I hesitate to post this, as I know how much folks want to frame public land topics around the teams they support/oppose.
This article hit the Wall Street Journal this morning and the title is rather misleading, though I suspect titling it with Trump makes for better headlines at WSJ. This title is misleading in the fact that there are many Democrats who want to sell public lands for "affordable housing," contrary to what this headline says. Link for those who can get through the paywall - https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing...t-that-would-look-like-6b8fb82e?mod=wknd_pos1
Fact is, the biggest program for selling public land to accommodate urban housing was established by former Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) via the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. That allowed for BLM land around Las Vegas to be sold, with a percentage of the sales proceeds to be held in a trust for reinvestment in other public land projects in Nevada. That bill hit a lot of resistance and it was due to resistance that the funds were to be used for other public land and conservation projects.
It was cautioned that doing such for Vegas would open the door to future requests to do the same. And that gets us to the Wall Street Journal headlines of this morning that follows much campaign rhetoric on the same.
The Southern Nevada bill identified almost 68,000 acres of BLM lands for disposal, of which about 17,000 acres have been auctioned, generating $3.5 Billion. Per the law, many other acres have been transferred to state and local government (used to grease the local political skids).
So far over $700 million has been reinvested in Nevada conservation and access projects. Link here to the updated disposal/reinvestment list - https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/SNPLMA_3 PROGRAM STATISTICS.pdf
There exists a good chunk of money in that account that politicians want to get their hands on. Past budgets by the first Trump administration wanted to take a large amount of that money for the General Fund of the US Treasury. And that gets us to the point of how creative or bullish the effort will be to dispose of more public lands near urban centers and how the sales proceeds will be earmarked, if earmarked at all.
Think California, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Tucson, Vegas, Reno, Denver, Albuquerque, Hawaii, and who knows what other locations will want in on the deal. This effort is coming to public lands near these western metro areas and it is going to be supported by both sides.
The question becomes, when it happens, will enough pressure be provided such that the sales proceeds will be reinvested in other conservation and access projects? Or, will it become the political bargaining chips to gain local support when the NIMBYs complain?
The current tone is to have the money go back to the US Treasury to supply a few days of ink for the printing presses that keep Congress from having to adopt a budget. If that happens with these metro area sales, does that make it even more attractive to liquidate even more lands to allow Congress more "smoke and mirrors" budget creativity?
The Southern Nevada bill resulted in some really interesting relationships. A senior Democratic Senator, a bunch of conservative real estate developers, local elected officials and their business constituents, and an interesting mix of others who didn't want to miss out on the benefits of this land rush.
Reason of posting this here is that people think that Federal land disposal is purely a partisan issue. If you think that, you are missing history and you are not hearing what I am hearing out of DC. Yes, it is a small segment on the Republican side who call for full disposal of Federal lands, yet there are plenty of Democrats who want to use Federal lands sales to supposedly lower housing costs near metro areas. And it is the latter that is likely to happen in the next few years, and it will be supported by a lot Democrats and Republicans. And when that disposal for the sake of lower housing costs happens, expect it to be a land rush with pressure to expand the scope and size to likely include lands you hunt, camp, hike.
For those who can't get through the paywall, here is the only politician quoted in the article.
So, with both sides licking their chops to get some of these lands sold to supposedly lower housing costs, what can the public get out of the deals? Will it all go back to the US Treasury? Will it be used to fund other public land and conservation projects in that state or area? Will it end up being used to heavily fund local infrastructure projects? Will it be restricted by tight geographic boundaries that include only lands suitable for high-density or will it include more distant parcels that will become more sprawl?
History says the answers to those questions will be found in the source and amount of resistance encountered.
I know it is not trendy or juicy to frame this issue as R v D. It is not R v D. It is going to be another strange mix of bedfellows, the same as we saw with the Southern Nevada bills. When there is an opportunity for this much "free money" to serve as currency to purchase/repay local political favors, everyone wants in on the action.

