Texas House – Carol A. Spencer

Your Comments Count

Did you know you can comment on bills that are being considered in Texas House Committees? At comments.house.texas.gov, you can register your comments. Can’t make it to Austin and the Capitol for hearings? Take advantage of this. Voice your opinions!

This morning, I commented on two bills: the huge film industry give-away (HB 4568 ) and a bill to prevent Austin from injecting treated water and then later drawing it out from aquifer(s) in Bastrop County (HB 1523). FYI, there is a Senate companion bill to HB4568 that has already passed the Senate, SB22.

HB 4568 (Bill Text)

“It really doesn’t matter how much money the film industry is bringing to Texas. That, as a rationale for giving them Texas taxpayer money, is not appropriate. If I wanted to support this industry, I would do so with my money by going to movies. I rarely do. What I want is that you don’t take my hard earned tax money for a use that is NOT an appropriate government use. This bill picks winners and losers.

And, just the other day, CA Governor Gavin Newsom was bemoaning the fact that high taxes and regulation were causing the film industry to leave CA (https://www.lifezette.com/2025/04/hollywoods-film-industry-collapses-as-jobs-studios-flee-gavin-newsoms-ca-watch/ and https://www.siliconvalley.com/2025/04/21/can-tax-credits-save-californias-film-and-tv-industry-heres-what-legislators-have-proposed/ and https://deadline.com/2025/04/ca-film-credit-expansion-hollywood-workers-support-1236372913/). That’s right and we all know it. They’re leaving CA and coming to Texas, even without your massive subsidies rewarding them for doing so.

This bill regulates the industry: how much of the movie must be filmed in TX, how many Texans they must employ, and on and on. I’ve written two blog posts about how Texas seems to be turning into NJ with all the housing mandates y’all are considering. Now, you want to turn Texas into CA through incentivizing and regulating the film industry. Have y’all forgotten why people and businesses move here? FREEDOM. Every time you pass a bill like this, you take another step toward turning Texas into those states that many of us fled. I really didn’t think I’d see it in my lifetime, let alone this legislative session. I am ADAMANTLY opposed to this bill, this “incentive”, this tax dollar giveaway to the industry of your choice. They’re coming anyway… y’all just seem to have forgotten why.”

HB 1523 (Bill text)

“Forty-one years ago, five months pregnant, I returned to my home and found the notice in my door. We were notified we could not drink our water nor shower in it longer than one minute. Five months pregnant. On my little dead-end street of under 60 houses, there were 11 special ed students, five of us who had placenta previa at birth, one child with cerebral palsy, one who died from leukemia at the age of 5, one born significantly premature, one with tourette’s syndrome, and several miscarriages. All of those birthed children are around the age of 40+. All of us drank that groundwater water while pregnant.

Our wells were placed on the EPA Superfund list in September 1983. Once a water source is polluted, cleaning it up takes years and millions of dollars. My street didn’t pollute the water we drank. Others did but water travels underground. Containing pollution when it happens is extremely difficult.

This bill is critical to protect the water supply in Bastrop County: ranchers’ wells, agricultural well water, city well drinking water. Water moves underground. If Austin injects 1,000 gallons, what’s to say that 1,000 gallons will still be there when they choose to retrieve it? Will they draw Bastrop water, then, leaving Bastrop without the necessary water for its own purposes? If Austin wants to store its water underground, do so in Travis County which is home, according to its own website, to 3 aquifers: Barton Springs and Northern Segments of the Edwards Aquifer, Trinity Group Aquifers, Colorado River Alluvial Aquifer. And, perhaps Austin should concentrate of repairing old infrastructure so it doesn’t lose significant amounts of water via leaking pipes.

Hmmmm…. just musing…. Why is it that urban areas always want to “outsource” their problems to the surrounding counties?”

Don’t New Jersey my Texas

Senate bill 785 passed out of the Senate Local Government Committee without amendment and is headed to the Senate floor. There’s an identical bill in the Texas House: HB 1835 scheduled in the Land & Resources Committee on April 10.

Both mandate that any Texas “municipality with zoning regulations or zoning district boundaries”:

(1) shall permit the installation of a new HUD-code
manufactured home for use as a dwelling under at least one:
(A) residential zoning classification; or
(B) type of residential zoning district; and
(2) may not adopt or enforce other zoning regulations
or zoning district boundaries that directly or indirectly prohibit
the installation of new HUD-code manufactured homes in all
residential zoning classifications or types of residential zoning
districts adopted by the municipality.

This isn’t about affordable housing. It’s zone busting step one and I’m shocked that Republicans who allegedly are for less government intrusion would be supportive of this.

