On housing, Granite Staters want more development, less gov’t interference

, , ,

On housing, a consensus has settled in among Granite State voters. It can be summarized in four main points:

  1. New Hampshire desperately needs more housing.
  2. Local governments should lift regulatory barriers to the construction of new housing.
  3. The state government should act to prompt local regulatory changes.
  4. Multifamily housing is acceptable in suburbs and rural areas.

The St. Anselm College Center for Ethics in Society has polled New Hampshire voters on housing since 2020. The 2024 poll, released this week, shows that voters’ views have solidified into a strongly pro-construction, anti-regulatory, pro multi-family majority. 

A supermajority (75%) agrees with the statement, “my community needs more affordable housing to be built.” 

Roughly 60% (59%-62%) welcome the construction of affordable housing in their own neighborhoods, the relaxation of local land use regulations to allow that construction, the building of multifamily housing in suburban and rural zones, and state intervention to make all of this happen. 

In the 2020 poll, just 28.7% agreed that local governments should relax their planning and zoning regulations to allow the construction of more housing. 

In the spring of 2021, the poll found a 10% increase, to 39%, of voters saying local governments should relax planning and zoning regulations. 

In the fall of 2021, the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy released our landmark study showing that local land use regulations were the primary cause of the state’s housing shortage.

The next year, the percentage of N.H. voters who agreed that local planning and zoning regulations should be relaxed to allow for more housing shot up to 52%. It now stands at 61%.

High-profile conversations about specific policy problems matter. By 2021, Granite Staters were becoming more receptive to the idea that local land use regulations were a problem. A push by the Bartlett Center and others to identify the root cause of the housing shortage and propose solutions helped more people understand the problem and demand the right fix, rather than continue to falsely blame developers or the market.

Today, a strong majority of voters understands the problem and demands that it be fixed. Yet local voters and boards have not gotten the message. 

A few recent examples:

“Hampton Falls rejects proposed 88-unit condo project on Route 1”

“Owner: McIntyre building still a parking lot due to Portsmouth zoning rules”

“Stratham select board sues town zoning board over 59-unit condo approval”

“Exeter 120-plus apartment project faces opposition”

“Portsmouth board rejects plan to raze 1900-era home for four new houses”

“Board nixes variance for North Newport senior housing project.”

New residential developments are being approved in New Hampshire. But boards continue to reject housing proposals simply because pre-existing regulations don’t allow the type of housing the market now demands. 

In the Hampton Falls and Stratham stories linked above, boards rejected variance requests because members didn’t want to contradict old, outdated rules.

In the Newport example, the rural zone doesn’t allow multifamily housing. Since the developer could conceivably propose a different use for the property than its highest, best, most in-demand use (multifamily housing), the board rejected the proposal. 

Though Granite Staters now say overwhelmingly that they welcome multi-family housing in suburban and rural zones, local boards continue to reject such proposals simply because old rules don’t allow them.

This discrepancy between voter and market demand on one side and inflexible regulations on the other cannot continue indefinitely.

The Center for Ethics in Society polling shows that on questions of housing, large majorities of New Hampshire voters are on the side of developers, not local regulators. And they want the state to act if local governments won’t. 

Voters say housing is the “most important problem facing New Hampshire,” the UNH Survey Center found last month. Thirty-six percent of voters named housing as the state’s top problem. In second place was education, with only 7% of voters naming it the top problem. 

In the most recent legislative session, the House Education Committee dealt with 156 bills. 

The number of bills referred to the Special Committee on Housing? Nine.

Housing beats education as the top concern of voters by 29 percentage points. But legislators, like local land use boards, are operating on outdated beliefs. They’ve yet to adapt to the changing voter preferences. 

But there’s an election this fall, and we’re already seeing candidates campaign on pro-housing agendas. 

Given the firmly solidified pro-housing position of most voters, hardened each month by news of rising home prices, and the slow pace of change at the local level, it would be political malpractice for lawmakers not to make significant regulatory reform a top priority next year.

For years, we’ve predicted exactly this development. The slow pace of change at the local level has voters turning to the state for solutions. So far, legislators have been reluctant to act. That won’t be the case much longer. The pressure to act is too great.

It’s a safe bet that we’ll see a significant increase in legislative proposals to address the housing shortage in 2025. People are tired of waiting for government to get out of the way and let developers solve the housing shortage government created in the first place. 

 

/by

On housing, New Hampshire’s No. 1 issue, 2024 offers few big reforms

, ,

With a growing housing shortage and skyrocketing home prices as a result, the issue of housing is top of mind for Granite Staters. A June UNH Survey Center poll found that Granite Staters overwhelmingly say housing is the most important problem facing the state.

Unsurprisingly, the issue was also a top priority for legislators in 2024. And although some of the more ambitious pro-housing proposals didn’t make it through both houses, the Legislature passed a handful of modest reforms to free up the housing stock in New Hampshire.

The following are the five bills that passed both the House and the Senate and either await Gov. Sununu’s signature or have already received it:

* House Bill 1065: “relative to fire sprinkler requirements in residential buildings.”

* House Bill 1202: “relative to the issuance of permits for the alteration of driveways exiting onto public ways and relative to the definition of disability or special needs under the child care scholarship program.”

* House Bill 1359: “relative to appeals of certain zoning decisions by abutters.”

* House Bill 1361 (signed into law): “relative to municipal land use regulation for manufactured housing and subdivisions.”

