Is Doug Burgum Set to Become Donald Trump’s Housing Czar?

In the latest edition of Rent Free, attention is directed towards the prospective housing policy consequences of the 2024 election, particularly in relation to Donald Trump’s anticipated agenda. One of the critical appointments is that of North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, nominated as Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI). This role positions him as a potential “housing czar,” leading a new National Energy Council and overseeing initiatives related to energy dominance and housing development. Trump’s vision includes leveraging federal land for new home construction, especially the concept of “freedom cities” that would emerge on federally owned territories. This direction aligns with the Republican platform’s proposal to open limited federal lands for housing, signaling a potential shift in federal housing policy that could address the ongoing housing crisis experienced across the nation.

The federal government’s ownership of land presents both opportunities and challenges. Currently, it controls a significant 28% of U.S. land, with a staggering 50% held in the West, many of which are already assigned for protective or military purposes. However, a substantial portion remains available for potential residential development. A 2022 report highlighted the potential for building new homes on vacant Bureau of Land Management (BLM) parcels, especially in rapidly growing urban areas affected by post-pandemic housing pressures. This could address a notable segment of the existing housing supply deficit, particularly in states experiencing acute shortages. Burgum’s approach could propel these dormantly held federal lands into the housing market, contributing to alleviating housing demand in nearby metropolitan areas.

Despite existing frameworks allowing the BLM to sell federal land for residential development, the process is marked by complexities and stringent criteria. Historically, Congress has limited BLM’s authority to sell lands, relegating its focus on retaining public ownership unless specific conditions concerning the land’s utility are met. As a result, only a fraction of the potential land has been sold over decades. The proposed HOUSES Act by Senator Mike Lee aims to simplify this, allowing local governments to purchase BLM land for housing under certain conditions. However, the act’s focus on prohibiting commercial development on sold lands raises concerns about creating viable community infrastructures, such as job centers, necessary for sustainable habitation.

The interplay of the HOUSES Act and Burgum’s zoning vision presents a potential conflict. Burgum advocates for mixed-use development over singular residential zones, prompting questions about the alignment of future residential development policies with overall community sustainability. The need for denser, walkable neighborhoods might clash with the initial premise of the HOUSES Act, which primarily enables exurban residential growth. Any legislative compromises will hinge on Burgum’s influence within the new administration, especially regarding future zoning laws that regulate residential developments emerging from BLM land sales.

On the flip side of the political spectrum, the Democratic Party must confront its own challenges following a significant 2024 electoral loss. As a reaction to shrinking congressional representation and electoral clout due to high housing costs, Democrats face internal pressures to confront the ramifications of their housing policies. Increasingly, voters are migrating to states with lower living costs, predominantly governed by Republicans, presenting an evolving landscape for political strategy. However, state-level housing governance complicates national actions, and a disconnect between the needs of state democracies and national party imperatives persists. Democrats seem slow to scrutinize the intricacies of housing regulations that might enhance their competitiveness in the long run.

In California, the recent ballot initiatives reflect ongoing tensions in housing policy. Proposition 34, which curtails funding for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF)—a significant contributor to rent control measures—highlights the contentious dynamic at play in the state’s housing politics. While voters rejected Proposition 33, aimed at restricting state controls on rent policies, the passage of Prop 34 signifies a local pushback against activist-driven housing initiatives perceived as detrimental to the market. This signifies only minor victories for proponents of rent stabilization, echoing broader sentiments regarding housing regulations amidst rising concerns over affordability.

In noteworthy regulatory shifts, Colorado stands out after passing new laws promoting accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to increase housing supply. The Denver City Council’s unanimous decision to permit ADUs aligns with progressive housing strategies aimed at maximizing residential capacities in established areas. The relaxed regulations signal broader movement towards addressing zoning challenges and facilitating diverse housing options within cities, which may become increasingly essential in an evolving electoral landscape that prioritizes affordability and sustainable growth. The effective implementation of such measures in Denver could serve as a prototype for other states grappling with their housing crises, indicating a potential shift in the policy narrative across the nation.