Texas just neutralized a little-known law that allowed the voices of a few to govern the many, turning the democratic process of local governance on its head. Residents who live next to a proposed housing or commercial project can derail its development by using a valid petition, or “protest petitions” (as they’re commonly called).
Protest petitions allow residents to contest a development by forcing a supermajority of local elected leaders to need to vote in favor of the project for it to continue. Projects often fail to overcome that burden, effectively ending the project’s viability before anyone ever breaks ground.
Late last month, the Texas Legislature passed a bipartisan bill (Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill a few days later) that loosened the state’s valid petition law, known more commonly as the “Tyrant’s Veto.” Residents, predominantly NIMBYs (Not-In-My-Backyard; a national phenomenon of people who object to development occurring in their neighborhoods), use valid petitions to stop proposed projects from being built in their neighborhoods.
In Texas, if at least 20% of adjacent property owners within 200 feet oppose a proposed rezoning, which is often sought when redeveloping a property, their opposition becomes a valid petition. Once a formal petition is filed, the matter goes to the municipality’s elected leaders. Local leaders can still approve the rezoning but only by a three-fourths majority, instead of the usual simple majority.
HB 24 changes those thresholds to make it harder for NIMBYs to stifle development. HB 24, which goes into effect Sept. 1, raises the adjacent property owners’ opposition threshold from 20% to 60%. The bill also makes it easier for elected leaders to approve a project despite a valid petition. Only a simple majority would be required.
Overall, some 20 states still have protest petitions, according to Salim Furth—a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The tool was created by segregationists in the early 1900s to exclude unwanted groups from white and wealthy neighborhoods. NIMBYs use the tool today to keep unwanted projects out of their neighborhoods. NIMBYs oftentimes use protest petitions because they believe a proposed project will hurt their neighborhood’s character, decrease their property values, or adversely impact public safety or health—which is often not the case.
“Placing a supermajority threshold for the purposes of giving some members of the community an outsized voice to exclude people is, in my view, anti-democratic,” said San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg, who supported eliminating the supermajority rule.
Valid petitions in San Antonio and other cities have made it even harder for communities to address local housing shortages. NIMBYs have used valid petitions to stop several affordable housing projects statewide. The tool is particularly popular in Austin, considered by some to be the “NIMBY Capital of Texas.”
Not only do builders have to contend with what can oftentimes be arbitrary zoning laws, but thanks to protest petition laws, they must also overcome neighborhood opposition that could torpedo their project. If states want to address the housing shortages their communities face, neutralizing protest petitions is a great place to start. Neighbors are still welcome to express their opposition, but projects that could benefit many are no longer beholden to the complaints of a few. Instead, the balance of power is restored to the community—as a democracy is intended to run.
Tell Us About Your Case
The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest law firm. Our mission is to end widespread abuses of government power and secure the constitutional rights that allow all Americans to pursue their dreams. Through its Zoning Justice Project, IJ aims to protect and promote the freedom for Americans to use their property as they see fit. IJ has represented individuals who’ve faced ruinous fines or other punishment for using their property to house others, start small businesses, and/or address important public issues using private solutions. If you feel the government has abused your constitutional rights, tell us about your case. Visit https://ij.org/report-abuse/.
About the Institute for Justice
Through strategic litigation, training, communication, activism, legislative outreach, and research, the Institute for Justice advances a rule of law under which individuals can control their destinies as free and responsible members of society. IJ litigates to secure economic liberty, educational choice, private property rights, freedom of speech, and other vital individual liberties, and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government.