Committee Summary for House Committee on Housing (01/28/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB572 00:03:43.920 - 9:02:14 AM	Public Hearing	establishing the "partners in housing" program, a low-interest loan and grant program under the housing champions fund to assist municipalities, counties, and developers in building workforce housing.	Stavis, Laurel(D)[CT]2024
HB604 00:32:48.240 - 9:31:19 AM	Public Hearing	relative to a loan forgiveness program for low-income homeowners to build new accessory dwelling units or renovate existing structures into accessory dwelling units.	Newell, Jodi(D)[D-]2024
HB65 01:17:27.360 - 10:15:58 AM	Executive Session	directing landlords to offer tenants the option of reporting rental payments to consumer reporting agencies.	Selig, Loren(D)[CT]2024
HB60 01:19:50.760 - 10:18:21 AM	Executive Session	relative to the termination of tenancy at the expiration of the tenancy or lease term.	Lynn, Bob(R)[A]2024
HB382 02:52:55.239 - 11:51:26 AM	Public Hearing	removing authority for municipalities to regulate mandatory on-site parking requirements.	Sweeney, Joe(R)[A-]2024
HB558 03:26:46.640 - 12:25:17 PM	Public Hearing	creating a public county registry of the monthly rent charged by landlords for each owned unit and prohibiting landlords from using algorithms or software to determine rental rates.	Read, Ellen(D)[D]2024
HB628 04:20:55.000 - 1:19:26 PM	Public Hearing	prohibiting landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants holding certain vouchers under the housing choice voucher program.	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[CT]2024
HB444 05:35:57.840 - 2:34:28 PM	Executive Session	relative to a tenant's right to notification prior to the sale of a multi-family home.	Read, Ellen(D)[D]2024
HB558 05:58:48.558 - 2:57:19 PM	Executive Session	creating a public county registry of the monthly rent charged by landlords for each owned unit and prohibiting landlords from using algorithms or software to determine rental rates.	Read, Ellen(D)[D]2024
HB623 06:01:55.760 - 3:00:26 PM	Executive Session	relative to prohibiting corporations from purchasing single-family homes for a certain amount of time.	Murray, Alissandra(D)[D-]2024

HB572: Laurel Stavis, Lebanon Support00:03:43.920 - 9:02:14 AM; Laurel Stavis, representing the city of Lebanon, introduced HB 572, the Partners in Housing Bill. She emphasized that the bill aims to address the affordability crisis and the 'missing middle' in New Hampshire's housing market. The bill proposes a program that tackles the high costs of land, borrowing, construction, and permitting for developers by offering a database of municipal and county-owned land, low-cost loans or grants, and expedited planning board review. Stavis highlighted the benefits of the program, including increased housing stock, new tax revenue, better employee retention, and a level playing field for local developers. She noted that the program is voluntary and could help alter the trajectory of rising home prices and rentals, enabling communities and businesses to thrive.
HB572: Margaret Burns, New Hampshire Municipal Association Support00:13:26.000 - 9:11:57 AM; Margaret Burns from the New Hampshire Municipal Association expressed support for HB 572, stating that it builds on the existing Housing Champions program and exemplifies state-local partnership in addressing the housing crisis. She noted that the bill empowers local officials and their voters to make decisions in the community's best interest. Burns clarified that the bill does not change existing authority regarding the leasing of property but is focused on the transfer of ownership for residential development.
HB572: Bob Quinn, New Hampshire Association of Realtors Support00:15:29.880 - 9:14:00 AM; Bob Quinn, CEO of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, supported HB 572, highlighting the severe housing shortage in New Hampshire. He noted the significant increase in median home prices and starter home prices, underscoring the need for more housing inventory. Quinn mentioned that estimates suggest a need for 20,000 new units immediately, which is expected to rise to 60,000 by 2030. He suggested that expanding private property rights and reducing government regulation could help resolve the housing problem.
HB572: Ivy Van, Certified Land Use Planner Support00:20:06.159 - 9:18:37 AM; Ivy Van, a certified land use planner, supported HB 572 and discussed the importance of the bill for small developers. She explained that construction costs make it difficult for developers to build affordable units, and anything that reduces these costs, such as providing municipal land or grants, would be beneficial. Van emphasized the importance of the 'missing middle' building typology and how the bill could help by lowering initial capital outlays and streamlining approval processes.
HB572: Stephanie Schuler, AARP New Hampshire Support00:27:05.880 - 9:25:36 AM; Stephanie Schuler from AARP New Hampshire strongly supported HB 572, representing the organization's 212,000 members. She highlighted AARP's interest in housing stability as it intersects with caregiving and community health. Schuler stressed the importance of workforce housing for retaining critical personnel who deliver services to vulnerable populations and emphasized the role of housing in enabling family caregivers to remain close to their loved ones.
