_fw.png)
THE BIPARTISAN THREAT TO LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE CONTINUES
- NH Muckraker
- Mar 31
- 7 min read
Updated: Apr 8
1. THE STATEWIDE, BIPARTISAN THREAT TO LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
4.8.25 update from BRA.
-------------------
Who knew Republicans would start crying about 'snob zoning'? I find it rather disgusting.
New Hampshire Republicans’ Crusade Against 'Snob Zoning'
The New Hampshire legislature is considering dozens of policies aimed at making housing more affordable, a priority for first-year Gov. Kelly Ayotte. Some policies are gaining bipartisan support, but debates over local control still rage.
When New Hampshire state Sen. Keith Murphy hears people argue against new housing developments in their cities, he only hears one thing.
“A lot of people in very wealthy communities, regardless of party, simply don’t want new neighbors,” says Murphy, a Republican tavern owner who previously served in the state House. “It’s, ‘I moved to this town five years ago and no one else should ever get to live here.’ Every other argument is really cover for that quiet snobbery.”
What’s worse, Murphy says, is that most local zoning codes in New Hampshire are designed to enable that attitude. Developers who want to build new homes in New Hampshire cities often come up against strict rules that make it hard to build anything but expensive single-family homes, long permitting review times and hostile neighbors, he says. This year, Murphy backed a bill that would set maximum lot sizes for single-family residential housing. (Many communities have large minimum lot sizes for single-family districts, which encourages building larger homes that sell for more money, and has been linked with racial and economic segregation.) The bill passed the Senate with Democratic and Republican votes.
It’s one of dozens of housing policies working their way through the New Hampshire legislature this year, as lawmakers try to address the state’s affordable-housing shortage. New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican who took office in January, has made housing a first-year priority, vowing to streamline state permitting processes and “model good behavior” for cities. And Murphy says in the Senate, there seems to be more focus on housing — and cooperation — than previous years.
“The last few years in New Hampshire it’s been a bit of a partisan issue, where Democrats have wanted to subsidize their way out of the housing issue and Republicans have really emphasized local control,” he says. “This term, for once, we really were able to come together in a bipartisan way.”
Republicans and Democrats have traditionally taken different approaches to housing policy, with liberals generally favoring assistance to low-income people and affordable-housing developers and conservatives promoting free-market approaches to building more supply. But officials in both parties have shown a NIMBY streak at the local level. As affordable housing has become much more scarce around the country, more states, led by Republicans and Democrats, have begun intervening in local zoning codes.
Murphy says the increasing severity of New Hampshire’s housing crisis is the main reason more legislators are working together on it. The median home sale price in New Hampshire hit $515,000 last year, according to the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute — more expensive than either Maine or Vermont. The inventory of single-family homes has also been shrinking for years, while the average rent has grown faster than household incomes. Murphy says excessive local regulations are part of the problem.
“The more people learn about the issue the harder it is to escape the conclusion that restrictive zoning makes it difficult to build housing,” he says.
Republicans control all three branches of the New Hampshire government and have since 2021. But they haven’t all been on the same page about housing policy, and they still aren’t. Some Republican legislators who voted against Murphy’s bill have referred to the state legislature’s efforts to minimize local zoning regulations as “authoritarian central planning.” While the lot-size bill passed the Senate, along with a set of other housing policies, it remains to be seen what package of policies will make it through the House and to Ayotte’s desk. Ayotte has reportedly not signaled which legislative policies she favors.
Some aspects of housing policy cut across political ideologies, says Joe Alexander, a Republican state representative who chairs the new housing committee in the state House. He uses small-government arguments when trying to persuade fellow Republicans to minimize local zoning regulations. “Tyranny can happen on the local level,” he tells his colleagues. The state of New Hampshire gave zoning rights to cities in 1925. Alexander sponsored a bill this year to create a commission to study “how the New Hampshire Zoning Enabling Act has changed over time and to consider and make recommendations for future legislation on the balance of zoning powers between the state and municipalities.”
“I think you really need both parties at the table. My Democratic colleagues have been really helpful with this stuff,” Alexander says. “The way I try to talk with Republicans is, it’s gotten to the point where your private property rights are being infringed.”
Other policies that have been approved by either the House or Senate so far this year include changes to parking requirements for new buildings, permission for buildings up to six stories to have only one stairwell, increased funding to the state’s affordable housing trust fund, and requirements for cities to permit multifamily housing in commercially zoned areas. All are meant to make housing cheaper and easier to build. The Senate has rejected some policies backed by Democrats, including a law that would limit corporate investor purchases of single-family homes. That bill’s sponsor did not respond to an interview request.
Alexander, whose House district overlaps with Murphy’s Senate district, has also embraced the “snob zoning” argument. It isn’t a term they made up: the Massachusetts Legislature passed an “Anti-Snob Zoning Act” in 1969, though its provisions have been described as vague and symbolic. It’s been used in book titles and news headlines describing the effects of NIMBYism and exclusionary zoning on housing segregation. Still, Murphy and Alexander say they are careful to tailor their arguments for looser local regulations to the audience they’re trying to convince. Both are hopeful the bills they’ve sponsored will become law. But it remains to be seen exactly how far the legislature will go this session.
“With policy, you don’t want to push the Overton window too quickly, because then you end up pushing people out,” Alexander says. “I’m kind of waiting to see.”
--------------
VOTE HOUSING/ZONING BILLS DOWN!
