Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Democrat’

Dueling Factions

September 2nd, 2014 No comments

In this time of industry crisis, many thoughts arise regarding strategy and direction, but there has been seemingly little effective action. A couple of old friends from my days in the industry, plus one new friend, Dr. David Funk, asked me to see if I could help things along by putting matters into historical perspective.

In my early days when the MH industry was breaking sales records every year (I’ve been retired for more than two decades), we were leaderless—in discord. No manufacturer originated more than ten percent of shipments. Those heady times ended with a crash—a major housing crisis.

Faced with ruin in the seventies, manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, community owners and the like pulled together behind a focused plan of action. It was a widely debated strategic decision to enhance industry credibility by accepting HUD supervision of a national building code for our product. There was plenty of dissent, but the plan had broad support. It was nominally led and presented by MHMA (the Mobile Home Manufacturer’s Association, the predecessor of MHI).

Wrong course? Maybe—we cannot know—but it attained consensus; we worked together and made it happen. A bit of a miracle, considering a long history of bickering and lack of leadership.

These days, we face a bigger challenge and yet … where’s today’s consensus? What’s the strategy? Where’s the leadership? You have a strategy, I have a strategy and yonder fellow behind the tree has a strategy, but what emerges is discord.

In my naïveté as I stepped back into this largely consolidated industry, I thought a leader would step forward, rally the troops behind a plan of action, and get on with developing our great potential. Strangely, that has not yet happened. As Rahm Emanuel said, and Tony quotes:

Never let a good crisis go to waste …

We’re wasting this crisis by fussing over “who’s right” instead of debating “what’s right.”

you-never-want-a-serious-crisis-to-go-to-waste-rahm-emanuel-president-obama's-chief-of-staff-image=wikicommons-(c)2014-lifestyle-factory-homes-mhpronews-com (1).png

Editor's Note: this is the MHProNews poster Bob Vasholtz is referencing,

the article and context it was used in is linked here.

“What’s right” is hard to say, but easier than finding broad agreement. No clear consensus seems to emerge from our diminished industry represented by multiple associations. None of them seems to have a handle on “what’s right,” though there seems a general agreement that the others are wrong and one organization (guess which) should lead the charge. It looks like we’ll not be singing Kumbaya real soon, so how about we start by tuning up Jim Krueger’s 1977 lyrics:

There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy
There’s only you and me and we just disagree

Nothing wrong with disagreement. There are many viable ways to tackle a problem and finding the best can be a stiff challenge, requiring many inputs—thoughtful discussion among all guys who are betting their companies on this industry’s future.

Underneath the rhetoric there is probably an industry consensus that no one has managed to dig out, articulate, and work into a viable strategy. There seems to be no vehicle for doing so. We’re all on the same side, and yet can’t seem to band together and work toward a mutually acceptable way forward. Wow.

It sorta reminds me of national politics. The Republican party caters to the radical right, Democrats the loosely left and the sensible consensus is leaderless.

Rick Rand has a great idea to pull the factions together, shake ’em in a sack, and see what emerges (my words, not his!). I’m on record in support of Rick’s idea, but suggest the challenge is … difficult. It has been my observation that industry progress tends to be incremental with breakthroughs few and far between. How and where, for example, might our scattered and somewhat contentious flock even gather so discussions can begin? How can we, this industry, get past internal politics and start the ball rolling? We’re a young and feisty bunch competing in a turgid housing market. Where, exactly, do we begin to get a handle on a viable and agreeable strategy?

Tony suggests in these pages, “Perhaps we need a few dozen retired guys—or those so financially comfortable—that they don’t fear speaking out publicly on touchy issues that matter to our industry.”

Well gee, I’m such a veteran, happily retired, having no skin in the game and representing no one. I’d be pleased to join with similar voices and see what we can conjure. Thomas Jefferson said:

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.

I’m an ol’ Kansas farm boy, have my grandpa’s anvil in the barn and can still swing a hammer. Let’s get on with it!

While Tony’s idea is terrific, I wonder if a gaggle of geezers of good intent can do much beyond early steps in the direction of uniting our industry voice toward a viable strategy? Without unity, the problems of a leaderless industry drag on and strategy does not emerge. Agreeing upon one viable association seems a good place to start such useful discussions while reducing internal conflict. Maybe that should be at the top of the agenda for such a senior-citizen forum?

