O-24-69 and the Battle for Albuquerque’s Future
Ordinance O-24-69 has arrived at a critical moment in Albuquerque’s history, as the city grapples with its severe housing crisis. According to the latest regional housing needs assessment, Albuquerque faces a deficit of at least 55,000 housing units by 20451, a gap that will only continue to grow as demand outpaces supply, households shrink in size, and market desires shift. Affordability is already slipping beyond the reach of many, and the city’s sprawling, low-density landscape is proving unsustainable. To meet the demand and prevent further displacement, the city must embrace density—specifically, the legalization of multiplexes, small apartments, and townhomes throughout its neighborhoods. Additionally, higher density must be permitted along the city’s transit corridors, such as those near the ART system, and around major streets and urban centers.
For advocates of O-24-69, the ordinance offers a modest but necessary solution to this growing problem. It calls for a limited expansion of density in areas where it makes the most sense, like along major transportation routes and in underutilized urban centers. The goal is to increase the housing supply without fundamentally altering the character of “established” neighborhoods by allowing for increased density in strategic locations. O-24-69 is a starting point in addressing the city’s affordability crisis while also promoting sustainable growth.
To understand why O-24-69 has become such a lightning rod, it’s worth briefly outlining what the ordinance actually does. While modest in scope compared to reforms seen in other cities, it represents a meaningful recalibration of Albuquerque’s development rules—particularly in how they relate to density, location, and democratic process.
Among its key provisions:
- Legalization of dense, urban housing types in strategic locations, including gentle infill options like duplexes and multiplexes, as well as larger multifamily buildings.
- Designation of “Premium Transit Corridors” and “Main Streets”—including Central Avenue, Broadway, San Pedro, and Fourth Street—as priority areas for housing growth, alongside key urban centers such as Uptown and the Volcano Heights Urban Sector.
- Limited lowering, though not deletion of, parking minimums in the corridors affected by the ordinance.
- Reform of the appeals process to require demonstrated support from nearby residents before a neighborhood association or coalition can initiate an appeal—helping ensure that such objections are grounded in community will, not just board member preferences. Indigenous tribes and nations were exempted from this change, preserving their full ability to participate in the land-use process.
- A cost-balancing provision* that shifts the burden of legal fees onto those who file frivolous or obstructive appeals—introducing a degree of parity into a process where developers have long borne the financial risks alone.
These changes are not revolutionary by national standards. But in Albuquerque, where decades of low-density zoning and procedural obstruction have stifled even modest forms of infill, O-24-69 marks a tangible pivot toward a more inclusive, resilient urban future.
However, for many in Albuquerque’s NIMBY camps, the ordinance is viewed as an affront. Specifically, those within the city’s various “Neighborhood Coalitions”—large, loosely connected groups of neighborhood association board members spread across the city—see O-24-69 as an unwarranted bypass of the zoning process that has long kept them in the driver’s seat of neighborhood development. These coalitions, which have held considerable influence over city planning decisions, view the ordinance as an effort to circumvent their input and authority. They argue that the bill would significantly alter the neighborhood landscape without the careful scrutiny and consultation that has been the standard procedure for decades. For these groups, O-24-69 feels less like a balanced solution and more like a direct threat to their control over local development.
At the same time, critics from a different ideological camp—particularly within certain self-identified leftist or anti-capitalist groups—have framed the ordinance as a giveaway to developers and investors, arguing that it enables gentrification and commodifies land at the expense of historically marginalized communities. Though their language and intent may differ from that of traditional neighborhood coalitions, the result is often the same: resistance to new housing, especially in areas where change is most needed.
The debate, therefore, is not just about whether more density is necessary—there is little doubt that it is—but rather about who gets to make the decisions and how those decisions should be made. Should the city continue to cater to those who wish to preserve the low-density status quo, or should it embrace a future of increased housing options, more urban vibrancy, and better access to transportation? O-24-69, though relatively modest in scope, represents a critical inflection point in this broader struggle between preservation and progress, between the entrenched interests of long-standing neighborhood groups and the need for a city that can accommodate its growing population.
While opposition to O-24-69 has often been framed as a defense of local character or democratic process, or a need for thoughtful, detail-oriented planning, the underlying motivations are far more complex—and frequently contradictory. Not all critics of the ordinance speak from the same ideological place. Some invoke neighborhood identity, others procedural fairness, and still others the language of environmental concern. These critiques, while varied in tone and tactic, often converge around a shared instinct: resistance to or fear of change.
In the sections that follow, we will explore the deeper tensions that lie beneath this resistance. From appeals to ecological preservation to procedural perfectionism and left-wing skepticism of development itself, we will trace how the language of advocacy has, in many cases, evolved into a posture of obstruction. As we’ll see, the most potent opposition to housing reform does not always come from overt reactionaries—but from those who believe they are defending the very values they once fought to advance.
*This provision was weakened by the passage of O-25-73, which placed a cap on the fees a losing appellant would pay as well as an exemption for certain groups with standing that are considered cost-burdened by the City of Albuquerque. We covered this bill here and here.
Reimagining Albuquerque 
Leave a comment