Relating to solicitation by pedestrians.
Should the bill pass, it is set to take effect on September 1, 2025, allowing time for local governments and involved parties to adapt to these regulatory changes.
The proposed changes from HB 3084 could significantly affect local regulations regarding solicitation on roadways. The repeal of certain sections of the Texas Transportation Code, notably Sections 552.007(c) and 552.0071, indicates a streamlined approach that centralizes and clarifies regulations about pedestrian solicitation. This could lead to a more uniform enforcement of solicitation laws across the state, potentially simplifying compliance for individuals soliciting contributions. However, local governments will still retain the power to regulate charitable solicitation, which could foster a system where local jurisdictions can create unique policies that reflect their community's values and needs.
House Bill 3084 seeks to legislate the actions of pedestrians with regard to solicitation on roadways in Texas. The bill amends Section 552.007 of the Transportation Code, primarily focusing on prohibiting individuals from standing in roadways or right-of-ways to seek rides, contributions, employment, or business from vehicle occupants. One key exception to this prohibition is that individuals may still solicit charitable contributions, provided they have local authority authorization. This exception can allow for local control over charitable solicitation while imposing restrictions on other forms of solicitation that may create safety risks or traffic disruptions.
Some points of contention surrounding HB 3084 may arise from concerns regarding safety and public order versus the right to solicit. Advocates of the bill might argue that restricting solicitation in roadways is necessary to protect both pedestrians and drivers, reducing accidents caused by individuals waiting at the roadside. Conversely, opponents could raise concerns about the potential criminalization of poverty and the impact on individuals who rely on pedestrian solicitation for income. They may argue that a blanket ban on solicitation could disproportionately affect marginalized communities and limit their ability to raise funds or seek help.