… about the USFA's (United States Fire Administration) "fact sheet" about "manufactured housing."

Stuff like this makes my blood boil and I had to respond thusly, please see below.

I will let you know if they respond to me.

Ken Haynes, Jr.

(Editor's note: Ken was very kind to share this with our readers. This is a copy of the information he sent to the USFA. Frankly, we need more actions like this by industry pros from coast to coast. If every time a government agency, private firm or media misstated facts about manufactured or modular homes, an Industry pro would speak out, we would over time have fewer such errors and over time we would sell more homes too. Let us hereby thank Ken and encourage you and others to do the same.)

Thank you for submitting the following to USFA.

Comment for:

Dear USFA,

I just read your flyer titled, "Live Safely in Your Manufactured Home, A Fact sheet on Manufactured Home Safety."

You should be ashamed of yourselves publishing such drivel without explaining the differences between "mobile homes" constructed prior to the implementation of the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act (HUD Code) developed and enforced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and "manufactured homes" constructed to the specifications of the HUD Code.

The information you have provided in the publication is inaccurate, misleading and slanderous. You have lumped together two completely different types of affordable housing. To make an analogy that you might understand, comparing it to the automotive industry, you are saying that the safety of a Ford Model A is in the same category as a 2011 Ford Fusion because they are both motor vehicles with four tires and a steering wheel.

The truth is that fire frequency and death rates of manufactured homes built to the HUD Code is comparable and even less than site built homes, yet your publication makes absolutely no reference to this fact.

You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, grouping all factory built housing in the same category.

Are you purposely trying to kill the manufactured housing business with false claims put forth in publications such as this? It seems to me that you are.

In my opinion, this is just another effort to foster the notion that manufactured homes should be forced to have fire sprinklers, but that site built homes should not be forced to have fire sprinklers, thus promoting an unfair and costly expense to manufactured housing, diminishing their popularity and giving an unfair advantage to site-built home builders.

This form should be withdrawn and corrected immediately, a retraction issued, and an apology issued to the manufactured housing industry.

Sincerely,

Ken Haynes Jr

401 Shatto Dr

Carlisle, PA 17013

717-258-3799

My position has been consistent over that same time frame that a merger of MHI and MHARR would not be a good idea for the industry. On a couple of occasions that position was incorrectly interpreted as criticism of MHI. My point instead has been that because of MHI’s role of being an overall industry trade (manufacturers, suppliers, communities, retailers and lenders) organization, taking a very aggressive role in the area of regulatory reform can be a difficult role to fill. On the other hand, MHARR makes no apologies for its repeated efforts to rein in a federal agency that is continuing to take positions and implement new regulations that will have significant cost impacts on our product with unsubstantiated benefits. As the chief executive of MHARR, Danny Ghorbani has been relentless in pursuing that mission. While he would like to be able to operate in concert with HUD, the federal agency that oversees our industry, he is not concerned about remaining pals with HUD if HUD is not functioning within the bounds of current statues.

Recently a proposal has been floated for communities to form their own organization to the point of eliminating MHI. A review of MHI’s current action list should provide a reasonably quick conclusion that one would have little confidence in the ability of a newly formed communities trade organization to accomplish even a fraction of the items on the list absent MHI. Communities (and retailers) should feel free to establish a separate trade organization if they desire to see more focus on the needs of their segment of the industry. That representation can be organized and still lend a voice to the overall trade organization as needed. As a retailer I certainly feel at times that MHI’s role is dominated by the interests of manufacturers. My solution, if so motivated, would be to establish a retail equivalent of MHARR. A retail trade organization that would then be focused on issues facing retailers. I believe that could be possible without establishing a goal of destroying MHI.

While I am not in favor of dismantling MHI, I will concede that I disagree strongly with MHI’s recent capitulation in regard to the preemption of fire sprinklers as they relate to the HUD Code and the activities and positions of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee. MHARR’s position was statutorily correct and should have been backed by MHI rather than be undermined. Over a period of twenty years or so of my relationship with MHI, this issue does not mark my first disagreement with them and I have certainly never called for their dissolution due to any of those disagreements. MHI has the capacity and the history to be a very effective voice for the industry. We should work within the organization to address those areas where we disagree.

Douglas Gorman

I am pleased that the Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee is having this field hearing today.  Manufactured housing plays a vital role in meeting the housing needs of the nation by providing quality, affordable homes to over 18 million people.  This $8 billion a year industry has long been a major economic driver in places like Elkhart County, Indiana by directly employing thousands in manufactured housing plants and thousands more in suppliers’ factories, not to mention contributing to the local municipal tax base. 

I appreciate the hard work the industry has done for communities across our country and particularly in areas like Northern Indiana, which I am proud to represent.  This industry knows all too well the pain felt by this economic crisis.  The last couple of years have not been easy, and the suppliers, manufacturers and dealers have been patient and worked hard to continue to make quality homes and keep hardworking Americans employed so they can provide for their families. 

