When push comes to shove
By Beldon Butterfield, February 23, 2007

On January 19, I wrote a letter to the editor referring to Article 33 of the Mexican Constitution of 1917. I had my reasons, which I will make clear, but first things first. 

I immediately got the standard response that I’m “not a lawyer” and that at least one retired Supreme Court justice and countless lawyers disagree with me, and the writer went on to state that I, “was doing a disservice to the community,” followed by, “this flies in the face of common sense and Mexican legal opinion.” Again, let us take a look at what Article 33 says:

“The executive of the union (executive branch, not judicial branch) has the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to expel from the national territory, immediately and WITHOUT NECESSITY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, all foreigners whose STAY IT CONSIDERS INCONVENIENT.” The second part of Article 33 states:“Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country.” I said, replace the word “country” with the word “municipality.” The first part of Article 33 is very clear in who is going to decide on the meaning of the second part. It will not be a judge.

My REAL motive of reminding people of Article 33 was a letter to the editor written by a “recently arrived” American that appeared in the December 22, 2006, edition of Atención and made the following unreferenced statement: “Behind our backs maybe 40, 50, 60 permits for construction were being signed that will forever alter San Miguel. It’s even more disappointing to realize that these unprecedented permits were authorized at exactly the same time as our last municipal president was launching a big campaign to become senator,” all but accusing him of enrichment to cover his political campaign. This same individual went on to emphatically state in his same letter: “A lawyer present stated the law (he was referring to a public meeting of concerned residents): The law only prohibits us from trying to influence elections and the government process.” I can’t imagine a lawyer saying this, or is this the machinations of just another uniformed American? That is not what Article 33 says. Then our writer concluded: “In 
cases such as this, we are clearly allowed to express our opinions in any PUBLIC FORUM.”

The unfortunate part of this letter is that there are many Americans who would agree with everything this person had to say, regardless of the possible consequences. I say let the Mexican community openly attack the municipal authorities. After all, they elected them; the foreign community did not. 

I know of groups in this community made up of Mexicans and foreigners who quietly and discreetly negotiate with the authorities and get things done in benefit of all. This is the way “you engage in community affairs,” and not by publicly embarrassing the municipality. Unfortunately, these public outbursts have now attracted the national media.

In the January 18, 2007, issue of The Herald – Mexico (the section of the Miami Herald that is edited in conjunction with El Universal, the largest national circulation newspaper in Mexico), an article with the headline “City Gov’t Braces for Combative Meeting” reads: “City officials are bracing for a second public meeting Thursday night after Tuesday’s session ended with Boos and whistling when questions of development issues were cut short.” That’s the opening paragraph. Further down, the article states: “The audience of Mexican and foreign residents…” Is this the kind of image we foreigners want to project to the outside world? Is this the kind of attention we want to bring upon ourselves?

All of us who read newspapers and watch television surely cannot be oblivious to a growing global anti-American sentiment. To think this does not include Mexico, and that we live in some sort of protective bubble, is absurd. To this effect, the United States Embassy in Mexico sent out an Advisory Bulletin that stated “Do not draw attention to yourself, especially in public places.” The embassy knows what it’s talking about. 

The American who personally attacked me in the February 9 letter to the editor concluded with this utopian thought: “It is our privilege and even our duty to engage in a dialogue with civic and elected leaders about what takes place in our community. That includes discussion of building codes, roads, recreational areas, zoning, community services and all other matters pertaining to our welfare and that of our neighbors.” Really? Who’s going to pay for this “laundry list”? Not the heavily taxed (sarcasm notwithstanding) foreign community who owns most of the prime property in this town. 

The vocal minority of foreigners, who want everything to be done according to the laws and regulations of the municipality, are going to be shocked to find out what happens when Mexico starts to “apply the law.” How about Hacienda getting on everyone’s back to see who pays taxes and who evades them by running businesses and services where incomes are not declared through an RFC tax number (Registro Federal de Causantes); how about the tax people checking up on those foreigners who rent their homes and don’t declare the rents as Mexican income and evade paying the IVA and the ISR (Impuesto Sobre la Renta) and do most of their transactions through the internet where the money doesn’t even touch Mexican territory? That is really illegal. How about reassessment of properties to their real commercial value? How about all your employees being in the SS. Is that what this foreign community wants? Do they really want to see Mexican laws and regulations applied? I don’t think so. Maybe when those unpaid back taxes get 

collected we will get all those services and the infrastructure that these concerned Americans (who are doing “their duty”) are clamoring for. You can’t have it both ways!

All countries are xenophobic about something. In Mexico, it’s anything that is perceived as foreign meddling and intervention. Reading some Mexican history will help understand this. The very nature of being xenophobic also means that it can be irrational. There is plenty of reading material on the subject.

Letters, February 23, 2007

Send your letters to the editor to letters@atencionsanmiguel.org  Atención will not publish offensive or defamatory material.



