Texas House Bill HB489

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/16/09
• Voted on by House: 5/17/09

Caption

Relating to the authority of a county or municipality to remove graffiti from private property at the owner's expense.

Impact

The enactment of HB 489 could significantly reform local government practices regarding graffiti management. By establishing a formal process for the removal of graffiti, local governments would be able to maintain public spaces' cleanliness and safety more efficiently. The bill alleviates potential delays in action that could occur if authorities relied solely on property owners to self-regulate their properties. However, this new authority may also result in increased financial burdens on property owners who do not comply with the removal request, raising concerns about individual property rights versus collective community interests.

Summary

House Bill 489, introduced by Representative Pickett, seeks to grant counties and municipalities the authority to mandate property owners to remove graffiti from their private properties at their own expense. This legislation aims to provide local governments with a clearer path to address graffiti, which can negatively affect community aesthetics and safety. Under the bill's provisions, if a property owner fails to remove the graffiti within seven days of receiving notice, the local authority can intervene and carry out the removal, subsequently charging the costs to the property owner. This legislative measure reflects an effort to empower local governments to manage and maintain public spaces more effectively.

Contention

While proponents of HB 489 argue that the bill empowers local authorities to tackle graffiti effectively, critics may view it as an overreach of governmental authority. Detractors might contend that property owners should not be penalized for graffiti, especially if the property has been vandalized without their consent. The balance between maintaining public spaces and protecting property owner rights could be a central point of contention in future discussions and interpretations of this law.