Posts Tagged ‘home ownership’

Favorable Juncture of Circumstances – CMHI Viewpoint

November 12th, 2014 No comments

(Editor's Note: The facts industry veteran and CMHI President Jess Maxcy below are written using California statistics, but the same points he's made could be applied to other markets – does that mean yours too? Look at this thinking, and think about how this can apply for your market and state.)

My dictionary defines opportunity as “a favorable juncture of circumstances/a good chance for advancement or progress.”

“Favorable Juncture of Circumstances” A case can easily be made that we have arrived at a juncture of favorable circumstances that could lead to significant gains in home ownership opportunities for California families and increased market share for manufactured housing. Consider the following:

Median Home Price/Affordability

• The median home price in August was as its highest point ($480,280) since 2007. The median price has increased year over year for the past 30 consecutive months.*

• From the first quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2014 the annual required income to purchase the median priced home with a qualified mortgage increased 66% to $93,590* • Consequently, the monthly payment on the median priced home increased from $1,410 to $2,340… A payment only 23% of California families can afford!

Qualified Buyers

• The share of equity home sales in California increased to 91% in August and has accounted for more than 80% of total sales for more than twelve months.*

• This favorable circumstance has increased the number of potential cash and/or financeable buyers,

many of whom are looking to down size and are excellent prospects for high value manufactured home


• Additionally, the rising median home price has significantly reduced the home ownership opportunities for California’s middle income families for whom midrange and higher end

(developer series) manufactured homes are an excellent answer to their housing needs. While priced

out of the site-built market many have already saved enough for the down payment on a high value

manufactured home. But…it is highly unlikely that middle income buyers will be attracted to model displays and financing and advertising programs that violate their perception of the home buying process. The industry, which encompasses retailers, manufacturers and lenders, all working together, needs to develop a distribution system and financing programs that take advantage of the design advances that have made manufactured homes an acceptable housing option to a wider market.

A Good Chance For Advancement or Progress”

To have a good chance for progress we must have affirmative answers to the following:

1) Do we have an adequate retail distribution network?

2) Are manufactured home sales centers:

• Consumer oriented?

• Sufficiently stocked with fresh homes to promptly respond to the housing expectations of new consumers as well as our traditional market?

• Arranged to display homes in their best light?

Retail Distribution

To be able to take advantage of these favorable circumstances, to really have a good chance for advancement or progress and increased market share, we must improve our retail distribution

network. Consider the following:

• As of July 2014, our approximate retail inventory was only 761 new homes.

• Of those approximately 193 (25%) were very aged.

• Through August 2014, only 194 California retailers have registered at least one new home sale. Of those 51% have registered only two new homes sales in eight months.

Simply put, there are too few retail sales centers and/or home displays with sufficient fresh inventory to attract new consumers. Especially those who have rejected or not considered manufactured housing in the past. This is especially true for shoppers seeking new rather than resale homes.

Companies that have invested in displaying new homes and properly managing their inventory tend to

outperform all other retailers in their market.

• While there is no single solution to improving the distribution systems, some of the alternatives are:

• More environmental boulevard sales centers.

• Enhanced factory model displays.

• Regional environmental model displays, and

• Model displays /sales centers in new

and existing manufactured housing communities.


The first steps toward ensuring a “good chance for progress” and for increasing market share must be a joint commitment to improve our distribution system. This is not a task that can be taken on by only one segment of the industry. Manufacturers and their retailers, working together, must take whatever steps are necessary to develop properly inventoried sales centers designed to meet the needs and buying patterns of today’s home buyers. ##

* California Association of Realtors

Improvement in Site-Built Equity Home Sales Increases Potential
Cash Buyers for Manufactured Housing

Single-Family Equity Home Sales


jess-maxcy-cmhi-president-posted-industry-voices-mhpronews-com-By Jess Maxcy – California Manufactured Housing Institute (CMHI) President.

ObamaCare and Manufactured Housing, Take Two

December 19th, 2013 No comments

In Obamacare, a Different Perspective, a well meaning Texas retailer advances his speculation that through the wonder that is Obamacare, fewer of our housing prospects will be forced into medical bankruptcy and a typical manufactured home retailer or stick built homebuilder might enjoy an increase of five or six sales per year. I believe our Texas retailer is well meaning with his speculation but several factors are not included in observation.