In NJ, suburban towns were accused of and sued over “exclusionary zoning” in the 1980’s. Denville, where I lived, was primarily made up of very small lots around lakes… summer cottages that were renovated in the 1950s as year-round homes because they were cheap. Denville was also 13.7% seniors, many on fixed incomes. None of that mattered when the State of NJ decided that the suburbs were exclusionary. Build it and we don’t care what it costs current property taxpayers.

As a result, since the late 1980’s, every NJ municipality is assigned a “fair share” housing quota every 10 years. Municipalities either have to figure out how to do it themselves with tax dollars or builders get what’s called a “builder’s remedy”: 5-6 market value townhouses for every 1 low or moderate unit they build. To hell with zoning, land topography, water resources, traffic, schools, public safety.

These Texas bills are the first step toward those quotas. They don’t mandate quotas, but do mandate that HUD-code housing cannot be prohibited in “all residential zoning classifications or types of residential zoning districts adopted by the municipality”.

That means it can be placed in any residential district in every municipality in Texas and there’s not a thing a municipality can do about it. The problem is that this bill only deals with the building, the HUD-Code house. What exactly, then, is “indirectly” prohibiting the use of these HUD-Code homes? Is the cost of land an “indirect” prohibition?

Affordable Housing Isn’t Just a Building

What happens to municipalities where land is too expensive for a person to acquire the land to put up a HUD-code home? When that happened in NJ and suburban towns didn’t build any low or moderate income housing, the courts, unhappy with the lack of affordable housing, began assigning quotas to every suburban municipality. When municipalities still didn’t build the housing (who could afford to do so), developers were allowed to sue towns for not providing housing commensurate with the quotas. Our town had a plan, but the court didn’t like our plan so the court assigned a “master zoner” to our town. I called those meetings “Thursdays with David” and was at nearly every one. I watched and listened as a court-appointed planner worked with developers who had sued our town to rezone their lands for high density housing…. all in the name of providing affordable housing.

This is how it starts. Let’s assume these bills pass. Yes, I can put a HUD-code manufactured home on a lot in City A. But I can’t afford that lot in City A. So what good does that do me? I want to live in City A. Schools are better. It’s closer to my job. I want to live there for any number of reasons. But I can’t afford to. Next come mandates and quotas.

This is the second bill this session that seems to be rushing through the legislature in the name of affordable housing. Neither one addresses water resources. Neither one addresses municipal service costs. Neither one addresses income qualification or verification for affordable housing. Neither one addresses saleable versus rental housing. (More on that in another blog post.)

Clearly, neither author has thought through the impact and costs. Even though the state Fiscal Notes say there are no costs to either one either at the state level or municipal level. There are costs and if they looked at NJ’s experience, they’d realize that. I really hope these legislators don’t New Jersey my Texas.

HUD-Code Housing

What is it? Who regulates it? Does it even exist anymore?

I looked up “HUD-code” on the web with interesting results.
Web search for HUD-code

These two pages, one specifically the home page for HUD’s Office of Manufactured Housing Programs and that program’s Frequently Asked Questions page, are gone. That would seem to mean that program is now defunct. In any case, it’s continuity is clearly in question. Yet, the Texas Senate is poised to pass legislation requiring HUD-code housing in all residential districts in all cities.

I then did a search on the HUD website itself for HUD-code. It returned this:

Again, every one of these pages having to do with HUD-code housing returns a Page not Found error and flips the user to HUD’s home page. Yet, the Texas Senate is poised to pass legislation requiring HUD-code housing be allowed in all residential districts in all cities.

Perhaps the Texas Senate would be wise to see what happens to HUD before moving forward with SB785. Same for the Texas House with HB 1835. HUD is in the process of cutting about 4,000 staff members, or approximately 50% of its staff. As I pointed out, there’s no information on its website about HUD-Code housing. There are only 4 regulations under HUD-Code on Regulations.gov and none is from the past 3 years: 1-2003; 1-2005; 1-2007; and 1-2022.

It would seem Texas is poised to legislate allowing something to happen in all residential zoning districts of all Texas municipalities that may no longer exist.

Why Do I Feel Like I’m Back in NJ?

Senate bill SB15 has been passed on the Texas Senate floor and has been sent to the Texas House. The bill’s authors are Bettencourt (R), Campbell (R), Creighton (R), Gutierrez (D), Hagenbuch (R), Hughes (R), Middleton (R), Nichols (R), Paxton (R) and West (D). Co-authors are Johnson (D), Kolkhorst (R) and Parker (R).

There’s an identical bill in the House, HB3919. Bill author? Gates (R). This bill was just referred to the House Land & Resource Committee.

