Where the Sidewalks End

With the post-war economic and manufacturing boom, the number of automobiles on the roads skyrocketed and roads became less safe for pedestrians. Enter: the Sidewalk, protector of children, separator of foot and vehicle traffic, a nessesary solution however inelegant. From West Mesa to Tramway, South Valley to the North Valley, and Old Town to Uptown, Albuquerque is well laid with sidewalks. It may be a long, hot trip, but if there’s somewhere you want to go, you can walk there safely out of the road. Except for Four Hills Village. 

Sure, we all know that Four Hills Village is the realization of developer Bills Brannin’s vision of a preeminent neighborhood full of large, beautiful, custom-built homes in the Albuquerque foothills. What you may not know is why the neighborhood is largely and inconsistently sidewalked, an issue that has been discussed and speculated from the inception of Four Hills Village to today. Was it an oversight, negligence, or perhaps… a conspiracy?

Let’s go back to 1959, the year that the Four Hills Country Club opened. In the Albuquerque Journal article ‘“Footpath” Plan To Be Studied In Four Hills”, City Planning Director Harry Coblentz recommends his planning commission oversee, implement, and enforce the city’s new sidewalk initiative. See, every homeowner was required to install cement sidewalks at their own expense for the safety of children. The due date for city-wide installation was set for December 23, 1967, and homes that failed to comply would be worked into an assessment district by the city; which would seek bids, get contracts, and then bill the homeowner for the work in monthly installments. A lien would be placed against the property until the city was reimbursed. All new residential construction was required to have sidewalks installed or risk citation for being uncompliant with Albuquerque sidewalk ordinances. Exceptions to the policy would be few.

According to that same article, the residents of Four Hills Village did not want sidewalks. Developer Bill Brannin would ensure his customers got what they wanted by insisting the terrain in the hills was simply too rough for sidewalk installation. Coblentz, seemingly willing to play nice with Brannin, suggested that exceptions could be made as long as alternate footpath plans were included on the plat (a map showing plot divisions). Brannin was told to get with the city planning department to work out suitable sidewalk arrangements. Stipulations are added that state when that plan comes up for consideration, the commission also will consider an amendment to the city sidewalk ordinance, which may allow for exemptions. 

About a year later the Journal published an article titled “Sidewalk Requirements Ignored in Four Hills” which highlighted that a year had passed since developers of FHV asked the City Commission to waive the building code requirement that sidewalks be built in front of all new residences—contending that lots are too big and country too rolling to make sidewalks practical. FHV was to present a workable plan to be reviewed by the City Planning Commission as a revision of the FHV subdivision plat. The plan was never presented, and no sidewalks were going up. Inspection Supervisor Garland, the man in charge of giving official city approval for homes and citing code violators, told reporters he was not waiving the requirement when builders came in for permits. As far as he is concerned, these sidewalk-free homes in Four Hills Village violated the city building code. Yet, Garland was not issuing citations to FHV homeowners at all. At this same time, the city was assessing sidewalks in older neighborhoods made from what was now considered unfit materials. So, Four Hills Village was practically, though not technically, exempt while other residents were expected to abide by the law.

This is where the story gets interesting. Well, as interesting as a story about sidewalk ordinance enforcement gets. 

The issue was seemingly resolved, or at least forgotten about, until over half a decade later, when Albuquerque Tribune staff reporter Jim Boyer runs with the story for months. Beginning on October 28, 1966, we found his article titled “City Administration Is Facing “Trouble” on Sidewalks Issue”. This was a political piece reminding the public that the City's election is coming up the following October, and sidewalk ordinances against new construction are not uniformly enforced. Boyer doubts that regulations will be enforced in Glenwood Hills and Four Hills Village. The two recent developments did not comply with new construction ordinances yet received no citations. When asked about this, Garland, our favorite inspection supervisor, skims past the issue saying, “That’s something I plan to talk to the commissioners about.”

The following month, the Journal publishes  “Garland Pleased With Progress on Sidewalks Law”. Inspection Supervisor Garland used the opportunity to defend new homes in FHV being constructed against ordinance with no sidewalks as they hadn't yet been “finaled out” (accepted by the city.) He expects them to have sidewalks by December 23, 1967, unless householders make appeals or commissioners decide otherwise. 

Now, the Four Hills Village sidewalk story was getting attention, and a day later the Tribune publishes another article. This one was not as chipper as yesterday’s Journal story, where Inspection Supervisor Garland tried his best to control the narrative. The headline reads “Sidewalk Ordinance Study Due for Glenwood, 4 Hills” again by investigative journalist Jim Boyer. Garland admitted to city commissioners that ordinances were not being strictly enforced in FHV. City Commissioner John Gurule made it clear he wants the city ordinances to be implemented on an equal basis and suggested a study be performed on the situation. When questioned about the oversights in Four Hills, Garland said he interpreted some papers to mean he need not enforce the ordinance in FHV and was waiting for someone “to bring the matter up”. Besides, he countered, he was not “finaling out” FHV houses that did not have sidewalks, thus not granting official city approval. However, a loophole is exposed after he is coerced to admit, under questioning by the City Commissioners, that there is no consequence for living in a home that has not been “finaled out” by inspectors. When asked, “What can the City Commission help to do your job?” Garland responded “nothing” and said ordinances would be issued a year from now on December 23rd, 1967, when all older homes were expected to comply.

