Courtesy of RPOA - Nick Norman, Director Legislative Affairs
Howdee everyone,
Incredible, 12 bills being heard this week that affect real estate.
There is so much happening in the legislature of importance in real estate this season it’s really impossible to summarize it all in just a few points. However, what we have done is put a summary of what we feel are the most critical first followed by all the bills that are also important. Further below is a large amount of detail on each bill. Remember it is critical to contact legislators before the scheduled hearing if at all possible.
This week's calendar:
HB1317 01/31/2012 at 01:30 PM LOB 306
HB1618 01/31/2012 at 02:30 PM LOB 205
HB1252 01/31/2012 at 03:00 PM LOB 208
HB1263 02/02/2012 at 09:30 AM LOB 208
HB1462 02/02/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 208 CRITICAL
HB1463 02/02/2012 at 11:00 AM LOB 208 CRITICAL
HB1619 02/02/2012 at 01:00 PM LOB 301
HB1674 02/02/2012 at 01:30 PM LOB 301
SB301 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 101 CRITICAL
HB1532 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 204 CRITICAL
HB1405 02/02/2012 at 02:15 PM LOB 301 CRITICAL
HB1649 02/03/2012 at 09:25 AM LOB 210-211
CRITICAL:
HB1462 02/02/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 208; please email, call legislators now & attend the hearing.
Title: relative to the eviction process.
Property Owner Position: Support
HB1463 02/02/2012 at 11:00 AM LOB 208; please email, call legislators now & attend the hearing.
Title: relative to abandonment of the tenancy and relative to property abandoned by a tenant.
Property Owner Position: Think we support but we need to get more clarity on ramifications to landlords.
SB301 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 101; please email, call legislators now & attend the hearing.
Title: relative to landlord-tenant remedies.
Property Owner Position: Support
HB1532 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 204; please email, call legislators now & attend the hearing.
Title: relative to trespass on land which is not posted.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
HB1405 02/02/2012 at 02:15 PM LOB 301; please email, call legislators now & attend the hearing.
Title: relative to refugee resettlement.
Property Owner Position: Support
What we need from you:
1. Please email, or call the legislators regarding these bills, express your opinions (you can reword ideas from the talking points below)
2. Please show up at the hearings attend hearings for ones we flagged out. When you show up you can just sign a card as support or oppose the bill and simply be present (surprisingly just this greatly aids our effort) or you can sign up to speak. (Join our car pool, save on gas and parking and make it more fun).
3. If you sign up to speak at the hearing please consult with other landlords speaking so we present a unified position and utilize our time effectively by each speaking with a focus on a different point.
4. If you speak to a legislator or any one else and learn something not already captured below please notify me so I can continue to get as much info out to every one as possible.
Also important:
There are many bills on eminent domain that are being brought to subcommittee to be reviewed together. Stay tuned.
HB1210 HB1288 & others
There is a lot in the legislature on eminent domain mostly relating to the controversy around the “Northern Pass” project which in part is threatening private property rights.
HB1263 02/02/2012 at 09:30 AM LOB 208; please email, call legislators now & attend the hearing.
Title: repealing the law requiring landlords of restricted residential property provide service of process information.
Property Owner Position: Support
HB1619 02/02/2012 at 01:00 PM LOB 301; please email, call legislators now & attend the hearing.
Title: relative to the assessment of property taxes on the value that exceeds $50,000.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
HB1252 01/31/2012 at 03:00 PM LOB 208; please email, call legislators now
Title: relative to required documentation of ownership in foreclosure proceedings.
Property Owner Position: Support if amended
HB1674 02/02/2012 at 01:30 PM LOB 301; please email, call legislators now
Title: reducing the interest rate on late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes.
Property Owner Position: Support
HB1649 02/03/2012 at 09:25 AM LOB 210-211; please email, call legislators now
Title: relative to collection of the education property tax and establishing a program to rebate certain excessive property tax payments of eligible taxpayers.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
Talking points and contact info for legislators, much much more detail for all bills below. (including a heads up on other bills you may be interested in).
