Against Selling Federal Land
Senator Mike Lee’s (R-Utah) plan to sell federal land to spur housing development in western states is dead for now but will likely be resurrected in the future. The backlash to this legislation in June of this year was a rare moment of bipartisanship: the Left hates the idea of sprawl, carbon pollution, and the destruction of natural habitat, while the Right (with the notable exception of Neocons) has argued this problem can be solved by deporting illegals and regulating private equity firms like Blackrock, without needing to sell off the dowry of Manifest Destiny.
To his credit, Senator Lee pivoted and adjusted the bill based on uproar from the public. However, even with the adjustments, the idea fundamentally misses the mark on how to solve housing issues in western metropolitan areas. While I’m personally happy that the plan is facing fierce scrutiny, in my mind most criticisms have missed the mark. Simply put, making more land available merely doubles down on our already problematic and costly building style. It will only satiate short term demand while kicking the can of sustainable city building down the road.
Single family housing has been the default norm for housing starts in the U.S., and for many good reasons! It is very conducive to developing strong nuclear families, home ownership, for many, is a fungible asset for the middle class, and neighborhoods of single-family homes create a certain quintessential Americanness seldom replicated elsewhere. It’s any city’s prerogative to build them, but only if you have the land to do it.
Senator Lee’s plan sought to do exactly this to battle the all-time high home prices. After all, we can simply bring down the cost of housing by building more housing. This (along with interest rate adjustment) is one of the most potent tools that have been proven to alleviate these issues in the past; looking at a longer timetable, however, Lee’s implementation is flawed. Selling American’s wildlands, even 0.05% of them, to build more housing, just enables further, similar actions in the future. Simply put, it’s a boring and uncreative proposal that, above all else, codifies the weaknesses of modern urban policy.
Do we really believe that Phoenix, Vegas, Salt Lake, and other western metros are using their existing land intentionally and efficiently? Is there really no improvement that can be made to building codes or zoning regulations that would first help alleviate housing shortages? If not, then why should all Americans be asked to sacrifice their land to help solve an urban policy problem of individual metros?
Salt Lake City owns six golf courses, paid and maintained by a mix of user fees and tax payers. It seems implausible that those in search of a home view maintaining hundreds of acres for one of the most exclusive sports known to man as priority, rather than convert them into housing.
Ten percent (2019) of Phoenix’s urban area is solely dedicated to parking. Parking is a critical component of the American urban fabric, but it’s rational to believe that parking may be overbuilt and that creative solutions exist to reduce the amount of parking needed, allowing more room for housing. Several metros have embarked upon expanding their urban interstates, rather than converting or removing them. If housing is at a crisis level, why are we using valuable land for thoroughfares and not for homes? Crudely put, we need a D.O.G.E. for American homebuilding.
While freeing up land for new developments will expand supply, the cost of a new-build home is still at an all time high and has risen rapidly even in the last few years. Adding supply can drive prices down, but as anyone who is familiar with the current pickup truck market could tell you, this only works if the new supply is affordable. The cost of the land is typically under 20% of the market value of a new-build home, so are there more impactful ways that the government could decrease the cost of the other 80%?
From the federal side, a sale of public lands should come after they’ve done what they can in their power to address high housing costs. What are the regulations that are increasing housing costs? Are standard code books like the NEC written to protect homeowners or insurance companies?
There’s no doubt that American culture is to blame here as well. We should recognize that the time of unlimited, cheap housing is coming to an end and that new homes may not be as big or lavish as they were in decades past. Younger generations may simply have to come to grips with the fact that they won’t get the same amount of house for the same price as Mom and Dad.
But as it stands, Lee’s proposal is a handout: a transfer of wealth from the American people to cities that don’t want to have to do the hard work of fixing their problems. These huge cities have been consuming land for decades with nothing to stand in their way. Giving them more of the same is a cheap fix that will only tide them over until they are hungry again. Until someone challenges them to work on their problems creatively, they won’t appropriately deal with the issues at hand.
In theory, there’s nothing wrong with offloading small parcels of land to alleviate housing shortage, but those cities should be required to prove that they have done everything in their power to fix the problem before asking to build on public land. A review of city policy should be thorough and building out into public land should be scrutinized to the fullest extent.
The fact that both sides have come together to decry this idea is proof that public land is, well, public. It belongs to all of us. Even if the amount of land proposed for sale is relatively small, we should all be skeptical that this is the best path forward for creating new housing. American land is an inheritance not to be hastily given away as a quick fix to other bad policies. The purpose of public land and its preservation is decidedly not that of a reserve currency to bail out politicians when they need it.
As trite as it is to quote Teddy Roosevelt on issues of conservation, nevertheless, this excerpt remains true today:
“Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children’s children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
While Lee and others certainly don’t see themselves as “skinning the country,” it’s safe to assume that a bill like this opens the floodgates for similar proposals in the future. If we don’t stand up to sprawl now, it’s reasonable to believe that quality public land could be enveloped in condos in short order.
Image: Unsplash.
