Archive

Posts Tagged ‘mobile home’

“What’s Happened to the HUD Code Manufactured Home Industry?”

July 9th, 2014 No comments

Many years ago, a famous Movie Cowboy, Mayor of Beverly Hills, Editor of the Saturday Evening Post and Entertainer, Will Rodgers said, “If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?”

Manufactured housing has seen its media image perpetuated and the public perception remains consistently tarnished for quite some time. The HUD Code manufactured home (MH) appears too often to be viewed by government, Realtors  ® and the public as not being desirable. The MH Industry has seen its home production decline and new MH Communities (MHCs) have declined as well. Many of these existing communities are tired with no “Innovation” or “Cool” factor for prospects.

On this date in 2014, along comes the “Tiny House,” a version of the factories “RV Park model.”

The “Tiny House” is less than 400 square feet. It sits on a trailer frame; it has wheels and a hitch. It appears to be of the same type of construction as a RV Park Model or a small HUD Code manufactured home. Media professionals like “Tiny Houses” for stories and about those who live in them. See example below.

tiny-houses-steven-lefer-industry-voices-posted-mhpronews-com

Wow, the media’s attention is so positive to the “Tiny House” that it far exceeds that of the old and tired HUD Trailer/Mobile Home industry. TV shows with Bob Vila endorse it and A+E TV Network will begin showing “Tiny House Nation” July 9, 2014 at 10 ET/11PT on their home product.

The articles point to how “Cute” and functional this small single wide home is; and how they even have a “Cool,” “Hip” factor with “NO” negative publicity. It's astonishing. These homeowners and their tiny houses brag about the size and in some cases folks live in 120 square feet, which is no bigger than a backyard shed. A woman in the article below left a MHPark to live one, ouch!

I understand “Four Lights Tiny House Company” will be attempting to build a “Village” for people to live in a community of them. What? How? Is this not an RV Community? If you are part of the HUD Code Manufactured Home Industry, I am sure you are not aware of this image change nor have the leaders of the industry addressed or invited these competing folks to their convention. Are they part of the HUD Industry or do they prefer NOT to be? It sure makes me wonder?

credit-tiny-house-nation-series-graphic-Wednesday-july-9-10et-11pt-

Image credit FYI.TV

Here are three links for you to ponder!

http://www.deadline.com/2014/02/ae-lifestyle-network-fyi-sets-first-slate-launch-date/

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/12/31/2857011/bette-presley-arroyo-grande-house.html

http://www.bobvila.com/articles/tiny-house-village/

Where and what happened to the HUD Code Manufactured Home Industry? ##

steve-leflervicepresident-modular-lifestyles-industry-voices-mhpronews-com75x75-Steven Lefler
Vice President
Modular Lifestyles, Inc.
(888) 437-4587
Dual DRE and HCD Salesperson
Advanced Green Building Professional
CEC Solar Wind Retailer/Installer

http://www.modularlifestyles.com

(First image supplied by Steve Lefler)

(Editor's Note: MHProNews strongly believes that accurate terminology matters, and as was noted with Ken Haynes' Industry Voices guest column today, the thoughts and statements made above are solely those of the writer.

Further, there are points in this commentary that are broad statements that could be construed as technically inaccurate, was used as hyperbole and thus depending on the context, should not be taken literally. Steve Lefler well knows about the recent positive press from CBS News or the Boston Globe, among others, touting the value of today's manufactured home.

Those who know Lefler's noteworthy work in net-zero and near-off-the-grid factory built homes makes him a pioneer, and that has lead him to a level of what might politely be described as frustration with the industry-at-large and its leaders for not promoting our factory-built home product, as his column above suggests.

As a recent Masthead blog post – Manufactured Housing's Declaration of Independence – underscored, market facts tell us our industry ought to be booming.

As on any issue of industry relevance, MHProNews accepts submissions of articles that may represent similar or other viewpoints. Subject line, “Letter to the Editor” or “OpEd for Industry Voices blog” can be sent to latonyk@gmail.com.

Moblehome, not Mobile Home

July 9th, 2014 4 comments

Does it not roll off your lips? Moblehome. It has a certain rhythm and melody to it. You can say it as one syllable, and not sound like an idiot.

Moblehome, as in a noble home, not a mobile home.

At one time HUD code homes were the only manufactured homes. Not any more.

Man-u-fac-tured-hous-ing, does not roll of your lips. In fact, it is quite laborious to say, with six syllables and no rhythm nor melody. It’s antiseptic. Moblehome is poetic.