In support of Tony’s and Rick’s ideas, and with incremental progress in mind, here’s another suggestion. Conduct a survey of all segments of the industry, trolling for consensus. Put forth a professionally-written survey, geared toward one question: Which single association or group should speak for our industry in dealing with the important questions we face today—and why (or why not)?

To still protests, the survey must be inclusive, fair and objective. Who can do that? Foremost has long been respected as a provider of solid industry data and could probably do it well. The results, if clear, would be hard to deny, leading toward consolidation. They might sponsor such research in lieu of their next MH survey. The results could be of historic importance.

As with Rick’s conclave and Tony’s summit of the aged, the outcome of such a survey should not be expected to result in a shiny new industry strategy. First we need positive steps for getting back on track—taking what Peter Drucker called results oriented action, toward our industry’s great potential—at minimum, enabling us to speak clearly to confused Washington bureaucrats.

One step at a time along our learning curve. It’s kinda dumb to be racing off in different directions when times are tough and we most need to pull together. ##

bob-vahsholtz-author-dueling-curves-battle-for-housing-posted-industry-voices-guest-blog-mhpronews-com-manufatured-housing-professional-news-75x75-Bob Vahsholtz is the author of DUELING CURVES The Battle for Housing Bob can be reached at kingmidgetswest@gmail.com. Web: www.kingmidgetswest.com.

(Editor's Note: All opinions expressed are those of the writer, and may or may not represent the views of this publication, editor or our sponsors. Other points of view are welcome. OpEds or Letters to the Editor on industry related issues may be sent to latonyk@gmail.com or tony@mhmsm.com, thank you.

As a point of fact, Bob Vahsholtz clearly agrees on some things, disagrees on others, with L. A. “Tony” Kovach's editorial perspectives. Alignment with Masthead view points is not required for publication! :-)

Our experience with Resident Owned Communities – no BS

January 15th, 2014 No comments

The “No BS about Resident Owned Communities” article that appears on this site brings to mind President George W. Bush’s comment while visiting Canada in 2004:

I would like to thank all you Canadians for your warm welcome at the airport. Especially those of you who waved (pause) with all five fingers.”

I get it. We have a successful business model that is reshaping resident ownership and that invites reactions from competitors.

I stand by our record of performance to prove we have a lot of five-finger waves and cheers in the marketplace for ROC USA® as we’ve closed:

  • 13 resident-owned community (ROC) purchases in 2013;
  • 12 in 2012; and,
  • 11 in 2011.

In fact, we have closed a ROC transaction every 37 days on average since we launched in 2008.

We got there by being 100-percent focused on making resident ownership effective and efficient and successful. The marketplace is the true judge.

One of the keys to our success is that we don’t have to chase capital to finance resident purchases. We have already raised all the financing the resident corporation needs — including funds for deposits and due diligence — in a U.S. Department of Treasury-certified Community Development Financial Institution.

We have current liquidity to finance $40 million of resident purchases today. No one else in resident ownership services has raised capital in advance the way we have. We did it so we could create a different transaction experience for buyers and sellers.

We’re not simply brokers who get paid at closing and walk away — we equip homeowners with the tools and training they need to successfully manage their communities. The fact is that we care about each community’s long-term performance and we know every democratic association needs leadership development and cost-effective shared services to be competitive. ROC USA has a national leadership institute for ROC leaders, a national marketing program for ROCs, and an online and in-person training system to help ROCs and ROC leaders succeed.

At ROC USA, we use the limited equity co-op for simple reasons: It is the most effective and efficient, the fairest and the most affordable model for homeowners. We stand by our work of the last 30 years with more than 140 ROCs that we took from tenants to owners.

Not one of those communities has failed.

That 30-year track record demonstrates the competency and capacity of ROC members and leaders with whom we work.

Every one of these ROCs is real ownership where each homeowner can purchase one low-cost membership interest in the corporation that owns and controls the MHC. There are no outside parties with an ownership interest in the co-op or the MHC, only the homeowners can be member owners.

ROC USA is a nonprofit and thus must serve low- and moderate-income communities, but that doesn’t limit us to small communities. Our largest completed transaction was a two-MHC portfolio transaction worth $23 million for nearly 500 home-sites in 2012. Further, and not surprisingly, every MHC we’ve worked in has sufficient numbers of low- and moderate-income — that’s not an issue.