* House Bill 1400: “relative to residential parking spaces, landlord-tenant law, unauthorized occupant evictions, and zoning procedures concerning residential housing.”

HB 1065 adds an exception to the state fire code for certain multifamily buildings. Under current law, existing multifamily structures consisting of more than two dwelling units must have a fire suppression or sprinkler system installed on the property. HB 1065 exempts existing buildings of no more than four dwelling units from this requirement unless fire sprinklers already exist on the property or are required by a nonresidential occupancy.

HB 1065 also prevents local jurisdictions from imposing stricter rules and regulations than the state fire code relative to residential sprinkler systems.

Requiring three-family and four-family buildings to have fire suppression or sprinkler systems can disincentivize developers and property owners from converting two-family buildings to four-families because of the prohibitive costs of installing them.

HB 1202 streamlines local permitting of driveways. Under this bill, a municipality must issue a driveway permit for a proposed driveway on residential land, including for multifamily use, within 60 days of the property owner’s application, putting an end to drawn-out permitting processes and preventing municipalities from wasting property owners’ time with delays.

HB 1359 limits who exactly can appeal local land-use board decisions by adding to the definition of “abutter.” Vexatious appeals of local zoning boards’ land-use decisions hinder residential development. Under current law, “any person whose property is located in New Hampshire and adjoins or is directly across the street or stream from the land under consideration by the local land use board” can appeal the permitted use in question to the local zoning board.

Under HB 1359, an abutter is “any person whose property is located in New Hampshire and adjoins or is directly across the street or stream from the land under consideration by the local land use board. ‘Directly across the street or stream’ shall be determined by lines drawn perpendicular from all pairs of corner boundaries along the street or stream of the applicant to pairs of projected points on any property boundary across the street or stream that intersect these perpendicular lines. Any property that lies along the street or stream between each pair of projected points, or is within 50 feet of any projected point shall be considered an abutter.”

In other words, not just anyone can claim to be an abutter and therefore appeal their local zoning board’s land-use decisions. Someone must be close enough to the land under consideration, and therefore have a claim to be materially affected by the permitted use, to have a right to appeal.

HB 1400, focusing on parking space requirements and unauthorized occupancies, was one of the more high-profile housing bills of the year. Originally, the bill prevented municipalities from requiring more than one residential parking space per housing unit. Under the version passed by both chambers, the bill prevents municipalities from requiring more than 1.5 spaces per unit for studio and one-bedroom apartments under 1,000 square feet, as well as for multifamily structures of 10 units or more.

Local parking requirements are often burdensome for housing developers and owners of multifamily properties to overcome because of all the land that needs to be accounted for and set aside to accommodate them. While 1.5 is not as ambitious as one, and owners of multifamily structures consisting of two to nine units will still have to abide by the whims local governments requiring two or sometimes more parking spaces per unit, 1.5 at least gives owners and developers of large housing complexes the breathing room to build without worrying about overcoming overly stringent parking edicts.

HB 1400 also allows municipalities to grant community revitalization tax relief for properties that are converted from office, commercial or industrial use to residential. This would let municipalities temporarily freeze property taxes on a building that is converted to residential use, thereby encouraging owners to make those conversions.

Sometimes local boards recommend changes to land-use regulations that would facilitate more housing development, only to see those changes rejected by voters. HB 1400 offers a remedy for this too. It would allow non-charter towns, village districts and counties that have unincorporated land to ask voters for permission to let the local governing body approve zoning changes without submitting the proposed changes to voters. If approved by voters, the local governing body would be able to change zoning laws or maps by majority vote.

Finally, after an amendment added by the Senate, HB 1400 outlaws squatting in New Hampshire. A “squatter” is someone who lives on another person’s property without that owner’s permission and without any legal claim or title to that property.

With the following language, “No person or legal entity, that is not a tenant, subtenant, or implied tenant, as defined in RSA 540-A:1, II, shall occupy residential real estate without permission of the owner, landlord, or their agent,” claims of “squatter’s rights” will have no legal basis in the Granite State under HB 1400, restoring to property owners the right to control who occupies their private property.

HB 1361, which has already been signed into law, forbids municipalities from banning manufactured housing. Prefabricated homes that are transported to sites, manufactured housing is an easy, quick and often inexpensive way to put more people into homes. Under HB 1361, municipalities can still regulate manufactured housing but not to the extent that it is effectively banned.

Each of these five bills, through exemptions, increased freedom, and/or regulatory reform, enhances property rights, reduces barriers to development, and makes it easier for Granite Staters to build more housing.

“The Legislature did a number of small things to ease the housing shortage, all of which had to do with giving people a little bit more freedom to use their land,” Jason Sorens, senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, said. “The most impactful reform might be letting residential developers propose alternative parking plans if the minimum requirement can be met through transit, on-street parking, or other options. But the session was also a missed opportunity in that the Senate killed more significant parking reform and by-right ADUs. Next year, they will need to get back to work on the problem.”

Among the more ambitious pro-housing bills that didn’t make it to the governor’s desk were HB 1215, HB 1291 and HB 1399. These bills represented attempts to extend the amount of time new developments are protected from local regulatory changes, allow property owners to add an additional accessory dwelling unit by right, and limit municipal restrictions on homeowners in urban residential zones who want to convert a single-family home to a duplex.

While these more far-reaching reforms didn’t make it through the Legislature, those that did represent an important first step in expanding private property rights throughout New Hampshire and reducing regulatory roadblocks to housing development.

