Industry Voices

Over the last several years trial balloons have been released suggesting that the industry’s best interests would be served by a merger of its two major trade organizations the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). MHI serves as a trade organization for all of the major segments of the industry. Those segments (manufacturers, suppliers, communities, retailers and lenders) are represented within MHI by their own specialized division. In contrast, MHARR makes their position absolutely clear that their mission is to protect specifically manufacturers from an over reaching federal bureaucracy in the area of regulatory issues.

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

• 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?

Dear State Association Executives:

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

Tony,

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

Washington, D.C., October 5, 2011 – The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) reports that according to official statistics compiled on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), manufactured housing production rebounded in August 2011, posting its first increase in 12 months.  Just-released statistics show that during August 2011, HUD Code manufacturers produced 5,187 homes, up from the 4,896 HUD Code homes produced in August 2010, representing a corresponding month increase of nearly 6%.  The last time that industry production recorded a corresponding-month increase was in August 2010, when production grew by 9% over August 2009 levels.  This increase brings 2011 cumulative industry production, through the end of August, to 32,015 homes — 9.9% lower than corresponding industry production of 35,566 homes over the same period last year, but a distinct improvement over double-digit cumulative production declines earlier this year.

While any production increase is welcome news, the manufactured housing industry – given its status as the nation’s primary source of truly affordable non-subsidized home ownership — should be experiencing more significant long-term growth in the face of a sluggish economy that accentuates the affordability of its homes in relation to other types of housing and features historically low interest rates on home loans.  The fact that it has not yet benefitted from conditions that, in the past, have stoked industry growth, underscores that the sustained industry decline since 1998 is less a result of the broader economic environment than factors uniquely affecting manufactured housing – specifically, the unavailability of consumer financing and HUD’s failure to fully and properly implement key reforms of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 that were designed to ensure the parity of manufactured housing as “housing.”

Now, though, the industry’s two national trade organizations, MHARR and the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) have agreed to work together, jointly and cooperatively, to address three major issues concerning consumer financing and the implementation of the 2000 law, specifically, the need to expand sources of consumer financing and eliminate unnecessarily

restrictive barriers to entering the manufactured housing market, the appointment of a non-career
administrator for the HUD manufactured housing program, as provided by the 2000 law, and the re-appointment of collective national industry representatives to the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee, the centerpiece reform of the 2000 law.

A joint MHARR-MHI delegation has already met with senior HUD officials to address these three specific issues and will follow-up accordingly.

The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform is a Washington, D.C.-based national trade association representing the views and interests of producers of federally-regulated manufactured housing.

With production of manufactured homes continuing to erode by double-digits in 2011, change — real change — cannot come fast enough for the industry or beleaguered American consumers of affordable housing. To have the most beneficial impact on the condition of the industry, however, that change needs to begin with and needs to be led by the federal program that comprehensively regulates manufactured homes and is responsible for the “superintendence” of the industry. And now, after more than a decade of intransigence and seeming lack of concern for the worsening plight of the industry and manufactured homebuyers, hopeful signs are emerging that this long-overdue and much-needed change could be in the offing.

While there is no doubt that the manufactured housing industry, since its peak production year in 1998, has suffered from numerous problems that have contributed to its decline, including restrictions (both existing and impending) that have disproportionately reduced the availability of financing for manufactured home buyers, bad practices — now corrected — that provided an excuse for such restrictions, the debt crisis that undermined the availability of floor-plan financing for many retailers, the collapse of the mortgage insurance market for lower and moderate-income buyers, unreasonable restrictions on the placement of manufactured homes and a host of others, all of these are inextricably related to the federal regulation of manufactured homes and, more specifically, to HUD’s failure to fully and properly implement the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000.

That law, as MHARR has often pointed out — through its “Findings,” its sweeping “Statement of Purpose” and specific program reforms — was designed to complete the transition of manufactured homes from the “trailers” of yesteryear to the modern “housing” of today, at parity with all other types of residential construction. Put differently, it was designed to end systematic discrimination against manufactured housing and manufactured homebuyers in connection with regulation, financing and a range of other issues affecting the availability and use of manufactured housing. HUD, however, has not fulfilled this vision over the past decade and the industry, as a result, has been trending downward at a time when it should be doing better.

Fortunately, though, all of this is now coming to a head for proper resolution, because MHARR, instead of limiting its focus to the symptoms of this problem, has consistently worked to address their common root cause — HUD’s failure to fully and properly implement the key reforms of the 2000 law. This effort took on a whole new dimension and heightened level of energy in the Fall of 2010 when forward-looking members of the MHARR Board of Directors, in anticipation of the changed national political dynamics brought about by the November 2010 elections, initiated a bold, multi-front approach to Congress designed to address these overriding issues, hold regulators accountable for full and proper compliance with the 2000 law and, most importantly, begin a process to rectify both the root cause and its various consequences. The overriding goal of this initiative, from its inception, has been to break the 10-year logjam on the implementation of relevant laws (most particularly the 2000 law) and advance the cause of the industry and its consumers in the nation’s capital. And now, after ten months of intensive, aggressive and sharply-focused engagement with Congress, it appears that this effort is beginning to pay tangible dividends.

For the first time in ten years, the HUD program, as a result of this congressional initiative, has come under specific scrutiny by Congress regarding its non-compliance with the 2000 law, including the impact that non-compliance has had on the industry’s smaller businesses. In the process, Congress has realized the need for comprehensive intervention and engagement on these matters, as was demonstrated at a July 20, 2011 mark-up session of the House Financial Services Committee (the authorizing committee for the HUD program) when leaders from both parties called for congressional action to address the “unfair disadvantage” faced by the industry and manufactured homebuyers. It is this ongoing “unfair disadvantage” — which the 2000 law was designed to correct — that lies at the root of nearly all the problems that have fueled the industry’s decline and needs to be corrected by Congress.

