Texas House Bill HJR63

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/5/11
• Introduced: 1/12/11
• Voted on by House: 5/6/11
• Refer: 2/21/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/19/11
• Report Pass: 3/28/11
• Voted on by Senate: 5/23/11
• Engrossed: 5/6/11
• Sent toSOS: 5/26/11
• Refer: 5/9/11
• Report Pass: 5/19/11
• Enrolled: 5/24/11

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area.

Impact

The passage of HJR63 would significantly impact state laws related to municipal finance, specifically enabling counties greater authority to engage in debt financing for local improvement projects. This amendment would facilitate the financing and improvement of economically deprived regions, potentially leading to increased property values and enhanced community services. Notably, the mechanism for using future tax revenues as collateral for such bonds aligns with tax increment financing principles, promoting investment in designated areas.

Summary

HJR63 proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow the Texas legislature to authorize counties to issue bonds or notes for the purpose of financing the development or redevelopment of underdeveloped or blighted areas. Under this resolution, counties could pledge increases in property taxes collected from these areas as a means to repay the bonds or notes issued. The amendment seeks to address the issue of unproductive properties and areas needing revitalization, thus stimulating economic growth and community development.

Contention

While proponents of HJR63 advocate for its potential benefits in revitalizing underdeveloped areas, opposition may arise from concerns about fiscal responsibility and the long-term implications of relying on future tax revenues for immediate funding. Critics could argue that such practices may lead to an over-reliance on debt financing without adequate safeguards for taxpayers. Moreover, discussions around the amendment might also consider the equitable distribution of benefits and the risk of gentrification, where increased investments could displace existing residents.