Judge strikes down Doug Ford's plan to remove Toronto bike lanes as unconstitutional
Doug Ford
's months-long campaign against several Toronto
bike lanes
was dealt a serious setback Wednesday when a judge ruled their removal would be unconstitutional.
A decision by Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas found that sections of the Ontario government's Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, violated the Charter by infringing on cyclists' rights to life and security of person. Part of the bill, which became law in November, calls for the removal of protected bike lanes on Yonge, University and Bloor Streets.
The Charter challenge of that plan was launched
by cycling advocates
, including CycleToronto, in December.
The government said it will appeal the court's decision.
'We were elected by the people of Ontario with a clear mandate to restore lanes of traffic and get drivers moving by moving bike lanes off of major roads to secondary roads,' a spokesperson for Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria said.
In his decision, Schabas found that 'the government has led no evidence to rebut the applicants' compelling position, supported by evidence, that removing the protected bike lanes will cause cyclists to ride in more dangerous mixed traffic … and that cyclists will be injured, and worse, if the protected target bike lanes are removed.'
The decision does not guarantee the right to a bike lane, nor does it prevent the Ford government from blocking any new bike lanes from being built, Schabas explained in his ruling.
'The government has the right to make decisions about roads and traffic infrastructure,' Schabas wrote, 'but where the government takes action that puts people at risk, and does so arbitrarily, its actions may be restrained by the Charter.'
The Ford government had attempted to
work around the Charter challenge
, changing the legislation in June from 'the Minister shall remove the bicycle lanes located on Bloor Street, University Avenue and Yonge Street,' to 'the Minister shall restore a lane for motor vehicle traffic on Bloor Street, University Avenue, Avenue Road, and Yonge Street, in the City of Toronto, by reconfiguring the bicycle lanes.'
Schabas did not buy the argument from the government that this would render the Charter challenge moot.
'I find that any 'reconfiguring' which has the effect of removing the physical separation of the target bike lanes from motor vehicle traffic for the purpose of reducing congestion is also a breach of the Charter,' he wrote.
'It is reasonable to conclude that people who cycle will be injured and killed when lanes for motor vehicles are installed and protected bike lanes are removed,' he added.
Schabas pointed to expert evidence, presented by both the government and the cycling advocates, that removal of the bike lanes would 'substantially increase the number of collisions for all road users and will not achieve the objective of reducing congestion.'
Schabas also ordered the government to pay $200,000 in legal fees to the cycling advocates and their legal team.
The Ford government's appeal will go to the Ontario Court of Appeals.
It also has the option of using the notwithstanding clause, which it controversially used in
2021
in an attempt to restrict third-party advertising and in
2022
to pre-emptively prevent an education worker strike.
Michael Longfield, executive director of CycleToronto, called Schabas's ruling on Wednesday a 'major victory.'
'I think it's maybe a good moment for the premier to stop and reconsider,' Longfield said. '(Canada is) facing an unprecedented trade war and I think there are other things we need the premier of Ontario focused on and working on rather than obsessing over 19 kilometres of bike lanes and meddling with local politics in Ontario.'
The Ford government had previously opened the door to finding a
compromise with the city
to reintroduce vehicle lanes on Bloor, University and Yonge streets without removing protected bike lanes.
The city is 'reviewing the court decision and the impact on our ongoing discussions with the province,' a spokesperson for Mayor Olivia Chow said in a statement.
'Mayor Chow maintains that the city of Toronto and its elected council should be the ones making decisions about municipal infrastructure,' the spokesperson added.
The premier and his government
campaigned on removing bike lanes in Toronto's downtown core
during February's election. The provincial government argued that road space dedicated to cyclists was taking away road space from drivers and cyclists
should instead be diverted to 'secondary roads.'
Bike lane users Eva Stanger-Ross and Narada Kiondo and Cycle Toronto
filed their Charter challenge with the Superior Court in December
, arguing that the new law 'puts lives at risk.'
