Latest news with #TexasPublicPolicyFoundation
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
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
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas lawmakers push to regulate AI in government and the tech industry
With AI tools embedded in everyday life — from customer service chatbots and ChatGPT to predictive policing algorithms — Texas is seeking to place boundaries around the fast-growing technology by imposing a host of rules and appointing 'a new sheriff in Texas' digital town.' House Bill 149, authored by state Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, is Texas' attempt to create guardrails that allow innovation while protecting people from potential harm, said state Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, the bill's Senate sponsor, at a recent committee hearing. The bill would require government agencies to disclose when Texans are interacting with an AI system on a state agency website and ban the capture of biometric identifiers without consent — including retina, iris or facial scanning, fingerprints and voice prints. The bill also would prohibit industry from developing AI systems designed to manipulate human behavior and prohibit discrimination and deep fake child exploitation. The Texas Attorney General's office would be charged with enforcing the bill, aided by an online complaint system. Violators would face civil fines of up to $100,000. 'I don't think yet we really need to worry about a Terminator scenario of killer robots,' said Kevin Welch, president of EFF-Austin, a consumer advocacy group that advocates for the protection of digital rights. 'I would say it's important to focus on real harms, which is one thing I do really like about this bill. It focuses on real harms and not hypothetical sci-fi scenarios.' Supporters say the bill is a necessary first step to prevent harms like racial profiling, privacy violations, or opaque government decision-making. Critics have warned that the bill could stifle innovation and may introduce legal uncertainty if not tweaked to clarify certain language. David Dunmoyer, the campaign director for Better Tech for Tomorrow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a nonprofit research institute based in Austin, says the bill is about 'getting AI policy right before the whole horse is out of the barn,' which means getting the 'right guardrails and the right regulatory system in place that ensures we're not just preserving humanity, but advancing it and furthering it.' He said the bill focuses on outcomes by drawing clear boundaries around what AI should not be allowed to do and increasing transparency. 'Really it boils down to balancing the need for some policy and regulation around this to protect people's privacy and their transparency and the need to not stifle innovation,' said Sherri Greenberg, an AI expert and assistant dean for state and local government engagement at the UT-Austin. Greenberg added that the attorney general would have the authority to enforce AI regulations regardless of where the AI system is based. The bill would prohibit government agencies from using AI systems to assign 'social scores' or rank people based on personal data. In the private sector, developers would be prohibited from designing AI tools that incite self-harm, violence, or criminal behavior. The bill also would restrict the use of AI to limit a person's access to political content or infringe on freedom of expression or association. The bill would also create the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council, housed within the state Department of Information Resources. The 10-member advisory body would monitor AI use across state government, flag harmful practices, recommend legislative updates and identify rules that may be impacting innovation. For the AI industry, the bill creates a regulatory 'sandbox,' a controlled environment where developers can test AI systems free from certain state rules without being penalized. Lawmakers have said the sandbox is designed to balance technological freedom with public oversight. The bill has already cleared the lower chamber and was voted out of the Senate Business & Commerce Committee earlier this week. The next step in the legislative process is a vote by the full Senate. If approved, the bill would come with a $25 million price tag and add 20 new full-time staff positions, including 12 in the AG's office. Even if the law passes, its impact could be short-lived if Congress steps in. A recent draft of the 2025 federal budget reconciliation bill would put a 10-year moratorium on new state AI laws, which could freeze bills like HB 149 before they take effect. HB 149, if it becomes law, would take effect on Jan. 1. Dunmoyer, who testified in support of the bill at a recent hearing, said that the bill addresses industry's concern of getting punished for trying to innovate. 'This bill seeks an environment of compliance rather than punishment,' he said, adding that the bill 'provides what the industry has asked for, which is clear rules of the road and protection against a litigious hellscape.' While the bill offers some flexibility for industry to address potential harms, Welch, president of the consumer advocacy group EFF-Austin, said the bill prohibits private right of action, meaning it blocks citizens from suing companies that violate their rights through AI. 'I feel like [these laws] often end up as being a lot of nice words and sentiments, but the actual rights of citizens aren't protected,' he said. 