"DOI will work with HUD to identify lands to offload for the development of affordable homes"

[sasquatch]

Every single person in the country has access to public lands and can recreate on them. You are conflating public land access with hunting access and access to state managed animals, because you once again have an axe to grind over tags.

Some are just very simple and narrow minded people ain’t they.

Selling these lands will simply not benefit this guy, nor us. It won’t hardly benefit ANY tax payer in the country. It will benefit most corporations in the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[littlebigtine]

This isnt about non-res vs res this is about a plan to undermine habitat for all animals on public. Disrupting the status-quo. The states are obligated to maximize revenue on state held lands. The federal government does not have that obligation. When the states acquire federal land, historically there are two vectors:

1. They lease it to mining and energy interests

2. They try to manage for mixed use similar to BLM but ultimately cannot afford the burden and sell the land at auction.

Look at Utah for example or any state in the west. The amount of State land that is as good or better than federal land to hunt fish recreate is few and far between.

Americans honestly do not understand how good we have it. Go hunt fish or recreate in any other country and you will begin to understand how special all these opportunities are.

We can either choose to protect the system that has been in place for the last century and has proven its efficacy for the management of these lands, or we can nitpick at its faults and lose sight of the bigger picture and what we stand to lose/facilitate the selloff.

One thing nobody can ever convince me of is that oil and gold is more valuable than freedom and the great outdoors.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Also, what do you people think the term “affordable housing” will equate to???

Looking at one of the sale maps, only a tiny percentage was actually designated for “affordable housing only”. Most of the land seemed to be for sale with pretty much no strings attached.

Just to clarify:
It's 11,000 acres in one specific Congressional district.
It's hundreds of thousands of acres in this proposal.

Ah my bad, thanks for clarifying. I guess I stopped reading after that one district’s lands were laid out.

 

[littlebigtine]

Some are just very simple and narrow minded people ain’t they.

Selling these lands will simply not benefit this guy, nor us. It won’t hardly benefit ANY tax payer in the country. It will benefit most corporations in the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said

 

[littlebigtine]

I will also point out that the economic theory driving this is faulty to say the least. Short sighted at best.

We have a housing crisis because homes are not affordable not because we don't have a supply.

Just because you open a bunch of land up for development it does not immediately impact the cost to build homes on that land.

It will take much more investment and infrastructure to drive the cost down in this case and whose to say there is even a reason for people to move to these areas in the west.

It will cost more to develop the land and I guarantee the government will foot the bill or it will not pan out.

That is how almost all housing developments work. Very rarely does somebody or a corporation come along and fund the entire project without incentives from the government.

I would be willing to bet that this “housing project” will end up being something entirely different and more than likely tied to energy development.


This will not fix the “housing crisis”. This will just privatize public land.

 

[IdahoBeav]

That is how almost all housing developments work. Very rarely does somebody or a corporation come along and fund the entire project without incentives from the government.

This is not even close to true.

 

[littlebigtine]

This is not even close to true.

Is your point then that a government subsidized project is the exception?
Show me a project of this scale that has been finished without government kickbacks. Ill grab my popcorn.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Is your point then that a government subsidized project is the exception?
Show me a project of this scale that has been finished without government kickbacks. Ill grab my popcorn.

Since you're moving the goal post, what do you consider "a project of this scale", and what are you accepting as proof?

I work in the industry. Developers do not usually receive govt incentives. They do, however, usually have to dedicate land to ROW and pay for public infrastructure such as pedestrian facilities and extension of utility main lines. I have seen developers pay for miles of sewer and water main, even complete roadways. Intersection upgrades, traffic signals, etc. are also common.

Also, the permitting fees are outrageous.

 

[CJ19]

This message here got the last sentence in the analogy wrong.

It don’t have to offer anything to a hunter in CT

It’s very simple. Every US citizen owns this land. After this virtually none will own it

Idgaf what it offers a hunter. My yard don’t offer me anything for hunting but I sure want it to stay mine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BLM land in Utah and and Nevada is not "their yard" to most people. It is equivalent to owning property in another state that they never visit, can not financially benefit from, yet still have to pay taxes on. Do you know what almost everybody in the country does with property like that? they sell it. not that I am PLT supporter but that is the first thing comes to mind for most people when you describe them as absentee land owners.

