New Hampshire
House kills ‘HOMEnibus bill,’ voting against attempt to incentivize housing • New Hampshire Bulletin
The New Hampshire House voted down a bipartisan bill meant to make it easier to build housing in the state, in a 188-173 vote last week that kills the legislation for the year.
Proponents of Senate Bill 538, known as the “HOMEnibus,” argued it would help dislodge barriers to housing development and give cities and towns new tools to increase housing units.
“The Municipal and County Government Committee heard much testimony that New Hampshire has a severe housing crisis,” wrote Rep. David Preece, a Manchester Democrat, in a report to the House ahead of the vote. “It is affecting businesses, the economy, and our labor market because of the lack of housing and affordability. This bill enables local governing boards to use another tool to address the housing shortage in their communities.”
The latest version of the bill allowed cities and towns to create “office conversion zones,” within which developers could get property tax breaks to convert commercial real estate buildings into residential housing. It also allowed towns and cities to speed up changes to the zoning code: The bill allowed residents to empower their local councils or boards of selectmen to pass new zoning codes; currently zoning codes may be changed only once a year at town meeting. That empowerment of local officials would need to be approved by the town via a warrant article.
And the bill would require that town and city planning boards consider alternative parking options when deciding whether to approve or deny a new housing development. That would allow developers to propose housing projects that don’t include new parking lots for residents but utilize existing public or private lots; the bill would require the planning board to seriously consider those proposals.
The bill passed the Senate unanimously. But a group of 170 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted to kill the bill in the House Thursday. Voting against that motion were 165 Democrats and seven Republicans.
To housing advocates, the bill would have helped interested towns incentivize housing development and speed up the process, at a time when many businesses are struggling to find workers due to low housing availability.
Housing prices and rents are at record highs, and the state’s rental vacancy rate is below 1 percent, a number that housing experts say is far below the recommended rate of 5 percent. And homelessness in the state increased by 30 percent from 2020 to 2022, according to the state’s annual point in time count and the latest report from the New Hampshire Coalition to End Homelessness.
“A few simple adjustments to our zoning and planning procedures would encourage a modest increase in this desperately needed supply,” said Rep. Laurel Stavis, a Lebanon Democrat.
But opponents took issue with each of the bill’s parts. Rep. Len Turcotte, a Barrington Republican and chairman of the Municipal and County Government Committee, argued that the Legislature should not allow towns to give property tax breaks for housing, because doing so could just raise property taxes for other businesses and homeowners in town. Turcotte argued the bill could allow town officials to give unfair tax favors to favored developers.
Turcotte also opposed empowering local government officials to make changes to zoning codes without town meeting approval. In a report to the full House, Turcotte wrote: “The ability to change the municipality’s zoning on very short notice without time for the citizenry to consider and vote on the proposed changes is anathema to good governance.”
And he and others opposed the part of the bill requiring local boards to consider alternative parking solutions, noting that it “would actually require zero parking to be part of any development proposal,” which he said could lead to parking congestion in towns.
Rep. Diane Power, a Brookline Republican, said the office conversion zones could have the effect of forcing businesses to move out if their landlords decided to convert their office buildings to apartments instead.
“This bill is extremely ill-advised as it displaces business tenants, making them homeless when business space is converted to residential use,” she said.
The nearly party-line vote was a blow to efforts by housing advocates to create a bipartisan coalition to pass zoning reform.
The Republicans joining Democrats to vote against killing the bill included Reps. Joe Alexander, of Goffstown; Keith Ammon, of New Boston; Ross Berry, of Manchester; Jim Kofalt, of Wilton; Tom Mannion, of Pelham; Fred Plett, of Goffstown; and Joe Sweeney of Salem.
But nearly twice as many Democrats broke from their party to kill the bill, including Reps. Peggy Balboni, of Rye; Karen Calabro, of Hollis; Mike Edgar, of Hampton; Sallie Fellows, of Holderness; Julie Gilman, of Exeter; Jeffrey Goley, of Manchester; Jaci Grote, of Rye; Cathryn Harvey, of Chesterfield; Jim Maggiore, of North Hampton; Kat McGhee, of Hollis; Nancy Murphy, of Merrimack; Catherine Rombeau, of Bedford; Rosemarie Rung, of Merrimack; Dianne Schuett, of Pembroke; Carry Spier, of Nashua; Charlie St. Clair, of Laconia; Mark Vallone, of Epping; and Jonah Wheeler, of Peterborough.
