This blog originally appeared at The New York Times.

The recent court rulings mark another victory for advocates of transgender rights, who are actively seeking to overturn newly enacted state laws prohibiting gender-transition care.

On Wednesday, federal judges in Kentucky and Tennessee temporarily halted laws prohibiting gender-transition care for minors, marking another pause in a series of legal interventions against legislation targeting transgender individuals.

Judge David J. Hale of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky issued the first ruling, temporarily blocking sections of a Kentucky law that restricted the prescription and delivery of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to transgender youth. The decision allows healthcare options for transgender minors to remain accessible in the state while legal proceedings unfold. While most parts of the law took immediate effect upon passage, certain provisions were scheduled to come into force on Thursday.

Later that day, Judge Eli J. Richardson from the Middle District of Tennessee issued a comparable ruling to safeguard access to such treatments in the state, just days before Tennessee’s law was slated to take effect on Saturday. In a detailed 69-page decision, Judge Richardson highlighted that similar bans on puberty blockers and hormone therapy, when contested, had been either temporarily or permanently halted.

“The court acknowledges that today’s ruling may further intensify the already contentious debate surrounding the rights of transgender individuals in American society, balancing against the states’ authority to regulate certain activities within their borders and protect minors,” wrote Judge Richardson, appointed to his position by former President Donald J. Trump. “However, the court is not alone in its decision.”

Transgender youth and their advocates have resorted to legal action to prevent laws they argue will profoundly impact the health and well-being of young people. Their major win came recently when a federal judge in Arkansas overturned the nation’s inaugural law banning transition care, deeming it discriminatory and unconstitutional.

A spokesperson for Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee’s attorney general, stated that the office plans to appeal the court’s decision. Meanwhile, Daniel Cameron, Kentucky’s attorney general and the state’s Republican gubernatorial candidate, pledged to persist in defending his state’s law, criticizing the ruling as “misguided” and an infringement on the Kentucky legislature’s right to determine public policy.

Although Judge Richardson hinted at the possibility of the state prevailing in the ongoing legal battle for a permanent ban, both judges noted that the groups challenging the laws had effectively presented their arguments regarding constitutionality and discrimination.

“Tennessee must regulate access to medical procedures within the bounds of the United States Constitution,” Judge Richardson emphasized.

Judge Hale, appointed to his role by former President Barack Obama, criticized Kentucky for presenting “superficial arguments to the contrary, none of which are persuasive” against claims of unconstitutionality. He also noted instances of “unnecessarily inflammatory language” used in their defense.

Both judges highlighted the failure of the states to demonstrate that treating transgender youth with puberty blockers and hormone therapies posed significant risks or lacked sufficient evidence. They referenced the consensus among major health organizations affirming the safety of transition care for teenagers. However, Republicans contend that it’s too risky for anyone under 18.

Conservatives nationwide have made legislation on gender-transition care a priority. Tennessee Republicans designated their measure as the first House and Senate bill this session, restricting health care providers from offering new transition care to minors after July 1 and terminating existing care for current patients by March 2024.

In Kentucky, lawmakers bundled numerous restrictions into a single bill, described by L.G.B.T.Q. rights groups as among the most extreme anti-transgender bills in the country. The law, known as S.B. 150, prohibits doctors from providing gender-transition surgery or administering puberty blockers or hormone therapy to individuals under 18.

Sections of the Kentucky law that remain effective include regulations preventing school districts from mandating or suggesting that students be referred to by pronouns inconsistent with their biological sex. Additionally, it bars transgender students from using restrooms aligning with their gender identities.

The law also prohibits the teaching of sexuality-related topics before sixth grade and specifically bans lessons on gender identity or sexual orientation at any grade level, among other restrictions.

This bill was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in March but was vetoed by Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat seeking re-election, who criticized it for excessive government intrusion into personal health care matters. Nevertheless, the legislature successfully overturned his veto.

Both states will now see the implementation of bans on transition surgeries for minors. In Tennessee, the plaintiffs did not seek to safeguard access to these surgeries in their legal challenge. Meanwhile, in Kentucky, the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky did not contest this particular aspect of the law.

Judge Blocks Kentucky’s Transgender Care Ban for Minors https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/us/kentucky-transgender-ban-blocked.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

This blog originally appeared at The New York Times.

Around 20 other states have enacted legislation barring minors from accessing gender-transition care, with this recent move by the state being the latest addition.

