Tag: Texas House

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.

The Political Chess Game

(Apologies for a very lengthy blog post. The issue is complex.)

CheckmateI’ve always said that politics is the world’s largest chess game. Anyone good at it has to think multiple moves ahead and has to analyze a variety of actions that could be taken by others. And, it requires understanding the law, policies and rules.

It’s the strategy of politics that I find incredibly fascinating.

Let’s take, for example, the issue of “No Dem Chairs”. The grassroots have been trying to stop Texas House Speakers from handing committee gavels to the Democrats for several sessions. Why would a Republican Speaker do that? After all, Republicans have a sizable majority.

Remember the old “smoke filled room”? Well, the only difference is that today there’s no smoke. Smoking not allowed. But the deals still are cut and not in public. Some deals are to bring members to a certain side of an issue. Some deals are to put opponents in an untenable position: damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Some deals are a win-win. Some deals are a win-lose.

Think about the last CR in Washington. You know, that 1500 page spending bill that caused voters to go nuts. A laundry list of added spending was slipped in, hoping voters wouldn’t notice. A day later, it was 116 pages with things like Congressional salary increases removed. People were still unhappy and calling their legislators. A day later, after significant negotiations, it was finally passed.

Chess Move #1: The caucus

On December 7, the Texas House Republican Caucus met to select its candidate for House Speaker. There were two candidates: David Cook & Dustin Burrows.

There are rules about what percentage of the caucus a candidate must receive on each ballot: 75% on ballots 1 and 2; 60% on ballot 3. No one got 75% on the first two ballots and then 26 members of the Caucus walked out, including Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes. David Cook won on the third ballot.

“Cook clinched the GOP endorsement 48-14 during the voting’s third round, but over a dozen Burrow loyalists abstained from the vote by walking out of the chamber. While caucus rules mandate that all 88 House Republicans support the party’s nominee during January’s official speaker vote — support that would push Cook well over the 76 vote threshold to secure the Speaker seat — Burrows has maintained that a pieced-together coalition of rogue Republicans and Democrats will be enough to ensure his victory.”

Dallas Observer, December 9, 2023

Chess Move #2: implementing “no dem chairs”

Speaker Candidate David Cook has agreed to “No Dem Chairs”. Speaker Candidate Dustin Burrows has not. He says he’ll leave it to the entire House.

It’s important to know that the Speaker appoints the committee chairs. Thus Speaker of the Texas House is a very powerful position. And, as such, putting the issue of “No Dem Chairs” to the entire House, in my opinion, is abdicating the Speaker’s most important responsibility for the success or failure of GOP Legislative Priorities.

Punt. Leave it to others to make the decision.

Chess Move #3: the formal speaker vote

The formal vote for Speaker is on January 14, day one of the 89th Texas Legislative Session. Republican House members are expected to vote for the Caucus choice. Those are the rules. If all Republican legislators stick together and follow the rules, that would give David Cook the win. A David Cook Speakership would give grassroots Republicans the win. “No Dem Chairs” would finally be a reality in Texas.

But not so fast……

Remember those 26 “walk-outs”? If they break Party caucus rules and don’t vote for David Cook, Dustin Burrows (who has probably by now negotiated all or a majority of Democrat votes) will likely be the Texas House Speaker. The GOP/Dem split is 88/62. It takes 76 votes to become Speaker.

Simple math: 76-62=14
So if 14 Republicans vote with all the Democrats, Burrows is Speaker.
Which 14 Republicans bill break the rules?
Will Bastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes be one of them?

Chess Move #4: the rules package

Chess board Let’s say Burrows wins. When he takes the gavel, how will he put his opponents in their place? How will he show his power to those in the Republican Caucus who didn’t vote for him. Ahhhh…… the Rules Packages.

The day after the vote for Speaker, when all the grassroots Republicans have gone home, the Texas House will vote on both Housekeeping and Permanent Rules packages.

Rules are critical to the function of the Texas House and they are extensive. In 2023, the House Rules, HB4 and amendments, were 199+ pages…. a lot of items with which to negotiate. Plenty of places for “poison pills”.

What is a “poison pill”? A “poison pill” strategy is used in business to prevent a hostile takeover. In politics, it’s used to force opponents into a no-win voting dilemma.

This happens when opponents of a bill put something in it that makes it impossible for supporters of the main topic of that same bill, to vote for it. The bill could contain language that supporters have wanted for years. So what do they do? Vote for that which they’ve worked so hard to accomplish and, in the process, vote for something they adamantly oppose? (This is exactly why conservative Republicans in Washington are pushing so hard for “one subject” bills.)

No matter how they vote, their opponents will use it against them. They’ll be accused of voting against the very thing they’ve worked hard for. Or, they’ll be accused of voting for the thing they adamantly oppose. (So much for not using public resources for political purposes. See Chess Move #5.)

This happens all the time in politics. It’s a common strategy to get items, unfavorable to the majority, passed by the minority. Stick the unacceptable thing into a bill the majority desperately wants passed. Think Ukraine funding.

So, back to the Burrows Permanent Rules Package.

It may contain language that, if passed, will result in “No Dem Chairs”. But it may also contain “poison pill” language that is unacceptable to most conservative Republicans.

Chess move #4 forces members in support of “No Dem Chairs” to vote for the “poison pill” as well. Dems get what they were promised in the non-smoke filled room and Republicans get “No Dem Chairs”.