Housing advocates expressed disappointment after the vote.
“It’s hard to fathom that the House voted down the HOMEnibus bill in the midst of New Hampshire’s housing crisis,” said Elissa Margolin, director of Housing Action NH, an advocacy group. “However, housing advocates must remain energized, expand our coalitions, and continue to educate policy makers.”
The move to kill the bill was recommended by the Municipal and County Government Committee, which has often voted in recent years against housing bills that are seen to take away local control. But the vote also came as political leaders in both parties have emphasized the need for more housing.
In early 2023, Speaker Sherman Packard formed the House Special Committee on Housing, which was tasked with exploring legislation that might help the state close its housing deficit. That committee has endorsed a number of bills that have passed the full House this year, including House Bill 1291, which would allow homeowners to build two accessory dwelling units by right, up from the current one.
HB 1291 is currently in the Senate Commerce Committee; a public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday. But SB 538 was seen by observers as the most comprehensive approach to zoning.
Speaking from the floor, Alexander, the chairman of the House Special Committee, expressed frustration at the lack of support for the bill.
“I’m not shocked that the Municipal and County Government Committee would recommend killing another bill related to housing,” he said. “Mr. Speaker, did you create a special committee for that very reason? Only time will tell.”
Despite strong support from Gov. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire lawmakers rejected a bill that would have required private insurers to cover a state-run mental health program for children.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to send Senate Bill 498 to interim study, delaying action on legislation that would have required private insurers to help fund the state’s Families and Systems Together (FAST) Forward program.
It’s a wraparound care model that provides personalized services such as peer support, crisis planning, and family-focused care for patients aged 5 to 21.
Ayotte, in a statement, said she is disappointed to see “elected representatives choose subsidizing insurance companies over kids’ mental health care.”
“I’m not giving up on this, and I’ll continue working to ensure our children — and their families — get the care and support they need,” she said.
The decision leaves the state and taxpayers on the hook to cover roughly $2 million annually for commercially insured children who rely on the program but do not qualify for Medicaid.
After the House voted down the bill, John Hunt, the chair of the House commerce committee, said Republicans agree with Ayotte that children’s mental health coverage is a serious issue, but said the bill is not the right solution and should not be addressed through a “hasty, last-second Hail Mary.”
“We look forward to studying this issue and devising a sensible and measured approach that satisfies all parties and prioritizes patient care and quality,” he wrote in a statement. “I warmly invite Governor Ayotte to join us this fall as we work on the issue. Together, Republicans, Democrats and the corner office have the opportunity to come together and deliver a reasonable solution for the people of New Hampshire.”
The bill was sent to an interim study in a 188-164 vote.
Insurers push back
The FAST Forward program coordinates services tailored to each child’s needs, helping families access mental health care, crisis support, care coordination, and other resources aimed at improving long-term outcomes.
The program’s effectiveness comes from its wraparound approach, which bundles services together.
But private insurers typically cover only some services rather than the full scope of services provided.
Ayotte has directed much of her criticism at Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which insures the largest share of children enrolled in the FAST Forward program.
Jim Turner, a spokesperson for the insurance company, called Ayotte’s criticisms of the insurance industry on this issue “inaccurate and misleading.”
“Over the past two years, Anthem has taken significant steps to increase access to mental healthcare for children and adults and to reduce barriers to that access – including being the first insurer to eliminate copayments and other forms of cost share for all children and teens for these services,” he wrote in a statement.
For families who do not qualify for a Medicaid waiver, the state spends roughly $2 million annually in taxpayer dollars to cover the program for commercially-insured children.
While opponents of the bill characterized it as a tax on insurance companies, state Rep. Julie Miles pushed back on that framing.
She said the bill is about affordability, healthcare access, and holding large insurance companies responsible for the coverage paid for by their customers.
“If insurance companies collect the premiums, they should help provide the care,” she said.
State’s burden
In recent weeks, there have been negotiations between the insurance companies, particularly Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, to address the issue, but no solution has been reached.
“Despite the recent unwarranted attacks, we will continue working in good faith with the state and care providers on this issue.
Mental health advocates view the FAST Forward program as a way to prevent children from deteriorating to the point of requiring costly inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.
Recent data from the state Department of Health and Human Services show that, over a 12-month period, New Hampshire’s general fund paid for wraparound services for about 89 commercially insured children, with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield covering the largest share of children enrolled in the FAST Forward program at 25.