Moreover, as this intensive congressional activity has played out, it has been paralleled, as anticipated by MHARR, by significant personnel changes within the HUD program. Those changes have seen the departure of much of the career-level program management, as well as long-term program support attorneys within the HUD Office of General Counsel (OGC). These officials have been replaced by new leadership operating under a newly-appointed Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. Thus, the entire program management structure that resisted the full and proper implementation of the 2000 law, originated the “interpretations” that have undermined key reform aspects of that law, and adhered to those interpretations notwithstanding clear evidence that they were wrong, is now gone.

What all of this means, effectively, is that much of the heavy lifting to break the logjam of the past decade and change the dynamics affecting the industry and its homebuyers in Washington, D.C., has already been done. Such efforts, moreover, have created a process and opportunity for the industry to unite on the issues and press forward for their resolution.

On post-production matters, the industry has done well in identifying the key issues that need to be addressed, namely private and public financing, including, most importantly, repeal or reform of the Dodd-Frank and SAFE Act provisions affecting manufactured housing which have hamstrung consumers’ ability to qualify for and obtain manufactured home purchase loans. MHARR has — and will continue to — fully support the ongoing effort to address and resolve these problems. Conversely, MHARR expects that the rest of the industry will fully support its effort to ensure the full and proper implementation of all reform aspects of the 2000 law, in order to eliminate the industry’s “unfair disadvantage” and remedy the key problems affecting both the post-production and production sectors of the industry.

In order to advance such cooperation, and given the complexity of the issues involved in Title VI reforms (i.e., 2000 law reforms), MHARR has researched all the available documents and information generated during the 12-year effort leading to the passage of the 2000 law, and has condensed that information into a series of straightforward, easy-to-read one-page Fact Sheets that explain the key 2000 law reforms in a concise manner, as well as the importance of the full and proper implementation of each such reform. The entire set of these Fact Sheets will be officially published and released after congressional lawmakers return from their Summer recess in early September.

In MHARR’s view, the industry can and should present a united position on all of these key reform issues in order to eliminate the industry’s “unfair disadvantage” and restore its prosperity and growth.

Written and submitted by Danny Ghorbani

MHARR is a Washington D.C.-based national trade association representin

the views and interests of producers of federally-regulated manufactured housing.

There is a lot to say about what has gone wrong with our country and our Industry.  We will begin ‘at the top,’ with our Chief Executive, President Barack Obama.

What’s up with Obama’s recent bus tour?

I’m no fan of the prior president, but say what you will about President W, when he took a similar bus trip to President Obama’s, W used campaign dollars to pay for it.  Where is the “watchdog” media? Why no hue and cry when the administration buys millions of dollars of Canadian buses so President BO can tour in style on the taxpayer’s dime?

What’s up with all that?

Isn’t it ironic that BO tours campaign style after lecturing millionaires and billionaires about private jets and corporate perks?  Or is that rhetoric just a way of getting the votes of middle America and ‘the little people?’

Do you like ‘divide and conquer politics?  To me, it is plain wrong.  Talk about issues, talk records or about facts.  But don’t pit one group against another.

I need to be clear that W vacationed considerably more than BO.  But W went to his ranch or Camp David, etc.  But to add irony to injury, on the heels of all this bad economic news, BO is in Martha’s Vineyard – the haven of the elite – now?

Even left wing commentators see this vacation in the New England playground of the rich and famous as a problem.

• Experts and government statistics suggest we have 17% unemployed and under-employed.

• We have more people on food-stamps and welfare than at any time in U.S. history.

• And BO will give us his ‘next’ jobs program in September, after his resort vacation?

• Where are all those shovel ready and other jobs from the ‘first’ one?  Or were all the jobs ‘created’ at the job killing CFPB?

They say the emperor has no clothes.  Well, we have no emperor, but a president and his wardrobe looks just fine.

Ascendancy and Dependency

It is the party of dependency that is still in ascendency.

Or at least still in high office…

…dependency is a major voting block today.

Be it government labor unions, federal jobs or those on government assistance, it is an issue.  We have to put people to work, not get them used to no work. We do need federal and other government jobs.  But we can’t give everyone a job regulating someone who is working to produce a product or a service that keeps America’s wheels turning.

If we do not change our ways federally and locally, we will look like rioting old England some day, because we can’t afford to keep adding to our debt and taking on more programs that fail to foster independence.

While we have plenty of dependency programs, meanwhile, we have

• flash mobs that form, rob, harass and harm others in our cities.
• We have automatic weapons fire along our southern border.
• We have three wars we are involved in instead of the previous two.

I didn’t favor W taking us into Iraq, nor do I favor BO taking us into Libya.  Even if we ‘win,’ what have we won in either case?  We spill American blood and treasure, for what?  We can’t be the world’s cop, and we can’t have wars for the sake of foreign oil, etc.

Let’s drill and do energy on U.S. soil and off U.S. shores, as safely and prudently as possible.  Think about the major jobs creation potential.

Private enterprise can pay for it all without federal dollars.  Let business people do business in America again.

Another Recession, what’s up with that?

The media speaks of double dip recession.  What’s up with that phrase?

Did anyone notice that the ‘great recession’ never ended?  Did you notice that the housing markets still suffer, and Keynesian/Euro socialist economics just added trillions to our debt without giving us a stronger economy?

No jobs.  No stimulated business.  Tougher lending.  Very little respect overseas.  Where is the change we can believe in?  Or was that supposed to mean the pocket change we have left after taxes?

Third part candidate George Wallace once said there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. Thus Wallace favored what some have for years, a third party to bring America back. But Ronald Reagan had it closer, we don’t need a third party, but a rejuvenated second party.