Schabas granted a temporary injunction in April, preventing the province from removing the lanes while he decided on the Charter case. The province's appeal of that injunction was
rejected by a panel of three Superior Court judges
on July 9.
Government documents
released as part of the injunction hearing warned that removing the bike lanes may not ease congestion, and instead could increase the risk of collisions and negatively impact businesses.
Ford had
previously scolded "unelected judges"
— taking aim at Schabas — when the bike lane removals were blocked by the injunction, and floated the idea of electing judges to the bench. Those comments
earned him a rare rebuke
from the province's top justices, who reaffirmed the need for judicial independence.
'Judges should not determine items like bike lanes … because of ideology, they decide to put an injunction in,' the premier said at a press conference in May.
'Enough is enough.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
7 hours ago
- The Verge
Ford is doubling down on EVs — the timing is awful
On Monday, Ford introduced an innovative new manufacturing process that it says will help make its EVs more sustainable, more desirable, and more importantly, more affordable. The timing couldn't have been worse. EV tax credits were set to expire at the end of September. President Trump's trade war was tilting the balance in favor of China's EVs. And automakers are beginning to delay and even cancel some planned models. Ford seems to realize its timing is unfortunate. Throughout their announcement, the company's top executives kept hammering one salient point: this was going to be really hard, success was far from guaranteed, and in fact they could even fail. 'Why do I say bet?,' said Ford CEO Jim Farley, dressed in a reflective yellow vest while surrounded by dozens of the company's Louisville factory employees. 'That's an intentional word, because there are no guarantees with this project. We're doing so many new things. I can't tell you with 100 percent certainty that this will all go just right. It is a bet.' Farley is right to hedge. As he correctly noted, 'the automotive industry has a graveyard littered with affordable vehicles that were launched in our country with all good intentions.' Affordable EVs, in particular, are incredibly difficult to build in the US. American buyers have become used to a certain of hugeness. We like our trucks big, our range limitless, and our cargo capacity herculean. And a truly affordable EV, one priced somewhere in the $25,000-$30,000 range, would likely need to be smaller, slower, and less capable by definition than most of the two- and three-row SUVs currently dominating the EV market. We saw a little bit of this with Slate Auto's truck, which claims to reach its 'mid-twenties' starting price by stripping out features most people have come to expect in a new vehicle, things like a touchscreen, a cellular connection, a working stereo, and exterior paint options. Ford isn't ready to go down that road yet. Instead, its cost savings from come from two central places: the manufacturing process, and the battery. Ford is following Tesla's lead in adopting a system that relies on unicasting system that creates massive pieces of the vehicle's underbody, helping to save time and cut down on the costs associated with manufacturing. There will be more automation, meaning some Ford workers are going to be offered buyouts or transferred to other facilities. These EVs will simply require fewer people to put them together. 'We're doing so many new things. I can't tell you with 100 percent certainty that this will all go just right.' The battery, in particular, could put Ford in a tough spot. The company didn't offer many details except to say that the new midsized truck, which will be the first vehicle produced by this new system, will have a battery that is 15 percent smaller than a BYD Atto crossover. BYD offers the Atto in two battery configurations: a 49.92 kWh pack and a 60.48 kWh pack. That could mean Ford is looking at a battery with 51 kWh capacity, smaller than first-gen the Chevy Bolt's 57 kWh pack. That's tiny, especially by today's standards of EVs with 300-miles-plus of range. It will be enormously difficult for Ford to sell an EV with a middling range estimate for more than $30,000. And let's be real, it's probably going to end up being a lot more than $30,000 when the truck arrives in 2027. That's because the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans are actively dismantling every policy that aims to help make EVs more affordable to customers. Ford won't be able to count on any tax credits or incentives to help bring the price of its new EVs down any more than what the automaker can eke out with its own manufacturing efficiencies. 'The environment for electric vehicles has gotten far more challenging in the U.S. market this year, and the global EV environment is facing increasing domination from Chinese automakers,' said iSeeCars Executive Analyst Karl Brauer. 'Given these realities I'm not convinced any U.S. automaker can succeed as an electric vehicle producer.' Ford hasn't had any luck on bringing its current EV costs into more alignment. The company lost over $5 billion on EVs and software in 2024, and it predicts that will take a similar hit this year. Farley likes to talk about challenging China in its EV dominance. But he's also been more candid about the enormous deficit between that country and the US when it comes to manufacturing and technology. China's EVs are 'far superior' to what American companies have been able to produce, he said last month. And he described China's rapid rise in the EV market as the 'most humbling experience' of his career. In Louisville, he sounded a lot more optimistic than he has in the past. 'No more compliance cars,' he said. 'No more loss leaders that require a big check from the company to make. We're talking about a vehicle that can sustain itself, have strong profits, so all of our workers and the community here has actually a sustainable future.' Turning those words into reality will be the biggest challenge of Farley's career. And it could mean the difference between a Ford that's thriving, or one that's just a footnote. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Andrew J. Hawkins Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Cars Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Electric Cars Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Ford Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Transportation
Politico
9 hours ago
- Politico
How Congress could enter the fight over D.C.
