Texas Revs the Growth Machine
Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's stories include:
The near death of Texas' Starter Home Act
Colorado's pending ban on rent-recommendation algorithm software
A very Catholic story of eminent domain abuse
But first, our lead item on the success of pro-supply housing bills in Texas.
On May 20, the Texas House passed Senate Bill 840, which allows developers in larger counties to build residential and mixed-use developments on commercially zoned land "by-right." That means local governments can't force builders to go through extensive, expensive, and discretionary processes of requesting rezonings and variances.
The bill "would make converting empty office spaces into housing units much easier," reads an analysis from the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Similar to Florida's Live Local Act, the bill also limits localities' ability to impose height and density restrictions on new residential developments on commercially zoned land. Cities would have to allow these new developments to be built at least at a density of 36 units per acre and 45 feet tall.
Housing wonks describe the bill as clean and "muscular."
Today, the Texas Senate concurred with the House amendments to S.B. 840. It will now go to Gov. Greg Abbot's desk.
Also headed to the governor's desk is House Bill 24, which places new limits on valid petition rights that property owners can use to halt zoning changes.
H.B. 24, a reform to the so-called "tyrant's veto", raises the percentage of property owners required to challenge a rezoning from 20 percent to 60 percent. It also lowers a city council's vote threshold to override these challenges from a supermajority to a simple majority.
Neighborhood activists in Austin famously used their valid petition rights to thwart upzonings in that city.
With H.B. 24's reforms, that will be a harder thing to pull off.
Still pending approval is Senate Bill 15, a.k.a. the Texas Starter Homes Act. Described as a "smaller homes on smaller lots bill," the legislation would prevent local governments from setting minimum lot sizes of over 1,400 square feet in new subdivisions of five acres or more.
The bill only applies to cities of 150,000 people in counties of 300,000 people or more.
S.B. 15 had already passed the Senate with a 29–2 vote back in March. It was scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives this weekend, where it nearly died.
As the Texas Tribune reports, House Democrats led by Rep. Ramon Romero Jr. (D–Fort Worth) attempted to kill the bill on a procedural move.
Romero had requested a "point of order" about the bill's exclusion of land around a planned Dallas County police training facility. This, said Romero, violated legislative rules about singling out individual jurisdictions in legislation.
That point of order was accepted, preventing further discussion of the bill.
But, reports the Tribune, the bill's supporters in the House managed to "fast-track" the legislation by removing the offending provision so that it will be considered on the floor again today.
Romero told Tribune reporter Joshua Fetcher that he'd seen no evidence that allowing smaller homes on smaller lots would reduce home prices.
He might want to look a little harder. The Mercatus Center's Emily Hamilton found in a 2024 study that Houston's minimum lot size reforms, on which the Texas Starter Home bill is modeled, facilitated an "unprecedented" increase in the rates of infill housing construction in single-family neighborhoods.
Houston's reforms "had no detectable effect on land values, and she finds some evidence that it reduced land values. This may be because it has facilitated a large amount of housing construction," according to Hamilton's study.
In recent years, software sold by companies like RealPage that recommend to landlords profit-maximizing rent and occupancy levels has come under fire for making housing less affordable.
Critics charge that these products allow landlords to collude on prices in order to raise rents to above-market rates.
The federal government and several states have sued RealPage for antitrust violations. States and cities have also started to crack down with legislation of their own.
Earlier this month, the Colorado Legislature passed H.B. 25-1004, which would "ban the use, sale and distribution of software that uses an algorithm to set rents." (Colorado is one of the states suing RealPage.)
The bill is now on Gov. Jared Polis' desk, who has not said whether he'll sign or veto it.
"We're all for math and algorithms. At the same time, there is the concept of antitrust, which has been abused, but also has a core role in preventing monopolistic pricing practices," Polis told Reason in a Friday interview. "It's a question of: Is this an algorithm that reduces market friction and leads to more efficient pricing or is it a backdoor effort to exert monopolistic control over pricing?"
The limited academic research on rent-recommendation algorithms suggests that they do in fact facilitate more efficient pricing. One study found that landlords who use these products lower rents faster in down markets and raise them faster in hot markets.
RealPage critics would seem to have a hard time explaining why rents in Austin, where lots of landlords use RealPage products, are slashing rents in response to a glut of new supply.
Last week, news broke that the village of Dolton, Illinois, is threatening to seize via eminent domain the childhood home of newly elected Pope Leo XIV from its current owners, who recently bought and renovated the home and are now selling it at auction.
As I wrote last week:
At present, the owners are auctioning off the small, 1949-built home for a reserve price of $250,000.
