By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
Commissioners court took no formal vote Wednesday following a discussion about the
results of recent election on the city’s proposed second international bridge.
Members of the court seemed to favor a wait and see position regarding the city’s
progress toward a second bridge, with at least one commissioner calling on the city to
place an item about the bridge on the ballot of the city’s May elections.
County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. initiated Wednesday’s discussion, after handing each
commissioner a summary showing the results of the three Val Verde County referenda on
the proposed second international bridge.
Owens then told the court, “What action we’re going to take, I have no idea.”
He said the items regarding the second international bridge, which asked voters whether
or not they supported the county supporting the construction of a second bridge and
whether that second bridge should be built north or south of the existing bridge, had been
placed on the November ballot “hopefully to get a clear understanding on what the
citizens want.”
Owens then went through how voters in each of the county’s voting precincts had voted.
The county judge said, “I will tell you that (county voting precincts) 10, 11, 13, 20, 21,
22, 40 and 41 voted for a bridge and voted for a bridge north, and then from there, it just
gets confusing. (County voting) precincts 24, 30 and 43 voted for a bridge, but voted for
a bridge south. And then against everything, no bridge, no nothing, (county voting)
precincts 12, 23 and 42 voted against everything.
“(County voting) precinct 31 voted for a bridge and against both sites (north or south).
(County voting) precincts 32 and 33 voted against a bridge unless it was south; voted
against a bridge, but if you’re going to build it, build it south,” Owens said.
He added, “So, at this point . . . I think we need to let it play out and figure out which
way they (the city) are running. I still stand by my comments (earlier) this year, that
applying for a bridge is necessary, going through that process is necessary, but I don’t
think the city is capable of managing – and I know I’m going to get people calling on
this, but it is what it is – I don’t think the city is capable of managing, whether it be a
$160 million project or a $260 million project.
“By what keeps coming up in the news and by the actions that they have taken, I do
believe, though, we need to figure out and let this process play out a little bit longer, but I
don’t believe they’re capable of managing a project of this magnitude, when they can’t
even do water rates. That’s my comment,” Owens said.
Owens then asked each of the commissioners for their comments.
He first recognized
Commissioner Pct. 1 Kerr Wardlaw.
election to get the vote out on the county’s referendum on whether or not it should
support the city of Del Rio’s plans for a second international bridge. Wardlaw made his
comments during Wednesday’s commissioners court meeting. (Photo by Karen Gleason)
Wardlaw said, “My precinct came out pretty clean on it. They weren’t skewed numbers.
They voted for the bridge, and they voted for it to be in the north. I wanted a very big
turnout, so I actually walked (my precinct) for the proposition election. I didn’t get the whole precinct; I didn’t work as hard as if I was running for re-election, but I walked
1,000 ballots to 1,000 houses.”
Wardlaw said Precinct 1 is typically third or fourth in voter turnout, but said he was
happy that in the Nov. 4 election, Precinct 1 came in second in voter turnout.
Wardlaw said, “That was my whole point. I didn’t want to be sitting here talking about
this bridge with a low voter turnout from Precinct 1, so I made sure to do something
about it, so I know that my precinct came out, and it’s very accurate, and they want a
bridge. They want the bridge, and they want it in the north.
“I told all the other commissioners, there’s no hard feelings about any of this, because I
know Commissioner Garcia ran on this, and what comes out, comes out, that’s how it is,
as long as each one of us represents our constituents, we’re doing the right thing. And as
you can tell, I feel strongly about it because they feel strongly about it; we all do, but the
judge is correct about whether we need it and if it can be handled by our community, and
I’m referring to the city,” Wardlaw finished.
Owens next recognized Commissioner Pct. 2 Juan Carlos Vazquez.
Vazquez said, “My only comment is my stance hasn’t changed and in talking to my
constituents, mine is always stuck with a bridge on the south side.”
Commissioner Pct. 3 Fernando Garcia said, “As Commissioner Wardlaw said, I ran
opposing this (bridge) in the north, and I’m still in that position. Precinct 3 voted against
it, and mostly against (a bridge) on both sides, north or south. It’s not like they don’t want
it in their backyards, and they’re going to stick in in yours; they just think it’s a bad idea.
“The reason we did this was to bind the county, as to what our position would be in the
future, so we have ‘no’ on north, we have ‘no’ on south, so how do we proceed?
“Do we support any bridge? And if so, where? Then you go to the default position of
north, no. South? No. And then you can say, ‘Oh, this one lost by a slimmer margin, let’s
stick it there. Well, there’s not degrees of ‘no,’ you have yes, and you have no. This isn’t
more no than that one, they’re both no, so by this vote, the county is bound to not support
a bridge in either direction.
“So that is going to be my position from now until we have another vote, and I don’t see
the city progressing on this. They’ve pretty much been sitting on it the last couple of
months. I honestly don’t think we need to do anything until they act, until they actually
got a route decided and they are ready to file for a presidential permit. I think we just
need to keep our powder dry,” Garcia said.
Owens then recognized Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores.
Flores said, “It’s very simple. We have to respect the will of the people. They have voted
in favor of a second bridge, and I favor that decision 100 percent. I’m all for economic
growth. If we don’t approve this, and we don’t move forward in a
regarding a second international bridge, adding he is in favor of a second bridge, which
he framed as an economic development issue. (Photo by Karen Gleason)
positive direction, if
we don’t work together as a team, because we live in the same county, the same city,
we’re never going to build anything.
“You’ve got to balance the scale. You don’t want it in your backyard, put it in my
backyard, but it’s not going to work that way. It’s where it’s going to benefit the
community and it’s going to be the best route in and out, simple as that,” Flores said.
Owens said, “Again, I still believe that until, and I’m going to agree a little bit with all of
you all, at the end of the day, the action we would be taking today, I think no action today
would be the best way to go until the city figures out which way they’re going to go.
There’s been no action on their part at all.
“They’ve been trying to deal with their budget and their issues, and I think we need to let
them deal with that, and then when this discussion comes back up, then we’ll have to
have that discussion here at the court,” Owens said.
Owens said no motion would be needed unless someone on the court wanted to make
one.
Flores said, “It sounds to me that we’re not willing to take the will of the people. It was
an election. It was open to everybody. There’s no way in hell we can void this election. We’ve got to move forward with it, period.”
“I made my comments, and it’s real simple. If somebody wants to make a motion, we get
a motion, we’ll get a second, and we’ll take a vote,” Owens said.
Wardlaw commented, “Data is essential. If we could encourage the city, they’re going to
have an election coming up in a few months, and if they want to do the same thing we
did, do it, and then you compare the data, and then you have our county numbers, and
then the city numbers, from their election, and if they match, there you have it.”
Wardlaw then suggested the court take vote to ask the city to add the issue to its May
election.
Flores then made a motion to bring the topic back to the court’s next meeting, to table the
issue and then bring it back.
Wardlaw gave the second.
Owens commented that any of the commissioners could ask for the item to be placed on
the commissioners court agenda.
Flores then said he would withdraw his motion, and the court took no formal action on
the topic.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