That means we don’t need Rino Republicans, Republicans In Name Only.  To me, W was a Rino, socially conservative, but nearly as much a man about big government as BO is.  W helped give us that darn bail out of the bankers.  W took us into two wars with no end in sight.  W’s dad may not have “finished the job” in the first Gulf War, but he had the smarts to get in and get out.

We need business friendly independents, Democrats and Republicans.

Businesses create jobs.  Jobs are what American’s need, and then they can start buying houses again!

Speaking of jobs, how about creating 20 million new ones?

I’ve read the same reports you have; that there are two trillion dollars of investment money on the sidelines – actually overseas – that could be brought back to the U.S. In short order.

But that 2 trillion fled America due to regulations and tax policies.  Do we have the political will to bring those trillions back?

Think about what Two Trillion Dollars we don’t have to borrow, or write down, would mean to our country right now.  If every $100,000 invested created only 1 American job, that would mean 20,000,000 jobs.

Think: 20 million people off aid, off food stamps, off unemployment or other government programs.  2o million more taxpayers.  Think 20 million people less dependent, means we would be that much closer to a balanced budget!

We better find and support candidates in whatever party who know how the free enterprise system works, because creating jobs by supporting business is what we should be about.

Free Enterprise, not Keynesian/Euro socialist economics, is what made America the land of the free and the home of the brave.

November 2012 is shaping up now.  Who we support now for our state houses, or for Congress, the Senate and the White House will be on the ballot 15 months from now.

Personally, I’ve contacted my senators and representative and made my feelings known on economic and social issues.  But I will also make them known on the path to election 2012.

Give the man his props

One thing that our recently bus touring and now vacationing BO has done is give us an executive order we can believe in.  With all due respect to Marty Lavin, Danny Ghorbani was the first to bring it to our Industry’s attention.  We speak of Executive Order (EO) #13563, similar to President Clinton’s issued in 1993.

MHMSM.com posted EO #13563 months ago, that requires an examination of regulatory impact and its benefits.

MHARR is right.  HUD’s budget has grown, while our industry shipments have shrunk.  What’s up with that fact?

What the president – at least on paper -  has done is give us EO#13563 which could hold HUD and other regulators accountable.  Now will our national associations use that to our Industry’s benefit?

The Fall Congressional hearing on Manufactured Housing

Ooops.

Who do we have in DC “helping us” in the planned fall Congressional hearings on our Industry?  Congressman Barney Frank.  What’s up with that?

Let’s see.  Barney helped give us the SAFE Act.  Barney also gave us part of the name of the bill that in his: Dodd-Frank.

So do you feel safer or dodd-franked?

With friends like Barney, does our industry need any federal enemies?

Who is watching how our industry PAC money is spent?  Is this the type of anti-business candidate we need to support?

Where is that change we can believe in?  Or did I drop that change the last time I filed my quarterlies?

One of the best meeting planners around, but…

I asked Tony Kovach why George Allen’s Roundtable was not on the MHMSM.com calendar.  “George isn’t an association, and he opted not to pay for an ad.”

Maybe there is considerable momentum from last year’s event that MHMSM.com did promote.  I noticed that Allen is reporting more state association executives coming to the Roundtable this year.  State execs are often ‘comped’ for coming to an event.  George is one of the best self-promoters the Industry has seen in the past 2 decades.  I’d want state execs helping me promote an event of mine too.  Nothing wrong with it, a common practice.

In the manufactured home communities world, Allen’s Roundtables are unmatched.  Allen gets some fine speakers and topics in.  They are informative and enjoyable.

However, I can’t always agree with George Allen’s commentary, live or in his columns here or in his own publications.  Let’s parse some of his recent ones for a few moments.

I understand and agree with George that MHI doesn’t seem to have a plan for our Industry’s recovery.  What’s up with that fact?  I can see why the natives are restless in the NCC, even with Lisa B getting appointed.

George is spot on that MHI is failing to do half of what an association is called to do – protect and promote.

• Where is the Industry promotion?
• How has MHI worked to reverse the Industry’s downward new home shipment trend?  Marty was spot on regarding that topic, in his recent column.

But George’s bashing of Danny and MHARR misses the mark.  Why?

Because MHARR is an association for independent Manufacturers. MHARR don’t get paid to represent communities or lenders or suppliers.  MHARR doesn’t represent retailers,  which if you ask retailers like Doug Gorman or Dick Moore, MHI doesn’t seem to do such a hot job for them either.

George, the point is that MHARR can’t be faulted for focusing on what its members pay MHARR to do, namely, work on regulatory issues.  So George, if you want to fault Danny, fault him for something that group is paid to do.  At least MHARR has stated publicly they support the ‘post production’ sector (MHARR code words for MHI) in their efforts to modify Dodd-Frank, SAFE, etc.  I’ve not seen any similar effort from MHI back towards MHARR.  If it exists, it is behind the scenes.

I also agree with Marty Lavin that we better watch more what people say than what people do.  We better watch results, because words alone can be cheap.

Or words can costly, depending on how you look at it.

Industry Marketing and Image Campaign

Speaking of MHI and the Industry image campaign…

…I’ve seen the plan Tony, IMHA’s Mark Bowersox and others have put together.  In a word, brilliant.

In my mind, they need to consider a different name, but for now they are calling it the Manufactured Housing Alliance and Phoenix Plan.  Their plan navigates the key political issues that our industry has faced that has kept us from moving ahead.

We keep reading from MHI the statistics about our dropping new home shipments.   This gets back to the dual role that an association is supposed to have, protect and promote.

Where is MHI on this MH Alliance/Phoenix Plan effort to turn around our image, marketing and sales results?

Silent.

By contrast. I see John Bostick’s name on the page in favor of the MH Alliance/Phoenix Plan.  That makes me want to order some Sunshine Homes and get others to do the same!

Good for MHARR’s Chairman, who did not endorse it on MHARR’s behalf, but Mr. Bostick has obviously taken the time and had the guts to publicly say, hey, this can work.

