Latest news with #HouseHousingCommittee
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
House passes bill reducing parking requirements for housing developments
Housing advocates say parking requirements can hamper and even prevent some housing projects from moving forward. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin) The New Hampshire House passed a bill Thursday to prevent cities and towns from requiring more than one parking space per housing unit, a move intended to ease burdens on developers and encourage more housing. But in passing the bill, the House made some changes that could create a tussle with the Senate. Under current law, municipalities are capped at requiring 1.5 parking spaces per unit, or three for every two units. As originally introduced by Sen. Keith Murphy, a Manchester Republican, Senate Bill 284 limited municipalities from mandating more than one parking space but included some exceptions. For developments containing 10 units or more, or for one-bedroom and studio apartments that qualify as workforce housing, cities and towns could continue requiring 1.5 parking spaces. In April, the House Housing Committee proposed an amendment to Murphy's bill that would remove those exceptions, limiting all municipal parking minimums to one spot per unit. Housing advocates say parking requirements can hamper and even prevent some housing projects from moving forward, by raising costs and creating some logistical barriers. Opponents to the bill, such as the New Hampshire Municipal Association, argue cities and towns should have the flexibility to require parking minimums for housing developments in order to reduce the strain on other parking options in town. Rep. Joe Alexander, the chairman of the House Housing Committee, said the House's version was a better way to encourage the market to produce housing. 'The majority of the committee believes that the free market is the best determinant of what sufficient parking is needed for each residential unit and property owners are the best decision-makers when it comes to how much parking is necessary for their property,' Alexander wrote in an explanation in the House calendar. 'This bill as amended still allows municipalities to regulate parking up to one space per unit.' The bill was recommended by the Housing Committee 14-1, and passed the House 197-144. 'The state is imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate that may not reflect local realities, such as geography, population density, public transit availability, or tourism demands,' said Rep. Kim Rice, a Hudson Republican. 'What works in a compact urban area like Portsmouth may be entirely unworkable in the rural town with limited transportation alternatives.' Rice said the requirements could affect residents elsewhere who might not have access to parking, and could lead to 'poorly planned developments.' The bill will now head back to the Senate, which must vote on whether to accept the House's changes, reject them and kill the bill, or move to a committee of conference with the House to try to negotiate.
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rent increase cap approved by Washington House
An apartment building under construction in Olympia, Washington in January 2025. Critics of a proposal to cap rent increases in Washington argue that it could stifle new development. (Photo by Bill Lucia/Washington State Standard) A bill to cap yearly rent increases cleared the Washington state House on Monday following a spirited debate on whether such limits will bring greater security for tenants or higher prices and fewer options for those in need of housing House Bill 1217 would prohibit landlords from raising a residential tenant's rent and fees more than 7% in any 12-month period or by any amount during the first year after the tenancy begins. It would also require landlords to give 90 days' notice before any rent increase takes effect and would bar them from charging more than a 5% difference in rent for similar leased units. There are several exceptions to the cap, including buildings operated by nonprofits and residential construction that is 12 years old or less. Rent increase limits would not apply for tenants of triplexes and fourplexes if the owner lives in one of the units. Changes approved Monday include eliminating the proposed cap on move-in fees for residential rental units. Earlier versions limited the amount to no more than one month's rent. The bill keeps in place caps on move-in fees for manufactured housing. Also, an earlier version required renters to receive a six-month notice of any increase. Supporters argue that stabilizing rents will provide people with predictability in their expenses to help them stay in their housing and avoid homelessness. They called it a modest and balanced approach to help renters as the supply of affordable housing grows. 'It is a really strong policy,' said Rep. Nicole Macri, D-Seattle, who led negotiations with Republicans on the version that reached the floor. 'Keeping the rent increase limit at seven percent will be a huge impact for renters across the state.' The bill contains an emergency clause. If enacted, the provisions will take effect immediately. 'Supply takes time to get going,' said Rep. Strom Peterson, D-Edmonds, chair of the House Housing Committee. 'The people that are suffering are the people that are seeing 20, 30, 40, 50% rent increases.' Opponents say the bill will hurt small landlords and owners of older buildings who will not be able to keep up with inflationary costs for maintenance and other expenses if rents are limited. It also will deter construction of new apartments and multi-family complexes, critics argue. 'Renters are frustrated. Those concerns are absolutely real,' said Rep. April Connors R-Kennewick. 'Rent control is not the answer. This bill will not stabilize the market. It is going to choke off housing supply. Economists all agree this is not a housing solution. It is a self-inflicted economic wound.' 'This policy is the wrong policy. The policy that we need is supply,' said Rep. Sam Low, R-Lake Stevens, who is also a Snohomish County Council member. 'We're not going to see housing providers provide any more housing with these terrible policies.' House Bill 1217 passed on a 53-42 vote with five Democrats joining 37 Republicans to oppose it. Democrats rejected several amendments proposed by Republicans, including one to set the cap at 10% plus the consumer price index for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area. There was also a failed amendment to prevent cities and counties from imposing their own rent increase caps. The bill now heads to the Senate where a similar bill lapsed in the chamber last year. Prospects are much improved this year with a Democratic caucus that has grown in number while shedding two moderate members opposed to rent caps. Last month, the Senate Housing Committee, the panel that killed the policy in 2024, approved the Senate companion bill to the House legislation.
