Latest news with #HOUSESAct
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gov. Cox: How Sen. Lee's public lands proposal can get back on track
SANTA FE, N.M. — Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said on Tuesday he supports the aims of Sen. Mike Lee's public lands proposal that has ignited national debate, but said previous versions of the legislation were too broad. Lee submitted more restrictive language for his initiative to make public lands available for private home development on Tuesday morning, limiting the lands that can be sold to include only Bureau of Land Management lands within 5 miles of a population center. A previous draft, which would have allowed agencies to sell up to 3.3 million acres of federally controlled land, including Forest Service land, across 11 Western states, was stripped from President Donald Trump's massive tax bill on Monday night because it did not comply with budget rules. The governor's office is still getting updates on how the latest version would affect the state of Utah, Cox said. But he was clear that despite his shared desire to use some public lands to increase the supply of homes, Lee's initial proposal strayed from that narrow objective. 'You saw the maps. It was much broader. It could have taken in large swaths of land,' Cox said in an interview with the Deseret News. 'I don't think that was the intention, certainly not conveyed to us, and that wasn't clear. Sadly, the thread has been lost on that for sure.' Lee's public lands proposal, a revised version of his HOUSES Act that garnered widespread support among Utah's Republican leadership, has elicited a wave of social media pushback from environmental groups, conservative influencers and lawmakers from both parties over the past week. It has also been one of the underlying themes at this year's annual Western Governors Association conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where Cox is joined by governors from Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico and Wyoming. The bipartisan group of governors expressed concern during Monday morning's opening press conference that the process outlined in the bill would not directly involve states. And a crowd of several dozen protesters welcomed event attendees with signs and chants of 'Not for sale!' 'The nationwide backlash sparked by Senator Mike Lee's proposal to sell off millions of acres of public land shows just how universally unpopular his idea is,' said Scott Braden, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, in a statement. But Cox said opposition to the proposal has just as much to do with environmental groups fomenting outrage, and a general misunderstanding of the public lands situation in the West, as it does with the poor wording of Lee's initial proposal. The limitations public lands place on cities in states like Utah, where almost 65% of the territory is federally controlled, are hard to convey to leaders in parts of the country where public lands typically make up less than 5% of the area, Cox said. According to the governor's senior adviser on housing affordability, Steve Waldrip, 217,000 acres within Utah city boundaries, and 650,000 acres within a mile outside of city limits, are owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management or the National Forest Service. 'The federal government owns a tremendous amount of land within city limits and right adjacent to city limits that the average person would never have any idea was public land,' Cox said. 'That's what we're talking about. And so anything we can do to restrict that.' There are already examples of this working in the area around Las Vegas, Nevada, where former Sen. Harry Reid secured the ability for the BLM to sell public lands to local governments at below fair-market value for affordable housing purposes, Cox pointed out. The final version of Lee's bill should tailor public lands sell-offs to just those locations that would already 'be used for housing, but for the federal government owning it,' Cox said, with additional qualification to encourage small lot sizes and owner-occupied homes. In addition to excluding the sale of 15 categories of land, including national parks, Lee's latest proposal would prohibit the sale of land utilized by ranchers and recreational users, and would also establish 'Freedom Zones' to ensure any lands sold are used for housing projects. However, even with these carve-outs, Cox echoed the sentiment of his fellow governors that states are better positioned than the secretaries of interior and agriculture to determine which public lands should be sold and for what purpose. 'I think the public is really concerned about the process, and they should be concerned about the process,' Cox said. 'I mean, this idea of we don't trust the federal government to own the land, but we trust the federal government to sell the land.' Rob Sisson, the former president of ConservAmerica, a center-right nongovernmental organization focused on conservative environmental concerns, said he believes that some version of Lee's initiative is needed, especially in a place like Utah. When Utah was established as a state, federal policy did not foresee a time when the Wasatch Front would be home to over 2.5 million residents, surrounded on all sides by public lands, Sisson said. 'All it takes is one drive through the state on I-15 to understand there's no room for the next generation to build affordable housing and stay there with their families and communities,' Sisson said. But as a hunter from Montana — whose GOP senators have vocally opposed Lee's idea — Sisson said any plan to transfer public lands should not include every underused patch of public lands that happens to be near private property. The more 'specificity' Lee can bring to his proposal, the less likely it will be to anger environmentalists and outdoorsmen, and the more likely it will be to achieve its goals, according to Sisson. Despite its rocky start, Cox believes Lee's bill can still be a great opportunity to balance community concerns with housing needs if it recognizes that federal land sits at a 'public nexus' that requires public 'support and trust.' 'It works,' Cox said. 'It can help lower the price of housing, and we desperately need more space for housing in places like Utah and all throughout the West.'