IN TODAY'S EDITION:— GOP eyes congressional action on D.C. crime— Johnson's Epstein headache continues to throb— Judge deals Trump another impoundment blow President Donald Trump's targeting of D.C. crime is adding to Congress' busy to-do list this fall. Already House Oversight Chair James Comer plans to haul in city officials for a hearing next month, as Hailey Fuchs and Meredith Lee Hill report. But here are three other ways Trump's latest executive actions and announcements Monday could keep lawmakers occupied: — Extend the police takeover: Under the 51-year-old federal law creating D.C.'s local government, Trump can seize control of the city police force for 30 days. Extending the takeover beyond mid-September would require Congress to act. It's unclear whether Trump even wants that, and Democrats — who have long championed political autonomy for the District — could seek to block any such move, which would have to contend with a potential filibuster in the Senate. — Pass new legislation: Trump wants Republicans to change the District's longstanding bail policy, which allows criminal suspects to be released pending trial without putting up any money. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro also said Monday she wants Congress to overturn city juvenile justice laws that she thinks are too lenient toward young offenders. It's unclear how soon any legislation could hit the House floor, but an Oversight spokesperson said the panel plans to advance Rep. Byron Donalds' bill to curtail eligibility for D.C.'s youth offender system. Rep. Elise Stefanik, meanwhile, is working on a bill that would reverse no-cash-bail policies nationwide. — Fill the Superior Court bench: The president said he plans to send up several judge nominees for D.C.'s Superior Court, which require Senate confirmation. 'We have about 10 open spots, and we could probably create some more,' he said about the local court that has been dogged by vacancies. This battle could get caught up in another fall frenzy — over clearing the backlog of Trump nominees writ large. Typically Superior Court judges have been low on the Senate's priority list, but that might not matter if Republicans change Senate rules to speed up confirmations. We'll also make note of what Trump didn't mention: He's not calling for changes to the 1973 Home Rule Act itself, effectively removing D.C.'s self-governance. Nor did he mention the congressional budget change that forced the District to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of local spending earlier this year. With the fiscal year almost over, a fix has fallen off the Hill agenda. GOOD TUESDAY MORNING. Any early reviews of the new House dining options? Email us: crazor@ cdumay@ and bguggenheim@ THE LEADERSHIP SUITE Johnson's Epstein headache lives on If GOP leaders were counting on the Jeffrey Epstein frenzy to subside this summer, they already have reason to think otherwise. Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie said Monday they plan to hold a news conference on the Hill with victims of Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell once lawmakers return in September. The bipartisan pair will push for passage of their bill compelling the release of more Epstein files, and they'll also provide updates on their discharge petition effort to force a vote on the bill. Several of the victims will speak publicly about their abuse for the first time. If that isn't enough reason for Speaker Mike Johnson to worry, Missouri Republican Rep. Eric Burlison again called publicly for the release of more files Monday, posting on X that the case 'will not be buried for decades.' 'We cannot let the Epstein files become another JFK case… with decades of secrecy and unanswered questions,' Burlison wrote. 'The truth must come out now, not sixty years from now.' Meanwhile, in Wyoming Johnson kicked off his annual donor retreat Monday in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The programming, which continues today, includes discussions on topics like national security with Homeland Security Chair Andrew Garbarino and Rep. Jen Kiggans, the 2026 midterms with NRCC Chair Richard Hudson and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with Sen. John Barrasso. POLICY RUNDOWN JUDGE REAFFIRMS IMPOUNDMENT LAW — A Trump-appointed federal judge ruled Monday that the administration is illegally withholding funds previously approved by Congress for the National Endowment for Democracy, Katherine Tully-McManus reports. It's the latest in a deluge of legal challenges the Trump administration faces for allegedly freezing, cancelling or otherwise blocking billions of dollars in funds approved by Congress. The Endowment is a nonprofit supporting democratic institutions and individual liberties across the globe. