While New Hampshire lawmakers were rejecting and watering down workforce housing proposals, Granite State voters emphatically support building more affordable housing, according to a poll taken by St. Anselm College.

In the survey, conducted May 19-20 of 500 registered New Hampshire voters, respondents supported, by a 69 to 29 percent majority, the statement, “My community needs more affordable housing to be built.” That’s a 9 percent increase in the margin recorded in last year’s survey. In a separate question, they wanted more affordable housing in their own neighborhood, 50 percent to 43 percent.

And 53 percent of respondents opposed the idea of the state “doing more to prevent housing development and keep the state the way it is.” Forty two percent said they supported the idea.

The poll was conducted before the NH House tabled the so-called “missing middle” housing bill, which would have allowed property owners to build up to four units on any residentially zoned lot served by municipal water and sewer.

The poll showed that people generally back the “missing middle” concept but by a close margin, 38 to 35 percent.

There was more support (52 to 40 percent) for changing town and city zoning regulations to allow more houses to be built, and even more support (70 to 21 percent) for setting a hard limit on how long local planning and zoning boards can take to review permits to build housing. Indeed, in the latter case, conservatives were more likely to back the idea than liberals.

These concepts were both part of Senate Bill 400, the “community toolbox” bill, which was also tabled by the House. But parts of the measure were revived in House Bill 1661, minus the “Housing Champion” certificate program that would have rewarded towns that make their zoning laws more favorable to allowing affordable housing.

What was left was also watered during negotiations between the House and the Senate, including provisions that would have required land-use boards to treat workforce housing on a par with senior housing. But it did leave in place some hard limits on zoning decisions requiring boards to provide developers with at least a written reason for a rejection.

— BOB SANDERS