First: Having Obamacare does not mean you will be free from a risk of medical bankruptcy. Given the higher premiums being forced onto unwilling buyers along with massive deductibles, the risk of bankruptcy has in all likelihood been increased. Although we encounter very few medial bankruptcies, most of the ones I have encountered are able to find a path to home ownership because the medical burdens of the past are behind them. Under Obamacare the misleading information that premiums would drop has proven to be one more burden on the current administration as it proves to be untrue.

Second: Employers have laid off workers, decided to cancel expansion plans that would have required new workers and cut back the hours of existing workers due to the regulatory burden of complying with Obamacare. I have lost far more sales in 2013 due to these factors than a hypothetical increase in sales might have brought about had Obamacare been in place at the first of the year. We can get the bankrupt prospect past that event in their life and onto a path to homeownership. I can’t say the same for a client whose hours have been significantly reduced to the point of not budgeting for a reasonable house payment or a client who has lost their job.

Third: This same client will now be forced to purchase a federally mandated level of coverage which is an even greater drain on his discretionary income. Lower discretionary income means a lower likelihood of qualifying for the loan.

Fewer jobs, lower income, part time jobs, higher outgo, lower discretionary income will most likely not add up to an increase in business for the housing sector whether it be site built or factory built. Off topic, but to this mix you can add the new Qualifying Mortgage and other Dodd-Frank rules that will further erode sales. We need to dig in and adapt the best we can to all the changing rules that are headed our way. I respectively suggest that Obamacare will not be a boon to sales as was suggested.

Doug Gorman
Home Mart
Tulsa, OK

Lisa Tyler – at Walden University – Request for Correction Addressed to Princeton’s WordNet

April 12th, 2013 No comments

Dear Esteemed Princeton Wordnet representative-

 Princeton University is one of the leading educational systems in the country.  The school's reputation reflects the highest levels of academic excellence, prestige, accuracy, and leadership.  Articles written by Princeton educated authors are viewed as the ultimate authority on a variety of topics. In light of the level of confidence placed in Princeton affiliated publications, there is a growing concern in the manufactured housing industry on the Wordnet definition of “manufactured home.”

According to the Google search engine result that cites as the defining source, a manufactured home is “mobile home: a large house trailer that can be connected to utilities and can be parked in one place and used as permanent housing..

Obvious problems exist with this very outdated definition.

It may seem like a cultural vernacular that impacts a small percentage of the population. However, approximately 23 million Americans live in manufactured housing (Wilson, 2012). According to the 2007 American Housing Survey, approximately 8.7 million (6.8%) of the 128 million housing units were manufactured homes (Zhou, 2009). The 2011 American Housing Survey reflects the increase to approximately 9.05 million manufactured housing units.

Comprising the second largest percentage of all housing units in the United States (McCarty, 2010), manufactured housing has been a vital source of affordable housing (Wilson, 2012) and are typical of rural areas (Aman & Yarnal, 2010; Tighe, 2013). Housing experts recognize manufactured housing as the predominant source of unsubsidized, affordable housing for rural homeowners and tenants (Tighe, 2013). Not only does the misnomer influence inaccurate perceptions of the product, it can contribute to the marginalization of a significant population.

There are many peer reviewed works that include definitions available that could be used in place of Wordnet’s outdated version. Following are some examples that you may find useful:

  • Manufactured home: Housing structures produced in factories, then transported to site, and installed on designated lands (Zhou, 2009). Manufactured homes must be constructed to the standards of a uniform nationwide building code known as the HUD code (Dawkins & Koebel, 2010).
  • Mobile home: Slang word for manufactured home. Derived from the original classification of mobile homes as vehicles requiring registration with the Department of Motor Vehicles (Kusenbach, 2009). Prevailing term changed to “manufactured home” in 1981 (Wilson, 2012)

Manufactured homes construction occurs in a factory setting, transported to a dealership in another location to be sold, and eventually placed on site at a third location (Dawkins & Koebel, 2010). The manufactured housing construction process uses similar techniques, materials, and equipment as traditional site homebuilding (Nahmens & Ikuma, 2009). The main differences in the construction processes are location of construction and resources used. Manufactured housing construction takes place on an assembly line in a controlled environment (Nahmens & Ikuma, 2009) while exposure to natural elements determines site built home construction processes. Industrialized construction uses construction crews dedicated to specific processes on the assembly line (Nahmens & Ikuma, 2009), whereas independent contractors complete site built home construction processes at different times.