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Now's the time to fight for your public lands
All Americans are public land owners. Here in Utah, that means we own about 37.4 million acres of the land in the state. Our public lands attract millions of visitors from all over the world, eager to explore our many unique wonders and beautiful landscapes. Despite this, Utah is fast gaining a reputation nationally as the champion of the movement to sell our public lands. Our federally elected officials are pushing this as a solution for the country's affordable housing and national debt issues. Representative Celeste Maloy proposed an amendment to a recent budget bill that could result in the sale of about 11,500 acres of BLM land in southwestern Utah. This follows Senators Mike Lee and John Curtis voting against a recent budget resolution amendment in April that would prevent the sale of public lands through the budget reconciliation process in an effort to leave this option on the table. Furthermore, Lee has long been pushing for the passage of his HOUSES Act at the federal level, which would allow parcels of federal land to be purchased by a state or unit of local government at a reduced price to give them flexibility to address housing constraints with few guardrails. These types of land sales/transfers strike me as more of a short-term cash grab rather than an actual long-term solution that will fix our housing or debt problems. To complicate matters further, several federal land management agencies such as the USFS, NPS and BLM laid off thousands of employees as a result of DOGE mandates, despite the fact that these agencies have long been under-resourced. And while it's uncertain whether these agencies will be able to backfill these positions, I know I'll be impacted as a hunter and outdoor recreationist. In the short-term, I expect some of the trails, campgrounds and trailhead restrooms won't be maintained or even open for use. I also anticipate a more difficult summer wildfire season due to the layoffs, which further risks the closure of some of the areas I enjoy exploring most. In the long run, fewer federal land management employees could lead to a long-term decline in the maintenance and upkeep of our public lands. This in turn will make it easier to persuade the public that these lands need to be privatized and sold off since the feds can no longer effectively manage them. As a staunch public lands advocate, this greatly concerns me. However, it's trivial when compared to the threat our wildlife faces if we begin selling public land. These lands provide summer range, winter range and migration corridors for several species across the state. Selling and developing public land will result in the loss of critical habitat and negatively impact the populations of countless species of wildlife here in Utah. Our public lands are a uniquely American idea due to the 'multiple use' mandates we have in place to manage them. This requires our federal land management agencies to consider the (often competing) demands of different constituencies when designing public land management plans. And while each constituent group never gets 100% of what they want, the compromises that result from this process allow us all to benefit from our public lands. But if our legislators begin to deviate from this process, they will establish a dangerous precedent that will make it much easier to sell our public lands. The next time you're hiking up Millcreek Canyon, scouting the Uintas for your upcoming fall elk hunt or setting up your tent while camping with the family on BLM land in southern Utah, I encourage you to look around and really take in the scenery. Ask yourself: does this place look like it could use a mountain resort? A housing development? Maybe a few oil rigs? Would that improve my experience? If you find yourself answering no, you should reach out to both your state and federal representatives to remind them you oppose the sale of our public lands. If we don't speak up in support for our public lands now, we risk losing access to these places as we know them permanently. Because once they leave the public domain, they aren't coming back.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - A reckless sale of public lands won't solve the housing crisis
As sky-high housing costs bring widespread economic pain, some in Washington are using the crisis as an opportunity to push a reckless proposal to sell off America's public lands. After many years of stagnant housing construction, the U.S. needs a focused effort to support struggling families and build more affordable homes. Solving the housing crisis requires a multi-prong strategy, but one idea is getting a surge of attention, ranging from the Trump administration to the New York Times: selling off national public lands for housing development. The vast majority of public lands are remote and not conducive for developing housing, but selling federal land parcels can help address housing needs in limited circumstances — if done well. In 2024, for example, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Housing and Urban Development jointly announced the sale of federal lands for affordable housing near Las Vegas, and bipartisan legislation passed the same year addressed a key bottleneck to speed future land sales. The Trump administration recently launched a joint task force to explore selling federal lands that could address housing needs, promising a restrained approach and a focus on affordability. The problem: President Trump's allies in Congress are pushing proposals that would recklessly sell off America's great outdoors under the banner of housing solutions. As part of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which congressional leaders want to pass by Memorial Day, House and Senate Republicans are reportedly considering selling public lands to help offset tax cuts for the wealthy. The conservative American Enterprise Institute is pushing this proposal, claiming it could generate $100 billion in federal revenue over a decade — a goal that seems at odds with a focus on affordable housing. In the Senate, relevant portions of the Republicans' priority bill will be led by Energy and Natural Resources Chair Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a close Trump ally who has long questioned the constitutional basis for retaining national public lands and supports efforts to force their sale or transfer. Lee also