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

[ScreamingPotato]

You're spot on. No one is building a subdivision in the Bob Marshall or Frank Church.

There are parcels of next to useless BLM land all over the intermountain West that 100% make sense to build housing on.

I get a kick out of all the guys upset about this...but they're the first ones to complain about the lack of housing.

Want to know a great way to lower the price of housing? Build more of it on dirt that was purchased cheap, and get rid of the red tape (permits/mitigation/hookup fees/etc)

They're also the first ones to scream about tax breaks for a developer who wants to tear down a ghetto complex to rebuild it, so the developer turns elsewhere and the ghetto stands.

 

[180ls1]

The real crux of the issue is that there are run-down $hitholes all over this country that would be great places to burn down and re-build. Tens of millions of run-down homes and vacant lots actually. However, planning and permitting is preventing a lot of these places from being economically viable with the overburden of RIDICULOUS Regulations to build in these locations and fix these houses up. Believe it or not, it can be cheaper to pick up and move and build new depending on some of the permitting hurdles that some boards make you face.

So, if ya want to point the finger at someone for this happening it should be pointed at the local municipalities planning and zoning boards across this country that are filled with knuckleheads who want to make every project a permitting nightmare.... just so they can justify their pure existence as a "Government Employees".

Now, the Federal "Government is stepping in and is here to help!"

Yup, GOVT broke the housing market with interest rates as well.

If you look at the actual numbers, the amount of homes Blackrock is purchasing plays a small role compared to what you mentioned + interest rates.

Not to mention everyone (people complaining) are happy about the yields Real Estate produces in their pension and 401K. Hard to get them to admit they are part of that "problem" though.

 

[TaperPin]

WTF are you rambling about? I think you are 100% missing my point. Go back and re-read my posts dude.

Oh, my bad - I thought you were talking about the economics of building houses. You know, the stuff that actually matters.

 

[180ls1]

Oh, my bad - I thought you were talking about the economics of building houses. You know, the stuff that actually matters.

He correctly identified the Govt as part of the issue, their role in this "actually matters."

You exclusively laying this on the head of billionaires is short sighted.

The issue is multi-factor.

 

[TaperPin]

They're also the first ones to scream about tax breaks for a developer who wants to tear down a ghetto complex to rebuild it, so the developer turns elsewhere and the ghetto stands.

You want to spend tax dollars to rebuild ghettos? Tax breaks are still a money transfer from the government to the developer, that would otherwise go to reduce our income taxes. I think it’s a little left leaning for you to be in favor of low income housing, but good for you.

Section 8 or section 42 affordable housing tax credits are great programs.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

Hilariously weak argument. Tax breaks so somebody rebuilds a shithole into something that generates more taxes from property values and income from rent etc. The jealousy of the evil rich from some people is astounding.

You want to spend tax dollars to rebuild ghettos? Tax breaks are still a money transfer from the government to the developer, that would otherwise go to reduce our income taxes. I think it’s a little left leaning for you to be in favor of low income housing, but good for you.

Section 8 or section 42 affordable housing tax credits are great programs

 

[ianpadron]

Oh, my bad - I thought you were talking about the economics of building houses. You know, the stuff that actually matters.

When developers are given land at a discount by municipalities, they are typically limited to deed restricted lots in some fashion. Homes may only be sold for x, to buyers who make less than x, cannot be used as rentals, etc. I've never heard of discounted/subsidized land that wasn't tied up in that fashion. That's a massive part of what HUD does fyi.

The completely unfounded hatred for real estate developers is weird to me.

Between feasibility studies, permit fees, traffic control mitigation, etc....all while paying carrying costs for dirt you can't do anything with yet...margins are way tighter than you'd think.

10 years ago I'd source dirt at 1/3 expected retail value of the build and guarantee you we'd walk away with 15-20% margin....today, we need dirt at 1/6 to 1/7 due to materials, labor, permit, interest costs...all for 10-15% margin...think about that.

 

[ianpadron]

Hilariously weak argument. Tax breaks so somebody rebuilds a shithole into something that generates more taxes from property values and income from rent etc. The jealousy of the evil rich from some people is astounding.

Sadly the government is so hated these days (rightfully so), that people forget a true reciprocal, mutually beneficial relationship used to be standard operating procedure for development and city planning.

Now, it's a pissing contest between desk jockeys at the city/county/state and the guys actually out there making moves trying to provide solutions.

 

[TaperPin]

He correctly identified the Govt as part of the issue, their role in this "actually matters."

You exclusively laying this on the head of billionaires is short sighted.

The issue is multi-factor.

I follow the money - its not hard to figure out if billionaires are the primary beneficiaries of a project. They sell people on the idea it’s for the public good and apparently many guys buy it. Supply and demand forces on the market will build plenty of middle class houses in the available space without corporate welfare for developers.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

I follow the money - its not hard to figure out if billionaires are the primary beneficiaries of a project. They sell people on the idea it’s for the public good and apparently many guys buy it. Supply and demand forces on the market will build plenty of middle class houses in the available space without corporate welfare for developers.

