Federal Land Sales for Affordable Housing?

[Big Fin]

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.

“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.

 

[Oak]

Link for those who can get through the paywall - https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing...t-that-would-look-like-6b8fb82e?mod=wknd_pos1

If you go to Big Fin's link, you can view the storymap at the top of the article. If you click this link, you can read past the paywall (you need to scroll down the page).

 

[Forkyfinder]

If you go to Big Fin's link, you can view the storymap at the top of the article. If you click this link, you can read past the paywall (you need to scroll down the page).

Not all heroes wear capes

 

[Oak]

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.

I could see there being a big push near smaller communities in the intermountain west as well. Think ski/resort towns that lack affordable housing for workers. In Colorado, these are already areas where big game has suffered from development of critical winter range. The only thing left for wildlife in many of these localities is adjacent public lands.

 

[Nameless Range]

On a smaller scale and on different issues, but over and over it seems, there is a tendency for a govt program to spin up where initially the taxes/revenue/proceeds are said to be dedicated to X. But then, over time and often not long after, those proceeds are looked at a cookie jar for some wholly unrelated effort. I don't know how you protect a pot of money like that in the long term.

I can't read the article, but it isn't at all clear to me that housing shortages/unaffordable housing are in any way tied to a lack of land on which to build houses. The chief drivers of those things seem to be something totally different in the places I am most familar with.

 

[jimh406]

There been a lot written about what the Trump administration might do. From what I'm following, doing anything with public lands other than using them is way down the list of priorities.

Just a reminder that there is a bipartisan bill written to prevent the sale of public lands. Sure it's a link to his press release, but only because that was the easiest to find.

Zinke Re-Introduces Slate of Conservation Bills

(Washington, D.C. ) - Today, Western Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke reintroduced a slate of conservation bills that he had previously introduced in 118th Congress (2023-2024). Members of Congress are required to re-submit bills at the start of a new Congress for consideration in the new session.

zinke.house.gov

 

[Gellar]

What is the definition of affordable housing? Many of the acres that would be available probably have similar attributes as other areas that have been sold as high end subdivisions such as mountain vistas, exclusive access to blue ribbon streams and lakes, etc. and therefore are unaffordable to most. how do we plan on stopping these developments from becoming unaffordable affordable housing?

 

[Big Fin]

There been a lot written about what the Trump administration might do. From what I'm following, doing anything with public lands other than using them is way down the list of priorities.

Just a reminder that there is a bipartisan bill written to prevent the sale of public lands. Sure it's a link to his press release, but only because that was the easiest to find.

Zinke Re-Introduces Slate of Conservation Bills

(Washington, D.C. ) - Today, Western Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke reintroduced a slate of conservation bills that he had previously introduced in 118th Congress (2023-2024). Members of Congress are required to re-submit bills at the start of a new Congress for consideration in the new session.

zinke.house.gov

This is not just Trump and his ideas, even though he has established a committee comprised of Department of Interior and Housing and Urban Development to identify DOI lands suitable for housing.

The infatuation with labeling everything we like/dislike as Trump's idea is a strange phenomena. The WSJ has surely fallen for that, as evidenced by the title of the article. Labeling these topics with "Trump" sends everyone into a tailspin or a victory lap. It is not helpful to good discussion of the topics at hand.

Zinke's bill would be great, but it has a very low likelihood of passing. It was reintroduced again in the 119th Congress and has been assigned to a Committee, but there is no scheduled hearing. I hope it passes, but until it passes, and it is unlikely that it passes, it doesn't to much more for public lands than the words we post here on Hunt Talk. I'll be there supporting him in the effort in any way possible.

For now, it looks like the land rush wagon is getting the skids greased. With many elected officials yelling, "All aboard!"

 

[Big Sky Guy]

What is the definition of affordable housing? Many of the acres that would be available probably have similar attributes as other areas that have been sold as high end subdivisions such as mountain vistas, exclusive access to blue ribbon streams and lakes, etc. and therefore are unaffordable to most. how do we plan on stopping these developments from becoming unaffordable affordable housing?

This is what I was going to point out. Similar to the bill in Montana discussing sale of “isolated” state lands, “affordable” seems to be a buzz word for politicians to use to garner votes yet never needs to be defined.

@Big Fin do you put any stock in the selling of federal lands as a way to balance the federal deficit? A lot of what I wrote off as conspiracy theorist type ideas in regards to public lands just 5-10 years ago seem to be much more plausible now. Based on DOGE’s seemingly partisan support/cheering from R’s I don’t think this is as far-fetched as I once thought, and would estimate a large majority of Republicans would be in favor of this with the correct political spin/campaign. Tie this in with “affordable” housing and I think you have a recipe for the majority of the country to see this as a win-win paying off the deficit and creating affordable housing!?

 

[elkduds]

As the saying goes, they aren't making any more land. Yet we keep making more people. Selling public lands that used to have little to no value (BLM) but are now worth selling, in order to house more people today does nothing to address population growth. In fact development encourages population growth. Think of how development followed the railroads across the west, and how building a new highway promotes development along that corridor. Selling finite lands that benefit us all into perpetuity, to fund the next gobble of resources by the expanding mouth of population, is a very temporary fix that increases the problem of unfettered growth. In the 1970s Edward Abbey wrote, "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." And here we are.

