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 1707-FN (as introduced), which creates an additional property tax on certain “unoccupied” properties (including those used as short-term rentals for much of the year) and also creates a transfer tax exemption for certain low- and moderate-income buyers. This bill is fundamentally unfair and amounts to double taxation At its core, this bill is a fairness problem. New Hampshire already taxes property based on assessed value through local property taxes. HB 1707 goes beyond that by requiring an owner who meets its criteria to pay the Department of Revenue Administration an amount equal to the total of all property taxes, fees, and interest owed on the same property. In practical terms, that functions like a second full property tax bill. Double taxation, based not on the cost of public services generated by the property, but on an occupancy definition and the property’s use. That is not a neutral policy. It singles out a class of property owners because they are politically easier to target, and it punishes people who already pay substantial taxes and contribute to local communities. In towns like mine and similar towns, this bill will harm the local economy and working people This bill is especially damaging in towns like mine and similar towns—places where the economy relies heavily on tourism and seasonal activity. HB 1707 doesn’t just target “vacant homes.” It explicitly applies when a property “is occupied as a short-term rental for at least 6 months of the tax year.” That means it targets a major piece of the lodging supply that supports the visitor economy in communities like Moultonborough, the Lakes Region, and many other seasonal towns across New Hampshire. If homeowners are forced to sell because they cannot absorb what is essentially a second full property tax bill, or if they stop operating short-term rentals because the penalty is too high, there will be fewer places for tourists to stay. And if tourists don’t have a place to stay, they will go somewhere else. That means fewer customers for local restaurants, shops, marinas, ski areas, and attractions, and fewer local jobs supported by that spending. But this doesn’t stop with tourism-related businesses. In towns like mine, these properties also support an entire network of year-round local work. When owners maintain, renovate, and improve these homes, it creates steady income for local trades and service providers: • 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, cleaners, snow plow operators, handymen, and property managers who keep homes safe and usable • Local hardware stores and supply yards that depend on upkeep and improvement activity These aren’t abstract impacts. They are real paychecks in towns like mine. If policy drives forced sales, reduced maintenance, fewer renovations, or fewer visitors, that ripple effect reduces local incomes, shrinks small-business revenue, and weakens the long-term stability of these communities. The enforcement and administrative burden is costly and counterproductive HB 1707 also expands government complexity and enforcement. Creating new definitions, compliance systems, and enforcement mechanisms will cost money and time. That is counterproductive. The government already spends enormous amounts of money every year, yet housing prices continue to rise. There is no way to “spend our way out” of affordability by building new tax regimes and new enforcement structures, especially when those policies risk shrinking local economies in the process. Housing affordability is real, but it is driven by supply constraints, permitting timelines, zoning, infrastructure capacity, labor costs, interest rates, and demand. This bill does not address those drivers. Instead, it punishes property owners, threatens tourism markets in towns like mine, and risks harming working residents who depend on visitor spending and property investment. Transfer tax exemption does not justify a punitive new property tax HB 1707 also creates a real estate transfer tax exemption for certain low- and moderate-income homebuyers under specific conditions. I understand the intent to help buyers, but that does not justify imposing a sweeping, punitive double-tax structure on other property owners, especially one that risks economic damage in tourism-dependent communities. For these reasons, I urge the committee to find HB 1707-FN Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). Respectfully submitted, Steve Lagana Derry and Moultonborough, NH 603-913-3157