What are these Republican legislators thinking? Why would they do this to any municipality: legislatively remove their right to zone their municipality as they see fit and as their residents desire via public hearings?

Sec. 211.052. APPLICABILITY. (a) This subchapter applies only to a municipality that:
(1) has a population of more than 150,000; and
(2) is wholly or partly located in a county with a population of more than 300,000.

According to 2020 census data, there are 19 affected municipalities: Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Arlington, Corpus Christi, Plano, Lubbock, Laredo, Irving, Garland, Frisco, McKinney, Grand Prairie, Brownsville, Killeen, and Denton. And, there are 6 or more that will likely be affected after the 2030 census.

How long before those numerical restrictions change? Next session? Or the one after that? How long before a developer sues over the population applicability of this proposed statute should it become law?

These bills are an outrageous intrusion by the legislature into local growth and zoning. They demand that any currently unplatted lot over 5 acres must be zoned at 31.1 units per acre. Both bills say:

(b) A municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, rule, or other measure that requires:
(1) a residential lot to be:
      (A) larger than 1,400 square feet;
      (B) wider than 20 feet; or
      (C) deeper than 60 feet; or
(2) if regulating the density of dwelling units on a residential lot, a ratio of dwelling units per acre that results in fewer than 31.1 units per acre.

Yes, you read the right. A municipality will lose control of zoning, not being allowed to require lots to be larger than 1,400 square feet.

There’s nothing in these bills that takes into account slopes, flood plain, wetlands or any other topographic impediment to small lot development. It says nothing about sewer, septic, water, parkland, open space or any other infrastructure. It makes no exception for home-rule municipalities. It’s as if every lot is just a flat sheet of paper on which one can draw roads and lot lines.

Only due to an amendment from the Senate floor can these municipalities zone larger lots over an aquifer. Well, isn’t that a nice hat-tip to our water needs?

The fiscal note for this bill in the Senate is a joke. It says “No significant costs to state agencies are anticipated.” Really? What about schools? Health care services? Road repair? Water resources?

According to the EPA, “The average American uses around 82 gallons per day per person in the household. That means a family of four would use around 10,000 gallons in a 30-day period.” And, in dryer areas like Texas, that use is higher.

Small lot zoning of 1,400 square feet, 31 to the acre, would require 310,000 gallons of water per month per acre. For a five acre lot, that is 1,550,000 gallons of water per month for just one such 5-acre development. And, these bills don’t limit that density to just five acres. Imagine the water needs of that density across a 20-acre development!

Morris County NJ was the 9th highest per-capita income county in the United States when I lived there. It’s the only state where property taxes are higher than Texas. Affordable housing is a major issue there as well. What we found, though, was that small lot zoning was very, very expensive to our property taxpayers because of the costs of services to support it.

In the mid-1980s, every municipality in NJ was mandated by the NJ Supreme Court to build its “fair share” of low and moderate income housing. This wasn’t Section 8 housing. It was low income housing for those who were under 50% of the median income for our Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. Moderate income housing was for those whose income was 50% to 80% of the median income for our Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. No renter could pay more than 30% of their gross income in rent. Originally, housing numbers were assigned by the courts. Subsequently, a Council on Affordable Housing determined each municipality’s “fair share”. Developers could build 5 or 6 market value townhouses for every one low/moderate income unit they provided. Housing was built and developers made millions and millions. All in the name of providing “affordable housing”.

The costs to municipalities? Schools, roads, police. Our town was 5,000 housing units, mostly small formerly summer cottages for New Yorkers that in the 1950s had been turned into year round homes. They were on small lots. Yet, we were ordered to build 924 units of low & moderate income housing. With the market-value density bonus, that would have been 5,400 new housing units to be built in 6 years. The impacts would have been devastating. Hence the fight. Hence my raising my hand to say “Someone needs to stop this.” Cripe, our town fought hard against 6 or 7 to the acre, not 31.1 as demanded in these TX bills. Yes, we built housing, some family, some seniors, some townhouses, some duplexes. And yes, the demand for services significantly increased. And no, property taxes did not go down. In fact, they went up.

What are these TEXAS Republican legislators thinking? Apparently, they are not. The same old story: developers make millions and taxpayers are left paying the bill.

SUMMARY OF THIS BLOG AS SUBMITTED TO THE LAND & RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE TEXAS HOUSE on march 28, 2025.

