Howdee
everyone,
Hearings next week:
SB 175,
Regulation Of Blighted Property
Important Updates:
HB269,
First, Last Month’s Rent & Security Deposit
Has
failed and did not pass the House. I’ll take this opportunity to
say lack of involvement is very hurtful to our business. If we had
more people contacting legislators and swayed only 5.5% toward our side we could
have gotten this controversial bill through the house.
Action
items this week:
1. Email HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us and ask the committee
to vote in favor of the 2/4/15 RPOA Amendment to each bill. The
word is they will have Executive Session (deciding on) these bills Tuesday
morning. So contact them by Monday. Amendments are attached.
HB203, Representation Landlord/Tenant
Court
Ask the committee to vote in favor of the
2/4/15 RPOA Amendment to HB203.
HB315, 7 Days Eviction Notice In Certain
Circumstances
Ask the
committee to vote in favor of the 2/4/15 RPOA Amendment to
HB315.
HB309, Removal of Tenants
Property
Ask the committee to vote in favor of the
2/4/15 RPOA Amendment to HB309.
2. Study
SB135, 2015 Lead Law Changes (full detail below)
This is a very large bill and yes it
requires some study. However, we have a summary and talking points
that walk you through the bill.
3. Attend SB135, 2015 Lead Law Changes
hearing
02/17/2015 at 01:00 PM LOB
101
See more info in Summaries & Full
Detail for each bill further below. (includes property owner position, contact
info, Talking points, and more).
(to jump
right to bill detail, use Control-F, Find).
Hearings this week:
02/17/2015 at 10:00 AM LOB
202
HB180, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Clarify
“Contractual” Transfer
Level of Response: Email Call
Legislators
Property Owner Position: For
02/17/2015 at 01:00 PM LOB
306
HB533, Arc Fault Circuit-Interrupter Not
Required
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You
Decide
02/17/2015 at 01:00 PM LOB
101
SB135, 2015 Lead Law Changes
Level of
Response: Attend hearings, Email & Call Legislators
Property
Owner Position: Mostly For, Some Against, Some Neutral, Changes
recommended
02/19/2015 at 10:45 AM LOB
208
HB613, Right To Know Law Exemptions
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide
02/19/2015 at 11:00 AM LOB
302
HB531, Short-Term Rentals Study Committee
Level of Response: You Decide
Property
Owner Position: Varied, some For, some Against, some Neutral
02/19/2015 at 01:15 PM LOB
304
HB544, Eminent Domain by Utilities
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: Some For, Some You
Decide
02/19/2015 at 01:30 PM LOB
208
HB636, Forfeiture Of Property
Level of Response: Email Call
Legislators
Property Owner Position: Against
02/20/2015 at 11:00 AM LOB
202
HB680, Homestead Exemption
Level of Response: You Decide
Property
Owner Position: Not analyzed. Believed to be Limited Impact.
None scheduled so far
Updates:
see also Bills Updated Status Summary
further below.
Re-refer to committee, Vote 5-0.
Senator Boutin for the
committee.
This bill would have authorized
municipalities to enact ordinances that address blighted property. At
the
request of the sponsor, the committee voted
to re-refer the bill to committee, in order to allow for further
study and input.
Please email or call your legislator to
give them your input on the bills still active & ask your legislator to vote
in our favor.
Further below is:
Bills Updated Status summary:
Full details on all bills above
(Which includes property owner position,
contact info, talking points, and more)
Love & Light,
Nick Norman
Director of Legislative Affairs
==============================================
We only list the committee reports on the
most important bills affecting the real estate business. If you
want to get the committee report on one of the other bills contact me & I
will show you how to get them on line. Its not terribly hard to
get but not straight ahead either.
==============================================
Bills Updated Status
summary:
We only list the committee reports on the
most important bills affecting the real estate business. If you
want to get the committee report on one of the other bills contact me & I
will show you how to get them on line. It’s not terribly hard to
get but not straight ahead either.
