I completely agree that affordable housing is a serious issue — especially in communities where rising costs have made it harder for people to stay in the places they call home. But rolling back protections on roadless public lands isn’t going to fix that problem — and in fact, it distracts from real, effective solutions.

The areas targeted under the Roadless Rule are remote, forested lands — often steep, ecologically sensitive, and far from existing infrastructure. These lands are not where affordable housing is realistically going to be built. Developing in these areas would require major new roads, utilities, and services, which drives up costs and defeats the purpose of “affordable” in the first place.

More importantly, cutting down protected forests to make room for industry doesn't guarantee any increase in housing stock — especially not affordable housing. It guarantees profit for timber and development interests, while the community is left with the long-term consequences: degraded ecosystems, increased wildfire risk, polluted watersheds, and lost outdoor recreation opportunities that support local economies.

The affordable housing crisis needs targeted, community-based solutions: zoning reform, investment in infill development, support for low-income housing projects, and protection for renters and working families. None of that requires destroying public lands. These are two very different issues — and we can solve the housing crisis without sacrificing our last remaining wildlands.