DO NOT PASS THIS BILL. To read my full blog post on it, use this link: https://republicancarol.org/why-do-i-feel-like-im-back-in-nj/ Along with 5 citizens, I started a citizens group to fight mandated low and moderate income housing in NJ in the 1980s. I spent 8 years on the Planning Board, 6 years on the Town Council and 4 years as Mayor in Denville Township NJ as a result. I never thought I’d see this in Texas. Here, it’s y’all in the legislature. There, it was the courts. The density given to developers in our case was 6 or 7 units/acre. This TX bill forces THIRTY ONE units per acre! The Senate fiscal report totally ignores the consequences to local municipalities and the State of Texas for such forced high density. There are those that actually cost taxpayers: schools, roads, police, healthcare, other municipal services. Then there are the resources: water, sewage treatment, loss of wetlands, runoff, flooding, parks, open spaces. This bill mandates 31 units/acres on 5 acres OR MORE.

Let’s talk water requirements: According to the EPA, “The average American uses around 82 gallons per day per person in the household. That means a family of four would use around 10,000 gallons in a 30-day period.” And, in dryer areas like Texas, that use is higher. Small lot zoning of 1,400 square feet, 31 to the acre, would require 310,000 gallons of water per month per acre. That is 1,550,000 gallons of water per month for just one such 5-acre development. For 2 people per household, that’s still 775,000 gal/month/5-acre development. And, these bills don’t limit that density to just five acres. Imagine the water needs of that density across a 20-acre development!

Schools? According to TEA, average state revenue to school districts and charter schools per student is $5,809. In the US, there are an average of 1.94 children per household. Even if we use only 1 child per household for these small homes, on average, that’s 31 children per developed-acre added into a school system. The cost to the State of Texas? $900,395 in required state funding for one 5-acre development. And, then there’s the local property tax contribution to a child’s education. How many of these developments will there be? According to 2020 census data, there are 19 affected municipalities. How long before those numerical restrictions change? Next session? Or the one after that? How long before a developer sues over the population applicability of this proposed statute should it become law? And, what if they win so every developer gets this benefit in every municipality? The legislature will have created a nightmare in Texas.

NJ is the only state with property taxes higher than TX. And, forced high-density low & moderate income housing did nothing but drive them up. This is the same old story. Developers get more density, make millions, and taxpayers are left paying the bill. Please tell me I’m reading this bill wrong because if not, this is a horrible idea.

Bastrop County: Back This Bill

March 15 update: House Bill 4946 has not yet been assigned to a committee. I’ll update this post once this happens with committee contact information.

Last legislative session, I wrote a bill that would allow the County Commissioners, if they so chose, to manage growth on unincorporated lands. Cities already have the right to do so, but Bastrop County is more than 97% unincorporated land, so no future planning allowed. We see it and feel it.

Representative Stan Gerdes worked with me on the bill. It had the unanimous support of the Bastrop County Commissioners Court. It made it to a committee where it died. That bill would have applied to smallish counties that bordered on the 6 counties (at the time) with populations over one million.

HB4946 Snippet The bill is back this session. Special thanks to Rep Gerdes and his staff for, once again, shepherding this through the process. Bill number 4946 is exactly the same as the 2023 bill, but now applies only to the five counties in HD17: Bastrop, Burleson, Caldwell, Lee and Milam.

Below is a chart showing the amount of unincorporated land in each, and their rate of growth from the 2010 to 2020 Census. Bastrop County grew at a whopping rate of 31% in just 10 years.
chart showing unincorporated land in HD17 counties

This bill would allow planning for roads, infrastructure, water resources and other affects of rapid development. It would go a long way in keeping Bastrop County from being East Austin. Please contact Representative Stan Gerdes office in support of this bill: Contact form or by phone: (512) 463-0682.

Key points in House Bill 4946:

This is enabling legislation, meaning a county does not have to do it if they don’t want to.
If the governing body chooses not to do this, there is a petition process to get the question to the ballot so voters can decide.
The commissioners court must appoint a Planning Commission which will adopt a comprehensive plan for the growth and development of the county only after noticed public hearing(s) on that plan.
The commissioners court must also hold noticed public hearings on the plan and regulations before final adoption.
Current non-commercial agricultural and ranching operations are unaffected. Commercial agricultural and ranching operations may be reasonably restricted only “to protect the public health, safety, peace, morals, and general welfare”.
Protection of historic designated areas keep the current protections.
Affected property owners may protest adoption under rules set forth in the bill.
A commissioners court may grant special exceptions due to hardship.
The Act would take effect September 1, 2025.

Campaign Literature 101

It’s started. The other day I received this piece of campaign literature from Representative Stan Gerdes. Oops! I’ll bet that’s what you thought too.

No. It wasn’t from Stan Gerdes. It was about Stan Gerdes. It was from Americans for Prosperity.

