Federal Land Sales for Affordable Housing?
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Nick87
Well-known member
Win win. Think of the wingshooting.
I thought the next 2 were Canada and Greenland?
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Nothing more than the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council potentially requiring deed restrictions on proposed developments, as far as I know. But I’m not well-versed.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Good idea, and then kick that side-burned clown of a President they have squarely in the pills...
seeth07
Well-known member
I think you both are right and they are related.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
We certainly have a population issue. We can't keep growing and expect the landscape to remain the same. We may not be at Wall-E level quite yet but it isn't too far fetched based on growth that we don't look anywhere near the same in the next 50 years.
The affordability part is quite mind boggling to me and it's a direct result of more people but the space hasn't changed.
Check out this video, does a much better job than I can pointing this out.
seeth07
Well-known member
He was able to end the nasty inflation and get the economy back on track. So not so sure that is warranted and quite honestly a bit off track. I'll give it to you on the side burns though
And on the same note, I'm not sure what can be used to discourage the Dems who see tapping into the sales proceeds as some free pork for their local patrons, with patron being a better term than constituent when there is "gubment cheese" being doled out.
I expect all who are disconnected from public lands to be lining up to get in on the action, D and R alike.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
And Gaza. Don’t forget Gaza!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Middle East Riviera...get it right.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
Two observations.
Grazing rights are not market-priced. The result is welfare for ranchers. Stop the welfare. Increase revenues.
Anyone that cheers the “non-residents don’t pay taxes in my state and we own the wildlife so bend over for tag price increases and allotment cuts” should love my observation that Yellowstone entry fees should rise 10x then you get rebates based on amount of Federal income tax you paid in the prior tax year. After all, Federal taxpayers are funding Federal lands. Gander, meet Goose.
Grazing rights are not market-priced. The result is welfare for ranchers. Stop the welfare. Increase revenues.
Anyone that cheers the “non-residents don’t pay taxes in my state and we own the wildlife so bend over for tag price increases and allotment cuts” should love my observation that Yellowstone entry fees should rise 10x then you get rebates based on amount of Federal income tax you paid in the prior tax year. After all, Federal taxpayers are funding Federal lands. Gander, meet Goose.
I’ve already put my down payment on some pretty nice beach property. Best you’ve ever seen.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 3,493
Sounds fine to me.
DP_PublicLands
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2023
- Messages
- 22
There will always be something to try to justify land grabs. This excuse is no different than any other.
In Montana, it’s getting tough for the neighborhood rancher to hold on to his spread. They are land rich and money poor. The federal government is in the same boat, climbing national debt and land rich.
I pray that we never see the day that having access to public lands is a privilege. Wild public landscapes have molded the best people I know and I pray that my kids and grandkids get to experience the same. There are times when the cards seemed stacked against that notion for sure.
In Montana, it’s getting tough for the neighborhood rancher to hold on to his spread. They are land rich and money poor. The federal government is in the same boat, climbing national debt and land rich.
I pray that we never see the day that having access to public lands is a privilege. Wild public landscapes have molded the best people I know and I pray that my kids and grandkids get to experience the same. There are times when the cards seemed stacked against that notion for sure.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
I would be on board if sale of federal land was exchanged for habitat improvement or swapped for more land to prevent a net loss. In practice, that is a pipe dream. Everyone is already lined up with their hand ready for the cookie jar. I am guessing the proceeds will end up going to the following:
30% residential developers
20% procurement
10% wealthy residents
10% commerce and industry installations
10% politicians
10% local residents
5% transfer agents
5% the American public
Federal land is held in trust for the sole benefit of all American citizens. The more complicated the sale, the more of the sale proceeds that gets disproportionately pilfered to just a handful of those citizens.
Anytime a federal land sale proposal gets floated with a kickback to locals it drives me up a wall. Just because the land is in your backyard, it does not belong more to you than it does to me. How is this basic idea so lost on almost our entire society?
By this logic, if a house sells in my neighborhood, all the other neighboring homeowners would get cut a check. The seller would obviously balk at that, but we don’t blink when the same thing happens with our federal land.
Let’s say a federal parcel sells for $34M. One penny of that sale belongs to me, except, someone else gets my penny. BS.
Our country’s land is getting sold, folks. And a lot of it too, within our lifetimes. The bill to prevent federal land sales is noble, but hopeless.
With the inevitable coming, I would prefer to have a simple bill to funnel all land sale proceeds to a “America Federal Land Sales Trust Fund”, completely out of the reach of politicians. Money goes in the fund, and only comes out with through an annual ballot initiative garnering 50% of the vote.
30% residential developers
20% procurement
10% wealthy residents
10% commerce and industry installations
10% politicians
10% local residents
5% transfer agents
5% the American public
Federal land is held in trust for the sole benefit of all American citizens. The more complicated the sale, the more of the sale proceeds that gets disproportionately pilfered to just a handful of those citizens.
Anytime a federal land sale proposal gets floated with a kickback to locals it drives me up a wall. Just because the land is in your backyard, it does not belong more to you than it does to me. How is this basic idea so lost on almost our entire society?
By this logic, if a house sells in my neighborhood, all the other neighboring homeowners would get cut a check. The seller would obviously balk at that, but we don’t blink when the same thing happens with our federal land.
Let’s say a federal parcel sells for $34M. One penny of that sale belongs to me, except, someone else gets my penny. BS.
Our country’s land is getting sold, folks. And a lot of it too, within our lifetimes. The bill to prevent federal land sales is noble, but hopeless.
With the inevitable coming, I would prefer to have a simple bill to funnel all land sale proceeds to a “America Federal Land Sales Trust Fund”, completely out of the reach of politicians. Money goes in the fund, and only comes out with through an annual ballot initiative garnering 50% of the vote.
In the article published by WSJ published it outlines Trump's aim to use a task force to use part of the 650 million acres of federal land to address the housing shortage. He plans to use HUD to develop housing therein.
This article gives most of us here some reprieve since it quickly carves out that only 7.3% of all federal land falls within metro areas that need more homes.
The aim of Trump’s new task force is to identify the land parcels suitable for building. It will then transfer or lease them out to public-housing authorities, nonprofits or local governments to develop homes.
This article gives most of us here some reprieve since it quickly carves out that only 7.3% of all federal land falls within metro areas that need more homes.
The aim of Trump’s new task force is to identify the land parcels suitable for building. It will then transfer or lease them out to public-housing authorities, nonprofits or local governments to develop homes.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Similar threads
