HB1580

Dear Representatives, I am writing as a small business owner who operates short-term vacation rentals in New Hampshire, and I respectfully oppose the proposed property tax surcharge targeting second homes and short-term rentals. My family and I have worked extremely hard to earn, maintain, and responsibly operate our vacation rental properties. These homes are not corporate investments, they are small, locally run businesses that support our family and employ local cleaners, tradespeople, and service providers. We pay full residential property taxes, collect and remit Meals and Rooms tax, and reinvest heavily in our properties and communities. This proposal is not fair or equitable to small operators like us. It disproportionately penalizes family-owned vacation rentals while leaving large hotel corporations, which operate at scale and benefit from commercial structures, largely unaffected. Treating locally owned STRs as a revenue source, while corporate hospitality businesses are not similarly burdened, creates an uneven playing field. Additionally, this proposal amounts to double taxation based solely on how a lawful property is used, not on services consumed or impacts created. Broad tax surcharges will not address noise, parking, or housing concerns. Those issues are better handled through targeted enforcement against bad actors, not blanket penalties on responsible owners. Many short-term rentals are located in vacation or seasonal areas and are not realistic solutions for long-term workforce housing. Increasing taxes on these properties will not automatically convert them into affordable housing, but it will raise costs for visitors, reduce tourism spending, and negatively impact local businesses that rely on a healthy visitor economy. I respectfully ask that you reconsider this proposal and work with local STR owners to pursue solutions that are fair, effective, and supportive of New Hampshire’s tourism-based economy. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Darlene Soares Small Business Owner & Short-Term Rental Operator

I am an owner of a STR rental in Conway Nh. I use my secondary house as a means of generating some revenue while I am unable to use it. I pay high wages for my cleaner,plow guy, garbage disposal, and utility man. Without the rental I wouldn’t be able to maintain the home as needed. This bill will have an adverse effect causing me to consider selling my home which I have had four years as well as making it extremely difficult / expensive to vacation with my young family. This tax would detrimental to my family home.

Public Comment in Opposition to Proposed Short-Term Rental Legislation in New Hampshire I am writing to express strong opposition to several proposed bills that would materially harm short-term rental (STR) owners, property rights, and New Hampshire’s tourism-driven economy. This legislative session, four bills have been introduced that directly affect STRs: • HB 1707 – expanding local authority to restrict STRs • HB 1580 – imposing a new surcharge on non-primary residences valued over $500,000 • HB 1068 – redefining short-term rentals as hotels • SB 634 – allowing municipalities to impose a new local occupancy fee on STRs Two of these bills (HB 1707 and HB 1580) were voted on in the House, with the remaining two scheduled for consideration this week. Taken together, these bills represent a piecemeal but coordinated shift away from New Hampshire’s long-standing respect for property rights, small business owners, and limited government. STRs Are Not Hotels Redefining STRs as hotels (HB 1068) is factually and economically flawed. The vast majority of STRs in New Hampshire are single-family homes or small multi-family properties, often owned by local residents, retirees, or families supplementing income. Hotels are purpose-built commercial operations with centralized staffing, infrastructure, and zoning impacts that are not comparable to STRs. States and municipalities that have attempted to regulate STRs as hotels have consistently faced: • Reduced housing utilization efficiency • Higher compliance costs for small owners • Increased legal challenges and enforcement costs Economic Impact on Tourism and Local Businesses Tourism contributes billions of dollars annually to New Hampshire’s economy. STRs play a critical role in rural and seasonal areas where hotels do not exist or cannot scale during peak demand. Guests staying in STRs support: • Local restaurants and shops • Outdoor recreation businesses • Seasonal employment Independent studies in other New England states show that STR guests spend more locally and stay longer than traditional hotel guests, particularly in rural markets. Taxation and Fees Are Already in Place STRs in New Hampshire already collect and remit the Meals & Rooms (M&R) tax, contributing directly to state revenue. Proposals like HB 1580 and SB 634 amount to double taxation or punitive targeting of a specific class of property owners without evidence of proportional public cost. There is no demonstrated data showing that STRs: • Create higher municipal service costs than long-term rentals • Require additional enforcement beyond existing local tools • Justify new surcharges or occupancy fees Housing Affordability Requires Data-Driven Solutions STRs are frequently blamed for housing shortages without rigorous evidence. In New Hampshire, housing affordability challenges are driven primarily by: • Lack of new construction • Restrictive zoning • Labor and material costs • Population growth outpacing supply Blanket restrictions on STRs do not create affordable housing; they simply reduce property value, discourage investment, and shift ownership toward institutional buyers. Support for Balanced, Statewide Advocacy I support the work of the New Hampshire Vacation Rental & Tourism Alliance (NHVRTA), a statewide nonprofit advocating for reasonable, data-driven policy that protects both communities and property owners. Organizations like NHVRTA are essential to ensuring that legislation reflects real impacts, not assumptions. Conclusion These bills, individually and collectively, move New Hampshire away from its core values of: • Property rights • Local entrepreneurship • Predictable, limited regulation I urge legislators to reject these proposals and instead work collaboratively with STR owners, municipalities, and advocacy groups to address concerns using existing enforcement tools and evidence-based policy. New Hampshire can protect neighborhoods without punishing responsible property owners or undermining tourism and small businesses.

