Texas Legislation Could Diminish Influence of Neighborhood Organizations Opposing Housing Developments

When a declining church suggested converting its property in an affluent South Austin area into housing for low-income families, local homeowners opposed the idea—urging the Austin City Council to stop the initiative.

Residents expressed concerns that the 64-unit development—located in a sought-after neighborhood just a block away from the South Congress shopping district—would clash with the existing single-family homes. They informed city officials that the complex would be excessively tall. Furthermore, they contended that the addition of new homes and a preschool planned for the site would congest neighborhood streets with traffic.

“Just because there is a developer willing to cram an absurdly out-of-scale project onto this site does not mean it’s the correct or best project for this property,” one resident wrote to city officials.

In previous years, their petition formally opposing the development—which was signed by 29 property owners—would have posed significant challenges, if not rendered it impossible, for the city council to approve the project. However, the proposed development progressed smoothly. A primary factor contributing to this was a new state law that complicates the ability of neighbors to halt new housing projects.

Among a series of bills enacted last year aimed at controlling the state’s housing expenses, House Bill 24 effectively dismantled a Jim Crow-era statute that provided considerable power to nearby property owners to obstruct the construction of new homes in their vicinity.

Texas is experiencing a significant shortage of housing, resulting in high home prices and rents as families vie for a limited number of homes and apartments. In response, lawmakers have primarily focused on addressing the housing crisis by relaxing local regulations and facilitating the construction of additional homes.

Among the various legislative measures, HB 24 is particularly noteworthy as it directly targets the opposition from current homeowners who frequently exert influence on local authorities to block the development of new homes in their vicinity.

HB 24 “takes down some of the barriers to development,” stated Jamee Jolly, CEO of The Real Estate Council.

Previously, under the old legislation, if a sufficient number of adjacent property owners formally opposed a project, the city council could only grant approval with a supermajority—a challenging requirement to meet. The mere possibility of a petition leading to such a vote in the city council was sufficient to discourage builders from seeking essential housing.

On occasion, homeowners have effectively opposed new housing initiatives. Two years prior, a proposed affordable housing project in San Antonio, which was promoted by Governor Greg Abbott, did not receive sufficient support from the City Council to proceed, as local residents utilized legal measures.

Under HB 24, a simple majority is now sufficient for passage of these efforts, regardless of the number of neighbors who may oppose them.

Currently, it remains uncertain how many developments have taken advantage of this legislation. However, housing advocates, researchers, and developers have indicated that it provides city councils with greater political flexibility to approve specific developments or implement more extensive, citywide zoning reforms to address the significant housing deficit in the state.

Past Cases & Future Developments

There is some contention regarding the extent to which HB 24 influenced the Rowen Vale case. Stallings attributes the law with neutralizing the opposition and facilitating the proposal’s passage. However, for the last four years, the Austin City Council has maintained a supermajority of members whom housing advocates classify as “pro-housing.”

Following a situation where a group of Austin homeowners utilized the previous law to persuade a judge to invalidate a citywide zoning plan aimed at increasing housing construction, Austin activists endeavored to elect a ‘pro-housing’ supermajority on the council capable of resisting challenges under the old law. Qadri suggested that the current council would likely have approved the development regardless. He noted that the law could prove beneficial if a less development-friendly council were to be elected in the future. Nonetheless, the alteration of the law may eliminate an obstacle to increased housing availability. Jolly remarked that developers and their financiers might now be more inclined to invest in projects that provide urgently needed housing.

With the new law in place, city councils throughout Texas also possess greater political flexibility to implement citywide zoning modifications that automatically permit an increase in housing across the board. Nevertheless, residents still have mechanisms to contest development in certain areas. In Dallas, a city ordinance permits property owners to postpone a zoning case by paying a $150 fee. Last year, the City Council deliberated on whether to abolish this provision but ultimately voted unanimously to retain it following feedback from residents.

The alternative approach involves applying significant pressure to render the support for additional housing politically undesirable for members of the city council. Residents in North Dallas have resisted city officials regarding several proposed high-rise developments in the area, successfully compelling a City Council member who endorsed one of the projects to refrain from running for reelection and threatening to initiate a recall against another.

To read more, click here.