Mobile Home is 100% all-American.

I know it’s crazy and against the grain, but I was in it long enough to spout off about it.

Mobile Home should not be a four letter word anymore.

I started in the mobile home finance business working for GECC in Dallas, in 1971, directly for Harry Gilmore, who worked for Fred Wiesenberger, who worked for Scott Conroy, my maternal uncle. Sometime prior to that, Uncle Scott had convinced General Electric to create a “Special Products” division of General Electric Credit Corporation, now GE Capital Corporation, for the sole purpose of offering wholesale and retail financing for mobile home retailers on a national basis.

At the time there were few national lenders, all full recourse, and limited to 84 month retail installment contracts.

I was a mobile home account manager handling about 1500 owners. I managed anything and everything to do with the financed home (primarily collections) from point of sale to completion of contract or repossession, by phone or in person at the residence.

Anyone who was in the business in 1971 knows exactly what kinds of mobile homes were offered to the public. It was not pretty, and in some cases, downright scary.

We all see, on a regular basis, unless you live completely in an urban environment, the vestiges and remnants of the sales heydays of the early 70’s.

There are hundreds of thousands of trailer houses and mobile homes across this country, from coast-to-coast and border-to-border, still in use, well after their intended life span, all pre-HUD, half of them currently uninhabitable by today’s standards, a fourth of them uninhabitable upon leaving the factory, and a fourth of them, like Rollohome, built exceeding the HUD code before there was a HUD code.

The HUD code created a new nomenclature, which has been described by Allen Wallis of

the Natural History Magazine as having four phases;

  • from 1928 – 1940 the travel trailer period;
  • from 1941 – 1954, the house trailer period;
  • from 1955 – June 14, 1976, the mobile home period; and
  • from June 15, 1976 to now, manufactured housing.

Since 1976, we, as an industry, without exception, no matter what sector of the industry one is involved with, as a group, were on a single mission; trying to eradicate all previous terms when describing manufactured housing built to HUD code specifications. It is a valiant and endless chore, perpetually trying to reach the general population, and primarily, our regulators and legislators.

Yet here we are, in 2014, and I still hear on local broadcasting; “trailer,” “trailer house” or “house trailer” and “mobile home,” rarely “manufactured home.”

On national broadcasting, one hears mobile home, an occasional trailer house or trailer park, and rarely, manufactured home.

I see National, State, and County elected officials being interviewed, saying trailer house and mobile home, never manufactured home. Sometimes they will call a HUD home a modular.

I cannot count the times an RV has been referred to as a mobile home, whether it’s a trailer or a motorhome. Motorhome, mobilehome, what’s the difference? Ignoramuses! Are the FEMA trailers ever called anything but the FEMA trailers, even though half of them are HUD code homes and not travel trailers. I doubt you will ever hear, “FEMA manufactured homes.”

I am not saying we have failed, but we sure seem to have a long way to go, after already working on it for 40 years. I have called and emailed I don’t know how many TV stations and networks complaining about their cavalier use of “trailer house” for the last 30 years, although I haven’t called lately. I don’t work in the business any longer, but I do follow it and I do try to educate morons from time to time.

The fact is, the general public has not embraced the term manufactured housing and probably never will. HUD Code manufactured homes are called about everything but manufactured homes by the general public and public officials.

Not mobile home, moblehome, or if you’re nutty about spelling, mobilehome, but one word and when we say it, we are not talking about your grand dad’s mobile home, we are talking about a state of the art, preferred single family residence, blah, blah, blah. I’m not saying give totally up on trying to get the general population to say

manufactured housing, but it’s a slow boat to China. I personally like to say moblehome and I make it perfectly clear I am not talking about a trailer, although the steel is always there, so technically, it’s a trailer with a house on it that trails behind a tow vehicle at some point in its life.

At least we are not called come alongs. ##

ken-haynes-jr-new-mexico-manufactured-housing-association-past-president-manufactured-housing-living-news-com75x75-Ken Haynes, Jr. Please see his commentary on the literally historic and very relevant today document attached to Drawn Quarters – Then and Now.

 

 

(Editor's Note: MHProNews strongly believes that accurate terminology matters, so the thoughts and statements made above are solely those of the writer.

Further, there are points in this commentary that are broad statements that could be construed as technically inaccurate, and should not be taken literally, eg; “half of them currently uninhabitable by today’s standards,” should be read as hyperbole to make the author's point, rather than taken as fact.

