Workforce Housing law (Manchester, Bedford, Hooksett: low income, fit in, section 8)

[lisa g]

sb 0342

I was going to post this in the resurrected "Keep New Hampshire - New Hampshire" thread but figured this topic deserves its own thread.
Hoping we can discuss how NH towns are being affected by this.

[Ken E]

Good luck. Doesen't seem to be a whole lot of activity here anymore.

[WannaComeHome]

Maybe it's just the holidays causing low traffic. I can't believe some of our folks have no opinions or info about this! After reading all the way to the end of it, down at the bottom it does say (in hidden phrasing) that it's for low-income housing. lovely. I'm so not happy that the Legislature somehow has decided that it has the power to over-ride the towns own zoning regs. Once it's decided that, what else will they decide they have the power to over-ride?!

NHrnut, you got any input on this? As I recall, you often had a clue what was going on up there.

[jthibodeau]

Your not going to find a developer to construct new housing for low income or "section 8" housing. There is little to no profit in it for them. Your more likely to find the developer "rehabilitating" older inner city type building where additional grant or development monies are available.

This type of housing normally requires the developer or additional purchasers to guarantee the property will remain in low income/section 8 housing for 20 years before it can change it's usage if federal money is used.

Some cities and town qualify projects for low income. However, normally these units are earmarked for the elderly or over 55 residents. These types of projects can serve the town by stating these units qualify for low income as opposed to section 8, which may receive more flack when it comes to the planning stages.

It been a few years since I have been involved in these types of projects. Not to mention the Federal Government changes regulations quite often. Perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area can add to or correct what I have mentioned.

[nhyrnut]

Originally Posted by WannaComeHome

Maybe it's just the holidays causing low traffic. I can't believe some of our folks have no opinions or info about this! After reading all the way to the end of it, down at the bottom it does say (in hidden phrasing) that it's for low-income housing. lovely. I'm so not happy that the Legislature somehow has decided that it has the power to over-ride the towns own zoning regs. Once it's decided that, what else will they decide they have the power to over-ride?!

NHrnut, you got any input on this? As I recall, you often had a clue what was going on up there.

This is Exactly as it is. A couple of towns fought low income housing (SEC 8) I believe it was Weare, Bedford and Hooksett. But It wasn't just a projects that they fought it was a full blown development. Unfortunately it was a major contractor with ties to LYNCH and his cronies that the towns would not let in. The towns where willing to let the developer Build but wanted them to abide by the same rules as everyone else. Being the Liberal Lynch is he ran to the rescue of the donor. For some odd reason it never made the news. They called it the workforce housing bill. But in actuality it is a Welfare housing bill. Contrary to popular belief Contractors make hug money from low income. That is why it is so hard to get rid of sec 8 tenants for lack of rent. The government pays 1200 dollars for a 800 dollar apartment and the tenant normally pays about 300. So for an 800 dollar apartment the landlord gets almost $1500. Most Judges (and this was told to me by a judge in Manchester) will not evict a sec 8 because the landlord is already paid a more than fair share for the apartment. So to get them out you have to use other means Remodel works very good. I myself have used that one.
But anyway the law is as it looks, Democrats helping themselves to our land money and Bigger Government. NH is changing into VT with Jobs.

Sad day for NH when people stop paying attention. Sadly Lynch has them Looking the other way. Good Guy I know him, But his politics suck.

[WannaComeHome]

So.. Nhyrnut, is there any way to get this repealed? blocked? anything? while I'm not thrilled about forcing low-income housing on any town, it's more the bit about the state over-riding the town's authority that really scares me. Yes, I know in general that low-income housing leads to all sorts of nasty trouble (and someone is going to have to pay to deal with all the trouble), yet I do have to acknowledge that there is section-8 housing right next to my office and I've never had any trouble or concern from it. And two friends qualify and have been looking for section 8 (because of being on disability and not being able to afford anything else) and they are not the sorts to cause any trouble. So, it doesn't HAVE to be the harbinger that it 'feels' like. but... the over-riding of authority is.

Jthibodeaux: here's a few snippets from the bill:
"Establishment of housing which is decent, safe, sanitary and affordable to low and moderate income persons and families is in the best interests of each community and the state of New Hampshire, and serves a vital public need. Opportunity for development of such housing[, including so-called cluster development and the development of multi-family structures, should] shall not be prohibited or unreasonably discouraged by use of municipal planning and zoning powers or by unreasonable interpretation of such powers;"

I don't think senior housing will qualify, as this nugget from section 58 paragraph 4 ends with "Housing developments that exclude minor children from more than 20 percent of the units, or in which more than 50 percent of the dwelling units have fewer than two bedrooms, shall not constitute workforce housing for the purposes of this subdivision."