Granite Staters want more housing, and they want enough of it to drive prices down. Whether they want it faster than legislators and local regulators have been willing to provide it is a question that might be answered only by future elections.

/by

Surprise: when housing supply meets demand, prices stabilize

, ,

Though a housing shortage amid rising demand continues to push prices up in most of the country, some cities in Florida and Texas are seeing housing prices fall. How? They’ve built a lot more housing, The Wall Street Journal reports.

In most of the U.S., the limited number of homes for sale is pushing prices back toward record highs. Sale prices for single-family existing homes rose in 93% of U.S. metro areas during the first quarter, according to the National Association of Realtors. The median single-family existing-home price grew 5% from a year ago to $389,400.

Yet the market is cooling and prices have started falling in some cities in Florida and Texas, where robust home-building activity in recent years has helped boost the number of homes for sale. The two states accounted for more than a quarter of all single-family residential building permits every year from 2019 to 2023, according to Census Bureau data.

In 10 Texas and Florida metro areas, the inventory of homes for sale in April exceeded typical prepandemic levels for this time of year, according to Realtor.com. In eight of those markets, pending sales in April fell from a year earlier.

In Florida and Texas, “we’re starting to get into a buyer’s market,” said Rick Palacios Jr., director of research at John Burns Research & Consulting.

Only five of the 50 biggest markets posted year-over-year price declines in March, according to data provider Intercontinental Exchange, and four of them were in Texas or Florida: Austin, Texas; North Port, Fla.; Cape Coral, Fla.; and San Antonio.

In Portsmouth and Manchester, where new rental construction has accelerated in recent years, bringing thousands of new units onto the market, prices remain stubbornly high. Some policymakers and observers have suggested that this disproves the idea that adding more supply will lower prices. It does not. New Hampshire’s supply remains tens of thousands of units short of demand. For prices to stabilize, supply will have to approach demand, which will take decades at the current pace of construction.

Stabilizing home prices by letting the market bring supply in line with demand cannot be done overnight. It’s a years-long process. But Florida and Texas show that it can be done.

/by

The state says optometrists can’t do surgeries, including ones they’re trained to do

, ,

As part of their doctorate-level education, optometrists learn how to perform minor surgeries, including some laser eye surgeries. Yet New Hampshire law prohibits optometrists from doing any surgeries, even ones they’re trained to do.

Only ophthalmologists (physicians who specialize in medical and surgical eye care) are permitted by law to perform laser procedures in New Hampshire. This restriction reduces the availability of certain eye care procedures and forces patients to go to specialists when they don’t really need one. 

Optometrists are trying to lift this outdated regulation and make some other changes to their state oversight so they can offer Granite Staters additional services they’re qualified to perform. 

Senate Bill 440 would, in a word, modernize the regulation of optometry in New Hampshire. This includes changing what constitutes the practice of optometry and moving scope of practice decisions and rulemaking authority to the state Board of Optometry (as opposed to relying on state statutes), all to treat optometry like other doctorate-level independently practicing professions in New Hampshire.

Currently, optometrists in 12 states can perform laser surgeries, according to the American Optometric Association: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

These procedures include YAG (yttrium aluminum garnet) laser capsulotomy to remove clouded tissue on the back of the lens implant after cataract surgery; LPI (laser peripheral iridotomy) and SLT (selective laser trabeculoplasty) for treating some forms of glaucoma; and excision, removal, drainage, or injection of a variety of “lumps and bumps.”

The New Hampshire Medical Society opposes SB 440, saying it would jeopardize the health and safety of patients. Evidence from other states suggests otherwise.

Russell Laverty, OD, executive director of the Oklahoma Board of Examiners in Optometry, wrote to the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee that Oklahoma allowed optometrists to do laser eye surgeries starting in 1998. 

“Since 1998 there have been an additional estimated over 50,000 laser surgery procedures in which there were no complaints registered,” he wrote.

Since 2011, optometrists have performed more than 60,000 laser procedures in Kentucky, according to Joe E. Ellis, OD, president of the Kentucky Board of Optometric Examiners. The board hasn’t received any complaints or been notified of any adverse effects related to the surgeries, according to Dr. Ellis.

Dr. Nate Lighthizer, optometrist and associate dean at the Northeastern State University Oklahoma College of Optometry, testified in writing that more than 30,000 laser procedures in total have been performed by optometrists in Louisiana since 2014, Alaska since 2017, and Arkansas from 2021–22 combined. How many negative outcomes have been reported across all three states? Zero.

The reason for the shortage of complaints is simple. Optometrists are trained to perform minor laser and traditional surgeries. According to Laverty and Lighthizer, laser procedure is taught to every optometry student in every college of optometry in the United States, where students earn Doctor of Optometry (OD) degrees after roughly four years of graduate study. 

By keeping professionally licensed optometrists from doing what they were specially trained to do, Granite Staters’ access to necessary eye care has been severely limited, especially in rural New Hampshire. 

According to data from the American Optometric Association, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the American Medical Association, there are optometrists currently practicing in all 10 New Hampshire counties. In Coos and Sullivan counties, however, optometrists are the only local eye care providers for the 26,163 urban residents and 48,682 rural residents between these two jurisdictions. 

That means that residents of Coos and Sullivan counties have to travel to neighboring counties to find the nearest ophthalmologist to perform some surgeries that could be performed by a resident optometrist.