So what do all the people upset here propose the non-upsets do?
a. should vote trump out?
b. write a letter to a rep?
c. post angry messages on hunting forums?
d. donate to "The Wilderness Society" or National Wildlife Foundation because I like their land acknowledgements and think net zero by 2035 is good for public lands?

 

[rogerdoger]

Not been to Nevada, but the times I have recreated in Utah, 90% has been on BLM. A lot of people that recreate in Utah use the BLM. Did not use it for hunting but dirt bike, mountain bike, rock climb, and camped.

 

[wyosam]

This message here got the last sentence in the analogy wrong.


BLM land in Utah and and Nevada is not "their yard" to most people. It is equivalent to owning property in another state that they never visit, can not financially benefit from, yet still have to pay taxes on. Do you know what almost everybody in the country does with property like that? they sell it. not that I am PLT supporter but that is the first thing comes to mind for most people when you describe them as absentee land owners.

So what do all the people upset here propose the non-upsets do?
a. should vote trump out?
b. write a letter to a rep?
c. post angry messages on hunting forums?
d. donate to "The Wilderness Society" or National Wildlife Foundation because I like their land acknowledgements and think net zero by 2035 is good for public lands?

If you’re not upset by this project, OR the way it has been done so far (including precedent for future sales), do nothing. If you have concerns with any of it, I’d go with B. Aside from not voting for Trump for a 3rd term, option A isn’t really a thing. If public lands on the edge of town don’t matter though, do the public lands on the NEW edge of town also not matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sasquatch]

This message here got the last sentence in the analogy wrong.


BLM land in Utah and and Nevada is not "their yard" to most people. It is equivalent to owning property in another state that they never visit, can not financially benefit from, yet still have to pay taxes on. Do you know what almost everybody in the country does with property like that? they sell it. not that I am PLT supporter but that is the first thing comes to mind for most people when you describe them as absentee land owners.

So what do all the people upset here propose the non-upsets do?
a. should vote trump out?
b. write a letter to a rep?
c. post angry messages on hunting forums?
d. donate to "The Wilderness Society" or National Wildlife Foundation because I like their land acknowledgements and think net zero by 2035 is good for public lands?

Don’t do anything, love what you get in return for your share of the lost land.

Like you said, you been paying taxes on it, well, let’s see how much of the sale gets sent to you and how much less you pay because it’s been sold.

Let me know how much it helps your home ownership in a few years also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScreamingPotato]

So I'm catching up here - sounds like the poor middle class can't move out west unless we sell off public land and build low income housing developments for them? And if we don't they're going to live in tents under a bridge? Man let's help them out!

And if you don't want to do this you suffer from NIMBY? I had to look this acronym up. But what if my backyard is really special, and I don't want it privatized because I want my grandkids to enjoy it?

Why are seemingly conservatives arguing for more government oversight and essentially welfare? If someone can't afford to move somewhere, I don't know... maybe they shouldn't? All very confusing.

Man that's about as backwards of a take as it gets. It's the locals that can't afford housing because of all the Californians already moving out there. People are literally getting priced out of the towns they grew up in and their kids can't afford to move out of their parents house.

 

[sasquatch]

Man that's about as backwards of a take as it gets. It's the locals that can't afford housing because of all the Californians already moving out there. People are literally getting priced out of the towns they grew up in and their kids can't afford to move out of their parents house.

There’s 425 single family houses for sale in Utah for under 300k and 724 in Nevada

I keep hearing of this problem yet find houses the average person can afford.

Those “parents” also seem this CA mass move increase their net worth a lot too! So it’s not all the end of the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScreamingPotato]

There’s 425 single family houses for sale in Utah for under 300k and 724 in Nevada

I keep hearing of this problem yet find houses the average person can afford.

Those “parents” also seem this CA mass move increase their net worth a lot too! So it’s not all the end of the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah 1 bedroom econo starter homes that probably should be going for $75k. Talk to people around some of these places, they're hurting.

 

[sasquatch]

Yeah 1 bedroom econo starter homes that probably should be going for $75k. Talk to people around some of these places, they're hurting.

