For many years is being developed and authorized the construction of extensive housing projects in the upper part of the city, such as Zirándaro, Capillas de Piedra, El Paraíso, El Deseo, Los Arcángeles, Luminaria, Lomas de San Miguel, Jardines de Allende, without any consideration of how to supply them, or those already living in the zone, with sufficient water. As could easily have been predicted, the city is now facing a water shortage.

The municipality’s plan The Acuaferico involves drilling eight wells around the perimeter of the Presa Allende, between the communities of San Marcos and Cabras Juan Xido. From there the water would be pumped to cisterns at various points around the city.

We are all very aware of the urgent need to address the issues of water supply, quality and distribution in San Miguel de Allende. However, we are concerned about the government’s failure to consult local experts, community leaders, or the leaders of the ejidos which will be affected by the drilling on their land, all of whom have expressed their concerns about the effects of these new wells on the quality and supply of their water. We have the following questions for our municipal government.

• Does the municipality have the appropriate permits to drill in the area around the Presa? On January 13^th, 2021, CONAGUA suspended the drilling of three wells around San Marcos calling into question the legality of the process.
• Has the municipality done a proper environmental impact studies as legally required to be presented to and approved by SEMARNAT?
• How will the municipality ensure the safety of the water, extracted from close proximity to the Presa, which is highly contaminated with untreated sewage, agricultural runoff and even industrial waste, as well as the arsenic and fluoride which are present in much local water?

What will their testing methods be? How will the water be treated?

• How will these projects be financed and what role will private investors play?
• We have all heard about the frustrations of residents of the upper part of the city with the construction of a sewage drain through their neighbourhoods to deal with the overabundance of waste being produced by these new developments. Is this really the only solution being offered to a problem that will only grow, especially if local governments continue to authorize building in zones without adequate infrastructure?

Citizens and residents of San Miguel de Allende   demand a municipal government capable of serious and thoughtful long-term planning to address this pressing issue. We look forward to a fully transparent response to all our questions and concerns regarding these projects.

OCSMA

Traduccion

J.F.

2. Sapasma intersection

This intersection is in the process of being established. A left lane is available for traffic coming from the Libramiento/Conspiracion intersection and that is good. A left turning lane from Pipila to Sapasma street is not clear to see at this moment when there is no good lane marking on the pavement . does not seem to be planned.  Turning lanes – both to right and left – coming from Alcocer seems to be OK. Again, everything will be so much better once pavement painting of lanes has been established. From Alcocer a special left turning lane will be available to the street leading to Tres Cruces.

Traffic lights will be established for both vehicles and pedestrians. However, for the latter there will be no pedestrian passage across the libramiento at the southern end of the intersection and that is OK considering the driving pattern and general development. However, while there are pedestrian traffic lights for the northern crossing of the Libramiento between Sapasma street and the road to Alcocer, traffic lights for pedestrians are not established across the Sapasma street which is bad, since there may be many school children from the nearby school wanting to cross the Sapasma  street to reach the parking lot (to be picked up by a parent).

The stop line for vehicle traffic coming from the Libramiento/Conspiracion intersection is well placed rather far from the traffic light of the Sapasma intersection.

There are no directional signing at this intersection. Maybe a sign showing direction towards Alcocer would be a good idea.

Some details:

• As was the case at the Libramiento/Conspiracion intersections also at this Sapasma intersection the traffic light signalling is not all placed correctly above the traffic lane.
• One pedestrian traffic light located right at the corner of the Sapasma street and the Libramiento is placed too far from the pedestrian crossing and should be corrected.
• Coming from Pipila it is not clear – due to the ongoing construction – if a proper left turning lane towards Sapasma will be established, but this will be necessary may not be needed due to limited turning traffic
• Two lanes from Pipila towards the Libramiento/Conspiracion interchange will be extended to 4 lanes after the Sapasma intersection, two to continue towards Libramiento/Conspiracion intersection and the two others to be a parallel road. However, those two lanes are narrowed to one just before the entrance to Liverpool. I believe some study should be done to make this design better, perhaps in connection with the left turning possibility from the south bound traffic to Liverpool (see abovebelow).
• I shall not comment on the very problematic signing for vehicles coming from Pipila wishing going towards Alcocer.
• The extremely unusual and very problematic turn from Alcocer and Libramiento/Conspiracion towards Tres Cruces should be changed. Suggested is that the street from Tres Cruces should just after the Portal change its alignment to go a bit up to a point at the Alcocer road approximately 100-150 m above the Sapasma intersection and at that point be linked to the Alcocer road in a normal, small intersection. This will take away many dangerous traffic safety problems. To establish this more safe solution will require the town to expropriate a bit of land, something the administration until now has not wanted to do.

