Federal Land Sales for Affordable Housing?

[whatnot]

1. Unless these lands come with water, it's a losing prospect. We aren't short near as many acres as we are acre feet.

2. The biggest costs in construction are government. We can bullshit all day about land prices, but it is illegal to build tge same houses we grew up in. Efficiency standards, footprint regs, fees and taxes on every material used, are the culprit.

 

[eshunt]

I live in NW nevada. One of these land use bills is proposed for around the Reno area. The problem is, these are not designated as "affordable housing". There is only a small percentage of the land designated to be used as "affordable" with the remainder being sold to developers to build housing/commercial in general. I have a few issues with the bills as proposed.

First, a lot of the land that is proposed for transfer is critical mule deer winter range and antelope range. There are not any provisions in the sale/transfer of public to private that would require maintaining any of the areas for deer, antelope, etc. that I could see. Instead, they will just sell off, develop and then let all the feral horses destry any remaining habitat.

Second, there is already a lot of private land that is located just to the south of I-80 that could be developed instead of transferring public lands that are north of I-80. Any and all private land should be advocated for development before any public land is transferred in my opinion. The senators are saying that they need the public land transferred in order to accomodate growth because there isn't enough private land available for development. This is total BS! There are thousands of acres of private land that could be developed. I guess it is more lucrative to sell the private land to large scale data centers that are receiving cheap/subisidized power instead of using it for housing that the senators are saying is so critical.

Third, many of these allocations use transfer to local tribes and government for parks, etc. as ways to grease the wheels. I do no appreciate this at all. Keep public lands public!!

 

[JAG]

When encountering a problem that creates an impasse, I always like to propose a solution that resolves the problem.

At the risk of getting torched again, I propose that while fighting against the monetization of selling federal lands, we also advocate for an alternate solution. What if we were to vouch for a push for the successful revocation of moratoriums against offshore drilling? If this is accomplished (settled in pending court objections), this would leverage far greater financial gains for the U.S. economy and improve the U.S.'s energy independence.

For further context, once you sell federal lands, they are gone. However, achieving sustainable increases in drilling opportunities offshore would alleviate the pressure on the Federal government to generate income from selling land.

The often-cited objection against offshore drilling was that it was an eyesore. If the previous administration was pushing for offshore wind farms, then why can't we do the same for drilling? Wind farms are still heavily subsidized as the technology is still being developed toward a nonsubsidized ROI.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I always like to propose a solution that resolves the problem.

Good idea, but out of HT wheelhouse sphere of influence. How about you jump on the Alabama -Gulf States' Congressional forum and start a thread to lobby your proposal.
Meanwhile ... back to public lands for affordable housing ...

 

[Nick87]

How about you jump on the Alabama -Gulf States' Congressional forum

Yah, that's the way to help get national support.

 

[SaskHunter]

Affordable housing near large metro areas today, condos near wilderness areas tomorrow.

This can set a pretty bad precedent.

I don't know about South of the border, but here, more often then not, the barrier to housing is government, not available land. From Federal all the way down to municipal governments, those barriers come in the form of laws, zoning, rules, regulations and permits, to name a few.

 

[TexanSam]

I swear I've heard people say that people will never allow for any true "affordable housing" to come to fruition. If anything ever threatened home equity on a large scale, that would be disastrous.

 

[JAG]

Good idea, but out of HT wheelhouse sphere of influence. How about you jump on the Alabama -Gulf States' Congressional forum and start a thread to lobby your proposal.
Meanwhile ... back to public lands for affordable housing ...

Alabama has very little public land available and they all advocate for the elimination of federal land so landowners can experience the same level of ownership they have here.

 

[JAG]

Also, I'm not sure that selling public lands would help improve affordable housing. In general terms, it would appear that if additional land for development is opened up, then the market price for undeveloped land would be diluted.

However, what quantity of buildable land is near metro areas that is federal versus privately owned? I'm guessing very little on a macro level. Yes, there are some exceptions like Jackson, WY. If this assumption is mostly true, then it does not appear to hold much promise to create affordable housing.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Affordable housing near large metro areas today, condos near wilderness areas tomorrow.

This can set a pretty bad precedent.

I don't know about South of the border, but here, more often then not, the barrier to housing is government, not available land. From Federal all the way down to municipal governments, those barriers come in the form of laws, zoning, rules, regulations and permits, to name a few.

Weaponized NIMBYism is a powerful tool. My town loves the idea of affordable housing, but despises the idea of development on any open space.

 

[JAG]

Good idea, but out of HT wheelhouse sphere of influence. How about you jump on the Alabama -Gulf States' Congressional forum and start a thread to lobby your proposal.
Meanwhile ... back to public lands for affordable housing ...

Energy independence, offshore drilling, more jobs in America, more Americans with better jobs, = more Americans who can afford housing

Is that simple enough for you?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Alabama has very little public land available and they all advocate for the elimination of federal land so landowners can experience the same level of ownership they have here.

Understood. But Alabama has much more interest and sway regarding offshore drilling than Idaho or Utah.

 

[JAG]

Understood. But Alabama has much more interest and sway regarding offshore drilling than Idaho or Utah.

Not really, Alabama already allows it. Alabama, Louisiana, MS, and Texas already allow offshore drilling. California kinda does, but only 12 miles offshore and for good reasons, no oil company in their right mind wants to do business in California these days.

 

[Oak]

Video from this morning.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1901634637606035462

 

[MTGomer]

When framed as a housing initiative, I think you’ll find support for urban adjacent federal land transfer to be quite high to people of a certain political persuasion. Perhaps as high as it is for rural federal lands if it’s framed as being used for renewable energy development or “land back”.

Urban people in the Southwest generally view the desert as empty and worthless. Which it is not.

 

[brymoore]

Also, I'm not sure that selling public lands would help improve affordable housing. In general terms, it would appear that if additional land for development is opened up, then the market price for undeveloped land would be diluted.

However, what quantity of buildable land is near metro areas that is federal versus privately owned? I'm guessing very little on a macro level. Yes, there are some exceptions like Jackson, WY. If this assumption is mostly true, then it does not appear to hold much promise to create affordable housing.

Agree for the most part. Boise area is on the WSJ map. There is plenty of private land available to develop.

The cost of building materials is a major problem.

 

[Gellar]

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.

I question if we really have a housing shortage or do we just have a shortage of houses that are instagram worthy. Keeping up with the Jones’s doesn’t mean buying a starter 1 or 2 bedroom house, but going straight to the subdivision with a 5 bedroom, 3 bath, 4 stall garage and a penthouse view. And as a result the houses that don’t fit that criteria sit vacant until they are to dilapidated to fix.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Another bonus to gutting the land management agencies….this aligns with the new streamlined workforce.

With both parties on board, albeit for different reasons, I’d say they are going to accomplish a fair bit of divestment pretty soon.

 

[Chama Grande]

1. Unless these lands come with water, it's a losing prospect. We aren't short near as many acres as we are acre feet.

South of Albuquerque had some grand designs for building, and a lot of people own these lands but can't get the water. Should we sell BLM parcels when we have uninhabited road networks already bladed in and abandoned? I hope my local government isn't that shortsighted or blinded by whatever is going on.

 

[jimh406]

I think it's a good point to point out that the places with the most public land don't have nearly as many people, and the opposite is also true. So, building on public land won't do a lot unless we have a massive relocation effort. And then, someone has to provide jobs in those areas. Realistically, creating affordable housing on public land has lots of issues.