If housing is really the goal, there are tens of thousands of empty malls, shopping centers etc, that could be used instead of federal land. It’s not remotely because of housing, just another example of “rewarding” billionaire donors.
Yes!!! This! Seriously. They could turn all those buildings left empty from COVID and modernization into affordable housing. The government should buy those buildings and develop them into affordable housing. And also impose rent control in metropolitan regions.
YES! And all those business owners hollering about how everyone who was remote during Covid must get back to the office because there's so much wasted office space they're paying for now. (Even when they don't say that last part out loud.) Instead of punishing employees who have found better work-life balance, let's reimagine some of those offices as housing.
There are lots of opportunities that don't involve stripping beautiful public sites from the American public and selling them to what will ultimately be greedy developers in the name of "affordable housing."
100% agree! my understanding is that it’s the logistics that get in the way for local municipalities. Zoning for commercial is very different than zoning for residential. I’d like to see the local municipalities (city/county level) that control zoning take accountability and allow for rezoning of these unused strip malls and other retail sites. This is why local governments and our voice in them is so important.
Yes, rezoning and repurposing is costly upfront. Maybe the solution is a federal incentive for states and developers that repurpose existing unused infrastructure. I’m not sure the exact answer here, but the proposed bill ain’t it, for sure.
Yes! And also, a more idealistic take could be limiting the number properties people can own. So that the rich don’t monopolize and price gauge the market. Part of the housing crisis is that there is a percentage of the population that owns multiple properties and there is no rent control on them or other apartment complexes. Another reason there’s a housing crisis is because we’ve gotten rid of the village and multi-generational cohabitation culture. Which to be fair, living with my in-laws or my family of origin full-time forever would be challenging, especially if we didn’t have a large enough of space. But it just means we need to understand how things have changed and actually change with it, not just keep building more without thinking critically beyond our own needs/wants/greed.
Lack of land isn't the primary reason we have an affordable housing crisis.
Public lands should not be for sale!
Tariffing the hell out of materials that we use to build houses and then disappearing all of the people who actually build the houses certainly will exacerbate the issue though. Maybe Mike should be focusing on that.
I live in Utah. I am one of my glee constituents. I have serious concerns with this legislation because, absent for the guard rails, I know how this goes. I’ve already seen it in my hometown, Heber City. Development has exploded there over the last decade. Land that was previously undeveloped— primarily space for trails, grazing, etc.— has been sold and new housing has been built there, none of it affordable. Even townhomes and small single-family homes cost upwards of $700,000, with homes for larger families easily breaking $1 million. With no requirements or enforcement mechanisms to ensure that new housing is affordable and accessible for ordinary working people, I can very easily foresee Mike Lee’s planned development being more of the same. I just recently got married, and my husband and I can barely afford to live in my home state. The housing is there, it’s just far too expensive for us to buy our own place, even on two full-time incomes. Selling public land and building more potentially costly housing does not seem to answer the real issue.
Utah's state and federal legislators seem to be so utterly uninterested in helping solve Utah's housing crisis. The fact that so many of them are real estate developers or agents just maaaay be (absolutely is) the reason for it. I'm so tired of the new housing that, while there is quite a lot of it, is far beyond affordability for the average Utahn. Anyway, solidarity, sister.
I think the term "affordable housing" is intentionally misleading. What they actually mean by it is "current market value". It isn't an accident that construction explodes when the prices are rising. Affordable in this case isn't actually affordable. It's a tactic to make it seem like a great idea for the good of working people, when it's simply a cash grab for developers.
I was thinking the same things about knowing how this will go. I've been watching the same things happen in the same town as you. Over the past year or so I've seen 2 major developments for "affordable housing" come to fruition near my home. They are small apartments and condos that rent for an obscene amount of money. There is nothing affordable about them. Meanwhile, on the other end of town some of our most popular trails are being replaced with more unaffordable housing and a golf course. The reason we have stayed in our home state of Utah is the access we have had to public lands our whole lives. These lands are part of who we are and should continue to be available to everyone. Developers are already taking everything else to build their unaffordable "affordable housing", leave our public lands alone.
What's wild is that this isn't a particularly partisan issue, at least from what I've been reading and hearing from many staunch conservatives (and many of them Trump voters) who all think this is a terribly crafted idea. Not particularly "conservative" at all, in fact.
I know the Senate Parliamentarian is just following procedural rules, but I'm glad to see a lot of these nonsense propositions being filtered out of the BBB. Just another example of lawmakers being so unable to pass meaningful legislation (and potentially VERY unpopular legislation even with their own constituents) that they try to sneak those provisions in with other things. I know both parties definitely do it, but I appreciate when there are limits to those attempts.
Thank you Sharon for highlighting this outrageous theft that's being dressed up as housing policy. This proposal reveals everything wrong with how we make decisions in this country: it's economically backwards, environmentally catastrophic, against the public’s wishes, and morally bankrupt all at once.
Let's start with the basic economics, because even if you ignore everything else, this makes no financial sense. Like Sharon says, public lands generate $11.4 billion in economic activity and support 76,000 jobs annually through recreation alone. You sell them off once for a quick buck, but you've just destroyed an economic engine that runs forever. And for what? So some random developer can build luxury condos that the locals displaced by this scheme can't even afford? I know it’s shocking, but to create more affordable housing… you have to build housing that’s affordable. Not luxury homes in remote areas.
But the economic stupidity pales next to the environmental insanity. We're living through a climate crisis caused largely by our human-centric choices, and now Lee and other Republican elites want to double down by building in wildfire-prone areas that border wilderness? These developments would be the first places insurance companies refuse to cover as wildfires become more common. We absolutely need more housing, but we should be focusing on the countless acres of already-paved, abandoned urban areas instead of destroying pristine wilderness.