We don’t apologize for being well-funded or widely publicized. Getting things done attracts interest and attention. Every closed transaction gets a press release and we send postcards to announce purchases. Often we’ll quote the community owner or the broker. Here are two recent ones:

The business model that ROC USA has developed is superb. It was a different transaction in that you usually have to jump through a litany of different hoops in regard to banks and bank regulations. But that simply wasn’t the case here. I would certainly do it again, and I will.”

Joel Erlitz, Broker,
First Commercial Property Corp.

 

“It’s no different than a sale to any third-party.”

Phil Johnson,
Seller in Minnesota

ROC USA does not practice public policy. In fact, we eliminated the part-time policy position at ROC USA in 201l.

We’re out earning our way in the marketplace — just like you.

That’s how we ROC ‘n’ roll. ##

paul-bradley-rocusa-president-posted-industry-voices-manufactured-housing-pro-news-com-.jpgPaul Bradley, President
ROC USA, LLC
pbradley@rocusa.org / 603-856-0709

(Editor's Note: this article comes as a response by the Paul Bradley to the Featured Article entitled No BS about Resident Owned Communities.

Other perspectives on this topic or any that impact manufactured housing are welcome. Please put OpEd, Letter to the Editor or Industry Voices in your subject line and send proposed article to – latonyk@gmail.com and/or iReportMHNewsTips@MHMSM.com – thank you.

As an additional reminder, we welcome tips on topics and local/regional/national/international news that impacts factory built housing. Readers like you can be and are a part of the story here! )

No God, Jerusalem or Manufactured Housing?

September 16th, 2012 14 comments

by Michael Barnabas

You don't have to be Jewish to feel deep concern about what took place at the Democratic National Convention (DNC). Responding to political pressure to put the word "God" back in their platform as well as to once again name Jerusalem as Israel's national capital, DNC delegates where asked to pass the motion by a 2/3 vote. The video I've asked to be posted below tells the tale. For those who question the commitment by Democrats to fair elections, please watch this CSPAN video and share it with others.

Once you've watched this objectively, everything else is spin and commentary.

Among the emails that come into me are from a White House 'group.' Some months back, there was an outreach by that White House group to the business community. The president, it was said, wants to help ease burdensome regulations, to make it easier on small businesses.

Excuse me?

How can we take such an election year outreach to small businesses seriously, by those who executed Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare?

Talk to an independent manufactured home builder. Ask them, with consumer complaints at new lows, why is HUD pushing more and more 'voluntary' – and other – regulations? Why don't we have the Duty to Serve implemented by the GSEs/FHFA?

The energy sector creates demand for factory-built housing, in places such as North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states. The current administration's policies, up until election year, were favoring gas prices of $8 to $9 a gallon for gas, as this video clip of testimony by Energy Secretary Steven Chu demonstrates.

While this next video clip has been pieced together, it reflects in President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden's own words, a path designed to foil coal fired energy production in the United States.

Without belaboring the point, some believe that anti-domestic energy policies such as these were a path to promote green energy by making conventional domestic energy sources harder to come by. Such policies directly harm domestic energy firms. But they indirectly harm our industry, which often provides housing for those workers, especially when they are in areas with high demand for housing.

We scarcely hear about enhanced pre-emption for HUD Code Homes these days. Why not? Wasn't it part of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000?

Community operators created some 10 billion worth of paper to finance manufactured homes in their land lease locations. This was a free enterprise solution designed to fill the gaps created when lenders who vaporized – such as Conseco – went good-bye. But SAFE, Dodd-Frank and a plethora of other laws and regulations have so squeezed this 'captive finance' free enterprise solution in MHCs, that now community owner/operators are turning to rental homes in their properties instead.

Rentals?

Rentals in once all owner occupied communities?! The entire business model of community operators is being changed by the Regulators and their political allies who passed and fund those regulations. Shame on us if we let the party of Regulation be rewarded.

I'm appalled that some still want to believe in "hope and change," when we are heading "forward" towards a new fiscal cliff and a new recession in 2013. Some commentators already believe we are already back in recession.

How could we move "forward" by following the advice of those who gladly took Fannie and Freddie's PAC money? Politicians such as Congressman Barney Frank and then Senator Barack Obama? ACORN, community organizer Barack Obama and the Clinton Administration worked together to force lenders to issue loans to those who were not credit qualified. No doubt there were Republicans who colluded. Shame on all involved.

