georgina lambert

Testimony in Opposition to HB 1580 Honorable Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, I am here to express my opposition to House Bill 1580, which seeks to impose a 0.75% surcharge on non-primary residences. While the intent may be to generate revenue for municipal services, this bill has significant adverse implications that threaten to deepen existing inequities within our communities. 1. Economic Burden on Vulnerable Communities The proposal to tax non-primary residences disproportionately impacts those who may already be struggling economically. Many individuals are currently facing housing insecurity and rising costs, and introducing a new tax could serve as another financial burden. Adverse Underpinnings: The surcharge affects properties valued at over $500,000, potentially targeting second homes or investment properties. Many working-class individuals or families may own these homes as a means to secure their financial future, and additional taxation could hinder their ability to maintain these developments. 2. Potential Impact on Affordable Housing The bill's focus on taxing investment properties may have unintended consequences on the local rental market. Property owners may raise rent to offset costs, leading to less affordable housing options for tenants. Who Benefits: Local municipalities may benefit from increased taxation revenues, potentially funding essential services like education and infrastructure. This revenue, however, is contingent upon effective monitoring and equitable distribution, which is often lacking. Who Does Not Benefit: Low-income renters and families, who may experience rental increases or become displaced from their homes as a direct consequence of this surcharge, will likely face the brunt of the economic pressures resulting from this legislation. 3. Complexity and Administrative Burdens The bill places an administrative burden on local municipalities, which may lack the necessary resources to manage new tax classifications and exceptions effectively. Ineffective Oversight: The requirement for local governments to maintain registries of non-primary residences and process appeals will divert time and resources away from addressing broader community needs. The additional administrative requirement could lead to inefficiencies and frustrations, particularly in smaller towns with limited staff. 4. Equity and Access Considerations While intended to generate comparable funding across New Hampshire, the bill fails to consider the unique circumstances and needs of various communities. Intersectional Impacts: Communities of color and low-income populations, who may not have the financial flexibility that comes with owning multiple homes, could be further marginalized under this tax structure. Meanwhile, affluent individuals with the means to afford such properties can bear the cost more easily. Conclusion In conclusion, House Bill 1580 has the potential to exacerbate existing inequities within New Hampshire's housing market by introducing a burden on economically vulnerable groups. While seeking to bolster municipal revenues, we must consider the broader implications for community well-being and ensure that policies do not inadvertently harm those they aim to serve. I urge you to reconsider the ramifications outlined in this testimony and to focus on more equitable funding mechanisms that protect vulnerable populations rather than impose additional burdens upon them. Thank you for your time and attention.