Which leads to the questions:

> Where are the MHARR members or Danny on this plan?

> Where is MHI on this plan?

Marty Lavin on Danny Ghorbani

I’m the first to agree with Marty that Danny needs to polish up those lobbying skills.  In fact, let me take Marty’s points a step farther.  As I personally see it, and others may disagree, Danny has three options:

1. change your ways, permanently and rapidly, to become more effective at what you do for MHARR,
2. retire and consult for MHARR as needed;
3. or just retire.

Danny, retire? What would happen to MHARR without Danny?  What’s up with that idea?  Can you even say MHARR without saying Danny G’s name?

Yes, you can.

Attorney and MHARR VP Mark Weiss is a good man.  Mark knows the law, can be reasoned with and Danny has prepared him to take the helm at MHARR, when the time comes that Danny decides to retire or when MHARR members make that decision.

For example, MHARR could bring in a new associate, give Danny a nice gold watch, and a one year transitional consulting agreement.  The independent factories that support MHARR can save money.  As or more important, they likely can get more done and advance their cause in DC with HUD, Congress and other regulators.

The timing is right for a change at MHARR.  Danny, don’t take it the wrong way, you are a smart guy and know the HUD Code as well as anyone in the manufacturing side of the Industry.  But in my personal opinion, it is time to change your ways for the better or you better retire.

The best suits and fine meetings

Danny has some of the best suits in DC that our Industry can brag about.  Danny and MHARR are spot on with some key issues.  But you can be right, and still do things in a way that turns people off.

But give the man his props, Danny is right about MHI meeting,

after meeting,

after meeting and

…where is the MHI plan?

But then, Danny – if you stay – you and MHARR should then walk the walk and have an action plan of your own. Not a some day, or five year plan, a let’s get it done now plan.

Perhaps John Bostick’s public move supporting the MH Alliance/Phoenix Plan will inspire others of stature to make their own public statements or just help launch the program.

But at some point, we need to get past meetings, and get to doing.  46,000 shipments.  We are now down about 88% from our post HUD-Code high in 1998.  How much lower can we go and still have an Industry?

• We can’t fill empty home sites with only used product.
• We need new homes bought from factories and sold to consumers.
• We need retailers and community operators who attract customers with good credit, and then close them and turn them into happy homeowners who will tell their friends and once again let our Industry grow.

The Numbers on MAP

I like abbreviations. Let’s call this plan of Mark’s and Tony’s MAP for short, because this MH Alliance Phoenix can be our road MAP to the future. Maybe we can get Tony and Mark to come up with a better name.  But in the mean time, MAP it is for me.

I asked Tony to give me a projection on what he thinks MAP can do.  His answer?  First year from the launch date could double shipments without a need for hurricane season (no need for FEMA orders).

The next year could double it again.  That would be roughly 92,000 shipments in year 1. Then 184,000 shipments in year two.

Take a look at the MAP if you haven’t already.  If you have a better plan, why not share it?  But if not, get behind the plan that is out there being discussed.

I’m told that MAP can be up and running in short order.  We can do MAP, with no waiting for federal or state action!

Doing the Math, my Math not T’s

Tony has his math, I have mine.

Let’s say MAP was launched, and then MAP raised shipments back to 75,000 the first year.  Let’s further say, 1/2 of the increase went into communities.

• That would mean 14,500 spaces filled.  At say $275 average a month per site, that would mean $47,850,000 more to MHCs a year.  Plus the profits off the home sales.

• 29,000 additional new shipments would mean 29,000 new jobs.

• It would mean security for those whose jobs or businesses are at risk due to declining shipments.How many MH plants would stay open?

• At even a low $50,000 average per home, that 1.45 billion in new sales.  Think about the boost in revenue to retailers and developers.

Would you give $75 per location to boost sales $1.45 Billion and create about $48 million in new communities revenues?

If not, please go back to 5th grade math.  To me, this spells a good deal.

Let me stress, these are my numbers, not T’s or Mark’s.  But it tells me why they and others are working to see this plan happen.

Chattel Lenders

I’m not without experience in dealing with personal property lending.  While he wasn’t talking about just lending, I agree with Chad Carr’s recently published statement about MAP.  The MH Alliance/Phoenix Plan is the only plan I’ve seen that gets to the heart of fixing chattel lending for our Industry.  MAP provides solutions for image, lobbying and other practical issues too. It dares to be bold, without trying to step on any industry group’s toes.

If your chattel lender has not yet seen this, she or he better do so!  This can help us cut our repos losses dramatically.

It will help our customers – manufactured home owners – dramatically too.  That will in turn attract more customers, and more credit worthy ones.

Manufactured housing lenders need to see our losses cut.  Because that panel of lenders at the MHI Congress last April were correct.  A repo can cost 50% (or more) of the loan balance.   There are so many dark clouds that hang over personal property lending for manufactured housing right now, we have to have solutions if our Industry will ever advance.

In fact, our survival depends on it.

I asked Tony specifically about people who have and have not seen MAP.  T won’t comment about those who haven’t shared a public statement. I can respect that, but it does leave us guessing.

So someone needs to ask Marty Lavin or Dick Ernst where they are on this.  Have they seen it?  What is there take?  It is obvious that Ken Rishel has come out for it, big time, in his own newsletter and on MHMSM.com too.

Come to think of it, where is George Allen’s name on this subject?  Didn’t he say a few months ago, we needed an image campaign?  What’s up with that?

We could go through a list of industry leaders and say, what about you?  Where are you on this MAP subject?

If you are for it, why not say so publicly? If you oppose it, why and then propose your own alternative!  Mark, Tony and those working on this want to see consensus. I appreciate that, but I’d add that we can’t afford to debate stuff forever.  We need to move ahead, and pronto.

