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

[CoMulies]

That's exactly what I am saying. Again you voted for it then whine about the consequences. Kinda funny isn't it?

You realize people can be against illegal immigration and also want to protect public lands from development, right…? You’re painting extremely broad strokes here

 

[Billinsd]

Crickets?

 

[2buffalo]

You realize people can be against illegal immigration and also want to protect public lands from development, right…? You’re painting extremely broad strokes here

Yes. I am one of them. What does that have to do with what I stated?

 

[CoMulies]

Breh! Which issue is vastly more important to you? Which political party do you support, vote for generally? All things considered equal did you vote for or against this current administration? Do you wish the other party had won the Presidency, and Congress, especially because this administration is a much bigger threat to Federal Public Lands? Bruh!

It’s not a one or the other issue? Deport illegal immigrants and protect public land simultaneously… any more questions?

 

[CoMulies]

Yes. I am one of them. What does that have to do with what I stated?

It seems like you’re insinuating that anyone in here that was advocating for no development of public lands must have voted for those who are against deporting illegals, which is certainly not the case.. perhaps I misunderstood, so feel free to clarify if I read that wrong.

 

[CoMulies]

Deflection is your response? Not surprised. Carry on, I'm bored.

Wtf are you talking about, that was not a deflection at all. I voted for the current administration, am in favor of their stance on deportation, and am 100% against their stance on developing public land. Those things do not have to be mutually exclusive, and you don’t have to support a political platform on every single issue without thinking critically for yourself… JFC

 

[Ozarkansas]

It seems like you’re insinuating that anyone in here that was advocating for no development of public lands must have voted for those who are against deporting illegals, which is certainly not the case.. perhaps I misunderstood, so feel free to clarify if I read that wrong.

@2buffalo i thought you were saying the opposite, that people who voted for Trump “got what they voted for”, an administration unfriendly to public lands. If that’s not the case, my bad.

@Billinsd I don’t get your point. Great, we got someone in office who is tough on illegal immigration! That was sorely needed. But now, their administration is doing stuff I don’t support. I’m going to voice opposition to those things. Why on earth would you NOT oppose policies you disagree with?

 

[2buffalo]

It seems like you’re insinuating that anyone in here that was advocating for no development of public lands must have voted for those who are against deporting illegals, which is certainly not the case.. perhaps I misunderstood, so feel free to clarify if I read that wrong.

This whole thread is insinuation. If you read the EO at face value it is nothing more than researching potential solutions to the problem others have created. I stand by my statement. Are you from Colorado? If so if they deported rather than protect illegals this discussion wouldn't be happening. People get what they vote for then the rest of us have to suffer the consequences. This is fact not opinion.

 

[2buffalo]

@2buffalo i thought you were saying the opposite, that people who voted for Trump “got what they voted for”, an administration unfriendly to public lands. If that’s not the case, my bad.

@Billinsd I don’t get your point. Great, we got someone in office who is tough on illegal immigration! That was sorely needed. But now, their administration is doing stuff I don’t support. I’m going to voice opposition to those things. Why on earth would you NOT oppose policies you disagree with?

That is not what I am saying. People who voted to ship in illegals are to blame for this. If there wasn't a housing issue none of this would even be a discussion. Home prices would also be cheaper. I don't believe the numbers I stated I just pulled it off the internet. They were saying 20 million illegals 20 years ago. It is probably double that. If they weren't allowed to come in or were deported we would have a surplus of housing and housing would be cheaper. Simple fact if you voted for Biden, Harris, or any of the sanctuary city/state politicians you are the problem not the people who are looking at ways to fix it no matter what those solutions they are looking into are.

 

[Ozarkansas]

That is not what I am saying. People who voted to ship in illegals are to blame for this. If there wasn't a housing issue none of this would even be a discussion. Home prices would also be cheaper. I don't believe the numbers I stated I just pulled it off the internet. They were saying 20 million illegals 20 years ago. It is probably double that. If they weren't allowed to come in or were deported we would have a surplus of housing and housing would be cheaper. Simple fact if you voted for Biden, Harris, or any of the sanctuary city/state politicians you are the problem not the people who are looking at ways to fix it no matter what those solutions they are looking into are.

