According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2012 is not expected to have any fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The bill does not establish any new state programs, require state expenditures, or alter state revenues. As such, it will not necessitate changes in state appropriations or staffing levels for any agencies or departments.

At the local level, the bill is likewise expected to have minimal fiscal impact. Although it grants certain counties expanded authority to regulate roadside and parking lot vendors and solicitors, this power is permissive rather than mandatory. The counties affected already possess the administrative frameworks to adopt local regulations, so implementing such rules under the expanded authority is unlikely to generate significant new costs. Any associated expenses could be absorbed within existing county budgets or offset through permitting fees or fines, should the counties choose to impose them.

In sum, HB 2012 provides additional regulatory discretion to local governments without imposing fiscal burdens on the state or significantly increasing local government costs.

HB 2012 expands the regulatory authority of certain county commissioners courts to govern roadside and parking lot vending and solicitation in unincorporated areas. Specifically, it enables counties with populations over 600,000 that are adjacent to counties with over four million people—most notably Montgomery County—to adopt local regulations affecting vendors, solicitors, and temporary structures in public rights-of-way or parking areas. While this bill is framed as a public safety measure, it raises substantial concerns related to liberty, overregulation, and economic opportunity.

First, the bill undermines recent legislative progress aimed at deregulating low-risk, informal commercial activity. In 2019, the Texas Legislature passed HB 234 to prevent local authorities from shutting down children's lemonade stands, which had become symbolic of government overreach into community-supported microenterprise. HB 2012 risks reversing that momentum by authorizing counties to impose broad regulations without clear limitations, exemptions, or definitions that would distinguish between large-scale roadside vendors and small-scale, low-impact operators—such as children selling lemonade or individuals raising funds for local causes.

Second, the bill grants broad discretion to local officials without procedural safeguards or substantive standards. This raises concerns about inconsistent application, potential abuse, and the stifling of grassroots entrepreneurship. For individuals who rely on roadside vending for supplemental income or to test small business ideas with minimal overhead, the expansion of county power could pose a barrier to economic mobility and self-sufficiency—especially in communities lacking other pathways to participate in commerce.

Third, the legislation could disproportionately impact marginalized or economically vulnerable populations who often depend on informal vending due to its accessibility. By allowing counties to restrict vending and solicitation in public spaces, HB 2012 may inadvertently criminalize or penalize activities that are lawful, peaceful, and socially accepted. Additionally, the lack of statutory guidance opens the door to uneven enforcement practices and conflicts with the principles of individual liberty and equal access to public space.

Finally, while the fiscal note confirms there are no significant costs to the state or local governments, this neutrality on budgetary impact does not negate the broader issue of expanding governmental control in areas where liberty and personal responsibility could be more appropriate guiding principles.

In sum, while the bill is rooted in local concerns about safety and order, it casts too wide a net and lacks the specificity necessary to ensure that it targets only truly harmful or hazardous activity. Without clear protections for harmless, small-scale vending and civic activity, HB 2012 risks reintroducing the very kind of petty regulation Texans have recently rejected. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2012.

• Individual Liberty: HB2012 authorizes counties to regulate roadside vendors and solicitors, which can intrude on individuals' rights to engage in lawful economic or expressive activity in public spaces. This includes selling goods, seeking donations, or engaging with the public—activities that often involve freedom of speech, assembly, and movement. Without specific exemptions or narrow tailoring, the bill enables local governments to suppress or burden these rights under the vague justification of “public safety,” potentially infringing on constitutionally protected liberties. For example, it could empower counties to restrict harmless actions like kids selling lemonade or residents fundraising for charities—liberties the state had previously moved to protect.
• Personal Responsibility: Rather than reinforcing a culture of self-regulation and civic responsibility, the bill places trust in top-down enforcement by local governments. Texans have shown a capacity to self-govern in matters like roadside vending through community norms, mutual respect, and existing legal tools against fraud or nuisance. By reintroducing regulatory controls, the state removes opportunities for individuals to exercise discretion, develop entrepreneurial skills, and be held accountable for their behavior in a more organic, community-driven way.
• Free Enterprise: The bill is a direct threat to low-barrier, entry-level entrepreneurship. Roadside and parking lot vending are often the first opportunities many Texans have to start a business, especially those from lower-income or immigrant communities. These ventures offer economic inclusion without the overhead or red tape of formal commercial spaces. HB 2012 allows local governments to impose new regulatory burdens that could disincentivize or even prohibit these ventures, limiting the ability of individuals to engage in commerce and compete in a free market.
• Private Property Rights: While the bill applies to public highways, roads, and parking lots, it may also have a chilling effect on adjacent private property activity. For example, a landowner near a public right-of-way might lease space to a vendor, only to be indirectly affected by new regulations that restrict adjacent activity. Further, when government restricts how public space is used without clear public harm, it undermines the notion that citizens have shared rights to access and use public resources—an extension of collective ownership principles.
• Limited Government: This is the principle most directly challenged by HB 2012. It expands government power without setting clear boundaries or accountability mechanisms. The bill gives a broader class of counties discretion to regulate without prescribing the scope, standards, or limits of such regulations. That ambiguity invites overreach and paves the way for uneven or punitive local ordinances that exceed what is necessary to protect public safety. It reflects a philosophy of "regulate first, justify later," in tension with a restrained, constitutionally grounded government.