You must log in or register to comment.

smartest_kobold t1_ja7iz9h wrote

Oh, it's a company town. Nice to see those coming back. Maybe their employees get some extra company scrip next month.


GraniteGeekNH OP t1_ja7l6tx wrote

No - as the story says, the development is open to anybody. They haven't figured out how to choose renters, since they're already swamped with interest.


smartest_kobold t1_ja7uash wrote

So they can make company housing with all the state funded economic incentives of affordable/"workforce housing"?


GraniteGeekNH OP t1_ja7xkjm wrote

Read the story, it has details.


TheTowerBard t1_ja84t6n wrote

I read it, it’s a company town with a twist:

“The project, a modern twist on the old model of companies building housing for workers…”

This is not the solution our society needs.


simonhunterhawk t1_ja8dodt wrote

Back when company towns were huge, they’d send someone to tell a man’s wife he’d died in the mines/factory/etc and they either needed to provide another worker (boy older than 10) or move within 7 days. If the child couldn’t be as productive as his father was, he’d get only half his dad’s wages so they’d still be fucked.


RickyDaytonaJr t1_ja8inqr wrote

You load 16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store.


the_nobodys t1_ja8enlj wrote

I agree, I think that will happen in Dover. I'd hate to be that little boy earning half of daddy's Dover Delite pay, but whatayagonnado? Someone has to scoop, I mean mine those ice cream tubs.


simonhunterhawk t1_ja8ff2t wrote

I mean laws are different now so realistically they’d probably just evict a family but even then for some low income people that could mean homelessness if they can’t find different housing, and most families are dual income these days anyways. But I just feel like it’s important to remember why company towns went away in the first place.


IntelligentMeal40 t1_ja9takx wrote

What do you mean the laws are different now? Just last year New Hampshire made it so that 15 and 16-year-olds can work 32 hours a week. You haven’t seen the signs for McDonald’s help wanted giving different wages for different ages?


simonhunterhawk t1_ja9twxb wrote

I didn’t know that, I’m a fairly recent import from FL, but they had really lax child labor laws there too. When I was a minor my managers at two different companies regularly broke break schedule laws even though I would remind them I had to take an unpaid break every 4 hours, I’d hit overtime and work overnights at one job because I didn’t have a traditional school schedule and could work different hours. At 16/17 years old. But it’s a little different than 10 year olds hitting the mines, hopefully it never goes to that again at least.


mamercus-sargeras t1_ja8dsgc wrote

"I spent 5 minutes reading about something being bad in college, so therefore a solution to an urgent problem that reminds me of that is also bad."


TheTowerBard t1_ja8gjdg wrote

This problem hasn’t been urgent forever, and those of us that paid attention in school and took in these lessons from history, have been trying to get all the brainwashed corporate bootlickers of our society to get their collective heads out of their collective asses for the last 40 years. And now that it IS urgent, you idiots still want to lick boots instead of listen to the people whose concerns are continually proven right? This is why we can’t have nice things.


the_nobodys t1_ja8iy0k wrote

You just sound like a contrarion. What about new, relatively dense housing development is bad for society exactly?


-cochise t1_jaalx2x wrote

That’s an exaggeration but let’s pretend it’s accurate: is that better or worse than no staff housing?


Squidworth89 t1_ja7ubrr wrote

Waahhhh!!! Society is failing to build affordable housing so an employer is trying something but he’s the employer so that’s bad! Waahhhh!!!


smartest_kobold t1_ja7v82t wrote

They seem to be getting all the subsidies and tax benefits for "affordable" housing and all the convenience and economic benefits of company housing. Sounds like corporate welfare to me.


Squidworth89 t1_ja7wtv3 wrote

There’s nothing in the article about the project having tax benefits beyond normal real estate or subsidies.

Sounds like you can’t read to me.


smartest_kobold t1_ja85z76 wrote

They'd be fools not to apply for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. There's an Affordable Housing Fund that supplies low interest loans and grants. Plus, if they pay their employees poorly enough for them to qualify for housing vouchers, they get the money they save on labor and that sweet government subsidy.

They run a private business and have no reason or obligation to announce to a local reporter where the money comes from gets made on this feel good story with an easy SEO boosting buzzword.


