It has been an interesting two days here in DC, with two more to go. Meeting with people who are actually here, working on bills, working on budgets, and talking to staffers and members of Congress who serve on the committees is helpful, as much as this place is like being subjected to some sort of cruel and unusual punishment.
Summary so far:
- This supposed "affordable" housing spin has as much energy as I feared, if not more. It is a good ides in the minds of most Rs and some Ds. The more urban, the more that state's delegates are on board with such.
- LWCF still has a ways to go to get the 200,000 acres of FY2024 projects completed. If there remains enough talent (surveyors, appraisers, attorneys, realty specialists) to actually get the work completed, we should get most of those projects across the finish line.
- LWCF is going to have a tough hill to climb for FY2025. Even with $900 million earmarked under the Great American Outdoor Act, there are members of Congress who hate that law and will find ways to not spend the money, then try to use the recision process to claw that money back to the general budget to help offset other priorities. There are some huge projects, often done in phases, that are to be funded in FY 2025 LWCF. It would be a shame to lose them half way through to completion.
- I was told a couple weeks ago by a staffer that the reconciliation process was likely to be used as the way to try sell more public land. By using the "reconciliation process" it avoids the required 60 votes needed in the Senate. The article this morning that was posted by
@Oak confirmed that tactic. I wish I had sounded that alarm when I first heard it, but it seemed a bit hard to envision. My optimism is sometimes unwarranted. If that same source is correct, the push in this reconciliation process will try to identify 500,000 acres to be sold by the end of FY 2026. It will expand beyond the language in FLTFA that allows Department of Interior to sell identified lands without Congressional approval, but expanding similar language to USDA/USFS.
- Nobody seems to have details of what lands will be identified under this new effort to roll public land sales into the "reconciliation process" Nor have any details been provided as to the criteria that would be applied in identifying such. Seems the folks pushing this idea are keeping it as quiet as they can. I suspect if they do try to push it, we will learn any details with very short notice beforehand.
- There are some here who have assured me and others that using the reconciliation process to circumvent the Senate rules will not get the votes. Those trying to use the process will claim the opponents are trying to "shut down the government." I'm not as confident as they are.
- There are about four (maybe a couple more) critical people in the Senate and House who are going to be the final backstop against some of these crazy ideas about land sales for supposed "lower housing costs" or "balance the budget" or (insert foolish idea here). People roasting Daines (MT), Westerman (AR), Zinke (MT), or Simpson (ID) on public land issues are not doing any favors for the public land cause. Every person I have talked to this week, from Office staffers, to Committee staff, to agency staff, all say that Daines is the pivot point in the Senate. I suspect tomorrow I will hear more of the same. And every person also tells me that Mike Lee (UT) is leading the charge to ramp up land sales. I have no reason to doubt either of those statements.
- I suspect there are going to be some small exceptions/allowances for Park Service employee housing near places like YNP, Yosemite. A few other smaller parcels already having development might also be in that mix.
I hope things change and I am completely wrong in my assessment that this "lower cost of housing" sales pitch is going to be used in a highly focused effort to start liquidating public lands. To what degree they could be successful depends on how much opposition is provided. Of the many different efforts I've seen to dispose of public lands in my 30 years of engagement on the issue, we are facing the most concerted effort under the banner of "lower cost of housing." We heard it in a lot of election rhetoric. And in the next month we are likely to see just how much capital they are willing to spend to see it happen.
Again, I hope I am wrong on all of this. Maybe I'll learn something in the next two days to counter my concerns.
tribalbusinessnews.com
