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

[Coldtrail]

It's complicated. The laborers buy homes/rent in the crappy part of town, not in new subdivisions on the outskirts of town, correct! Their children grown up and buy new subdivisions on the edge of town and then their grandchildren and on and on. Laborers do compete to live in the crappy part of town with some new renters and home buys, who end up buying on the outskirts.
Or take me, born and raised Californio, parents both from Minnesota. I am tired living here in San Diego, which is OVER RUN! And I buy a few new lots at the outskirts of town for me and my grown kids. Isn't it obvious that this is happening?

I will try to avoid this becoming an immigration thread, but I will certainly agree that this is a complicated issue, and obviously further complicated by the individual dynamics within communities across the country, there is no one size fits all. However, if a person wants to really go down a rabbit hole, and not focus on illegal immigration and just a housing crisis.....couldn't a person argue that moving from MN to CA may be contributing to a housing crisis in CA? What about moving from CA to Missoula MT? Or buying land for a seasonal home used a couple weeks a year? Does this not also create a localized housing crisis? Where is the line? At what point does a person accept responsibility for being part of the problem? And the big question.... Does the selling of more lots change any of this, or just contribute to the problem?

 

[Dos Perros]

That’s something I would be onboard with since it essentially amounts to a land exchange. I have zero context for any potential ecological/recreational value for that land you linked, but generally speaking I’d give my support if the solution amounts to “sell ecologically insignificant lands in urban areas and use the funds to acquire more public land”.

Gosh, I was trying to demonstrate you guys were unreasonable and here you go being reasonable. I am flummoxed.

 

[elkhunter505]

That’s something I would be onboard with since it essentially amounts to a land exchange. I have zero context for any potential ecological/recreational value for that land you linked, but generally speaking I’d give my support if the solution amounts to “sell ecologically insignificant lands in urban areas and use the funds to acquire more public land”.

I also would support this. However, I think given the previous opinions of the current Interior secretary as well as the major attempt to cut government spending by the administration that any amount of money made will not be used in such a way. I think that we would all support this but it seems like a pipe dream watching what is going on with our federal land managers and how there are people talking about the cost of maintaining and managing public lands.

Additionally, while this is kind of a side tangent, watching HB 676 in MT be making its way forward despite opposition from State Land Board, DNRC, Montana Farm Bureau, Montana Stock Growers, and a variety of nonprofit organizations, makes me very skeptical of the ability of our politicians to listen to the people when they have lobbyists paying them to do these things. If that bill were to be defeated based on the variety of opponents, I would be more optimistic long term about efforts to oppose these land transfers or at least about the ability of politicians to listen to their constituents.

 

[Billinsd]

..couldn't a person argue that moving from MN to CA may be contributing to a housing crisis in CA? What about moving from CA to Missoula MT? Or buying land for a seasonal home used a couple weeks a year? Does this not also create a localized housing crisis? Where is the line? At what point does a person accept responsibility for being part of the problem? And the big question.... Does the selling of more lots change any of this, or just contribute to the problem?

MOST people use your arguments, ignoring the MASSIVE influxe of tens of millions of foreign nations flooding our country at will without any order or control creating both direct and indirect housing crises. They blame American citizens and developers (who are creating a service for the demand as the vilans). The location of the line is in the eye of the beholder, or in my case I don't see A LINE. I don't put ANY blame on legal residents, citizens movements. My reason is we live in America and are free to travel and move our residences or buy several residences and should not feel any responsibility for overcrowding and should not be blamed in my opinion. Local governments charge developers and new home owners taxes for infrastructure. Private land owners developing their properties helps lessen housing shortages for the most part. It can contribute by creating more demand too.

 

[Billinsd]

makes me very skeptical of the ability of our politicians to listen to the people when they have lobbyists paying them to do these things.

Can we all agree it would be fantastic and our country a far better place and much more democratic WITHOUT LOBBYISTS!!! GET RID OF THEM ALL!!!

 

[elkhunter505]

Can we all agree it would be fantastic and our country a far better place and much more democratic WITHOUT LOBBYISTS!!! GET RID OF THEM ALL!!!

Overturn Citizens United and get rid of the money component.

 

[Coldtrail]

MOST people use your arguments, ignoring the MASSIVE influxe of tens of millions of foreign nations flooding our country at will without any order or control creating both direct and indirect housing crises. They blame American citizens and developers (who are creating a service for the demand as the vilans). The location of the line is in the eye of the beholder, or in my case I don't see A LINE. I don't put ANY blame on legal residents, citizens movements. My reason is we live in America and are free to travel and move our residences or buy several residences and should not feel any responsibility for overcrowding and should not be blamed in my opinion. Local governments charge developers and new home owners taxes for infrastructure. Private land owners developing their properties helps lessen housing shortages for the most part. It can contribute by creating more demand too

The line you don't see today may become more visible if you buy your lots adjacent to a nice federally owned green space which becomes high rise apartments 5yrs later with empty Walmart bags blowing across your yard. I doubt you'll be looking across the new parking lot with a few stolen shopping carts in it happy that somebody who never set foot on the property was able achieve their dream and got a little richer.