Exactly one month later, Jim Boyer publishes a showstopper of an exposé. On December 9, 1966, “Failure to Enforce Sidewalk Law May Spark City’s Next Campaign” reveals a significant motive for the sudden interest in the sidewalk story. Jim says that lack of standardized enforcement and policy inequality may become a hot campaign issue for the City Election less than ten months away. At a campaign panel discussion, three candidates briefly talked about the City Public Works Department not enforcing sidewalk law in Four Hills, but the issue was left hanging in the air, and no candidate came to a yes or no on the subject.

Inspection Supervisor Garland told reporter Jim Boyer that none of new houses in Four Hills Village that have gone up without sidewalks since December 1965 were occupied. A few days later, he corrected the statement that he “thought” they weren't occupied; two were. Garland also said he had only issued ten house permits in FHV after Dec 23, 1965, when the sidewalks for new builds ordinance was put in place. When the reporter checked, it turned out that 19 permits were filed. City Commissioner John Gurule told the reporter he would “keep an eye on the situation” but this along with his earlier stated commitment to the equitable application of ordinances amounted to nothing.

Along with the article, all 19 addresses from 1966 were “put on blast” published:

1. 1101 Stagecoach SE, Feb 3rd

2. 910 Toro SE, Feb 6

3. 644 Running Water Circle SE, March 31

4. 900 Cuatro Cerros SE, March 9

5. 1017 Cuatro Cerros SE, March 14

6. 914 Toro SE, April 21

7. 1404 Sagebrush Trail SE, April 1

8. 1028 Matador SE, June 30

9. 1408 Sagebrush Trail SE, June 14

10. 906 Four Hills Road SE, June 13

11. 908 Wagon Train Road SE, July 12

12. 819 Toro SE, Aug 8

13. 910 WagonTrain Dr. SE, Aug

14. 1024 Matador SE, Aug 4

15. 1012 Bernalillo SE, Sept 27

16. 915 Toro SE, Sept 9

17. 813 Toro SE, Oct 31

18. 1521 Sagebrush Trail SE, Oct 5

19. 1107 Stagecoach Road SE, Oct 5

By December 1, 1967, Judy Nickell tells us in her Soil & Toil column that with the deadline looming, the city has already issued 7,129 permits covering 91.1 miles of sidewalks under the new ordinance. She states that the town allows few exceptions in areas Four Hills and Glenwood Hills, which are “too hilly”. This is exactly what developer Bill Brannon wanted all along when he first requested in 1959 to have the ordinances waived for his luxury development.

One day before Albuquerque is set to begin handing out citations, Investigative Journalist Jim Boyer leaves us with a few final insights and a political plug for Commissioner Payne’s reelection. On December 22, 1967, “Commissioner Word Payne Raps ‘Poorly Arrived At’ Walks Law” is a headline read by thousands of Burqueños. City Planning Director Rueben Rameirz said, ”Sidewalks in residential areas are mainly for the protection of children…Wait until a child gets killed, then they will want to change this.” 

Despite the newspaper articles, calls for investigation, and pleas for compliance, the residents of Four Hills Village have won, as City Building Inspector Garland said he had granted 30 waivers to Four Hills residents, so far.

The city is reasonably accused of granting “wholesale” waivers to residents in Four Hills, in many cases never requiring sidewalks to be installed before approval was granted. 

In 1967, eight years after the first sidewalk-free home was built, when interviewed about their resistance to sidewalks, people living in Four Hills Village said they don’t want kids playing on them and that sidewalks “detract” from their homes. 

So is the reason that Four Hills Village lacks adequate sidewalks because… the residents simply didn’t want them? Yes— but avoiding compliance with the city ordinance would have been impossible without the purposeful inaction of City Inspection Supervisor Garland. 

This brings us back to my charge of conspiracy. Garland would be unable to “overlook” those infractions if Coblentz had not transferred the sidewalk initiative oversight to his department in 1959, coincidentally the same year that Four Hills Development really got underway. While we have uncovered no concrete proof to make accusations of Bill Brannin’s political donations or relationships with the parties involved, coincidences abound to ensure that Four Hills never had to comply were certainly known.

Resources; can be recalled using the ABQ Library Newspaper Archive Library Edition which is free but requires a library card.

April 30, 1959 - “Footpath” Plan To Be Studied In Four Hills

May 8, 1960 - Sidewalk Requirements Ignored in Four Hills by Marianne Johnson

October 28, 1966 - City Administration Is Facing “Trouble” on Sidewalks Issue by Jim Boyer

November 8, 1966 - Garland Pleased With Progress on Sidewalks Law

November 9, 1966 - Sidewalk Ordinance Study Due for Glenwood, 4 Hills by Jim Boyer

December 9, 1966 - Failure to Enforce Sidewalk Law May Spark City’s Next Campaign by Jim Boyer

December 1, 1967 - Soil & Toil by Judy Nickell

December 22, 1967 - Commissioner Word Payne Raps “Poorly Arrived At’ Walks Law by Jim Boyer