Latest news with #FederalLandPolicyandManagementActof1976
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - How federal lands can be used to ease the housing crisis
Next to inflation, Americans ranked housing as their top financial concern in a Gallup survey last May. Since then, it's gotten only worse. January home sales were down 5 percent from last year's dismal numbers. Record numbers of first-time buyers are stuck on the sidelines as housing affordability stands at its lowest level in 40 years. President Trump must follow through on his campaign pledge 'to open up tracts of federal land for housing construction.' The housing market depends largely on interest rates and zoning — factors outside any president's direct control. But the massive federal land portfolio gives middle- and lower-income Americans a better shot at homeownership. The federal government is the nation's biggest landowner, holding one-third of all property — a land mass six times the size of California. In Las Vegas, Phoenix, Albuquerque and other metro areas, federal lands brush up against the suburban periphery. Since President Trump launched the idea of 'Freedom Cities' on federal land, the opening of federal lands for development has entered the policy mainstream. House Budget Committee Republicans have floated the sale of federal lands as an option for closing the deficit. To create affordable homes on federal lands, the federal government shouldn't sell lands for development — it should lease them. The sale of federal lands requires the buyer to comply with state and local regulations once the land is privatized, likely with the same awful result. Leasing the federal lands, on the other hand, cuts through the red tape. Local land-use policies that make housing a luxury good in many parts of the U.S. — such as California's solar mandate and the state's aversion to suburban developments that rely on 'car-oriented transportation' — do not apply on federal lands. Anti-growth locals and density-obsessed planners stay sidelined. For more than a century, federal law has long authorized federal leases for commercial purposes such as mineral extraction. Congress should update its land-use laws, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, to authorize federal leases for housing development, subject to standard public health and environmental protections. Call it the New Homestead Act after the 1862 legislation, which — in Lincoln's words — was enacted 'so that every poor man may have a home.' Building homes on leased federal lands will make homeownership more affordable. Instead of buying the house and the land, the homebuyer buys only the house and leases the land. To protect homeowners, Congress can require 99-year leases that can be automatically transferred to new buyers. Critics will warn that land rent can be hiked after the lease term expires, but Congress can put limits on these increases. Federal policies that cut through the red tape by allowing new home construction on leased public lands would alleviate the undersupply of single-family homes. Homebuilders built 300,000 fewer homes in 2024 than in 1985 when there were 100 million fewer Americans. The U.S. housing market is short an estimated 4.5 million homes. Freeing up land and reducing regulatory burdens would allow market forces and consumer preference to exercise their magic, which we can see in Texas metros like Austin, where housing costs are plummeting due to an epic home-building spree. Building 'out' on federal lands is more likely to create affordable housing than building 'in' already established metros. Going from five to ten stories increases the cost of each square foot by more than 50 percent, notes the Manhattan Institute's Judge Glock, largely due to the need for more expensive materials such as steel rather than wood. The most expensive housing markets — Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto — tend to have the highest urban densities. A pro-housing development nonprofit recently concluded that California's measures to spur the construction of more apartments and other dense housing developments had 'limited to no impact on the state's housing supply.' Part of the problem lies with the failure of planners — and some builders — to recognize that the last century of data suggests a near-universal preference for suburban homes over urban dwellings. Two-thirds of millennials favor the suburbs as their preferred residence and a greater percentage of Americans aged 18 to 29 view homeownership as 'essential' to the American dream than older cohorts. Even in California — the epicenter of pro-density policies — preference for single-family homes is 'ubiquitous,' according to recent research by Jessica Trounstine at the University of California, Merced. Today, racial minorities are responsible for more than 90 percent of peripheral growth in the U.S. Help for these aspirations seems to be on the way. Trump's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner recently nixed a federal zoning rule that his Democratic predecessors had deployed against suburbs like Westchester County, N.Y. That's good defense from the former NFL cornerback, but Americans struggling to afford a down payment on a starter home need more help. An 'all-of-the-above' housing policy on federal lands expands homeownership opportunities at a range of price points. That means spacious townhouses as well as single-family homes built on site. It also means more affordable manufactured homes and modular homes, perhaps eventually constructed by AI-enabled robots. Opening up federal lands for single-family development also makes political sense for the new administration. Homeowners are generally more conservative than renters, and the groups trending towards the Republican Party — millennials, Latinos and Asians — are a growing percentage of new homebuyers. Indeed, whether Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress can enact policies that increase homeownership could end up defining the long-run appeal of his movement to younger and more diverse voters. Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University in Orange, California, and a senior research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin Civitas Institute. Michael Toth is a resident fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin Civitas Institute. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
10-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
How federal lands can be used to ease the housing crisis