Love & Light,
Nick Norman
RPOA Director of Legislative Affairs
=====================================================================================
Heads up on other bills you may be interested in:
Bills we decided to take No Action on at this time but could affect a few of you. Please dig further if you think it may affect your personally. Full detail below.
HB1317 01/31/2012 at 01:30 PM LOB 306
Title: relative to certifying electricians as fire supression equipment and alarm installers.
Property Owner Position: No Action
HB1618 01/31/2012 at 02:30 PM LOB 205
Title: relative to fire safety standards for community living facilities.
Property Owner Position: No Action
==============================================
Full detail on all bills:
"HB1317 01/31/2012 at 01:30 PM LOB 306
Title: relative to certifying electricians as fire suppression equipment and alarm installers.
Summary: This bill provides that beginning June 1, 2016 licensed electricians are considered certified for the inspection, installation, and servicing of portable fire extinguishers and fixed fire extinguishing systems, fire sprinkler systems, and fire alarm systems.
Property Owner Position: No Action
Email to Committee: ~HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill provides that beginning June 1, 2016 licensed electricians are considered certified for the inspection, installation, and servicing of portable fire extinguishers and fixed fire extinguishing systems, fire sprinkler systems, and fire alarm systems.
Talking Points: The current laws require the commissioner of safety to adopt rules for the voluntary certification of persons engaged in ""the inspection, installation, and servicing of portable fire extinguishers and fixed fire extinguishing systems, fire sprinkler systems, and fire alarm systems in this state."" This bill, starting in 2016 will permit journeymen and master electricians to be considered certified and not be required to apply under the existing law.
We do not see the bill having much impact on us and recommend that we use our resources elsewhere.
If we have missed something important let us know.
=====================================================================================
HB1618 01/31/2012 at 02:30 PM LOB 205
Title: relative to fire safety standards for community living facilities.
Summary: This bill repeals RSA 126-A:21 which dictates single family home fire codes to be applied to community living facilities housing 3 or fewer clients.
Property Owner Position: No Action
Email to Committee:~HHSEA@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill repeals the law regarding standards for fire safety in community living facilities housing 3 or fewer clients.
Talking Points:
This is a one line bill that reads: ""Repeal. RSA 126-A:21, relative to fire safety standards in community living facilities housing 3 or fewer clients, is repealed.""
Community living facilities according to RSA 126-A are for people with developmental disabilities or mental illness. RSA 126-A:21 states: ""Notwithstanding RSA153:5, 153:10-b, or any law to the contrary, the fire code applicable to single family dwellings, as defined in RSA 153:1, X, or, where applicable, single rental units in multi-unit dwellings, as defined in RSA 153:1, IX-a and VI, respectively, shall be the fire code applied by the state fire marshal and local fire departments to community living facilities housing 3 or fewer clients.""
Surprisingly the bill actually negates the requirements for smoke detectors that we have in apartments.
Since most of us are not in the business of running community living facilities we decided not to take a position on this bill.
If the bill does affect you and you would like support responding to the legislature, please let us know.
=====================================================================================
HB1252 01/31/2012 at 03:00 PM LOB 208
Title: relative to required documentation of ownership in foreclosure proceedings.
Summary: Would require holders of notes to be foreclosed to have the clerk make copy of actual deed and sign to authorize foreclosure sale.
Property Owner Position: Support if amended
Email to Committee~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill requires the copying of the deed of a property to be foreclosed and the signature of the clerk before a foreclosure sale can take place.
Talking Points:
This bill should not be enacted until it is amended. Whoever wrote it, appears to have not read RSA 479:25. In addition, the bill is so unclear, we can not understand what the actual intent of it is.
RSA 479:25 is the statute that specifies that if a mortgage deed includes the language of power of sale, foreclosure can be done without court actions and by auctions. We believe most foreclosures in New Hampshire are by power of sale. (Notices, advertisements, sale at auction on the premises).
RSA 479:25 currently is so well written that it is a step by step instruction on how to foreclose. The bill seeks to amend the statute by adding a new requirement that : No foreclosure sale shall be valid until the holder of the deed presents the actual deed to the clerk, the clerk copies it and signs the authorization for the foreclosure sale to take place. Any bank that does not comply with this paragraph shall be fined $1,000 per day of noncompliance.
