2023-02-16. This written testimony was submitted to the New Hampshire House in support of HB1400 (2024), a bill “relative to the required maximum number of residential parking spaces.”
Greetings, members of the Special Committee on Housing.
Thank you for allowing me to testify at the hearing on HB1400 (“Relative to the required maximum number of residential parking spaces.”) today. I testified in support of the bill.
I had not planned to speak on this bill. It sounded like support was unanimous (except the usual lobbyists like the NHMA), that we need to stop micromanaging property development and return control over minutiæ like parking spots to the property owners. But then someone spoke in opposition to the bill, which needs a response. What follows is mine.
His testimony revolved around problems in his neighborhood caused by tenants owning cars far in excess of what their residences can handle, who then park their cars on the sidewalk, block their neighbors’ lots, and so on. He claimed a solution to this is for the City to force developers to make room for all these cars on their private lots.
Yet as we heard from much other testimony, parking minimums are hindering development and worsening the housing crisis. Another testifier pointed out that the statewide average car ownership is just one car per adult. So why should anecdotes of “too many cars” here and there be cause for citywide regulations which harm everyone else?
More importantly, at its core this is a private property rights issue. A property owner should have the right to determine how many, or how few, parking spaces they will build. If the lot is in an unwalkable area or they want to attract car-owning tenants, they can choose to build 2 or 3 parking spaces per unit. Yet if the lot is in a walkable area, or they want to attract tenants who eschew cars in favor of alternate modes of transportation, they should be able to choose to build one, or even no, parking spaces per unit. This is a situation that the free market can work out. Not only is local government micromanaging these decisions a violation of private property rights but as we can now see, this meddling has heavily distorted the rental market and contributed to the ongoing housing crisis.
There are already solutions to disruption caused by tenants parking cars in the roadway, blocking sidewalks, or parking on sidewalks. Illegally parked cars can be ticketed or towed. Common law nuisance ordinances can be brought to bear. Or, an irked neighbor could simply contact the owner of the offending property and try to work out a solution to his tenants parking their cars all over the place.
As a property owner and landlord myself in Manchester, I consider it my responsibility to write into the lease parking allowances and restrictions for my tenants. Either they park their cars in designated spots on the property (in my case, there are 2), or legally park them on the street. I would not tolerate my tenants blocking my neighbors or the sidewalk in front of the house.
Finally, I believe this bill is a great example of a bipartisan effort at solving the housing crisis. Too often we see highly partisan attempts at solving this crisis—rent control, rent increase caps, tax penalties for landlords leaving units vacant, or worse. This bill can unite conservatives and libertarians, who believe in strong private property rights, with liberals and progressives, who believe we ought to move from a car-centric society to walkable cities. The housing crisis needs solutions with broad support—this bill is part of that.
If this bill is sent to a subcommittee or interim study, I would be more than happy to participate in those meetings.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. ▰
In liberty—
Jeremy J. Olson
Manchester Ward 11