Editor,

Joseph Dispenza’s thoughts on the debasement of our planet should be carefully considered by all of us. As a Californian, I have watched with sadness and horror as box store after box store, condo after condo, have covered the land. In Palm Springs, where I live, you now begin to feel the extension of Los Angeles, 100 miles away—one gigantic sprawl. But Palm Springs has also made an effort in preserving resources. It is home to one of the largest wind farms in the US, which provides much of its power. The public transportation, called SunBus, is solar-powered. There is a recycling program in place that all subscribe to. These are very hopeful signs. With its natural beauty, colonial heritage and spiritual and cultural consciousness, would it not be an easy step for San Miguel to become more focused on environmental responsibility? Could the community work together toward creative and constructive solutions to its environmental problems? Why not start with a vehicle emission control program so that these beaut
iful streets can be walked without the threat of noxious fumes causing lung cancer and further damage to the ozone layer? And all could contribute to a recyling program, which is now a basic responsibility for our planet. We citizens of San Miguel—native, adopted, and visiting—have an opportunity to truly create a heaven on earth and to live lightly on it.

Kim McCloud

Editor,

I read with interest the article by Linda Lowery concerning folk art collecting here in Mexico (“Collecting the Art of the People,” Feb. 9, p. 15). It was very lovely and well written. I must admit I found one error, and I believe that it is important that this mistake be illuminated. In her essay she refers to the four different categories of folk art: traditional, contemporary, mass-market and outsider. 

She defines outsider as “prison or mental institution art.” As a professional muse for a particular outsider artist for over 35 years, I beg to disagree. Many so-called outsider artists may be current or former residents of mental institutions or prisons; however, that is not the case for most outsider artists. To my knowledge, Reverend Howard Finster or Grandma Moses never spent time in prison or a mental hospital. The best definition for an outsider artist is one who creates outside the mainstream of professional art. These artists are usually self-taught, inwardly driven and quite visionary in their approach. Some of the best outsider art produced today can be viewed on the sides of the walls by graffitti artists as you approach the North Station Bus Terminal in Mexico City—the Mexican equivalents of Keith Haring or Basquiat. 

Remember, what may be considered “outsider” today is tomorrow’s next big thing!

Jimmy Ray





Editor,

My travels to San Miguel Allende for the last 15 years have included the enjoyment of the town’s character and architectural house projects in connection with my immediate family members. The special historical architectural quality of San Miguel can no doubt stimulate a desire to build within the rare “district” realm that lives in the 21st century but remains mostly “authentic SMA.”

Meanwhile, like everywhere, the “modernist construction fire” has been burning on the side of the road around San Miguel and the flame has now flared up to a bonfire and the subject has people’s attention. Clearly this “modernist construction fire” is on many people’s minds and a collective voice of strong objection to the “progress” thrusts into the universal building style is now being heard.

San Miguel is a candidate for the concept of design districting as it grapples with its construction style building dilemma. A distinction should be noted between modern function and modern architectural styles for the design districting approach. 

The concept of design districting is oriented towards managing the 21st century real estate pressures and maintaining the value of identity. San Miguel is on the cusp of significant change and is not alone in its status as a high-demand real estate location. 

In summary, the design districting process means that all buildings in the district should relate. Relate does not mean duplicate. The futile architectural process of all property owners “doing their own thing” can be seen around the world. The greatest sense of place is where the district umbrella covers all buildings in the district. Within the architectural district, a community should have what I term district offset buildings. Offset buildings are special buildings that deserve special status that positively add to the quality and managed complexity of the district. Museums, performing art centers, town halls, cathedrals, transport stations, libraries and so on are examples of district offset buildings. These offset buildings are allowed to break from the architectural district “style” umbrella and can become great architectural counterpoints within the district umbrella. A good example of this can be seen in the international architectural news of the “Balboa Effect,” where offset buildings earn a speci
al design status that in turn will increase the unique and understood “sense of place.”

Commercial buildings (unless extraordinarily important) such as apartment blocks, restaurant complexes, malls, big-box department stores should not earn this district offset building design status. Their function and contribution to the town or city is not socially great enough to deserve this special status. These buildings should be designed under the district design umbrella. It is a great architectural design fallacy that big-box department stores, warehouses, super-sized gasoline stations, and so forth have to have an architectural look of the universal globalization style. In San Miguel’s case, there is absolutely no architectural reason why modern function buildings cannot be designed to the San Miguel “district” theme. 

San Miguel would be best served with this design districting approach. Living in, and accommodating, the 21st century while holding on to what does not need to be reinvented should be San Miguel’s future. 

Kerby L. Glenn

Editor,

On Saturday, February 10, my wife and I were going to St. Paul’s for a five o’clock concert. The taxi let me out at Hecho en México and continued with her to St. Paul’s. I walked from Hecho. When I was asked for my ticket at St. Paul’s, my pocket calendar into which I had put my ticket was gone. I panicked because my credit card was also stuck in that calendar.

I grabbed a taxi after searching fruitlessly along my walk from Hecho and went back to the hotel to start phoning to cancel that card and report the loss of others. When I walked into the hotel, the man on the desk said, “I have good news. A very nice woman has found your ‘agenda,’ read where you were staying, and called.” The first number she tried was that of a local friend of ours who speaks very limited Spanish, but she persevered and reached the hotel.

I was invited to come to her home in Malanquin to retrieve my calendar and all of its contents. Señora Muños Contreras is an extroadinary, wonderful person and such a fine example of how kind sanmiguelenses are toward we visitors with our peculiar ways. Had this loss occurred in my city, it is likely the outcome would have been quite different. I hardly know how to express my appreciation to the people of San Miguel in general and to Senora Muñoz Contreras in particular.

Wyndham Clarke