North Carolina recently joined about 20 other states in prohibiting minors from accessing gender-transition care. Republican lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto on a bill restricting hormone treatments, puberty blockers, and surgeries for young individuals. This move coincided with other efforts by the Republican-dominated State Legislature to resurrect legislation limiting transgender students’ involvement in school sports and regulating gender and sexual orientation education in schools.

Across the United States, conservative lawmakers have acted on LGBTQ issues, resulting in similar laws in about 20 states, all preventing access to transition-related care for minors. Supporters argue that these measures safeguard children from medical treatments deemed risky and unproven. Representative Hugh Blackwell, a Republican, emphasized North Carolina’s historical commitment to protecting minors’ interests.

He expressed, “This legislation aligns with that ethos, acknowledging the significant and potentially irreversible impact of the procedures this bill pertains to. It merely emphasizes the need to wait until they reach 18 to make such a decision.”

Critics argue that withholding access to such care could be perilous and harmful to transgender youth, who often face high rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide attempts. Research indicates that their mental well-being might improve with gender-affirming care.

Senator Lisa Grafstein, a Democrat, voiced during the Wednesday debate, “You can claim it’s not anti-LGBTQ, but it is. What we’re doing here will inflict harm.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently reaffirmed its endorsement of gender-affirming treatments for children and initiated a comprehensive review of medical research on these treatments.

Governor Cooper, a Democrat, criticized Republicans for engaging in what he termed “political culture wars,” focusing on targeting a small and marginalized group of young people rather than addressing more pressing issues facing the state.

“After vetoing the ban on transition-related care in July, Mr. Cooper stressed the importance of allowing parents and medical professionals to determine the best approach for gender care in children,” stated a recent statement by the Governor.

Highlighting the state’s past, Mr. Cooper referenced the controversial 2016 bill, which was the first to prohibit transgender individuals from using public restrooms aligning with their gender identity. This legislation triggered widespread criticism, prompting corporations to scrap expansion plans in the state and causing the relocation of national sporting events.

The Republican party in North Carolina strengthened its narrow supermajority in the State House of Representatives this year following Tricia Cotham’s party switch. Cotham, initially elected as a Democrat from a district outside Charlotte, changed parties three months into her tenure in January.

The party switch sparked anger among Democrats and was viewed by constituents in her district as a betrayal. However, this move bolstered Republicans, who hold a supermajority in the Senate as well, allowing them to override Mr. Cooper’s vetoes. This included the successful implementation of a 12-week limit on most abortions, marking the state’s most stringent abortion policy in decades.

The legislation, House Bill 808, concerning gender-transition care was approved by the State Legislature in June. This bill prohibits medical practitioners in the state from prescribing hormone therapy, puberty blockers, or gender-transition surgeries to individuals under 18 years old. However, minors who began any of these treatments before Aug. 1 will be permitted to continue if their doctors deem it beneficial and with parental consent, as outlined in the legislation.

The conservative-backed N.C. Values Coalition commended lawmakers for their resolute move in overturning the veto, hailing it as a courageous decision.

However, there were heartfelt appeals from certain legislators who urged their peers to reconsider adopting what they perceived as unnecessary legislation.

“In your deliberation on this vote today, I implore you to reconsider,” urged State Representative John Autry, a Democrat, who has a transgender granddaughter. “You have the power to halt it at this moment, right here and right now.”

North Carolina Bans Transgender Care for Minors as Republicans Override Veto https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/us/north-carolina-anti-trans-laws-override.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

This blog originally appeared at Yahoo Finance.

Since the late 2000s financial crisis, Portugal has actively positioned itself as a destination for foreign workers and investors, aiming to revitalize the country’s faltering economy.

Currently, the country’s prime minister has initiated measures to curtail the influx of digital nomads into Portugal, a move prompted by growing discontent among local workers due to programs that have significantly contributed to a severe housing crisis.

During an interview with CNN Portugal, Prime Minister António Costa disclosed plans to terminate Portugal’s non-habitual resident (NHR) program in the coming year.

Under the NHR scheme, individuals who establish tax residency in Portugal benefit from a special tax regime lasting 10 years, as explained by Deloitte. Professionals in “high value-added” professions, such as doctors, tech experts, and journalists, pay a flat 20% tax rate on their income earned in Portugal.