TheMobyDicks t1_ja8cyc2 wrote

Well, for one thing, they didn't really understand LIHTC when they started the project. It's kind of a difficult process but I'm confident they'll apply on future projects that don't involve housing for their own employees. That particularly was why they didn't pursue it for the Dover project because if they accepted LIHTC resources they couldn't direct any units towards their employees. Yes, the project was bourn as a way to house Harmony Homes folks, but they've been approached by so many would-be renters and companies that need employees, they plan on building attainable housing in other parts of the state. As an example, they were approached by Manchester to see if they can collaborate on a project in that town to create such housing. The name of the game is house workers as affordably as possible.


TheMobyDicks t1_ja83zxv wrote

Congratulations. You're EXACTLY wrong. Fact is, they applied for InvestNH and didn't get it. John plans, when the ribbon is cut (and, of course, the politicians are there), to note he and Maggie did the project without any outside financial assistance.


smartest_kobold t1_ja86tg5 wrote

  1. I'd be surprised. There's a lot of programs. I'd want to look at the financial records before I believe it.
  2. Nothing stops them from taking tax credits in the future and I doubt anyone's going to check or care when that happens.

TheMobyDicks t1_ja89wtj wrote

Be surprised all you want. I know this project backwards and forwards and Chris Parker as well. You're just WRONG. These folks are doing something that the seacoast and state desperately need. And kudos to Dover for letting it happen. Here's some facts for you:

  1. There is a labor shortage on the seacoast (and state)
  2. There is not enough housing, particularly attainable housing, on the seacoast
  3. The Randolphs and Dover are doing something outside the box to try to help the situation
  4. Their plan going forward is to work with other businesses to help fund similar type housing, including multifamily where zoned/appropriate, in other communities of the willing

Now I'm sure you can agree on points one and two. That said, what's your solution? Er, pay people more? No even close to practical in many industries. With the supply chain issues and other economic factors many companies are operating on razor thin margins. Yes, granted there are plenty of employers who gouge on wages but that doesn't account for the crisis we're in. Honestly, I'd love to hear what you think employers and the state should do about the workforce and housing crises?


the_nobodys t1_ja8f8v7 wrote

Why are you providing NIMBYs with facts? They just don't want to hear them, gosh darn it!


1976dave t1_ja7zrwd wrote

< 600 sq ft houses being touted as "affordable" when they're anticipated to go for 1200/month seems like the perfect picture of what's gone wrong here. I'll avoid calling this a company town since it's not explicitly housing built for one specific employer -- but the employer's big motivation is having housing for their workforce. Glassdoor says the assisted living facility in the article pays 14-16 an hour. If we naively call it an average of 15 an hour, you're taking home $913 every two weeks. 613/month does not seem like a lot to pay for the rest of living, especially when you consider that these houses are meant to largely be starter places for young people. It feels extra fucked if you frame it in light of your employer saying "hey live in this house I built and work for me. Here's your pay check, I'll have 2/3 of it back now"


Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_ja83by0 wrote

> "hey live in this house I built and work for me. Here's your pay check, I'll have 2/3 of it back now"

You wipe 16 bums, what do you get?

Another day older and deeper in debt.

Saint Peter don’t call me ‘cause I can’t go.

I owe my soul to the company store.


comefromawayfan2022 t1_jab0blm wrote

16 bums is a generous ratio. My friend works night shifts at various nursing homes here in the state as a travel lna and sometimes it's two lnas for 30-50 people


Goodbye11035Karma t1_ja830c4 wrote

> they're anticipated to go for 1200/month

Are you for real? I spend that on a full-sized house (except upstairs; that was built for hobbits and I'm slightly taller than the average hobbit) in an expensive area.

What a money grab!


TheMobyDicks t1_ja87y68 wrote

> Here's your pay check, I'll have 2/3 of it back now

The 30% rule notes that one should only pay 30% of gross salary for housing. In NH many renters pay WAY more than that. This couple who are building the cottage units in Dover also built an apartment building in Durham with daycare on the first floor for their workers. One option for their workers is to pay 30% of their salary to live there. They are certainly not required to do so, but - considering the cost of living on the seacoast - it's an attractive option. And, by the way, the apartments are spacious, well lit all have balconies over looking the river. It's a really nice place and, if the Randolphs opted to, they could charge a heckuva lot more.


simonhunterhawk t1_ja8enra wrote

It’s becoming the norm for people to pay 50% of their wages or more in rent these days, it’s really fucked. And out of touch boomers will say it’s our fault we can’t afford homes.