HB604: Jodi Newell, Cheshire 4 in Keene Support00:32:48.240 - 9:31:19 AM; Jodi Newell, representing Cheshire 4 in Keene, introduced HB 604 FN, which aims to provide incentives for the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to address the housing crisis. Newell highlighted the immediate need for 23,000 housing units and the growing number of unhoused individuals. She proposed a program that would offer forgivable loans to lower-income homeowners to build ADUs, with the condition that the units be rented at affordable rates. Newell addressed concerns about the fiscal note, emphasizing the variability in ADU project costs and the need for creative solutions to meet housing demands.
HB604: Nick Norman Information Only00:43:32.559 - 9:42:03 AM; Nick Norman provided a neutral perspective on HB 604 FN, noting both pros and cons within the bill. He acknowledged the benefit of incentivizing more housing but mentioned concerns among some members about the cost to taxpayers. Norman pointed out technical issues with the bill's language, particularly regarding the forgiveness of loans tied to the rental rates and the undefined loan term. He suggested that these aspects need clarification to make the bill workable.
HB604: Representative Gibbs Information Only00:46:12.559 - 9:44:43 AM; Representative Gibbs questions the calculation of affordability in the context of the bill, specifically relating to HUD's definition of affordability and lower income households. They inquire if the rent rate is based on the tenant's income or on 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the county, indicating a need to clarify how affordability is determined under the bill.
HB604: Representative Hope Damon, Sullivan County District 8 (towns of Acworth, Langdon, Lempster, Goshen, Washington, Springfield, Sunapee, and Claremont) Support00:47:22.720 - 9:45:53 AM; Representative Damon supports the bill, highlighting its potential to benefit many in her district, particularly in Claremont where there is a high demand for affordable housing. She uses the analogy of 'give a man a fish versus teach them how to fish,' suggesting that the bill will help people generate revenue to stay in their homes, contributing to the economy. She mentions a recent example of a constituent struggling to find affordable housing in Sullivan County, suggesting that ADUs could help by providing rental income. Damon also discusses the variable costs of ADUs, citing her personal experience with residential building to illustrate that costs can be mitigated through design and construction choices.
HB604: Jack Ruderman, New Hampshire Housing Support00:51:10.319 - 9:49:41 AM; Jack Ruderman expresses strong support for the bill, emphasizing the importance of ADUs in addressing the housing gap in New Hampshire. He acknowledges the high costs of construction but also agrees that there should be a range of cost estimates for ADUs, as not all units are the same. Ruderman supports the idea of a revolving loan fund to finance the construction of ADUs and mentions a potential comprehensive bill to ease restrictions on ADUs.
HB604: Stephanie Skyler, AARP Support00:56:41.559 - 9:55:12 AM; Stephanie Skyler supports HB 604, highlighting the role of ADUs in addressing housing affordability and community well-being. She emphasizes how ADUs can support family caregivers, facilitate aging in place, strengthen intergenerational living, expand affordable housing options, and address workforce housing needs, all of which contribute to the bill's importance.
HB604: Iv van, Planner Support00:59:06.799 - 9:57:37 AM; Iv van supports the bill but suggests looking at other models like the one in Brattleboro, Vermont, for financing ADUs through a revolving loan fund. They emphasize the importance of ensuring that homeowners benefit financially from constructing ADUs, cautioning against structuring the program in a way that leaves homeowners without recompense.
HB65: Chairman Alexander Information Only01:17:27.360 - 10:15:58 AM; Chairman Alexander suggests retaining HB 65 over the summer to allow more time for bipartisan work and potential improvements. The bill is seen as having merit but needing further work before moving forward. There is also mention of a recent DOJ settlement with commercial landlords that might influence the bill's development.
HB60: Representative Daxton Support01:19:50.760 - 10:18:21 AM; Representative Daxton moves to pass HB 60, arguing that it has passed the house before and is sound legislation that would expand housing opportunities by allowing small-scale real estate investments.
HB60: Representative Howland Oppose01:20:38.000 - 10:19:09 AM; Representative Howland opposes the bill, expressing concerns about the lack of good cause for lease renewal and the short notice period for tenants. They highlight the high percentage of rent-burdened residents and the potential for increased homelessness if the bill passes.
HB60: Representative Paige Oppose01:22:35.920 - 10:21:06 AM; Representative Paige opposes the bill, citing testimony from various organizations warning of increased homelessness. They argue that despite understanding the principle behind the bill, the practical outcome of driving more people into homelessness is irresponsible.
HB60: Representative Gibbs Oppose01:24:14.520 - 10:22:45 AM; Representative Gibbs also opposes the bill, understanding the argument for fairness to landlords but unwilling to support the risk of increased homelessness in the current housing market.
HB60: Representative Buolo Support01:26:48.360 - 10:25:19 AM; Representative Buolo supports the bill, arguing that its passage would align incentives and encourage housing providers to offer more housing. They believe not passing the bill would not solve the housing crisis and could make it worse by discouraging housing providers.
HB60: Representative Dumont Support01:28:21.080 - 10:26:52 AM; Representative Dumont supports the bill, emphasizing the importance of fair and equal contracts between landlords and tenants. They believe the bill would encourage both parties to renegotiate contracts, benefiting both with more notice.
