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

[ianpadron]

So your decision criterion is "anything that isn't designated Wilderness is open for development?" And your justification is "current homes used to be habitat too?"

The mental gymnastics you're willing to play and drawing conclusions from what I've stated as objective facts are strange.

Here, let's do this.

On my teams we have a rule that no complaining is allowed without offering a solution. What do YOU propose as a sustainable fix to the nation's housing crisis?

 

[CoMulies]

The mental gymnastics you're willing to play and drawing conclusions from what I've stated as objective facts are strange.

Here, let's do this.

On my teams we have a rule that no complaining is allowed without offering a solution. What do YOU propose as a sustainable fix to the nation's housing crisis?

Revitalize existing cities. There are thousands and thousands of vacant lots and run down properties across the Midwest and east coast that can be rebuilt without destroying the west so the few can take land from the many for a quick buck.

We haven’t even touched on the water issue with the west…

 

[ianpadron]

I don't mean to take a holier-than-though tone, but unfortunately, the proponents of land transfer and development on this website either a) don't understand the basic tenets of habitat fragmentation and land conservation strategy, or b) care more about development than they do conserving habitat and retaining public ownership.

Conversely, everyone who is against this a) thinks every piece of public land is a mecca of indescribable biodiversity and value b) apparently doesn't understand that we need more housing, dramatically more.

Honest question, have you found yourself complaining about housing prices in the last 5 years? If so, you might want to stop to better align yourself with the anti-development rhetoric.

 

[grainhog]

The mental gymnastics you're willing to play and drawing conclusions from what I've stated as objective facts are strange.

Here, let's do this.

On my teams we have a rule that no complaining is allowed without offering a solution. What do YOU propose as a sustainable fix to the nation's housing crisis?

The mental gymnastics you're willing to play to accuse me of playing mental gymnastics. See how useless that debate tactic is? I'm not a civil engineer or an economist or an urban planner, and I'm not complaining; I'm trying to help rally resistance to the development of the remaining open western US. But, nonetheless, try this one on your teams: "densify"

 

[ianpadron]

Revitalize existing cities. There are thousands and thousands of vacant lots and run down properties across the Midwest and east coast that can be rebuilt without destroying the west so the few can take land from the many for a quick buck.

We haven’t even touched on the water issue with the west…

This issue is going to be fought out West. That's where the most severe shortages of housing are, the most BLM (least marketable land) is, and fastest growth rates are.

Revitalizing the 'hood has absolutely ZERO relevance to this conversation. People don't want to live there, the massive demographic shift in the last decade makes that glaringly obvious.

A good use of your time might be to look into how BLM land came to be and what type of land comprises it...literally the scraps no one wanted after every other user group scooped what they wanted...why is it now so irreplaceable?

 

[Ozarkansas]

The mental gymnastics you're willing to play and drawing conclusions from what I've stated as objective facts are strange.

Here, let's do this.

On my teams we have a rule that no complaining is allowed without offering a solution. What do YOU propose as a sustainable fix to the nation's housing crisis?

-use land transfer instead of buying/leasing. Allow developers to buy private inholdings to exchange for outholdings they want to develop.

-change state/city laws to make zoning and development more housing-friendly, allowing us to develop inward and build up instead of out.

-change tax structure to make short term rentals less lucrative when it’s done primarily as a business.

-restrict the % of homes that can be short term rentals in a municipality. Still allow people to short term rent their home, or to take use Short term rental service to fill in gaps between long-term tenants, but don’t allow businesses to buy up hundreds of single family homes in desirable cities that sit vacant unless there is a tourist staying in them.

-let the free market dictate where people can afford to live. Homes are still plenty cheap in parts of the country. Why should the feds subsidize development in the mountain west when people can just move to Mississippi?

 

[grainhog]

It seems to the that the most likely land to be developed is winter range and corridors.

Exactly right.

 

[CoMulies]

This issue is going to be fought out West. That's where the most severe shortages of housing are, the most BLM (least marketable land) is, and fastest growth rates are.

Revitalizing the 'hood has absolutely ZERO relevance to this conversation. People don't want to live there, the massive demographic shift in the last decade makes that glaringly obvious.

A good use of your time might be to look into how BLM land came to be and what type of land comprises it...literally the scraps no one wanted after every other user group scooped what they wanted...why is it now so irreplaceable?

Lol zero relevance? Your question was “What do YOU propose as a sustainable fix to the nation's housing crisis?”

That’s how I propose fixing it without flooding the west with even more people and doing irreversible damage to ecosystems so another 20 something real estate agent can sell a few more houses.