I do not support this bill. My sister and I own home together in Lincoln, NH and visit every weekend. She also works part time in the town. We have been visitors for over 20 years and always dreamed of owning a home to be even more involved in the community. This bill will make it unaffordable to own this home.

I oppose this bill as a real estate professional and property owner in NH. It isn’t just to tax people based on their property’s worth and overall this bill deters tourism and money into rural areas of NH and hinders our economy.

I oppose HB1580 because it creates an unjust and unwarranted surcharge based solely on where a property owner resides, unfairly singling out certain homeowners. The bill adds complexity and uncertainty without reliable data. There are already concerns about unclear implementation and increased administrative burdens on municipalities, making this bill more likely to create confusion than any sort of tax relief.

These provisions are completely unfair. We operate a responsible rental property which brings joy to countless numbers of visitors from within and outside New Hampshire, driving revenue and spending across Grafton county and beyond. This is clearly just a money grab by the State, whose short term benefits will in the end be overtaken by the long term reversal of growth and prosperity which comes from the operation of these responsible properties. Please oppose these measures.

To Whom It May Concern,  I am writing to express my opposition to the bills that the State of New Hampshire is proposing regarding short-term rentals (STRs). Many STRs are owned by private individuals who use these properties primarily as personal vacation homes, yet they do not meet the definition of a second home, which requires the owner to occupy the property for at least six months out of the year.   I reside in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, an area with a significant market for second homes and vacation rentals. This region is surrounded by beautiful lakes and mountains, attracting visitors for concerts, boating, hiking, skiing, and various other activities throughout the year. With limited hotel options available, STRs provide the primary means of accommodation for many vacationers who prefer the convenience of a home-like atmosphere during their stay.   For most investors in STRs, the financial gains are modest, and they largely rely on rental income to cover the property expenses when it is not in use for personal enjoyment. It is crucial to consider the impact that these proposed bills would have on vacationers; without available properties to rent, we may see a decline in the number of tourists visiting our state. This will not only affect STR owners but also all businesses that depend on vacationers to sustain their operations.   Should homeowners be forced to sell their properties due to these new regulations, we could see a significant drop in property values. This situation would create widespread economic challenges, affecting the entire state and the businesses that rely on tourism.  I urge you to consider the potential repercussions of these bills on our community and the economy as a whole.   Sincerely, Concerned Owner 

HB1580, would assess a surcharge on the assessed market value of any non-primary residence valued over $500,000, potentially making it too expensive to continue hosting. Hosting through AirBnB is how I support my parents in retirement. This bill would make it impossible for me to continue to do so, and would force me to sell the house, leaving my parents with no place to go during the many months of the year that they occupy the residence. I believe the unintended consequences of this bill would be severe, and that the state should leverage other options to achieve its goals (which are unclear).

