New Hampshire Legislative issues that affect Landlords, Investors & Contractors

By Mike Hurney - Sunday, February 12, 2023

(You can click these links to see the video stream)
Next House Session
Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:00 am
Next Senate Session
Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 1:00 pm

Major bills are going to full House vote. It is time, to review, prepare and send communications to your representatives and full House.

Big thank you to those few that donated. To the others, we could use your help. We have hired a temporary very limited hours administrative assistant to help out with our cause. If you feel we are providing benefit, a donation would greatly help. In the past a few people have made donations ranging from $15 to $500.
You can send donations to 16 Crescent St, Derry, NH 03038 made payable to Nick Norman.

Micro update
2/14/23 is full House vote on HB340, Restrict Residential Property Ownership Only To Natural Persons
See Action Map and complete HB340 action item now.

As mentioned last week,
HB95, Local Rent Control, &
HB422, Registry of Rents, are dead and are dropped from the legislative update.

This was a big week with most of the major bills up for decision by their corresponding committees. See Major Bill Update and Action Map.

There have been some amendments so be sure to use links below to get latest modified talking points.

Do not wait. As always summaries, talking points, contact info, instructions are provided below.

Because of the 50/50 split when writing to your Republican legislator add to subject of your communication something like
Please attend, or Important you attend, or We need you to attend.

1. General Updates
Seems all procedures are the same for this season.

Logistics For Testifying
If action map says to contact committee:
See Legislative Committee Communication & Testifying In Person Procedure, Physical & Email addresses

If action map says to contact your Represenative and full House or your Senator and Full Senate:\
See Legislative Full Senate and Full House Communication Procedure
See Find Your Legislators

Standard Email/Letter Format has been updated.
See Standard Email/Letter Format

2. Major Bills:

See Action Map table above.
(Remember: to jump right to bill detail, use Control-F, Find).

HB111, Electrical Vehicle Charging Station Study Committee
There was no presentation that there is any thoughts towards forcing landlords to provide EV charging. Also there was reference to services that would put in EV chargers at no cost to landlords. These could become a small profit center for landlords. So we are changing our position to Undecided on this bill with not action recommended.
Committee voted ITL 11-9

…….
House Judiciary
HB543, Veterans Protected Class
It is critical to use the talking points provided.
Level of Response: Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB543 Summary & Talking Points

HB112, Tenant 60 Day First Right of Refusal
Level of Response: Attend hearings, Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB112 Summary & Talking Points
Committee voted OPTA 11-9. This amendment is not available on the state website yet but we got a sneek peek pic of it for you. Amendment 2023~0252h greatly weakens the bill but it is still bad. See talking points with many updates.

HB117, Lease Expiration As Ground For Eviction
Level of Response: Attend hearings, Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: For
HB117 Summary & Talking Points

HB261, Lease Termination Domestic Violence Victims Or Newly Disabled
Level of Response: Attend hearings, Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB261 Summary & Talking Points
Talking points have significant updates.

HB283, Application Fee Limit & Refund
Level of Response: Attend hearings, Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB283 Summary & Talking Points

HB340, Restrict Residential Property Ownership Only To Natural Persons
Level of Response: Attend hearings, Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB340 Summary & Talking Points

HB379, Attorney For Indigent Tenants
Level of Response: Attend hearings, Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB379 Summary & Talking Points
Talking points have updates.
Amendment 2023~0347h

HB401, Renovation Evictions
Level of Response: Attend hearings, Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB401 Summary & Talking Points

HB469, Section 8 Becoming A Protected Class
Level of Response: Attend hearings, Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB469 Summary & Talking Points

HB567, 60 Day & 6 Month Notice Of Rent Increases
Level of Response: Attend hearings, Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB567 Summary & Talking Points
Talking points have updates.

…….

…….
House Municipal and County Government

HB44, 4 Unit By Right
Level of Response: Attend Hearings, Call, Email Legislators
Property Owner Position: For
HB44 Summary & Talking Points
…….

…….
House Transportation

HB111, Electrical Vehicle Charging Station Study Committee
Level of Response: Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
HB111 Summary & Talking Points
…….

…….
Senate Commerce

SB145, Housing Championship Program
Level of Response: Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: For
SB145 Summary & Talking Points
…….

3. Federal Update

This is a repeat of last week’s Federal Update section. On the Federal level this will likely be the most important thing to watch for quite some time and includes 20+ agency actions.

Biden’s Renters Bill Of Rights
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/White-House-Blueprint-for-a-Renters-Bill-of-Rights-1.pdf

In its Blueprint, the White House Domestic Policy Council and National Economic Council propose five principles meant to shift what they view as a power imbalance between housing providers and their residents in the rental market, urging that renters need to have access to:
Safe, Quality, Accessible and Affordable Housing;
Clear and Fair Leases;
Education, Enforcement and Enhancement of Renter Rights;
The Right to Organize; and
Eviction Prevention, Diversion, and Relief.

While these principles are nonbinding and do not constitute federal governmental policy, the Biden Administration suggests that these principles will guide changes to federal housing policy moving forward and calls on state and local governments to strengthen renter protections to align with these principles.

Meanwhile, Congress is finally organized. A Speaker of the House has been selected, Committee assignments are complete and legislative work is underway. In fact, the first housing hearing will take place in the Senate Banking Committee next week.

4. Minor bill updates are included in bill status section further below.

5. Media.
SB145, Housing Championship Program
Four tenant protection bills run the gauntlet during NH House committee hearing

Lastly, contact us to volunteer with short 15 minute assignments so we can keep this Legislative Initiative going strong.

See more info in Summaries & Full Detail for each bill further below. (includes property owner position, contact info, Talking points, and more).
(Remember: to jump right to bill detail, use Control-F, Find).

Hearings this week:
2/13/2023 at 2:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:30 p.m.
HB524, Electricity Minimum Rebate
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide

2/14/2023 at 9:30 a.m. Location: State House Time: 9:30 a.m.
SB145, Housing Championship Program
Level of Response: Email legislators, Call Legislators
Property Owner Position: For

2/14/2023 at 9:30 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:30 a.m.
SB224, Affordable Housing Tax Breaks
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide

2/16/2023 at 10:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:00 a.m.
HB649, Repeal Statewide Property Tax
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide

2/16/2023 at 2:00 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:00 p.m.
HB342, Lead Testing prior To Starting School
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide

Hearings next week:
None so far.

Future Hearings:
None so far.

Love & Light,

Nick Norman
Director of Legislative Affairs
AANH Government Affairs Chair
|==============================================|
Bills Updated Status summary:
We only list the committee reports on the most important bills affecting the real estate business. If you want to get the committee report on one of the other bills contact me & I will show you how to get them on line. It's not terribly hard to get but not straight ahead either.

SB64, Study Committee Manufactured Housing Park Disputes

Title: establishing a study committee on resident-owned manufactured housing park disputes and oversight of resident-owned manufactured housing parks.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: SENATE
House Status:
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED

SB63, Tax Credit Qualified Private Community Property Owners

Title: enabling municipalities to adopt a tax credit for qualified private community property owners.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: SENATE
House Status:
Senate Status: REREFERRED

HB111, Electrical Vehicle Charging Station Study Committee

Title: establishing a committee to study electrical vehicle charging for residential renters.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: REPORT FILED:
Senate Status:

HB95, Local Rent Control

Title: enabling municipalities to adopt rental practice regulations.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Senate Status: none

HB178, Foreclosure For Condo Fees

Title: relative to the enforcement of condominium liens for assessments.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: RETAINED IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB422, Registry of Rents

Title: to create a public county registry of the monthly rent charged by landlords for each owned unit.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: INDEFINITELY POSTPONED
Senate Status:

HB44, 4 Unit By Right

Title: relative to permissible residential units in a residential zone.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB347, Establish Land Use Court

Title: establishing a superior court land use review docket.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: REPORT FILED:
Senate Status:

HB112, Tenant 60 Day First Right of Refusal

Title: relative to tenant's right to notification prior to the sale of a multifamily home.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB117, Lease Expiration As Ground For Eviction

Title: relative to the termination of tenancy at the expiration of the tenancy or lease term.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB261, Lease Termination Domestic Violence Victims Or Newly Disabled

Title: authorizing residential tenants to terminate their lease in instances of domestic violence or following a disabling illness or accident.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB283, Application Fee Limit & Refund

Title: to limit application fees charged to prospective residential tenants.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB340, Restrict Residential Property Ownership Only To Natural Persons

Title: relative to the transfer of residential property.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: REPORT FILED: HB 340-FN, relative to the transfer of residential property. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Scott Wallace for Judiciary. This bill seeks to add to RSA 674 the ability to restrict the acquisition of single-family and multi-family housing to natural persons with certain exceptions. The bill requires a nonnatural person that acquires single or multi-family housing within one of the specified exceptions to register and file reports with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall report violations or untimely reports or registrations to the Attorney General. The proposed penalties for violations of this statute include fines of up to $5,000, and “the court shall declare the land escheated to the municipality.” The committee was unanimous in it conclusion that the bill serves no valid purpose and likely would be unconstitutional. Vote 20-0.
Senate Status:

HB379, Attorney For Indigent Tenants

Title: requiring that attorneys be appointed to represent indigent tenants during residential eviction proceedings and making an appropriation therefor.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: REPORT FILED: HB 379-FN, requiring that attorneys be appointed to represent indigent tenants during residential eviction proceedings and making an appropriation therefor. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Katelyn Kuttab for Judiciary. This bill as originally introduced sought to establish a right to counsel paid for by the state for all eviction proceedings. The amendment changed the bill to require merely that in connection with evictions, tenants be informed that they may be eligible for legal assistance from New Hampshire Legal Assistance and informing them how to contact Legal Assistance. Vote 20-0.
Senate Status:

HB401, Renovation Evictions

Title: relative to evictions based on the owner's intent to renovate the property.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB469, Section 8 Becoming A Protected Class

Title: prohibiting discrimination against tenants holding certain vouchers for purposes of renting dwellings.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB567, 60 Day & 6 Month Notice Of Rent Increases

Title: relative to notice of rent increases in certain residential rental property.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB543, Veterans Protected Class

Title: relative to discrimination against veterans and price discrimination among other protected classes.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

SB142, Forms Rates For Property And Casualty Insurance

Title: relative to the regulation of forms and rates for property and casualty insurance.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: SENATE
House Status:
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED

HB524, Electricity Minimum Rebate

Title: relative to regional greenhouse gas initiative funds.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

