Granite Staters sat down together. Here is what they said.
In June and July 2026, 326 Granite Staters signed up for eight online conversations and two face-to-face conversations in Concord and Nashua. They discussed four issues, based on the input of thousands of residents in Phase One.
Every voice was captured, anonymized and synthesized. This report is a record of that conversation by the numbers.
326
Granite Staters signed up
10
Conversations — 2 in person, 8 online
4
Priority issues on the table
19
Proposals carried forward
Housing Affordability and Ownership
Property Taxes and Revenue Needs
K-12 Public Education Outcomes
Energy Cost, Sourcing, and Reliability
How these conversations worked.
In Phase One, we asked Granite Staters, "What should state leaders and residents work together to fix in our state?"
Thousands of people responded with a total of 590 issues. Issues were narrowed down to eighteen using data analytics. Participants across the state ranked the four top issues.
Phase Two asks the next question: what should the Legislature DO about them?
Step One
We invited people to the table
Through email, social media and community outreach, Granite Staters signed up for online and in-person conversations.
Step Two
Everyone got the same briefing
Registrants received an issue brief with background and context on each of the four issues.
Step Three
Participants talked it through
Online and in-person, people shared proposed solutions and talked them through.
Step Four
Every table was recorded
Conversations were captured, anonymized, and synthesized into a constituent voice dataset.
A note on what follows: these are table-level proposals, not finalized or ranked recommendations. Under every issue there was real, unresolved disagreement. We have kept it in.
Who took part.
326 Granite Staters signed up across ten conversations; 166 checked in or joined. All demographic data below is self-identified.
326
Total sign-ups
174
In-person sign-ups — 104 Concord, 70 Nashua
152
Online RSVPs across 8 sessions
166
Checked in or joined
Political lean
In person · 174 sign-ups
2.3%
12.1%
36.8%
31.0%
10.3%
2.9%
4.6%
Very Conservative
Conservative
Moderate
Liberal
Very Liberal
Not Sure
Unknown
Age
In person · 174 sign-ups
5.2%
10.3%
13.2%
16.1%
27.6%
18.4%
9.2%
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
Unknown
Race / ethnicity
In person · 174 sign-ups
78.2%
9.2%
5.7%
2.9%
2.3%
0.6%
1.1%
0.0%
White
Unknown
Prefer Not to Say
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, MENA
Moderates were the largest group in the room at 36.8% of in-person sign-ups, with liberals at 31.0% and conservatives at 14.4%. The room skewed older: 46.0% of in-person sign-ups were 60 or over, and 15.5% were under 40.
What Granite Staters would tell their legislators.
Nineteen proposals came out of the Community Conversations. Each one carries the trade-offs participants raised and the level of agreement they reached.
Housing Affordability and Ownership
Many first-phase contributors described a housing market that is hard to enter and hard to stay in. Part of the concern is cost: rents and home prices have outpaced wages, affecting workers, young adults, first-time buyers, and even higher earners. Part of the concern is who is buying; residents worry that ordinary buyers are competing against corporate investors and large property holders, including in rural communities.
H1Increase housing density and use ADUs / creative & alternative housing types
Level of agreement
Strong agreement that NH needs to build more but major concerns about local resistance.
Trade-offs and concerns
Concerns that a lot of decisions have to do with local zoning and the state legislature has little power. Concerns that ADUs can still be very pricey.
H2Increase the supply of smaller, downsizing-appropriate homes
Level of agreement
Strong agreement in all sessions that creative housing solutions would create opportunity for seniors, freeing up their homes.
Trade-offs and concerns
Participants extensively discussed older homeowners have nowhere to downsize to and the difficulty of maintaining a larger home.
H3Fund the Housing Champions program and review eligibility criteria
Level of agreement
Participants felt the program has bipartisan appeal and is a "carrot & stick" solution.
Trade-offs and concerns
Participants considered the program a positive for solving the problem, with concerns about funding. One table suggested applicants should rank higher for high-density housing.
H4Regulate corporations / private equity buying up housing; require them to pay more in taxes
Level of agreement
Agreement that corporate ownership impacts housing costs but some divergence on what the most effective solution is.
Trade-offs and concerns
Concerns about feasibility and legislative appetite. Others noted that it could be challenging to design a policy without loopholes.
