Can Federal Lands Solve the U.S. Housing Crisis?

Investor · Bakersfield, CA · Member since 2015 · 483 posts · 234 votes

Both Democrat and Republican presidential candidates have found common ground in the idea of using federally owned lands to address the U.S. housing shortage. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have both floated plans to make housing more accessible by repurposing public lands for development. This bipartisan proposal responds to the urgent need for new housing, with estimates suggesting a shortage of up to 5.5 million units nationwide.

Legislation like the HOUSES Act, which has received bipartisan support, aims to unlock millions of new homes by using underutilized federal land. However, challenges remain, particularly with balancing environmental concerns and ensuring that new developments cater to lower-income families. While the proposal won’t solve housing issues in dense urban areas, it represents a step forward in the fight to make housing more affordable.

1 Reply

88 views

Most Popular Reply

Bradley BuxtonBusiness Member

Real Estate Agent · NV · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 712 votes

I'm in Nevada and there are no transportation solutions to go along with open BLM land. Building more roads for hour commutes is not how people want to spend their time. Reduce local building expenses, fees, encourage investments where people want to be. Not too many people want to live at Burning man year round.

5 Reply

See this reply in the discussion

25 Replies

Jump to latestLatest

Sort by

Chris SeveneyBusiness Member
Moderator
Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes
1y
Quote from @Sanjeev Advani:

Both Democrat and Republican presidential candidates have found common ground in the idea of using federally owned lands to address the U.S. housing shortage. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have both floated plans to make housing more accessible by repurposing public lands for development. This bipartisan proposal responds to the urgent need for new housing, with estimates suggesting a shortage of up to 5.5 million units nationwide.

Legislation like the HOUSES Act, which has received bipartisan support, aims to unlock millions of new homes by using underutilized federal land. However, challenges remain, particularly with balancing environmental concerns and ensuring that new developments cater to lower-income families. While the proposal won’t solve housing issues in dense urban areas, it represents a step forward in the fight to make housing more affordable.

This would not solve it, what would solve it is density in other areas. For example Washington DC limits building height which is dumb. Around the federal triangle sure, but in parts of NE, NW etc. there is no reason you could not have 30-40 story buildings. You can also look at our major highway systems and in places like boston they are leasing air rights over major highways for building as well. Federal land in the middle of nowhere does not solve the crisis, crisis can be solved by smarter planning, better use of land and getting politicians to cut through the red tape where costs to develop are astronomical.
7e investments53 Reviews
Website View Page
5 Reply
Bradley BuxtonBusiness Member
Real Estate Agent · NV · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 712 votes
1y
I'm in Nevada and there are no transportation solutions to go along with open BLM land. Building more roads for hour commutes is not how people want to spend their time. Reduce local building expenses, fees, encourage investments where people want to be. Not too many people want to live at Burning man year round.
5 Reply
Andres Murillo
Developer · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2024 · 22 posts · 6 votes
1y
Quote from @Sanjeev Advani:

Both Democrat and Republican presidential candidates have found common ground in the idea of using federally owned lands to address the U.S. housing shortage. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have both floated plans to make housing more accessible by repurposing public lands for development. This bipartisan proposal responds to the urgent need for new housing, with estimates suggesting a shortage of up to 5.5 million units nationwide.

Legislation like the HOUSES Act, which has received bipartisan support, aims to unlock millions of new homes by using underutilized federal land. However, challenges remain, particularly with balancing environmental concerns and ensuring that new developments cater to lower-income families. While the proposal won’t solve housing issues in dense urban areas, it represents a step forward in the fight to make housing more affordable.

I agree with @Chris Seveney on this. Rethinking density limitations like building height, parking requirements, and ADU permitting would be more impactful.

High-dense urban environments should build up, and get rid of underutilized parking since public transit is easier in these environments.

Suburban areas should encourage ADU development and make it easy to turn underutilized parking in places like church lots into housing.
0 Reply
Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
1y
One place that stands out to me would be Las Vegas.. Federal lands come right down basically to the city limits and subdivisions are nestled right up against them.. so you could sprawl there.
out east there are very few federal lands close to housing .. so that makes zero sense.
It only works in the West from Rockies to the Pacific and select areas.
But really like others are saying to get affordable housing you need to utilize land/lands that already have infrastructure in place and systems that can handle the water and sewer and storm.. so density bonus's are what is needed . Along with the Thousands of vacant lots in the ubran cores of the Rust belt and deep south cities that have been blighted but the lots and infrastructure exits .. problem is can you get people to live there ?
Podcast Guest on Show #222
JLH Capital Partners51 Review
Website View Page
2 Reply
Rich S.
Central, MN · Member since 2015 · 148 posts · 184 votes
1y
So many more people on here more qualified to answer this than myself, but my thoughts....