Gotcha. Okay in that case now that we have an admin that is deporting the illegals, why do we need to sell off public lands? Won’t this resolve as we clamp down on illegal immigrants?

 

[HairyScandinavian]

Gotcha. Okay in that case now that we have an admin that is deporting the illegals, why do we need to sell off public lands? Won’t this resolve as we clamp down on illegal immigrants?

Probably because of the activist judges blocking him or slowing it down.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Probably because of the activist judges blocking him or slowing it down.

But they haven’t slowed down his efforts to secure the southern border very effectively- my understanding is the border crossings have plummeted and he’s deporting 10s of thousands of illegals per month even with “activist courts”. If illegals are the cause of the housing crisis, things should be slowing down enough that we’ll see the squeeze let up.

Bottom line is that I don’t see the “housing crisis” as enough of a crisis to justify public land sell-offs. Particularly if immigration is truly the reason for current home prices.

 

[CoMulies]

This whole thread is insinuation. If you read the EO at face value it is nothing more than researching potential solutions to the problem others have created. I stand by my statement. Are you from Colorado? If so if they deported rather than protect illegals this discussion wouldn't be happening. People get what they vote for then the rest of us have to suffer the consequences. This is fact not opinion.

Great, so I did read it right. I voted to deport illegals, and now I will adamantly fight that same administration if they want to develop public land. Once again, you don’t have to agree with a political party on every issue, I promise it’s ok to use your brain and form your own opinions every now and then.

 

[2buffalo]

Gotcha. Okay in that case now that we have an admin that is deporting the illegals, why do we need to sell off public lands? Won’t this resolve as we clamp down on illegal immigrants?

I haven't seen any public land sold off yet. All I have seen is two agencies talking to states identifying potential underutilized land that could possibly be developed and a bunch of emotional people on RS losing their shit. Most of them are the same cast of characters that are on here all day which leads me to believe they are A- Cellar dwellers living with mom and dad. B- Non-productive employees that play on the internet all day or C- Welfare cases.

As for deportations, if they deported 1.2 million a year it would take a minimum of 20 years to get rid of them all. Thats 100,000 per month which I do not believe is happenIng. If the illegals were not being protected by progressive judges and politicians that have not a care in the world for the welfare of the American people it could be accomplished quicker but that is not going to happen until they are voted out.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

But they haven’t slowed down his efforts to secure the southern border very effectively- my understanding is the border crossings have plummeted and he’s deporting 10s of thousands of illegals per month even with “activist courts”. If illegals are the cause of the housing crisis, things should be slowing down enough that we’ll see the squeeze let up.

Bottom line is that I don’t see the “housing crisis” as enough of a crisis to justify public land sell-offs. Particularly if immigration is truly the reason for current home prices.

Yes something like 97% down according to local news. The damage has been done though, can't just sit back and pretend it hasn't and let people suffer.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Yes something like 97% down according to local news. The damage has been done though, can't just sit back and pretend it hasn't and let people suffer.

If illegal immigration is causing a housing crunch, and it drops by 97%, that ought to allow our current construction rates to catch up with demand pretty quickly. Again, I don’t see selling off public land as necessary here.







@2buffalo and yet here you are as well, Slinging mud every time.

 

[Coldtrail]

Though I in no way shape or form support illegal immigration, i don't see many illegals living in subdivisions on the outskirts of town other than showing up at 6am to swing a hammer and head back to the city. So based on what I've seen in my lifetime, this project could be the first in history where land just outside the city limits were purchased for an "affordable" housing development vs a sprawling community full of 5000sq' homes and covenants. Reading some of the posts one could be left to believe that the young working class is lining up to try to buy all the older 1000-2000sq' homes in town but getting beat out by illegals, is that happening? Certainly isn't where I've been.