SB145, Housing Championship Program

Title: relative to New Hampshire housing champion designation for municipalities and making appropriations therefor.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: SENATE
House Status:
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE

SB224, Affordable Housing Tax Breaks

Title: relative to housing opportunity zones and inclusionary zoning.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: SENATE
House Status:
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE

HB649, Repeal Statewide Property Tax

Title: repealing the collection of the state education property tax.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB342, Lead Testing prior To Starting School

Title: relative to lead testing in children.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:
|==============================================|
Full Details on all bills above:
SB64, Study Committee Manufactured Housing Park Disputes
1/17/2023 at 9:45 a.m. Location: State House Time: 9:45 a.m.
Title:

Summary: Establishing a study committee on resident-owned manufactured housing park disputes and oversight of resident-owned manufactured housing parks.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=40

Email to Committee:
To: Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; Shannon.Chandley@leg.state.nh.us; William.Gannon@leg.state.nh.us; Denise.Ricciardi@leg.state.nh.us; Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: SB64

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
SB64
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
SB63, Tax Credit Qualified Private Community Property Owners
1/17/2023 at 10:15 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:15 a.m.
Title:

Summary: Enabling municipalities to adopt a tax credit for qualified private community property owners.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=41

Email to Committee:
To: Daryl.Abbas@leg.state.nh.us; Keith.Murphy@leg.state.nh.us; Rebecca.PerkinsKwoka@leg.state.nh.us; James.Gray@leg.state.nh.us; Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: SB63

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
SB63
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB111, Electrical Vehicle Charging Station Study Committee
1/17/2023 at 1:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:30 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would establish a 6 member committee to study electrical vehicle charging
for residential renters including accessibility and opportunities to provide electrical vehicle
charging for residential renters. Three members of committee shall be appointed from the House and the other three from the Senate.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H27

Email to Committee:
To: 0
Subject: HB111

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB111
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
The committee will only have members of the legislature on it. Neither landlords, property owners, tenants or anyone else shall be appointed to the committee. The committee is not mandated under this bill to contact stake holders to hear their concerns.

There is no current need for the committee. Electric cars are the minority. Buyers of EV's know they need to be charged, and all should have that planned out before the purchase of the car. As the cars become more popular, private industry is building charging stations. For instance, there is a charging station built by Tesla at the Kennebunk Rest Area on Interstate 95 in Maine.. There are charging stations at the Mall of NH

Many groups will be effected, including gas station owners, who may want to install charging stations if the sale of gasoline declines. They may have the space for a car to sit at a charging station for 30 minutes or more. If there is a study committee, all groups need to be consulted. The bill does not indicate that the committee has any obligation to do this.
For many landlords, especially those who manage very small properties, 10 or less units, especially in downtown or older areas of a municipality, parking space is limited. Many will not be able to dedicate a parking space or two for the charging station.

Charging stations will also have extensive installation costs. First, if the station or stations are going to be wired off the building, the lines from the street will have to be checked to make sure that the line can handle the additional load. It will have to be determined if the charging station will need its own electric meter, and definitely a dedicated circuit and circuit breaker. The line to the charging station will have to buried underground, possibly tearing up pavement, which will have to be fixed, and a foundation will be needed for the station.

The station will have to be maintained, snow removal will also have to be addressed, as well as vandalism. The cost of use of the stations will have to be determined, as well as collection of these costs from the tenant.
How would security of the station be maintained to prevent theft of the electricity.
All of the above are major costs, that the small and intermediate size landlords will have difficulty paying for.

Given the small percentage of EV's in New Hampshire compared to gasoline vehicles, there is no need for any legislation for charging stations at residential rental properties. As more of these vehicles are built, the manufacturers of the vehicles, as Tesla is doing, will be building the charging stations or the cars will not sell.

Vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HB111, Electrical Vehicle Charging Station Study Committee.
|=====================|
HB95, Local Rent Control
1/18/2023 at 10:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would enable municipalities to regulate the amount Landlords could increase rents on restricted residential properties and the notice period landlords must give, but not being less than 30 days, of rent increases. If a city or town enacts such an ordinance, and the landlord does not comply with the increased notice provision or the permissible amount of an annual increase, the landlord will be prohibited from evicting the tenant for the tenant's refusal to pay the rent increase.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18

Email to Committee:
To: HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB95

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB95
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Rent control. Bad, bad, bad! Gives local unfettered control over business decisions of landlord.

This bill will result in municipalities adopting regulations that will stifle investments in affordable housing in those communities. As with all rent control bills, this bill will not solve the real reasons rents are increasing, the supply of housing is insufficient to meet demand and there is world wide inflation.
Attempts to manipulate the marketplace for any one group will exacerbate the problem it seeks to fix, in this case, a shortage of affordable housing. Crimping the supply pipeline will increase the shortage of housing. The State should be working on incentives to increase unit production, not establishing disincentives.
One landlord writes “my total aggregate, compounded increases in rents over the past 20 years is 3.5%. The marketplace works!”

Such controls are a failed concept rejected by city after city. Even in Massachusetts there is no rent control laws and a preemption for city and county rights to enact rent control policies of their own.
In March of 2022, it is reported that in St Paul, Minneapolis, which imposed their version of rent control, new construction was down 80% after rent control passed despite original forecast that it would be up in 2022.

In addition to control the annual increase in rents by cities and towns, this is a bill designed to allow increase in the notice period landlords must give tenants of rent increases.

We cannot predict what will happen in the future with costs associated with rental property ownership. Taxes, insurance, utilities, labor and materials have all increased. Without the ability to offset these increased costs with revenue increases, many property owners will find themselves in default of loans and/or unable to make needed repairs and improvements. Any municipality that adopts a strict policy regarding rent increase amounts will find that investors and developers will avoid these towns due to the uncertainty of future costs and the uncertainty of being able to offset costs with rent revenue. NH needs more housing to solve the housing issue and bills like this will worsen the issue.

This bill will be a disincentive for developers to build more private rental housing, as it adds both limits on the ability to pass cost increases on to the consumers, and adds more administrative labor for the landlord in both keeping track of each municipalities rules and regulations, applying for rent increases or appealing the amount allowed under this statute.

Further, this bill does not give any guidance on how the municipalities are to determine permissible rent increases or the notice provisions. Unlike zoning and land use, where the statutes include requirements for planning boards, meeting rules, and an appeals process, this bill merely gives the cities and towns the power to regulate annual rent increase. There is nothing in the bill that indicates who should make this decision, how often the amount allowed will be reviewed, or how to determine what is an appropriate amount.

To allow municipalities to step in and adopt differing regulations will make an already overloaded county-wide court system weighed down by the need to have courts familiar with all municipalities and their regulations.

As there is currently no cap for annual increases in property tax, water & sewer rates, overhead costs, etc, it is unfair to institute a cap on rent increases as rent incorporates all of these items.

General talking points about Rent Control:
Economists overwhelmingly agree that price control on rent are inefficient, counterproductive and
lead to serious negative impacts for housing markets.

While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood.

When rent control is put in place Landlords are converting properties out of rent control and reducing the supply of affordable housing, those moving into the area are forced to pay higher rents.

Rent control fuels gentrification.

House stock deteriorates from deferred maintenance. As the assessed value of rent controlled properties decline so does the property tax taxes they generate.

37 States in the USA have preemptions against rent control.

Rent control also discourages the development of new rental housing which is crucial to restoring the
balance between supply and demand in local housing markets.

Specifically related to mobile home:
Once a park owner converts out of renting lot space, the older homes with low income tenants will likely lose their home while the newer ones will sell for pennies on the dollar, if at all.

The bottom line is it's better to preserve existing affordable housing. Offering subsidy's or tax credits may be a solution.

The Stanford San Fransisco Rent Control Study noted:
“rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20%”
Caused market to “reduce rental housing supplies by 15%”
“the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately
undermining the goals of the law.”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c4qf7grzgrx1lu0/Stanford%20San%20Francisco%20Rent%20Control%20Study.pdf?dl=0

The Brookings report determined that:
Rent control “imposed $2.0 billion in costs to local property owners, but only $300 million of that cost was transferred to renters in rent-controlled apartments.”
“If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit.”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8qj8285bhfn8psd/Brookings%20Rent%20Control%20Literature%20Review.pdf?dl=0

The document “NAA Rent Control Literature Review.pdf” summarizes 17 different studies all showing strong issues with rent control and that it is a failed policy.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ntpgo9zaqvxw4p/NAA%20Rent%20Control%20Literature%20Review.pdf?dl=0

The “Rent Control General Talking Points.pdf” document lists bullet points as well as references to 15 studies on rent control.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ntpgo9zaqvxw4p/NAA%20Rent%20Control%20Literature%20Review.pdf?dl=0
|=====================|
HB178, Foreclosure For Condo Fees
1/18/2023 at 10:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill allows a condominium association to initiate a foreclosure proceeding in order to satisfy an outstanding lien for assessments.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=29

Email to Committee:
To: HouseCommerceAndConsumerAffairs@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB178

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB178
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB422, Registry of Rents
1/18/2023 at 10:45 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:45 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would require each Registry of Deeds to create a public registry for all rents charged for properties within the county. Landlords of rental property would have to reports rents annually, by the end of the calendar year, or any changes in rents within 30 days of the change. The registry shall be available to the public.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18

Email to Committee:
To: HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB422

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB422
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
With a publicly accessible list, this would absolutely lead to price-fixing at the highest rent,

The bill would include all properties within a county, including leased land, office space, stores, manufacturing facilities, residences and even property leased to municipalities such as school districts.

As stated in the fiscal note attached to the bill: ’To administer this bill the register of deeds office would need to do substantial research, acquire software and/or a computer systems and staffing to keep up with the changes.’ This would be at a substantial expense to the Counties, which will have to be paid by raising real estate taxes, further increasing the pressure to increase rents. In addition, all Landlords will have to spend the time or pay staff to report the rents as required by the bill.
It is a financial and administrative burden to property owners and NH government. With no funding attached, it would undoubtedly be considered an unfunded mandate on the counties and therefore unconstitutional

It is not clear as to the purpose of the bill or what it will or is intended to accomplish. Any benefits unlikely outweigh the costs to the Counties and the taxpayers.

The bill is somewhat redundant to the NHHFA annual surveys of residential rent. The NHHFA report is broken down by County, and there is analysis of the rents, including the changes and median rents, which is far more useful. Although this bill would provide a larger data base, the current surveys are statistically within tolerance and place no burden on land lords or county governments.

It is unclear what must be reported. Is it total of the property or rent of individual units?

