Rapid, bulk disposal of federal public lands for affordable housing is not good policy

The Senate is drafting a budget reconciliation bill and recent versions have included provisions mandating the sale of federal public lands, ostensibly to address America’s affordable housing crisis. These provisions includes a mandatory minimum, a rushed process with no public input, and fails to consider the loss of federal income generated by those lands, so the full economic impacts to communities throughout the West is not being considered. The mandatory selling of federal land, at the scale being considered in this bill, will affect landowners, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, outfitters, and recreationalists and have a real impact on whole and healthy working landscapes across the West.

Read our opinion in the Albuquerque Journal

Why we are opposed

• There is a need for housing, especially affordable housing in the West. A lack of available land is not a major cause of our housing shortage. A recently released report from the Western Governors Association highlights factors contributing to the housing shortage, including permitting, costs of construction and financing. A hasty sale of our natural heritage does not solve any of these barriers. 

• The proposed mandatory disposal minimum of 0.5% of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, at least 2 million acres, is excessive for affordable housing goals. 

• The proposal requires public auctions of selected parcels monthly, precluding a thorough and public selection process for the lands to be disposed. The true cost to the public from selling these lands will not be assessed before they are auctioned. 

• The proposal is not in alignment with the multiple-use principle that governs federal management of our public estate. 

• The sale of very select parcels near communities and infrastructure could help facilitate housing development. However, there are no sideboards such as restrictive covenant provisions in this bill to ensure that these land sales result in any workforce/affordable housing being created in the West. 

What we would support

• Well-considered land exchanges that reduce checkerboard ownership patterns, consistent with existing federal law.  

Note that responsible disposal of public lands for specific purposes and within the requirements above should not be done through the budget reconciliation process, which is specifically for setting government spending levels, and not for making or revising federal rules. 

We encourage you to call and write your Senators and ask them about their position on Sec. 301 on public land sales. Let them know your thoughts on the bill and the importance of the multiple-use principle when considering federal lands