If we do not start advancing, more factories, more retailers and more communities will fail.  It is simply 5th grade math.

State and Communities Association leaders

Given that a pair of state association leaders have already publicly stated support for the MH Alliance and Phoenix plan, it is reasonable to think others have seen it too.  We need to watch and encourage this plan at the state level.

Because let’s be honest, the states are where it is at.  All politics are local, and your business happens at the state and local level.

Last year, we saw some state execs who took a leadership role to get things happening at the federal level.  We need to see that again, and we need to see that on MAP or their best alternative to it.

A pimple on an elephant’s bottom

We’ve heard this expression at meetings and coffee tables.  I admit it sadly fits the influence our Industry has politically in DC today.  We need to be working tea parties to get the party of jobs, business and growth moving ahead. We need to hold the feet of those who say they will change DC for the better to the fire, and get the gold of jobs and rising housing back to work building the U.S.A.

We have lost our nation’s AAA credit rating.  Debt piles up, what do we have to show for it?  Where are the jobs?  The lending?  The recovery?  What did we bail out anyway?  Who benefited from all that taxpayer funded largess?

We saw some amazing upsets at the midterms, and I think we can see more if we plan now for the best candidates and then mobilize for the general elections.

It is frankly another good reason to learn and get behind the MAP.  We will increase our influence at the state house and in Washington when our consumers are visibly supporting us in sizable numbers.

Let’s work and earn the support of our communities’ residents and home owners/customers!  Then we should make sure we continue to deserve it.  Without happy customers, we are as doomed as if HUD bureaucrats or others would just shut us down.

TANSTAFL

If I boiled this down, it would be this.  We can’t have something for nothing.  TANSTAFL = There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays.

We better work for truly positive change, or we will be left with pocket change.

We better look at and support a plan that can move us ahead.  I vote for the MH Alliance/Phoenix Plan.  Or we will suffer the fate of the buggy whip makers.

I shop at WalMart no more than I have to, because I believe in supporting the smaller and more independent business women and men out there.  They are more like me.  They want to serve me, and I in turn want to support them.

We better support the HUD Code builders, and they in turn, better support us too.

Talking and Doing.

Before we look at any other emperor who also lacks clothes, let’s close for now. Talk is fine, but let’s follow talk with do.

I want to thank those of you who have written.  Please do not think me rude, but for now…

…I hope you understand that some things need to be said that have gone unsaid too long.

More next time.##

post submitted by
Michael Barnabas

(Editor’s note: The views presented on the Industry Voices Guest Blog represent those of the writer.  They do not necessarily represent the views of MHMSM.com (soon to be rebranded as MHProNews.com) or our sponsors.

We encourage a respectful exchange of opinions and views on topics of general interest to the Industry.  Industry Voices guests columns are not a forum for business promotion; that is what advertising is supposed to do.

The Industry Voices forum encourages a respectful dialogue between industry members.  You can post comments using our Disqus system or submit your own Industry Voices guest column in reply to a column like this topic or on any other topic of interest to the factory built housing Industry.  Please put Industry Voices Guest Column in the subject line when you submit an article for consideration. Posted comments via Disqus and Industry Voices columns must stay within the boundaries of civility, the law and common sense.)

The Journal

I get “The Journal” monthly, the Jim Visser published magazine that appears to be the sole remaining print manufactured housing periodical. Others, including the much beloved Manufactured Housing Merchandiser, dropped by the wayside in the recent past, as advertising support fell off. Take HUD Code home shipments from 372,800 in 1998, and let them free-fall to some 50,000 in 2010, and that 86% drop annihilated much of an entire industry. We see the results about as everywhere.

I read The Journal regularly, reading some articles carefully and skimming others of less interest to me, but I look at all of them. Note that all of the writers therein are either executives at MH trade associations, or consultants. The tradeoff for the publication is a plentiful supply of written material for free, which they sandwich around their advertising. The writers, mostly consultants, get no pay but are happy to write the pieces to highlight their acumen in their area of expertise, sometimes leading to paid consulting assignments.

We also get some “infomercials” from paid advertisers. They buy an ad and the periodical allows them to write a “puff piece,” often nothing more than a glorified press release. No worries mate, The Journal is not the Wall Street Journal and no one expects it to be.

All the materials therein provide information, which is what advertising is meant to do. The reason Jack uses Enzyte after playing golf is that it makes him a “bigger” man. Informative, right?

Read the articles written by a number of the regular contributors in The Journal or an online ezine like MSMSM.com, and you begin to have a feel for the person or organization producing these pieces.

Trade Associations

As an example, both the manufactured housing trade associations, Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) use the pages of The Journal and MHMSM.com to report their goals and positions on industry matters they deem important. It is also very obviously a recruitment tool for them.

And what can we glean from the decade plus of pieces there by the two national associations in The Journal?

The first thing we deduce is that MHI, through its last three leaders, strikes a measured approach to Washington matters. Being a collection of both home production and the dreaded “post production” segments, they come across as informed, conciliatory, and doing what they can to further the industry’s goals, as envisioned by a few large and powerful members, especially those who are heavy dues payers.

The MHI employee count has plunged in the last 10 years almost as much as industry home shipments, yet I do not notice that much fall-off in their accomplishments. This either says a great deal about the efficiency of the present crew there or the common occurrence in organizations to grow employees more than accomplishments.

On the other hand, MHARR has been, with a brief hiatus in the last few years, almost exclusively the venue for the HUD Code home producers. At MHARR “post production” seems like two dirty words. The HUD Code, the feared federal regulatory scheme of the late 1970’s, brought cries of “it will destroy the industry” before it’s taking effect. Since then, like the “Stockholm Syndrome” it has taken full control of MHARR, and their strong expressions in the pages of The Journal and everywhere else they’ll be heard.

