The 1997 Legislature could have used a business test for contiguous properties, but it was not compelled to do so. Varying treatment of different groups or persons is not a constitutional defect. Moreover, simply because a statute produces unequal results in some cases does not render it unconstitutional. The third prong requires that the statute have a purpose the Legislature can legitimately attempt to achieve. Under this prong, the Legislature is afforded the widest possible latitude.
Any legitimate purpose can support a tax.
Seeking to prevent commercial property owners from subdividing their properties to receive the preferred rate on multiple portions is a legitimate purpose. Petitioner agrees that such properties should get the preferred rate only once. Petitioner contends, however, that the Contiguous Property Exception should have been written more narrowly to cover only contiguous properties that are dependent upon each other or constitute one property or business. Petitioner uses this language to argue that this is what the 1997 Legislature meant to do and that there is currently a bill pending before the Legislature to that effect. H.F. 3922, 81st Leg.