In contrast, Portuguese residents are subject to a progressive income tax scale ranging from 14.5% to 48%, outlined by PwC. Recognizing the inequity of this policy, Costa acknowledged its adverse impact within Portugal.

Costa informed CNN that maintaining the measure perpetuates fiscal injustice and contributes to an unjustified inflation in the housing market. He mentioned that the regime would continue for individuals arriving in the country before the 2024 cutoff date.

It remains uncertain what will replace this scheme, including new paths to attain tax residency in Portugal and the establishment of new income tax brackets.

Fortune’s request for details on how the rule changes would affect digital nomads was unanswered by the prime minister’s office. Additionally, the impact of these modifications on the digital nomad visa introduced last year remains unclear.

Through the D8 visa, non-EU or EEA nationals earning €2,800 per month (about $2,930) can secure a 12-month work visa in the country. While these residents typically pay taxes in their home countries, the alterations in non-habitual resident regulations might also influence short-term workers.

Portugal clamping down on digital nomads?

The adjustment diminishes the allure of Portugal as a destination for affluent migrants. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many digital nomads have migrated to the country, attracted by its new opportunities for remote work.

As of December last year, Nomad List data, as reported by Politico, indicated 15,800 digital nomads residing in Lisbon. Data from the Portuguese Immigration and Border Service (SEF) indicates a 45% surge in the number of foreigners residing in the country between 2018 and 2021.

According to Nomad List’s recent annual report, almost half of these digital nomads are from the U.S. Lisbon stands as the most sought-after global destination for women and the second most favored for men.

However, recent policy shifts hint at a significant change aimed at dissuading certain prospective visitors, previously seen as having an advantage over native Portuguese workers.

Earlier this year, Portugal announced the discontinuation of its golden visa program, active since 2012, enabling foreigners to acquire Portuguese citizenship by investing in the country, often through property purchases starting at €350,000 (approximately $367,000).

This initiative sparked an investment surge in Portugal, garnering €7.3 billion (around $7.6 billion) between 2012 and 2023, primarily directed into real estate, as per data from the Portuguese Immigration and Border Service. However, this influx of wealth has brought forth social challenges for local residents, notably in the housing market, where Portuguese citizens have found it increasingly difficult to afford homes due to the disparities in the tax regime.

The surge in digital nomads has contributed to a proliferation of Airbnb properties in cities such as Lisbon, diminishing the availability of affordable housing for permanent residents, as highlighted by a report from the Guardian in July. One Lisbon resident, Margarida Custódio, mentioned to the paper that she was allocating 90% of her salary toward rent in Lisbon.

Protesters identified as digital nomads staged demonstrations at a Lisbon web summit in November last year, as detailed by Politico. They expressed discontent over escalating house prices and the effects of Portugal’s policies that favored foreign investments, highlighting concerns about gentrification.

This blog originally appeared at The New York Times.

The decisions in Maryland and Oregon emerge within a changing legal environment following a Supreme Court ruling that has imposed fresh constraints on gun regulation.

Following a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that severely curtails government authority to impose gun restrictions, Democratic-led states have hurried to navigate around or challenge the ruling’s boundaries. Some states have implemented fresh gun regulations, with Oregon even passing a ballot measure to prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.

However, this week, advocates for these new gun measures faced setbacks, highlighting the extensive impact of the court’s decision.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., deemed a decade-old Maryland law concerning handgun licensing requirements unconstitutional.

Also, within the same timeframe, a state judge in southeastern Oregon determined that a ballot measure endorsed by voters in 2022, aiming to ban high-capacity magazines and mandate background checks and training for gun permits, violated the State Constitution.

The Gun Owners of America, a Virginia-based lobbying organization actively engaged in legal battles, deemed the dual rulings significant enough to warrant a news alert sent to its members, heralding “good news for gun rights supporters to celebrate this Thanksgiving!”

Erich Pratt, the group’s senior vice president, expressed his excitement in an email, describing the Oregon ruling as “thrilling” and considering the Maryland decision equally “encouraging.”

“Ultimately, an increasing number of Americans are recognizing the government’s limitations in ensuring their safety,” stated Mr. Pratt, referencing a recent NBC News poll indicating a surge in gun ownership to historic highs.

Legal experts approached the implications of the latest rulings cautiously, acknowledging other recent court decisions, like in Illinois, and ongoing arguments in a new gun case before the Supreme Court, indicating continued momentum for gun violence prevention laws.