HB208
Title: repealing the New Hampshire regional
greenhouse gas initiative program.
Property Owner Position: You
Decide
House Status:
Senate Status: none
HB634
Title: relative to applying the interest and
dividends tax to trusts, increasing exemptions, and extending the tax to capital
gains; and relative to homeowners property tax relief.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
House Status: RETAINED IN
COMMITTEE
Senate Status: none
HB623
Title: providing property tax relief for
taxpayers for the property tax year beginning April 1, 2016.
Property Owner Position: For
House Status:
Senate Status: none
==============================================
Full details on all bills
above:
SB15, requiring owners of companion animals
to leash such animals in the presence of a service dog.
01/21/2015 at 09:00 AM LOB
102
Summary:
Property
Owner Position: You Decide
Link to
Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S27
Email to Committee:
To: 0; dboutin1465@comcast.net;
bette.lasky@leg.state.nh.us; nancy.stiles@leg.state.nh.us;
molly.kelly@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: SB15
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/SB0015.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
=====================
HB208, Repealing The New Hampshire Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative
01/22/2015 at 10:00 AM
Representatives Hall
Title: Title: repealing the New Hampshire
regional greenhouse gas initiative program.
Summary: We have heard concerns related to
REGI, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. However, we don't have
specific input for you on this bill.
Property Owner Position: You
Decide
Link to Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H24
Email to Committee:
To:
~HouseScienceTechnologyandEnergy@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB208
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0208.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
If you are familiar with concerns related to
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiativem, please contact & update us so we
can get the info to other property owners.
One of our analysis team put together this
info:
This
bill repeals the greenhouse initiative that was passed a while back. We should
support this bill. The fiscal impact statement says it all. It is very
expensive. The money saved comes from our pockets. Government never generates
revenue, they take it from the citizens.
The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor.
That is 95 percent of all greenhouse gases. All the other greenhouse gases
(including CO2) make up the remaining 5%. We can do very little to
control the water vapor.
You can read an interesting study that
refutes man made global warming here:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Public Utilities
Commission and the Department of Environmental Services state this bill, as
introduced, will decrease state restricted revenue and expenditures by
$8,000,000 in FY 2015, $20,500,000 in FY 2016, $25,500,000 in FY 2017,
$28,000,000 in FY 2018, and $28,000,000 in FY 2019, and decrease local revenue
by $2,000,000 in FY 2015 and each year thereafter. This bill may have an
indeterminable fiscal impact impact on county and local expenditures, and county
revenues.
=====================
SB175, Regulation Of Blighted
Property
02/04/2015 at 10:15 AM LOB
102
Title: 0
Summary: This bill would add a new section to
RSA 674. The bill would enable towns to enact by-laws related to the prevention
and mediation of blighted housing, including regulations of reducing
assessments. The towns, in their enactment of regulations, must
define blighted housing, and authorizing agents of the town to enter the
buildings during reasonable hours for the purposes of remediating blighted
conditions after written notice to the owner or occupant of the building.
The bill establishes a fine of not more than $250 per day for a person
who willfully violates such regulations, and an unpaid fine would be lien,
similar to a tax lien on the property. The town would have all existing means to
enforce its order under current statutes. The bill does give a new owner or
occupant a 30 day grace period.
Property Owner Position: Against
Link to Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S27
Email to Committee:
To: 0; dboutin1465@comcast.net;
bette.lasky@leg.state.nh.us; nancy.stiles@leg.state.nh.us;
molly.kelly@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: SB175
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/SB0175.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
Why this bill is only for towns and not all
municipalities is not clear. Most likely that is a drafting
error. Likewise, why is housing the only type of real estate
subject to the bill. Empty and blighted (whatever that would be defined as by a
town) commercial buildings can be as much of a problem as housing.
It is interesting to note that this bill does not exclude single family
houses.
The entry of the town’s agent into a building
raises search and seizure issues. Perhaps some of the attorneys
who have knowledge of existing municipal law could review the bill to let us
know how much it changes the current law. Remediation is also not
defined. If someone is in the process of remediation, are the
fines suspended?
