'Sitting empty': Extensive federal land considered for new housing
Rep. John Curtis pointed out the challenge faced by a county where more than 90 percent of the land is off-limits for housing due to federal management. "Imagine having a county where over 90 percent of the land can’t have housing ... all because it’s federally managed," he said.
TroibNews 
Both the White House and the Republican National Committee have found common ground on the potential of surplus federal land sales to address the dire shortage of affordable housing.
Both the RNC’s 2024 agenda and President Joe Biden’s housing strategy include provisions for selling government-owned land to developers who would dedicate part of their projects to affordable housing. This comes as a response to heightened voter frustration over escalating housing prices and a constrained market.
The concept involves the government, which holds about 28% of U.S. land, putting parcels up for auction to developers who would ensure affordability for some units.
This bipartisan backing of the plan shows the urgency felt by lawmakers to tackle housing affordability issues, spurred by restrictive local zoning regulations outside federal control. However, implementing housing projects on federal land faces challenges, such as differing party views on execution and environmental concerns regarding potential developer favoritism.
“Imagine having a county where over 90 percent of the land can’t have housing despite many acres being appropriate for development, all because it’s federally managed,” Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah) told POLITICO. “The idea is a practical solution, and including it in the Republican platform is welcome news for Utahns struggling with housing affordability.”
Rep. Curtis, also a Senate candidate, has proposed legislation to sell federal lands to state and local governments to alleviate housing shortages, similar to a bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah).
States like Utah, where 63% of the land is federally owned, along with California (45%) and Nevada (80%), could benefit significantly from such policies.
"Senator Lee has invited his Democrat colleagues to join in support of his HOUSES Act,” stated Billy Gribbin, Lee’s communications director.
The White House, however, is opting for a more limited approach than Sen. Lee’s broader proposal, focusing on "vacant and surplus federal lands that are within existing development zones and in metros that face shortages of affordable housing,” according to a White House official.
These officials are cautious about the potential misuse of sold land, emphasizing that it does not guarantee the development of affordable housing.
With record-high home prices and a shortage of nearly 4 million homes, according to Freddie Mac, the affordability crisis is worsening, influencing voter sentiment significantly, as indicated by a Redfin survey of Gen Z and millennials.
David Dworkin, president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, noted the scale of federal property that could be utilized for housing, "makes a lot of sense — there is an enormous amount of federal land out there that is sitting empty or completely unutilized, and you could build a lot of affordable housing there if you’re smart about it.”
However, he warned that the complexity of market dynamics and competition for land necessitates a strategic approach to attract developers.
Challenges persist, like the unsuitability of much federal land for housing, especially in areas that are far from regions with pressing housing needs and lack basic infrastructure.
“The U.S. owns a lot of Nevada and Wyoming, but apart from Las Vegas those are really not high-cost markets,” Brett Theodos, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute pointed out.
Even if suitable parcels are identified and put up for auction, NIMBYism could still thwart development efforts, as seen in a stalled project for affordable units on a Department of Veterans Affairs campus in West Los Angeles.
Veterans have actively opposed certain non-residential uses of this land, leading to ongoing lawsuits.
While challenges abound, the potential benefits of utilizing federal land for housing are significant, supported by figures like Sunia Zaterman, executive director of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, who remarked, “We strongly support the use of federal land for housing.”
Environmental critics, however, view Republican pushes to release federal lands, such as Lee’s efforts, with suspicion. Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund criticized such moves as ideologically driven efforts to erode public land protections.
Conversely, efforts like the recent sale of Bureau of Land Management property by the White House received praise for their targeted approach to meet specific urban needs, as mentioned by Aaron Weiss of the Center for Western Priorities, who approves of careful integration of public lands into housing solutions, contrasting with concerns that large-scale land releases could lead to unsustainable suburban sprawl.
Olivia Brown for TROIB News
Both the RNC’s 2024 agenda and President Joe Biden’s housing strategy include provisions for selling government-owned land to developers who would dedicate part of their projects to affordable housing. This comes as a response to heightened voter frustration over escalating housing prices and a constrained market.
The concept involves the government, which holds about 28% of U.S. land, putting parcels up for auction to developers who would ensure affordability for some units.
This bipartisan backing of the plan shows the urgency felt by lawmakers to tackle housing affordability issues, spurred by restrictive local zoning regulations outside federal control. However, implementing housing projects on federal land faces challenges, such as differing party views on execution and environmental concerns regarding potential developer favoritism.
“Imagine having a county where over 90 percent of the land can’t have housing despite many acres being appropriate for development, all because it’s federally managed,” Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah) told POLITICO. “The idea is a practical solution, and including it in the Republican platform is welcome news for Utahns struggling with housing affordability.”
Rep. Curtis, also a Senate candidate, has proposed legislation to sell federal lands to state and local governments to alleviate housing shortages, similar to a bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah).
States like Utah, where 63% of the land is federally owned, along with California (45%) and Nevada (80%), could benefit significantly from such policies.
"Senator Lee has invited his Democrat colleagues to join in support of his HOUSES Act,” stated Billy Gribbin, Lee’s communications director.
The White House, however, is opting for a more limited approach than Sen. Lee’s broader proposal, focusing on "vacant and surplus federal lands that are within existing development zones and in metros that face shortages of affordable housing,” according to a White House official.
These officials are cautious about the potential misuse of sold land, emphasizing that it does not guarantee the development of affordable housing.
With record-high home prices and a shortage of nearly 4 million homes, according to Freddie Mac, the affordability crisis is worsening, influencing voter sentiment significantly, as indicated by a Redfin survey of Gen Z and millennials.
David Dworkin, president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, noted the scale of federal property that could be utilized for housing, "makes a lot of sense — there is an enormous amount of federal land out there that is sitting empty or completely unutilized, and you could build a lot of affordable housing there if you’re smart about it.”
However, he warned that the complexity of market dynamics and competition for land necessitates a strategic approach to attract developers.
Challenges persist, like the unsuitability of much federal land for housing, especially in areas that are far from regions with pressing housing needs and lack basic infrastructure.
“The U.S. owns a lot of Nevada and Wyoming, but apart from Las Vegas those are really not high-cost markets,” Brett Theodos, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute pointed out.
Even if suitable parcels are identified and put up for auction, NIMBYism could still thwart development efforts, as seen in a stalled project for affordable units on a Department of Veterans Affairs campus in West Los Angeles.
Veterans have actively opposed certain non-residential uses of this land, leading to ongoing lawsuits.
While challenges abound, the potential benefits of utilizing federal land for housing are significant, supported by figures like Sunia Zaterman, executive director of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, who remarked, “We strongly support the use of federal land for housing.”
Environmental critics, however, view Republican pushes to release federal lands, such as Lee’s efforts, with suspicion. Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund criticized such moves as ideologically driven efforts to erode public land protections.
Conversely, efforts like the recent sale of Bureau of Land Management property by the White House received praise for their targeted approach to meet specific urban needs, as mentioned by Aaron Weiss of the Center for Western Priorities, who approves of careful integration of public lands into housing solutions, contrasting with concerns that large-scale land releases could lead to unsustainable suburban sprawl.
Olivia Brown for TROIB News