Have to focus on areas with existing infrastructure. It is the only way to eliminate some costs without flat out giving away money to make things affordable. Many government entities are trying to do this already, but the impact is too small and costs are too high for it to really make a difference as far as scale.

Provide incentives for developers to build and for people to move to areas with existing land and infrastructure to @Jay Hinrichs point. In my opinion we need to direct assistance and subsidy more strategically. More of an "If... then" vs.... here you go.
Instead of solving the end game, improve process. The shortage exists for lots of reasons, but a lot has to do with lack of trades folks to do the work, which drives costs up, which creates "unaffordable" housing. Provide a bunch of free trades programs, mentorships, networks. Get more people working in sectors where we need them and provide incentive to do so. Also combo that with programs to create more entrepreneurs so they can take their skills and exponentially use them.
Lastly, understand that America is a FREE MARKET. It is very inefficient(as far as impact of the $$$) when the government uses the "my great idea" approach. People still want what they want and everyday that goes by more and more folks feel entitled to that WANT.
**One example is there are thousands of old school buildings and old government buildings that are sitting empty all over America. They sit empty because the costs to update them to code make a project unfeasible for private money. They tie up lots of well located, on infrastructure land. The government is trying to find pathways to help folks, but by the time they figure it out, we will be on to the next problem because of all the tape.
0 Reply
Scott Mac
Austin, TX · Member since 2019 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes
1y
Supply and demand.

If there is a shortage of housing you can charge more rent.

Your turns will be shorter.

If they build more housing your renters are going to go and live there.

If you own a 7 Eleven- Do you want an 812 on the opposing corner, and a 913 right next door to you, and a 1014 down the block all within walking distance of each other?

Instead of trying to solve something which may not actually exist.

It might be more wise to think more on entrepreneurially, and wait to see what happens- and look for ways to exploit that solution in ways that can make you money.

Because it seems like whenever they pass things there are always loopholes left in there, some of which are attractive to a lot of people, and some of which are only attractive to some people.
Solving this problem is not going to put a new Mercedes Benz in your garage, But if you are clever enough thinking entrepreneurially might just do that.

Just my 2 cents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqHweCW_sYg
1 Reply
Bruce WoodruffPro Member
Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
1y
A better question might be - "Why does the Federal Govt own so much land in the states?"
In many of the western states, the Feds own 60-80% of the total land.
But in answer to the original question, I don't see it helping, we don't need housing where most Fed land is.....
1 Reply
Mike Dymski
Investor · Greenville, SC · Member since 2016 · 5k+ posts · 13k+ votes
1y
Ahhh, both presidential candidates helped create the problem...
0 Reply
Bruce WoodruffPro Member
Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
1y
But here's the real conundrum here, and no one has been able to ever explain it to my satisfaction.
'They' (Who are they? Follow the money as they say) say we have a shortage of 5.5 mm housing units in the USA. Yet there are 15.1 mm vacant housing units currently sitting there empty.
Anyone else see the ridiculousness of this situation?
Is ridiculousness even a word?
0 Reply
Alecia LovelessPro Member
Member since 2019 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
1y
@Sanjeev Advani While this may be a good talking point what no one is mentioning is that with most of the federal land areas there is NOTHING there to draw people to want to live there.
With the possible exception of lands that might border the Las Vegas metro area it would take decades to build infrastructure and jobs in these areas to attract dwellers there.
I know I’m certainly not planning to go live in the middle of the uninhabited western states in desolate areas.
0 Reply
Steve K.
Realtor · Boulder, CO · Member since 2016 · 3k+ posts · 5k+ votes
1y
This is mostly just a talking point as giving away federal land isn't a quick fix for the current housing supply and demand imbalance. Doing anything at scale would likely take an act of congress, decades of litigation and environmental reviews, multiple huge overlapping federal bureaucracies working together, not to mention much of the available federal land is not useful for building housing on as it's in remote areas far from jobs with no water and sewer access, roads or infrastructure... so easier said than done.

