Affordable housing another Trump ruse

OPINION – There’s been news coverage lately about potential large-scale selloffs of national public lands (in other words, lands managed by the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)). Some of that news has been about Congress proposing selloffs, especially near cities and national parks, to help pay for trillions of dollars in tax cuts. We’ve also seen news that relates to a recent comment from Jon Raby, acting Director of the BLM, to Bloomberg News, stating that they’re considering selloffs of national public lands within 10 miles of any city or town with a population of 5,000 or more to build “affordable” housing.

We believe that the Trump administration is using affordable housing to confuse and distract us from what they and Congress are proposing to do: selling off large swaths of our national public lands, thereby taking away our freedom to access the places we love to visit and recreate on.  Those disposal, or selloff, plans could very well include our beloved camping spots, favorite off-roading places, cherished camping spots, special fishing holes, places where we go to “get away from it all,” and so much more.

While there is no doubt that California has an affordable housing crisis, we don’t believe that large-scale public lands selloffs are the answer. The vast majority of public lands are unsuitable for housing development because of factors such as remote locations, lack of access, and the absence of necessary infrastructure.

In addition, BLM already has the authority to sell or swap small parcels of public lands when it serves the public interest. This process is typically carried out in collaboration with local cities, ensuring that the land transfer aligns with community needs and local land use plans. Large-scale selloffs of national public lands for any purpose, including to pay for tax cuts or under the guise of providing affordable housing, are entirely different.

National public lands make up almost 45 percent of California, so there are many places that are at risk of being included in large-scale selloffs, including: the Sacramento River Bend near Sacramento, the Merced National Wildlife Refuge near Merced, Cow Mountain near Ukiah, the El Paso Mountains near Ridgecrest, Sawtooth Campground near Lucerne Valley, and the Joshua Tree National Park “saddle” (the historic Old Dale Mining District) near Twentynine Palms and Joshua Tree National Park.

The fact that BLM is targeting places near cities means that they are also targeting places that are close to residents who value those lands, whether for a quick outdoor hike or ride after a long day at work or a Saturday afternoon picnic with the family.

Every single acre of the 104 million acres of national public lands in California is important to someone. For that reason, we felt the need to voice our opposition to these proposals. If the Trump administration or Congress does proceed with any selloff proposals, those need to involve a public process. Notice needs to be provided to local communities and other potentially affected stakeholders that fully describes what is being proposed and gives an opportunity for the public to provide comments on that proposal. In addition to opportunities for public participation in these types of processes, they also need to be transparent and include a detailed explanation of the basis for any decisions. We don’t want to see backroom deals made through GIS non-ground-truthed mapping exercises or by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

National public lands belong to everybody and they should remain that way. They should not be sold off to corporate executives and corporations that see these places as nothing more than a means to increase their wealth. They mean much more than that to millions of Californians.

Don Amador is the Former Chair, CA State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission. Linda Castro is Assistant Policy Director for CalWild (California conservation nonprofit).