Morissa Henn, deputy commissioner at DHHS, said New Hampshire has spent five years studying the issue and that taxpayers need not continue covering services that should be paid for by private insurers.
“The need is urgent and the status quo is not sustainable,” she said. “Families with commercial insurance coverage cannot keep waiting, and taxpayers cannot continue absorbing the cost of clinically necessary services for our children that should be covered by private insurance.”
While the annual cost for a child in FAST Forward ranges from roughly $45,000 to $65,000, an inpatient psychiatric stay, such as at Hampstead Hospital, can cost about $1,500 per night.
Hunt said on the House floor that, although the program is effective, some of its services extend beyond traditional mental health care, including respite care for caregivers and assigning a case worker.
Hunt said he believes the program would be more appropriately funded through Medicaid.
“Personally, I think the FAST Forward program should be funded by Medicaid,” he said. “If it’s good enough for kids who are on Medicaid, it should be good enough for kids who have health insurance.”
New Hampshire
5 Arrested On Charges Or Warrants At New Concord Coalition To End Homelessness Apartment Building
Around 12:45 a.m. on Thursday, members of the Concord Police Department, while being assisted by U.S. Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, raided the building at 6 S. South State St. Two search warrants were executed during the raid after a tip pertaining to drug sales in the city was made to the Concord Regional Crimeline.
After about 15 minutes, several people were in custody.
“We’re still working on the upstairs apartment, clearing that,” an officer said. “Downstairs has been cleared.”
Two others were then arrested, and the police cleared the scene.
During the incident, which lasted around 20 minutes, five people were detained: Denise Davenport, 57, of Concord, on an electronic bench warrant as well as two felony counts of acts prohibited-sale of controlled drugs; Michael Davis, 54, of Concord, on a warrant out of Merrimack County Superior Court; Crystal Marquis, 46, of Concord, on a resisting arrest or detention charge; Brittany Price, 29, of Concord, on a Merrimack County Sheriff’s Department warrant on a theft by unauthorized taking charge as well as warrants from the Hooksett police, Brentwood District Court, and two Franklin District Court warrants; and Wilkie Gabriel Reyes Reynoso, 27, of Nashua, on three felony counts of acts prohibited-possession of controlled drugs.
Davenport, Davis, Price, and Reynoso were taken to the county jail and expected to be arraigned in Concord District Court later that day. Marquis was released on a summons and is due in Concord District Court on June 15 for arraignment.
Police did not comment on what was found in the apartments.
Editor’s note: This post was derived from information supplied by the Concord Police Department and does not indicate a conviction. This link explains how to request the removal of a name from New Hampshire Patch police reports.
Davenport, according to reports on Patch, has been arrested several times, on driving charges, deal-possess prescription drugs, warrants,
Price has been arrested several times in New Hampshire on drug, theft, assault, domestic violence, criminal mischief, receiving stolen property, and other charges.
In 2019, she was charged with acts prohibited in Webster, felony theft in Epping, two felony counts of acts prohibited in Concord, and felony theft and penalty for offense committed while on bail in Concord. The Epping theft charge was nolle prossed in November 2019. The Concord acts prohibited charges were dismissed without prejudice. Price pleaded guilty to the Webster drug charge in November 2019 and received a 12-month jail sentence and a $434 fine, both suspended for three years. Price also pleaded guilty to the Concord theft charge and received a two-to-four-year prison sentence, with a mandatory minimum of two years, all suspended for five years.
Price was charged with habitual offender and felony theft in Epsom in March 2025. That case is still active. A warrant was issued for her arrest in November 2025 due to failing to appear at an arraignment. She has a dispositional conference hearing booked for July 2.
Marquis has also been arrested several times, including assault, domestic violence, receiving stolen property, criminal mischief, and heroin possession charges, and camping restriction, and generic city ordinance violations. In July 2004, according to a superior court docket, she was convicted of receiving stolen property out of Ashland.
The past criminal history of Davis and Reynoso was not readily available at the time of publication.
The building, according to previous press reports on Patch and other outlets, cost about $1.4 million to convert into apartments, with local, state, and federal taxpayer funds and block grants funding the creation of eight apartment units.
Anyone who has information relative to this incident or any other incident and wishes to remain anonymous is asked to call the Concord Regional Crimeline at 603-226-3100, or submit information online through the Crimeline website at: concordregionalcrimeline.com, or text message TIP234 and your message to CRIMES (274637). Crimeline awards cash to anyone whose information leads to the arrest and indictment of criminals. All tips remain anonymous.
