According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1802 will have no fiscal implication to the State of Texas is anticipated as a result of the bill’s implementation. This suggests that the bill does not impose new responsibilities or costs on state agencies that would require additional appropriations, administrative adjustments, or operational changes.

Similarly, the LBB reports no significant fiscal implication for units of local government. This means that cities, counties, or local housing authorities are not expected to bear enforcement or administrative costs associated with the expanded landlord duties established by the bill. Because the legislation modifies private contractual relationships between landlords and tenants—rather than creating new government programs or enforcement bodies—its fiscal footprint is minimal from a governmental budgeting perspective.

Although the bill could result in indirect economic effects—such as increased operating costs for landlords or shifts in rental market behavior—these are considered private sector impacts and do not factor into the official fiscal analysis provided by the state. Overall, SB 1802 is designed to enhance tenant protections without requiring state or local public expenditures.

SB 1802 seeks to address a gap in current Texas law by explicitly requiring landlords to maintain and repair accessibility features such as ramps, elevators, and handrails located within or around a tenant’s dwelling. While the bill is motivated by a desire to protect tenants—particularly those with mobility challenges—from unsafe living conditions, the approach taken presents significant policy concerns related to private property rights, regulatory burden, and the long-term impact on the housing market.

Most notably, SB 1802 expands the statutory obligations of landlords beyond existing law by adding new categories of required maintenance without offering offsetting protections or reasonable exemptions for property owners. Although the bill stops short of mandating alternative housing accommodations (instead authorizing landlords to provide them voluntarily), it still increases landlord liability by enlarging the scope of what must be maintained under threat of legal consequence. This represents a meaningful shift in the balance of landlord-tenant law and opens the door to increased litigation and enforcement pressure on housing providers.

While the bill does not expand the size of state government or require new taxpayer spending—as confirmed by the Legislative Budget Board—it does impose new regulatory expectations on private businesses. Small and independent landlords, particularly those managing aging infrastructure, may face disproportionately high compliance costs or legal exposure. These pressures can lead to reduced willingness to invest in or maintain older multi-unit housing stock, effectively undermining affordable housing availability and raising rent burdens on tenants.

Furthermore, the bill curtails the principle of freedom of contract by legislating maintenance responsibilities that could otherwise be negotiated privately between parties. This erosion of contractual autonomy may concern lawmakers who view private property rights as a cornerstone of Texas law. With no hardship exemption or clear threshold for what constitutes a landlord’s “reasonable ability” to make such repairs, the legislation risks penalizing landlords for conditions that may be outside their practical or financial control—especially in multi-family complexes or buildings with shared ownership structures.

In summary, while the underlying goal of ensuring accessibility is important, the structure of SB 1802 relies on a regulatory solution that risks long-term negative effects on housing supply, affordability, and private ownership rights. By expanding statutory duties and landlord liabilities without offering balanced protections or respecting the diversity of rental property arrangements in Texas, the bill imposes an unnecessary and overreaching mandate. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1802.

• Individual Liberty: The bill aims to strengthen individual liberty for tenants—particularly those with disabilities—by ensuring access to essential mobility infrastructure such as elevators and ramps. By making landlords legally responsible for maintaining these features, the bill seeks to protect tenants’ ability to live safely and independently. However, this gain for tenant liberty comes at the cost of restricting the liberty of property owners, who would face new state-mandated responsibilities not previously codified in law. The law compels action rather than enabling free negotiation between landlord and tenant, thereby shifting liberty from one party to another through government force.
• Personal Responsibility: The legislation reduces the principle of personal responsibility by transferring more responsibility from tenants to landlords, even for features that may not have been contractually guaranteed or are shared/common infrastructure. It removes flexibility from the lease agreement process and assumes that only the landlord bears responsibility for mobility-related issues, regardless of complexity or cost. This may disincentivize shared accountability and undermines the mutual obligation dynamic that responsible tenancy relies upon.
• Free Enterprise: SB 1802 imposes new compliance obligations on property owners, effectively raising the cost of doing business for landlords—especially small, independent, or low-income housing providers. These new liabilities may deter investment in certain types of rental properties (especially older buildings or multi-story units), reduce housing supply, or force rental price increases. All of this undermines free market principles by constraining entrepreneurial decision-making and discouraging competition through increased regulation.
• Private Property Rights: The bill significantly impacts private property rights by mandating how landlords must maintain and manage their property, regardless of what is stipulated in a private lease agreement. It introduces state-imposed obligations that override or constrain the rights of the property owner to determine the use, condition, or repair schedule of their own assets. Without meaningful carve-outs for hardship, third-party controlled infrastructure, or cost thresholds, the bill infringes on the foundational right to control one's property.
• Limited Government: Although the bill does not grow the size or budget of government, it expands the scope of state regulation over private contractual relationships. By codifying specific maintenance obligations and legal liabilities for landlords—where none previously existed—it increases state involvement in the day-to-day management of rental housing. It sets a precedent for further legislative intrusion into private landlord-tenant agreements, contrary to the principle that government should be restrained and only intervene when absolutely necessary.