Conclusion: This intersection with corrections as mentioned above and proper lane markings and less pavement will be able to function rather well.

1.- Libramiento/Prolongacion Cinco de Mayo

 This intersection has been a spot of some concern to the State (Unidad General de
Servicios Tecnicos) as well as to OCSMA. The problem is the many curves on both
Libramiento and the Prolongacion Cinco de Mayo with small radius and the
inclination of Libramiento being rather steep inviting to high speed. This provides a
serious traffic safety risk – I agree to this concern by the state. The state has asked the
SMA administration not to have this intersection developed, but so far the intersection
is still there and I have even seen vehicles coming from Cinco de Mayo turning left
towards Queretaro in spite of the fact that the traffic lights – which have already been
installed – do not work.
A plan for the intersection is attached.
Basically the geometry is correct, even if it will be very difficult for trucks coming from
Pipila to turn left. Once on the ramp the truck will immediately meet an extremely
sharp curve to the right which for large trucks will be impossible to pass. I will suggest
trucks to be prohibited leaving Libramiento at this T-intersection.
The widening and subsequent reduction of width at Libramiento – being necessary to
provide the left turning lane towards Cinco de Mayo – should appear with a proper
construction of these islands to ensure a speed reduction of all vehicles. In addition, a
signal approximately 100 m before the first traffic signal in both directions should
indicate the necessity to lower the speed. If these constructions will not be
established, we may expect several accidents.

There are no directional signing at this intersection and that is OK since we are talking
of some very local streets.

Conclusion: It is difficult to support implementation of this intersection, but with very
careful and strong adherence to design rules and traffic lights, it may be possible to
develop the intersection.

2020-07-25

by Ivar Schacke

Introduction

When I came to San Miguel de Allende 2005 there were just 2 intersections with traffic lights, one at the intersection between Libramiento and Calle de La Estacion and the other in front of the H+ hospital. Later they were dismantled and I was told by the transito director that traffic lights were not wanted in SMA. This was the policy until our present mayor took over. – Now traffic lights are going to be an important way to ensure proper mobility – Times have indeed changed.

If the center of San Miguel develops as we OCSMA suggest, that is, no vehicles in the historical center and no trucks and tourist busses inside the Libramiento, but more green areas, then traffic lights should not be installed inside the Libramiento. The Libramiento is the road (not street) with the heaviest amount of traffic and using traffic lights to help mobility is correct. However, even with traffic lights the Libramiento will in the future only partly be able to ensure a good traffic flow. This is because traffic will grow a lot. We may some day discuss how much we believe traffic may grow.

Traffic lights

General comments

In an intersection on the Libramiento the street crossing must – by using traffic lights – ensure proper movement of vehicles AND at the same time safe passing of bicyclists and pedestrians. What I have seen during my study is an attempt to ensure safe crossing for pedestrians, while at no location did I observe any preparation for securing bicyclists. You may remember the attempt to construct a two-directional bicycle lane from hotel Mission Allende to the city administration building by the road towards Los Rodrigues. This project was never a success and also not advertised well. There are several problems for bicyclists, but the worse is passing the new intersection between Libramiento/La Conspiracion. At this intersection the sidewalk has been upgraded with concrete while the bicycle lane(s) do not exists. Maybe we some day should take a serious discussion about bicycling in San Miguel. At present it is enough to state that we do not recommend bicycling inside the Libramiento, but certainly outside to the pueblitos such as Cienegita.

Traffic lights must help drivers of vehicles, but certainly also pedestrians, who will need special pedestrian signalling. That has actually been established at the new Libramiento/La Conspiracion intersection, but unfortunately with some examples of poor design – see below. The location of traffic lights at an intersection is important. Basically you need signalling just before the intersection and if it is a crossing of a 4-lane road, traffic lights after the intersections will also be of value to travellers. This was only partly accomplished at Libramiento/La Conspiración. White pavement lines to provide safe crossings for pedestrians should be painted 4-5m before the pedestrian crossing which should of course be established before the traffic light of the main street. This was actually done at the crossing at Sapasma, which nevertheless did not have sufficient pedestrian signalling.  To ensure maximum of traffic capacity, pedestrians often must cross in two tempi: from one side to the median and later from that location to the far side. This was well done at the Sapasma intersection.

