Did you catch Sun-King Sununu’s “State-of-the-State” oration? One of the things his Grace spoke about was “workforce housing.” More specifically, his Grace has decreed that “[w]e can and we must move forward and create more workforce housing.”
Just what is “workforce housing” you ask? Well … New Hampshire statute, specifically RSA 674:58, defines “workforce housing” as
… housing which is intended for sale and which is affordable to a household with an income of no more than 100 percent of the median income for a 4-person household for the metropolitan area or county in which the housing is located as published annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Workforce housing” also means rental housing which is affordable to a household with an income of no more than 60 percent of the median income for a 3-person household for the metropolitan area or county in which the housing is located as published annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing developments that exclude minor children from more than 20 percent of the units, or in which more than 50 percent of the dwelling units have fewer than two bedrooms, shall not constitute workforce housing for the purposes of this subdivision.
New Hampshire statute, RSA 674:59, already provides that local zoning MUST allow “workforce housing”:
In every municipality that exercises the power to adopt land use ordinances and regulations, such ordinances and regulations shall provide reasonable and realistic opportunities for the development of workforce housing, including rental multi-family housing. In order to provide such opportunities, lot size and overall density requirements for workforce housing shall be reasonable. A municipality that adopts land use ordinances and regulations shall allow workforce housing to be located in a majority, but not necessarily all, of the land area that is zoned to permit residential uses within the municipality.
Stated more succinctly, “workforce housing” includes (but is not limited to) certain (defined by amount of rent charged) “multi-family rental units” (i.e. apartment buildings) and cities and towns MUST allow such apartment buildings.
Here is what the Sun-King is proposing:
#1, as you can see, is to throw $60 million in subsidies at developers who will build apartment buildings.
Maybe they changed the definition of free market when I wasn’t paying attention … but this does NOT, as best that I can recall, comport with my recollection of how the free market is supposed to work. Isn’t the free market solution to a labor shortage caused by the high cost of housing … that businesses pay HIGHER WAGES, thereby making the cost of housing affordable to workers? Especially when the New Hampshire economy is “booming”?:
Correct me if I am wrong … but isn’t Sun-King Sununu’s proposed $60 million in subsidies for apartment buildings the very antithesis of free market capitalism?
But to cut to the chase, my question is this: If it is okay for the government to indirectly subsidize certain businesses by directly subsidizing “workforce housing,” why is it not okay for the government to protect workers by preventing businesses from imposing vaccine-mandates and mask-mandates? The former … it seems to me … is much, much more violative of free market capitalism than the latter.
Now let’s talk about local control. According to the mighty Sun-King there is nothing … NOTHING … more important than local control. Indeed, local control is so sacrosanct, so inviolate that even parental control … more specifically, parents choosing whether their children wear masks in school … must take a back seat to local control.
Yet, in #2, Sun-King Sununu proposes to bribe … his Grace calls it “reward” … cities and towns that fast-track permits for apartment buildings. Isn’t this an interference with the sacred principle of local control? And if it is not, then why has his Grace not proposed a “reward” for school districts that allow parents to decide whether their children wear masks in school?