This brings me to what really infuriates me about proposals like this: the breathtaking arrogance that human housing needs automatically trump the housing needs of every other species on the planet. Where exactly do we get the moral authority to decide that a pretty view out of a window matters more than the homes of countless wild animals? Government's fundamental role should be advocating for those without a voice, yet here we are treating wildlife habitat like it's just empty space waiting for our use. I don’t know about you, but I am not convinced that humans are inherently more important or valuable than the species who do the hard work of keeping this planet MORE inhabitable for everyone, as opposed to us, who make it LESS inhabitable.
Once again, we're watching democracy fail. Seventy-five percent of Americans oppose this, including 65% of Republicans, yet Lee keeps pushing forward with revisions. We're living in an era where a bill's popularity with donors matters more than its popularity with voters, and that should terrify everyone regardless of party. It’s a glaring sign that the incentives have been corrupted. Lee should be afraid of us.
The slippery slope here is obvious: if we can sell off public lands for housing (without guardrails to guarantee it becomes housing), what's next? Once this precedent is set, there's no going back, and every piece of public land becomes a potential payday for connected developers.
Related to your discussion of fire prone areas is the lack of water. If they did build housing in some of those areas - what would the source of water be for them? Water feels like a renewable and unlimited resource depending on where you live. But that is not true for the American west and southwest.
Exactly, Amber! I was just looking up the water situation in Utah. Mike Lee is in total delusion on this fact, and of all people, he should know better. Utah is the second driest state in the U.S. and Mike’s own backyard is experiencing one of the most severe water crises in modern history. According to CNN in a 2023 article, "The Great Salt Lake, plagued by excessive water use and a worsening climate crisis, has dropped to record-low levels two years in a row. The lake is now 19 feet below its natural average level and has entered “uncharted territory” after losing 73% of its water and exposing 60% of its lakebed." That lake bed sits exposed, baking in the desert heat, sometimes billowing toxic dust plumes across urban areas.
Drought conditions have caused a state of emergency to be declared by the governor in 17 counties this spring. Agriculture uses 71% of the water that would otherwise flow to the lake, and cities use around 17%. So Mike wants to add thousands of new homes requiring water hookups in fire-prone wilderness areas, when his state is already struggling to provide water to existing communities? It's absolutely insane.
CNN reported that "the Great Salt Lake contributes $1.3 billion to the annual economy," but "If the lake continues to dry up, the economic toll would range from $1.7 billion to $2.2 billion each year." You'd think a senator would understand that destroying your state's major economic engine to maybe build some luxury homes that won't even help with affordable housing is terrible policy. Terrible not only for the world, for all living beings, for Americans, but especially for Utahans.
Thank you for putting words to my thoughts and feelings, yet again. Anytime I see a water way completely surrounded by new developments, I am devastated by the idea that more wildlife has lost access to what would keep them alive. I grew up in the most rural of rural areas, and I HATE city life (hate is the understatement of the century), and I am absolutely devastated by the destruction we cause to every other living creature on the planet. And these homes are always now HUGE, massive, closed off and rarely even enjoyed by the inhabitants themselves.
This rural life is what MADE me an environmentalist. This is yet another piece of cognitive dissonance I see between modern Republicans and who they vote for. Many are from small areas, where rural life is cherished. And yet they vote for people who want to decimate public lands that make rural towns possible (by surrounding their towns and not letting development seep in), take away rural amenities (like hospitals, hello!!!) so that life is unsustainable, destroy the environment they claim to enjoy, eat up family owned farms that prop up rural life, and so much more. It makes NO SENSE. None at all. Why are the people who love life surrounded by nature the ones who proudly destroy nature, simply to "own the libs" or spite "bleeding heart liberals." I simply cannot. This doesn't even begin to cover the millions of ways they economically shoot themselves in the foot over and over again.
Also, am I the only one who mourns the environmental fall out of war? It breaks my heart so much on top of all the other reasons to be heartbroken about it.
I'm not optimistic, but your hatred of city life makes me think about all the ways we need to rethink our urban spaces. I'm assuming your picture of urban life is something like rats darting between garbage bags on the streets of New York, seeping hot liquids on a 100+ degree humid summer day, right? Yeah, no thanks from me as well. I've lived in NYC for a few summers and I think of those times fondly like one thinks about persevering through any sort of difficult challenge.
But then there are places in the world that are well-designed to give people the space, silence, and community that our minds and bodies crave. Beautifully maintained parks and community gardens, bike paths, dog parks, avoiding pollution of the air, light, and sound. Double-paned windows, central air, plentiful EV charging. I think designing dense housing to be appealing to everyone is our only logical way out of a housing crisis. Not that everyone needs to move into dense housing, but if a lot more people did, that would make it cheaper for everyone everywhere, including rural areas, without evicting our furry and feathered neighbors.
Yes, that is definitely one of them. I would never survive NYC. My mom is from Naples, Italy, and I had a nervous breakdown every time we went. It is so crowded and loud and polluted. I remember the first time I went to LA, my feeling was that everyone lived on a freeway. It's not a city of people. It's a city of cars that people have to protect themselves from. I am in the PNW for much of the time lately, and even though there is a lot of greenery, it is mostly just strip malls and cars and it's becoming disgusting.
I need to live in a place that is more nature than people. If my skyline is buildings, I want to cry. That was how I was raised, and it's embedded deep in my bones. Every passing year tells me it's never going to change. Everything else destroys my mental and physical health.
You are so correct that city life needs to be rewritten entirely. Even perfect dense housing is soul-crushing for me, but a huge portion of people love being in the hustle and chaos and options, and the negative aspects can be improved so much and make everyone healthier and happier. Improvements would be appealing to so many. I think every city should be pedestrian friendly first, public transit second, personal vehicles last. We are human beings, not machines. The traffic situation has to stop. Talk about environmental and health devastation at its worst!
I remember reading something a few years ago about the destruction of rural communities escalating the destruction of the nature around it. As more and more small towns crumble and disappear, more corporate interests get away with doing whatever they want with the lands. I used to feel guilty about hating city life, as I know that everyone spreading out is unsustainable. But rural dwellers can also be stewards of the land, IF THEY STOP VOTING AGAINST IT!! :)
I'm not sure if you've ever read 'The Ghost Map' by Steven Johnson? It's primarily about the 1854 cholera outbreak in London, and how a physician used contact tracing (essentially) and a map of the city to pinpoint the source of the contamination. It was a revolutionary model for understanding public health and outbreaks.
