George W. McCarthy is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
The Trump administration’s Joint Task Force on Federal Land for Housing is setting out to tackle a real issue in a promising way: America is in a housing crisis, and public lands are a viable path for narrowing the gap between housing supply and demand.
With millions of acres under government ownership, the potential is significant — but so is the responsibility to use that land wisely. To get the greatest return on public assets, the task force needs to focus on land that’s not only buildable but also well-positioned to support housing — land near jobs, infrastructure, and schools where demand is high and development can move quickly.
Through a mapping initiative called Who Owns America, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s Center for Geospatial Solutions has used a data-driven approach to examine development potential on federal, state, and local land.
This level of precision has made it clear where the government should focus its attention to have the most impact. While the sheer amount of public acreage that appears to be at its disposal overall is impressive and exciting (including not just national parks or remote open spaces but also underutilized land in cities and towns across America), taking a thoughtful approach to identifying optimal locations for development is crucial.
Advertisement
The mapping initiative shows there are more than 276,000 acres of government-owned land in transit-accessible, urban areas with existing infrastructure — places often closer to jobs and schools — that if built upon could add more than 6.9 million homes to our current housing stock.
Advertisement
While federal land certainly represents a piece of the pie — approximately 5,200 across the country— the even bigger opportunity lies with state and local governments, which hold most of the prime public real estate. For every acre of developable federal land, there are more than 52 acres controlled by state and local governments.
Massachusetts has the greatest opportunity — 25,775 total acres that could support up to 644,364 housing units.
Given the plethora of developable public land on a local scale, it’s imperative that governments prioritize unlocking these parcels — particularly where housing demand is highest and where the land is most suitable for affordable housing.
Technology can identify these sites, but support and momentum on the local level are needed. Policymakers can use geospatial insights to shape housing strategies that are more targeted and effective than what a broad federal policy could achieve.
There are many steps — removing exclusionary zoning practices to allow for more manufactured housing stock, reducing parking minimums, and providing technical assistance to support zoning reform — that can be taken to translate land availability into actual housing.
State and local leaders are already beginning to take action. Governor Maura Healey recently released Massachusetts’ first comprehensive statewide housing plan, which includes as a goal the identification of underutilized land to support the development of 9,900 homes on state-owned land over a five-year period. This is the kind of momentum the federal effort could build on and accelerate.
Advertisement
At the same time, not all public land should be developed. Some sites provide vital environmental benefits — supporting biodiversity, preserving natural resources, and sustaining local economies. Moreover, a site’s exposure to water risk — flooding, scarcity, or contamination — is an increasingly central question in whether land can or should be used for housing. State and local policymakers are essential in navigating these risks and tradeoffs.
The Trump administration’s focus on federal lands within 10 miles of existing cities and towns with a population greater than 5,000 is a step in the right direction, but additional criteria are necessary. The administration should be looking at parcels near jobs, transit, infrastructure, schools, and services — while also accounting for land and water constraints that affect both livability and conservation.
There are opportunities to better utilize public land. Taking an evidence-based approach will help ensure the right land is developed — at the right speed and scale, in the right places — to meaningfully expand the nation’s housing supply.