By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
A county resident who has spent more than a year opposing the city’s plans for a second international bridge is now calling on county elected officials to do more to derail plans for the bridge and its attendant connector routes.
Jordan Ediger, who lives in the county northwest of the city limits, has become an outspoken critic of the city’s plans for a second international bridges and proposed routes between the bridge and area highways. He spoke to county commissioners court again during its meeting Tuesday.
Ediger began his presentation by giving handouts to each commissioner, then said, “Today, I’m here to ask for three actions. These actions have to do with the location of Del Rio’s planned second international bridge. The driving factor for me being here today is what is developing to be a question regarding the city of Del Rio and, to a lesser degree, the county’s sincerity, in action to support citizens’ inputs regarding the location of Del Rio’s second international bridge and the subsequent route, but I need to explain it,” Ediger told the court.
“Since the first public meeting regarding the proposed second international bridge in November of 2022, I’ve attended almost every public meeting regarding the plan and many city and county meetings discussing the subject. During this time, I can count on one hand how many citizens have actually stood up in public expressing positive reactions to this proposed plan,” he went on.
“Fortunately, the county has been the only entity to have shown care and concern for their constituents, thankfully because they’re the ones whose homes, neighborhoods and communities are in the crosshairs of what the city has already identified as a safety issue. Michael (Riojas), one of the engineers on the (bridge) project, identified one of the benefits of the second international bridge as that, and I quote, ‘by moving commercial traffic out of the downtown area, we’re increasing safety’,” Ediger said.
“Since November of 2022, the Amistad Community Action Group, as we’re now calling ourselves, has gathered a petition demonstrating opposition to the location of the second international bridge. As you have record of, there have been over 1,100 citizens who have risked public retribution to show their opposition to this plan.
“Despite this public outcry, as of last month, the city of Del Rio has voted unanimously to proceed with requesting a presidential permit (for the construction of the proposed second bridge) for the current planned location of Del Rio’s second international bridge. I do not know what more citizens can do or the county can do, to demonstrate more opposition to this proposed plan,” he said.
“To fight against the city’s desperate efforts to place their safety and security issues into county citizens’ backyards, the county has thus far wrote a letter, and we hired a lawyer, asking the city to consider another location and has rightly voted against the proposed routes that would certainly destroy homes.
“We need more action. Today, no one here should believe that the city has any intention of moving the location of the second international bridge. As we had pointed out before, a bridge north of Del Rio has no route options that would not destroy homes and not create a safety and security issue for everyone living near the lake. This again, could be reasonable if we didn’t live in south Texas, where we didn’t have thousands of miles of vacant land, but we do.
“The vote to send a letter to the city has proven to be ineffective, which is why I am asking the county to do the first action, which is to vote to remove the Val Verde County judge’s signature from the 2014 agreement (on the proposed bridge site) with the (Mexico) state of Coahuila, (the city of) Ciudad Acuña and the city of Del Rio regarding the location of the proposed second international bridge,” Ediger said.
“That agreement, if binding, is unlawful, according to Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution and places the county at risk of class-action lawsuit, and if not binding, should then be easy to have the signature removed, due to the nature of the development in the region. I have drafted a letter to all those parties for the county to use as a guide.
“The second action that I am requesting the county take is to vote on a common sense county ordinance to be voted on at the next general election, which limits development of a commercial trucking lanes to areas one mile outside of residentially-zoned neighborhoods and outside of a three-mile radius of Lake Amistad, except for what already exists, and that’s my example, my proposed ordinance is what I handed you. The proposed ordinance, if adopted, would serve to satisfy the community outcry against the safety and security storm that seems bent on destruction,” he said.
“The third request that I have, is if the city of Del Rio requests to have another joint public meeting with the county regarding the topic, that the county demand that the meeting be (an) recorded, open comment forum, which allows citizens to speak regarding this topic, and not a one-on-one question format with the engineers and city and county officials.
“The city has lost most, if not all, trust among the county residents, and nothing undermines all trust and transparency more than disallowing open public comment. Forcing a silent, comment card format, without vocal comments creates a situation where the results of the meeting are hidden and lie within the hands of people who are not voted into office.
“The city’s actions thus far lead me to believe that the city has their news article already written resulting from that meeting. If a silent format were used, the city would eventually say they had a tremendous outpouring of positive feedback and they are therefore proceeding with their presidential permit, no matter what the results actually were,” Ediger said.
“Don’t have to take my word for it. Michael Riojas, the engineer of RRP Consulting Engineers, alluded to this as quoted in The 830 Times when he said, ‘Once that public hearing is done, the application for the presidential permit will be submitted.’ This is my basis for realizing these meetings, in my opinion, are actually a lie. I ask that the county not participate in this silent type of public meeting.
“In conclusion, if the city and the county want a second international bridge, then I hope they get one. But the county residents are counting on the county to help the city understand that they can’t dump their safety problems into our backyards. The location of the second international bridge must be smart, intentional and actually do what it is designed to do, which is to improve safety for everybody. If this is done right, then everyone can get what they want, and it can still be a win-win situation for all. If not, it will lead to permanent destruction of our neighborhoods and homes,” Ediger finished.
“I’d like to ask, if we could, a vote on those three action items in the next 30 days,” Ediger added after he finished and Owens thanked him.
Owens then told Ediger, “I will not put it on the agenda, so if you need somebody to put it on the agenda, there’s four more commissioners.”
“My request is that Commissioner (Beau) Nettleton, since he represents my precinct,” Ediger said.
Nettleton made no comment about Ediger’s presentation during the meeting.
After the meeting, Owens told The 830 Times he would not place the items Ediger had requested on the court’s future agendas “because some of the stuff he asked for, I don’t think is legal for us to do.”
Owens pointed out, for example, that former County Judge Efrain Valdez, who signed the agreement with the city and Mexico state and city governments for the placement of the second international bridge, did so only after an affirmative vote by the commissioners court at the time.
“He would not have signed that document if the court at that time had not given him permission to do so,” Owens said.
“I just think some of the things he (Ediger) asked for us to go do are not legal for us to go do. We’re moving forward with this, and everybody knows how I voted. I was the only one who voted to leave the (location of the) bridge where it was at, and I want to have a conversation with them because if they are able to leave the bridge where they want it, there’s no way that I would agree with the routes they have put forward. I think there has to be another route, but the court, and I am a member of the court, has said it will hire an attorney, and our county attorney is working through that process,” Owens added.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com.
