The state House and Senate have greenlit companion legislation—House Bill 24 by Rep. Angelia Orr, R-Itasca, and Senate Bill 844 by Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola—to reform Texas' zoning petition processes. Some elected officials and bill supporters have said current law allows a just a few people to wield a "tyrant's veto" that can stall or stop new development like housing projects at a time of mounting affordability issues, while opponents worry the changes would keep homeowners from having a say in significant local updates.
The big picture
Today, landowners near any property being rezoned must be notified of that process and get to challenge the change.
A formal protest joined by property owners accounting for at least 20% of the affected area—those whose land is either included in the rezoning or within a 200-foot radius—triggers a higher supermajority threshold for city officials to approve the rezoning. If no petition is filed, rezoning only requires a simple majority to pass.
SB 844 and HB 24 would maintain the 20% petition standard for property owners included in a zoning update as well as the supermajority vote needed from local officials. However, the bills would move the petition requirement for any nearby properties up to 60% and allow final approval by a simple council majority, limiting the influence of neighboring landowners in local land-use updates.
Orr said outdated existing law has been used to block projects like affordable residences, hospital expansions and student housing in cities across Texas. Letting smaller opposition groups force action by local officials—the only time state law mandates a three-fourths supermajority vote, according to lawmakers—hampers individual property rights and blocks much-needed housing in a significant statewide shortage, she said.
“Cities are making critical decisions like budgets, approving police contracts and hiring city managers with simple majority vote. This bill proposes a more democratic property rights approach to the tyrant’s veto process," Orr said in March. "HB 24 would return power to the actual landowner ... and return authority to the elected city council to make decisions about the appropriate areas for growth.”
What else?
The legislation would also remove a wide-reaching notification requirement for "comprehensive" zoning changes.
Currently, affected property owners must be notified of a rezoning whether for an individual site or broad citywide reforms—a standard labeled as costly and unnecessary in SB 844's statement of intent. For example, a recent series of three citywide land-use proposals in Austin required the city to mail almost 2 million individual notices costing more than $910,000 in total.
Additionally, the House and Senate bills target a current provision allowing lawsuits to be filed over zoning changes long after approval. The proposed legislation would cut the deadline for any legal action down to 60 days.
Officials and residents testifying on the legislation said the current timeframe can stall new development due to regulatory uncertainty. For example, Austin residents sued to overturn several city building programs months after their adoption, impacting projects already being planned under the now-voided rules.
Hughes said Texas' petition process is among the strictest in the country, allowing zoning updates to be "significantly disrupted" by a handful of people even if most of a community favors a change.
“It’s somewhat akin to you buying a new car, maybe you buy a yellow car and park it in your driveway, and someone down the street says, ‘Yeah, I don’t like yellow cars. I want you to get a red one,'" he said in April. "That’s really what we’re talking about: use of your own property.”
Offering input
Public testimony at the Capitol was mostly supportive of the bills and eased housing restrictions. Witnesses also generally focused on Austin, where zoning notice and petition rules have recently impacted political efforts like a comprehensive land development code rewrite.
“I moved to America, and honestly came with these conceptions of freedom, liberty, property rights being sacrosanct, especially in Texas," said Samuel Hooper, legislative counsel with the nonprofit law firm Institute for Justice. "I was frankly astonished when I found out that this was the law; that you can have people who aren’t implicated by a rezoning getting to dictate to actual property owners what they can do with their own land."
David Morin, a developer with MNO Partners, said he was working on a New Braunfels project that initially earned support from neighbors. However, he said a petition process triggered by a minority of property owners shifted the community conversation to a "very, very, very negative tone" before some opposition eventually died down.
Brennan Griffin, senior deputy director of justice-focused nonprofit Texas Appleseed, said the law currently has a chilling effect on needed new development.
“A nonprofit trying to build an affordable housing complex where they know there might be some potential opposition and they know that they need a zoning change just doesn’t even start the process," Griffin said. "It’s expensive, they have to get all their grant funding in place, they have to get all the tax credit deals, all that stuff, and it becomes extremely difficult for them to move forward if there’s any potential hiccups in the road, as this kind of petition allows.”
Austinite Barbara McArthur was among the voices against the legislation, saying it'd weaken resident protections against any illegal actions taken by cities and limit public information about changes that could "dramatically alter their lives."
“Everything in this bill clears the way for the redevelopment of neighborhoods that support families. You are eliminating our notification to let us know if our land is being upzoned underneath our homes," she said.
Dozens of Austin residents shared similar written testimony, saying the new law would be "unreasonable" for homeowners. Opposition was also submitted by people in other cities, including Georgetown Intergovernmental Relations Manager Leah Clark who expressed concern about the bill's impact on resident property rights.
Going forward
SB 844 passed the Senate 30-1 in April, and the bill was heard in a House committee in early May. HB 24 passed the House 83-56 on May 5.
