Contentious land purchase postponed

LA Council's $9.85M Diamond Drive land purchase discussion continues Dec. 3 amid fierce debate over price, process

The former Metzgers Service Station, located at Sandia and Diamond in Los Alamos, undergoing demolition in July of 2024.

The Los Alamos County Council voted 6-0 Tuesday night to delay a decision on purchasing three properties at the corner of Diamond Dr. and Sandia for $9.85 million. This decision followed an emotionally charged two-hour discussion that revealed deep divisions over the public’s role in land use.

County Manager Anne Laurent acknowledged the proposal came “out of the blue,” explaining that current owner Russell Ross approached the County in August about purchasing one of the properties, leading to negotiations that culminated in the current proposal. The agenda packet with this item dropped Friday night near midnight, giving the public only a few days to learn about the measure.  

The rushed timeline and lack of public notice became significant points of contention during the meeting, which stretched past 11 p.m. and featured heated exchanges among Councilors, business owners, and residents.

After a lengthy discussion of two broadband proposals (both of which passed unanimously, 6-0, with Councilor Melanee Hand absent), the conversation about the proposed land purchase started after 10 p.m. Laurent asked whether they should postpone because of the late hour. Multiple Councilors observed that members of the public had taken the time to attend and wanted to respect that. With input from County Attorney Alvin Leaphart confirming it would be acceptable to continue at the next meeting if needed, Council decided to proceed.  

Background information on the proposed purchase

Before opening public comment, Laurent gave her presentation and Councilors asked brief questions about the cost of the purchase, the rushed timeframe for the decision, options to postpone a decision on the purchase, and alternative locations for a Social Services hub.

The properties, totaling approximately three acres, currently generate over $200,000 in annual lease revenue, including from County offices. If the purchase is approved, the county will assume the current contract terms with no changes for the current tenants.  

The land parcels under consideration, located on Diamond Drive between UNM-LA and Los Alamos High School.

The County’s view of the decision’s stakes became clearer as Laurent explained that without County intervention, the strategically located land near Los Alamos High School and UNM-Los Alamos could likely become a car wash. The current owner, Ross, owns other car washes and has stated an intent to develop the land — rather than sell it — if the County does not buy it. 

Instead, Laurent said, “This acquisition was considered because of the strategic role it could play” in helping the County advance multiple community goals, including creating a long-planned Social Services Hub. Citing priorities for housing and local businesses identified in a 2024 community survey, Laurent also claimed that the purchase could “support new startups and create opportunities for business growth in the community.”

Regarding the price tag, Laurent pointed out that while the $9.85 million asking price significantly exceeds the $5.6 million assessed value, various other factors informed the price. For example, she said, the seller has assumed the considerable costs of demolition, removing the old foundation, and abatement of asbestos and underground gas tanks, which would be necessary for any new development. She stressed the opportunity cost of missing this chance to steer decisions about the future of the strategically valuable property.

Laurent pointed out that only five new commercial buildings have been constructed in Los Alamos since 2016, which underlined a central theme of the night’s discussion: whether private ownership and private development have met, or can meet, the needs and priorities of the community. Havemann argued that public purchase “could make some things available that might not be available if this stays in the hands of a private owner, if this private owner sits on it, like we’ve seen happen with CB Fox and with the Mari-Mac site and with Longview for freaking ever.” 

From another perspective, Laurent explained that private development decisions tend to be made based on “long-term revenue income” with no obligation to involve residents in decision-making, arguing that county ownership of the property could lead to a different approach: “Whatever development happens here, we can have a public process, and we can have a conversation about community benefit, and we can look at that.” 

The former CB Fox Department Store in downtown Los Alamos has been vacant since the early 2020s.

The blowback starts

Local business owners and residents strongly opposed both the price and the process in public comment, and the meeting grew increasingly tense as people expressed their frustration. “I’m sorry that I’m passionate, but I’m pissed,” said Anna Dillane, owner of Boomerang Consignment. “If I had people working for me who came to me and said, well, we should buy this property. It’s hugely inflated price tag, and I’m not really sure what we’re going to do with it, but let’s do it anyway. And by God, the seller who stands to make millions of dollars over the appraised value has to have it done before Christmas. … that is not a relationship that I would allow in a business setting. That’s not appropriate, and it isn’t appropriate for you.”

Some in attendance advocated delaying the decision for more time to plan and gather community input, while others asked Council to drop it altogether. Some comments supported the idea behind the purchase, and criticism fell into several categories:

• Asking price is too expensive: Critics argued that the purchase cost was unreasonable.

• Lack of an adequate plan: Concerns were raised about the absence of a detailed plan from the county.

• Rushed timeline: Attendees felt the decision was being made too quickly, without sufficient time for public input.