BiffWiff t1_ja9cwry wrote

Before the recent rapid inflation, 50% wasn’t so bad. Now it’s really tough.


simonhunterhawk t1_ja9obgp wrote

Yeah i pay for most of our groceries so my roomie can afford his half of the rent. But I make like 50% more than he does so I don’t mind doing it.


1976dave t1_ja8j605 wrote

That's pretty good to hear. Especially if the childcare is included with that, thats an incredible value and its frankly great to see that kind of a solution. I don't know enough to form an opinion on this specific case, in general I think I don't like relying on the benevolence of an employer to provide affordable housing/childcare. This sounds like a local employer with roots in the area, so that probably helps. I hesitate to say this is a good scalable model (meaning vertically integrated employer provides employee housing at a cost) just because i have a hard time thinking the amazons of the world are going to be very benevolent.


littleedge t1_ja82z8a wrote

Yeah that’s the piece.

“At or below the…$1,200” level for such a tiny house? Im assuming it’ll be at. I’m all for these small housing options - some people don’t want or need a huge space - but this is like a $600/month home, tops.


the_nobodys t1_ja8op7d wrote

Sadly, not if you want to live in Seacoast NH.


FaustusC t1_jaae0b2 wrote

Yeah. 2018 I looked at something the same size. $1600-$1700 if I remember correctly.


TheTowerBard t1_ja862am wrote

I have a spacious apartment in CT that I pay $1,200 / month for and I can walk to the beach from… I know I have a good deal (that’s why I’ve hung on to it) but my gods man. These places should be $600 top. Less if you’re an employee of the company that owns the town… er uh… “house.”


Emperor-Commodus t1_jab6o2w wrote

It always cracks me up that we're this deep into a housing shortage and people are still this out of touch about housing prices.

Yes, $1200/m is about how much a 600 new sqft would go for, especially as they're separated homes, not combined apartments. I pay more for a teeny old 1BR apt in Manch.

The only way these prices are going down is by building more housing. I don't care who does it, just happy to see more becoming available.


dannychan25 t1_jaa3etw wrote

Luckily, I was able to purchase my first home with my gf at 22. Now… a lot of things had to fall into place ‘perfectly’ for this to happen. And surprisingly they all did.

We each pay 1250 a month for mortgage which is slightly under half months pay (one pay check bi weekly). It is really tough, especially when you couple that with electricity, utilities, plowing, groceries, oil/gas/propane heating, and kids/pets if you have them (I only have 2 dogs and they eat a shit ton).

If you look at it this way, you save a lot of money by renting and don’t have to worry about upkeep and any of the above mentioned things. However, the “fact” that it’s impossible to own a home is simply not true.

A lot of these landlords are paying off their mortgage by renting out apartments. Why pay for their mortgage when you can get your own. All in all, I do have a partner to help split the mortgage with, but at least we are building equity and don’t have to deal with rules/annoying neighbors.

Lastly, I have so many friends who say they can’t afford a mortgage when they are literally paying one to rent an apartment. Wait for rates to go back down before shopping for a home.


nataylor7 t1_ja7pebg wrote

Hey let’s not pay people enough, we just need them dependent on us that they can’t leave.


Few_Lingonberry_7028 t1_ja7xiia wrote

exactly, the top end of their pay scale for positions other than building their future profit makers is around $45,000 a year on a FT schedule. Oops, sorry, after looking again they only offer 35hr a week PT work.


nataylor7 t1_ja7y8wl wrote

Nope it’s not the job of employers to keep up with the price of house. It an employers’ need to pay enough to keep employees people decide to to work for someone because the amount they are offering to pay is not enough to live on. The employer needs to up their offering if they want to have employees.


SheeEttin t1_ja8hjvo wrote

>It an employers’ need to pay enough to keep employees people decide to to work for someone because the amount they are offering to pay is not enough to live on. The employer needs to up their offering if they want to have employees.

