I missed this somewhere, but this opinion piece in the Mountain View Telegraph reveals that Mike Anaya, owner of Mike’s Friendly Store on old Route 66 in Moriarty, N.M., was inducted into the New Mexico Business Hall of Fame.

Anaya is no absentee owner. He’s easy to find at his supermarket and is not afraid to get his hands dirty. He credits his success to drive and a willingness to work long hours, as well as an ability to ride out the rough spots between the good times.

Anaya apparently has passed on his work ethic to his children.

His daughter manages the landmark El Comedor de Anayas restaurant next door to the grocery store, and a son manages a video store and a motel.

El Comedor, by the way, is a longtime landmark on Route 66 also.

Johnny Meier, a longtime member of the New Mexico Route 66 Association, attended the recent hearing regarding the demolition application of El Vado Motel in Albuquerque. Here are excerpts from an e-mail of his thoughts:

The projected income was argued by the developer to be considered as an unreasonable rate of return given the cost of rehabilitation. The developer argued that the building was in poor condition, the city’s experts testified that it was remarkably sound in structure saying that out of hundreds of vintage buildings reviewed, the El Vado rated a 8.5 to 9.5 on a scale of 10 and that the outstanding structural integrity did not justify demolition. I could not get a sense of which way the commission was leaning. Its a dueling experts game. As a member of the public, I had two minutes to speak, and after examining the numbers presented that showed a differential between rehabilitation and earnings, I pointed out the unaccounted for eligibility of a National Register Property and a Scenic Byways property for grant funding which potentially could close the gap. I commented that in the grant evaluation process, National Register properties grant applications are shuffled to the top of the pile. A Commission member added that City grant money might also be available. [...]

Part of the burden on the developer is to demonstrate that all alternatives and options have been considered at that the rehabilitation project is financially unfeasible. As an observer, and trying to be objective, I felt that there are alternatives that have not been pursued. One clear option is reselling the property for a reasonable return. The developer had paid $680,000 and testified that he had offered it for sale at a price of $3.2 million and he admitted he purposely listed it high because he did not really want to sell it. In addition, property swaps with the city had not reached a dead end. The Developer said that he had been offered property swaps that were indeed interesting to him but claimed that the city, after offering swaps, was not following through on his interest. The rep for the city involved in swap offers will be testifying in January.

In a hallway conversations, the developer said to me that “I wish I could tell you what I really want to do” hinting that I might like what I’d hear. One of his associates then gave me an intro to what was really going on. According to them, they have to argue for demolition in order to get a blank sheet and proceed without city interference. It was suggested to me that what the Developer really wants to do is tear down the back of the property for townhomes and rehabilitate the front part of the property. The undercurrent, although not explicitly stated, was that the Developer didn’t want to antagonize the city and the public with actually following through with a total demolition. The requested total demolition was a means to get the city moving with regard to swaps and the like. If the developer actually got permission to totally demolish the property and then without obligation, voluntarily rehabilitated the front, then the developer would be on the high ground. The associate asked me what I thought about a half and half plan. I replied that I’d support that if it is true that the total rehabilitation project is unfeasible.

Ordinarily, I would be amenable to Gonzales’ proposal to preserve part of El Vado. This is an idea he has floated in the past. But I would consider this proposal only as a last resort because Gonzales has demonstrated that he is not trustworthy. If such a proposal eventually comes to pass, I would make sure it’s an ironclad agreement so Gonzales can’t weasel out of it.

Following a discussion about preserving historic Route 66 motels on the Albuquerque blog Duke City Fix, contributor Arizona Phil found this fascinating Albuquerque Journal story about developers converting the old Cactus Motel, along old Route 66 in Santa Fe, into the Cactus Centro business center.

The anchor is the Sun Loan Company, where the former motel office was on the street side. On the parallel L, there are 14 small spaces, all of which are leased; the last business is just moving in.

Small wonder the property was easy to fill. According to John Shepler of Grubb and Ellis New Mexico, commercial rents for small storefronts in the area have ranged from $12 to $18 per square foot this year, plus utilities, and most owners require a five-year lease.

The Cactus Centro units are tiny by most commercial standards — an estimated 300 to 400 square feet, including bathroom — but the rent is a flat $650 per month, utilities (except telephone) included, and the required lease is only one year.

The low rent with fixed expenses makes for comfortable economics, appealing to a yearning entrepreneur with limited startup capital.

We actually stayed in the Cactus Motel a few years ago. It was an OK place, but you could tell it wasn’t going to last much longer as a $40-a-night destination in a high-rent town that has a plethora of lodging options. I’m glad to see the motel found a second life.

And the Cactus Centro’s success is another strong rebuttal against Richard L. Gonzales’ argument that El Vado Motel in Albuquerque is no longer economically viable.

The hit Disney-Pixar movie about Route 66, “Cars,” received just one nomination from the Golden Globes today, and that was for the new Best Animated Feature Film category. Its competition is “Happy Feet” and “Monster House.”

Disappointingly, composer Randy Newman and “Our Town” were not nominated for score and best song. Instead of Newman and the song being strong contenders, I believe their positions have been weakened by the coming release of the acclaimed musical “Dreamgirls.”

Still, the nominations overall appear to be so weak or haphazard that I wonder whether the Golden Globes’ recent respectability has ended and it’s back to being a second- or third-rate awards show. We’ll know whether the Globes are a harbinger to when the Academy Award nominations are announced next month.

The Golden Globes will be broadcast 7 p.m. CST Jan. 15 on NBC.

The City of Albuquerque’s Landmarks and Urban Commission held a hearing for 3 1/2 hours Wednesday, but no decision was made about whether to allow a demolition permit for the historic Route 66 motel, according to the Albuquerque Tribune.

The commission will hold another meeting Jan. 10 to hear more witnesses and testimony. Based on the Tribune report, it sounds like city officials, including the mayor, are adamant in wanting to prevent the motel’s destruction.

It sounds like El Vado Motel owner Richard L. Gonzales’ lawyer is trying to set up a smokescreen to obscure that the demolition permit requirements aren’t to being met. You can read an overview of the basic arguments that I compiled a few weeks ago.

The only likely option Gonzales will have left is an appeal to a higher court to overturn the decision. But legal fees are already stacking up; it’s going to get to the point where he’s going to have to cut bait and sell the motel instead of continuing with his vain quest.

UPDATE: Here’s another story from the Albuquerque Journal. Here’s the key portion:

“Crocker & Associates (a city consultant) believes the building assemblage to be in ‘remarkably good condition’ and they arrive at a cost estimate of $964,706 for rehabilitation of existing buildings at El Vado.”

The city did not finish presenting its case Wednesday. But structural engineer Charles Bacchus told commissioners that “demolition is not justified from a structural standpoint.”

Gonzales had quoted an engineering firm that said the motel needed $2.5 million in rehabilitation. But Crocker is a firm that specializes in architectural preservation, including earth structures such as El Vado’s, and the firm Gonzales hired does not.