Supporting Documents / Links:
Senate Bill 149, House Bill 2350 & 2266 – Occupation Preemption
Houston and other cities regulate certain occupational licenses and business to protect the public. The 88th session witnessed a brazen effort by the legislature to interfere in the licensing of certain occupations and regulation of activities by municipalities.
House Bills 2350 and 2266 along with Senate Bill 149 reflected a direct attack on regulations protecting vulnerable populations as well as attempting to eliminate home-rule power of self-government.
The public expects that individuals engaged in certain commerce have the proper skills and training and business practices. HB 2350 by Rep. Cody Harris would have preempted a municipality from regulating any occupation that also requires a state license by prohibiting the local authority from also requiring a license, adopting/enforcing any rule, etc. that is more stringent/inconsistent with a state rule and that in any way regulates contracts with member of the public related to the occupation.
House Bill 2350 would have limited municipalities from requiring various permits and regulatory scenarios such as noise, donation boxes, mini-warehouses, dance halls, lodging facilities, and alternate housing facilities. The proposed bill also would have limited the authority of the City to adopt and enforce regulations it might deem necessary for its franchisees/permittees in the future.
House Bill 2266 by Rep. Jeff Leach would have authorized a person who, or entity that holds a state license in order to practice the individual’s occupation or conduct the entity’s business to bring legal action against a city to enjoin the enforcement of a local law that:
The City of Houston issues numerous occupational licenses that are similar to occupational licenses issued by the State, but also impose more stringent regulations on the licensees based upon the local public health and safety needs.
Senate Bill 149, a sweeping preemption bill by Rep. Drew Springer, would have established that a municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or other measure that imposes a restriction, condition, or regulation on commercial activity.
It would have only allowed a municipality to regulate through ordinance, rule, or regulation if it was a local concern, essential for land use, citizens’ physical safety, expressly allowed by state statute and is a nondiscrimination provision in employment service. This bill could have impacted the ability to regulate auto dealers, metal recyclers, second-hand shops, dance halls, shooting rangers, game rooms, and livestock among other industries.
A common theme of all three of these bills in the uncertainty they could have created and the burdensome and unduly restrictive imposition on the City’s ability to regulate a variety of matters that have an enormous effect on the City and its populous.
Local governments craft regulations and ordinances as the result of comments, complaints and input from the public on matters that are important to them. No two cities in Texas are alike and each must be able to tailor rules that best protect the interests of the public.