Opinion - 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 In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act repealed the Homestead Act, signaling an embrace of federal ownership and management, growing environmental concern and other changing currents in public opinion.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.
Charles Gardner is a research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

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


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Senate Republicans eye public land sales in ‘big beautiful bill'
The Senate version of President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' seeks to sell off more than 2 million acres of federal lands to build affordable housing. A provision in the text released late Wednesday calls for the sales of between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Lands in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington state and Wyoming would be eligible. This represents a break with the House, which approved legislation that did not include provisions to sold off public lands, despite a push from some lawmakers to add land sales provisions. Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) in particular has opposed the public land sales push. In a video accompanying the newly released text on Wednesday, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Mike Lee (R-Utah) lamented federal control of public lands – and also stressed that the measure would not apply to national parks or other similar protected lands. '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,' Lee said. 'This does not touch national parks, national monuments or wilderness. We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage or better suited for housing and infrastructure,' he added. The move, as well as other provisions in the legislation, drew pushback from Democrats and conservation advocates. 'Senate Republicans have finally said the quiet part out loud: They want to put millions of acres of our public lands up in a fire sale, destroy the investments that have created thousands of manufacturing and clean energy jobs – including in their home states, and obliterate programs that lower energy costs for everyday Americans,' said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) in a written statement.


Bloomberg
14 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
14 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.'