Why Some Laws Push City Councils Toward Fast Growth Instead of Responsible Growth: Case Study of Leander, TX

City councils all over Texas get beat over the head with phrases like “highest and best use” (HBU). It is a real estate investment term. I know it well, being a former full time real estate investor, and I used it quite often in that capacity myself. It is a fundamental strategy for maximizing real estate investment returns and is not only completely appropriate to use in that context, in fact I would argue it is foundational. It is not always, however, a very sound public policy strategy. It sounds harmless, but the effect on public policy is real and many times destructive. This investment strategy is used to favor rapid development and quick approvals, not careful public planning. It creates pressure on those tasked with formulating public policy. It tells councils that if they slow down to verify capacity, infrastructure, or long-term impact, they risk being sued or overruled. There is also a "growth pays for growth" mindset that is popular among policymakers that also adds additional pressure (but that is a blog for another time).

It has pushed cities into saying yes before they are ready. Roads fall behind. Drainage gets ignored until a storm exposes every weakness. Water systems run at the edge of their capacity. Neighborhoods end up with disconnected streets and bottlenecks that never should have happened. Property owners feel the consequences long after the developers have moved on.

The cost shows up in higher taxes to fix problems that should have been prevented. It shows up in stressed utilities, crowded roads, and neighborhoods that never got the infrastructure they needed at the start.

There is nothing anti-growth about wanting responsible growth. Responsible simply means infrastructure should not be an afterthought.

Fast-growing cities like Leander, TX, can feel this pressure the most. When the rules reward speed, developers move fast, and councils are pushed to keep pace.

So, what can municipal policymakers do to be better public stewards in this context?

1. Councils can fully use the authority they already have. Strong traffic analysis. Serious drainage review. Water capacity confirmations. Clear timelines that require infrastructure to be ready first. "Roadmaps" for all roads within their jurisdiction and strong cooperative partnerships with all authorities who have jurisdiction over infrastructure that impacts the residents for whom these councils represent (ie water sources like LCRA and treatment boards like BCRUA SCWTP, transportation agencies like TXDOT, CTRMA CapMetro, and LISD, etc).

2. Councils can insist on transparency. Show residents the numbers. Walk through the costs. When people understand the facts, they support responsible planning.

3. Voters can choose leaders who understand these pressures and won’t be intimidated by them. Planning protects property values and avoids huge future liabilities.

4. Communities can stay engaged and informed. When residents speak up, the council has the backing it needs to insist on responsible development.

Leander already does several things right when it comes to managing development. The city has a clear development guide, requires detailed infrastructure and drainage plans up front, and uses formal development agreements to spell out obligations. The online Development Hub gives residents and applicants visibility into permits, inspections, and project status. The city also makes its economic development agreements public and releases annual development data so people can see the scale and pace of growth.

All of this is good groundwork. It shows Leander has the tools and the structure needed to manage responsible growth. The next step is expanding those tools so the city can encourage even more responsibility from developers.

One option is a public, fact-based accountability system that tracks how well each developer meets their obligations as community stakeholders. The city already collects the data. Turning that information into a simple scorecard would help residents see which developers consistently follow the rules and which ones require extra oversight. This is not about punishing anyone. It simply adds transparency and rewards good behavior. "If you want to do business here, we have requirements". These scorecards could be maintained by a citizen's Smart (or better) Responsible Growth Commission.

Another improvement is linking a developer’s track record to the level of review they receive. Builders with clean records and strong compliance histories could move through the process more quickly. Others could go through additional checks until issues are resolved. This keeps incentives aligned with quality. Perhaps also preference can be given to locally sourced resources (builders, materials, equipment, etc) that can be used to weight scores.

The city could also schedule follow-up inspections months after construction is finished so that recurring problems are caught early and handled by the responsible party, not by taxpayers years later (the "roadmap" for all roads, etc concept).

Better drainage, stronger roads, and properly installed utilities mean less money spent on emergency fixes, lawsuits, and rushed upgrades. When the city doesn’t have to pour tax dollars into correcting preventable mistakes, the cost of living stays lower. At the same time, builders who do things right gain a smoother, more predictable path through the system.

Responsible development doesn’t slow growth or make it more expensive. It protects it and maximizes the citizen's 'returns' on THEIR investments (tax dollars). A city with strong infrastructure, stable taxes, and reliable planning attracts businesses, homeowners, and long-term investment. Leander can keep growing while making sure families aren’t paying for yesterday’s shortcuts.