Next to inflation, Americans ranked housing as their top financial concern in a Gallup survey last May. Since then, it's gotten only worse. January home sales were down 5 percent from last year's dismal numbers. Record numbers of first-time buyers are stuck on the sidelines as housing affordability stands at its lowest level in 40 years. President Trump must follow through on his campaign pledge 'to open up tracts of federal land for housing construction.' The housing market depends largely on interest rates and zoning — factors outside any president's direct control. But the massive federal land portfolio gives middle- and lower-income Americans a better shot at homeownership. The federal government is the nation's biggest landowner, holding one-third of all property — a land mass six times the size of California. In Las Vegas, Phoenix, Albuquerque and other metro areas, federal lands brush up against the suburban periphery. Since President Trump launched the idea of 'Freedom Cities' on federal land, the opening of federal lands for development has entered the policy mainstream. House Budget Committee Republicans have floated the sale of federal lands as an option for closing the deficit. To create affordable homes on federal lands, the federal government shouldn't sell lands for development — it should lease them. The sale of federal lands requires the buyer to comply with state and local regulations once the land is privatized, likely with the same awful result. Leasing the federal lands, on the other hand, cuts through the red tape. Local land-use policies that make housing a luxury good in many parts of the U.S. — such as California's solar mandate and the state's aversion to suburban developments that rely on ' car-oriented transportation ' — do not apply on federal lands. Anti-growth locals and density-obsessed planners stay sidelined. For more than a century, federal law has long authorized federal leases for commercial purposes such as mineral extraction. Congress should update its land-use laws, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, to authorize federal leases for housing development, subject to standard public health and environmental protections. Call it the New Homestead Act after the 1862 legislation, which — in Lincoln's words — was enacted 'so that every poor man may have a home.' Building homes on leased federal lands will make homeownership more affordable. Instead of buying the house and the land, the homebuyer buys only the house and leases the land. To protect homeowners, Congress can require 99-year leases that can be automatically transferred to new buyers. Critics will warn that land rent can be hiked after the lease term expires, but Congress can put limits on these increases. Federal policies that cut through the red tape by allowing new home construction on leased public lands would alleviate the undersupply of single-family homes. Homebuilders built 300,000 fewer homes in 2024 than in 1985 when there were 100 million fewer Americans. The U.S. housing market is short an estimated 4.5 million homes. Freeing up land and reducing regulatory burdens would allow market forces and consumer preference to exercise their magic, which we can see in Texas metros like Austin, where housing costs are plummeting due to an epic home-building spree. Building 'out' on federal lands is more likely to create affordable housing than building 'in' already established metros. Going from five to ten stories increases the cost of each square foot by more than 50 percent, notes the Manhattan Institute's Judge Glock, largely due to the need for more expensive materials such as steel rather than wood. The most expensive housing markets — Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto — tend to have the highest urban densities. A pro-housing development nonprofit recently concluded that California's measures to spur the construction of more apartments and other dense housing developments had 'limited to no impact on the state's housing supply.' Part of the problem lies with the failure of planners — and some builders — to recognize that the last century of data suggests a near-universal preference for suburban homes over urban dwellings. Two-thirds of millennials favor the suburbs as their preferred residence and a greater percentage of Americans aged 18 to 29 view homeownership as 'essential' to the American dream than older cohorts. Even in California — the epicenter of pro-density policies — preference for single-family homes is 'ubiquitous,' according to recent research by Jessica Trounstine at the University of California, Merced. Today, racial minorities are responsible for more than 90 percent of peripheral growth in the U.S. Help for these aspirations seems to be on the way. Trump's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner recently nixed a federal zoning rule that his Democratic predecessors had deployed against suburbs like Westchester County, N.Y. That's good defense from the former NFL cornerback, but Americans struggling to afford a down payment on a starter home need more help. An 'all-of-the-above' housing policy on federal lands expands homeownership opportunities at a range of price points. That means spacious townhouses as well as single-family homes built on site. It also means more affordable manufactured homes and modular homes, perhaps eventually constructed by AI-enabled robots. Opening up federal lands for single-family development also makes political sense for the new administration. Homeowners are generally more conservative than renters, and the groups trending towards the Republican Party — millennials, Latinos and Asians — are a growing percentage of new homebuyers. Indeed, whether Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress can enact policies that increase homeownership could end up defining the long-run appeal of his movement to younger and more diverse voters. Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University in Orange, California, and a senior research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin Civitas Institute. Michael Toth is a resident fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin Civitas Institute.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘Unleash American Energy' order sparks concern about the Grand Canyon national monument
