'Project 2025' Wants to Sell Off All Public Land, Pretends It's For Housing Crisis

I'm not a huge fan of the political climate we currently inhabit. Whatever you make of it, the topic of public lands is one of the many issues on the table that I can speak my opinion on and, maybe, shed some light on.

As you may have inferred from my earlier coverage, my stance on public lands is unwavering. I ride ATVs and UTVs, go hunting, fishing, dirt biking, and hiking with them all the time. Millions of Americans do the same every year.

However, in recent times, developers, so-called conservation groups, and vulture mining and logging capitalists have outgunned us, disregarding the world's natural beauty and the reasons we should preserve it in pristine condition for the benefit of the people. These organizations would prefer to deprive federal and state land agencies of their resources before selling the properties to the highest bidder.

And most recently, the people behind the Republican playbook "Project 2025" revealed how much they despise the concept of public lands by suggesting that all of the nation's public land be sold off by the federal and state governments in order to "solve the housing crisis."

That's all neatly packaged and understandable now, isn't that right? Who wouldn't want to discover a solution to a problem that has left millions of Americans without a place to live? Furthermore, I'm not trying to take a hard line against Republicans on this issue because Democrats have also contributed to the housing crisis by selling their fair share of land to prominent figures. However, there is a single issue with the Project 2025 illusion.

Nothing would be resolved by it. 

What would it do, do you know? most likely worsen it while enriching those who already have more wealth than God. It's just a hoax, nothing more. a runaway of the American people and their success in safeguarding the environment for coming generations.

William Perry Pendley, who penned the Project 2025 playbook's Department of the Interior portion, delivered the most recent remarks. He was quoted in The Washington Examiner discussing his ideas for resolving the housing situation.

The essay, "Solve the housing crisis by selling government land," aims to present the idea that our public lands are just lying around, underutilized, and waiting to welcome the next wave of housing hopefuls in America. "It surprises most people outside the American West to learn that fully one-third of the nation’s land mass is owned by the federal government," Pendley says, while arguing that "we should change that ownership pattern."

Pendley continues by noting that a large portion of the land owned by the public—that is, American taxpayers—may be sold to real estate developers, who may subsequently resell the land to people like you and me. He cites former President Trump's proposal to give developers more access to public land so they can grow the West and create new "Freedom Cities" on formerly owned territory. All of which is again couched in terms of how this would facilitate the purchase of a home by the typical American.

But it's all nonsense.

Our current housing problem isn't a result of a shortage of land for new home construction by developers. No, there are a few major elements that are responsible for the low availability of homes: corporate takeovers of single-family homes, corporate greed-driven inflation, and employers' failure to raise salaries to keep up with the inflation.

There are other variables as well; the main ones being debt from school, healthcare, and personal sources. However, the three factors listed above are the main drivers, and selling up our public lands wouldn't address them.

The situation is the same with rentals, which have seen sharp hikes. a precise rise in pricing of 30.4% throughout that same time frame. In addition, it's becoming known that the federal government is investigating whether or not landlords conspired to fix prices in order to boost rents and enrich themselves, on top of the corporate takeovers of rental properties around the United States.

Since salaries haven't increased to keep up with inflation, there have been several price rises for both residences and rental properties. To that end, I neglected to explain how companies just made out like bandits in terms of corporate profits by raising the prices of everything, even surpassing inflation. Thus, not only are houses and apartments more costly, but everything is more expensive overall, and your pay has decreased.

So where does it leave the idea of Project 2025? It has gotten increasingly difficult for the typical American to even purchase a property, especially when investors and landlords who are out to take advantage of you are taken out of the picture.

More dwellings would be a good thing, I assume. False.

A staggering 15.4 million homes remained empty as you go farther down the rabbit hole of real life. That's correct, there are 15 million houses that are empty. Now, some of them are holiday houses, while others most likely require extensive renovations. However, many of these properties are merely sitting empty since the owners, investors, and flippers are unable to face reality and are only looking for more money. Having them sit is less expensive for them than not getting as much return on their investment as they would have liked.

What, therefore, would additional uncontrolled housing projects accomplish? Do you believe it would simply solve this issue? Or do you believe that the problems would get worse if we sold off our public lands to the same people who created them all? If the investors who are holding onto the 15 million homes were to purchase the new ones, would this lead to more inventory problems as the new homes would be priced above the means of most people? Naturally, they will.

We would all lose our public lands in addition to the inventory currently being held by avaricious speculators who will hang onto it until they can bankrupt you. It would be worse in every manner imaginable.

Currently, there exist several laws and initiatives in Congress aimed at tackling the problems of unoccupied homes and investor-driven price gouging. However, if you have followed politics for the past twenty years, you probably share my cynicism over the likelihood of these measures gaining any momentum. Are both parties genuinely assisting the American people with their actions? Yes, exactly.

Not to mention the environmental catastrophe this sell-off would cause, as they are the same people that intended to strip mine many of Alaska's pristine wild regions. It's also important to remember that Pendley was fired by Trump from the Department of the Interior for working there without authorization and in violation of the law.

As my previous articles and this lengthy rebuttal have shown, I find Pendley's views and reasoning to be completely repugnant. It not only ruins this country's long-standing heritage of protecting our wild spaces, but it also does little to address the housing crisis, which Pendley is purportedly against.

Our ability to enjoy wide-open spaces, hunt in forests, ride in deserts, and fish in rivers would all be lost. Rather, there would be an increase in parking lots, strip malls, vacant single-family houses, and hazardous mining activities. Additionally, the few who would profit from this strategy might experience an increase in their already substantial income.