In Carroll County, which is 90% rural, there are 1.7 optometrists per 10,000 people but only 0.2 ophthalmologists per 10,000. 

Moreover, each of the four New Hampshire counties with more than 100,000 residents (Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford) has at least one optometrist per 10,000 people, but not one has at least one ophthalmologist per 10,000. 

With few ophthalmologists statewide, wait times for these laser procedures, that only they can legally perform, are very long in New Hampshire. 

The average total wait time for YAG, LPI, SLT, and “lumps and bumps” operations, both for the consultation and the actual procedure combined, are 3.8 months, 3.6 months, 4.6 months, and 4.2 months, respectively, per the New Hampshire Optometric Association (NHOA). 

Anecdotes gathered by an NHOA survey of member-owned practices across the state lend credence to these statistics:

“Recently what was a 1–3 month wait for SLT (selective laser trabeculoplasty) has turned into a 10-month wait, a disturbing access problem for my patients.” – Conway Eye Care, North Conway

“As of January 1st this year Mt. Ascutney has 1 cataract surgeon who stopped taking new patients over 1.5 years ago. The one and only cataract surgeon in Montpelier booking 6 months out for the consult. ANY referral to DHMC ophthalmology (which is less than 10 minutes from our office) is a minimum of 4 months but usually longer. But DHMC stopped accepting new patients for ANY glaucoma related issues 2 months ago. The oculoplastics MD left DHMC, hasn’t been replaced yet so patients have to go to Concord or Burlington, VT. DHMC has not been accepting new patients in the retina clinic for ~ 2 years, they now have 1 retina specialist (intravitreal injections).” – Dr. Sheila Hastie, Lebanon

“Patients are frustrated when they cannot see properly to drive, waiting for a YAG procedure that takes 2–4 months to get into the surgeon’s office. I recently had a patient who waited over three months for evaluation and then an additional two months for both eyes to be treated.” – Dr. Chris Daldine and Dr. Pattie Samuel Daldine, Nashua

“We have referred to Dartmouth-Hitchcock for many different types of visits and they are not accepting referrals of any kind and asking us to send patients elsewhere. We have also sent referrals to Concord Eye Center, Medical Eye, and NH Eye and they will run redundant diagnostic tests/visits confirming that the patient needs the referral even though they have received all visit notes and testing data in the referral. This adds unnecessary financial burden on patients and insurance companies.” – Capital Vision Center, Concord 

These problems will only worsen as the supply of ophthalmologists continues to shrink, as it’s projected to do. As Edward Timmons, director of the Knee Center for the Study of Occupational Regulation at West Virginia University, cites, 450 ophthalmologists became eligible to start working in 2022, but 550 ophthalmologists retired that year—a net loss of 100 providers nationwide in 2022 alone.  

Research published in Ophthalmology, the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, estimates “a sizeable shortage of ophthalmology supply relative to demand by the year 2035, with substantial geographic disparities.”

The monopoly that ophthalmologists in New Hampshire have over eye surgeries, including minor ones optometrists are trained to do, has led to limited access to eye care, longer wait times and delayed procedures for Granite Staters. 

When supply of a service is artificially limited, but demand remains constant or increases, costs for that service inevitably increase. 

In the face of these facts, the opposition to SB 440 looks less like concern for patient health, safety and well-being and more like ophthalmologists protecting their turf by limiting competition. 

Simply permitting optometrists to do what they were trained to do would be an obvious way to address many of these problems.



/by

Two baby steps toward helping wineries, breweries and brew pubs survive

, ,

Everybody loves wineries and craft breweries. Everyone except New Hampshire state statutes, that is. New Hampshire statutes show about as much affection for wineries and craft breweries as the English have for the French, or snooty wine drinkers have for rowdy beer drinkers. 

For example, say you own a winery or craft brewery in New Hampshire, but your location is not exactly on the beaten path. You’re not drawing a lot of tourists down your windy rural road. However, lawmakers have graciously allowed you to have a separate retail outlet, and you created one in a busy tourist area. 

Great for business! Unless people want to taste your product before buying it. 

State law says that breweries and wineries can have a single license for on-premises alcohol sales—at the manufacturing location. Want to sell open drinks at your retail location—where potential customers actually are? Sorry. 

You can sell closed-container drinks at your retail outlet, but not open-container drinks. Because,., safety. Or something. 

This has been a problem for Apollo Vineyards in Derry. Restricted to serving wine only at their vineyard, they’re losing potential sales that could come from being able to serve at a retail outlet in a more prominent location.

House Bill 1076 would sort-of fix that problem by allowing wineries and breweries to choose whether to use their one on-premises license at the manufacturing facility or at the retail outlet.

Shouldn’t they be able to sell at both places, you might ask. 

What do you think this is, the 21st century?

So what about brew pubs, which are a separate category in state law? Let’s say you own several restaurants in New Hampshire but have decided to also open a single brew pub because, well, brew pubs are cool and hip and trendy and you have a great idea for one. 

Trivia question: Is it legal for you to do that?

Don’t be ridiculous. This is New Hampshire. Of course it isn’t legal.

State law prevents a beer manufacturer from also owning multiple on-premises alcohol licenses (such as for a restaurant or bar).

It turns out that this particular law has caused a huge problem for the owners of Lost Cowboy Brewing Co., which is under construction in Nashua. It’s being opened by Michael Timothy’s Group, which owns Buckley’s Great Steaks in Merrimack and Surf in Nashua and Portsmouth, among other restaurants. 

