Democrats Vs. Republicans: Contrasting "Values" And "Priorities" In The NH State Senate

Workforce Housing Bill (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like a good idea. The Upper Valley has a real problem with this. More and more people are being pushed to the edges of our region to look for "affordable" housing only to find their transportation costs skyrocketing. Homelessness is a growing problem here, as it is all over the state.

The bill is pretty vague. How exactly would cities and towns fulfill the requirement to "meet regional as well as local needs..."?

Other states require a minimum number of housing units in a proposed development to be workforce housing. Maybe we should think about adding that into the mix in New Hampshire, particularly in the newer mixed-use zones that are being created to accommodate residential, industrial, and commercial needs within the same area (a Smart Growth principle). I brought this up at a recent Council meeting (we are in the process of updating our Zoning laws) and was told that as a City, we couldn't do that. Perhaps some enabling legislation would help?

Allowing people to live closer to where they work so that they don't have to drive (and a robust public transit system!) is an important component of the affordable housing solution.

At any rate, thanks to the New Hampshire Senate Democrats for advancing the values we share, like making sure everyone has a place to live...

Change is inevitable, but progress is not. Working together, we can make sure that change = progress. And that's what makes us progressive...

---

by: KarenLH @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 15:24:11 PM UTC

Don't like the comparison in your title. (0.00 / 0)

It sort of detracts from your good intentions.  

I wasn't going to comment that I'm not keen on the "workforce" designation and don't, frankly, see how this kind of legislation is going to make a difference on the ground.  But, a story in today's Foster's has prompted me to reconsider.  Because what I think we need to do is address the impact of our segregated housing patterns and the residential density restrictions we've set up in our zoning codes--restrictions for which there are no health and safety and welfare criteria.

Now, I know full well that community planners (a somewhat strange creature in a society that abhors socialism) have developed lots of arguments for why the number of people in a single household should be defined by their legal or biological relationship, instead of by the amount of living and sleeping space a human being requires to enjoy personal privacy, comfort and sanitation.  (Earlier housing codes used to require 70 square feet per adult person).  

Their main argument was somehow related to the perception that crowding leads to criminal behavior and that's why it's good to move people out of the inner cities into the suburbs.  I don't think there's any evidence that people who live in detached dwellings surrounded by a strip of grass are more law abiding.  Just, perhaps, not as bothersome to their neighbors.  Never mind that the bothersomeness could be addressed by making a virtue of common courtesy and consideration.

Anyway, what we have now, in part because average family size has been significantly reduced as the population ages, is a lot of vacant space in a lot of under-utilized dwellings, at the same time that we have an increasing number of people with no shelter of their own at all.  The so-called group-care facility in Somersworth is just a somewhat larger example of how our decision-making processes are producing un-necessarily negative results.

One of the reasons I have been so supportive of civil unions is because it is my hope that elderly people will be able to come together in mutually-supportive arrangements and share living quarters and housing costs, if they so desire, without running afoul of prohibitions against having "renters."  

We don't want people filing stupid law suits.  But, if we want to avoid that, we also have to stop passing stupid laws.  And we should also probably stop trying to define where and how people live by how they make a living at home or somewhere else.

Finally, a lot of the zoning restrictions were predicated on the spacial requirements of the automobile.  If we're going to reduce our reliance on those polluting behemoths, then people are going to have to be able to live closer together, and closer to where they are employed, engage in commerce and recreate.  It would be nice if we could start setting some practical standards related to health and welfare, of people and the environment.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 20:05:36 PM UTC

Just To Clarify... (0.00 / 0)

The bill introduced by Senator Jack Barnes (R) is just inflamatory -- and totally unnecessary since a commercial driver CANNOT drive in the United States unless he/she passes muster for English sign reading and basic English.  They wouldn't qualify for a visa to work in that field in the United States, which driving is.  In fact, it is easier for commercial drivers who speak only English to drive into Canada or Mexico.  How's that for "fairness?"  What next, Senator Barnes -- shall tourists be denied entry unless they pass your test?

About the Workforce Housing legislation sponsored by the assembly of good Democratic Senators, it's an effort to open discussion with cities and towns as to how to encourage affordable housing.  It doesn't have all the details, nor does it solve all the problems.  But isn't it neat that Democrats are trying to solve problems, rather than create new ones?  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 00:55:30 AM UTC