OR, conservative Republicans vote against the “poison pill” and in the process, also kill the “No Dem Chairs” provision.

From my experience, when that happens, most of the public won’t understand and will just hear (or see in campaign literature) how Rep So-and-so voted against “No Dem Chairs”. And, those members who put Burrows in as Speaker will claim they voted for “No Dem Chairs” but alas, conservative Republicans killed it.

Chess Move #5: procedural death

In the 2023 Legislative Session, Dade Phelan was elected Texas House Speaker. After multiple attempts to get “No Dem Chairs” included in the Rules package, it was killed through procedural moves. The premise used to kill “No Dem Chairs” was that having chairs from one political party would violate a rule they had just adopted stating that House resources could not be used for political purposes. (FYI, this was a new Housekeeping rule in 2023 leading one to wonder if it was added for just this purpose.)

Proposed rule: “If, at the time the speaker announces the membership of committees, the members 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 committee.”

Result: The above Amendment to the rules (House Journal, January 11, 2023 page 139) was killed by a point of order that stated “The Housekeeping Resolution adopted by the House earlier today codified the constitutional rule that House resources may be used only for public purposes and may not be used for political purposes.”

They said that ensuring a Committee Chair was from the majority party was the same as using “House resources […] for political purposes.” Odd, the United States Congress operates with the chair of each committee from the majority party and they have a similar, very stringent rule about using public resources for political purposes.

the next chess move

Stan GerdesBastrop County’s HD17 Rep Stan Gerdes was one of the 26 who walked out of the Republican Caucus. He refuses to publicly state his support for David Cook or answer whether he’ll break the Caucus rules and vote for Burrows. He has, though, posted on Facebook on January 5, “I’ll be voting to ban Dem chairs.”

If that’s the case, it would seem he plans to break Caucus rules. (Shame on him.) And, then, knowing what happened in 2023, he can confidently vote for “No Dem Chairs” while watch it go down in flames. One week from now, we’ll know his next move.

HD-17 Candidate Eval – Stan Gerdes

Runoff Election Evaluation

Well, it’s down to 2 candidates on the Republican side in the May 24 runoff. One of these two will be our Republican candidate against the Democrat opponent. I’ve made it a point to attend candidate forums and events where these candidates spoke. I’ve spoken personally to both Paul Pape and Stan Gerdes about topics of interest to me.

At a recent GOP Club dinner, Gerdes was questioned about his stance on supporting Democrats for Texas House Committee chairs. Multiple attendees expressed their disappointment in this stance. Gerdes held firm to his position that it was okay to vote for Democrats to chair Texas House committees, even with the GOP strongly in control of both legislative houses.

I personally asked him if he understood what a kick in the teeth it was to those of us who work hard for the GOP for him to vote for Democrats. Democrats have stalled GOP priorities as committee chairs and if the shoe were on the other foot, they’d not vote for Republicans to chair their committees. We reminded him of their walk-out last session as evidence of Democrat lack of willingness to work together. Gerdes wouldn’t budge.

Gerdes’ constant use of a 5 year old photo of him with President Trump is a manipulative attempt to make voters think President Trump has endorsed him when he hasn’t. He can’t run on his record (less than a year as a Smithville Councilman), so he’s running, falsely, on President Trump’s.

And, then there’s the money. Follow the money and 80+% of it comes from out of district and from powerful PACs. When push comes to shove and a vote hurts HD-17 but helps Gerdes’ donors, how do you think he’ll vote? When powerful friends of endorser Rick Perry benefit from a vote that would hurt HD-17, which way do you think he’ll vote?

Gerdes’ refusal to reconsider voting for Democrat chairs of House committees says it all: he’ll vote the way the Speaker wants him to vote. Like the elites we’re trying to chase from office, he’ll vote with the money and political opportunities.

Gerdes’ support of Democrats is NOT supportive of the MAGA and America First agenda. It’s evidence of a “political opportunist” candidate.

Stan Gerdes will not get my runoff vote.

Primary Election Evaluation

I admit it. I’m a “political junkie”. So it follows that I do research on the candidates before deciding which candidate will get my vote. I do not base my vote on printed campaign literature which is the current message a candidate wants you to get. I look to past history and a candidate’s decisions. So, here are my thoughts about Stan Gerdes for House District 17 (Bastrop, Burleson, Caldwell, Lee, Milam counties).

Hey TX House: Texas is red, not purple

I am proud to be a signer of this letter to Texas House members from the Texas Conservative Grassroots Coalition. Nearly 200 conservative leaders from across the great State of Texas signed this letter.

I know they agree with me that we didn’t work as hard as we did in this election cycle to get Republicans elected, only to see members vote for a House Speaker who thinks it’s okay for Democrats to chair House committees. We didn’t work as hard as we did to see the GOP legislative priorities be ignored and not put to a vote. We didn’t work as hard as we did to see a purple legislative session when all is said and done.

As the letter states, “To be clear, Texas voters did not vote for bipartisan capitulation or compromise with Democrats, they voted for conservative Republican policies to be enacted.”

And finally, “We expect each Texas House Republican to visibly work to get the Republican Party of Texas Legislative Priorities to the floor for a vote and to fight on to pass those priorities. We expect each Texas House Republican to visibly stand against the appointment of Democrats to House Committee Chairmanships and against Democrat majorities on the committees.”