
There have been objections raised within District 6 (Councilor Rogers’ district) to the relatively large concentration of social service programs in our district (and other lower-income areas). I haven’t discussed this with Councilor Rogers, but I suspect this may be the reason for her more conservative position on the district caps.
What this fails to take into account is that these are the districts with the greatest population of unsheltered people and thus the greatest need for services. These are also the districts where most unhoused people lived before they lost their housing, and the districts they call home.
Decisions on what part of the city to locate Safe Outdoor Spaces should be left to the operators, who can base their decisions on the demand for their services in each district or neighborhood. Alternatively, district caps should be made based on PIT Count data on the number of unsheltered persons per district or City data on the number of tents removed during encampment sweeps in each district.
I would assume that there are more laundromats in lower-income districts (as wealthier people are more likely to have washers and dryers in their homes), but the Council would never consider requiring an even distribution of laundromats by district. The result would likely be some combination of people in lower-income districts being forced to travel further to wash their clothes and laundromats in wealthier districts going out of business for lack of customers. There are likely more Southeast Asian restaurants in District 6 than other districts, since it has a larger immigrant population, but no one is arguing for capping the number of ethnic restaurants by district. Nor is there a proposal to require retailers selling luxury goods to locate an equal number of stores in poor neighborhoods; they are allowed to open where the demand for those items is greatest. We leave placement of these land uses to the operators, who can base their decisions on the localized demand.
Forcing unhoused people to move away from familiar neighborhoods to satisfy more privileged people’s idea of equitable distribution is counterproductive and likely to fail; inappropriate location is one of the major factors preventing unsheltered people from using the Westside shelter. Unsheltered people will continue to disproportionately live in lower-income districts; the question is whether we leave them in the parks, alleyways, sidewalks, and underpasses in those districts, or whether we will take action to make things better for both the unhoused and the districts as a whole.
Beyond that, there is a clear need for more than two SOSs per district. With small SOSs (10 or fewer tents) likely to be more common than larger ones, this cap could limit each district to 20 tent spaces, which would not even make a dent in the number of unsheltered people needing a better, safer place to camp until affordable housing is available.
Gillam Kerley