The Biden administration recently approved the "sale" ($100/acre so more of a give-away/transfer) of 20 acres of BLM land near Las Vegas to Clark County to be used for affordable housing, so we'll see how that goes I guess. I think there is another case study of using federal land for affordable housing in DC that has been held up with red tape for decades.

The problem in my opinion is not that we don't have enough land to build on, it's that we are not using the land that we have efficiently. Adding more sprawl just makes other problems that we have worse. Adjusting some zoning restrictions and streamlining permitting processes to encourage more private development would have a quicker impact. The federal government could use it's special zoning-exempt status to build the housing we need quickly within existing cities. Looking at urban infill where people want to live, where the jobs are, where transportation costs are lower etc. is a better and more practical solution IMO.

I strongly disagree with some of these politicians overly-simplified and flat out uninformed statements during the debates that federal lands "aren't being used" and should be used for housing. Just because they are not a national park doesn't mean they aren't being used. Much of the federal land out here in the west is used as range land for ranchers, oil and gas extraction, logging, mining, military training, recreation and conservation areas, etc. so it's not like it's not being used. All of these interest groups will want a say in the matter if the federal government starts giving large tracts to developers.
0 Reply
Michael Quarles
Flipper/Rehabber · Bakersfield, CA · Member since 2008 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
1y
Answer is…… NO.

0 Reply
David Dachtera
Rental Property Investor · Rockford, IL · Member since 2014 · 4k+ posts · 2k+ votes
1y
A big chunk of the housing shortage goes back to the Crash of '07 / '08 when, according to the economists of the day, 80% of builders and developers went bankrupt once the supply of new mortgage lending dried up.
A good solution - though not the only one, certainly - would be to get home building back on track. We're finally seeing some of the incomplete developments being back-filled, yet dilapidated suburbs and subdivisions are found in areas where economic development slowed and later stopped leaving job loss and abandoned homes in its wake. A comprehensive plan providing jobs and home financing in those area would certainly be a big help toward restabilizing those communities and making housing and worker opportunities available again.
My $0.02 ...
2 Reply
James Hamling
Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
1y
Open up Federal land's for housing development.... Why? Is there a land shortage for housing development?
Last I checked, there was no shortage of land for development, that was not the issue (not having space to build upon) but the issue was PRICE, the COST of housing.
How is developing on federal land going to change the price of housing?
Now, before one says "because it's free, duh" think it thru. Are federal lands L.A. adjacent? Does federal land's wrap the suburbs of Colorado? Does federal lands have water and sewer running thru it? Roads. Waste water treatment facilities.
Federal lands are rural, meaning not only disconnected form SERVICES and resources such as, IDK, JOBS, but also meaning ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE would need to also be added. Local roads, county roads, highway extensions, water and waste water facilities......
Opening federal lands is the DUMBEST "fix" as it does diddly squat to help with cost.
How about take all that $ that would be burned in building new rural cities on federal lands, and instead create re-development grant's across the nation. That local government is who submits as "sponsor" for proposed applications. So now we know things at local level are set to get things done vs a private entity who has to try and get local gov on board.
How many satellite markets are out there that are stagnant? Kill 2 birds with 1 check, reinvigorating areas and creating the growth and expansion that feeds not only housing needs but with all the ancillary things one needs to have along with a roof over the head.
Allow local government to offer housing redevelopment grants. I have seen this before on limited scale and it worked excellently.
They would spend more on just the infrastructure for developing rural federal lands for housing than if the $ just went out into the system to do the work directly.
Than, hey, go ahead and make federal lands available, in the normal sense ie SELL SOME!
0 Reply
Bob S.
Real Estate Consultant · Cleveland · Member since 2020 · 6k+ posts · 3k+ votes
1y
Quote from @Sanjeev Advani:

Both Democrat and Republican presidential candidates have found common ground in the idea of using federally owned lands to address the U.S. housing shortage. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have both floated plans to make housing more accessible by repurposing public lands for development. This bipartisan proposal responds to the urgent need for new housing, with estimates suggesting a shortage of up to 5.5 million units nationwide.

