Selling Federal Lands

[griff536]

I am not sure if this article has been posted but I wanted to get others input before jumping to conclusions. It baffles me that this bill is getting bipartisan support.

Selling Federal Lands?

 

[Ben Lamb]

1980 US Population: 226,545,805
2020 US Population: 331,449,281

There is some merit to the argument for selling small tracts of public that have little to no recreational or agricultural value, especially if they are in immediate proximity to occupied lands.

However, I appreciate the distinction the article makes regarding how the Administration is approaching the issue, and I think it's better fit:

The White House is taking a different — and more circumscribed — approach than the one outlined in Lee’s proposal.

The administration effort is focused on “vacant and surplus federal lands that are within existing development zones and in metros that face shortages of affordable housing,” said a White House aide who was granted anonymity to discuss differences with the Lee bill.

Given those careful considerations, the overwhelming majority of federal lands are unsuitable for housing development and not part of our focus,” the aide said.

There exists ample building space for housing people in the United States. Existing infrastructure (albeit in many instances out of date) is in place, and the commercial real estate market is such that converting existing buildings into domiciles is a solid option as well as developing and chewing up more land.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am not sure if this article has been posted but I wanted to get others input before jumping to conclusions. It baffles me that this bill is getting bipartisan support.

Selling Federal Lands?

If govt wants to increase building rates and decrease per square foot costs of resulting housing they can have orders of magnitude more impact by moderating some silly building codes and limiting some of the most NIMBY zoning rules, than by selling some marginal land - in most places land prices are not the housing inflation drivers.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If govt wants to increase building rates and decrease per square foot costs of resulting housing they can have orders of magnitude more impact by moderating some silly building codes and limiting some of the most NIMBY zoning rules, than by selling some marginal land - in most places land prices are not the housing inflation drivers.

There was an interesting debate around this in MT, with a solid bipartisan approach that was aimed at residential and industrial infill, rather than just going with new subdivisions. That got litigated by people who didn't want their single-family home neighborhoods inundated with MIL apartments or new development relative to multi-family housing. It comes across as gentrification even if I understand the desire to maintain a high quality of life. We're dealing with similar in the county here in MI: A 70 acre chunk of prime whitetail and turkey habitat has been ripped into 5 & 10's, which are going for about $39-40K an acre with 5 acres as the smallest lot. However, the development in town (Traverse City) is creating a new playground for the elite, while shuffling workers out of town and into surrounding communities, causing massive housing shortages both in town and out of town. Orchards and farms are selling out to developers who bring in either wineries, cider houses, subdivisions or worse yet, golf courses.

Mixed use is the right way to go. However, I firmly believe that zoning needs to be strict in order to maintain the quality of life that citizens want in the locations they live. Like when our county planning board turned down a massive enduro race project that someone wanted to do across the street from us. I appreciated the strictness then, even if my neighbor was looking at the revenue as a necessary part of keeping the place in-tact.

 

[VikingsGuy]

There was an interesting debate around this in MT, with a solid bipartisan approach that was aimed at residential and industrial infill, rather than just going with new subdivisions. That got litigated by people who didn't want their single-family home neighborhoods inundated with MIL apartments or new development relative to multi-family housing. It comes across as gentrification even if I understand the desire to maintain a high quality of life. We're dealing with similar in the county here in MI: A 70 acre chunk of prime whitetail and turkey habitat has been ripped into 5 & 10's, which are going for about $39-40K an acre with 5 acres as the smallest lot. However, the development in town (Traverse City) is creating a new playground for the elite, while shuffling workers out of town and into surrounding communities, causing massive housing shortages both in town and out of town. Orchards and farms are selling out to developers who bring in either wineries, cider houses, subdivisions or worse yet, golf courses.

Mixed use is the right way to go. However, I firmly believe that zoning needs to be strict in order to maintain the quality of life that citizens want in the locations they live. Like when our county planning board turned down a massive enduro race project that someone wanted to do across the street from us. I appreciated the strictness then, even if my neighbor was looking at the revenue as a necessary part of keeping the place in-tact.

choices

 

[hank4elk]

I choose to support our public lands.
I fought for them,not you.

 

[Ben Lamb]

choices

I'm getting pretty tired with your verbosity, sir.

 

[44hunter45]

S.3117 and H.R.7363 are both stalled in committee. Watching and waiting.

 

[manitou1]

It will get abused by greedy politicians just like Social Security and every other $ opportunity they get their filthy paws in.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm getting pretty tired with your verbosity, sir.

Trying to learn from @noharleyyet

 

[longbow51]

Trying to learn from @noharleyyet

Then you can move on to graduate level brevity: @mtmuley

 

[mtmuley]

Then you can move on to graduate level brevity: @mtmuley

Most times a guy doesn't need a whole bunch of useless talk to get a point across. mtmuley

 

[noharleyyet]

Most times a guy doesn't need a whole bunch of useless talk to get a point across. mtmuley

word..

 

[hank4elk]

word..

I learned "the look" long ago.

 

[44hunter45]

Most times a guy doesn't need a whole bunch of useless talk to get a point across. mtmuley

word..

An Engineering student and an English major walk into a bar. The English major says, "That felt like someone hit me on the forehead with a shovel."
The Engineering student says, "Ow"

 

[Ben Lamb]

Most times a guy doesn't need a whole bunch of useless talk to get a point across. mtmuley

 

[Sytes]

However, I appreciate the distinction the article makes regarding how the Administration is approaching the issue, and I think it's better fit:

The White House is taking a different — and more circumscribed — approach than the one outlined in Lee’s proposal.

My quick read held an initial word flip. Then, "ahhh, got it - circumscribed"

However, as I reflected on the word swap I realized both hold relatively the same meaning.

****

Re: Interest of selling federal land to a State, I believe if the State is able to use land that lacks public use value, it should swap with adjacent State land to federal public use areas. That would be my first go-to vs a flat out sale.

 

[jimh406]

Politico isn't a news organization. It is a political one. I think you'd be better off looking for information from conservation organizations about public lands. If you do, you'll find there is a bipartisan bill to prevent selling public lands.

 

[Bonasababy]

If govt wants to increase building rates and decrease per square foot costs of resulting housing they can have orders of magnitude more impact by moderating some silly building codes and limiting some of the most NIMBY zoning rules, than by selling some marginal land - in most places land prices are not the housing inflation drivers.

Zoning plays a huge role in housing density and costs, but we need different...not no or weaker...zoning rules. It's possible to allow higher density building even in areas where preserving wild space is a goal if conservation design goals are followed and we get away from old lot size and shape conventions. Higher density brings investors and lower building costs.

 

[SAJ-99]

Bump with new news. (I think that is redundant). I figure this was going to happen on Jan 21 anyway, but I'm not sure the logistics make it something to worry about other than it starts a bipartisan trend. The data centers will need to be located near a power source and relatively close to urban areas. That said, hooking up to the electrical grid could expand the environmental damage.

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/biden-administration-to-discuss-fast-tracking-data-center-development/