Yahoo
15-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill could allow challenges to local anti-camping ordinances that aren't 'objectively reasonable'
Feb. 14—OLYMPIA — The Washington Legislature is considering a bill that would allow residents to challenge local anti-camping regulations they believe are not "objectively reasonable." Under the bill, which has cleared the House Housing Committee and is currently in the Appropriations Committee, regulations adopted by cities, towns, counties and other jurisdictions to restrict outdoor camping and sleeping on public property would be required to be "objectively reasonable for the time, place, and manner." Whether a statute meets this classification would be based on "the totality of the circumstances" of a situation. The legislation would allow residents to challenge an ordinance in court if it does not meet this criteria. It does not establish a framework for "monetary damages." The bill's prime sponsor, Rep. Mia Gregerson, D-Sea Tac, said during a hearing Wednesday that the proposal is "not a one size fits all fix, but this bill does seek to help provide guideposts to allow each community to deal with their own unique challenges." The proposal, Gregerson said, comes as the state struggles to address a rising homeless population, which she attributed to a shortage of housing, a lack of affordable housing and a lack of shelter availability. Gregerson said while lawmakers have made recent strides to create more housing, "the need continues to grow faster than the expansion of more access to these housing opportunities." Among those in support of the legislation are the ACLU of Washington, the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and the Northwest Justice Project. The bill is sponsored by Spokane Reps. Timm Ormsby and Natasha Hill. Wednesday's hearing included objections from local officials throughout the state, including Spokane City Council Member Jonathan Bingle, who said he was testifying in his personal capacity. "This bill is not just an overreach, it is a blatant affront to the Democratic will of Spokane citizens," Bingle said. Bingle pointed to the approval of Prop 1 in November 2023, which largely prohibits homeless residents from setting up camp in most of the city, including within 1,000 feet of parks, schools and childcare facilities. The proposition was passed with nearly 75% approval, and Spokane Police began enforcement last summer. "This is a clear mandate from our community to prioritize public safety and the wellbeing of our children," Bingle said. "By undermining local ordinances like Spokane's Proposition 1, this bill jeopardizes public safety, it hampers our ability to maintain clear and secure public spaces, protect our children, and uphold the quality of life our residents demand." Bingle added that potential challenges to Spokane's ordinance "threatens to divert funds from essential services, exacerbating the issues it purports to address." Spokane Business Owner Larry Andrews, who protested the bill through a half-page ad published in The Spokesman-Review on Feb. 9 that targeted Hill, said during testimony Wednesday that the bill "does not help the homeless." "This bill confuses established laws," Andrews said. The ad, Andrews said, was meant to "save the homeless from this insanity." "You are not allowed to camp in our state without a permit, why would you allow people to camp on our streets?" Andrews said. Testifying in support of the legislation, Sharyl Brown, director of operations at Jewels Helping Hands in Spokane, said during Wednesday's hearing that the "burden of fines, citations and incarceration doesn't just create obstacles, it resets the entire process." "People lose all progress towards stability, forced to navigate an already complicated system from square one again, making lasting success nearly impossible," Brown said. "For many unhoused individuals, safety depends on being in public spaces, yet they are constantly penalized for simply existing when they have nowhere else to go."
