By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
County residents who live in an area being eyed as the proposed site for a second international bridge and its connector routes say they want answers to their questions about the project.
About a dozen property owners from a residential area northwest of Del Rio attended a special city council meeting Tuesday. The meeting had only one agenda item, presentation of another alternate route between the proposed bridge and U.S. Highway 90.
No public comment section was included on the meeting agenda, but a number of those attending the meeting called out questions from the audience during discussion by council members.
After the conclusion of a presentation by Michael Riojas, of RRP Consulting Engineers, the city’s consultants on the bridge project, Mayor Al Arreola asked if there were any questions from council members.
Arreola asked about the fourth route Riojas had presented just minutes earlier.
Riojas said the newest iteration of the connector route would begin on and cross the Buena Vista Ranch along the Rio Grande and generally follow the same alignment as the three previously proposed routes.
“Basically the only new part is our connection over Las Brisas (Boulevard) to U.S. Highway 90,” Riojas said.
One resident, Kellee Pratt, called out, asking the name of the street where the bridge route would meet U.S. 90. Arreola then repeated Pratt’s question to Riojas.
Riojas said the connector route would meet U.S. 90 across the highway from Grandview Lane, adjacent to Lorina’s Cantina.
Councilman Randy Quiñones asked if the connector would go along Las Brisas or cross over it, and Riojas said the newest route would cross Las Brisas, not follow it.
“Have you done a cost analysis on each of these (routes)? Which is the most expensive? Which is the least expensive? Do you have an estimated dollar amount?” Councilman J.P. Sanchez asked.
“I don’t have the dollar amount right off the top of my head with me, but we’ve gone through the numbers on that, and we’re in the process of updating all the costs, but the most expensive is the ‘East’ alignment (one of the first routes proposed), and the one we’re presenting here is the least expensive,” Riojas replied.
Councilwoman Carmen Gutierrez asked, “On the least expensive route, how many families or businesses would be affected in comparison to the original one?”
“As far as the numbers, on this route here, we have a mobile home and right at U.S. 90, there’s a single property owner who’s got, like, six mobile homes on there. Those are two (properties), as far as houses, that get affected. On the Las Brisas route, we had about seven houses we would have been affecting,” Riojas replied.
“Now, when you say ‘affecting,’ does that mean you’re going to bulldoze those houses?” Sanchez asked.
“Yes,” Riojas said.
“So you’re going to bulldoze six houses down?” Sanchez asked.
“They’d be in the right-of-way. They’re in the right-of-way along the route. The county had a hundred foot of right-of-way along Las Brisas, and from that right-of-way line, there was an additional hundred foot of setback on each side, and there are people who built inside the 100-foot setback,” Riojas said.
“So even though the setbacks were established and the easements were established, the people built on them, is that what you’re saying?” Sanchez asked.
“Yes, sir,” Riojas replied.
The exchange between Sanchez and Riojas prompted another property owner, Javier Gallegos, from the Lake Ridge area to call out, “With that said, where was the county telling them to not build right there, because anytime you’re building, you have to put your property where you’re going to build. Where was the county to tell the property owner?”
Sanchez responded, saying, “We’re the city, sir. You need to ask the county.”
Gallegos asked, “Well, who’s representing the county here?”
At that point, City Attorney Ana Markowski Smith said, “The public hearing will be tomorrow (Oct. 16).”
“I’m just asking,” Gallegos said. “If there’s nobody here from the county, just say there’s nobody here.”
Arreola said those concerns could be raised during the public meeting.
Riojas then said the event set for Wednesday (today) is a public meeting, not a public hearing and said attendees would be invited to make their comments in writing.
Gutierrez then said, “Mayor, you mentioned there are going to be public comments solicited, however, they’re going to be written comments, so there will not be an opportunity for the residents to voice their concerns in addition to submitting the written comments?”
“That’s correct. We want to have the written comments so we can have that as part of our documentation, of our overall evaluation of the best possible route,” Riojas said.
“I don’t understand why you wouldn’t allow them (to voice their comments),” Gutierrez said.
Riojas said the meeting was not a public hearing.
Gutierrez said she believed officials needed “to see the faces and connect the comments.”
“I do have a problem with that. I think they should be allowed to present their comments,” the councilwoman added.
Arreola asked who would review the comments, and Assistant City Manager Manuel Chavez said the consultants have in the past given the city copies of all the comments they had received.
Councilwoman Ernestina “Tina” Martinez asked, “So when they turn in their comments (at the public meeting), they will not get an answer at that time?”
Riojas said the meeting was not set up to respond to comments, merely to gather them and consider them later.
“It’s smoke and mirrors, is all it is. You guys are going to pretend we have a right to speak and say, ‘write it down, so we can read it,’ and then you can just toss (the comments) to the side. That’s all that is, not allowing us to publicly speak is censoring us, and you work for the city. You all talk in circles like you’re giving us a chance to voice our opinions, but you don’t let us do it in public. You want us to write it down, so you can get in your little groups and read (them),” Pratt said.
Riojas said during the public hearing, which will be scheduled at some yet-to-be-determined date in the future, “people will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and make oral comments.”
Gutierrez again said she believed the public should be able to voice their opinions.
Arreola then asked Chavez or Riojas to explain the public comment process, adding that officials are listening and weighing the comments.
“That’s why we’re on route number four because we listened to the citizens who didn’t want (the route) along Las Brisas,” Arreola said.
The mayor expressed some frustration at the delays that have already occurred in the process.
Chavez spoke about the process, adding, “We’re here because the city has been listening to the comments that have been submitted.”
Gutierrez said the council needs to hear periodic updates on the process. She said she also respects the voices of those property owners living outside the city limits.
“They are part of our community,” she said.
Gutierrez also said she would like the city and the county “to be on the same page” regarding the bridge project.
County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr., who was in the audience, asked if the council wished for him to comment.
Gutierrez said she could not recognize him (since she is not the presiding officer of the council), and Arreola said, “Not right now.”
Arreola, too, said the opinions of county residents are important, adding this is why so many changes in the routes have been made.
“We’re not trying to harm anybody,” Arreola said.
He invited anyone attending Wednesday’s meeting “to engage” with council members and members of the consulting team.
Gallegos then called from the audience, “How do we know the (comment) form is going to the appropriate person, and that person is going to answer to us?”
“I guarantee you,” Arreola replied.
“But where’s the guarantee? How do we get the answers?” Gallegos asked.
“I’ll call you,” the mayor said.
The mayor then closed the meeting.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com.
