Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Rights Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property-rights bill draws mixed reaction: proponents call it ‘owner’s bill of rights,’ municipal groups warn of undone workforce-housing framework
Summary
Prime sponsor Rep. Julia Soti framed HB 1619 as a 'property-owner's bill of rights' to ease permitting and protect owners from overreaching local rules; realtors and municipal groups warned the proposal as drafted would undermine workforce-housing statutes and raise technical and fiscal questions.
Representative Julia Soti, the prime sponsor, opened the public hearing on HB 1619 by calling the bill a “property-owner’s bill of rights,” saying it would simplify permitting and protect small property owners from what she described as overbearing regulations and HOA creep. “I put together this bill originally as a, property owner's bill of rights because, looks like we've been having a housing shortage,” the sponsor said.
Testimony showed a clear split. Peter Rondeau, president of the New Hampshire Vacation Rental and Tourism Association, supported parts of the bill that would codify property-owner protections and ease disputes he described from his town. He urged the committee to consider accountability mechanisms if statutory rights are expanded.
Bob Quinn, CEO of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, praised some property-rights language but opposed provisions that would repeal or eliminate statutory references to workforce and affordable-housing programs. Quinn warned that removing the workforce housing framework could “undoubtedly diminish the number of affordable and workforce housing that are being constructed in the state.” He cited recent permitting data showing declines in single-family permits and rising prices as context for concern.
Bridal Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association testified in opposition, saying the bill as written would 'upend land use law' and impose unclear new standards (for example, a vague new test for what constitutes a 'minimum standard to protect public health, safety and welfare'). Deshaies also flagged potential fiscal impacts from mandatory court reviews and other procedural changes and urged more municipal representation in any state-level changes.
Sponsor and supporters countered that the bill aims to restore individual property rights and to rely on market mechanisms; opponents urged careful drafting and retention of state program frameworks that currently support affordable housing. The committee closed the public hearing with no immediate vote on HB 1619.
