The ACLU has taken on the case and is actively working to get Val Kilmer permission to add guest lodging to his ranch in northern New Mexico.
As reported previously, the San Miguel County Commission won’t allow Kilmer to open his ranch to paying guests. They are still and mightily annoyed by derogatory comments attributed to him in 2003 in the Rolling Stone magazine. Let's just say the comments were not happy-making to residents of the area.
But does that give the Commission the right to deny Kilmer the opportunity to add guest cottages?
In an exclusive interview, Peter G. Simonson, Executive Director, ACLU of New Mexico asserts, "I understand that there are community members that are very upset about what they read in Rolling Stones and that the county is under pressure to consider those concerns, but there is a basic principle in our constitutional democracy that is at stake here. And it trumps just about any other legal concern."
That, of course, is the right to free speech.
"Whether or not he said them isn’t as important as whether he has the right to say them. First Amendment clearly points to the fact the he does, and that he can’t suffer retaliation for either what he did say or for what people think he said," continued Mr. Simonson.
Mr. Simonson also expressed surprise that the whole issue even came up. I saw it on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal and frankly I was pretty surprised because the facts described in the journal made it seem pretty clear that Mr. Kilmer rights had in fact been violated. And might be violated again if he were compelled to answer for comments he allegedly made to the Rolling Stones.
Would it be better for Val Kilmer to appear and try to unruffle those ruffled feathers? That, of course, would be up to Kilmer, but Simonson suggests: I think it’s important that both sides come to an understanding as to the importance of free speech in an issue like this.
So the ACLU of New Mexico is representing Val Kilmer, and the goal is to get the issue resolved, making sure that "Mr. Kilmer First Amendment rights are properly respected."
As to whether or not Val Kilmer and his ranch are good neighbors, that's apparently a different issue. But perhaps it would be a good idea to find ways to smooth down those feathers, anyway.
What do you think?
Subscribe above to receive notices about future fascinating and informative columns in your emailbox. Read about more Offbeat Travel and follow me on twitter as OffbeatTravel
Comments
Is the ranch zoned for commerce? Or is it in a residentially zoned area? What interest does the ACLU have in something that should be taken up at a Planning and Zoning meeting?
I agree with the ACLU.
Patty, in a previous column I reported that he was turned down because the commission was upset by comments quoted in the Rolling Stones magazine 7 years ago.
He owns something like 6000 acres and wants to put up a few cabins for lodging. The whole place is out in the wilderness.
It's become a free speech issue - legally he can't be denied permission for comments he made that upset the local community. Hence the ACLU.
There are two separate issues here. The addition of the cottages should be allowed if everything is up to code and the right permits are obtained. What was said in a magazine should have no effect on the matter.
The whole thing is stupid. I mean, ok, so he MAY have said some stuff people did not like. what does that have to do w/ him building lodging? NOTHING. Maybe he's a nice guy, maybe not. But what does that have do w/ his right to build cottages and make revenue?
I am a die-hard supporter of the First Amendment, naturally. Not a fan of the ACLU, but in this case, they are right on the money. Great follow-up article, Neala!
As a former resident of Pecos, I am well aware of the racism which some of the locals (not the majority, however, let's be clear on that), and perhaps many of the people occupying positions in the judicial and permit-granting areas of the San Miguel County government have. There IS and element, very vocal, and very annoying, which does not care about anything other than keeping any Anglo from doing anything, legal or not. It has nothing to do with whether you are within the letter of the law, only your race. It is a kind of "Spanish Mafia" if you will, and it does exist. Anything an Anglo does, even if it is done out of generosity or good will towards the town and the locals is distorted and twisted into something which is anti-Spanish. A good example of this was when Greer Garson donated a large amount of paint left over from painting her ranch (just outside of the village), to the village. There was an immediate and vocal uproar to the effect that she only did it because she wanted the town to seem to be an extension of her ranch by having the village buildings painted the same color!
As for Kilmer's comments, I have no idea whether or not he actually made them, but it seems to me that it would be foolish for Rolling Stone to misquote him, and he seems to be trying to save face. There is a level of alcohol consumption in the village (I know because I served on the volunteer ambulance crew there), but it is no higher or more of a problem than in any similar village in the state. Having said that, I must also note that the average level of intoxication in the state is horrendously high and that New Mexicans have a much higher chance than the national average of being killed by a drunken driver, or even gunshot. The locals are armed, almost everyone goes deer and elk hunting and rifles and handguns are prevalent and rather more in view than one would normally expect, and, yes, it often IS a problem, especially when a FEW of the more rowdy and drunken of the citizens (always the same group, as everywhere, and mainly responsible for the bad rap) shoot their rifles and handguns to celebrate whatever instead of firecrackers (4th of July, New Year's, etc. etc.). The first patient I had on my EMT ER student watch was a young Spanish man (not from Pecos, I might add), who had gotten drunk on Memorial Day and accidentally shot himself in the head with a .22 caliber pistol while joking around with his girlfriend. This type of incident is absolutely not unknown, although not necessarily common to local EMS personnel. Given this, I can understand how someone who has not spent a long time living there might over-react and see drunken gun-toting Spaniards behind every pick-up. Actually Española has a much worse problem with all the above than does Pecos.
As a former resident of Pecos, I am well aware of the racism which some of the locals (not the majority, however, let's be clear on that), and perhaps many of the people occupying positions in the judicial and permit-granting areas of the San Miguel County government have. There IS and element, very vocal, and very annoying, which does not care about anything other than keeping any Anglo from doing anything, legal or not. It has nothing to do with whether you are within the letter of the law, only your race. It is a kind of "Spanish Mafia" if you will, and it does exist. Anything an Anglo does, even if it is done out of generosity or good will towards the town and the locals is distorted and twisted into something which is anti-Spanish. A good example of this was when Greer Garson donated a large amount of paint left over from painting her ranch (just outside of the village), to the village. There was an immediate and vocal uproar to the effect that she only did it because she wanted the town to seem to be an extension of her ranch by having the village buildings painted the same color!
As for Kilmer's comments, I have no idea whether or not he actually made them, but it seems to me that it would be foolish for Rolling Stone to misquote him, and he seems to be trying to save face. There is a level of alcohol consumption in the village (I know because I served on the volunteer ambulance crew there), but it is no higher or more of a problem than in any similar village in the state. Having said that, I must also note that the average level of intoxication in the state is horrendously high and that New Mexicans have a much higher chance than the national average of being killed by a drunken driver, or even gunshot. The locals are armed, almost everyone goes deer and elk hunting and rifles and handguns are prevalent and rather more in view than one would normally expect, and, yes, it often IS a problem, especially when a FEW of the more rowdy and drunken of the citizens (always the same group, as everywhere, and mainly responsible for the bad rap) shoot their rifles and handguns to celebrate whatever instead of firecrackers (4th of July, New Year's, etc. etc.). The first patient I had on my EMT ER student watch was a young Spanish man (not from Pecos, I might add), who had gotten drunk on Memorial Day and accidentally shot himself in the head with a .22 caliber pistol while joking around with his girlfriend. This type of incident is absolutely not unknown, although not necessarily common to local EMS personnel. Given this, I can understand how someone who has not spent a long time living there might over-react and see drunken gun-toting Spaniards behind every pick-up. Actually Española has a much worse problem with all the above than does Pecos.
Not wanting to leave an impression that the majority of the locals in Pecos are drunken, gun-toting idiots (just a few), I want to say that the huge majority of the locals were nice, kind and good people. As always, there is a SMALL segment of the total population which cause the problems.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!