Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 294 amends the Texas Local Government Code and Property Code to protect residential food production on single-family residential lots by prohibiting municipalities and property owners’ associations (POAs) from enforcing ordinances or restrictive covenants that outright ban growing fruits and vegetables, raising up to six domestic fowl (excluding roosters) or adult rabbits, or operating a cottage food production business as defined by the Texas Health and Safety Code. While municipalities and POAs may impose reasonable regulations related to sanitation, safety, odor, and noise, they cannot restrict these activities if they do not constitute a nuisance. The bill permits regulations on the size, location, and shielding of animal enclosures, mandates sanitary conditions, and limits the number of animals, while exempting condominiums and voiding any conflicting municipal ordinances or POA covenants. HB 294 takes effect on September 1, 2025.

HB 294 adds Section 202.025 to the Texas Property Code, restricting the authority of property owners’ associations (POAs) to prohibit certain types of food production activities on single-family residential lots. Specifically, the bill prevents POAs from adopting or enforcing restrictive covenants that would prohibit: (1) the growing of fruits and vegetables; (2) the raising or keeping of six or fewer domestic fowl or six or fewer adult rabbits; and (3) the operation of a cottage food production business, as defined under the Health and Safety Code.

While POAs would no longer be able to completely ban these activities, the bill allows them to impose “reasonable” requirements that serve to maintain safety, sanitation, and neighborhood aesthetics. These may include standards for the maintenance and visibility of gardens, distance requirements for animal shelters, limits on noise and odor, a ban on roosters, and minimum space requirements for animals. However, any restrictions must not have the effect of entirely prohibiting the protected activities.

The bill also clarifies that POAs retain authority over the design and placement of animal shelters and over the regulation of signage and traffic associated with cottage food operations. The provisions of the bill do not apply to condominium regimes governed by Chapters 81 or 82 of the Property Code, nor do they require POAs to permit these activities on common or association-owned property. Any existing or future restrictive covenant that conflicts with the provisions of Section 202.025 would be deemed void under this bill.

This legislation reflects a growing interest in protecting the rights of homeowners to produce food for personal or small-scale commercial purposes, particularly in the context of suburban or urban developments regulated by POAs. It balances property rights and community standards by preserving a POA’s ability to manage health and aesthetic concerns while removing their power to ban lawful food-related activities outright.

The originally filed version of HB 294 differed significantly from the Committee Substitute in scope and regulatory reach. The original bill sought to restrict both municipalities and property owners' associations (POAs) from prohibiting certain food production activities on single-family residential lots. In contrast, the committee substitute narrows the bill’s application by removing municipalities from its purview, thereby limiting the legislation solely to property owners' associations.

Under the originally filed version, municipalities would have been barred from enforcing ordinances that banned the growing of fruits and vegetables or the raising of up to six domestic fowl or adult rabbits. It also permitted them to adopt reasonable regulations—such as aesthetic maintenance and public health standards—without outright banning the activity. These municipal provisions were codified in a proposed new Subchapter Z, Chapter 217 of the Local Government Code.

By contrast, the Committee Substitute eliminates all reference to municipal authority and focuses entirely on Chapter 202 of the Property Code, which governs POAs. It preserves similar protections for homeowners—allowing gardening, small-scale animal keeping, and cottage food production—but excludes cities from any restrictions imposed by the bill. This change significantly narrows the policy impact and avoids potential conflicts with local zoning or health ordinances, likely a strategic choice to facilitate the bill’s passage.

Overall, the key change from the filed version to the committee substitute is the removal of municipal regulation language, streamlining the bill to address only private restrictions by property owners’ associations. This shift represents a move away from broader food sovereignty protections toward a more targeted focus on curbing private HOA overreach.

Author (4)

Philip Cortez

Erin Zwiener

Briscoe Cain

Don McLaughlin

Co-Author (1)

Steve Toth

Contact the Author

Rep. Philip Cortez

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0269

Capitol Office:

CAP 4N.3

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

The Legislative Budget Board (LBB) has determined that HB 294, as substituted in committee, would have no fiscal implication to the State of Texas. This assessment means the bill does not require new state expenditures, does not reduce state revenue, and does not necessitate new personnel or resources for enforcement or implementation at the state level.

