Committee considers targeted incentives for middle‑income housing in Dallas and Tarrant counties
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senator Paxton laid out a committee substitute to House Bill 4,582 that would create a limited tool for cities and counties to stabilize costs for single-family manufactured-home communities aimed at households near the $60,000 income level; the substitute was discussed at length, public testimony occurred and the substitute was left pending.
Chairman Bettencourt introduced House Bill 4,582 and recognized Senate sponsor Senator Paxton to explain the committee substitute.
Senator Paxton said the substitute narrows the bill to apply only to Dallas and Tarrant counties and removes broadband from the infrastructure definition. He described the bill as a "strategic limited scope approach to easing the housing affordability crisis for middle income families" by providing an economic tool to cities and counties to support single-family, off-site manufactured-home communities intended for households earning around $60,000 a year.
Witness Craig Swanson of First Step Homes testified in support, describing the company’s communities as master-planned manufactured-home developments with municipal water/sewer connections and community amenities. Swanson said the model targets households making roughly $60,000 a year and that the communities are designed to offer front and back yards, HOA regulations and higher maintenance standards than typical manufactured-home parks.
Adam Haines of the Conference of Urban Counties testified that counties favor the bill so long as it remains a local option (a "may"), giving counties discretion over use. Committee members asked about county and municipal consultation, county impacts (Dallas County sought to review a version changed the morning of the hearing) and precedent for county-specific bills; Senator Paxton said he was open to amendments and noted the bill began as a shell, then was worked into a more specific May tool.
The chair then closed public testimony and left the committee substitute pending subject to call of the chair; there was no roll-call vote on the substitute at this hearing.