Tag: HD17

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 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.

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 SnippetThe 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 signsDoing 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.

The Clock is Ticking

Did you know that the Texas Legislature meets for only 140 days every 2 years? Some of us think that’s good as it limits the damage they can do. Others think it’s not enough time. One would think that with only 140 days, they’d work every single day for the State of Texas and its citizens.

At least in the Texas House, they don’t.

A quick look around the website Capitol.Texas.Gov shows the work done so far by the House and Senate. The Texas Legislature (House and Senate) gaveled in on January 14, 2025.

The Texas House

  • The full House has met 8 of the 18 days since then. They won’t gavel in again until February 4.
  • The House elected a Speaker and adopted rules, without debate or amendments being allowed. (more on that in another post)
  • Speaker Dustin Burrows has not yet assigned committees. Thus, House committees have not met.

The Texas Senate

  • The full Senate has met 6 of the 18 days. They gavel in again on February 3.
  • Senate committees have met 9 times: Sunset Advisory Commission, Finance Committee, Education K-16 Committee, Administration Committee.
  • Senate Bill 1 (SB1) Appropriations, was sent to the Finance Committee on January 22.

More than 10% of this session is over and the Texas House doesn’t even have committees assigned. They were to be assigned today, but Speaker Burrows announced on Tuesday that wouldn’t happen.

The Governor gives his State of the State address on Sunday, February 2. He will announce his priorities. Once done, those priorities can be addressed immediately, yet the House won’t even have committees to do so.

So much to look forward to in the coming days. Will Democrats be appointed as chairs of the new category of “Permanent Standing Subcommittees”? What will Governor Abbott specify as his legislative priorities? Will we get our overpayment of taxes (surplus) back or will the legislature spend it? Will loyal Burrows renegade House members be rewarded with committee chairmanships? Will we finally find out how much the House spent last session to impeach Ken Paxton? Will we find out how much Democrat vice-chairs can spend on committee work? Will legislators get raises or will we never see a 2025 Housekeeping resolution? The clock is ticking….

No Dem Chairs Vote Rings Hollow

Bastrop County Republicans overwhelmingly voted for Republicans in November. We swept all contested races. Why, then, would our Republican Texas House representative vote for Democrat chairs? He claims he didn’t. But, he did.

Perhaps he didn’t read the rules before he voted on them. After all, they were sent to House members at 4AM, all 232 pages of them. Perhaps he didn’t understand what he was reading. Perhaps he didn’t realize they were written by Democrat Hugh Brady, former Obama General Counsel and Democrat Parliamentarian whose decisions killed conservative legislation during the last session. Perhaps he thought WE wouldn’t understand what we were reading. Perhaps he thought we’d be fooled by the splitting of hairs: banning Dem Chairs for committees but allowing them for extremely powerful subcommittees.

Rep Gerdes’ Facebook post says “I proudly voted to implement a new House rule that BANS the appointment of minority party chairs to lead committees in the Texas House.”

Not true.

“Oh! What a Tangled Web We Weave/When First We Practice to Deceive!” – Sir Walter Scott

Permanent Standing Subcommittees

The Rules Gerdes so “proudly” voted for created 12 new Permanent Standing Subcommittees. Permanent Standing Subcommittees is an entirely new class of committee this session, clearly created to allow members to claim they voted against Dem Chairs, all while allowing Dem Chairs and influence over legislation.

These 12 new Permanent Standing Subcommittees have assignments of “all matters related to” specific areas. The extensive matters falling under the jurisdiction of each Permanent Standing Subcommittee are listed in Rule 3. STANDING COMMITTEES. Pages and pages of them.

The 12 Permanent Standing Subcommittees are:

  • Juvenile Justice
  • Defense and Veterans’ Affairs
  • County and Regional Government
  • State-Federal Relations
  • Family and Fiduciary Relationships
  • Academic and Career-Oriented Education
  • Disease Prevention and Women’s and Children’s Health
  • Telecommunications and Broadband
  • Workforce
  • International Relations
  • Transportation Funding
  • Property Tax Appraisals

The Rules Gerdes so “proudly” voted for allow the Speaker to assign bills to these Permanent Standing Subcommittees. (In reading legislation, underlined words are new. Strikeout words are removed. The word shall means must. The word may means optional.]

“All proposed legislation shall be referred by the speaker to an appropriate standing committee, permanent standing subcommittee, or select committee with jurisdiction, subject to correction by a majority vote of the house.”

The Rules he so “proudly” voted for require the Speaker to appoint Permanent Standing Subcommittee chairs and vice chairs. The Rules he so “proudly” voted for require the Speaker to appoint Permanent Standing Subcommittee members.

“The speaker shall appoint the chair and vice-chair of
each standing procedural committee and permanent standing
subcommittee and the remaining membership of each such [the]
committee and subcommittee.”

And, there is no provision in the rules prohibiting the Speaker from appointing Dem Chairs to these 12 Permanent Standing Subcommittees. The additional words “permanent standing subcommittee” were not added in the Rules section below as they were in many other Rules sections.

If, at the time the speaker announces the membership of standing committees, the members of the house of one political party constitute a majority of the membership of the house, the speaker shall designate a member of that party to serve as chair of each standing committee. The speaker shall not designate a member of that party to serve as vice-chair of a standing committee.

I verified with three House members that these Rules allow the Speaker to appoint Democrats as chairs of any of these “Permanent Standing Subcommittees”, that the Speaker could assign bills directly to them, and that committee and subcommittee chairs would have the same powers to hold hearings on bills, refer them out unchanged or with substitutions, offer amendments, or just ignore them.

We’ll see when Speaker Dustin Burrows announces committee and subcommittee appointments. They were due this Friday, January 31, but Burrows announced yesterday that those appointments would be delayed.

If even one Democrat is appointed as a chair of any Permanent Standing Subcommittee, Gerdes’ words “I proudly voted to implement a new House rule that BANS the appointment of minority party chairs to lead committees in the Texas House” will ring hollow and untrue.

As Predicted

It took 2 hours. See my post “The Poison Pill” in which I predicted that within a few hours, Rep Stan Gerdes would tell you that he banned Dem Chairs, but he wouldn’t tell you “the rest of the story”. And, that’s exactly what he did.

He did not tell you about Permanent Standing Committees and the other Dem-favorable provisions of these Rules. He did not tell you he voted to shut off all debate, to not allow any amendments, shutting off representation of the people. Rep Lowe stated “I am disgusted that the process of fair debate was eliminated in an effort to concede power to the minority party.” Rep Gerdes voted “yes” to eliminate debate in an effort to concede power to the minority party. (See page 116 of the 1/23/25 Journal. See also Rep Pierson’s relevant comments on why he voted “no” on page 118 of the 1/23/25 Journal.)

Gerdes did not tell you that he knew of this strategy when he voted against the GOP Caucus choice, violating the rules of the Caucus. Yet he did. And, he did not tell you what he’ll get in return for his votes. A chairmanship of one of these subcommittees? Again, we’re watching and time will tell.

Here’s the text message his consultants sent just 2 hours after adjournment.

Stan Gerdes text message

Don’t believe Stan Gerdes sent this text. He did not. His consultants did.

Don’t be duped or played. Consultants who are given access to (and often design) elected official communications put out these texts and social media posts.

More on that in a future post.