Problems with the amendment are that we do not know who is the holder of the deed, and who is the clerk. Are we to assume that the clerk is the clerk of the corporation that owns the bank that is foreclosing? Does holder of the deed mean the owner of the property that is being foreclosed upon. However, the intent was probably that the holder of the mortgage deed have to present the actual deed to the clerk of the corporation to effectuate the foreclosure to prevent the abuse that has occurred since the beginning of the recession.
As investors in real estate, and potentially buyers of properties that have been foreclosed upon, we would want to support bills that reduce or help prevent fraud in the title to real estate. However, we think that this bill needs to vbe amended to eliminate unclarities before we can support it.
So, unless it is amended we would oppose it.
=====================================================================================
HB1263 02/02/2012 at 09:30 AM LOB 208
Title: repealing the law requiring landlords of restricted residential property provide service of process information.
Summary: do away with the requirement that owners of restricted property supply their contact information to the towns.
Property Owner Position: Support
Email to Committee: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill repeals the requirement that landlords of restricted residential property provide service of process information to the municipality in which the property is located.
Notes: Joe would like to switch this to contact Legislators
Talking Points: This requirement has been a big inconvenience for landlords and the towns. The towns have to set up a registry and constantly update it and landlords have to pay to register and in most cases the same information is already on file with the town. In addition the impetus for the original passing of the law was that towns were having a difficult time getting in touch with banks about properties that had fallen into disrepair. Why inconvenience everyone when the main problem is with a small percentage of the overall property owners?
=====================================================================================
HB1462 02/02/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 208
Title: relative to the eviction process.
Summary: Allows landlords to correct a writ of summons for simple errors, may allow for increasing the small claims portion if another rent has come due during the eviction process.
Property Owner Position: Support
Email to Committee: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill permits the landlord to file a motion to amend the writ of summons.
Talking Points: This bill could allow for landlords to correct a simple “typo” and keep an eviction active rather than loose in court over a simple and obvious mistake.
It may also allow for addition to the claim for rent that has come due since the original LT-Writ was drafted.
This bill could save landlords and the courts a lot of money and time because cases that are thrown out for grammatical errors and other minor mistakes will not have to be heard and filed twice. Also, the tenant still receives their opportunity to be heard in court.
=====================================================================================
HB1463 02/02/2012 at 11:00 AM LOB 208
Title: relative to abandonment of the tenancy and relative to property abandoned by a tenant.
Summary: establishes a procedure a landlord can follow if a tenant has abandoned an apartment and the landlord wants to retake possession of the apartment without going through the formal eviction process.
Property Owner Position: Think we support but we need to get more clarity on ramifications to landlords.
Email to Committee: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill:
This bill:
I. Establishes a procedure for a landlord to establish that a tenant has abandoned the tenancy.
II. Provides that the landlord is not obligated to store personal property that has been abandoned by the tenant. Personal property shall be considered abandoned if it is of no apparent value or if the tenant has indicated to the landlord that he or she does not intend to recover it.
Notes: The legislator that is sponsoring this bill and said that this bill was submitted to him by a landlord group. He said that it is based on the abandonment laws in other states.
Talking Points:
(Position 1)
The procedure in the bill is only available in very limited circumstances. First, the tenants must have vacated the premises without notice to the landlord and do not intend to return which is evidenced by the tenants removing substantially all of their personal property AND the tenants are 5 days or more in arrears or have expressed they do not intend to occupy the premises after a specified date (Question - isn't that notice to the landlord and how does the landlord prove that the tenant gave such notice?)
If the tenant has abandoned the unit, the landlord would have to send written notice by certifed mail and post notice at the premises stating that the landlord believes the tenants have abandoned the premises and that the landlord will be taking possession within 5 days of receipt of this notice (Question - what if the tenant does not pick up the certified mail or refuses it?) and that if the tenant does not contact the landlord then the landlord will dispose of the tenants possessions within 7 days of the notice if the tenant does not claim these items.
