Erica Gilbert

Subject: Opposition to House Bill 348 Hey Representatives, I’m reaching out to voice my strong opposition to House Bill 348, which would let towns enforce a residency requirement of up to 90 days for people looking for local welfare assistance. This bill is a real threat to those vulnerable individuals and families who need help right away, and it goes against New Hampshire's tradition of community care and compassion. The proposed residency rule creates unnecessary hurdles for people who are already in tough situations. Many folks turn to local welfare programs when they have nowhere else to turn, like when escaping domestic violence, dealing with housing issues, or facing sudden financial crises. A 90-day wait would only delay their access to vital resources, forcing them to endure longer periods of instability and hardship. This policy would hit the most vulnerable in our society the hardest, including the elderly, those on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, survivors of abuse, and those displaced by disasters like house fires. Plus, it could harm public health and safety by leaving more people without access to basic needs like shelter, food, and medical care. We need to remember that local welfare assistance is meant to be a safety net during urgent times. Adding these restrictive residency requirements not only goes against the purpose of these programs but also risks pushing the burden onto nonprofits, hospitals, and other already-overwhelmed resources in our communities. Instead of putting up barriers to essential services, I urge you to think about ways to strengthen support systems and tackle the root causes of poverty and displacement. Making sure local welfare programs are accessible to everyone who needs them, no matter how long they’ve lived in a community, is the way to go.