Coalition backs setting maximum housing lot sizes
Jan. 28—Realtors, homebuilders and housing advocates said limiting maximum lot sizes for residences would be the single most significant policy change that could address the state's affordability crisis.
The legislation (SB 84) would set a cap that in each town a majority of the property zoned for single-family residences must have lot sizes that are no bigger than 1 1/2 acres on parcels without public water and sewer.
Those with public water could be no larger than one acre and the size would be limited to half an acre on property that has water and sewer service under the bill.
The legislation would grandfather existing house lots larger than the proposed maximums.
State Sen. Keith Murphy, R-Manchester, said he's authored 10 different bills to try and promote more residential construction.
"If we are really serious about expanding, this is the bill to do it," Murphy told the Senate Commerce Committee Tuesday. "Everything else, including all my other bills, are really window dressing by comparison."
Prices dropped slightly from record highs in 2023
Brady Deshaies, a lobbyist with the New Hampshire Municipal Association, was the lone opponent during a one-hour hearing on this bill.
Creating artificial maximums will not necessarily lead to more housing because cities and towns lack the public works systems to support more development, he said.
"One-size-fits-all mandates that overrule the votes of the legislative bodies, the voters of the municipality, they will not necessarily lead to more construction because without that infrastructure, you can't build the housing," Deshaies said.
New Hampshire's median price of a home in 2023 crossed over $500,000, the ninth highest in the country. Prices dropped slightly and the median last November was at about $480,000.
Murphy, who has a master's degree in community planning, said some private companies won't locate or expand here because workers are unable to afford apartments.
"Make no mistake we are missing out on jobs and opportunities because of our anti-housing policies," Murphy said.
Nick Taylor, director of Housing Action New Hampshire, said a study of the state's zoning atlas concluded only about 15% of buildable land is available for the construction of starter homes.
Rob Dapice, executive director of New Hampshire Housing, said making changes to zoning ordinances to reflect these new lot maximums would not be a "heavy lift."
"The status quo has gotten us to the situation that we are in and it's time to rebalance the equation," Dapice said.
Matt Mayberry, CEO with the N.H. Homebuilders Association, said his group is willing to negotiate on these lot sizes, but said it's time for action.
"We are sick of talking about the need for housing," Mayberry added. "Let's actually go get it done."
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Americans are tapping into their retirement savings early. The do's and don'ts of 'hardship withdrawals'
Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below. More Americans are tapping into their 401(k) to make ends meet — treating it more like an emergency fund than a retirement savings plan. Hardship withdrawals are running 15% to 20% above the historical norm, according to Empower CEO Ed Murphy. Empower is the second-largest retirement plan by participants in the U.S. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has an important message for the next wave of American retirees — here's how he says you can best weather the US retirement crisis Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) While new rules make it easier to withdraw funds, some people may be turning to their retirement savings as prices on consumer goods — from groceries to cars — tick upward. 'There is a corollary to what you are seeing in the U.S. economy with deferred payments on auto loans and mortgages,' Murphy told Bloomberg TV. 'So that's something we monitor carefully.' A hardship withdrawal allows you to withdraw money from your 401(k) to cover an 'immediate and heavy financial need,' according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Some people may be making this decision based on financial hardship, such as housing or medical debt. A new report from Vanguard noted similar findings to Empower, with 4.8% of 401(k) participants initiating a hardship withdrawal in 2024 — up from 3.6% in 2023. While there are a few 'signals of a possible uptick in financial stress,' the report says that for some workers, hardship withdrawals 'may serve as a safety net that otherwise may not have been available without plan-implemented automatic solutions.' Add to that the possibility of heading into a recession, with consumer confidence plummeting and more Americans may find themselves struggling to pay the bills. 'We encourage people to have an emergency savings account, have at least two years of expenses set aside in the event these types of situations occur,' Murphy told Bloomberg TV. Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — Even the IRS is prepared for an increase in hardship withdrawals, stating on its website that 'given the current economic climate, a greater number of participants may be requesting hardship distributions from their retirement plans.' Hardship withdrawals typically come with steep penalties. On top of federal and state income taxes, you might be required to pay a 10% tax on early withdrawals if you are under 59 ½. Rather, consider building an emergency savings fund to manage unexpected expenses. This way, you don't have to worry about cashing out your retirement savings during a market downturn or the tax implications of an early withdrawal. You can make your emergency savings work harder for you by parking them in a high-yield savings account. Even with this, it can take years to see your savings account reach its full potential. But if you own a home — and have been making regular mortgage payments — chances are you've built up solid equity. With home values higher than ever, you can make your home work harder for you by making the most of your equity. The average homeowner sits on roughly $303,000 as of the fourth quarter of 2024, according to CoreLogic. Having access to your home equity could help to cover unexpected expenses, pay substantial debt, fund a major purchase like a home renovation or supplement income from your retirement nest egg. Rates on HELOCs and home equity loans are typically lower than APRs on credit cards and personal loans, making it an appealing option for homeowners with substantial equity. The amount you can withdraw is limited to only what's necessary to 'satisfy that financial need,' according to the IRS. You may be able to avoid the early withdrawal penalty if you meet the IRS's eligibility for safe harbor distributions, such as the pending foreclosure of your home. But it won't get you out of paying taxes. The money you withdraw from your 