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said the justification for withholding appropriated funds — a blitz against 'waste, fraud and abuse' backed by the Department of Government Efficiency initiative — was 'not plausible.' NEW CBO MEGABILL FINDINGS —The Congressional Budget Office published an analysis Monday with more details on the distributional effects of the GOP's sweeping domestic policy law, Toby Eckert reports. It could complicate the Republicans' sales pitch for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' while giving Democrats more ammunition to trash it as harmful to the most vulnerable Americans. According to the nonpartisan scorekeeper, the new policies will increase resources for the highest-earning tenth of households by $13,600 annually — thanks to the GOP's extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts. The lowest tenth of earners will see their incomes shrink by $1,200 per year due to additional cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. An accompanying CBO analysis Monday also details how changes to SNAP, including new work requirements, could result in an average of 2.4 million people being dropped from the food aid program every month. Best of POLITICO Pro and E&E: THE BEST OF THE REST A peace vigil sits near the White House. A congressman wants it gone, from Marissa J. Lang at The Washington Post A US senator from Colombia emerges as a Trump link for Latin America's conservatives, from Joshua Goodman and Julie Carr Smyth at AP THE CARRYOUT Welcome back to your Inside Congress hosts' favorite recess activity: sharing lawmakers' Capitol Hill food recommendations. Rep. Becca Balint said she has a 'really boring' go-to: a yogurt, banana and some Cheerios from the Longworth Cafeteria. 'It's rare,' Balint said. 'It's hard to get a banana after nine in the morning so you've got to be early.' What do you usually grab from Longworth? Email crazor@ CAMPAIGN STOP ABBOTT'S TEXAS THREAT — Gov. Greg Abbott is warning Democrats that if they decrease the number of red-leaning districts by redrawing congressional maps in California, Texas would respond in full force. 'If California tries to gerrymander five more districts, Texas has the ability to eliminate ten Democrats in our state,' Abbott said in an interview aired on CNN Monday. 'We can play that game more than they can because they have fewer Republican districts in their state.' DOGGETT PRESSURES CASAR — Texas Republicans' new maps draw Reps. Lloyd Doggett and Greg Casar, both from formerly safe blue districts, into one Austin-based seat — and neither is backing down from a potentially thorny primary fight. 'In a House again controlled by Democrats, seniority is power,' Doggett, a 16-term lawmaker, said in a Sunday campaign email. 'And in fighting Republican shenanigans, experience is an asset.' Doggett is pressuring Casar — who is serving his second term in Congress — to run in a new district that he calls 'probably the most winnable Trump-created new district,' Gregory Svirnovskiy reports. Casar has yet to publicly respond. CARL RETURNS? — Former Rep. Jerry Carl plans to make a 'major announcement' on Aug. 18, he wrote on X. Carl filed recently with the FEC to return as a candidate in Alabama's first congressional district. The former lawmaker lost his 2024 Republican primary to Rep. Barry Moore after courts ordered Alabama to change its congressional map to include a second predominantly Black district. A federal court stood by that requirement last week. But now that Moore has hinted at a Senate run, Carl's old seat might open up. TUNNEL TALK WELCOME BACK HOUSE CAFS — The House CAO announced that the Ford Cafeteria is expected to open its doors Monday and the Longworth Cafeteria is scheduled to reopen Sept. 2. CAMPUS SAFETY — The office in charge of congressional workplace safety identified more than 2,000 hazards across the Capitol complex and other legislative facilities in its most recent report. That's a significant decrease from past years, according to the document, though inspections were limited during the pandemic. Longworth, the smallest of the three main House office buildings, counted the most safety hazards among member office spaces. The most common safety concern overall was electrical hazards, followed by problems with exit routes and emergency planning. The Office of Congressional Workplace Rights also noted it's still waiting for Congress' authorization to review data about Capitol Police injuries from the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. The office has argued that information previously turned over by the department didn't include sufficient detail to improve protections for officers during future, potentially violent demonstrations. HAPPY BIRTHDAY Former Rep. Connie Mack IV … Matt Sparks … Casey Nelson Hood of the House Republican whip's office … Justin Folsom of Southern Co. … POLITICO's Kyle Blaine, Joe Gould, Heather Richards, Rachel Myers and Scott Stephens … WaPo's Karen Attiah … Doris Truong ... Lesley Fulop Byers … BGR Group's Remy Brim TRIVIA MONDAY'S ANSWER: Timothy Trent correctly answered that Sens. Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell and Patty Murray have each cast more than 10,000 votes. TODAY'S QUESTION, from Cassandra: Visitors to the Capitol were prohibited from leaning over the chamber balconies in both the House and Senate after a suffrage activist unveiled a banner stating, 'Mr. President, What Will You Do for Woman Suffrage?' during which president's State of the Union address? The first person to correctly guess gets a mention in the next edition of Inside Congress. Send your answers to insidecongress@