Doesn’t this invade on both tenant’s and landlord’s information privacy rights of their financial data?
How does this aid debt collectors?

Does this mean that the excellent tenant of 20 years with low rent will now have their rent raised so that it doesn’t show up to neighboring tenants?
When financing a property, would there be a pressure to raise these low rents because the bank would want higher qualifying ratios and see that you have ability to dramatically raise rent on these tenants?
|=====================|
HB44, 4 Unit By Right
1/19/2023 at 1:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:30 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill requires that local legislative bodies permit by right certain single-family lots in residential districts to be used for up to 4 residential units.

Property Owner Position: For

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18

Email to Committee:
To: HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB44

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB44
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
One of the reasons for the housing shortage in New Hampshire is the restrictions on land use. This bill would allow increased density in single family residential zones. Presently building small multifamily properties or converting houses to small multifamily is limited only to those areas currently zoned as multifamily or mixed use.

If this bill passed much more land would become available for middle priced units and increasing the supply of affordable housing which would assist in easing the affordable housing issue.
|=====================|
HB347, Establish Land Use Court
1/19/2023 at 2:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:30 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would give the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire the authority to establish a a land use review docket in the superior court which shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of local land use boards. The bill does not mandate the establishment of such a docket. All appeals from local land use boards would be assigned to this docket. One judge, who is knowledgeable in this area of the law, will hear the appeals.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Email to Committee:
To: Joe.Alexander@leg.state.nh.us; Louise.Andrus@leg.state.nh.us; Shelley.Devine@leg.state.nh.us; Charlotte.DiLorenzo@leg.state.nh.us; Jeffrey.Greeson@leg.state.nh.us; Timothy.Horrigan@leg.state.nh.us; Cam.Kenney@leg.state.nh.us; Katelyn.Kuttab@leg.state.nh.us; Judi.Lanza@leg.state.nh.us; rjlynn4@gmail.com; zoe.manos@leg.state.nh.us; Rebecca.McBeath@leg.state.nh.us; Mark.Paige@leg.state.nh.us; Kristine.Perez@leg.state.nh.us; msmithpen@aol.com ; Walt.Stapleton@leg.state.nh.us; dave@sanbornhall.net; richard.tripp@leg.state.nh.us; Eric.Turer@leg.state.nh.us; Scott.Wallace@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB347

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB347
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
This is redundant to the housing appeals board so we are unsure if there is a need for the legislation.
Over the last few years there have been many bills introduced to establish land use boards or courts. The idea is to speed up appeals so developments can start being built sooner.

It could be a good idea to more quickly overcome "not in my backyard" local resistance to development.
|=====================|
HB112, Tenant 60 Day First Right of Refusal
1/25/2023 at 9:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: Summary on Amendment 2023-0252h: It replaces the entire text of the bill with only the following:
The owner of a restricted property shall give no less than 60 days notice to each tenant before the final closing on the sale and transfer of said property. Notice is considered delivered to a tenant by signature of receipt or notation of refusal, of a certified letter.

Summary on original bill as introduced:
The bill first requires the seller, before he or she accepts a final offer, to provide all the tenants 60 days notice, by certified mail, return receipt required, notice of the intent to sell, all of the terms and conditions of the sale, and a copy of the written offer.
During the 60 days notice period, the seller then must consider offers received from the tenants or the tenant’s association, and the seller must ‘negotiate in good faith with the tenants concerning a potential purchase.’ The tenants must make an offer to purchase in writing, and the tenants will have a reasonable time beyond the 60 day period, if necessary, to obtain financing.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB112
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Notes on Amendment 2023-0252h:
This bill is not well thought through. It poses many potential problems for sellers with little to no help for tenants or even harming tenants.

Issues with this bill include
Unfairly restricts free market:
Lease already protects tenants:
Provides very little benefit to tenants but large losses to property owners:
Puts pressure on increasing rents and harms tenants:
Forces financial losses, opportunity losses for property owners:
Is unclear:

Unfairly restricts free market:
The bill is still clearly a restraint on the seller's right to sell their property.

A quick sale may be needed for many reasons. Amendment 2023-0252h,would prevent that sale.

Lease already protects tenants:
Tenants are already protected by having a lease which supersedes the sale and is already binding on the present and future owner.

Provides very little benefit to tenants but large losses to property owners:
Only the tenants who's leases are expiring during the 60 days or leases past the lease term and now month to month would have any benefit.

Puts pressure on increasing rents and harms tenants:
Like other additional notice ideas this would put a pressure on increasing rents.

With a 60 days notice we can expect the tenant to start looking for other apartments. Tenants do not have to give notice until 30 days before they vacate, which results in the apartments other tenants are vacating not being put onto the market until the landlord receives that 30 days notice. Therefore, all the people with 60 days notice will be seeking apartments 60 days out which are usually not yet available. This results in increasing demand on the already short supply, and putting yet another pressure to pushing up rents and therefore hurting tenants.

Certified mail to each tenant could be three per household. For a 400 unit complex with 2 tenants per household that would be 800 certified letters and more for units with more than 2 occupants.

All of the financial loss, loss of opportunity, uncertainty will put another pressure on increasing rents.

Tenants could make plans based upon the pending sale, how does the delay or cancellation affect them?

Some tenants may not know the lease supersedes the sale, and start moving, and create bad rental history for themselves for breaking the lease. They would also incur moving costs that they would not have to pay since the lease is still in effect.

Forces financial losses, opportunity losses for property owners:
Real estate is an investment. Introducing uncertainty in an investment always reduces the value of the investment.
What if the sale of rental property needs to be accomplished quickly to pay for expensive but necessary surgery? What if 60 days was too long to wait, who is responsible for the loss of opportunity, who is financially responsible for the loss?

What if a quick sale is needed to avoid foreclosure, which could allow a property owner to at least avoid the foreclosure being on his or her credit record, and possibly reduce the financial loss. Quick sales also occur within 60 days of the end of a year, as there can be major tax consequences for both buyer and sellers
How about an estate where the heirs do not want to manage the property. The value and maintenance could decrease during the waiting period

What happens if the delayed sale falls through?

This measure would also unfairly restrict an owner's ability to negotiate the sales price since any new offer or consideration could require new noticing. Listing to contract to closing is sometimes completed in 10 days. There are a lot of cash buyers. Both sellers and buyers need to be nimble in these transactions. Note how many sales become a bidding war at the finale of the negotiations.
Real estate transactions can be exceedingly complex with 1031 exchanges, sales of a portfolio of properties, transfer of one property as part of payment, transfer of partial ownership. The bill does not take into account and could not take into account the unending complexities for which 60 days delay could be problematic.
What if the payment for the property includes a cottage on a lake and some money in exchange for the rental property? According to this bill the landlord would need to wait 60 days, a long time in the real estate world, allowing an unrestricted person to purchase the cottage on the lake and ending the negotiated deal.

Note that most mortgages have a rate lock period of 15 – 60 days. A sale could fall through because of waiting 60 days and loose the rate lock or buyer would have to pay extra costs to extend the rate lock. Who reimburses for this loss?

The loss of tenants in a building could also be a reason for the buyer to back out of the agreement.

Is unclear:
If the closing is rescheduled what are the sellers’ responsibilities on renotification of the tenants.

What happens if there is an undisclosed tenant that the property owner doesn’t know about. Is the owner in violation for not sending a certified letter to someone who is not even known?

Who is a tenant? What is the tenant illegally or legally sublets the apartment? Is the subletting tenant to be notified? How would the property owner know this tenant?

What is “final closing on the sale and transfer”? Closings are very often delayed and uncertain until they actually close. How would an owner assuredly know in advance of the ‘final’ closing date to be sure 60 days notice was given?

Wrap up:

Any small, perceived, incremental advantage given to the tenants are far outweighed by the potential confusion to the tenants and the costs, inconvenience, and expense of delays in closings which once again provides pressure to raise rents. This bill is not well thought through. It poses many potential problems for sellers with little to no help for tenants.

Additional notes on original bill as introduced:
The bill is clearly a restraint on the seller's right to sell their property.

The bill would deny the owner the right to sell her property to her children, grandchildren. brothers or her business partners. It unfairly interferes in the sale and the ability to negotiate.

The bill dramatically increases the amount of time it will take to sell properties easily adding 4 months; 60 day notice plus ‘reasonable’ time to arrange financing. Anything less than 60 days for financing would likely be found insufficient. Unlike mobile home parks, there is no tangible real property of tenants involved whereas mobile home park tenants have home ownership associated with the park at stake, on the line, and usable as loan collateral. Park residents likely have a tenant organization in place and have resources (ROC-NH™) to facilitate legal contracting and borrowing whereas the typical apartment building does not.

If the tenants do purchase a property, how are the buildings going to be maintained or managed? This is not even thought about in the bill. Are the buildings going to be converted in condominiums with a board of directors and annual meetings or held as tenants in common? How are disputes going to be resolved? Tenants will be investing a lot to obtain the buildings, and they could potentially suffer a great loss.

Financing for a tenant association would be near impossible to obtain, during which time a property owner could potentially lose a sale to a qualified owner.
If a tenant wants ownership equity in property, they should explore purchasing on their own.
Property owners should not disclose details of their sale, or even intent to sell, until a sale has closed. This protects the confidentiality of all parties, and details, until the sale has closed.
Tenants have a leasehold contract with the property owner/landlord, not an ownership interest. It is simply bound by contract law. A new owner must adhere to the terms of that contract when a sale is completed.

This would violate the privacy of a bona fide offeror. Many transactions take place very quickly; the 60 days notice puts on undue hardship on a seller trying to sell in the open market to achieve best price and terms. Some landlords/sellers are licensed real estate agents, and the requirements in this bill would violate some NAR rules as well as some NH real estate licensee statutes. The wording of ""reasonable time to obtain financing for the purchase"" for tenants is wildly vague and unworkable.

What renter can afford to purchase a 100 unit apartment complex. Is this restricted to 1-4 family units? A renter does not have a special right to my personal property over any other potential buyer. As a private property owner, the state should not be telling me who I can sell my property to.

The bill is also ambiguous. For instance, If the buyer has excellent credit and history managing multi-family property and has negotiated some seller financing and the tenants demand the same terms, but none of the tenants have ever managed a multi-unit property, including multi-use properties having commercial on the first floor and apartments above, or have the same credit, s refusing the tenants' offer bad faith?

