We should sell some federal land, but housing crisis requires local solutions

At 640 million acres, over a quarter of America’s total land area, the federal government’s real estate portfolio dwarfs that of private developers and corporations. The U.S. federal government owns more land than France, Spain and Germany combined. When some in Congress recently proposed selling a small amount of federal land to build affordable housing, the idea met fierce bipartisan resistance and was dropped.

The barriers to building housing are best addressed at the state and local levels, so it was a good outcome for the provision focused on selling land to build housing to die in the federal bill. However, the intense emotions surrounding the divestment of even one of those 640 million acres illustrate how challenging it has become to confront the government’s poor asset management and spending.

It’s understandable to get passionate about protecting the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone and the other crown jewels of our national parklands. But the National Park System only accounts for approximately 13% of all federal land, though.

Most calls for land divestment focus on the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, the agencies that hold nearly 70% of all federal lands. These two agencies collectively control almost 50% of the total land west of the Mississippi River, making them major players in the economies of Western states.

Outside of a federally landlocked city like Las Vegas, these vast Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land holdings are often in remote areas far from job centers and existing infrastructure. While there are inherent development challenges (e.g., steep terrain, water supply) that make residential housing construction prohibitive, the land could be sold to eliminate taxpayers’ costs of managing it.

The Government Accountability Office has flagged federal property management as “high risk” since 2003. Maintenance backlogs for federal land have gone from $170 billion to $370 billion in just seven years. Federal facilities are crumbling, underutilized and poorly configured for modern needs. Therefore, it should not be heresy to suggest that targeted, data-driven divestment could save taxpayers money, prioritize lands with genuine development potential near existing communities, while preserving crown jewel parks, wilderness areas and wetlands that provide clear public and ecosystemic value.

The federal government owning nearly 50% of the area west of the Mississippi suggests a massive misallocation of resources and missed economic opportunities. While there are pockets of parks, and recreational and industrial revenue generation from public lands, many federal land holdings offer minimal public benefit while imposing substantial carrying costs.

Rural communities across the West have long chafed under federal land rules that limit local economic development and constrain local tax bases. A smart approach to federal land sales could strengthen rural economies, increase local property tax revenue, and bring environmental protection and land management under local oversight.

It’s not about selling Yosemite or the Grand Canyon; it’s about unloading underutilized properties that drain federal resources without delivering commensurate benefits.

The best path forward requires Congress to launch a comprehensive inventory of federal holdings, identifying properties ripe for divestment while safeguarding truly national assets. It could even create a bipartisan federal lands committee modeled after the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, which successfully navigated the closure of hundreds of the country’s military bases through a fair process with minimal politics and maximum pragmatism.

When it comes to California’s and America’s housing crisis, selling federal land isn’t the answer. Local land-use regulations, zoning laws, subdivision ordinances, delays in permitting, poor regional planning and governance, and other regulatory barriers are to blame for the lack of housing and high prices. These regulations, red tape and long delays prevent builders from meeting the demand for housing.

Rather than relying on Congress to provide a solution, leaders in California should follow the lead of major cities in Texas, such as Austin and Houston, by focusing on legalizing accessory dwelling units, streamlining permitting processes, and loosening or eliminating restrictive zoning regulations. These types of reforms can help increase housing supply quickly and at scale, and are far more impactful than what could be expected from distant federal land sales. California’s recent housing reforms demonstrate what’s possible when state governments are motivated to finally address long-standing problems.

States and localities must continue to build momentum in implementing the zoning and permitting reforms that actually increase housing supply and drive down costs.

Congress can’t solve the housing crisis by selling federal land, but that doesn’t mean we should cling to an outdated land ownership model that serves nobody well. It’s time to right-size the federal government’s real estate empire — not because it will make housing more affordable, but because responsible stewardship demands it.

The federal government should focus on safety, security and truly national priorities, not on being America’s largest and worst landlord. And state and local governments should remove the barriers they’ve created to building more housing. That’s the path to more affordable housing and a little less government.

A version of this column first appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The post We should sell some federal land, but housing crisis requires local solutions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/commentary/sell-some-federal-land-but-housing-crisis-requires-local-solutions/