New Hampshire Should Stop Being Anti-Family

This op-ed was originally published in the Manchester Union Leader May 23, 2025.

Think New Hampshire is pro-family? Think again. Many NH communities are actively working to keep families and their dreaded children out. A NH House member from Weare recently shared a letter on X sent to him from a member of the Weare Planning Board with this telling reaction to the prospect of creating more affordable housing:

“In spite of what proponents say, any successful actions to create low cost housing will attract a segment of young couples having children.”

For some time, our organization has been sounding the alarm¹ on New Hampshire’s deepening demographic winter², i.e. declining birth rates and our children forced to move out of state to raise their own children. In a revealing 2008 documentary³, a Deerfield Selectman commented that many residents were telling the town government to keep children out of the community because “We’ve already raised our children; we did that in Massachusetts.” More recently, the Pelham Planning Director explained the town first began to favor age-restricted housing specifically because advocates argued that doing so would keep children and families out of town.

Behind this opposition to multi-generational communities is the belief that such anti-family practices will lower tax bills, or at least prevent them from being raised and the fear of overburdening schools and services. While encouraging families to settle in a community can bring infrastructure and logistical challenges – such as increased school enrollment – towns that are committed to fostering an age-diverse population are more likely to pursue practical solutions rather than simply raising objections.

Pelham discovered that, while the cost of services did rise with an aging population, lower school enrollment rates did not result in lower taxes. As a result, the town reversed course, actually becoming the first to adopt a warrant article prohibiting any new age-restricted housing.

Pelham learned the much more insidious problem that comes with an aging population. Simply put, there just aren’t the younger working people needed to support our older residents. As we pointed out, not only is New Hampshire one of just three states in the country where 100% of counties have more deaths than births each year⁴, many of our residents and towns still maintain a “not in my community” attitude when it comes to families and what are seen as “expensive” children. After all, children require not just upbringing, but education. And that’s a bridge too far for many who call the Granite State home. They’d rather keep universally cost-prohibitive zoning laws in place and generally discourage a multi-generational population despite the actual fiscal reality towns like Pelham are learning.

With my own children growing into adulthood, I understand the feeling of “I’ve done that,” but I also believe that we adopt a hostile attitude toward the next generation at our own peril. Communities without a viable younger workforce fueled by families become places that lack essential services. And, as a result, these same communities will become less and less attractive and viable over time. What happens when local hospitals, firehouses, and police stations lack the staffing needed to serve the community? For those older adults unwilling to support or incorporate families into their town and school strategic planning, what is their vision for the future health and growth of the community?

This is not just an issue in NH but across the country and worldwide. In fact, countries across the globe are experiencing below-sustaining birthrates⁵ for the first time since the 1300s. A recent Harvard Youth Poll⁶ revealed that less than half of young Americans think having children is important. That does not bode well for the future of our country or state.

So, what’s the answer? Amid declining birthrates, some countries have actually provided monetary incentives for families and children⁷. And now President Trump’s administration is floating the idea of a $5,000 baby bonus⁸ in the U.S.

We don’t need to look to other states or wait for a “baby bonus” (although reviving the now defunct child tax credit⁹ bill would be a great idea). We have the power to change our demographic destiny right now. Maybe it’s time New Hampshire communities, instead of adopting anti-family policies, embrace our young families and children. Few leave our beautiful state voluntarily. Often it’s a question of opportunity and economics, not least of which is affordable housing. Communities that encourage multi-general populations are, in the long term, healthy and self-sustaining ones. Considering the dire alternative, isn’t it time we look past our “not in my town” attitude and consider policies that would infuse new and welcome life and energy into the cities and communities of our amazing state?

Subscribe to the Family Update