I hope that enough peer reviewed information has been provided to justify changing Wordnet’s definition of manufactured home. Princeton University and its affiliates greatly influence consumer perceptions of products. The recent economic crisis has resulted in housing changes for many Americans. The need for high quality and affordable housing is a pressing issue that must be resolved. The term “trailer house” was replaced with “mobile home” in the 1950’s (Burkhart, 2010; Wilson, 2012). The 1981 HUD code revision included the adoption of “manufactured home” as the prevailing term (Wilson, 2012). Thirty two years later, Wordnet is still referring to the product using terms such as “trailer house” and “mobile home.”

I respectfully request that the definition be updated to reflect the government and industry recognized term that properly represents the product. In the event that you need further proof to justify requested changes, I have provided a reference list of peer reviewed sources used in this letter.

Lisa TylerSincerely,
Lisa Tyler, DBA (ABD), MBA


Aman, D., & Yarnal, B. (2010). Home sweet mobile home? Benefits and challenges of mobile home ownership in rural Pennsylvania.Applied Geography30(1), 84–95. doi:10.10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.09.001

Burkhart, A. (2010, February 5). Bringing manufactured housing into the real estate finance system. Pepperdine Law Review, Forthcoming; Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-06. Retrieved from

Dawkins, C., & Koebel, C. (2010). Overcoming barriers to placing manufactured housing in metropolitan communities. Journal of the American Planning Association76(1), 73–89. doi:10.1080/01944360903401052

Kusenbach, M. (2009). Salvaging decency: Mobile home residents’ strategies of managing the stigma of “trailer” living. Qualitative Sociology32(4), 399–428. doi:10.1007/s11133-009-9139-z

McCarty, W. (2010). Trailers and trouble? An examination of crime in mobile home communities. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research12(2), 127. Retrieved from

Nahmens, I., & Ikuma, L. (2009). An empirical examination of the relationship between lean construction and safety in the industrialized housing industry. Lean Construction Journal, 1–12. Retrieved from

Tighe, J. R. (2013). Responding to the foreclosure crisis in Appalachia: A policy review and survey of housing counselors. Housing Policy Debate23(1), 111–143. doi:10.1080/10511482.2012.751931

Wilson, B. (2012). An examination of electricity consumption patterns in manufactured housing units. Housing Policy Debate22(3), 175–199. doi:10.1080/10511482.2011.648204

Zhou, Y. (2009). Two essays on American housing markets: The determinants of housing value volatility and the ownership decision for manufactured housing (Ph.D dissertation). Ohio State University, Ohio, United States. Retrieved from

Leading the Charge: The Back Story on S. 3484

August 8th, 2012 No comments

tim-williams-ohio-manufactured-home-association-mhpronewsWhen you get a key piece of federal legislation sponsored in the U.S. Sentate, how does that happen? We asked Tim Williams to answer that question, and here is what he told us in his own words.

“First and foremost Nathan Smith is the game changer (with the credibility and relationship) who advocated and led the industry effort with the assistance of MHI. Nathan, myself, Tim Williams of 21st and MHI’s Jason Boehlert as well as several other MHI key finance members initially met with Senator Brown in January regarding the industry’s concerns with Dodd/Frank. Nathan did a great job debriefing the Senator and his staff on the issue and encouraging  legislative consideration. It was clear Senator Brown had a good understanding and sincere interest in the issue and our industry even before the meeting started.

I was able to discuss Ohio’s strong MH Commission’s role in consumer protection under the industry led independent Ohio MH Commission (6 of 9 commissioners must be appointed per a list nominated by OMHA per Ohio  law). Senator Brown was very interested in the industry, our consumer and their protections under the Ohio Commission including the fact that 100% of all homes are inspected during three critical phases of the  installation process in Ohio. He asked many questions regarding Ohio law, demographics and industry businesses as well as the jobs aspect of our economic impact in Ohio and nationally. He was clearly engaged with us on the issue.