In a Tuesday letter to the auction house running the sale, Dolton attorney Burton Odelson cautioned buyers against purchasing the house.
"Please inform any prospective buyers that their 'purchase' may only be temporary since the Village intends to begin the eminent domain process very shortly," reads Odelson's letter, per NBC Chicago.
Odelson told Chicago's ABC7 that the village had initially tried to voluntarily purchase the home but had snagged on the sale price.
"We've tried to negotiate with the owner. [He] wants too much money, so we will either negotiate with the auction house or, as the letter stated that I sent to the auction house, we will take it through eminent domain, which is our right as a village," Odelson said.
It's a wonder why the village can't pursue a voluntary sale, given the relatively low reserve price of the home. The potential for the modest, 75-year-old home to serve as a historic site surely couldn't boost the sale price that much.
Seizing the home via eminent domain would seem to contradict the last Pope Leo's defense of private property and, in particular, privately owned family estates, in his famous 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum.
Wrote Pope Leo XIII, "Every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own."
The plans of contemporary socialists to seize private property, Leo XIII denounced as "emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community."
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is very pleased that at least one home in Pacific Palisades is under construction following the deadly wildfires that struck the area earlier this year. Los Angeles–area builders are less impressed with the mayor's streamlining efforts.
Politico reports on a brewing split between the California Assembly and Senate on this session's housing bills. The Assembly has been passing a litany of YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") bills to streamline development. They face an uncertain future in the Senate. Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire has been less than keen on such efforts. Senate Housing Chair Aisha Wahab (D–Hayward) is even more critical by arguing that lowering building costs doesn't necessarily reduce housing costs.
At The Volokh Conspiracy, George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin lays out some of the legal problems Toms River, New Jersey, might face if it follows through on its plans to use eminent domain to prevent a church from building a homeless shelter.
Bisnow reports on the dire financial state of New York's rent-stabilized housing stock.
If you have a home in Minnesota, you soon might not be able to get inside it, thanks to the state's impending ban on lead content in keys that makes most keys illegal.
The post Texas Revs the Growth Machine appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Ford is navigating rare earth mineral supply chain disruptions, tariffs and more
Ford Motor Co.'s chief financial officer outlined how tariffs and supply chain disruptions are expected to impact Ford's vehicle production and its costs during a wide-reaching interview with a Wall Street analyst June 4. Ford CFO Sherry House said the Dearborn, Michigan-based carmaker will provide more details on the economic impact from President Donald Trump's tariffs and other policy changes in its second-quarter earnings next month. But she cautioned there are still many unknowns being sorted out, all of which could make Ford's upcoming financials "a bit lumpy," she said. "As we move into the next couple of weeks to prepare for the quarter, if we give guidance it will be in the caveats of what we can't define," House said. "If we don't, we're going to give you every piece of information that we feel we can to help you, other analysts and investors to understand the business as much as possible.' Here are the top takeaways from House's fireside chat with analyst Joe Spak at the UBS Auto and Auto Tech Conference in New York on June 4: House said Ford has seen some backlogs to getting rare earth minerals into the supply chain, so Spak asked how that could impact vehicle production. 'There are many components that rare earth minerals are in and many of those that are coming from China require you to now go through export controls, so there's an additional layer of administrative process that has to happen," House said. She said sometimes the components pass through smoothly, other times there are holdups and that's when Ford has to take action to mitigate any disruptions. "You have to look for alternative parts or alternative ways to get things," House said. "Frequently, it goes through, it just may take more time. So then you might be facing expedited shipment costs that you weren't anticipating and it just puts stress on a system that's highly organized with parts being ordered many weeks in advance." She said Ford has been managing the issue so far, but warned, "I don't know if at some point this is going to be a larger issue for us?" In case you missed it: Ford recall could force over 1 million drivers to use this safety technique As for Trump's latest tariff: a boost in steel and aluminum to 50%, House said the impact on Ford should be minimal because Ford buys all its aluminum from domestic suppliers and it buys 80% of steel from U.S. sources. Ford will manage any price increases in steel through "contract pricing," meaning prices have already been set. "So when all of this hits, there is a delayed impact," she said. On April 29, Trump signed an executive order that set up a complicated system of federal reimbursements on certain imports of auto parts and components for the next two years used in vehicles made in the United States. The order gives Detroit's automakers some relief from what Trump earlier had ordered — 25% tariffs on all imported autos which began in April and another 25% on all imported auto parts set to begin by May 3. Spak asked House how Ford is getting the federal reimbursements for the parts that are compliant with the United States Mexico Canada Agreement as outlined in the order Trump signed at the end of