Changes Needed in the Texas Legislature

---

Click here to find out who your elected officials are. Contact your Texas Representatives and Senators, and their staffs, and advocate for the below legislative concepts and changes. 

Texas Chapter 49, known as “Recapture,” (aka "Robinhood") of the Texas Education Code should be repealed. 

As the name states ("Excess Local Revenue"), politicians and their special interest lobbyists believe various communities are too "unfairly" wealthy, and those hard-working Texas communities should suffer school district property taxes being siphoned from their communities and given to poorer school districts. The law also allows the monies to be used in the general fund of the Texas treasury, and not even for educational purposes. 

As an example, since the implementation of Texas Chapter 49, Boerne ISD has had approximately $118 million in local property tax revenue taken out of its district, while Comal ISD has been forced to surrender approximately $75 million in the same manner. (Source: Texas Education Agency)

 If Texas Chapter 49 cannot be repealed, the following needs to be passed in the next legislative session:

• The public notification radius for Affordable Housing projects shall be extended to 1 mile. This shall include any Affordable Housing projects that are seeking taxpayer funding for construction loans, taxpayer funding for any tenant assistance including rent, and property tax credits of any kind. Currently, the radius is set to 200 feet from the subject property line. 
• The public notification radius for any zoning changes to property to allow for multifamily apartment (MFA) related projects shall also be extended to 1 mile. Currently, the radius is set to 200 feet from the subject property line.
• Any voluntary annexation requests by property owners should also incur a 1 mile public notification radius from the subject property line. 
• The regular public notification of the aforementioned circumstances shall continue to use traditional vehicles (signage, fliers, websites, etc.) ; however, shall also now include SMS text messaging to the public within that 1 mile radius from the subject property line. The technology exists to do this today (ex: Amber alerts, COVID alerts, etc.) and shall be financed through cities or counties desiring to make the zoning changes that paves the way for Affordable Housing projects in the first place. 
• For voluntary annexation requests by a property owner, the SMS text shall include information with links related to annexation of the property within a city or municipality, and all Public Comment related instructions and procedures, windows of time, and other details to maximize public and taxpayer engagement. 
• For rezoning of a property to MFA, the SMS text shall include information related to the Affordable Housing project's Public Comment related instructions and procedures, windows of time, and other details to maximize public and taxpayer engagement. 
• Voluntary annexation requests, rezoning of property to MFA, and Affordable Housing project 1-mile public notification requirements, including the newly required SMS text requirement, shall be done so, no less than 1 year prior to the Public Comment window, with a follow-on reminder via SMS text no less than six months prior to the Public Comment window. 

If Texas Chapter 49 cannot be repealed, the following needs to be passed in the next legislative session:

• There needs to be a dollar-for-dollar tracer mechanism put in place where our local school district property taxes were drawn under Chapter 49, that’s similar to a revolving line of credit and paid back with interest. We deserve to know where our money is going. We should be able to know what other school districts received monies from our local ISD property taxes,  how much, when, and what dollar amounts from our monies went into the State of Texas general treasury. If our monies are being redistributed to a school district with falling enrollment and failing grades, we need to have the option to claw that money back from the State of Texas, with interest, and cover what our school districts went without while that money was outside the district .

Affordable Housing projects bring in hundreds or more students into a public school system in one fell swoop. Various Independent School Districts (ISD) are often targeted by Affordable Housing planners because of their political goals, political objectives, and political and social beliefs. The Affordable Housing students' families do not pay school district property taxes into the often already-overcrowded public school system, while the property owner doesn't pay school district property taxes either. These students often need complete "wrap-around assistance" (band instruments, sports equipment, uniforms, technology peripherals, etc.) from either the ISD, Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA), or the local Housing Authority or Trust. This increases additional burden on taxpayers or local funds, such as through PTSA's. Affordable Housing project developers will often form Limited Partnerships (LP) with a municipality or county's Housing Authority, Housing Trust, or other housing agencies. These organizations can be tax exempt while the Affordable Housing developer seeks tens of millions of dollars in property tax credits through the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA). Often, the Affordable Housing developer will "add on" to an existing project 10 years later, and reapply for millions more in property tax credits through TDHCA programs, and bring in even hundreds more students to the ISD. 

If Texas Chapter 49 cannot be repealed, the following needs to be passed in the next legislative session:

• Geographic areas covered by an ISD that are remitting funds back to the TEA under Chapter 49 are exempt from any Affordable Housing projects seeking property tax credits for 5 years from the last year the ISD forfeited monies under Texas Chapter 49.  

