Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner announced a new interdepartmental plan today to create affordable housing on “underutilized” federal land.
That is my worry too. I think they are 0 for um... like a billion such projects... well they will be as soon as things like the high speed train are completed and then can be officially categorized as failures.
A colleague suggested the latest plan for high speed trains could be to harness unicorn power. (We were celebrating St Paddy's Day).
At which point someone suggested a resurrected Homestead Act, to resolve the housing crisis. A modern twist on the "man and a mule policy" that worked so well to populate the west. And with all that unicorn manure, we could solve the food crisis as well.
Yeah, but what about climate change??! Everyone knows that unicorn farts have 10x the co2 as cow farts... There are no easy solutions, just trade offs...
This reminds me of the recurring stories of Connor O’Byrne and Evan McGuiness, Irish midgets claiming to be leprechauns- accused of extorting sex from women, in return for the promise of a pot of gold...
A nearly straight line of low-income settlement 200 feet wide from Bakersfield to Hanford. What's not to love???
An interesting aside on high speed rail, no construction has started at all from Bakersfield to Mojave through the Tehachapi's where I assume the rail lines must run.
Completed route So Cal to Bay Area 2050 at the earliest (if ever). Could have routed it down the middle of I-5 for an expedited completion.
Perhaps they could just sell of the land in plots. Anything from 1/4 acres for houses to farm size. Any CITIZEN could acquire a plot the size that they would need. The government should only have land for use, parks, military bases, interstate highways and such.
I would suggest that it would be done by lotto. Citizens only. Show a valid ID at approved locations and you are in. No DEI but one caveat. They have to develop the property and live or work there for a certain period before they can sell. Uh, oh, rules.
The best thing the government could do is remove from the descriptions the word “affordable” and any new derivatives. If you want to lower the price of housing, stop printing money, deport the last 20 million illegals, cut federal spending by 25%, and balance the budget.
The op-ed doesn't talk about selling land to any private person. Instead, it's sentences like "Interior will reduce the red tape behind land transfers or leases to public housing authorities, nonprofits and local governments."
Yes. Any federal land transfers should include certain covenants. One would be an exemption from restrictive local zoning requirements. My western U.S. area is surrounded by federal lands but doesn’t allow subdividing to less than 40 acres. So the area is a giant preserve for wealthy retirees from California. We shouldn’t release federal land to create more of that bs.
Also we need to incorporate a lesson from the homestead acts to time restrict transfer of ownership in a reasonable manner. In the west there were many, many situations where corporations or large ranchers would have proxies get homestead land and quickly sign it over to the already dominant landowner in the area. Corporate ownership of single family homes is tremendously concentrated in the hands of private equity and institutional investors (in Fort Worth it’s over 25% corporate owned).
I've never seen a successful "government housing project" because, the people they hire to run them, aren't qualified, or experienced enough, or a host of other issues. However, private/public partnerships have been successful, because, the incentive is there for the private entities. Like, in 30 or 40 years they can be converted to strictly private enterprises? These types are typically a mixed income property. Low income folks pay rent based on their income levels. And others, obviously pay market rates. There are benifits to this type of model, too many to list here.
Agreed... I was especially fond of Dr.Carson’s ideas on this ... The ‘tenants’ had the option to ‘lease-to-purchase’ preparing themselves for ‘ownership status’. They would therefore perform minor maintenance themselves, exercise the ‘care’, thus the premises didn’t fall into a state of neglect and disrepair as is often the case with ‘rental /subsidized’ housing. #OwnershipMatters
As an Utah resident I agree! The feds own over 33 million acres of land in Utah. Most of it is empty! Leave the National parks alone, and we have 5, but let us own and farm the rest! And no, I’m not talking about Park City, I’m talking about all of the empty land in the eastern part of the state.
Together, the BLM, FWS, NPS, Forest Service, and DOD manage about 96% of federal land. The remaining 4% of federal land is controlled by other federal agencies, including the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Postal Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
I don’t want it developed by Uncle Sugar, I would like to buy some to homestead and farm. Break it up into 1 to 640 acre sections and sell them to families to build on at a low price with them restricted from selling the land for say 20 years. Also require them to build or install a house, or farm the property within a given timeframe, say 5 years.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, “A farm is defined as any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the year.”