HB60: Representative Kerwin Oppose01:30:39.480 - 10:29:10 AM; Representative Kerwin expresses concern about the bill, particularly the short notice period for tenants facing rent increases. They worry about the potential for increased homelessness due to the difficulty of finding housing quickly in the current market.
HB60: Representative Minor Support01:31:28.199 - 10:29:59 AM; Representative Minor supports the bill, noting that tenants currently have less notice under existing rules. They argue that the bill provides more notice and levels the playing field between landlords and tenants.
HB60: Representative Von Support01:32:16.239 - 10:30:47 AM; Representative Von supports the bill, pointing out that small property owners, who make up a significant portion of landlords in New Hampshire, would benefit from clearer contract terms. They argue that the bill would not remove tenant protections but would return a right to property owners to end contracts.
HB60: Representative Aaron Support01:34:34.199 - 10:33:05 AM; Representative Aaron supports the bill, emphasizing that tenants can proactively communicate with landlords about lease renewals. They see the bill as creating a more balanced approach between landlords and tenants.
HB382: Representative Joe Sweeny from Rockingham 25, representing Salem Support02:52:55.239 - 11:51:26 AM; Representative Joe Sweeny from Salem discussed the importance of parking reform in the context of housing development. He highlighted the significant work done in the last term by a special committee on parking reform to encourage multifamily development in New Hampshire. Sweeny used the example of Route 28 in Salem to illustrate how local zoning codes and government formulas have led to excessive parking requirements. He argued that parking spaces could be better used for housing or commercial development, especially on already paved lots, to avoid further environmental impact. Sweeny emphasized that removing parking mandates would not result in zero parking but would allow developers to build according to market needs, reducing red tape and potentially benefiting local taxpayers by utilizing space more productively.
HB382: Representative Buo Information Only02:56:51.720 - 11:55:22 AM; Representative Buo asked about the future of parking needs given changes in transportation like self-driving cars and ride-sharing. Representative Sweeny agreed that parking needs are likely to decrease and noted the evolving patterns of development and transportation.
HB382: Representative Hicks Information Only02:57:55.239 - 11:56:26 AM; Representative Hicks asked what municipalities could do if a business does not provide enough parking. Representative Sweeny responded that it would be up to the market, suggesting that businesses without sufficient parking might not survive unless they find alternative solutions like shared parking agreements.
HB382: Representative Howand Information Only02:59:27.720 - 11:57:58 AM; Representative Howand inquired if the bill would affect municipalities' ability to charge impact fees for parking. Representative Sweeny clarified that the bill's purpose is not to touch impact fees but to remove parking regulations, suggesting an amendment might be needed if the bill impacts impact fees.
HB382: N. Grace from the Business and Industry Association Support03:00:11.920 - 11:58:42 AM; N. Grace from the Business and Industry Association expressed support for the legislation. Grace highlighted the complexity of current state parking rules and argued for simplification. He noted that developers should assess parking needs based on location and demographics, using Concord as an example where downtown businesses flourish without parking mandates.
HB382: Sarah Burke Cohen from the New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose03:02:54.040 - 12:01:25 PM; Sarah Burke Cohen from the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed HB 382, emphasizing the importance of local control over land use and parking regulations. She argued that on-site parking is crucial for health, safety, and community aesthetics, citing issues like street parking, neighbor disputes, and snow removal. Cohen suggested that local municipalities are best suited to determine parking needs and expressed concerns about potential negative impacts if the bill were passed.
HB382: Representative Alexander Information Only03:05:58.520 - 12:04:29 PM; Representative Alexander raised concerns about the potential for municipalities to use parking requirements retaliatorily against certain types of development, like manufactured housing. Sarah Burke Cohen responded that while the New Hampshire Municipal Association would consider language to prevent such abuses, they generally oppose the bill.
HB382: Matt Mushi from Claremont, representing 603 Forward Support03:06:46.000 - 12:05:17 PM; Matt Mushi from Claremont, representing 603 Forward, supported HB 382, arguing that removing parking mandates would positively impact housing development and affordability. He cited a study showing increased home construction when builders determine parking needs. Mushi emphasized the bill's role in promoting sustainable and equitable growth, aligning with modern development needs like public transportation and car-sharing programs.
HB382: Grace Murray, New Hampshire Youth Movement Support03:14:40.279 - 12:13:11 PM; Grace Murray, representing the New Hampshire Youth Movement, testified in support of HB382. She highlighted the severe housing shortage in New Hampshire, emphasizing the high vacancy rate and astronomical prices. Murray argued that removing parking mandates would allow property owners to decide on parking needs, which has been shown to increase housing feasibility and reduce costs. She cited examples from other municipalities and states where this policy has been effective and stressed the bipartisan nature of the bill, urging its passage.
