Posts Tagged ‘manufactured housing program’

Jay Hamilton on Dr. Ben Carson’s being named for Appointment as HUD Secretary

December 5th, 2016 No comments
 Dr. Ben Carson grew up in Public Housing. He  spent many years working as a Neurological Surgeon in an Urban Hospital Environment. So he witnessed the effect of substandard housing on health.

But even still, a number may see this as an illogical choice. I fully expected Dr. Carson to be named Surgeon General or Health & Human Services Secretary.

President-elect Trump has made it clear that he will place people that are loyal to himself and to conservative values.


For more insights on this controversy, see the Daily Business News story – “Is Ben Carson the Right Choice for HUD Secretary? Depends On Who You Ask.” As on all industry voices topics, other persepctives are welcome, and the views are those of the writer.

Does that mean that this HUD role is what Dr. Carson requested?  Or was this the only Agency left over that was large enough to reward Dr. Carson for his help and support?

At the end of the day, everyone will serve at the new president’s pleasure, regardless of who we deem “best qualified.”

But unless Dr. Carson or members of President-elect Trump’s team have someone reading MHProNews or MHLivingNews, odds are that neither may realize that manufactured home regulation falls under HUD’s jurisdiction. ##

Jay Hamilton, GMHA.

Why the Continued Conflict?

March 8th, 2014 No comments

One has to ask themselves why this conflict continues? You ask what is the conflict and why do we as an industry need to concern ourselves with this issue? The answers are simple; the conflict is the continued divide between MHARR and MHI. The reason we must concern ourselves is obvious; industry unity will bring us further and faster than continued disunity.

I am not alone in asking this question about the root causes of the conflict.

Recently individuals from both inside the industry and the regulatory sector have written about the approach and tone of the messages sent by the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform's (MHARR) President and CEO, Danny Ghorbani.

There is no reason for messages of the nature like the one linked here to continue.

Just this week the industry received some well needed good news that Pamela Beck Danner, JD, was appointed as the new Career Administrator for the HUD Manufactured Housing Program.

Rather than just leaving the message as a congratulatory letter, Danny stated that MHARR will challenge HUD’s change to the law regarding the position to being a career vs. non-career administrator.

Even if HUD has inappropriately changed the law, why send this widely distributed mixed message? Why not just congratulate Pamela and then quietly send HUD an objection that would not be widely distributed?

Continuing this pattern of creating conflict is not beneficial to anyone involved in Manufactured Housing regardless of which area of the industry one is involved in. Are these the types of messages that we want as we work to accomplish our industry goals? I think not.

Just think how much more our industry could accomplish by working together! It is critical that as an industry we focus on the target and develop a cooperative effort to move our goals forward.

Both organizations do not always have to agree; in fact we may agree to disagree. Even in that case, we must show our public unity and spend our collective time working on the core issues.

By not working together some think we weaken our message. By contrast, when we work together we can send a more powerful message to Congress, the Regulators and all others involved that we stand together to accomplish our collective goals.

Clearly MHI is moving the ball forward in this regard, on both the regulatory and legislative fronts. One might ask, if MHI can do it alone, without Danny Ghorbani/MHARR, will MHARR and Danny become politically irrelevant?

I have been in the Manufactured Home Community and Home Sales businesses for over 32 years. During this time I have worked with manufacturers that were members of both MHI and MHARR. In fact, some of the manufactures whom I purchased homes from were only MHARR members. Naturally, I have spent a great deal of time with the principals of these companies along with Danny discussing many issues.

We have developed close personal relationships from working together. From our times together I have learned much about many issues, some which I was not aware of previously, others that could affect my business. There have been issues on which we have not agreed upon, yet we never treated each other rudely or without mutual respect.

That is the type of relationship which both organizations must strive to maintain, especially in today’s difficult times.

Those of us in the business are all very conscientious of whom we choose to work with or purchase products from today. Our decisions are influenced by many factors; company history, price, service, product mix, warranty and personal relationships. I am about to purchase new homes to place in my communities. One consideration that I would be remiss to not consider in my decision making process is which manufacturers support the industry's goals that I support.

In addition, I have very strong reservations on working with a supplier who supports continued conflict and inappropriate messages being distributed by MHARR's CEO. Why would one work with a supplier who is not aligned with our industry's or my personal goals?

This is no different than one deciding to no longer buy homes from a manufacturer who lacks in timely, quality post-sale service and warranty support.

To financially support a manufacturer who through his association dues allows this discord and strife to continue in this small industry is questionable at best. We need to vote with our wallets! Maybe that will get the attention of those who fund the emailed or print messages that slow or harms our industry's message in Washington, DC.?

Maybe that would stop this avoidable and counterproductive multi-decade conflict. ##

rick-rand-great-value-homes-manufactured-home-pro-news-industry-voices-guest-blogRick Rand
Great Value Homes
Milwaukee, WI.

(Editor's Note, Rick stresses he is writing as an industry business professional, and not on behalf of any association. Rick was recently interviewed, see A Cup of Coffee with…Rick Rand., and is also in a video interview shown on the paged link here.)

“Frequently Asked Questions” on HUD Website

August 23rd, 2010 No comments

MHARR logoIn response to numerous inquiries that MHARR has received in recent weeks, industry members should be aware that the HUD manufactured housing program has recently modified the “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) section of its internet website. The FAQ questions and answers now correspond with, repeat and mirror HUD assertions contained in a June 22, 2010 letter to Congress (download copy), which purport to justify and rationalize its failure, over the course of ten years, to fully and properly implement key reform aspects of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000.

In the wake of HUD’s June 22, 2010 letter to Congress, which set out a number of new, revised and altered arguments for continuing efforts by program regulators and attorneys to avoid and neutralize the reforms of the 2000 law, Congress requested MHARR to submit a point-by-point response, which the Association did on July 22, 2010 (copy also attached). This response not only refutes HUD’s core arguments on each issue addressed, but also highlights factual errors and incorrect assumptions underlying various HUD positions – such as those pertaining to the crucial role and authority of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) – which HUD has systematically downgraded and undermined in recent years.

Because HUD’s June 22, 2010 letter had been directed to Congress, in response to a specific congressional inquiry regarding the implementation of key aspects of the 2000 reform law, MHARR had similarly directed its point-by-point industry response and refutation specifically to Congress. Now, though, that HUD is extensively publicizing the assertions contained in its June 22, 2010 letter – casting those assertions as the supposed final word on the 2000 reform law implementation issues that they address, with no indication that those assertions have been disputed and refuted – industry members and all those with an interest in affordable manufactured housing should be aware that: (1) those assertions and contentions are strongly disputed; (2) that there is an industry response and counter to each of HUD’s assertions; and (3) that HUD Code manufacturers will continue – and will intensify – their efforts to ensure that all such reforms are, in fact, fully and properly implemented, in order to complete the transition of the industry’s homes to legitimate and affordable housing for millions of American families, sharing full parity with all other types of housing.

Therefore, to balance the public record on this matter and to correct any misperceptions that may arise from HUD’s non-acknowledgement of a contrary industry position on each of the issues now addressed in the FAQs, MHARR feels obligated to provide you with a copy of both HUD’s June 22, 2010 letter and the July 22, 2010 industry response to Congress. Please feel free to share the two attached documents with anyone who refers to or raises questions regarding the content of the HUD program website FAQs.

Thank you.

Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform
1331 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Suite 508
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/783-4087
Fax: 202/783-4075