It is essential to create a balance between urbanized areas with concret and green areas that provide us with environmental services that counteract againts the effects of human activity in urban areas. The heat island effect is becoming more and more noticeable as the temperature increases. It is enough to drive out the city to realize the difference in temperature with the countryside.

In the midst of the health crisis, caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and in view of the analysis that everyone is making of what will come after it, we must recognize that we have experienced a phenomenon very similar to having a microscope in front of us, which would allow us to see the smallest details of another of the crises that San Miguel de Allende is going through: the environmental crisis. A crisis that, according to the experts, goes hand in hand with the crisis of human rights.

Above all, we must recognize the human right to the environment. As Dr. Leticia Merino Pérez explains in her book: “Environmental Crisis in Mexico, Route to Change”.

In the 1987 Brundtland Report, Annex I, the following was identified as a general legal principle:

“All human beings have the fundamental right to an environment adequate for their health and well-being.

Within the national legal framework, the human right to the environment is recognized in the constitution in article 4, paragraph 5, which states

“Everyone has the right to a healthy environment for his development and well-being. The State shall guarantee respect for this right. Environmental damage and deterioration shall give rise to liability for whoever causes it in terms of the provisions of the law”.

Added paragraph DOF 28-06-1999. Reformed DOF 08- 02-2012.

It is mentioned in the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, in its first article, section I, which states

ARTICLE 1 – This law regulates the provisions of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States that refer to the preservation and restoration of the ecological balance, as well as the protection of the environment, in the national territory and the areas over which the nation exercises its sovereignty and jurisdiction. Its provisions are of public order and social interest and are intended to promote sustainable development and establish the basis for it:

I.- Guarantee the right of every person to live in a healthy environment for their development, health and well-being; Reformed section DOF 05-11-2013

Here are also judgements in different courts that have recognized the human right to the environment.

Having a healthy environment implies, among other things, maintaining the tree inventory of our state, of our municipality. Last May 2019, a proposal was presented to the Congress of the State of Guanajuato to approve the Law for the Protection of Urban Trees and Green Areas. This proposal has not yet been revised.

It seems that there is a lack of coordination between the directorates in charge of the environment and the one that executes public works. On the one hand, they reforest and when a modification to the urban environment is planned, from the desk des fortunately cannot be considered the existing trees.

However, this city, this planet; will be inherited to the youngest. What is the opinion of the young people, in whom we have all the hope, so that they command the changes that the world needs? Here is a space to listen to their opinion about it.

WE SHARE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWSPAPER ATENCIÓN, FROM A YOUNG WOMAN WHO REFLECTS ON THIS

San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato

July 10, 2020

The privilege of green areas

To the editor of the Attention newspaper:

After reading information regarding citizen complaints about logging caused by public works workers and recent news about the plans to “remodel” the Almenas Walkway in the Malanquin neighborhood: Some months ago, during the development of the Save 41 Trees movement, a girl came to notify us that the municipality also wanted to remove the trees from the main street of Malanquín; today I learned that the news is real and now they are not removing them for “maintenance of the public road” but because they are not endemic. I regret that they take this argument to exercise their power and their desire to impose spaces without green areas on the people. I doubt very much that the municipality will take the same measures with the non-endemic vegetation that is found in the center and in gardens adjacent to nice areas generally inhabited by Americans or Mexicans with a high socioeconomic level. I doubt very much that they will “take the precautions” that they took when they removed the trees from the Salida a Celaya for doing their overpass project; the measures of covering the trees with high screens so that people would not see them being uprooted. I doubt that they do this only because the Malanquin is neither a central area not an area frequented by tourists. When we go to the outskirts of cities there is always one element in common, apart from the violence, the lack of green spaces. It seems to me that limiting the trees (of any kind), the vegetation and the community spaces that abound in them is an aggression that we have well neglected and internalized. As well as getting rid of existing vegetation as if it had no value. There are enough sources and studies that tell us about the benefits of a space with trees to reduce the levels of stress and delinquency, enough information we have to develop infrastructures that coexist with nature. These governments, beyond being …, are classist and violent. I am grateful for the space and time given to read this text. Sincerely

Victoria Delgado

In the meantime, we have tried to find out why exactly the local government feels the need to destroy even more of our precious, and woefully inadequate green space to build yet another café in an area that already has an excess of cafes. Unfortunately, we do not have that information. What we do know is that many Sanmiguelenses share our concerns over this proposal for a variety of reasons.

