Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state.
DALLAS — For decades, Texas benefited from relatively low home prices and rents, a key component of the state’s ability to lure new residents and employers from more expensive parts of the country.
Now, Texas Republicans find themselves trying to rein in the state’s high housing costs — before it’s too late.
The state’s top Republicans have shown increasing alarm as high housing costs have put homeownership out-of-reach for an increasing number of Texas families, especially young ones. GOP leaders have pointed to figures from Texas Realtors that show the typical homebuyer is getting older. The median age of a Texas homebuyer was 48 in 2020. Last year, it was 58.
“Young people have been boxed out of the housing market,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said at a news conference earlier this month.
There’s political urgency for Republicans to deal with housing affordability. They are increasingly aware that Texans view the state’s high housing costs as a considerable problem. A poll last year showed some 90% of Texans view housing affordability as a problem where they live — an agreement that transcends party lines and whether people live in a big city, suburb or rural town.
“Broadly, Texans want to see something done about housing,” said Felicity Maxwell, who heads the advocacy group Texans for Housing. “They’re very concerned about the costs and impact that it’s having on their budgets. They want to see solutions, and they want to see change.”
The stakes are high. Buying or renting a home is still cheaper in Texas than in chief rival states like California and New York. The state’s comparatively low housing costs have been a chief ingredient in attracting new residents and employers over the past decade. But there’s fear that Texas could wind up in the same position as those states, worsening the state’s competitive advantage, if lawmakers don’t act to contain home prices and rents. That means making it possible to build enough homes to meet demand from new and existing residents, said Scott Norman, Texas Association of Builders CEO.
“People who are coming here have to live somewhere,” Norman said.
Texas faces a substantial shortage of homes. The state needs about 320,000 more homes than it has, according to an estimate from the housing advocacy group Up For Growth, a finding embraced last year by the comptroller’s office in an oft-cited report drawing attention to the state’s housing affordability woes.
Under Patrick, Senate Republicans have advanced bills aimed at making it easier to build smaller homes on smaller lots, additional dwelling units in the backyards of single-family homes and residences along commercial corridors and in vacant office buildings. In the House, Speaker Dustin Burrows wants to make it easier for homebuilders to obtain permits and more difficult for neighboring property owners to stop new homes from being built among his top priorities.
Republicans’ proposals to tackle housing affordability aren’t a sure thing.
Many of Republicans’ housing proposals target local rules that determine what kinds of homes can be built and where — a prospect that unnerves some Democrats, who for the past decade have opposed GOP efforts to prevent cities from enacting certain policies and see many GOP proposals to deal with the housing crisis as an extension of that yearslong campaign. But many Senate Democrats, though not all, voted for housing bills that have cleared the Senate so far. Whether House Democrats, who helped kill similar legislation two years ago, will embrace or reject these ideas remains to be seen.
It’s also unclear how sympathetic lawmakers will be toward neighborhood groups who have voiced opposition to the bills and may not want new homes built in or even near their neighborhoods.
Some of the legislation they’re pitching would only go so far. Texas has more than 1,200 cities, but GOP proposals to reduce lot sizes and allow residences to be built in more places would only apply to its 18 largest cities.
And Texas has a deep shortage of homes affordable for the state’s poorest families, but state lawmakers appear unlikely to put more funds toward building those kinds of homes — though the reforms that have caught on will still likely make those homes easier to build.
At the same time Republicans are trying to make it easier to build homes, they’re pursuing legislation that housing groups and tenants’ advocates say would make it easier for landlords to evict renters.
Even if Republicans manage to enact their housing agenda at the state level, that affordability push will undoubtedly be undercut by President Donald Trump’s immigration and trade agenda.
Tariffs on materials used to build homes threaten to drive up construction costs, resulting in higher prices for would-be homebuyers and renters. Trump enacted a 25% tariff on imported steel, used in the building of apartments. He’s also promised to enact higher levies on Canadian lumber used to build homes. Texas homebuilders tend to get their lumber from domestic sources, Norman said. But tariffs on Canadian lumber could increase competition for domestic lumber supply — driving up material prices and home prices as a result.
“It’ll be a shame if we get all these passed and whatever savings all these incremental changes make get eaten up by tariffs, which they could,” Norman said.
Texas Republicans have adopted a playbook similar to what other states like Montana, Florida, California and Oregon have enacted in recent years to try to rein in their housing costs, said Alex Armlovich, senior housing policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank. Enacting that playbook in Texas could help the state prevent housing costs from rising as high in the long run as they have in California, Armlovich said.
“Texas is starting early enough that you can avoid a lot of pain if you get moving now,” Armlovich said.
