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

[180ls1]

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.

One thing I learned is just how deep the employee (or lack of business/industry) mindset is for the average person, RS included.

There was a thread about an energy drink a few years ago:
It was a premium ingredient made in the USA product. People were up in arms that it was priced at a premium.
They were also worked up because it had a crazy name. As if its better marketing to give an energy drink a mild name... lol.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Almost all those things already exist out West.

Okay great, apply the rest of them first, then we can talk about selling off public lands to developers.

 

[ianpadron]

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.

The irony is mind-numbing, agreed. You summed it up perfectly.

 

[CoMulies]

One thing I learned is just how deep the employee (or lack of business/industry) mindset is for the average person, RS included.

There was a thread about an energy drink a few years ago:
It was a premium ingredient made in the USA product. People were up in arms that it was priced at a premium.
They were also worked up because it had a crazy name. As if it’s better marketing to give an energy drink a mild name... lol.

Lol so not wanting public land sold off and the land ruined for more houses = “employee mindset”? Really strong point..

Not a single person here has addressed what the impact of millions more people will be on annual near drought conditions, or why the hell anyone would even want to live in these areas that you yourselves admit is only good to “dump trash and spin donuts” on.

Additionally, a ton of this seemingly “useless” sagebrush land is incredibly important habitat and winter range for mule deer, sage grouse, and a myriad of other species. If you don’t see the drastic negative impact of the continued destruction of wintering grounds on big game herds, you’re blind.

And for the record, I just went on Zillow and found no less than 50 houses in Kalispell and similar areas within half hour of Whitefish for less than $400k. If you can’t afford what’s here, tough, we’re full.

 

[180ls1]

Lol so not wanting public land sold off and the land ruined for more houses = “employee mindset”? Really strong point..

Not hardly.

Context matters. Go ahead and reread the thread and see if you come up with a different conclusion.

 

[CoMulies]

Not hardly.

Context matters. Go ahead and reread the thread and see if you come up with a different conclusion.

Yea, it was the two of you acting like the concept of supply and demand is some incredibly nuanced topic rather than a week or two of Econ 101.

We realize there is demand for more housing in western states. We realize there are certain zoning and policy issues that make more density challenging. The difference is at the end of the day, regardless of that, we don’t think it’s the right move to irrevocably ruin public land to meet that demand. I don’t want low income housing or the people that come with it out here.

 

[TaperPin]

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.

Aww - you’re upset not everyone feels bad for poor old developers? *big hug*

It’s just business to you. American way I suppose.

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.

You honestly think there is a lack of land to develop in the treasure valley? This is a good example of plenty of private land, and developers want a hand out to get below market value land. You don’t think there’s been enough sprawl already? For anyone reading this that doesn’t know the land arrangement around the Boise building boom - here’s a recent google maps view showing an awefully lot of private land that hasn’t been recontoured and turned into developments yet. To say there is a shortage of land is hardly correct.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

Lol so not wanting public land sold off and the land ruined for more houses = “employee mindset”? Really strong point..

Not a single person here has addressed what the impact of millions more people will be on annual near drought conditions, or why the hell anyone would even want to live in these areas that you yourselves admit is only good to “dump trash and spin donuts” on.

Additionally, a ton of this seemingly “useless” sagebrush land is incredibly important habitat and winter range for mule deer, sage grouse, and a myriad of other species. If you don’t see the drastic negative impact of the continued destruction of wintering grounds on big game herds, you’re blind.

And for the record, I just went on Zillow and found no less than 50 houses in Kalispell and similar areas within half hour of Whitefish for less than $400k. If you can’t afford what’s here, tough, we’re full.

I'm not trying to be rude, but "no shit" is what comes to mind. That's why they're working with states and municipalities to identify good targets for land that's unimportant. Nobody is wanting to sell off anything that's important to people or animals, nobody, not in the article or here on the forums. The idea that habitat will be sold off is just laughable, that's not what's happening.
Furthermore, the affordable housing isn't for people to move there, it's for your locals trying to scrape by and be able to live because they've been priced out by people already moving there.

 

[CoMulies]

I'm not trying to be rude, but "no shit" is what comes to mind. That's why they're working with states and municipalities to identify good targets for land that's unimportant. Nobody is wanting to sell off anything that's important to people or animals, nobody, not in the article or here on the forums. The idea that habitat will be sold off is just laughable, that's not what's happening.

As someone said earlier, this topic has gone from “no way that’s happening” to now “oh but the land is not going to be important”. I’ll believe it when I see it.

