GRILL PORT CANDIDATES ON LNGs, OMNITRAX, BARRIO VOTERS SUPPRESSION

By Juan Montoya
Tonight the League of Women Voters - Rio Grande Valley and CAVA (Citizens Against Voter Abuse) will host a candidates' forum for Places 2 and 4 of the board of the Brownsville Navigation District. The forum will be held at 6:30 at the Southmost Public Library, 4320 Southmost Rd.

In any entity plays a major role in the industrial, manufacturing and environmental development and protection, the Port of Brownsville is it. In its hands is the construction of the Liquified Natural Gas terminals, the continuing franchise of the port's railroad, job creation, and the protection of the wetlands, lagunas and coastline of South Texas.

These are weighty issues and for too long, many believe that the port has acted in a vacuum to the detriment of labor, and the benefit of a small group of companies and long-time groups with a vested personal and economic interest in the operations of the port.


Some of the questions that the candidates should be asked vary from their support for the LNGs which have been opposed by many coastal communities (SPI, Laguna Vista, Port Isabel, etc.), the lack of transparency in its dealings with OmniTrax which was granted the Brownsville and Rio Grande International Railway on a 30-year franchise, and the apparent manipulation of the polling places for its upcoming elections which seem to amount to to voter suppression of barrio voters.


Just recently, the port announced that the United States Coast Guard found the Brownsville Ship Channel to be suitable for marine traffic resulting from Texas LNG’s planned liquefaction terminal at the Port of Brownsville.

In a letter of recommendation issued Feb. 26 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Coast Guard concluded that the waterway is suitable to handle current and anticipated incremental traffic from the Texas LNG proposed facility.

The Houston-based company plans to construct an LNG export facility on a 625-acre site at the Port of Brownsville. The facility will enable the export of 4 million tons yearly of LNG to established and developing markets. The proposed terminal is being designed to accommodate LNG carriers with nominal LNG capacities up to 180,000 cubic meters and dimensions on the order of 977 feet long and 151 feet wide.

The port, in approving the leasing, has in fact opened it to continued development of such plants. Given the opposition to this kind of development by the coastal communities, do they favor the continued expansion of these plants here?

In the case of OmniTrax and the BRGIR, the port says it will appeal the release of certain mandatory progress reports agreed to in the 30-year franchise to OmniTrax due to the objections of that company and its assignee BRGIR. But the assets in the franchise agreement belong to the taxpayers, not to the board of commissioners. Shouldn't the taxpayers be told whether OmniTrax is living up to the agreement to see whether their assets are being well managed and spent?

It's not like the port doesn't have the reports. It admits as much in its objection with the Texas Attorney General. But it plays coy and shifts the responsibility to OmniTrax and its assignee.

"The BND is in possession of  report(s) of BIRIG's operating income in the Development Area, as defined in the Master Franchise Agreement. The BND does not take the position whether this report should be protected...; however, because OmniTrax and BRGIR have objected to its release , the BND submits the report to the Attorney General for a ruling on whether it's exempt from disclosure..."

With OmniTrax given a monopoly on the railroad and industrial park and incubator development under the franchise, which competitors is it worried about? Or is this just a way of keeping port taxpayers in the dark?

When the railroad was sold, it was clearing more than $1.7 million in profits including its switching yards. Is OmniTrax keeping its end of the bargain to develop the industrial park, or just pocketing the easy money?

Will the candidates agree to join the public in supporting the release of these progress reports and petition the Texas Attorney General to release the reports?

And as far as the polling places on election day, why are some voters in the barrios forced to travel as much as three miles to a polling place when other polling places are as close as five to 10 blocks and could be used for them to vote?

And on the same subject, why was the main office of the Brownsville Independent School District, Christ the King Catholic Church, and other popular barrio voting places removed from the early voting polling places while the fire station at the port was open for the early voting period?

Would the candidates favor a rearrangement of the polling places to provide access to barrio voters and not force them to travel miles to vote when they could vote at a polling place nearer to their residence instead?