Legislative Update - March 19 to 23

Courtesy of RPOA, Nick Norman Director of Legislative Affairs

This week:
HB1634 03/20/2012 at 10:00 AM LOB 301

Title: (New Title) establishing a committee to study the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 into the state, counties, regional commissions, towns, and cities.
Property Owner Position: Support
(The title is misleading. The amended bill establishes a study committee for preventing the implementation of UN Agenda 21.) See Full detail section below.


Next week there are no bills currently scheduled for committee public hearings.

Active Bills
There are two critical bills still active:
SB364 oppose (info provide first time in this update)
SB301 support
See Summary All Bills still active (below) and contact legislators.

Further below is:
Summary All Bills still active (please contact legislators)
Present Status Bills newly decided (that we know)
Full details on all bills (still active)
Which includes “To” & “Subject” for email to legislators
Talking points, much more

Victories and Setbacks

At this point the committees have decided on almost all of the bills & some bills have crossed over between House & Senate (see further below). Please email or call the legislators to give them your input on the bills still active & ask them to vote in our favor.

Based on the results immediately below, we have 7 victories and 3 setbacks, I’m guessing the efforts of all the landlord organizations has been helpful. Thank you for any part you have done. Now let’s really step it up and avoid having any set backs.


Victories (see Present Status Bills newly decided, below):

HB648 is now signed into law by the Governor
Title: (4th New Title) relative to eminent domain by public utilities and establishing a commission to investigate the procedural rights of the landowner when a petition is presented to the public utilities commission by a utility seeking eminent domain, develop a framework for the state to provide use rights to transmission developers on state owned rights-of-way, develop policies to encourage burying such lines where practicable, and establish a structure for payment.
Property Owner Position: Support as Amended
PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT

HB1501
Title: establishing a fund to upgrade wastewater treatment plants.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
Majority Report: Refer to Study

HB1602
Title: removing the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1501
Title: establishing a fund to upgrade wastewater treatment plants.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
INTERIM STUDY

HB1263
Title: (New Title) relative to the termination of tenancy and repealing the requirement that landlords of restricted residential property provide service of process information.
Property Owner Position: Support
PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT

HB1405
Title: relative to refugee resettlement.
Property Owner Position: Support
PASSED / ADOPTED

HB1649
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
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE


Setbacks (see Present Status Bills newly decided, below):HB1462
Title: relative to the eviction process.
Property Owner Position: Support
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

HB1674
Title: reducing the interest rate on late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes.
Property Owner Position: Support
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

HB1532
Title: relative to trespass on land which is not posted.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT


This week:
HB1634 03/20/2012 at 10:00 AM LOB 301
Title: (New Title) establishing a committee to study the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 into the state, counties, regional commissions, towns, and cities.
Property Owner Position: Support
(The title is misleading. The amended bill establishes a study committee for preventing the implementation of UN Agenda 21.) See Full detail section below.


Next week there are no bills currently scheduled for committee public hearings.

There are two critical bills still active:
SB364 oppose (info provide first time in this update)
SB301 support
See Summary All Bills still active (below) and contact legislators.

Further below is:
Summary All Bills still active (please contact legislators)
Present Status Bills newly decided (that we know)
Full details on all bills (still active)
Which includes “To” & “Subject” for email to legislators
Talking points, much more

Love & Light,
Nick Norman
RPOA Director of Legislative Affairs
==============================================
Summary All Bills still active (please contact legislators)
SB364
Title: relative to tenant guest practices.

Summary: The bill adds a second section to RSA 540-A:2, the statute that prohibits actions by landlords and tenants. The current first section of RSA 540-A:2 prohibits and landlord from willfully violating a tenant's right to quite enjoyment or circumventing the eviction process as well as prohibiting a tenant from willfully damaging or preventing repairs to the landlords building.

The new section which would be included if the bill became law would prohibit a landlord from interfering ""with the right of a tenant to permit visitation by the person of his or her own choice except

If the lease contained reasonable provisions limiting of the duration and frequency of guest visits so long as all leases in the same apartment complex or building contained the provision, or

The landlord can demonstrate that the tenants guest:

(1) Constitutes an imminent threat to the health and safety of others;

(2) Has been convicted of a drug-related felony within the past 2 years; or

(3) Has been convicted of a felony involving physical violence to another person, or the threat thereof, within the past 2 years.
This is a very poorly thought out bill that has major implications for landlords. We need to write committee members to see if we can convince them to vote down this bill.