The final paragraph of the bill modifies RSA 540-A such that a landlord does not have to store personal property of a tenant if it has been abandoned and in the judgment of the landlord has no ascertainable or apparent value or if the tenant has expressly indicated to the landlord that he or she does not intend to recover the property.
The advantages of the bill is that if a landlord in the limited circumstances outlined above follows the procedure, the landlord does not have to serve an evicition notice and a demand for rent, nor does the landlord have to go though the court system and spend both the 30 to 60 days to regain possession or the unit or pay the court entry fees of $101 or the sheriff fees that vary by distance and the number of people who have to be served.
The disadvantages of the bill are ambiguities. 2 are noted above. Another question, what if a tenant has abandoned a unit, leaves nothing in the apartment, has the utilites turned off, mail fowarded, is 5 days or more behind in rent, and the keys on the kitchen counter and a landlord does not follow the procedure outlined in the bill. In this clear situation of abandonment, is the landlord liable under RSA 540-A for improper entry? This bill could establish place an additional burden on landlords that we currently do not have.
Another issue is what if a tenant does not contact a landlord during the 5 day notice period, but later claim he or she did by verbal communication. If there is a 540-A action brought by the tenant, it is up to the judge who to believe. (nick-named these truth telling contests). The bill needs a procedure that the tenant must communicate with the landlord in writing by certified mail so that there is clear proof of the communication.
A landlord must follow the notice provisions exactly as outlined in the bill or he or she can not use the bill, if it is enacted, as a defense to a RSA 540-A action. Since it is basically only a two step process - notice in writing posted (whatever that means-why not abode service as with eviction notices?) at the premises and the same notice sent certified mail to the tenants, most landlords should be able to comply if the bill becomes law. It is not any more difficult that serving a demand for rent or an eviction notice.
Final issue with the last paragraph of the bill in regard to the landlord deciding if a tenant’s property left in an apartment after a tenant has vacated has no ascertainable value. First, what if the landlord is wrong and the property does have value? Since we only have to hold onto tenant stuff after they move for 7 days, I would advise another landlord to hold the stuff for the 7 days. Further, under the recent change, the landlord is only on the hook for the actual value of the property discarded in the 7 days, plus attorney fees, not a $1,000 a day fine.
Probably better to leave this last paragraph provision out.
(Position 2)
This is a detailed law and one that everyone should read. The text of the new law starts out by saying that a tenant """" “abandonment” means the tenants have vacated the premises without notice to the landlord and do not intend to return, which intention may be evidenced by the removal by the tenants or their agent of substantially all of their possessions and personal effects from the premises and either:
(a) Nonpayment of rent for more than 5 days; or
(b) An express statement by the tenants that they do not intend to occupy the premises after a specified date.
Right away I get the sense that opponents of this bill will say that assuming that an abandonment of the unit has occurred just because a tenants is 5 days late on their rent is reckless and wrong.
The bill then goes on to detail some steps that a landlord should take to make sure that they will not be defeated in court if a tenant challenges an eviction.
Proposing legislation about the clarification of abandonment has always been a priority of landlords but how to go about it has always been a conundrum for us. The problem is if you define it and put in a protocol to deal with it is that a good thing or a bad thing for landlords. In the final analysis, over the past 20 years we have usually defaulted to not pursuing legislation because the """"devil is always in the details"""" and the language of a law that is beneficial to us is usually heavily opposed by NH legal aid.
=====================================================================================
HB1619 02/02/2012 at 01:00 PM LOB 301
Title: relative to the assessment of property taxes on the value that exceeds $50,000.
Summary: Any parcel that is valued less than $50,000 will not be subject to real estate taxes. Which means that the parcels valued higher that 50K will bear all of the tax burden.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
Email to Committee: HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill establishes that the taxable value for all assessments of property taxes shall exclude the first $50,000 of value of each parcel.
Talking Points:
There is no consideration in the bill for ability of the owner of the parcel valued under 50K to pay the taxes. This may exempt almost all mobile home owners, lower value condos, single family houses in areas like Berlin where values are exceptionally low, owners of undeveloped lots in more rural areas, even if they are owned by a developer as investments.
Since most of our properties are in cities and will have value in excess of $50,000, we will be required to pay higher real estate taxes if this bill passes. It hurts us and it hurts our tenants as we either have to raise rents or cut services.