However, they observed that this week’s rulings further underscored a clear pattern: judges, particularly those appointed by Republican presidents, interpreting the Second Amendment as expansively as feasible.

“There’s a current trend within the courts emphasizing a more earnest consideration of the right to keep and bear arms,” expressed Jacob D. Charles, a law professor at Pepperdine University specializing in gun regulations and court rulings. “Over the past year and a half, lower court decisions have notably broadened interpretations of the Second Amendment, striking down laws previously not deemed unconstitutional before the Bruen case.”

The reference to “Bruen” pertains to the Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which has swiftly become synonymous with the battle over gun control, akin to how “Dobbs” and “Roe” are shorthand in the abortion debate.

In the June 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 decision drastically altered the standard for firearm restrictions. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, argued that gun laws should no longer be evaluated based on the conventional practice of balancing gun rights against public interest but instead by considering the Second Amendment’s text and the “historical tradition” of gun regulation.

Following this, lower courts have grappled with the challenge of scouring through obscure or long-forgotten regulations in endeavors to evaluate historical traditions. A federal judge in Indiana likened the process of assessing the constitutionality of gun laws to a “game of historical ‘Where’s Waldo?'”

Recently, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, in oral arguments earlier this month for the case United States v. Rahimi, seemed inclined to explore constraining the scope of the Bruen case and potentially uphold a federal law that disarms domestic abusers.

The aftermath of Bruen has led to an upsurge in lawsuits contesting various gun laws, as reported by Giffords, a gun control group, with over 450 rulings attempting to interpret the case.

The litigated laws encompass a range of provisions.

In New York, a law was enacted to restrict carrying firearms in “sensitive locations” like Times Square, public transportation, sports arenas, and places of worship. This law has sparked confusion and resulted in numerous legal battles.

Following a mass shooting in Highland Park on July 4, 2022, Illinois imposed a ban on high-powered guns in January. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago upheld this ban.

Preliminary research suggests that judges appointed by Republicans are notably more inclined to strike down gun regulation laws after the Bruen case, noted Eric Ruben, one of the authors of the study and a law professor at Southern Methodist University.

This trend was evident this week with Maryland, as the federal appellate court split 2 to 1, with a nominee of former President Donald J. Trump penning the majority opinion.

In a statement, Randy Kozuch, the executive director of the Institute for Legislative Action at the National Rifle Association, emphasized the importance of protecting the fundamental right to self-defense for law-abiding Marylanders, following the Fourth Circuit court’s decision to overturn the state’s restrictive gun license law.

The situation in Oregon differed, as it involved the State Constitution rather than the Second Amendment. In rural Harney County, where nearly 85 percent of voters rejected a ballot initiative proposing new permit requirements and a ban on high-capacity magazines, Judge Robert S. Raschio stated that some concerns about gun ownership were misplaced.

Judge Raschio highlighted that while mass shootings have a significant impact on the national psyche, they actually occur infrequently and are sensationalized by the media, as indicated in his ruling.

Responding to the decision, Oregon’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, a Democrat, pledged to file an appeal, expressing confidence in the state’s likelihood of success. The case might eventually be brought before a State Supreme Court comprising seven members, all appointed by a Democratic governor.

Eric Tirschwell, the executive director and chief litigation counsel of Everytown Law, likened the post-Bruen period to a back-and-forth scenario, expressing the need for clearer guidance from the Supreme Court.

He remarked, “It feels like a game of pingpong, where one day one side prevails, the next day the other does, and what we truly need is more definitive clarity from the Supreme Court.”

Tirschwell further noted, “While the last two decisions may seem unfortunate and misguided and likely to be overturned, if we take a broader view of the past 30 days or so, there have been some very encouraging indications for gun safety and related laws.”

After actively inviting the world to experience its Mediterranean climate for years, Portugal seems to be considering a change in direction. Efforts by the government to restrict further migration might have inadvertently sparked a new wave of digital nomads and wealthy foreigners before the conclusion of beneficial tax incentives.

What happened to Portuguese tax laws?

Portugal made headlines in February with its decision to terminate the Golden Visa program. This initiative had expedited residency status for affluent purchasers who invested a minimum of €350,000 (approximately $371,000) in property within Portugal. Presently, allocating €500,000 ($530,000) to a Portuguese investment fund remains one of the few avenues to attain a golden visa for the country.