Property Owner Position: Oppose

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10

Email to Committee:
To: 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;
Subject: SB364
…

SB301 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 101
Title: relative to landlord-tenant remedies.
Property Owner Position: Support

Summary: Many improvements to eviction and eviction-small small claims

Property Owner Position: Support

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10

Email to Committee:
To: 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;
Subject: SB301 Support
…

HB1634 03/20/2012 at 10:00 AM LOB 301
Title: (New Title) establishing a committee to study the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 into the state, counties, regional commissions, towns, and cities.

(The title is misleading. The amended bill establishes a study committee for preventing the implementation of UN Agenda 21.) See Full detail section below.

Summary: Despite what the title says here is point 3 of the bill:
3 Duties. The committee shall study procedures to prevent the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 into the state, counties, regional commissions, towns, and cities; other implementation by nongovernmental organizations; the clarification of constitutional issues relevant to the study; and any related concerns with the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21.

Property Owner Position: Support

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1634 Support
…

SB342 Time not specified RM 306 LOB
Title: (New Title) relative to the inclusion of requirements for log structures in the state building code.

Summary: This bills amends the definition section of RSA 155-A:1. In the statute the New Hampshire building code is defined by incorporating by reference various national and international building codes such as The International Building Code 2006. The Bill adds the Standard on the Design and Construction of Log Structures 2007 as another code incorporated by reference.
There is amendment which gives the legislature a second look at the standards within 2 years, and if not adopted by the legislature, the changes do not become part of the NH Building code.

Property Owner Position: No Action
PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT in Senate
Now crossed over to the House

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H07

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB342
…
==============================================
Present Status Bills newly decided (that we know):
HB1501
Title: establishing a fund to upgrade wastewater treatment plants.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
REPORT FILED
Majority Report: Refer to Study

SB306
Title: relative to the commercial and industrial construction property tax exemption.
Property Owner Position: No Action
PASSED / ADOPTED in the House
Now crossed over to the Senate

HB1602
Title: removing the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1153
Title: relative to fire protection of floors in certain detached dwellings.
Property Owner Position: Varying view points on this. Please review and let us know your thoughts and real life experience.
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1501
Title: establishing a fund to upgrade wastewater treatment plants.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
INTERIM STUDY
Majority Report: Refer to Study

HB1252
Title: relative to required documentation of ownership in foreclosure proceedings.
Property Owner Position: Support if amended
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1263
Title: (New Title) relative to the termination of tenancy and repealing the requirement that landlords of restricted residential property provide service of process information.
Property Owner Position: Support
PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Majority Report: Ought to Pass Amended
Minority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1462
Title: relative to the eviction process.
Property Owner Position: Support
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1463
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 and landlords.
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Majority Report: Ought to Pass Amended
Minority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1674
Title: reducing the interest rate on late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes.
Property Owner Position: Support
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate
Minority Report: Ought to Pass Amended

HB1532
Title: relative to trespass on land which is not posted.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Majority Report: Ought to Pass Amended

HB1405
Title: relative to refugee resettlement.
Property Owner Position: Support
PASSED / ADOPTED
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate
Minority Report: Ought to Pass

HB1649
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
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate Minority Report: Ought to Pass

SB342
Title: (New Title) relative to the inclusion of requirements for log structures in the state building code.
Property Owner Position: No Action
PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Now crossed over to the House

HB1618
Title: (New Title) relative to types of community living facilities.
Property Owner Position: No Action
PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
==============================================
Full details on all bills (still active):
HB1634 03/20/2012 at 10:00 AM LOB 301
Title: (New Title) establishing a committee to study the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 into the state, counties, regional commissions, towns, and cities.

Summary: Despite what the title says here is point 3 of the bill:
3 Duties. The committee shall study procedures to prevent the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 into the state, counties, regional commissions, towns, and cities; other implementation by nongovernmental organizations; the clarification of constitutional issues relevant to the study; and any related concerns with the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21.

Property Owner Position: Support

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1634 Support

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1634.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill establishes a committee to study the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 into the state, counties, regional commissions, towns, and cities.

Notes: this bill actually is charged to study preventing implementation of UN Agenda 21.

Talking Points:
The original HB1634 has been “amended”. It was a bill to prohibit NH local & state government from adopting the UN Agenda 21. Now it establishes a study committee for preventing the implementation of UN Agenda 21.

Here is a link to give you a little background plus other links on this socialist agenda disguised as “Sustainable Development.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/

Look at the link, educate yourself then email or call legislators to support this bill and specifically any measures that would prevent NH state and local governments from implementation of UN Agenda 21.
=====================
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

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10

Email to Committee:
To: 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;
Subject: SB301 Support

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0301.html
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.
=====================
SB342 Time not specified RM 306 LOB
Title: (New Title) relative to the inclusion of requirements for log structures in the state building code.

