Latest news with #HomesteadActof1862
Newsweek
16-06-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
America Needs a Real Plan To Make Homeownership Affordable Again
The American dream of homeownership, already slipping out of reach in recent years, is now vanishing for millions. The housing market is under siege from all sides. We're short approximately four million homes, mortgage rates have nearly tripled since the coronavirus pandemic, and tariffs are driving up the cost of materials, slowing development to a crawl. In April alone, single-family housing starts dropped 12 percent compared with the same month last year. From the earliest days of the republic, property ownership was deemed essential to liberty. The Founding Fathers believed that broad ownership of private property, especially land, was essential to sustaining a self-reliant citizenry. "Dependence begets subservience," Thomas Jefferson warned, and owning the ground beneath your feet was a guardrail against both. That ideal distinguished the United States from the Old World, where land belonged to the elite and everyone else merely rented. Legislation like the Homestead Act of 1862 and the GI Bill of 1944 reflected the fundamental ethos that ownership ensures empowerment. Today, that ethos is at risk. Our nation faces three interlocking crises: a massive supply shortfall, punishing interest rates, and a worsening affordability spiral. Tackling them head-on to produce homes that everyday Americans can afford requires courageous and targeted reform. First, policymakers must create incentives for developers to build entry-level housing targeted at buyers earning around the median income in the communities where they operate. The sole purpose of this policy should be to increase the inventory of homes accessible to everyday Americans while limiting competition from investors and second-home buyers. As part of this initiative, the federal government should offer a 50 percent reduction in capital gains or income tax liability to non-publicly traded developers who build and sell homes priced within 20 percent of the local median home price, provided those homes are sold to first-time buyers. To further jumpstart development and encourage scale, that incentive should rise to 75 percent after the first ten qualifying homes. Larger, publicly traded firms should be included as well, though at a lower incentive rate. AUSTIN, TEXAS - APRIL 17: An aerial view of houses undergoing construction in a neighborhood on April 17, 2025 in Austin, Texas. AUSTIN, TEXAS - APRIL 17: An aerial view of houses undergoing construction in a neighborhood on April 17, 2025 in Austin, the federal government should put its own land to better use. Vast tracts of underutilized and unused federal land could be sold at a discount to qualified developers, yet with strings attached. Homes must go to first-time buyers, priced near the local median, and states must commit to a 20-year property tax abatement. President Donald Trump's proposal to unlock federal land was an admirable start. But we also need to direct development toward working families rather than vacation-home investors. Third, states must be empowered to lead. Governors would apply, identifying housing-strapped regions, providing local price data, and agreeing to tax abatements. A dedicated federal agency should coordinate this program, modeled on the successful Opportunity Zone framework established under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Without micromanaging, the agency would ensure funding and enforcement consistency across state lines. New homes mean nothing if no one can afford to buy them. Since 2020, prices have soared by almost 50 percent while rates have tripled. That's a double whammy for prospective middle-class buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should offer discounted mortgage rates for income-qualified households purchasing homes in the program. Without financing relief, inventory will not translate into ownership. Then there remains the danger that Wall Street will pounce on any new homes. Institutional investors have bought up single-family homes in cash by the thousands, inflating prices and freezing out first-time buyers. Publicly traded firms should be capped at ownership of 50 single-family homes. If they own more, they must sell the excess within two years or face heavy penalties. That single measure would instantly return inventory to the market. To additionally safeguard homes for families, we also need to keep them from becoming just another asset class. Homes built under the program should carry 20-year deed restrictions with only primary occupants having the ability to buy and sell. If a homeowner wants to sell before the 20 years are up, the next buyer must also intend to live there. Localities have used similar models successfully for decades. This plan is admittedly aggressive, but it's achievable. It merely asks government to use resources readily at its disposal—land, taxes, and regulation—to empower developers, protect families, and rebuild the American middle class. If implemented, it would resuscitate the founding principle that every citizen should have a shot at owning the place they call home. Policymakers must act before the American dream becomes little more than a nostalgic memory. Pierre E. Debbas is managing partner of Romer Debbas LLP. Follow on X: @pierredebbasesq The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Fox News
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump can help America open a new frontier right here in the US
Americans have always been defined by their frontier. It began with the vast, unexplored West, which historian Frederick Jackson Turner described in an influential 1893 essay as "a new field of opportunity, a gate of escape from the bondage of the past." By the time Turner put pen to paper, the frontier was already closing. Space, the "final frontier" in "Star Trek," animated American imaginations for a time, but after the initial excitement of putting a man on the moon, the project seemed to peter out. President Donald Trump promised in his second inaugural address to revive that dream, telling the crowd that "we will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars." Elon Musk, whose innovations at SpaceX will help make this dream a reality, cheered wildly. But space cannot be a frontier the way the American West was. In the 19th century, any sturdy lad from the East Coast or Midwest could pack a wagon and light out for the territories. The Homestead Act of 1862 handed out 1.6 million parcels of federal land in the West. Space holds no such promise for the everyman. Astronauts are highly trained specialists, not regular guys with common sense and a good work ethic. The kind of large-scale space colonization that would make the solar system a true frontier might be a century or more in the future. There are, however, other ways to revive the pioneer spirit. Acquiring Greenland would open up a harsh new environment for hardy would-be homesteaders, but even if the Danes refuse to play ball, Trump still has options. The U.S. government owns about 620 million acres of land, which comes out to approximately 27% of the country. More than a third of that land is in Alaska, with the rest largely concentrated in a few Western states like Arizona (38% federal land), Colorado (36%), Idaho (62%) and Nevada (80%). National Parks make up only around 13% of federal land, leaving plenty of opportunities for development. Two of Trump's cabinet secretaries are already on the case. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner published a Wall Street Journal op-ed March 16, proposing a joint effort to solve America's housing crisis. "Under this agreement, HUD will pinpoint where housing needs are most pressing and guide the process by working with state and local leaders who know their communities best. Interior will identify locations that can support homes while carefully considering environmental impact and land-use restrictions," they wrote. "Working together, our agencies can take inventory of underused federal properties, transfer or lease them to states or localities to address housing needs, and support the infrastructure required to make development viable—all while ensuring affordability remains at the core of the mission." It's the kind of bold action America needs after four years of Biden-Harris housing policy, which saw rents skyrocket and the cost of a median-price home more than double. Other than a few vague noises about building more houses, the only major solutions they offered were throwing taxpayer dollars at first-time homebuyers (which would have made housing inflation even worse) and new race-based regulation preferring one racial group over another and ultimately aiding neither. They also sued RealPage, a company that makes rental pricing software (which will have no effect on prices, since the software merely reflects existing market conditions and even suggests lower prices when demand dips). Americans for Tax Reform and over 30 conservative groups sent a letter opposing this Biden Department of Justice suit for this very reason. Unlike the hackneyed ideas of the past that we saw during the Biden administration, the possibilities of Burgum and Turner's housing plan are endless — and enticing. Libertarians could found hyper-innovative charter cities governed by CEOs. Devout Catholics could build intentional communities centered on monasteries. Crunchy homesteaders could grow everything they eat on a few acres (and get that land at a discount if they agree to host students from a new federal sustainable agriculture training program). Ambitious young men (and women) who've flooded into the cities would suddenly have options other than exorbitant rent and small-town stagnation. In a start-up city on previously undeveloped federal land, they could become founding fathers (or mothers) and help shape vibrant new communities in the midst of unstained natural beauty. They might even be able to keep their old telecommuting jobs while they do it. And for the poor, the desperate, the ex-con, the denizen of a bad neighborhood or dying town facing high odds of an early death from a gangland shooting or fentanyl overdose, these new developments hold out the promise of adventure. Anyone willing to work hard and brave enough to leave behind the familiar can light out for the territories and make a better life. Go West, young man, and be reborn! It's true that much of this land is inhospitable, but so was Las Vegas, which grew from 800 people in 1910 to nearly 600,000 a century later. Imagine it: in a few short decades, there could be a great new American city springing up from the desert or prairie, boasting its own industries, arts scene, signature dishes and iconic landmarks — its own unique cultural "brand." It will be a challenge, but we're the nation destined to colonize Mars. Surely, we can handle rural Idaho.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Yahoo
Appeals Court Rules That Corner Crossing Is Legal in at Least Six States
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Western U.S. today ruled that corner-crossing, or accessing public land at a common corner with private land, is legal and protected by federal law. The legal challenge to corner-crossing was pushed by a group of four Missouri hunters who in 2020 and again in 2021 had accessed a section of BLM land by crossing a corner shared on two sides by private land owned by Iron Bar Ranch. The ranch owner had the hunters charged with both criminal and civil trespass, citing their momentary presence in the airspace above the private land — the hunters had used a ladder to cross the corner. The Wyoming Carbon County court found the four hunters innocent of criminal trespass charges in 2022 and a U.S. District court threw out the civil case in 2023, but the Iron Bar appealed. It's that suit that the Appeals Court ruled on today. Across the West, where millions of acres of public and private land intermingle in a checkerboard pattern, with alternating sections of public land connected only at the corners, the legality of accessing those land-blocked public sections has been an open question, with states declining to rule out of deference to private landowners. In the original civil suit the ranch claimed the men caused more than $7 million in damages. 'Iron Bar Holdings has a right to exclusive control, use, and enjoyment of its Property, which includes the airspace at the corner, above the Property,' wrote prosecutors in the civil suit. Today's ruling applies only to the states within the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals — Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming — but the precedent could make corner-crossing legal in other states, too. Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich, writing for the majority, cited the long history of Western land management, including provisions of the Louisiana Purchase, westward expansion fueled by the Homestead Act of 1862, Wyoming's range wars between cattle and sheep owners, and even John Adams' colonial-era defense of the sanctity of private property rights. Ultimately, though, the judges ruled that no laws were broken by the Missouri hunters. 'The Hunters never made contact with the surface of Iron Bar's land,' wrote judge Timothy Tymkovich, who today joined with two other circuit judges to uphold a decision reached by Wyoming federal judge Scott Skavdahl in 2023. 'There is no evidence the Hunters made physical contact with or damaged Iron Bar's property.' The court ultimately based its decision on a provision of the 1885 Unlawful Inclosures Act (UIA), passed by Congress to 'harmonize the rights of private landowners and those accessing public lands.' The court concluded that based on case law and language in the law, 'any inclosure of public lands is prohibited, and no one may completely prevent or obstruct another from peacefully entering or freely passing over or through public lands.' 'The western checkerboard and UIA reflect a storied period of our history,' wrote Tymkovich. 'Whatever the UIA's merits today, it — and the case law interpreting it — remain good federal law.' Read Next: How Seriously Should We Take the Sale of Federal Lands? Very Seriously, Experts Say Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, which had joined the lawsuit as a 'friend of the court' in support of the Missouri hunters, today called the appeals court ruling 'Another huge win for corner crossing! This decision upholds the right to access millions of acres of public land.' The case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, unlike circuit court appeals, the Supreme Court is not required to hear the appeal, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
