HB457

My name is Mark Rittgers. I am a Sophomore Computer Science major at the University of New Hampshire Durham Campus. The unrelated occupant zoning laws in Durham affected me personally as I tried to obtain housing for my Junior year in college (2025-2026). Long before housing applications opened up for UNH apartments and dorms me and my roomate group decided we would try and live off campus for the second half of our college carrer. We spent hours on multiple websites searching through the limited number of houses. We even toured a house that was outside of Durham itself. However that house among others fell through or went off the market while our housing group shifted around between four to eight people. A few weeks before UNH housing applications opened up me and three other Sophomores solidified a group and found a house in Durham. On Zillow I was confused as it said four bed but the description said it only allowed for three occupants. I then decided to email and ask if four of us could live there and the response was no that Durham didn't allow it. They said that three of us could rent it which was unfeasible for two reasons. One was since the group was decided a single person would not have enough time to find a roomate group in time for on campus housing. Not too mention how hard it is to choose which friend to kick out. And two we could not afford it. The rent divided four ways was feasible for all of us but especially me myself could not have paid 1/3 of the monthly rent. So instead we kept looking and found a similar situation at a house a bit farther away from campus who would not let students rent. By this point most hosuing was full or unable to house all 4 of us. This forced us to remain on campus. It's ridiculous too me that a group of four computer science and computer engineering majors are not able to rent a four bedroom house simply because we are not related. This regulation specifically targets students forcing them to either stay on campus which can often be more expensive when accounting for parking passes and meal plans or forcing them to live outside of Durham. The only ones who benefit from housing restrictions are the University and large landlord companies which inflates prices. Not to mention the University of New Hampshire has been rumored to be increasing tuition a year after increase the price of on campus housing and meal plans. Durham is a college town. Half of its population is students and its unreasonable that we are banned from living in these houses directly near campus in any group larger than four even if a house can accommodate more. The law provides ways to report things like obsessive noise, trash, trespassing or any other obstacles an opponent to this bill might have. And that is how it should be handled not by pre judging students and thus artificially lowering the amount of beds available to us. Frankly I think most students especially those who rent or have attempted to rent would take offense that idea they would then destroy the house and party every night causing disturbances. The town of Durham nor any other government has any right to say who I can or can not live with so long as a landlord is willing to accept us.

I’m testifying not only as a representative but also as a student at Saint Anselm College. My peers, particularly at UNH, have been struggling with the inaccessibility of off-campus housing in Durham. This problem has only been exacerbated by burdensome zoning restrictions that prevent more than three unrelated people from occupying the same residence. HB457 seeks to rectify this by prohibiting this discrimination based on familial status. For that reason, I encourage the committee to recommend the bill Ought to Pass. Much of the concern around students occupying these units stems from what is essentially a stereotype of how college students behave. Residents are concerned that allowing students into their neighborhoods will bring loud noise lasting late into the night from partying. However, most students don’t behave like this and simply want a place to live close to their studies; a small minority of students should not be the justification for such wide-reaching discrimination. Besides, such incidents can be avoided through noise ordinances, thus holding every resident to an equal standard, student or not. Under Durham’s zoning ordinance, they artificially restrict how much housing is available to students while also segregating them to less desirable parts of town, essentially making UNH students—who already pay a great deal to attend the school—a separate class of citizen from any other resident of Durham. Because supply is artificially restricted by this ordinance, the demand for off-campus student housing skyrockets, leading to significantly higher prices, which makes it hard for students to live. Students should be more focused on keeping their grades up than fearing whether or not they can make rent because of a discriminatory policy that drives up their cost of living. While Goffstown does not have such restrictions impeding students at my school, nothing is stopping them from instituting policies similar to Durham in the future, and the same is true for every other college town in the state. This commonsense, bipartisan bill will make housing more accessible and affordable for students, creating a more fair housing market in which landlords aren’t restricted in who they rent to based solely on the family relationships of the prospective tenants. To put students on an even playing field with all other contenders in the housing market, thus lowering prices, I ask that you find HB457 Ought to Pass.