This definition takes into account that farms that may not have sold $1,000 or more of products in a specific year, but normally do every other year. According to the USDA, these tend to be smaller farms that experience low sales in a particular year. These farms tend to be very small and normally have profitable seasons. In some years, however, they experience low sales due to bad weather, disease or changes in marketing strategies.
When I was the board president at a Habitat for Humanity affiliate we got a tax abatement from the city and county so that there was no taxes on the houses for 10 years, or as long as we held the mortgage. We also had home insurance at extremely low rates, I don’t remember exactly, but I’m thinking $10/month.
There are too many fees, taxes, and other government costs to home ownership that can be reduced or eliminated.
I LOVE the Homestead act idea. Why are big ideas so dead in our over-managed, do nothing society? Let's trust our citizens to do something productive and good. Hell yes.
No offense but this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Concentrating housing that is “affordable” anywhere is doomed to fail, for social if no other reason. Maybe especially so in areas where there is no infrastructure, no transportation, no services. That just adds to the costs. So much for affordable. Rehab homes in cities, with owner elbow grease as well as financial encouragement. Two fer. Pride of ownership, rundown neighborhoods revitalized. But what do I know, just an English major.
Amen! I live in Utah and we are owned lock-stock-and-barrel by the Feds. Bears Ears National Mounment was locked down by Obama who never even had the courtesy of notifying the governor of the state. Some of the nation's richest oil fields are under the crust of Bears Ears. In case you can't tell, I am NOT an environmentalist!!!
So agree. I lived in a home in a subdivision west of Durango CO in the 80's. The house was adjacent to federal land running up to the LaPlata mountains. Water sewer were available and the land was prime for just what you are writing about. Prices are exorbitant in Durango and expansion of the subdivision would be easy and affordable Just extend the services and streets. No sidewalks or curb and gutter. The range cattle would be your neighbor and fertilize your yards.
This idea of cooperation between the Department of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development seems to me to be a good beginning. Of course, it flies in the face of the deep-state/globalist plan to kick humans off of 30% of the earth's land by 2030, and off of 50% of earth's land by 2050. I hope part of your planning will be to expose this anti-human agenda. I heard it enthusiastically presented to an Occidental College Alumni Association meeting two years ago in Los Angeles, California, and I was the only person who spoke out against it (although one other person told me later he agreed with me). My cousins have already had their house and land on Lake Mead appropriated by the federal government as part of this nefarious agenda.
Human beings are net producers of goods and services, not net consumers. As our earth's population has risen, per capita income has also risen globally. Perhaps one way of addressing this despicable 50 by 50 agenda is to stop calling people "consumers." People are the ones whom Earth's resources are for. Of course, we must be good stewards of our resources, but we are not parasites; we are co-creators with "Our Creator," referred to in our Declaration of Independence by our Founding Fathers.
I agree with you that it’s creative problem solving and using some of that land wisely. I also agree that this part is a bad idea: “Interior will reduce the red tape behind land transfers or leases to public housing authorities, nonprofits and local governments.” Looks like a recipe for corruption.
“This partnership will cut through the bureaucracy. Interior will reduce the red tape behind land transfers or leases to public housing authorities, nonprofits and local governments.”
Cutting red tape, but only for governments and NGOs? I guess the people who actually deliver housing units - for-profit developers - are locked out.
When will you stop making sense, Chris?! Jeeeeez. 🤣
Seriously.
Like!
I would rather it get distributed vi some type of new version of the homestead act, than given as chunks to developers.
Developers aren’t getting it. Governments and NGOs are.
Great idea but remember, the government is doing it and it screws up everything it tries.
I have great faith in their ability to make a mess of this, yes.
That is my worry too. I think they are 0 for um... like a billion such projects... well they will be as soon as things like the high speed train are completed and then can be officially categorized as failures.
high speed train to SMART (surveillance/metrics/assessment/rating/tracking) city is my worry
would be delightful if this plan was a reversal of the wildlands project (70% of american land in govt hands and off limits to human presence by 2030)
we have to be extra vigilant that it isn't a trojan horse to usher in that very same plan
let's start with st. louis which has become east st. louis in the last few years
"things like the high speed train are completed"
A colleague suggested the latest plan for high speed trains could be to harness unicorn power. (We were celebrating St Paddy's Day).