Later, in October, Portugal’s Prime Minister, António Costa, disclosed to CNN Portugal the intended conclusion of its non-habitual residence (NHR) tax scheme by 2024.

Under this arrangement, individuals could reside in Portugal for a decade, subject to a fixed-rate income tax of 20% on earnings within the country. This differed from the tax range of 14.5% to 48% applicable to Portuguese citizens.

The termination of these programs reflects a decisive stance by the government, signaling a reduced enthusiasm for foreign investment compared to earlier periods.

“People are panicking”

Since 2022, Kaitlin Wichmann has operated as a self-employed digital marketer in Lisbon, Portugal, having relocated on a D7 visa—an option accessible to non-EU nationals demonstrating sufficient financial support.

Lisbon became an ideal choice for Wichmann due to its favorable climate, cost-effectiveness, and vibrant international community, ticking all the right boxes for her preferences.

She’s not the only one. Lisbon has emerged as a central hub for digital nomads following the newfound flexibility ushered in by COVID-19, appealing to millions of professionals. As per Nomad List, the city topped the list as the most sought-after destination for female nomads last year and secured the second spot for men. Currently, around 13,200 individuals operate as digital nomads in Lisbon, as reported on the website.

Renting in the city cost her just a quarter of what she would pay in Los Angeles, where she briefly resided before the onset of COVID-19.

Although Kaitlin Wichmann derived some benefit from the NHB tax scheme, the gains were relatively modest—about €100 annually—owing to the already low tax rates in her home state of Kansas. However, Wichmann noted that her acquaintances in the city reaped more substantial advantages from these regulations.

Presently, proposed tax alterations have unsettled her and other digital nomads, prompting thoughts that those contemplating a move might hasten their plans.

Wichmann shared, “The general sentiment is people are really disappointed, and I see on a lot of Facebook groups that people are kind of panicking to try and move here,” referencing the upcoming deadline in December for the closure of the NHB scheme.

Nuri Katz, the founder of Apex Capital Partners and an advisor to affluent individuals, some of whom have relocated to Portugal, witnessed a rush among his clients to expedite their moves following the termination of the Golden Visa program.

“When an announcement is made that a program will cease or undergo alterations, it sparks a surge in demand from those aiming to act before the changes take effect, and that’s precisely what occurred. Immediately after the announcement, we received calls with people saying, ‘We have three more days, let’s get it in,’” mentioned Katz.

Pedro Banco, the managing director at Portugal Residency Advisors, noted via email an upsurge in clients endeavoring to expedite their relocation plans to the country subsequent to the announcement of the scheme closures.

Katz believes the government’s decision stemmed from public dissatisfaction with escalating living costs and real estate prices. He critiqued the execution as “amateurish,” attributing it to blaming foreigners, which, according to Katz, is the easiest route.

Contrary to the government’s sentiment, Kaitlin Wichmann highlighted that such negativity isn’t mirrored among the locals in Lisbon. “The only time I see hate is online. But everyone in real life is super welcoming,” she remarked.

Impact on property market

While the soon-to-be-abolished policies proved advantageous for affluent foreigners and contributed to Portugal’s public finances, they arguably fueled inflation for the nation’s citizens.

Tax brackets for non-habitual residents resulted in already affluent foreigners having considerably more disposable income compared to Portuguese residents.

Introduced last year, the digital nomad visa offers a year of residency to non-EU/EEA workers earning a minimum of €3,040 monthly. However, this amount, which surpasses the national minimum wage by more than threefold, has led to Portuguese citizens feeling increasingly priced out of their own economy.

Additionally, housing prices have surged, as noted by Portugal’s National Institute of Statistics, revealing a nearly 50% increase in median home prices since the beginning of 2019.

Daniela Rebouta, a sales director at Engel & Volkers’ Lisbon branch, suggests that prices might have been influenced by foreign buyers’ demand. However, the extent to which barriers to foreign ownership will ease this situation remains uncertain.

Rebouta attributes the escalating prices more to other factors, especially in Lisbon.

She highlights high interest rates and increased taxes for Portuguese citizens as significant causes, along with a shortage of housing supply in the country.

Nuri Katz also notes that prior rule alterations had already restricted foreigners from obtaining a visa if they purchased properties in Lisbon or Porto.