What if the sale is for a portfolio of properties, and the tenants only want to buy the building they live in? Is the owner in bad faith if they will only accept an offer that equals that of the third party for sale of the entire portfolio?

|=====================|
HB117, Lease Expiration As Ground For Eviction
1/25/2023 at 9:45 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:45 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would add as a grounds for eviction the expiration of any lease of 6 months or longer or a combination of leases which together have been 6 months or more.

Property Owner Position: For

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB117
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Landlords do not want to evict. Landlords know evictions are not in anyone's interest. For the tenant, they would have to obtain another home, but the eviction on their record could make it much more difficult.

For the landlord, it is expensive, many times rent does not get paid during the eviction period, there is a large potential for damages because the tenant is getting evicted anyway, there are significant costs in fixing up the unit for re-rental, there is vacancy during the fix up period, and the labor costs in showing and leasing the unit.

It only makes sense that when a contract is up then the contract is actually up. In present law if the landlord gave the notice to terminate the lease and the tenant refuses then the landlord may NOT evict the tenant solely because the lease is over. Tenant’s and landlord’s abilities ought to be balanced. Tenants can give a notice & terminate at the end of the lease. Landlord’s ought to be able to do the same. Perhaps it should be mandatory that the tenant has to notify the landlord of their intent to renew if terms can be reached.

Essentially, this bill creates an actual end date to the lease if it has become obvious the tenant is causing problems at the property and neither does the landlord nor the neighboring tenants want trouble causing tenant to renew.

If tenants don’t want to be evicted at end of the lease then they can be good tenants. Repeating above, no landlord wants to evict a tenant.
|=====================|
HB261, Lease Termination Domestic Violence Victims Or Newly Disabled
1/25/2023 at 11:15 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 11:15 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would give tenants who are victims of domestic abuse or stalking or a tenant who's household member is such a victim, and tenants who suffers a disabling illness or accident the ability to terminate a lease within 30 days of notice to the landlord and not be subject to any charges or penalties for such termination. The tenant terminating the lease would have to provide written notice to the landlord and documentation showing the abuse, sexual assault or stalking which would include an order from a Court based upon a petition for protection from abuse, a police report reflecting that the tenant or a household member, who can be a child was such a victim, both have to be dated no more than 60 days before the notice of termination.

The tenant who suffers a disabling illness or accident must provide the landlord with written notice which describes the reason for termination of the rental agreement and be accompanied by written documentation indicating how, as a result of disability, the rental property is no longer enjoyable or suitable for the tenant.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB261
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Victims of domestic abuse or stalking:
Would not be subject to any charges or penalties if notice was mutually agreed upon but not longer than 30 days.
The tenant terminating the lease would have to provide written notice to the landlord and documentation showing the abuse, sexual assault or stalking which would include an a copy of a valid order of protection issued or extended following a hearing, a police report reflecting that the tenant or a household member, who can be a child was such a victim, both have to be dated no more than 60 days before the notice of termination.
The tenant who suffers a disabling illness or accident must provide the landlord with written notice which describes the reason for termination of the rental agreement and be accompanied by written documentation indicating how, as a result of disability, the rental property is no longer enjoyable or suitable for the tenant.
There is no requirement showing that the tenant has to move, nor that criminal charges have actually been filed against the perpetrator.

Is victim of domestic violence & stalking well defined?
What is a ‘valid’ order of protection issued. Is it a temporary unproven order or a proven court judgement after hearing?
Without good definitions this is open to abuse if the law by anyone.
A boyfriemd tired of paying rent can complain that his mate is abusive and walks out.
Look at the lost rent potential. Tenant get an order, doesn’t pay rent for two months then leaves with no consequence.
Then gets 30 days to get out and no ability to collect on the lost rent. Property owner can not publically disclose to tenant
Has no means to take tenant to court.

Disabling illness or accident:
There could be as little as 1 day's notice.
Further, no documentation required other than writing that the unit ""is no longer enjoyable"". There is not even the 30 day notice required for domestic abuse victims who have a much greater need for relief.

While all landlords are sympathetic to domestic abuse victims and tenant suffering from disabling illness or accident, the financial burden should not fall on the landlord. landlords need financial stability to meet their obligations and, although the market is good right now, there are times in the year when re-rents can be problematic. Many landlords use rental agent services whose costs need to be amortized over a year. At a minimum, the notice period should be that required in the already mutually agreed upon lease. Trying to rent an apartment for a mid-month occupancy is always problematic.

The tenant should be at least required to pay for the vacancy caused by the early termination.
If the tenant does not have the financial resources required to give sufficient notice, the town or state should be required to pay for the vacancy.

The bill is subject to abuse by tenants who simply want to move. The tenant who suffers a disabling illness or accident, is not required to provide documentation from medical providers. Rather the tenant only needs to provide written documentation which could be fabricated.
This provision’s language is problematic with no clear meaning or standard. Who will be determining that the tenant is disabled and for how long? Who will determine that the apartment is enjoyable?
What does enjoyable even mean?

The bill also does not have any penalties for tenants who use the bill to falsely terminate a lease. It should at least include provisions for monetary damages if the landlord can show that the documentation is false.

Is this bill really needed? A victim, who truly needs to disappear, will quickly move and forfeit the security deposit. Given the difficulty with small claims and collected money owed to landlords, there really is little the landlord can do other than file with a credit reporting agency.

|=====================|
HB283, Application Fee Limit & Refund
1/25/2023 at 1:00 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:00 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would limit application fees to 35 dollars or the cost of conducting a background check of the prospective tenant, whichever is less. Any other fees charged by the landlord shall be refunded to the tenant or applied to the security deposit at tenant’s choice, but shall not exceed $250.00. This bill would amend RSA 540A, which means a violation could subject a landlord to daily damages charges.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB283
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
The $35 limitation is an arbitrary number. It does not reflect the actual costs that can be incurred in screening tenants. A landlord/company can easily spend an hour to several hours conducting a search to obtain current and prior landlord references, confirm employment, get and review tenancy reports and landlord references and rental history as well as researching falsified rental applications. Many landlords use a professional service and/or a management company to vet tenants in an attempt to have a straightforward, professional, and non-discriminatory process. Their costs would easily exceed the cap required under this bill. All of this can take quite a bit of time and money to follow through to completion.

All of that time is an hourly cost, even if spent by an assistant, plus the costs of a credit report & landlord tenant report, can very easily far exceed $35 dollars.

Applicants already agree to non-refundable fee before applying:
This bill does not understand that prospects agree up front to an application fee, and that the purpose of an application fee is to cover the costs of getting the reports and processing the application and is nonrefundable. People freely enter into these application fee agreements and understand that they are not refundable.

Only a portion of applications get denied, usually because the tenant was dishonest on the application.

The bill also does not deal with inflation. There is no cost of living adjustment included so as costs invariably go up, landlords go further behind.

The term background check is ambiguous. Is it the time spent checking references, researching falsified application and finding the true landlord, getting the landlord tenant report, getting references from landlords or is it a formal credit report only?

Penalties are unreasonable in light of the potential harm to the applicant:
Compared to the cost of the application, the penalties under RSA 540A are extremely excessive, which can be in the amount of $1,000 and a judge can award up to three times that amount on a finding of a willful or knowing violation, plus an award of attorney fees and court costs.

Extensive background check is called for before relinquishing control of an asset worth 100s of thousands:
An extensive background check is called for at applicants expense just like applying for a loan.

Mandates returning additional processing fees to people who falsify applications:
Many applicants falsify their rental application particularly with false landlord references which takes time for the person processing the application to verify. Also, tenants frequently say they have no eviction history when in fact they do. If a company spells out their criteria and a candidate, after a thorough processing, does not meet the criteria, they should not be entitled to a refund of that expense, nor should it be credited to a deposit. It is a cost, voluntarily entered into by a prospective tenant and should be retained by the landlord or property management company. The bill is essentially saying, the applicants that lie should have their additional processing fees returned after wasting hours of the landlord’s time and effort.

Applicants can already review their situation with landlords before applying:
If a prospective tenant doesn’t want to loose application costs then they can carefully review their situation with the landlord before they even apply, including showing the landlord their credit report before applying.

Those people can also help themselves by asking, when they are about to apply, what are the landlord's requirements to have the application approved. If they do not meet those requirements, they should simply not apply and not pay the application fee.

Are that many landlords charging high application fees to warrant this bill? What actual studies or surveys are going to be presented to the legislature to show that a bill is even needed?
The extent of the number of people who have applied for and paid multiple application fees in order to obtain an apartment is not known. This bill maybe for a few people, who most likely have bad credit or bad landlord history. A bill should not be passed to help those few people.
Tenant with failing applications need to fix what's causing the denials.

Again the issue is a housing shortage in New Hampshire and other areas of our country.

Please vote Inexpedient To Legislate.
|=====================|
HB340, Restrict Residential Property Ownership Only To Natural Persons
1/25/2023 at 1:45 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:45 p.m.
Title:

Summary: Starting on January 1, 2024, this bill will restrict the acquisition of single-family and multi-family housing to natural persons with certain exceptions. The exceptions being land to be converted to a non-residential use within 5 years, or real estate acquired by a nonnatural person for the purpose of developing single-family or multi-family housing may be held by a nonnatural person for a period not to exceed 2 years after issuance of an occupancy permit.

The bill requires a nonnatural person that acquires single or multi family housing within one of the specified exceptions to register and file reports with the secretary of state.

The bill has penalties for failure to comply, including forfeiture of the property with compensation limited to the amount paid for the property.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB340
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Natural person is not defined in the bill, but from the bill, but the idea behind the bill is that corporations, limited liability companies, and other such entities should not acquire housing in New Hampshire after January 1, 2024. What this bill will accomplish is not clear.

Many families create entities to own property and pass the property to their children and heirs.
This bill would prevent a large piece of estate planning.

The bill will clearly discourage development of large multi-family housing development. These developments cost millions to build, with complex financing and expertise and funding from large sophisticated entities. These companies will need the corporate structure for multiple ownership interests, as well as limitation of personal liability. They will go elsewhere to develop if they cannot have the corporate structure that is needed .

The bill is also against the small investor who owns a couple of properties using a LLC to hold title to have the liability protection granted by the State of New Hampshire when the state enacted legislation regarding Limited Liability Companies. That investor will not be permitted to acquire additional properties under an LLC.
Why would anyone want to invest in New Hampshire?
Who would possibly buy real estate in their own name anymore?
It is an unnecessary burden on investors which will undoubtedly come with registration fees and clearly drive all investors out of NH.

This bill may also be unconstitutional. It contains a taking without just compensation. It's restriction of ownership of residential properties would violate corporate rights which has been recognized.