That agenda is popular with Texas voters, a recent poll conducted by YouGov and Texans for Housing found. A majority of registered voters support allowing smaller homes on smaller lots, poll results show. More than two-thirds of voters think it’s a good idea to make it easier to build accessory dwelling units, allow vacant office and commercial buildings to become homes and allow more homes in business and shopping districts.
For Republicans, such moves have the ideological appeal of reducing government regulations, unshackling the free market and boosting property rights.
Somewhat more urgent amid the state’s housing shortage is the idea of allowing homes to be built in more places — particularly in places where people already live, work and play.
“The bottom line is there’s no new land coming online,” state Sen. Bryan Hughes, a Mineola Republican behind some of the Senate’s efforts, said during floor debate on one of the bills. “It’s supply and demand. If there’s land ripe for development, for homes, for families, no government should stand in the way.”
There’s also frustration among Republicans, shared by at least some Democrats, that many cities, they perceive, haven’t done enough to contain housing costs, chiefly by allowing enough homes to be built, amid the state’s boom — and in some cases are actively trying to stop new homes from going up.
Senate lawmakers last month passed a bill to allow smaller homes on smaller lots by reducing the amount of land cities require single-family homes to sit on — at least in new subdivisions, not in existing neighborhoods. Senate Bill 15, a top Patrick priority, would bar cities from requiring homes in those subdivisions to sit on more than 1,400 square feet. In the state’s biggest cities, the most common lot-size requirements sit between 5,000 and 7,500 square feet, according to a Texas Tribune analysis.
Patrick has voiced frustration with such rules — which housing experts contend either force homebuyers to buy more land than they want, leaving them with higher housing costs, or help price them out altogether.
“Not everyone who starts out needs a home on a big lot with a lot of square footage,” Patrick said at the press conference. “And in a lot of communities, they’re stuck in that position.”
That impatience has surfaced as leaders of some cities testified in opposition to proposals that would take some land-use decisions out of their hands.
Ann Martin, the mayor pro tem of the North Texas suburb Flower Mound, testified against a bill in March that would allow houses of worship to build homes on land they own. The proposal would bypass local ordinances that say what religious organizations can do with their land and city councils that would have the final say in whether to rezone those properties to allow housing.
Martin said town leaders worry the bill would extend an unfair benefit to religious groups and that developers could unduly masquerade as religious organizations to build homes they wouldn’t otherwise be able to build.
State Rep. Gary Gates, a Richmond Republican who authored the bill, noted that the typical home in Flower Mound goes for about $600,000 — among the most expensive cities in the state, according to Zillow. (Rents in Flower Mound, too, are among the highest in Texas.)
“You have retail stores, you have fast food restaurants,” Gates said to Martin. “There’s employees there that earn $8, $10, $12 an hour…do you really want to force everyone that works and provides services for your residents to have to live outside that city?”
Not everyone who works those jobs commutes to Flower Mound from surrounding cities, Martin said; teenagers who live at home hold those jobs, too. The Flower Mound City Council recently approved a plan to allow 6,000 apartments to be built, she noted.
“It’s not that we don’t want apartments,” Martin said. “We just plan for them in zones where it makes sense.”
Some Democrats this year have shown discomfort with the state weighing in on what kinds of homes cities allow and where — a power the state grants to cities. They’ve also expressed concerns about measures in some of the bills that would allow residents to sue cities that don’t comply with state law should they pass. State Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, an Austin Democrat, said the bill to allow residences in commercial, retail and office areas constitutes “putting the big boot of the state on the necks of our local governments.”
But more than 60% of Texas voters surveyed by YouGov and Texans for Housing said preserving local control isn’t as important as allowing property owners to build more kinds of homes “to meet the needs of their community.”
Some Texas cities have made moves in recent years to remove barriers to housing construction. City Council members in Austin, which saw huge spikes in home prices and rents during the COVID-19 pandemic, enacted a series of reforms in recent years intended to boost supply and relieve housing pressure — like reducing lot-size rules, allowing up to three homes to be built in most places where previously only one was allowed and eliminating requirements that new homes be built with a certain amount of parking. At the same time, the Austin region experienced a massive apartment building boom — and as a result, rents have dipped for nearly two years.
But those moves were only possible owing to a major political realignment in Austin, housing advocates have said — accelerated by sky-high rents and home prices exceeding $500,000. Proponents of statewide zoning reform fear officials in other cities, fearful of potential backlash from existing homeowners, won’t take substantive action on housing unless costs get as bad as they did in Austin — though a majority of renters in the state’s major urban areas already spend too much of their paycheck on housing and home prices have grown beyond the reach of many families.
“I try to defer where I can to local control,” said state Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, who voted for the bills to reduce lot sizes and allow ADUs. “But there are some things I think that politically are impossible at the local level.”
Disclosure: Texas Association of Builders 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.
Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Assessment: Centrist
The content presents a balanced and fact-based exploration of Texas’ housing crisis, touching on various proposals from both Republican and Democratic perspectives. It highlights efforts from Texas Republicans to address the rising housing costs while showcasing differing opinions within the party and some discomfort from Democrats regarding state intervention in local zoning laws. The article provides direct quotes from both Republicans and Democrats, offering equal weight to their concerns and positions on the issue. Additionally, it references public polling data and housing expert opinions that reflect a variety of perspectives. This approach avoids clear ideological leanings, making the content centrist.
www.kxan.com – Adam Schwager – 2025-05-22 23:48:00
SUMMARY: The Texas Senate advanced an amended House Bill 2, allocating $8.5 billion in public school funding over two years, focusing on teacher support, school safety, and student opportunities. Key investments include $1.3 billion for basic costs, $850 million for special education overhaul, $430 million for safety, and a fully funded full-day pre-K program. Teacher raises totaling $4.2 billion prioritize experienced staff, expand incentive programs, and offer bonuses for rural teachers. While praised for historic funding, critics like Rep. James Talarico argue the bill was a backroom deal restricting local control, insufficient for inflation impacts, and neglecting newer teachers, demanding broader raises amid a large state surplus.
Texas senators approved House Bill 1393 to adopt permanent daylight saving time, eliminating biannual clock changes in both the Central and Mountain Time zones. The bill, introduced by Rep. Will Metcalf and sponsored in the Senate by Paul Bettencourt, designates the new time as “Texas Time” and now awaits Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature. However, it cannot take effect until federal law, the Uniform Time Act, changes. Texas joins 18 states pushing for permanent daylight saving time, supported federally by senators including Ted Cruz, Patty Murray, and Rick Scott. Some lawmakers caution that standard time better supports health by aligning with natural circadian rhythms.
Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state.
Texas lawmakers want to stop changing the clocks.
Texas senators approved House Bill 1393 on Thursday, which adopts permanent daylight saving time, doing away with the current practice of changing the clocks by an hour every spring and autumn.
Introduced by state Rep. Will Metcalf, a Republican from Conroe who introduced a similar bill during the last legislative session, the bill would eliminate the biannual clock changes for both parts of the state on Central Standard Time and on Mountain Standard Time. The law requires that this new time standard be referred to as “Texas Time.”
The bill now heads to Gov. Greg Abbott to be signed into law.
However, the bill cannot yet take effect because of a superseding federal law, the Uniform Time Act, that states that daylight saving time must begin and end on federally mandated dates.
“This is effectively a trigger bill waiting for change with the federal government,” state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Houston Republican who sponsored the bill, said before a Senate debate.
With the bill’s passage, Texas joins 18 other states that have adopted similar laws and there is interest to make the change at the federal level.
Last month, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz advocated for eliminating the time changes during a Senate committee hearing on commerce, science, and transportation.
U.S. Sens. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, and Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, also introduced a bill adopting permanent daylight saving time, the Sunshine Protection Act, earlier this year.
This would not be the first time the U.S. adopted permanent daylight saving time. The country experimented with the lack of time changes in the 1970s during the Nixon administration as a way to conserve energy. But the experiment, which was meant to last two years, ended early as public opinion soured on permanent daylight saving time over concerns that children heading to school in the darkness were more susceptible to traffic accidents.
While polling shows most Americans support eliminating the time changes, state Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, urged lawmakers to rethink their support for the bill, pointing to studies that show that standard time is healthier as it aligns with the body’s natural circadian rhythms, which regulate sleep-wake cycles.
Reporting in the Rio Grande Valley is supported in part by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc.
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!
The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
This article presents factual reporting on Texas lawmakers’ efforts to adopt permanent daylight saving time, referencing bipartisan support including Republicans and Democrats at both state and federal levels. It quotes legislators from both parties and provides historical context and scientific concerns without editorializing or promoting a partisan perspective. The tone remains neutral and informative, simply outlining the legislative process and viewpoints without framing the issue through a clear ideological lens. Therefore, the content maintains a balanced and centrist stance.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-22 17:02:00
The Texas House advanced two abortion-related bills previously passed by the Senate. SB 33, authored by Sen. Donna Campbell, bans taxpayer funds from supporting out-of-state abortion travel, targeting entities that provide logistical support for abortions. It allows lawsuits against violators to recover misused funds. SB 31, the Life of the Mother Act filed by Sen. Bryan Hughes, clarifies medical emergency exceptions to abortion bans, requiring uniformity and education on the topic. Texas bans elective abortions except to save the mother’s life. Since the Roe overturn, 157 medically necessary abortions occurred with no prosecutions of doctors, while illegal abortion facility operators face prosecution. The bans have reduced elective abortions by nearly 80,000 over two years.