We have written in the past about the urgent need to create more green space in San Miguel de Allende and to protect established spaces from the encroachment of development. (link). This is not just the perspective of the Observatorio Ciudadano. Experts the world over recognize the necessity of preserving and expanding green spaces, especially in urban areas, for the well-being of residents and the planet.

The Parque Juarez is not just another green space. It is an integral part of the culture and history of San Miguel de Allende. For this reason, any work done within the park requires a thorough archeological study before work can proceed. In this case this protocol was not followed and the result, as you can see below, was the destruction of a wall that was built before the 19^thcentury.

These are some of our concerns, but we recognize that we live in a democracy. Perhaps there is broad public support for such a project. While it seems that it did not occur to the government to consult with the public, the civil association, “Yo Soy San Miguel,” set up an online poll. These were the results.

So, we are left asking ourselves why this administration would insist on pursuing a project that removes a large chunk of one of our very few and most valued green spaces, that damages an irreplaceable historic site, and that does not have the support of the vast majority of citizens. Recognizing that these questions will most likely be left unanswered, the OCSMA has decided to share the full report that we submitted to the municipal government below.

We welcome your comments and opinions.

Like most of San Miguel, the Colonia Guadalupe was a very traditional neighbourhood centered around the church and the many orchards until recently. A few years ago, the neighbourhood began to grow due to its safety, proximity to centro and popularity with foreigners. Older buildings were knocked down to make way for spec houses. The orchards were gradually consumed by new stores and restaurants. In 2012, an American named Colleen Sorenson, started the Muros en Blanco project to coincide with the Calaca Festival. She brought graffiti artists from all over Mexico to express themselves on the walls of the colonia. The first festival was well-supported and well-attended. The atmosphere was exciting, creative and fun. At that time, it appears that everyone was in favor of the project. In recent months and years though the general attitude has changed. It seems that much of this change is due to a lack of communication between newcomers and those that have made their homes in the Guadalupe for generations. Whereas many newcomers love the idea of a funky art district, some of the older residents are uncomfortable with the murals and what they represent. Moreover, many are offended by Muros en Blanco’s publicity which states that the Colonia was “high risk” and characterized by “theft, vandalism, drug addiction and abandonment” until they moved in, creating further divisions within the community. All this has been brewing under the surface for some time.

Earlier this year, due to the security crisis, many neighbourhoods in San Miguel organized Whatsapp groups and neighborhood committees to keep each other informed and help each other out. Guadalupe was probably the most effective colonia in the city at organizing block by block. As neighbours connected, the murals came up as a topic of concern and conversation began amongst residents about the future of the project. Everything really came to a head a few months ago when the government offered to re-plaster and paint 200 houses. Many who applied had murals that they either didn’t like or that had deteriorated. This caused the panic on social media amongst those with the mistaken impression that the mural project was under attack. But again, no one wants to end the project. Muros en Blanco is justifiably protective of what they have begun but he neighborhood committee believes all residents should have a say in the project. There are really only two concerns they would like to address: maintenance and subject matter.

As far as anyone can tell, there was never a plan for long term maintenance. Murals are by nature temporary; peeling and fading are inevitable with exposure to the elements. Should they be touched-up and restored regularly? Allowed to fade away? Painted over after a certain amount of time? The issue is complicated by the question of ownership. It seems logical that a mural on private property belongs to the owner of the property. But paint is expensive. Are property owners responsible for painting over a work that has deteriorated or that they don’t like? Do the artists have a say in what happens to their work? Does Muros en Blanco? These are questions that the neighbourhood committee is looking at.

The issue of subject matter and aesthetics is more complicated. A lot of Guadalupe residents simply do not like many of the murals. Others find them confusing. Some say that there are too many. We heard the term “visual pollution” used many times Art is highly subjective and good art should be provocative. But while we love the idea of artists having free reign to express themselves, and we find the idea of placing limits on art worrying, perhaps there do need to be some guidelines when it comes to public art. The neighborhood committee is looking at the idea of a unified theme, as broad or narrow as residents choose, much like they use in cities like Tepoztlán. One theme could be the history of San Miguel, or, more specifically, the history of the Guadalupe and the Aurora. Another idea was to follow the theme of the street names. They are also looking at a possible colour scheme. They have submitted many of their ideas to Muros en Blanco and hope to come to a shared vision of the future together soon.

San Miguel has grown so quickly, and change is hard for all of us. The population a hundred years ago was less than 7000 people. Those who have arrived in the last few years and decades come from all over Mexico and the world. They bring with them differing visions of culture and community. We at the Observatorio believe that through open, honest, discussion and good-willed negotiation, residents, independent artists, the neighbourhood committee, and Muros en Blanco, can come up with a plan to maintain the tradition of public art that will continue to inspire us all.