HB382: William Hble, North Conway Oppose03:16:33.920 - 12:15:04 PM; William Hble from North Conway, representing various water precincts and Granite State Rural Water, testified in opposition to HB382. He argued that local planning, including parking, is crucial and interconnected with other community needs such as wastewater management and housing density. Hble expressed concerns about the impact of centralized planning on local municipalities, using the example of Mount Washington Valley's unique challenges with population influx and infrastructure. He stressed the importance of local control in planning to address housing and other community needs effectively, suggesting that removing parking mandates could hinder local planning efforts and negatively affect water and housing developments.
HB558: Ellen Reed, Rockingham 10, Newmarket and Newfields Support03:26:46.640 - 12:25:17 PM; Representative Reed expressed concerns about the rapid increase in rent prices, attributing it to potential price fixing among landlords. She discussed how renters face significant rent hikes without corresponding increases in landlord costs, suggesting that landlords claim market rates justify these increases. Reed proposed that HB558 would require landlords to report rental data to the county register of deeds, creating a centralized database to monitor and analyze the rental market. This data collection would help identify patterns of rent increases and potential price fixing. She also mentioned the issue of landlords using algorithms like Real Page, which she believes contributes to price fixing. Reed emphasized the importance of gathering data to address the housing crisis effectively and suggested that even if the data collection aspect is removed, making algorithmic price fixing illegal would be a step in the right direction.
HB558: Katherine Barby, Strafford County Register of Deeds, President of the New Hampshire Registry of Deeds Association Oppose03:37:17.399 - 12:35:48 PM; Katherine Barby spoke in opposition to HB558, representing the New Hampshire Registry of Deeds Association. She argued that the proposed landlord registry does not align with the current duties of the registry of deeds, which are focused on grantor-grantee indexing and processing. Barby emphasized that implementing such a registry would require additional technology and staffing, which the association believes is not their responsibility. She highlighted concerns about the feasibility of implementing the registry within the proposed timeline and the lack of consideration for associated costs. Barby suggested that if a landlord registry is to be implemented, it should be managed by local municipalities or relevant state departments, as is common in other states.
HB558: Yuri Po, representing District Mar Mark 10, Hooksett and Danville Oppose03:41:14.760 - 12:39:45 PM; Yuri Po spoke in opposition to HB558, arguing that it imposes burdensome tasks on landlords and restricts their pricing freedom. He emphasized the importance of increasing housing supply to naturally lower prices and suggested that the committee should reject the bill to encourage more housing development, which would help address the affordability crisis.
HB558: Matt Bacon, New Hampshire Association of Realtors Oppose03:42:04.239 - 12:40:35 PM; Matt Bacon, representing the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, opposed HB558, stating that publicizing rents could lead to artificial standardization of pricing, potentially driving up rents. He argued that the real drivers of rent increases are construction costs and a lack of supply, as documented by the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority. Bacon also mentioned the significant administrative costs of maintaining a public registry and suggested that it could mislead both renters and landlords. He advocated for zoning law reforms to increase housing supply as a better solution to lower rents.
HB558: Christopher Freeman, Executive Manager of Belfort Property Management Oppose03:47:25.159 - 12:45:56 PM; Christopher Freeman opposed HB558, arguing that it conflicts with landlords' existing compliance obligations, particularly under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Fair Housing Act. He stated that the bill would compel landlords to become regulated furnishers of financial information, potentially violating tenants' consumer privacy rights. Freeman also highlighted the risk of landlords raising rents to the highest market rate to avoid the appearance of discrimination, which could exacerbate the housing crisis. He criticized the bill's vague language regarding the use of algorithms for rent setting.
HB558: David Klein, small landlord from the Seacoast Oppose03:53:48.040 - 12:52:19 PM; David Klein opposed HB558, arguing that it would not increase housing supply and would instead raise taxes to support the registry. He pointed out that the data required by the bill is already collected by local tax assessor offices, making the registry redundant. Klein also criticized the bill's lack of empirical data on price fixing and the vague language around the use of algorithms for rent setting, suggesting it could be unconstitutional.
HB558: Representative Sebert Support03:56:07.479 - 12:54:38 PM; Representative Sebert supported HB558, emphasizing the need for more data to understand the rental market and protect consumers. She argued that the bill would help prevent price gouging and ensure that the workforce can afford to live in New Hampshire. Sebert highlighted the importance of tracking rent increases to maintain a stable housing market and support the state's economy.
HB558: Representative Heath Howard, Strafford and Barrington, Strafford District 4 Support03:58:41.560 - 12:57:12 PM; Representative Howard supported HB558, stating that tracking landlord-specific rent data is crucial for understanding the market and preventing displacement of residents due to unaffordable rents. He shared a personal example of renting out an ADU and expressed willingness to submit data to a registry. Howard argued that the bill would help maintain an affordable housing market and prevent people from being forced out of the state.
HB558: Nick Norman Oppose04:00:13.080 - 12:58:44 PM; Nick Norman opposed HB558, arguing that the proposed data collection would not provide meaningful benefits due to the individualized nature of rent setting. He emphasized that the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority already provides detailed data on housing costs. Norman also raised concerns about tenant privacy, the burden on the registry of deeds, and the broad definition of a landlord in the bill. He criticized the bill's stance on algorithms, suggesting it misunderstands the role of revenue management software in setting rents. Norman believes the bill would deter developers and property owners from investing in more housing.