IF NOT , AYOTTE BETTER VETO.
2. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE POTENTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACT OF SB297 TO THE TOWN OF HAMPTON AND/OR THEIR EMPLOYEES. https://gc.nh.gov/bill_Status/billinfo.aspx?id=1186&inflect=2
ALSO, PLEASE READ BELOW EMAIL MESSAGE FROM A CONCERNED LOCAL NORTH HAMPTON ACTIVIST.
I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE.
HAMPTON BETTER WAKE UP. WE DONT WANT CONCORD RUNNING HAMPTON, ANYMORE!
REGINA BARNES
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:57 AM, Jim Avallon
<jimavallon@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Senator Carson,
I've got wind that you will be supporting these bills. Say it isn't so! At the Rockingham County Republican Committee meeting last month you told me that you supported local control. I had publicly brought up this housing bill onslaught to ultimately centralize zoning in Concord with the Speaker of the House just before I talked to you at that meeting. It is dividing Republicans. I have more in common on this than with my leftist State Rep., Jim Maggiore, than with the Republicans. We actually talk. At least he cares about the future of North Hampton unlike the sponsors of these House bills.
These bills are not following Republican principles of control as close to the individual as possible--limited government. How can Concord dictate zoning and development for all the diverse communities of NH? How many bills are you going to need and what detail? It is not right. Just when Trump is attempting to push power and responsibility from the D.C. goliath to the States (i.e. hopefully The Department of Education downsize), we have a new centralized control to worry about...Concord. Please reconsider. Thank you.
Regards,
Jim Avallon
North Hampton
“Live free or die—Death is not the worst of evils”
General John Stark, 1809, NH
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jim Avallon <jimavallon@aol.com>
To: Daryl.Abbas@gc.nh.gov <daryl.abbas@gc.nh.gov>; Debra.Altschiller@gc.nh.gov <debra.altschiller@gc.nh.gov>; Kevin.Avard@gc.nh.gov <kevin.avard@gc.nh.gov>; Regina.Birdsell@gc.nh.gov <regina.birdsell@gc.nh.gov>; Sharon.Carson@gc.nh.gov <sharon.carson@gc.nh.gov>; Donovan.Fenton@gc.nh.gov <donovan.fenton@gc.nh.gov>; William.Gannon@gc.nh.gov <william.gannon@gc.nh.gov>; James.Gray@gc.nh.gov <james.gray@gc.nh.gov>; Daniel.Innis@gc.nh.gov <daniel.innis@gc.nh.gov>; Timothy.Lang@gc.nh.gov <timothy.lang@gc.nh.gov>; pat.long@gc.nh.gov <pat.long@gc.nh.gov>; mark.mcconkey@gc.nh.gov <mark.mcconkey@gc.nh.gov>; Tim.McGough@gc.nh.gov <tim.mcgough@gc.nh.gov>; Keith.Murphy@gc.nh.gov <keith.murphy@gc.nh.gov>; Howard.Pearl@gc.nh.gov <howard.pearl@gc.nh.gov>; Rebecca.PerkinsKwoka@gc.nh.gov <rebecca.perkinskwoka@gc.nh.gov>; Suzanne.Prentiss@gc.nh.gov <suzanne.prentiss@gc.nh.gov>; Tara.Reardon@gc.nh.gov <tara.reardon@gc.nh.gov>; Denise.Ricciardi@gc.nh.gov <denise.ricciardi@gc.nh.gov>; david.rochefort@gc.nh.gov <david.rochefort@gc.nh.gov>; Cindy.Rosenwald@gc.nh.gov <cindy.rosenwald@gc.nh.gov>; victoria.sullivan@gc.nh.gov <victoria.sullivan@gc.nh.gov>; Ruth.Ward@gc.nh.gov <ruth.ward@gc.nh.gov>; David.Watters@gc.nh.gov <david.watters@gc.nh.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 01:36:14 PM EDT
Subject: Oppose Housing Bills SB81,84,163,174,281,282,283,284
Dear NH State Senators,
Please oppose SB81, SB84, SB163, SB174, SB281, SB282, SB283, and SB284 on the floor vote tomorrow, March 20, 2025. With the possible exception of SB81 (I oppose also for it decreases the Education Trust Fund by almost $2million--I'm thinking of the children), I find these bills a gross overreach by the State government on local control and consequently the decrease or elimination of the citizens of the Town to guide and nurture local development. As you have heard I'm sure, local citizens know best what is good for their Town. Please listen again.
For example, SB284, limits residential parking spaces to one per unit. How the heck does the State know what is appropriate in every single neighborhood of NH in relation to parking. This is one-size-fits-all gone amuck. I lived in a congested neighborhood in MA North Shore at one point. A vast majority of units had two cars and even at a regulation of 1.5 parking spaces per unit, the streets were dangerously flooded with parked cars and when we had a snow emergency and parking ban, confusion reigned. I believe the regulation has since increase above 1.5. The Town can change the number of spaces per unit depending on the circumstances which only the local citizens, zoning, planning boards know inside and out.
THIS IS LOCAL, LOGICAL CONTROL.
Zoning changes should not be done by Concord but through the warrant article process or other process at the LOCAL level. Local control has allowed NH towns to keep their individual character and manage growth responsibly. PLEASE OPPOSE THESE BILLS
Regards,
Jim Avallon
North Hampton, NH
Yorumlar