We held several meetings with the general public to explain the process and invited all citizens to submit suggestions and concerns. We then forwarded their input, along with our own, to the Instituto Estatal de Planeación del Estado de Guanajuato. We are now waiting for a response. 

Green areas are essential to the well-being of every city in the world. Parks, playgrounds and gardens are vital for mental and physical health. Access to green areas is correlated with lower obesity and even reduction in crime. In this age of global warming, trees and vegetation have taken on a more urgent role of temperature moderation and rainwater absorption. They prevent soil erosion, control dust, carbon and pollution, and provide habitat for wild animals and birds.

However, if you look at a satellite map of San Miguel de Allende, you will see a blanket of cement and stone, especially in the newer developments.

We have been trying to establish the exact percentage of green spaces in San Miguel’s urban area. The responses have ranged from 2.8% to a little over 12%. The discrepancies may arise from the definitions of what is a green space and whether it includes only publicly accessible parks or private gardens as well. Let’s accept the higher number of 12%. How does that compare with the most livable cities in the world? Very poorly.

There are many factors that make a city livable but one thing they all have in common is abundant, easily accessible green space. Take Vienna for example, ranked as the world’s most livable city. Over 51% of its urban area is green space. That’s 120 m2 for every resident. Or Vancouver where over 92% of residents live within a five-minute walk of a green space. Even Hong Kong and Singapore, both tiny island nations where land is at a premium have 40% and 47% green spaces respectively.

Not only do we have inadequate green spaces in San Miguel, the few well maintained and functioning parks are in the most expensive areas of town. This makes them inconvenient or inaccessible to those from the poorer colonias and communities, reinforcing class and socioeconomic division. Compare the equipment and maintenance of say the Guadiana park with the parks in colonias such as Barrio La Palmita or La Luz.

Recently, we met with Francisco Peyret, Director of Medio Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, in the current municipal administration, to discuss these issues and hear his plans to address them. Director Peyret told us that he has made the restoration of the 80 parks within the urban area a high priority. He is trying to get neighbours involved in the maintenance of their local parks, something we can all participate in. The Direccion of Medio Ambiente y Sustentabilidad is also actively working on the urgently needed restoration of the arroyos, especially in areas where their degradation and contamination are hazardous to the health of residents, such as around the San Juan de Dios market. Throughout the municipality, the Direccion is involved in ongoing reforestation and watershed restoration, including Henry Miller’s project in Doña Juana which we have already reported on. Seven more similar projects are planned for next year.

We asked Peyret about the situation of the 33 fiscus. He explained that when the city took on the project of improving the health, safety and livability around the Avenida Guadalupe, they were forced to address the row of fiscus planted 20 years ago along the center of the Avenida. Fiscus, while lovely, are not native to this area. They require a lot of water. These particular trees were also planted far too close together and in an unfortunate strip that impedes both pedestrian and vehicular traffic in an extremely busy area. It was decided to transplant the trees to a more suitable location. When the improvements to the area are completed, the same number of trees will be planted along the Avenida, but instead of fiscuses or other exotics, they will choose species native to the area.

We agree that the Avenida Guadalupe is a mess – unhealthy, over-crowded and unsafe – and are pleased to see that the government is improving the area. We also agree that the fiscuses were a poor choice.

However, we are extremely concerned about the loss of much needed biomass.  Any new trees will take years to grow to the size of those that are already there and thus years to provide the same amount of shade and absorb an equal amount of carbon and pollution.

We also question the process of transplantation. It is not a simple exercise and it is unclear whether the government has access to the level of expertise required to successfully transplant mature trees. The fact that they are considering doing so at the time of year when trees are most vulnerable, suggests that they do not.

Our major concern though is a lack of a long-term sustainable plan for greening the city. How do we know that in another 15 or 20 years another administration won’t come up with a new plan and remove whatever trees this administration plants? Trees are complicated living systems that live for centuries. Tearing them up every time an administration wants to leave their mark is extremely short-sighted and irresponsible. Protest is important and every tree, like every living thing, deserves to live and flourish. But focussing on individual trees or parks isn’t sustainable. We need to work on restoring the entire ecosystem after centuries of abuse.

We at the Observatorio are encouraged by many of Director Peyret’s plans and his enthusiasm We will continue to watch closely to see how those plans come to fruition and we encourage all residents to do the same. What we plant today will affect the lives of Sanmiguelenses for generations to come.