Federal Land Sales for Affordable Housing?

[Matthew57]

Video from this morning.

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

Disappointing to see.

 

[elkduds]

My read is they plan to sell the land, not develop actual federal land, then use the $ ostensibly for 'affordable housing.' Can anyone cite a track record of federal success with residential real estate development?

 

[Dan-06]

There’s no problem so bad that federal government can’t make it worse. If we took money out of the equation? Would they still believe this to be a viable option?

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I don't believe there is a housing shortage. I think it's a term used with cherry picked examples do get the general public on board. So it all sounds like a bunch of suck to me!

 

[brymoore]

I don't believe there is a housing shortage. I think it's a term used with cherry picked examples do get the general public on board. So it all sounds like a bunch of suck to me!

I agree. It’s a strategy to set the precedence of selling federal land.

 

[Nick87]

don't believe there is a housing shortage.

Idk, I think there is in some places. But selling federal land isn't going to help any of that anyway. Define shortage I guess.

 

[Nick87]

Maybe more like an affordability problem.

 

[David Gough]

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!!

Don't forget all of the wells that would need to be piped since there's no water out there. Washoe County lands bill will come back with a vengeance (again) if it already hasn't.

 

[WildWill]

Maybe more like an affordability problem.

Definitely but a lot of people like it that way at least the ones who already got their house.

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.

This is very true.

 

[mtmuley]

Maybe more like an affordability problem.

A huge part of the problem where I am. mtmuley

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Definitely but a lot of people like it that way at least the ones who already got their house.
This is very true.

I'm starting to lean into the belief that many development restrictions, especially within city limits, are just subsidy to the property value of current owners.

 

[Nick87]

A huge part of the problem where I am. mtmuley

I think it's a problem anywhere there is work. Or that's been my experience. Makes sense.

 

[mtmuley]

I think it's a problem anywhere there is work. Or that's been my experience. Makes sense.

The influx here happened when people could work in their pajamas. mtmuley

 

[get-n-birdy]

Tough thinking about what this could do if it gets enough traction and was spun/sold to the masses within the idea it's so great, it has bipartisan support. In a political climate where there is none, it could be easily sold as the one thing that can be agreed on. Once that dam has it's first few big chunks knocked out, there's no going back. The hope has always been the one side wouldn't allow it. Now the hope is they don't get drunk on the dollars and start crawling in bed together. Don't like either side. This slope is getting steeper and more and more slick with the slick talking salesmen trying to sell it smelling blood in the water. To think it can be fixed by being more energy independent is disturbingly dense.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

I don't believe there is a housing shortage. I think it's a term used with cherry picked examples do get the general public on board. So it all sounds like a bunch of suck to me!

Idk, I think there is in some places. But selling federal land isn't going to help any of that anyway. Define shortage I guess.

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

 

[Irrelevant]

Well, I preemptively wrote my D reps/senators to provide some feedback against this terrible idea. As others have mentioned, land prices aren't the sole driver of housing costs. Redevelopment and denser development both make more sense to me.
Also, wage disparity has to play into it, right?


But I'm not sure if I believe housing is an entitlement. I flip-flop on that one pretty frequently.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Has anyone asked the socioeconomically disadvantaged who are the presumed beneficiaries of this affordable housing where they want to live?

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.

View attachment 364408

Brah, Mayor Keller’s administration already got this covered! You see, once the unsheltered become too burdensome, build bigger fencing to get those bums out of the city parks. Then create awful PR by establishing vagrant camping areas. But above all, remind the constituents we helped those in need by building out the $50M ART bus lines so they could bus into the city.

 

[SAJ-99]

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.

Are there programs in place to make sure affordable housing in those areas don’t simply become AirBnB’s? It is one thing for Vail resorts to buy land to build an apartment complex for workers. It is entirely another for the Federal government to sell land to a developer and let capitalism run its course.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Imagine hearing in 2005 that in 2025 and republicans would be rolling out a federal housing program.

 

[TheTone]

How about we start with the thousands (millions?) of empty and abandoned buildings and lots that already exist in every city in the country if we need some type of housing development