HB1707

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. We are very conscious of the housing crisis in many resort towns but we are adamant that we are not a rental income property, we have a vacation property that we occasionally rent.

I appose this bill! This bill unfairly targets seasonal homeowners who already pay their fair share of taxes and in many cases do not benefit from full time resident tax benefits. Many don’t benefit from, no income tax and don’t substantially benefit from no sales tax either.

I appose this bill! This bill unfairly targets seasonal homeowners who already pay their fair share of taxes and in many cases do not benefit from full time resident tax benefits. Many don’t benefit from, no income tax and don’t substantially benefit from no sales tax either.

This Bill creates a new penalty tax based solely on how a property is used. Short-term rental owners already pay the Meals and Rooms tax, yet this bill would layer on an additional “unoccupied housing tax,” forcing owners to pay more taxes simply for lawful use of their own property. This approach undermines property rights, creates confusion and financial hardship for small property owners, and does nothing to meaningfully address housing affordability, making the bill unnecessary and inequitable.

Dear Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, I am writing in opposition to HB 1707. I own a small multifamily property in New Hampshire where the majority of the units are rented long-term to full-time residents. One unit is used for short-term rentals when we are not housing visiting family throughout the year. I am not a large investor, absentee owner, or corporate operator. I am a local property owner providing long-term housing while relying on a single short-term unit to help offset the rising costs of owning and maintaining the property and to serve the needs of my family. As written, HB 1707 would impose an extreme and disproportionate penalty on properties that include any short-term rental use for six months or more, regardless of whether the rest of the property is fully occupied by long-term tenants. Because the bill applies to the entire property rather than individual units, it would penalize small multifamily owners like me in the same manner as vacant or investor-held second homes. This approach fails to distinguish between properties that are entirely unoccupied or removed from the long-term housing supply and mixed-use multifamily buildings that actively provide housing to New Hampshire residents. Requiring property owners to pay an additional amount equal to 100% of their annual property taxes solely because one unit is used as a short-term rental would make many small multifamily properties financially unviable. In practice, this bill would discourage responsible local landlords, reduce the supply of rental housing, and place additional upward pressure on rents for long-term tenants. I understand and support the goal of increasing housing availability in New Hampshire. However, HB 1707, as drafted, risks harming the very housing stock it seeks to protect by targeting small, locally owned multifamily buildings rather than addressing true vacancy or speculative investment. I respectfully urge the committee to oppose HB 1707 or, at a minimum, significantly amend it to: -Exempt multifamily properties with long-term tenants, or -Apply penalties only to fully unoccupied properties or those used exclusively as short-term rentals. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service on behalf of New Hampshire residents. Sincerely, Lindsay Dreyer

HB1707, would assess an additional tax on unoccupied properties. The bill would double owners’ taxes, requiring payment of equal amounts of taxes to the municipality and the state. 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).

This bill creates a new penalty tax based solely on how a property is used. Short-term rental owners already pay the Meals and Rooms tax, yet this bill would add an additional unoccupied housing tax, forcing owners to pay more taxes for lawful use of their own property. This approach undermines property rights, creates confusion and financial hardship for small property owners, and does nothing to meaningfully address housing affordability.

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.

Testimony for HB 1707: Supplemental Residence Tax Hearing Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 To: House Ways and Means Committee Re: Opposition to HB 1707 Position: Oppose / Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee, I own property in Bradford. I am writing to voice my strong opposition to HB 1707, the "Unoccupied Housing Tax." The proposal to double the property tax burden on owners whose homes are used as short-term rentals for six months of the year is punitive and extreme. As a property owner, I already pay my fair share of property taxes, which support our local schools and services. Effectively doubling that tax bill would make it financially impossible to maintain my property. This bill does not "solve" the housing crisis; it punishes families who have invested in New Hampshire and contribute to the local economy by hosting visitors who shop and dine in our small towns. A tax equal to "the total of all property taxes owed" is an unprecedented penalty on private property rights. I urge you to vote ITL on HB 1707.

HB1707 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.

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.