In addition to that, though, the book is kind of an impassioned defense of urbanism... and as a very rural person with zero desire to ever live in a city again, I actually found it quite compelling! To make his eloquent points very simple, the author's proposition is simply that suburban areas are the worst of all worlds: not rural enough to meaningfully maintain native species, not urban enough to meaningfully pool natural resources (the water demands for an apartment building are lower than a neighborhood, for example, but neighborhoods only have a fraction of the residents). He lays out a vision for cities that are surrounded by undeveloped greenspace, farming land, etc. Humans have been creating urban areas for almost as long as we've been around, so we're never not going to have cities (and in many ways, we really do need them!)
The book did not make me want to move to a city, but it did make me appreciate how cities can actually be an environmental solution and not just a drain.
Thanks for the book rec! I hadn’t heard of it but it sounds fascinating, and you’re right about the environmental benefits of urban density. As a city dweller myself who also craves intermittent wilderness living, I will add some benefits beyond the environment, because nobody wants to save the world just for the world’s sake! ☺️ Being able to walk to several options of grocery stores in less than 10 minutes. Movie theaters, restaurants and bars that reflect many cultures. Chatting with several neighbors as I walk my dogs (or keep my headphones on if I am feeling antisocial). Vibrant local news. Several hospitals and urgent care centers less than 15 minutes away. And, especially important for me as a gay dude, community resources, safety in numbers, and let’s just face it: an almost inefficient amount of options in the dating pool (which was important before I met my partner). And then when I need to get away, the storage cabinet above my carport has all of the gear I need to spend weeks away from the city, only an hour away from Los Angeles, with options of mountains, desert, or the beach. LA has a reputation for forcing people into their cars, but that’s only true if you want to zig zag across the city for random interests. I have a car but I only use it about once a week, for things like a trip to the vet or visiting a friend across town. I have a plug-in hybrid SUV that only gets 30 miles of electric charge before using gas, and I haven’t had to refuel since my northern California trip to see Mom and Dad over Easter. Especially now that my job became permanently WFH, I have built my life around the walking distance of my apartment and I love it so much.
Wouldn’t it be nice if when people said “city life” they didn’t immediately think of cockroaches and feces on the sidewalk, but instead sort of an umbrella that could contain models like NYC but also places like Copenhagen with its bike lanes and canals, or Burlington Vermont with its walkable downtown and mountain views?
I think so many people write off city living because they’ve only experienced or heard about the worst examples - the overcrowded, underfunded, poorly planned cities that feel more like survival than living. But there are so many examples of cities that manage to be dense and efficient while still feeling human-scale and livable.
Your point about suburban sprawl being the worst of both worlds is true, but I wonder if suburbs can be rethought as well. It’s like we’ve created this false choice between cramped urban misery and resource-intensive suburban isolation, when there are so many models that thread that needle beautifully. My hometown, a suburb of San Francisco, seems to be doing the good work of rezoning for denser residences, and just opened a new train station that resuscitated a rail line that went extinct soon after I was born, making commutes to San Francisco a lot less stressful and expensive than driving to and parking in the city. There’s hope, but only if we work hard and know what options are out there to work toward.
This all said, I will reiterate that city life isn’t for everyone, like Sara it sounds like you already know it isn’t for you and that’s totally great! I just wish cities had better PR for people who might be more open to their benefits.
Thanks for this, Timothy! One of my favorite things about being a person is that we are not a One Size Fits All species, and I love that diversity and adaptability. I definitely believe that urbanization, and possibly even suburbanization, can be done in a responsible and sustainable way. I highly recommend checking out 'The Ghost Map' - it's very engaging as a history text and, though I read it well over a decade ago, his thoughts on positive urbanization have always stuck with me.
For myself, I appreciate cities conceptually but they are a sensory hell for me *personally*. I moved back to a rural area after years living in a major city, in part because the constant noise was taking a toll on my nervous system and I was starting to become a hermit in my own apartment. I do love cities for allll of the reasons that you mention! I love the opportunities that cities provide for the people who live inside of them AND outside of them: we are all interdependent in that way. I wouldn't even be working my job remotely from my lil' house in the Maine woods if it wasn't for a city on the other side of the country.
Should we add this to the other parties I'm interested in creating? The Mr. Rogers Neighborhood Party, The Golden Girls Party, The Urban Optimization Party?
I do, genuinely, think that so many people would enjoy city living if it could be affordable and well, optimized :D
In defense of cities and cockroaches. The further south you go, the more roaches are everywhere lol. Especially the fancy Palmetto bug. It cares not if you live in the city or the country.
I visited a friend who lives outside of DC this weekend and it was so nice to see diversity. In restaurants, people, stores, etc. I really enjoy hearing different languages, authentic food, etc. The only thing I do not miss about urban areas is traffic. Granted there are ways to get around cities that don't involve cars and that is nice. But that does require better planning. The area my friend lives in is not quite in the city enough to not have to drive to a place where you can then take public transportation or walk.
I live rural now, like the only living things I've seen today other than my family are a turtle and birds. Which for me is preferable. But it definitely has a negative side. And that is the lack of diversity! (No lack of diversity in bird species of course!)
That sounds like a great book! I absolutely believe that more urban living is required for sustainability. Making it as nice and doable for the people who enjoy that kind of life should be a requirement. From what I've seen of friends and family, if the cities were to be changed to some degree (and affordable), that is the life most of them prefer. They truly enjoy the noise, the feeling of people all around, the food options, etc.
A great way to increase affordable housing is to limit acquisition of single-family homes by private equity groups. When these groups buy homes for profit and then rent them out, they drive up rent and mortgage costs for everyone in that area. Private buyers cannot compete with them in bidding wars.