As on an issue of industry relevance, MHProNews accepts submissions of articles that may represent other viewpoints. Subject line, “Letter to the Editor” or “OpEd for Industry Voices blog” can be sent to latonyk@gmail.com.) 

MHGrassroots: A Call to Action

June 17th, 2014 No comments

As I sit comfortably in a 737 at 30000 feet coming back from a thought provoking meeting at the MHI Expo in Las Vegas I don't have to go in great detail on how the world has changed since 2001.

From how we fly, how we communicate, and even how we conduct business, it has all changed in ways none of us truly imagined then.

Every day I read more about how a government I have grown up loving, is making changes that contradict the core beliefs and attributes it was built upon. With that said, let's look at a few issues that have faced, primarily as it relates to the manufactured home market in the past 15 years.

In Texas we were asleep at the wheel in 2001 when House Bill 1869 took effect. I was but one of the many independent dealers who were wondering how this could have happened. I even looked Gov. Rick Perry in the eye and told him point blank that this bill would cost Texans jobs and would reduce home order sales, which in turn would force the closing of several fine manufacturing plants.

Unfortunately I and those around me were right. Even though the TMHA through a lot of hard work was able to have this poor piece of legislature repealed in 2003, the damage was already done.

I won't go into the specifics of the law itself, but I will say it was a killer from day one. If you have any questions about it, just Google it. I have heard the experts’ state that 85% of the independents who were in the market at that time were wiped out by this law and the recession that hit us in 2008. And guess what. Those folks are gone, probably never to return again.

So let's take a look at where the train came off the tracks.

We were too late to stop one train simply because we weren’t aware it was heading for the station.

If we want to be successful in the legislative arena we have to stop the bills before they get that close to the tracks. We, the industry as a whole, must be vigilant in being aware of any laws, in every city, county, state and federal arena that could negatively impact not only us, but the people around us.

This means we have to know, and have a relationship with, the people in charge. Governor Perry signed that bill even after I told him the truth. Why? Simple, he didn't know me from Adam. No relationship equals no traction. We have to build those relationships in order for our voices to not only be heard but to be accredited.

How was it fixed? A grassroots effort. From the ground up. TMHA called upon every member….who in turn called on every state senator and state representative to repeal a bad piece of legislation. And it worked! Why? Because the industry stood up as a whole, and worked together for the common good of all. I call this a victory for the good guys.

Let's look at another victory.

Last year I received a phone call from a landlord who was my ‘competitor’ in Plainview, Texas. I use that word competitor only because we are after the same pool of customers. I call him a friend.

Basically this city was in the process of creating a city ordinance which would require an inspection on every rental inside the city once it was vacated by a tenant. Never mind the fact that this would be in direct contradiction to the HUD code on a manufactured home. Every house, apartment, and mobile home would have to be brought back to current code if this law passed.

This would mean thousands of dollars spent to update every unit.

One unintended consequence of this law would have forced the citizens to pay rent in excess of three times the current rate.

Another would have riddled the city with homes to be demolished due to the repair cost being more then the value of the home.

Yet another would have been a mass exodus of good paying tenants to the surrounding communities which didn't have this law.

So how did we stop this calamity before it was passed like Texas House Bill 1869?

We showed up in droves. There was standing room only at every hearing. Meetings with every city official we could get and we killed it before it could even be heard by city council. How? It took one phone call from each of us who took the time to make that call. And another victory ensued.

So what does all this mean to you, the reader?

It's time. It is time to make a difference and make a call of your own.

I know you are busy, but don't blow this one off.

Dodd Frank and the SAFE Act are not going away. So what are you going to do? I am calling not only those of us in the industry, but all of us.

The government doesn't need us, but this country does. We are this country's answer to affordable housing. But if the people can't get financing for that home what good are we to them?

If you don't know who to call that's ok. Call your state association. If you are not a member, sign up. If you are a member, get active. Make a difference. You can. ##

shawn-fuller-d-r-housing-new-deal-texas-industry-voices-manufactured-housing-mhpronews-com-75x75-Shawn Fuller
D & R Housing, LLC.
New Deal, TX 79350

What More Can We Accomplish After This Year’s Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) Congress and Expo?

