Category: Texas Senate

Vote NO on Subsidizing the Movie Industry in Texas

I’m ADAMANTLY opposed to subsidizing the movie industry.  That bill is SB-22 and it’s on Sunday’s calendar in the Texas House.  As we in Bastrop well know, they’re coming here without that subsidy. 

Film, soda, popcornIf I wanted to support the movie industry, I’d go to movies.  Think “user fees”.  If I use it, I pay.  I don’t go to the movies, so why am I being forced to pay for them?

I’m really sick of government forcing people to pay for that which they don’t use or need.  Think DOGE.  The Feds are trying to cut out excess spending and the State of Texas just spends more and more and more on things like this… everyone’s pet project.  Just where is this in the Texas Constitution? Picking government winners (in this case, the movie industry) and losers (in this case, the taxpayers) needs to STOP.

My daughter told me a few years ago that one of the best lessons I taught her, one that has allowed her to save, is to understand the difference between wants and needs.  Our legislators need to recognize the difference between wants and needs, between who is paying the bill and who is benefiting.

The movie industry is moving from CA anyway.  Gavin Newsom is having a very hard time keeping them there, but he’s working hard at it.  They’re expanding the CA subsidies. Will Texas have to do so in 2 years? This is nothing more than a race to see which state will give them the most money.

The old argument about all the jobs they’ll bring is a bunch of BS.  No one ever talks about the other side of that equation:  the COST of the growth that comes with them: roads, schools (have you seen the latest bond indebtedness of our schools???), WATER (we don’t have enough), infrastructure of other kinds, quality of life due to overcrowding..  The costs are massive, but those trying to sell this government waste ignore that.

Let those two multi-millionaires invest in their industry to encourage that industry to come here.  I don’t go to movies and I don’t want to invest in them.  I urge my rep, Stan Gerdes, and other House members to vote NO on SB22.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT ADDENDUM

Will we be paying for films glorifying the Muslim religion at the same time that the Governor and others are trying to stop the EPIC development near Dallas? “Faith-based” doesn’t mean just Christianity. 

See this language in the bill:

(f) A moving image project qualifies for a faith-based moving image project grant under Subsection (a)(5) if the project is designated by the office as a faith-based moving image project according to rules adopted by the office. The office is not required to designate any moving image project as a faith-based moving image project and has sole discretion to make that designation.

One denial and a court case will follow.  Texas will lose that court case.  Does “faith-based” apply only to Christian films?  Is it defined in Texas law? I couldn’t find it.  I found “religious organization”, but not “faith-based”.

Religious discrimination is illegal.  It’s how Mosques, Buddhist temples and any other “church” or “worship center”, Christian or non-Christian, are built anywhere in any zone.  I know of 3 such situations that occurred in neighboring towns when I was in elected office in NJ. Under Federal law, they could not be stopped.  One was in a former commercial building, another on a large open tract of land, and the third in a residential neighborhood.

When any bill calls for “faith-based”, think long and hard about whether you’d want the provisions of that bill applying to other than Christian religions.  Because this is the Bible-belt, I think that Texans too often think only of Christianity. But that’s not the case under Federal law. Substitute any religion you are adamantly opposed to in place of “faith-based” in the bill and decide if you’d still support it. Food for thought.

Bills Wither and Die on the Vine

To get to the Governor for signature in order to become law, Texas bills originating in the Texas House must be assigned to a committee, must have a hearing and be voted out of that committee, must be assigned to a calendar by the Calendar Committee and then must pass on the House floor.

In my business (IT), we would call every one of these a possible point of failure. But those aren’t the only ones because after passing the House, a bill goes to the Senate and the same process happens all over again.

So, last Thursday at midnight, any bill that originated in the House and hadn’t yet had a floor vote was effectively dead. DEAD. And, that night, many bills died. Texas also has a rule that bills are all single subjects, so thousands are filed each session.

Wondering how the list of bills authored or sponsored by HD-17 Rep Stan Gerdes faired? I can tell you that the one I’ve pushed now for two sessions never made it beyond committee assignment. Apparently, it found its way pretty quickly to the circular file again this session. Developers don’t want it and they have far more influence (and money) than we citizens do.

But here’s an article about a few possible (possible because they’ve not yet been signed by Gov Abbott) wins for Rep Gerdes: https://www.kbtx.com/2025/05/18/most-bills-die-texas-house-deadline-heres-what-brazos-valley-lawmakers-secured/

Eventually, I’ll post about the status of his various bills. That’s hours of work so it won’t happen before the end of the legislative session. Oh, did I mention that’s a mere 13 days away? Sine die, the end of the session, is on June 2.

It sure doesn’t look like a great session for Republicans, but then again, many of us predicted that when the Speaker vote shenanigans took place. See also: The Poison Pill, No Dem Chairs Vote Rings Hollow, and The Clock is Ticking.