HB558: Representative Gibbs Information Only04:07:48.439 - 1:06:19 PM; Representative Gibbs questioned whether discrimination against Housing Voucher holders effectively discriminates against families with children. They noted the potential overlap between voucher holders and families with children, suggesting a possible indirect discriminatory impact.
HB558: Representative Taxton Information Only04:08:35.159 - 1:07:06 PM; Representative Taxton expressed sympathy towards the bill on an aspirational level but raised concerns about the details. They discussed their experience as a housing provider, stating they have never turned away voucher holders and found them to be good tenants, but highlighted a recent situation where the voucher program's rent was insufficient, causing issues.
HB558: Representative Faxon Information Only04:09:20.560 - 1:07:51 PM; Representative Faxon raised a question regarding the reconciliation of the bill with the situation where the Housing Authority denies housing or forces landlords to lower rent due to outdated data used for setting voucher amounts. They noted the potential issue of landlords being exposed to discrimination claims if they refuse tenants whose vouchers cover the full rent.
HB558: Representative Reed Information Only04:10:31.680 - 1:09:02 PM; Representative Reed questioned the equivalence of money from vouchers to other forms of payment, suggesting that vouchers should be as acceptable as any other form of payment to landlords. They emphasized that vouchers should provide an incentive for landlords to rent while still making a profit.
HB558: Representative Gibbs Information Only04:11:21.319 - 1:09:52 PM; Representative Gibbs confirmed that fair market rents for vouchers are adjusted annually, validating the concerns raised about the voucher program's effectiveness and adjustments.
HB558: Representative Reed Information Only04:12:08.119 - 1:10:39 PM; Representative Reed questioned whether refusing to rent to someone due to their use of a voucher program could be seen as discrimination against low-income individuals. They noted that prohibiting one form of discrimination does not preclude landlords from denying tenants based on other criteria.
HB558: Matt Bacon, Realtor, Anagnos Realty and Development Oppose04:12:55.439 - 1:11:26 PM; Matt Bacon, a realtor and member of the public policy committees for the state and Commercial Investment Board, opposed House Bill 628. He argued that while discrimination based on protected categories is wrong, treating landlord concerns about voucher program administrative costs as equivalent to other forms of discrimination is incorrect. He highlighted the voluntary nature of voucher programs as a strength and noted that the bill lacks exceptions for other tenant screening criteria like credit, background, and criminal history.
HB558: Representative Reed Information Only04:16:09.359 - 1:14:40 PM; Representative Reed clarified that prohibiting one form of discrimination does not prevent landlords from denying tenants based on other criteria. They also pointed out that a landlord's rights over the interior of a rented unit are limited, and the issue of search and seizure applies to the tenant, not the landlord, once a lease is signed.
HB558: Representative Gibbs Information Only04:17:33.560 - 1:16:04 PM; Representative Gibbs questioned the link between discrimination against voucher holders and families with children, emphasizing that familial status in the law refers specifically to the presence of children in the household. They discussed the broader application of vouchers beyond just families with children.
HB628: Vanessa Blaze, New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities Support04:20:55.000 - 1:19:26 PM; Vanessa Blaze, representing the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities, expressed strong support for HB628. She highlighted the positive impact the bill could have on disabled individuals, their families, and supporters. Blaze noted that over 12% of New Hampshire residents live with disabilities, emphasizing the need for policies that promote inclusion and enhance the lives of disabled and aging residents. She specifically mentioned the importance of prohibiting housing discrimination within the Statewide Housing Voucher Program managed by the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority. Blaze detailed the challenges faced by voucher holders, including long wait times and landlords refusing to accept vouchers, which is particularly challenging for those requiring housing accommodations. She also mentioned statistics from the CDC on the scarcity of wheelchair-accessible housing and how HB628 would make it unlawful to refuse voucher holders solely based on their financial support status. The Council, comprised largely of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families, supports this bill as a means to improve housing opportunities for the disabled community.
HB628: Representative Reed Information Only04:24:27.960 - 1:22:58 PM; Representative Reed posed a question to Vanessa Blaze regarding the potential misuse of voucher discrimination as a pretext for discriminating against protected classes. He cited a scenario from his town where a landlord expressed a preference for able-bodied and younger tenants, which are protected classes. Reed asked if landlords could use voucher refusal as an excuse to indirectly discriminate against individuals with disabilities, which Blaze confirmed was a foreseeable issue.
HB628: Representative Gibbs Information Only04:25:37.040 - 1:24:08 PM; Representative Gibbs questioned whether discrimination against voucher holders effectively discriminates against people with disabilities, given the high percentage of voucher holders who are disabled. Vanessa Blaze agreed with this perspective, affirming that such discrimination does indeed affect the disabled community.