At which point someone suggested a resurrected Homestead Act, to resolve the housing crisis. A modern twist on the "man and a mule policy" that worked so well to populate the west. And with all that unicorn manure, we could solve the food crisis as well.
Winner!
Yeah, but what about climate change??! Everyone knows that unicorn farts have 10x the co2 as cow farts... There are no easy solutions, just trade offs...
This reminds me of the recurring stories of Connor O’Byrne and Evan McGuiness, Irish midgets claiming to be leprechauns- accused of extorting sex from women, in return for the promise of a pot of gold...
That train will never be finished. It’s officially a make-work project.
So no trains will ever run on CA High Speed Rail, low cost housing could be built on the right of way.
Yes!
A nearly straight line of low-income settlement 200 feet wide from Bakersfield to Hanford. What's not to love???
An interesting aside on high speed rail, no construction has started at all from Bakersfield to Mojave through the Tehachapi's where I assume the rail lines must run.
Completed route So Cal to Bay Area 2050 at the earliest (if ever). Could have routed it down the middle of I-5 for an expedited completion.
Perhaps they could just sell of the land in plots. Anything from 1/4 acres for houses to farm size. Any CITIZEN could acquire a plot the size that they would need. The government should only have land for use, parks, military bases, interstate highways and such.
Yes, sell plots to individuals not developers. Like the land rush in the 1800’s, but no mule.
I would suggest that it would be done by lotto. Citizens only. Show a valid ID at approved locations and you are in. No DEI but one caveat. They have to develop the property and live or work there for a certain period before they can sell. Uh, oh, rules.
No Mule? Bummer.
Exactly. The model might be the homesteaders of Alaska after Statehood.
I like it.
This is where I’m opening my gun range/whisky saloon and free range chicken ranch. And I have Chris Bray to thank for the idea. 🫡
The best thing the government could do is remove from the descriptions the word “affordable” and any new derivatives. If you want to lower the price of housing, stop printing money, deport the last 20 million illegals, cut federal spending by 25%, and balance the budget.
We exactly need a Homestead act. As in ownership for a filing fee and cheap acreage.
We don’t need landlords.
The op-ed doesn't talk about selling land to any private person. Instead, it's sentences like "Interior will reduce the red tape behind land transfers or leases to public housing authorities, nonprofits and local governments."
Yes. Any federal land transfers should include certain covenants. One would be an exemption from restrictive local zoning requirements. My western U.S. area is surrounded by federal lands but doesn’t allow subdividing to less than 40 acres. So the area is a giant preserve for wealthy retirees from California. We shouldn’t release federal land to create more of that bs.
Also we need to incorporate a lesson from the homestead acts to time restrict transfer of ownership in a reasonable manner. In the west there were many, many situations where corporations or large ranchers would have proxies get homestead land and quickly sign it over to the already dominant landowner in the area. Corporate ownership of single family homes is tremendously concentrated in the hands of private equity and institutional investors (in Fort Worth it’s over 25% corporate owned).
I've never seen a successful "government housing project" because, the people they hire to run them, aren't qualified, or experienced enough, or a host of other issues. However, private/public partnerships have been successful, because, the incentive is there for the private entities. Like, in 30 or 40 years they can be converted to strictly private enterprises? These types are typically a mixed income property. Low income folks pay rent based on their income levels. And others, obviously pay market rates. There are benifits to this type of model, too many to list here.
Agreed... I was especially fond of Dr.Carson’s ideas on this ... The ‘tenants’ had the option to ‘lease-to-purchase’ preparing themselves for ‘ownership status’. They would therefore perform minor maintenance themselves, exercise the ‘care’, thus the premises didn’t fall into a state of neglect and disrepair as is often the case with ‘rental /subsidized’ housing. #OwnershipMatters
As an Utah resident I agree! The feds own over 33 million acres of land in Utah. Most of it is empty! Leave the National parks alone, and we have 5, but let us own and farm the rest! And no, I’m not talking about Park City, I’m talking about all of the empty land in the eastern part of the state.
