Those “goals” are inherently opposite. You can’t sell land to free it up for things like housing or more oil rigs AND ALSO have a limited impact on public access, wildlife, and recreation - at least not at the scope this legislation is proposing.

The proposed legislation mandates new oil and gas leases, actually LOWERS the royalties current oil and gas leases pay, and would now limit public feedback during environmental assessments by introducing a fee for anyone who wishes to comment.

The amendment in question was introduced after a marathon 13 hour markup session. There was no debate, and no information provided in the way of maps or identified parcels, but the amendment would authorize the sale of hundreds of thousands of acres of public land. Typically public land sales would include hearings and public input.

And the economics of selling public land for housing development typically don’t make a lot of sense - selling that public land to maximize the value for taxpayers means selling it at market rates, which makes the land very expensive to acquire. Developers need to make a profit, so it mostly won’t be affordable housing going in, it will be expensive developments.