As a government relations attorney, David Edelblute is on the front lines of one of the key battles currently taking place within the valley: federal control of land and how the private sector is getting access to it.
Edelblute works with various private companies and land developers in Southern Nevada in navigating the bureaucracy of obtaining government land. He’s also a trustee to the Henderson Chamber of Commerce Foundation.
The valley currently finds itself in the middle of a housing crisis and numerous reports from the private sector, both homebuilders and multifamily developers, say most of the land remaining for potential development is controlled by the Bureau of Land Management and the agency has no incentive to offload it in an expedited manner.
Edelblute said this is directly impacting the cost of housing and broke down how our unique federal control of land within the region is currently hurting the affordable housing market.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reached out to the Southern Nevada’s District Office of the Bureau of Land Management for comment but didn’t receive a response.
How is a lack of land to develop in the valley contributing to our housing affordability crisis right now?
The lack of land available for residential and multifamily development is the biggest contributing factor to lack of affordable housing. Housing prices are set by supply and demand, and housing affordability in Southern Nevada is primarily a supply side issue. The federal government controls nearly 90 percent of land in Clark County, and over half of available land for development is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
Clark County’s explosive growth was ongoing and predicted to increase when the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) was passed in 1998. However, bureaucratic red tape and purposeful slow-walking has turned a manageable issue into a crisis. Current estimates show that Southern Nevada should expect somewhere between 400,000 to 1 million new residents in the next decade, and we need to take bold steps to deal with the current issue and prevent a future issue with respect to housing.
What is SNPLMA and why isn’t it working like it was supposed to?
SNPLMA was created in 1998 to manage the sale of federal lands in Clark County and to use those sale proceeds to fund environmental projects in Nevada. The process was supposed to be a compromise between various stakeholders that considered the balance between addressing rapid growth projections against environmental and resource concerns.
Instead, it’s become a bottleneck marred by slow-moving governments at the local, state and federal levels who often have shifting and opposing priorities depending on who is in power. The result is obvious — we are now in a housing crisis in all facets that could have been avoided. It will take a concerted effort of the local county and city governments, state government and federal government to take immediate action to put a Band-Aid on the problem and provide a permanent solution to our continued growth.
What are some of the other issues going on at a local level with the BLM?
There are a few local issues with the BLM that could help speed up land sales. First, the local appraisal process is extremely slow and more expensive than the same process for private land. Second, the BLM passes appraisal costs to developers even though it holds over $1 billion in SNPLMA proceeds that are explicitly available to cover appraisal costs, making public purchases more expensive in a market where developers are already seeing tight margins. Many developers then pass those costs on to homebuyers or renters increasing the cost of living simply because the BLM holds onto money that could have alleviated the burden.
Third, when the BLM does release parcels, they are often less than ideal for the type of master-planned communities that will have the right mix of residential, commercial and mixed-use space needed for effective development. They are small, fragmented, or in areas that are better suited for in-fill projects that would barely make a dent in the housing crisis even if those projects are also sorely needed. Finally, local governments have not done enough to identify and request BLM parcels for an already-slow federal review and approval process.
Clearly the BLM can offload acres if it wants to. Is there an example of that?
Yes, when the political will is there from the local government and the federal government, projects move quickly. A strong example is the Heirloom at Pebble senior housing facility that was an in-fill project. Clark County submitted the nomination package in September 2022, the land was conveyed to Clark County in April 2023, and the Heirloom was opened in May 2025 reaching 90 percent capacity before the end of that summer. The nomination to conveyance process was seven months, and then Clark County followed up by quickly approving plans and permits for the development in a way that should be standard for the majority of projects.
Additional local issues likely led to the low 2025 land sales. In January 2025, the BLM selected a new Southern Nevada District Manager in charge of the SNPLMA process. Her tenure lasted two months, ending right before the March 2025 auction, creating a functional vacuum in a critical position. That position remains open under an acting district manager.
In 2025, 35 acres went up for public action but were not sold because bids did not reach the pre-determined fair market value. However, appraisals for raw land often rely on comps for land that have already completed significant entitlement work, creating a meaningful delta between the appraisal and the value of raw land.
In contrast, the BLM has identified over 8,000 acres for solar projects in Clark County in the past year and a half. So, it is hard to argue that BLM lacks capacity to move federal land intended for housing development quickly while simultaneously watching it move thousands of acres for specific projects. This indicates that part of the issue is not a capacity issue but rather a priority issue within the BLM.
Section 7(b) of the SNPLMA allows direct sales of federal land to state and local governments as a significantly reduced price compared to fair market value when purchased for affordable housing. This raises a real question about why unsold parcels are not being routed for affordable housing development by state and local governments especially where housing and rent prices are an acute concern compared to national averages.
Contact Patrick Blennerhassett at pblennerhassett@reviewjournal.com.
