Federal Land Sales for Affordable Housing?

[quarterhorse]

Politicians and developers will will be lined up like pigs at a trough for this.

The public will see no benefit, and certainly people who can't afford a house still will not be able to afford a house.

Wildlife will get the shaft as always.

 

[Gulf of America]

The map above shows 'High housing shortages' (in red) exist in Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Illinois, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Florida.

Does anyone care to guess what these states have in common? Here's a hint: Florida's status was revoked by Trump in 2017 and Gov. DeSantis signed it into state law in 2019. Per the map above, Florida is still recovering from the repercussions where this provision was abused.

We're so fortunate to have a White House spokesman on this forum.

 

[brymoore]

I was thinking of this issue from my use perspective.

I’m an elk and chukar hunter. I don’t think they’ll build the first few phases of homes in habitat that will affect me. They’ll start in the flat desert area, hopefully in the same spots as the solar panels (). It’ll be years before I feel significant pain.

I still completely disagree with the idea. There is an ample amount of private land for use. It’s political smoke and mirrors.

Other programs to pop up for federal land use or sale may cause more pain. I could see a T casino in my elk honey hole.

 

[jryoung]

The map above shows 'High housing shortages' (in red) exist in Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Illinois, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Florida.

Does anyone care to guess what these states have in common? Here's a hint: Florida's status was revoked by Trump in 2017 and Gov. DeSantis signed it into state law in 2019. Per the map above, Florida is still recovering from the repercussions where this provision was abused.

I thought your link was going to be about the significant about vacancy rates for real estate from a study a few years ago.

Floridian cities have some of the highest vacancy rates. Cities in Florida make up one third of the top 25 spots, including Pompano Beach (21.7%), Fort Lauderdale (21.4%), Clearwater (20.7%), Cape Coral (18.4%), St. Petersburg (17.0%), West Palm Beach (16.2%) and Hollywood (15.9%).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cities-where-housing-vacancy-rates-120000612.html

 

[Poke 'Em]

How much federal land is suited to medium-to-high density housing? Very little. Mostly you'll see this going to build vacation homes and mansions for the wealthy. And who will get rich off it? Developers. How many congressmen and senators are developers or have developer buddies? Almost all of them.

 

[rjthehunter]

How much federal land is suited to medium-to-high density housing? Very little. Mostly you'll see this going to build vacation homes and mansions for the wealthy. And who will get rich off it? Developers. How many congressmen and senators are developers or have developer buddies? Almost all of them.

Access to all the insider info does well for most congressmen & women.

https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances

 

[TOGIE]

How much federal land is suited to medium-to-high density housing? Very little. Mostly you'll see this going to build vacation homes and mansions for the wealthy. And who will get rich off it? Developers. How many congressmen and senators are developers or have developer buddies? Almost all of them.

yeah, all those dark timbered, 25 degree sloped, rocky granite outcropped pieces of national forest 30 miles from the edge of denver are gonna do wonders for affordable housing in the city.

one could say the plan is "beautiful"

 

[Wildabeest]

This is an example of what we’ll likely have to deal with when the floodgates open on privatizing and developing public land. This isn’t a public land example, but shows the lengths that wealthy out of town/state developers will go to in order to maximize profits at the expense of the locals.

Legislature approves a bill tied to the Dakota Pacific development. Will it override the referendum effort? - Park Record

Senate Bill 26, passed on Friday, during the last day of the 2025 general session, would amend Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zones while also appearing to codify the amended development agreement near the Park City Tech Center by including language that prevents the county from preventing or...

www.parkrecord.com

Cliff notes on the issue:
Developer (Dakota Pacific) negotiated a development plan with the county that included a certain number of affordable housing units at the insistence of the county. After agreeing, DP decided they didn’t like it, so they lobbied the state legislature to pass a law allowing them to form their own town and bypass local zoning. Total bullshit move, and proves the level of corruption in the UT legislature as it relates to land development issues. The locals decided to launch a Citizens Initiative to overturn the state law, but the legislature then responded in kind by passing another law that guts the public’s ability to do Citizens Initiatives.