H5Reverse the affordable / luxury ratio and build entry-level "starter" homes
Level of agreement
There was agreement that NH needed to build more housing aimed at new home buyers but no broad consensus on how to solve the problem.
Trade-offs and concerns
Each session had discussion around the lack of starter homes and market incentives to build more luxury homes.
From the online survey36 contributors
What changes would you support to make housing more affordable and accessible in your community? Why?
Contributors largely agreed that increasing the supply of affordable housing should be a priority, particularly for working families. Several supported expanding the types and density of housing that can be built, including smaller lots, clustered development, and homes that allow older residents to downsize and free up larger homes for families. There was also significant concern about corporate ownership of housing, with some contributors favoring restrictions that give individual homebuyers a better opportunity to compete. The greatest differences were around how government should shape the housing market: some emphasized changing zoning and development rules to increase supply, while others focused more heavily on restricting corporate ownership or limiting development incentives to projects that meet clear affordability standards.
Property Taxes and Revenue Needs
New Hampshire relies on a mixture of revenue streams to pay for government services. With no broad-based sales tax nor income tax, local property taxes carry much of the cost of school, town, and county services. According to contributors in our first phase, relying so much on one revenue source strains homeowners, renters, landlords, businesses, and small towns.
P1Diversify the tax base / add new revenue sources
Level of agreement
Discussion around diversifying the tax base was one of the most highly discussed topics among participants, also addressed in Housing & Education. There was no clear consensus on solutions.
Trade-offs and concerns
There was heavy resistance to broad-based sales or income tax.
P2Stop cutting state business taxes (BET, BPT, rooms & meals)
Level of agreement
Recommendations were mixed, with most solutions connecting back to diversifying the tax base.
Trade-offs and concerns
Participants were concerned cuts to business and rooms & meals taxes have a direct impact on increasing property taxes.
P3Educate the public / standardize reporting on government spending
Level of agreement
There was high interest in educating the public on spending at the local level and creating some form of standardized reporting.
Trade-offs and concerns
Participants in all sessions discussed confusion in understanding what is being spent at the local level.
P4Improve communication by legislators
Level of agreement
Participants are interested in learning about issues directly from legislators with the opportunity to provide feedback.
Trade-offs and concerns
Variations of communication with legislators and a better understanding of information was consistently discussed in Nashua and Concord.
From the online survey50 contributors
How should New Hampshire reduce its reliance on property taxes?
Contributors generally agreed that New Hampshire should explore ways to strengthen state revenue while supporting education, infrastructure, and economic growth. Proposed approaches varied considerably, including a luxury tax, higher gas taxes, a small sales tax, revenue from marijuana sales, and visitor-focused tolls. Some emphasized directing more state funding to public education and limiting school vouchers, while others focused on attracting businesses through competitive corporate taxes and workforce partnerships. The greatest disagreement centered on tax policy and New Hampshire’s traditional low-tax model: while some contributors supported new or increased broad-based taxes, others emphasized preserving the state’s lack of income and sales taxes as an economic advantage and generating revenue through more targeted sources.
K-12 Public Education Outcomes
Contributors in our first phase raised questions about the quality of K-12 education and how the state's schools are funded. Submissions pointed to literacy and math proficiency, differences between higher- and lower-performing schools, whether grades and graduation reflect real learning, the role of classroom technology, and how well schools prepare students for college, careers, and citizenship.
E1Increase state funding / SWEPT / distribution of funds to high-need districts
Level of agreement
There was no broad agreement on how to move forward.
Trade-offs and concerns
Education funding and its impact on property taxes dominated education discussions. There was much discussion about where the money comes from and whether schools need to adjust spending.
E2Diversify state revenue sources (income tax, business taxes, interest & dividends and other revenue)
Level of agreement
High agreement that it is an issue but no consensus on how to solve.
Trade-offs and concerns
Increasing revenue to offset property taxes had broader appeal. Concerns were raised whether schools need to adjust spending.
E3Identify better measures of student success
Level of agreement
There was broad agreement that current tests are inadequate. Participants did not have time to discuss proposed solutions.
Trade-offs and concerns
A recurring non-funding proposal was to change how outcomes are measured, shifting from standardized test scores toward a different metric.
E4Create a commission to study special education costs
Level of agreement
There was agreement that understanding what is driving the increased cost is important before proposing solutions.
Trade-offs and concerns
Participants in all sessions recognized that increases in special education costs are impacting property taxes.