•  Developer fees paid to Affordable Housing developers are not to be paid by taxpayer funds, bond funds, or tax credits. These developers need to have skin in the game, same as a private developer, and need to raise the capital required to make the project profitable for them. That way, the project is being held liable by the market. 
• NOTE: Affordable Housing developer "developer fees" are NOT the same thing as the "construction loan." Affordable Housing developers often seek additional taxpayer funded "developer fees" in addition to taxpayer funded "construction loans." They are two separate transactions, that taxpayers need to be aware of, as you are likely paying for both as a taxpayer. Hence the change needed in legislation to address this specifically. The "developer fee" can be tens of millions of dollars, per project. Affordable Housing developers should be forced to raise capital on their own, instead of taxpayers funding their business operations. 
• Public bonds issued to pay for Affordable Housing project construction loans must be paid back by the Affordable Housing developer with inflation-adjusted dollars.
•  If a developer is looking to build an Affordable Housing project with local housing trust bonds and TDHCA tax breaks/funding, they’re not to be allowed to undertake any entitlements or engage with elected officials on zoning changes prior to fully acquiring the subject property.

As demonstrated by an Affordable Housing project in Houston that was built on a toxic ash landfill, costing over $100 million and poisoned occupants, Affordable Housing special interests and lobbyists covered this up in order to ram the project through. 

Similarly, a San Antonio Housing Trust (SAHT) and Pedcor Investments joint Limited Partnership (LP) to purchase 37 acres at the northwest corner of Highway (HWY) 281 North and Borgfeld Drive was also the site of a previous landfill. The property is subject of critical environmental remediation needs, and threatens the Edwards Aquifer as the property is immediately next to Cibolo Creek, a contributing recharge zone to the aquifer. 

The next State of Texas legislature should pass legislation that includes the following:

• All local/municipal, county, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)/State-level required Environmental Site Assessments for properties being considered for Affordable Housing projects must be complete and approved by each level's authorities before the Affordable Housing developer and Public Facility Corporation (PFC) can purchase said property.  
• This would mean the property owner has to cooperate to have such an Environmental Site Assessment performed before the property can be purchased by the Affordable Housing developer and/or the PFC. 
• The Environmental Site Assessment performing business must be first approved by the local/municipal and county agencies, in addition to TCEQ, before performing the work. 

Texas House Bill (HB) 1193 forced a change into the Texas Property Code, as "202.024." It removes from a Property Owners Association (POA) or Home Owners Association's (HOA) the ability to deny a property owner, including property owners that are corporations, from renting a single-family residential property out to Section 8 housing voucher recipients. This bill was likely rammed through the 88th legislature on the lines of the State of Texas reigning in overbearing and aggressive POA's and HOA's. Elected officials missed the mark on the ramifications of this bill; however, on hard working Texas communities who have spent the fruits of their life's long labor, earning the ability to live where they do. Tenants on Section 8 housing vouchers should not be handed (paid for by tax payers nonetheless) the same caliber of home non-government assisted Texans living in that community have earned the ability to live in. These "social roulette" programs are sold on "breaking the cycles of poverty" and "compassion." This is immoral to Texans who have spent their entire lives earning their homes and the ability to live where they do. 

The effects of Texas HB 1193 and Texas Property Code 202.024 should be completely repealed. If the bill and property code cannot be entirely repealed, it should be modified per the following legislation:

• A POA/HOA has the power to limit the number of rentals in any given year in the POA/HOA. A POA/HOA should have the power to determine the minimum length of time that a property owner must live in a property before the property is rented out.
• A POA/HOA should have the power to force property owners, including corporations, to rent out their properties through Section 8 voucher programs first to disabled veterans, disabled veteran surviving spouses and their immediate children (no grandchildren),  or disabled first responders, police, other law enforcement, firemen, and their surviving spouses, or children (no grandchildren). The property owner, including corporations, have to demonstrate a good faith effort of at least one calendar year of efforts to give preference to the aforementioned citizen classes first.
• If a property owner, including corporations, intend to rent the property out to Section 8 voucher recipients, the property owner must prove to the POA/HOA of no criminal background of the tenant adults. Essentially, a zero tolerance policy of any criminal background of a Class B misdemeanor and above. The POA/HOA can deny the tenants based upon said criminal background. 
• No foreign individuals or foreign investors can purchase homes in a POA/HOA and then rent out the homes through Section 8 Voucher programs. 

 Affordable Housing developers and their employees and their contractors, may not have immediate family members employed or contracted by the TDHCA, the Texas Bond Review Board, City Council Members, County Commissioners, Public Facility Corporations (such as the San Antonio Housing Trust, or "Opportunity Home"), or Housing Finance Corporations (HFC).  Employees of Affordable Housing developers or their contractors shall also not be allowed to have immediate family members that participate in Zoning Commissions or serve in any capacity with Zoning Commissions or Zoning Authorities in any way. 

Violations of this legislation regarding conflicts of interest for Affordable Housing developers, or attempts to circumvent it, will punishable by a $500,000 fine and/or up to 20 years in prison.