And they can do that by... keeping up with the price of housing.


Squidworth89 t1_ja7xrbk wrote

It’s not the employers job to keep up with housing. A coffee is a coffee and prices tend to be pretty uniform between different cost of living areas.

Voters could solve housing by voting/pushing for denser housing. However when push comes to shove even people who own homes and complain about the cost of housing often vote against it because it might negatively impact their housing values.

Zoning is used to protect/inflate home values of the haves. The article even touches on that where it would cost $13,000 extra in fees to add a more normal sized unit.


TheTowerBard t1_ja85m0o wrote

It is absolutely the responsibility of employers to pay a wage people can live on. Corporate profits are through the roof while wages are in the gutter. You’ve been brainwashed, Squiddy.


Squidworth89 t1_ja8ajue wrote

Most businesses aren’t “corporate” you’re making them out to be.

It’s not the responsibility of businesses to make up for foolish zoning. 75% of all residential land is single family. That is the problem.


TheTowerBard t1_ja8b7a4 wrote

People working ANY job should be able to afford a house for themselves and/or their families, an actual house in the community where their job is located. If the CORPORATE ENTITY that you work for is also your landlord, you should be getting a HUGE deal on your rent, not handing your personal profits right back to the company. This is deranged. This was the American dream until they brainwashed you all into good little bootlickers.


Squidworth89 t1_ja8dlaz wrote

Jobs don’t set the affordability of the community. The community does.

The proposed rent for these once completed falls in line with the standard 1% rule.

While the price seems absurd for the sf, it’s not absurd when looking at costs to build.


Intru t1_ja8gzzf wrote

It just sound like you both are arguing the same is focus corporate greed and the other the inherit failures of exclusionary zoning... It's two sides of the same coin.


Squidworth89 t1_ja8ip4u wrote


Most employers in America aren’t “corporate America”. The other poster seems to not understand there’s a difference there. Majority of jobs are employed by small businesses.

Wages are certainly an issue however in a competitive economy (where most small businesses operate) individual businesses cannot wander too far from the pack with wages or they’re no longer able to compete. Wage reform needs to be system wide.

Zoning is the only real issue to focus on for affordability. I use my mums house in San Diego as a perfect example. She could get a million plus for it. The house itself is like 900sf… meh quality. The land is what’s driving the price. Those cities are god awful. Like mostly single family zoned which is why they’re so expensive. Could tear her house down and she still get most of the price for it. Even the article points out that to build larger units they’d have to pay an additional $13,000 per unit fee which is asinine.


Intru t1_ja8npet wrote

I agree with you that zoning is probably the most practical of the systemic issue that could be used to address affordability. Land use reform touches a lot of areas and can be used to reduce economic burdens that have to do with wage stagnation and rising cost of services, increase transportation costs, and other "capitalistic" pressures. If land is disproportionately expensive in desirable areas due to its access to work,services and the restrictions placed on new development. There's only two ways realistically that you can create housing that has a modicum of affordability. One is government intervention, either directly through things like subsidies or rent controls, etc or more indirectly like supporting community developments like the german "Baugruppen". Or through increasing the efficiency of the property though thing like upping its density, which before exclusionary zoning (direct government intervention through developer lobbying and community pressures) of the 1900s was just part of the natural growth of a city.


TheTowerBard t1_ja8h85q wrote

Nope all around. If you can’t afford to pay your employees a living wage IN THE COMMUNITY YOUR BUSINESS IS LOCATED then you can’t afford to be in business there 🤷‍♂️

You attitude here is literally why everything sucks in our society. The reason this wage and housing crisis is so bad, is because we allowed corporations to call the shots since the 80s. It’s not working.

Remind me which company you are CEO of again?


Squidworth89 t1_ja8hnxi wrote

Housing isn’t in the current situation it is in because of corporations. Corporations buying housing is a side effect of the root issue; poor zoning.

Single family homes on large lots isn’t sustainable or affordable. You need density. Has nothing to do with corporations.