Once again, you completely dodge the major issue of water out here.. this place can’t support millions more

 

[ianpadron]

Tell you what. Next time we have a big project in the Flathead, I'll invite you to the public hearing and you can let me know what you think of upzoning (densifying). Last time it was 5 hours of NIMBY opposition. A project with deed restrictions, green space, rental restrictions, etc. Shot down because the neighbors didn't want the extra traffic... the same neighbors that complain their kids can't afford a house.

I understand your concern for habitat, and echo your sentiments, truly. But our communities are growing and there absolutely without question are swaths of land that are not being utilized to highest/best.

The mental gymnastics you're willing to play to accuse me of playing mental gymnastics. See how useless that debate tactic is? I'm not a civil engineer or an economist or an urban planner, and I'm not complaining; I'm trying to help rally resistance to the development of the remaining open western US. But, nonetheless, try this one on your teams: "densify"

 

[grainhog]

Well one of them is a realtor so… tells you everything you need to know

Yeah they tend to...stand out.

 

[ianpadron]

Z

Lol zero relevance? Your question was “What do YOU propose as a sustainable fix to the nation's housing crisis?”

That’s how I propose fixing it without flooding the west with even more people and doing irreversible damage to ecosystems so another 20 something real estate agent can sell a few more houses.

Once again, you completely dodge the major issue of water out here.. this place can’t support millions more

Your ad hominem (and inaccurate) attacks don't do a lot to help me see your perspective. What could a guy who works on these issues full time possibly know about it, eh?

How does increasing inventory in places people don't want to live help the shortage? Housing is needed where people are moving, the Westward trend is only going to grow, whether you like it or not.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Honest question, have you found yourself complaining about housing prices in the last 5 years?

Yes. But I never once thought “let’s build on federal lands to solve this”. Being against public land sell-offs doesn’t make you for expensive homes by default. Just because a solution might work doesn’t mean I have to accept that solution.

Next time we have a big project in the Flathead, I'll invite you to the public hearing and you can let me know what you think of upzoning (densifying). Last time it was 5 hours of NIMBY opposition

Oh I’m familiar with NIMBYs. But unless we want a bunch of retirees and champagne socialists dictating our housing policies, I don’t much care what they have to say on the matter of densification. I don’t see how we should value the opinion of NIMBYs over the opinion of people who recreate on public lands, particularly on this forum.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Revitalizing the 'hood has absolutely ZERO relevance to this conversation. People don't want to live there, the massive demographic shift in the last decade makes that glaringly obvious.

Revitalizing the hood has a lot to do with this- it’s an option to increase the amount of housing that doesn’t involve selling off public lands.

People don’t want to live in the hood, sure. That’s why it’s getting revitalized (aka “gentrified” if you don’t like who is moving in). Then it’s no longer the hood. “But people don’t want to live there” isn’t really a counter argument- people don’t want to live on barren BLM ground either, they want developers to come in and build nice houses before they’ll move in. You do that to a run-down urban area and you’ll find that plenty of people seek out gentrified downtowns to live in.

 

[ianpadron]

The day will never come when I shed a tear for developers. The profitability is in direct proportion with the ability to deceive counties, cities, building departments, sub contractors, and home owners. Everyone close enough to see how the sausage is made knows that.

As for your land building cost ratio and margins, that is an argument a developer or contractor would make to guys who don’t know any better. The example I gave earlier fits your number quite well. Small lots, smaller houses turned out quickly, and your margins may be down for each house, but overall profit could be higher. In a room full of contractors if someone seriously tried to claim they are building for 10% to 15% margin at the end of the year they would be laughed out of the room.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Those are literally the numbers and targets that go into every single pro forma. Haven't been laughed out of a room yet...aside from internet threads where anonymous strangers claim to know more than people who do this for a living.

Claiming the builders/developers are the deceptive ones is a wiiiild take. Makes it clear you haven't worked with a municipality or hired subs.

This thread of course became a dumpster fire, so I'm heading out shortly...

Fun fact: it is entirely possible to be passionate about protecting select public lands and adamant that growth occurs in a strategic way. I know we'd all like to think the answer is black/white but it isn't and never will be.

Let's check in on this one in a few years and see what happens.

 

[ianpadron]

Revitalizing the hood has a lot to do with this- it’s an option to increase the amount of housing that doesn’t involve selling off public lands.

People don’t want to live in the hood, sure. That’s why it’s getting revitalized (aka “gentrified” if you don’t like who is moving in). Then it’s no longer the hood. “But people don’t want to live there” isn’t really a counter argument- people don’t want to live on barren BLM ground either, they want developers to come in and build nice houses before they’ll move in. You do that to a run-down urban area and you’ll find that plenty of people seek out gentrified downtowns to live in.