'I do feel that if we really want to give these laws teeth, we have to make it where citizens can bring lawsuits.' Dunmoyer said that the bill creates a new online portal where Texans can submit complaints to the attorney general, who he calls 'a new sheriff in Texas' digital town,' to investigate potential violations. Meanwhile, Anton Dahbura, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Assured Autonomy, said regulating AI is far more complicated than lawmakers seem to realize. He argues that AI isn't a single, well-defined entity, it's really a broad and evolving field of technologies and techniques. This misunderstanding, he warns, leads to misguided attempts at regulation that may not be enforceable or effective. Dahbura remains neutral on whether AI should be regulated, but he stresses that any such efforts need to be informed and precise. He suggests that regulation should focus on outcomes — holding people accountable for harm or illegal actions regardless of the tools used — instead of trying to legislate the technology itself. Dahbura said he also sees a problematic narrative forming around AI as a threat that must be neutralized, likening it to a "pitchforks and torches" approach. 'It feels a little bit like people are marching up the hill to get the bad guy that is AI,' he said. 'And if they corner the bad guy, then everything is great.' The risk of taking regulations too far, he added, is placing unnecessary and ill-conceived burdens on the industry, potentially stifling innovation without offering real protections for people. Lawmakers have created other advisory bodies aimed at studying the impacts of AI. In 2023, the state approved a bill that created an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council within the Department of Information Resources to study how AI systems are used in state government, whether they infringe on legal or constitutional rights and recommending ethical guidelines. That council was disbanded after submitting its report to lawmakers in December 2024. A separate AI and Emerging Technologies Select Committee also made recommendations such as requiring state agencies to audit their AI systems annually, provide state employees with training on AI ethics and data privacy and the formation of an AI sandbox. This recommendation led to HB 149's sandbox program. A major concern raised during initial hearings was the deceptive potential of AI — from cloned voices to deepfakes — and how such technologies could undermine democracy and public trust. By mid-2024, agencies were required to report their AI activities to the advisory council, whose findings informed this year's legislation. Capriglione, who also championed HB 4, the state's landmark data privacy law, played a central role. Alongside Sen. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, they held meetings with experts in AI, consumer advocacy and technology to figure out what responsible AI governance should look like in Texas. Out of these meetings came a bill by Parker focused on regulating AI within government agencies and Capriglione's first attempt to regulate AI in the private sector. Capriglione's original proposal, HB 1709 — also known as the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act — focused on regulating AI in health care, employment, and finance. It was modeled after the European Union's AI Act. But the tech industry pushed back, calling it too broad and burdensome. 'Regulating AI in industry is a more difficult proposition,' said Greenberg, the UT-Austin AI expert. 'You may get pushback from industry saying that this is going to put us behind or stifle innovation.' The bill never made it to a House committee. Capriglione came back with HB 149. Across the country, nearly every state in the country introduced legislation related to AI this year, while others already have laws on the books. Texas carefully studied Colorado's AI law, which was signed into law this month and targets AI systems used in decisions related to education, employment, financial services, government services, health care, housing, insurance, or legal services. The bill aims to prevent discrimination based on protected characteristics like age, race or gender. Texas lawmakers are also considering other AI-related bills during this legislative session, which ends June 2. One would require that political advertisements disclose whether images, audio, or video have been substantially altered using AI. Another bill seeks to prohibit AI-generated child pornography. Disclosure: The Texas Public Policy Foundation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Forbes
21-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
2025 Could Be The Year Texas Ends Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying
View of the Texas Capitol from outside the ornate iron fence With two weeks to go in the biennial session of the Texas Legislature, lawmakers in Austin still have much remaining business to tend to. Governor Greg Abbott (R) and many legislators, however, have already accomplished their top priority for the session by enacting legislation, which Governor Abbott signed last week, creating an education savings account (ESA) program that will provide an estimated 100,000 children with school choice next year. The Texas Senate has passed school choice legislation multiple times over the past six years, only to see it die in the House. School choice, however, isn't the only marquee conservative reform that might finally get to Governor Abbott's desk this year after being stymied in the Texas House for the better part of a decade, but that depends on whether Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) and his colleagues can get Senate Bill 19 to Governor Abbott's desk before adjourning session on June 2. Senate Bill 19, which the Texas Senate passed in March and is now awaiting consideration in the House State Affairs Committee, would bar local governments from using taxpayer dollars to hire contract lobbyists. According to research from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an Austin-based think tank, local governments across the state spent $98.6 million on lobbyists in 2023, up from $75 million in 2021. 'Up to $100 million per year of Texan's tax dollars are used to hire Austin lobbyists that then lobby against taxpayers and parents,' says Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), author of SB 19. 'This is waste, fraud, and abuse.' Beyond the considerable sum of local tax dollars going toward lobbyists, SB 19 proponents point out that taxpayer-funded lobbyists frequently advocate against the interests of taxpayers. Contract lobbyists for local governments, for example, have been some of the most vocal opponents of property tax relief and legislation that would require more conservative budgeting at the local level. Senator Middleton notes that opposition to tax relief and government spending restraint are not the only ways in which taxpayer dollars are used to lobby against taxpayer interests. Middleton points out how local governments also pay contract lobbyists to oppose school choice, defeat proposals to enhance border security, and stop legislation that seeks to remove woke ideology from government-run schools. In addition to highlighting how local governments hire lobbyists to advocate against the interests of taxpayers, SB 19 proponents also challenge their opposition to name a single instance in which local governments hired a firm to lobby in favor of a tax cut. This author contacted the Texas Municipal League and the Texas Association of Counties, the top opponents of SB 19, asking if they could point to an example of when local government-hired lobbyists advocated for a tax cut. They have yet to provide such an example, but this article will be updated if that changes. Polling shows that SB 19 would prove to be a politically popular policy change. A poll released by Texas Public Policy Foundation in February found that more than 80% support prohibition of taxpayer-funded lobbying. 'The overwhelming majority of Texans oppose using tax dollars to fund lobbyists,' TPPF noted in its release on the findings of the February poll. 'More than four out of five registered voters oppose it with just 7% saying they approve.' 'We don't need an Austin lobbyist middleman between state and local elected officials,' Senator Middleton adds. 'We are elected to represent our constituents directly.' Though it doesn't match the amounts spent in Texas, local tax dollars are spent on contract lobbyists in many other states, both blue and red. Lawmakers in Tennessee and Florida have also expressed interest in stamping out taxpayer-funded lobbying. Should Texas become the first state to do so, it likely won't be long before legislation like SB 19 is filed in other state capitals.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sen. Cruz to introduce school choice bill
Sen. Ted Cruz will introduce a school choice bill Tuesday, according to Cruz's office, that would encourage donations for scholarships to K-12 public or private school students. The bill, which he has titled the Universal School Choice Act, would allow for $10 billion annually in federal tax credits for people and businesses that contribute to nonprofits that grant scholarships to elementary and secondary school students. 'School choice is the civil rights issue of the 21st century,' Cruz wrote in a news release. 'Every child in America deserves access to a quality education that meets their individual needs, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, or zip code. I remain committed to leading this fight until universal school choice has become available to every American, and I call upon my colleagues to expeditiously take up and advance this legislation.' The scholarships could be used for tuition, books, tutoring, dual enrollment and other school-related expenses. The funds could be used for expenses related to attending religious schools and home schooling, but not for payments to family members of the student. Tax credits reduce the amount of tax owed and go beyond tax deductions, which reduce the amount of income subject to tax. School choice has become a leading Republican policy push in recent years as the party has emphasized parent's rights in K-12 education by advocating for initiatives on topics such as LGBTQ+ rights, religion, COVID-19 shutdowns and the content of children's books. Texas became the latest state to offer publicly funded vouchers to pay for private school tuitions this year after a yearslong battle in the state legislature. Supporters of voucher programs say they increase opportunities for families to choose what type of schooling their children should receive, with less financial limitations. Critics of the Texas voucher program argued that the funding should instead be spent on improving public schools in Texas. The Texas Public Policy Foundation, an Austin-based conservative think tank that pushed for the Texas voucher program, has endorsed Cruz's bill. Disclosure: Texas Public Policy Foundation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Forbes
