Dear Governor Ayotte:
We, the undersigned organizations, write to respectfully ask that you veto HB 1336, legislation that would allow landlords to require certain prospective tenants to pay an additional month’s rent upfront as a second security deposit1.
New Hampshire is in the midst of a housing affordability crisis.0 Across our state, renters are already struggling to keep up with rising housing costs, low vacancy rates, and limited housing choices, with almost 46 percent of renters currently paying more than 30 percent of their income to housing costs2. At a time when too many Granite Staters are living paycheck to paycheck, HB 1336 would create a significant new financial barrier to accessing housing.
Under current law, landlords may already require a security deposit equal to one month’s rent, in addition to the first month’s rent (or more)0 at move-in. HB 1336 would allow landlords to require yet another month’s rent up front for applicants who do not meet certain screening criteria. This will have a real financial impact on those who can least afford it. The median rent for a 2-bedroom apartment is $2,024, which means that if HB 1336 becomes law, qualified renters would need $6,072 available to rent the median 2-bedroom apartment.3
While this proposal may be framed by supporters as a way to expand housing access for applicants who may not otherwise qualify, in practice, it is more likely to make housing harder – not easier – to obtain4.
For many working families, older adults on fixed incomes, young adults entering the workforce, individuals rebuilding after financial hardship, and people transitioning from homelessness or other unstable housing situations, coming up with thousands of additional dollars at move-in is simply unrealistic5. Security deposits are already one of the most significant barriers to securing housing. HB 1336 would make that challenge even worse.6
HB 1336 would also place additional strain on the organizations and public systems working to help people access housing. Deposit assistance providers – including nonprofits, municipal welfare offices, and community-based organizations – would be forced to stretch already scarce resources even further, helping fewer households overall.7 If a municipality currently provides deposit assistance through its welfare office, this will add more costs to local budgets that are already struggling to meet statutory and community requirements.8
This bill could impact a wide range of Granite Staters, including:9
- Workers with limited credit history or credit scores affected by medical debt, student loans, or other financial hardship;
- Young adults and first-time renters who may not have extensive landlord references10;
- Older adults who have lived in stable housing for years but may not be able to produce historical rental documentation and are on fixed incomes;
- Veterans who have lived in stable housing for years but may not be able to produce historical rental documentation due to frequent moves0;
- Individuals exiting homelessness, shelters, or transitional housing programs11;
- Families relying on nonprofit, faith-based, or municipal rental assistance programs that are already facing limited resources12.
Importantly, HB 1336 does nothing to address the underlying cause of New Hampshire’s housing challenges: a shortage of homes that people can afford13.
The path to improving housing access is to increase supply, reduce barriers to housing production, and expand practical solutions that lower costs – not create new upfront expenses for renters already struggling to find stable housing.14
We appreciate your commitment to addressing the affordability challenges facing New Hampshire families and respectfully ask that you veto HB 1336.
Sincerely,