Las Cruces officials outline expanded nuisance abatement program as residents press for preservation and housing supports

The Las Cruces City Council work session on March 25 featured a detailed update on the city’s Nuisance Abatement Team and a string of public comments urging stronger historic-preservation protections and housing supports.

Larry Nichols, with Community Development, said the NAT has shifted from acquiring properties for affordable housing to abating blighted properties. He described a three-step investigative system—level 1 (weed/debris), level 2 (vacant buildings/unsafe structures) and level 3 (urgent properties)—and said the team favors voluntary compliance (cleaning, boarding and securing) with condemnation and demolition a last resort. Nichols said abatement records are public, that a property owner may appeal a condemnation order within 15 days and that liens can be placed to recover demolition costs when the city completes abatement.

"We try to achieve that through voluntary compliance," Nichols said, summarizing the approach that pairs code enforcement with police, fire and legal staff.

Battalion Chief Fire Marshal Michael Landovasso illustrated the public-safety rationale with examples of unsafe structures, citing multiple service calls and fires at properties including 1245 Van Patten, 375 Kar en and 1308 Brownlee. "We've had eight fires here, going back to July '22," Landovasso said of one site, and said the interior damage makes several structures hazardous for occupants and first responders.

Council members pressed staff about occupied properties and supports. Councilor McClure asked whether processes differ for contributing buildings in historic districts; Nichols said demolition proposals undergo three-agency review (building department, utilities, historic-preservation specialist). Councilors and staff also discussed coordination with community partners when occupants live in properties targeted for abatement.

Nicole Martinez, director of Mesilla Valley Community of Hope, urged earlier notice and closer coordination when occupied units are under review so caseworkers can use ARPA-funded landlord mitigation vouchers and other assistance to help tenants and landlords remediate units and prevent displacement. Martinez warned that steep rent increases in multiple complexes are already squeezing voucher use.

Multiple public speakers raised preservation concerns. Martha Rodriguez, president of neighborhood group Las Esperanza, urged that the abatement process explicitly include historic-preservation review and formal notice so both occupants and preservationists can respond. Deb Dennis called for funding and programming for adaptive reuse of vacant, city-owned historic properties rather than demolition. Judy Berryman of the Historic Preservation Commission said current ordinances (Chapter 2, Chapter 40 as cited) limit HPC review to properties inside recognized historic districts and urged changes so more historic resources receive review.

One public commenter, Joe Rupracht, criticized the conduct of the city’s historic-preservation specialist, saying the specialist has sometimes failed to act and in one case "lied"; Rupracht offered to document his claims to staff. City staff did not provide a detailed rebuttal on the record during the session beyond procedural clarifications and invitations to provide documentation.

Nichols said NAT funding is devoted to demolition and abatement (board-and-secure) and that the NAT does not currently have funds dedicated to relocation or to bringing salvageable properties up to code; he said a separate council budget request includes funding for the NAT. Nichols also said the team has identified 163 tracked properties citywide and a top-11 priority list the city aims to address this year.

City leaders said adoption of the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code gives staff broader tools to inspect interiors and address unsafe, uninhabitable conditions while acknowledging the need to avoid unnecessary displacement for occupants. Staff said they are working to codify timelines and partnerships to improve coordination with community providers.

Next steps: staff said they will provide more detailed information on programs and funding options, and councilors asked staff to formalize notification timelines and partnership protocols so community groups can help prevent displacement when remediation is feasible.