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Q&A: Mayoral candidates on Santa Fe's strong mayor system
The city of Santa Fe's 'strong mayor' governing system, which took effect at the start of Mayor Alan Webber's first term in 2018, continues to spur debate nearly eight years after its introduction. As Webber prepares to leave office in less than five months, after deciding not to run for reelection, several city councilors are proposing a slate of charter amendments to rein in the next mayor's power. They argue the current system gives the mayor disproportionate control over what happens at City Hall. No one will be affected by the potential changes more than the next mayor if city voters approve the measures at the ballot box in November. The New Mexican asked the seven candidates running for mayor a series of questions about the system and proposed changes. Following are their answers. They have been edited for style, clarity and length. Question: It's been eight years since Charter Amendment 9 took effect, changing Santa Fe's municipal government from a council/manager system to one giving the mayor much more power. Do you believe this system has been beneficial to the city? Michael Garcia: I believe the past 7½ years has allowed the City Council, city staff and residents to see firsthand how much more power was granted to the role of mayor. I do not believe the current system is working, and modifications need to be made. I am in favor of having a full-time mayor but solely in the role of an executive. The mayor should not be part of the legislative body. There should be a clear separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary. Justin Greene: First and foremost, Santa Fe deserves a full-time, elected leader — not just an appointed city manager. The tree removal controversy is a perfect example of what can happen when unaccountable bureaucracy is left unchecked. Our top executive should be chosen by the people and held directly accountable to them. Second, the role of mayor isn't ceremonial. It's serious work that requires strategic thinking, coalition-building, and the ability to deliver results. Santa Fe needs a mayor who shows up, asks the right questions, and works tirelessly to move the city forward. That's the kind of leader I strive to be. ... I understand that some voters may feel disappointed by how the strong mayor system has played out so far. But that doesn't mean we should scrap the model — we should just choose more wisely this time. With the right person in office, the strong mayor structure can work exactly as intended: bringing real accountability, responsiveness and vision to City Hall. Letitia Montoya: No. I believe the strong mayor system has created more problems than solutions. It has concentrated too much power in one office, allowing decisions to be made without enough input from the public or City Council. The mayor also has too much control over contracts and leadership appointments. ... There should be a hiring committee making those decisions, not one person with unchecked authority. The same goes for vendor contracts — the mayor should not be able to hand-pick vendors without fair process. These are things that deeply bother me and show why this system needs to change. Tarin Nix: I don't believe the issue of strong or weak mayor is the cause for City Hall's lack of progress — it is a lack of leadership, good government and public service at every level. Also, considering the hundreds of staff hours, hundreds of thousands spent of taxpayer dollars and the overwhelming majority of votes to pass it — I think we owe it a little more time. Oscar Rodriguez: I believe it's had a net negative effect. The city's otherwise operational mission is now more a political one, where political capital tends to outweigh technical expertise. The ideal conditions are where political imperatives are balanced with operational imperatives. The change in the charter tilted the scales toward the former. Meanwhile, the city is facing monumental operational challenges. Ron Trujillo: The shift to a strong mayor system aimed to improve accountability and leadership, but the results have been mixed. While it was supposed to bring the mayor closer to the day-to-day work of city government, it has instead created a more top-heavy structure. The current mayor