Selling off public lands is not the solution to America’s affordable housing crisis

As America grapples with an affordable housing crisis, some lawmakers have their eyes on public lands in the West as potential housing developments, and they’re looking for ways to make it easier to transfer those public lands into private hands. These ideas aren’t new, but some of the proposals are now resurfacing in the halls of Congress and in state governments. The Biden administration has also spotted in july that it is open to the repurposing of public land as affordable housing, under the right circumstances.

Broadly speaking, the amount of bipartisan support for these ideas should be a concern to public lands advocates, and to anyone who hunts, fishes, or recreates on federal lands in the West. These proposals are not a panacea for the current crisis, and they will not fully address the real problem, which is the lack of affordability caused by multiple economic forces.

The lack of available housing certainly plays a role in this. But Americans are also faced with sky-high interest rates and unsustainable rental structuresAt the same time, many local governments have zoning plans that are not doing enough to build affordable housing or incentivizing developers to target low-income buyers.

At the local level, there are specific cases where developing small tracts of public land with the right safeguards can help alleviate the country’s housing crisis. One example is the move by the Bureau of Land Management to transfer 20 acres of BLM land in Clark County, Nevada, to be used for an affordable housing development near Las Vegas. It is a relatively targeted approach that relies on existing state laws to ensure that the approximately 150 homes being built will be affordable, as defined by the state, and it focuses on a small parcel in an already urban area that offers limited recreational opportunities to the public.

However, we must remain cautious about sweeping legislative changes that seek to streamline the sale of large tracts of public land, said Kaden McArthur, the government relations manager for Hinterland hunters and fishermen. McArthur points to another proposal in Clark County made in March by the Nevada governor that would transfer 50,000 acres of federal land to the county. In a letter to president bidenGovernor Lombardo said the transfer would benefit local communities and lamented that the current process of privatizing federal land for development is too slow and complicated.

“BHA is concerned about the idea of ​​large-scale transfers of public lands out of public hands, and this is something we have been seeing in one form or another for a long time,” McArthur said. Outdoor living“There are certainly some ardent opponents of public lands [behind this]but there are also people who I think are genuinely interested in finding ways to develop housing in a part of the country where it seems to be lacking and creates affordability issues. There’s just a lot of contrast in the ways that this idea has been approached.”

The most extreme approach, McArthur explains, is a well-known Senate bill known as the HOUSES Act that was reintroduced in 2023 by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) after failing to gain traction in 2022. Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah) also introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives in February. The bill seeks to streamline the transfer of public lands to state and local governments, which can then use the land to develop affordable housing. However, the bill’s text does not include any limits on the amount of acreage that can be transferred, and it does not include affordability safeguards to ensure that the land would be converted into affordable housing rather than market-rate subdivisions or upscale neighborhoods.

Senator Lee also has a terrible record when it comes to public lands, and he has spent much of his career pushing an agenda to privatize federal property by transferring it to the states. This has led many to view the HOUSES Act as yet another thinly veiled attempt to dispossess Americans of their public lands.

“It has very few guardrails or stops, and it would essentially allow an unlimited amount of land to be transferred in a relatively rapid manner,” McArthur said, referring to the bill. “That is not the vision we have for America’s public lands.”

McArthur says the Public Lands in Public Hands Act The bill, introduced by Congressmen Ryan Zinke (R-Montana) and Gabe Vasquez (D-New Mexico) in February, is intended to counterbalance the HOUSES Act. The bill would prohibit the transfer of publicly accessible public land parcels larger than 300 acres, and would make it even more restrictive for federal land management agencies to transfer public lands.

Read more: Why is the new BLM rule so controversial?

These additional restrictions would be a good thing. Because as much as some politicians would like to convince us otherwise, our publicly accessible, federally owned lands are among the greatest assets we have as Americans. And for those of us who spend time outdoors, they are too valuable to develop or put a price tag on.

“Our public lands are the lifeblood of people who hunt and fish, and they allow us to enjoy the outdoors like nowhere else on Earth,” McArthur said. “We want to see severe restrictions on the ability to sell or divest these lands from the public. It’s deeply troubling to suggest that this is red tape that needs to be cut.”