On the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele Dufilho San Antonio is a fast growing, fast moving city with something new happening every day.

That's why each week we go on the record with Randy Beamer and the newsmakers who are driving this change.

Then we gather at the Reporters Roundtable to talk about the latest news stories with the journalist behind those stories.

Joining us now as we go on the Record with Randy Beamer.

Hi, everybody, and thank you for joining us for on the record this week.

We are going to be talking about a couple of controversies, one involving the Alamo, another involving another San Antonio landmark.

But first, we're going to be talking about a possibility that is a long held fascination for San Antonio and Austin Rail between here and Austin, the man who knows all about that and the latest possibilities.

Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai thank you very much for coming in.

Thank you, Randy.

This is in the news again because while you've been talking with the county judge in Austin, Andy Brown, Travis County.

Tell us about what's different, what's new, what's real in terms of the possibilities this time compared to the past 3100 years?

Well, obviously, my conversation with Judge Brown started with what the situation with the Spurs playing their games in Austin.

And so my conversation with Judge Brown was to be assured that the city of Austin and Travis County wasn't trying to get the Spurs to move over there and relocate.

So once we cleared that issue, he assured me that that was not going to happen.

Then he came to me and says, Hey, we need to look at transportation from a different perspective.

And that's real.

And a first, obviously rail has been a hot issue in the past and it hasn't come to be.

It's failed.

And whatever efforts were made by the people that wanted to see, especially high speed rail and Lonestar rail district, which some people remember was one of those projects in the state, and people spent millions, literally millions of dollars in that, and it kind of fizzled away.

Why do you know why that was?

It was just couldn't decide on who was going to pay for it.

I know Union Pacific said ultimately they couldn't use their rail lines for this.

People moving rail.

What's the difference now or is there.

Well, the difference now is with the conversations that Judge Brown and I have started, we have now collaborated Travis County and Bear County, and now we have other elected officials.

I think councilwoman have right now has joined that conversation and been part of it.

Mayor Curt Watson out of the city of Austin has joined.

We had a great meeting in Austin to discuss the possibilities, and that was to involve Amtrak and the opportunities that the Biden administration had, nearly $66 billion worth of infrastructure that could be dedicated to rail.

And so we wanted to start the discussion so that we could alert that we had an interest locally at least to develop a commuter rail between Bear County and Travis County.

And really what Judge Brown wanted to do was have the ability of Travis County residents come down to the Spurs game.

And we wanted to have the ability to really eliminate the congestion on H 35 and have people go up to Austin, Travis County, for those people who maybe aren't well versed in this, they see, you know, there's a train station on the east side and here there's an Amtrak route out of San Antonio through Austin.

Describe how that's different than what you're looking for.

Well, what we're looking for, in my opinion and what I've started the conversation, is can we look at not so much a high speed rail, which obviously has a big ticket expense to it, but can we create some type of commuter rail?

Can we partner up with Union Pacific and figure out how we can make this work so that it's a win win on their lines, on their laurels?

Yes, because they control the lines.

And if we're putting any extra rails, it'll be on their easement.

So Union Pacific pretty much has to be part of this conversation.

And so my main conversation from Judge Brown is has been to communicate with union Pacific, and I've had some really great conversations with them in the past.

They've spent these millions of dollars and it's come to nothing.

Obviously, the issue and an issue is money, right?

So how much would local governments have to kick in county, city, etc.?

We haven't put that price tag together because what we're hoping is to leverage off the federal moneys, especially with the Biden administration, with the infrastructure and their interest to relook at rail.

Also, I've had a conversation with Governor Abbott and his office and they have shown an interest to make sure that perhaps a rail from the Mexican border down to Laredo to the Canadian border to the north, could be the next interstate highway, so to speak, with rail.

And so I think we're bringing all the stakeholders that might have an opportunity to contribute.

This is obviously such a big ticket item.

We need the federal government and there grants, loans, whatever that may be.

We're going to need the state of Texas to be involved.

So what I'm trying to do, along with Judge Brown and the other stakeholders that are part of this conversation, let's start the conversation.

Let's find out what the art of possibility is.

How can we make it happen?

Where we're at with the growing freight traffic truck and rail from the border up through San Antonio and Austin, Are there enough tracks to accommodate what you want and what do you want in terms of frequency of trips between here in Austin to make it worthwhile?

Well, one of the conversations I've had with Union Pacific is one, they've made it very clear and I've talked to the people in Washington, DC and their general counsel, the government relations people in Washington, D.C.

They've made it very clear that Union Pacific has to be made whole.

