As leaders of Miller County’s two major political parties, we do not agree on every issue. But we agree on this: Texarkana, Arkansas, should have the tools it needs to compete for jobs, investment and opportunity. Arkansas should vote yes on Issue 3.
There is probably no better place in Arkansas to understand the practical realities of economic competition than Texarkana. Stand on State Line Avenue and the challenge is right in front of you. On one side is Texarkana, Arkansas. On the other is Texarkana, Texas.
The two cities share a name, a workforce and a regional economy. Our residents shop and work on both sides of the line. Our businesses serve many of the same customers, and our families benefit when the entire region succeeds.
In many respects, the two cities already function as one community. They are connected by the same regional highway network, including Interstate 30 and the interstate and federal routes serving the metropolitan area. The Texarkana Regional Airport is physically located on the Arkansas side but is governed by a regional authority with representatives from both Arkansas and Texas.
Students on both sides also benefit from crossborder tuition arrangements, although eligibility depends on the institution and applicable residency requirements. Even the difference in state income taxes is smaller than outsiders might assume. Texas does not impose a state individual income tax, and residents living within the city limits of Texarkana, Arkansas, qualify for Arkansas’s special border-city income-tax exemption These shared assets make Texarkana one regional community. But when a business decides where to invest within that community, location is only part of the equation. The tools available to local governments matter, too.
Texarkana, Texas, has developed a substantial economic-development toolbox. Its local leaders may consider tax abatements, infrastructure participation, fee waivers, enterprise-zone programs, tax exemptions, Chapter 380 agreements and tax increment reinvestment zones. Texas also allows cities to establish economicdevelopment corporations funded through voterapproved local sales taxes, providing another mechanism for financing certain development projects.
The history of those tools provides an important point of comparison. Texas enacted Chapter 380 of its Local Government Code in 1989, authorizing municipalities to establish programs involving loans and grants to promote state or local economic development. Texas’s broader Development Corporation Act dates to 1979.
Compare aerial images of Texarkana from 1989 and today, and the difference is striking. The images show substantial growth across the region, but they also reveal visibly different development patterns on the two sides of the state line.
Aerial photographs alone cannot prove what caused those differences. Infrastructure, geography, private-market decisions and other public policies all influence where development occurs. But the images illustrate why residents should examine whether the economic-development tools available to each city also affected investment during those three decades.
Those tools are not merely theoretical. Texarkana, Texas, has documented active recruitment and development efforts. In 2025, the city reported 42 business-development activities involving prospective investments totaling as much as $220 million and potentially 700 jobs at full capacity.
That does not mean every business chooses Texas, or that every incentive produces a successful project. It does demonstrate that economic competition is real and that communities use different tools to compete.
Arkansas communities currently have no local options for this kind of development. The University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service’s neutral explanation of Issue 3 notes that Arkansas is among the states that do not have certain local sales-tax rebates or abatements commonly used elsewhere to encourage private investment.
For Texarkana, that difference is impossible to ignore. We are not competing with a distant city that has a different workforce, transportation network or market. We are competing with the community immediately across the street.
Issue 3 would establish a constitutional framework for the General Assembly to authorize cities to create economic development districts within cities, counties or cooperative areas. It would authorize financing mechanisms for qualifying projects, subject to local approval the law would require.
The question is not whether every project deserves an incentive. It does not. The question is whether Arkansas communities should have the ability to make targeted decisions about investments they believe will strengthen their own economies. We do.
That matters because economic development is not only about landing a large company. It can mean improving infrastructure, supporting entrepreneurs, strengthening commercial districts and making existing neighborhoods more attractive for investment. Ultimately, it is about workers seeking good opportunities, families building their lives here and communities working to grow and thrive.
Texarkana, Arkansas, does not need to become Texarkana, Texas. But our side of the state line should be able to compete when the right opportunity comes along. Giving Arkansas communities additional tools would not guarantee that every project locates here. It would give local leaders another option to consider based on local priorities and circumstances.
The practical discussion for Texarkana is simple: What tools do we have today? What tools does the other side of State Line Avenue have? What additional options might Arkansas communities need to compete?
Those are not Republican questions or Democratic questions. They are Arkansas questions.
We may approach many public issues from different perspectives, but we share a commitment to the future of Miller County. For a community sitting directly across the state line from a city that already has these options, the ability to compete deserves serious consideration. We believe Issue 3 gives Arkansas voters an opportunity to provide that ability.
