Bill Overview
Title: HOUSES Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the sale of certain federal land to states and units of local government for projects to provide housing. Specifically, the bill authorizes a state or unit of local government to nominate, for consideration for conveyance by the Department of the Interior, one or more tracts of public lands within the boundary of the state or unit of local government to carry out an eligible project to provide housing. Interior may not offer to convey to a unit of local government such a tract until it receives from the governor of the state approval for the conveyance. Interior may not convey to a state or unit of local government such a tract until the state or unit of local government has in effect any ordinances, statutes, or regulations that are necessary to ensure compliance with the project proposal.
Sponsors: Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Target Audience
Population: people needing affordable housing globally
Estimated Size: 35000000
- The bill is aimed at making underutilized federal lands available for housing projects, which suggests it targets areas with significant public land holdings.
- The availability of affordable housing is a significant issue across the United States, affecting both urban and rural areas.
- Public housing initiatives are typically designed to benefit low-income individuals who struggle with housing affordability.
- According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there were approximately 11 million renters in the U.S. spending more than 50% of their income on housing in 2021.
- If states and local governments utilize this provision effectively, it can potentially provide homes to a significant portion of this population, especially in areas with large amounts of public lands, such as the western U.S.
Reasoning
- A focus on people living in areas with available federal land is key to estimating beneficiaries, especially in Western states.
- Not everyone in need of affordable housing will be impacted due to budget restrictions and implementation lag, thus accurate selection is critical.
- Impact can vary greatly from medium to high for those benefiting from newly developed housing versus those who are ineligible due to strict requirements.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a step in the right direction. It could finally help me get my own place with my kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Cheyenne, WY)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a lot of open land but I'm not sure how fast this can happen. Affordable housing would help families like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelance Artist (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard to believe this will affect me here as much land is landscaped already.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Boise, ID)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any increase in the availability of housing could potentially lower rental costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired (Reno, NV)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I live near a lot of unused land; this could help people like me find better, affordable options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could speed up my process of finding a home now that I am single again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Portland, OR)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this will affect me directly, but it's good for community growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Hospitality Worker (Elko, NV)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Affordable housing is crucial around here; there is too much empty land.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Fisherman (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There could be potential here, but I'll believe it when I see real progress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tech Support (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- San Francisco desperately needs more affordable housing but land is scarce here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- Long-term costs primarily involve opportunity costs of federal lands.
- Revenue generation depends heavily on state and local governments' efficiency in utilizing land and developing housing projects.
- Local economic boosts and improved housing markets can carry secondary fiscal benefits to federal and state governments.
- It is essential to consider potential environmental impacts and public resistance to land conveyance.