They can't basically give up sacrifice the money, the profit they're making on freight.

They that is a very big moneymaking enterprise for them.

As to moving freight up and down from the border to San Antonio to Austin and up to wherever freight needs to go.

We know that freight is going to be increasing.

There are going to be more trucks on Interstate 35.

I don't think we can outbuild this need.

We're going to have to look at other opportunities.

And so with Union Pacific, I would like to have that conversation of how can we leverage to use either federal, state or local funds and create a new rail on their existing easements.

You mentioned new rail and easements.

Are you going to have to build more lines?

Is that like a given?

More tracks, I should say.

I think that's the only way it works.

How about eminent domain?

Because that's been a huge issue in the North Texas, Dallas to Houston.

But, you know, are the easements wide enough to build more tracks as they are?

That's that's what we have.

That's the discussion we're having right now.

Can we build on the existing infrastructure?

We think we can, but again, we haven't gone that far deep into the conversation of what's doable.

And so what I'm hoping is that if we can get Union Pacific or any other railroad that has the track of easement to partner up with us locally, partner up with a statewide, partner up with the federal government, I think it's a it can happen.

What's your timeline for when this could happen and what is next?

Well, in light of the past efforts, Randy, I don't see a timeline.

It's May it's having people come together, having a thoughtful and intelligent conversation and coming up with the solutions that each stakeholders have.

We have to figure out how we can make Union Pacific a partner in this project.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

Appreciate you coming in.

County Judge Peter Sakai.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Already.

You may have heard there's a controversy over the new museum at the Alamo or about one of the vignettes that is to be depicted in the lobby.

And it involves William Barret Travis writing a letter and his slave Joe and how Joe is depicted.

Joining us to talk about this is a member of the Museum Advisory Committee, separate from the Citizens Advisory Committee, as they're working on this massive project at the Alamo.

Deborah OMOLE Jarman, thank you very much for coming in.

Tell us about this depiction of Joe William Barret Travis writing the famous letter, the victory or Death letter, and then Joe, his slave, is holding a gun.

Tell us about how that depiction evolved in the work of the committee and then your reaction to it.

Well, the depiction was first shared with us in July of last year, and I don't recall what Joe was doing, but I know he was seated next to Travis and perhaps he had a gun.

I don't remember.

So we had some objection with that.

And the new statue was brought to our attention in December.

And there was Joe with the gun and there was a lot of discussion about Joe having the gun in December.

And then the next thing we know, January 29th, an article runs in the Express-News with Joe and This Gun.

And I thought, Boy, wait a minute, holding a gun and apparently kind of guarding William Barret.

Travis is that.

Well, he's holding a gun near William Bear.

Travis So I'm not sure what the depiction is supposed to represent.

And what were the discussions like over this and the objections and the people who were for it?

How did that go?

The so I can talk about the objections because that is the story.

You know, you have a nondisclosure agreement that you can't get into some things, but you did write an article in Express News about your objections.

Absolutely.

So first of all, Joe's the importance of Joe to this story is that he told the story after the Battle of the year, after the Battle of the Alamo.

And a lot of people don't know that he was one of the survivors and there were quite a few, But he was the first person that told this story, Suzanne, and Dickinson was the second person that they listened to months later.

So that is what Joe brings to this story, the fact that he was at the Alamo against his will because he was enslaved and we know it was against his will because he ran away as an enslaved person prior to being Travis's property.

And also after being Travis's property, he ran away.

So to assume that he's there because he wants to be there is not fair.

And it doesn't really depict what slavery, chattel slavery was about.

So, anyway, it evolved to him having a gun.

And we said, no, can he just be telling this story, shortening this a little bit?

And that's where we are today.

And there are a couple of different accounts.

And there is a reason I understand why he would be holding a gun, because one of the accounts said that he had a gun.

Correct.

At at least at one point.

Tell us about the different versions.

Well, when you first read the account of the testimony, I believe in The Memphis Enquirer and another paper, which was in April, Joe said that he witnessed Travis being murdered.

And before the murder, someone came over and Travis was able before he passed, to kill him.

And Joe says he ran and hid.

Then he says the Mexican army called.

Are there any Negroes here?

And he came out and said, I'm here.

He was grazed by a bullet, I think, and he had a bayonet wound.

But other than that, he was able to speak and he was taken to the Mexican army.

So that was his according to the newspaper, that was his first account.

And so then in General Gray's diary, which was written a few months later, he's General Gray is I don't know.

Okay.

But there's another account from the general group.

Yes.

Of this.

And that's what he read about in a number of books is the account from his journal.

And it says, Joe says that after Travis was murdered, he grabbed his gun.

