by 
Next
to
inflation,
Americans
ranked
housing
as
their
top
financial
concern
in
a
Gallup
survey
last
May.
Since
then,
it’s
gotten
only
worse.
January
home
sales
were
down
5
percent
from
last
year’s
dismal
numbers.
Record
numbers
of
first-time
buyers
are
stuck
on
the
sidelines
as
housing
affordability
stands
at
its
lowest
level
in
40
years.
President
Trump
must
follow
through
on
his
campaign
pledge
“to
open
up
tracts
of
federal
land
for
housing
construction.”
The
housing
market
depends
largely
on
interest
rates
and
zoning
—
factors
outside
any
president’s
direct
control.
But
the
massive
federal
land
portfolio
gives
middle-
and
lower-income
Americans
a
better
shot
at
homeownership.
The
federal
government
is
the
nation’s
biggest
landowner,
holding
one-third
of
all
property
—
a
land
mass
six
times
the
size
of
California.
In
Las
Vegas,
Phoenix,
Albuquerque
and
other
metro
areas,
federal
lands
brush
up
against
the
suburban
periphery.
Since
President
Trump
launched
the
idea
of
“Freedom
Cities”
on
federal
land,
the
opening
of
federal
lands
for
development
has
entered
the
policy
mainstream.
House
Budget
Committee
Republicans
have
floated
the
sale
of
federal
lands
as
an
option
for
closing
the
deficit.
To
create
affordable
homes
on
federal
lands,
the
federal
government
shouldn’t
sell
lands
for
development
—
it
should
lease
them.
The
sale
of
federal
lands
requires
the
buyer
to
comply
with
state
and
local
regulations
once
the
land
is
privatized,
likely
with
the
same
awful
result.
Leasing
the
federal
lands,
on
the
other
hand,
cuts
through
the
red
tape.
Local
land-use
policies
that
make
housing
a
luxury
good
in
many
parts
of
the
U.S.
—
such
as
California’s
solar
mandate
and
the
state’s
aversion
to
suburban
developments
that
rely
on
“car-oriented
transportation”
—
do
not
apply
on
federal
lands.
Anti-growth
locals
and
density-obsessed
planners
stay
sidelined.
For
more
than
a
century,
federal
law
has
long
authorized
federal
leases
for
commercial
purposes
such
as
mineral
extraction.
Congress
should
update
its
land-use
laws,
including
the
Federal
Land
Policy
and
Management
Act
of
1976,
to
authorize
federal
leases
for
housing
development,
subject
to
standard
public
health
and
environmental
protections.
Call
it
the
New
Homestead
Act
after
the
1862
legislation,
which
—
in
Lincoln’s
words
—
was
enacted
“so
that
every
poor
man
may
have
a
home.”
Building
homes
on
leased
federal
lands
will
make
homeownership
more
affordable.
Instead
of
buying
the
house
and
the
land,
the
homebuyer
buys
only
the
house
and
leases
the
land.
To
protect
homeowners,
Congress
can
require
99-year
leases
that
can
be
automatically
transferred
to
new
buyers.
Critics
will
warn
that
land
rent
can
be
hiked
after
the
lease
term
expires,
but
Congress
can
put
limits
on
these
increases.
Federal
policies
that
cut
through
the
red
tape
by
allowing
new
home
construction
on
leased
public
lands
would
alleviate
the
undersupply
of
single-family
homes.
Homebuilders
built
300,000
fewer
homes
in
2024
than
in
1985
when
there
were
100
million
fewer
Americans.
The
U.S.
housing
market
is
short
an
estimated
4.5
million
homes.
Freeing
up
land
and
reducing
regulatory
burdens
would
allow
market
forces
and
consumer
preference
to
exercise
their
magic,
which
we
can
see
in
Texas
metros
like
Austin,
where
housing
costs
are
plummeting
due
to
an
epic
home-building
spree.
Read
the
rest
of
this
piece
at
Spiked.
Joel
Kotkin
is
the
author
of
The
Coming
of
Neo-Feudalism:
A
Warning
to
the
Global
Middle
Class.
He
is
the
Roger
Hobbs
Presidential
Fellow
in
Urban
Futures
at
Chapman
University
and
and
directs
the
Center
for
Demographics
and
Policy
there.
He
is
Senior
Research
Fellow
at
the
Civitas
Institute
at
the
University
of
Texas
in
Austin.
Learn
more
at
joelkotkin.com
and
follow
him
on
Twitter
@joelkotkin.
Michael
Toth
is
a
resident
fellow
at
the
Foundation
for
Research
on
Equal
Opportunity
and
a
research
fellow
at
the
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
Civitas
Institute.
Photo:
Great
Valley
Center,
via
Flickr
under
CC
2.0
License.
Go to Source
Author: Joel Kotkin and Michael Toth