A tourist approaches the precipice June 8, 2009, at the Grand Canyon. Photo by John Moore | Getty Images President Donald Trump's executive order for 'Unleashing American Energy' is sparking concern for the safety of federal lands within national monuments across the U.S., but especially in the Southwest, where Trump has targeted monuments before. During his first term, Trump eliminated environmental protections for two national monuments in Utah by reducing the sizes of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. The Biden administration restored both in 2021. With Trump's Unleashing American Energy order, the Bear Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments are at risk again because they both hold large critical mineral reserves. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX As part of his executive order, Trump requested an immediate review of all agency actions that could potentially hinder the development of domestic energy resources, focusing on oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical minerals and nuclear energy. His order requested that agency heads review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, settlements, consent orders and any other agency actions. Trump gave agencies 30 days to create and implement action plans to 'suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions identified as unduly burdensome.' The Department of the Interior is fulfilling the president's request after Secretary Doug Burgum directed agency staff to 'promptly review all agency actions and submit an action plan' detailing the steps to review and revise all public lands withdrawn under current law. The department's deadline is Feb. 18. The secretarial order does not directly mention national monuments or outline what laws are to be reviewed, but it references 54 U.S.C. 320301 and 43 U.S.C. 1714, which are federal laws related to the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 'It's almost as if they were trying to sneak this by us,' said Tim Peterson, the cultural landscapes director for the Grand Canyon Trust, a nonprofit conservation organization. Peterson said these two laws are significant because the Federal Land Management Act section permits mineral withdrawals administratively, and the Antiquities Act enables presidents to establish national monuments. Peterson said mineral withdrawals remove public lands from mineral entry, which means there can be no new mining claims, oil and gas leasing or geothermal leasing. The secretarial order stated that the department should focus on advancing innovation to improve the United State's energy and critical mineral capacity to provide a reliable, diverse and affordable energy supply for the nation. The order also calls for updating the U.S. Geological Survey's list of critical minerals, including uranium, and developing an action plan to prioritize mapping efforts to identify previously unknown critical mineral deposits. 'It seems to be targeting all presidentially designated national monuments under the Antiquities Act,' said Amber Reimondo, the energy director for the Grand Canyon Trust, noting that both Democratic and Republican presidents have designated national monuments. Arizona has 19 national monuments, including the recently established Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni, which added more protections against mining to the Grand Canyon region. Tribes, conservation groups and state leaders are concerned about the recently established monument and are calling on the Department of the Interior to honor and support it. The orders threaten the Grand Canyon Region in two significant ways: the Obama administration's 2012 mining ban, which is in place for 20 years before it needs to be renewed, and the added protections from Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni—Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. ' The secretarial order threatens both those layers of protection for the Grand Canyon region that tribes and communities have fought for years to attain,' Reimondo said, and the order threatens them despite the massive support national monuments have. Polling conducted by Grand Canyon Trust shows that over two-thirds of Arizona voters oppose reducing protections for national monuments, and 80% back Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni. In Utah, polling indicates that 71% of voters favor maintaining Bears Ears as a national monument, while 74% support keeping Grand Staircase-Escalante as a national monument. 'Americans love their national monuments and want them to stay protected,' Reimondo said. The newly designated monument was challenged in court when Arizona GOP leaders filed a lawsuit in 2024 to rescind Biden's designation because he did not have the power to do so. A federal judge dismissed the case in January, but the GOP leaders are now looking to the Trump administration to move on their request. Tribes in the region have worked closely with other conservation groups to advocate for the monument's designation in 2023. The monument protects thousands of historical and scientific objects, sacred sites, vital water sources and the ancestral homelands of many Indigenous communities. The lands of Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni include cultural and sacred places of the Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiutes, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Pueblo of Zuni and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The monument's name comes from the Indigenous names the Havasupai and Hopi gave to the area. In the Havasupai language, Baaj Nwaavjo means 'where Indigenous peoples roam,' while I'tah Kukveni means 'our ancestral footprints' in the Hopi language. Arizona Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly sent a joint letter to Burgum sharing the importance of Baaj Nwaavjo and calling on his reassurances that there will not undo Arizona's newest national monument. 'Tribes and Arizona communities deserve to move on with the management planning process for this National Monument rather than worry that there may be attempts to remove it,' the senators stated in their joint letter. 'Given the importance of the Monument to Tribal Nations and Communities, our economy, and immense public support, we ask that you reassure Arizonans that Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni National Monument will remain intact for generations to come,' they added. Grand Canyon Trust Executive Director Ethan Aumack stated in a press release that they strongly oppose any efforts to reduce the boundaries of national monuments, as these areas are 'world-class examples of natural and cultural landscapes worthy of protection.' 'Any attempts to roll back protections for national monuments will be challenged in the courts and strongly opposed by the public,' He added. Earthjustice attorney Heidi McIntosh said that the decision to review national monuments highlights the Trump administration's 'narrow-minded insistence' to hand over one of the nation's most valuable resources, public lands, to the mining and oil and gas industries. 'Rather than protecting the cultural treasures, world-renowned fossils, historic places, and one-of-a-kind ecosystems that monuments like Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante and Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni hold, this administration wants to sell these lands to the highest bidder,' McIntosh said in a statement. 'We stand ready to defend our national monuments alongside the Tribes and local communities who advocated for their creation.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
