HB1619

I am a New Hampshire property owner writing in support of the Property Owners’ Bill of Rights language in HB 1619. Point 1 reflects a simple, widely shared principle: property owners should be able to use and enjoy their property unless that use causes real harm to others. This expectation is common sense and deserves clear recognition in statute. I understand that Points 2 and 3 raise separate and more complex issues. I encourage the legislature to consider removing those provisions or addressing them separately so the core property rights principle in Point 1 can move forward on its own merits. Thank you for your time.

Chairman, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee, My name is Monique Garib, and I am a former tenant in the Melendy Pond community in Brookline, New Hampshire. I am here today because what I witnessed in Brookline is an example of how municipal land use authority can be used in a way that is unfair, biased, and harmful to an entire community. Melendy Pond is treated differently from other neighborhoods in Brookline—plain and simple. Homeowners and residents there are subjected to disproportionate scrutiny, inconsistent enforcement, and decisions that appear to be driven more by perception and stigma than by neutral application of the law. The message sent to residents is clear: this community is viewed as a problem rather than as part of the town. As a tenant, I experienced the consequences of this treatment firsthand. When a town targets a specific neighborhood, it creates instability, fear, and uncertainty for the people who live there—many of whom have no direct power to challenge zoning decisions or enforcement actions. Tenants are affected just as deeply as property owners, yet are often invisible in these discussions. Municipalities should not have unchecked discretion to single out certain neighborhoods based on housing type, income level, or community character. When that happens, land use regulation becomes a tool for discrimination rather than good governance. HB 1619 forces an important conversation about whether current law adequately protects residents and property owners from this kind of unequal treatment. I urge the Legislature to recognize that what may look like “local control” on paper can, in practice, result in communities like Melendy Pond being treated unfairly and without meaningful accountability. Everyone in New Hampshire deserves equal treatment under the law, regardless of where they live or how their neighborhood is perceived. Thank you for your time and for listening to this testimony. Respectfully, Monique Garib Brookline, New Hampshire

I support the Bill as follows: - ? Support Point 1 — the Property Owners' Bill of Rights - ?? Ask that Points 2 and 3 be amended out or referred for separate study This allows for a core, common-sense property-rights principle to stand on its own. Please do not inadvertently harm New Hampshire tax payers by limiting our inherent rights.

I am a New Hampshire property owner writing in support of the Property Owners’ Bill of Rights language in HB 1619. Point 1 captures a common-sense idea: ownership should mean being able to use and enjoy property unless that use causes real harm to others. That expectation is widely shared and should be clearly reflected in statute. That is one of the reason I moved to New Hampshire. I recognize that Points 2 and 3 involve separate and more contentious issues. I encourage the legislature to consider amending those sections out or referring them for separate study, so the core property-rights principle in Point 1 can stand on its own.

I am a New Hampshire property owner writing in support of the Property Owners’ Bill of Rights language in HB 1619. Point 1 captures a common-sense idea: ownership should mean being able to use and enjoy property unless that use causes real harm to others. That expectation is widely shared and should be clearly reflected in statute. I recognize that Points 2 and 3 involve separate and more contentious issues. I encourage the legislature to consider amending those sections out or referring them for separate study, so the core property-rights principle in Point 1 can stand on its own. Thank you for your time and service.

To the members of the committee My name is Kathleen Soule and I am a resident of Carroll, NH. My husband and I also have a property next to our house that we use as a short term rental to supplement our retirement income. We also have a vacation property in Pittsburg that we rent when we aren't using it to help pay the bills associated with that home. I am writing in support of Point 1 of the bill known as the Property Owners Bill of Rights. Recent bills introduced in the legislature and moves by municipalities regarding STR and other properties make is clear that this part of the bill needs to passed to protect homeowners rights. I would encourage the committee that Points 2 and 3 regarding the Workforce Housing be amended out or referred for a stand alone study. This would allow the core protections to be put in place without the potential more controversial and complex issues presented by Points 2 and 3 causing the bill to fail. Thank you for reading my testimony. Kathleen Soule

Greetings from Sullivan County YES. South Carolina had workforce housing in the 1860's. It is called slave quarters. No desire to subsidize tenements. Build all forms of housing, not special purpose containers.

My wife & I own a house in Meredith NH that is originally the home of my wife's parents (her childhood home). We were both born & raised in Meredith but had to move away due to career. We are both retired now and return to the home multiple times each year. We're taxpayers. We invested a significant amount of money in the rehabilitation of the property and wanted it to be a positive influence on the neighborhood and community in general. We continue to invest in the property to make it energy efficient and well kept. We do rent it at points during the year when we aren't there, both as a STR property and over the winter months as a LTR. All things considered we generally break even at best. We support HB1619 generally as it finally makes clear the rights of property owners without regard to the citizenship question. With all of the proposals floating around and individual towns deciding on their own what regulations should be on STR properties (specifically) one would need a law degree and or deep pockets to keep up with regulations. Unlike in some states NH does not allow a non-resident property owner to vote in local matters. This creates a significant burden on people like myself who have no say in my property taxes and the burden added by local voters. a t least this bill seems to recognize all property owners should be treated equally (as best as can be reasonably expected under the current residency law.) I would also suggest that Points 2 and 3 be amended out or referred for separate study as they could be better addressed in it's own legislation proposal. Finally, thanks for reading this and considering my opinion.

Members of the House Committee. As a New Hampshire property owner, I support HB-1619. I do however, respectfully request that Points #2 & 3 in the proposed be amended out of the bill or continued for further review and study. Thank you for your consideration. Thomas Glavin