 

[Dave N]

Nothing is affordable anymore. Taking a lot of those areas for housing would mean constructing all of the roads and other infrastructure required to do so before any housing could be completed. Probably not very cost-effective in lots of areas. There are plenty of areas already established with the necessary requirements that could be developed or rebuilt to provide more housing. But it still doesn't mean that it will be "affordable" for those people who need it. I can't see where this would accomplish anything but padding the wallets of politicians and land developers.

 

[Big Fin]

This is what I was going to point out. Similar to the bill in Montana discussing sale of “isolated” state lands, “affordable” seems to be a buzz word for politicians to use to garner votes yet never needs to be defined.

@Big Fin do you put any stock in the selling of federal lands as a way to balance the federal deficit? A lot of what I wrote off as conspiracy theorist type ideas in regards to public lands just 5-10 years ago seem to be much more plausible now. Based on DOGE’s seemingly partisan support/cheering from R’s I don’t think this is as far-fetched as I once thought, and would estimate a large majority of Republicans would be in favor of this with the correct political spin/campaign. Tie this in with “affordable” housing and I think you have a recipe for the majority of the country to see this as a win-win paying off the deficit and creating affordable housing!?

It is not as far fetched as I once thought it to be. Given the lands already identified as "suitable for disposal" under the FLTFA, those are low hanging fruit. And I suspect the FLTFA idea to use any proceeds for reinvestment in other lands could easily be tossed aside and the sale proceeds could be diverted to the US Treasury for general funding.

I've been in this long enough to never underestimate the appeal of seemingly free money in the eyes of any elected official, from either side.

We are in the crosshairs of many ideas that would facilitate disposing of some pretty big chunks of Federal lands; 1) make for more affordable housing 2) help fund Federal programs 3) balance the budget 4) make land management more efficient 5) unlock resources that will stimulate the economy

 

[Forkyfinder]

Properties in the west arent affordable and havent been since ive been alive. Lots of reasons for that - but land cost isnt something that moves the needle there. Demand, Labor, materials, and the need to upgrade infrastructure to support the development of new housing are the biggest drivers.

Id be more than willing to bet that labor and materials going up from policy changes will more than wipe out any savings to be had from developing public land.

 

[Steiny77]

There are places where this would make great sense, such as moth balled military properties, un-needed federal buildings converted to apartments or condo's, etc.
Hopefully they won't be dumb enough to consider development of pristine wild lands for this.

 

[brymoore]

Land is roughly ~20% of a new house construction budget. The proposal ignores the 80% increased costs for material and labor.

 

[JAG]

Increasing affordable housing through public land disposal would be very helpful for the Democrats as long as they use leverage to keep increasing benefits for illegal immigrants such as grants for hotels in New York, health insurance, and increasing their voting base.

The significant reduction already experienced in illegal immigration by the current administration could weaken the potency of weaponized empathy by Democrats to leverage their interest in allowing undocumented immigrants to claim federal lands for affordable housing:

 

[Big Fin]

Increasing affordable housing through public land disposal would be very helpful for the Democrats as long as they use leverage to keep increasing benefits for illegal immigrants such as grants for hotels in New York, health insurance, and increasing their voting base.

The significant reduction already experienced in illegal immigration by the current administration could weaken the potency of weaponized empathy by Democrats to leverage their interest in allowing undocumented immigrants to claim federal lands for affordable housing:

View attachment 364375

What you just posted has nothing to do with this thread. It’s more of the hyper partisan stuff that detracts from discussion on important topics. Take the derailing partisan bullshit somewhere else.

 

[JAG]

What you just posted has nothing to do with this thread. It’s more of the hyper partisan stuff that detracts from discussion on important topics. Take the derailing partisan bullshit somewhere else.

Ouch, you hurt my feelings.

I genuinely thought it contributed to the overall context/understanding of federal land grab interest by the other side. I used references to reveal my line of thinking.

 

[texwest44]

I hate being a pessimist but these proposals really do seem like thinly veiled land grabs that, in the end, will primarily benefit the millionaire/billionaire class. I spent enough years on the west coast and saw plenty of these "affordable housing" plans that provided only marginal access to regular people, while further enriching the already-enriched.

If these proposals wind up being approved and moving forward, I can almost guarantee you it'll be more of the same. Developers and investors will get land well below market value, and will be told they can build whatever they want provided some small percentage of it is "affordable" (which will be nebulously defined at best). They will also get absurd tax breaks.

If that doesn't turn out to be the case, and somehow we enter a new era of using public lands to create truly affordable housing development plans that primarily benefit low and middle income classes of people, I will eat my hat.

 

[WildWill]

How about focusing on bringing jobs and affordable housing to cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, etc that have shrinking populations, tons of empty lots, and infrastructure already in place? Oh right because this actually has little to do with affordable housing and more to do with somebody lining their pockets at the expense of American citizens.