Posted on 03/20/2025 8:41:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Oh boy.
Is there going to be a shortage after getting rid of millions of illegals? I know we will never catch and deport that many, however, cutting benefits (gravy train) and the threat of not leaving with the possibility of receiving a permanent ban with no chance of citizenship in the US will make hundred of thousands self deport.
Soon with a crackdown on employers and no benefits illegals will find it hard to not return to country of origin.
There’s anecdotal evidence in many cities, that housing costs have gone up so drastically, because of a shortage of housing units compared to population.
I know from previous discussions, some Freepers have concerns about their children being able to afford a house.
Housing costs have escalated far faster in recent years, than incomes needed to pay the mortgage.
Even professionally employed people with a six figure income, have trouble affording even a modest home in many places in this country.
Can some proposals such as this help? Or would such housing simply devolve into Section 8 housing cesspool, where none of us would want to live?
There will be an absolute GLUT of “affordable housing” when 20 million illegals are deported.
Any federal land available in Hawaii?
No. Awful. Sorry.
Kick 40 million illegals out, and housing will be plenty cheap—while low-skilled jobs are fairly paid. The perfect combination.
RE: No. Awful. Sorry.
Please explain why.
Low-income ghettos on federal land are not needed.
As it is, they’re already sizing up selling a third of our land assets to pay off current debt—and then no doubt the rest of it for future debt.
Before you know it, they’ll be slipping in 2M Palestinians, too!
Slums. That’s all the government knows how to create.
ANOTHER PROSPECTIVE:
KICK OUT THE 60 MILLION +++++++ILLEGAL INTRUDERS & YOU FREE UP ALOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HOUSING.
Housing needs to be built where there are jobs, and needs to be built efficiently. This is best done by the free market, not a government agency. Shut down HUD as it is almost surely making the problem worse, not solving it.
A CLARIFICATION-—
IF THE FEDS OWN ALL THOSE LANDS-—HOW COME THEY DO NOT PAY THE STATE PROPERTY TAXES???
FEDS CONTROL ABOUT 87% of NEVADA
ABOUT 84% of UTAH.
I want one of those condos with a view of the Grand Canyon. Or Mt Rushmore. South Dakota here I come!
BLM owns far too much federal land. Much of this should have been transferred to the states many years ago.
The National Park Service, IMHO, doesn’t own enough, at least in the east. The modern parks movement began in the mid-19th century in response to growing urbanization. The National Park Service was part of that, but state and urban parks should not be overlooked. the first U.S. National Park was Yellowstone (1872). The desert and mountain west was still mostly empty, and it lent itself easily to the creation of the large western parks, usually regarded as the crown jewels of the park system except for those of us who like historical parks, which are mostly in the east and are much smaller.
If I were forced into a choice, I’d save Gettysburg and Antietam over Yellowstone and Yosemite. But that’s a choice I’d rather not have to make. We should save both. And we should expand park assets in the eastern half of the country, starting with the historical parks — especially given that the public schools are now defaulting so completely on teaching American history that if the kids don’t get an occasional field trip to Gettysburg, they won’t know what continent the American Civil War was fought on. The democrats’ successor generations will google on Gettysburg, see some old photos with seas of white faces, and likely think it must have happened somewhere in Europe. And I exaggerate only slightly. Many of them already don’t know in what century it was fought, or which side we were on.
Expand park assets in the east, especially to protect historic sites. Privatize chunks of BLM land in the west. Use a portion of the proceeds of BLM land sales to fund the park expansion in the east. And let’s not forget the deactivation of military posts. I tend to think that DOD should have kept the Presidio, but as it was, part of that property was carved off for parks, recreation and protection of historic sites, while the bulk of it was GIVEN to the State of California and/or the City of San Francisco so that the Cali dems could play kissy face politics with big developers. The Presidio would have been worth billions. Meanwhile, the NPS has to scratch for relative pennies to protect core battlefield land in Virginia, Tennessee or Georgia from developers. It’s insane — and in democrat administration, the NPS itself will be run by people who would rather spend money on solar powered outhouses in Yellowstone than on acquiring endangered core battlefield inholdings at Gettysburg or Antietam.
The other thing to note here is that using underutilized federal lands for affordable housing, if it is done at all, should be done with an eye towards better integrating residents of this newly created housing into better jobs and a path up in American society. That means finding available federal lands within or in close proximity to major metro areas. And the wakeup call will come when the locals discover that valued open space and parkland is being converted to low income housing estates. Nice park you had there, chump ... but we know you’ll come to like the new Cabrini Green and that you will welcome 10,000 third world immigrant kids who don’t speak English to your local school system.
I’d put 20 of those new Tesla micro-housing pods that Musk recently touted in Nancy Pelosi’s back yard before I’d sacrifice one square inch of public park space in a major metro area. On the east coast, started with gated compounds on Nantucket.
Alaska has the highest concentration of federal land ownership, where over 60% of all federally owned land is located, according to congressional data.
Certainly we should build these, there.
How close would these “affordable homes” be to major cities or towns - where jobs and services are?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.