(The Center Square) – The Texas House has advanced two abortion-related bills that already passed the Senate.
On Thursday, the House passed SB 33, filed by state Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, which bans taxpayer money from being used to assist with travel outside of Texas to have an abortion. The bill passed the House by a vote of 87-57. It passed the Senate in April by a vote of 22-9.
Campbell filed the bill after officials in Austin and San Antonio allocated millions of taxpayer funds for “abortion travel” in violation of state law, The Center Square reported.
“Currently, ‘abortion providers’ may no longer commit legal abortion within the state. Even if they did, cities would be prohibited from engaging in business with them. However, cities have found a way to use taxpayer money to support abortion while skirting the law. Instead, they are giving money to entities that aid or abet abortions in some form but are not directly abortion providers themselves. So far, Austin has directly spent money to this end while the San Antonio city council has repeatedly attempted this blatant misuse of Texan taxpayer funds. Other cities are likely to follow suit without legislation that prohibits such actions explicitly,” Campbell’s bill analysis explains.
The bill explicitly prohibits governmental transactions with abortion assistance entities to ensure that taxpayer funds aren’t used to indirectly support or facilitate out-of-state abortion services. It amends state to law to expand the definition of “abortion assistance entities” to include any organization or individual that “provides financial support, travel arrangements, childcare, or other logistical services that facilitate access to abortions.”
It also empowers the Office of the Attorney General, state residents, or individuals within a political subdivision to sue “any entity engaging in prohibited transactions, with provisions for recovering misused funds, court costs, and attorney’s fees.”
The author of Texas’ Heartbeat Act, state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, filed the Life of the Mother Act, SB 31, which unanimously passed the Senate in late April. State Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, filed companion legislation, HB 44, in the Texas House.
It passed the House Wednesday by a vote of 89-57 after a heated debate.
Despite Gov. Greg Abbott saying earlier this year that there was no need to amend the state’s Human Life Protection Act, state lawmakers advanced the bill.
Abbott signed the Human Life Protection Act into law in June 2021, which became effective after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022. Texas law prohibits all elective abortions of preborn children with the exception of saving the life of the mother. The law and other Texas abortion bans were challenged in court and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and Texas Supreme Court. Last May, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that doctors could use “reasonable medical judgment” when determining when a medical necessity justified performing an abortion. The Texas Medical Board also established rules and guidelines.
SB 31 “seeks to clarify existing medical emergency exceptions to otherwise prohibited abortions, which are spread throughout or implicated by multiple provisions in different codes, and provide uniformity among them.” It also establishes continuing medical education and continuing legal education courses about state abortion laws and the bill’s medical emergency exceptions, the bill analysis explains.
It revises state law “relating to exceptions to otherwise prohibited abortions based on a physician’s reasonable medical judgment,” which several Republicans argue creates a loophole to allow elective abortions.
SB 31 passed by a vote of 134-4 after heated debate. Four Republicans voting against it: Harrison; Hopper; Lowe; Pierson, according to an unofficial vote tally.
Seven Republicans voted “Present, not voting:” Holt; Money; Mr. Speaker; Olcott; Swanson; Tinderholt; Toth. Five members were absent and didn’t vote.
Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it.
According to the latest data published by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, zero elective abortions and 157 medically necessary abortions have been performed in Texas since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and Texas’ abortion ban went into effect in August 2022. This is up from 145 medically necessary abortions performed that were reported in March, The Center Square reported.
If an average of 2,852 abortions performed per month in the first six months of 2022 were to have continued, an estimated 79,856 elective abortions would have been reported by October 2024, based on the data. Meaning, Texas abortion bans reduced elective abortion by nearly 80,000 in a roughly two-year time span.
No doctor has been prosecuted, sued, or sanctioned for performing any of the medically necessary abortions reported to the state. Several people have been arrested and are being prosecuted for operating illegal abortion facilities, The Center Square reported. Elective abortions performed at these facilities were not reported to the state.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The article primarily reports on Texas state legislation related to abortion restrictions, focusing on bills proposed and passed by Republican lawmakers. The tone and language tend to emphasize the legal and procedural aspects of the legislation while framing certain actions, such as the use of taxpayer funds for abortion travel, in a negative light by highlighting terms like “blatant misuse.” It presents legislative outcomes and voting splits, noting Democratic and Republican positions, but the selection of details—such as underscoring the reduction in elective abortions and citing prosecutions of illegal abortion facilities—aligns with a perspective favoring abortion restrictions. While it does not use overtly partisan language, the framing highlights Republican efforts to restrict abortion access and portrays these efforts as effective and justified, which suggests a Center-Right bias rather than neutral reporting on the ideological stances of the involved parties alone.