May 13th, 2014 No comments

Like many others, I attended the 2014 National Congress & Expo two weeks ago in Las Vegas. I also chose to attend the National Communities Council Spring Forum held all day Tuesday prior to the opening reception. There were some exceptional programs! The attendance was very high according to reports from MHI. While there was an eye brow-raiser (or two…) on the agenda, off-agenda items that were pretty interesting and overall the Spring NCC Forum and MHI's Congress and Expo featured seminars with speakers focused on current industry topics and issues. Numerous vendors on hand shared their services, displayed their products and provided opportunities for deal making.

What should not come as a surprise was the number of new individuals who attended the Congress.

Many professionals from all facets of the housing, finance and investment sectors were on hand to listen and learn about the manufactured housing industry. This is another great indication on the positive future for the industry.

Today, there is something in the neighborhood of Two (2) Billion Dollars chasing the manufactured housing industry! That's Billion with a capital B!

Those dollars may or may not be invested in our sector; only time will tell. What we need to realize is that there is capital willing to invest and grow in manufactured housing. With new capital much can change, improve and set the stage for a brighter future of the industry.

Yet, even with the large amount of new capital looking to invest in the industry, manufactured housing will still be a very small piece of the roughly One (1) Trillion Dollar annual U.S. housing market.

The questions I continue to ponder are;

  • what can we do to grow the manufactured housing industry’s share of the overall housing industry?

  • How do we get to the root of the obstacles that continue to impede the MH Industry’s growth?

Flying home after Congress and Expo, those nagging questions bugged me. Below is a thought that came to mind that may provide a profitable starting point.

Why not host an – August 2014? – organizational networking/deal making opportunity event that is Trans-Associational?

Why not consider a location near a fine newer MHC property that breaks the stereotypes – such as Saddlebrook Farms in Grayslake, IL – where the potential for new development could better be understood by those who only know the 1 or 2 star MH properties? Would love to hear suggestions on other possible sites that fill the bill.

That property would also feature great looking, residential style product that is ground set, so this would shatter the 'mobile home' image for potential investors who only know the entry level product.

As you can see, I am not suggesting replacing any current event, such as the upcoming MHI annual meeting, NCC Fall Leadership Forum or other association or industry functions.

Rather I am suggesting something totally fresh and different.

Let’s bring the stakeholders and potential investors to the table at the same time with professional facilitation and the opportunity to participate.

The focus of the meeting would be how to get those multi-billions moving ahead, as well as advance the MH Industry as a larger and viable part of the overall housing market.

What makes this concept different than other current programs is that interested parties are invited regardless of current relationship issues or biases. Bringing goal and solution oriented individuals from differing backgrounds, all committed to growing the manufactured housing industry could be groundbreaking.

Please do not misunderstand; while I'd like to be involved, I am not volunteering to take the lead in this event due to my current business obligations. I am putting the idea out in this public forum for discussion.

The way this gets done is for

  • commercial real estate brokers and appraisers,
  • commercial RE lenders and brokers,
  • MH finance companies (personal property and Mortgage lenders),
  • Any – or all – HUD Code manufactured housing and modular builders,
  • developers
  • Suppliers and other service vendors

to pay for the costs of the meeting, mixers and main meals.

Pick a place that is nice clean convention location, and keep the entry fee really low.

Let's put an asterisks next to this one. What if we make it easy for the hundreds (or thousands?) of owners of MHCs who are looking to exit due to age, health or other reasons to come at a pre-event day to discuss their properties face to face with those who may want to buy them?

Might this be a good way to facilitate the capture of more of that circling capital which would also facilitate the improvement of languishing communities and the sales of more homes in them?

There also ought to be an ability for the event organizers to bar this or that person or group at will, so that the Ishbel Dickens/NMHOA or Industry naysayers don't get in. That keeps this focused on business and solutions.

Just think about the number of organizations who would want to take part in an event of this nature. Here are a few who I believe would join the effort.

rick-rand-industry-voices-mhpronews-com

There probably are others who should be included on this list. These are the organizations that came to my mind while thinking about who the stakeholders are in the future of the MH Industry.

One more critical point. Let's tackle the creation of a vibrant, efficient resale market for manufactured homes. This is absolutely critical for the future of our industry, the benefit of our residents and lenders as well as our homes' broader acceptance.

By being trans-associational, this could also prove to be fertile ground for meeting with and recruiting new members.

As to a target date, based on the interest being shown about the industry, sometime in the near term would be better than delaying. By doing it in the summer, a successful meeting could position the 2015 trade shows for dovetailing with this concept.

