By Margaret ML Byrnes

With multiple polls showing housing as the top issue in New Hampshire by a wide margin, it’s no shock that the current legislative session is awash with proposals ostensibly aimed at addressing the state’s housing crisis. These bills are framed as attempts to tackle the growing shortage of affordable housing and foster development, which sounds like a no-lose proposition. But take a step back and you’ll notice that most of these proposals are sweeping, one-size-fits-all statewide planning and zoning mandates.

Regardless of how well-intentioned these proposals may be, they disregard and disenfranchise the decisions made by you, the voter.

They are also contradictory to recent efforts by the legislature to create a partnership between local governments and the state to address housing through well-considered programs like Housing Champions and InvestNH, which are still only a few years old.

Consider, for example, the recently signed HB 399. This bill establishes a commission to study the 100-year-old New Hampshire Zoning Enabling Act, with the aim of evaluating its relevance and effectiveness, assessing current regulations, and exploring legislative alternatives. On paper, this sounds like a logical and productive approach. But here’s the rub: wouldn’t it make more sense to allow this commission to conduct a thorough, thoughtful review of zoning issues outside the constraints of the legislative session, rather than rushing through dozens of mandates now and hoping they work out?

The planning and zoning mandates under consideration this year are so numerous and intricate that keeping track of them requires a scorecard. While they are promoted as urgent and necessary responses to housing shortages and affordability concerns, these proposals fundamentally shift control away from municipal authorities—and local voters. Because nearly all these bills carry no cost to the state, they enjoy bipartisan support and often end up on the House or Senate consent calendars, meaning there is no actual debate on the merits or drawbacks of these bills beyond the initial committee public hearings. It is also worth noting that none of these zoning mandates actually incentivize or encourage the building of affordable housing.

We do not believe most New Hampshire voters appreciate the extent to which their ability to shape their communities is being stripped away—often with zero debate.

Should these new mandates move forward, municipalities, taxpayers, and developers alike could find themselves mired in legal battles. The ambiguity and impracticality of some proposals raise legitimate concerns about how they would be interpreted and implemented on the local level; technical defects in the bills are being raised but are rarely addressed before they are passed. Instead of fostering development, this throw-it-up-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach risks stalling projects, increasing costs, and placing undue strain on municipal services and infrastructure.

In addition, focusing primarily on zoning and planning oversimplifies the issue of housing affordability. The lack of affordable housing is the result of a complex web of economic factors—low inventory, rising home prices and rents, higher interest rates, escalating costs for building materials, and shortages and cost increases for labor—many of which cannot be effectively addressed through legislation. Ignoring these broader economic dynamics—which are not unique to New Hampshire—in favor of centralized zoning solutions is a disservice to the very constituencies these bills purport to help. Testifying on an unrelated bill about extending public water infrastructure in the southern tier last month, one senator said the quiet part out loud: “Simply saying ‘let’s build more and change zoning’ will not solve the housing crisis without the necessary municipal services of water, sewer, and electricity.”

On that note, no new funding for the state’s mandated share of State Aid Grants (SAG) for local wastewater projects is included in the proposed state budget. In fact, because a budget is a statement of priorities, housing should be a focal point of the state budget. Instead, the current budget proposal provides no new funding for Housing Champions and InvestNH; zero state funding for regional planning commissions, which will be needed more than ever if these zoning mandates are passed; and repeal of the Housing Appeals Board, a major priority of housing advocates several years ago.

Lawmakers already enacted several housing-related bills in 2024 including an omnibus bill that created tax incentives for converting office spaces into residential or mixed-use buildings, made it easier for municipal authorities to amend zoning regulations outside of the annual meeting/election cycle, and limited required parking spaces for certain residential units. Further, under existing zoning laws, New Hampshire is already making strides in housing development. According to the Department of Business and Economic Affairs, nearly 20,000 housing units were added between 2020 and 2024, with an additional 5,000 more expected by the end of this year. These figures highlight that progress is being made without sweeping, statewide zoning mandates.

At this point, if not sooner, legislative proponents of these mandates will jump in and play the NIMBY card, blaming municipal intransigence and “snob zoning” for the current situation. For a reality check, check out these recently released case studies from New Hampshire Housing (https://www.nhhfa.org) highlighting how 11 Granite State communities leveraged housing opportunity grants to address challenges through community-driven planning, zoning reforms, and innovative housing solutions. According to the report, these solutions “demonstrate the power of community-driven solutions in tackling housing challenges statewide.”

Rushed, ill-defined and repetitive legislation that strips away local control will not only fail to achieve its objectives but also leave municipalities and developers grappling with unnecessary litigation and confusion. This is not the pathway to meaningful, lasting solutions.

New Hampshire’s municipalities are as diverse as its landscapes. From bustling cities to small, rural towns, each community has its own set of challenges, priorities, and capacities. Asking all municipalities to adhere to a uniform set of zoning mandates disregards these differences and undermines the autonomy that has long been a cornerstone of local governance in our state.

The importance of addressing housing shortages is undeniable, but urgency must not come at the expense of thoughtful policymaking and responsible, sustainable growth. In the end, zoning and planning are not merely technical exercises—they are reflections of the values and visions of the communities they serve. Disregarding the voices of local voters in favor of centralized, one-size-fits-all mandates is a step down a dangerous path that ends with New Hampshire becoming Massachusetts North.

With the halfway point of the legislative session upon us, time is running out for New Hampshire residents to speak up if they don’t agree with the policies moving quickly through the legislature.

Margaret ML Byrnes is the executive director of the New Hampshire Municipal Association, a member-governed organization representing the interests of all 234 towns and cities in the state.