Intru t1_ja8qos2 wrote

Yes and no, The investment firms of today are not causing much of a dent of increase and didn't really create this mess they are just exacerbating the issue, same with AirBNB. As you state . But suburban development corporations and business did play a major role in the suburbanization of our zoning regulations as a means of increasing value and securing their investment. A concerned they passed along to new suburbanites that then enshrined these codes into their local planning ordinances. Add to that classism and racism and you get the disinvestment and destruction of our urban environment as a way to cater to the suburbanite communture.

This is more addressing TheTowerBard, Sure a company should be able to pay their employee a livable wage, but if we have structural issue that prevent that, then shouldn't we look at fixing it? Wage fairness is one of these, but the other is land-use, and a third one is transportation, and there's more but like I said before, land use is a very practical and easy one to work at now, one that we have a reasonable chance of changing with enough political will at a local level.


TheTowerBard t1_ja8kwqo wrote

Ah yes, those that set wages and also act as landlords have absolutely nothing to do with whether their employees can afford an actual decent place to live or not... amazing logic.

My brother in Squid, this has been a downward trajectory since the 80s. This isn't a new issue. Yes, allowing corporations to shape everything about or communities and society at large is exactly why we find ourselves in this current situation. Allowing them to buy ALL of our politicians so that they advocate for corporations and industies over human beings is exactly why we find ourselves in this current situation.

Idk about you, but when I was a kid in the New England almost everything was locally owned. That is not the case anymore. Corporate America is literally destroying society and the planet itself, and somehow there are still folks out there licking their boots.

Look at how the people of France fight to protect their workers. Yet here, "free thinking" Americans are wholly and willfully corporate wage slaves wandering around mumbling about "bootstraps.". It's pathetic, honestly. And the crazy part is that it is the people that screech at others about being "sheeple" that are the most brainwashed by their corporate overlords.


the_nobodys t1_ja8mtse wrote

Again, not every employer is an example of ruthless corporate takeover. I know you want to righteously rage, and no one is disputing your vision of a fair Ameirca, but not every windmill is The Machine.


TheTowerBard t1_ja8q9uq wrote

If this company is big enough to get involved in building an apartment building, and now a plot with tiny houses for their employees, they are big enough to pay them a living wage for the community in which they are located. Let’s let that money go back into the local economy instead of back into the company’s bank account.

If they were offering heavily discounted rents to employees we’d be having a different discussion. They don’t seem to be. This is the exact sort of thing that crated those “too big” corporations that are the perfect example you seek.

All I’m saying is that we’ve seen this before, we know how it will play out, and it will benefit the company not the people of that community. So let’s learn from history instead of continually making the same mistakes over and over.


merryone2K t1_ja860hx wrote

Interesting alternative to not paying a livable wage.


TheTowerBard t1_ja86zw1 wrote

This is just one of their old moves they haven’t tried in a while. The good ol’ company town.


Internal_Ring_121 t1_ja82d2c wrote

$1200 a month for a tiny home ?? Seems kind of expensive ,no?


Squidworth89 t1_ja84ww2 wrote

1% rule. In line with that. Nuts how much tiny houses cost… but yeah.


TheTowerBard t1_ja866dr wrote

I have a place in CT for that much that I can walk to the beach from… 😳


the_nobodys t1_ja8hkce wrote

Sounds like you enjoy privilege and don't understand how most people have it. This housing is affordable to many people looking for short term solutions, so what's the problem?


TheTowerBard t1_ja8j4ik wrote

The problem is offering an extremely overpriced temporary solution instead of an affordable permanent solution. The problem is allowing a local corporate entity to call the shots and create a feedback loop in which a portion of the low wages they pay their employees just comes right back to them. This is a very dangerous path to go down, one we have been down before and it never works out well for society at large.

And yes, I do enjoy a lot of privilege in this life right now, which is exactly why I am using my place of privilege to speak up for and advocate for those who aren't as lucky as me. I'd also encourage you to keep in mind that not all of us that enjoy privilege were born with it. Many of us know the other side way too well.


the_nobodys t1_ja8kei9 wrote

Yes but not everything in life is mutually exclusive with a better answer. Creating new housing makes housing more affordable across the board.