Legislature pulled a similar move with a tract of land a developer wanted to exploit in an environmentally sensitive flood plain area near Moab.

This type of bullshit will get incubated in UT, but then get adopted by developers and migrate into every other state where lands become available for exploitation by them. And yes, I intentionally use the term “exploit” vs. “develop”. These developers come in and don’t really GAF about the impacts their developments will have on the local communities - traffic, environmental impacts, infrastructure, emergency services, etc. They want to come in and build their shit, take all of their profits somewhere else and then leave the locals to deal with the problems afterward. And corrupt government officials are more than willing to help them do it.

 

[Green Hunter]

How much federal land is suited to medium-to-high density housing? Very little. Mostly you'll see this going to build vacation homes and mansions for the wealthy. And who will get rich off it? Developers. How many congressmen and senators are developers or have developer buddies? Almost all of them.

Where is the dislike button? You are correct and I agree with you. We need more urban density, less urban sprawl

 

[Green Hunter]

I thought your link was going to be about the significant about vacancy rates for real estate from a study a few years ago.

Floridian cities have some of the highest vacancy rates. Cities in Florida make up one third of the top 25 spots, including Pompano Beach (21.7%), Fort Lauderdale (21.4%), Clearwater (20.7%), Cape Coral (18.4%), St. Petersburg (17.0%), West Palm Beach (16.2%) and Hollywood (15.9%).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cities-where-housing-vacancy-rates-120000612.html

Florida has a real issue being uninsurable and losing its appeal. That doesn't mean one should replace this with housing on public lands. There is far more opportunity to improving housing closer to public resources than finding the "easy" undeveloped land to put up a few housing projects that fails to address the core issue while also making opportunities for the wrong demographic of people. These would easily be taken in as second homes or investment properties instead of housing for those who actually live and work in the rural communities.

 

[SAJ-99]

View attachment 364429

New housing units completed vs population growth expressed in 1000s.

We've never really recovered to pre 2008 building levels

New Privately-Owned Housing Units Started: Total Units

View data of the total number of new privately owned homes that began construction in a given month, used as an indicator of economic strength.

fred.stlouisfed.org

I have to admit that your chart is driving me crazy. The Population line isn't growth (unit change or rate of change), it is population added since time 0, which is 1968ish? Not sure why that year was picked, but it doesn't matter. The new housing units completed is measured the same way. I think the problem is we are starting at the same point, 1968, and same number, 0. This is a poor comparison.

Below in first chart we see new housing starts and changed in total population.

Chart 2 is the ratio of population to households. This shows the problem with you chart. There are 2.6 people per home. So we don't have to grow housing units on a one for one basis. I think this is why it was bugging me.


Full disclosure, I have been saying for years that there is no "housing crisis". We have enough houses and starts rates are fine. Housing affordability? Maybe, but when 7% of the population owns more than one home, incomes and incentives might be a good place to start making changes. Building more units on public land is a bad idea, IMO, and won't fix the real problem.

 

[Beignet]

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been discussed...

I read an opinion piece in The Hill recently (which doesn't count for much as they'll publish anything), that proposed the USG offer renewable 99 year leases on any public land that would be developed. Thus retaining federal ownership as opposed to liquidating the land. Folks could own the homes, but not the land underneath.

The North Missoula Community Land Trust is currently using a similar scheme to provide affordable housing here.

Seems like there's very few places where there is an example of an undeveloped section of federally owned public inside of a city with a housing shortage, but let's suppose that there's a few out there.* Would the lease idea be more amenable than liquidation? I feel like it would call folks to task who use affordable housing as a pretext toward liquidation.

*Where are there actual large, develop-able parcels of federally owned land near a large city with a housing shortage? I don't think there's any secret BLM sections in like LA, SF, Seattle, DC, NYC, etc.... Cities like SLC, Denver, Las Vegas, etc don't seem to have any shortage of land upon which to sprawl.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

I have to admit that your chart is driving me crazy. The Population line isn't growth (unit change or rate of change), it is population added since time 0, which is 1968ish? Not sure why that year was picked, but it doesn't matter. The new housing units completed is measured the same way. I think the problem is we are starting at the same point, 1968, and same number, 0. This is a poor comparison.