One can only view it as a hate-love relationship with the HUD Code as interpreted, declared and attacked by MHARR’s fearless battering ram, Danny Ghorbani. Say what you will about Danny, he is knowledgeable about the HUD Code as no one else, and relentless in his pursuit of seeing it applied as he sees its meaning.

Danny’s problem, of course, is that not everyone sees it his way. I haven’t noticed MHI being quite so animated in its pursuit of “the Code.” Oh, I’m still waiting for Danny to complete the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA 2000) Subpart I mandates, his 10-year quest I think as yet uncompleted.

Different Heads

Anyone who has read the pieces by the national association heads here at MHMSM.com and elsewhere will have the feeling that MHI and MHARR are very different organizations. If I’m asked which is more effective I can only comment that neither has been able to stop the regulatory onslaught nor marshaled a unified approach to correcting the deficiencies of the Manufactured Buggy Whip industry. Their efforts have all been in Washington, where they all live and work. Other than the “Duty to Serve” inserted into the GSE mandates, I’ve seen little or nothing which would sell one more home, which should be the aim of the national associations, not the ease of home production.

Blocked weather radios?

Well Hells Bells, Boy, that saved $40.00 per home! Look how that saved $40.00 spurred the sale of homes!

The industry has a whole news media constantly telling the public of the danger of turbulent weather towards manufactured housing. So the battle against weather radios comes off in the media as lack of care for consumer safety by the MH industry. Instead, the weather radio, perhaps not the best weather Paul Revere, could have been taken by the industry and used to show how much MH cares about consumer safety in a lemons to lemonade move. The industry might also have supported proper installation and anchoring of homes. Those moves were fought everywhere, including Florida, where anchors were slammed down our craw. Who was the first to take credit for the very fine job anchored MH demonstrated after the numerous hurricanes in Florida? You tell me!

Waiting to See

But here’s the article I’m awaiting to see in MHMSM.com and in The Journal, by both organizations: Here is a list of the items we have accomplished in Washington, and elsewhere WHICH HAVE LED TO THE SALE OF x MORE HOMES AND MADE THEM A BETTER VALUE FOR OUR CONSUMERS. Wanna see that one? I sure do.

Perhaps it’s unfair to pick on the two national associations. They are both staffed with good people doing what they think is right for the industry. Maybe our expectations for their results are too high.

Could it be these national associations exist only to create and support networking opportunities between industry players and to inform of matters deemed to be important or interesting as it affects the industry? Long ago I came to that conclusion.

The starkest example of the inability of the national associations to really matter beyond information and networking occurred during the period of 2001-2010, especially in 2004-2008, as frequent attempts were made to “restructure” the so-apparent industry defects which were destroying industry sales.

For a variety of reasons, none of the grandiose measures proposed, vetted and formulated in writing came to fruition, as we saw our associations have no ability to restructure an industry. Only the marketplace has that ability, and it proceeds to do so apace. Note that shipments through June of 2011 were down almost 12.3% from last year. Let’s face it, we blew what little wad we had in Elkhart in June of 2010 when FHFA, the GSE’s regulator, told the industry plainly: Our Duty to Serve (DTS) the MH industry doesn’t extend to chattel lending, as the GSE’s already have enough problems without getting into new and potentially troublesome areas, where they have very limited expertise. So much for Duty to Serve and all the homes it would sell through new chattel financing from the GSE’s.

Minor Success

The associations did help get FHA Title I (Chattel Loan) reformed last year, after the program was long time moribund. First year loan volume in 2010 was hardly encouraging, but OK, put that on the list as an accomplishment, limited as it is.

The horse has left the stable on SAFE, Dodd-Frank, other regulations and Super Consumer Agency. Both national associations are actively trying to reform major portions of the laws to exempt MH retailers and others from the force of the laws and their regulations. I suppose a strong selling point by the industry can be the straightforward reputation MH has for integrity in the sale and financing of homes. (Ah, they may have to back off from that one.) I think instead they are going to use affordability of our homes and limiting consumer choices as reasons to exempt manufactured housing from the new regulations. That event, should it transpire, should turbo-boost new home shipments! Right?

Wait a minute. Those laws, bureaus and regs haven’t been in effect all during the explosive industry dismantlement since 1999, so even if the above laws do not take effect against MH they will only reduce the slide, and do nothing to increase shipments. Whoops!

Communiqués Aplenty

Every month we read the numerous communiqués from both national associations. MHI seems the more measured with a range of information and an attempt to influence law makers and regulators with an effort to strike a balance between persuasion and facts. They do not seem to get much done, but then again, why should we expect the MH industry, a true 90 pound weakling, to get things done on SAFE, Dodd-Frank, and Super Consumer Agency when real powerhouses like the Mortgage Bankers and Realtors have had so little success. How, indeed?

Read one of the missives from MHARR and at first blush these beautifully structured sentences and paragraphs speak of power, passion, and a non-compromising attitude. I suppose the reality would be more palatable if not for the fact that this association is a loud-mouthed 90 pound weakling, but a weakling nonetheless. Their endless wrangling with HUD and others almost seems like that cartoon where Bugs and Elmer Fudd go to work every day, punch the time clock, spend 8 hours abusing each other, then punch out at day’s end and go home for a burger and a cold beer. It’s all a game.

And I don’t really blame the staff at MHARR, as they are employees who are guided by the officers and members of the association. It is they who foster this pugnacious attitude. If they have turned MHARR into a “wind them up and let ‘em pummel” HUD or whoever, it is because many in MH have this deviant thought that the “affordability” of the homes the industry produces allows them special prerogatives at the political table. What they do not apparently understand is that affordability of our homes is in the eye of the beholder, and in any event, loan defaults trump home affordability. The industry and their national associations make too much of “affordability” and the results show.

This would all be amusing, of course, if in the course of being a lobbyist, which MHARR is, it actually got things accomplished. Instead, we see a lobbying effort whose response from those they lobby is to roll their eyes about MHARR and call in sick when they are expected to visit.

