There are only a handful of cities in the United States where federal trust land is meaningfully important - and they're all in the American West - Phoenix and

There are only a handful of cities in the United States where federal trust land is meaningfully important - and they're all in the American West - Phoenix and Albuquerque are the two that come to mind - both of those are limited by water, before land. I will note however, I'm somewhat sympathetic to states like Nevada, Arizona and Utah who would like some of the BLM land given over to state stewardship - but its a very regional issue, and fractious enough that its hard to get enough people nationally behind (people outside of these regions hear 'federal land' and think 'Yellowstone' when the reality is closer to a 640 acre square of semi-arid grassland, in a checkerboard pattern). Federal land holdings are statistically non-existent east of the Mississippi - and even east of the rockies, less relevant. I don't disagree that private equity gobbling up some sizable percentage of single family homes is a very bad thing - but it'll take some will by congress and the state legislatures to unwind. The one thing that should give people hope here, is while its not yet widely reflected in the political class, there is broad grassroots support for limiting concentration of land holding and other physical assets (think anti-trust). It's just gonna take some time for that consensus to filter up. The current intensity of energy being expended on the so-called 'culture wars' isn't helping speed this process along. (The 'culture wars' is probably the largest impediment to us working together to solve the fundamental economic issues present in the nation - the consensus of what to do is largely present - but until you can get people in the room to hash out the details, we're basically blocked from making progress.)