The location must be close to a major airport so that there is easy access to the event. As noted, having some newer and older MH communities nearby would be beneficial so that participants can take a charter actually view the new homes and better understand the true breadth of the MH product and variety of community lifestyles.

I believe that an event like this will assist in not only promoting the Manufactured Housing Industry but also could be a catalyst for additional new capital investment and future financing opportunities.

We must not lose sight of a key goal of the meeting; how to advance the MH Industry as a larger and viable part of the overall housing market.

Please feel free to comment below or email me with your thoughts. The future of the MH Industry is ours to create. ##

rRck RandRick Rand is the president of Great Value Homes, and has been involved in small and large scale MHC operations. You can contact him at:
Richard J. Rand, President, Great Value Homes, Inc.. 9458 N. Fairway Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53217-1321,

414-352-3855
414-352-3631(fax)
414-870-9000(cell),
RickRand@gvhinc.net

Appalled by Gary Rivlin’s New York Times Article on “The Cold, Hard Lessons of Mobile Home U”

April 8th, 2014 No comments

As an experienced industry professional, former owner of a manufactured home, and academic scholar completing a dissertation on attitudes and perceptions towards manufactured housing, I am appalled by the seemingly acceptable exploitation of low-income residents and lack of corporate social and ethical responsibility conveyed in this article.

Gary Rivlin’s article portrayed Frank Rolfe’s business model and success as the standard for the affordable housing side of the manufactured home industry.

According to peer-reviewed academic research, the negative social construction of low-income families profoundly influence opinions of affordable housing residents (Nguyen et al., 2012).

Contemporary mass media and popular culture, such as Rivlin’s piece, contribute to the negative stigmatization through the depiction of manufactured housing residents as alcoholics, crack heads, drug dealers, wife beaters, sex offenders, and the mentally ill (Kusenbach, 2009).

While Rolfe’s tales of tenants “weirdness” certainly adds humorous entertainment to his lesson of exploiting the poverty class, the damage inflicted through contributing to negative stigmatization of residents is concerning.

Rivlin’s article is a prime example of media coverage that increases misconceptions through inaccurate and outdated information, as well as the omission of information about advancements and improvements.

I am disappointed that The New York Times would contribute to the unflattering depiction of manufactured housing residents and use of deprecating names (i.e. trailer) that reduce social prestige and contribute to negative social perceptions.

According to research by Mimura et al. (2010), accurate media coverage should use proper terminology instead of dated slang words and report truthful and unbiased aspects of the product.

Perhaps Mr. Rivlin should spend some time with one of the industry manufacturers and gain an accurate perspective of the product and targeted consumer market.##

lisa-tyler-walden-university-posted-manufactured-home-professional-news-mhpronews-com-50x50-(1).pngLisa Tyler
Walden University
lisa.tyler@waldenu.edu

(Editor's Note: A broad, industry based response to the Cold Hard Lessons of Mobile Home U, which includes comments MHI's Chairman Nathan Smith and other industry veterans, is found at this link below.

http://www.ManufacturedHomeLivingNews.com/sensationalistic-cold-hard-lessons-of-mobile-home-u-new-york-times-article-by-gary-rivlin-draws-manufactured-home-industry-ire-desire-and-fire/

The story linked above, as the second one below, have both been leading reads on their respective sites.

Reader responses to this topic or others of industry interest are welcomed at latonyk@gmail.com or iReportMHNewsTips@mhmsm.com please indicated your topic in the subject line, thank you.)

Back to the Future Mobile Home Cartoon

July 22nd, 2013 No comments

In 1964,  while doing research for my master’s thesis on Manufactured Housing  community design at the University of Illinois I came across this cartoon in an architecture cartoon book, ‘The Last Lath.’ 

credit-the-last-lath-cartoon-book-1952-sent-don-westphal-posted-by-manufactured-housing-professional-news-.jpg

It’s amazing how ahead of their times many cartoonists are.  In the 1970’s the Mobile Home Manufacturer’s Association  sponsored the study entitled ‘New Housing Systems,’ a similar idea of placing Mobile Home modules in egg crate type superstructures.

don-westphal-posted-on-mhpronews-com.jpgPost Submitted by
Don Westphal
Donald C. Westphal, Associates
71 North Livernois Ave.
Rochester Hills, MI 48307
PH: 248-651-5518
Fax: 248-651-0450

Will California Park Owners Begin Heading For the Exits?