I’m curious what the Federal Government has the ability to do to in regards to housing. This part of the bill didn’t seem to actually address that issue, and it only impacted a handful of states. Many of the barriers to affordable housing I am seeing are state and local level issues. I lived in a tourist area for 12 years before moving back to my hometown that is rural. The needs and issues facing these two communities are vastly different. And the zoning laws, etc are as well. I’m not sure what on the federal level could address those very different set of needs. This portion of the bill would have had zero impact on my ability to obtain affordable housing.
One of my representatives in the House has been polling us here in Idaho about this. Most of us in the neighboring state are not in favor of selling off public lands. The LDS church would likely be the buyer, and they aren’t known for helping the poor by building affordable housing; rather, they do luxury housing and retail. Increased housing needs must also be balanced with our most precious resource in the arid West: water.
Yes - I would love to see someone in the American west or southwest discuss water access and policy surrounding that. How are decisions made when and where to build? Who decides who gets what amount of water? I live on the East Coast so while I've read about this issue I have no firsthand experience. I just know that so many of us take access to clean, fresh water for granted.
Hey there from Utah. :) I appreciate your question.
My biggest question if these high desert areas are developed for “affordable” housing (definition in Utah of “affordable” is $450,000)—where would the water come from? The fight over water rights in the west is already intense, given that downstream states fight with upstream states when the truth is that there is just is not enough water to go around and we are losing water every year with evaporation from rising temps and less snow in our mountains. But do our legislators care? Not a single bit. Over half of them have ties to developers or realtors and what do they care if there is no water in 10 years, since they’ll already have their money?
The fight for water rights is going to be one of the biggest concerns of the next half century, and selling young families $500,000 homes is a tragedy in the making.
It seems rather than working on innovation around this issue we have been kicking the can down the road for years now. Reallocating a dwindling water supply is not going to help anyone, now or later. We (as a society) really take access to clean and safe water for granted. There is so much that goes into getting that water from the source to our homes.
Hi, there. A family member of mine works in land real estate for the LDS Church, and I can confirm (at this time) that they are not interested in Mike Lee’s bill or the buying of land that might come from it. Hope this helps.
I think it’s also important to note that local development decisions are largely decided by city councils. Which speaks to the importance of getting involved in and attending meetings for your city.
I'm from Utah. If you look up what his accomplishments have been over the last decade, you will find a very short list that includes: renaming a few buildings and voting "no" on almost everything the Senate puts together. He also walks around with a goofy grin and an attitude that he's done something great. We are trying so hard to get him out of office but somehow he keeps winning re election.
It is truly baffling to me that people voted for him over someone as amazing as Becky Edwards in the last primary election. I didn't love McMullin but had high hopes for his win in 2022. It will never stop breaking my heart to see Utah keep choosing these terrible candidates over and over.
Girl, same! Becky Edwards would have been amazing. It's such a frustrating thought that we could have had her as a senator instead of someone so embarrassing and condescending as Mike Lee. 😩
His personal background probably contributes to his success in continuing to get elected. (Being a member of the Mormon church and graduating from BYU).
You're not wrong there. Mormons definitely know how to circle the wagons around one of their own. But other candidates are also experienced LDS BYU grads, like Becky Edwards and Evan McMullin, so his background certainly isn't the only factor. (Though, in Becky's case, you can't discount the fact that LDS people don't know what it looks like to have a woman in power, so there's that contributing factor, too...)
Bull*#+! Developers lobby politicians because they make a ton of money building sub par houses and selling them for top dollar. What housing crisis? My town is full of rushed apartment buildings half empty. This perpetuates the “housing” problem because it increases the cost of single family homes annihilating entry level or starter homes. We are watching all available land get razed and prepped for fast housing and it is infuriating.
Urban planner here. Renovating underperforming commercial properties into mixed use (commercial & residential) is the smart option. These areas are already serviced by utilities & transportation modes. There are economic opportunities nearby so folks don't have to drive an hour to get to their jobs. Giant parking areas can be converted to outdoor space for residents. Its a win/win.
Many jurisdictions already require ground floor commercial in new developments. Next practical step would be to require property owners with vacant, derelict & vandalized buildings to sell or lease these sites for more housing. I drive by two large office buildings owned by a large aerospace company that have been abandoned. Other countries, such as the Netherlands already have similar laws.
The town next to us has been undertaking a wonderful revitalization project that's been focusing on exactly this. They first renovated the old elementary school into affordable (income-restricted) rental units. Then they focused on the abandoned tannery in the middle of town. After completing the demolition and environmental remediation, they're now in the process of turning that old site into a combination of green space, walking areas, and mixed use buildings as you've described. They're just over the river from another town (actually in the neighboring state) and the longterm vision seems to be one continuous walking-friendly neighborhood with more housing and lots of new businesses. They even designed the new mixed-use buildings to match the older buildings in the town across the river so it has a really nice visual flow.
Wouldn’t it be nice if they actually cared about what the American people wanted. The poll showed 75% of Americans oppose selling off millions of public land. Those in the federal government are not listening to the people. These people need to be voted out!
I have some small hope that selling off public lands is so unpopular that even republicans won’t support it. It’s yet another ridiculous attempt to use a real problem- lack of affordable housing- to hand over more of democratic America to the oligarchs. There are actual regional ways to solve the affordable housing crisis- this isn’t it.
As you said, there is a housing crisis but it’s an AFFORDABLE housing crisis. Not to mention that the west, particularly the areas they are looking at, do not have the natural resources to sustain development. Getting services to those areas would be more costly, thus damaging the “affordable” part of the housing, if it even existed in the first place. And water?! Utah is in a drought and has been for well over a decade. There are no signs of that changing. This is not the area of the country set-up to sustain large populations. Look, I live in Utah. And Lee is a smear to our state’s reputation.
If housing is really the goal, there are tens of thousands of empty malls, shopping centers etc, that could be used instead of federal land. It’s not remotely because of housing, just another example of “rewarding” billionaire donors.
Yes!!! This! Seriously. They could turn all those buildings left empty from COVID and modernization into affordable housing. The government should buy those buildings and develop them into affordable housing. And also impose rent control in metropolitan regions.