Technically, their new venture is not a restaurant, but a beer manufacturer. So, technically, they can’t own it and be licensed to sell alcohol at their other restaurants. 

House Bill 1380 would fix that by allowing a company that owns a beer manufacturing license to also hold licenses that allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on-or off-site. And, as amended, it would allow the owner to sell the beer from his brewery at one of his restaurants. Just one. 

Now, you might be wondering what possible public health or safety justification there could be for prohibiting a company from distributing beer it makes at a local brew pub to more than one restaurant it owns elsewhere in the state. 

Well, welcome to New Hampshire alcohol laws. The ghosts of Prohibition haunt these statutes. Each tiny step into modernity, such as the bills listed above, exorcises one of those pesky Prohibition ghosts, even though others usually work their way into the bills to pull them back a bit toward the 1930s. It’s a seemingly never-ending struggle between the future and the past.

/by

Median home price hitting $500k signals urgent need for land-use reform

, , ,

New Hampshire’s median home price hit an unprecedented half-million dollars in March, just two years after passing $400,000 for the first time, underscoring the urgency of making changes to local land-use regulations. 

The change represents “a 16 percent drop in affordability from a year ago,” according to the New Hampshire Association of Realtors (NHAR) report.

For context, the state housing affordability index was 59 in March. In other words, the median household income in New Hampshire ($90,845) is a mere 59% of what one needs to qualify for the median-priced home at current interest rates.

Such poor affordability prospects haven’t always plagued Granite Staters. According to NHAR, the affordability index hit upwards of 150 in March 2017 and even reached a high of 200 in 2013. 

The culprit, as the NHAR concluded (and many Granite Staters know by now), is a “lack of New Hampshire housing inventory….” 

NHAR President Joanie McIntire emphasized the point. 

“The problem remains the shortage of available housing that is continuing to make homeownership more difficult than ever for those workers needed to help an economy thrive,” she said.

There is no doubt that New Hampshire’s supply of homes is nowhere close to meeting residents’ demand for homes. In a functioning market, when prices signal such huge demand builders would be expected to increase supply rapidly.

New Hampshire unfortunately doesn’t have a functioning market thanks to a thick layer of local government regulations. 

Exclusionary zoning—the use of zoning ordinances to exclude certain types of land uses from zoning districts—has run rampant in New Hampshire municipalities for decades, choking the supply of housing throughout the state.

Since our 2021 study identifying zoning as a major cause of the state’s housing shortage, there’s been a growing consensus that the current land-use landscape in the Granite State has to change. 

As if to emphasize our analysis of the New Hampshire market, the Fall/Winter 2023 edition of the Journal of Housing and Community Development last December published this summary of the link between restrictive zoning and housing affordability: 

Restrictive zoning codes contribute to socioeconomic divisions, worsen the housing affordability crisis, and artificially inflate housing prices. The insufficient housing supply further emphasizes the importance of exploring opportunities for increasing housing stock through land use reform.

The correlation between states’ median home prices and their land-use freedom is particularly damning. Among the 25 states with the lowest median home prices, according to Redfin and Bankrate 2023 data, 20 of them also rank in the top 25 for most land-use freedom, according to the Cato Institute’s Freedom in the 50 States 2023. 

Conversely, of the 25 states with the highest median home prices, 20 of them are found in the bottom 25 for the least amount of land-use freedom. 

In these rankings, New Hampshire has the 14th-highest median home price and is the 12th-most restrictive state when it comes to land-use freedom.

The relationship, reflected in numerous studies, is clear: Less land-use freedom shrinks the supply of housing, which leads to inflated home prices.

Another way to look at the problem is through building permits. New Hampshire publishes building permit approvals collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. These data show a sharp and sustained reduction in building permit approvals since the early 1980s, showing that the housing supply problem long predates the pandemic or the 2007–08 recession. 

From 1984–1988, more than 10,000 residential building permits (single-family and multifamily) were issued per year in the state, with the peak being 18,015 in 1986. The last time more than 5,000 residential building permits were issued in a single year was 2006—18 years ago.  

The median home price in New Hampshire cracked $200,000 for the first time in 2002. For the next two decades, home construction did not come close to meeting demand. By 2021, the median home price had doubled to $400,000. Now it’s $500,000. Despite astronomical demand for new homes, the number of residential building permits issued in 2023 was just 4,512, a decline of 271 from the year before. 

Builders make money by building and selling homes and apartments. They want to meet this demand. Too many local governments have made it too costly or difficult for them to do so. 

At this point it’s clear that relaxing local restrictions on land-use freedom in New Hampshire is critical to opening the market forces that will allow supply to meet demand. The more urgently policymakers act to lift regulatory obstacles to home construction, the more quickly builders will be able to respond to these flashing-red market signals and provide Granite Staters the housing they so desperately want. 

 

/by

How the big “HOMEnibus” housing bill would do more harm than good

, , ,

By Jason Sorens

The New Hampshire House of Representatives recently passed a couple of bills to make certain types of housing easier to build: single-family conversions to duplexes on lots with adequate sewer capacity, and detached accessory dwelling units. A more ambitious Senate bill comes up for a vote of the full chamber this Thursday, but unlike the cleaner, smaller House bills, this one has both pro-housing and anti-housing elements. 

