Texas Patriots PAC Recommends the following Candidates for The Woodlands Township Board of Directors

 The Woodlands Incorporation Study

The one topic all candidates for The Woodlands Township Board will undoubtedly agree with is the desire to maintain the quality of life in The Woodlands.  That is really what Township Board elections are about.  What is it going to take to retain as much as we can of George Mitchell’s vision for The Woodlands? 

In the 2017 and 2019 elections, this question has primarily focused on the incorporation study.  Will incorporation enhance our prospects of maintaining the quality of life we have in The Woodlands or does it just increase taxes without any benefits to the community? 

The establishment in The Woodlands has never wanted to incorporate.  A number of years ago, when it controlled to Township Board, the establishment conducted a superficial “incorporation study” that concluded that incorporation did nothing for The Woodlands other than increase homeowners’ taxes.

In the 2017 election, the establishment failed in its effort to scare voters into voting for candidates opposed to incorporation by claiming that incorporation would increase taxes by 70%. 

For the 2019 election, the establishment has adopted three main arguments against incorporation:   1) there is no annexation threat; 2) they know enough from the study made to date that the tax rate would increase by 63% if we incorporate; and 3) incorporation does not protect The Woodlands from arbitrary county road expansions. The following is a discussion of each of these claims. 

1.  LEGISLATION ELIMINATES ANNEXATION THREAT.  Legislation enacted in 2017 requires approval of a majority of the voters in a community before it can be annexed.  The establishment claims this legislation eliminates any possibility that The Woodlands could ever be annexed without approval of the community.  Not knowing anything else, this claim appears valid; or is it?

There are two reasons the elimination of the annexation threat claim is questionable:

A.     The future governance of The Woodlands until 2057 was contractually determined when The Woodlands entered into the Participation Agreements with Houston and Conroe in 2007.  These agreements granted Houston and Conroe options to annex portions of The Woodlands in 2057 if The Woodlands remained unincorporated at that time.  The 2017 law requiring annexation approval does not does not alter or eliminate the contractual rights and obligations agreed to under the Participation Agreements.  Accordingly, the 2017 law would only grant protective rights to The Woodlands should Houston and Conroe elect not to exercise their respective options to annex portions of The Woodlands in 2057.  

B.     Even if the 2017 law somehow applied to The Woodlands, it still would not eliminate the annexation threat prior to 2057.  Both Participation Agreements became effective on the “date of the official canvass of the returns” of an election to be held November 6, 2007 in which by “a majority vote of … the qualified voters” in The Woodlands approved the Participation Agreements. That election was held and the Participation Agreements were overwhelmingly approved.   So the consent required as a prerequisite to annexation in the 2017 law has already been given by The Woodlands; it was given in the November 6, 2007 election approving the Participation Agreements. 

C.      Note: The annexation threat had nothing to do with the timing of the current incorporation study.  The establishment suggests otherwise, which is false.

2.  TAX RATE.  The establishment claims that incorporation will increase taxes by 63%.  This number is represented to be accurate based on preliminary data from the Township’s unfinished incorporation study. This is absurd.   No one, including the establishment’s oracles, knows what the study will forecast as the final costs of the incorporation. However, the establishment maintains that: a) the incorporation study will conclude that taxes will increase by $0.14 if the Township incorporates; b) voters in the Township will not support incorporation at that cost level; and c) the incorporation study is a waste of money and should be immediately ended.  Voters should find it strange that the establishment can predict with such precision a cost that those conducting the incorporation study cannot determine until the study is concluded.  The establishment’s argument is speculation and should be treated as such.

3.  CONTROL OVER ROADS.  The primary reason for the timing of the ongoing incorporation study was the need to be able to control what happens to the roads in our community.  This concern arose when Montgomery County insisted on expanding The Woodlands Parkway in a way that would convert that road into a major east-west thoroughfare; effectively dissecting the community in two. Voters in The Woodlands were able to block this expansion by defeating the bond that would have financed it; a strategy that cannot be relied upon to block every future road expansion in The Woodlands by Montgomery County.  Incorporation of The Woodlands is viewed as the only way of gaining the authority to block future County projects that would dissect The Woodlands with major thoroughfares. 

The belief that incorporation would block future Montgomery County’s road projects in The Woodlands is based upon the general laws of Texas which, since at least 1895, granted cities exclusive control over their streets and highways. A relevant example of the application of this general law was when the City of Shenandoah blocked the County’s plans for a flyover at Research Forest and Grogan’s Mill.

The establishment is now challenging this application of the general law, claiming that incorporation will not protect The Woodlands from future road expansions by Harris County and Montgomery County within the incorporated area.  As explained below, this claim by the establishment is false as it applies to Montgomery County, and true in limited circumstances in Harris County.

Prior to the development of the general road laws, the Texas Legislature passed a number of road laws for individual counties which granted the county’s commissioners court specific rights and responsibilities with respect to the roads and bridges in its county.  These road laws included special rights that supersede any future general laws unless specifically terminated.  Both Montgomery County and Harris County have individual Road Laws.  But the rights granted under these Road Laws are not the same. 

The biggest difference is that Harris County’s Road Law grants the commissioners court the right to build roads in incorporated areas provided such roads connect with main roads leading into the City of Houston.  Accordingly, even if incorporated, the portion of The Woodlands in Harris County would be subject to Harris County’s superior road rights with respect to roads leading to Houston, although it is difficult to envisage a scenario where Harris County would want to exercise this right in Creekside. 

Montgomery County’s Road Law contains no special authority with respect to incorporated areas and, therefore, its rights with respect to incorporated areas are limited to those granted by the general laws of Texas. As mentioned above, the general law of Texas grants cities exclusive control over their streets and highways.  Accordingly, contrary to the establishment’s claim, incorporation would prevent Montgomery County from expanding roads within the jurisdiction of a City of The Woodlands without consent by the City.