Tim Williams of 21st was able to succinctly condense a rather complicated issue in to an understandable dynamic all could grasp and wrap our heads around. Tim’s ability to take the issue down to its basic components was very helpful in demonstrating the practical  challenges facing the ability to finance Ohioans in to affordable manufactured home ownership. I am very appreciative of Tim and 21st Mortgage's leadership on the Dood/Frank  concerns and believe his impact on the legislative aspect of all of this is probably underestimated but nonetheless critical to our success.

I personally appreciate the effort Senator Brown demonstrated in understanding our industry and concerns as well as to brief us on the legislative dynamics of the issue. I encourage all industry members to thank Senator Brown and express support to his office in any appropriate manner.  He stood up for our consumers and industry on a challenging issue regardless of the pressures he faces in an election year.

tim-williams-ohio-manufactured-home-association-mhpronewsTim Williams
 Executive Vice President
 Ohio Manufactured Homes Association

Re-assessing the Stabenow Amendment to Extend Energy Star Tax Credits

April 13th, 2012 2 comments

Hi Tony,

As you know, the Stabenow Amendment to Extend the ENERGY STAR Tax Credit for Manufactured and Modular Homes Defeated in the Senate. As a retail salesperson some reading this will say I’m only interested in my own good. But not only do I believe the Amendment should be passed but I think it should be expanded.  I am talking about a program where the federal government offers a tax credit to customers who purchase an energy efficient manufactured home. 

There is currently no tax credit for energy efficient manufactured homes.  In spite of the so many in the U.S. government saying it wishes to create more manufacturing jobs, increase home ownership, stimulate the economy (home owners make more purchases than just a house), decrease banking instability, decrease consumers debt load, increase energy efficiency and lower dependency on foreign oil imports, some in the federal government are missing the benefits of manufactured housing and the ability to kill 10 birds with 1 stone. Factor in as well the potential to export our homes to other countries too.*

The only credits available are to home owners from local utility companies, but Louisiana does not currently have such a program. While in some areas we lead the country in tax credits for things like solar energy, we offer nothing to someone that is currently living is substandard housing who’s income is too low to qualify for a loan – due to debt to income (DTI) ratios rather than credit scores – to improve their living situation.

Consider someone that owns a home that is inefficient and or hazardous and would like to upgrade, but to do so would require taking the house down to the studs and starting from scratch.  Banks are reluctant to lend for such major changes, especially if that is the collateral for the loan and merely increasing energy efficiency does not increase the value of the property enough.

Lets mention the fact that banks often charge higher interest rates on land/home deals simply because the home owner is buying a manufactured home effectively pricing lower income people out of the housing market and condemning them to substandard housing that is energy INEFFICIENT.  

If the same effort where put into upgrading access to American made homes that was put into upgrading autos (most of which were not even manufactured on U.S. soil) through “CASH FOR CLUNKERS," oil dependence could be halved in a few years.  

I wonder why no one has filed a class action law suit on behalf of the low income consumers everywhere. Basically they are being forced to pay higher utility bills because they can not pay the $70 – $120 per square foot cost of existing site built homes, or the still higher costs of new conventional on-site construction.

Sometimes worse yet they may effectively be forced to obtain housing through Section 8 housing programs, to me this smacks of discrimination and blackmail.  

Where is rhe logic to say to someone on a low or fixed income that you can afford a $300 – $500 monthly energy bill, but not a $500 new home payment that could help limit our dependence on foreign oil? Or you are effectively saying in some case that you will have to leave your A/C or heat off if you would also like to have food…this is unconscionable.  

I think that every dilapidated house that could be replaced with a new, energy efficient manufactured home not only helps the individual but the economy and the country.

As someone that works for a manufactured home retailer, I know that we are the front line in this battle and when I am ordering a home for a customer the very first thing I do is try to sell them on upgraded insulation and energy efficiency. I have gone so far as to order an upgrade on insulation without charging the customer. Needless to say this is not always encouraged as it cost the dealership money, and since it is not my money I may have little choice in some deals. I have had customers that have chosen not to pay the additional cost even though they know it will save them money in the future.  But if we offer the right incentives it would make it easier for the customer and I imagine the builder, if everything was Energy Star.  That would actually be easier to sell than the current “hit and miss." That is why I think if a program could be put together that offered incentives that would encourage dealers, banks, governments, electric companies, insurance companies and consumers – beyond what is currently available – we would have much more success than any stand alone program.