=====================================================================================
HB1674 02/02/2012 at 01:30 PM LOB 301
Title: reducing the interest rate on late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes.
Summary: This bill lowers the interest rates applicable to late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes enforced through the lien procedure.
Property Owner Position: Support
Email to Committee: ~HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text:
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill lowers the interest rates applicable to late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes enforced through the lien procedure.
Talking Points:
The bill changes a number of sections of the RSA s dealing with interest rates on unpaid taxes, including past due amounts on leases with the Pease Development Authority (18% to 9%), municipal taxes from 12% to 6% (per current law not including resident taxes whatever they are), and a number of other sections. The bill also makes the sections that are amended gender neutral by including the words "or her" after the word "his."
It brings down interest rates that appear to have been established during the Carter years of high inflation. The existing rates, compared to the rates charged by banks or paid on savings accounts are excessive. In addition, with a goal to try to reduce foreclosures, lowering the interest rates reduces the amount a property owner would have to pay if he or she fell behind in tax payments. Especially if a bank is collecting taxes and interest as part of a mortgage payment.
=====================================================================================
SB301 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 101
Title: relative to landlord-tenant remedies.
Summary: Many improvements to eviction and eviction-small small claims
Property Owner Position: Support
Email to Committee: matthew.houde@leg.state.nh.us; sharon.carson@leg.state.nh.us; fenton.groen@leg.state.nh.us; jim.luther@leg.state.nh.us; james.forsythe@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill:
This bill:
I. Requires 7 days notice for eviction from residential property, regardless of the grounds for the eviction.
II. Allows the landlord to amend a writ of summons to correct minor procedural defects.
III. Increases the amount of damages available in landlord-tenant disputes from $1,500 to $10,000.
IV. Requires former tenants to execute a financial affidavit and provide a forwarding address if they have been found liable for damages to the landlord.
Talking Points:
The Analysis stated in the bill above indicates four changes by roman numerals but the actual text of the bill has 6 significant changes numbered 1 – 6.
1. Under current law a landlord can give a seven days eviction notice in limited circumstances, basically for non payment of rent, substantial damage to the premises by a tenant or his family or guests, or behavior of the tenant or members of his family which adversely affects the health or safety of the other tenants or the landlord or his representatives, or failure of the tenant to accept suitable temporary relocation due to lead-based paint hazard abatement, but not guests of the tenant. In all other circumstances the notice must be 30 days.
The current law can be confusing, and there are circumstances where it is unclear which notice is appropriate. Examples, a tenants guests drink in a common hallway and always move inside the apartment when the police arrive if called by other residents of the building. It disturbs other tenants. Is it harm allowing a 7 days notice ? A tenant brings in a pet without permission - the pet can cause major damage to an apartment and bring in fleas. What about a dog that constantly barks disturbing other tenants. Tenants continuously have marital discord that disturbs other tenants is this harm to the other tenants or other good cause.
In addition there are many instances where the 30 days notice is unfair as financial harm does occur to a landlord. A tenant brings in a roomate without the permission of the landlord and the new person uses water, hot water at the expense of the landlord without paying for his or her use of these utilities that a landlord pays.
There is also no real reason for the difference in the notice provisions. Even after the notice period ends, it still takes a minimum of three to four weeks for the eviction process to work its way through the courts. The tenants have more than adequate time to find other housing. However, during this entire process the tenant do continue their behavior that is the cause of the eviction to the detriment of the landlord and the other tenants.
2. This amendment prevents an eviction from being dismissed if there is a minor error in the demand for rent or eviction notice. As long as a tenant is notified of the eviction action, how to avoid it if it is a non payment case, an eviction should not be dismissed if, for instance, the tenants name is spelled incorrectly. Since only minor errors will be allowed, the tenant’s rights would not be prejudiced.
3. The third amendment is similar to the previous paragraph, but allows a landlord to amend a writ by motion, within 7 days if the landlord made an error in preparing the writ. This prevents an eviction from being dismissed if a error is corrected quickly, within 7 days, and it does not prejudice a tenant as the correction will be well before a hearing date is scheduled in the eviction process.