People are moving out West at a much higher clip than to Midwest and Eastern cities.

The most popular cities in the intermountain West are surrounded by public land.

That's my point. That's where this issue will actually be implemented.

I really do think the knee jerk reactions from both sides of the public land issue are preventing any meaningful discussion from happening.

I'm vehemently opposed to the Crazy Mountain land swap just finalized here in MT...but I'm also a big supporter of maximizing density where possible...go figure. No extremes...just common sense.

It's so funny to me that the guys who understand this stuff because it's our job, get absolutely dragged for shedding light on the issues.

 

[2buffalo]

-use land transfer instead of buying/leasing. Allow developers to buy private inholdings to exchange for outholdings they want to develop.

-change state/city laws to make zoning and development more housing-friendly, allowing us to develop inward and build up instead of out.

-change tax structure to make short term rentals less lucrative when it’s done primarily as a business.

-restrict the % of homes that can be short term rentals in a municipality. Still allow people to short term rent their home, or to take use Short term rental service to fill in gaps between long-term tenants, but don’t allow businesses to buy up hundreds of single family homes in desirable cities that sit vacant unless there is a tourist staying in them.

-let the free market dictate where people can afford to live. Homes are still plenty cheap in parts of the country. Why should the feds subsidize development in the mountain west when people can just move to Mississippi?

So your answer is more government. Got it.

 

[ianpadron]

Yes. But I never once thought “let’s build on federal lands to solve this”. Being against public land sell-offs doesn’t make you for expensive homes by default. Just because a solution might work doesn’t mean I have to accept that solution.

Oh I’m familiar with NIMBYs. But unless we want a bunch of retirees and champagne socialists dictating our housing policies, I don’t much care what they have to say on the matter of densification. I don’t see how we should value the opinion of NIMBYs over the opinion of people who recreate on public lands, particularly on this forum.

Because they are the ones who decide if a city council is going to authorize a project or not.

 

[ianpadron]

-use land transfer instead of buying/leasing. Allow developers to buy private inholdings to exchange for outholdings they want to develop.

-change state/city laws to make zoning and development more housing-friendly, allowing us to develop inward and build up instead of out.

-change tax structure to make short term rentals less lucrative when it’s done primarily as a business.

-restrict the % of homes that can be short term rentals in a municipality. Still allow people to short term rent their home, or to take use Short term rental service to fill in gaps between long-term tenants, but don’t allow businesses to buy up hundreds of single family homes in desirable cities that sit vacant unless there is a tourist staying in them.

-let the free market dictate where people can afford to live. Homes are still plenty cheap in parts of the country. Why should the feds subsidize development in the mountain west when people can just move to Mississippi?

Almost all those things already exist out West.

In Whitefish, MT we've got STR exclusion zones, an extra resort tax, deed restricted housing in entire subdivisions...you name it...still isn't enough.

It ultimately comes down to simple supply/demand. We need more units...and they gotta go somewhere.

Again, this is the nuance that isn't seen if you aren't in the industry, despite everyone wanting to take pot shots at any one who builds/sells homes these days.

 

[Ozarkansas]

So your answer is more government. Got it.

Considering the alternative is literally “have the government give public lands to developers”, I don’t see how my solutions are the “more government” approach. The solutions I listed involve changes to municipal and state laws rather than totally new laws or federal laws. One of them is literally “relax zoning laws”.

 

[IdahoBeav]

People are moving out West at a much higher clip than to Midwest and Eastern cities.

The most popular cities in the intermountain West are surrounded by public land.

That's my point. That's where this issue will actually be implemented.

I really do think the knee jerk reactions from both sides of the public land issue are preventing any meaningful discussion from happening.

I'm vehemently opposed to the Crazy Mountain land swap just finalized here in MT...but I'm also a big supporter of maximizing density where possible...go figure. No extremes...just common sense.

It's so funny to me that the guys who understand this stuff because it's our job, get absolutely dragged for shedding light on the issues.

There is a ton of it around Boise, much of it landlocked by private. Some of it is even surrounded by development. It's no good for anything except maybe a spot for people to dump trash and spin donuts, but if you even mention the idea of it being sold, the Land Tawney-Ryan Busse disciples come unglued, and if they find out that your job is associated with development, they'll write you off as having only an agenda and add another logical fallacy to their rhetoric. What's really hilarious is when these guys live in subdivisions and frequent outdoor retail stores that I designed.