But it is gutless by Republicans to let the Democrats dish it out and not respond to such fables, blaming Bush II for the mortgage/housing meltdown when Democrats had a firm hand in the cookie jar that caused that whole fiasco.

They should call it the mortgage/financial services industry's version of Russian roulette.

When government interferes so massively in the free market, of course there will be unintended consequences.

But to falsely blame supply side economics for the mortgage/housing collapse is a creative lie or brutal ignorance. Neither the option of lie or ignorance are worthy of credence or support.

We don't hear much in Manufactured housing circles about how the run-up to the mortgage meltdown harmed our Industry. But it did! Easy qualifying, liar loans and the like created a false opportunity for hundreds of thousands of conventional housing buyers. A percentage of those buyers were or normally would have been manufactured home owners. As some manufactured home lenders about those owners who walked away from their HUD Code homes to get conventional houses during the run up to the mortgage/housing bust.

That put pressure on MH lenders and the MH market in general. As MHs where being left behind, of course values dropped, just as they have more recently in conventional housing neighborhoods plagued by foreclosures.

So federal policy harmed our industry in the early 00s, as thousands of our home owners left what become over-leveraged HUDs for what turned out to be over-leveraged conventional houses.

You can thank those politicians who made that happen to us then and more recently.

But let's not thank them by rewarding them with our support or our votes. That is like rewarding the thief by putting him in charge of law enforcement.

When politicians plunder the public treasury to fund with borrowed and tax payer money programs contrary to the Constitution and the public interest, it is time to end such madness.

Research I've seen indicates that some 44-47% of voters will vote for President Obama no matter what he says or does. That means the rest of us who are capable of a critical analysis and independent thought better show up at the polls and cast ballots wisely.

While applauding columns like the one on Voter Fraud, I was frankly disappointed when MHProNews published an interview with Congressman Joe Donnelly. Donnelly may be a co-sponsor of HR 3849, but he also voted for HERA 2008, which gave us the SAFE Act. Donnelly voted for Dodd-Frank. So while I understand the desire for 'balance,' I question the timing or "political correctness" of publishing the Donnelly interview during campaign season.

What we need when the industry is already in the lifeboats and are looking at possible new waves looming on the horizon is enhanced clarity, not confusion.

When even Time Magazine, Newsweek and the New York Times Magazine are publishing stories and OpEds that call into question or openly attack the Obama Presidency, MH trade publications need to be coming out loud, clear and strongly in favor of less government, lower taxes/regulations, a sane pro-domestic energy program and more free enterprise leadership.

The first pair of drafts of this article I was asked to edit and tone down. So this is the toned down version. I was also told that the editor would add a disclaimer and an invitation for responses. So be it.

Back to the top. Sham votes matter. They speak volumes.

Election year political posturing, via asking independent business owners and executives how to reduce the burdens or regulations matters too. It is the age old trick of seduction at work. We are being divided and conquered.

We are watching borrowed money and our tax dollars being turned against us to destroy the greatest economic system and the most free society in world history.

9/11 and U.S. Embassies ablaze reminds us why Jerusalem and God matters to America, and why that Democratic sham of a platform vote matters.

Manufactured housing matters too. President Obama stood in Elkhart, IN – an area where so many manufactured housing plants and suppliers are – talking jobs. Are there connections between all that is being covered in this column? Yes. They are just different corners of the same bolt of American political cloth.

If we sweep the current left wing crop of Democrats and RINO Republicans aside in favor of more free market oriented leaders, manufactured housing can blossom and grow again. All we need is a level playing field.

Some speculate that Ben Bernanke may have decided on QE3 – de facto printing money – to boost stock prices short term to help Team Obama win re-election. Whatever his motivation, the credit down grade cited below reminds us that the Bernanke/FED/QE3 policy is misguided. It will harm the middle class and seniors. Economic history reminds us that you earn, not print, your way to success.

“Ratings firm Egan-Jones cut its credit rating on the U.S. government to "AA-"

from "AA," citing its opinion that quantitative easing from the

Federal Reserve would hurt the

U.S. economy and the country's credit quality.” – CNBC

If we have supply-side Republicans in charge of the House and Senate, but fail to sweep out Architect Obama – the leader of our changed and hopeless society – we have not done enough.