July 10th, 2013 1 comment

With the political changes in Sacramento, the tenant advocates are pressing their agenda with new vigor in 2013. Once again, they are pushing to amend the subdivision conversion statute (Government Code § 66427.5). They are advocating for changes which would allow local governments to deny conversions not supported by a majority of residents and which would give such governments authority to implement their own “conversion” regulations. There are even rumblings for statewide rent control for mobilehome parks.

Conversions under Section 66427.5 have been a favored exit strategy for park owners, resulting in related litigation all over the state. Recent decisions applying Section 66427.5 have been a "mixed bag." The decision in Sequoia Park Associates in 2009 was the “high water mark” for limiting the interference of local governments in conversions since the Ordinance was amended in 2002 to add the requirement that tenants be surveyed regarding their support. Based on that decision, many local governments and lower courts have approved conversions despite resident opposition. Subsequent reported decisions by different appellate courts have chipped away at and offered different interpretations of Section 66427.5. The 2010 decision in Colony Cove v. Carson held that local governments could "consider" the resident survey results, but the Court did not provide any guidance as to how local governments could consider or use the surveys. The Court did acknowledge, however, the lack of resident support in and of itself could not block a conversion.

The worst decision for park owners, Goldstone v. County of Santa Cruz, was decided in early 2012. Goldstone held local governments could deny subdivisions if the subdivision was not supported by a majority of residents. Although not explicit, the Court seemed to adopt the view that a "bona fide" or “non-sham” conversion is, by definition, one supported by a majority or at least a large percentage of tenants. Chino MHC v. City Of Chino, decided in late October 2012, took a decidedly more pro-park owner view, concluding that a local government was required to approve a subdivision unless there was overwhelming opposition by the tenants. The Court also made clear its view that a bona fide conversion was one in which the park owner truly intended to convert it to tenant ownership. Unfortunately, the Chino decision still encourages tenants to attempt to block subdivisions or extort favorable terms in exchange for support for the conversion.

Late last year, the California Supreme Court issued a decision directly relevant to conversions in coastal zones, Pacific Palisades Bowl v. Los Angeles. The Court in that case held that local governments did have some authority to review conversions for compliance with the Coastal Act requirements (and other state laws). The ultimate impact of this holding is not entirely clear, but it makes clear that local governments can impose conditions relating to the replacement of affordable housing in a coastal zone.

Under the existing statute which has been relatively favorable to park owners, there still has been substantial resistance to subdivisions in many local communities, in some cases, even where no rent control exists. The processing of a subdivision for Pacific Mobile Home Park in Huntington Beach is a good example.

Articles.000/4819-2353-3075v.1

Pacific initiated a subdivision in 2010 with the support of a majority of the residents in the Park. The City fought Pacific’s subdivision Application. Pacific had to file a lawsuit after the City denied the Application. The City not only aggressively defended the lawsuit, but attempted to extort a favorable result by filing a cross-complaint seeking immediate physical removal of homes owned by park tenants who the City claimed were “trespassing” on an unused City right of way for decades.

The City’s denial of the subdivision Application was reversed in July 2012, which resulted in the City approving the subdivision in November, 2012. However, on December 3, 2012, the newly elected City Council voted to rescind the approval. Pacific then obtained a court order invalidating the vote and barring reconsideration of the subdivision Application by the City. That court order still did not stop the City two weeks later from voting to confirm their illegal December 3 vote. This did not sit well with the Judge who issued the order. The Court granted Pacific’s Application to set a trial for Contempt of Court for 6 of the 7 Council Members and the City Attorney. Finally, with the threat of a criminal trial hanging over their head, the City Council abandoned its challenge of the subdivision.

If Section 66427.5 is amended, which seems likely given the current political environment, then park owners can count on more local opposition to subdivision. The sad reality is that while local politicians often talk about how important affordable housing is to them, they often really do not want to see mobilehome park uses become permanent, particularly in coastal or other “upscale” locations.