Assessing a separate tax for an ADU is outrageous! We pay property tax on our entire property already. Users of the ADU are contributing to the tax base by paying tolls, patronizing local establishments and a portion of the income we receive is paid out in tax to the state. Trying to extract further monies from homeowners would reduce the tax revenue as folks would likely stop renting via short term stays.

The reason this bill should not pass is mainly how it will negatively affect more communities financially. If you are going to tax people more that bring travelers into our communities to help support tourism and the overall infrastructure ..why should they be penalized? What will happen is people who have these short term rentals will sell because they won't be able to afford to pay the taxes. Then this will just bring real empty homes to the area. It will be a second, third and fourth homes and the property will sit EMPTY and won't bring in any tourism money to the community. Have you ever been on a lake in your community and you look and never see anyone at one at these homes? Well it is some rich persons home and they only use it 1-2x per year!!! Is that what we want??? Let people enjoy renting a home that is more affordable then a hotel and then they can enjoy all these different communities! Don't tax the owner more for helping the community... I live in Newbury, NH. It is known for skiing, boating, fishing, hiking and hunting. We are an outdoor paradise and it is hard to afford a home in this region so why not let people come and enjoy it while they help support the local businesses. Don't raise taxes to the owners who shares there homes with people so they can spend their $ in all these communities!

HB1580 would unfairly penalize small, individual property owners like us who are not investors but own a single condo. We rely on short-term rentals only to help offset the rising costs of ownership property taxes, association fees, insurance, utilities, and maintenance which have all increased dramatically. Without the ability to rent occasionally, owning this condo would simply not be financially possible for us. This is not a vacant or neglected property; it is a home we actively maintain, care about, and use ourselves. Treating small owners the same as large, multi-property operators ignores the reality of how many people are just trying to make ends meet. The bill also risks pushing people like us out of ownership entirely, which does nothing to improve housing affordability or strengthen communities. If HB1707 passes, owners who can no longer afford their homes may be forced to sell often to out of state investors or large corporate buyers who can absorb additional taxes far more easily than individuals can. That outcome would reduce local ownership and further concentrate housing in fewer hands. A one-size-fits-all tax on “unoccupied” or short-term rented properties fails to recognize responsible, small-scale owners who contribute to the local economy and community while simply trying to keep a roof over their heads.

To: House Ways and Means Committee Re: Opposition to HB 1068, HB 1580, and HB 1707 Date: January 12, 2026 Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am a property owner and short-term rental host with a property in Bradford, New Hampshire. I am writing today to express my strong opposition to HB 1068, HB 1580, and HB 1707. While I understand the state’s desire to address housing availability, these bills unfairly penalize responsible property owners and threaten the tourism economy that so many New Hampshire towns rely on. HB 1580 & HB 1707 (New Surcharges and Taxes): These bills would essentially double the tax burden on certain properties or add significant annual surcharges. As a host in Bradford, I already contribute to the local economy by bringing visitors who spend money at local shops, restaurants, and seasonal attractions. Punitive taxes like the "Supplemental Residence Tax" do not create more housing; they simply make it financially impossible for many families to maintain their second homes or small rental businesses. HB 1068 (Expanding Meals & Rooms Tax): Redefining private homes as "hotels" overlooks the unique nature of home-sharing. STRs provide a different experience than traditional hotels and are often the only way for visitors to stay in rural or lakefront areas where hotels do not exist. The cumulative effect of these three bills would be devastating for the state’s reputation as a welcoming place for property owners and vacationers alike. I urge the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on all three bills. Thank you for your time and for considering the impact these changes will have on hosts like myself.

