
Building homes on federal land could lower costs — if cities are held in check
The Departments of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development are exploring making some federal land available for homebuilding to alleviate a stubborn housing shortage estimated at over 20 million homes. Their success will depend not only on how quickly and broadly the plan is implemented, but on making sure any newly opened land is not bogged down by the local land use regulations that make housing so scarce and expensive in the first place.
The current home shortage is primarily due to excessively restrictive local land-use rules that favor relatively expensive homes on large lots. But particularly in western states, land for homebuilding is limited by federal holdings near fast-growing metropolitan areas like Las Vegas, Phoenix and many others.
Western land was opened to large-scale settlement through 1862's Homestead Act, which resulted in the sale of more than 420,000 square miles — around 11 percent of the country — in blocks of up to 160 acres, typically to small farmers. As quality agricultural land grew scarce, claims plummeted and nearly dried up by the 1930s.
In 1946, the Bureau of Land Management was formed, reflecting a shift from sales toward maintaining land that had not attracted buyers. In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act repealed the Homestead Act, signaling an embrace of federal ownership and management, growing environmental concern and other changing currents in public opinion.
But in the following years, something else changed: The rapid growth of sunbelt cities made valuable land once thought worthless.
But selling federal land had become complex and politically fraught under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and western cities began to chafe against confinement. By the 1990s, the situation had become too pressing to ignore. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act authorized the Bureau of Land Management to transfer certain land to address a housing shortage in Las Vegas.
Its success has been mixed, with around 40 percent of the designated land still unsold. Land that has been sold has been subject to municipal zoning, which typically imposes restrictions such as minimum lot sizes, frontage requirements, setbacks and other mandates that hinder builders from constructing low-cost houses.
Today, western states such as Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, California and Oregon have some of the highest home price-to-income ratios in the nation. Hemmed in by federal land and burdened by their own expensive regulations, cities that should be centers of opportunity for a new generation are instead starter-home deserts. New houses are prohibitively expensive for too many buyers.
The new initiative promises to revisit the Federal Land Policy and Management Act's assumptions in a comprehensive way that encompasses all affected municipalities. Done right, it could cut through burdensome procedural barriers to selling federal land, relieve cost pressures on western urban markets, allow new cities to grow in appropriate locations and remain attentive to environmental and conservation concerns.
But the number of resulting homes that most Americans can comfortably afford will be closely tied to local land use regulations.
In Reno, Nevada, I found that new homes on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet appraised at an average of $343,000, while those on 5,000-to-7,000-foot lots were appraised at $461,000. Yet less than 10 percent of the single-family lots in Reno — and zero percent of the area of one major development district — allows homes on less than 5,000 square feet of land.
Frontage requirements also played a role in Reno. Each additional 10 mandated feet corresponded with an extra $60,000 in home costs.
So, unless the Bureau of Land Management and HUD push back against local policies like these by attaching robust, enforceable conditions to transfers or negotiating ironclad development standards that ensure that starter homes are legal to build, expect to see some nice, spacious — and expensive — homes built. Local politics almost inevitably lead to zoning that would blunt the affordability impact of land sales.
Beyond cost, there are environmental benefits to allowing smaller homes, including both single-family homes on small lots and multifamily housing. Higher-density housing makes more efficient use of urban land, reducing the rate of outward sprawl. Small lots in arid western climates also mean fewer large, irrigated yards sapping water supplies.
And while the benefits for American families could be immense, the amount of land required relative to total federal acreage is modest. The homesteading farmer sought 160 acres or more, but today's starter homes can sit on one-tenth of an acre or less.