April. She said a lot of that is still being defined. "I don't completely know," House said. "So you're paying the tariffs now. I think it's very possible that there will be a delay in getting those offset. I'm talking about the parts offset. It could be by a quarter, it could be by a couple of quarters. But all of you who are looking at our financials in Q2, Q3 and Q4, are going to have to know that it's going to be a bit lumpy. You might have more expense before you actually get the money reimbursed.' The good news for Ford is 80% of the parts used on its vehicles are USMCA-compliant and 80% of the vehicles it sells in the United States are built here. Still, the automaker warned during its first-quarter earnings report that tariffs will add $1.5 billion in net costs this year. For the 20% of suppliers who import parts, House said Ford is having conversations with them, seeking ways to help mitigate Ford's exposure to tariffs and lower those costs, while also meeting the business obligations of its suppliers. 'As we face the tariff situation, we face it together," House said of Ford's suppliers. "The types of conversations we are having are around: Do you have additional capacity in the U.S.? Could you move to the U.S.? What types of investments might help you get there?' But she explained that it is "a very complex and nuanced situation" with the supply base as to which suppliers to press for changes. Ford considers the kinds of quality, cost, technology and performance a supplier has provided in the past as to how it works with them around the tariffs, she said. 'But on an individual basis we're decided whether or not it makes sense to make some of these changes," House said. "I don't have anything to announce with you right now, but, of course, you would look at some of your higher priced components first, items that affect more vehicles, that would be the order of operations.' House did not address a May 25 report in the Wall Street Journal that cited sources as saying Ford would share production space in its battery plant in Kentucky with rival Nissan. The move signals Ford's retrenchment from electric vehicle investments and it helps the Japanese automaker reduce its exposure to tariffs on imported vehicles and parts. But House did say given the "very competitive global landscape" with companies having different needs and levels of technology, it makes sense to be thinking about partnerships so as to get more efficiency, especially if it is an area where Ford does not need to be No. 1. She said the automaker is "absolutely open" to doing more partnerships than the ones it currently has in place. House joined Ford about a year ago and became its CFO in recent months. When asked how she has seen the company change culturally, she listed a few ways: First, Ford has started to put more specialists in roles as opposed to putting a really great generalist in roles. For example, when it named Liz Door as its chief supply chain officer in 2023. House called her "an amazing supply chain leader at the forefront of that thinking." House said she has challenged Ford to think about "not letting your governance define what the pace of the business is going to be." "What happens is big companies … you have weekly meetings on a topic, you have monthly meetings on topic, you have quarterly meetings on a topic. What happens when you set up your business that way is you are running to that governance structure and you're only doing the work to get ready for that weekly meeting or monthly meeting," House said. "But if you can step back and let the priorities define the pace versus the governance structure, the business define the pace, I think you can go a lot faster and you can make sure you're focused on the right things.' She said Ford also has looked to "break boundary constraints" in its strategy meetings. "If you're having meetings with just one function, a lot of times you can't break the boundary constraints because you don't have everybody in the room that can tell you can do something. So you feel like you can't," House said. "So having more cross functional meetings as well. These are all tactics that can make a difference." Jamie L. LaReau is the senior autos writer who covers Ford Motor Co. for the Detroit Free Press. Contact Jamie at jlareau@ Follow her on Twitter @jlareauan. To sign up for our autos newsletter. Become a subscriber. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Ford CFO outlines how company is working through supply, tariff issues
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
NCAA's House settlement approved, ushering in new era where schools can directly pay athletes
College athletics is officially entering a new world. A California judge on Friday granted approval to the NCAA's landmark settlement of three antitrust cases, often referred to as the 'House settlement,' ushering in an era where schools are permitted to share revenue with athletes within a new enforcement structure led by the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC. Advertisement Claudia Wilken, the 75-year-old presiding judge in California's Northern District, granted approval of an agreement between the named defendants (the NCAA and power conferences) and the plaintiffs (dozens of suing athletes) to settle three consolidated cases, all of them seeking more compensation for athletes. Unsuccessful in so many legal battles recently — most notably a 9-0 loss in a 2021 Supreme Court decision — the NCAA and its richest, most influential conferences decided last spring to strike a revolutionary agreement by settling these cases instead of risking a court defeat that might cost them as much as $10 billion. The House settlement will pay thousands of former athletes — playing from 2016-2024 — a whopping $2.8 billion in backpay from lost name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation. Even more groundbreaking, the settlement paves the way for schools, for the first time ever, to directly compensate athletes in a system that features an annual cap and a new enforcement entity that is expected to more heavily scrutinize booster-backed