As the 89th Texas Legislature progresses, dozens of housing-related bills will be introduced and debated that could shape the future of housing in our state. This page provides an overview of the key bills we’re watching, offering insights into their potential impacts and the ongoing legislative discussions. While we do not take a position on most of these bills, we believe it’s important to keep the public informed about the issues at hand. To dive deeper into the types of housing legislation being proposed and understand the reasoning behind state action, check out our latest podcast episode, featuring an expert discussion on these critical topics.
Bills we endorse
(West)
Companion bill:
(Bell)
Relating to the establishment of the workforce housing capital investment fund program to fund the development of workforce housing in this state; authorizing a fee.
This bill would create a program that Texas Habitat for Humanity affiliates and other similar organizations could apply for that would assist them in purchasing land and installing initial infrastructure. Awarded loans would be zero-percent interest but repaid by the grantee over a set time period. The program would also incentivize grantees to provide technical skills training opportunities for those learning construction or related fields. Why we like it: This bill would create a program that could directly benefit Habitat affiliates like B/CS Habitat and as much as double the number of homes it builds and sells to qualified homebuyers each year.
Construction-related housing bills
In an effort to bring down the cost of construction for homebuyers, these types of housing bills attempt to address homebuilder costs such as materials, land, and time.
(Bettencourt, et al)
Relating to size and density requirements for residential lots in certain municipalities; authorizing a fee.
This bipartisan bill was introduced right before the last day to file bills, has 12 cosponsors, and right now looks to be some of the best-situated pro-housing bills in terms of passing this year.
The bill would disallow municipalities and counties of a certain size from requiring the following for a new subdivision plat to be approved:
- requiring a minimum lot size of more than 1,400 ft sq ft, wider than 20 ft or deeper than 60 ft, or side and back lot setbacks of more than 5 ft.;
- Requiring more than 30% open space or permeable area;
- Requiring a certain minimum house square footage;
- Requiring a maximum story or height cap (but not exceeding 10 stories or 100 ft)
- Requiring off-street parking of more than one parking space per home;
This law, if passed, would not apply to homeowners’ associations and will likely be bracketed to make it apply to only Texas’ largest cities. Overall, this bill could go a long way toward making new home construction more affordable for both the developer and the end-buyer, hopefully dramatically increasing the number of new, starter homes built in Texas in the coming years.
(Flores)
Relating to the regulation of new HUD-code manufactured housing.
Companion bill in the House:
(Guillen)
Cities, including those in the Brazos Valley, have significantly limited the ability of landowners to put low-cost housing, such as manufactured housing, on their own land. This is a problem because this type of housing can be the first rung in the housing ladder, allowing a semi-permanent housing solution for those who have land but cannot build a “stick-built home” at this time. Given that HUD’s new manufactured housing code included stricter requirements for construction material quality and energy efficiency than what came before, we think this bill idea is a good one that could lower the financial threshold for homeownership.
and
(Toth)
Relating to the time for issuance of a municipal building permit.
This bill would reduce the maximum timeframe a city has to issue a building permit to a builder following an application from 45 to 30 days; 993 would change some of the rules associated with getting a permit. Why we like it: Building permits have sometimes been withheld from builders because a city does not like the project itself.
(Dyson)
Relating to a temporary moratorium on the imposition of an impact fee.
ADU (accessory dwelling unit) housing bills
One of the best ways to add housing options for extended family members is to add a second home on your property, often referred to as a “granny flat”. Sometimes local regulations either don’t permit you to add a second home or don’t allow you to rent out the additional unit. The ability to rent out the property helps to finance the construction of it. Learn more about ADUs and other housing regulations in Bryan and College Station.
(Hughes)
Relating to regulation of accessory dwelling units by political subdivisions.
Prohibits municipalities from denying property owners’ right to build an additional accessory dwelling unit (“granny flat”) on unzoned or single-family zoned property; prohibits requiring more than one additional parking space per additional accessory unit.
