HB1012

Accessory dwelling units and detached accessory dwelling units help address the lack of housing in NH and provide affordable options for home ownership and community.

Dear members of the House Housing Committee, Please accept this testimony on HB 1012 from the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, New Hampshire's free-market think tank. Rep. Turcotte stated in his testimony that state laws relaxing local zoning regulations are communistic. He stated that he is submitting into the record an op-ed he wrote last year explaining this theory. In response, please accept our Union Leader op-ed written in reply to his op-ed last year. Thank you for your consideration. The op-ed, written by our then-policy analyst Mitchell Scacchi, is pasted below. IN AN op-ed April 16th, state Rep. Len Turcotte (R-Barrington) compared two land-use bills in the state legislature to Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward of collectivist central planning in China. “Much like Mao unilaterally decided to collectivize every farmer’s land, this group of individuals believe they should mandate onto every municipality their idealistic vision of a land-use utopia,” Rep. Turcotte wrote. That’s an interesting take given that the bills in question, HB 1291 and HB 1399, would remove government restrictions on private property. HB 1291 would allow private property owners to build up to two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on their own residential lots. Current state law allows only one by right. HB 1399 would permit homeowners to convert their single-family residence within an urban residential zone into two residential units without review, provided it meets certain requirements. Turcotte decries these measures as “socialist zoning dictates at the state level.” In fact, these bills would remove socialist zoning dictates and restore a very small measure of private property rights. Over the last century, local governments in New Hampshire have adopted increasingly severe restrictions on private property. Many local zoning districts in the state prohibit property owners from building a home on less than one acre of land, for example. Even when detached ADUs are allowed, municipalities often heavily regulate their appearance, even down to their color scheme. Because these dictates are adopted at the local level, some Granite Staters don’t think of them as violations of property rights. But they are. People who think of themselves as “Live Free or Die” conservatives might be surprised to know how closely these collective property restrictions resemble the way local collectives regulate property in China. Local land-use regulations are often defended as necessary to preserve the rural or uniform character of a community. That is, the community collectively confiscates private property rights for a public purpose. That purpose is usually to maintain existing aesthetics or uses and prevent property from being converted into other uses. In China, laws strictly control what can be done with urban and rural land, all of which is owned collectively. The state owns urban land. Local collectives control the use of rural land, which farmers may use but not own. Rural residents may build homes but can “sell” (transfer the rights to those homes) only to other farmers. The goal is to keep rural land rural and prohibit its conversion into other uses. Sound familiar? Turcotte argues that these two minor tweaks to local land-use regulations would deprive property owners of their existing property rights. What rights exactly would these bills infringe upon? The right to control your neighbor’s property? If you own property in New Hampshire, you’re permitted to have one ADU by right. If you want to add a second ADU, or convert some of your existing property into a second ADU, your local government can simply say “no” even if the use would conform with every other local regulation. Similarly, if you have a single-family home in an urban residential district and you’d like to convert it into a duplex in conformity with every other local regulation, your local zoning and planning boards can simply say “no.” What’s more communist than a local, centralized politburo ruling by fiat for the collective and against individual property rights? HB 1291 and HB 1399 would in no way constrain anyone’s property rights. They would prevent local governments from saying “no” just because they don’t like such uses. All other regulations of your (and your neighbor’s) property would remain in effect. Local control is an important principle in New Hampshire. But just because a law is passed at the local level doesn’t mean that it can’t be oppressive. Local tyranny is still tyranny. Because of that, not everything is or should be left up to the edicts of local direct democracy, especially something as fundamental to a free society as individual property rights. And just repeating the claim that “localities know best” falls on deaf ears when those same localities fail to take steps toward addressing a housing crisis that, because of burdensome zoning ordinances, is largely of their own making. When New Hampshire’s median home price hits $500,000 for the first time in state history, it’s clear that overly restrictive local land-use regulations must be reexamined. In the face of a worsening housing shortage, Granite Staters are increasingly questioning the wisdom of unlimited local control. They’re right to do so. New Hampshire House Majority Leader Jason Osborne summed it up best in a recent post on X (formerly Twitter): “When the government boot is upon your neck, it is of little comfort that the boot is ‘local’.” Mitchell Scacchi is a policy analyst at Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy. He lives in Concord.

"HB 1012, while potentially appealing to constituents focused on preserving single-family neighborhood character, carries substantial risks for marginalized populations. By eliminating ADUs and DADUs, it reduces affordable housing options, risks exacerbating trauma among vulnerable groups, and reinforces systemic inequities. Policymakers should weigh these unintended harms against intended benefits and consider amendments that preserve housing flexibility while safeguarding neighborhood integrity. "

I think ADUs are a good idea considering how unaffordable housing is right now.