payments. While paychecks can begin to be distributed from schools to athletes on July 1 — the official start date of settlement implementation — the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, an LLC operated mostly by the power leagues, immediately takes effect with Wilken's approval of the agreement. Advertisement It means that any new contract struck between an athlete and a third-party entity, such a business, brand, booster or collective, is now subject to the new Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse. The clearinghouse, dubbed "NIL Go," is charged with evaluating NIL deals between athletes and third parties to determine their legitimacy. It puts an end, perhaps, to schools hurriedly signing current players and transfers to new contracts before the approval of the settlement in deals that frontload a majority of the compensation. Contracts signed before the settlement approval and paid out before July 1 were not subject to the clearinghouse or cap, leading to a 'mad dash' in the basketball and football portal. Power conference leaders are targeting a Major League Baseball executive to manage the College Sports Commission as CEO, multiple sources tell Yahoo Sports. Bryan Seeley, a former assistant U.S. attorney who has served for more than a decade as MLB's vice president of investigations and deputy general counsel, is believed to be the preferred candidate for the CEO role of college sports' new enforcement entity. Despite plenty of hurdles in the settlement's years-long approval process, those who negotiated the deal have long expected it to be approved because of the sheer numbers involved. More than 85,000 athletes have filed claims for the backpay and just 600 have opted out or objected to the agreement — a paltry number that did not phase the judge. Advertisement Wliken's decision, coming XX days after the final hearing in Oakland, California, puts an end to what was thought to be one of the last looming hurdles of a deal: roster limits. In a concept authored by the power conferences, the settlement imposes new limits on sports rosters, many of which had not previously existed. In a recent filing, the NCAA and power leagues agreed to revise settlement language to permit schools to grandfather-in athletes on existing teams or those who have been cut this year, as well as recruits who enrolled on the promise of a roster spot. College sports is about to enter a whole new era. (Taylor Wilhelm/Yahoo Sports) With its approval, the settlement ushers into college sports a more professionalized framework but one, many believe, that is ripe for more legal scrutiny. Already, attorneys are gearing up for future legal challenges over, at the very least, the new NIL clearinghouse, Title IX and the capped compensation system — much of which can be resolved, legal experts contend, with a collective bargaining and/or employment model that college executives have so far avoided. Advertisement The settlement's approval is only the first in what many college leaders describe as a two-step process to usher in stability in the college sports landscape. Step 2 may be even more difficult: lawmakers producing a congressional bill to codify the settlement terms and protect the NCAA and power conferences from legal challenges over enforcement of their rules. Five U.S. senators have been meeting regularly in serious negotiations over legislation, but no agreement has been reached. Here's an explainer of college sports' new world delivered by the settlement's approval: Revenue-share pool Each school is permitted — not required — to share up to a certain amount of revenue annually with their athletes (the cap). Per the settlement agreement, the cap is calculated by taking 22% of the average of certain power school revenues, most notably ticket sales, television dollars and sponsorships. Advertisement In Year 1 — July 2025 through June 2026 — the cap amount is projected to be $20.5 million. While each school is charged with determining how to distribute those funds, most power conference programs are planning to distribute 90% to football and men's basketball, as those are, for the most part, the only revenue-generating sports for an athletic department. In Year 1, that's about $13-16 million for a football roster and $2-4 million for men's basketball, with the remaining amount shared with women's basketball, baseball, volleyball and other Olympic sports. While the 22% cap will remain the same through the 10-year settlement agreement, the cap money figure will rise based on built-in escalators (4% increase in Year 2 and Year 3), scheduled recalculations (after each third year) and additional cash flows into athletic departments, such as when conferences enter into new, more lucrative television deals or/and begin receiving new College Football Playoff monies. Advertisement Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork told Yahoo Sports this summer that he expects the cap to break $25 million by the time the Year 4 recalculation happens. There are exceptions, though, that can artificially lower the annual cap, most notably up to $2.5 million in additional scholarships that a school offers. Enforcement entity A new non-NCAA enforcement entity — an LLC predominantly managed by the power conferences — will oversee and enforce rules related to the revenue-share concept. The company, College Sports Commission, is expected to be headed by a CEO as well as a head investigator for enforcement matters. The entity is charged with assuring that schools remain under the cap and that third-party NIL deals with athletes are not the phony booster-backed deals so prevalent over the last four years. Advertisement An enforcement staff is expected to be hired to investigate and enforce rules related to cap circumvention, tampering, etc., and are charged with levying stiff penalties. Violators may be subject to multi-game coach suspensions, reductions in a school's rev-share pool as well as reductions in allowed transfers, and significant schools fines. However, the biggest looming uncertainty of the settlement agreement involves a Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse that must approve all third-party NIL deals of at least $600 in value. The "NIL Go" clearinghouse is using a fair market value algorithm to create 'compensation ranges' for third-party deals. Deloitte is expected to approve or disapprove deals in as little as one day, and athletes can resubmit rejected deals at least once with alterations suggested by the clearinghouse. For example, Deloitte deems a submitted $100,000 deal between an athlete and third party to actually be valued at $50,000. The player can alter the deal to align with the clearinghouse's suggested figure or the school can cover the difference by accepting a reduction against their revenue-pool cap. Deals rejected for a second time are referred to the CEO and enforcement staff and are then processed through an appeals system via court-overseen arbitration. Arbitration rulings are expected within 45 days, according to the settlement. Advertisement Athletes who lose arbitration cases and still accept compensation in the rejected deal are deemed ineligible. Rev-share contracts Starting with the fall basketball and football signing periods, schools began readying for this new era. Some even signed players to revenue-sharing agreements that begin to make payments on July 1 or later, contingent on the settlement's approval. Other players signed contracts with school booster collectives that featured a clause assigning the contract to the school on July 1. For the most part, the contracts grant schools permission to use a player's NIL rights — a reason for the compensation — but these agreements feature language often found in employment contracts, including buyouts, athlete requirements and prohibitions as well as the freedom for schools to reduce the players' compensation based on their academic standing and performance. Advertisement Already, the agreements are a subject of legal scrutiny. In January, Wisconsin defensive back Xavier Lucas left the university to enroll at Miami despite signing a revenue-share contract with UW. In public statements, Wisconsin has suggested it will pursue legal action against Lucas and/or Miami, which, it suggested, tampered with an athlete under contract. Lucas' representatives believe the contract is not enforceable as it was contingent on settlement approval when signed. The situation is a potential landmark case on settlement-contingent revenue-sharing agreements.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ohio budget moves closer to doing away with elected county coroners
Jun. 6—For now, the Ohio Senate is going along on an Ohio House plan to make county coroners appointed by county commissioners instead of being elected by county voters. But, while the Senate didn't change the House's proposal in its initial draft of the state's two-year operating budget, Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, told reporters that there's still a chance the Senate could eliminate the House's proposal when it amends the budget next week. McColley said he put a request out for those in his caucus with strong feelings on the matter to weigh in. "If members feel strongly that it should go back to the way that it is under current law, then there's a possibility to see an amendment here in the omnibus," McColley told this news outlet. "We didn't see a lot of members — we saw some — but we didn't see a lot of members asking for it to be changed back." The Senate is expected to make those amendments on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. The change could be consequential in counties where county commissioners and the coroner are different political parties. In Montgomery County, for example, the elected coroner is a Republican while Democrats hold two of the three seats on the county commission. The House's primary advocate for the change, county commissioner-turned-lawmaker Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, has framed the change as necessary to solve a scarcity issue. "It's really hard to find folks that want to serve as a coroner at all, it's even harder to find folks who are willing to be the coroner and want to run a political campaign to do so," Stewart said in April. But the proposed change is opposed by Ohio State Coroners Association, whose Executive Director David Corey told this outlet that he's still hopeful that former coroners in the Ohio Senate, like Sen. Matt Huffman, R-Tipp City, will help the Senate reverse course. "Commissioners already have the authority to appoint a physician to be coroner if no one runs," Corey said. "So they already have this authority — so why subject this as a blanket on everyone?" Corey noted that commissioners also already have the authority to contract out with different county coroner offices if there's no elected coroner and the commission cannot find an in-county physician that wants to be appointed. "We don't really know what (problem) the House is trying and the Senate are trying to fix ... other than chipping away at other elected officials," Corey said. Corey said the idea is "wrought with potential problems," and speculated that coroners appointed by commissioners might be more beholden to those officials than they are to the public. He said appointees could also be fired at will, which would make it harder for a coroner to stand up to the commission in budget negotiations or other high-stakes situations. "We just think it's a horrible precedent," Corey said. Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, whose home county of Cuyahoga is one of two counties in the state where the position is already appointed following a local vote, told this outlet that she didn't like the sound of applying the idea to every coroner in the state. "You want the coroner to feel like they can have a lot of pressure on them," Antonio said. "If they're appointed, then it's almost like they have an affiliation to the person that appointed them." She said this could lead to undue influence. "I think we, probably in the long run, would be better off continuing to have them be elected," Antonio said. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
