Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgham and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner have announced plans to tackle the country's housing crisis. Their ideas? Open underutilized federal land for residential development.
The joint federal land for housing, announced Monday, is aiming to reduce supply and costs. That coincides with President Donald Trump's campaign promise to make home ownership more accessible. The administration claims that the federal government controls a huge amount of land that can be used for housing. Instead of making it idle, why not turn some of it into a home?
plan
In an operation of the Wall Street Journal entitled “Federal Land Can Be a Home Sweet Home,” Burgham and Turner laid out their vision.
America needs more affordable housing, and the federal government can do so by making federal land available to build affordable housing stocks.
The Ministry of Home Affairs oversees more than 500 million acres, many of which open up land rather than protected forests or national parks.
The plan proposes transfer or lease some parcels to state, local governments and nonprofits to address housing needs. HUD identifies areas where affordable housing is most needed, but Doi takes into account the environmental impact and associated limitations to find a suitable location for development.
Working together, our agencies can acquire inventory of unused federal property and support the infrastructure needed to relocate or lease state or region to meet housing needs and make development viable.
According to Burgum and Turner, one of the biggest hurdles to development is red tape. The plan promises to streamline regulations to make federal land more accessible for housing.
Streamlining the regulatory process is the basis of this partnership. Historically, building on federal lands is a nightmare of deficits, including long environmental reviews, complex transfer protocols, and priorities of disjointed institutions. This partnership reduces the bureaucracy.
The secretary also emphasizes local management. They insist that the federal government doesn't decide where the home should go. Instead, state and local entities – “horse authorities, non-profits, local governments” will take the lead.
Real problems: housing or work?
The administration argues that unlocking federal lands will help rural and tribal communities struggle.
Overlooked rural and tribal communities will be the focus of this joint agreement. We invest in many forgotten communities in America.
But the problem with these areas is not the housing shortage, it is work. Rural areas have lost people for decades as industries moved to coastal cities and abroad. Mechanization of agriculture reduced labor demand and as populations fell, schools and hospitals were closed. People didn't leave because of lack of housing – they left because there was no work.
At the same time, homes in many “elevated” states remain far cheaper than the major metros. A quick search for Redfin shows homes in San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles and Manhattan are over $1 million, but prices are just a small part of that in Cleveland and Milwaukee. However, for years, demand in these regions remained low.
It changed not because of a revival of the local economy in 2020, but because pandemic-driven disruptions – supply chain obstacles, inflation driven by government spending, and remote areas temporarily pushed demand for rural areas. However, these buyers were primarily remote workers or retirees, not people driving the local economy. Rural America did not decrease due to housing costs – reduced due to economic stagnation.
The administration claims it will be built in places with the highest demand, but most federal land is to the west and Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona and Wyoming are not affordable. But the worst shortages are in New York, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC, where there is little federal land.
If the community could be revived with cheap housing alone, rural areas would not have waned decades. Housing follows work, not the other way around. Making more land available does not solve the underlying problem. Without economic opportunities, people won't move. Also, new developments can be a challenge to succeed.
Who owns federal land?
The administration promises to cut the deficit and make federal land available for housing, but there are fundamental issues. Federal land belongs to Americans, not federal government agencies. Only Congress has the authority to sell or transfer it. The administration can streamline approvals and speed up leases, but large-scale transfers without Congressional approval remain legally suspicious.
Without a doubt, the federal government was not intended to permanently control the vast land. As the new Americans explained, the founding fathers considered federal land as temporary land, and thought it would be moved to settlers and later to new states. During the country's establishment, some of the original 13 states retained claims against land in the western part, and the federal government did not argue that the land should be kept temporarily rather than permanent.
The federal government holds more land than originally intended, but bypassing Congress to bypass Congress is another mistake. The administration says the land will be sent to states, local governments and nonprofits, but that doesn't mean it will remain in public hands. Most states and cities rely on private developers to manage their housing. If federal land is handed over, will it be developed as an affordable home or sold to developers? And what exists to keep it affordable if it's sold?
If the administration believes that federal land should be made available for housing, the constitutional solution is simple: Work with Congress. A legislative approach ensures transparency, accountability, and appropriate safeguards.
Existing federal programs
The US government has already funded several programs aimed at affordable housing. HUD's Section 8 Housing Selection Voucher subsidizes rent for low-income families. Local government-controlled public housing projects offer government-owned rental units. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) encourages developers to build affordable housing.
Other programs include FHA loans that help low-income buyers secure mortgages, and USDA local mortgages for homeownership in less populated areas.
However, these programs are undermined by issues of fraud, mismanagement and corruption. Section 8 faces a bribery scandal, resulting in a stolen tax credit of $36 million as a result of the LIHTC scam in Miami. Similarly, public housing projects such as Thomas Bill Heights in Atlanta have been devastated, and government partnerships with developers have often led to cost overruns and shady deals, as seen in Chicago and Houston.
Despite these efforts and their failures, affordability remains a challenge. This raises the question: Will more federal interventions help or will they raise new issues?
What does “affordable housing” actually mean?
Politicians talk about “affordable housing,” but the term is misleading. It's an e-music representation for government-supported, low-cost housing. Essentially, they are inexpensive homes that the market does not produce on its own.
The administration argues that opening federal land will reduce costs. However, land alone does not guarantee affordable prices. If a house is built in a place where people don't want to live or lack jobs, the problem remains. And if past government housing projects are any indication, there is a real risk that this plan will enrich developers rather than reduce family costs.
The federal government does not have any obligation or constitutional authority to “affordable” housing. Instead, barriers need to be removed, regulations are reduced, and markets function.
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish