I have to ask in terms of the originally proposed enforcement, exactly what problems did these properties cause that were allegedly being remedied? We've treated these as grandfathered units for over 50 years. Why the need to change course? Whenever a policy or law requires that property rights or freedoms are reduced, it should be due to some sort of problem or public nuisance, not just because we can. Is the cost of continuing the grandfathered status more expensive than the proposed enforcement? I seriously doubt that.

There is a judicial process that has to be followed to change any law, zoning or ordinance. They have to stop enforcement first, then introduce new legislation, and vote on it. Stopping the enforcement is the first step to that process. The City Council does tremendous work for the city. I recommend attending the council meetings so you can understand that process, and have your voice heard. It is my understanding that the Council can make it to where the properties affected be grandfathered in permanently. So, the "shall not be enforce" will more thank likely happen. It just takes time and a number of council meetings sometimes to get it done. They address these things as they come up.

The horse is out of the barn. Enforcement is too impractical and costly. (ex 6000+ properties, how many inspectors are there? If you average 100 cases a month/zoning hearing, that would be a 5 year minimum. What would that accomplish and what do we do in the meantime? The uncertainty of what is and what is not allowable is hurting our neighborhoods and impacting the buying and selling of real estate. The most efficient and practical solution is to grandfather in existing accessory structures as they stand and inspect/enforce future structures. Don't think there would be many dissenters over this.

Trudy thanks for effort, however this dosn"t solve the problem,

Good start! The costs of conformity to all parties/entities wheather public or private would be herendous. In the current economy and the Aging of America there is a need to maintain and provide affordable and practical living options. Policies should facilitate providing for Seniors, Students and even Boomerangs.

Well, that's nice Trudy. But.... this is just another postponement of the problem. We need to push a look into solving a larger issue: Looking holistically at the need for and historical practice of accessory residence, mother-in-law quarters, and multi-generational living in the city of Albuquerque. It's been almost 59 years since 1959 - isn't it time to re-evaluate our neighborhood planning priorities?

Unfortunately the legislation to be introduced will not reduce the uncertainty of "further action". The legislation should simply state"shall not be enforced".