According to Engel & Volkers, these cities experienced minimal foreign purchases, whereas in certain regions like the Algarve, approximately 90% of properties were bought by foreigners last year.

Previous studies have indicated that the demand for Airbnbs in Lisbon has played a role in driving up house prices in the city.

Gonçalo Roxo from Your Property Advisor, catering to affluent foreigners relocating to Portugal, shared with Fortune that the policy had redirected investment toward more rural areas, often through hotel developments instead of people purchasing available homes.

Roxo described a “virus” against foreign visitors initiated by the Portuguese government, which he believes could influence public sentiment toward economic migrants in the country. He also noted an increase in attempts to purchase properties following the golden visa announcement.

Roxo from Your Property Advisor suggests that the removal of NHB might deter some visitors, potentially leading them to choose Spain instead. However, he noted that Portugal’s advantages, such as security and favorable weather, will likely continue to attract Americans.

On the same note, Wichmann shares a similar viewpoint.

“I love Portugal, and I’m happy to pay the taxes.”

This blog originally appeared at The Hill.

The Texas legislature is discussing a duo of bills that aim to revoke the authority of cities and counties to establish policies regarding a broad range of matters, including the environment, safety, and discrimination.

These state bills, namely House Bill 2127 and Senate Bill 814, seek to prevent local governments from enacting or enforcing regulations in various significant domains “unless explicitly authorized by statute.”

Seizing power:

This implies that unless the Texas legislature has explicitly granted cities the authority to establish regulations and ordinances related to natural resources, agriculture, or labor, any such rules become invalid immediately upon enactment. This could encompass a wide range of laws, including new anti-discrimination regulations or prohibitions on specific types of pollution or industrial activities.

A bigger fight:

The suggested legislation extends a trend of nearly ten years wherein state Republicans have challenged the independence of Texas cities. This includes instances such as Austin’s unsuccessful move to prohibit single-use plastic bags or Denton’s failed effort to restrict fracking within city boundaries.

Going on defense against progressives:

The House bill’s sponsor framed the new legislation as defensive. 

“Progressive urban centers are beginning to pass all sorts of things they historically have never touched before,” House sponsor Dustin Burrows (R) told the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. 

• Burrows pointed to “the Green New Deal, or Dallas trying to ban gas-powered lawn mowers, or fracking bans out of Denton, or labor union bills in the city of Houston.” 
  
• In all these cases, “progressive activists who can’t get their agenda through the state house now go down to our city councils to pass rules, which are hurting business.” 

Business lobby approves:

The Texas business lobby welcomed the bill, as it would enable statewide businesses to engage in discussions on environmental and labor matters solely with the Republican-dominated state government, bypassing the relatively liberal cities.

The bills would protect business owners from what state director Annie Spilman of the National Federation of Independent Business referred to as “the whims of rogue regulators,” according to a statement.

Unions push back:

Proponents of the new legislation “express concerns about a patchwork of local regulation,” stated Rick Levy, president of the Texas branch of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

• Those ‘rogue regulators’ are elected representatives of their cities’ citizens, Levy noted. 
  
• “I think Texas is a beautiful quilt of vibrant communities that are so vibrant and unique. We see that as a strength, not something we want to crush,” he added.  

Focus on heat:

The legislation would invalidate rules implemented by Austin and Dallas to safeguard workers from hazardous summer heat, according to Levy.

• Those workers “have the right to a 10-minute rest break every 4 hours to have water in the heat of day,” according to Levy.  
  
• “This bill would strip that right, because somehow it is so hard for businesses to give workers this basic right,” he added. 

https://thehill.com/newsletters/sustainability/3902044-texas-legislature-could-strip-cities-of-local-authority/

This blog originally appeared at Business Insider.

Increasing living costs, growing partisan politics, and a sense of disenchantment are driving people to leave Texas, impacting its reputation as a popular destination. Residents cite various factors, from economic considerations to a desire for a change in political and social environment, influencing their decision to seek opportunities elsewhere.

• Texas experienced a surge in popularity during the pandemic that drove home prices up 30%, data suggests.
• The political freedom some sought in the state has encouraged others to leave.
• Have you left or do you plan to leave Texas? Business Insider wants to hear from you.

While some homebuyers seek the American dream in Texas, many are leaving the state to find it elsewhere.