Priority House Bills heading to the Senate

My comments on a couple of bills that have passed the Texas House and are heading to the Senate. Bills have to be assigned to a Senate committee, have a hearing, pass out of committee and get to the Senate floor for passage. Only then can they get to Gov Abbott for signature to become law.

HB 4623:
relating to liability of public schools and professional school employees for certain acts or omissions involving students.

I’m shocked at how many times I’m reading about educators being arrested, put on paid or unpaid leave, or otherwise accused of sexually assaulting Texas children. Unfortunately, just like abuse of the elderly, too often these things go unreported or unaddressed. That means employees just move from district to district continuing the harm they’ve done in one place at another.

Y’all have the opportunity to stop this, to hold schools accountable for not handling these issues as soon as they come to the attention of school leadership.

Please get HB 4623 into the Senate process for approval ASAP so it can get to Gov Abbott’s desk for signature.

HB 3225:
relating to the restriction of access by minors to sexually explicit materials in municipal public library collections

Please affirmatively pass HB 3225 out of committee to a full vote of the Senate. Several of us went to the Bastrop Library a few months ago, pointing out to the library board sexually explicit books that were available in the teenage section. They were in a glass enclosed area, leading one to believe that parents could see what was there. But they were on the back shelves of a dual sided book shelf so unless one went into the room (as we did) there would be nothing leading one to believe these books were available to young teens. They would not let us read from the books at their meeting and have done nothing to remove them.

I was mayor of a town in NJ when computers first came into public libraries and successfully fought for controls on screens visible by the public. It was a tough battle, but we won and our children were safer for it. This is no different. Without parental consent (like actually buying such books for their children if they want them to have them) these types of materials should not be available for children.

SENATE BILLS IN THE HOUSE needing action:
SADLY, THE tEXAS HOUSE IS SITTING ON BILLS ALREADY PASSED BY THE SENATE.

The following bills have already passed the Texas Senate and are languishing in the Texas House. This is what happened in the last session. This is what many predicted would happen in this session as soon as Dustin Burrows was elected House Speaker. And, with the end of session looming and deadlines occurring, it is happening.

  • SB 571 (Sen. Bettencourt) | Enhancing Transparency in Educator Misconduct Reporting
    Status: Passed the Senate; scheduled for a House Public Education Committee hearing on Thursday, May 15, 2025.
    Details: This bill seeks to improve accountability by requiring schools to report educator misconduct (particularly related to student safety) in a transparent manner. Proposed amendments would mandate reporting suspected abuse to law enforcement within 48 hours and eliminate confidentiality clauses that could obscure incidents, addressing gaps in current reporting practices.
  • SB 13 (Sen. Paxton) – Enhancing Parental Oversight in School Libraries
    Status: Passed the Senate; heard on May 6, 2025, and awaiting a vote out of the House Public Education Committee.
    Details: This bill clarifies and strengthens current standards in public school libraries that will prohibit sexually explicit materials, indecent and profane content. It provides transparency and oversight measures that give parents a greater role in ensuring content is appropriate for their children.
  • SB 371 (Sen. Campbell) – Restoring Opt-In for Sex Education
    Status: Passed the Senate; referred to the House Public Education Committee, awaiting a hearing.
    Details: This bill requires parental consent (opt-in) for students to participate in sex education programs, ensuring parents have control over their children’s exposure to sensitive topics. It reverses opt-out systems that may assume participation unless parents object. A hearing is critical for this bill to progress before the session’s end.
  • SB 1224 (Sen. Sparks) – Mandatory Reporting of Educator Misconduct
    Status: Passed the Senate; referred to the House Public Education Committee, awaiting a hearing.
    Details: This bill mandates that school administrators report educator misconduct, such as abuse, to local law enforcement within 48 hours, with penalties (state jail felony) for non-compliance.
  • SB 240 (Sen. Middleton): Protecting Female-Only Spaces | Women’s Privacy Act
    Status: Passed the Senate; referred to the House State Affairs Committee, where it has been awaiting a hearing since April 28!
    Details: This bill aims to ensure the privacy and safety of female-only spaces, such as restrooms and locker rooms, by restricting access based on biological sex. 
  • SB 12 (Sen. Creighton) – Strengthening Parental Rights (Needs Amendments)
    Status: Passed the Senate; heard in the House Public Education Committee on May 13, 2025, awaiting a committee vote.
    Details: SB 12 does so many great things, including banning public education DEI departments in grades Pre-K—12, restores parental opt-in for sex education, and prohibits discussions related to sexual orientation and gender. However, it has some flaws so several amendments have been proposed.

tracking priority bills

Here’s the list of priority bills and their status from the TexasGOP: https://texasgop.org/89th-lp-bill-list/

Other organizations have priority bill lists, so find an organization that reflects your priorities, and check the status of the bills they’re following. Be sure to comment NO to stop bills as well!

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:
Search results on HUD website for HUD-Code

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!

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? $900,035 in required state funding annually for one 5-acre development. And, that doesn’t even address the local property tax contribution to a child’s education.

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.