ADUs could incrementally increase the amount of housing within neighborhoods without drastically changing neighborhood character; could allow some Habitat homeowners to work with their local Habitat affiliates to gently build more much-needed housing for other low-income families within “built-out neighborhoods.”
(Vasut)
Relating to the regulation of residential land use and accessory dwelling units by a political subdivision; authorizing a fee.
This is a catch-all housing abundance bill with a lot of good ideas but could be too broad to gain much traction. One way or another, municipalities should relax their land use rules, specifically as it pertains to minimum lot sizes and ADUs. If they do not, cities will continue to become more and more expensive places for lower-income families to own property or simply to live. This bill would outlaw many of the overly strict land-use requirements existing even in our local cities, thereby possibly making it easier for housing organizations to sell a family the amount of land they need and can afford.
(Bucy)
Relating to regulation of accessory dwelling units by political subdivisions.
(Talarico)
Relating to municipal and county regulation of accessory dwelling units; authorizing fees.
Multifamily, mixed-use, and commercial-related housing bills
Since the mid-20th century, developers have mostly built single family style homes and large apartment complexes. There are a range of development options between those two housing types that could provide a greater range of options and prices for people who do not want or cannot afford to live in a single family home or apartment complex. These development styles are often referred to as “missing middle” because they are missing from most newer communities. To learn more about “missing middle housing,” you can watch our expert interview on the topic.
(Hughes)
Relating to certain municipal and county regulations of certain multifamily and mixed-use residential development projects and conversion of certain commercial buildings to mixed-use and multifamily residential occupancy.
Allowing more multi-family housing within existing communities and upon existing infrastructure could be a good thing for both the city and its residents who take advantage of this new law to live closer to where they work.
(Middleton)
Relating to municipal regulation of multifamily and mixed-use development on religious land.
General affordability-related housing bills
(Cortez)
Relating to the regulation by a municipality or property owners’ association of food production on single-family residential lots.
This bill would prohibit municipalities or homeowners’ associations from restricting a single-family zoned landowner’s right to raise and grow food further than what that state law allows by using nuisance violations and other tactics.
Increases family resiliency within neighborhoods and could help low-income families weather future financial storms by producing their own food.
(Bernal)
Relating to an exemption from certain zoning requirements for developments receiving certain financial assistance administered by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.
(Hinojosa, Juan)
Relating to single-family homes held by corporate owners for rental purposes; providing a civil penalty.
(West)
Relating to lists of public real property suitable for use or to be developed for use as affordable housing by certain municipalities and counties.
This bill would require any municipality in a city larger than 25,000 or a county larger than 50,000 to, every year, compile and update a list of all the municipality-owned but vacant or unused land, publish this list on a website or “conspicuous” location if no website exists, and hold a public hearing regarding this list. It does not compel cities to negotiate or sell property to a developer or other party. Only to make sure they know it exists. This may help developers or even nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity to build more affordable housing by knowing what land a city owns and then seeing if they want to build housing on the city land. However, this bill is a partisan (Democrat) bill that may die in committee.
(Hughes)
Relating to procedures for changes to a zoning regulation or district boundary.
(Hickland)
Relating to protesting changes to municipal zoning regulations and boundaries.
(Buckley)
Relating to the approval of land use assumptions, capital improvement plans, and impact fees.
(Vasut)
Relating to the regulation by counties of build to rent communities and the regulation by certain counties of manufactured home rental communities.
(Hinojosa, Gina)
Relating to restrictions on the purchase of a single-family home by an investment firm.
(Hefner)
Relating to the authority of a municipality to regulate a home-based business.
(Guillen)
Relating to municipal zoning regulations and district boundaries.
(Vasut)
Companion bill:
(Bettencourt)
Relating to the authority of home-rule municipalities to regulate the occupancy of dwelling units.
This bill could make overlays such as the “no-more-than-two” or “no-more-than-4″ unrelated overlays in College Station and other home rule municipalities obsolete. It would prohibit a city’s use of these overlays to regulate the number of unrelated persons living in a single home.
