Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb 11 96 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers Hear Push to Repeal 'Housing Champion' Designation as Advocates Warn of Lost Incentives
Summary
Supporters of HB 11‑96 told the House Special Committee on Housing the state program distorts incentives and lacks required reporting; opponents including municipal and housing advocates said the modest designation and grants spur local reforms and private investment and urged retaining and improving the program.
Rep. Matt Drew opened the public hearing on HB 11‑96 by asking the Special Committee on Housing to repeal the state’s Housing Champion designation and municipal grant program, calling it "a subsidy subsidy" that "distorts critical price signals" and arguing that the statute and reporting requirements (RSA 12:71(7)) are unclear and potentially unfulfilled.
Drew said published coverage and municipal announcements had obscured how the program actually operates. He cited a Manchester example and a fiscal note suggesting the state could recover up to $3,000,000 by terminating contractual and payment obligations if the fund were repealed. "This is a bad program," he said. "We can't afford it, and we should end it." (Representative Matt Drew)
Opponents urged the committee not to repeal. Rep. David Preece told members the designation is a "targeted tool" that recognizes municipalities and nonprofits taking concrete steps to address the state's affordable‑housing shortage. Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire said more than 20 communities have become Housing Champions and pointed to regulatory changes—pattern zoning, form‑based codes and duplex‑friendly rules—taken by designated towns as evidence the program is prompting reform.
Rob Dapis, executive director of New Hampshire Housing, told the committee the authority would administer related programs carefully and emphasized experience with federal risk‑sharing programs. He acknowledged legitimate questions about whether payments are triggered by project completion and recommended clarifying in statute how obligated but undisbursed funds would be handled.
Committee members pressed both sides on whether the grant and infrastructure streams in the program "pick winners" among municipalities or instead reward specific policy reforms. Advocates emphasized monitoring building‑permit and production data before judging the program’s effectiveness; critics emphasized fiscal risk and the need to clarify reporting and disposition of funds.
Next steps: the public hearing closed after the invited testimony and the committee later took executive action; members asked for clearer fiscal details and statutory fixes to reporting obligations before any major change.