TheTowerBard t1_ja8lydo wrote

This only sounds like a good idea if you completely ignore the entirety of human history. This isn't a new problem. Folks like you are only looking at this as a good idea now because we are in a crisis, but you all ignored everyone for the last 40 years when they were sounding the alarms. Now that the crisis is here we are looking to the ones who created it for solutions? Hell no.

Take a look at how the people of France react to things when it comes to protecting workers rights.


Intru t1_ja8if4g wrote

Ok, the conclusion here is we don't like companies building housing for their employees, I have conflicting thoughts on this as well and not particularly comfortable with it. Can we then remove exclusionary zoning so that it's easier for non-companies to build housing? Can we allow people to have low density mix use, i want corner pubs and grocers! Can we push for a elimination of the detach single family home mandates, and all it's associate mandates that increase housing cost through limiting type and supply, and that increases municipal infrastructure cost through the growth of suburban sprawl? Can we focused on better public transit to increase the possibility of having mobility options, vehicles are the second most expensive thing a family has to pay for after housing. Can we stop moving our municipal services out of the city/town core just because it's cheaper to buy a farm plot and put a highschool out in the edge of town? Service spread is a way of guaranteeing that those who can afford to move around through cars are the only ones that get access to a service. While also increasing infrastructure sprawl and the cost associated with this on a municipal level.


GraniteGeekNH OP t1_ja8ukmm wrote

You covered everything! I hope you attend public meetings and/or run for local office.


Intru t1_ja90r8o wrote

Thank you. I do go to as many as I can here in Portsmouth and although I do more transportation advocacy my background is in housing and urban studies.


the_nobodys t1_ja8p5bn wrote

Great points grounded in real-world policy and living! Wish you had made half as many posts as TowerBard did...


FaustusC t1_jaaeaur wrote

"Let's make NH like Boston and not like NH" Yeah, no thank you. Please.


Intru t1_jaakpvy wrote

How so? A simple look at suburban Boston and most of NH zoning regulations and you'll find them similar, the same, or actually more restrictive than here. Density of the geographic scale your imagining is not happening anytime soon here, and the type of development you are probably in visioning are the 5 over 1 condo typology. This is already legal in a lot of municipalities here in the 30% or 20% of residential land that allows for any type of multi-family home. It's the only type of multi-family that current zoning and building codes make profitable and so it's the only one that gets built. These is why there's a fear of density.

Let's talk about softer density. Things like duplexes and triplexes, small mixed use building, two or three stories. Lot size, floor area, and building footprint maximums, that manages scale and mass, instead of minimums that promotes larger out of scale buildings. Form base codes, instead of prescriptive ones so we can have a guiding principal of good scale and measured growth. All these where common once in NH (except maximums and form base codes, those are a new idea that attempt to correct the scale and mass issue in modern building development), before suburbs that's how we build, lots of old town centers still have these type of buildings, this is what give them their traditional New England look. But most wouldn't allow them to be build today. We have zoned them out of feasibility. We need to look around and say maybe we should allow them again, near our towns and cities cores, infill empty lots and underutilized parking lots that where ment for storing vehicles for suburbanite growth that never materialize after the economic bust in the late 1900s and the de-investment in smaller cities and towns. If we truly don't want to look like Boston and it's endless sprawl this is what we need to do, allow our towns to grow inwards instead of outwards.

Let's talk about public transit, we need to start serving ourselves. There's this perception that public transit is just for getting to Boston, the dreaded T extension! Some of our communities could use internally focused transit that is reliable, frequent, and practical. Say Portsmouth or Dover, instead of just COAST running routes between towns only and tryin to catch everything in a few lines, which makes service tedious and not practical. We need loop routes that serve the neighborhoods and brings people to services and goods in short intervals under 15 to 20 minutes. Something that is more than feasible in smaller cities like these two. With simpler commuter lines that go between cities and meet the loop buses at different stops or a central stop.


LongjumpingCheck2638 t1_ja9ia0w wrote

44 homes on 4 acres which includes spaces between homes, sanitation, parking (maybe)? This is gonna be tight.


YouAreHardtoImagine t1_jacsogb wrote

I want to see updated spec drawings with trash outside, bikes/rec equipment, broken down cars, etc., in both summer and snow.


hindermore t1_jaa0e32 wrote

People: We need more housing options that are available and affordable.

