The first public hearing was this past week. Many people showed up, there was not enough time for everyone to speak, the hearing was suspended and reopened later. Unfortunately, when this happens the people that didn’t speak virtually never come back because understandably they can’t sacrifice their entire day.
There is strong push back from tenant advocates on the bill. We’re guessing it would be unlikely to keep the provision of unauthorized guests. However, we are working with NHLA on an idea that might keep the non-paying of utilities alive and have the bill pass. The idea is to extend the time the tenant can get utilities in their name from 7 days to any time up to the actual eviction hearing.
As long as the tenant reimburses any associated costs to the landlord.
Please tell us your thoughts on that idea.
There is also support for the amendment to put venue for the eviction case only in the court where the property resides.
It was a pleasure to go into the hearing with an agreement already in place by working jointly with the tenant advocates. There is likely to be a small set of changes in the RPOA NHLA amendment which would clarify “days” as “business days”. We also got a compromised agreement on this change with NHLA to reduce the delay it could cause in the final “affidavit of non-compliance” stage of this process.
There is some mixed response on this bill. Surprisingly, in general we find that although this idea sounds appealing, in reality it is some what of a trap for unknowing landlords. For that reason most of us are against this bill. Read the full detail on the bill.
Ask them to support & pass HB1370 as written. Also give reasons why the bill is needed.
Also give reasons why we need to keep the option for the landlord to have eviction hearings in the court where the property owner resides and to not allow the amendment regarding forcing hearings to court where property is located.
A strong argument is that the tenant already has right to automatically be granted change of venue in all cases except non-payment. Even in non-payment cases the court may grant change of venue.
Also suggest that the proposed amendment relating to homelessness shelters be moved to a bill more appropriate to shelters.
See the RPOA NHLA amendment attached.
Ask them to support & pass HB1204 as amended with the RPOA NHLA Amendment. Also give reasons why the bill is needed.
Ask them to oppose SB395 and give reasons why.
In general, we need some volunteers to rally troops to show up at hearings. Would anyone help out?
Title: making certain changes to business profits tax provisions affecting a business organization when owners sell or exchange ownership interests in the business.
Title: relative to the state building code.
Title: relative to requirements of the state building code.
Title: relative to a taxpayer's application for a property tax abatement.
Title: relative to debt adjustment services.
Title: relative to forfeiture of property.
a. Landlords have way way more eviction hearings than a single tenant so the jurisdiction really should be in the court where the property owner resides.
e. The courts have gone electronic, on line, for small claims. Word is that eviction filing etc will be online in less than a year.
A plan language explanation of the above provision is included on page to of the LT-Writ underneath the caption in bold “Information for tenant”.
At the House Judiciary Committee hearing, 1/26/16, there was an amendment introduced that would add similar language to the RSA related to homeless shelters. We are not aware of any concerns for us on that issue. There were several suggestions that the amendment be moved to another bill that would be more related to homelessness shelters which is completely separate body of law.
Title: Title: making certain changes to business profits tax provisions affecting a business organization when owners sell or exchange ownership interests in the business.
Summary: This bill makes certain changes to business profits tax provisions affecting a business organization when owners sell or exchange ownership interests in the business.
This is another bill that should be review by someone with knowledge of the business profits tax. Not sure we have the knowledge to take a position on the bill. If you learn more please let us know.
Title: Title: relative to the state building code.
Summary: Update NH Building code by changing the date of publication of the various building codes from 2009 to 2015.
This bill simply incorporates into state law the latest additions of The International Building Code, The International Plumbing Code, The International Mechanical Code, The International Energy Conservation Code, and the International Residential Code. Without reading each code, and seeing the differences, it is impossible to determine how this will affect us.
This is another step in a movement that seems nation wide to move to "Uniform" codes for all states and even across multiple countries. A concern here is that somewhere committees of people that have "special" interests are adopting codes that states blindly adhere to and we have no representation or understanding of their affects on our business.
If you learn more please let us know.
Title: Title: relative to requirements of the state building code.
Summary: This bill provides that any rule adopted by the state building code review board related to applications for permits under the International Residential Code shall require only such data as is reasonably required for the building inspector to act on the application.
We're basically just letting you know this bill is here incase you think it may impact you. Without any analysis it sounds like a good idead. If you learn more please let us know.
Title: Title: relative to a taxpayer's application for a property tax abatement.
Summary: A bill that would allow taxpayers to raise constitutional issues in tax abatement cases.
The bill is a short simple bill that would require municipalities to inform taxpayers that they can raise constitutional issues in abatement procedures. It would also allow constitutional issues to be heard at abatement hearings.
If the bill was enacted, we expect that abatement procedures could take longer and end up costing all taxpayers more money to pay staff and whoever hears the cases. We are also not sure what will be raised as a constitutional issue.
Not sure we have the knowledge to take a position on the bill. If you learn more please let us know.
Title: Title: relative to debt adjustment services.
Summary: A bill requiring Debt Adjustment Services be licensed.
This bill would repeal the existing statute on debt adjustment services, and if enacted would replace the old statute with a new statute. Basically, the banking department, under the new bill, will be licensing and regulating debt adjusting services to protect consumers.
Title: Title: relative to forfeiture of property.
Summary: This bill would revise the New Hampshire forfeiture laws – the laws that allows the state to take property that is contraband, property obtained due to a commission of a crime, and instrumentalities a person used in the commission of the crime.
The state will have the right to seize property that it believes was used in the commission of a crime.
Prosecutors only have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is related to the crime, therefore subject to forfeiture.
Law enforcement has a profit motive to pursue forfeitures.
Once property is taken, the burden lies on the innocent owner to defend against the forfeiture.
The bill gives an innocent owner a defense. Therefore, we support the bill.