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”

― Theodore Roosevelt

26th President of the United States

For anyone who votes to re-elect the man who wants to move us 'forward' off the looming fiscal cliff, such a person could qualify as unpatriotic by Roosevelt's definition.

Don't let that happen. Half measures won't be enough. ##

(Editor's Note: All Industry Voices and other opinion columns, including the Masthead blog, et al, represent the views of those who write them. They do not necessarily represent the views of MHProNews.com or our sponsors. It has been our long standing policy to invite guest columns from people with opposing perspectives. You can send your own letter to the editor or OpEd column on a subject connected to factory built housing to the email address linked here, with Industry Voices in the subject line. Thank you.)

Post submitted by
Michael Barnabas

Putting the Qualified Mortgage Dilemma in Perspective

July 19th, 2012 4 comments

Ronnie Richards MHProNewsThe Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama on July 21, 2010. The Act implements financial reform sponsored by the Democratically controlled 111th United States Congress and the Obama administration. Passed as a response to the late-2000s recession, the Act is bringing the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the reform that followed the Great Depression. The biggest threat to the manufactured housing industry and the Texas Manufactured Housing Association is the impact the new more stringent regulations might have on loans under $50,000.

I did some research using sales data available on the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Manufactured Housing Division (TDHCA MH) web site and the Statistical Surveys data my company subscribes to and it confirmed my concerns. According to TDHCA MH data, single section homes comprised 60% of new home retail sales for the five months ending May 31, 2012.

When I ran a retail selling price analysis in Statistical Surveys for the three months ending March 31, 2012, the most recent period available, I found that 92% of all single sections sold at retail had a selling price of $55,000 or less and 7% of multi-sections fell into that bracket. There were 1097 new home single section sales with lender liens titled as personal property (chattel loans) during the first five months of 2012.

Assuming 93% fall below a $55,000 sales price which with a 10% down payment would mean a loan balance of $50,000 or less, 1020 single section homes and 71 multi-section homes would be affected by the new regulations. That is 27% of all new HUD Code sales and 52% of all personal property financed sales.

I don’t need to tell you how that could affect our industry.

Just the manufacturer dues revenue which accounts for approximately 75% of TMHA revenue would decline by 27%. There are sixteen active HUD Code plants in Texas and if you assume a workforce of 150 at each of these plants a reduction in production could result in 648 Texans losing their jobs and that doesn’t even take into consideration the 55 active licensed out of state plants.

Texas currently has 747 active Retailer license holders and 1002 active licensed Retail Sales license holders. Based on a 27% reduction in sales due to the impact of the new regulation, we could see a reduction by 202 retail outlets and 271 retail sales licensees respectively. In total not even counting lenders, contractors, suppliers and so forth we might face a loss of 1120 jobs in our core member group.

The other impact which is difficult to measure is the new regulations could add significant barriers to affordable home ownership with no alternative housing options. There could be a an annual reduction in new HUD Code manufactured housing sales in Texas of 2650 units based on the current run rate if loans of $50,000 and less are highly regulated. Current manufactured home owners wishing to sell their home will find it very difficult to get financing for their buyers under the new regulations.

We can’t let this happen. MHI, TMHA and other interested parties are taking steps to educate those writing the regulations at the federal level about our industry and its unique financing model. The outcome is not guaranteed but at least we are attempting to influence the rule writing and not just sitting on the sidelines.

If you want to learn more about this and a broad range of other industry topics you should consider attending the Annual Convention of the Texas Manufactured Housing Association in Houston August 20th and 21st. You can learn more about all the business building and informational seminars linked at this site. It’s easy to register online at TexasMHA.com or call the TMHA office at 512-459-1221. All are welcome. ##

Ronnie Richards MHProNewsRonnie Richards is the Chairman of the Texas Manufactured Housing Association and Vice President of Marketing for American Homestar Corporation headquartered in League City, Texas.

When Eminent Domain Becomes Eminent Injustice

July 18th, 2012 2 comments

Jefferson Lilly MHProNewsSeizing private property through eminent domain for the gain of private individuals is clearly unconstitutional, yet given a recent Supreme Court decision and the newly-announced plans of a venture capital firm, you may one day have your property seized by a politically well-connected investor.