Below in first chart we see new housing starts and changed in total population.
View attachment 364517
Chart 2 is the ratio of population to households. This shows the problem with you chart. There are 2.6 people per home. So we don't have to grow housing units on a one for one basis. I think this is why it was bugging me.
View attachment 364519

Full disclosure, I have been saying for years that there is no "housing crisis". We have enough houses and starts rates are fine. Housing affordability? Maybe, but when 7% of the population owns more than one home, incomes and incentives might be a good place to start making changes. Building more units on public land is a bad idea, IMO, and won't fix the real problem.

Idk. Sure seems like there was a major reduction in new construction completions after 2008, followed by a current affordability crisis. And even prior to that the swings in rate of new construction completion are far more drastic than the slowly declining rate of population increase.



And potentially/ likely we were overbuilding in 2006, but we haven't come close to approaching that level for 15 years. You may be right that the housing inventory currently exists to address the affordability problem, but there is no way the societal/ political will exists to move those houses around today. In my valley there are some 450 homes listed on zillow, but when you filter for what the median income can realistically afford there are only 55 places listed, and 40 if you remove townhomes/ condos. But none of this is the point.

*Where are there actual large, develop-able parcels of federally owned land near a large city with a housing shortage? I don't think there's any secret BLM sections in like LA, SF, Seattle, DC, NYC, etc.... Cities like SLC, Denver, Las Vegas, etc don't seem to have any shortage of land upon which to sprawl.

This is the point. There are probably a few specific examples out there somewhere, but I bet they're rare. There is nothing in Southern Oregon that would make sense. I glanced at Bozeman and Bend on OnX and I don't see anything that I expect would matter there.

Maybe in Boise on the East side, but I suspect a ton of the recent influx of people to the city value that more as open space than potential housing, and am sure most of the longtime residents agree. And in all cases, it looks like there is an awful lot of private land in between most city centers and the public that would be a better candidate for further development.

Edit: Bad screen grab. I replaced it.

 

[jimh406]

Not for affordable housing, but seems like a good deal for hunters.

In exchange for the rich mineral deposit parcels, the BLM will receive approximately 116,042 acres of isolated state lands within many of these protected areas, which will help consolidate and simplify management of public lands in the areas.

Landmark Dingell Act land exchange completed | Bureau of Land Management

Utah will gain 47 water rights; approximately 83,000 acres with sub-surface mineral estate; approx. 4,000 surface-only acres; and approximately 5,000 acres of sub-surface mineral, oil and gas, and coal-only estate.

www.blm.gov

 

[Beignet]

This is the point. There are probably a few specific examples out there somewhere, but I bet they're rare. There is nothing in Southern Oregon that would make sense. I glanced at Bozeman and Bend on OnX and I don't see anything that I expect would matter there.

Right? Just bouncing around land ownership apps myself. The only federally owned land I see near population centers that looks appropriate for housing development are military bases.

That said, if they want to build me a cheap oceanfront home in the new Vandenberg or Camp Pendleton Estates I’m not going to argue. It’d better be single family and I don’t want to see my neighbor’s place though. Under $500k would be swell too.

I think establishing that there’s really no public land appropriate for housing developments in areas where they’re needed does help demonstrate that this is a bullchit idea really only meant to transfer lands from public ownership. Using the word “housing” is a canard to garner public support for doing so.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Right? Just bouncing around land ownership apps myself. The only federally owned land I see near population centers that looks appropriate for housing development are military bases.

That said, if they want to build me a cheap oceanfront home in the new Vandenberg or Camp Pendleton Estates I’m not going to argue. It’d better be single family and I don’t want to see my neighbor’s place though. Under $500k would be swell too.

I think establishing that there’s really no public land appropriate for housing developments in areas where they’re needed does help demonstrate that this is a bullchit idea really only meant to transfer lands from public ownership. Using the word “housing” is a canard to garner public support for doing so.

As well: If we're going to do it such that it's profitable for the federal government that will mean it's cost prohibitive to the developer.