This is another bill where the cost of implementation and enforcement is not funded, and without any clear benefits.
The bill will add more legal cost to all the transfers of property. Adding more regulations will only add to the cost of a project and the end user, renter, will get hit again with higher rent cost.

|=====================|
HB379, Attorney For Indigent Tenants
1/25/2023 at 2:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:30 p.m.
Title:

Summary: Summary on Amendment 2023-0252h: It replaces the entire text of the bill with only the following:
The eviction notice shall clearly state that an indigent tenant may be eligible for assistance from New Hampshire Legal Assistance for legal counsel in the eviction proceeding and shall include instructions on the process for contacting and obtaining such assistance. This paragraph does not guarantee a right to legal assistance.

Summary on original bill as introduced:
The bill would require the Courts to appoint an attorney to indigent tenants, people who's income is equal to or less than 200% of the federal poverty guidelines, upon the tenant requesting such an attorney. The bill would require that the eviction notice shall clearly state that an indigent tenant may be provided with court-appointed counsel for the eviction proceeding and include instructions on the process for obtaining such counsel.
The bill would establish a fund for the payment of attorneys for indigent tenants, but only funds it with $1.00.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB379
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
The amendment is extremely reduced from the original bill and will have limited impact on landlords. Most tenants already know they can consult with NH Legal Assistance, especially after the recent eviction changes during the pandemic.

The amendment does not give the indigent tenant any additional rights than the tenant current has.

Some thoughts from one core team member:
1. Statute should not refer to a non-governmental organization by name. NHLA is a nonprofit law firm. The state should not be in the business of advertising for them.
2. The term ‘indigent’ isn't defined in the bill; how is a landlord to know if a person is indigent?
3. Landlords cannot expect to know the ‘process for contacting and obtaining ... assistance’ from NHLA. That's not the landlord's job. We would need the court to prepare a new eviction notice form. Therefore, not just indigent tenants but all tenants will likely get this new form.

Talking Points on original bill as introduced:
This is redundant to Legal Aid services.
The overwhelming majority of evictions are for non-payment of rent. Most of these cases are because the tenant has not paid rent, and cannot become current before the hearing on the merits. As a result, the bill will have limited effect in protecting the tenants, other than potentially delaying an eviction if an appointed attorney is not available.

Like Small Claims actions, landlord tenant matters are not generally in need of legal services. Ample notice of tenant rights is provided, all they need to do is show up in court and challenge any landlord errors. The Circuit Court Judges are very cautious of tenant rights. The Judges explain the law and the tenant’s rights to the tenant. They also make sure the landlord proves their case, as the landlord has the burden of proof in any eviction. Judges are also highly trained in confirming if the landlord made any errors in their forms.

This bill does not have any real funding for the appointment of counsel. This would include the additional burden on the clerks of court, payment to the attorneys and the administration of the payments. Future funding will undoubtedly be made by a surcharge on landlord tenant entry fees for which the tenant would end up being responsible.

|=====================|
HB401, Renovation Evictions
1/25/2023 at 3:15 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 3:15 p.m.
Title:

Summary: HB 401 has been proposed to stop landlords from evicting tenants for minor renovations and increasing rents or from removing a unit from the rental market. In regard to renovations, the bill first would amend RSA 540, the statute about evictions, by requiring a landlord to give the tenant 60 days notice to vacate the premises before the landlord could start the eviction process. The notice must described with specificity the work that the owner intends to have done on the dwelling unit, and the approximate time frame during which the work will be performed.

In order to win the eviction if the tenant does not vacate, the landlord will have to prove (a) the work cannot be safely done with the unit occupied, (b) the work is expected to take more than 30 days, (c) The tenant has been offered a dwelling unit with the same number of bedrooms as are in the unit from which he or she is being evicted, at a rent that does not exceed the tenant’s current rent. However, shall not apply if no such unit is available or the owner can establish that there are grounds to evict the tenant pursuant to RSA 540:2,II (a),(b),(c),(d) or (g).

In regards to evictions based upon the landlord's intent to remove a unit from the market, the landlord must give the tenant 60 days notice to vacate, with a sworn affidavit that the unit will be off the market for not less than one year. Further, any landlord, owner, or transferee of a building for which a prior owner served such an affidavit who returns a unit to the rental market within 12 months of the date that the signed affidavit was served on the tenant, shall be liable to the tenant in the amount of $10,000.

This bill would also give the Court the discretion to stay an eviction based upon the landlord's intention to repair, renovate, or rehabilitate the premises, or the landlord’s intention to remove the dwelling from the residential rental market, for up to 6 months. Unlike current law, where the court can stay an eviction up to 3 month as long as the tenant pays rent, this bill does not require the tenant to pay rent during the six months.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB401
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
All of this puts more pressure on increasing rents.

If renovation ends up taking 7 months then the landlord has to keep rental unit off the market for another 5 months.
Really? When we need more housing the bill would force a landlord to loose the income and keep an apartment vacant for 5 months?

The requirement of a 60 day notice adds very little benefit to the tenant but can cause another 30 days lost rent to the landlord which once again provides pressure to raise rents.
Currently, 30 days is required, thereafter the landlord would have to go through the eviction process. Between the service of the writ, waiting for the court date, the seven days wait between judgment and the issuance of the writ of possession, and the time it takes for the writ to be served and executed, the tenant will have roughly another 45 days. Therefore, under present law tenants would have about two and a half months to obtain another apartment.
However, with the shortage of skilled contractors, and supply chain issues, it becomes more difficult to line up contractors to do the work when the start date of the work unknown. It would further delay work commencing, and keep a unit off the market even longer which make the housing shortage worse and again puts pressure to increase rents.

Providing the additional information in the termination notice does not really help a tenant.
Requiring landlords to prove that both the work cannot be done with the unit occupied and the work will take more than 30 days is problematic. Is the time it takes for a contractor to get to the work or the time it takes to obtain supplies, such as windows included in the 30 days? That is not clear. Also the time it will take to do the work will be a matter of opinion. What expertise will be required by the courts for a person to give an opinion. (The rules of evidence apply in eviction hearings). How much will it add to costs to have people in court to testify about the work? This increases the costs of eviction and puts more pressure to raise rents. How much additional Court time and costs will be incurred in these evidentiary hearings?

The requirement that the landlord has to offer the tenant another apartment is both impractical and ambiguous. Does this mean the landlord becomes their parent and has to go into the rental market and find an apartment for the tenant or does it mean that the landlord only has to offer apartments owned or managed by the landlord? Does the replacement apartment have to be in the same neighborhood, community or even in New Hampshire? How can a judge determine that no other unit is available? Given how rents have increased, finding another unit at the same rent is going to be nearly impossible especially for long term tenants whose rents have been held below market rates.

With the requirement that an apartment stay unoccupied for at least one year if the eviction is based upon taking the unit off the market is arbitrary. It does not make economic sense. For instance, a developer enters into a purchase and sales agreement for a building that is now in a commercial zone. A precondition for closing is the building is unoccupied. The landlord evicts the tenants, but six months later interest rates go up to the point that the developer either delays the purchase or backs out. Now the landlord has to leave the building empty to avoid the fine, and pay operating expenses and lose insurance coverage, or be hit with a $10,000 fine because of circumstances beyond the landlord’s control.

If circumstances change and units can be put back on the market, we need them to provide some relief of the shortage in housing supply.

This bill will both discourage development and the rehabilitation of properties and upgrading individual apartments. Both are needed to sustain economic growth in New Hampshire.

|=====================|
HB469, Section 8 Becoming A Protected Class
1/26/2023 at 9:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would make people who have vouchers under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly
called Section 8, a protected class under the New Hampshire Fair Housing Act. There would be two
exceptions: first, where the rent exceeds the amount allowed under the voucher, provided that this rent
is the same as the landlord charges tenants for a comparable unit in the same building or housing
development, and secondly if the housing authority finds that the apartment does not meet housing
standards.
The bill would be enforced by the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB469
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Please vote this bill Inexpedient To Legislate and kill the bill.

Whenever a Landlord enters into a lease with a tenant who has a Housing Choice Voucher , in addition
to the lease, the landlord is required to sign a contract (the HAP contract) that was written up in
Washington DC by the Department of Housing and Urban Development which neither the tenant nor
the landlord have any say in. The Housing Authority that issued the voucher enforces this agreement,
but does not sign it or in anyway contract with the landlord. The HUD contract supersedes any provision
in the landlord’s lease, if there is a conflict.

The voucher program was designed to be and should always be a choice, entered into freely by a
landlord and tenant, should they choose to accept it.
Federal programs come with a host of requirements which apply to the whole building, not just the
subject apartment within the building. And the Federal Government even right now is continuing to
create more requirements, burdens and costs on landlords which again the landlord has no control over.

These requirements far exceed normal rental terms and may well require physical changes in the
building which are not code related.
It is not right to force these special circumstances down landlords throats.

This HAP contract has many many objectionable provisions and additional costs See much more detail
below. For instance, the Section 8 program can decide not pay their portion of the rent, usually the
largest portion of the rent, and the landlord may not evict for non-payment.
Screening is difficult, as the prospective tenants do not have credit scores, and getting accurate past
landlord history can be troublesome because even if that prior landlord can be found, landlords will be
cautious what they say to avoid possible suits. To our knowledge the Housing Authority will not give a
reference on a Section 8 tenant that is renting one of their own units. So how can you possibly properly
screen some of the Section 8 tenants?

The bill does not limit the number of section 8 tenants a landlord must accept in any one building. If the
landlord has a 4 unit building, and two units are already rented to section 8 tenants, under the bill the
landlord cannot say no to a third or fourth solely because they are on section 8. Some insurance
companies don’t want more than a certain percentage Section 8 tenants.

The Housing Choice Voucher program, on an administrative level, is broken and must be fixed to entice
landlords to participate. It is extremely difficult to evict a tenant for lease violations, bad behavior, nonpayment
when you also have to go through the Housing Authority first. When a tenant is evicted when
using the voucher program, they automatically lose their voucher so the administrative side does
everything in their power to dissuade a landlord from taking that step.