Together, the BLM, FWS, NPS, Forest Service, and DOD manage about 96% of federal land. The remaining 4% of federal land is controlled by other federal agencies, including the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Postal Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
38.6% of our land in AZ is owned by the feds. I shudder to think of any of it being developed by the GUVAMINT.
I don’t want it developed by Uncle Sugar, I would like to buy some to homestead and farm. Break it up into 1 to 640 acre sections and sell them to families to build on at a low price with them restricted from selling the land for say 20 years. Also require them to build or install a house, or farm the property within a given timeframe, say 5 years.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, “A farm is defined as any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the year.”
This definition takes into account that farms that may not have sold $1,000 or more of products in a specific year, but normally do every other year. According to the USDA, these tend to be smaller farms that experience low sales in a particular year. These farms tend to be very small and normally have profitable seasons. In some years, however, they experience low sales due to bad weather, disease or changes in marketing strategies.
Add that there's no tax on the land for those 20 years.
I sure agree! We’re taxed too much. We’ll never truly own our homes as long as we have to pay the government to keep the government from taking it!
When I was the board president at a Habitat for Humanity affiliate we got a tax abatement from the city and county so that there was no taxes on the houses for 10 years, or as long as we held the mortgage. We also had home insurance at extremely low rates, I don’t remember exactly, but I’m thinking $10/month.
There are too many fees, taxes, and other government costs to home ownership that can be reduced or eliminated.
I LOVE the Homestead act idea. Why are big ideas so dead in our over-managed, do nothing society? Let's trust our citizens to do something productive and good. Hell yes.
No offense but this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Concentrating housing that is “affordable” anywhere is doomed to fail, for social if no other reason. Maybe especially so in areas where there is no infrastructure, no transportation, no services. That just adds to the costs. So much for affordable. Rehab homes in cities, with owner elbow grease as well as financial encouragement. Two fer. Pride of ownership, rundown neighborhoods revitalized. But what do I know, just an English major.
Amen! I live in Utah and we are owned lock-stock-and-barrel by the Feds. Bears Ears National Mounment was locked down by Obama who never even had the courtesy of notifying the governor of the state. Some of the nation's richest oil fields are under the crust of Bears Ears. In case you can't tell, I am NOT an environmentalist!!!
So agree. I lived in a home in a subdivision west of Durango CO in the 80's. The house was adjacent to federal land running up to the LaPlata mountains. Water sewer were available and the land was prime for just what you are writing about. Prices are exorbitant in Durango and expansion of the subdivision would be easy and affordable Just extend the services and streets. No sidewalks or curb and gutter. The range cattle would be your neighbor and fertilize your yards.
This idea of cooperation between the Department of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development seems to me to be a good beginning. Of course, it flies in the face of the deep-state/globalist plan to kick humans off of 30% of the earth's land by 2030, and off of 50% of earth's land by 2050. I hope part of your planning will be to expose this anti-human agenda. I heard it enthusiastically presented to an Occidental College Alumni Association meeting two years ago in Los Angeles, California, and I was the only person who spoke out against it (although one other person told me later he agreed with me). My cousins have already had their house and land on Lake Mead appropriated by the federal government as part of this nefarious agenda.
Human beings are net producers of goods and services, not net consumers. As our earth's population has risen, per capita income has also risen globally. Perhaps one way of addressing this despicable 50 by 50 agenda is to stop calling people "consumers." People are the ones whom Earth's resources are for. Of course, we must be good stewards of our resources, but we are not parasites; we are co-creators with "Our Creator," referred to in our Declaration of Independence by our Founding Fathers.
How about a plan to rid the earth of antihuman globalists by 2028 (beat them to the punch!).
I agree with you that it’s creative problem solving and using some of that land wisely. I also agree that this part is a bad idea: “Interior will reduce the red tape behind land transfers or leases to public housing authorities, nonprofits and local governments.” Looks like a recipe for corruption.
“This partnership will cut through the bureaucracy. Interior will reduce the red tape behind land transfers or leases to public housing authorities, nonprofits and local governments.”
Cutting red tape, but only for governments and NGOs? I guess the people who actually deliver housing units - for-profit developers - are locked out.
Color me deeply unimpressed.