Archive

Posts Tagged ‘President’

State Association Quits Membership in Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), Explains in Writing, Why?

February 9th, 2018 No comments

The manufactured housing industry has long been a mainstay of affordable housing in the United States.  For decades the industry has provided an unmatched quality of life with an affordability not seen in any other sector of the housing market.  The homes and the land lease communities in which they are situated have become fixtures across the country providing an affordable, quality lifestyle to all segments of our population.  Over the years it has seen its ups and downs, but has been able to survive and even thrive through the difficult times.  The greatest hindrance and the greatest threat to the industry is not the economy, the homes or the communities, it is governmental interference and over regulation. 

The Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona (MHCA) is a statewide association representing community owners in Arizona.  As state associations do, the MHCA has been very active and productive at the state level in combatting governmental interference with its burdensome regulations and obstacles.  At the state level most community owner associations have been able to not only monitor proposed local and statewide legislation, but interact with legislators to prevent onerous regulations that are detrimental to our industry.

The MHCA had joined a national association in hopes that we would get the same representation and effectiveness at a national level.  The national legislation and rule making over the last ten years has proven that we do not have that representation.  One only has to look at the passage of the Safe Act and the Dodd-Frank Act to see how devastating and onerous national legislation can be.  Other similar chattel groups (the RV industry) saw the proposals and their representation managed to have them exempted.  The national organization to which we belonged was apparently unaware of the legislation and its ramifications until after passage and it was already being implemented.  The rule making in the aftermath has been horrendous and little if anything has been done to stop the bleeding.  Recently, HUD has issued rules concerning the screening of prospective tenants for our communities.  Again, we find no one aware of what is happening, much less advocating on our behalf.  Installation requirements are being implemented that have no basis in common sense and the result will be additional burdens on community owners and added costs for homeowners.

Due to the lack of effective representation at a national level, the MHCA withdrew its membership from the national association to pursue other avenues of representation. We are not the only state association to do so.  The MHCA has been exploring other options; including hiring a lobbying firm that is prominent in Washington, D.C. 

MHCommunitiesOfAZNealTHaneyPresidentWhyTheyQuitManufacturedHousingInstituteMHIDailyBusinessNewsMHProNews737x214

In some cases, the state associations represent community owners only and in others there is a single association representing all aspects of the industry.  We need a national association to advocate on behalf of community owners.  It does not need to be an association with conferences to attend or one that requires numerous meetings and publications.  Such an association needs to be very narrowly focused on monitoring proposed legislation and rule making.  We need someone to advocate on behalf of the community owners.  This singular task needs to be done at the congressional level and in the departments that make policy affecting our industry.  Every community owner, and every association that is accepting membership dues from community owners, should be concerned with the lack of representation at the national level and should be involved in finding adequate representation.  If you are willing to be a part of the solution, please contact our association office.

Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona
2158 N Gilbert Road, Ste. 116
Mesa AZ 85203
Phone: 480.345.4202, Toll free 800.351.3350

You may also email our Executive Director Susan Brenton at: sbrenton@azmhca.com.

Thank you for your consideration on how you can help shape the future of our industry.

Sincerely, 

Neal T Haney,
President


##

ManufacturedHousingCommunitiesofAZLogoIndustryVoicesDailyBusinessNewsMHProNews

MHARR’s Mark Weiss Reaction to Jim Ayotte’s GSE’s Duty to Serve Commentary

January 24th, 2017 No comments

We at MHARR have the greatest respect for Jim Ayotte, but his recent commentary on the final Duty to Serve (DTS) rule issued by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is far too charitable.

It’s one thing to see the proverbial glass as half full versus half empty.  It’s another to accept a few droplets as half a glass.

And that is what consumers and the industry have gotten from FHFA – a few drops at the bottom of the glass, window dressing that is not likely to lead anywhere soon, despite the urgent need now for affordable and competitive chattel-based consumer financing for manufactured homes.

If Congress had meant the “duty to serve” to be optional, it would not have called it a “duty.”  The dictionary definition of a “duty” has – at its core – a mandatory responsibility.  And Congress is presumed to use words according to their ordinary and customary meaning. But nothing in the FHFA rule would require Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to do anything to support MH chattel loans – not even a “pilot program” (more about that in a moment).  So the “duty” instituted by FHFA is not really a “duty” at all, but a choice left to entities that have steadfastly refused to provide secondary market support for MH chattel loans – which prompted the “duty to serve” in the first place.

