According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 112 is projected to have a negative net impact of approximately $680,169 on General Revenue over the 2026–2027 biennium. The primary fiscal impact comes from establishing and operating the new Texas Science Park Commission within the Office of the Governor (OOG). The Commission would oversee the approval of Science Park Districts and would require 2.5 additional full-time employees (FTEs), including a General Counsel, a Program Specialist, and an Administrative Assistant. Their roles would involve administering, monitoring, and supporting the activities of the Commission, along with associated travel and operational costs.

The Office of the Governor would cover the Commission's administrative expenses from its existing budget, although the Commission could also receive gifts, grants, or donations to supplement its funding. These costs are expected to recur beyond the initial biennium, with approximately $335,000 to $344,000 in additional General Revenue expenditures projected for each subsequent fiscal year.

At the local government level, the fiscal impact is indeterminate. Science Park Districts would have the authority to issue bonds to finance infrastructure or development projects, but because the creation of specific districts, the amount of bonds issued, and the associated revenues and expenditures are unknown, no precise local fiscal impact can currently be estimated. Importantly, there is no anticipated fiscal impact on other local governmental units outside of the newly created districts.

While HB 112 is well-intentioned in seeking to strengthen Texas’s supply chains and promote technological innovation, it significantly expands the size and scope of government in ways that conflict with fundamental principles of limited government, free enterprise, and private property rights.

The bill authorizes the creation of new special-purpose governmental districts, adding to an already complex and often unaccountable landscape of local governmental entities in Texas. Even though it removes immediate taxing authority, these districts would still be able to issue bonds to finance projects, introducing indirect but real financial risks to taxpayers should projects underperform or default. Lawmakers who prioritize taxpayer protection should be wary of this hidden financial exposure.

Additionally, the bill grants districts broad authority to impose real property use restrictions, increasing the regulatory burden on landowners and businesses within their boundaries. This runs counter to the principle that government should protect, not complicate, private property rights​.

Philosophically, HB 112 contradicts core tenets of limited government and free markets. Rather than allowing private innovation ecosystems to grow organically, it proposes creating government-sponsored districts to facilitate economic development, setting a troubling precedent of government picking winners and losers under the guise of strategic growth.

Finally, Texas already has thousands of special-purpose districts, many of which have been criticized for a lack of transparency, financial risk, and administrative inefficiency. Adding a new category of districts without ironclad taxpayer protections, voter accountability, or regulatory limitations would exacerbate an already serious structural problem.

For these reasons — the expansion of government, financial risks to taxpayers, regulatory burdens, philosophical inconsistency, and the dangerous growth of special-purpose districts — Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 112.

• Individual Liberty: The bill gives science park districts the authority to impose new land use restrictions that can be more stringent than local ordinances. Although framed as promoting innovation and security, these restrictions could limit property owners' freedom to use and develop their land as they choose. Individuals operating businesses within district boundaries may face new compliance hurdles not imposed elsewhere, reducing their autonomy.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill does not directly interfere with or promote personal responsibility. It neither mandates individual behaviors nor shifts responsibility from individuals to the government explicitly. However, by expanding governmental involvement in economic development, it subtly shifts the state's posture away from individuals creating their own success independently toward state-facilitated innovation ecosystems, which some could argue indirectly undermines the ethic of self-reliance.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill intends to encourage scientific and technological enterprise, it risks distorting the free market. By creating government-facilitated districts for specific types of development, the government would essentially pick winners and losers, favoring certain industries, companies, or research sectors over others. True free enterprise thrives without government preferential structures. Districts could also crowd out purely private sector efforts by offering advantages available only inside the special districts.
• Private Property Rights: The bill poses a direct challenge to private property rights by allowing districts to enforce real property use restrictions. Even though the substitute bill removed eminent domain powers, property owners inside a district could still face new regulatory restrictions on how they can develop, use, or lease their land. These restrictions are not optional once inside the district boundaries and can limit otherwise lawful uses of property.
• Limited Government: The bill significantly expands the scope of government by creating a new class of local government entities with broad infrastructure, planning, regulatory, and bonding authority. Even though the temporary Texas Science Park Commission sunsets after two years, the science park districts would be permanent, introducing another layer of government into Texas's local governance system. Without strong built-in checks, this growth runs counter to the principle of maintaining ga overnment that is strictly limited to core essential functions.

• SB 2828 (Same As)