HB628: Nick Norman Oppose04:26:30.720 - 1:25:01 PM; Nick Norman expressed opposition to HB628, focusing on the burdensome nature of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. He argued that the program's administration and costs are onerous for landlords and likened it to an involuntary government contract. Norman suggested that instead of mandating acceptance of vouchers, the state should consider a loss mitigation fund to cover additional costs incurred by housing providers accepting voucher tenants. He criticized the bill for not exempting owner-occupied properties and for not addressing the complexities and additional regulatory burdens imposed by HUD, such as those related to the CARES Act during the COVID-19 period and lead paint regulations. Norman warned that forcing landlords into such programs could lead to higher rents and further exacerbate the housing shortage.
HB628: Representative Reed Information Only04:31:37.760 - 1:30:08 PM; Representative Reed asked Nick Norman if he was familiar with the term 'rent-seeking behavior', particularly in the context of Norman's suggestion for a government program to cover landlord costs. Norman admitted he was not familiar with the term but reiterated the burdens of the Section 8 program.
HB628: Representative Gibbs Information Only04:32:23.520 - 1:30:54 PM; Representative Gibbs clarified with Nick Norman about the applicability of existing New Hampshire laws on discrimination, particularly exemptions for small owner-occupied buildings. He pointed out that the bill in question was an amendment to RSA 354-A, which deals with discrimination, not RSA 540. Norman acknowledged the need to review the bill's text more closely but maintained his stance on the lack of exemptions for owner-occupied properties.
HB628: Representative Buo Information Only04:33:59.240 - 1:32:30 PM; Representative Buo directed attention to a specific section of the bill that might address the concerns about owner-occupied exemptions, indicating that such an exemption might already be included in the text. He then prepared to ask a question but was interrupted.
HB628: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:34:39.320 - 1:33:10 PM; The speaker raised a question regarding the potential passage of the legislation and its impact on landlords. They questioned whether the bill would create a perverse incentive for landlords to either raise rents above the voucher amount or neglect to improve housing quality standards to avoid participating in the voucher program. The discussion highlighted concerns about a possible price war and the maintenance of properties just above the minimum code requirements to avoid Section 8 standards.
HB628: Kristen Evans, AEL New Hampshire Support04:37:11.799 - 1:35:42 PM; Kristen Evans, representing AEL New Hampshire, a disability justice organization, testified in support of House Bill 628. She emphasized the critical role of housing choice vouchers in providing stable and affordable housing for individuals with disabilities. Evans highlighted the challenges faced by voucher holders in New Hampshire, including widespread discrimination by landlords, which exacerbates housing instability and inequality. She pointed out the high demand for affordable housing, with significant waitlists and a large number of unutilized vouchers due to landlord reluctance. Evans argued that denying housing based on source of income perpetuates poverty and inequality, particularly impacting the vulnerable, including over 40% of voucher holders who are people with disabilities. She concluded by noting the economic benefits of fair housing policies and expressed AEL's willingness to work with the legislature to improve the voucher process for landlords.
HB628: David, Seacoast Area Landlord Oppose04:40:30.320 - 1:39:01 PM; David, a landlord from the Seacoast area, expressed opposition to House Bill 628. He shared his experience with current voucher holders and raised concerns about the ability to screen tenants effectively. He recounted an incident involving drug-related activities on his property, underscoring the importance of tenant screening to ensure safety. David discussed the challenges in screening voucher holders due to their potential lack of credit, landlord references, employment history, and criminal records, which he believes could lead to unintended discrimination claims under theories like disparate impact. He also expressed concern about the lack of limits on the percentage of voucher holders in a single building, citing past experiences where a high concentration led to issues. David requested that the committee consider these issues and possibly reform or not pass the bill.
HB628: Representative Reed Information Only04:43:49.560 - 1:42:20 PM; Representative Reed sought clarification on David's testimony regarding the removal of screening tools for landlords and the potential for discrimination against protected classes. The discussion was cut short, and no further details were provided.
HB628: Representative Al Murray, Hillsboro 20 Support04:45:04.560 - 1:43:35 PM; Representative Al Murray shared a personal experience where she and her husband were outbid by corporations when attempting to purchase a home in Manchester. She highlighted the issue of corporations outbidding families and mentioned that this problem is not unique to New Hampshire but is a national issue. Murray cited statistics showing a significant increase in investor purchases of homes, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and noted that major corporations like Blackstone and others are major players in this market. She mentioned that similar legislation has been introduced elsewhere and that her bill includes a 90-day caveat to give families first dibs on buying homes.
HB628: Representative Aaron Information Only04:50:48.040 - 1:49:19 PM; Representative Aaron asked Representative Murray about the enforcement of the bill, expressing concerns about how the Attorney General would be made aware of violations. Murray responded that the enforcement would likely occur later in the process and mentioned that the Attorney General would have the power to enforce it, though she would need to review the language more thoroughly.
HB628: Representative Wheeler Support04:54:49.040 - 1:53:20 PM; Representative Wheeler congratulated the housing committee on their appointment and emphasized the importance of the housing issue. He argued that consolidation by major corporations like Blackstone and others is distorting the housing market, making it difficult for everyday people to buy homes. He suggested that a subcommittee or study committee should be formed to address this issue, noting that the American dream should be the American reality for all people.
