First of all, you have to identify parcels of land that are appropriate for housing. If you're dealing with areas protected for agricultural or environmental reasons, that is, in my view, a complete answer to the question. You should not use those lands for housing developments.
When it comes to the other elements, you want to look at guardrails being put in place to ensure you're getting a good return on affordability, because the purpose of putting federal lands on the table is to reduce input costs. It's not just to build more homes but also to offer them at a better price. I believe we should insist that a significant portion of the homes be affordable.
However, on the flip side of the coin, I want to be careful and try to build affordability from inclusionary zoning. We talk about ending exclusionary zoning an awful lot. I believe more neighbourhoods should include a mix of affordable housing and market-based housing. I'm not a purist in the sense that every single housing unit has to be owned by a non-profit just because it was once public land. A significant portion of it should be, but I also want the people living in the housing designed for low-income families to feel part of a neighbourhood, not segregated from people who live in market housing in the same building or the neighbouring building.
It's a bit of an art, but I think you have to put guardrails in place to insist that a minimum level of affordability is achieved. When I say “affordability” on public lands, I'm talking about affordability for low-income families, not just homes at and below market.