WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 162

Relating to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by a political subdivision to acquire property outside the political subdivision's boundaries.

89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session (2025) Introduced by Daniel Alders and 37 co-sponsors

HB 162 would allow Texas political subdivisions to use eminent domain to seize private property outside their jurisdictional boundaries under specified conditions.

Filed
#condemnation(s0063) #citygovernment--annexation(i0063) #countygovernment--general(i0096) #politicalsubdivisions(i0588) #propertyinterests--eminentdomain(i0615) #specialdistricts&authorities--miscellaneous(i0770)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 162

Legislative bill overview

HB 162 addresses the conditions under which Texas political subdivisions (cities, counties, etc.) can use eminent domain to acquire property located outside their geographical boundaries. Currently, eminent domain powers are typically limited to property within a jurisdiction's borders. This bill would establish new parameters for out-of-boundary property seizures, likely with specific restrictions or approval requirements.

Why is this important

Eminent domain—the government's power to take private property for public use with compensation—is a significant power affecting property rights. Allowing subdivisions to seize land outside their borders could expand governmental reach into neighboring jurisdictions and affect property owners in areas with limited say in the decision. This directly impacts both property owners' protections and inter-governmental relationships in Texas.

Potential points of contention

  • Property rights vs. public need: Tension between protecting private property owners from government seizure and allowing governments flexibility to acquire necessary land for infrastructure or services
  • Jurisdictional boundaries: Concern that one jurisdiction could take property from another's territory without local input, potentially conflicting with neighbor governments' authority and planning
  • Compensation and due process: Questions about whether out-of-boundary takings receive the same procedural protections and fair market value compensation as in-boundary seizures
  • Scope of "public use": Uncertainty about what projects qualify—infrastructure, economic development, or other purposes—and whether standards differ from traditional eminent domain use

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

Sign in to ask a question.