By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
Three members of county commissioners court recently explained their opposition to Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores’ repeated requests to install a series of streetlights in his precinct.
Commissioner Pct. 2 Juan Carlos Vazquez and Commissioner Pct. 3 Fernando Garcia said the public perception is that the lights Flores is requesting will benefit a subdivision he is developing nearby, and Commissioner Pct. 1 Kerr Wardlaw said he is opposed to the lights in part because of increasing light pollution and its effect on ecotourism in the county.
The three commissioners have repeatedly opposed Flores’ request to install the streetlights, though Wardlaw has voted in favor of upgrading one of the lights.
During the court’s June 3 meeting, Flores again asked for discussion and possible action on the new lights. Prior to the item dealing with the
lights, Flores had also requested an agenda item asking the court to review its voting history on the lights, as the June 3 meeting was the seventh time the item had appeared on the court’s agenda.
During the Citizens Comments portion of the agenda just after the start of the meeting, the court heard from three residents and property owners in the Cienegas Road area in the southern part of the county. All three urged the court to approve Flores’ request to install a series of streetlights along a portion of Cienegas Road.
At the start of the discussion on the court’s voting history on the request for lights, Flores said, “I wanted to ask the commissioners that voted against (the streetlights), why? I mean, is there an issue, is there something wrong, something that needs to be fixed … to put this item in the past?”
Flores again framed his request for the streetlights as a safety issue, pointing out Cienegas Road is one of the most heavily traveled roads in the county and saying the road serves the Del Rio Industrial Park and is frequently used by law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Border Patrol and the Val Verde County Sheriff’s Office.
After Flores spoke, County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. recognized each of the other commissioners in turn and asked them to make their comments on the issue.
Wardlaw’s first comment was to remind the court he had voted in favor of upgrading one of the lights Flores had requested near the Duck Pond at the end of Cienegas Road. Wardlaw also said he had visited the area where Flores wanted the lights and said he believed a series of yellow reflectors could be installed in the area to warn motorists about the curve.
Wardlaw added, “I’m for lighting roads, not just that road, but any road that needs it, but I’m also concerned about our ecotourism, and the light pollution that Del Rio creates. We’ve got lit-up billboards and stuff around town. You can see this stuff from our state parks, state natural areas and other places that rely on ecotourism, which is dark skies.”
Wardlaw then wondered aloud whether the number of lights being requested by Flores was actually needed.
Flores said he would like to respond.
He said, “Commissioner, with all due respect, this isn’t the 1800s anymore. These are populated areas, and everything’s being lighted up. If you’re opposed to lights on the heaviest-trafficked road in Val Verde County, which is Cienegas Road, then your vision is not a good vision. Whether you like it or not, there are going to be new lights coming up, in your precinct, in other precincts, in Precinct 4.
“It’s a safety concern. I don’t know how you can say light pollution. I mean, we’re not in the middle of the woods; it’s a city, it’s a populated area. There’s 1,000 people who live over there. I don’t know how you can say something like that about the lights. Like I said, this ain’t the 1800s anymore. It’s 2026,” Flores said.
Owens then recognized Vazquez.
Vazquez said, “So Commissioner Flores wants to know why it has not been passed, and I’m going to give you my explanation. Commissioner Flores, these lights, how many of these lights are facing your property? Your subdivision?”
Flores replied, “They’re across the street, but those are just upgrades. They’re not new lights.”
Vazquez said, “Again, how many of these lights are going to be facing your property, your new subdivision?”
Flores responded, “The upgrades? The upgrades is about four lights.”
Vazquez pressed, “And out of these lights that you want approved here, how many of these lights are facing your property?”
“None,” Flores replied.
After some additional discussion about individual light locations, Vazquez said, “So for me to consider voting yes on this — and I’m listening also to the taxpayers, to my constituents. I know this is Precinct 4’s budgeted money, but it’s taxpayer money, and they’re questioning why I would be voting on some lights that are facing a property where a commissioner just decided to subdivide.”
Flores again said the new lights are not facing the subdivision.
After the exchange, Owens recognized Garcia, who said, “I would like to ask, on the subdivision that Gustavo Flores, developer, is asking for a replat, how many streetlights is he putting up?”
Owens replied there are already lights on the street across from Flores’ subdivision.
Garcia said, “I know, but we talked about existing lights, we talked about new lights, but part of our (the county’s) model subdivision rules state that ‘a subdivision developer needs to put up lights in front of their property,’ so my question is, how many lights is subdivision developer Gustavo Flores putting up in his subdivision?”
Flores responded, “If it’s a new road.”
“New road doesn’t matter,” Garcia shot back.
“No, it does matter,” Flores retorted.
Owens said, “What we talked about was if (lights) were needed, we should go back at the developer.”
“That’s the problem,” Garcia continued. “Because there’s the perception that Commissioner Flores is asking for these lights so he doesn’t have to put them up as the subdivision developer. What the perception is, is that Commissioner Flores is wanting to use taxpayer money to fund lights so as the subdivision developer, he does not have to.”
Owens asked if the three commissioners would support the request for streetlights not near Flores’ subdivision.
Garcia responded, “I’m willing to, if Commissioner Flores, as the subdivision developer, is willing to follow the model subdivision rules, I think that solves the problem. … If he were willing to put one light on each end (of the subdivision) and one in the middle, I don’t see an opposition to any of these lights.”
Garcia said if Flores did this, he would be willing to vote in favor of the other lights.
Garcia during the subsequent discussion asked for the results of a traffic study of the area that the court had requested from County Attorney David Martinez, and Owens then invited Martinez to present his findings to the court. (See separate story.)
After the county attorney presented his findings, the court continued its discussion of Flores’ request for the streetlights.
During the discussion, Garcia repeated his pledge that if Flores would place three lights on his subdivision property, he would be willing to vote in favor of installing the remaining lights requested by Flores.
Owens cautioned the court from holding Flores to a higher standard than the county would another developer, reminding the court “that nowhere in the county subdivision rules does it say you have to put lights on both sides of the street.”
Owens eventually told the court he would place the item on the agenda of the court’s next meeting, which will occur on Wednesday.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com.