YES! And all those business owners hollering about how everyone who was remote during Covid must get back to the office because there's so much wasted office space they're paying for now. (Even when they don't say that last part out loud.) Instead of punishing employees who have found better work-life balance, let's reimagine some of those offices as housing.
There are lots of opportunities that don't involve stripping beautiful public sites from the American public and selling them to what will ultimately be greedy developers in the name of "affordable housing."
Great point. And water is already there.
100% agree! my understanding is that it’s the logistics that get in the way for local municipalities. Zoning for commercial is very different than zoning for residential. I’d like to see the local municipalities (city/county level) that control zoning take accountability and allow for rezoning of these unused strip malls and other retail sites. This is why local governments and our voice in them is so important.
Yes, rezoning and repurposing is costly upfront. Maybe the solution is a federal incentive for states and developers that repurpose existing unused infrastructure. I’m not sure the exact answer here, but the proposed bill ain’t it, for sure.
Yes! And also, a more idealistic take could be limiting the number properties people can own. So that the rich don’t monopolize and price gauge the market. Part of the housing crisis is that there is a percentage of the population that owns multiple properties and there is no rent control on them or other apartment complexes. Another reason there’s a housing crisis is because we’ve gotten rid of the village and multi-generational cohabitation culture. Which to be fair, living with my in-laws or my family of origin full-time forever would be challenging, especially if we didn’t have a large enough of space. But it just means we need to understand how things have changed and actually change with it, not just keep building more without thinking critically beyond our own needs/wants/greed.
Lack of land isn't the primary reason we have an affordable housing crisis.
Public lands should not be for sale!
Tariffing the hell out of materials that we use to build houses and then disappearing all of the people who actually build the houses certainly will exacerbate the issue though. Maybe Mike should be focusing on that.
Yes!!!! Exactly.
YUP
I live in Utah. I am one of my glee constituents. I have serious concerns with this legislation because, absent for the guard rails, I know how this goes. I’ve already seen it in my hometown, Heber City. Development has exploded there over the last decade. Land that was previously undeveloped— primarily space for trails, grazing, etc.— has been sold and new housing has been built there, none of it affordable. Even townhomes and small single-family homes cost upwards of $700,000, with homes for larger families easily breaking $1 million. With no requirements or enforcement mechanisms to ensure that new housing is affordable and accessible for ordinary working people, I can very easily foresee Mike Lee’s planned development being more of the same. I just recently got married, and my husband and I can barely afford to live in my home state. The housing is there, it’s just far too expensive for us to buy our own place, even on two full-time incomes. Selling public land and building more potentially costly housing does not seem to answer the real issue.
Utah's state and federal legislators seem to be so utterly uninterested in helping solve Utah's housing crisis. The fact that so many of them are real estate developers or agents just maaaay be (absolutely is) the reason for it. I'm so tired of the new housing that, while there is quite a lot of it, is far beyond affordability for the average Utahn. Anyway, solidarity, sister.
Everyone missing Mitt right now
*One of Mike Lee’s constituents, not “my glee.” I really thought I edited this thing, but… 😂
I think the term "affordable housing" is intentionally misleading. What they actually mean by it is "current market value". It isn't an accident that construction explodes when the prices are rising. Affordable in this case isn't actually affordable. It's a tactic to make it seem like a great idea for the good of working people, when it's simply a cash grab for developers.
I was thinking the same things about knowing how this will go. I've been watching the same things happen in the same town as you. Over the past year or so I've seen 2 major developments for "affordable housing" come to fruition near my home. They are small apartments and condos that rent for an obscene amount of money. There is nothing affordable about them. Meanwhile, on the other end of town some of our most popular trails are being replaced with more unaffordable housing and a golf course. The reason we have stayed in our home state of Utah is the access we have had to public lands our whole lives. These lands are part of who we are and should continue to be available to everyone. Developers are already taking everything else to build their unaffordable "affordable housing", leave our public lands alone.
What's wild is that this isn't a particularly partisan issue, at least from what I've been reading and hearing from many staunch conservatives (and many of them Trump voters) who all think this is a terribly crafted idea. Not particularly "conservative" at all, in fact.
I know the Senate Parliamentarian is just following procedural rules, but I'm glad to see a lot of these nonsense propositions being filtered out of the BBB. Just another example of lawmakers being so unable to pass meaningful legislation (and potentially VERY unpopular legislation even with their own constituents) that they try to sneak those provisions in with other things. I know both parties definitely do it, but I appreciate when there are limits to those attempts.
Agree, Emily!
Thank you Sharon for highlighting this outrageous theft that's being dressed up as housing policy. This proposal reveals everything wrong with how we make decisions in this country: it's economically backwards, environmentally catastrophic, against the public’s wishes, and morally bankrupt all at once.
Let's start with the basic economics, because even if you ignore everything else, this makes no financial sense. Like Sharon says, public lands generate $11.4 billion in economic activity and support 76,000 jobs annually through recreation alone. You sell them off once for a quick buck, but you've just destroyed an economic engine that runs forever. And for what? So some random developer can build luxury condos that the locals displaced by this scheme can't even afford? I know it’s shocking, but to create more affordable housing… you have to build housing that’s affordable. Not luxury homes in remote areas.
But the economic stupidity pales next to the environmental insanity. We're living through a climate crisis caused largely by our human-centric choices, and now Lee and other Republican elites want to double down by building in wildfire-prone areas that border wilderness? These developments would be the first places insurance companies refuse to cover as wildfires become more common. We absolutely need more housing, but we should be focusing on the countless acres of already-paved, abandoned urban areas instead of destroying pristine wilderness.
This brings me to what really infuriates me about proposals like this: the breathtaking arrogance that human housing needs automatically trump the housing needs of every other species on the planet. Where exactly do we get the moral authority to decide that a pretty view out of a window matters more than the homes of countless wild animals? Government's fundamental role should be advocating for those without a voice, yet here we are treating wildlife habitat like it's just empty space waiting for our use. I don’t know about you, but I am not convinced that humans are inherently more important or valuable than the species who do the hard work of keeping this planet MORE inhabitable for everyone, as opposed to us, who make it LESS inhabitable.