As amended, this bill, dubbed the “HOMEnibus Act,” would do the following:

  1. Extend the existing Community Revitalization Tax Relief Incentive to cover conversions of office, industrial, and commercial uses to residential use. This is an optional program municipalities can choose to adopt. It makes it so that rehabilitation or conversion won’t incur additional property tax as a result of improvements that raise the value of a property. This incentive could result in more residential conversions, but it also reduces the property tax benefit a town receives from such conversions, which may make planning and zoning boards less likely to want to approve such developments in the first place. It’s hard to imagine that the incentive would make the housing shortage worse, but it also might not make it any better.
  2. Allow local governments that currently operate under direct democracy (towns without charters and village districts) plus Coos County to let their governing body–typically, the select board–adopt and amend zoning ordinances without a vote of the people. A vote of the people would be necessary to give the select board this power. The assumption seems to be that the people who show up on town election day are less pro-housing than select boards are. I’m unaware of direct evidence on this point. Based on evidence from Texas, Nolan Gray thinks voters are less pro-zoning than officials are. But my experience in New England suggests that the reverse might be true here, though it probably varies by town. Certainly, in places like Canaan and Dalton, the public vote requirement has stopped zoning from being adopted at all.
  3. Require planning boards to consider “alternative parking solutions” proposed by residential developers to meet on-site minimum parking requirements, and if the developer can demonstrate that these alternative solutions would meet parking demand, planning boards must accept them. Alternative solutions could include nearby off-site parking lots, agreements with ride-share companies, public transportation availability, or walkable infrastructure as designated in a master plan or zoning ordinance. This is a straightforwardly pro-housing, pro-property rights measure. It is also rather tepid, given that other states like Minnesota are proposing to abolish all on-site parking minimums statewide for all uses, but it’s better than nothing.
  4. Authorize mandatory inclusionary zoning (IZ) that would require up to 15 percent of new dwelling units be deed-restricted below-market housing provided the developer is granted a density bonus of at least 25% more units than what the base zoning allows. Unfortunately, this is an anti-housing measure, creating a type of rent control tax on new development, as Yale law professor Robert Ellickson pointed out  more than 40 years ago. Research in the Baltimore-Washington area finds that mandatory inclusionary zoning increases the cost of market-rate housing. Other peer-reviewed studies have consistently found a similar result: adopting mandatory IZ increases housing costs and distorts the market away from single-family development toward multifamily development. (However, one non-peer-reviewed study finds that moving away from mandatory to voluntary IZ does not reduce housing costs.)

The original version of the bill also had a major reform to minimum lot sizes that would have been pro-housing, but that was amended out. There is good reason to believe that the net effect of the current version of this bill would be to make housing less abundant and more costly.

Jason Sorens of Amherst is a senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.



/by

How one licensing requirement limits patient access to PAs

, ,

New Hampshire’s health care provider shortage has been a major news story for years. The demand for health care is growing as New Hampshire’s population ages. Yet the supply of providers is not keeping pace with demand, as physicians retire and too few young people enter the field, particularly in the three primary care occupations: physicians, physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). 

To illustrate the problem, a nationwide review of health care industry job listings on Indeed.com last fall found that New Hampshire had more than 1,000 listings per 100,000 residents, the highest number of listings per-capita in the United States.

Every New Hampshire county but Rockingham has at least some area experiencing a shortage of primary care providers.

The state’s 2023 annual report on the health care workforce availability found a very low rate of PAs offering outpatient primary care in New Hampshire per 100,000 residents. 

Counting providers offering outpatient primary care, the state found that New Hampshire has 54 physicians and 30.5 APRNs per 100,000 residents. But the rate for PAs is only 9.2 per 100,000. 

That falls even lower in rural areas. The number of physicians and APRNs per resident who offer outpatient primary care actually increases in rural parts of the state (to 56.9 for physicians and 36.3 for APRNs). But the number of PAs per resident offering that care falls from an already low 9.2 to just 6.3.

One likely reason for the shortage of PAs offering outpatient primary care, particularly in rural areas, is that the state essentially treats PAs as apprentices rather than the advanced practice health care professionals—with master’s-level education credentials and national industry certification—that they are.

State law (RSA 328-D:3) mandates that all PAs must have completed a nationally accredited PA education program (these are master’s degree programs) and have passed a national proficiency exam. 

RSA 328-D:3-b VII states that PAs “may provide any legal medical service for which they have been prepared by their education, training, and experience and are competent to perform.”

And yet the law prohibits them from offering the very same medical services they’re trained and qualified to perform unless they first obtain “a written collaboration agreement with a sole practice physician or a physician representing a group or health system….” 

The collaboration agreement is not supervision. The physician signing the agreement does not supervise the PA’s work and is not liable for the quality of the PA’s work product (outside of any direct involvement in a specific case). “Collaboration” is defined in law (RSA 328:D-1) as merely consultation or referral. 

APRNs, who have similar training to PAs, do not have a similar requirement. The law rightly treats them like advanced-degree professionals. PAs, despite having master’s-level medical training and being required by law to practice only within their area of training and expertise, are treated like untrained apprentices.

House Bill 1222 would remove the requirement that PAs enter into a collaboration agreement before being allowed to practice what they’re educated and trained to do.  

HB 1222 does not change the scope of practice for PAs in any way. Every other legal restriction on their work would remain. The bill would simply allow them to offer the services they’re fully qualified to offer without first finding a doctor to sign a contract agreeing to talk to them from time to time.

