The Federal Government Has a Lot of Unused Land. Can We Sell It Off To Build Houses?
The biggest landowner in the United States is the federal government, which controls about a quarter of the country's real estate. A lot of that land serves as military installations, national parks, and nature preserves. A lot of it, particularly out West, is sitting unused.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns close to 70 percent of the land in Nevada, over 40 percent of the land in Utah, and roughly a quarter of the land in Idaho, Oregon, Alaska, and Wyoming.
Much of this is in the middle of nowhere and unlikely to be developed even in the best of circumstances. Some of it rings existing urban areas or is interspersed among already developed, privately owned parcels.
With housing prices ballooning in the once-affordable Mountain West, politicians of both parties have started to seriously consider selling off some of that excess, unused acreage for home development. There's certainly a lot of executive energy behind the idea. President Donald Trump's characteristically ostentatious campaign trail promise was to build 10 low-tax, low-regulation "freedom cities" on federal land.
Newly confirmed Interior Secretary Doug Burgum—whose department contains the BLM—has made supportive comments about the need to build more housing and better neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the existing process for selling off excess federal land is exceedingly cumbersome.
Federal law limits the BLM to selling off only those lands that are uneconomical to manage, were acquired for a purpose that has since been served, or are constraining the growth of existing communities in places where no nonpublic land could feasibly service that growth.
Before it can be sold off, the BLM must do multiple, extensive rounds of environmental review and stakeholder engagement. Congress also has the power to disapprove larger BLM land sales. Congressional action would be necessary for residential development on existing BLM land to happen at scale.
The current Congress might be the body to get the job done. In past years, Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) has repeatedly introduced bills that would create a streamlined process for selling off BLM land to state and local governments, but only if they allow housing to be built on it. Those bills might have an easier time moving in a Republican-controlled Senate.
This new House of Representatives also features a dedicated YIMBY Caucus focused on expanding housing supply for the first time. Rep. Robert Garcia (D–Calif.)—who chairs the House's new YIMBY Caucus—says that Democrats and Republicans should ally on building housing on federal lands.
We may or may not not see new "freedom cities," but perhaps we'll at least get more freedom to build.
The post The Federal Government Has a Lot of Unused Land. Can We Sell It Off To Build Houses? appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
2 New York Representatives Are Denied Access to ICE Facility
Federal officials prevented two members of Congress on Sunday from entering an immigration detention facility in Manhattan where the representatives were seeking to investigate reports of overcrowding, stifling heat and migrants sleeping on bathroom floors. The representatives, Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez, both Democrats from New York, said officials at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building had denied them access to the 10th-floor detention area because it was a 'sensitive facility.' The building, at 26 Federal Plaza, a few blocks from City Hall, has been the site of recent protests against the transport of migrants there by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It also houses immigration courts where ICE has been making arrests in recent weeks. Members of Congress are allowed special access to any Department of Homeland Security facility, including those operated by ICE, as long as they give at least 24 hours' advance notice, according to visitation guidelines. 'Today, ICE violated all of our rights,' Representative Espaillat said at a news conference on Sunday after being turned away. 'We deserve to know what's going on on the 10th floor.' He added, 'If there's nothing wrong, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to go in to see it.' Representative Velázquez said she was outraged about being turned away. 'Our duty is to supervise any federal building,' she said. 'This is not Russia; this is the United States of America,' she added. 'The president of the United States is not a king.' A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said Sunday evening that the lawmakers had shown up unannounced. ICE officials had told them, she said, that they 'would be happy to give them a tour with a little more notice, when it would not disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement items could be put away.' The representatives arrived a day after dozens of protesters at the complex tried to block ICE vehicles carrying migrants. Many held up signs, including some that said 'Stop Deportations!' and 'To Get Our Neighbors You Have To Get Through Us!' That demonstration erupted in a clash with police officers, some of whom blasted protesters with pepper spray. The police said 22 people were taken into custody. Most were issued summonses or asked to return to court at a later date, according to a spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney. 'This is the nightmare scenario we've been taught to fear since childhood,' said John Mark Rozendaal, 64, of Manhattan, who has protested at the building over the last three weeks. We need to 'stand up to the repression that's coming into our nation,' he added. Santiago Castro, 28, a student who is from Colombia, said he had come to the demonstration for a personal reason: ICE agents arrested his father in Manhattan on Tuesday. Mr. Castro said he was demonstrating 'for my family.'