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Housing crisis sparks bipartisan interest in efforts to override local zoning codes
Republicans and Democrats in the House are displaying a stronger desire to take on municipalities directly by overriding zoning codes with state law. (Dan) When it comes to describing some New Hampshire towns' housing codes, Rep. Joe Alexander likes to use a colorful phrase: 'snob zoning.' Alexander, a Goffstown Republican and the chairman of the new House Housing Committee, says too many cities and towns have zoning ordinances that keep property sizes large, impose unnecessary environmental restrictions on new developments, and keep too many people out. 'Let's call it what it is,' Alexander said in a hearing last week. 'It's not zoning. It's about keeping people out, and it's been a tactic used in our municipalities to preserve the status quo and exclude those who can't afford to buy into the existing system.' For years – as housing availability has dropped, rents have increased, and New Hampshire residents have expressed frustration – state lawmakers have pledged to support more housing while avoiding direct criticism of local towns' ordinances, citing the need for local control. But this year, Republicans and Democrats in the House are reframing the housing crisis and displaying a stronger desire to take on municipalities directly by overriding zoning codes with state law. Less clear is whether members of the state Senate or Gov. Kelly Ayotte are as interested in that approach. In 2024, the Senate killed major legislation to expand accessory dwelling units on party lines, with Republicans arguing the additional development could lower property values. This year, the Housing Committee is considering three pieces of legislation that could expand housing – and all three have bipartisan support. One would expand New Hampshire's 2017 accessory dwelling unit law; one would prevent towns from imposing arbitrary minimum lot size requirements; and one would allow developers to build residential housing in commercial zones as a matter of right. Here's what's being proposed. In recent years, lawmakers – typically House Democrats – have attempted to expand 'infill housing' by giving property owners stronger rights to build accessory dwelling units and take on tenants or relatives. In 2017, a law took effect that gave all New Hampshire property owners the right to construct one accessory dwelling unit on their property – as long as it was attached to the house and followed other town ordinances. The problem, housing advocates argue, is that the law gave too much leeway to towns to add parking requirements and other regulations that could make those ADUs expensive and impractical to build. House Democrats, with support from Republicans, have tried proposing major expansions of the ADU law, at various points introducing bills that would give homeowners the right to develop four living units and two living units as a matter of right – without the ability for towns to refuse. Those bills have mostly been defeated when they have reached the full House floor, with opponents saying they impede upon local control. This year, the goal is more minimal. Introduced by Alexander, House Bill 577 would keep the current number of 'by right' ADUs to one, but would allow that ADU to be detached from the house. The bill would also require towns to allow ADUs 'without additional requirements for lot size … setbacks, aesthetic requirements, design review requirements, frontage, space limitations, or other controls beyond what would be required for a single-family dwelling without an accessory dwelling unit.' Those additional restrictions could stop towns from imposing unrealistic hurdles on ADU development, Alexander argues. The New Hampshire Municipal Association has opposed the law, arguing that voters in towns should be allowed to decide whether they want to expand their own ADU ordinances, and saying that some of the requirements, such as parking and lot sizes, are there for practical reasons. HB 577 is co-sponsored by Democratic representatives, and one Republican senator, Sen. Keith Murphy of Manchester. Another bill proposed by Alexander would go even further to override the authority of local land use boards. House Bill 459 would disallow minimum lot size requirements for at least 50 percent of a town's lots unless they follow scientific standards tied to capacity. There are two types of housing lots the bill would affect: those with access to municipal or county sewer and water lines, and those without that access. For housing lots that don't have sewer and water lines – in other words, lots with their individual septic and well systems – towns could not set a minimum lot size that is bigger than what the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Service requires for individual sewer systems, the bill states. For those that already have sewer and water hookups, towns could not impose lot size requirements bigger than 22,000 square feet, or about half an acre. The requirements would apply to 'a majority' of lots in a town, but not all of them. The goal, Alexander says, is to take on snob zoning. A term in use since the 1960s, when Massachusetts passed the Anti-Snob Zoning Act in 1969, the label is used by housing advocates to describe zoning codes that have the effect of excluding unwanted populations. 'They aim to keep the wrong type of people from moving in,' Alexander said in a hearing last week. 