We should oppose this bill as it is not well
drafted, and limited to only housing.
How can we be for this bill when the
definition of “blighted property” is left up to the individual town.
That would be like signing a blank check. The term Blighted
Property is far too subjective, and is often associated with urban
decay.
The
causes of urban blight are many but can include poor town planning board
decisions, rent control, and poverty.
New Hampshire has for the most
part an aged housing stock but does not have a major problem with urban blight
such as Detroit.
It will give more power to the towns and
potentially could cause some people to loose their homes. What if
people can not afford the necessary repairs. Why charge them $250
a day they don’t have. If the town starts fining them $250 per day
soon the town will own the property.
Town planning boards already have remedies in
place in case of hazardous or inhabitable properties through the building
inspectors office. The towns also have housing, building and
firecodes already.
This bill steps all over property owners
rights. Keep the state out of it.
=====================
HB634, Interest And Dividends
Tax
02/06/2015 at 01:30 PM LOB
202
Title: Title: relative to applying the
interest and dividends tax to trusts, increasing exemptions, and extending the
tax to capital gains; and relative to homeowners property tax
relief.
Summary: This bill changes the interest and
dividends tax to include capital gains and raises the exempt amount from $2,400
to $5,000.
Property Owner Position: You
Decide
Link to Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H28
Email to Committee:
Subject: HB634
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0634.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
The bill would apply 5% I/D tax to Trusts,
Partnerships, LLC's and associations to interest and dividends above $5k
threshold. Trusts used for estate planning purposes have been
attractive to NH residents. In the past I/D tax has only been imposed on
distributions to trust beneficiaries.
Because this bill does make major changes in
the New Hampshire tax system, and does affect all of us, we need to follow this
bill. However, a correct analysis needs to be done by someone with
knowledge of the existing tax and how this changes things.
For residents of New Hampshire with capital
gains, those gains will be subject to a state tax. Yes, this is an
income tax, but on unearned income.
Because of our lack of expertise in this
area, and that the bill affects everyone and not just landlords. Until someone
can do a deeper analysis we recommend you decide.
=====================
HB623, Property Tax Relief 2016
02/10/2015 at 11:00 AM LOB
202
Title: Title: providing property tax relief
for taxpayers for the property tax year beginning April 1, 2016.
Summary: This bill would reduce assessments
for educational taxes for one year by 140 million dollars. The
funds would be taken from the tobacco settlement fund.
Property Owner Position: For
Link to Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H28
Email to Committee:
Subject: HB623
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0623.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
Reducing our property taxes for one year in
the short term would be nice & any form of tax relief is long
overdue. Longer term tax relief will encourage investment in this
state.
However, not knowing enough about the state’s
finances, or if there are other plans for the tobacco settlement funds, such as
funding medical expenses for smokers who become ill and cannot pay these bills,
it is impossible to make a judgment if this bill is a good idea.
This additional revenue should be returned to
property owners who bare the burden of education funding.
Not having dug deep into the details we will
be For what seems to be the intent of the bill.
=====================
HB180, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Clarify
“Contractual” Transfer
02/17/2015 at 10:00 AM LOB
202
Title: Title: relative to the definition of
"price or consideration" under the real estate transfer tax.
Summary: This bill attempts to clarify a
“contractual” transfer of Real Estate.
Property Owner Position: For
Link to Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H28
Email to Committee:
Subject: HB180
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0180.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
This bill, if enacted, would marginally
clarify what is price or consideration to base the amount of tax to be paid in
real estate transactions. Currently, non-contractual transfers,
which basically are gifts, are not taxed. The bill would add to
the definition of price and consideration, which the amount of the taxes to be
paid are based upon, the words “in a contractual transfer.” The bill is merely
housekeeping, and does not change anything.
This bill will help the banks when they take
a deed in lieu of foreclosure. They won’t have to pay the transfer stamps. This
would be a good bill to amend transferring a property in to another entity for
estate planning/asset protection. Not having to pay transfer stamps if it is
still done for the above reasons.