authored the leading bill to sell public lands for housing. Originally announced as a 'new Homestead Act' that would help wrest control of public lands from the federal government, Lee's HOUSES Act, as introduced last term, would make more than 200 million acres of national public lands available for nomination and sale to state or local governments. The vast majority of the lands covered by this bill are far from major population centers or existing infrastructure, which is critical for developing the affordable housing Americans need today. Instead, with no mention of affordability and only lax density requirements, Lee's bill would open the door for valuable public lands to be privatized into second or third homes for the wealthy, developed into pricey short-term rentals or locked up by real estate speculators. The bill even appears to allow investors to scoop up lands under the pretense of developing housing, sit on them for 15 years and then sell them for golf courses, members-only clubs or any other use. While the bill excludes some obvious protected areas like national parks, it would offer up other lands that today are federally managed to preserve exceptional wildlife habitat, clean water, cultural resources and recreation opportunities. What's more, the bill dictates that a housing development will outweigh any other use or value of the public lands proposed for sale, forcing the government to sell without regard for scenic, recreational or ecological values or the broader public interest. There is validity to the idea that selling some federal land — as well as nonessential state and municipal land — could help ease land availability pressures in some places. Targeted land transfers with states can even make land management more efficient and advance conservation and economic development goals. But achieving these outcomes requires clear legal guardrails to prevent a net loss of critical resources, like clean water, recreation assets, wildlife or cultural resources; to ensure affordable housing or other public benefits for communities and taxpayers; and to prevent abuse by private interests. Whether the Trump administration's new federal lands-for-housing initiative will meet these tests remains to be seen. But the public lands sell-off legislation being shopped on Capitol Hill is little more than a Trojan horse for a fringe anti-public lands agenda. And alarm bells should be ringing when Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum says that 'much of' the land he oversees — in other words, hundreds of millions of acres — is 'suitable for residential use.' Our country needs meaningful answers to the housing crisis and wise stewardship of our public lands, not extreme agendas masked as solutions. Drew McConville is a senior fellow for conservation policy at the Center for American Progress and a former official with President Obama's Council on Environmental Quality. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
02-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
A reckless sale of public lands won't solve the housing crisis
As sky-high housing costs bring widespread economic pain, some in Washington are using the crisis as an opportunity to push a reckless proposal to sell off America's public lands. After many years of stagnant housing construction, the U.S. needs a focused effort to support struggling families and build more affordable homes. Solving the housing crisis requi r es a multi-prong strategy, but one idea is getting a surge of attention, ranging from the Trump administration to the New York Times: selling off national public lands for housing development. The vast majority of public lands are remote and not conducive for developing housing, but selling federal land parcels can help address housing needs in limited circumstances — if done well. In 2024, for example, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Housing and Urban Development jointly announced the sale of federal lands for affordable housing near Las Vegas, and bipartisan legislation passed the same year addressed a key bottleneck to speed future land sales. The Trump administration recently launched a joint task force to explore selling federal lands that could address housing needs, promising a restrained approach and a focus on affordability. The problem: President Trump's allies in Congress are pushing proposals that would recklessly sell off America's great outdoors under the banner of housing solutions. As part of Trump's ' big, beautiful bill,' which congressional leaders want to pass by Memorial Day, House and Senate Republicans are reportedly considering selling public lands to help offset tax cuts for the wealthy. The conservative American Enterprise Institute is pushing this proposal, claiming it could generate $100 billion in federal revenue over a decade — a goal that seems at odds with a focus on affordable housing. In the Senate, relevant portions of the Republicans' priority bill will be led by Energy and Natural Resources Chair Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a close Trump ally who has long questioned the constitutional basis for retaining national public lands and supports efforts to force their sale or transfer. Lee also authored the leading bill to sell public lands for housing. Originally announced as a 'new Homestead Act' that would help wrest control of public lands from the federal government, Lee's HOUSES Act, as introduced last term, would make more than 200 million acres of national public lands available for nomination and sale to state or local governments. The vast majority of t he lands covered by this bill are far from major population centers or existing infrastructure, which is critical for developing the affordable housing Americans need today. Instead, with no mention of affordability and only lax density requirements, Lee's bill would open the door for valuable public lands to be privatized into second or third homes for the wealthy, developed into pricey short-term rentals or locked up by real estate speculators. The bill even appears to allow investors to scoop up lands under the pretense of developing housing, sit on them for 15 years and then sell them for golf courses, members-only clubs or any other use. While the bill excludes some obvious protected areas like national parks, it would offer up other lands that today are federally managed to preserve exceptional wildlife habitat, clean water, cultural