E5Offer more career pathways and opportunities to partner with businesses
Level of agreement
A broad agreement that not every student has to go to college and k-12 schools need to serve a variety of career paths. Participants did not have time to discuss proposed solutions.
Trade-offs and concerns
Participants discussed the importance of critical thinking and preparing students for all types of careers, not just college.
E6Review the use of technology in school
Level of agreement
The use of screen time and access to technology was discussed in both community conversations. Participants did not have time to discuss proposed solutions.
Trade-offs and concerns
Participants shared concerns about the use of screen time, especially in the earlier grades.
From the online survey33 contributors
What should every student in New Hampshire be guaranteed through public education?
Contributors generally agreed that every New Hampshire student should receive a quality public education built on strong foundations in reading, writing, and mathematics, with several also emphasizing history and civics. Some envisioned a broader, well-rounded education that includes science, technology, arts, music, health, athletics, and critical thinking. Equity was another important theme, with contributors calling for comparable educational opportunities regardless of where students live or their family income. The greatest difference was in how to define and measure a guaranteed education: some favored specific proficiency requirements for earning a diploma, while others emphasized equal opportunity, a comprehensive curriculum, or the state’s constitutional standard of an adequate education.
Energy Cost, Sourcing, and Reliability
Contributors in our first phase raised energy as both an immediate affordability issue and a longer-term sourcing and reliability question. Electric bills are high compared with the national average, while the state is part of a regional New England grid where winter fuel prices, peak demand, imports, and resource availability can affect wholesale costs and reliability.
N1Prioritize / expand renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, diversified sources)
Level of agreement
Participants agreed that renewables offer cheaper energy.
Trade-offs and concerns
Participants discussed improved energy independence and diversity of sources.
Most participants agreed that the program is effective and should be funded.
Trade-offs and concerns
The program offers important support for residents that need it the most and funding has been an issue in recent years.
N3Greater transparency / accountability for Eversource; better regulation of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Level of agreement
Broad agreement that the PUC needs more transparency with differing views on how to regulate.
Trade-offs and concerns
Transparency and sharing of data were strong themes.
From the online survey25 contributors
What bill reduction tools feel fairest?
Contributors most strongly favored new energy sources (56%) and energy-efficiency measures (44%) as the fairest approaches to reducing utility bills, while fewer supported rate design (12%) or direct assistance (4%), and none selected supplier protections. Open-ended responses reinforced interest in expanding non-fossil-fuel energy while also emphasizing affordability, consumer protection, and concerns about private utility control. Some contributors supported income-based assistance and protections against shutoffs for residents unable to pay. Overall, the greatest difference was between those favoring system-wide approaches to lower costs for everyone and those emphasizing targeted protections and assistance for households facing the greatest financial burden.
In the room.
Two in-person conversations, in Concord and Nashua, plus eight online rooms. Real tables, real neighbors, real disagreement.
Nashua
Nashua
Nashua
Concord
Concord
Concord
In their words.
Anonymous feedback shared by participants after the sessions.
“The participants at my table didn’t talk over each other. There was courtesy and respect. I felt included.”
“The facilitator did a good job of reeling people in and making sure everyone had a chance to be heard. They kept side conversations to a minimum and asked clarifying questions.”
“People had a common goal and guidelines for reaching it.”
“The icebreaker before we broke up into groups helped lighten the mood and got us all enjoying each other’s company.”
“Since it was a small group, it was easier to listen to others’ opinions even if you didn’t necessarily agree.”
What happens next.
These proposals are not the end of the process. Here is the road from a table conversation to a bill.
1
August 20 & 25, 2026
Working Group review
A small, representative working group reviewed these proposals alongside legislative and expert perspectives, helping decide which constituent-generated proposals go to the civic assembly.
2
September 25–27, 2026
The Civic Assembly
Fifty delegates representing New Hampshire, chosen for political balance, gather for three days at the Grappone Conference Center in Concord to sharpen and ratify one to three proposals. Only proposals with at least 70% cross-partisan delegate support advance to the New Hampshire Legislature.
3
October 2026 – early 2027
Granite Staters carry it to Concord
The ratified proposals go to The NH Forum Legislative Advisors, who seek bipartisan support for legislation, while citizen champions press the case with their own representatives.
Add your voice.
Proposals only become law when Granite Staters push for them. Become a Champion to help carry the consensus proposals to your own legislators.