Similarly, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated for local governments. Because the final version of the bill applies exclusively to property owners’ associations (POAs) and not to municipalities or counties, local governmental entities are not expected to incur compliance or enforcement costs. Any incidental increase in inquiries, legal clarifications, or administrative adjustments related to homeowners seeking to assert their rights under the bill would not generate significant financial burden.

In summary, HB 294 is fiscally neutral. It focuses on private land-use regulation by POAs rather than imposing new mandates on public agencies, and it does not trigger new government spending or revenue loss. This fiscal neutrality may contribute to the bill’s political viability, especially in a policy environment that favors low-cost legislative solutions.

Vote Recommendation Notes

As noted in the bill analysis, the legislation responds to a growing demand from Texans to engage in food production on their own property, an activity that supports health, self-sufficiency, and economic independence. The bill ensures that property owners’ associations (POAs) cannot impose blanket prohibitions on gardening, raising small numbers of domestic fowl or rabbits, or operating a cottage food production business. These protections uphold individuals’ rights to use their property for productive and peaceful purposes.

Importantly, the bill also strikes a careful balance by allowing POAs to adopt “reasonable requirements” related to safety, noise, sanitation, and visual aesthetics—ensuring that neighborhood integrity and communal standards can still be respected. These provisions demonstrate a tailored approach that restricts arbitrary or excessive POA control while preserving homeowner flexibility. The bill analysis further emphasizes that the legislation does not impose mandates on POAs to permit food production on common areas or shared property, ensuring respect for collective property rights.

The substitution of the original version of the bill with language that omits municipal regulation—a key difference highlighted in the analysis—strengthens its focus and avoids complications involving local governance or zoning issues. This adjustment helps maintain the bill's clarity, enforceability, and political feasibility by limiting its application strictly to POAs. Coupled with the Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note indicating no financial impact on the state or local governments, the bill presents a strong case for support from both liberty-minded and fiscally conservative perspectives.

In total, HB 294 promotes responsible self-governance, protects fundamental property rights, and avoids unnecessary government expansion—Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 294.

Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual freedom by preventing property owners' associations (POAs) from prohibiting homeowners from growing food or raising small animals for personal or limited commercial use. It recognizes the right of individuals to use their private property in ways that are peaceful, productive, and beneficial to their well-being, such as gardening, keeping a few rabbits or hens, or operating a cottage food business. By restricting overreach from private governing entities, the bill protects a basic form of self-determination and autonomy at the household level.
Personal Responsibility: By allowing residents to grow their own food or operate home-based food businesses, the bill encourages self-reliance and responsibility. Texans who wish to provide for their families through gardening, small-scale animal husbandry, or food preparation are empowered to do so without fear of undue interference from POAs. The legislation supports the ideal that individuals should be trusted—and encouraged—to manage their lives and resources responsibly, including contributing to their own food security.
Free Enterprise: The inclusion of protections for “cottage food production operations” directly supports small-scale entrepreneurship. Many Texans, especially in suburban and rural areas, rely on home-based food businesses as an entry point into the marketplace. The bill protects their ability to participate in lawful commerce from their homes without excessive restrictions that would otherwise prevent them from selling baked goods, canned jams, or other low-risk items. This enhances economic liberty and reduces regulatory barriers to enterprise at the community level.
Private Property Rights: This bill affirms the right of property owners to use their land in ways that do not infringe on others’ rights or create nuisances. POAs often enforce overly broad restrictions that undermine property owners’ control over their homes. By making these specific uses (gardening, limited animal keeping, cottage food production) protected from prohibition, the bill reasserts the principle that ownership includes meaningful use and control—so long as it respects health, safety, and community standards. It strikes a balance by still allowing POAs to regulate sanitation and aesthetics within reason
Limited Government: Although the bill does create a new statutory limitation on POAs, it does so in defense of individual rights, not to expand the scope of government intervention. It does not impose new programs, fees, or oversight mechanisms. In fact, the final version of the bill deliberately omits any restrictions on municipalities, limiting the reach of government even further. It focuses exclusively on private associations and does not create a role for state agencies in enforcement, thereby maintaining a minimalist approach consistent with limited government principles.

View Bill Text and Status