According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1882 is not expected to have any fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill introduces procedural requirements and temporal limitations on municipalities that seek to impose development moratoriums, but these changes do not necessitate additional state expenditures or administrative costs.

For local governments, the fiscal impact is also expected to be minimal. The LBB notes that no significant fiscal implication is anticipated for municipalities. While cities may incur some additional administrative costs related to hosting two public hearings and complying with expanded notice requirements, these activities are considered within the normal scope of municipal operations. The requirement to publish notices and conduct hearings may involve modest expenditures, but they are not substantial enough to be deemed significant under standard legislative fiscal analysis.

In summary, SB 1882 is a regulatory and procedural reform measure with negligible financial impact at both the state and local levels. Its primary effects are legal and administrative rather than budgetary.

SB 1882 presents a comprehensive reform of how municipalities in Texas may implement moratoriums on property development. As the bill analysis explains, the legislation aims to close procedural loopholes that previously allowed residential moratoriums to be enacted with fewer constraints than commercial ones. Under current law, municipalities can impose temporary development freezes with minimal notice and can indefinitely extend residential moratoriums without the detailed findings required for commercial moratoriums. SB 1882 eliminates this disparity by applying uniform standards across both residential and commercial property types.

The bill’s key reforms include requiring two public hearings (spaced at least 30 days apart), raising the vote threshold for moratorium adoption to two-thirds of the governing body, and limiting the duration of moratoriums to 90 days with a total cap of 180 days. It also mandates that municipalities demonstrate progress and justification before extending any moratorium and requires direct notice to interested parties via certified mail. These reforms are designed to increase transparency, protect due process for property owners, and discourage the misuse of moratoriums as de facto land-use regulation tools.

Given these changes, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1882. The bill promotes core liberty principles, including private property rights, limited government, and individual liberty, by ensuring municipalities cannot unilaterally suspend development without robust procedural safeguards and justification. Additionally, the bill has no significant fiscal impact on the state or local governments, further supporting its viability. With growing concerns about housing shortages and overreach in land-use regulations, SB 1882 offers a timely and balanced approach to preserving both local governance and property owners’ rights.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strengthens individual liberty by protecting the rights of landowners and developers against sudden, potentially arbitrary government-imposed restrictions on property development. By mandating advance notice, multiple public hearings, and stricter voting thresholds, the bill ensures that property owners have a meaningful opportunity to participate in local decisions that directly affect their land use. This greater procedural transparency curbs government overreach and supports individual autonomy.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill incentivizes municipalities to exercise foresight and engage in responsible, proactive planning rather than using development moratoriums as reactionary tools. By eliminating the ability to impose temporary moratoriums on short notice and requiring detailed justification and timelines for extensions, the bill encourages local governments to manage infrastructure, zoning, and growth issues through regular, accountable governance processes.
• Free Enterprise: By reducing the unpredictability and regulatory burden associated with moratoriums, the bill enhances the stability and confidence needed for business development. Developers and entrepreneurs are more likely to invest in communities where the rules are clear, fair, and not subject to abrupt suspension. The bill reduces the risk of politically motivated or anti-competitive delays in commercial and residential development, thereby promoting a freer market environment.
• Private Property Rights: This is where the bill has its strongest impact. It ensures that municipalities cannot curtail development rights without demonstrating clear necessity, providing affected parties with proper notice, and holding open hearings. Property owners have a right to use and develop their land, and this bill protects that right by making it harder for local governments to impose blanket restrictions without due process.
• Limited Government: The bill is a classic example of legislation aimed at restraining government overreach. It limits local governments' ability to impose long-term development freezes by introducing time caps, increased vote thresholds, and stricter procedural standards. These constraints preserve local autonomy while ensuring that governmental authority is exercised only with clear justification and accountability, in keeping with constitutional and limited-government principles.

• HB 2559 (Similar To)