By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
A divided county commissioners court voted Tuesday voted to reaffirm the court’s opposition to the city’s plans to construct a second international bridge northwest of Del Rio.
The court had previously voted 4-1 to oppose the placement of a planned second international bridge northwest of the Del Rio city limits, but Tuesday’s vote was 3-2, with County Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores joining County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. to vote against the opposition to the city’s plans.
Owens initiated discussion of the issue during Tuesday’s meeting by reading the heading of the agenda item: “Discussion and possible action on second international bridge.”
Owens said, “We met, a couple of times, with the city, (about) the trip going to Washington, D.C., which will be March 3 through March 6, and the city has items on what they want to talk about, but the three items that they kept harping on are water, another water source; the airline, to bring in another airline to the city; and the third, the second international bridge, to ask for a presidential permit.
“This court (previously) voted not to accept or support a bridge unless it was south (downstream) of the bridge that we have now. So, I think we’re at the point right now, because they are leaving on March 3 through March 6 to ask for a presidential permit to move forward with that, what position is the court going to take?” Owens said.
He said city officials previously informed him they would propose yet another alternate route between the planned bridge site and area highways, but noted that so far, they have not.
Owens said, “My concern is, this court has already voted not to support a route unless it is south of the bridge that we have now, so we’re going to have to either begin to send letters to our federal representatives or not, but this court has voted not to support any other route, so I don’t think that that’s changed, but with that being said, you all need to give me an idea of what is it and which way you all want to run, but – and I shouldn’t say allow – we’re going to have to take a stand one way or another.
“And if that’s sending letters to our federal representatives and letting them know that we don’t support this bridge because of the (proposed) placement and the route, then we’ll get with you, David, (County Attorney David Martinez), and make sure the letter I send is not really offensive,” Owens added.
County Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores said, “Judge, if I may say something? We have two new members of the court that did not vote the last time. They were not here. . . Is there any way that maybe we could revisit that portion of the bridge (plan) and put it to a vote? See if they (the new commissioners) are with us on that idea of having the bridge on the south side?”
“I think that would be a good idea, commissioner,” Owens replied.
He turned in his seat to address County Commissioner Pct. 1 Kerr Wardlaw and County Commissioner Pct. 3 Fernando Garcia and invited them to speak.
“Everybody knows how I feel,” Garcia said.
Garcia added, “I think (placing a new bridge) on the south side
Commissioners Court oppose the construction of a second international bridge and routes
connecting the bridge to area highways north of the Del Rio city limits. Garcia made the
motion during Tuesday’s meeting of county commissioners court. (Photo by Karen
Gleason)
makes a whole lot more sense than on the north side. I think (placing the bridge on the south side), it would connect to the loop (State Loop 79), it would connect to the proposed new I(27) that they’re planning. I think all around that is a lot better idea than to go north in Precinct 3, so I am in support of it being on the south side.”
“I think we need to revisit it and put it to a vote,” Flores said.
Owens said because the item was listed on the court’s agenda as “discussion and possible action,” the court could take a vote during the meeting.
Owens then asked, “Commissioner Wardlaw, do you have any comments?”
Wardlaw replied, “Yes, sir, I believe the bridge being on the south side is the right way to go. It would not displace anybody from their homes, and I think it would help put some economic development in my precinct. I think it would actually assist in growth in San Felipe, and (on the south side), we have one landowner to deal with. Much easier.”
“But that landowner doesn’t want to sell to anybody, any of his property,” Flores said.
Owens said, “At this point, all it would be would be to reaffirm the action that the court took with the action the other court took, right? And I think if that’s the action that we’re going to take, then we need to go ahead and begin the letter process, and send letters to our federal representatives and to our state representatives that bottom line, the court will not support anything (on the north side), and then list the reasons.”
Garcia asked, “Can you add the State Department to the list of people to send letters to? Because that’s where the final decision is going to be made.”
“Of course,” Owens replied.
“Is that going to be an action item then?” County Attorney David Martinez asked.
“I’m fixing to ask for a motion before we take a vote,” Owens said.
“The last motion was that the county would not support any bridge or route that was not south of the present bridge. That’s the motion we had the last time, in a nutshell. So I don’t know if somebody wants to make a motion, or change the motion, but if somebody would like to make a motion, then we can go on with the vote,” the county judge added.
Garcia said, “Can I make that motion, since it falls in my precinct?”
When Owens replied, “Yes, sir,” Garcia said, “I would like to make a motion to reaffirm the previous court’s decision that we support a second international bridge south of the current location and that we notify our elected representatives of our disagreement with the city’s four proposed (route) locations, including our state and federal (elected representatives) and the State Department.”
County Commissioner Pct. 2 Juan Carlos Vazquez gave the second.
Wardlaw suggested adding that the court has not been notified of any additional routes.
“It doesn’t really matter what route they put up north, because the court is going, we have a motion on the table not to support anything unless it’s south, and I have a second. If they bring us more information, and they bring us a route, then I will bring it back to the court to see what you all want to do then,” Owens said.
The county judge also said he was the only member of the court to vote against the measure before, and he said he would vote again it again.
“I’m not going to vote for it again for the simple reason that I don’t want to close the doors with (the city). I do believe that the action that this court is taking is necessary, but if they would pick a route, and I understand they’ve spent a ton of money out there, and the last time I spoke with the mayor, he said, well, if you want another route, you’ve got to put some skin in the game, put in some money, and I said what are you talking about? How much money do you need to change the route or change (the location of) the bridge? If you’ll let us know, then I can bring it to the court,” Owens said.
He added, “We don’t want to hurt the city. We just want to be part of the conversation,” he added.
Owens then called for a vote and when he heard the chorus of ayes, he said, “All four of you all?”
He then repeated the motion and second and asked for each commissioner to give his vote individually.
Wardlaw, Vazquez and Garcia all voted to approve the motion, with Owens and Flores voting against it.
Flores said, “I’m voting against it. I’ve changed my mind. I think we’re just going to waste a lot of time and money fighting this. We need to keep in mind, not forget, that Las Brisas (Boulevard) was built for this route, for the second bridge, the overpass (over Highway 90) also. Four million we spent on that overpass.”
After the court had voted, Owens told the county attorney, “In the next week or so, if we can begin to come up with a draft (letter), and I can give you my points and we can sort of get together and then get it to the court to make sure they’re okay, and if we need to add something, we can add it, that way, I can sign it and get it to them.”
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
.
