The City returned to court seeking to take advantage of recent legislation to limit property owners’ rights to notice and protest in some cases when land-use regulations affecting their property change. We are glad to report that the trial court dismissed the City’s motion.
Keep reading to get the whole story.
Background
Readers will recall that on March 18, 2020, Hon. Jan Soifer entered a historic final judgment declaring that the City of Austin violated state law by failing to give individual notice and to afford property owners the right to protest before initiating comprehensive zoning changes on their property. (Acuna v. City of Austin). The City’s actions were voided, and they were ordered not to do it again. The City appealed, but the trial court’s judgment was affirmed. Despite being ordered not to do so, the City again failed to give proper notice of its VMU II, Residential on Commercial, and Compatibility ordinances. The Acuna plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce the original judgment and injunction. On November 8, 2023, the Hon. Jessica Mangrum held that the City violated both state law and the injunction by “failing to provide the required notice to property owners of changes in zoning regulations or zoning district boundaries,” among other things. Those ordinances were voided, and the City was assessed attorney’s fees. Attorney Doug Becker represented the plaintiffs.
Legislature to the “Rescue”
Prodded (and financially “supported”) by many of the same people and interests who opposed the notice and protest rights upheld in the Acuna case, the last Legislature passed a bad bill, H.B. 24 (effective September 1, 2025), which limited the right to individual notice and restricted the right to protest in some zoning cases. The intent was to undo the Acuna judgment completely, but the notice and protest rights defenders, against near impossible odds, were able to deny them a complete victory, as will be discussed below.
City’s Attempt to Capitalize on H.B. 24
On August 8, 2025, the City filed a motion to modify the Acuna judgment, contending that H.B. 24 changed the conditions on which the judgment was based and that the relaxed requirements of H.B. 24 should be incorporated into the judgment. In response, the Acuna plaintiffs pointed out that courts have no authority to act in the absence of an actual contested matter or, in legal terms, in the absence of a “case or controversy.” The Hon Jan Soifer agreed and denied the City’s motion. This was the expected result. The case should never have been brought.
What the latest case reaffirmed, however, is the City’s antipathy to giving individual notice when more than a single property is being rezoned – even though an area-wide rezoning is potentially much more impactful. H.B. 24 excuses individual notification and allows the City to decide the type of notification it wants to provide when it undertakes uniform zoning changes that involve multiple properties (like H.O.M.E.) or when it deploys overlay zoning along a corridor. The City came to court seeking confirmation that it did not have to give individual notice in these instances. It left empty-handed.
What the City has never been able to answer is why, regardless of legality, it believes it is fair to change land-use regulations on and around a person’s property in comprehensive or area-wide zoning cases without giving them notice.
City’s Attempted Overreach (or Misreading of H.B.24)
In the City’s proposed order (which the judge did not accept), the City sought to narrow notice by limiting it to changes in zoning “classifications” and excluding changes to “regulations.” There is nothing in H.B. 24 that authorizes this.
Regarding protest rights, the City’s proposed order would remove the requirement to inform property owners of their protest rights. There is nothing in H.B. 24 that authorizes this.
Conclusion
Opponents of notice and protest rights succeeded in getting the Legislature to limit them. But with regard to notice, the Legislature did not prohibit the City from giving individual notice to property owners of zoning changes—the fair thing to do. It is disappointing that the City would take the Acuna plaintiffs to court to cement its right to avoid individual notice in cases that can have a significant impact on individual property owners and neighborhoods.