and his administration have tried to turn City Hall into something that resembles the presidency, appointing a chief of staff and a deputy city manager, positions that add another layer of bureaucracy rather than improving responsiveness. That's not what voters intended with this change. JoAnne Vigil Coppler: Santa Fe has had only one mayor since the charter amendment took effect, and to judge its effectiveness against what many believe has been an ineffective administration may not be the best measure. I favor a part-time mayor because I believe there are too many people at the top managing the city when the city can do just fine without being top heavy. A competent, experienced employee hired as the city manager can and should run the operations with oversight from the mayor. It is not working now because we have a mayor who has relatively no experience, has lost the trust of the people and who has been unwilling to delegate authority to the city manager and department directors. The rest speaks for itself in terms of how well the city is run. Of the ballot questions posed in the other questions below, I believe a ballot proposal changing the charter language back to a part-time mayor is the correct, more efficient way to manage a city of our size. Since that probably will not occur, it has never been more important to elect a mayor with integrity and a professional record of highly responsible public service experience. I have that proven track record and a master's degree in public administration to go with it. Question: If your answer was yes, why? If no, what about it do you believe is not working? Montoya: The strong mayor system lacks checks and balances. It creates a culture where department heads and staff are afraid to speak out or act independently for fear of retaliation. It's led to low morale among workers and decision-making that doesn't reflect the will of the people. The current system undermines trust in government. We need a structure where power is shared and leadership is accountable — not centralized in one office. Rodriguez: The reality is that the charter change really only gave the impression that the mayor was the chief executive, as it kept the hiring and firing of the employees under the city manager (except for the city clerk and city attorney). But since the mayor nominates the city manager under the charter, that individual has until now been someone who agreed to operate as if the mayor was their boss, not the council. And as the mayor was not a technical expert, the priorities and acceptable solutions to problems, mostly technical problems, that came up were decided by a non-technical leader. I think the naming of [Mark] Scott, a veteran city manager, marked an inflection in this approach. But it came quite late in the administration's tenure. It's an open question if this experience will change the course of city government. Trujillo: What's not working is the consolidation of power at the top without transparency or collaboration. The idea behind a strong mayor was to ensure hands-on involvement in city operations, not to create a political bubble around the office. When councilors are sidelined and decision-making becomes centralized, the people of Santa Fe lose their voice in how the city is run. Question: If elected mayor, are there any ways you would attempt to change the city's governance structure? Garcia: If elected mayor, I will continue to work on creating a clear separation of powers. Right now the mayor plays both the role of the executive and as a legislator. The actions I would take would be to remove the mayor from the governing body. This would only allow for the mayor to vote in a matter where the City Council vote was a tie. I would also remove the authority allowing for the mayor to introduce legislation. This would require that the mayor work collaboratively with the City Council to have legislation introduced that supports the mayor's agenda. Additionally, as mayor I will work to restructure the process in which the operating budget is presented to the City Council. Currently the mayor submits the budget to the City Council, and the council has roughly three weeks to review and approve. As mayor, I will submit my budget to the City Council and give a minimum of 60 days to review. As well, I will implement performance-based budgeting. This will allow for money to be allocated to expenditures that are proving to be successful. Greene: I won't be looking to change the system — I'll be working to make it function better for everyone. That means restoring trust, improving communication between the Mayor's Office and council, and bringing residents into the process. I also support a charter review commission to evaluate structural changes with broad community input. Montoya: Yes. I would work to restore balance between the mayor, City Council and city manager. The mayor should lead through collaboration — not domination. I