DutyToServeManufacturedHousingMMarkWeissJDPresidentMHARR-MHProNews-

If all this sounds familiar, it should. It mimics HUD’s “interpretation” of its statutory “responsibility” to appoint a non-career administrator for the federal manufactured housing program as “not mandatory” even though Webster’s says it is.  But HUD (and maybe now FHFA) has gotten away with it because much of the industry plays along.

It’s hard to see, then, how a non-duty which leaves Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac free to ignore the 80% of the manufactured housing market represented by chattel placements (not 70% as reported elsewhere) lives up to the directive of Congress.

While it’s true that FHFA’s final rule leaves the door open just a crack for chattel, rather than slamming it shut as it did in its proposed rules, what does this really do for consumers and an industry that needs competitively-priced and readily-available chattel financing in order to reach its full potential?

DTS was enacted by Congress nine years ago. If either FHFA or the Enterprises were really interested in MH chattel financing, there has been plenty of time to do the groundwork and obtain the necessary loan performance information.  There has even been time for a “pilot program” or two over the last decade.  No, instead, we’re supposed to take it slow, with a non-duty “duty,” while consumers are needlessly herded into higher-cost loans, paying more than they would in a truly competitive financing market not distorted by official discrimination that would be unacceptable in any other context.

With nine years already gone, how much longer will consumers have to wait for the industry to demand full financing parity with other types of housing?  Washington, D.C. is traditionally a graveyard for all kinds of “pilot programs” started with the best of intentions.  Given a “duty” by Congress, the burden is not – and should not – be on the industry and consumers to prove their worthiness. The burden should be on FHFA and the Enterprises to show why they are not complying with the will and word of Congress now. ##

MMarkWeissCEO-MHARR-ManufacturedHousingAssociationforRegulatoryReform-posted-IndustryVoices-MHProNews

By M. Mark Weiss, JD.
President and CEO of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR).

(The graphic above and the headline are provided by the editor, as is customary with many publishers. The content expresses the views of the writer.)

FHFA, GSEs and the Duty To Serve Manufactured Housing – Mark Weiss, JD – Viewpoint

December 14th, 2016 No comments

Chattel lending is crucial to the availability of affordable manufactured housing for American families, representing as much as 80% of consumer loans for the purchase of new manufactured homes.

Knowing this, Congress specifically included manufactured home chattel loans in the “Duty to Serve” provision of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The total exclusion — thus far — of those loans from two proposed DTS implementation rules is, therefore, incomprehensible and has never been explained or justified in any credible way by either the GSEs or the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

TenYearDelayDutyToServeGSEsManufacturedHousingMMarkWeissManufacturedHousingAssociationForRegulatoryReformIndustryVoicesMHProNews-

The headline and graphics on this page are provided by MHProNews, and not the writer. Other viewpoints on this or other manufactured housing related topics are welcome. Image credit, MHProNews.

The nearly ten year delay in properly implementing this simple and straightforward congressional directive has harmed both consumers – who have been left hanging with no remedy — and the industry, which continues to suffer from unnaturally low production levels due to discrimination by the GSEs.

While a mandatory pilot program including chattel loans – combined with a specific commitment to transition to a full “going basis” securitization model within a short and finite timeframe — would potentially be a step forward, a chattel “pilot program” in itself would not fulfill the mandate of DTS. ##

M-MarkWeiss-MHARRPresident-ManufacturedHousingAssociationRegulatoryReform-posted-MHProNews-com-75x75-Mark Weiss, JD
President & CEO
Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)
1331 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 512
Washington, D.C. 20004

Paul Bradley on the Pending FHFA Final Duty to Serve Rule

December 12th, 2016 No comments

This and Leslie Gooch’s article both push for a chattel pilot in Land Lease Communities; ROC USA is right with them!  Like Gooch, I see the fundamental issue coming down to what we can work out with the GSEs relative to, as she wrote, “reasonable standards for land leases in conjunction with such homes.