Mountains of evidence show the exclusionary, cost-raising effect of overzealous local zoning. Federal authorities have an opportunity to do more than open land to Americans seeking a home to call their own. They can show our cities and counties what happens when inclusive policies allow for starter homes in addition to houses only the wealthy can afford.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Millions of Acres of Public Land Sales Added to Trump's Tax Bill
The sale of millions of acres of federal land would provide billions of dollars to help pay for President Donald Trump's massive package of tax cuts and spending in the Senate's version of the bill released Wednesday night. As much as around 3 million acres of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service would be mandated for sale in the legislation. The measure, which requires each agency to sell a small percentage of the hundreds of millions of acres of land they manage in eligible states that include Alaska as well as western states, could raise as much as $10 billion over 10 years, according to a fact sheet.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate Proposes Selling Up to 3 Million Acres of Public Land
The Republican majority on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is calling for the U.S. government to sell up to three million acres of public land in order to hit revenue goals in the federal budget. That's the astonishing high end of acreage of BLM and U.S. Forest Service land that would be required to be sold or transferred, the revenues from which would go to the U.S. Treasury. The low end of the spectrum is just over 2 million acres of federal land. Language requiring the government to 'dispose' of millions of acres of land was inserted in the committee's draft bill, which was released this evening by committee chair Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). The bill would require consultation with the governor of each state affected, and would require consideration of 'the extent to which the development of the tract of Bureau of Land Management land or National Forest System land would address local housing needs (including housing supply and affordability).' The bill lists BLM and Forest Service land in most Western states as 'eligible for disposal.' Conspicuously absent from the list is Montana, whose Congressional delegation has been vocal in their opposition to land sales or transfers. When the House Natural Resources Committee considered a version of the budget that included for sale some 500,000 acres of BLM land in Nevada and Utah, Montana congressmen Ryan Zinke and Troy Downing were among the few Republicans to oppose the measure. Given the slim Republican majority in the House, Republican leadership stripped the land-sale provision from the bill before passing it and passing it to the Senate. Montana Senator Steve Daines (R) has said he opposes sales of federal land, and in an emailed statement today his office reiterated that 'Senator Daines is against the sale of public lands and is making his strong concerns clear to his colleagues.' Federal land protected from sale, according to the committee bill draft, includes national parks, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, and a number of other land-management agencies. But the number of acres at play is significant, and is by far the biggest proposed federal land sale in modern U.S. history. The bill draft requires the BLM to divest itself of between 1.18 million and 1.77 million acres, and the Forest Service to sell or transfer between 686,000 and 1.03 million acres. That's about 2.8 million. 'The Secretary shall select for disposal not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of Bureau of Land Management land, and shall dispose of all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to those tracts selected for disposal,' the bill draft reads. The Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the Chief of the Forest Service) is required to sell a similar percentage of Forest Service lands. Without Montana's contribution, the amount of BLM land in the West totals a little over 251 million acres. Forest Service holdings total about 146 million acres. In a video accompanying the committee's bill draft, Sen. Lee noted that about a third of American real estate is owned by the federal government, and about 70 percent of his state is in federal landownership. 'That's not sustainable,' he says in the recording. 'It's not fair. It's not serving the Americans who actually live here. 'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development, and get Washington, D.C. out of the way of communities that are just trying to grow.' In the video, Lee assuages the conservation community, which has been almost unanimously opposed to smaller land sales proposed in earlier budget drafts. 'To our hunters, anglers, and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cortez Masto grills Burgum on public land sales proposal for Senate's funding bill
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto asked for details about a federal plan to sell 2 million acres of public lands, but U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum didn't have answers on Wednesday. At a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Cortez Masto wanted to know more about Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee's reported plan to revive attempts to sell off public lands. Lee is the chairman of the committee. Burgum confirmed it was under consideration, but had no other information. A similar plan that Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei attached to the 'one big, beautiful bill' in a late-night U.S. House committee vote eventually failed because it wasn't supported by Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, who served as Interior secretary during Trump's first term. Now the battle has moved to the U.S. Senate. Despite follow-up questions from Cortez Masto, Burgum couldn't provide details or identify anyone in Nevada who the administration is working with to ensure land sales actually meet the needs of the local communities. Burgum said he was 'not actively engaged' in negotiations, according to a news release from Cortez Masto's office. 'I'm asking you because we have not seen anything,' Cortez Masto said. 'The chairman has (the proposal), it is behind closed doors. I would assume you would be talking … because you're going to be taking the lead as the lead agency. So if you don't know, I'm really concerned and we should all be concerned across the West.' Last week, speculation grew around what Lee would propose in the Senate. Public lands in Nevada and Utah appear to be likely targets. Cortez Masto pressed Burgum on how these public lands might figure into helping to solve Nevada's affordable housing crisis, but Democrats have widely described the land sale as an attempt to fund renewal of President Donald Trump's 2017 tax breaks that are about to expire. She also criticized Burgum over his statements regarding the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA). Burgum talked about the importance of a comprehensive process like SNPLMA as a model for federal land sales earlier in the hearing, Cortez Masto's office said. BLM auction brings $16 million for 8 parcels across Las Vegas valley 'You talk about the benefits (of this model), but in action you're not doing it,' she said. 'In fact, on the House side — and I'm assuming they worked with the administration — their reconciliation package included federal land sales … that weren't even near areas where you could actually do affordable housing.' She said Amodei's amendment would have sold land in the middle of the desert. 'There's no infrastructure. I don't know any builder who is going to build housing in the middle of the desert, it makes no sense,' Cortez Masto said. SNPLMA has provided funds for parks, recreation and water infrastructure in Nevada, but the federal government has been criticized as too slow to free up lands needed to build more housing. A compromise struck by the Bureau of Land Management under Joe Biden allowed the sale of land for $100 an acre, which would have paved the way for affordable housing construction. But that price also drastically reduced the amount of money flowing to parks through BLM land auctions. Later Wednesday, U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he would cancel the July 4 recess week to complete work on the 'one big, beautiful bill.' It's unclear if Republicans have the support to pass the reconciliation spending package. And even if it passes with public land sales included, the changes would be subject to approval in the House, where Zinke has said he will be a firm 'no.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.