401(k) is taxable income. This means drawing down on your 401(k) could slingshot you into a higher tax bracket. There are also longer-term consequences, such as the loss of compounding growth, which could hinder your retirement goals. That's why a hardship withdrawal is usually considered a last resort. If you've already eaten through your emergency fund, there are still some options you could consider before a hardship withdrawal. For example, you could look for ways to reduce expenses — like cancelling an upcoming vacation or selling a second vehicle. Monthly insurance premiums on your home and car might also be eating into your take-home pay. With premiums expected to rise, you might want to lock in a lower rate now. With you can shop around for auto insurance rates from reputable insurers near you. Within minutes, compare the features and coverage offered by trusted companies like GEICO, Progressive, Allstate and more on just one platform. The best part? The process is completely free and won't impact your credit score. Get started and find rates as low as $29/month. You can also find competitive rates on home insurance policies through By comparing premiums and selecting the lowest possible rate, you could save an average of $482 per year. Here's how it works: Answer some questions about yourself, your finances and the property you own, then will browse through its database and display the lowest rates for you in under two minutes. If you decide to make a hardship withdrawal, it's worth consulting a financial advisor so you fully understand how it will impact you now and in your golden years. One option is to find an expert through JPMorgan sees gold soaring to $6,000/ounce — use this 1 simple IRA trick to lock in those potential shiny gains (before it's too late) Are you rich enough to join the top 1%? Here's the net worth you need to rank among America's wealthiest — plus a few strategies to build that first-class portfolio You're probably already overpaying for this 1 'must-have' expense — and thanks to Trump's tariffs, your monthly bill could soar even higher. Here's how 2 minutes can protect your wallet right now Access to this $22.5 trillion asset class has traditionally been limited to elite investors — until now. Here's how to become the landlord of Walmart or Whole Foods without lifting a finger This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Over the moon: How the Trump-Musk feud helps the lunar mission
The alliance between Donald Trump and Elon Musk — to borrow a phrase from the space community — has undergone a rapid unscheduled disassembly. Yet amid all the fireworks Thursday from the duo's public meltdown, one area of the space world seems to have a brighter future: the moon mission. Musk, the SpaceX founder and well-known Mars enthusiast, has argued against returning astronauts to the lunar surface. But the stunning forced exitof the billionaire's handpicked nominee for NASA chief and Musk's massive rupture with the president have handed moon backers in Congress and industry an opening — and they're seizing it. 'Elon was the main reason for the fork in the road for NASA's human exploration plans,' said Clayton Swope, a former congressional adviser on space. 'With his exodus from D.C., there's a good chance NASA will refocus back to the moon with the plan: moon then Mars.' A number of major space companies — just not SpaceX — are launching an ad campaign going big on the moon, according to two industry officials granted anonymity to discuss the effort. The move is the first sign of real pushback against the behemoth space company and its founder, who only days ago seemed to lock down government contracts every time he blinked. A television ad funded by the companies, who do not go by an umbrella name, will appear on television in the coming days with a pitch clearly aimed at Trump. A narrator, underlaid by dramatic images of America's Apollo missions, implores voters to call senators in support of the moon mission and 'keep America first in space.' A separate letter addressed to the Senate Commerce Committee, and obtained by POLITICO, backs investments in the moon, and is signed by a lengthy slate of prominent space companies — but not SpaceX. As the feud between Trump and Musk escalated on Thursday evening, the Senate Commerce Committee unveiled a new reconciliation bill that would channel $10 billion to NASA. Much of it would go to the space agency's effort to return to the moon through the Artemis program. The White House's NASA budget had proposed major cuts to Artemis, including slashing a planned lunar space station and moon missions. 'Anybody who's following space will have noticed how deeply committed [the committee is] to getting back to the moon, particularly before the Chinese get there,' said a committee aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss the bill. All of this is happening amid Musk's very public fall from grace. Trump, during the social media showdown with his former confidante, threatened to cancel Musk's contracts with the government. The SpaceX founder responded by saying he would end the Dragon spacecraft contract, which is the U.S.' only reliable way of accessing the International Space Station. (But he also suggested late Thursday night that he might not actually do so, and Trump played down the dispute in a POLITICO interview.) The president had already abruptly pulled the NASA administrator nomination for Musk ally Jared Isaacman last week, just days ahead of his likely confirmation by the Senate. Isaacman, speaking on a podcast this week, linked his ouster to Musk's provocative departure from the White House. 'I don't think the timing was much of a coincidence,' he said. This all means Congress may now have a stronger hand in negotiations with the White House over the NASA budget, which was written before Musk's break from Trump and heavily favors Mars. The administration's budget proposes major cuts to spending for the moon in favor of nearly $1 billion for landing an astronaut on Mars. SpaceX, thanks to provisions in the bill, was likely to snag a lucrative contract to build the landing system for any red planet mission. That seems much less feasible now. Senators from states with large NASA centers — such as Alabama and Louisiana — are particularly keen to latch on to moon funding. Trump has voiced support for a Mars mission, meaning the idea may not have completely faded. But with Musk's implosion and the latest moon push, a return to the lunar surface is on firmer ground than it was just a week ago. POLITICO PRO SPACE: Need an insider's guide to the politics behind the new space race? From battles over sending astronauts to Mars to the ways space companies are vying to influence regulators, this weekly newsletter decodes the personalities, policy and power shaping the final frontier. Try it for free for a limited time starting today. Find out more.
