There’s an irony at the heart of the housing policy debate underway at the State House this session. Opponents of the many common sense, pro-housing bills being considered by the legislature frequently invoke the idea of “local control,” recycling familiar claims that any state-level reforms amount to “central planning” or impose “one-size-fits-all” solutions that won't work. But these arguments unravel under scrutiny.

“Local control” sounds appealing. Who wouldn’t want decisions made by those closest to the issue? In practice, though, local land-use control often amounts to control by a small, unrepresentative group — typically older, wealthier homeowners with the time and resources to dominate planning and zoning board meetings. According to the Brookings Institution, fewer than 1% of residents typically participate in local land-use hearings, and those who do overwhelmingly oppose new housing. That’s not democratic control; that’s gatekeeping.

Meanwhile, public opinion paints a different picture. A 2023 University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll found that 68% of residents support legislation that would expand housing options even if it limits local zoning authority. In 2025, a YouGov poll found that number had grown to 75%. These voices, the quiet majority, are not the ones shaping housing policy. Instead, decisions are often made by a vocal few determined to decide whether a teacher, a nurse, or a young family can live nearby.

Critics often deride zoning reform as “central planning,” but that’s a rhetorical sleight of hand. Traditional zoning, comprised of dense rulebooks dictating use restrictions, parking minimums, lot sizes, setback requirements, and density caps, is far closer to actual central planning. It's not the free market that says you can’t build a duplex or an accessory dwelling unit, it’s a government regulation.

When state legislatures consider bills to legalize small-scale housing or override exclusionary zoning, they’re not imposing a top-down development blueprint. They’re loosening rules. These state level reforms remove arbitrary restrictions that prevent homeowners from using their property more flexibly. Ironically, the power to implement a true master plan is held by your local planning board under state statute. Literally.

Here’s a crucial legal point that’s often overlooked: zoning restrictions are exceptions to, not expressions of property rights. As all of us who graduated law school learned on day one of property law class, ownership includes a “bundle of rights,” including the right to control one’s property. That right is limited in only two ways: (1) voluntary private covenants, and (2) government restrictions, like zoning regulations. In that light, state-level housing policy and zoning reform is not a radical imposition. It’s a recalibration — a restoration of core property rights being curtailed by local overreach.

The claim that these reforms are “one-size-fits-all” is also misleading. Housing policy and zoning reform proposals do not mandate high-rise apartments in every small town. They don’t force uniform development or erase community character. (In fact, existing local zoning codes are far more prescriptive in that regard.) What these bills do is remove unjustified barriers to modest development, like accessory dwelling units, townhouses, starter homes, while still allowing communities to shape how development occurs through local design standards and permitting processes.

At this point in New Hampshire’s housing crisis, only 20% of households can afford the median-priced home, according to the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority. The median sale price for a single-family house in the Granite State reached $540,000 in June 2024, a 63.3% increase from June 2020. The average family of four must now earn more than $165,000 per year to afford the state’s median home—nearly double the state’s actual median household income. Meanwhile, the state faces a shortage of over 23,500 housing units, further fueling the affordability gap.

Policymakers have a unique and important opportunity this legislative session to rebalance how local regulations intersect with private property rights. Several thoughtful, balanced pro-housing reforms are working their way through the legislative process and, if enacted, will increase the supply of housing and help put New Hampshire on the path to addressing this crisis. Taking this path isn’t central planning or doing away with local control. It’s taking decisive, bold action to secure New Hampshire’s future prosperity and economic success.