HB628: Representative Christine Cybert, Hillsboro District 21 Support05:02:41.718 - 2:01:12 PM; Representative Christine Cybert shared stories of people being outbid by investors when trying to buy homes, emphasizing that this has become a common occurrence. She discussed her own experience of buying a home in Hooksett and how the value of her home has more than doubled. Cybert questioned the state of personal property rights if there is no land left to buy, emphasizing the importance of the American dream and the state motto 'Live Free or Die'.
HB628: Nick Norman Oppose05:06:33.000 - 2:05:04 PM; Nick Norman argued that the bill is unconstitutional as it targets all legal entities, not just corporations, and would hinder the creation of workforce housing. He stated that the bill's restrictions would push developers away from investing in New Hampshire and could lead to a reduction in housing construction. Norman highlighted the need for legal entities to pool resources for housing development and questioned the constitutionality of the process of escheating property back to the government.
HB628: Matt Bacon, New Hampshire Association of Realtors and Commercial Investment Board of Realtors Oppose05:11:57.760 - 2:10:28 PM; Matt Bacon, speaking on behalf of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors and the Commercial Investment Board of Realtors, urged the committee to vote inexpedient to legislate on HB628. He argued that the bill would artificially inflate prices for families and individuals who purchase homes through various legal entities for estate planning, privacy, and liability protection. Bacon noted that the bill would devastate the availability and affordability of rental units and pointed out that institutional investors are not significantly active in New Hampshire's housing market.
HB628: Chris Freeman Oppose05:17:00.718 - 2:15:31 PM; Chris Freeman expressed concern about the impact of the bill on sellers, particularly elderly sellers who rely on the equity in their homes for retirement. He argued that preventing sellers from getting the market value for their homes could harm their financial solvency. Freeman also mentioned the increase in money supply during the COVID-19 pandemic as a significant factor driving housing prices and suggested that the focus should be on increasing the supply of housing rather than restricting buyers.
HB628: Representative Hicks Information Only05:21:45.400 - 2:20:16 PM; Representative Hicks asked about the classification of a trust as a non-natural person under the bill and how it might affect families who hold their homes in trust to avoid probate. The response indicated that existing trusts might be exempt, but new entities formed for estate planning purposes would be considered non-natural persons. The discussion also touched on potential complications for future estate planning and the impact on affordable housing development.
HB628: Gibbs Information Only05:24:01.200 - 2:22:32 PM; Gibbs responded to a question about the relationship between money supply and housing needs in New Hampshire. He explained that in a market economy, the addition of new money into circulation increases all prices, including housing, due to the fundamental principles of economics. He also discussed the concept of the time value of money, noting that those who receive new money first, such as banks and major financial institutions, benefit the most. This indicates a broader economic perspective on housing affordability rather than direct support or opposition to the bill.
HB444: Representative Daxton Oppose05:35:57.840 - 2:34:28 PM; Representative Daxton moved for an Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB444, arguing that the public has other remedies and opportunities to purchase property. He believed that the bill's requirement for a 45-day written notice to tenants before property transfer was an over-complication and an unfair confiscation of property rights from owners.
HB444: Representative Gibbs Support05:37:19.400 - 2:35:50 PM; Representative Gibbs proposed an amendment to HB444, suggesting that the bill be passed with the amendment. He argued that the amendment would remove references to procedures for manufactured housing parks, focusing only on multifamily housing units. The amendment also proposed reducing the notice period from 60 to 45 days, addressing concerns about delays in closings.
HB444: Representative Hicks Support05:38:05.798 - 2:36:36 PM; Representative Hicks spoke against the ITL motion, suggesting that the bill should be retained for further discussion. He believed that the concept had been successful with manufactured homes and could be beneficial if explored further, advocating for a study committee or retention to flesh out the idea.
HB444: Representative Bollo Oppose05:38:51.120 - 2:37:22 PM; Representative Bollo supported the ITL motion, highlighting the detrimental impact of any delay on 1031 exchanges, a common practice in the real estate industry. He also noted that since the law regarding manufactured housing parks was passed, there has been little development, suggesting the bill might have unintended consequences.
HB444: Representative Reed Support05:39:37.680 - 2:38:08 PM; Representative Reed argued against the ITL motion, stating that the bill had been successful in manufactured housing and could address similar issues in multifamily housing. He pointed out that the concerns raised about multifamily housing were already being handled in manufactured housing parks, and that over 200 parks had successfully gone co-op since the law was enacted in 1988.
HB444: Representative Dumont Oppose05:40:22.760 - 2:38:53 PM; Representative Dumont supported the ITL motion, highlighting the difference between manufactured homes and multifamily units. He argued that manufactured home owners typically own their homes, making the opportunity to purchase the park more relevant than for multifamily tenants, who are usually leaseholders.
HB444: Representative Gibbs Support05:41:11.638 - 2:39:42 PM; Representative Gibbs further explained his proposed amendment, noting that it addressed objections related to differences between manufactured housing parks and multifamily housing. He emphasized that the amendment would focus solely on providing notice to tenants before a sale, addressing the unfairness of tenants only finding out about a sale after it was completed.