As we work to emerge from this housing crisis, we realize that now, more than ever, it is important that people have access to quality homes that they can afford.  As millions of Americans are facing or on the brink of foreclosure, we must recognize the value and cost-effectiveness that these homes provide.  Manufactured housing should be considered a critical solution to helping us emerge from this housing crisis. 

Creating affordable homeownership is one of the fundamental building blocks of our society and plays a fundamental role in achieving the American Dream.  It helps to provide families with economic security and build strong communities.  I hope today is an opportunity to highlight this industry’s important contributions and identify how Congress can ensure it remains a thriving and successful job-creator in America and a source to meet our current and future housing needs. # #

Congressman Joe Donnelly

Media contact: 

Elizabeth Shappell

Communications Director

Congressman Joe Donnelly (IN-02)

1530 Longworth House Office Building

T: (202) 225-3915

F: (202) 225-6798

• Could MHARR member manufacturers have confidence in such a proposed restructure?
• Could retailers and others have confidence in a proposed restructure where they are not even mentioned?

We’ve been closely following your email discussion regarding the regulation of outside steps, including, particularly, the issue of federal versus state/local authority, questions concerning federal preemption and the possibility of approaching the MHCC with a proposal.

Unfortunately, this problem goes back to an issue raised by MHARR, some 8 years ago, when the federal installation standards (24 C.F.R. 3285) were first proposed by HUD and debated by the MHCC.  HUD has taken the position, based on an indefensible “interpretation” of the 2000 law, that installation is not part of “construction” and that only the Part 3280 construction and safety standards are preemptive – meaning that the Part 3285 installation standards are not preemptive.  MHARR (without help from others in the industry), vigorously opposed – and continues to oppose — this “re-codification” of installation, as is more fully explained in Fact Sheet No. 8 of the MHARR Fact Sheets regarding HUD’s failure to implement key 2000 law reforms that we sent to you on September 14, 2011.

The bottom line, for now, is that the Part 3285 installation standards, as construed by HUD, remain non-preemptive.  So, even if steps were part of the 3285 installation standards, or were made part of the installation standards, the federal step standard would still not be preemptive of state and/or local requirements.  Worse yet, because the MHCC only has statutory authority over “construction and safety” standards, HUD’s codification of the installation standards outside of the Part 3280 construction and safety standards, at a minimum, makes it doubtful whether the MHCC could even consider a proposal to amend the Part 3285 installation standards to include steps (and would create an endlessly muddled legal no-man’s land, if it did).

MHARR has been warning, ever since the installation standards were re-codified outside of Part 3280, that HUD’s baseless distinction between installation and construction would come back to haunt the industry and consumers in the form of inconsistent and needlessly costly state and local requirements.  And what you’re seeing here is likely just the tip of the iceberg, as we also noted that the full impact of all this would not begin to be felt until the federal installation program was fully implemented. Unfortunately, this is just one simple illustration from among the ten key reforms of the 2000 law (see your MHARR Fact Sheet packet), designed to complete the transformation of manufactured homes from the trailers of yesteryear to the modern legitimate housing of today, that HUD has refused to fully and properly implement – reforms that were designed to help the industry and its consumers that have been languishing at HUD for over ten years because of a lack of pressure from the entire industry.

Thanks,

Mark Weiss
Senior Vice President
Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)

cc: HUD Code Retailers and Communities

The industry faces the problem that the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) assessment of the composition of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) is reasonably accurate. Initially both the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and MHARR were allowed to have two of the seven industry seats. Today, HUD no longer allows that balanced and knowledgable representation.

Over the past several years we have seen other seats incorrectly given to government employees and other parties with anti-industry bias. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) and non-voting twenty-second seat on the MHCC (the political appointee) has not been reappointed for several years now. One of the purposes for the existence of that position is to provide some perspective to the HUD Manufactured Housing Program that is not held hostage by preconceived biases inside the HUD permanent staff.

The shift in committee composition has brought with it members who tend to vote their ideology without regard to cost implications. Evaluating cost implications of proposed changes is statutory and yet is ignored by HUD staff and the MHCC with no consequences.

MHI’s recent actions in regard to fire sprinklers is well intended and is an effort to at least establish controls in advance of what MHI perceives as potentially hugely damaging costs if a preemptory sprinkler system is not advanced by the industry. MHARR’s point that extremely valuable ground in the world of preemption is being surrendered is true and does not bode well for the industry on both fire sprinklers and other preemption issues as they arise.

The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA of 2000) actually gave more teeth to the preemptive language of the original 1974 act. HUD’s manufactured housing program management staff should be valiantly defending that preemptive language when other parties take actions that violate the most recent version of that language. My experience of nearly ten years of working with HUD management as an MHCC member has showed me that HUD will not undertake that defense.

In anticipation of a worst possible outcome scenario, MHI’s actions are an effort to head off potentially devastating costs of meeting fire sprinkler requirements with no parameters. MHARR’s position is the more legally accurate, but faces unknown consequences in the efforts that would be required to enforce the strictly legal position. While I am not privy to all the arguments for both cases, I do know that I hate to give up valuable ground.

Doug Gorman
HomeMart
Former MHCC member