I appreciate the protecting this offers against zoning as outlined in the bill.

I support this bill because I don't believe people should be judged and all people should be treated equally under the law. What ever happened to live free or die? The characterization of turning a house rented to college students vs. a house rented anyone other than college students is a mistake as it does not make a commercial use. This is overreach of a town's zoning powers.

I support this bill as it would potentially decrease barriers for older adults wishing to share homes with unrelated individuals. Many older adults can no longer afford to maintain their large-single family homes, once they are living on a fixed income. Home sharing with unrelated individuals that may help with finances and chores provides another option to enable aging residents to age in their homes.

We should stop discriminatory zoning ordinances regarding occupancy restrictions for several important reasons: 1. Promotes Fairness and Equality: Discriminatory zoning ordinances that limit the number of people who can live in a home, often based on arbitrary factors like family structure or income, disproportionately affect marginalized groups, such as low-income families, immigrants, and people of color. These restrictions can perpetuate inequality by making housing less accessible to those who need it most. 2. Encourages Housing Affordability: Zoning restrictions that limit occupancy can exacerbate the housing crisis, especially in urban areas with limited affordable housing options. By relaxing these restrictions, cities can increase the availability of housing for a larger number of people, potentially lowering rent prices and providing more opportunities for families and individuals to secure stable homes. 3. Improves Access to Housing for All: Discriminatory zoning can create barriers for multi-generational families, or individuals who live with roommates for economic reasons, by enforcing restrictive occupancy laws. Relaxing these restrictions helps people live together in affordable and supportive arrangements, improving overall access to housing options. 4. Supports Community Diversity: Zoning ordinances that impose occupancy limits based on family structure or income can segregate communities along racial and socio-economic lines. By removing discriminatory practices, cities can create more integrated, diverse communities where people of all backgrounds have equal opportunities to live and thrive. 5. Reflects Modern Housing Needs: Our society has changed, with many people choosing non-traditional family structures or living situations, such as roommates, extended families, or single-person households. Restrictive zoning laws fail to reflect these evolving living patterns, and adjusting occupancy laws can help meet modern housing needs more effectively. 6. Encourages Sustainable Urban Growth: Restrictive zoning ordinances can lead to inefficient land use and urban sprawl. By removing discriminatory occupancy restrictions, cities can encourage more sustainable development, making better use of existing infrastructure and reducing the environmental impact of urban expansion. 7. Helps Address Homelessness: In many cities, zoning laws can make it difficult for groups of people experiencing homelessness to find adequate shelter, especially when these laws limit the number of people who can occupy a single dwelling. By lifting unnecessary occupancy restrictions, we open up more opportunities for those in need of housing. In conclusion, eliminating discriminatory zoning ordinances related to occupancy restrictions promotes fairness, affordability, and sustainability. It reflects a commitment to equitable housing policies and helps address both the housing crisis and systemic inequalities in our communities.

Having access to reproductive healthcare saved my life.

Currently, the affordable housing crisis is running rampant through the state. By lifting local zoning laws to allow for more than two occupants to live in a bedroom per housing unit, the state will alleviate the affordable housing crisis. This is especially true in college towns like Durham where students often live with roommates in environments where housing options are scarce and expensive. As a UNH student myself, I would benefit by having more housing options when it is time more me to live off campus during my upperclassmen years. Hence, I support HB457.

Dear Representatives, I urge you to SUPPORT this bill. In times like these when NH residents are in a housing shortage (housing crisis, really), expanding accessibility within dwelling units is paramount to the safety and wellbeing of our neighbors. This bill might be of particular interest to those interested in multigenerational living and people with roommates unrelated to them. This is one small step in ensuring municipalities do not restrict housing access, especially by discriminatory means. Thank you for your time.

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.