If you look at a model where you have a customer who has marginal credit, marginal debt to income, marginal down payment, and currently living in a free and clear home that is 50 years old that averages a monthly light bill of $300-$500, on the surface a bank may say no to a loan based on this customer. But if you could add a CREDIT for down payment from the state and federal government and local utility company, then figure in a credit on DTI for savings on energy bills and a lower interest rate base on an energy DISCOUNT.

Such steps could improve numerous customers lives, adding comfort, space, ease of bill paying, possibly increased health benefits, and while debt load is increased on paper you have reduced $200-$300 a month in energy payments, and reduced oil imports. You also have increased American production with American material and workers.  All of which could mean more business, and may also lead to higher values for resale, repossessions or land/home values.  All of this maybe even reduce or eliminate some of the “mobile home” stigma. 

Being a pair of “boots on the ground” I see some of what we are up against. Every time we turn around there are more rules and regulations against manufactured housing because people don’t understand, have prejudices, and have no incentives to do anything different.  So instead of manufactured housing helping solve some of the lower income housing problems, it just becomes harder to do anything.

If the factory built housing industry did a comparison between a normal 30 year old site built home and a new manufactured home (not even Energy Star) the energy savings would be outstanding.  Then if you take into account the number of 40-50 year old site built homes (circa 1960’s, or older) it would be even greater.  Then when you take into account all of the systems inside of a home that use or save energy and the shipping of materials, the construction of 1 manufactured home has far greater reach than someone who upgrades the insulation in an old home, and every new HUD code manufactured home is inspected and federally certified.  

Imagine if we could find a way to say to a customer “Sir if you spend X dollars for an upgrade it should save you X dollars a month and because of this the bank will allow a 10% increase on your debt to income ratio for buying and/or a credit on you down payment and/or a lower interest rate. Plus the federal government will give you an upfront credit that can be applied to your down payment.  And if you demolish or recycle an inefficient home the utility companies will match that grant.  FHA Title II loans already require that if you are replacing an existing home on a property it must be demolished or utilities be cut off.  Ultimately I would like the Federal government to give homeowners the option and an incentive to save money by purchasing a Energy Star certified manufactured home. Where you could legitimately say to a customer if you purchase a home with these things you would:

  • A) saves money on your electric bill;
  • B) your builder, energy co. and bank participate in a program that offers a grant applicable for down payment for buying Energy Star;
  • C) reduced DTI because you will be saving on electric cost (all participation would be voluntary);
  • D) the government will give you a tax credit for buying energy efficient.

Think of a comprehensive nationwide program that would be voluntary but not piecemeal from one state to the next, with a more definite framework. If you want it, it exists. If you don’t want it, you don’t have to participate.

All of these ideas should accomplish several things depending on the size of any program.

  • First, helping marginal customer get new homes.
  • Second, help low income customers have more disposable income.
  • Third, lower debt ratios for low income households.
  • Fourth, ease overvaluation of real estate.
  • Fifth, eliminate inefficient buildings from the power grid.
  • Sixth. recycle parts of demolished structures (perhaps for the needy, homeless, or veterans).
  • Seventh, increase American dream of home ownership.
  • Eighth, increase US manufacturing and jobs creation.
  • Ninth, save oil and other energy sources on a national level (including transportation of materials).
  • Tenth, eliminate costly weather delays for construction.
  • Eleventh, lead to a recycle business for old manufactured homes.
  • Twelfth, helping customers who currently can’t buy because:

> they spend any down payment on current inefficient homes;

> they have difficulty budgeting for a home because energy cost currently eat up most of their disposable income;

> customers who genuinely want to help the environment and the economy. (in the past 10 years I have seen these customers gain in numbers).

It would seem like this would be a WIN/WIN/WIN/WIN situation.  It is hard to see any down side if everyone looked at all this carefully and got on the same page.  Even contractors of site built homes can benefit if it resulted in more land/home deals with improvements on manufactured housing.  


Blaine Gilless
Ad Mgr
Lane Thomas Housing, LLC
1955 S. Morrison Blvd
Hammond, LA 70403

* Editor's note: at the recently concluded MHI Congress and Expo, a pair of Russians were in attendance, interested in U.S. style factory building for their country. Another attendee wanted to learn about export opportunities for American made panelized homes. 2% of readers are from Latin America, Europe, Asia, Oceania and Africa. Communications with them reveals they are seeking information on investment or factory built home opportunities.