Once again, we're watching democracy fail. Seventy-five percent of Americans oppose this, including 65% of Republicans, yet Lee keeps pushing forward with revisions. We're living in an era where a bill's popularity with donors matters more than its popularity with voters, and that should terrify everyone regardless of party. It’s a glaring sign that the incentives have been corrupted. Lee should be afraid of us.
The slippery slope here is obvious: if we can sell off public lands for housing (without guardrails to guarantee it becomes housing), what's next? Once this precedent is set, there's no going back, and every piece of public land becomes a potential payday for connected developers.
Selling profitable assets in order to cover short-term expenses is so utterly stupid on its face. Thanks for highlighting this.
Related to your discussion of fire prone areas is the lack of water. If they did build housing in some of those areas - what would the source of water be for them? Water feels like a renewable and unlimited resource depending on where you live. But that is not true for the American west and southwest.
Exactly, Amber! I was just looking up the water situation in Utah. Mike Lee is in total delusion on this fact, and of all people, he should know better. Utah is the second driest state in the U.S. and Mike’s own backyard is experiencing one of the most severe water crises in modern history. According to CNN in a 2023 article, "The Great Salt Lake, plagued by excessive water use and a worsening climate crisis, has dropped to record-low levels two years in a row. The lake is now 19 feet below its natural average level and has entered “uncharted territory” after losing 73% of its water and exposing 60% of its lakebed." That lake bed sits exposed, baking in the desert heat, sometimes billowing toxic dust plumes across urban areas.
Drought conditions have caused a state of emergency to be declared by the governor in 17 counties this spring. Agriculture uses 71% of the water that would otherwise flow to the lake, and cities use around 17%. So Mike wants to add thousands of new homes requiring water hookups in fire-prone wilderness areas, when his state is already struggling to provide water to existing communities? It's absolutely insane.
CNN reported that "the Great Salt Lake contributes $1.3 billion to the annual economy," but "If the lake continues to dry up, the economic toll would range from $1.7 billion to $2.2 billion each year." You'd think a senator would understand that destroying your state's major economic engine to maybe build some luxury homes that won't even help with affordable housing is terrible policy. Terrible not only for the world, for all living beings, for Americans, but especially for Utahans.
Thank you for putting words to my thoughts and feelings, yet again. Anytime I see a water way completely surrounded by new developments, I am devastated by the idea that more wildlife has lost access to what would keep them alive. I grew up in the most rural of rural areas, and I HATE city life (hate is the understatement of the century), and I am absolutely devastated by the destruction we cause to every other living creature on the planet. And these homes are always now HUGE, massive, closed off and rarely even enjoyed by the inhabitants themselves.
This rural life is what MADE me an environmentalist. This is yet another piece of cognitive dissonance I see between modern Republicans and who they vote for. Many are from small areas, where rural life is cherished. And yet they vote for people who want to decimate public lands that make rural towns possible (by surrounding their towns and not letting development seep in), take away rural amenities (like hospitals, hello!!!) so that life is unsustainable, destroy the environment they claim to enjoy, eat up family owned farms that prop up rural life, and so much more. It makes NO SENSE. None at all. Why are the people who love life surrounded by nature the ones who proudly destroy nature, simply to "own the libs" or spite "bleeding heart liberals." I simply cannot. This doesn't even begin to cover the millions of ways they economically shoot themselves in the foot over and over again.
Also, am I the only one who mourns the environmental fall out of war? It breaks my heart so much on top of all the other reasons to be heartbroken about it.
I'm not optimistic, but your hatred of city life makes me think about all the ways we need to rethink our urban spaces. I'm assuming your picture of urban life is something like rats darting between garbage bags on the streets of New York, seeping hot liquids on a 100+ degree humid summer day, right? Yeah, no thanks from me as well. I've lived in NYC for a few summers and I think of those times fondly like one thinks about persevering through any sort of difficult challenge.
But then there are places in the world that are well-designed to give people the space, silence, and community that our minds and bodies crave. Beautifully maintained parks and community gardens, bike paths, dog parks, avoiding pollution of the air, light, and sound. Double-paned windows, central air, plentiful EV charging. I think designing dense housing to be appealing to everyone is our only logical way out of a housing crisis. Not that everyone needs to move into dense housing, but if a lot more people did, that would make it cheaper for everyone everywhere, including rural areas, without evicting our furry and feathered neighbors.
Yes, that is definitely one of them. I would never survive NYC. My mom is from Naples, Italy, and I had a nervous breakdown every time we went. It is so crowded and loud and polluted. I remember the first time I went to LA, my feeling was that everyone lived on a freeway. It's not a city of people. It's a city of cars that people have to protect themselves from. I am in the PNW for much of the time lately, and even though there is a lot of greenery, it is mostly just strip malls and cars and it's becoming disgusting.
I need to live in a place that is more nature than people. If my skyline is buildings, I want to cry. That was how I was raised, and it's embedded deep in my bones. Every passing year tells me it's never going to change. Everything else destroys my mental and physical health.
You are so correct that city life needs to be rewritten entirely. Even perfect dense housing is soul-crushing for me, but a huge portion of people love being in the hustle and chaos and options, and the negative aspects can be improved so much and make everyone healthier and happier. Improvements would be appealing to so many. I think every city should be pedestrian friendly first, public transit second, personal vehicles last. We are human beings, not machines. The traffic situation has to stop. Talk about environmental and health devastation at its worst!
I remember reading something a few years ago about the destruction of rural communities escalating the destruction of the nature around it. As more and more small towns crumble and disappear, more corporate interests get away with doing whatever they want with the lands. I used to feel guilty about hating city life, as I know that everyone spreading out is unsustainable. But rural dwellers can also be stewards of the land, IF THEY STOP VOTING AGAINST IT!! :)
I'm not sure if you've ever read 'The Ghost Map' by Steven Johnson? It's primarily about the 1854 cholera outbreak in London, and how a physician used contact tracing (essentially) and a map of the city to pinpoint the source of the contamination. It was a revolutionary model for understanding public health and outbreaks.