MHI is conciliatory but gets little done and MHARR is pugnacious and gets little done. Maybe our expectations are too high for what each can and does accomplish. And certainly as shipments have plunged, so has the industry’s importance, PAC money and influence. Hang on to that affordability, it’s all we’ve got!

The Roles

Currently, as the MH industry press explores the roles of the two national associations and whether another is needed, or whether there is any hope the existing two could and should merge, I’m bemused by all the attention to this concern. (Merger you say? Sure! Fool me once, shame on you, etc.) The role of each seems clear to me. MHI is the broad purveyor of consensus and civility, calling on uncaring bureaucrats who do little for them, but meet with them. MHARR is the pit bull, knocking on D.C. doors wherein frightened bureaucrats lie prostrate, with the door well locked. Don’t come in! One tries persuasion, the other intimidation. Both can work in the right hands and proper hands, but the limitations of each, as it applies to the industry, is clearer than ever.

At the heart of the matter is that mortgage defaults and loan losses trump home affordability and consumer choice. No matter the strategy employed by the two national associations, talking home affordability has its limits. In fact I daresay it is not affordability which drove bloated 1990’s MH shipments and sales. No, it was transaction ease, that is, it was easy during the Greenseco era to buy and finance a manufactured home. Home affordability to a degree remains, but transaction ease left, with the results we now see. I’m not sure how the national associations can react to that, for in order to re-establish transaction ease, someone has to take on some massive chattel loan losses. Any volunteers? Danny? Thayer? Anyone? # #

Post by

MARTIN V. (MARTY) LAVIN
attorney, consultant, expert witness
practice only in factory built housing
350 Main Street Suite 100
Burlington, Vermont 05401-3413
802-660-8888 802-238-7777 cell
web site: www.martylavin.com

email mhlmvl@aol.com / marty@martylavin.com

In a disappointing scenario being played out in disaster-stricken communities across the nation, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) policies are resulting in de facto discrimination against HUD Code manufactured housing as both temporary emergency and permanent replacement housing.  At the same time that these policies are unnecessarily complicating badly-needed relief for disaster victims, FEMA, on June 7, 2011, hosted a day-long meeting in Washington, D.C. to explore, discuss and otherwise consider the details of a possible “small footprint” temporary HUD Code emergency home design.  Given these two seemingly opposite directions, a good many HUD Code manufacturers, anxious to meet the current pressing need for post-disaster housing with the most affordable, transportable and rapidly deploy-able homes available, while facing historically low productions levels, are starting to wonder exactly what is going on.

What is “going on,” is that FEMA, facing an immediate need for both short-term emergency relief housing and permanent replacement housing in communities where the existing housing stock and infrastructure has largely been decimated, has, for now, seemingly retreated from the use of new federally-regulated HUD Code housing as a primary source of emergency housing.  Instead, displaced disaster victims have been put-up in rental housing as much as an hour away from their former homes, or in non-HUD Code modular units.  Media reports, for example, indicate that FEMA is currently constructing up to 324 three-bedroom modular homes in Kansas City, Missouri, that will be sited on city-owned land in the north part of town, for some 624 Joplin families and individuals in need of housing.

In part, this appears to be a reflection of specific policy choices by FEMA.  In a May 31, 2011 Associated Press article regarding Joplin, Missouri relief housing, a FEMA spokesperson stated, “despite the distance, putting people in permanent housing is preferable to trailers….”  Another FEMA spokesman commented  that “the agency will consider bringing trailers to Joplin if enough existing housing isn’t available.”  Consequently, FEMA policy seems to be that today’s HUD Code manufactured homes, despite serving as “permanent housing” for millions of Americans and being regulated under federal law as residential dwellings and not “trailers,” are somewhere down its list of options to house disaster victims.

In other places, like Cordova, Alabama, FEMA has failed to overrule — or even object to — local officials who have barred the placement and use of HUD Code manufactured homes as emergency relief housing based on local ordinances, even though such emergency housing is provided with federal tax dollars by a federal government that, under the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, is supposed to “facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured homes.”  According to news reports, FEMA’s official comment on this HUD Code  housing ban affecting large numbers of displaced disaster victims, was that “it’s a local issue….”  Whether this is an outgrowth of a “second choice” policy for HUD Code housing or simply unwarranted deference to biased local officials, the result is the same — discrimination against HUD Code manufactured housing that hurts both disaster victims and the industry.

In the meantime, against this backdrop, FEMA, at its June 7, 2011 gathering, devoted an entire business day to a discussion — with industry members — of hypothetical “small footprint” one-bedroom HUD Code units that FEMA might be interested in purchasing under a “possible” future contract.  This, in turn, has led to the creation of  task forces, committees, discussion groups and the like, and meetings of those groups, to explore the particulars of such units, while, at the same time, it was apparent from the various FEMA presentations, that there is considerable confusion and disagreement, within FEMA, regarding the most basic aspects of such a unit, including: its size and configuration; its compliance with federal accessibility criteria; possible mandatory compliance with the International Residential Code; the installation and storage of such units; and the possible use of such “small footprint” homes as permanent housing.  And all this is if FEMA goes forward with such an initiative at all — with FEMA officials cautioning that nothing has yet been decided.

The bottom line for now, is that while there is the appearance of discrimination against new HUD Code manufactured housing in the field for both relief and permanent replacement housing, the industry has been left to chew over the details of a possible new opportunity that may be, could be, or might not ever be.  So, what to do?

