According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the bill will have no fiscal impact on the State of Texas. This finding reflects the fact that the legislation does not create new obligations for state agencies, nor does it involve state-level funding, oversight, or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the bill focuses entirely on local regulatory authority, specifically expanding the power of certain counties along the Texas-Mexico border to regulate roadside vendors and solicitors.

Regarding local government impact, the LBB anticipates no significant fiscal implications to counties or other local units. Although the bill grants commissioners courts in qualifying counties additional authority to regulate specific commercial and solicitation activities in unincorporated areas, it does not require them to act or impose new mandates or expenditures. Any county choosing to adopt such regulations would do so voluntarily and would be responsible for enforcing them using existing personnel and resources. The bill's language offers discretion rather than obligation, thereby minimizing fiscal exposure.

In summary, the bill provides a permissive tool for local governments to address roadside commerce and solicitation in areas where safety or public order may be a concern, but it does so without compelling state or local spending. As a result, the bill is fiscally neutral across all levels of government.

While the stated intent of HB 2731 is to enhance public safety near high-traffic areas, the bill raises substantive concerns regarding its implications for individual liberty, economic opportunity, and local overreach. Roadside vending and solicitation often represent critical income streams for individuals operating outside formal employment channels, such as migrant workers, low-income entrepreneurs, and others in marginalized communities. By authorizing broader county control over these activities, the bill could unintentionally displace or criminalize informal commerce, erecting barriers for those already struggling to participate in the economy.

Furthermore, the bill expands local regulatory authority without requiring uniform standards or accountability measures, creating the risk of uneven enforcement and potential discriminatory practices. The removal of speed-limit limitations may also extend regulation to areas where safety risks are minimal, diluting the bill’s core justification and inviting concerns about government scope and proportionality. For lawmakers committed to defending individual liberty and small-scale economic freedom, this expansion of county power may be seen as an unnecessary intervention into consensual, low-impact activities occurring in public spaces.

Additionally, while the exemption for livestock sales is a nod to agricultural interests, it underscores a double standard: protections are afforded to one form of commerce but not others. This selective preservation of free enterprise runs counter to the principle of a level playing field for all lawful forms of economic activity.

Although public safety near roadways is a legitimate concern, HB 2731 risks undermining core liberty principles by enabling local governments to curtail economic freedoms without strong evidence of necessity or harm.  Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2731.

• Individual Liberty: The bill negatively impacts individual liberty by enabling counties to restrict where individuals may engage in legal economic activities, such as selling goods or soliciting donations, in public areas. While the aim is public safety, the expanded regulatory scope allows local governments to curtail otherwise lawful, peaceful behavior in unincorporated parts of the county. This potentially restricts individuals' ability to earn a living or advocate for causes in public forums, infringing on both economic and expressive freedoms.
• Personal Responsibility: There is a neutral to slightly negative impact on personal responsibility. On one hand, public safety regulations could be framed as promoting responsible behavior in high-traffic areas. However, by shifting responsibility for safety from individuals to the government, the bill reduces the expectation that vendors and solicitors must assess and manage their own risks in public spaces. Instead of empowering individuals to make their own choices with clear safety guidelines, the legislation empowers counties to prohibit or restrict those choices outright.
• Free Enterprise: The bill negatively affects free enterprise by granting counties expanded power to regulate or potentially restrict informal, low-barrier entrepreneurial activities. Roadside vending is a common entry point into commerce for individuals who may lack access to traditional retail environments. By allowing counties to regulate these activities more broadly and with fewer constraints (e.g., the removal of the speed-limit condition), the legislation may reduce the economic opportunities available to small vendors and create administrative hurdles that deter lawful enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: This bill does not directly affect private property rights, as it concerns activity in public spaces such as roadsides and parking lots. However, indirect effects could arise if restrictions on vending or solicitation near private businesses interfere with their freedom to host such activity on their adjacent property (if that property is within regulated areas). In general, though, the impact on this principle is minimal or neutral.
• Limited Government: The bill conflicts with the principle of limited government by expanding the authority of county commissioners' courts. It lowers the population threshold and eliminates limitations (such as the 40 mph road speed rule), thereby broadening the scope of regulatory power over economic and expressive activities. Rather than narrowly targeting specific safety hazards, the bill opens the door for more discretionary control, which could result in overregulation and reduced accountability at the local level.