4. This paragraph provides for an automatic procedure for periodic payments and could eliminate the need of a landlord to file, after judgment, a motion for periodic payments and have a hearing. It reduces the paperwork for the Courts, it reduces the amount of times that a judge has to review and rule on a case, and it reduces costs for both the landlord and the tenant as each has to take additional time for every court appearance and there are court fees that one or the other has to pay.
5. This bill just increases the limits of the amount of damages for unpaid rent a landlord can seek from $1500 to $10,000. This is similar to the increases that have been made in small claim procedures. With many apartments and single family houses renting for more than $1000 per month, it is easy to exceed $1,500, especially if a landlord tries to work a tenant who is having financial difficulties, for unpaid rent, by the time the writ is prepared. In commercial transactions, it is easy to see the need for higher upper limit.
In order to save time and expense for both the Landlord and the Tenant, the entire amount of damages for unpaid rent could be litigated once when the case is heard on the L & T writ.
Just understand that under this section, if the landlord alleges damages in excess of $1,500 then the tenant can request a jury trial. We are unclear if the possessory action stays in the district court (now known as the Circuit Court) or if the entire action is transferred to the Superior Court where it can take YEARS for a civil jury trial to be scheduled.
6. Jurisdiction is mostly restricted to district court.
In all cases where a jury trial is not requested jurisdiction will stay with the District Court.
This is good for us because District Court has the easiest & quickest procedures.
Obviously, this bill is solidly in our favor. One of our concerns is that is attempts to accomplish too much too fast. That’s only something to note and not to mention since we would not want to invite concern on to a bill that is so pro-landlord.
=====================================================================================
HB1532 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 204
Title: relative to trespass on land which is not posted.
Summary: This bill amends the current criminal trespass bill to allow a public college or university law enforcement officer to """"enter or remain on the property of another if the officer has probable cause to suspect criminal activity.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
Email to Committee: ~HouseCriminalJusticeandPublicSafety@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill amends the criminal trespass statute in circumstances where the property is not posted with “no trespassing” signs.
Talking Points: Basically, we oppose the bill because we believe it invades the constitutional protection of preventing unreasonable searches and seizures. The bill is too broad, and if it passes, it will most likely be challenged and ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court.
This bill first makes the crime of criminal trespass gender neutral. The bill then adds a new subparagraph to the criminal trespass statute. That paragraph is ""A law enforcement officer may enter or remain on the property of another if the officer has probable cause to suspect criminal activity. No cause of action shall lie against any person or entity if the officer obtains information in violation of this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply to the investigation and enforcement of disciplinary actions initiated by a public college or university.""
Potential problems with this bill:
If an officer has probable cause to suspect criminal activity, then he or she has the ability to obtain a search warrant. Second, this language is unclear, can an officer enter any building or just common areas open to the public? How long can the officer stay? What information can he or she obtain, where does the right to privacy or the expectation of privacy end. Total immunity if an officer obtains information in violation of the paragraph? Since nothing seems to violate the paragraph, it is total immunity.
Does the last sentence of the paragraph mean that an officer can enter any place in a public college or university, including dorm rooms, at any time, without a warrant, on his belief that he has probable cause to suspect criminal activity?
This bill may not withstand a constitutional challenge if it is enacted. As a property owner, do you want the police to be able enter your building anytime they think they have probable cause to suspect criminal activity?
As property owners, even if we think we do not need a police officer on our property, and the tenants want the officer to leave and are not committing any crime, as we read the bill, the officer can remain on the property if he has reason to suspect criminal activity. I have tenants who smoke a lot of cigarettes. The smell can be confused with the smell of burning pot. We have been in the apartment, without prior notice, but by knocking on the door and entering with the tenants permission, and there was no signs of drugs. In this instance, a cop could stay in the apartment, without any warrant just because the officer suspects a criminal action.
Please send emails to the legislators expressing our concern that this bill could subject us and our tenants to abuse, and further, that evidence obtained by relying on this bill could be excluded if the bill is challenged.
=====================================================================================
HB1405 02/02/2012 at 02:15 PM LOB 301
Title: relative to refugee resettlement.