We have Fannie Mae financing homes in some of our communities already, but it’s too limited.  We want a chattel pilot and standard land lease so we can scale.  It should reassure skeptics that home-only loans by the GSEs have worked in Land Lease Communities.  We need DTS to get together as a larger market opportunity for the GSEs.

I am surprised that the Community Bankers’ Association (ICBA) would come out against GSE chattel product – from the many community bankers I’ve talked to over the years, the local bankers want a secondary market for chattel.

One of the concerns that lenders often express about manufactured home loans in Land Lease Communities is that homes there lose value.  But that is not a given.  I can point to examples in Land Lease Communities where homes are appreciating.  

ConcernLendersHaveManufacturedHomesLoansLoseValueExamplesHomesAppreciatingPaulBradleyROCUSA-IndustryVoicesManufacturedHousingIndustryVoicesMHProNews

In fact, the two unique elements of this sector – relatively more expensive chattel products and land lease – can be resolved by the GSEs; they could make this market no different than the conventional residential markets where supply, demand, location and upkeep influence house price performance.  The GSEs, with the right lease terms to secure their and homeowners’ interests, could help fix the problem that causes some manufactured homes to lose value. ##

Paul Bradley
President
ROC USA

(Editor’s Note: The National Mortgage News article Paul Bradley is commenting on is linked as a download, here. For an interview with manufactured home owner – Kim Capen, who likewise points to appreciation of manufactured homes in his community – click here.)

Problems with Quote from Richard Jennison, MHI’s CEO in StatePoint Advertorials

September 16th, 2016 No comments

As usual, I have been perusing the media sites, informational resources and doing online searches on news regarding Manufactured and Modular Housing.

In doing, so I have come across articles supported by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) that have taken me aback.  These articles include quotes from MHI CEO Richard Jennison.  I couldn’t help but to reread these articles several times, as I couldn’t believe what I was reading would get published by a national association like MHI.

One would think the legal eyes would be on these advertorials published via StatePoint.  They need eyes like hawks on a field mouse to verify and validate appropriate and accurate content regarding quotes and implications.  When promotional articles are wordsmithed correctly, they protect the association and its membership from potential individual or class action suits.

As a specific example, MHI CEO Richard Jennison declared boldly that HUD Code manufactured homes placed in land lease communities appreciate just like site built homes.

Quoting from one of those MHI-Jennison (StatePoint) article, Furthermore, they (referring to HUD Code manufactured homes in a land lease community) appreciate in value, just like site built homes.”

Umm, are you kidding me?

I was blown back by this comment from countless perspectives.  The first of which is NEVER violate the second GOLDEN RULE of real estate.

Real Estate Brokers and Agents are taught the second GOLDEN RULE of real estate in Real Estate 101, that after Location, Location, Location, you never, NEVER, EVER discuss or guarantee future value of a property.  Having taught real estate 101 and 301 at the community college level – often instructing those holding a real estate license – I assure you my information is accurate.

Guaranteeing appreciation is a quick, sure way of opening yourself up to a gigantic law suit that can bury you and your firm; or in this case, an association making such a problematic assertion.

For the CEO of a national association to put that in writing is appalling. Especially so, after they spent time convincing the GSEs to use Blue Book valuation in early 2016 when assessing or appraising MH in an MHC!

guaranteeingappreciationmanufacturedhometitusdarepostedindustryvoicesmhpronews

Quote from Titus Dare – graphic credit, by MHProNews.

Now the article with Jennison’s comment was presumably released from the highest level of MHI.

Where’s the disconnect?  Who approved this?  Were any of the legal eagles reading this carefully to see the potential for future legal issues for both the association and just about everyone associated with making a sale to a consumer placing their new home in an MHC?

If just one person relies on that Richard Jennison statement and buys a manufactured home, sites it in an MHC, and loses money or doesn’t feel their appreciation rate matches that of their brick and mortar friend who owns a home in the same zip code, what do you think that consumer is going to do?

They are going to hit the internet after work and research their subject material, to determine why they were told their appreciation would be the same – and then they may well run across resources that tell them why there home is not gaining value as they were led to believe.  They are going to put the pieces together. That can lead to major problems for many in the MH industry.

They may even call MHI, their state association or…their attorney.