About a year ago, I wrote a post called “Read Between the Lines” about campaign literature. All campaign literature is sophisticated marketing material. It’s meant to manipulate. Don’t be fooled.

This piece of literature was paid for by Americans for Prosperity (AFP). That’s a PAC, a political action committee. Who are they? Who else have they funded?

A look at their legally required reporting to the Texas Ethics Commission shows AFP supported ten current Republican Texas House members¹. Six of those ten voted to impeach Ken Paxton, including Stan Gerdes. The other five were Angie Chen Button, Janie Lopez, John Lujan, Morgan Meyer, and Ben Bumgarner.

School Choice

So while Stan Gerdes and the other five have all signed on as co-sponsors of HB3, the House bill on Education Savings Accounts, they also voted to impeach Ken Paxton.

Did you know there are two school choice bills? Maybe not and this literature doesn’t tell you that.

The Texas Senate has passed one (SB2) and has sent it to the Texas House for consideration. And, that’s where it sits.

The Texas House has its own bill (HB3) and that one has its first public hearing on Tuesday March 11. Should that pass as it is written, the Senate and House will have to come together to iron out the differences between the two bills. If they can’t do that, school choice will not make it to the Governor’s desk.

If you’re going to call Stan Gerdes’ office as this literature suggests, ask which of the two bills he supports. If his staff says the House bill, HB3, ask if he’d also support the Senate bill. If not, why not. The devil is in the details, as they say.

Read Between the Lines

¹ Only one rep receiving AFP donations voted against Ken Paxton’s impeachment. The other three are new reps.

Dem Chairs Strike Again

Don’t be fooled. You’ve been told TX House Representatives, including HD-17 Stan Gerdes, voted to ban Dem chairs. That’s only true if you’re touching their side of the hair that they split to fool you.

The Texas GOP Legislative Priority list says “The Republican-controlled Texas Legislature shall end the practice of awarding committee chairmanships to Democrats and require all committees to be majority Republican.”

Their side of that split hair is that “committees” does not equal “Permanent Standing Subcommittees”. They fail to tell you that bills can be assigned to those subcommittees, that they can and are chaired by Democrats, that those committees can kill bills assigned to them, and they’re funded just like regular committees.

One Permanent Standing Subcommittee with a Dem chair is Property Tax Appraisal. Right out of the starting gate, Democrat Committee Chair Chris Turner has introduced a bill to require that counties reappraise properties annually. Tarrant County voted to do them every 3 years, along with limiting provisions for appraisal increases, and school districts (think teacher’s unions) are up in arms.

three dollar signs Doing appraisals every year is very costly. It requires a large staff, support systems, annual hearings for those who contest their appraisals, legal fees and more. Why do this? One big reason is because upping appraisals allows governing bodies (elected officials) to claim lowered or stable tax rates.

(Tax rate * (Appraised Value-Exemptions)) / 100 = Your Tax Bill

You see it all the time. Elected officials claim they lowered the tax rate. But your property taxes went up. That’s because the taxable value of your property went up. If they can’t raise your taxable value, then they’ll be forced to raise the tax rate to collect more and more money for government services.

There’s no reason at all to appraise properties every year. The Texas Constitution allows it to be done every 3 years. I came from a state that did it less often than that. We didn’t have “appraisal districts” with all the related expenses of such. And, as elected officials, we had to carefully manage spending in order to keep the tax rate from rising out of control.

Remember that equation above? Today in Texas, the biggest variable to bring in more tax dollars each year is the appraised value. We all know that because we’re getting slammed each and every year. And, elected officials continue to claim they presided over a stable or lower tax rate when running for re-election.

In the state I came from, the appraised values stayed constant from one appraisal to the next (often six to ten years). It was the tax rate that rose to bring in more tax dollars. When the ratio of total appraised value to total market value ran in the 60% range, we hired a professional appraisal company to re-appraise all properties to market values. When that was done, the amount raised in taxes before and after the appraisals had to be the same.

One time fee. One year out of six or seven. And, when we increased spending, the tax rate went up. If our city was growing and we had to provide expanded services, the added assessments of the new growth covered that. As elected officials, we couldn’t run behind the fiction of lower tax rates because they were directly related to our spending. It’s why my motto for more than 30 years has been “Take care of the spending and the tax rate will take care of itself”.

Annual appraisals are a waste of tax money. And, now, a Dem chair of a TX House subcommittee wants to mandate them. This is but one example of damage done by Dem chairs. Let’s hope the Texas House or Senate is smarter than that and defeats this bill before it ever gets out of that Property Tax Appraisal subcommittee.