HB444: Representative Reed Support05:42:47.878 - 2:41:18 PM; Representative Reed questioned the discrimination against people who have not yet owned a home, arguing that the bill's notification requirement could help more people own homes. He emphasized that notification had proven vital in manufactured housing, leading to successful co-ops and better living conditions for residents.
HB444: Representative Bollo Oppose05:47:25.000 - 2:45:56 PM; Representative Bollo questioned whether the bill was necessary, suggesting that a simple notice might be sufficient without freezing the sale process for 45 or 60 days. He argued that the bill's current form would delay property sales unnecessarily.
HB444: Representative Reed Support05:48:57.320 - 2:47:28 PM; Representative Reed clarified that the bill's language was about a 60-day notice of sale, which falls within the typical timeframe for property transactions. He argued that this notice period would not hinder sales and would give tenants the opportunity to consider their options before a sale is finalized.
HB444: Representative Miner Information Only05:49:27.760 - 2:47:58 PM; Representative Miner shared personal experience with selling mobile home parks, noting that the process was not quick or easy, and often took longer than the proposed notice period. This was presented as information to consider the practical implications of the bill.
HB444: Representative Hicks Support05:50:15.120 - 2:48:46 PM; Representative Hicks expressed hope for retaining the bill to allow for further discussion and potential compromise, indicating his belief that the issue deserved more consideration before being dismissed.
HB444: Representative Paige Support05:51:01.558 - 2:49:32 PM; Representative Paige supported further discussion on the bill, suggesting that a compromise focused on notice could be beneficial. He indicated openness to amendments that would narrow the bill's scope to just providing notice.
HB444: Representative Reed Support05:56:23.080 - 2:54:54 PM; Representative Reed questioned whether the committee would be open to amending the bill to focus solely on notice, either 60 or 45 days before closing. He argued for further discussion and potential amendment rather than an immediate ITL vote.
HB558: Representative Daxton Oppose05:58:48.558 - 2:57:19 PM; Representative Daxton moved for an Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB558, citing significant questions about its legality and the fact that the information it seeks to make public is already available. He also mentioned a potential conflict with federal law due to a settlement with the National Association of Realtors, and argued that the bill would not achieve anything particularly helpful.
HB558: Representative Gibbs Information Only06:00:23.520 - 2:58:54 PM; Representative Gibbs expressed concern about the timing of the executive session, noting that it was held on the same day as the public hearing. He believed that more time should be allowed for consideration and discussion before voting on bills, suggesting a procedural issue rather than a direct stance on the bill itself.
HB623: Representative Cole Oppose06:01:55.760 - 3:00:26 PM; Representative Cole moved for an Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB623, stating that the bill as written was problematic and needed significant work before it could be considered for passage. He believed it was not ready for prime time.
HB623: Representative Paige Oppose06:02:44.320 - 3:01:15 PM; Representative Paige expressed admiration for the bill's intent but acknowledged its issues, particularly with the inclusion of multifamily housing and the impact on certain types of LLCs. He opposed the ITL motion, hoping for further work on the bill.
HB623: Representative Reed Support06:03:29.920 - 3:02:00 PM; Representative Reed, a co-sponsor of a similar bill in the last term, opposed the ITL motion. He argued that if the underlying intent was supported, the committee should work on improving the language rather than killing the bill. He emphasized the importance of addressing the issue of corporate ownership of single-family homes.
HB623: Representative Hicks Oppose06:05:50.718 - 3:04:21 PM; Representative Hicks opposed the ITL motion, citing the quick turnaround from the public hearing to the vote as a reason for his stance. He believed more time should be taken to consider the bill.
HB623: Representative Gibbs Oppose06:05:50.718 - 3:04:21 PM; Representative Gibbs echoed Representative Hicks' concerns about the timing of the vote, indicating that more time was needed to reflect on the bill before deciding its fate.
HB623: Representative Daxton Oppose06:05:50.718 - 3:04:21 PM; Representative Daxton supported the ITL motion, arguing that the bill had too many flaws, including prohibiting mom-and-pop LLCs from buying houses. He believed the bill was fundamentally flawed.
HB623: Representative Dumont Oppose06:06:35.878 - 3:05:06 PM; Representative Dumont supported the ITL motion, stating that the committee had more than a day to review the bill and believed it had significant issues that justified the ITL vote.
HB623: Representative Bollo Oppose06:06:35.878 - 3:05:06 PM; Representative Bollo supported the ITL motion, arguing that the time needed to fix the bill's language was a luxury the committee could not afford given the session's time constraints. He believed the committee should focus on more pressing issues.
HB623: Representative Reed Support06:07:21.638 - 3:05:52 PM; Representative Reed argued against the ITL motion, emphasizing the importance of the issue of corporate ownership of homes. He suggested that the committee should work on refining the bill's language to address concerns about LLCs and nonprofits, rather than dismissing it outright.