Empty Lots to Housing Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 15, 2025
Bottom line
The bill repurposes underutilized federally-assisted land for affordable housing development, prioritizing low-income families near transit hubs.
What it actually does
This bill authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow state and local entities that received federal highway assistance to transfer real property, no longer needed for its original purpose, to other entities for the development of transit-oriented affordable housing. The transfers would come with no further obligation to the federal government, provided that at least 40% of the developed housing units are reserved for families earning 60% or less of the area median income (AMI), with a portion of those reserved for families at 30% AMI, for a period of 30 years.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides an innovative solution to the affordable housing crisis by leveraging existing, underutilized public assets. They contend it streamlines the process for developing housing in transit-rich areas, reducing development costs by providing land at no cost, and ensures a significant portion of these new units are dedicated to very low-income families, addressing a critical need.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that allowing the transfer of federally-assisted property 'with no further obligation to the Government' represents a significant giveaway of public assets, potentially foregoing revenue that could otherwise be generated by selling the land at fair market value. They may also raise concerns about the long-term enforcement of affordability requirements and the potential for abuse by third-party developers.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy to understand its core provisions.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 180(a) to Title 23, United States Code
Authorization for Transfer of Unneeded Real Property
This provision allows the Secretary of Transportation to authorize state or local entities that originally acquired real property with federal highway funds (under Chapter 1 of Title 23) to transfer that property to other entities if it is no longer needed for its initial transportation purpose. The transfer can be made to local government authorities, nonprofit organizations, or, under specific conditions, to third-party entities, specifically for the development of transit-oriented dwelling units. Crucially, these transfers would occur 'with no further obligation to the Government,' meaning the federal government would not seek repayment of the original assistance.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision efficiently repurposes public assets for public good, addressing housing shortages by providing a direct mechanism for land transfer without bureaucratic hurdles or repayment requirements that could impede affordable development.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that waiving 'further obligation' means the federal government is giving away valuable assets, potentially at the expense of taxpayers, and that a more market-based approach or a requirement for partial repayment could better serve federal fiscal interests.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the federal government's interest in recouping investments in surplus property against the societal benefit of creating affordable housing. It prioritizes the latter by removing financial obligations that could hinder development.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 180(b) to Title 23, United States Code
Affordability Requirements for Transferred Property
This provision mandates that any property transferred under this Act must be used to develop housing units with strict affordability requirements for a 30-year period. Specifically, at least 40% of the housing units must be reserved for families whose adjusted income is 60% or less of the area median income (AMI), with rent not exceeding 30% of their adjusted income. Furthermore, within that 40%, at least half (20% of total units) must be reserved for families whose income is 30% or less of the AMI. The definition of 'adjusted income' will be determined by the Secretary of Transportation in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
The phrase 'with no further obligation to the Government' means that the federal government waives its right to seek repayment of the federal funds originally used to acquire the property, even if the property is no longer used for its original purpose.
Section 2(a), new Section 180(a)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative technique to define the financial terms of a transfer or waiver, but its implications for federal asset management are significant.
Case for: Supporters argue this waiver is essential to make the land truly affordable for housing development, as requiring repayment would add a significant cost burden that could prevent projects from moving forward.
Case against: Critics might argue that this represents a direct federal subsidy to developers and local entities, as the government foregoes potential revenue from selling the land at market value or recouping its initial investment.
Estimated impact: This clause effectively turns the federal investment in the original land acquisition into a long-term subsidy for affordable housing, with the total impact depending on the value and quantity of transferred properties.
The bill allows transfer to a 'third-party entity' for development of transit-oriented dwelling units, but only if the Secretary determines that a local government or nonprofit is 'unable to receive the real property,' the overall benefit outweighs the government's interest in selling, and the third-party has a 'satisfactory history of construction or operating an affordable housing development.'
Section 2(a), new Section 180(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to provide flexibility while attempting to safeguard public interest, ensuring that private entities are only involved when public/non-profit options are exhausted and they have a proven track record.
Case for: Proponents argue this flexibility is crucial to ensure that valuable land doesn't sit idle if local governments or nonprofits lack the capacity or interest to develop it. It allows for broader participation while still prioritizing affordable housing outcomes.
Case against: Critics might express concern that this provision could open the door for private developers to acquire valuable public land at a reduced cost, potentially leading to less stringent oversight or a dilution of the public benefit compared to transfers to public or nonprofit entities.
Estimated impact: The impact depends on how frequently the 'unable to receive' condition is met and how many properties are transferred to private third-party entities, potentially increasing the scale of development but also increasing scrutiny on the selection process.