If the door to subdivisions is closed, the final path of escape for park owners trapped in confiscatory rent control is closure. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that governments cannot stop closures in Yee v. Escondido. Yee recognizes that the right to go out of business is one of the crucial “sticks” in the “bundle of property rights.” Of course, the crucial issues become the cost of closure and the viability of alternative uses. Government Code 65863.7 limits payments to tenants to the “reasonable cost of relocation.” The common sense interpretation of “reasonable cost of relocation” limitation means the cost of physically moving a mobilehome and the tenant’s belongings. Certain local governments have adopted requirements that exceed this limitation, but we do not have any appellate decisions directly addressing the question. If conversions are made more difficult, it is likely we will get binding authority, hopefully confirming a “common sense” interpretation of Section 65863.7. We can count on the courts for common sense, right?

mark-alpert-hk&c-law-manufactured-home-professionals-mhpronews-com-75x75-.jpgMark Alpert is a partner with Orange County law firm, Hart, King & Coldren. He focuses much of his practice on manufactured housing issues, and has a particular expertise in rent control, subdivision conversions and park closures. Mark can be reached at (714) 432-8700 or at malpert@hkclaw.com.

Georgia Manufactured Housing Association’s Executive Director Sounds off on Princeton WordNet’s “Definition” of Manufactured Homes

April 12th, 2013 No comments

(Editor's Note: As with the MH Retailer's letteror the MHC Community manager's letters, linked as shown, this letter below was sent to Princeton's WordNet in response to their flawed definition of manufactured homes as found online and reported in this blog post.)

Princeton WordNet

Good Afternoon,
I have always appreciated the consistency and accuracy of www.wordnet.com but recently I read an industry article concerning your definition of Manufactured Housing. A recent industry article informed me that your definition of "Manufactured Home" is as follows:  "Mobile home: a large house trailer that can be connected to utilities and can be parked in one place and used as permanent housing."

I would certainly like to think someone with the IQ, life experiences, and test scores required to be accepted as a student at Princeton or to gain employment on the prestigious Princeton Faculty could certainly come up with a more comprehensive term for Factory Built Housing or Manufactured Housing. As a matter of fact, I am 100% convinced people of your intelligence can certainly challenge themselves to a higher level of vocabulary development than what you have demonstrated thus far. People like me that have committed their entire adult lives to the success of this industry would be so appreciative.

I will leave you with a few facts. In Georgia where I am located 43% of our residents live in Manufactured Housing. All of our homes are built to the Federal HUD Code, the International Building Code (IBC) or the International Residential Code (IRC). The latter two codes are accepted worldwide. Over 70% of our homes are installed on a permanent foundation and never moved again for the life of the homes. The National Home Builders Association recognizes that our housing has recently been rated by an independent engineering and architectural firm as having an average lifespan of 53 years. That we build homes on a daily basis that exceed 2500 square feet.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jay HamiltonC. Jay Hamilton
Executive Director
Georgia Manufactured Housing Association
199 East Main Street
Forsyth, Georgia 31029
Phone 478-994-0006
Cell 478 394 5114

(Editor's Note: The email address for the WordNet team is: wordnet@princeton.edu please take a few moments and email them, asking them to update their definition of manufactured housing. You can use the example above, the one by Retailer Jody Anderson or by Community Manager James Cook, all of which bring a flavor and punch not found in the original sent by Tony Kovach linked here. Whatever you do, email  wordnet@princeton.edu something you like, to encourage they update their outdated and flawed “definition.“

Irresponsible Weather reporting by Media and National Weather Service

April 11th, 2013 No comments

Tony,
It's that time of year again for bad weather, and of course, the local news weather reporters, The Weather Channel & the National Weather Service are busy scaring the hell out of Manufactured Home owners and residents with ridiculous 'info' about 'trailers' during storms.

Recently, a new 'weatherman' at a Dallas/Fort Worth station told his audience to just get out of "mobile homes" & other poorly built structures.  He didn't say to go to a shelter, or underground, basically just for people to go outside of their "mobile home."

We need a national campaign to educate media 'Weather' reporters, the National Weather Service, and the like in the mainstream media about two things:

  • Manufactured/mobile homes are not trailers. TRAILERS are travel trailers & aren't tied down.

2. Manufactured homes are anchored & the walls are built to withstand direct force sustained winds of high mph minimum standards set by HUD, meaning its federally regulated.

As you know, the average Manufactured Home goes through a dozen earthquakes and 2 hurricanes just getting from he factory to a dealer's lot!

Can you use your vantage point to forward this message to State & National MH groups to get an organized campaign going to stop all this negative & incorrect publicity?

Thank you.
Frank Woody, Owner
Republic Homes
Weatherford & Early, Texas

p.s. I'll follow up on Jody's letter to the Princeton WordNet team, as well.

When Eminent Domain Becomes Eminent Injustice

July 18th, 2012 2 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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