Legislation like the HOUSES Act, which has received bipartisan support, aims to unlock millions of new homes by using underutilized federal land. However, challenges remain, particularly with balancing environmental concerns and ensuring that new developments cater to lower-income families. While the proposal won’t solve housing issues in dense urban areas, it represents a step forward in the fight to make housing more affordable.

Wait she wants to build houses" Holistically' This should solve it LOL
1 Reply
Henry ClarkPro Member
Developer · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
1y
OP there are so many ways to respond.
1. Anyone you know having trouble finding housing send them my way. 3% interest, no downpayment, $100,000.
2. Think I can find housing for 1mm of them within 1 year. If there are 29 more investors in here. We can do housing for 30,000,000 in one year.
3. Do you believe or not in God? Do you understand what that has to do with our housing shortage?
4. I want there to be housing shortage. Don't you? Are you investing in REI?
5. You’re in California. Realize you have gotten a lot of rain. But if you were dry. I could solve your water problems in 2 years for the whole state. What does that have to do with housing? People with 3rd grade educations have solved it.Can easily do another 30,000,000 in California.
6. You have Yosemite and Red Wood National park near populations. You don’t need those.
7. Do you or not believe in Global warming? Carbon footprints? How many houses, roads, parking lots do you want built?
8. Do you not like low income people? Why would you want to put them into affordable housing? We did that before and they went bankrupt.
Doing affordable housing for say 30,000,000 people is easy. You should ask the question why both bipartisan parties don’t want that.
0 Reply
Steve K.
Realtor · Boulder, CO · Member since 2016 · 3k+ posts · 5k+ votes
1y
All of the builders I know could build a lot more homes if:

1. They had more workers

2. They didn't have to wait a year or more for building permits and jump through so many hoops with the building and planning department.

I'm trying to sell some prime building lots right now and all of the builders I've talked to don't want them mostly due to being backlogged on work thanks to labor shortages and not wanting to deal with the huge hassle and time commitment/expense to get a building permit.

Ironically, politicians in the past have contributed to the problem by actually going to job sites to round up and deport workers because many are undocumented. These are the people building our houses. A lot of this happened during Bush's terms and some of those running for office now are talking about doing it again which will make the problem worse. The Obama administration deported A LOT of people too but focused more on undocumented immigrants with criminal records. The reality is that the new generation of native-born Americans don't want to build houses, they all want cushy high-paid jobs in tech or finance etc. or to get rich quick off of crypto or being a youtuber or running internet businesses, etc. very few of them want to work in the trades. Framing crews are almost 100% immigrants and there is a shortage of them (at least around here, can't speak for the whole country but I'm guessing most places are similar).

The government also contributed to the problem with red tape, difficult and slow permitting and restrictive building codes. Loosening some of that up or at least streamlining the process and hiring more people in those departments so that it doesn't take a year to get a building permit would be better than wasting time trying to convert unbuildable federal land into new housing developments.
1 Reply
Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
1y
Quote from @James Hamling:

Open up Federal land's for housing development.... Why? Is there a land shortage for housing development?
Last I checked, there was no shortage of land for development, that was not the issue (not having space to build upon) but the issue was PRICE, the COST of housing.
How is developing on federal land going to change the price of housing?
Now, before one says "because it's free, duh" think it thru. Are federal lands L.A. adjacent? Does federal land's wrap the suburbs of Colorado? Does federal lands have water and sewer running thru it? Roads. Waste water treatment facilities.
Federal lands are rural, meaning not only disconnected form SERVICES and resources such as, IDK, JOBS, but also meaning ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE would need to also be added. Local roads, county roads, highway extensions, water and waste water facilities......
Opening federal lands is the DUMBEST "fix" as it does diddly squat to help with cost.
How about take all that $ that would be burned in building new rural cities on federal lands, and instead create re-development grant's across the nation. That local government is who submits as "sponsor" for proposed applications. So now we know things at local level are set to get things done vs a private entity who has to try and get local gov on board.
How many satellite markets are out there that are stagnant? Kill 2 birds with 1 check, reinvigorating areas and creating the growth and expansion that feeds not only housing needs but with all the ancillary things one needs to have along with a roof over the head.
Allow local government to offer housing redevelopment grants. I have seen this before on limited scale and it worked excellently.
They would spend more on just the infrastructure for developing rural federal lands for housing than if the $ just went out into the system to do the work directly.
Than, hey, go ahead and make federal lands available, in the normal sense ie SELL SOME!

also keep in mind the NIMBY neighbor's who fight developments tooth and nail thats what you get on the west coast..
Podcast Guest on Show #222
JLH Capital Partners51 Review
Website View Page
0 Reply
Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
1y
Quote from @Steve K.:

All of the builders I know could build a lot more homes if:

1. They had more workers

2. They didn't have to wait a year or more for building permits and jump through so many hoops with the building and planning department.