I would like to object to HG 1707 because it has vague language that will penalize New Hampshire citizens and do nothing to achieve the goal for which it was written. (Overseeing short term rentals.) My wife and I own two properties in Meredith, one is out primary residence and the other is 10 acres of woods with a small building and several outbuildings. I use this second property as a non-commercial workshop, (I am a hobby woodworker). And I am maintaining the woods in good condition with the hope of eventually donating them as a preserve. The property is adjacent to town owned land. Because I live in my primary residence I do not occupy the second property but I still use it as a wood shop on a regularbasis. I do not now and never intend to use it for a short term rental. Yet, because I live elsewhere in Meredith, I risk having my property tax doubles..

Om

This bill creates a new penalty tax based solely on how a property is used. Short-term rental owners already pay the Meals and Rooms tax, yet this bill would add an additional unoccupied housing tax, forcing owners to pay more taxes for lawful use of their own property. This approach undermines property rights, creates confusion and financial hardship for small property owners, and does nothing to meaningfully address housing affordability. As part time occupants of our home, we already subsidize the town with services such as schools that we don't use. It is unfair to add additional taxes to our home as we invest in the area by hiring local services and stores.

Please, we're already being taxed out of our homes. No new taxes!!

HB1707, being heard on January 12, would assess an additional 100% tax on unoccupied properties (defined as not living in it for 6 months of the year). The bill would double owners’ property taxes, requiring payment of equal amounts of taxes to the municipality and the state.

As a New Hampshire homeowner, I oppose this bill. Short-term rental owners already pay the Meals and Rooms tax, yet this bill would add an additional unoccupied housing tax, forcing owners to pay more taxes for lawful use of their own property. This approach undermines property rights, creates confusion and financial hardship for small property owners, and does nothing to meaningfully address housing affordability.

This bill creates a new penalty tax based solely on how a property is used. Short-term rental owners already pay the Meals and Rooms tax, yet this bill would add an additional unoccupied housing tax, forcing owners to pay more taxes for lawful use of their own property. This approach undermines property rights, creates confusion and financial hardship for small property owners, and does nothing to meaningfully address housing affordability.

Dear Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, I am writing to respectfully oppose HB1707. This bill would impose an additional 100% tax on properties deemed “unoccupied” for part of the year, effectively doubling property taxes for many responsible owners, including those who use their homes as short-term rentals or seasonal residences. This proposal does not reflect the reality of how these homes are used. Short-term rental properties are not vacant—they are actively occupied by visitors, maintained year-round, and contribute meaningfully to local economies. Guests shop locally, dine in restaurants, hire local services, and support tourism-dependent communities across New Hampshire. Doubling property taxes through an additional state-level assessment is an extreme measure that would unfairly penalize owners who already pay full municipal property taxes and state Meals & Rooms taxes. It also raises serious concerns about property rights and sets a troubling precedent by taxing homes based on perceived occupancy rather than actual economic participation or community impact. Rather than solving housing challenges, this bill risks pushing owners to sell, remove homes from the rental market, or stop investing in New Hampshire altogether—outcomes that could ultimately harm municipalities and reduce tax revenue over time. I respectfully urge the committee to reject HB1707 and seek more balanced approaches that recognize the value short-term rentals and seasonal homes bring to the state. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kimberly Leeds Bedford, New Hampshire 03110

Hello-- I am writing to oppose HB1707, HB 1580 and HB 1068. I feel these bills 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 these bills pass, 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 these very restrictive bills do 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.

My family opposes this bill, HB1707, which along with HB1580 and HB1068 would place an egregious situation to keep our family owned summer residences which we use ourselves and also rent to afford already high property taxes. Our family home which is unoccupied would also place an oppressive pressure on us. Passage of these bills would be like a way to “take” by over taxing, forcing us to sell our inheritances. These properties have belonged to our family for as many as 130 years in which we have been NH citizens. Property taxes in general have become a tax on families irrespective of ability to pay and keep. Respectfully submitted, Dale C. Smith,

This bill creates a new penalty tax based solely on how a property is used. Short-term rental owners already pay the Meals and Rooms tax, yet this bill would add an additional unoccupied housing tax, forcing owners to pay more taxes for lawful use of their own property. This approach undermines property rights, creates confusion and financial hardship for small property owners, and does nothing to meaningfully address housing affordability.

Dear Members of the Committee, We are writing to respectfully oppose the proposed legislation in HB 1707 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