In addition to that, though, the book is kind of an impassioned defense of urbanism... and as a very rural person with zero desire to ever live in a city again, I actually found it quite compelling! To make his eloquent points very simple, the author's proposition is simply that suburban areas are the worst of all worlds: not rural enough to meaningfully maintain native species, not urban enough to meaningfully pool natural resources (the water demands for an apartment building are lower than a neighborhood, for example, but neighborhoods only have a fraction of the residents). He lays out a vision for cities that are surrounded by undeveloped greenspace, farming land, etc. Humans have been creating urban areas for almost as long as we've been around, so we're never not going to have cities (and in many ways, we really do need them!)
The book did not make me want to move to a city, but it did make me appreciate how cities can actually be an environmental solution and not just a drain.
Thanks for the book rec! I hadn’t heard of it but it sounds fascinating, and you’re right about the environmental benefits of urban density. As a city dweller myself who also craves intermittent wilderness living, I will add some benefits beyond the environment, because nobody wants to save the world just for the world’s sake! ☺️ Being able to walk to several options of grocery stores in less than 10 minutes. Movie theaters, restaurants and bars that reflect many cultures. Chatting with several neighbors as I walk my dogs (or keep my headphones on if I am feeling antisocial). Vibrant local news. Several hospitals and urgent care centers less than 15 minutes away. And, especially important for me as a gay dude, community resources, safety in numbers, and let’s just face it: an almost inefficient amount of options in the dating pool (which was important before I met my partner). And then when I need to get away, the storage cabinet above my carport has all of the gear I need to spend weeks away from the city, only an hour away from Los Angeles, with options of mountains, desert, or the beach. LA has a reputation for forcing people into their cars, but that’s only true if you want to zig zag across the city for random interests. I have a car but I only use it about once a week, for things like a trip to the vet or visiting a friend across town. I have a plug-in hybrid SUV that only gets 30 miles of electric charge before using gas, and I haven’t had to refuel since my northern California trip to see Mom and Dad over Easter. Especially now that my job became permanently WFH, I have built my life around the walking distance of my apartment and I love it so much.
Wouldn’t it be nice if when people said “city life” they didn’t immediately think of cockroaches and feces on the sidewalk, but instead sort of an umbrella that could contain models like NYC but also places like Copenhagen with its bike lanes and canals, or Burlington Vermont with its walkable downtown and mountain views?
I think so many people write off city living because they’ve only experienced or heard about the worst examples - the overcrowded, underfunded, poorly planned cities that feel more like survival than living. But there are so many examples of cities that manage to be dense and efficient while still feeling human-scale and livable.
Your point about suburban sprawl being the worst of both worlds is true, but I wonder if suburbs can be rethought as well. It’s like we’ve created this false choice between cramped urban misery and resource-intensive suburban isolation, when there are so many models that thread that needle beautifully. My hometown, a suburb of San Francisco, seems to be doing the good work of rezoning for denser residences, and just opened a new train station that resuscitated a rail line that went extinct soon after I was born, making commutes to San Francisco a lot less stressful and expensive than driving to and parking in the city. There’s hope, but only if we work hard and know what options are out there to work toward.
This all said, I will reiterate that city life isn’t for everyone, like Sara it sounds like you already know it isn’t for you and that’s totally great! I just wish cities had better PR for people who might be more open to their benefits.
Thanks for this, Timothy! One of my favorite things about being a person is that we are not a One Size Fits All species, and I love that diversity and adaptability. I definitely believe that urbanization, and possibly even suburbanization, can be done in a responsible and sustainable way. I highly recommend checking out 'The Ghost Map' - it's very engaging as a history text and, though I read it well over a decade ago, his thoughts on positive urbanization have always stuck with me.
For myself, I appreciate cities conceptually but they are a sensory hell for me *personally*. I moved back to a rural area after years living in a major city, in part because the constant noise was taking a toll on my nervous system and I was starting to become a hermit in my own apartment. I do love cities for allll of the reasons that you mention! I love the opportunities that cities provide for the people who live inside of them AND outside of them: we are all interdependent in that way. I wouldn't even be working my job remotely from my lil' house in the Maine woods if it wasn't for a city on the other side of the country.
Should we add this to the other parties I'm interested in creating? The Mr. Rogers Neighborhood Party, The Golden Girls Party, The Urban Optimization Party?
I do, genuinely, think that so many people would enjoy city living if it could be affordable and well, optimized :D
In defense of cities and cockroaches. The further south you go, the more roaches are everywhere lol. Especially the fancy Palmetto bug. It cares not if you live in the city or the country.
I visited a friend who lives outside of DC this weekend and it was so nice to see diversity. In restaurants, people, stores, etc. I really enjoy hearing different languages, authentic food, etc. The only thing I do not miss about urban areas is traffic. Granted there are ways to get around cities that don't involve cars and that is nice. But that does require better planning. The area my friend lives in is not quite in the city enough to not have to drive to a place where you can then take public transportation or walk.
I live rural now, like the only living things I've seen today other than my family are a turtle and birds. Which for me is preferable. But it definitely has a negative side. And that is the lack of diversity! (No lack of diversity in bird species of course!)
That sounds like a great book! I absolutely believe that more urban living is required for sustainability. Making it as nice and doable for the people who enjoy that kind of life should be a requirement. From what I've seen of friends and family, if the cities were to be changed to some degree (and affordable), that is the life most of them prefer. They truly enjoy the noise, the feeling of people all around, the food options, etc.
A great way to increase affordable housing is to limit acquisition of single-family homes by private equity groups. When these groups buy homes for profit and then rent them out, they drive up rent and mortgage costs for everyone in that area. Private buyers cannot compete with them in bidding wars.