Well first homes are “starter homes”

But, point taken. However, they’ll be hurting after the land sale just as before, just now with less recreation also


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goathunter]

Man that's about as backwards of a take as it gets. It's the locals that can't afford housing because of all the Californians already moving out there. People are literally getting priced out of the towns they grew up in and their kids can't afford to move out of their parents house.

Yes it is backwards. I was responding to posts in this thread pretty much laying that guilt trip and blaming it on influencers. Trying to show how ridiculous it was by being ridiculous. (It's called sarcasm) You don't have to tell me about locals being priced out - I'm living that reality.

 

[littlebigtine]

Since you're moving the goal post, what do you consider "a project of this scale", and what are you accepting as proof?

I work in the industry. Developers do not usually receive govt incentives. They do, however, usually have to dedicate land to ROW and pay for public infrastructure such as pedestrian facilities and extension of utility main lines. I have seen developers pay for miles of sewer and water main, even complete roadways. Intersection upgrades, traffic signals, etc. are also common.

Also, the permitting fees are outrageous.

I think you were assuming that I was just focusing on the actual building, utilities and roads when I say “infrastructure”, but I am “moving the goalpost” to ambulance, fire, police, and other misc amenities that come into play when building on this scale.

I will use a proposed development in my hometown for instance. Here is the story:

There are 2 towns in a county that are separated by farmland.

The farmland is sold and then zoned for a tax increment financing district and development.

The developer builds 750 homes on the land.

There are now 1500+ more people living in the development.

Because of the TIF zoning, those people dont have to pay into the general fund for county infrastructure for the next 15 years.

Instead their property taxes go into paving roads, sidewalks, landscaping, utilities all in the TIF district.

That is how developers get the government to subsidize their projects.

Thats how I pay for county infrastructure for 1500 people in my county.

 

[IdahoBeav]

I think you were assuming that I was just focusing on the actual building, utilities and roads when I say “infrastructure”, but I am “moving the goalpost” to ambulance, fire, police, and other misc amenities that come into play when building on this scale.

I will use a proposed development in my hometown for instance. Here is the story:

There are 2 towns in a county that are separated by farmland.

The farmland is sold and then zoned for a tax increment financing district and development.

The developer builds 750 homes on the land.

There are now 1500+ more people living in the development.

Because of the TIF zoning, those people dont have to pay into the general fund for county infrastructure for the next 15 years.

Instead their property taxes go into paving roads, sidewalks, landscaping, utilities all in the TIF district.

That is how developers get the government to subsidize their projects.

Thats how I pay for county infrastructure for 1500 people in my county.

And there were no impact fees paid by the developer? It's highly unlikely there weren't. Even so, first responder costs that you're alleging will be paid by the existing taxpayers are minuscule compared to that of the public infrastructure being paid for by the developer.

The county didn't have the 1500 tax payers previously. They won't get them unless the development happens. If the development happens, the county gets added tax revenue in 15 years.

 

[littlebigtine]

And there were no impact fees paid by the developer? It's highly unlikely there weren't. Even so, first responder costs that you're alleging will be paid by the existing taxpayers are minuscule compared to that of the public infrastructure being paid for by the developer.

The county didn't have the 1500 tax payers previously. They won't get them unless the development happens. If the development happens, the county gets added tax revenue in 15 years.

You're right that impact fees are typically part of large developments, and in many cases, they help offset some upfront infrastructure costs. But impact fees rarely cover the full scope of long-term public obligations that come with new development, especially when it comes to maintenance, schools, emergency services, and water management over decades.

Saying the county might benefit from increased tax revenue in 15 years assumes everything goes according to plan: full buildout, sustained population growth, stable property values, and no unexpected costs. But in the meantime, who carries the financial and ecological burden? Existing taxpayers and the surrounding environment. And once land(I am mainly concerned with public) is sold and developed, it’s gone—along with whatever ecological or recreational value it held. Byby

It’s not just about the numbers on paper. It’s about whether this is a responsible use of shared resources in a region that may already be approaching its limits. Growth for growth’s sake isn’t always a net benefit

At the end of the day, I find it incredibly short-sighted—and frankly irresponsible—to sell off public land, which likely supports native species and functioning ecosystems, just to create housing in a region that may not be able to sustain the increased population. The people dreaming this up are out of touch with the reality on a macro and micro level. This doesn’t solve the core problems; it simply pushes them down the road. We can do better than this.