There are many flaws in this bill. Here are only a few.
Government would be forcing private citizens into contracts they disagree with & have no say in.:
Section 8, Voucher Choice, program was strategically designed to be voluntary:
Extra costs will naturally drive up rents further on all tenants:
Potential forced rent price war:
We need to fix the Section 8 program, not force its issues upon NH:
The bill does not fix the real issue which is a shortage in housing supply:
Loss of multi family property insurance coverage and increased rates:
Depressing effect on value of multi-families and real estate market:
Opens up possibility for more false discrimination lawsuits:
Unclear if normal applicant screening is allowed:
Section 8 as a protected class was attempted previously and failed:
No allowance for resident landlords:
At any time HUD & the federal government writes new rules that are forced onto landlords with no say
in the matter:
Landlord is at the mercy of the section 8 inspector & unreasonable renovations:
HUD writes its own lead abatement rules which would have to be followed:
The Section 8 program comes with much increased regulation, administration, & increased costs:
Note delays in administration, increased vacancy for lease startup, increased costs of lead
renovation, increased code renovation requirements can easily be many hundreds and even thousands
of dollars.
In an increasing rent situation the tenant could be subject to an eviction while Section 8 doesn’t pay
the increase:

Here is more detail on the issues above.

Government would be forcing private citizens into contracts they disagree with & have no say in:
If an applicant meets normal screening criteria then the Section contract would be forced on the
landlord. The government should not be in the business of compelling private citizens (isn’t this
coercion) to enter into contracts with which they disagree and have no say in. A government requiring
private citizens to participate in a government program is a slippery slope. If it isn’t unconstitutional or
illegal, it should be.
If this passes, NH will be ceding control over property rights to a federal bureaucracy rendering parts of
RSA 540 void.

If you have an existing tenant that finally makes it to the top of the Section 8 waiting list you would be
FORCED to accept the Section 8 program or be guilty of discrimination.
In this case, it is clear that HB469 would force the landlord into signing the HAP contract, a government
contract which they have no say over.

We have an undeniable history of government agencies over reaching their authority, doing everything
they can to avoid rulings of the court, with out regard to the lives and businesses they are affecting.
Section 8, Voucher Choice, program was strategically designed to be voluntary:
HCV contracts and supporting legislation is complex and restrictive, something that many landlords find
unacceptable. From the beginning, the Section 8, Voucher Choice, program was strategically designed
to be voluntary. It should stay voluntary as originally designed.

Extra costs will naturally drive up rents further on all tenants:

Potential forced rent price war:
There is an entire host of issues with the Section 8 contact that would be forced upon a landlord. The
bill would naturally lead to landlords that are experienced business persons to raise rents above the
Section 8 allowance. Section 8 may then raise their allowance. Now there is rent price war.
Do we really want to force a large rent increase at this time?

Fix the Section 8 program, don’t force its issues upon NH:
The bill is a misguided solution to Section 8 issue.
Presently a good number of landlords accept and many do not accept the Section 8 program.
The issue is sometimes a tenant receiving Section 8 assistance contacts a landlord who does not accept
the Section 8 program. The landlord doesn’t accept the program because it is essentially bad for
landlords and costs more time and money.
There are many reasons why a landlord would choose not to participate in the program.
Tenant quality issues, difficulty with administering rent increases, added oversite regarding property
inspections and the demand to repair tenant damage without compensation are a few. If the Housing
Authorities want landlord participation, they should speak with landlords about why participation is a
challenge and address those concerns.
Instead of working to make the Section 8 program more palatable to landlords, HB469 attempts to solve
the issue by making it illegal to discriminate based on Section 8.

In plain words, rather the fix the program, HB469 attempts to ram the program, as is, down landlord’s
throat.

The bill does not fix the real issue which is a shortage in housing supply:
Two of the likely reasons for this bill is that section 8 people are having trouble obtaining apartments
and that the sponsors believe that if the section 8 people move into better areas, they and their children
will do better. However, the shortage of apartments in New Hampshire is state wide, and the bill does
nothing to increase the supply. Note that people have 60 days to locate an apartment that can be
extended up to 120 days.
Also, since the bill exempts apartments that are renting for more than the amount allotted by the
housing authorities, it will give landlords more incentive to raise rents which will result in less
apartments being available to voucher holders. In regard to the second reason, there is no exemption
for the number of units that a landlord must rent to section 8 voucher holders. It could result in two or
more units in a small building, such as a 3 or four unit building being rented to voucher holders, thus
defeating the purpose of the bill.
Further, if the one of the principles of the bill is that these classes of tenants would have a better chance
of improving their situations if they could live in better areas, does that mean that all public housing that
concentrates people of low income and financial means in one project should be eliminated?
Of particular note are the lead paint regulations which are not in concert with NH regulations, and
require more stringent controls than the state already requires.

Loss of multi family property insurance coverage and increased rates:
Some insurance companies won’t write insurance if Section 8 is more than 20%-50%.

Standard Insurance companies research shows that if there is a majority of a building rented to Section 8
occupants then there tend to be more liability claims and less maintenance is done on the building. We
have been told by insurance agents that it is their right not to insure the building in that situation and
that insurance rates would likely go up if a landlord had large amounts of section 8 tenants in their
building.

Depressing effect on value of multi-families and real estate market:
In the investment markets something that provides a stable return is valued higher than something
uncertain. HB469 creates a huge amount of uncertainty as to what a property owner income depending
on how many Section 8 tenants with accompanying expenses he/she happens to be required to accept
plus the uncertainty of property insurance costs or even obtaining insurance. All of this would cause
multifamily investment property to be less valuable.

Opens up possibility for more false discrimination lawsuits:
This bill would be opening up discrimination lawsuits to landlord of all sizes and severely limit the
landlord’s ability to screen for good tenants to provide safe quiet enjoyment for all tenants at the
property.
It happens often that a landlord who never had any intent to discriminate winds up spending hours and
hours and thousands of dollars in an effort to convince an investigator of their innocence. This could
easily open up with “frivolous” lawsuits against landlords.

Unclear if normal applicant screening is allowed:
If lines 6 – 13 do not clearly state that a landlord can still screen a Section 8 applicant for bad landlord
references, eviction records, criminal activity, sexual offender, or bad credit. Can that be interpreted as
a landlord has to accept Section 8 tenants with bad history in all those categories.
In fact the only 2 reasons for denying a Section 8 applicant that are clearly stated are:
(a) The rent charged for the dwelling is above that which the housing authority which administers the
voucher can lawfully approve, and the rent charged for the dwelling unit is the same as the landlord
charges tenants for a comparable unit in the same building or housing development; or
(b) The housing authority determines that the dwelling fails to meet the Housing Quality Standards
promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development as codified in 24
C.F.R. 982.401.

The bill would take away a landlord’s ability to screen a tenant based on their income. What happens
when tenant assistance runs out or they are kicked off the program. The landlord now has a tenant that
can't afford the apartment. They would never have met the screen requirement for income to begin
with.

To protect yourself from discrimination suits you will be likely need to give preference to accept Section
8. You will not be allowed to deny someone your apartment if they have bad landlord references or bad
credit if those references and credit are "caused" by domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Maybe this could be stretched to say the reasons that cause a tenant to be eligible for Section 8 are the
reasons for their bad credit. If so landlords could not refuse a Section 8 tenant because of their bad
credit. Could that be extended to say they could not be refused because of bad past rental payments?

Section 8 as a protected class was attempted previously and failed:
The prevailing opinion revolved around a landlord being forced to enter into a multi page contract with
the government backed up by hundreds of pages of supporting regulation with no say in the content of
the contract which is naturally weighted heavily in favor of the government and not the landlord.

No allowance for resident landlords:
Unlike other law, the bill fails to make an allowance for resident landlords. (Restricted v. non restricted)

At any time HUD & the federal government writes new rules that are forced onto landlords with no say
in the matter:
HUD writes its own rules, “from on high”, that landlords have no say in. For instance. during the
pandemic, and still now, HUD has overruled NH law by requiring a 30 day eviction notice for nonpayment.
NH law is 7 days. (note that the loss of 23 days rent is a 6.3% rent increase promulgated by
the Federal government, Does NH want HUD to dictate rent increases to us?). Further it is understood
that during the federal moratoriums if an owner had one section 8 tenant in a multiunit building then
the entire building was a “covered property” not just the one unit. This meant for a time HUD had
control over writing rules for the entire building that the owner had no say over.
Federal COVID rules imposed unreasonable restrictions on landlord (i.e. extended eviction moratorium)
not imposed by the state. It is not right to force landlords into such an alliance.
To this day, because of the CARES act, if you have one Section 8 tenant in your 8 unit building then it can
be interpreted that the landlord must follow HUD eviction rules, not state rules, on every tenant.

Landlord is at the mercy of the section 8 inspector and unreasonable renovations:
Once a voucher holder is in a building the landlord is at the mercy of the section 8 inspector. One
landlord member writes:
“I was recently ordered to replace a $4000 kitchen floor that the tenant had damaged.”
You see HUD would require that the landlord pay for damages caused by the tenant.
Another was asked to repave a large parking lot because it had several cracks.
Another was not allowed to remove a large ‘third’ egress staircase which nobody used but rather was
required to rebuild the unused staircase at the cost of thousands of dollars.

HUD writes its own lead abatement rules which would have to be followed:
Did you know that HUD writes and enforces it’s own rules on lead abatement that overrule the state’s
lead abatement rules? Landlords have no say in the content of these rules.
The Section 8 program comes with much increased regulation, administration, & increased costs:
There are valid reasons why a landlord would not want to accept Section 8.
Primarily because of the large and increasing amount of regulatory scrutiny that surrounds it. A landlord
should not be forced to accept these regulatory standards which can be onerous, especially in older
structures.

The section 8 program is not just a choice voucher. It has many strings attached.. It creates additional
burden, cost and risk on landlords, especially small landlords with older properties.
Also, in a more extreme case, a landlord might not trust the section 8 housing authority to fund
payments (credit risk), ie in a government shutdown, etc.

Section 8 Lease: Actually there is a lease & a contract. The landlord and tenant come to agreement on
whatever is their normal lease AND the Section 8 program requires a separate contract called the HAP
contract, Housing Assistance Payments, between the owner and the Housing Finance Authority.

This HAP Contract is called loosely the Section 8 lease but that is technically incorrect.

Many provisions of the Section 8 HAP contract are troublesome, illegal or believed to be
unconstitutional.
See HAP contract here: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_11737.PDF

A. Part A section 7, The housing authority can and does change the amount of monthly assistance
during the term of the contract. This happens when the tenant's household income varies. It causes
extra book keeping and errors tracking the ever changing rental split between housing and tenant.

B. Part B section 2 c. The lease between the landlord and the tenant must include word for word all
provisions of the tenancy addendum required by HUD. This is 4 pages of small print legalese.