Testimony in Opposition to HB 1580-FN-LOCAL (V2 – Policy Alignment) I am a New Hampshire resident submitting this testimony to encourage thoughtful consideration of HB 1580-FN-LOCAL and its broader implications. Residency-Based Taxation Concerns HB 1580 introduces a surcharge based on residency status rather than property value, marking a significant shift in New Hampshire’s approach to property taxation. Workforce Housing & Rural Resilience Housing policy is workforce policy. In rural New Hampshire, housing flexibility is essential to maintaining access to healthcare, education, construction, and other critical services. New Hampshire relies on traveling and contract-based healthcare providers at a significantly higher rate than the national average due to rural access challenges and workforce shortages. Short-term and flexible housing options are a necessary component of recruiting and retaining these professionals, particularly visiting nurses and traveling clinicians. Housing Flexibility & Market Effects Short-term rentals function as flexible housing infrastructure. Over time, these homes are used not only by visitors, but also by displaced families, traveling professionals, seasonal workers, and mid-term residents. The ability to operate as a short-term rental is what allows this housing to remain available for multiple community needs as demand shifts. Risk of Consolidation & Reduced Local Control Experience in highly regulated jurisdictions shows that excessive taxation or regulation of short-term rentals tends to push small, local owners out of the market. The result is increased consolidation by institutional investors and large corporate operators, reducing local control and weakening community resilience. Conclusion Housing and tax policy should support workforce mobility, healthcare access, and local ownership rather than create barriers to participation.

To Whom It May Concern, My name is Sean Dempsey, and I am writing in absolute opposition to HB1580, scheduled for hearing on January 12. Let me be clear, without qualification or polite euphemism: this bill would make it financially impossible for me to continue operating an Airbnb in New Hampshire! HB1580 proposes a surcharge on the assessed market value of non-primary residences over $500,000. In practice, this is not a “housing” bill…it is a **punitive tax aimed at a narrow group of property owners**, many of whom are already paying extraordinarily high property taxes, local fees, and operating costs. It is economic vandalism masquerading as public policy. Short-term rentals are already one of the most heavily scrutinized and regulated forms of property use. We pay property taxes. We pay meals and rooms taxes. We pay licensing fees. We maintain properties to standards far exceeding long-term rentals. We contribute directly to tourism, local businesses, tradespeople, cleaners, landscapers, plumbers, electricians, and small service providers who depend on this ecosystem to survive. HB1580 ignores all of this!!! This bill does not “solve” a housing crisis. It creates a new one by deliberately making lawful, productive use of property cost-prohibitive. If this surcharge passes, the math is simple: hosting will no longer be viable. Properties will be sold, converted, or pulled from productive use, harming local economies and reducing, not increasing, housing stability! Worse still, this legislation sets a dangerous precedent: that the state can arbitrarily decide that certain forms of ownership or use are morally suspect and therefore deserve targeted financial punishment. That is not sound governance. That is resentment-based policymaking. New Hampshire has long prided itself on being hostile to this exact kind of policy…high-handed, economically illiterate, and openly antagonistic toward small property owners and entrepreneurs. HB1580 represents a sharp departure from those values. I am not “concerned” about this bill. I am not “uneasy” about this bill. I am categorically and unequivocally opposed to it!!!!! If HB1580 passes, I will not absorb the cost. I will not “adjust.” I will stop hosting. And I will not be alone. The downstream damage will be immediate and entirely self-inflicted by the legislature. I urge you to reject HB1580 in its entirety. Respectfully, but firmly, Sean Dempsey

I oppose HB1580 because it creates an unjust and unwarranted surcharge based solely on where a property owner resides, unfairly singling out certain homeowners. The bill adds complexity and uncertainty without reliable data. There are already concerns about unclear implementation and increased administrative burdens on municipalities, making this bill more likely to create confusion than any sort of tax relief. As a part time owner, we invest in the community on a long term and short term basis and we provide the comfort of services to those who live in our community full time.