See if we could amend the bill to help with
transfer of property into LLC, LP…
=====================
HB533, Arc Fault Circuit-Interrupter Not
Required
02/17/2015 at 01:00 PM LOB
306
Title: Title: relative to arc-fault
circuit-breaker protection in residential construction.
Summary:
The 4 state building code review board shall not adopt or enforce any rule
requiring the installation of arc- 5 fault circuit-interrupter
protection.
Property Owner Position: You
Decide
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: HB533
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0533.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
We hear there is some debate on their
effectiveness & there is potential for false tripping.
=====================
SB135, 2015 Lead Law Changes
02/17/2015 at 01:00 PM LOB
101
Title: Title: relative to lead poisoning in
children.
Summary: This is a very large bill effective
many different sections all with the intent to reduce childhood lead
poisoning. There has been stake holder meetings for several months
with some landlord representation resulting in this legislation.
The stake holders continue to meet regularly. We’re sure
that there will be continued push and more lead legislation for a long time
coming. We are mostly for or are neutral on this
bill.
The
Conservation Law Foundation, CLF, specifically, Tom Irwin, has specifically been
at the forefront of pulling together the interested parties hearing all sides
and working with all stakeholders to draft this language. Tom has
worked well with us to hear and incorporate our input.
The bill is large, references many RSAs by
number, and is divided into 14 sections. Therefore for clarity in
understanding the bill our analysis will walk you through the bill in order
section by section.
Property Owner Position: Mostly For, Some
Against, Some Neutral, Changes recommended
Link to Committee Info:
Email to Committee:
To:
Subject: SB135
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/SB0135.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
Section 1: Laboratory
Reporting
Property Owner Position: Neutral
This section relates to having DHHS,
Department of Health & Human Services track and report screening
rates. That is how many children are being screened (asked
questions) and or tested each year. The screening rates have
always been way below long established state guidelines.
Landlords stand aside on the issue of
screening so we have no position on this section.
Section 2: Child Lead
Screening
Property Owner Position: Neutral
This section stresses health care providers
are responsible for screening for lead and to follow state guidelines.
If they don’t meet the guidelines by 2017 then DHHS will adopt rules to
require them to do so.
Landlords stand aside on the issue of
screening so we have no position on this section.
Section 3: Property Owner
Notification of Elevated BLL
Property Owner Position: For
This section is quite good for us in that
when we are notified of low levels of lead we can work with the tenant family
and be proactive at taking all precautions to eliminate the poisoning in a
common sense way before it escalates to higher levels which will more greatly
harm the child and trigger a lead abatement order. Many times the
tenant family and the landlord can work together in a common sense way before an
order is triggered and solve the issue easily before the extreme expense of an
order is triggered.
There has been a request for DHHS to notify
property owners and parents at ANY level. The thinking which we
agree with is that the earlier everyone is notified the sooner everyone can take
measures to be sure the child’s BLL does not rise and only goes down from
here. DHHS wants to be able to give notice at any level but their
old software system and some test methods are not as reliable when readings are
<5ug actually="" an="" behind="" but="" data="" dl="" does="" get="" have="" it.="" like="" not="" number="" says="" simply="" something="" span="" the="" they="" where=""> They are working towards a
software change to update their systems and be able to accurately give notice at
lower levels. We say why not just create a simple modern
spreadsheet to hold the data. Almost anyone could do that in an
hour’s time.
Because capillary testing at low levels is
less reliable and because of the data complications expressed in the above
paragraph, there is language like “the data is deemed reliable by the
department”. When their systems are updated in the future this
language allow them to report lower numbers with out having to make yet another
change in the state law.
All landlords we have spoken to are for this
section.
