According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 74 is not expected to have a fiscal impact on the state budget. There are no state expenditures or revenues directly associated with the creation or operation of the Puerto Verde Port Authority District as outlined in the introduced version of the bill.

However, the fiscal implications for local government, specifically the newly created district, are indeterminate. This is due to the bill's provisions granting the district broad discretionary powers, including the ability to issue bonds, impose assessments, collect fees, and levy taxes. The financial outcomes will depend heavily on how and when these powers are exercised. For example, issuing bonds could create long-term debt obligations, while assessments and taxes could generate revenues that offset those costs. These decisions are contingent on the future actions of the district’s board and cannot be predicted with certainty at the time of the bill’s passage.

Additionally, while the bill grants limited eminent domain authority, the fiscal impact of potential land acquisitions, whether through purchase or condemnation, cannot be calculated without knowing the scale or frequency of such activities. There is also no expected financial effect on other local governmental entities, as the district operates independently and does not encroach on the authority or revenue streams of existing political subdivisions.

In sum, HB 74 carries potentially significant fiscal consequences at the local level, but those effects remain speculative and highly dependent on implementation decisions by the district’s governing body.

HB 74 proposes the creation of the Puerto Verde Port Authority District in Maverick County to oversee a large binational infrastructure project, including an international bridge, logistics and trade facilities, and commercial development. The bill empowers the district to levy taxes, impose assessments and fees, issue bonds, and—if passed by a two-thirds majority—exercise the power of eminent domain. While the stated purpose is to support regional economic development and cross-border trade, the bill raises substantial concerns regarding the unchecked expansion of government power and its impact on core liberty principles.

First, the bill significantly expands the size and scope of government by creating a permanent special-purpose district with broad and ongoing authority. The district would function independently of existing city or county government, and its powers would not sunset or be subject to regular review. This represents a structural shift in how local infrastructure and commerce might be governed, without corresponding mechanisms to ensure accountability or transparency to the broader public.

Second, HB 74 introduces the potential for increased tax burdens and public debt. The district would be able to impose property taxes, collect operational and maintenance fees, and issue bonds—tools that could result in higher costs for residents and businesses within the district. The bill does not require direct voter approval for these financial mechanisms, which places substantial fiscal authority in the hands of a small, unelected, or semi-autonomous governing board.

Third, and most critically, the bill authorizes the use of eminent domain, contingent on a supermajority vote in both chambers. Even when limited, the granting of such power to a nontraditional government entity raises serious concerns about private property rights. The potential for taking land, possibly for development partnerships with private actors, without sufficient protections for landowners, is a red flag for those who support strong constitutional property protections.

Additionally, the bill could lead to a greater regulatory burden on individuals and businesses operating in the district. With powers over infrastructure, land use, and public services, the district could impose zoning restrictions, access controls, and operational rules that disrupt free enterprise and add costs or red tape for private actors, particularly small businesses or landowners.

Finally, the absence of meaningful checks and balances—such as sunset clauses, fiscal oversight from state agencies, or requirements for public approval of tax or debt instruments—means the district could continue to grow in power and scope without adequate public scrutiny. This lack of accountability runs counter to principles of limited government and democratic control over taxing authorities.

For these reasons, HB 74 is not aligned with the principles of individual liberty, private property rights, limited government, or fiscal restraint. The creation of a powerful local authority with taxing, regulatory, and eminent domain powers, without the proper safeguards, represents a long-term risk to citizens and landowners in the district. Accordingly, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 74.

• Individual Liberty: The bill authorizes a new government entity with the power to regulate land use, collect taxes, and impose fees. These powers, if exercised without strict oversight or consent mechanisms, can restrict individuals’ control over their property and financial obligations. Most notably, the bill includes a provision for eminent domain, allowing the district to forcibly take private land for public use. Even if intended for infrastructure, this represents a direct infringement on personal freedom and autonomy, especially if land is condemned for projects benefiting private or quasi-public interests.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill does not directly undermine the concept of personal responsibility, it could indirectly do so by substituting top-down governance for bottom-up community-driven development. By centralizing authority in a special-purpose district, the bill shifts decision-making away from individual property owners, local voters, and traditional elected officials. This reduces the role of individual initiative and self-governance in shaping community growth, especially when taxing and regulatory decisions are made without direct accountability to those most affected.
• Free Enterprise: The bill purports to support economic development, but it does so by creating a government-backed district with broad financial and regulatory powers. This opens the door to market distortion, especially if the district provides infrastructure or incentives that favor certain businesses or developers over others. The ability to issue bonds, levy taxes, and use eminent domain to assemble land for commercial projects may crowd out private investment and tilt the playing field away from open competition and toward politically favored entities or public-private partnerships.
• Private Property Rights: The bill's most concerning feature from a property rights standpoint is its conditional grant of eminent domain authority. Even though this power is only activated if the bill receives a two-thirds vote, its inclusion reflects a willingness to subordinate private ownership to state interests. The power to condemn land for infrastructure like railways or logistics hubs, particularly if later leased or used by private companies, raises strong concerns about the erosion of the constitutional right to just compensation and fair process in property transfers.
• Limited Government: The bill expands government by creating a permanent special-purpose district with independent taxing, borrowing, and regulatory authority. It functions as a new layer of government with limited direct voter control. The absence of sunset provisions, mandatory fiscal oversight, or voter approval requirements for bonds or taxes allows the district to operate indefinitely and expand its scope without meaningful constraints. This is a clear departure from the principle that government should be limited, narrowly tailored, and accountable to the people.