Housing – its high cost and limited availability – was a major issue in the last election in New Hampshire. The gubernatorial candidates staked out different positions on the issue. Democrat Joyce Craig mentioned the need for zoning reform, but implied she would let localities impose affordability requirements on new developments and outright endorsed local-option rent control, a proposal so extreme that it was rejected by the majority of the Democratic House caucus when it came up for a vote this year. Republican Kelly Ayotte talked about a balance between local control and accountability and endorsed expanded “accessory dwelling units” (ADUs) and streamlining state approvals.
Now that Ayotte has won, with expanded Republican majorities in the legislature, what can we expect for state land-use and housing regulations? Will landowners gain additional rights to build?
First, rent control and affordability mandates are dead in New Hampshire for years to come. That’s good news for both housing providers and tenants, because the evidence is overwhelming that capping rents makes housing scarcer and locks tenants into units that are no longer convenient for them.
Second, prospects look good for two ideas that the House passed this year but were killed or watered down in the Senate: expanded ADUs and parking reform.
HB1291 would have let homeowners on a half-acre or more build up to two small units on their property, one “by right” and the other subject to municipal discretionary review by a planning board or a board of adjustment. Current state law lets all homeowners build one unit, which municipalities are allowed to subject to discretionary review.
The bill passed the House but was “indefinitely postponed” in the Senate on a motion from Sharon Carson, who will be the next Senate president. That might sound like bad news for expanded ADUs, but for the following facts. Insiders have informed me that Sen. Carson moved aggressively against the bill in part as a reaction against the House sponsors’ aggressive tactics to try to force the Senate to vote for it. Moreover, a change of focus, from allowing a second ADU to making at least one ADU by-right and closing other loopholes some towns have used to stop ADUs (like requiring absurd amounts of new parking for an ADU or banning ADUs in detached garages and barns), could help a new bill appeal to senators. Gov-elect. Ayotte’s support could be critical to getting a bill through the Senate.
The upcoming House leadership battle could also be a bellwether. Speaker challenger Len Turcotte has opposed ADUs and free-market housing in general. It would be strange, however, if House Republicans overthrew the leadership that just led them to victory in a closely fought election.
Let’s look at what the newly-elected senators might think about a new ADU bill. Victoria Sullivan replaces Donna Soucy, who tried to salvage this year’s ADU bill. Sullivan voted in favor of the original 2016 ADU legislation. Sens,-elect Tim McGough and Mark McConkey voted for this year’s bill when they were in the House, while Sen.-elect David Rochefort voted against it – but he represents a North Country constituency that is generally hostile to government restrictions on private property rights, so he could be persuadable. Other new senators without a House voting record seem likely to support expanded ADUs. Counting the votes, I find it likely that there will be a new Senate majority in favor of ADU legislation.
For the same reason, next year could be a good time for major parking reform to pass the Senate. This year, the House passed HB1400, which would have limited the number of parking spaces towns could require developers to construct to one per dwelling unit. The Senate watered that down, and a conference committee ultimately settled on 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit in “workforce” and 10-unit-plus developments.
Minimum parking requirements might be the most irrational government land-use regulation in existence. There’s no reason we should be forcing residential or commercial developers to pave over more of our state. The House passed the original bill unanimously, and it should try again.
Republicans should also consider a “Starter Homes Act” to parallel the existing workforce housing statute but with a more free-market, homeownership-focused model. This legislation could require that municipalities designate a minimum percentage of their developable land area to zoning that permits small homes to be built on small lots, provided they have access to either municipal wastewater or a community advanced septic or other private sewage system that permits density at that level. The only way we’ll ever get affordable single-family homes is if we let small homes be built at scale in subdivisions, the way most of the South does. Homes built under such a zoning scheme could also qualify as workforce housing for the purpose of that law, giving land-use boards an incentive to smooth the way for these developments. Such a law would be consistent with “local control” because towns could still decide where to allow these developments.
Free-market housing policies won’t just help the economy; they’ll be a political winner for Republicans and the new governor. The most recent election demonstrated that the Republican base, especially in New England, lies in the working class and the middle class, while the wealthy and the poor make up the Democratic base. Abundant, free-market housing will help naturally Republican constituencies thrive and remain in the state. My own peer-reviewed research shows that restrictive regulations for new housing tend to drive out non-college voters, making states, counties, and towns more Democratic. Here’s hoping Republicans seize the opportunity.
