Leupold Banner

Federal Land Sales for Affordable Housing?

Chama Grande said:
Article about land swaps from a tribal angle. Maybe there are pockets in other eastern state tribes where land availability is an issue, but that's not what I see from where I sit. It's always water. Day in, day out, water.

New DOI-HUD partnership aims to open federal lands for tribal, rural housing

HUD and Interior Department launch joint task force to unlock federal lands for tribal housing development, aiming to address persistent Native housing shortages in western states.
tribalbusinessnews.com tribalbusinessnews.com
Click to expand...
The issue with tribal housing isn’t land. Banks won’t lend on tribal land. There are land ownership issues (tribal vs individual) and tribal laws supersede state laws making collection on bad loans nearly impossible. The loans are uncollectible.

If the Feds want to fix tribal housing, build houses on the tribal land and do Fed loans.
 
Last edited:
nrpate05 said:
I haven't read through all of the posts, so maybe it has been said or maybe it goes without saying but it seems like there may be a more targeted approach to federal land transfer in the works. Many of the 'wholesale' approaches are getting little traction and many bills aimed at transfer at state legislatures have failed. I think we'll see more of the approach of selling public lands for a specific reason (ie. affordable housing). The fact that it has support on both sides of the aisle will help the proponents cause as well. I'm sitting in Jackson, WY at the moment and overlooking the National Elk Refuge. It is easy to hear an argument for pushing town into the NER for affordable housing in a place where the workforce comes from upwards of a couple hours away.
Click to expand...
Now you sir have a valid point!
 
I'm going to a town hall meeting with Senator Jeff Merkley this Saturday and hope to be able to ask him about this specifically. I want to know what he and other public land supporters in Congress are doing to stop this. Any suggestions on how succinctly (and politely) word my question, if I'm given the opportunity to ask? I can be a little rambly...
 
Big Fin said:
I’m in DC this week. Making the Capitol rounds on public lands today, this issue sure gave a lot of talking points.
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to do this. It takes a certain type of person to be able and confident to walk the walk in DC.

Glad we have you on our side.
 
rtraverdavis said:
I'm going to a town hall meeting with Senator Jeff Merkley this Saturday and hope to be able to ask him about this specifically. I want to know what he and other public land supporters in Congress are doing to stop this. Any suggestions on how succinctly (and politely) word my question, if I'm given the opportunity to ask? I can be a little rambly...
Click to expand...
Are you intending to ask a question or provide input?
 
Oak said:
www.eenews.net

Republicans weigh sales of public land in reconciliation

The plans are still fuzzy, and some Republicans say they fiercely oppose the idea.
www.eenews.net www.eenews.net
Click to expand...
Signs of the Apocalypse: Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee (R-Utah), whose committee has jurisdiction over such issues.

Zinke doth protest too much. What he said: Zinke did allow there could be small exceptions, like small land swaps that are in the public interest. “But the idea we are going to sell our public lands to pay for our debt, ain’t happening with my vote and I will use my influence,” he said.
What he is doing: Zinke is cosponsoring this bill to eliminate fishing, hunting and recreation development and priorities on the best habitat of all BLM lands, and drill it all ASAP. Of course, waiving NEPA.

H.R.1997 - Productive Public Lands Act119th Congress (2025-2026) | Get alerts​

Bill​

Hide Overview
Sponsor:Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3] (Introduced 03/10/2025)
Committees:House - Natural Resources
Latest Action:House - 03/10/2025 Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. (All Actions)
Tracker: TipThis bill has the status Introduced
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
  1. Introduced
  2. Passed House
  3. Passed Senate
  4. To President
  5. Became Law




More on This Bill​

Give Feedback on This Bill​

Text: H.R.1997 — 119th Congress (2025-2026)All Information (Except Text)​

Listen
There is one version of the bill.

Text available as:​

Shown Here:​

Introduced in House (03/10/2025)​


119th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1997
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue certain Records of Decision and Resource Management Plans.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 10, 2025
Mr. Hurd of Colorado (for himself, Mr. LaMalfa, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Downing, Mr. Evans of Colorado, and Mr. Bentz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue certain Records of Decision and Resource Management Plans.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Productive Public Lands Act”.
SEC. 2. Administration of Records of Decision.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall reissue each of the following and update the preferred alternative accordingly:
(1) The Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment, dated November 2024, selecting alternative B as the preferred alternative.
(2) The Record of Decision and Approved Grand Junction Field Office Resource Management Plan, dated October 2024, selecting alternative A as the preferred alternative.
(3) The Record of Decision and Approved Colorado River Valley Field Office Resource Management Plan, dated October 2024, selecting alternative B as the preferred alternative.
(4) The Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, dated November 2024, selecting alternative A as the preferred alternative.
(5) The Rock Springs Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, dated December 2024, selecting alternative C as the preferred alternative.
(6) The Record of Decision and Approved Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan: Royal Gorge Field Office, dated January 2024, selecting alternative A or C as the preferred alternative.
(7) The Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil and Gas Management in Colorado, dated October 2024, selecting alternative A as the preferred alternative.
(8) The Lakeview Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment, dated January 2025, selecting alternative A as the preferred alternative.
(9) The Gunnison Sage-Grouse Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment, dated October 2024, selecting alternative A as the preferred alternative.
SEC. 3. Authority.
The documents reissued under section 2 and the preferred alternatives selected therein—
(1) shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the “Administrative Procedure Act”); and
(2) do not require any additional environmental analysis.
 