19-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Texas Reform Would Give More Voters A Say On Costly Ballot Measures
Texas State Capitol building in Austin Small slivers of the population in cities, towns, and counties across the U.S., nearly every spring, are able to saddle their fellow residents with millions and in some cases billions of dollars worth of new tax and spending obligation. Senate Bill 1209, which the Texas Senate recently passed, would put an end to this problem in the nation's second largest state by population size, ensuring that new taxpayer commitments are no longer made without input from most of the electorate. SB 1209, introduced by Senator Bryan Hughes (R), would require that all local bond measures authorizing new public debt obligations only be placed on the November general election ballot. Currently, local governments in Texas are able to put bond measures on the ballot in May and November. James Quintero, vice president at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, points to the low turnout witnessed in local elections earlier this month as the most recent example of the problem SB 1209 is seeking to solve. 'In some of Texas' largest, costliest bond elections, voter turnout was anemic, meaning that a tiny fraction of Texans obligated every one of their neighbors to new debt and higher taxes,' notes Quintero. 'This is not a good way to make big, important decisions.' SB 1209, which the Texas Senate passed in late April, is now awaiting consideration in the Texas House. The current legislative session adjourns on June 2. 'Bond elections are best decided when the most number of voters participate in the decision-making process,' adds Quintero. 'Something so obvious should prompt local governments to limit holding their bond elections to the uniform election date in November—and that's it.' SB 1209, should the Texas House send it to Governor Greg Abbott's desk (R), could be a model that state legislators elsewhere seek to implement. That's because the problem SB 1209 would solve is not unique to Texas. There are plenty of examples from other states of local bond and tax measures that have been approved in special elections or primary elections in which turnout is much lower than in November. In North Carolina, for example, two proposed sales tax hikes that the residents of Guilford County were asked to vote on in the two most recent election cycles demonstrate how there is need for SB 1209-style reforms in other states. Guilford County voters rejected those proposed sales tax hike in 2022 and again in 2024. The 2022 sales tax hike, however, was placed on the May ballot, while the 2024 sales tax hike appeared on the November general election ballot. While Guilford County voters rejected both proposed sales tax hikes, the difference in the share of the community that weighed in on those similar proposals helps explain why many want to see such measures only be put to voters in November general elections. In 2024, 265,930 of Guilford County voters cast ballots on the proposed sales tax hike, with 59% of them rejecting it. Only 74,880 people, however, voted on the 2022 sales tax hike, with 54% of them opposing it. While the 106,860 votes cast in favor of the 2024 sales tax hike were insufficient for passage last year, it would've taken only 37,441 Yes votes to approve the 2022 sales tax hike. Put another way, it would've taken support from less than 7% of Guilford County residents to pass the 2022 sales tax hike, while the 2024 sales tax increase would've needed support from nearly 25% of county residents in order to pass. As these recent Guilford County sales tax hikes demonstrate, placing measures on a lower turnout spring election permits a much smaller share of the community to saddle everyone with new debt and tax obligations. In addition to SB 1209, which would increase voter input on costly ballot measures, Texas lawmakers are also considering a proposal to provide greater truth in advertising when it comes to bond measures. Senate Bill 414, introduced by Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) would require all bond measures appearing on the ballot to inform voters about not only the amount of new debt to be authorized, but also the total interest costs that taxpayers will be paying off. Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (TFR) is among the organizations urging the Texas House to pass SB 414, touting it as a reform that 'promotes honesty, limits waste, and helps prevent unnecessary debt and tax hikes.' 'SB 414 makes local bond elections more transparent by requiring ballots to show the full cost of the debt—including interest—rather than just the principal,' TFR explained in their April 3 vote notice. 'It also mandates a voter information document that shows how much debt a local government already has and estimates how much taxes would go up on a $100,000 home. This prevents misleading bond proposals and gives taxpayers the tools they need to make informed decisions. The Texas House has two weeks to send SB 1209 to Governor Abbott's desk. Just as governors and lawmakers in states across the country are seeking to match Texas's lack of an income tax, other states are likely to follow the Lone Star State's lead in requiring election uniformity for bond measures and other important decisions.