HB1580, being heard on January 12, would assess a surcharge on the assessed market value of any non-primary residence valued over $500,000, potentially making it too expensive to continue hosting.

Dear Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, I am writing to respectfully oppose HB1580. As a New Hampshire property owner who uses my home as a short-term rental, I am deeply concerned that this bill would impose a significant new surcharge based solely on assessed value and residency status, without regard to how the property is actually used or its contribution to the local economy. Many short-term rental owners are not large investors or corporations. We are individuals and families who maintain second homes, pay full property taxes, comply with existing Meals & Rooms taxes, and support local businesses year-round. A blanket surcharge on properties over an arbitrary valuation threshold would disproportionately impact responsible owners while doing little to address housing availability or affordability. This proposal would make it significantly more expensive for many owners to continue hosting, potentially forcing properties out of the short-term rental market or discouraging continued investment in New Hampshire communities. In turn, this would reduce tourism spending that supports small businesses, tradespeople, and local services—particularly in seasonal and rural areas. New Hampshire already has mechanisms in place to tax and regulate short-term rentals fairly. HB1580 adds an additional financial burden that feels punitive rather than productive and risks unintended consequences for property owners and local economies alike. For these reasons, I urge you to oppose HB1580. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Kimberly Leeds Bedford, New Hampshire

Hello-- I am writing to oppose HB1580. I feel this bill would be detrimental to those of us who own and use our homes at times for short term rentals. A few years ago we decided to purchase a seasonal home in the lakes region because we simply love the area and always have enjoyed our time there. The one thing we noticed in coming up there was the shortage of hotels and other "traditional" places to stay for lodging. So we would always rent a home for our stay. In deciding to purchase, we also knew we would have to rent it out sporadically in order to pay for the mortgage and other bills associated with owning a second home. Since the home is seasonal, we decided to try short term rentals. The feedback, and experience, were both amazing. We were able to rent our house out to others who also enjoyed the area as much as we did. This allowed us to employ fellow New Hampshire residents as we needed a cleaning crew, handyman, and landscapers, etc. which we were thrilled about as we love bringing jobs to small business owners. In addition, we knew that by having short term renters, we would also be bringing customers to other small business owners such as restaurants, bars, shops, etc. It was a total win-win for both us and the town. Also, since we are paying meals and room taxes to the state, we knew we would be assisting on that level as well. A year after starting this, we decided to purchase a second home with the same goals. We were fortunate enough to have success in this venture as well, and we were able to bring even more renters (and their money) to the state as well. Now with two homes, we knew we had a great start to a small business of our own!. Knowing we needed to be close to our two New Hampshire houses, we took the plunge and relocated up to New Hampshire to become full time residents as well! We have loved every second of living here and being close to our small business. Without the ability to rent these houses out as short-term rentals, our dreams would not have come true. Should this bill pass and assess a surcharge on our market value, we fear that our dream, and small business, may be coming to an end as they will be very, very financially restrictive for us. It is with all of our heart and mind that we hope this restrictive bill does not pass. We feel that our business is not only an asset for ourselves, but also one for the state. The benefits of bringing in people to the area, who may not have chosen to vacation here without being able to rent a home, as well as bringing extra customer to local small business owners, is very vital for both us, the town we own in, and the wonderful state of New Hampshire. Thank you for your time John Benjamin, proud NH state resident.

I oppose HB1580 because it creates an unjust and unwarranted surcharge based solely on where a property owner resides, unfairly singling out certain homeowners. The bill adds complexity and uncertainty without reliable data. There are already concerns about unclear implementation and increased administrative burdens on municipalities, making this bill more likely to create confusion than any sort of tax relief.

