WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SJR 75

Proposing a constitutional amendment creating the workforce housing fund to facilitate the development of affordable workforce housing and transferring to that fund $2 billion from state general revenue.

89th Legislature (2025)

Texas proposes $2 billion constitutional amendment to create permanent workforce housing fund from general revenue to finance affordable housing development statewide.

Referred to Local Government
#comptrollerofpublicaccounts(v2608) #housing&communityaffairs #texasdepartmentof(v0008) #housing--disabledpersons(i0403) #resolutions--constitutionalamendments(i0661) #statefinances--management&control(i0748)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SJR 75

Legislative bill overview

SJR 75 proposes a Texas constitutional amendment that would establish a dedicated Workforce Housing Fund and transfer $2 billion from the state's general revenue to seed this fund. The amendment would need voter approval and would create a permanent mechanism to finance affordable housing development for working-class Texans.

Why is this important

Texas faces a significant affordable housing shortage as population growth and rising costs have outpaced supply, particularly affecting essential workers like teachers, healthcare workers, and service industry employees. A $2 billion dedicated fund could finance thousands of housing units and establish ongoing infrastructure, though it represents a substantial commitment of state resources that could otherwise fund education, healthcare, or infrastructure.

Potential points of contention

  • Fiscal impact: Redirecting $2 billion from general revenue reduces funding available for other state priorities; whether this represents optimal use of limited state dollars is debatable
  • Scope and effectiveness: The bill doesn't specify how funds will be distributed, which types of developments qualify, or whether $2 billion is sufficient to meaningfully address the statewide shortage
  • Constitutional amendment precedent: Creating dedicated funds through constitutional amendments limits legislative flexibility and makes future adjustments difficult without additional voter approval
  • Market vs. government intervention: Some argue private development should address housing demand while others contend government intervention is necessary for true affordability

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.