Section 4: Parent Notification
of Elevated BLL
Property Owner Position: For
This section is quite good for us as well in
that when parents are notified of low levels of lead they will usually become
proactive at taking all precautions to eliminate the poisoning before it
escalates to higher levels which will more greatly harm the child and trigger a
lead abatement order. Many times the tenant family and the
landlord can work together in a common sense way before an order is triggered
and solve the issue easily before the extreme expense of an order is triggered.
(Similar notes as section 3
above).
All landlords we have spoken to are for this
section.
Section 5: Civil
Suits
Property Owner Position: Against
The bill
also would amend RSA 130-A:18 by creating a statutory duty of landlords and
child care facilities to take reasonable care to prevent exposure to, and the
creation of lead hazards. In addition it would make the actions or
inactions of landlords and child care facilities of compliance with laws and
regulations regarding lead admissible as evidence in a civil lawsuit, presumably
seeking damages for injuries as a result of lead exposure. It
would also make admissible evidence of a tenant disturbing lead paint
admissible.
I think that we should oppose this section at
this time. The study committee this bill proposes is charged with
developing programs of reasonable care in maintaining housing and child care
facilities regarding lead. Until that committee finishes its work let’s not
change the rules of evidence.
The bill also does not address subsequent
repairs. New Hampshire generally does allow into evidence
subsequent repairs to prevent further injuries as proof of nonnegligence. The
reason for this is not to discourage these repairs. The language
of the bill does not address this doctrine.
Section 6: Lead Screening
Commission & Essential Maintenance Practices Task Force
Lead Screening Commission
Property Owner Position: Neutral
Essential Maintenance Practices Task
Force
Property Owner Position: Most For, some
Against
Basically, the committee would set up a
standard of care to be followed by all owners of such property. The committee is
to study similar programs in other states, Vermont is the primary example, work
with public health officials in formulating such a program, and look into
incentives for compliance. 14 people are to be appointed to the committee from
various occupations related to public health and rental housing.
The fundamental idea here if such a program would be put
in place is likely that rental property owners would need to submit an annual
report stating that they have inspected the rental property and fixed any lead
hazards using lead safe techniques. Also there could easily be a
program requiring old leaded windows not yet replaced to at least be fitted with
a system of simple vinyl strips and window will inserts to eliminate the
friction surfaces of the leaded portion of the windows.
In exchange for this standard of care the
property owner would receive a reduction in liability in lead law suits.
At the stake holders meetings, an attorney representing interest of trial
lawyers said the legal protection for landlords will be killed by the trial
lawyers. So the “carrot” portion of this proposal definitely needs
substantial work.
At one of our landlord meetings it was
suggested that to get a limit in liability landlords should just keep a
maintenance log and that the landlord’s property maintenance log
be admissible evidence in defending landlord liability. This idea eliminates the
beauracracy and still give us possibility of some protection.
Also what if tenant denies us access to make
repairs. Law should state that tenant has to give landlord access, similar to
bedbug provision.
Some background:
I have been partially involved with the lead
stake holders meetings that resulted in this legislation. Most of
the stake holders wanted to simply put an Essential Maintenance Program in place
with this bill. My strong comment to them was that more time was
needed to analyze and come up with a plan that landlords could agree
with. They decided to take my advice and create a task force
instead. Most but not 100% of the landlords I speak with are in
favor of this section because it will give landlord’s voice in the process &
more time in designing the Essential Maintenances Program. Forcing
in place a program that was not well thought out could have been very
detrimental to landlords.
However, we recommend several modifications
to the proposal in this bill.
Most importantly, like many study
commissions, the proposed membership is extremely biased against
landords.
We would like to see way more landlord
membership from “small, medium, large” landlords. One
recommendation came in suggesting 1/3 of the commission be landlord
representation. We are suggesting having 7 landlord
members.
For ease of definition small could be <=10
units, medium >=25 units, large >=50 units.
Child care member should be from a property
pre1978.
In home day care should be included from a
property pre1978.
Since there most likely will be a proposed
essential maintenance practices program coming from the committee that may
become law, we should have some way to review the proposal and have input on it
before the committee makes its final recommendation to the legislature.