I’m curious what the Federal Government has the ability to do to in regards to housing. This part of the bill didn’t seem to actually address that issue, and it only impacted a handful of states. Many of the barriers to affordable housing I am seeing are state and local level issues. I lived in a tourist area for 12 years before moving back to my hometown that is rural. The needs and issues facing these two communities are vastly different. And the zoning laws, etc are as well. I’m not sure what on the federal level could address those very different set of needs. This portion of the bill would have had zero impact on my ability to obtain affordable housing.
One of my representatives in the House has been polling us here in Idaho about this. Most of us in the neighboring state are not in favor of selling off public lands. The LDS church would likely be the buyer, and they aren’t known for helping the poor by building affordable housing; rather, they do luxury housing and retail. Increased housing needs must also be balanced with our most precious resource in the arid West: water.
Yes - I would love to see someone in the American west or southwest discuss water access and policy surrounding that. How are decisions made when and where to build? Who decides who gets what amount of water? I live on the East Coast so while I've read about this issue I have no firsthand experience. I just know that so many of us take access to clean, fresh water for granted.
Hey there from Utah. :) I appreciate your question.
My biggest question if these high desert areas are developed for “affordable” housing (definition in Utah of “affordable” is $450,000)—where would the water come from? The fight over water rights in the west is already intense, given that downstream states fight with upstream states when the truth is that there is just is not enough water to go around and we are losing water every year with evaporation from rising temps and less snow in our mountains. But do our legislators care? Not a single bit. Over half of them have ties to developers or realtors and what do they care if there is no water in 10 years, since they’ll already have their money?
The fight for water rights is going to be one of the biggest concerns of the next half century, and selling young families $500,000 homes is a tragedy in the making.
It seems rather than working on innovation around this issue we have been kicking the can down the road for years now. Reallocating a dwindling water supply is not going to help anyone, now or later. We (as a society) really take access to clean and safe water for granted. There is so much that goes into getting that water from the source to our homes.
Hi, there. A family member of mine works in land real estate for the LDS Church, and I can confirm (at this time) that they are not interested in Mike Lee’s bill or the buying of land that might come from it. Hope this helps.
I think it’s also important to note that local development decisions are largely decided by city councils. Which speaks to the importance of getting involved in and attending meetings for your city.
I'm from Utah. If you look up what his accomplishments have been over the last decade, you will find a very short list that includes: renaming a few buildings and voting "no" on almost everything the Senate puts together. He also walks around with a goofy grin and an attitude that he's done something great. We are trying so hard to get him out of office but somehow he keeps winning re election.
It is truly baffling to me that people voted for him over someone as amazing as Becky Edwards in the last primary election. I didn't love McMullin but had high hopes for his win in 2022. It will never stop breaking my heart to see Utah keep choosing these terrible candidates over and over.
Girl, same! Becky Edwards would have been amazing. It's such a frustrating thought that we could have had her as a senator instead of someone so embarrassing and condescending as Mike Lee. 😩
His personal background probably contributes to his success in continuing to get elected. (Being a member of the Mormon church and graduating from BYU).
You're not wrong there. Mormons definitely know how to circle the wagons around one of their own. But other candidates are also experienced LDS BYU grads, like Becky Edwards and Evan McMullin, so his background certainly isn't the only factor. (Though, in Becky's case, you can't discount the fact that LDS people don't know what it looks like to have a woman in power, so there's that contributing factor, too...)
I think you misspelled "goofy." It's actually "sh*t-eating." And yes. Can we PLEASE vote him out? Please?
Bull*#+! Developers lobby politicians because they make a ton of money building sub par houses and selling them for top dollar. What housing crisis? My town is full of rushed apartment buildings half empty. This perpetuates the “housing” problem because it increases the cost of single family homes annihilating entry level or starter homes. We are watching all available land get razed and prepped for fast housing and it is infuriating.
Urban planner here. Renovating underperforming commercial properties into mixed use (commercial & residential) is the smart option. These areas are already serviced by utilities & transportation modes. There are economic opportunities nearby so folks don't have to drive an hour to get to their jobs. Giant parking areas can be converted to outdoor space for residents. Its a win/win.
Many jurisdictions already require ground floor commercial in new developments. Next practical step would be to require property owners with vacant, derelict & vandalized buildings to sell or lease these sites for more housing. I drive by two large office buildings owned by a large aerospace company that have been abandoned. Other countries, such as the Netherlands already have similar laws.
Thank you for this input!
The town next to us has been undertaking a wonderful revitalization project that's been focusing on exactly this. They first renovated the old elementary school into affordable (income-restricted) rental units. Then they focused on the abandoned tannery in the middle of town. After completing the demolition and environmental remediation, they're now in the process of turning that old site into a combination of green space, walking areas, and mixed use buildings as you've described. They're just over the river from another town (actually in the neighboring state) and the longterm vision seems to be one continuous walking-friendly neighborhood with more housing and lots of new businesses. They even designed the new mixed-use buildings to match the older buildings in the town across the river so it has a really nice visual flow.
That's great! Sounds like your city has some big plans for livability & affordability!
Wouldn’t it be nice if they actually cared about what the American people wanted. The poll showed 75% of Americans oppose selling off millions of public land. Those in the federal government are not listening to the people. These people need to be voted out!
I have some small hope that selling off public lands is so unpopular that even republicans won’t support it. It’s yet another ridiculous attempt to use a real problem- lack of affordable housing- to hand over more of democratic America to the oligarchs. There are actual regional ways to solve the affordable housing crisis- this isn’t it.
As you said, there is a housing crisis but it’s an AFFORDABLE housing crisis. Not to mention that the west, particularly the areas they are looking at, do not have the natural resources to sustain development. Getting services to those areas would be more costly, thus damaging the “affordable” part of the housing, if it even existed in the first place. And water?! Utah is in a drought and has been for well over a decade. There are no signs of that changing. This is not the area of the country set-up to sustain large populations. Look, I live in Utah. And Lee is a smear to our state’s reputation.
Also wild horse and burro herds are somewhat protected on our public lands. Visiting these areas to see them is a highlight of my life
Thanks for spelling out what’s actually being proposed and the pitfalls.