Dear Senator Bettencourt,
I am compelled to issue this statement of opposition to your proposed Senate Bill 1567 denying a city's ability to restrict housing occupancy based on familial status.
I understand you are trying to address a severe housing crisis in Texas, and I applaud your goal. Unfortunately, SB1567 is not the way to accomplish this goal, and if passed, will have disastrous consequences for the great state of Texas and the city of College Station.
Your bill would likely compel cities to default to state laws on occupancy, thusly paving the way for up to 3 adults per bedroom in a dwelling as spelled out in the property code, 92.010.
This would allow up to 9 people to reside in a 3 bedroom single family residence, and up to 12 people in a 4 bedroom. The only meaningful restriction on this inordinate level of over-occupancy would be under a health and safety code. But, it is possible to safely house 12 adults in a 4 bedroom home within the structure, while causing an unsafe situation outside it.
Here in the city of College Station, our neighborhood streets, and likely our water and wastewater infrastructure, are simply not designed to accommodate that level of overcrowding.
We have taken steps in College Station to allow much higher density in areas that can accommodate it, having in recent years rezoned some 1500 lots to a High Occupancy Overlay or HOO. We took this unprecedented step to allow structures with 4 and more than 4 bedrooms to be retroactively compliant with our local ordinances in those areas deemed not to encroach upon the neighborhood integrity of single family neighborhoods.
As a common sense conservative that cares deeply about my city, I harbor deep concerns about SB1567 but I simultaneously applaud your goal. Unfortunately, this bill is not the way to accomplish it, sir.
With Utmost Respect,
Bob Yancy '95
Councilman Place 5
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB1567/id/3137983
I am compelled to issue this statement of opposition to your proposed Senate Bill 1567 denying a city's ability to restrict housing occupancy based on familial status.
I understand you are trying to address a severe housing crisis in Texas, and I applaud your goal. Unfortunately, SB1567 is not the way to accomplish this goal, and if passed, will have disastrous consequences for the great state of Texas and the city of College Station.
Your bill would likely compel cities to default to state laws on occupancy, thusly paving the way for up to 3 adults per bedroom in a dwelling as spelled out in the property code, 92.010.
This would allow up to 9 people to reside in a 3 bedroom single family residence, and up to 12 people in a 4 bedroom. The only meaningful restriction on this inordinate level of over-occupancy would be under a health and safety code. But, it is possible to safely house 12 adults in a 4 bedroom home within the structure, while causing an unsafe situation outside it.
Here in the city of College Station, our neighborhood streets, and likely our water and wastewater infrastructure, are simply not designed to accommodate that level of overcrowding.
We have taken steps in College Station to allow much higher density in areas that can accommodate it, having in recent years rezoned some 1500 lots to a High Occupancy Overlay or HOO. We took this unprecedented step to allow structures with 4 and more than 4 bedrooms to be retroactively compliant with our local ordinances in those areas deemed not to encroach upon the neighborhood integrity of single family neighborhoods.
As a common sense conservative that cares deeply about my city, I harbor deep concerns about SB1567 but I simultaneously applaud your goal. Unfortunately, this bill is not the way to accomplish it, sir.
With Utmost Respect,
Bob Yancy '95
Councilman Place 5
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB1567/id/3137983
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