Despite their title, PAs are not really “assistants.” Under state law, they are authorized to offer services including, but not limited to:

“a) Obtaining and performing comprehensive health histories and physical examinations; 

“(b) Evaluating, diagnosing, managing, and providing medical treatment; 

“(c) Ordering, performing, and interpreting diagnostic studies and therapeutic procedures; 

“(d) Educating patients on health promotion and disease prevention;

“(e) Providing consultation upon request; 

“(f) Writing medical orders….”

PAs function as primary care providers, at a level below physicians but on par with APRNs. The requirement for a collaboration agreement is an unnecessary regulation that reduces the supply of PAs while likely hurting Granite Staters.

Some might consider this requirement a harmless rule that adds an extra layer of protection for patients. But if the requirement reduces the supply of trained, educated and licensed primary care providers in the state, as appears to be the case, then it hurts patients. By reducing the supply of providers and increasing wait times, it could reduce Granite Staters’ access to care, causing worse health outcomes. 

A proposed floor amendment would remove the collaboration agreement requirement after PAs have completed at least 8,000 hours of clinical practice. That’s a high hours requirement, and an unnecessary one. It would still create a needless barrier to entry into a profession that New Hampshire should by trying to expand, not limit. 

But if the choice is between the status quo and lifting the requirement after 8,000 hours, the pro-patient answer is easy. Patients would be better off if the state encouraged more people to become PAs by giving them a path by which to escape the collaboration agreement eventually.  

When licensing denies people services they need in the name of protecting them from fully educated, trained and credentialed professionals, it winds up hurting the very people it’s designed to protect by prohibiting them from accessing the care they need. The collaboration agreement is a perfect example of this unintended consequence.

/by

A zoning fix for child care can apply to education too

, , ,

Child care in New Hampshire is often hard to find and, when you do, expensive. A bipartisan group of legislators has offered families some relief in a surprising way: zoning reform.

Child care offered to small groups of children in a caregiver’s home was once a popular option for many families. But professionalization and regulation of the industry produced a shift toward large (and expensive) commercial day care centers. A lot of families looking for cheaper alternatives today wonder where the old-fashioned, home-based child care providers went.

Many municipalities, it turns out, have passed zoning regulations prohibiting or restricting them.

“Many state and local governments have considered home daycares a ‘problem use’ and have therefore used zoning restrictions to ban them. Such restrictions reduce the availability of childcare in the affected neighborhoods and further increase the price of childcare services,” the Cato Institute’s Ryan Bourne has found.

House Bill 1567 would fix that in New Hampshire by requiring local zoning regulations to allow family child care programs as an accessory use (by right) to any primary residential use. 

Such home-base child care programs would be allowed “as long as all requirements for such programs adopted in rules of the department of health and human services (He-C 4002) are met,” the bill states.

Child care is expensive for many reasons, some of them regulatory. It is particularly expensive in New Hampshire. 

According to Child Care Aware, child care in New Hampshire costs an average of $10,140 per year for an infant in family child care and $10,400 for a toddler in family child care. For an infant and toddler in center-based child care, New Hampshire families are spending an average of $15,340 and $14,235 per year, respectively. 

On the “low end,” then, family child care for an infant accounts for 21% of per capita income in New Hampshire and 11.2% of medium household income in the state, while center-based child care for a toddler represents 29.5% of per capita income and 15.7% of medium household income in New Hampshire.

For context, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers its benchmark for affordable child care to be 7% of income. 

HB 1567 would not solve this problem, but it would help lower costs by largely doing away with “problem use” restrictions in residential zoning districts. This change would open more of the state to home-based family child care, free up the supply of those services, and, in turn, help reduce prices. 

This is a smart and efficient way to help lower child care costs by removing an unnecessary regulatory barrier that prohibits the entry of low-cost competitors into the marketplace. 

Legislators could achieve similar results by applying this same approach to a similar service: education.

Since the COVID-19 school closures, interest in small-scale education alternatives has exploded. Many families would love to send their children to home-based education providers in their own neighborhoods. But as teachers and former teachers have begun offering these services, they’ve sometimes run into the same zoning problems troubling many would-be day care providers. 

Kerry McDonald, senior education fellow with the Foundation for Economic Education, wrote two years ago for the Josiah Bartlett Center about a New Hampshire educator who encountered this problem: 

For Becky Owens in Chester, trying to offer sporadic homeschool programs on her farm property turned into a regulatory headache that likely would have deterred many other aspiring education entrepreneurs from moving forward. Owens had been homeschooling her own five children for several years, after pulling her oldest son from the local public elementary school because it wasn’t a good fit for her shy, sensitive boy. She wanted a more personalized educational environment for him and her other children that would be responsive to their individual learning needs and styles.

A college professor for 15 years with a Ph.D. in education, Owens decided to create that personalized learning environment, and eventually expand her offerings to other children in her community. In 2020, she decided to host occasional nature hikes on her property for small groups of local homeschoolers. She had a handful of students register for one of her hikes, and she placed a chalkboard sign in front of her house with the words “Farm Rich Nature Hike” so families could find her.

This simple gesture set off a cascade of events involving the local building inspector, who issued her a “cease and desist” letter for her farm walks. Over the subsequent weeks, Owens had to prepare numerous documents for local officials, including an aerial view of her property, and appear before the planning board to ask for permission to operate as a home-based business. She also had a property inspection from the local fire chief, even though her program was held entirely outside. All of this was required just so Owens could welcome a few children to her property for a nature walk. Her walks never exceeded 10 kids.