• Threat to private business: Some worried the purchase could negatively impact local businesses.

• Conflict with other funding priorities: Others believed the funds could be better used for different projects or initiatives.

 

Developer Phil Gursky argued the purchase could violate state law based on his interpretation of the New Mexico Administrative Code, telling Council, “You are not permitted to pay more than fair market value for this property.” However, this claim was later contradicted in a hot mic moment after the meeting, when County Attorney Leaphart was heard saying, “the argument that you can only pay fair value for property or [else] violate the anti-donation [clause] — it’s not correct. There’s no case law on it.”

Former County Councilor Antonio Maggiore spoke during public comment, saying that Council “needs a history lesson” regarding Laurent’s claim that “the county has a very good, a very good track record of using land and trying to put it back out into the private sector as well.” Maggiore recalled efforts during his term (2017-2021) to develop 20th Street, when Council — and the public — explicitly wanted to use the parcels to support local business and mixed-use development but were not given the choice to do so because of procurement rules. Maggiore referred to Laurent’s characterization of the county’s track record as “rose-colored glasses,” urging Council to consider “real, actual history.”

The 20th Street property in Los Alamos has been vacant for over a decade.

Local business owner Carolyn Cowan, who owns Mesa Top Games and L.A. Bootery, spoke to oppose the purchase. She listed several questions “taken from county applications to use county funds for small businesses,” including details on job retention and impact, “total estimated value of new construction,” and “project schedule, key milestone, and dates.” Referring to the application, Cowan said, “Again, this is information that we [local business owners] get asked. If you feel like these questions have been sufficiently answered, then, by all means, vote your conscience.”

Local resident Kevin Holsapple questioned the County’s urgency, referring to the short timeline Laurent had described, as the deal would need to close by Dec. 19, with the County having until Dec. 10 to complete due diligence investigations. Holsapple suggested they could simply ask Ross for more time. “If you’re serious about wanting to look at this, just ask that property owner to say, ‘Hey, we need this amount of time.’ He’ll either agree to that or not agree to that.” Dr. Lisa Shin’s comment recommending postponement touched on the same issue. “Two weeks is not enough,” she said. “I think we need to table this for maybe the New Year, and really seriously look at this.”

Laurent later explained that Ross’s end-of-year deadline likely concerns tax considerations, with Havemann speculating that it could involve a 1031 exchange tax benefit that requires completion by Dec. 31. 

The long-time goal of establishing a Social Services Hub did not seem to garner opposition, with some members of the public offering alternative locations, from working with local developers to leveraging existing County property like the Smart House or the Women's Dormitory.

Managing an unruly crowd

After each of the first two public comments, Council Chair Denise Derkacs asked the audience to refrain from applauding — a move that led to anger from some attendees. “It is outrageous that you seek to suppress public expression at County Council meetings,” said resident Gary Stradling as part of his comment addressing cost and transparency in the purchase proposal. “We are your constituents.”

While all public comments spoke in some way to the substance of the debate, a few included implicit or explicit criticisms of staff, Council, and County policy, which drew attention in the final Council discussion of the evening after Councilor David Reagor moved to reject the purchase outright. 

Some Councilors objected to what they characterized as disrespectful behavior from attendees. “I don’t necessarily agree with some of the comments that I heard tonight, especially some of the personal attacks on County staff,” said Councilor Theresa Cull before saying that she agreed with those who felt the price tag of the purchase was concerning.

Councilor Suzie Havemann strongly defended County staff and expressed her frustration and disappointment at the tone of public comment. “Staffing is hard at the County too, just like it’s hard on the small businesses. So I think we should give the County a little bit of slack too, in that everyone’s trying hard.” Several in the audience responded negatively to this statement, causing Havemann to retort that she “didn’t appreciate” that response. “This is what happens when we do things late,” she said. 

Like others, Councilor Havemann said she was not ready to vote yes or no, but she also spoke to the potential benefits and opportunity costs Laurent articulated earlier in the meeting. “I want this to be a place that thrives,” Havemann said, “and I think this is an opportunity to do something good there that benefits a lot of entities. Yes, the price is high, but the price also reflects the value of what could be conceived there.”

Continuing the discussion

Echoing a comment from Councilor Havemann, Councilor Ryti said “This is just way too late, I think, for this kind of issue to be voted on tonight,” and called the question — a procedural tool used to end debate and force a vote on the motion on the floor — causing Councilor Reagor’s motion to reject the purchase to fail 1-5. 

Council acknowledged that the delay would create time pressure to meet due diligence and closing deadlines. Ultimately, however, a motion to continue the discussion at the next scheduled meeting on Dec. 3 passed unanimously, 6-0, with Councilor Hand absent.