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now
President Donald Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' has passed in the House and is now awaiting Senate approval. If passed, Trump's signature bill would extend the tax cuts granted by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and add additional tax cuts. While this might be welcome news to many, the bill also includes changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that could threaten seniors' access to these programs. Find Out: Read Next: 'The 'one big beautiful bill' passed by the House of Representatives, if it were passed into law today, would cut Medicaid and SNAP by a combined $1 trillion,' said Chris Orestis, president of Retirement Genius. 'In addition, because of the increase to federal debt of as much as $5 trillion, the bill would trigger an automatic reduction in Medicare funding of $500 billion,' he continued. 'This would represent the largest cut to social services and health insurance for the poor, disabled, children and the elderly in U.S. history.' Here's a look at the changes retirees can make now to secure care and avoid benefit disruptions if the bill were to pass. Before changes go into effect, check with your healthcare providers to ensure there won't be any interruption to your care if there are cuts to Medicaid. 'Check with your healthcare provider to see if they might cut back on services or cease accepting Medicaid-funded patients, and contact any nursing home where you or a loved one may reside to find out if they will be reducing the number of patients they can support — or even [if they are] possibly planning to close,' Orestis said. Knowing this ahead of time will allow you to find alternative care providers before it's too late. Learn More: If you are reliant on SNAP, start searching for alternatives that may be able to provide food assistance in the event your benefits are reduced or cut. 'Make sure you know where there are local support services through community or faith-based organizations to replace lost access through SNAP,' Orestis said. Many retirees plan to 'spend down' their savings so that they qualify for Medicaid to pay for their long-term care. However, this may no longer be a viable option. 'If you are considering going onto Medicaid for long-term care and are preparing to engage the 'spend down' process to impoverish yourself and get below the poverty level to qualify, you may want to reconsider that strategy, and instead look to leverage private pay resources to pay for your care,' Orestis said. 'If you are on Medicaid, you will primarily be reliant on nursing homes for your care, and their ability to withstand these cuts will be very challenging and up in the air,' he continued. 'If you are private pay, you are in control and can decide where and when you will receive care, such as at home or an assisted living community not funded by Medicaid.' Strategies to stay private pay for long-term care would include long-term care insurance, annuities, a life insurance settlement, a reverse mortgage or VA benefits. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
California gov describes Trump's deployment of National Guard as 'the acts of a dictator'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused President Donald Trump of 'the acts of a dictator' for deploying National Guard troops to quell violent protests in Los Angeles. Newsom posted to socia media a video of Trump saying he would charge state and local officials federally if they interfere with the immigration enforcement that sparked the protests June 6, 7 and 8. Gavin accused Trump of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos' and 'militarizing cities.' 'These are the acts of a dictator, not a President,' Newsom said. The two men have long been at odds. Trump said on social media June 7 that federal authorities needed to step in because of the inaction of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom, who Trump has nicknamed. "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Trump said in the post. The two have repeatedly clashed, most recently in late May, when Trump threatened to cut California's federal funding after a transgender high school athlete qualified for the state championship. "Large scale Federal Funding will be held back, maybe permanently," Trump said at the time, if California fails to follow an executive order he signed Feb. 5 seeking to bar transgender student athletes from playing women's sports. Newsom, a Democrat with presidential aspirations, has also sparred with Trump over tariffs, fighting fires and the management of water and environmental resources, though he has also criticized his own party. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: California governor accuses Trump of 'acts of a dictator'