Let’s be clear, by 'unconstitutional' I mean what the Constitution actually says, not, unfortunately, what the current Supreme Court says it says. Today’s Supreme Court is running 5-4 against the constitution. I won't get into Obamacare. For those of you not familiar with it, consider reading up on the Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Please also consider reading up on last week’s announced plans by Mortgage Resolution Partners, a venture capital firm, to seize home mortgages through eminent domain.

http://realestate.msn.com/can-your-city-seize-your-mortgage?_p=16ff831b-8667-4491-80e7-c9b0250d12ed

Quick details on Kelo: The City of New London, CT seized a single mother's home (along with others) through eminent domain and sold them to a developer to build Pfizer's new corporate headquarters. The private property would not become part of an airport, bridge, dam, or other public *use* as the Fifth Amendment's eminent domain clause requires. The private property would become part of a for-profit corporation's investment portfolio.

The Supreme Court deemed this seizure to be a constitutional use of eminent domain because it agreed with the government's (the City of New London's) argument against the people that expanding government's revenues (higher taxes on improved land) was in the public interest.

The Fifth Amendment states the seized property must be put into public *use.* It does not say something vague, like the seizure must be in the public 'interest' regardless of what is done with the land, and it certainly does not say that enabling government to grow larger is necessarily in the public interest, nor that it is constitutional for one private citizen to use eminent domain vs. another citizen. Yet this is how the Court interpreted the Fifth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Given the unconstitutional tendencies of the Supreme Court, and given the disparity in lobbying power and financial resources of a well-connected real estate developer backed by a Fortune 500 Corporation vs. that of a single mom, it is perhaps not surprising how this decision turned out.

The Supreme Court has opened the door to ending private property rights in America. Anyone more politically connected than you can seize your home. The implications haven't 'trickled down' into society yet, but Mortgage Resolution Partners' bold and unconstitutional plan to ‘partner’ with government to seize mortgages for their own profit is a first step toward a plutocracy in which only the politically well-connected will own property.

Not surprisingly, Mortgage Resolution Partners' Chairman, Steven Gluckstern, is a well-heeled and well-connected fundraising bundler for the Democrats. But make no mistake, there is nothing to limit abuse of eminent domain to the Democrats.

Ms. Kelo’s property was a traditional site-built home. As such, it was a significant improvement to the land upon which it was built, and increased the City’s tax revenues. If such already-improved land was not generating enough money to satisfy the well-meaning bureaucrats of New London, CT, think now of how government will view mobile home parks. Most mobile homes are not permanently attached to land. As such, they are not considered improvements, and the underlying land is taxed as unimproved property. Perhaps some other well-meaning, politically-connected financier is hatching a plan right now to help government help themselves to your mobile home park next.

Final ironic note: Ms. Kelo's home and land were seized and sold to the developer. The home itself was moved with private funds to a nearby location to serve as a memorial to the injustice of the Supreme Court’s decision. The CT developer was ultimately unable to secure financing, and went broke. The land Ms. Kelo’s home once sat upon is now abandoned and unimproved. It generates less tax revenues for government than it did prior to government getting their hands on it.

My plea: Vote for pro-Constitution candidates. ##

Jefferson Lilly MHProNews IndustryvoicesJefferson Lilly is a private investor, manufactured home community (MHC) owner and MHC consultant. www.lillyandcompany.net That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)

MHI PAC and the Upcoming Midterm Elections

October 26th, 2010 2 comments

Industry in Focus Reporter Eric MillerWASHINGTON, DC – Indiana representative Joe Donnelly is the top recipient of contributions from the Manufactured Housing Institute Political Action Committee (MHI PAC). According to OpenSecrets.org, Donnelly received a $6,000 contribution during the 2010 election cycle.

As of October 13, 2010, receipts totaled $101,019.00 with $79,590.00 cash on hand. Total spent amounts to $118,584.00. Sixty-five percent of contributions were made to Democrats and 32 percent went to Republicans, with specific Republicans receiving some of the largest contributions.

Donnelly and several key members of the Manufactured Housing Congressional Caucasus are facing tight races. The biggest recipients in House of Representatives races include Barney Frank (D-MA) with $3,000 and Bill Posey (R-FL) also with $3,000 and Baron Hill (D-IN) $2,000. In the Senate races, top recipients include Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) with $4,000 and Richard Shelby (R-AL) with $3,500.