And although these local regulatory roadblocks didn’t stop Owens (eventually she got approved to operate as a home-based business), she’s the exception that proves the rule. Who knows how many other aspiring education entrepreneurs seeking to offer alternative learning environments have either given up when faced with such prospects or haven’t even tried. 

As with child care, some municipalities don’t allow “education” services to be offered in residential zones even if all other regulations are followed and there’s no impact on the neighbors. The provision of the service itself is forbidden.

HB 1567 offers a blueprint for how the state can easily expand the marketplace for needed services simply by allowing home-based providers to offer them on a small scale, provided the service doesn’t violate other rules that offer legitimate protections for consumers and neighbors.

 

/by

Manchester considers first housing-friendly zoning changes to come from major zoning review

, ,

Despite being the main metropolitan area in the state, the City of Manchester’s zoning ordinances are surprisingly hostile to the construction of new multifamily housing. As a review of the city’s zoning ordinances championed by former Mayor Joyce Craig continues, aldermen are considering three relatively small changes unanimously approved by the Planning Board and brought forward by new Mayor Jay Ruais. 

These proposed amendments to the city’s zoning ordinances would represent a small but important step in the long-term effort to make the city’s zoning rules more friendly to new housing development. 

“Specifically, these amendments would help to make the construction of a few types of housing easier in the city by reducing regulatory barriers and by speeding up the permitting process,” Jeff Belanger, director of Planning and Community Development, told aldermen at a recent public hearing. 

The first change would allow four-unit housing to be built on lots currently permitting three-unit housing.

“The ordinance today establishes minimum lot sizes for developing multifamily or townhouse buildings with three dwelling units and then requires additional lot area for each additional dwelling unit,” Belanger explained. “The proposed amendments would change the minimum number of units that could be built on a lot from three to four, meaning that there could be an additional dwelling unit built on the minimum size lot.”

But for these changes to have any meaningful effect, the amendments also address parking requirements, reducing the required number of parking spaces for multifamily housing from 1.5 spaces per unit to one space per unit. 

“The proposed amendments for housing units would not be at all effective really if we didn’t also make adjustments to parking requirements,” Belanger said. “Parking requirements can really limit housing construction because parking takes up land area and adds costs. That’s especially true when it comes to three-family and four-family dwelling units because of the current parking requirements in the zoning ordinance.” 

In zoning districts that require 1.5 parking spaces per unit, the result is that three-family buildings need to set aside five parking spaces and four-family buildings need six parking spaces. And having that fifth parking space triggers an additional regulatory burden. According to Belanger, lots with at least five parking spaces must have a landscaped buffer around them, which costs time, money, and land area. 

Dropping the required number of parking spaces to one per unit would allow four-unit housing to be built on what is now the minimum lot size for three-unit housing, as three-unit and four-unit buildings would only need three and four parking spaces, respectively, keeping them below the five-space threshold. 

The third change would eliminate the need for property owners to receive a conditional use permit from the city’s Planning Board before building accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on their property, bolstering a property owner’s right to build an ADU.

“The benefit of exempting ADUs from Planning Board review is that it makes them faster and cheaper to permit,” Belanger told the aldermen. “Planning Board review usually takes about a month for an ADU application and there are fees associated with it. Both the delay and the fees would be eliminated with this proposal.”

Removing this red tape would help accelerate the construction of ADUs in Manchester, increasing the supply of units in the city and putting more people in homes. 

Interestingly, the Manchester Planning Board unanimously supports all three amendments, though they would take power away from the Planning Board itself. That is a sure sign of how pressing the need is for these types of reforms in the city. 

According to the New Hampshire Zoning Atlas, Manchester permits two-family housing on 23% of its buildable land and three-family, four-family, and five+-family housing on 21% of its buildable land as of 2023. 

That puts Manchester behind seven other cities in the state with respect to duplexes and six other cities with respect to larger multifamilies. (See our breakdown from last year of Manchester’s hostility to duplexes and other multifamilies here.)

“Manchester’s proposed zoning amendment is a modest but meaningful change that will probably result in a few dozen more apartments being built in scattered locations,” said Jason Sorens, senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research and the principal investigator of the zoning atlas. “The city could go even further, especially since some of the changes merely bring the zoning in line with existing densities, but this change would start to chip away at the housing shortage in the city without causing noticeable changes in density at the neighborhood scale.”

There’s more the city can do to free up the supply of housing, such as further rolling back parking minimums, addressing minimum lot sizes, streamlining the permitting process for all types of construction, and opening up more buildable land for duplexes, just to name a few. But these proposed changes before the city now would start the much-needed process of reducing development costs and protecting residents’ property rights. 

“The proposed zoning amendments are not going to fix every housing problem in the city, but they are intended to at least help get at the cause of the housing crisis, which is a lack of supply,” Belanger explained. “They are intended to reduce regulatory barriers to housing production, while respecting the character of neighborhoods.”

State lawmakers are considering a slate of housing bills that would effectively override many municipalities’ zoning codes. And while some view such actions as constituting threats to local control—which New Hampshire rightfully cherishes—inaction on the part of local governments to loosen their own regulations may leave the state with no other choice. 

That is, unless cities like Manchester act first on these kinds of zoning amendments. 

 

/by