It has been an interesting two days here in DC, with two more to go. Meeting with people who are actually here, working on bills, working on budgets, and talking to staffers and members of Congress who serve on the committees is helpful, as much as this place is like being subjected to some sort of cruel and unusual punishment.

Summary so far:

- This supposed "affordable" housing spin has as much energy as I feared, if not more. It is a good ides in the minds of most Rs and some Ds. The more urban, the more that state's delegates are on board with such.

- LWCF still has a ways to go to get the 200,000 acres of FY2024 projects completed. If there remains enough talent (surveyors, appraisers, attorneys, realty specialists) to actually get the work completed, we should get most of those projects across the finish line.

- LWCF is going to have a tough hill to climb for FY2025. Even with $900 million earmarked under the Great American Outdoor Act, there are members of Congress who hate that law and will find ways to not spend the money, then try to use the recision process to claw that money back to the general budget to help offset other priorities. There are some huge projects, often done in phases, that are to be funded in FY 2025 LWCF. It would be a shame to lose them half way through to completion.

- I was told a couple weeks ago by a staffer that the reconciliation process was likely to be used as the way to try sell more public land. By using the "reconciliation process" it avoids the required 60 votes needed in the Senate. The article this morning that was posted by @Oak confirmed that tactic. I wish I had sounded that alarm when I first heard it, but it seemed a bit hard to envision. My optimism is sometimes unwarranted. If that same source is correct, the push in this reconciliation process will try to identify 500,000 acres to be sold by the end of FY 2026. It will expand beyond the language in FLTFA that allows Department of Interior to sell identified lands without Congressional approval, but expanding similar language to USDA/USFS.

- Nobody seems to have details of what lands will be identified under this new effort to roll public land sales into the "reconciliation process" Nor have any details been provided as to the criteria that would be applied in identifying such. Seems the folks pushing this idea are keeping it as quiet as they can. I suspect if they do try to push it, we will learn any details with very short notice beforehand.

- There are some here who have assured me and others that using the reconciliation process to circumvent the Senate rules will not get the votes. Those trying to use the process will claim the opponents are trying to "shut down the government." I'm not as confident as they are.

- There are about four (maybe a couple more) critical people in the Senate and House who are going to be the final backstop against some of these crazy ideas about land sales for supposed "lower housing costs" or "balance the budget" or (insert foolish idea here). People roasting Daines (MT), Westerman (AR), Zinke (MT), or Simpson (ID) on public land issues are not doing any favors for the public land cause. Every person I have talked to this week, from Office staffers, to Committee staff, to agency staff, all say that Daines is the pivot point in the Senate. I suspect tomorrow I will hear more of the same. And every person also tells me that Mike Lee (UT) is leading the charge to ramp up land sales. I have no reason to doubt either of those statements.

- I suspect there are going to be some small exceptions/allowances for Park Service employee housing near places like YNP, Yosemite. A few other smaller parcels already having development might also be in that mix.

I hope things change and I am completely wrong in my assessment that this "lower cost of housing" sales pitch is going to be used in a highly focused effort to start liquidating public lands. To what degree they could be successful depends on how much opposition is provided. Of the many different efforts I've seen to dispose of public lands in my 30 years of engagement on the issue, we are facing the most concerted effort under the banner of "lower cost of housing." We heard it in a lot of election rhetoric. And in the next month we are likely to see just how much capital they are willing to spend to see it happen.

Again, I hope I am wrong on all of this. Maybe I'll learn something in the next two days to counter my concerns.
 
You need to get a meeting with the top dog himself plus his outdoor/hunting sons and cut out the middle men. Explain the bad logic about the non-affordable housing they say will be affordable that isn't even needed in the first place. Maybe you could even get an executive order allowing corner crossing at the same time! ;)
 
Big Fin said:
It has been an interesting two days here in DC, with two more to go. Meeting with people who are actually here, working on bills, working on budgets, and talking to staffers and members of Congress who serve on the committees is helpful, as much as this place is like being subjected to some sort of cruel and unusual punishment.

Summary so far:

- This supposed "affordable" housing spin has as much energy as I feared, if not more. It is a good ides in the minds of most Rs and some Ds. The more urban, the more that state's delegates are on board with such.

- LWCF still has a ways to go to get the 200,000 acres of FY2024 projects completed. If there remains enough talent (surveyors, appraisers, attorneys, realty specialists) to actually get the work completed, we should get most of those projects across the finish line.