That consumer is going to learn that MH home prices are determined by Blue Book values, as MHI pushed to have that implemented in discussions with the GSEs. Anybody, even the least sophisticated consumer, knows from their car buying and selling experience that Blue Book values are based on depreciation.

There are so many factors that go into appreciation and depreciation, as real estate and many MH industry professionals know. There is the local and national economy. Location, including the impact of factors like the school district.

How about the quality level of the subject manufactured home, and how it is being care for – or not – by its owner? How about the foundation and installation system under the home? How is the community managed and maintained?

But all those facts and qualifiers about manufactured – or other homes – is missing in this highly irregular line, again, quoting Jennison – “Furthermore, they appreciate in value, just like site built homes.”

Where are Jennison’s and MHI’s qualifiers for all of these issues in that StatePoint advertorial, and so many more that are needed?

Before writing this column, I sent the link to that MHI/StatePoint article to some legal minds, and asked them for their input on manufactured home appreciation being automatic in a land lease community.

The return calls included a voice laughing on the other end, asking me to please distribute their business cards to those consumers who had bought homes under the pretense of the comment made by the CEO of the national association.

This advertorial approach was a mix of good, bad, inaccurate and deceptive marketing on behalf of a national manufactured housing association. I’ve focused on the bad, because that is where the problems will come from.

You would never see the NAHB or another national trade associations blurt out such problematic nonsense. ##

(Editor’s Note: headline was provided by MHProNews. This column nor the cover message directly referenced the Masthead column linked here, but it is on the same topic.)

titusdareeagleonefinancialposteddailybusinessnews-mhpronewsTitus T. Dare
SVP – Real Estate Development & Construction
Eagle One Financial

 

Discrimination, Zoning and Disparate Impact on Manufactured Homes, Owners, Prospects

August 25th, 2016 No comments

The discriminatory exclusion of manufactured homes by local governments is a major problem for the industry and consumers.  It artificially stunts industry growth, while it unfairly deprives Americans of access to the nation’s most affordable housing — effectively excluding lower and moderate-income citizens from entire communities.

While this phenomenon is dressed-up as “zoning” by those on the other side of the issue — in part because the federal government has historically been reluctant to interfere in local “zoning” matters — we need to be clear about what is actually going on, in the language we use to refer to it, and how we address it.

The reality — in many, if not most cases — is that “zoning” is simply a fig leaf for what amounts to discrimination; discrimination against our homes to be sure, but, more importantly, discrimination against the people who buy them, own them and live in them.

MMarkWeissJDMHARRCEOPresident-ManufacturedHousingAssociationRegulatoryReform

As MHARR has stressed before, there have never been more tools available to the industry and consumers to address this issue at — and beyond — HUD.  These include not only the enhanced preemption of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, but HUD’s new rules on affirmatively furthering fair housing and the recent Supreme Court decision allowing discrimination claims to be pursued based on evidence of “disparate impact.”  ##

(Editor’s note: This was the first for publication commentary sent in the wake of the Daily Business News report on a discriminatory zoning case, linked here. Two more Op-Eds on zoning are linked here and here.)

MMarkWeissCEO-MHARR-ManufacturedHousingAssociationforRegulatoryReform-posted-IndustryVoices-MHProNews

 

Mark Weiss
President & CEO
Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)
1331 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 512
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/783-4087
Fax: 202/783-4075
Email: MHARRDG@AOL.COM

Calling MH Innovators . . . Let’s be realistic about Duty to Serve and get something done to bring Home-Only Loans to our Manufactured Home Communities

December 4th, 2015 No comments

The Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) will soon issue a draft Duty to Serve (DTS) rule. The final rule that follows the brief comment period will tell Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae what the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) will have to do in terms of providing loans to consumers for manufactured homes (MH). The ruling will influence things for as long as the two GSEs are in fact government-sponsored, which I bet will be a very long time.

Everyone involved in the land-lease community (LLC) sector wants there to be more chattel lenders. Clearly, a healthy housing sector cannot rely on just three national lenders and a bunch of captives.

Will DTS add the GSEs to this short list of chattel lenders?

The short answer is no. The FHFA will not require the GSEs to start financing chattel MH loans.