If a landlord fails to do this, the landlord will not receive rent from the housing authority until the lease
is amended to conform to this requirement. Something people without a legal background could miss.

C. Part B section 4b(2). The housing authority (PHA) ""may terminate payments for any grounds
authorized in accordance with HUD requirements."" The problem is that if the family does something
like drugs, and the landlord is evicting, the housing authority could cut off funds for the landlord, and
since the family is poor or they would not be receiving section 8, the landlord would not have anyone to
go after for lost rent.

D. Part B section 4 b (3) If the family moves the HAP contract terminates automatically. So if a family
breaches the lease, as in a "midnight move out", the lease is meaningless and the authority can stop
paying.

E. Part B section 4 b (5) The HAP contract can be terminated if the PHA determines per HUD
requirements, that there is insufficient funding to support the continued assistance. Here HUD itself
shows it has funding concerns .

F. Part B section 4 b (6) The HAP contract terminates automatically upon the death of a single member
household, including single member households with a live-in aide. So, no rent but how do we get rid of
the live-in aid, and who has to incur the lost rent while the live-in aid is being evicted?

G. Part B section 10 a (2) it is a breach of the HAP contract if the owner has violated any obligation under
any other HAP contract. So, for landlords with multiple buildings, if there is a problem in one building
that is a breach then all section 8 payments could stop. With one very bad tenant, who lies, this could be
a major problem

Also subparagraph (5) it is a breach if the owner engaged in any violent criminal activity. So, no
defending yourself against a tenant who threatens you with bodily harm. This applies to all tenants and
not just the section 8 ones.

H. Part B section 11. (a, b, and c but particularly b) The owner has to give ""full and free access"" to
HUD, PHA, and the Comptroller General any and all information, records, computer files, accounts that
are relevant to the HAP contract. HUD HAS DECIDED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. (Illegal search and seizure or need
for probable cause).

If someone wants to challenge this, then they are in breach of the HAP contract and rent stops. (You do
what we want or we will bankrupt you).

I. Part B section 13. (3) Any public official, member of a governing body, or State or local legislator,
who exercises functions or responsibilities with respect to the program; or
(4) Any member of the Congress of the United States
can not participate in the program. What is “exercises functions or responsibilities“? Does authorizing
the program & passing a law relative to the program qualify? So, if the bill passes, certainly our US
Congress people, and maybe state legislators who are landlords are in a catch 22. The law from the bill
would hold the legislator guilty of discrimination if they did not make the unit available to a Section 8
applicant yet the Section 8 program 24 C.F.R. 982.161 clearly says the legislator would be disqualified
from the program. This means, to not be guilty of discrimination, the legislator landlord would need to
process the application and accept the applicant, perhaps schedule inspections, begin to fill out the
paper work only to be told the program will not allow the legislator. This is a waste of time, effort and
money.
The federal regulation, 24 C.F.R. 982, is 77 pages and the HAP contract is 12 pages being imposed on
landlords by legislators that haven’t even read and likely not studied the regulation and its impact.
If this kind of conflict in the law is just being noticed what else is in the 77 + 12 pages?
Do we really think it’s wise to pass such a sweeping bill with out even knowing the consequences?

J. Part B section 14. (a) PHA can keep the sale of the property from going through by refusing to let the
new owner take over the lease.

K. Part B section 14 (e) PHA will not allow assignment of HAP contract, sale of property, to an immediate
relative.

L. Part C section 5 (d) Owner cannot evict tenant for failure of the PHA to pay rent which gives PHA
Tremendous leverage over the owner.

M. Part C section 8 (e) 1 & 2 The apartment can be destroyed & all neighboring tenants harassed &
endangered but the owner cannot evict if it's connected with Domestic Violence.

Perpetrators allowed back in by victim.
Many times the victims allow the perpetrator into the new apartment. Are other tenants to be in danger
if new tenant who is victim of DV lets abuser back into their living space? What if one of the tenants are
harmed by the perpetrator. Can the landlord now be held somehow liable because the landlord could
not do anything to eliminate the perpetrator?
If this happens, landlords have limited ability to evict unless they are witnesses to new abuse or
disturbance of the peace. The eviction requires a 30 days notice plus all the time the courts take so it
could take 2 to 3 months at a minimum to evict the perpetrator. Mean time all the other tenants in the
building who are subject to the fights, generally are reluctant to call police, and may move on account of
the continued problem. Now the landlord is only left with the troubled unit and will likely have trouble
rerenting because of the troublesome unit.

The Section 8 program is more costly for landlords:
Section 8 tenants are more costly for landlords although landlords by HUD rules can not charge more for
them.
a. more paper work. The Section 8 lease and contract is very large with an extreme number of clauses.
This means the landlord will have to except all the provisions that this government body dreams up and
the landlord as no control over.
b. must take time for initial inspection
c. must take time for annual inspections
d. there are annual financial reviews of the tenants if not more often, which changes the amount paid by
the housing authority and the tenant. Increases bookkeeping time and chances of errors.
e. More regulations, and different standards such as with lead paint renovations which would now have
to meet more stringent HUD rules.
A two week delay because of inspections and administration is a 2/52=3.8% loss, a few hundred dollars.
An extra renovation could be hundreds and in a few cases thousands of dollars.

Did you know that having a housing assistance tenant forces you to follow HUD RRP rules instead of EPA
RRP rules. The HUD rules are more restrictive and expensive to follow which will absolutely increase
your expenses and create more vacancy. Some of the extra HUD RRP rules:
1. Under EPA you can have one RRP certified worker supervising other works.
On HUD Section 8 job ALL workers must be RRP certified.
2. Under EPA the RRP renovator may do an official “Cleaning Verification Procedure” to release the
job back to the occupant.
On HUD Section 8 job several dust wipes performed only by a dust wipe technician, Lead Inspector
or Risk Assessor must be performed sent to a lab and the result proven to be <40 micrograms/square
foot lead. If not then the contractor must reclean and pay for more lab dust wipes until the job meets
the HUD requirement.
3. Under EPA there is no prohibition to work on a windy day as long as you can meet containment.
On HUD Section 8 job you must shut down the job on a windy day (>20mPH).
4. Under EPA you are required to meet RRP rules only if disturbing more than 6 square feet.
On HUD Section 8 job you have to invoke HUD RRP rules if disturbing more than 2 square feet.
There are several more restrictions. HUD Section 8 jobs are always more restrictive in their rules.
Extra RRP costs would be at easily be a several hundred dollars and perhaps very significantly more.
In an increasing rent situation the tenant could be subject to an eviction while Section 8 doesn’t pay
the increase:
f. Need housing authority approval to raise rents, and there are limitations on rent increases based upon
what is allowed by HUD. Would a landlord be restricted in raising rent? Or at least delayed in raising
rent while the Section 8 tenant attempts to find something else? Section 8 would not pay the extra
leaving the tenant to be evicted while looking for another place.
g. Sec 8 is funded by what has been often been a dysfunctional Congress. Who knows what they will
continue to fund.
h. Landlords should not be forced to have too many sec 8 tenants, if funding is reduced the landlord
could face financial ruin.
i. This will open all our rental properties to having to be up to government (HUD) codes including at least
annual inspections, not just current building code.
Who knows how much and increased code requirement may cost.

The bill gives people on sec 8 & any type of housing assistance greater rights than people who work and
pay rent from their paychecks.

This is a terrible bill and significantly worsens the affordability issue in NH.

Please vote this bill Inexpedient To Legislate and kill the bill.

|=====================|
HB567, 60 Day & 6 Month Notice Of Rent Increases
1/26/2023 at 9:45 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:45 a.m.
Title:

Summary: The bill would change current law by requiring landlords of restricted residential property to give tenants 60 days notice of any rent increases. The bill would also require landlords of restricted property to give tenants 6 months notice of rent increases, or combined increases, of more than 15% over the rent that was in effect when the rent increase notice was given to the tenant. If more than one notice of rent increase is given to the tenant, then the 6 months starts on the date of the last notice.

If a tenant is given notice that rent will exceed 15%, the tenant will have the right to terminate the tenancy on 10 days notice to the landlord.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB567
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
This again puts pressure on increasing rents.

It interferes with negotiations between tenant and landlord.
Some landlords give an initial startup lower rent to help a tenant move in helping a tenant recover from a financial crisis. This bill would prevent such tenant help.

Current state law says landlords and tenants each have to give each other 30 days notice of termination. (Rent increases are termination of the existing tenancy and an offer of a new tenancy at a higher rent).

Given inflation, rents will be continually increased in most instances to cover the increase in costs everyone is experiencing, Most likely landlords will be giving tenant 60 days notice, and we can expect tenant to start looking for other apartments if they do not want to accept the rent increase, but the tenants do not have to give notice until 30 days before they vacant, which results in the apartment the tenant is vacating not being put onto the market until the landlord receives that 30 days notice. Therefore all the people with 60 days notice and all the people with 30 days notice will be seeking apartments at the same time, increasing demand on the already short supply, thus potentially pushing up rents and not helping tenants. The people looking 60 days out will not hardly ever find any thing available 60 days out because tenants are only required to give 30 days notice.

The 15% is a number that is not indexed for inflation. If we have a couple of years of hyper inflation, everyone will be getting a 6 months notice, and having to give a six months notice is a huge problem. It is impossible to reasonably predict many costs for landlords six months in advance. Cities and towns do not set their budgets six months in advance, nor are landlords notified of changes in assessed values six months in advance. Therefore, landlords will be guessing at what their tax bills will be, and of course err on the high side planning to avoid losing money during the rental year. The same will apply to snow removal, utility costs, maintenance supplies and labor and all the other costs landlords incur.

If there is the hyper inflation, the 10 days notice that tenants can use to terminate a lease will make leases almost useless. It could push rents higher since the landlord will not have the full lease year to amortize the costs of turning over an apartment. It will make it difficult to plan out apartment turn over expenses. Then there are questions that if notice is in the middle of the month, how is rent for that month addressed, and there is less time to re-rent the apartment which means more potential vacancy and more costs to put more pressure on rents.

If a landlord could foresee and wanted to give a tenant 6 or more month’s notice of a large increase whild only a little way into a year’s lease then the 10 days' notice from the tenant would violate the year lease and contract law.
The service of a notice would not cost the tenant a penny for at least 60 days so why should a landlord be subjected to unilateral abandonment of a legal contract and the associate costs. It makes no sense.