Do you have a news tip? Email it to tony.schinella@patch.com. View videos on Tony Schinella’s YouTube or Rumble channels. Patch in New Hampshire is now in 217 communities — and expanding every day. Also, follow Patch on Google Discover.
New Hampshire
EPA, environmental advocates face off over PFAS in Manchester’s wastewater treatment plant
Lawyers for the Conservation Law Foundation argued before a federal environmental appeals board Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency had not done its due diligence when creating a new permit for Manchester’s wastewater treatment facility.
Thursday’s oral arguments were the culmination of a months-long battle between environmental advocates, federal regulators, and city officials over what, if anything, should be done to protect the Merrimack River and people who live nearby from harmful chemicals coming out of the plant.
PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” are widely present in the environment and in the waste stream. Wastewater treatment processes don’t add PFAS to water, but they collect and transform those chemicals, putting them back out into the environment. A 2019 study found PFAS concentrations above federal drinking water standards being discharged from Manchester’s wastewater plant, and other studies found PFAS chemicals in fish from the Merrimack river.
The permit approved by the EPA requires the city of Manchester to monitor for PFAS chemicals in the wastewater entering their treatment plant, but it doesn’t put a limit on the levels of PFAS that can be in the water leaving the plant.
Lawyers with the Conservation Law Foundation argue the Environmental Protection Agency did not fulfill their duty to analyze whether the PFAS chemicals coming out of Manchester’s wastewater treatment plant could potentially harm the Merrimack River.
Jillian Aicher, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, said that kind of analysis would be the first step to creating requirements to reduce the discharge of those chemicals.
“This appeal has very important implications for community members in Manchester, who are exposed to uncontrolled PFAS coming from their wastewater treatment plant with no reduction measures. And importantly here, no consideration by EPA of reduction measures,” she said.
Lawyers for the EPA argued the agency did consider the potential of effluent from the treatment facility to harm water quality. Federal regulators reviewed and agreed with an analysis done by New Hampshire state officials, they said.
In 2021, the EPA adopted a PFAS roadmap that includes restricting how much PFAS industrial facilities can discharge, and using the permitting process for wastewater facilities to reduce those chemicals in waterways.
Across the country, states have begun working to research and regulate PFAS in the waste stream. But the PFAS analysis that the Conservation Law Foundation is asking regulators to conduct for the Manchester plant is not common, said Tom Irwin, a vice president at the foundation.
He said Manchester would be an important place to start. The wastewater treatment facility, which is near some residential areas, burns its sewage sludge.
“People are being exposed to PFAS in the air, PFAS are being discharged into the water,” he said. “If the regulators take this on the way they should, this will provide a pathway for others.”
Environmental justice
The Conservation Law Foundation also argued the EPA abandoned environmental justice considerations during the permitting process without a thorough explanation.
Irwin told the Environmental Appeals Board that the agency’s reliance on executive orders that revoked Biden-era environmental justice policy was not enough, and that the policy change required more explanation.
“There is a growing body of case law that reaffirms that agencies can’t just change policy without analyzing why they’re doing so,” Irwin said in an interview with NHPR. “There’s no document from the Trump administration explaining why suddenly we don’t have to take into consideration communities that are overburdened by pollution and other health impacts.”
Lawyers for the EPA said the agency is allowed to use their discretion on environmental justice issues, and argued they did provide reasons for not considering environmental justice while they were drafting the permit.
Adam Dunville, a lawyer for the city of Manchester, also participated in the oral arguments in support of the EPA’s position. Officials with the city’s wastewater treatment plant staff did not respond to requests for comment.
-
Technology3 minutes agoSony tries to explain that its AI Camera Assistant doesn’t suck
-
World9 minutes agoWHO declares Ebola outbreak in Central Africa a public health emergency after 80 suspected deaths
-
Politics15 minutes agoTrump celebrates after UN climate committee moves away from its most extreme global warming scenario
-
Health21 minutes agoAncient Chinese movement shows promise for reducing blood pressure at home, study says
-
Sports26 minutes agoNapoleon Solo wins 151st Preakness Stakes
-
Technology33 minutes agoLicense plate cameras at Home Depot and Lowe’s spark privacy fears
-
Business39 minutes ago
Commentary: Trump’s ‘weird war’ on wind power will jeopardize our energy future and cost Americans billions
-
Entertainment45 minutes agoSpotify doubles down on video podcasts at its Hollywood studios
