Empty Lots to Housing Act
HB3459, the “Empty Lots to Housing Act,” would amend title 23 of the U.S. Code to let the Secretary of Transportation authorize the transfer of federally assisted real property that is no longer needed for its original transportation purpose. The bill applies to property acquired at least in part with assistance under chapter 1 of title 23 and allows the property to be transferred, without further federal obligation, for the development of transit-oriented dwelling units.
The bill prioritizes transfers to local governmental authorities or nonprofit organizations, but it also allows transfer to a third-party entity if the Secretary determines that local or nonprofit recipients cannot receive the property, that the public benefit outweighs the government’s interest in selling the land, and that the third party has a satisfactory history of building or operating affordable housing. Any approved transfer must be tied to a 30-year affordability requirement: at least 40 percent of units must be reserved for households at or below 60 percent of area median income, and within that set-aside, at least 20 percent must be reserved for households at or below 30 percent of area median income.
In practical terms, the bill would create a new federal pathway for repurposing surplus or underused transportation-related land into housing, especially near transit. It would add a new section to chapter 1 of title 23 and update the chapter’s table of contents, affecting how recipients of federal transportation assistance can dispose of property that is no longer needed.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee debate, so there is no documented floor or hearing sentiment to assess. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at expanding affordable housing supply and encouraging transit-oriented development, suggesting generally pro-housing and pro-transit policy goals.
Because there is no discussion transcript, the main potential points of contention are inferred from the bill’s structure: whether the federal government should permit transfer of publicly assisted land rather than require sale at fair market value, how the Secretary should weigh public benefit versus revenue, and whether the affordability and income-targeting requirements are sufficient or too restrictive. Another possible issue is the discretion given to the Secretary to approve third-party transfers and determine whether local or nonprofit entities are unavailable.
The bill would amend title 23 of the U.S. Code by adding a new section authorizing the transfer of real property acquired with federal transportation assistance when it is no longer needed for its original purpose. It would give the Secretary of Transportation authority to approve transfers to local governments, nonprofits, or, in limited circumstances, third-party entities, and would impose long-term affordability covenants on housing developed on the transferred land. This would affect recipients of federal highway and related transportation funds, as well as local housing developers and public agencies seeking to reuse surplus transportation property for transit-oriented affordable housing.
No committee transcript or vote history is available, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. The bill’s framing and title indicate a favorable posture toward affordable housing and transit-oriented development, and the text suggests a policy consensus around converting unused public land into housing. At the same time, the absence of recorded discussion means there is no evidence of formal support or opposition beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
No explicit points of contention are documented in the provided materials, but the bill’s likely pressure points are identifiable from its language. Potential concerns include the loss of potential sale proceeds when property is transferred instead of sold, the breadth of the Secretary’s discretion in deciding when a transfer is justified, and whether the affordability requirements—40 percent at or below 60 percent of area median income, with a subset at or below 30 percent—are workable for developers. Stakeholders most likely to focus on these issues would be transportation agencies, local governments, affordable housing nonprofits, and private developers interested in receiving surplus land.