There are three very basic political realities that make calls for GSE chattel lending entirely hollow:

  1. The GSEs will do everything possible to not add chattel lending to their products list. They were burned in the late 90s by large pools of chattel MH loans and they still remember it.
  1. The FHFA won’t make them. The FHFA has both a “safety and soundness” responsibility for GSE oversight and a Duty to Serve mandate. Under safety and soundness, the FHFA will not require the GSEs to incorporate chattel based solely upon the record of chattel loan performance.
  1. Industry and consumer groups are not working together to create any real pressure though they’re not far apart from my read of things. That said, even together they probably couldn’t overturn factors 1 and 2.

I note #3 because it’s been my experience that lawmakers and regulators don’t like being in the position of settling debates between opposing parties. When faced with that sort of disagreement, regulators will, whenever possible, choose deferral and non-action.

Before you get caught up in the inevitable diatribe that will follow the draft DTS rule, consider an alternative based upon an opening that I expect we will see in the rule.

I expect the FHFA will look at bringing back a pilot program that Freddie Mac and some well-known industry leaders implemented in early 2000’s. Specifically, that program had Freddie providing conventional residential home only mortgage loans in LLCs where there was a long-term lease.

Don’t say it can’t be done. It’s been done. I and the other LLC owners who spearheaded the program with Freddie Mac have done it. Home only mortgages that don’t compromise the underlying land (the LLC) or your ability to finance or sell the LLC. But, they do make conventional rates and terms available in communities possible.

How would buyers of homes in your LLC respond to a bank making conventional residential home loans in your community? Could you sell more homes on vacant sites if lender would do 10% down-payment and 30-year fixed rate financing?

Such a program would require long-term leases because conventional lenders won’t lend long-term on a home that doesn’t have a long-term lease. I know of community owners with 20 year leases today so this isn’t too much of stretch, really.

And, don’t be confused with the term mortgage. Yes, the home would be titled as real estate and the security interest would be a mortgage on the home only. The titling of the home and the mortgage instrument don’t include the land and don’t interfere with your commercial mortgage. This type of lending has been done in a range of leasehold arrangements. It works.

Understandably, not all “parks” would make the trade-off. But, higher-end LLCs where the highest and best use is a LLC and where the homes are relatively expensive, conventional loan rates would be a significant benefit to both buyers and LLC owners. It’s a different value proposition and a different public image than a “park”, indeed.

But, for those who are interested, let’s pull together and urge the FHFA to keep or include home only mortgage lending in LLCs in the final rule. Let’s make sure the GSEs know that there’s interest in using home only mortgages in some LLCs.

What we can’t have is a chorus in unison saying, “Make them do chattel!” That’s the equivalent of spitting into the wind. Join the chorus if you want more of the same, just cover your face.

The Duty to Serve is too important to squander. Drop me a line if you want to learn more and coordinate input to the FHFA’s draft rule when it gets released. It will happen fast, which is why I’m going public with my assessment of where we’ll be once the draft rule is published.

We as an industry need to let the FHFA and GSEs know that some innovators in the market want to find a solution to getting 4% home only mortgage loans in our communities. ##

PaulBradleyROCUSA-postedMHProNews-com-75x91-Paul Bradley, President, ROC USA.

 

 

(Editor’s Note: Paul Bradley is featured in a new video interview, see this link here.  As on any MH issue, we welcome confirming or other viewpoints.)

 

 

Manufactured Housing Institute Responds to Doug Ryan-CFED commentary on CFPB report on Manufactured Housing Finance

October 6th, 2014 No comments

Tony,
As the national association serving as the voice of the manufactured housing industry, Tim (Williams) asked that MHI respond to your inquiry. Our official response is provided below.

Doug Ryan and CFED have been consistent supporters of manufactured housing and continue to recognize manufactured housing as an important source of affordable housing for low- and moderate income families, particularly in rural and underserved communities.

Unfortunately, they fail to recognize the valuable role retailers and sales representatives have historically played in helping consumers identify financing alternatives. Ryan's message insinuates the industry is somehow preventing consumers from selecting less expensive real estate-secured mortgage loans. He says, "many borrowers of chattel products could have qualified for traditional, less expensive mortgages but did not get the chance simply because they were not offered or made aware of the options.”

mhi-logoAs the regulations are currently written—this is what MHI is attempting to fix in HR 1779/S 1828—the retailer cannot help the customer find a mortgage lender or inform the consumer of alternatives. The consumer needs the retailer’s help to become informed of the financing alternatives.