'It's not about preserving the environment. It's not about community aesthetics. It's about exclusion. In my opinion, teachers, firefighters, police officers, bartenders, Amazon Prime delivery drivers are not the wrong type of people, but unfortunately, under our current system, people are zoned out of communities.' The final prong in House lawmakers' zoning code legislation is House Bill 631. Proposed by Rep. Alissandra Murray, a Manchester Democrat, the bill would allow residential units and multi-use developments 'by right' in commercial zones, overriding prohibitions set by towns for those areas. The bill would apply only to commercial districts located in 'urban areas,' as determined by the United States Census. And it would apply only to lots served by municipal water and sewer lines. The idea, Murray and other supporters say, is to allow developers to build apartments in unused office space, or to build apartment units above existing businesses. HB 631 would allow cities and towns to impose some restrictions. For instance, they could pass height restrictions for buildings – but not lower than 65 feet. They could pass some setback limits for the buildings; they could require walls, fencing, or screenings, they could mandate nonpublic open space or common areas, lot size requirements, and a mandate that up to 20 percent of the ground floor is dedicated to retail. 'Bringing residential units into commercial zones is not only a way to expand the area for potential buildings, but also encourages the kind of building that young people especially want to live in,' Murray said. However, Matt Mayberry, executive director of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association, raised concerns and argued the bill should be pared back. Mayberry argued allowing housing development in those zones could price out business development – which he said was more difficult – and hurt the local economy. He recommended the bill be limited to allowing housing over retail businesses and not all businesses. 'We really don't want to have residential units inside industrial parks, and that's where we're fearful this may go,' he said. Mayberry said the association supports the construction of new housing to tackle the housing crisis. 'We will conquer this challenge, but we also want to make sure that those newly housed individuals have a place to work so they can afford those mortgages and afford those rents,' he said.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill to protect seniors' roommate options considered in Olympia
Feb. 7—OLYMPIA — The Washington State Legislature took a step last week toward making senior housing costs more stable. House Bill 1204, which passed the House Housing Committee Jan. 30, would allow residents of senior mobile and manufactured home communities to have at least one roommate, as long as that roommate also meets the age requirements of the park. "It's a national problem with mobile homes, especially senior mobile home communities, that the properties are being purchased, and in some instances, there has been a lack of maintenance and upgrades in the communities," said State Rep. Carolyn Eslick, R-Sultan, who introduced the bill. "And that new person or corporation starts doing all the work, and then they start increasing the land leases." It's fairly standard for a tenant in a senior manufactured home park to sign an agreement that they won't have anyone living in the home with them except a caregiver, Eslick said. But when the lot rent increases, a senior homeowner is often left with a home they can't afford to keep. "In the past, it's always been a good place for retirement," Eslick said. "If you're on Social Security, you could live in a mobile home park and survive for your term. Well, because they can raise that lease, they are raising it to the point where the homeowner now cannot afford to live and pay for their utilities and the land lease that has been implemented. "My friend had barely enough money to buy her mobile home a year ago when she bought it in a park in Everett," Eslick said. "It started off at $700 and she could make that. And then within six months, it went up to $900. January one, it's at $1,400. That is her Social Security check." Washington has no limit to how much rent can be increased, according to which means that a manufactured home park owner can charge pretty much whatever it wants to, as long as it gives notice to the tenants. That may be difficult enough for, say, apartment dwellers, but owners of manufactured homes don't have the option of just packing their furniture and moving elsewhere. According to it can cost as much as $14,000 to move a manufactured home from one property to another, assuming the home is even in movable condition. "In four years, these corporations can quadruple their money, because now the land lease warrants the increase in the value of the property," Eslick said. "It's squeezing out the senior citizens, because they can't move their mobile home. If they get behind on those leases, they're done. They have to move, and they could be homeless." Allowing roommates could allow the resident to defray some of those costs, Eslick said. The homeowner could rent a room to another senior in exchange for money, or for groceries or housework or whatever is needed. "We could do this for the seniors, to help them be able to increase their income," Eslick said. "It's twofold: They increase their income so they can keep up with their land lease, but also, it's a social thing for them. They now have somebody living with them, and people live longer when there's more relationship building."