Devs build 44 units that run below average rental prices

People: Not like that!


FaustusC t1_jaaevdd wrote

If they build 44 and immediately 44 people move here to work for them from Other states, they've added exactly 0 options to the local housing market. Hell, if even two thirds are taken up by transplants, all we've done is ensured that the fight will be even harder when these people decide to size up and find out everything below $2,000 is basically unobtainable unless you're literally the perfect candidate.


the_nobodys t1_jaal7v2 wrote

Aside from the fact that it's a ridiculous supposition that the units would be filled with people from "Other states," what is wrong with people from other states exactly? What is with this fever pitched rhetoric on this sub about "outsiders" gaining residence in NH? It's so fricking elitist.


FaustusC t1_jaam9ir wrote

New Hampshire has a 0.5% vacancy rate at any given time. We were one of the most affordable states to live in. Rents have increased by 32% on average in the state.

If the people here can't afford to stay here, they don't even really have anywhere left to go now.

Downvote all you want. Those are facts.


GraniteGeekNH OP t1_jaajqqj wrote

Why do you assume they'll be taken up by transplants, any more than any other type of apartment or housing?


FaustusC t1_jaar6p7 wrote


Well, for starters let's do some Math. See here NH's official statistics on housing by type.

EDIT i fixed my math because I included manufactured homes which are traditionally single family. If we remove all single family (not the most accurate because there IS rental single family but this is the closest option I have access to) and simply factor in multi unit dwellings, we're left with (by unit count), for the entire state, 198,471 Apartments at any given time.

Now, per this source, At any time We have 0.5% of our apartments available as rentals. Which, means, assuming or original State sponsored figure is accurate or, yah know, close enough, at any given time here we have 992 apartments to rent in a state of 1,100,000 people. Nice.

And if we further explore this, New Hampshire maintains consistent population growth through internal and external migrations. Basically, more people move here than leave here. To the tune of 6,000+ a year.

And finally. Assachusetts ranked (shockingly) was rated as the 7th most fled from State in the union. They lost 57,000 bodies alone between 2021 and 2022. One of their data sources is a moving compamy that helpfully sources What percentage of moves were incoming and outgoing. They also offer income data, which is neat if you're interested.

And finally, according to NHPR there was just about 4,700 homeless individuals and families in the granite state. Which means if just 1/3rd are actively seeking housing at any given time, that 1600 people within the state need immediate shelter and are actively competing for the 1,168 units that are potentially available for the year.

So why do I assume these would be taken over by transplants? It's simple math. If 1600 NH people and 6,000 new bodies applied, just by odds alone, those places are almost 5x as likely to be occupied by someone from out of state. That's not factoring in Anecdotal experience of living on the seacoast and looking for a new rental recently. Does that answer your question?


Different_Ad7655 t1_ja8k6eg wrote

I'm always amazed that tiny houses are trotted out as if they have just been invented. All you have to do is go up and down the East Coast to any older city and you will find plenty of tiny houses, row upon row of them many of them incredibly derelict where nobody wants them anymore.. I'm not against any houses at all, in fact I'm looking for a relative small house for myself at the moment in New England, but I would much rather see people reinvest in what is already existing then rather sprawling across the landscape with new stuff. There is so much of it to be had, in the "wrong" neighborhoods. Florida or up and down the whole coast or probably into the Midwest. It's time that rather than building new, there's new interest in a measured gentrification if you will or renovation or repopulation of areas of concentrated growth... The warning is there for these new tiny developments wherever they may be. If they're populated with people that have little money , Little werewithal, what will happen of them once the first generation leaves or moves on.. housing should be more than just a roof over your head, but part of a community and this is what's missing sorely in the US. This understanding of how to knit all of this stuff back into the fabric of a real urban life, place you can walk to work, find employment and live in a real neighborhood


GraniteGeekNH OP t1_ja8u7ye wrote

This development has a community building - forgot to mention that in the story - and is only a 20-minute walk from downtown, so it has definite community aspects.

Tiny home communities, like any development, can be badly done - that's for sure. It's no panacea.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reinvest in what's already existing" - it's not like New Hampshire is full of empty houses that could be spruced up and reopened. Building new is vital.