We ask that the meeting minutes and proposed essential practices be
posted on a website of the general court & the general public be allowed to
make written comments to the committee and such comments be
reviewed by the committee before it makes any recommendations to the
legislature.
We also recommend that a minority report
option be made available for the final report.
Section 7: Child Care
License/Permit Suspension, Revocation, Denial
Property Owner Position: Neutral
Section 8: Child Care
License/Permit Suspension, Revocation, Denial
Property Owner Position: Neutral
Note: Sections 9, 10, 11 for a connected
group all about prohibited practices and remedies.
Section 9: Add Complying with
Public Health Laws and Regulations Concerning Lead to Property Owner Prohibited
Acts
Property Owner Position: Mixed some, for some
against, Read notes on section 9, 10, 11 as a connected
group.
Simply adds that property owners must comply
with applicable public health laws and regulations concerning lead
Section 10: RSA 540A Remedies
Property Owner Position: Mixed some, for some
against, Read notes on section 9, 10, 11 as a connected
group.
Allow court order and financial penalty for
all prohibited acts.
Note in existing law court orders forcing
compliance and financial penalty only apply to
RSA 540-A:3, I, II, or III
I No landlord shall willfully interrupt
utilities
II No landlord shall willfully deny tenant
access to tenant’s premises
III No landlord shall willfully deny tenant
access to tenant’s property
With the change in this bill court orders
forcing compliance and financial penalty would also apply to
IV. No landlord shall willfully enter into
the premises of the tenant without prior consent, other than to make emergency
repairs.
V. No tenant shall willfully refuse the
landlord access to the premises to make necessary repairs…
V-a. No landlord shall willfully fail to
investigate a tenant's report of an infestation of insects, including bed
bugs…
V-b. No tenant shall willfully refuse the
landlord access to the premises to:
(a) Make emergency
repairs as authorized in paragraphs IV and IV-a of this section;
and
(b) Evaluate whether
bedbugs are present…
V-c. No tenant shall willfully refuse to
comply with reasonable written instructions from a landlord or pest control
operator to prepare the dwelling unit for remediation of an infestation of
insects or rodents, including bed bugs…
V-d. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this chapter, a landlord may only enter a tenant's dwelling unit without the
consent of the tenant:
(a) To make emergency
repairs pursuant to paragraphs IV and IV-a; or
(b) If the landlord has
obtained an order authorizing the entry…
VI. No tenant shall willfully damage the
property of the landlord.
VII.
Other than residential real estate under RSA 540-B, a landlord shall maintain
and exercise reasonable care in the storage of the personal property of a tenant
who has vacated the premises…
Section 11: RSA 540A
Remedies
Property Owner Position: Mixed some, for some
against, Read notes on section 9, 10, 11 as a connected
group.
Add exemption to “$1000/day fine” for
property owner not complying with “applicable public health laws and regulations
concerning lead”.
So in final analysis of Section 9, 10,
11. It adds that property owners must comply with applicable
public health laws and regulations concerning lead.
In existing law only some prohibited acts of
property owners are subject to court order and fines. This bill
would change it so that all prohibited acts of landlords AND tenants would be
subject to court order and fines except complying with applicable public health
laws and regulations concerning lead.
The law and regulations regarding lead are
complicated and will only be more complicated. Any tenant who thinks he or she
knows the law can file a petition, many will be without merit. This may be done
by a tenant to establish a retaliatory eviction defense. This will
be time consuming for a landlord, and costly depending upon the situation.
Unlike an unlawful entry where there is no other place a tenant can quickly turn
for relief, with health laws there is the local building inspector and the
department of health and human services. Lead mediation can be far
more complicated that stopping unlawful entries, or remediating bedbugs. I
suggest we oppose this section.
Although section 9, 10, 11 give the ability
to court order and fine tenants for violating a prohibited act some of us feel
the intent here is better handled by present building & health departments
rather than opening up another avenue for tenants to file a retaliatory eviction
defense.