Summary: This bills amends the definition section of RSA 155-A:1. In the statute the New Hampshire building code is defined by incorporating by reference various national and international building codes such as The International Building Code 2006. The Bill adds the Standard on the Design and Construction of Log Structures 2007 as another code incorporated by reference.
There is amendment which gives the legislature a second look at the standards within 2 years, and if not adopted by the legislature, the changes do not become part of the NH Building code.

Property Owner Position: No Action

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H07

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB342

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0342.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill includes standards for log homes in the New Hampshire building code.

Talking Points:
Although building codes can apply to our buildings, no action is recommended on this bill as it is unlikely any of us will build an apartment building from logs.
=====================
SB266 02/09/2012 at 10:00 AM LOB 102
Title: prohibiting electric utilities from installing and maintaining smart meter gateway devices without the residential or business property owner's consent.

Summary: The bill requires electric utilities to obtain the written permission of the home or business owner before installing a smart meter. The utilities are to develop forms for the customers to sign, and when establishing service at a home or business, the utility must disclose if a smart meter had previously been installed, and remove the meter if requested by the customer.

Property Owner Position: No Action

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S38

Email to Committee:
To: bob.odell@leg.state.nh.us; john.gallus@leg.state.nh.us; jeb.bradley@leg.state.nh.us; gary.lambert@leg.state.nh.us; amanda.merrill@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: SB266

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0266.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill prohibits electric utilities from installing and maintaining smart meter gateway devices without the residential or business property owner’s consent.

Talking Points:
the definition of smart meters in this bill: Smart meter gateway device means any electric utility meter, electric utility meter component, electric utility load control device, or device ancillary to the electric utility meter, which is located at an end-user’s residence or business, and which serves as a communications gateway or portal to electrical appliances, electrical equipment, or electrical devices within the end-user’s residence or business, or which otherwise communicates with, monitors, or controls such electrical appliances, electrical equipment, or electrical devices.

It is unclear if a smart meter that only monitors electric useage for billing is covered by this definition. Further, the bill does not prohibit the utility from charging additional fees for people who request that a smart meter not be installed at their home or residence. (Central Maine Power charges additional fees each month, $20?, if a resident refuses to allow a smart meter to be installed. CMP also indicated in the information they provided that the smart meters monitor usage for billing purposes) We also checked with some of our doctors to see if they had any information about the meter being a hazard, and they said they did not have any information showing problem caused by the meter.

We just do not see major pros or cons to this bill that effect us as rental housing owners/managers, unless the meters can actually control appliances, especially heating and hot water systems, which we do not believe occurs. We feel that we should not take any action for or against this bill and concentrate on the bills that have a greater impact on the landlording business.
=====================
SB364 02/23/2012 at 01:00 PM LOB 101
Title: relative to tenant guest practices.

Summary: The bill adds a second section to RSA 540-A:2, the statute that prohibits actions by landlords and tenants. The current first section of RSA 540-A:2 prohibits and landlord from willfully violating a tenant's right to quite enjoyment or circumventing the eviction process as well as prohibiting a tenant from willfully damaging or preventing repairs to the landlords building.

The new section which would be included if the bill became law would prohibit a landlord from interfering ""with the right of a tenant to permit visitation by the person of his or her own choice except

If the lease contained reasonable provisions limiting of the duration and frequency of guest visits so long as all leases in the same apartment complex or building contained the provision, or

The landlord can demonstrate that the tenant’s guest:

(1) Constitutes an imminent threat to the health and safety of others;

(2) Has been convicted of a drug-related felony within the past 2 years; or

(3) Has been convicted of a felony involving physical violence to another person, or the threat thereof, within the past 2 years.
This is a very poorly thought out bill that has major implications for landlords. We need to write committee members to see if we can convince them to vote down this bill.

Property Owner Position: Oppose

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10

Email to Committee:
To: 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;
Subject: SB364

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0364.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill prohibits a landlord from interfering with a tenant’s ability to invite guests to his or her residence except in certain limited circumstances.

Talking Points:
There are a number of reasons that this bill should not become law. Some of those reasons are:

1. The general prohibition is against ""interfering"" with a tenant’s rights to have visitors. This term is not defined. What if the landlord has limited on site parking that is for tenants only. If the guest parks in the landlords lot, and the landlord asks the guest to move the guest's vehicle, is that interfering. What if the car is towed because it is in a space designated for another tenant?

If the guest is smoking in the common hallways, and the landlord asks the guest to go outside and not smoke in the common hallways, is that interfering? Or if the guest is waiting in the common hallways or staircase, including the entry stairs, scaring other tenants, and the landlord asks the guest to leave if the person he or she is visiting is not home, or go into the tenants apartment, is that interfering? Can a landlord even ask anyone who they are to make sure that someone is not in his or her building for illegal purposes without potentially violating this statute? This bill, if it becomes law, can potentially cause an abundance of litigation especially when tenants see the potential of receiving $1,000 or more fine and attorney fees.

