Ayotte signs first bill to promote more housing
New Hampshire will join 36 other states that legally allow developers to deploy Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy and Resiliency agreements (C-PACER).
"Housing is our most critical economic issue, and this legislation is another tool in our toolbox to help bring even more housing development to New Hampshire. I was glad to sign SB-4 to create a C-PACER program in our state," Ayotte said in a statement.
"By making it easier for private sector partners to finance projects and removing the administrative burden on municipalities, we're taking an important step in the right direction to increase the supply of attainable housing for our growing workforce."
State Sen. Dan Innis, R-Bradford, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, was the lead sponsor of the bill (SB 4).
"(C-PACER) is designed to help new housing projects by reducing the upfront costs through financing developments and freeing up capital for other projects," Innis said.
Both House Speaker Sherman Packard and Senate President Sharon Carson, both R-Londonderry, joined in on celebrating the legislation becoming law.
"This bill is not just about building housing, it's about strengthening our economy and providing long-term solutions that benefit all Granite Staters," Packard said.
Eligible spending includes energy-efficient upgrades, building insulation, cost-effective renewable energy and water conservation measures, officials said.
While housing is the primary focus, any commercial property can use C-PACER, including manufacturing plants, office buildings, retail buildings and multifamily housing projects.
The legislation had universal bipartisan support. It cleared the state Senate, 24-0. The House passed it on a voice vote.
Sen. Tara Reardon, D-Concord, a retired executive with the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, joined Innis in writing the bill.
"Innovation and creativity in financing is crucial for housing development, particularly in a housing crisis," Reardon said.
Starting Jan. 1, C-PACER will replace a law on energy efficiency and clean energy districts that state officials said proved to be unworkable.
Energy spending becomes
similar to a tax lien
James Key-Wallace, executive director of the Business Finance Authority, said the existing law requires every participating town to write its own documents, run its own programs and do its own billing.
Under the new reform, the BFA will serve as the central administrator to allow municipalities to take advantage of the voluntary option at no cost.
Each city and town must decide to opt in to the program.
The existing law required the provider to file a mortgage, Key-Wallace explained.
Under thes plan, the financing for the energy part of the project is part of the developer's tax bill that is repaid over time.
Currently, 22 states have active programs converting hundreds of millions a year in energy spending into capital investments to make projects more affordable, Key-Wallace said.
Steve Duprey, a former Republican state chairman and Concord developer, said during a recent hearing that this will make projects more feasible for builders.
With a $10 million project, Duprey said a lender might ask the developer to come up with $3 million as a down payment and finance the other $7 million in a first mortgage.
With a $2 million energy portion of the project separated out, this would lower that mortgage to $5 million and make the energy spending like a tax lien, Duprey said.
"As a result, a builder may only need to put down 15 to 20 percent," Duprey told Innis's committee.
Duprey called it the "best tool to increase the amount of housing" and both profit and non-profit developers could make good use of it.
A broad coalition of groups backed the bill, including the New Hampshire Homebuilders, New Hampshire Realtors, Clean Energy N.H., the N.H. Lodging & Restaurant Association, the N.H. Municipal Association and the New Hampshire Business and Industry Association (BIA).
BIA officials announced a press conference for Tuesday to unveil the Housing Supply Coalition of 20 member groups that will outline their issue agenda for the 2025 legislative session.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
The House is looking into the Epstein investigation. Here's what could happen next
WASHINGTON — A key House committee is looking into the investigation of the late Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking crimes, working to subpoena President Trump's Department of Justice for files in the case and hold a deposition of Epstein's jailed accomplice and former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington, a move widely seen as attempt to avoid politically difficult votes for his GOP caucus on the Epstein matter. The committee's moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn-out process. Here's what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein's death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting. Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its early recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena. The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing 'un-redacted Epstein files.' As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi. They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter. Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft. The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), said he told the speaker that 'Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that's what the American people want.' Comer has said he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking. In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if they could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she is likely to be asked about. Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted two days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week. Democrats warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted. 'We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,' Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told reporters this week. Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as former U.S. attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under President George W. Bush. It's not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will play out, but Comer has said, 'We're going to move quickly on that.' Trump has often fought congressional investigations and subpoenas. As with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information. Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena 'depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.' If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi's response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress. It's practically unheard of for a political party to vote to hold a member of its party's White House administration in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP. Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation. 'We can't allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,' said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), a committee member. The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files. Groves writes for the Associated Press.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Competing conspiracy theories consume Trump's Washington
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The harmonic convergence of competing conspiracies has overshadowed critical policy issues facing America's leaders at the moment, whether it's new tariffs that could dramatically reshape the global economy or the collapse of cease-fire talks meant to end the war in the Gaza Strip. The Epstein matter so spooked Speaker Mike Johnson that he abruptly recessed the House for the summer rather than confront it. The allegations lodged against Obama so outraged the former president that he emerged from political hibernation to express his indignation at even having to address them. Advertisement The whispers and questions -- 'this nonsense,' as Trump put it -- followed the president all the way to Scotland, where he landed Friday for a visit to his golf club. Advertisement 'You're making a very big thing over something that's not a big thing,' he complained to reporters, suggesting, in his latest bid at conspiracy deflection, that instead of him, the news media should be looking at Epstein's other boldface friends like former president Clinton. 'Don't talk about Trump,' he said. Conspiracy theories have a long place in American history. Many Americans still believe that the moon landings were faked, that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job, or that the government is hiding proof of extraterrestrial visitors in Roswell, New Mexico. Sixty-five percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters in 2023 that they think there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy. Some conspiracy theories do turn out to be true, of course, or have some basis. But presidents generally have not been the ones spreading dubious stories. To the contrary, they traditionally have viewed their role as dispelling doubts and reinforcing faith in institutions. President Lyndon B. Johnson created the Warren Commission to investigate his predecessor's murder specifically to keep rumors and guesswork from proliferating. (Spoiler alert: It didn't.) Trump, by contrast, relishes conspiracy theories, particularly those that benefit him or smear his enemies without any evident care for whether they are true or not. 