support forming hiring committees for director-level positions, adding transparency to contract decisions and implementing clear policies that protect city employees from political retaliation. I will also push for stronger ethics rules and public oversight so the community can hold all of us accountable. The people deserve a city government that works for them — not behind their backs. Nix: Yes — budgets and constituent services. City Councilors are not responsible for the management of staff but their job is to pass legislation, focus on delivering results for their district and serving as a financial watchdog over City Hall. If we want City Councilors to be able to do their job, we need to start notifying them when an issue is reported in their district and they should be getting detailed budgets with real explanations, not just toplines. Rodriguez: If the initiative to change the charter back to the way it was got on the ballot, I will vote for it. Meanwhile, I will act as if the city manager works for the entire council (including the mayor) and use my influence as mayor to keep the conversation at the City Council focused on city government's core mission of service delivery. Trujillo: Yes. I support revisiting the city charter to restore balance between the mayor and the council. I also strongly support implementing term limits — three terms for councilors and two for mayors to prevent the concentration of power and keep new ideas flowing into city government. Public service should be about solving problems, not holding office indefinitely. Vigil Coppler: Yes. I strongly believe in a leaner government, less bureaucracy and consistent and reliable customer service. I have worked twice for the city of Santa Fe as its human resource director, and both times, the city's operations were run extremely professionally, with city services provided at a high level. I believe the city is concentrated too heavily on top management positions and not enough allocation of positions to the sections of the city that are actually charged with doing the work. There are too many 'middle men' and positions seem to be created to have maybe one or two duties. I would seek those out and consolidate. The reorganization of city government brought forth by the current mayor, and a measure I voted against as a city councilor, has not improved city services. To the contrary, it has created more bureaucracy, weakened customer service and resulted in less communication to the public. I would begin by revamping the mayor/city manager office by reclassifying the deputy city manager and/or the chief of staff position and assigning those to the parks or streets sections. I would combine the parks and recreation divisions into one department to increase the level of services commensurate to what Santa Fe expects out of its city, and I would devote more positions to parks for maintenance, beautification and recreational opportunities for Santa Fe families. I would study the staffing levels in the streets division to determine what the holdup is on street maintenance and repaving and work to remedy those issues. ... I would study the staffing levels of both the police and fire departments to ensure we have improved first responder coverage of our city — especially police coverage during swing and graveyard shifts. I would rely on both those departments to demonstrate the need. Question: Are you in favor of a ballot question asking voters to amend the charter to allow six city councilors to vote to suspend or remove the city manager, city attorney or city clerk? Why or why not? Garcia: Yes, as a city councilor I supported and voted for this proposal. I believe that if the city manager, city attorney, or city clerk are not working in the best interests of residents, then those individuals should be removed from their position. Additionally, this allows for an additional measure of accountability. Greene: I'm open to a supermajority vote in certain cases where accountability is clearly needed. These are important positions, and checks and balances matter — but I also believe we need to maintain stability and avoid political swings that could disrupt city operations. Any change should be thoughtful and grounded in what's best for the city. Montoya: Yes. These are high-level positions that impact every part of city government. If six elected councilors — a strong majority — believe suspension or removal is necessary, they should have that authority. Right now, these roles can be too heavily influenced by the mayor, and that opens the door to favoritism and a lack of accountability. This change would help rebalance power and protect the public's interest. Nix: City councilors should be vocal about shortcomings at City Hall, but it is not their job to run the city or manage the staff. Also, the City Council does have the authority to remove someone already, the mayor. See: NM Stat § 3-10-7 (2024). Rodriguez: I would vote in favor of it, as the standard for most council-manager forms of government is that the majority of a council appoints and fires the city manager. It should be noted, however, that the City Council majority can also refuse to confirm the city manager nominated by the mayor. Plus, the mayor can also fire the city manager under the current charter. We should fear that the political process injects so much instability into the job of a city manager that we would have to either offer exorbitant contract terms to future truly qualified city managers or settle on city managers who came to the job primarily with political capital instead of technical qualifications. Trujillo: Yes. These positions play critical roles in ensuring transparency and effective operations. They should not be solely answerable to the mayor. Allowing six councilors to take action provides a crucial check on executive authority and promotes healthy oversight. Vigil Coppler: I would be in favor of this ballot question provided it includes amendments whereby it doesn't apply during the first 180 days of a new mayor's administration and whereby it requires a super majority vote to dismiss. A newly elected mayor needs the opportunity to assemble her own team and needs the opportunity to consider retaining or dismissing the city manager, city attorney and city clerk without requiring governing body approval to dismiss anyone in those positions. Question: Are you in favor of a proposed ballot question that would ask voters to amend the charter to limit the mayor's voting power to breaking ties on City Council? Why or why not? Garcia: Yes, I am a sponsor of this legislation. I believe that this action is the first of many steps that will need to be taken to have a true separation of powers between the mayor and City Council. Greene: Yes, I'm open to that change. Limiting the mayor's vote to tie-breaking can strengthen the independence of the council while keeping the mayor focused on day-to-day leadership. If we want a government that works, we need clarity between legislative and executive roles — and this could help achieve that. Montoya: Yes. The mayor should not have the ability to drive council decisions with their own political agenda. Limiting the mayor's vote to breaking ties would return power to the councilors who directly represent the people in their districts. This would reduce political interference, increase collaboration, and bring more balance to city governance, which is exactly what Santa Fe needs right now. Nix: I don't think the mayor having a vote or not is the issue. The votes that residents are upset over were overwhelmingly supported by the city councilors and never came close to a tie. If it had — the mayor's vote would still be the deciding vote with current law. Rodriguez: Against. If the mayor is neither the real chief executive (city manager hires and fires) and only a legislator who breaks ties, there would be little purpose in a mayor. I believe that any charter change should be comprehensive in this area, not piecemeal. Trujillo: No, I do not support that change. The reason the charter was amended to allow the mayor to vote on all issues in the first place was transparency. Previously, the mayor only voted in the case of a tie, which meant the public often had no idea where the mayor stood on important issues. Having experienced and participated in these two different voting processes during my 12 years on the City Council and seeing firsthand the need for transparency, it is essential that the mayor votes regularly ensuring that constituents see their position clearly, just like with any other elected official. Reducing that role now would be a step backward in openness and accountability. Vigil Coppler: When I worked for the city under two different mayors, the mayor had only a tie-breaking vote and it wasn't an issue. The difference now is that both those past mayoral administrations were governed by part-time mayors with much less responsibility. Today the city charter mandates the mayor to perform many more responsibilities that are managerial and operational directives. There is no other position on the governing body that has that and, as such, it stands to reason that the mayor should have a say so in what transpires in her administration. After all, the entire city was eligible to vote in the mayor's race while only one-fourth of the population was eligible to vote for its city councilor. If anything fails in city government, all fingers and blame are pointed to the mayor, and if the mayor had no vote, she will be blamed anyway. The question is who is accountable for the measure that was voted in by the governing body without a mayor's vote weighing in? I would be in favor of the mayor having no vote except in the case of a tie vote IF there was language that, under certain conditions, the mayor could exercise a veto power. Solve the daily Crossword