This article hit the Wall Street Journal this morning and the title is rather misleading, though I suspect titling it with Trump makes for better headlines at WSJ. This title is misleading in the fact that there are many Democrats who want to sell public lands for "affordable housing," contrary to what this headline says. Link for those who can get through the paywall - https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing...t-that-would-look-like-6b8fb82e?mod=wknd_pos1
Fact is, the biggest program for selling public land to accommodate urban housing was established by former Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) via the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. That allowed for BLM land around Las Vegas to be sold, with a percentage of the sales proceeds to be held in a trust for reinvestment in other public land projects in Nevada. That bill hit a lot of resistance and it was due to resistance that the funds were to be used for other public land and conservation projects.
It was cautioned that doing such for Vegas would open the door to future requests to do the same. And that gets us to the Wall Street Journal headlines of this morning that follows much campaign rhetoric on the same.
The Southern Nevada bill identified almost 68,000 acres of BLM lands for disposal, of which about 17,000 acres have been auctioned, generating $3.5 Billion. Per the law, many other acres have been transferred to state and local government (used to grease the local political skids).
So far over $700 million has been reinvested in Nevada conservation and access projects. Link here to the updated disposal/reinvestment list - https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/SNPLMA_3 PROGRAM STATISTICS.pdf
There exists a good chunk of money in that account that politicians want to get their hands on. Past budgets by the first Trump administration wanted to take a large amount of that money for the General Fund of the US Treasury. And that gets us to the point of how creative or bullish the effort will be to dispose of more public lands near urban centers and how the sales proceeds will be earmarked, if earmarked at all.
Think California, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Tucson, Vegas, Reno, Denver, Albuquerque, Hawaii, and who knows what other locations will want in on the deal. This effort is coming to public lands near these western metro areas and it is going to be supported by both sides.
The question becomes, when it happens, will enough pressure be provided such that the sales proceeds will be reinvested in other conservation and access projects? Or, will it become the political bargaining chips to gain local support when the NIMBYs complain?
The current tone is to have the money go back to the US Treasury to supply a few days of ink for the printing presses that keep Congress from having to adopt a budget. If that happens with these metro area sales, does that make it even more attractive to liquidate even more lands to allow Congress more "smoke and mirrors" budget creativity?
The Southern Nevada bill resulted in some really interesting relationships. A senior Democratic Senator, a bunch of conservative real estate developers, local elected officials and their business constituents, and an interesting mix of others who didn't want to miss out on the benefits of this land rush.
Reason of posting this here is that people think that Federal land disposal is purely a partisan issue. If you think that, you are missing history and you are not hearing what I am hearing out of DC. Yes, it is a small segment on the Republican side who call for full disposal of Federal lands, yet there are plenty of Democrats who want to use Federal lands sales to supposedly lower housing costs near metro areas. And it is the latter that is likely to happen in the next few years, and it will be supported by a lot Democrats and Republicans. And when that disposal for the sake of lower housing costs happens, expect it to be a land rush with pressure to expand the scope and size to likely include lands you hunt, camp, hike.
For those who can't get through the paywall, here is the only politician quoted in the article.
“Freeing up federal land for more housing—I think it’s a good idea,” said U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, which has an affordable-housing shortage and where the federal government owns roughly a fifth of the state’s land.
“But the problem with housing policy is that politicians want a magic housing button that they can press. And that’s not how this works,” Schatz said.
So, with both sides licking their chops to get some of these lands sold to supposedly lower housing costs, what can the public get out of the deals? Will it all go back to the US Treasury? Will it be used to fund other public land and conservation projects in that state or area? Will it end up being used to heavily fund local infrastructure projects? Will it be restricted by tight geographic boundaries that include only lands suitable for high-density or will it include more distant parcels that will become more sprawl?
History says the answers to those questions will be found in the source and amount of resistance encountered.
I know it is not trendy or juicy to frame this issue as R v D. It is not R v D. It is going to be another strange mix of bedfellows, the same as we saw with the Southern Nevada bills. When there is an opportunity for this much "free money" to serve as currency to purchase/repay local political favors, everyone wants in on the action.