House
Total to Democrats: $31,750
Total to Republicans: $15,500
Recipient Total
Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL) $1,000
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) $1,000
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) $2,000
Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $2,000
Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL) $1,000
Calvert, Ken (R-CA) $1,000
Camp, Dave (R-MI) $2,000
Chandler, Ben (D-KY) $1,000
Childers, Travis W (D-MS) $2,000
Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $1,000
Davis, Geoff (R-KY) $2,000
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $6,000
Driehaus, Steve (D-OH) $2,000
Duncan, John J (Jimmy) Jr (R-TN) $2,000
Etheridge, Bob (D-NC) $1,000
Frank, Barney (D-MA) $3,000
Hill, Baron (D-IN) $2,000
Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $2,500
Matsui, Doris O (D-CA) $1,000
McHenry, Patrick (R-NC) $1,000
Miller, Brad (D-NC) $1,000
Olver, John W (D-MA) $1,000
Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) $250
Posey, Bill (R-FL) $3,000
Scott, David (D-GA) $2,000
Souder, Mark E (R-IN) $1,000
Tanner, John (D-TN) $1,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $1,000
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH) $250
Tonko, Paul (D-NY) $250
Senate
Total to Democrats: $12,000
Total to Republicans: $6,500
Recipient Total
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,000
Corker, Bob (R-TN) $1,000
DeMint, James W (R-SC) $1,000
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $1,000
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) $4,000
Murkowski, Lisa (I-AK) $2,000
Nelson, Bill (D-FL) $2,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $1,000
Reed, Jack (D-RI) $1,000
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $2,000
Shelby, Richard C (R-AL) $3,500
Wicker, Roger (R-MS) $1,000

Based on data released by the FEC on October 25, 2010.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

In terms of voting records on industry related issues and the S.A.F.E. Act, as well as Title 1 reform and Duty to Serve, were all contained in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). In the Senate, Reid, Shelby and Lincoln all voted for the Act. Then-Senator Obama did not vote. In the House, Donnelly, Hill and Frank all voted for the bill. Posey was serving in the Florida State Senate at the time. Would-be Speaker of the House John Boehner voted against HERA.

The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has also provided contributions to these candidates. As of October 13, Donnelly received $1,000 from the NAHB PAC. Frank received $5,000 from NAHB, as did Posey. Hill is not listed as having received a contribution from NAHB. In the Senate races, NAHB gave $2,500 to Lincoln and $5,000 to Shelby. In contrast to MHI PAC’s contributions, the NAHB gave 39 percent to Democrats and 60 percent to Republicans. The total spent by the Homebuilders in the 2010 cycle is $3,012,057.

MHI-PAC contributions chart
Chart created by MHMSM.com’s Industry in Focus Reporter Eric Miller from information available on opensecrets.org

Contributions by the National Association of Realtors far exceed that of either the NAHB or MHI. As of October 13, the Realtors gave 58 percent to Democrats and 41 percent to Republicans. Donnelly received $6,000 from the Realtors, Frank received $6,000, Hill received $6,000 and Posey was handed $5,000. In the Senate races, Lincoln received $14,000 and Shelby $3,000. Total expenditures for Realtors in the 2010 cycle are $11,218,449.00.

Democrats currently hold a 256-178 majority in the House of Representatives, with one vacancy. The battle for control of the House focuses primarily on 64 competitive races–58 Democratic-held seats and 6 Republican-held seats including 9 members of the Manufactured Housing Caucus.

According to MHI, two races that are particularly important to the manufactured housing industry are those including Congressman Baron Hill (D-IN) and Congressman Joe Donnelly (D-IN). Beyond financial contributions, MHI says it will be working with members in these key districts to get-out-the-vote for their candidates.

According to their report to members at their Denver meeting in September, MHI believes as do many political analysts that a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives is possible. If so, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is in line to become Speaker of the House. A GOP majority would mean major changes as a number of senior Democrats chairing committees important to manufactured housing would face demotions to lesser roles including Housing Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), a staunch supporter of manufactured housing.

The current Senate line-up is 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans and 2 Independents. The Republicans must win 10 seats to recapture the Senate. The odds favor continued Democratic control, but a significant surge by Republican candidates could lift the Republicans into striking distance of gaining control of the Senate.

More information on the MHI PAC is available at http://www.manufacturedhousing.org ##