Sen. Craig Estes’ Senate Bill 18 would require cities and counties to get voter approval if they plan to spend a certain amount more than they did in a previous year. His bill ties such an election trigger to inflation and statewide population growth.
“You ask people about that and they generally think that’s a good thing,” the Wichita Falls Republican said Friday.
But local government officials and advocates for municipal government say the measure will hinder their ability to afford services that residents expect. They also say it will make it hard to keep up with population growth — especially in booming suburbs growing much faster than the state as a whole.
“We’re planning our budgets multiple years in the future because we’ve got so many capital projects that we can’t just look at budgets from year to year,” said Frisco Mayor Jeff Cheney, whose North Texas city grew almost four times as fast as Texas did from 2015 to 2016.
Estes’ bill, plus others aimed at giving voters more frequent say over their property tax rates, are on the docket for Senate committees this weekend. They fall in line with several items on Gov. Greg Abbott’s special session call that seek to limit powers cities and counties have long exercised. Other bills being considered Saturday and Sunday would change how and when municipalities regulate land use and annex land outside their borders.
State leaders say they are trying to both respond to Texans’ complaints about rising property tax bills and protect landowners’ rights from local regulations. But local elected officials say lawmakers and top state leaders are unfairly portraying cities and counties as irresponsible stewards of taxpayer money to score political points with voters ahead of next year’s primaries.
Such tensions highlight a growing divide over how much say city and county officials should have over local matters. San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said the proposed spending cap is another example of lawmakers trying to control officials who are elected to represent Texans at the local level.
“It certainly flies in the face of the very important democratic principle that we’ve adhered to for centuries in self governance,” Nirenberg said.
[…]
Estes couldn’t point to any examples of cities or counties dramatically increasing their spending in recent years. He said his office is currently collecting data from local governments on it. And he said he’s open to tweaking provisions in his bill as it moves through the Legislature.
But he shrugged off the notion that the state shouldn’t be telling local governments what to do. He said counties are extensions of state government, and that cities “reside in the state.”
“I don’t think that’s really an issue, that we don’t have any jurisdiction in what they’re doing,” he said. “We do.”
Don’t bother making the analogy to states and the country, because that’s Totally Different and Not The Same Thing At All, because it just is and that’s that. I would just point out that several of the Mayors who signed that letter opposing stuff like this are Republicans. This is not a partisan issue, it’s one of power and the belief of Abbott and Patrick, enabled by Patrick’s minions in the Senate, that they’re the only legitimate form of government. It’s crazy that we’ve come to this place, but here we are.
A bill aimed at protecting property owners’ rights from changing local government regulations could undo years of safety and land use rules and create a building environment in Texas with the potential for bars to pop up in residential neighborhoods, critics say.
Some local officials are calling Senate Bill 12 the “hyper-grandfathering” bill that goes far beyond current state provisions by retroactively applying to each property the land use and safety codes that were in place the last time the property was sold. In the extreme, SB 12 could lead to broad land use possibilities for parcels of land that haven’t changed hands in decades, according to six local government and public policy experts tracking the bill.
[…]
The bill’s author, Sen. Dawn Buckingham, R-Lakeway, said in a statement it would protect property owners from new county or city regulations that would upend the plans that people had when they bought the land.
“Since filing Senate Bill 12, I have been working with stakeholder groups across Texas, and I look forward to passing legislation that will protect the rights of Texans to develop their property,” Buckingham said.
In Austin, the passage of SB 12 would drastically undermine the city’s ongoing efforts to rewrite its entire land use code, known as CodeNext. If the City Council signs off next spring as planned on CodeNext, none of its provisions would take effect on a piece of property until the land changed hands, Planning and Zoning Director Greg Guernsey said.
“Let’s say CodeNext gets approved,” Guernsey said “It is not worth a whole lot if I have to deal with property codes from 10, 20 or 30 years (ago).”
I’ll bet the lawyers who specialize in land use codes will make a killing, though. Bear in mind, while the state would impose this requirement, it’s the cities and counties that will get stuck with the costs of implementing and enforcing it. I don’t even know what to say.
A Texas Senate committee approved a bill Saturday that would outlaw local restrictions on using a cellphone while driving.
Senate Bill 15 would pre-empt local ordinances on mobile phone usage, effectively rolling back provisions in more than 40 Texas cities that currently post hands-free ordinances stricter than the statewide texting ban. That measure now heads to the full Senate. It was one of several items the Senate Business and Commerce Committee took up Saturday that target local regulations and ordinances.
That committee also passed a bill that would require women to pay a separate premium for insurance coverage of an abortion that is not considered medically necessary.
Gov. Greg Abbott has argued that stricter local cellphone ordinances make for a confusing “patchwork” of regulations across the state, leaving drivers confused as they navigate between areas with different rules. Opponents of SB 15, including police officers from San Antonio and Austin who testified against the measure on Saturday, argue that the state should not pre-empt city ordinances that make people safer.
State Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, the Senate sponsor of the statewide texting-while-driving ban that goes into effect in September, said SB 15 would be a “huge step back.”
“I’ve never cried as a senator,” said Zaffirini, a senator since 1987. If this passes, “I think I would cry.”
The committee vote on SB 15 was 7-2.
The Buckingham bill was not voted on in committee, with some comments from the author that it could get reworked. Call me crazy, but maybe this is the sort of thing that needs a more deliberate process, if only to see if there is any legitimate purpose for it. If there’s one bit of good news in all this, it’s that the general insider belief is that most of Abbott’s agenda won’t get passed. There’s still plenty of room for damage even if only a few of his items make it through. The House offers the better chance of non-action, so let your representative know what you think.
I am very excited for the prospect of Chapter 9 bankruptcies to become common in Texas over the next few years as increasing state restrictions on the abilities of local government entities to raise and spend money are enacted. The growth opportunities in the legal field will be truly impressive.
Of course, all of the private businesses that do work for local government entities will suffer as they are increasingly not paid for that work, but there are winners and losers in the free market.
I don’t have any issue with not allowing political subdivisions to make their own cell phone, or any other driving safety, rules. I could almost accept it if the political subdivisions that adopt those laws are required to put a warning on every speed limit sign within the boundaries of the entity that states the law is in place. It is unreasonable to expect everyone who passes through a political subdivision to familiarize themselves with all of the laws that might affect them.
I would be very happy to see a law that requires that existing property owners be grandfathered when new land use and building rules are put in place. That would have prevented supporters of the Houston Historic District ordinance from enforcing their aesthetic values on people who never agreed to those restrictions. Same thing with zoning changes like the one in Dallas that forced a long term car repair shop to move, so others could do what they wanted with the property after a zoning change.
Robbie,
Why would there be a need for bankruptcy? I know how to budget. If I can do it, why can’t a city do it, too? Figure out how much you have, then spend less than that. Period. End of story. Does that mean police and fire need to be cut?
Stop mowing the parks and lock the Gates? Turn off streetlights? Government needs to live within its means.
Cities go broke because they over promise and over spend. Houston’s underfunded pensions are an example of this.
When I was in college I lived on ramen. Why? That’s what I could afford, and I’m not a welfare slug. Irresponsible cities do the equivalent of running up the charge card, hoping mom and dad will pay it off later. The state telling cities they can’t gouge the taxpayers any more is like mom and dad cutting off the credit card.
Texas has a rainy day fund because they know how to budget. Don’t blame Texas for forcing cities to do the same.
Bill, it would all be fine and dandy if the state imposed the same limitations on itself. In the not to distant future there will be Democrats in control, wonder how Hoot and Holler Texas will feel when they are told they have to do something they voted against?
@Ross:
Great post, agree 100% with all of it.