Section 12: Building Permits To
Require RRP If Applicable
Property Owner Position: Mixed some, for some
against,
This section essentially says that before a
building permit is granted the contractor doing the work must either certify
that no lead will be disturbed or chow that the contractor is up to date with
RRP (lead safe work practice) certifications.
An owner doing their own work would simply be
given information on lead.
Section 13: Repeal
Essential Maintenance Practices Task Force on Completion
The EMP Task force would need to be comlete
by 11/1/15.
Section 14: Effective Dates For
Different Sections
=====================
HB613, Right To Know Law
Exemptions
02/19/2015 at 10:45 AM LOB
208
Title: Title: relative to governmental
records exempted under the right-to-know law.
Summary: Exemptions to include names and
addresses contained in license applications.
Property Owner Position: You
Decide
Link to Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10
Email to Committee:
To:
HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB613
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0613.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
Appears to clarify current
exemptions.
Some of us are for this bill.
=====================
HB531, Short-Term Rentals Study
Committee
02/19/2015 at 11:00 AM LOB
302
Title: Title: establishing a committee to
study short-term rentals by homeowners and owners of residential
properties.
Summary: 1. Seek to establish a committee to
study and make recommendations regarding short-term (vacation) rentals by
homeowners.
2.
Evaluate the effect this will have on the traditional lodging
market.
Property Owner Position: Varied, some For,
some Against, some Neutral
Link to Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H43
Email to Committee:
To:
~HouseCommerceAndConsumerAffairs@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB531
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0531.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
Short term rentals are not defined in the
bill, nor is it clear what types of properties, or the types of rentals the
committee is supposed to study. Are rooms in a house rented out as a Bed and
Breakfast subject to this study? See Airbnb.com. Or
are single family residences rented out for a month at a time or less subject to
this study.
Homeowners have been renting short-term,
vacation properties long before hotel chains and vacation resorts came on scene.
We don't believe this market is so saturated with homeowner rentals to create a
problem. It is this level of competition that creates benefit for the
consumer.
=====================
HB544, Eminent Domain by
Utilities
02/19/2015 at 01:15 PM LOB
304
Title: Title: allowing the general court to
deny a utility the use of the power of eminent domain.
Summary: The bill would deny a utility, as
defined in RSA-362, the powers of eminent domain unless the proposed taking was
presented to the legislature (General Court) and the legislature did not ban the
taking.
Property Owner Position: Some For, Some You
Decide
Link to Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H24
Email to Committee:
To:
~HouseScienceTechnologyandEnergy@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB544
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0544.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
Some of us are for this bill because it
protects property rights.
We feel that property owners should not loose
land or rights through eminent domain without a full restitution (including
appraisals & atty's fees) and careful research on the merits and benefits of
the acquisition.
=====================
HB636, Forfeiture Of Property
02/19/2015 at 01:30 PM LOB
208
Title: Title: relative to forfeiture of
property.
Summary: This bill would revise the New
Hampshire forfeiture laws – the laws that allows the state to take property that
is contraband, property obtained due to a commission of a crime, and
instrumentalities a person used in the commission of the crime.
Property Owner Position: Against
Link to Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10
Email to Committee:
To:
HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB636
Link to Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0636.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
The state will have the right to seize
property that it believes was used in the commission of a crime.
Prosecutors only have to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the property is related to the crime, therefore subject to
forfeiture.
Law enforcement has a profit motive to pursue
forfeitures.
Once
property is taken, the burden lies on the innocent owner to defend against the
forfeiture.
=====================
HB680,
Homestead Exemption
02/20/2015 at 11:00 AM LOB
202
Title:
Title: relative to establishing the rate for and the collection of the education
property tax and establishing a homestead exemption from the education property
tax.
Summary:
Not analyzed yet
Property
Owner Position: Not analyzed. Believed to be Limited Impact.
Link to
Committee Info:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H28
Email to
Committee:
Subject:
HB680
Link to
Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0680.html
Analysis
Stated in Bill:
Talking
Points:
Not
analyzed yet
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.