“Lifelong Texan here. I am definitely preparing an exit strategy,” one anonymous user posted on a Reddit thread about leaving Texas. “From the heat to the stripping away of human rights, I’m just done.”

Another poster struck a similar chord. “I’ve been in Texas most of my life, and my husband and I were always planning on retiring here (in about 5 years from now),” they wrote. “But between this intense heat, crazy politics, and cost of living, we’ve decided to leave for good and head to Knoxville.”

As individuals have been relocating to Texas to benefit from its comparatively affordable real estate, political climate, and employment prospects, these very attributes are prompting others to depart. Between 2021 and 2022, over 494,000 people exited Texas (though the state experienced a net population gain of 174,261). This pattern may escalate as housing expenses rise and the state’s political environment becomes more polarized.

Housing costs have some looking for affordability elsewhere

Amid the pandemic, Texas witnessed a spike in popularity, propelling home prices up by 30% from 2019, according to data from Realtor.com. Simultaneously, residents are contending with property taxes that rank among the highest in the nation.

The migration route from California to Texas became the most popular in the country from 2021 to 2022, attracting nearly 108,000 individuals seeking more affordable homes. However, there’s a significant drawback.

“The property-tax percentage rate is higher,” Marie Bailey, a Realtor who moved from El Segundo, California, to Prosper, Texas, in 2017, previously told Business Insider. “Every time a prospective client calls me, it’s one of the first things I talk about.”

As Texas starts to lose its edge as an inexpensive and affordable housing choice, many locals are shifting their focus to the Midwest.

For Texans, “the Midwest has emerged as popular recently because it is just by and large the most affordable region,” Hannah Jones, Realtor.com’s economic-research analyst, told BI in October. “We’re seeing this trend of buyers looking for affordability really explode.”

The political freedom many moved to the state for is driving others away

For numerous Americans, political considerations are as crucial as housing affordability in selecting a place to reside.

In a 2022 survey conducted by the mortgage marketplace LendingTree, involving 1,545 participants, 39% indicated they had relocated or might contemplate moving to another state if their political views didn’t align with the majority.

Jackie Burse, a self-identified conservative, is among the many Californians who opted for Texas due to its political climate. In September, Burse emphasized that it played a pivotal role in her decision to move to Texas in 2021.

In Texas, Burse said, there was “room for people to believe what they want without being shamed,” unlike in California.

In contrast to Burse, Bob McCranie, a real estate broker based in Dallas who established a service to aid LGBTQ+ individuals in Texas in selling their homes and connecting with agents elsewhere in the country and abroad, mentioned to KXAN News in July that the state’s deficiency in inclusivity had fostered an inhospitable environment.

“What we all want as human beings is to feel a level of safety, and if your state is making you feel unsafe, there’s no reason to stay,” McCranie said. “I can’t believe somebody could look at, let’s say, California or New York versus Texas and Florida and say that LGBTQ people feel more welcome in Florida and Texas.”

Texas hasn’t lived up to its promises for some

Certain newcomers to the state have also become disillusioned.

In Austin, a number of tech professionals who surged into the city during the pandemic are eager to leave.

Nick Thomas, aged 30, relocated from downtown Los Angeles to Austin in January 2021 and expressed to BI in August his desire to return to California soon. He described Austin as a “watered-down” rendition of cities he had previously resided in, like Los Angeles and San Francisco.

“People say it’s a tech scene just because that’s what they were told, but when you get to it, there’s no evidence for it,” Thomas said. “I think it was just oversold.”

Jules Rogers, a journalist who moved from Portland, Oregon, to Houston in 2018 for a job at a local newspaper, departed Texas less than two years after arriving in the city.

Despite earning a 20% higher income and residing in a more spacious apartment, she stated that her quality of life did not see an improvement.

“I tried to tell myself I just needed to give it a chance, settle in, and get used to Houston, but I missed the trees, the air, the mountains, the ocean, the vibes, and the culture of the Pacific Northwest,” Rogers previously wrote for BI.

She has since returned to Portland, where she said she felt “much happier now back at home.”

This blog originally appeared at Keeping Current Matters.

• If you’re ready to buy a home but are having a hard time affording it on your own, or, if you have aging loved ones you need to care for, you might want to consider a multi-generational home.
• Living with siblings, parents, and even grandparents can help you save money, give or receive childcare, and spend quality time together.
• Let’s connect to find a home in our area that’s perfect for you and your loved one’s needs.