City loses a round on Hays St. Bridge
A community coalition fighting to preserve land next to the Hays Street Bridge as a public park scored a victory Friday when the Texas Supreme Court ruled against the city, sending the case back to a lower court.
The city and the Hays Street Bridge Restoration Group are engaged in a complex, hotly contested legal battle over a 1.7-acre tract of vacant land near the Union Pacific railroad tracks, where San Antonio officials envision a bustling residential-retail complex and the restoration group wants a garden-like oasis for the community with great views of the city skyline.
The dispute continued Friday after the high court’s ruling was announced, putting the two sides at odds on whether the ruling affects plans for the commercial complex next to the 1880s bridge — a symbol of hope to many who live on the East Side.
Attorneys on opposing sides in the case accused each other of putting out misleading information.
Amy Kastely, an attorney for the restoration group, said the City Council should terminate the 2014 sale of land by the bridge and dedicate it for public use, as she said has been the intent for 17 years.
“I’m astounded and shocked and angered by their continuing to try to support this deal that had no merit from the beginning. I hope that they will be willing to just put an end to it so we don’t have to spend more money on lawyers’ fees and postponement to go to the court of appeals,” Kastely said.
The city, in a two-paragraph news release, downplayed the court’s opinion as “a narrow and technical ruling addressing a contract issue related to the Hays Street Bridge restoration project.”
In its ruling, the state’s high court found that under the Local Government Contract Claims Act, San Antonio can’t be given immunity from litigation in the case as the city claimed because the community group suing the city is not seeking monetary damages, but is pursuing claims related to specific performance of contractual terms regarding property near the bridge.
The city had lost the case in a state district court, but received a favorable ruling from the 4th Court.
“We therefore reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to that court for consideration of the city’s remaining arguments,” Chief Justice Nathan Hecht wrote.
After Friday’s ruling, city officials said the planned mixed-use development next to the bridge, called the Bridge Apartments, still can move forward.
“The ruling does not impact current or future development in the area,” the city said in a statement. “The Texas Supreme Court sent the case back to the 4th Court of Appeals for consideration of several other issues raised by the city in the appeal.”
But Kastely said San Antonio, with the high court ruling and recent retirement of City Manager Sheryl Sculley, who supported the development, is on solid legal ground to terminate the land deal that has drawn community opposition.
“There’s been no court at any level that has agreed with the city in its assertion that this litigation has nothing to do with the land,” she told reporters in a teleconference. “Now is a good time for the city to do the right thing.”
City officials have said the project will bring housing and economic stimulation to a historic neighborhood.
Some preservationists and others worry that complex, up to five stories tall, would hinder views of and from the bridge, diminishing the area’s ambience and long-term economic potential.
The 1.7-acre tract at 803 N. Cherry St. was donated to the city in 2007 by beer distributor BudCo. San Antonio arranged to sell the land to Alamo Beer for a brewery. But the restoration group sued the city in 2012 to block the sale, saying the land was donated with the understanding it would be used for a park.
San Antonio officials have said a jury found in 2014 that the city never committed to using the land as a park. But the jury did determine the city “failed to comply” with a 2002 memorandum of understanding between San Antonio and the restoration group.
City attorneys have said San Antonio, in accordance with an order from the trial, applied the $295,000 in proceeds from the land sale to a bridge restoration fund.
Texas’ 4th Court of Appeals later ruled the city couldn’t be sued on the contract because it enjoys governmental immunity. The restoration group then asked the Texas
Supreme Court to review the 4th Court ruling.
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in September, San Antonio’s lawyers cited a document from 2001 declaring an intent to foster residential development next to the bridge.
For its part, Kastely challenged the city to explain why it had pursued an appeal if it already had complied with the 2014 decision. Michael Truesdale, an Austin attorney representing the city, countered that San Antonio was fighting the case because it wanted a decision on the governmental immunity issue.
As the dispute has made its way through the legal system, development plans around the bridge have proceeded.
Alamo Beer owner Eugene Simor, who built the brewery on the south side of the bridge, deeded the land on the north side to developer Mitch Meyer. The city’s Historic and Design Review Commission, an advisory board, twice denied approval of Meyer’s project.
But Sculley administratively approved the development a year ago.
The plan later was supported by the Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Association’s architectural review committee.
Kastely insisted that use of the land near the bridge remains an open legal question.
“There is the very real possibility that they will be ordered to remove anything they put on that land eventually. So if they want to build a building that they later tear down, that’s up to them,” she said.