So just screw the lower class then, let them live in tents under a bridge?

 

[Austink47]

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

 

[Ozarkansas]

There absolutely is a right way to develop housing...and until I see this proposed land sale is being comprised of critical winter range or high value rec property, I'm willing to see it through.

I don’t doubt that there is federal land that is worth disposing of (ideally in exchange for more “useful” land with better habitat). From what I see here the problem is that the DOI is going to cut down on our ability to push back on land sales that include critical habitat and high recreational value. “Streamlining the regulatory process” for public land sales gives the public less time to organize and react.
They also say in their press release that they want to work with “state and local governments” to identify priority areas to transfer land; in many cases those state governments are overtly anti-public lands.

Also I’m frustrated with the goalpost shifting that has occurred on this issue. I’m not saying this is you, but I’ve seen it consistently. Many users on this site advocated for public lands right up until the DOI says they want to sell them off. Now it’s suddenly an idea worth looking into.

@ScreamingPotato I don’t think anyone is saying “screw the lower class”, that’s very similar to a leftist argument of “if you’re against government handouts you must hate poor people.” I can’t speak for @TaperPin but my view is that this isn’t worth any short-term trade in home values that might result from it, will probably result in the destruction of some recreationally/ecologically valuable federal land, and is unlikely to do much to help the housing crisis.

 

[TaperPin]

When developers are given land at a discount by municipalities, they are typically limited to deed restricted lots in some fashion. Homes may only be sold for x, to buyers who make less than x, cannot be used as rentals, etc. I've never heard of discounted/subsidized land that wasn't tied up in that fashion. That's a massive part of what HUD does fyi.

The completely unfounded hatred for real estate developers is weird to me.

Between feasibility studies, permit fees, traffic control mitigation, etc....all while paying carrying costs for dirt you can't do anything with yet...margins are way tighter than you'd think.

10 years ago I'd source dirt at 1/3 expected retail value of the build and guarantee you we'd walk away with 15-20% margin....today, we need dirt at 1/6 to 1/7 due to materials, labor, permit, interest costs...all for 10-15% margin...think about that.

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.

 

[TaperPin]

So just screw the lower class then, let them live in tents under a bridge?

I’m blue collar through and through and am all for the little guy and have always been for bringing up the income and opportunities of the middle and lower class. It only makes sense to make a strong country by supporting the guys who build and do things. Laws, taxes and opportunities should be skewed to help them, not the top 1%. The rich fight so hard for tax breaks, against programs that help the middle and lower classes like health care, and fight strong unions because it pays off big time. Just look at the wealth growth over time for different classes. Rather than voting for what benefits themselves, low and middle class have allowed billionares to keep them down.

 

[CoMulies]

Putting aside the fact that they may be building on federal lands, the absolute last thing the west needs is more people out here… there’s not a trailhead in CO that isn’t packed to the gills anymore

 

[grainhog]

You're spot on. No one is building a subdivision in the Bob Marshall or Frank Church.

There are parcels of next to useless BLM land all over the intermountain West that 100% make sense to build housing on.

I get a kick out of all the guys upset about this...but they're the first ones to complain about the lack of housing.

Want to know a great way to lower the price of housing? Build more of it on dirt that was purchased cheap, and get rid of the red tape (permits/mitigation/hookup fees/etc)

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?"

 

[ScreamingPotato]

I’m blue collar through and through and am all for the little guy and have always been for bringing up the income and opportunities of the middle and lower class. It only makes sense to make a strong country by supporting the guys who build and do things. Laws, taxes and opportunities should be skewed to help them, not the top 1%. The rich fight so hard for tax breaks, against programs that help the middle and lower classes like health care, and fight strong unions because it pays off big time. Just look at the wealth growth over time for different classes. Rather than voting for what benefits themselves, low and middle class have allowed billionares to keep them down.

View attachment 857792

What a lot of people don't understand about these "inequality" graphs is that it's directly proportional to spending habits. The rich spend on things that they get a return on, that's how they got rich to begin with and that's why when they get there they keep growing their wealth. The rest of us buy guns and vehicles and TVs and phones and dumb stuff and just stay poor. Right now I'm unfortunately one of the latter but that doesn't mean I don't see my error. Anyway back to actually on-topic for this thread, as Ozarkansas said preferably we'd trade lands and not sell off, but there's going to be lands that are not worth the public paying for it keep that could better serve the public elsewhere. Nobody is advocating lining the pockets of a developer for the sake of lining the pockets of a developer, no matter how badly you want to believe that's what this administration is doing that's just not the case.

 

[grainhog]

There’s a lot of grey area before you get to the Bob Marshall and Frank Church. Plenty of federal land that butts up against urban areas has a lot of recreation and wildlife value. I don’t want to lose the <500 acre outholdings any more than I want to lose the big blocks.

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.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

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.

Ah damn you got me.

 

[CoMulies]

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.

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