If I wanted to live in a place with next to zero public land and a shit ton of people, I would’ve went to Texas, but I don’t, so I didn’t… we like our public land here in CO, and are plenty full

 

[IdahoBeav]

You honestly think there is a lack of land to develop in the treasure valley? This is a good example of plenty of private land, and developers want a hand out to get below market value land. You don’t think there’s been enough sprawl already? For anyone reading this that doesn’t know the land arrangement around the Boise building boom - here’s a recent google maps view showing an awefully lot of private land that hasn’t been recontoured and turned into developments yet. To say there is a shortage of land is hardly correct.

Where did I say anything about a shortage of land?

It’s not a matter of a shortage. It’s a matter of land that has no value outside of development, land that the government has no reason to own.

 

[TaperPin]

Where did I say anything about a shortage of land?

It’s not a matter of a shortage. It’s a matter of land that has no value outside of development, land that the government has no reason to own.

That makes perfect sense. Society doesn’t need the land for development, but let’s develop it anyway. I’ve been looking at this all wrong. My bad.

 

[west-south]

As someone said earlier, this topic has gone from “no way that’s happening” to now “oh but the land is not going to be important”. I’ll believe it when I see it.

If I wanted to live in a place with next to zero public land and a shit ton of people, I would’ve went to Texas, but I don’t, so I didn’t… we like our public land here in CO, and are plenty full

That's the NIMBY attitude rearing. Which, you are entitled to have as a resident. But eventually the entire west will turn into Jackson, WY or Sun Valley, ID, without more housing. That should worry you.

I certainly don't like the idea of losing public land. It's a slippery slope, and thus I think your first paragraph is a valid point. It's worth raising alarm bells to make sure we know where this is going and that it remains reigned in appropriately (whatever that looks like; I'm not qualified to opine on that). But the NIMBY mindset ignores the fact that a real problem does indeed exist and isn't going away.

As someone from the west who would love to get back to the west to raise his kids, looking at housing is a soul crushing endeavor.

 

[west-south]

I'm not trying to be rude, but "no shit" is what comes to mind. That's why they're working with states and municipalities to identify good targets for land that's unimportant. Nobody is wanting to sell off anything that's important to people or animals, nobody, not in the article or here on the forums. The idea that habitat will be sold off is just laughable, that's not what's happening.
Furthermore, the affordable housing isn't for people to move there, it's for your locals trying to scrape by and be able to live because they've been priced out by people already moving there.

I think it's a little naive to think that "nobody" wants to sell off anything that's important to people or animals. They're not going to flat out say they don't care, but there's a lot of folks who don't really care about public recreational land.

That said, in principle I agree with your posts in this thread that we need to see where this goes before freaking the hell out.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

Fair enough, hard to argue with that.

 

[wyosam]

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.

They buy nice things and spend money on things they enjoy, but as a percentage it is much less. Most in the middle could choose to live like a broke college kid and save/invest to eventually have more disposable income, or they can save for what hopefully is a comfortable retirement and still enjoy life. The more money you have, the more money you have to grow more money.


The lower incomes spend everything they make to live, often including spending lots of spending on non essentials. The less you make, the less likely you are to be able to take advantage of letting money grow itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wyosam]

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)

Trouble is, there will always be an “edge of town” that doesn’t seem worth protecting because it gets used as the edge of town. Unless we’re building high density housing on those lots, there’s nothing cheap about them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[grainhog]

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.

Who determines whether it's "good for anything"? You, the, based on your comment, commercial real estate architect? Sounds good. I'll nominate you for Doug Burgum's divestiture team myself. You'll no doubt fit right in.

 

[wyosam]

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.

There is only so many people that can be crammed into many parts of the west. It’s not limited based on land, it’s limited based on water. Price is the only mechanism to steer development. A long term water plan should be part of every new development in most of the west, but no one involved can see past the quick buck. There’s way too much money to be made in each and every real estate transaction for any sort of self limitation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IdahoBeav]

Who determines whether it's "good for anything"? You, the, based on your comment, commercial real estate architect? Sounds good. I'll nominate you for Doug Burgum's divestiture team myself. You'll no doubt fit right in.

Architect? That is definitely the biggest insult in your comment.

The land sits doing nothing. It isn’t hunted, farmed, recreated, etc., and it is either inaccessible to wildlife or will be soon, as all of the adjacent land is either already developed or will be.

I believe in public land and love recreating on it as much as anyone, but not all land is equal.

 

[180ls1]

Yea, it was the two of you acting like the concept of supply and demand is some incredibly nuanced topic rather than a week or two of Econ 101.

Please point out where I did that.