According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HJR 72 is not anticipated to have any fiscal implications for the state, aside from the standard cost of publishing the resolution. The cost of this publication is estimated at $191,689, which is customary for placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot for voter approval.

Importantly, the resolution itself does not directly implement a tax exemption; rather, it authorizes the Legislature to create one through enabling legislation. As such, the passage of H.J.R. 72 alone does not result in any immediate revenue losses or gains for the state or local governments. The fiscal impact would instead be determined by the details and scope of the corresponding enabling legislation (in this case, HB 972), which would specify how the exemption is applied, who qualifies, and how local taxing authorities should administer it​.

From a local government perspective, the resolution is also considered fiscally neutral at this stage. There would be no expected change in local property tax revenue unless and until enabling legislation is enacted and implemented. The exemption, once authorized and enacted through statute, could reduce taxable property values in certain jurisdictions, but the actual impact would depend on the number of eligible households and property characteristics.

HJR 72 proposes a thoughtful constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to create a targeted property tax exemption for homes that serve as the primary residence of adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD), provided the homeowner is a close relative. This policy addresses a gap in current law: adults with IDD who rely on federal benefits like SSI or Medicaid often cannot have a home titled in their own name without jeopardizing that support. Families who purchase homes on their behalf currently do not qualify for the homestead exemption, despite providing the same type of care and housing stability. HJR 72 remedies this inequity without mandating any particular outcome—it merely authorizes the legislature to act.

The exemption, if implemented through enabling legislation, would mirror the general homestead exemption, currently $100,000 for school district taxation. It is narrowly tailored and does not expand government regulation or create criminal penalties. The fiscal note confirms no immediate impact to the state or local governments, aside from a standard publication cost, and any future fiscal effects would depend on specific legislative action​.

However, while supportive of the bill’s compassionate intent and narrowly defined scope, it is important to acknowledge a broader fiscal concern. Adding new property tax exemptions—even those with worthy objectives—can incrementally increase the tax burden on homeowners and businesses who do not qualify, especially in the absence of corresponding reductions in local government spending. As more exemptions are added, the tax base narrows, making structural reform and restraint in public expenditures even more critical to ensure equity and sustainability across the system.

In summary, HJR 72 advances individual liberty, supports family-based care, and offers local flexibility, all while maintaining legislative oversight. But it should be pursued with awareness of the long-term fiscal dynamics that accompany tax base erosion. Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HJR 72—ideally paired with a continued commitment to broader tax and spending reform.

• Individual Liberty: This resolution strengthens individual liberty by acknowledging the unique circumstances faced by adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD). It provides a pathway for them to live in stable housing situations without compromising eligibility for federal benefits. By authorizing tax relief for homes held in trust or owned by close family members, it helps preserve autonomy and dignity for individuals with IDD while easing financial burdens on their families. It’s a liberty-affirming measure that accommodates diverse family structures without coercion or new mandates.
• Personal Responsibility: The resolution supports families who take on the financial and caregiving responsibility of providing housing for adult relatives with disabilities. These are often parents or siblings who, rather than rely solely on government services, make long-term personal and financial commitments to care for loved ones. The exemption helps ease that burden, affirming a public policy that rewards personal initiative in caregiving, without expanding government-operated housing programs.
• Free Enterprise: The resolution doesn’t directly impact business or market activity, but by reducing tax liabilities for certain family households, it may provide indirect support for family economic stability. Still, it does not involve any new regulation or restriction on economic activity. Therefore, its effect on free enterprise is neutral but not contradictory to that principle.
• Private Property Rights: This measure enhances private property rights by extending homestead-like protections to homeowners who provide residences for relatives with disabilities. It recognizes that these homeowners functionally use the property as a primary residence for a dependent family member and should not be penalized under a narrow interpretation of ownership. By granting the legislature authority to equalize the tax treatment of these arrangements, the amendment reinforces fairness and ownership protection.
• Limited Government: The resolution is structured to respect limited government principles. It does not mandate new spending, create entitlements, or expand bureaucratic control—it simply grants the legislature permissive authority to enact a narrowly defined tax exemption. However, as you noted earlier, expanding exemptions without cutting spending elsewhere can incrementally shift tax burdens and undermine fiscal discipline. This is an important caveat: while the amendment itself is limited in scope, it should be implemented with care to avoid distorting the tax system or weakening the government’s commitment to efficient, limited spending.

• HB 972 (Enabled by)