Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents split over Corrales drain plan as debate centers on traffic, enforcement and rural character
Summary
The presentation drew a long public comment period: some residents urged closing sections to cars and restoring habitat, while others backed targeted safety measures and questioned enforcement, crusher‑fines surfacing and who would pay for maintenance.
A packed public comment session after the Corrales Interior Drain Master Plan presentation revealed strong but divided feelings about how the village should manage the two‑mile corridor.
Longtime residents and recent arrivals alike expressed three recurring concerns: traffic and school drop‑off safety, who would enforce 'local access' limits and parking rules, and whether proposed surfacing or features would erode Corrales’ rural character.
"Let's close it down. Let's plant more trees," said Douglas Spindley, a lifelong resident who helped launch the citizen committee that pushed for a plan. Spindley argued for minimizing vehicular use and restoring nonfunctional portions of the ditch for habitat and neighborhood use.
Other residents focused on practical questions about drainage and safety. "Has anyone looked at the function of this drain as an emergency drain if we had five or 10 inches of rain?" asked resident Larry Ezabedo, urging caution before altering the corridor’s ability to carry flood flows. Ezabedo also raised a data point from a 2019 test he cited on surface temperatures: he said crusher fines measured about 140° on an 85° day and warned about impacts on pets.
Several commenters questioned enforcement: "Who is going to be patrolling these?" asked a Ring Cone resident, noting that police enforcement typically depends on posted signs and public‑road status. Project staff said signage is intended to deter nonlocal drivers but acknowledged enforcement responsibility and private vs. public road distinctions remain to be clarified with the village and police.
Some residents urged smaller, targeted steps. Becky Valentine, a former council member, recommended clearing dead wood to reduce fire risk and prioritizing safety near the school, while others said small, neighborhood‑tailored measures would better preserve the drain’s rural feel.
Residents also sought clarity about ownership and next steps. Project staff noted that the MRGCD still manages some southern sections and that the plan will be submitted to the village for council consideration; no construction or design work is funded yet. Attendees were urged to attend the council meeting on the village calendar’s '22nd' to comment when the plan is considered.
The session ended with staff promising further, section‑by‑section engineering and additional community meetings before any implementation, and with residents on both sides of the debate encouraged to keep providing input to the council.