This bill is the beginning of Rent Control:
This bill is an unnecessary burden and a form of rent control and should immediately be killed for the rent control camel’s nose under tent reasons alone. Don’t be fooled, this is the beginning of rent control.
Rent Control comes in many varieties from small to large. Any restriction on free enterprise, specifically rents is a form of rent control. Rent control has over and over proven to be a failed policy.
Rent control warps markets and leads to poorly maintained properties

Limits income without limiting expenses:
These new requirements do not account for significant expenses a landlord might incur, such as a massive property tax increase or a major capital expense such as an expensive roof or paved driveway or updated heating systems. We do not want to discourage property owners from making improvements to their properties; how they recoup those investments should be determined by them, not by legislation.
Real estate value is determined by income vs. expenses. In a free market it doesn’t work to limit income without limiting the expenses. Also, in order to sell a building many buyers look to increase the income from tenants (that know they've been getting a good deal for years) in order to pay for the mortgage

Sponsors automatic rent increases and deferred maintenance:
To limit or stifle the sale of buildings will lead to many problems, automatic rent increases, deferred maintenance etc.

Intent of bill will fail if landlord notice and tenant notice are different:
If a 60 or 90 day notice is kept for rent increase and tenant’s notice of terminating lease is 30 days then entire intention of the bill won’t work.
If tenants are looking for apartments 60 to 90 days out but nothing like that is available because present tenants are only giving 30 days notice then landlords are going to be receiving lots of calls from people looking for apartments while they don’t have an inventory of apartments turning over because most of the potential rentals for the tenant moving are not even on the market yet. So effectively, the tenant that is moving really only gets the last 30 days of real time finding something. There will become waiting lists. This will naturally drive prices up and only the best applicants accepted leaving others with out housing. If tenants are only required to give 30 days notice why should 90 days be required on the landlord? It also makes landlords speculate on what the market will be, especially if the rent increase notice has to be given before the rental season.

Goal can be entirely accomplished by existing contract law:
The entire bill is unnecessary, as the goal can be entirely accomplished by existing contract law.
At any time, a tenant can seek a fixed lease term from a landlord. Rent may not be increased during this period, per the lease agreement. If a tenant wants to insure against the shock of a possible rent increase, they can:
ask for a 3 month notice clause in their lease;
before lease renewal ask for a 3 month extension at an agreed upon price;
ask for a 3 month autorenewing lease either from the beginning or from end of first tem;
at any time during their 12 month lease, seek to extend and/or negotiate a lease extension even 12 months at an agreed new rental amount.

These existing remedies are fair as it also obligates the tenant to abide by whatever notice is required when the extension or new agreement is reached.

Wrap up:
In short, this will further increase demand of a limited supply, which will result in more rent increases.

When property taxes, water bills, heating bills, and other costs to the landlord increase the landlord needs to be able to pass these on in a timely manner.

Rents are increasing in New Hampshire largely because there is a housing shortage. This has occurred for a number of reasons, including that it is very expensive and requires a lot of capital to build housing. Generally, because of these increased regulations and costs, only high end multi-family units or subsidized multi-family housing can be built.

This bill does nothing at all to help address the housing shortage but rather worsens the issue.

|=====================|
HB543, Veterans Protected Class
1/26/2023 at 1:45 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:45 p.m.
Title:

Summary:

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB543
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:

|=====================|
SB142, Forms Rates For Property And Casualty Insurance
1/31/2023 at 10:00 a.m. Location: State House Time: 10:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill makes certain technical corrections to RSA 412, relative to the regulation of forms and rates for property and casualty insurance. The bill is a request of the insurance department. The bill does not appear to affect landlords as it is only for technical wording changes in current law.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=40

Email to Committee:
To: Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; Shannon.Chandley@leg.state.nh.us; William.Gannon@leg.state.nh.us; Denise.Ricciardi@leg.state.nh.us; Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: SB142

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
SB142
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!

One core team member notes:
Is an insurance company engaging in rating discrimination? This bill says that more of the insurance company's methodology for making decisions is now a proprietary trade secret beyond the purview of the department. In addition, insurance rating bureaus that apply for approval of insurance rates need not be formal bureaus but simply an "advisory organization". This bill would concern any landlord who contemplates fighting "redlining" in court.
|=====================|
HB524, Electricity Minimum Rebate
2/13/2023 at 2:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:30 p.m.
Title:

Summary: You will not get any payment under $3 that has been rebated to your electricity bill by virtue of the regional greenhouse gas allowance sales.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H24

Email to Committee:
To: HouseScienceTechnologyandEnergy@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB524

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB524
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
SB145, Housing Championship Program
2/14/2023 at 9:30 a.m. Location: State House Time: 9:30 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill has two major components. The first is to establish a housing championship program. Each municipality would have the option to apply to receive the New Hampshire housing champion designation. In exchange for New Hampshire housing champion designation, a municipality shall receive preferential access to state resources including, but not limited to, discretionary state infrastructure funds, as available.

The benefits for obtaining the designations shall include eligibility to the Housing Planning and Regulation Municipal Grant Program, the Housing production municipal grant program, and the Housing infrastructure municipal grant and loan program, all of which are also established by this bill.

The second major components to this bill are the establishment of the grant programs and the funding of the program. The total of the funding is $29,000,000, with $25,000,000 for the biennium ending June 30, 2025.

There are a number of other aspects of the bill that are not summarized here that mostly address the administration of the program.

Property Owner Position: For

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=40

Email to Committee:
To: Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; Shannon.Chandley@leg.state.nh.us; William.Gannon@leg.state.nh.us; Denise.Ricciardi@leg.state.nh.us; Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: SB145

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
SB145
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We don’t have a strong opinion on this bill. However, in general we need to support the creation of more housing.
There are different thoughts on this. Here are several.
This bill is designed to give municipalities incentive, by way of financial aid, to develop workforce housing, which is badly needed in New Hampshire. This includes working on zoning, training for planning board and zoning board members, and money for water, sewer, and other utilities.
Since there is a severe shortage of housing in the state, and eventually it will hurt the economic growth of the state, any good incentive for the building of more housing is something we need to promote.
The best way to promote new housing is to reduce zoning obstacles. Because of constitutional home rule laws, the state can't use a stick to force the issue, only a carrot. The "Housing Champion" designation is a state financial incentive program to build more housing. Will it be funded? Will the funds be fairly distributed? Is it worth the 14 million dollar per year cost of the program? Will small municipalities be able to compete for funds against cities?
We should not create something for the sake of looking good. Anything we do has to actually have the funding necessary without higher taxation. Higher taxation bleeds the life, and all the opportunity, out of good ideas. We need to resolve the lack of housing while also making it affordable.
|=====================|
SB224, Affordable Housing Tax Breaks
2/14/2023 at 9:30 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:30 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill's premise is that affordable housing is sometimes less profitable than other housing. The bill allows an affordable housing developer to stretch the zoning rules if he/she can prove that it is necessary to achieve profit parity with other types of housing development.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=41

Email to Committee:
To: Daryl.Abbas@leg.state.nh.us; Keith.Murphy@leg.state.nh.us; Rebecca.PerkinsKwoka@leg.state.nh.us; James.Gray@leg.state.nh.us; Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: SB224

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
SB224
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Sometimes developers complain that building affordable housing is not profitable enough, so they build ‘luxury’ housing. If the government recognized the law of supply and demand as well as the action of market forces, they would realize that if too much luxury housing is built, it will become affordable when the developers can't get the high rents they want. This bill is a well intentioned attempt to add more complex laws to correct the housing market. Because of its complex reporting requirements, the law will probably only be used by large, sophisticated developers. It burdens small municipalities with handling these complex reports. They may not have the staff to do so. A similar law that is referenced in the text, RSA 79-E:4-c, allows municipalities to give huge property tax breaks to developers of ‘affordable housing’ at the same time that give they give zoning relief envisioned in this law.
|=====================|
HB649, Repeal Statewide Property Tax
2/16/2023 at 10:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: Repealing the collection of the state education property tax

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H05

Email to Committee:
To: HouseEducationCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB649

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB649
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
This proposal repeals a statewide property tax that benefits schools. That would shift the tax burden from real property onto other sources of revenue such as real estate businesses. You pay one way or the other. The bill has no cosponsors.
|=====================|
HB342, Lead Testing prior To Starting School
2/16/2023 at 2:00 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:00 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would require that medical providers test a child's blood lead level as part of the physical exam that is currently required before a child enters school or day care for the first time. The exam and blood test is not required if the child's parents object on religious grounds.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H09

Email to Committee:
To: Gerri.Cannon@leg.state.nh.us; Leah.Cushman@leg.state.nh.us; Mary.Freitas@leg.state.nh.us; king4nh@gmail.com; Seth.King@leg.state.nh.us; staterep@jimkofalt.com; Erica.Layon@leg.state.nh.us; elephantsmarching@msn.com; james.mackay@mygait.com; Lisa.Mazur@leg.state.nh.us; mark.mclean@leg.state.nh.us; merchant4nhhouse@gmail.com; James.Murphy@leg.state.nh.us; David.NagelMD@gmail.com; Fran.NutterUpham@leg.state.nh.us; William.Palmer@leg.state.nh.us; Yury.Polozov@leg.state.nh.us; Joe.Schapiro@leg.state.nh.us; Trinidad.Tellez@leg.state.nh.us; lwmcv@comcast.net; ; ;
Subject: HB342

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB342
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
This would begin blood tests for lead in children as young as 9 months. One positive aspect of this bill is that it might pick up on problems before permanent damages to children happens.
This bill will screen more children for lead in their blood, and most likely will cause more abatement orders for landlords. Since the bill is to reduce the long term effects on children, and protect children, it is a hard bill to oppose. Landlords have historically stood on the side on the issue of testing children for lead.

|=====================|

Extended Menu

New Hampshire REIA

New Hampshire Legislative issues that affect Landlords, Investors & Contractors

By Mike Hurney - Sunday, February 12, 2023

What if the sale is for a portfolio of properties, and the tenants only want to buy the building they live in? Is the owner in bad faith if they will only accept an offer that equals that of the third party for sale of the entire portfolio?

Be the First to Comment:

Search Blog

Authors

Extended Menu

New Hampshire Legislative issues that affect Landlords, Investors & Contractors

By Mike Hurney - Sunday, February 12, 2023

What if the sale is for a portfolio of properties, and the tenants only want to buy the building they live in? Is the owner in bad faith if they will only accept an offer that equals that of the third party for sale of the entire portfolio?

Related Posts

Be the First to Comment:

Search Blog

Tag Cloud

Authors

This Website Uses Cookies