Home > Manufactured Housing Industry Commentary, Manufactured Housing Professionals, Regulatory, Uncategorized > A Much Better Way for FEMA, Taxpayers, Says Manufactured Home Industry Professional

A Much Better Way for FEMA, Taxpayers, Says Manufactured Home Industry Professional

September 17th, 2017

I expect that all manufacturers, while agreeing with The Stafford Act, believe there is a much better way. Respect for the taxpayer certainly does not appear considered with many government purchases. 

To serve those affected by disaster, we should, but most believe we can:

Save the taxpayer money with an adjusted set of requirements, to build MHU units via the HUD code but omit the sprinkler system requirement and many other overreaching requirements. The savings are significant.

ControversiesErruptFEMAPressesHUDCodeBuildersManufacturedHomeRetailersIndustryProsReactMHProNews

These comments were shared in response to the story linked above, click for details. Off the record comments are a time-honored tradition in media, which we respect. Naturally, MHProNews routinely seeks to discern how valid (or not) a claim may be, and strives to publish only those that meets that discernment process standards. 

Save the taxpayer money by eliminating the need for storage yards through the ability to build with inventory manufacturers know they can procure and build almost immediately. The units could go immediately to FEMAs set disaster location and be immediately deployed. The savings could be significant.

Save the taxpayer money by disallowing MHU units to be pulled wherever, whenever and back again. With the ability to expedite production, this unnecessary transportation can go away. The savings could be significant

Save the taxpayer money through a warranty provision that is not punitive for minor cosmetics. Who cares? What family would be ungrateful for an MHU unit with A few blemishes? The savings to FEMA, would be significant. Manufacturers would not have to hedge.

Save the taxpayer money by streamlining the inspection processes, the IPIAs that are trusted to inspect/approve our industry’s homes that are bought by hardworking Americans with lenders respecting the loans should be able to inspect Temporary housing units. The savings would be significant.

Establish a requirement for care by the residents occupying the unit to protect it, just like any landlord might do. Design the floor plans for resale where the loss for purchase to liquidation is not so excessive.

There is much, much more that could be considered.

It is not FEMA’s money. It is the taxpayers. I believe our industry believes in a better way!

Please keep me off the record. Thanks.” ##

DefiningSICinJournalismDailyBusinessNewsMHProNews-com

iReportManufacturedHomeHousingIndustryMHProNewsTipsLogoGraphic(Editor’s Note: the above is from a respected veteran of the manufactured housing industry known by this publisher.  It came in response to the report linked here. Due to the sensitive nature of his role, he has requested anonymity, which we routinely honor.  The typos are in the original, and we opted not to use the SIC graphic where they occurred. There will be a follow up report on the Daily Business News on a related issue Monday morning, Sept 17, at about 3:04 PM ET. Other reports will follow. )

Comments are closed.