I'm trying to sell some prime building lots right now and all of the builders I've talked to don't want them mostly due to being backlogged on work thanks to labor shortages and not wanting to deal with the huge hassle and time commitment/expense to get a building permit.

Ironically, politicians in the past have contributed to the problem by actually going to job sites to round up and deport workers because many are undocumented. These are the people building our houses. A lot of this happened during Bush's terms and some of those running for office now are talking about doing it again which will make the problem worse. The Obama administration deported A LOT of people too but focused more on undocumented immigrants with criminal records. The reality is that the new generation of native-born Americans don't want to build houses, they all want cushy high-paid jobs in tech or finance etc. or to get rich quick off of crypto or being a youtuber or running internet businesses, etc. very few of them want to work in the trades. Framing crews are almost 100% immigrants and there is a shortage of them (at least around here, can't speak for the whole country but I'm guessing most places are similar).

The government also contributed to the problem with red tape, difficult and slow permitting and restrictive building codes. Loosening some of that up or at least streamlining the process and hiring more people in those departments so that it doesn't take a year to get a building permit would be better than wasting time trying to convert unbuildable federal land into new housing developments.

Good points on Labor.. I will say I probably have one of the few Caucasian framing crews in our area.. Owner second generation framer. His crew's are all local "white folks" . However your right its rare.. I look at our sub base and depending on the trade will dictate nationality. Painters roofers Hispanic flat work land scape hispanic owned and workers.. electrical and Plumbing White and local . cabinets white and local dig out and foundation white owned Hispanic crews or combo.
interior tile Granite marble Eastern Block speak no english. Trim and finish carpenters local white . Insulation and drywall white owned hispanic labor. . Trash out guys white.. etc etc.
Podcast Guest on Show #222
JLH Capital Partners51 Review
Website View Page
0 Reply
Steve K.
Realtor · Boulder, CO · Member since 2016 · 3k+ posts · 5k+ votes
1y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Steve K.:

All of the builders I know could build a lot more homes if:

1. They had more workers

2. They didn't have to wait a year or more for building permits and jump through so many hoops with the building and planning department.

I'm trying to sell some prime building lots right now and all of the builders I've talked to don't want them mostly due to being backlogged on work thanks to labor shortages and not wanting to deal with the huge hassle and time commitment/expense to get a building permit.

Ironically, politicians in the past have contributed to the problem by actually going to job sites to round up and deport workers because many are undocumented. These are the people building our houses. A lot of this happened during Bush's terms and some of those running for office now are talking about doing it again which will make the problem worse. The Obama administration deported A LOT of people too but focused more on undocumented immigrants with criminal records. The reality is that the new generation of native-born Americans don't want to build houses, they all want cushy high-paid jobs in tech or finance etc. or to get rich quick off of crypto or being a youtuber or running internet businesses, etc. very few of them want to work in the trades. Framing crews are almost 100% immigrants and there is a shortage of them (at least around here, can't speak for the whole country but I'm guessing most places are similar).

The government also contributed to the problem with red tape, difficult and slow permitting and restrictive building codes. Loosening some of that up or at least streamlining the process and hiring more people in those departments so that it doesn't take a year to get a building permit would be better than wasting time trying to convert unbuildable federal land into new housing developments.

Good points on Labor.. I will say I probably have one of the few Caucasian framing crews in our area.. Owner second generation framer. His crew's are all local "white folks" . However your right its rare.. I look at our sub base and depending on the trade will dictate nationality. Painters roofers Hispanic flat work land scape hispanic owned and workers.. electrical and Plumbing White and local . cabinets white and local dig out and foundation white owned Hispanic crews or combo.
interior tile Granite marble Eastern Block speak no english. Trim and finish carpenters local white . Insulation and drywall white owned hispanic labor. . Trash out guys white.. etc etc.

