HB1336

Housing is already expensive enough. I strongly oppose allowing landlords to double security deposits.

I oppose this bill. Exceptions on the cap on security deposits should not be allowed.

Dear Members of the Housing Committee: I am writing on behalf of the Disability Rights Center - NH (DRC-NH) to express our organization's strong opposition to HB 1336, a bill that, if passed, would create additional barriers for people with disabilities who desperately need access to housing. This is because it is unlikely that the individuals who meet the criteria that allow a landlord to double the required security deposit would be able to come up with the necessary funds to secure housing and meet their regular expenses like moving costs, food, childcare and utilities. At least one, if not all, of the criteria that would permit the doubled security deposit would disproportionately impact people with disabilities. In particular, I refer to those having gross incomes of less than 3 times the monthly rent. While paying such a high percentage of one's household income for rent is not optimal, it is the stark reality of necessity for New Hampshire' renters given low vacancy rates and high housing costs. According to a 2023 analysis published by the State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC), nearly 56% of New Hampshire's residents with disabilities spend more than 30% of their household's monthly income on rent. (See https://statehealthcompare.shadac.org/map/182/percent-of-costburdened-rental-households-by-disability-status#16/76/215), New Hampshire has an affordable housing crisis. This crisis is experienced across the State and across people from all walks of life including people who provide essential services, such as direct support services to enable people with disabilities to live in their communities, and people who experience disabilities and may live on low, fixed incomes. For all these reasons, DRC-NH urges your committee to vote ITL on this bill. Thank you for your consideration, Karen L. Rosenberg Policy Director

As clergy appointed by a Bishop to serve in NH, I am provided housing in my parish by denominational law. This may take the form of a parsonage, but more often now it is in the form of a housing allowance. This, and my membership in the Granite State Organizing Project Concord Chapter, puts me in the position to observe exactly how this bill would impact me and my peers were it to pass. Despite having a graduate degree, excellent credit, and steady employment including the rigorous oversight of my denomination for at least fifteen years, I would meet the criteria for the increased deposit. This is because the reality of the rental situation in New Hampshire is that the cost of housing is equal to half my income, and that is true for most people who live in this state. The desire of landlords to limit their risk is understandable, but New Hampshire is not building sufficient affordable or high-density housing to provide options for renters at lower incomes. This bill would make it even more difficult for the people who live here to stay here. It would add to the problem of young people leaving New Hampshire, and it could easily create a problem for landlords who would be expected to return larger deposits or forgo more rent collection at the end of a lease. This bill would make larger deposits the norm, not the exception, because the conditions listed describe the majority of people in the rental market. It would create an overwhelming burden for nonprofits, welfare offices, and community programs working to stabilize housing for public good. How could anyone conscious of the challenges of NH’s economy support this bill? It is out of step with the conditions of living in this country. It contributes to homelessness, the drain of the young and educated from the state, and decreases community resources for addressing crisis and emergency needs and increasing volatility. In practice, this bill would make NH a bad place to rent. I urge you to oppose this bill for the long-term health of this state.

Our state cannot afford to make housing even more costly for our residents. Families and individuals already have too few options for affordable places to live. I urge you to not to support this bill.

With 1 in 4 New Hampshire households lacking $2,000 in emergency savings, asking potential residents to come up with two months’ rent to secure an apartment is unreasonable.

The experience of being a renter may be far from the reality of those who propose or hear such bills, but I can assure you that this state is full of those of us responsible for family members, in my case disabled ones, or with family who are older and renting, who struggle to obtain basic housing, priced out of the market for a decent apartment anyone would want to live in, or neighborhood and, because I have family who have worked in real estate recently, or are currently realtors, in this region and in others, I know first hand from their stories the wave of and very bad impact that foreign and out of state real estate investors are having on the people who live in the communities where these investors come to hide or place their money in real estate and rental property, and NH is absolutely a prime target for this investment wave. This will absolutely be used to prevent NH residents from accessing housing, redirecting it towards high volume short term housing, or create an even more stratified housing environment, and to push about half of NH renters out of the market, and I say with with knowledge from realtors who are dealing with it on a daily basis not only in New England but in other parts of the country. Please reject this bill.

Vote ITLunless these changes are made: Change Page 1 line 10 from I. A landlord may require a security deposit of up to 2 months’ rent if an applicant fails to meet the landlord’s approval criteria,... to I. A tenant may offer and a landlord may accept a security deposit of up to 2 months’ rent if an applicant fails to meet the landlord’s approval criteria,... Change Page 2 line 4 from III. A landlord who requires a security deposit exceeding one month’s rent... to III. A landlord who accepts a security deposit exceeding one month’s rent... Change Page 2 line 8 from IV. A tenant who was required to provide a security deposit exceeding one month’s rent under this section... to IV. A tenant who has provided a security deposit exceeding one month’s rent under this section... There is an incorrect term that needs modification: Change Page 2 line 11 to 12: The landlord shall, at its option, issue a refund of rent or ... to The landlord shall, at its option, issue a refund of the security deposit in excess of one month’s rent or ...

I believe this bill would ultimately cause higher housing costs for families and young people. NH's high housing costs have already driven many young people out of this state. This would only increase that trend. I am strongly opposed to this bill.

This bill would allow landlords to to change the cost for a security deposit. It’s hard enough as it is.

I oppose this bill regarding security cap exceptions

There should definitely be a cap on what landlords can charge for security deposits. The state recognizes there is a huge housing shortage, but the apartments being built are primarily for those who can afford high rents. Very small percentage are for low/lower income people! The housing shortage affects the lower income people the hardest!! The state needs to take care of these lower income people, and putting a cap on security deposits is a step in the right direction!

The lack of affordable housing is a huge issue in NH. As a CASA, I am aware of the struggle that many lower-income families face to find and keep adequate housing. And, as the mother of a young person living in NH, I see how difficult it is for her to find affordable housing, even with a good job. She's looking for a new job now, and considering moving to a more affordable part of the country. Please vote NO on a bill that would only make this problem worse.

Often the most housing vulnerable require flexibility in the approval process.

Prices low- and moderate-income renters out of housing Legalizes discrimination through “neutral” financial metrics Shifts financial risk from landlords to tenants Deepens housing instability during a housing crisis Benefits property owners at the expense of community stability

This bill allows landlords to double security deposits making housing less affordable, which will negatively affect our NH economy .

Affordable housing is already a serious problem in our state, and this bill will only make it worse.

Higher security deposits create barriers to housing for low-income renters, families, and marginalized communities and increase housing insecurity.

Affordable housing in our state is already almost unattainable. This would only exacerbate an already terrible situation, and drive more young workers out of state. We desperately need them! We do not need to make it harder for them to find housing, by allowing landlords to double security deposits.

I have a daughter with a disability who lives in Goffstown. Her rent is more than my mortgage. She is barely surviving financially. Her rent increases every year. I oppose this bill as it creates barriers to affordable housing. We need to make it easier for all granite stayers to rent, not harder.