The Members of the NH Council on Developmental Disabilities believe this will could have a negative effect on the NH disability community. Legislation allowing for the construction of ADUs throughout the state passed last session, bettering the chances that individuals with disabilities can be afforded housing as well as those who care for them. Repealing this could have damaging effects on a system that hasn't been allowed to take action.

Dear Members of the Housing Committee, I am writing to express my strong OPPOSITION for House Bill 1012. We have a housing crisis in the state of NH. I believe that House Bill 1012 PREVENTS numerous benefits for our community, including: - Helping older adults age in place by providing affordable, accessible, and independent housing options. - Offering an opportunity for caregivers to live with their loved ones while maintaining their own independence. - Creating an additional stream of income for homeowners, which can help alleviate financial burdens such as mortgage or property tax costs. By opposing House Bill 1012, we can address the growing demand for affordable housing and provide families with more options for sustainable living. I urge you OPPOSE House Bill 1012. Together, we can create a more vibrant, equitable, and resilient community for all residents. Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

I oppose HB1012 because it does not allow for affordable housing for older adults and families. By restricting the expansion of ADUs, HB1012 would worsen the growing demand for affordable housing and limit a family's’ choices for sustainable living. Older adults deserve the ability to age in place with dignity, and HB577 gave them that opportunity. HB1012 removes that opportunity. .

Subject: Oppose HB1012 Dear Members of the House Housing Committee, We are writing to express our strong opposition to House Bill 1012. This legislation would roll back the progress we made with House Bill 577—a critical step toward creating affordable housing options, enabling older adults to age in place, and supporting families in our community. HB1012 threatens to undermine the benefits that HB577 brought to our state, including: • Helping older adults age in place by providing affordable, accessible, and independent housing options. Reversing these provisions would make it harder for older residents to remain in their communities. • Offering an opportunity for caregivers to live with their loved ones while maintaining their own independence. HB1012 would take away this flexibility that so many families rely on. • Creating an additional stream of income for homeowners, which helps alleviate financial burdens such as mortgage or property tax costs. Rolling back these options would hurt homeowners who depend on this support. Older adults deserve the ability to age in place with dignity, and HB577 gave them that opportunity. WE URGE YOU TO REJECT HB 1012. Gary and Heidi Hamer Manchester NH

Subject: Oppose HB1012 Dear Members of the House Housing Committee, I am writing to express my strong opposition to House Bill 1012. This legislation would roll back the progress we made with House Bill 577—a critical step toward creating affordable housing options, enabling older adults to age in place, and supporting families in our community. HB1012 threatens to undermine the benefits that HB577 brought to our state, including: • Helping older adults age in place by providing affordable, accessible, and independent housing options. Reversing these provisions would make it harder for older residents to remain in their communities. • Offering an opportunity for caregivers to live with their loved ones while maintaining their own independence. HB1012 would take away this flexibility that so many families rely on. • Creating an additional stream of income for homeowners, which helps alleviate financial burdens such as mortgage or property tax costs. Rolling back these options would hurt homeowners who depend on this support. By restricting the expansion of ADUs, HB1012 would worsen the growing demand for affordable housing and limit families’ choices for sustainable living. Older adults deserve the ability to age in place with dignity, and HB577 gave them that opportunity. HB1012 would take us backward. I urge you to reject HB1012 and instead continue prioritizing policies that promote affordable housing and aging in place. Together, we can maintain a vibrant, equitable, and resilient community for all residents. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Kristine Juckett Concord NH

I live in a detached ADU behind the house owned by my sister, her husband with physical disabilities, and their 4-year-old. I support them by helping with yard work, maintenance and child care. They support me by providing a stable, affordable place to rent close to my job, where I’m the executive director of a small nonprofit with a food pantry and affordable housing. As a 39-year-old single person, this ADU makes it possible to live close to my family and work in community development serving others in need. If we want people to “stay, work, play” in NH, we need more housing and more diverse housing options.

HB1012 repeals the allowance of attached and detached accessory dwelling units everywhere, limiting options for families and seniors.

Accessory dwelling units are a gentle way of increasing density in neighborhoods who don't want to experience significant change. They are also a useful tool in addressing the housing stability crisis for aging adults and adults with disabilities who want to live independently in a safe environment. They can also address the housing needs of the direct support workforce who sometimes need to be close by their clients.

New Hampshire needs more access to housing now. We need to expand the tax base as well as enable the next two generations the opportunity to put down roots and care about New Hampshire.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.