Summary: Allows local governing bodies to establish moratoriums on refugee resettlement in New Hampshire communities.
Property Owner Position: Support
Email to Committee: ~HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill allows local governing bodies to establish moratoriums on refugee resettlement in New Hampshire communities.
Talking Points:
The bill amends RSA 161 which is the statute establishing the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department's duties, its rule making authority, the appointment of and the duties of the Commission of the Department, the administration of the food stamp program, other duties (child welfare issues, foster homes, child support enforcement ect), and under RSA 161:2 XVIII
""XVIII. Refugee Resettlement. Administer the New Hampshire refugee resettlement program as funded by and in cooperation with the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the Refugee Act of 1980.""
The bill adds three new sections to RSA 161. The first section basically defines, for the bill, absorbtive capacity, The New Hampshire Refugee Program, and the New Hampshire Refugee Coordinator.
The second section sets forth the duties of the New Hampshire Refugee Program.
The second section of Bill 1405 requires the Program to meet at least quarterly with local governments to plan settlement of refugees in advance, plan with agencies regarding settlement of refugees by letter of agreement, and at least quarterly submit to various members of the legislature copies of the letters of agreement and plans for settlement and absorption.
The third and final section of Bill 1405 requires the Program to accept applications from local governing bodies for a moratorium on new refugee settlement activities where the local governing body has determined that the community lacks sufficient absorptive capacity. This decision is made after the local government body consults with the state refugee coordinator, holds public hearing and concludes settlement of additional refugees would be adverse to existing residents.
The Program, if the application is accepted, shall suspend additional settlement activities until the state refugee coordinator and the local governing body have jointly determined that the community can absorb additional refugees. However, no moratorium or extension shall exceed one year.
The bill does not state that a community can not apply for back to back moratoriums.
Note the bill only limits government efforts in settlement of refugees in communities whose applications have been accepted. If people in the country wish to move to a community without the aid of an agency or a non-profit that is works directly with the Program, they are free to do so.
The bill does give a community the chance to say: we just can not place additional refugees this year. We need a break. And if you agree, mr or ms state government program, you will stop your efforts, for up to one year, to place additional people in our community.
Clearly, the communities that do not have the ability or as the bill calls it absorptive capacity, should have a way to stop the state from trying to place additional people in that community. We can only seat a limited number of children in a class room, each community only has limited funds to help students learn English, no community has unlimited low income housing, and all services from Police and Fire to sewer treatments have limited capacity. Clearly once these services are stretched to the limit, it will be adverse to everyone in the community, both not having the services available, and the higher tax burdens to increase the capacity of all municipal services.
Here is a link to some information regarding these refugee resettlement programs and their negative effect in the local economies.
http://american-rattlesnake.org/2012/01/the-fugees/
=====================================================================================
HB1649 02/03/2012 at 09:25 AM LOB 210-211Title: relative to collection of the education property tax and establishing a program to rebate certain excessive property tax payments of eligible taxpayers.
Summary: The bill establishes a program for the rebate of excessive education property tax payments made by eligible taxpayers in the state.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
Email to Committee: ~HouseSpecialCommitteeonEducationFundingReform@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info
Link to Bill Text
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill transfers the authority to collect the education property tax from the municipalities to the department of revenue administration. The bill establishes a program for the rebate of excessive education property tax payments made by eligible taxpayers in the state. Claims for rebates shall be made to the department of revenue administration and qualifying claims shall be paid from the interest which accumulates on education property taxes collected by the department.
Talking Points:
Claims for rebates shall be made to the department of revenue administration and qualifying claims shall be paid from the interest which accumulates on education property taxes collected by the department.
This is a complex bill which first requires taxpayers to pay education tax, that is being billed to them by the local municipality, to the Department of Revenue Adm. It also changes the procedure for education property tax relief. According to the Dept of Revenue analysis at the end of the bill, it will seriously increase the cost to the state if this bill is enacted.(The Dept of Revenue estimated 16,000,000)
This looks like it will grow the state government at the expense of the taxpayer.
To speak very intelligently on this bill we would need a much deeper analysis.
=====================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.