- LWCF is going to have a tough hill to climb for FY2025. Even with $900 million earmarked under the Great American Outdoor Act, there are members of Congress who hate that law and will find ways to not spend the money, then try to use the recision process to claw that money back to the general budget to help offset other priorities. There are some huge projects, often done in phases, that are to be funded in FY 2025 LWCF. It would be a shame to lose them half way through to completion.

- I was told a couple weeks ago by a staffer that the reconciliation process was likely to be used as the way to try sell more public land. By using the "reconciliation process" it avoids the required 60 votes needed in the Senate. The article this morning that was posted by @Oak confirmed that tactic. I wish I had sounded that alarm when I first heard it, but it seemed a bit hard to envision. My optimism is sometimes unwarranted. If that same source is correct, the push in this reconciliation process will try to identify 500,000 acres to be sold by the end of FY 2026. It will expand beyond the language in FLTFA that allows Department of Interior to sell identified lands without Congressional approval, but expanding similar language to USDA/USFS.

- Nobody seems to have details of what lands will be identified under this new effort to roll public land sales into the "reconciliation process" Nor have any details been provided as to the criteria that would be applied in identifying such. Seems the folks pushing this idea are keeping it as quiet as they can. I suspect if they do try to push it, we will learn any details with very short notice beforehand.

- There are some here who have assured me and others that using the reconciliation process to circumvent the Senate rules will not get the votes. Those trying to use the process will claim the opponents are trying to "shut down the government." I'm not as confident as they are.

- There are about four (maybe a couple more) critical people in the Senate and House who are going to be the final backstop against some of these crazy ideas about land sales for supposed "lower housing costs" or "balance the budget" or (insert foolish idea here). People roasting Daines (MT), Westerman (AR), Zinke (MT), or Simpson (ID) on public land issues are not doing any favors for the public land cause. Every person I have talked to this week, from Office staffers, to Committee staff, to agency staff, all say that Daines is the pivot point in the Senate. I suspect tomorrow I will hear more of the same. And every person also tells me that Mike Lee (UT) is leading the charge to ramp up land sales. I have no reason to doubt either of those statements.

- I suspect there are going to be some small exceptions/allowances for Park Service employee housing near places like YNP, Yosemite. A few other smaller parcels already having development might also be in that mix.

I hope things change and I am completely wrong in my assessment that this "lower cost of housing" sales pitch is going to be used in a highly focused effort to start liquidating public lands. To what degree they could be successful depends on how much opposition is provided. Of the many different efforts I've seen to dispose of public lands in my 30 years of engagement on the issue, we are facing the most concerted effort under the banner of "lower cost of housing." We heard it in a lot of election rhetoric. And in the next month we are likely to see just how much capital they are willing to spend to see it happen.

Again, I hope I am wrong on all of this. Maybe I'll learn something in the next two days to counter my concerns.
Click to expand...
I think I speak for all of us when I say thank you!
 
Unfortunately I wrote my two D senators several months ago to pre-emptively warn them this was coming and haven't heard back. That's disconcerting as they are usually very responsive.
 
I keep fighting, but it sure feels like we are losing. You can add to "affordable housing" land for new manufacturing plants. If a company wants to avoid tariffs by building a new plant in the US, it would be easy to want cheap federal land to build it on. All we can hope is most of the Federal Land remains less attractive due to location. The billionaires and corporations will line up to buy regardless.
 
Mid-day break here. Asked two very senior staffers what actions people can take that will help your Senators/Reps hear you on public lands.

Answer - Continue to be involved in the discussions, no matter where it takes place; online, in town hall meetings, Letters to Editor, public land rallies, via the groups you are a member of, or via email or phone call to the links below.

They tell me how few people actually call, email, or otherwise engage, which increases the impact of those who do actually reach out.

Reach them via email here - https://www.congress.gov/contact-us

The Capitol switchboard is - (202) 224-3121

Now is a great time to reach out, as the proposal details are currently being kept quiet. If enough members of Congress were to get 25 comments against using budget reconciliation for disposal of public lands, word would get out to stop this stupidity. For many members of Congress, it's a low priority, so they don't want to piss off any voters on an issue that is low priority for them.

Everything I mentioned in post#114 was confirmed by the meetings this morning. Those two have been here for 20 years and know a ton of what is happening on public lands, the public land agencies, and the behind-the-scenes realities.

Senator Heinrich of New Mexico asked me to stop by his office for a podcast after lunch. As a public land elk hunter, he is always a reliable advocate for the cause. He also is a great source of information as to where the key points of contact/pressure/support exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Big Fin
Affordable Housing Land Disposal???
Replies
4
Views
376
NVDesertHunter
NVDesertHunter
Oak
Let’s Get Businesslike With Federal Lands
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
5K
Gulf of America
Gulf of America
griff536
Selling Federal Lands
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
6K
Treeshark
Treeshark
elkduds
TRCP has new Public Land Access website, emphasizing risk of public land transfer.
Replies
1
Views
291
Elktrack
Elktrack
R
Wyoming now after federal lands.
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
JAG
J

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
115,238
Messages
2,089,142
Members
36,995
Latest member
kowings

Share this page

Back
Top