I think one account says he grabbed a gun, but it says he grabbed his gun and fire and then ran and hid.

And I just think about how, again, I wasn't there.

So I can't debate the truth.

Right.

But, you know, the further you get away from the story and if you think about even the story of the Alamo, it has been romanticized.

It has become a myth.

When you look at maybe what happened versus what remember The Alamo, the movie says happened, The stories are different because it has been romanticized.

So the question is, did Joe tell the truth at first?

And he ran in, hid, and now as after the battles in his center and things are really heating up.

well, perhaps I can tell a different story.

I don't know.

Does this also relate to you know, there's a controversy that some people describe?

Well, slavery was a part of the battle, but not a major part of the battle.

And tell us about that controversy and how that also I know you can't get into the specifics of the controversies that you talked about in the meetings, but what do you think overall?

What's your reaction to those?

Well, it's actually triggering because when you read any of the constitutions for the Republic of Texas and the one that was written at Washington on the Brazos before the battles, it says that African descendants were not considered citizens.

It says if you were a free African citizen in the Republic, African descended in the Republic, you needed to leave if you were enslaved and you wanted to become free, even if the person who owned you wanted to free you.

It literally took an act of Congress.

So this was one of, if not the most pro-slavery constitutions.

And again, that was during the battle or after the battle, right after the battle.

And then when Texas did declare its independence, that was when this came out.

So you think this is going to just give a misimpression overall?

And that's what the problem is, Not that it might have well, that it might have been historically inaccurate as well.

Correct.

And what we know, and I think we can all agree on is Joe told the account.

And so let's just have him telling the account in this context.

You were saying before we talked here that it's going to be part of a larger group of vignettes.

Yes.

At the beginning and the free part of the museum.

And so chronologically, it tells the story of before and after what happened at the battle.

I think that's also one of the reasons it could be confusing, I think.

Yes, absolutely.

The vignettes actually start from 12,000 years ago with the original people here at Yeah.

And Aguata.

So that's really cool.

And if we're going to tell a story, can we just tell an accurate story and a story that's engaging that makes sense?

But most of all, it's accurate.

Now, you had wanted to or said you were going to resign from the committee over this, and now you're serving under protest.

What does that mean or what do you expect to happen now?

The committee is going to take a look at this again.

The committee is going to take a look at this again.

I had a great meeting with the Alamo Trust on Friday, and I think we and one of the board members hope, enjoyed it.

And that was in the paper this weekend.

I think we've come to an understanding and a place of trust.

The biggest thing is if we have dissensions, disagreements on the committee, that there needs to be room and space to talk about it and it needs to feel like a safe space.

Well, I wish we had more time to talk because is this the first and this is a horrible yes or no question, but is this the first of many of more controversies as you get into developing more of the museum because you're still in the early planning stages, right?

I'm sure it is.

Texas has a complicated history and we appreciate you coming in.

Deborah Allman, Wally Jarman, a member of the Museum Advisory Committee.

We appreciate your time.

Thank you so much for having me on.

Reporters Roundtable This week, we're talking about the latest in the plans to renovate a part of Brackenridge Park.

A court ruling and this is cleared the way for the city to go ahead with the first phase.

Joining us to talk about this is Guillermo Contreras, the senior reporter for the Express-News.

You just wrote an article on this.

Tell us about what this ruling in federal court means.

Well, it means that basically the the city's first first phase of this project, it's got it has to do, I guess, with renovation of a pump house in an area across from Justice Pavilion that the city can now move forward with its plans.

Those plans entailed the removal of about 40 trees or so.

You know, in total, I think is what what the plans are.

And that's kind of what one of the issues that's been a hot issue here for a lot of residents.

Right.

It would balance.

That actually held up what was a 2017 bond project, the first phase of it now or in 2024.

The city had wanted to do this for a while because, as I understand it, you know, the walls there and on the river walk itself, Depression era WPA walls were crumbling, some of them because of the trees.

Exactly.

And so that and so that's that's been the city's argument that these are dangerous that can be dangerous to the public.

They they cited, for instance, a big branch that fell over at the zoo, for instance.

For example, that that's a possibility.

So that's what one of the arguments they made in court was back this up, because there's been an outcry from a small but very vocal group of people about what the city wanted to do over a number of things.

And some people sued in federal court after the city council approved the plan.

Tell us about the evolution of this lawsuit and what's happened.

Yes.

So we have, you know, a couple of members of the Native American Church citing a religious practice that they've they claim that they've conducted for four generations there at the North End Horseshoe Horseshoe area by Lambert Beach.

