Stephen Lagana

To the Chair and Members of the House Ways and Means Committee: My name is Steve Lagana, and I am a resident, a taxpayer and a property owner in Moultonborough and Derry New Hampshire. I am writing to respectfully oppose HB 1580-FN-LOCAL, which would impose an annual 0.75% surcharge on certain residential properties that are not classified as an owner’s principal place of abode. At its core, this bill is a fairness problem. New Hampshire already taxes property based on assessed value. HB 1580 adds an additional, selective layer of taxation based not on the cost of public services generated by a property, but on whether the owner lives there most of the year. That is not a neutral tax policy, it is a targeted surcharge that treats one class of taxpayers as more acceptable simply because they are fewer in number and politically easier to single out. Just as importantly, the rationale is flawed. Many second-home owners and seasonal property owners do not place the same demands on local public schools as year-round households. Yet the bill explicitly directs revenue toward broad municipal purposes, including schools. That forces a subset of property owners to subsidize costs they do not drive, above and beyond the already substantial property taxes they pay. That is not equitable. This bill also discourages young people like me to revitalize towns that are in desperate need of it. I personally work 50-60 hours a week and I have put blood sweat and countless hours into my houses that most wouldn’t even think was possible. This is another example of government punishing the people who sacrifice so much to get ahead of the people who simply don’t want to put in the work. This bill is also likely to create unintended economic harm, especially in communities that rely heavily on tourism. In many New Hampshire towns, non-primary residences and short-term rentals are a major part of the lodging supply. If homeowners are pressured by punitive taxes and uncertainty into selling, or if fewer homes are made available for visitors, there will simply be fewer places for tourists to stay. And if tourists cannot stay in a community, many of them will not come at all. A reduction in visitor stays doesn’t only affect “the tourism industry.” It hits the entire local economic ecosystem. It means less business for restaurants, shops, ski areas, marinas, and attractions, but it also means fewer jobs and less steady income for the many local workers and companies that support these properties year-round: • Plumbers, electricians, and HVAC contractors who service seasonal systems and emergencies • Carpenters, painters, roofers, and general contractors who renovate and maintain older housing stock • Landscapers, snow plow operators, cleaners, property managers, and handymen who keep homes safe and usable • Local hardware stores and supply yards that depend on maintenance and improvement activity These aren’t abstract impacts. They are real dollars and real paychecks in New Hampshire towns. If policy drives forced sales, reduced maintenance, or fewer visitors, that ripple effect can reduce local incomes, shrink small-business revenue, and ultimately weaken municipal finances over time. Finally, HB 1580 moves New Hampshire in the wrong direction by expanding government bureaucracy and enforcement. The bill contemplates annual certifications, registries, verification measures (including records and utility-related evidence), and penalties—creating new administrative cost and complexity at the local and state level. That is counterproductive. We already know that simply spending more government money or building more enforcement mechanisms does not “solve” housing affordability by itself. Housing prices have continued to rise despite many layers of government programs and spending, because affordability is driven by supply constraints, zoning, permitting timelines, infrastructure capacity, labor costs, interest rates, and market demand. There is no realistic path to “spending our way out” of this by creating another tax category and another enforcement regime—especially one that risks shrinking local economies in the process. Housing affordability is a real issue, but HB 1580 addresses it in the most unfair and least effective way: by punishing a narrow group of taxpayers, creating new administrative burdens, and risking economic damage in the very communities that depend on visitor spending and second-home investment. For these reasons, I urge the committee to find HB 1580-FN-LOCAL Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). Respectfully submitted, Steve Lagana Derry and Moultonborough, NH 603-913-3157