Different_Ad7655 t1_ja93uqj wrote

That's positive because in my mind as I stated this is a key part of such sustainable housing. Whether it is subsidized or Freehold, it's good to have a stake in the community, and be able to walk at least partially to where you want to be. After all if you're selecting a small house you already are are Limited in funds probably and one of the great indictments of our society is how much you have to spend on Transportation to get where you have to be, not where you want to be. The poor, especially with kids, the elderly the infirmed all get screwed


IntelligentMeal40 t1_ja9tlmq wrote

I bet they set it up with income guidelines to make sure that you don’t get to uppity in your job and ask for too many raises because then you will lose your home


comefromawayfan2022 t1_jaazxh1 wrote

How are people going to be able to pay for housing on a nursing home salary? I've worked in nursing homes and quite frankly the pay sucks


ThePencilRain t1_jabeptg wrote

This was presented to the abutters specifically as a "company town" two years ago. One parking space each, on a road that really can't handle traffic as it is when schools start/get out. The fluff pieces that have come out are trying to make it seem like they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, when in reality it is to further line their pockets.


The "community building" is a 2 bedroom ranch that's already on the property.


It's gonna be a shitshow.


YouAreHardtoImagine t1_jac67gm wrote

Lots of balls talking about housing for seniors and vets but no handicap accessible housing. But then again, if they’re your employees, I guess they want to avoid them. /s

Expense is so heavily discussed, like things can’t be afforded as builders, I’d be weary to live there.


utilitarian_wanderer t1_jacc5ey wrote

Wait until people start quitting their jobs and refusing to move out because they have tenants rights. It will be a mess!


GraniteGeekNH OP t1_jack18u wrote

just a reminder that this isn't traditional "company housing" linked to employment. I realize it's fun to imagine worst-case scenarios but they don't apply here


CDogNH t1_ja8uw8t wrote

And? Are you at all familiar with the labor market? This is happening across many industries throughout the country.


Ok-Cantaloupe7160 t1_ja9gje1 wrote

There a couple building projects like that in the works in Conway. A hotel owner bought an office building and is turning it into apartments. The business that was in there found that most of their employees can work from home so why maintain a building. The hotel owner is currently housing a dozen staffers at the hotel for $25/night.

A healthcare facility is also in the works and will include 200 condo units that will only be for sale as primary, long term housing, a bunch of 55+ houses and a couple dozen ‘bungalows’ that they’ll maintain as employee housing.

The owner of Settlers Green outlets is building 200+ apartments for long term residents and 18 ‘townhouses’ that’ll also be deed restricted for long term residents.

NH has been so ‘business friendly’ for the last 4 decades it’s hurting businesses.


BigMax t1_ja9cvan wrote

These are great - but only if they are for home ownership.

We need a LOT more starter homes in this country. Home ownership is so out of reach for so many people, we need ways to get people into the market sooner. Let them buy into the market earlier with smaller places, rather than have them wait years and years or possibly forever until they can afford a place.

The area I live in is frustrating. Every new house that goes in is some giant house on a giant plot of land. You could build 10 nice little homes on the same spot, but no one wants to do that.

And even here it's something that looks nice at first, but it sucks. This is for RENT. So the people aren't really helping that much, they are just creating a new income stream for themselves while helping their main business at the same time.


GraniteGeekNH OP t1_ja9ejsm wrote

It's certainly true that more affordable homes are needed for purchase - but a lot of people want to rent, and that's insanely difficult. You see people begging for even semi-affordable rentals all the time online.

It's not either-or - we need to tackle both (rent and ownership)


BigMax t1_ja9g70v wrote

Yep, agreed. I think both are needed.

Housing is horribly complex. We all know we need more, but there are so many hurdles to building it.

You have NIMBY folks who don't want low cost or high density housing near them.
Then you get anyone who has a house, or owns property to lease, that doesn't want more housing since they worry it will lower the value of their assets.

It's a country/statewide issue that needs to be solved at the local level, and everyone at the local level fights it.


GraniteGeekNH OP t1_ja8dvnb wrote

There are a lot more Tennessee Ernie Ford fans on reddit than I would have thought