'There have been other conspiratorial political movements in the country's past,' said Geoff Dancy, a University of Toronto professor who teaches about conspiracy theories. 'But they have never occupied the upper echelons of power until the last decade.' Advertisement During the 2016 Republican primaries, Trump tied the father of one of his rivals, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, to the Kennedy killing, citing a photograph with Lee Harvey Oswald. During Trump's hush money trial in New York last year, his onetime compatriot David Pecker of The National Enquirer acknowledged under oath that the whole thing was made up to damage Cruz and elect Trump. Unrepentant, Trump stuck to his false assertions about Obama's birthplace for years, only grudgingly admitting late in the 2016 campaign that his predecessor was in fact born in the United States. 'The president's repeated discussion of multiple conspiracy theories, most recently about the 2016 election, has no parallel in American politics,' said Meena Bose, director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency at Hofstra University. Conspiracy theories are not the exclusive preserve of Trump and the political right. Around the time of last month's anniversary of the assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pa., some on the left once again advanced the notion that the whole shooting episode had been staged to make the Republican candidate into a political martyr. Some Democrats have now dived into the Epstein fever swamp head-first, suddenly exercised by a closed case that had hardly been on the party's priority list just weeks ago as they pile on Trump and maximize his political troubles. After Roy Black, who was Epstein's defense lawyer, happened to die at age 80 this past week at the height of the furor over the case, some on the left saw suspicious timing. Advertisement Trump, however, has stirred the plot pot more than any other major political figure. In the six months since retaking office, he has remained remarkably cavalier about suggesting nefarious schemes even as he heads the government supposedly orchestrating some of them. He suggested the nation's gold reserves at Fort Knox might be missing, resurrecting a decades-old fringe supposition, even though he would presumably be in position to know whether that was actually true, what with being president and all. 'If the gold isn't there, we're going to be very upset,' he told reporters. It fell to Scott Bessent, the decidedly nonconspiratorial Treasury secretary, to burst the bubble and reassure Americans that, no, the nation's reserves had not been stolen. 'All the gold is present and accounted for,' he told an interviewer. Trump has played to long-standing suspicions by ordering the release of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents related to the assassinations of Kennedy, his brother Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., an act of transparency for historians and researchers that may shed important light on those episodes. But Trump has gone beyond simple theory floating to make his own alternate reality official government policy. Some applicants for jobs in the second Trump administration were asked whether Trump won the 2020 election that he actually lost; those who gave the wrong answer were not helping their job prospects, forcing those rooted in facts to decide whether to swallow the fabrication to gain employment. The past week or so has seen a fusillade of Trumpian conspiracy theories, seemingly meant to focus attention away from the Epstein case. Tulsi Gabbard, the president's politically appointed intelligence chief, trotted out inflammatory allegations that Obama orchestrated a 'yearslong coup and treasonous conspiracy' by skewing the 2016 election interference investigation -- despite the conclusions of a Republican-led Senate report signed by none other than Marco Rubio, now Trump's secretary of state. She also claimed that Hillary Clinton was 'on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers' during the 2016 campaign. Advertisement Relying on this, Trump accused Obama of 'treason,' suggesting he should be locked up and going so far as to post a fake video showing his predecessor being handcuffed in the Oval Office and put behind bars. The idea of a president posting such an image of another president would once have been seen as a shocking breach of etiquette and corruption of the justice system, but in the Trump era it has become simply business as usual. For all that, the conspiracy theorist in chief has not been able to shake the Epstein case, which reflects the rise of the QAnon movement that believes America is run by a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. Most of the files, the ones that his attorney general told him include his name, remain unreleased, bringing together an unlikely alliance of MAGA conservatives and liberal Democrats. It was well known that Trump was friends with Epstein, although they later fell out. So it's not clear what his name being in the files might actually mean. But Trump is not one to back down. Asked last week about whether he had been told his name was in the files, Trump again pointed the finger of conspiracy elsewhere. 'These files were made up by Comey,' he told reporters, referring to James Comey, the FBI director he had fired more than two years before Epstein died in prison in 2019. 'They were made up by Obama,' he went on. 'They were made up by the Biden administration.' Advertisement The theories are endless. This article originally appeared in
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
The House is looking into the Epstein investigation. Here's what could happen next
WASHINGTON — A key House committee is looking into the investigation of the late Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking crimes, working to subpoena President Donald Trump's Department of Justice for files in the case as well as hold a deposition of Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington. The committee's moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn out process. Here's what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein's death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting. Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its August recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena. The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing 'un-redacted Epstein files.' As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to Attorney General Pam Bondi. They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter. Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft. The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said he told the speaker that 'Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that's what the American people want.' Comer has said that he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking. In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if it could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she will likely be asked about. Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted 1 1/2 days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week. Democrats, however, warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted. 'We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,' Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the oversight committee, told reporters this week. Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Bill Clinton, former Sen. Hillary Clinton as well as the former attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under George W. Bush. It's not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will actually play out, but Comer has said, 'We're going to move quickly on that.' Trump is no stranger to fighting against congressional investigations and subpoenas. And as with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information. Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena 'depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.' If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi's response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress. It's practically unheard of for one political party to vote to hold one of its own members in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has also cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP. Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation. 'We can't allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,' said Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., a committee member. The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files.
