SAN ANTONIO – The Supreme Court of Texas has ruled in favor of a restoration group attempting to salvage the area around the Hays Street Bridge near downtown San Antonio.

  • Historic cultural landmark built in the 1880s
  • City agreed to Memorandum of Understanding with restoration group
  • Later planned to sell the land to Alamo Brewery Company, group sued

The bridge is a historic cultural landmark, built in the 1880s. It became unsafe for transportation in the 1980s and was closed by the City.

It was going to be demolished but a group of residents formed the Hays Street Bridge Restoration Group to persuade the City to preserve and restore the bridge.

Their initial idea was to develop the bridge as a cultural attraction, with a surrounding park and other recreational facilities.

The City agreed to fund the project, obtaining a $2.89 million federal grant from by the Texas Department of Transportation. The funding agreement included “the rehabilitation and conversion of the abandoned automobile viaduct and iron truss bridge to a pedestrian and biking bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.” The City agreed to match the fund with 20 percent.

In 2002, the City and the restoration group executed a Memorandum of Understanding to outline the responsibilities of each party. The restoration group agreed to raise matching funds for the project.

Ten years later, the bridge was restored. In 2012, the city planned to sell the property to Alamo Beer Company, who planned to build a microbrewery, restaurant, and event space.

The restoration group sued, claiming the sale would be a breach in the City’s promise of the MOU.

Both groups have battled in multiple courts over the land since 2014.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled in favor of the suit, sending the case back to the Court of Appeals and overruling the city’s claim of governmental immunity.

 

The City released a statement late Friday afternoon, saying the ruling does not impact current or future development in the area. 

In 2014, a Bexar County jury found that the property was not held as a park, but that any proceeds from the sale of the property should be applied to the City’s budget for restoration of the bridge.