And that.

Exactly So they so they say that the trees and the bird birds there are important to that those religious observations and the ceremonies they have.

And so they sued citing an infringement of their religious liberties in their practice.

And so that because of that lawsuit, they they sought a hearing to try and stop the city from moving forward with with the plans they cite the you know, they've said there's alternatives to do this.

There's that won't result in as many trees being removed.

That will help with some of the birds that are important to their practices so they won't have to squirm away to use tactics to scare the birds away, that that's what they were upset about, that they were banging boards together, some of the workers there to get the birds out of the trees.

And the the city's argument, as I understand it, which the judge originally ruled in favor of, was that it was public health and safety.

One of the things that they they needed to get rid of the birds for because they are just all over to the point where they had to close off part of it.

Exactly.

So they say, you know, one of the things is, you know, people can slip those kind of things.

So it imposes a I mean, it's a safety issue is what they essentially what it came down to is the city's argument.

And the judge, you know, they held a four days of hearings before this was last, last fall.

That's one October.

Judge Barry held four days of hearings on this to take up this request for an injunction, which is basically a court order to block the city from going forward with that part of that plan.

And the judge ruled a partial win for the plaintiffs and a partial win for the for the city of.

What did the plaintiffs win?

The plaintiffs got one because it was closed off completely to the public in that one area by Lambert Beach because of the crumbling wall.

Right.

So the judge allowed allowed access to them on certain dates that they said were the important dates.

So they can do and go in and do their religious ceremonies.

He also before they did that, though, he ordered the city to remove a court, quickly remove one of the dangerous branches that was hanging that was hanging from a tree excuse me, that and that the the city apparently went went forward and did that.

In the middle of all that, Of course, you had the plaintiffs appealing that Judge Barry's ruling, and it went to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.

And there was a panel, I understand, or who ruled in that case in New Orleans.

It wasn't the entire what do they call it, en banc Fifth Circuit.

And so that could be the next step for the plaintiffs if they appeal.

Yes.

So this it works as usual.

You have the generally the Fifth Circuit generally takes three judges and that's a panel.

And then they they look over the case and the record and if they want more information, they'll ask for it.

And they they ruled.

So it was a majority opinion, which means not all three judges voted for it to two, voted to affirm Judge Barry's decision, and one said that the city could have done more to accommodate the the plaintiffs.

So but because it's a majority ruling, basically it clears the way for the city to go ahead And then back before this, some of the initial outcry over the original plans, the city altered.

As I understand it, there was 100 and some trees.

They whittle that down on the ones they were fighting over in this lawsuit, 40 of them, as you said, and six of them were what they call, well, bigger than 24 inches.

Right.

Right.

Heritage kind of trees.

So when is the city going to go forward with this or did they say they have it?

They haven't said I know their statement.

You know, I've asked for a statement and kind of just generally what what are the plans?

They they said that as far as the that they basically plan to abide by whatever is written in the court ruling.

So, you know, you take that the way you will.

I mean it's there's nothing in there saying city you can't do anything.

So basically go forward until somebody or somebody tells them to stop.

And this is phase one, three point something million out of 17 million from that 2017 bond project that that slowed them up.

What about the possibility of appeal if plaintiffs haven't said anything about that yet?

I mean, is the city going to go forward that it could be state again?

Well, the you know, talking to the plaintiffs lawyers, they said that they are exploring their options.

One of the options, as you mentioned before, is having the the one of the first options is probably just having the the same panel reconsider its decision.

Another option which takes longer is having the entire appeals court, all 17 judges consider it.

That's called the en banc hearing.

So, I mean, that can be long.

And and part of the reason is that when you ask for something, you also ask for a stay, which basically says, let's keep everything as as is.

And I'm told there's a ruling.

So we're waiting for whether there is an appeal then whether it's ruling and you're going to be busy.

Yes, I imagine so.

I imagine so.

I mean, you know, from my understanding is basically the city starts you know, it starts if they've if they don't have anything saying don't don't go forward, that they start going forward and start making plans where where we, you know, that kind of thing.

And they can do it because it's springtime.

They couldn't have done it in the fall generally from what I understand of all of what they wanted to do.

Right.

I mean, so sort of, you know, basically, you know, it's a clear road ahead.

All right.

Well, thank you very much, Gilmore Contreras, Senior reporter for the San Antonio Express-News.

Appreciate your coming in.

Thank you for having me.

And thank you for joining us for this edition of On the Record.

You can see the show again or preview shows as well as check out the podcast at KLRN.org I'm Randy Beamer and we'll see you next time on the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele Dufilho