Let there be no mistake, the industry can and should continue to work with FEMA.  The HUD Code industry has traditionally taken the lead in providing — on a quick, timely and flexible basis — safe, decent and readily deployable relief and replacement housing for disaster victims.  The industry should continue to pursue this role vigorously with FEMA at the policy level, which is why MHARR participated in the June 7, 2011 FEMA meeting and the Association has already started to follow-up on ways that the HUD Code industry can provide even more assistance to FEMA and other government agencies responsible for post-disaster relief.  The HUD Code industry already has the knowledge, know-how and experience to  provide whatever FEMA and disaster victims need.  But it must also address current FEMA policies.  Very simply, FEMA must be urged to change policies that have resulted, effectively, in discrimination against HUD Code manufactured housing and to re-commit to the use of HUD Code housing — of all types — as an equal participant in its federally-funded programs for both short-term emergency housing and permanent relief housing.

In MHARR’s view, the HUD Code industry has long been at the forefront of helping government provide both temporary relief and permanent replacement housing for victims of natural disasters, and with appropriate policies in dealing with FEMA, there is no reason why it should not continue in — and even expand — that role. # #

Danny D. Ghorbani is President of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform.  MHARR is a Washington, DC-based national trade association representing the views and interests of producers of federally regulated manufactured housing.  Danny can be reached at 202-783-4087.

Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform = MHARR

The manufactured housing industry has traditionally been able to deliver a quality product to home buyers at an affordable price because of its unique system of factory-based production combined with its network of independent retailers and independent land-lease communities.  This unique marketing and distribution structure has allowed the industry to prosper over the long-term, while serving and meeting the needs of American consumers of affordable housing.  Today, though, the independent retailers and communities that are the core of this system and make it work, face serious challenges at the national level that are not being addressed and resolved effectively — and have not been addressed effectively for years.

Because the manufactured housing industry is comprehensively regulated by the federal government, all of its various segments and all of its members are impacted directly by decisions made in Washington, D.C.  And, while all segments of the industry share certain common concerns at the national level, the specific interests, specific priorities and specific needs of all those segments in the nation’s capital, as shown by experience, are not necessarily identical.  For 20 years, though, since the post-production sector’s last independent association, the National Manufactured Housing Federation,  was merged into the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) to create an “umbrella group,” those specific interests and priorities have been swallowed by a dysfunctional process that has resulted in lowest-common-denominator positions and approaches to national-level issues that have not worked and have helped grease the skids for the industry’s prolonged decline.  Even worse, as part of this process, the particular interests of smaller independent post-production businesses have been overwhelmed and pushed aside by the power and influence of a few large corporate conglomerates.

A key part of the solution, therefore, to halt the industry’s long-term decline and restore it to production levels in the hundreds of thousands of homes, where it should be, must be the re-establishment of a dedicated, national post-production sector organization to effectively represent the specific concerns and interests of independent retailers and communities in the nation‘s capital, while working cooperatively with a single, united national producers’ organization on matters of joint concern.  And the sooner this happens, the better it will be for the entire industry.

As MHARR has pointed out before, the HUD Code industry is the only major industry in Washington, D.C. that keeps all of its different segments and interests under one umbrella organization.  The real estate/site-built housing industry, the automobile industry, the recreational vehicle industry, the marine industry and a host of others in Washington, D.C., all have separate associations for their production and post-production sectors.  The representation of these industries is organized along functional lines, recognizing that different sectors of the same industry, while united by certain over-arching concerns, have specific individual concerns that are best advanced by separate organizations that cooperate with each other as appropriate.  In an age of ever-increasing specialization and growth in the role of the federal government, this is just common sense.  By contrast, an “umbrella organization,” where different industry sectors, in the formulation of policy, are routinely expected to sacrifice their own interests to protect others, is a prescription for weakness, bureaucracy, ineffectiveness and failure, and lies at the root of the industry’s current sustained decline  — particularly its problems with public and private financing.

For example, with an independent association for retailers and communities, the industry’s current crisis dealing with the SAFE Act and Dodd-Frank mandates most likely would not exist, because those mandates should  — and undoubtedly would — have been addressed before they were signed into law.  Instead, as has been acknowledged by various sources and confirmed by reports from Congress, the ball was dropped on this major post-production issue, and the industry is now scrambling against difficult odds to secure after-the-fact fixes, with the survival of its small businesses on the line.

It’s no different with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).  An independent association of the nation’s retailers and community owners would not have let manufactured housing loans drop to a miniscule portion of the business of these agencies.  It would have been on top of the failure of these agencies to properly and adequately serve the needs of American families who rely on affordable manufactured housing with strong, decisive positions and follow-up from day one.  It would not have provided cover for manufactured housing detractors within the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) — who ran them into the ground purchasing risky sub-prime loans that people could not afford, while choking-off private financing for manufactured homes that people could afford.  Nor would it have spent years on a “select” program that is so “select” it’s virtually useless, while allowing manufactured housing loans to shrink to less than 1% of the GSE’s portfolios.

None of this should be news to any of the nation’s hard-working independent retailers and community owners who are struggling just to survive while sending their hard-earned dollars to Washington, D.C. to fund national-level representation that, with little or no regard for smaller independent businesses, has presided over a shrinking industry, while a handful of larger corporate conglomerates have benefited.

A dedicated post-production association in Washington, D.C. would advance the specific interests of independent retailers and communities with strong, undiluted positions that would be more targeted, more focused and, therefore, more effective, while working hand-in-glove with a single, united, dedicated manufacturers’ association to promote, advance and protect the industry’s broader interests in Washington, D.C.  But this will not happen until the nation’s retailers and community owners take the bull by the horns, exercise leadership, and demand change to resolve the fundamental structural problem that continues to handicap their representation — and the representation of the industry as a whole — in the nation’s capital.

In MHARR’s view, retailers and community-based entities face a clear choice — continued dysfunction and decline, or a change to a new national level industry representation structure to lead the industry back to real prosperity.  # #

Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)
1331 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Suite 508
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/783-4087
Fax: 202/783-4075
Email: mharrdg@aol.com