Readers are encouraged to sound off on factory built housing related issues, and can send submissions with Industry Voices Guest Blog in the subject line. Appropriate posted comments on such topics that are topic focused (as opposed to self-promotion) are encouraged as well.

Post 2012 Tunica Show Industry Perspective

April 5th, 2012 2 comments

The Tunica Show was good! Perfect weather, good number of attendees, good attitudes, and a few lenders wanting to approve new dealer applications: this is all most refreshing! You would think all the gloom and doom is over.

One supplier told me that he had sold over 100 floors as of Thursday evening. Everyone was upbeat.

This industry has still got it – if the government would get out of the way, get their foot off our necks, and allow the financing to take place. It would not only let this industry boom, but the retail boom would cause manufacturing to increase, and all the downstream industries would see their respective businesses increase as well (suppliers, freight companies, delivery/set-up contractors, insurance companies). Even the site-built industry would get a boost from the up tick in economic activity.

Putting all those people back to work would also avoid more foreclosures, reducing the possibility for another round of bailouts.

Many of the bureaucrats don’t seem to understand their “unintended consequences” are killing off an entire industry, in addition to stealing the “American Dream” of home ownership from at least an entire generation of voting constituents! There is some promising activity ongoing toward the modification of the Dodd-Frank dreadnaught, but the results have yet to make it to the street. We’re watching that with great interest.

The bureaucrats aren’t focused on us right now, anyway. The big issues in the Middle East are the buzz in today’s news. I am worried too! If Israel strikes Iran soon (and they will, if/when they feel the need), gasoline will spike. Record prices could push us over the edge.

The White House is trying to negotiate (tough sanctions, tough talk, etc.) with a nation that is by design apt to miss-speak, mis-represent, or outright lie in order to mislead an opponent. How effective will those negotiations be? Only time will tell, especially in light of the President’s family lineage.

Even without a preemptive strike, gas will soon reach $4.80/gal. If Israel does move against Iran, it will surge past $5.00. People are already foregoing vacations, major purchases, medicine, etc, to buy gas to get to work. $5.00/gal gas will create more job losses, lower consumer confidence, a lower GDP that will lead to a lower S&P credit rating for the country, and push us along that slippery slope towards a full-blown depression.

This President doesn’t understand what a tough spot we as a country are in, much less how to fix it. He has spent his time on fundraisers for his re-election campaign. After all, he has his priorities!

The information coming from this administration can be cloudy at times, to be very genteel in my choice of words. They are lying to us about unemployment being 8% – it is closer to 18% when you consider the thousands of under-employed who lost good paying positions and are now having to work one or more minimum wage jobs just to try to make ends meet.

His delay on the Keystone Pipeline (until after the election) is also bogus.

A) The southern portion of the country (Cushing OK to the Gulf Coast) is going forward in spite of Obama. After trying to stop it in Congress – and failing – he then went to Cushing and made a speech claiming he is letting it go forward. Letting it go forward? OH, PLEASE!!!

B) We currently have to ship the oil by train from Canada to Cushing. Guess who owns the railroad? Warren Buffett. (A mere coincidence.)

Romney will be the GOP nominee, and he will have a steep hill to climb to beat Obama. 47% of the people in America pay no taxes – they will vote for him (if they vote). Obama has record amounts of money and the George Soros controlled mainstream media in his pocket. Romney will need lots of help to cleanse the White House. On a bright spot, a recent CNN poll showed more independent voters leaning toward Romney than Obama. (For that fact to even get air play on CNN was big, in my eyes.) You may recall that it was the huge number of independents who voted for Obama in 2008 that tipped the election to Obama’s favor.

If Romney doesn’t make it, we are in deep trouble. We cannot afford another four years of this government.

Without financing, this industry’s retailers cannot survive. Without retailers, manufacturers cannot survive. This stops the suppliers and the other down-line industries associated with us. The lenders I’ve spoken to cite the new raft of legislation – Dodd/Frank, S.A.F.E. Act, etc. – as being too restrictive. “Unintended consequences.” Who is going to fix this mess? It will be you and I, through our own efforts, not this administration! # #

Submitted by

R. C. “Dick” Moore

Dick Moore Housing, Inc.