Texas House Bill HB1729

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 5/9/11
• Introduced: 2/23/11
• Refer: 3/3/11
• Report Pass: 5/6/11

Caption

Relating to the sale of surplus leased land by a governmental entity to a private party.

Impact

This legislation alters existing procedures governing the sale of state-owned land. Particularly, it allows sales directly to lessees, ensuring that individuals who have already been using and maintaining the land can purchase it when it is deemed surplus. This shift in policy could significantly impact local economies as lessees become landowners, fostering community development and stability. Additionally, the bill contains numerous stipulations that detail the appraisal process, outlining how fair market value is to be determined and mandating multiple appraisals if necessary.

Summary

House Bill 1729 addresses the sale of surplus leased land by governmental entities to private parties. Specifically, it introduces a framework for governmental entities—including municipalities, counties, and state agencies—to sell land designated as surplus without requiring public notice or bids. Under the provisions outlined in this bill, lessees, or individuals leasing the land, are given first priority to purchase the land at fair market value. The bill aims to streamline the process for governmental entities to dispose of surplus property while ensuring that existing lessees have the opportunity to acquire the leased land.

Contention

Notably, there were concerns raised regarding the lack of transparency in these transactions, as the bill allows for sales without public bidding. Critics argue that this could lead to favoritism or misuse of governmental power by allowing preferential treatment in land sales. Furthermore, the provisions for bulk sales of leased land to a bulk purchaser—who may not have the same local ties as lessees—spark debates about local control and the degree to which land ownership should remain within the community. Advocates for the bill argue that it provides much-needed flexibility and efficiency in land transactions, while opponents see potential pitfalls in the impact on public oversight and equitable access.