When I first started as a carpenter in VT I worked for a high-end custom design-build firm and all of our guys were actually local white boys. We did it all ground up. The only imported labor I saw there was the sheet rockers being mostly all from Canada (Quebecois), and many of the painting crews were Russian or Hispanic. Not sure how things have changed there, this was 25 years ago now. Then when I moved to CO I applied for some framing jobs and the GC’s all looked at me like I was crazy. Mostly immigrant labor here especially for the big builders like Century, KB Homes, Richmond American etc. Luxury custom home builders can be a mix of different nationalities with finish carpenters, cabinet guys, HVAC, sparkies and plumbers still mostly local but many are older and getting ready to retire.

I don’t see a big ramp up in new home building being possible without lots of immigrant labor though, especially with how things have changed with the youngest generation, not many young people seem to want to work in the trades anymore. Maybe robots will be able to do these jobs soon, that’s what I keep hearing but I remain skeptical lol.
0 Reply
Marcus Auerbach
Investor · Milwaukee - Mequon, WI · Member since 2010 · 5k+ posts · 7k+ votes
1y
For Milwaukee the answer is no. First, we don't have any federal land and second, land is not our problem. The reasons we have chronic housing shortage are a combination of the following:
1.) Land zoning: L and XL lot sizes, only suitable for large, expensive homes
2.) property type: single family only. No mid or high rises, not even duplxes in most parts
3.) We almost stopped building after 2008 - 15 years of undersupply accumulated to a chronic housing shortage you can't fix in 3 years
4.) Suburban sprawl: everyone wants walkable neighborhoods with a coffee shop at the corner, but we have a monoculture of single family homes to the horizon
5.) Labor: our contractors are old. 50s and 60s. And the only ones willing to work construction these days are mostly immigrants. Labor cost and skill level are also issues.
The major announced a plan to increase population by about 50% and the only way we can do that is density. The reason behind that is simple: maintaining infrastructure for low density single family housing is cost prohibitive.
Calculate the infrastructure cost to build and maintain per 1000 residents for:
- miles of road, sidewalks, streetlights
- miles of utilities: water, sewer, gas, electricity, internet
- public services: police, fire, snowplowing, public works, trees and green spaces

And then people complain about taxes. There is huge cost leverage in population density: from over 1,000,000 per square mile in a big city to 20,000 in the suburbs or 1500 in a small town, just think about the cost of roads per household. The cost leverage on infrastructure from population density is enormous!
It's pretty obvious, in most cases more land is not the right answer.
1 Reply
James Hamling
Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
1y
Ya know.... maybe it's better if we first ask; has the Federal Government ever "solved" anything?????
Seriously. Can anyone think of anything, EVER, that the Federal Government solved?
I remember the war on poverty, failed. War on drugs, failed. Iraq, Afghanistan.... Public Schools.... Medical costs.... I mean the list goes on and on. I can't think of literally anything the Fed's have ever "solved".
Has the Fed's ever "solved" anything? So why would it even be a question if they can solve something as big and complex as housing.
2 Reply
Account Closed
Rental Property Investor · New Braunfels, TX · Member since 2022 · 408 posts · 408 votes
1y
Quote from @James Hamling:

Ya know.... maybe it's better if we first ask; has the Federal Government ever "solved" anything?????
Seriously. Can anyone think of anything, EVER, that the Federal Government solved?
I remember the war on poverty, failed. War on drugs, failed. Iraq, Afghanistan.... Public Schools.... Medical costs.... I mean the list goes on and on. I can't think of literally anything the Fed's have ever "solved".
Has the Fed's ever "solved" anything? So why would it even be a question if they can solve something as big and complex as housing.
They solved the mystery of the Creature from Jekyll Island!
1 Reply
Theresa HarrisPro Member
Member since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
1y
You can look at any city and realize the problem isn't shortage of land, it is costs and to some extent infrastructure. Medium and high density housing addresses land issue. Same with food and claiming we need to produce more food. The problem isn't food production, it is food waste. In the US 5 Billion bananas are thrown away each year...that's 13.7 million a day-enough to feed a lot of hungry people and that is just one food item.
0 Reply
Christopher Robert Noland
Investor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2023 · 87 posts · 44 votes
1y
No. It won’t.
0 Reply

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.