resources and recreation opportunities. What's more, the bill dictates that a housing development will outweigh any other use or value of the public lands proposed for sale, forcing the government to sell without regard for scenic, recreational or ecological values or the broader public interest. There is validity to the idea that selling some federal land — as well as nonessential state and municipal land — could help ease land availability pressures in some places. Targeted land transfers with states can even make land management more efficient and advance conservation and economic development goals. But achieving these outcomes requires clear legal guardrails to prevent a net loss of critical resources, like clean water, recreation assets, wildlife or cultural resources; to ensure affordable housing or other public benefits for communities and taxpayers; and to prevent abuse by private interests. Whether the Trump administration's new federal lands-for-housing initiative will meet these tests remains to be seen. But the public lands sell-off legislation being shopped on Capitol Hill is little more than a Trojan horse for a fringe anti-public lands agenda. And alarm bells should be ringing when Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum says that 'much of' the land he oversees — in other words, hundreds of millions of acres — is 'suitable for residential use.' Our country needs meaningful answers to the housing crisis and wise stewardship of our public lands, not extreme agendas masked as solutions. Drew McConville is a senior fellow for conservation policy at the Center for American Progress and a former official with President Obama's Council on Environmental Quality.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Gov. Cox says the Trump administration just changed the game on affordable housing in Utah. Here's how
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox heralded a Trump administration decision to use some federal lands for residential developments as the biggest change Washington, D.C., could make to address the nation's housing affordability crisis. On Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who oversees the management of federal lands, and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, who oversees affordable housing programs, announced a new partnership to identify underutilized lands for 'tailored housing programs with guidance from states and localities.' 'This is by far the most significant action the federal government can take to make housing less expensive,' Cox told the Deseret News in a statement. 'This effort will help ensure more Utah families have a shot at the American dream.' The new federal initiative, which closely mirrors the HOUSES Act introduced by Utah Sen. Mike Lee, aims to simplify the land transfer process and promote housing-friendly policies that take into account important environmental considerations, according to the announcement posted on X. Some criticized the proposal, saying it would sacrifice public access to federal lands for private development. But it attracted praise from voices on both sides of the aisle who see the amount of federally controlled lands in the West as being in tension with housing supply. Nearly 65% of Utah is owned and managed by the federal government. No other state lacks as much control of its territory with the exception of Nevada. Many states in the Midwest and on the East Coast have less than 4% of their land controlled by federal agencies. In January, Cox's senior adviser on housing affordability, Steve Waldrip, called the idea of opening up federal lands for home construction 'a great solution' to Utah's housing crisis that has seen the median house price explode to at least five times the median household income in 60% of the state. Population growth is currently outpacing construction by around 6,000 units a year in Utah, Waldrip said. If this trend continues, last year's shortage of 37,000 homes could grow to 45,000 homes over the course of 2025. Much of this shortage is caused by the high cost of construction supplies, infrastructure and land. Meanwhile, 217,000 acres within Utah city boundaries, and 650,000 acres within a mile outside of city limits, is owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management or the National Forest Service, Waldrip said. On Wednesday, Cox reiterated that removing federal obstacles to building on the thousands of acres of federal land along the Wasatch Front will help to increase housing supply and decrease costs for Utahns. 'By responsibly identifying underused federal properties and streamlining the regulatory process, this initiative will cut through the red tape that has slowed down housing development for far too long,' Cox said. But if municipalities could build on this land they would still be faced with the problem of massive infrastructure needs, including new roads and plumbing, that would need innovative funding mechanisms with the state's help, according to Waldrip. Utah's senior senator took Monday's announcement as an opportunity to promote a novel piece of legislation he has pushed for the last three years. Lee's Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter — or HOUSES — Act, would allow municipalities to purchase federally managed land touching city limits for the purpose of developing affordable homes. 'The Houses Act would give hardworking Americans access to affordable, single-family housing by opening up unused federal land in or near municipalities for that purpose,' Lee said in a post resharing Burgum and Turner's video. Lee's proposal has received repeated praise from Cox and state lawmakers but has not had much luck in congressional committees. But a source familiar with Capitol conversations said Lee is expected to work with the administration on advancing the use of federal lands for single-family housing along the lines of his HOUSES Act. Utah's Legislature passed a resolution in support of Lee's bill during the 2024 legislative session. In August, the state announced a landmark lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the federal government has constitutional authority to maintain unappropriated public lands in the state against the state's wishes. The Supreme Court refused to hear Utah's case in January. But Cox and Utah Attorney General Derek Brown announced they will continue their efforts to control more of Utah's public lands with a lawsuit in federal district court.
