Public Land Housing Inventory and Feasibility Triage

Poor triage creates two costly errors: spending diligence on unusable land and overlooking small public sites that could support infill housing.

A city manager, housing department, land bank or transit-property team funds the work; GIS analysts and planners operate it, and development partners consume controlled site packs.

The cited sources establish the underlying policy or operational need; the product response remains a commercial hypothesis that should be tested with buyers and end users.

Replay the workflow on a representative parcel set, have planners blind-review the rankings and measure reconciliation time, false positives and sites advanced to formal diligence.

Public-record reconciliation, explainable screening history and accumulated disposition outcomes are more defensible than commodity parcel layers alone.

Turn fragmented public-land records into a governed shortlist of plausible housing sites, with visible constraints, confidence levels and a defensible next action for every parcel.

Proxy based — medium confidence.

$20,000-$75,000 per public body per year, scaled by parcel volume and data refresh frequency, plus $15,000-$60,000 for ownership reconciliation and initial constraint configuration. A bounded corridor pilot should be $15,000-$35,000.

Evidence basis: Esri - ArcGIS Online pricing (Linked pricing/rate page; no exact comparable price was extracted for this review) is the closest verified adjacent anchor used here. Its buyer, duration and scope are not assumed to be identical; implementation is separated where the opportunity requires integration, assurance or managed delivery.

Ask one council, housing provider, developer, asset owner or property adviser to fund a paid test of Public Land Housing Inventory and Feasibility Triage lasting 8–12 weeks, using an opening price of $15,000-$35,000 and covering 20 live properties, placements, applications or asset decisions. Paid scope: A parcel pipeline that unifies public ownership records, applies explainable housing constraints and produces ranked sites with missing-data and next-action lists. Charge by organisation, property portfolio, site or completed assessment and compare the fee with manual property screening, placement, inspection, reconciliation and external-adviser effort. Measure case or placement time, data completeness, rework, unsuitable outcomes, adviser hours and decision conversion. Continue only if handling time or rework falls by at least 25%, quality checks are passed and the buyer commits to the next portfolio period. Stop or reprice if the tool duplicates incumbent housing software, worsens a placement/decision or does not save enough effort to cover the fee.

Confidence should rise after a paid pilot demonstrates the stated measures, and fall if incumbent systems can absorb the workflow or authoritative data cannot be maintained.