2. There are many instances where a landlord needs to restrict guests in order to protect other tenants in the building and the landlord's property that would be prohibited by this bill. An example is the guest who continuously brings his or her pet to visit, and does not act responsibly in regards to the pet. The guest allows the pet to defecate on the landlords property and does not clean up after the pet. The pet is a pitbull or other breed of dog that the landlord's insurance carrier does not permit on the premises. The pet, maybe a snake, scares other tenants, especially other tenant's children. This bill would prevent the landlord from prohiting the pet and the irresponsible pet owner in these instances. Even if the lease or written policy forbids pets, the landlord would still not be able to properly protect his property as banning pet is not a restriction that is of reasonable time or frequency.

3. Other examples are the group of guests who hangout on the entry stairs of the building to ""smoke."" They stare at everyone who enters and leaves the building, especially a person of the opposite sex. Other tenants are uncomfortable, to say the least, walking through this crowd, especially the parents who have their young children with them. This bill, if one person in that group is a guest or the tenant, would prevent the landlord from asking the group to leave. Allowing any building to become a hangout a recipe for disaster.

4. What about the obnoxious individual who makes comments that everyone finds offensive, especially when that individual is drunk, on drugs, or has limited personal hygiene.

5. The example above in the first section regarding the guest who constantly parks in a restricted area or in a spot assigned to another tenant, or uses the landlords parking lot or yard to repair cars is another instance where banning that guest would be appropriate for the reasonable management of the building. However, if this bill becomes law, the landlord could not stop the guest from entering the property.

6. The instances where a landlord could ask a tenant to leave the landlord's property under this bill are extremely limited. First, in order to learn anything about the guest, even stopping the guest to ask questions, could be deemed as interfering with visitation. Second, obtaining information regarding the guest is difficult, especially for the small landlord who may own a duplex and lives in one of the units.

7. The time frame is from the date of conviction, and not the date a person was released from jail or prison, or discharged from probation or parole. Just because two years have elapsed since a person was convicted does it mean that a person is not still dangerous.

8. What if charges are pending against a person, for something other than violent behavior, for instance drug use or sale. Without a conviction, under this bill, the landlord could not ban the tenant. As a matter of policy do we want known drug dealers, who have been arrested and not convicted, to have open access to all properties run by Housing Authorities if they know one person still living in the complex?

9. What if a guest causes damage to the premises. Under the bill, the landlord can not ban the guest. If, and only if the landlord can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guest caused the damage, can the landlord bring criminal charges against the tenant. If the guest is charged with the misdemeanor, and the landlord asks as a bail condition that the guest not enter upon the landlord's premises, is this interfering with the tenant’s rights to have guests?

10. This bill puts the burden on the landlord to adopt policies that have to be carefully drafted in order to avoid a potential initial fine of $1,000 and attorney fees. For the small landlord owning 10 or fewer apartments, especially the owner occupied buildings, this can be a burden.

There are no standards of proof stated, nor does it state if a landlord can use hearsay evidence in a defense to a claim brought under this bill. In addition, if the tenant wins the case, the landlord is subject to a fine and paying attorney fees. If the landlord wins, he has no rights against the tenant, not even the right to evict the tenant. This is another instance where the bill changes the balance between landlords and tenants. This is not like rendering an apartment uninhabitable by shutting off utilities. A landlord generally only bans someone from his or her property because the guest is someone who causes problems or damages the property.

11. How many tenants are really having landlords banning guests without just cause and how often is this happening? Most landlords do not have the time or the ability to see who is having guests, and only react when a problem is brought to the landlords attention, generally by other tenants. Unless there is a widespread need, which probably does not exist, legislation such as this bill should not be passed.

12. See also the attached copy of a letter from Attorney Fred Mayer with points opposing the bill.
=====================
SB395 02/14/2012 at 01:00 PM SH 100
Title: relative to construction of an access road on land in current use.

Summary: This bill amends a section of the current use tax statute in regard to a road being constructed over a right of way through land in current use to access an abutting property.

Property Owner Position: No Action

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S17

Email to Committee:
To: bob.odell@leg.state.nh.us; jim.luther@leg.state.nh.us; dboutin1465@comcast.net; dalas@leg.state.nh.us; chuck.morse@leg.state.nh.us; jim.rausch@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: SB395

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0395.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill clarifies that land in current use upon which an access road is constructed does not lose its status for current use taxation.

Talking Points:
We have not completed a detailed analysis because this bill effects only undeveloped land. If we were developers, this bill could effect us. However, as owners and operators of existing buildings, we are not effected by the bill.