Conway Planning Board chair Ben Colbath (left) and selectmen's representative Steve Porter (right) join in on discussion Jan. 23 of proposed amendments to the town's zoning ordinance in the Highway Commercial Zone to guide future growth. (TOM EASTMAN PHOTO)
Conway Planning Board chair Ben Colbath (left) and selectmen's representative Steve Porter (right) join in on discussion Jan. 23 of proposed amendments to the town's zoning ordinance in the Highway Commercial Zone to guide future growth. (TOM EASTMAN PHOTO)
CONWAY — Voters in April will decide whether to not allow new short-term rentals in residential areas except for properties that are owner-occupied. The Conway Planning Board-proposed regulations, however, would grandfather hundreds of existing short-term rentals that could operate in perpetuity.Â
New non-owner-occupied short-term rentals would be allowed in the commercial zones.
This is a terrible proposal but a legal one. As a vacation homeowner, this would affect me in a positive way, because when I eventually sell my house, it will be worth far more than new houses that cannot be utilized to their full economic use, including as short-term rental properties.
That being said, this will have several unintended consequences and is inherently unfair legislation. For example, those current homeowners who do not rent their homes and have no interest in doing so will see their home values decline because in the future, their homes will be unable to be rented. So anyone looking to buy their home with this intent in mind will pass.
The fundamental problem is that the Town is trying to create more affordable housing by penalizing one class of residents over another. This is anti-capitalistic. There are other ways to encourage the creation of more housing. The easiest solution is to reduce regulations to allow for multi-unit housing on smaller lots (thereby reducing their construction and maintenance costs) and reducing regulations that make being a landlord less economically productive than other uses of capital. I don't know if NH has laws that protect "tenant's rights" but laws such as this, or laws that limit rental income, reduce capital flowing into construction. The harder the state makes it to be a landlord, the less housing will be built.
Hopefully NH will never turn into Massachusetts, but I would never again own rental property in Massachusetts because if you get a bad tenant, you lose all your rental income and then some trying to get rid of them.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(1) comment
This is a terrible proposal but a legal one. As a vacation homeowner, this would affect me in a positive way, because when I eventually sell my house, it will be worth far more than new houses that cannot be utilized to their full economic use, including as short-term rental properties.
That being said, this will have several unintended consequences and is inherently unfair legislation. For example, those current homeowners who do not rent their homes and have no interest in doing so will see their home values decline because in the future, their homes will be unable to be rented. So anyone looking to buy their home with this intent in mind will pass.
The fundamental problem is that the Town is trying to create more affordable housing by penalizing one class of residents over another. This is anti-capitalistic. There are other ways to encourage the creation of more housing. The easiest solution is to reduce regulations to allow for multi-unit housing on smaller lots (thereby reducing their construction and maintenance costs) and reducing regulations that make being a landlord less economically productive than other uses of capital. I don't know if NH has laws that protect "tenant's rights" but laws such as this, or laws that limit rental income, reduce capital flowing into construction. The harder the state makes it to be a landlord, the less housing will be built.
Hopefully NH will never turn into Massachusetts, but I would never again own rental property in Massachusetts because if you get a bad tenant, you lose all your rental income and then some trying to get rid of them.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.