There are a ton of factors contributing to the housing crisis, immigration is one, but there are several others, a big one being just how much people are willing to pay to keep up with the Jones's, the unwillingness to buy a "starter home", developers being very politically connected, people unwilling or having the know how to "fix" things up, very specific needs etc etc. it's really been a perfect storm for developers to cash in and I have no reason to think that industry or current administration wants to work to take things the other direction so they can build cheaper, smaller homes out of the goodness of their hearts for working folks? How many people are owning multiple large homes "estates" in several states, using them a few weeks a year and taking up the footprint that could be used for "affordable" housing? What if someone proposed each one of those estates giving up 10acres for housing? How would that go over? For many working folks public land is our "estate" and we shouldn't be so quick to give it up.

 

[TaperPin]

One county in Nevada would like 40,000 acres, with 33 acres set aside for affordable housing. I have little doubt this is not an isolated idea and I bet counties all over the west have similar plans. So when every county with their hands out are all tallied up will the land giveaway be millions of acres with a few hundred for cheap housing?

Rosen Introduces Bill to Make More Federal Lands Available for Housing Development, Protect Public Lands in Washoe County - Jacky Rosen

The Washoe County Lands Bill Would Protect Public Lands, Support Tribal Communities, Allow For Responsible Development, And Create New Opportunities To Lower Housing Costs WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) announced that she is reintroducing the Truckee Meadows Public...

www.rosen.senate.gov

 

[wyosam]

One county in Nevada would like 40,000 acres, with 33 acres set aside for affordable housing. I have little doubt this is not an isolated idea and I bet counties all over the west have similar plans. So when every county with their hands out are all tallied up will the land giveaway be millions of acres with a few hundred for cheap housing?

Rosen Introduces Bill to Make More Federal Lands Available for Housing Development, Protect Public Lands in Washoe County - Jacky Rosen

The Washoe County Lands Bill Would Protect Public Lands, Support Tribal Communities, Allow For Responsible Development, And Create New Opportunities To Lower Housing Costs WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) announced that she is reintroducing the Truckee Meadows Public...

www.rosen.senate.gov

That’s what I’ve seen with county boards approving new developments- a small slice for “affordable” housing and the rest of the pie for more sprawl that locals can’t afford. Homes for for more high income people who work mostly remotely. That does help fund the affordable part of the development, but it also just keeps pulling the prices up. It’s going to continue regardless in places with private land to be sold- there is always a number that gets people (or corporations) to sell to developers.

There’s too many people, and we just keep making more. A good first step would be to stop incentivizing having a bunch of kids in the tax code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

That’s what I’ve seen with county boards approving new developments- a small slice for “affordable” housing and the rest of the pie for more sprawl that locals can’t afford. Homes for for more high income people who work mostly remotely. That does help fund the affordable part of the development, but it also just keeps pulling the prices up. It’s going to continue regardless in places with private land to be sold- there is always a number that gets people (or corporations) to sell to developers.

There’s too many people, and we just keep making more. A good first step would be to stop incentivizing having a bunch of kids in the tax code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to this we are making less people.

In 2023, the US fertility rate, the average number of children born to a woman during her reproductive years, hit a record low of around 54 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, a 3% drop from the previous year.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Record Low Fertility Rate:
  The US fertility rate in 2023 was at its lowest level in over a century, with a 3% decrease from 2022.
  
  
• Birth Rate Decline:
  The number of births in the US also decreased by 2% in 2023 compared to 2022.
  
  
• Total Fertility Rate:
  The total fertility rate, which is the average number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime, was around 1.62 children per woman in 2023.
  
  
• Factors Contributing to the Decline:
  Several factors are believed to contribute to the declining fertility rate, including women delaying motherhood, economic downturns, and increased awareness of reproductive health.
  
  
• Comparison to Previous Years:
  In 1957, the fertility rate was 122.9 births per 1,000 women ages 15–44, which is more than double the current rate.
  
  
• Implications:
  The declining fertility rate raises concerns about the future of the US population, including potential workforce shortages and challenges for social security and healthcare systems.
  
  
• Data Source:
  The data on fertility and birth rates comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).