Here are the bill's sponsors, but being unfortunately out of state, I have no clue where the districts are: Sen. Fuller Clark, Dist 24; Sen. Larsen, Dist 15; Sen. Reynolds, Dist 2; Sen. Burling, Dist 5; Sen. DeVries, Dist 18; Sen. Foster, Dist 13; Sen. Hassan, Dist 23

If it was truly felt that NH needed to have low-income housing available, then it should have worked WITH the towns to encourage something instead of insisting that every town SHALL meet the requirements one way or another. Guaranteed housing is unfortunately a "privilege" not a "right" and you don't have the "right" to live just anywhere - towns have the authority to set zoning and have all the snob appeal they want or don't want depending on what their citizens are willing to pay in taxes. If I can't afford to live in Amherst, I don't have the guaranteed "right" to insist that Amherst SHALL create housing just for me because I wish it. I have the ability to look elsewhere that's more affordable. sheesh!!!!!

My dad always said: all politicians are crooks, when you come down to it.

[lisa g]

Thank you Wanna. I feel the same way and am very sad to see this happening in NH. Also, I am trying not to be shocked about this not being discussed by more people here....but this is the holiday season. This is an issue NH residents should be very aware of.

[CaseyB]

Lisa, this sounds similar to what we have in Mass, 40B projects they are called. It's been a nightmare for many of the smaller towns, because the developers of such projects will attempt to ride roughshod over local zoning, and often get their way because the courts will side with them. They usually take the form of condos or houses with cluster zoning where a certain percentage of units are offered as affordable housing. And yes, these projects have been very profitable for the developers. The silver lining in the housing downturn is that it has actually put a halt to some of these projects.

[nhyrnut]

[quote=WannaComeHome;6736453]So.. Nhyrnut, is there any way to get this repealed? blocked? anything? while I'm not thrilled about forcing low-income housing on any town, it's more the bit about the state over-riding the town's authority that really scares me. Yes, I know in general that low-income housing leads to all sorts of nasty trouble (and someone is going to have to pay to deal with all the trouble), yet I do have to acknowledge that there is section-8 housing right next to my office and I've never had any trouble or concern from it. And two friends qualify and have been looking for section 8 (because of being on disability and not being able to afford anything else) and they are not the sorts to cause any trouble. So, it doesn't HAVE to be the harbinger that it 'feels' like. but... the over-riding of authority is. QUOTE

yes there is. But I don't see it happening just yet. This is a wait and see law. As it will be addressed town by town. the way it is written in full, it has LOTS of leway.

Several of the terms used in that sentence are defined in the new law. “Workforce housing” means (a) housing intended for sale that is “affordable” to a household with an income no more than 100 percent of the median income for a family of four within the metropolitan area or county in which the housing is located, or (b) rental housing that is affordable to a household with an income no more than 60 percent of the median income for a family of three in the same area. “Affordable,” in turn, refers to housing “with combined rental and utility costs or combined mortgage loan debt service, property taxes, and required insurance that do not exceed 30 percent of a household’s gross annual income.”


So just by this it can very greatly. The bill came out of a challenge to an older bill, that has been ignored for years. When The Developer tried to use the bill in original form, they where laughed at. So he went crying to get it rewritten. The issue was never Low income housing. It was the form of the developer wanted to build. The towns just wanted the developer to abide by existing codes. One town even offered to let the builder develop, what was wanted in another area. But Just to be clear None of the towns involved said NO. They said yes but you must abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Will this law hold up in court? That will very town by town. As for getting rid of the law yes it can be done. But it will take an abuse of the law before that happens. It's like eminent domain. No one cares till it happens to them. NIMBY mentality. Luckily it is the better off communities that this law will effect the most. So I think it will be reviewed more rapidly than most. I do see a court challenge within a few years. But until then, we just wait and see.

[WannaComeHome]

Thanks, Nhyrnut, it's good to know what's actually behind some of these things! I did notice that a lot of terms and conditions seemed to be very... vague. but that might have been my inability to read bureaucrat-ese. Vagueness can be a good thing or a bad thing - depending on how it's being interpreted.

Such a shame that the developer in question was such a cry-baby! I mean, it sounds like the towns were all behaving in a very civilized manner appropriate to their rules & regs: 'sure, but if you want it here you have to follow the rules'. sheesh.

geez, do you think if we whined and cried enough to the builders, we could get our $640k dream-home built for 1/2 that??? we could cry 'retirees! fixed income! but we have a 'right' to have whatever we want!' think it would work??

I'm still bothered by the part about the state trying to erode the towns' authority and no one caring; regardless of the issue, it's still a really BAD thing!