Dear Members of the Committee, We are writing to respectfully oppose the proposed legislation in HB 1580 that would increase property taxes on homeowners who do not use their New Hampshire property as a primary residence. We own a home in Conway while maintaining our primary residence in Massachusetts. Like many seasonal homeowners, our family has deep, multigenerational ties to Conway and to New Hampshire. We contribute meaningfully to the local economy—supporting local businesses, restaurants, ski areas, and service providers—while placing comparatively limited demand on municipal services such as schools, public safety, and year-round infrastructure. Seasonal and non-primary residents already contribute substantially to local tax bases (which have jumped substantially in the last few years) while using fewer services than full-time residents. For this reason, policies that single out these homeowners for higher taxation feel punitive rather than equitable. This proposal would effectively penalize individuals and families who are engaged, responsible members of their communities simply because their employment and professional obligations require them to live elsewhere full time. Many of us would gladly make New Hampshire our primary residence if circumstances allowed. Employment realities, not a lack of commitment to our communities, determine our residency status. Doubling property taxes based solely on that distinction is, in our view, an unfair and counterproductive approach that risks discouraging long-term investment and goodwill in New Hampshire, a place that we love. We respectfully urge you to consider the broader economic and community impacts of this legislation and to seek alternatives that preserve fairness while continuing to support the vitality of New Hampshire’s towns. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Respectfully submitted, Mark and Jenna Rowe

I oppose HB1580 because it creates an unjust and unwarranted surcharge based solely on where a property owner resides, unfairly singling out certain homeowners. The bill adds complexity and uncertainty without reliable data. There are already concerns about unclear implementation and increased administrative burdens on municipalities, making this bill more likely to create confusion than any sort of tax relief.

Testimony in Opposition to HB 1580 Honorable Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, I am here to express my opposition to House Bill 1580, which seeks to impose a 0.75% surcharge on non-primary residences. While the intent may be to generate revenue for municipal services, this bill has significant adverse implications that threaten to deepen existing inequities within our communities. 1. Economic Burden on Vulnerable Communities The proposal to tax non-primary residences disproportionately impacts those who may already be struggling economically. Many individuals are currently facing housing insecurity and rising costs, and introducing a new tax could serve as another financial burden. Adverse Underpinnings: The surcharge affects properties valued at over $500,000, potentially targeting second homes or investment properties. Many working-class individuals or families may own these homes as a means to secure their financial future, and additional taxation could hinder their ability to maintain these developments. 2. Potential Impact on Affordable Housing The bill's focus on taxing investment properties may have unintended consequences on the local rental market. Property owners may raise rent to offset costs, leading to less affordable housing options for tenants. Who Benefits: Local municipalities may benefit from increased taxation revenues, potentially funding essential services like education and infrastructure. This revenue, however, is contingent upon effective monitoring and equitable distribution, which is often lacking. Who Does Not Benefit: Low-income renters and families, who may experience rental increases or become displaced from their homes as a direct consequence of this surcharge, will likely face the brunt of the economic pressures resulting from this legislation. 3. Complexity and Administrative Burdens The bill places an administrative burden on local municipalities, which may lack the necessary resources to manage new tax classifications and exceptions effectively. Ineffective Oversight: The requirement for local governments to maintain registries of non-primary residences and process appeals will divert time and resources away from addressing broader community needs. The additional administrative requirement could lead to inefficiencies and frustrations, particularly in smaller towns with limited staff. 4. Equity and Access Considerations While intended to generate comparable funding across New Hampshire, the bill fails to consider the unique circumstances and needs of various communities. Intersectional Impacts: Communities of color and low-income populations, who may not have the financial flexibility that comes with owning multiple homes, could be further marginalized under this tax structure. Meanwhile, affluent individuals with the means to afford such properties can bear the cost more easily. Conclusion In conclusion, House Bill 1580 has the potential to exacerbate existing inequities within New Hampshire's housing market by introducing a burden on economically vulnerable groups. While seeking to bolster municipal revenues, we must consider the broader implications for community well-being and ensure that policies do not inadvertently harm those they aim to serve. I urge you to reconsider the ramifications outlined in this testimony and to focus on more equitable funding mechanisms that protect vulnerable populations rather than impose additional burdens upon them. Thank you for your time and attention.