HB 2673 seeks to repeal two subsections of the Health and Safety Code, Sections 711.008(g-3) and (g-4), that currently allow certain large counties and municipalities to authorize the establishment of new cemeteries within their jurisdiction. These subsections were added during the 88th Legislative Session to provide flexibility for communities to approve cemetery development on a case-by-case basis, so long as the proposed use does not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare. HB 2673 would eliminate these localized exceptions and reinstate a uniform, statewide prohibition on new cemeteries within one to five miles of a city, based on population size.
This bill does not grow the size or cost of government, nor does it impose new taxpayer burdens. According to the Legislative Budget Board, there is no anticipated fiscal impact on the state or significant cost to local governments. However, the bill’s policy implications raise several concerns regarding liberty, particularly as they relate to private property rights, free enterprise, and limited government.
The core issue with HB 2673 is that it removes discretion from local governments and property owners to make land-use decisions appropriate to their communities. By imposing a blanket prohibition, the bill increases the regulatory burden on individuals, religious institutions, and businesses that may wish to establish cemeteries to meet cultural, economic, or demographic needs in growing urban areas. It denies local elected bodies the opportunity to evaluate such proposals based on health and safety factors, criteria they are already empowered to apply under current law.
This shift toward uniform prohibition represents a move away from local control and toward increased centralized regulation. It undermines the principle of subsidiarity, the idea that decisions should be made at the most local level possible, and may conflict with the long-standing practice of tailoring land-use decisions to local circumstances. The bill also limits opportunities for free-market solutions in areas where the demand for burial space is increasing and where adjacent land may be suitable for cemetery use.
While the intent to preserve uniformity in land-use regulation may be understandable, the approach taken in this bill unnecessarily restricts local flexibility and increases the regulatory burden on communities and landowners without evidence of widespread harm caused by the current exception process. A more balanced approach would be to retain and improve the existing provisions by establishing clearer health and planning standards under which local approvals may occur.
For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2673 unless amended as described below. Meaningful amendments, such as preserving or refining local discretion to approve cemetery siting under transparent criteria, could make the legislation consistent with liberty principles. Until such amendments are adopted, opposition is warranted.
- Individual Liberty: While the bill does not directly infringe on personal freedoms such as speech or association, it does constrain the ability of individuals, particularly landowners, religious groups, and private citizens, to make decisions about land use for burial purposes. For communities where cemeteries carry religious or cultural significance, the removal of local discretion may indirectly limit their freedom to honor burial traditions in proximity to urban populations. The bill replaces a localized, consent-based process with a top-down prohibition, reducing options for those seeking to establish final resting places for their loved ones in familiar or faith-based settings.
- Personal Responsibility: This principle is not significantly affected. The bill does not discourage or promote personal responsibility in a clear way. It neither incentivizes independent decision-making nor removes consequences for individual actions.
- Free Enterprise: The bill restricts the ability of private entities, such as funeral homes, cemetery developers, or faith-based organizations, to respond to market demand for burial services within or near cities. By eliminating the local approval process, the bill cuts off a lawful and regulated avenue for private development, even in cases where the community supports such use. This restriction interferes with market entry and limits consumer choice in a sensitive and essential sector. Instead of allowing businesses to work with local governments and residents to meet burial needs, the bill imposes a rigid, statewide prohibition that may lead to higher costs and reduced availability in densely populated areas.
- Private Property Rights: Perhaps the most direct conflict lies with this principle. Under current law, landowners in certain counties can apply for local approval to establish a cemetery, and municipalities or counties can weigh health and planning considerations before granting permission. The bill eliminates this path entirely, even in cases where the use would be compatible with local plans and supported by the community. It limits how property owners may use their land, based not on local judgment but on a fixed, state-imposed distance from municipal boundaries. The bill substitutes uniform prohibition for context-based review, which erodes property rights and local land-use autonomy.
- Limited Government: While the bill does not increase the size or spending of government, it expands the reach of state-level regulation by revoking local authority. Currently, municipalities and counties have discretion to evaluate and approve cemetery applications under narrow, defined circumstances. The bill eliminates local control and replaces it with a blanket prohibition, even where local leaders and residents are in agreement. This consolidation of power at the state level contradicts the principle of limited government and undermines the role of local governance in land-use planning. It also reflects a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to respect the diversity of Texas communities and their needs.