Today, a consumer might contact a dozen conventional mortgage lenders without locating a lender willing to assist them with a low balance mortgage. Prior to the CFPB Loan Originator compensation rule (CFPB defines sales commission from the sale of a home as meeting the compensation definition under the Loan Originator rule), a retailer representative could discuss financing alternatives with consumers including conventional mortgage lenders who offer low balance conventional mortgage loans.

Since the Loan Originator rules became effective, it has become nearly impossible for a retailer to assist consumers without inadvertently becoming considered a Loan Originator and becoming a covered person under Bureau regulations. CFED wants consumers to be informed of financing alternatives, but the people who have the best opportunity to inform them are effectively barred from having those conversations.

Ryan adds, “Indeed, one clear way to address this issue would be for industry to support titling reform that would give families the option to title their homes as real estate and the opportunity to access real estate loans."The manufactured housing industrysupports legislation in all states to provide the alternative of titling manufactured homes as real estate where the home is sited upon land owned by the consumer and when financing is needed, the consumer pledges a first lien position in the land.

jason-boehlert-manufactured-housing-institute-(c)mhpronews-com-75x75-.gifJason Boehlert
Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI)
Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
1655 North Fort Meyer Drive
Suite 104
Arlington, VA 22209

Related Links:

1) – MHI's Response to CFPB's Report (Editor's Note, the MHI link includes the full CFPB report as a free download)

2) – MHARR's Response to RV legislation and CFPB's Report on Manufactured Housing

3) – CFED's Doug Ryan sounds off on Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Report on Manufactured Housing and MH Financing

4) – CFPB Report on Manufactured Housing Signals Areas of Future Concern

    (Editor's Note: The views expressed by Jason Boehlert are his own and/or those of the MHI, and should not be construed to be the views of MHProNews or our sponsors.Other viewpoints on this or other industry topics are encouraged.

    MHProNews plans anIndustry in Focus Reportusing extensive comments from a range of industry professionals on this topic. Watch for it mid-week at the news/reports module link above.)

    Our experience with Resident Owned Communities – no BS

    January 15th, 2014 No comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not one of those communities has failed.

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

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

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

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

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

    Joel Erlitz, Broker,
    First Commercial Property Corp.

     

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

    Phil Johnson,
    Seller in Minnesota

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

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

    That’s how we ROC ‘n’ roll. ##

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

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

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

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

    Whew! What a Whirlwind 44 Hours

    October 20th, 2013 No comments

    That is the NCC Fall Leadership Forum: “Building a Vision For The Future” held this past week in Chicago. First and foremost, kudos to my very good friend Jenny Hodge. Jenny is Vice President of MHI’s National Communities Council (NCC) and responsible for organizing and bringing forth this exceptional event. David Lentz is to be commended for his leadership and vision for the NCC.

    While on the train from Milwaukee to Chicago I reviewed the agenda just to be certain I was up for the show which began in earnest Thursday morning. There was no doubt in mind that we were in for a very intense Thursday and Friday morning!

    Wednesday evening’s reception was a very nicely arranged meet and greet with appetizers and an open bar. It has certainly been some time since we've seen MHI in a position to host such an event.

    The real work began Thursday morning. The fact is that there was something to learn for everyone involved in the Manufactured Housing Community industry (MHC) whether you attended one session or attended all of the sessions.

    The attendees were made up of a mix from the community business. When there was a show of hands early Thursday morning it appeared that there was a fairly even split of community owners present. One third were smaller owner with less than five communities, one third with less than 10 communities and one third owners or more than 15 communities.

    rick-rand-great-value-homes-l-sam-zell-equity-lifestyle-properties-els-chairman-jim-clayton-clayton-bank-chairman-industry-voices-manufactured-home-pro-news-.jpg

    Rick Rand, Great Value Homes (l) Sam Zell, Equity Lifestyle Properties (ELS) Chairman (c),
    Jim Clayton, founder Clayton Homes and Chairman of Clayton Bank (r)

    In addition, in attendance were lenders specializing in community financing, manufactures who are interested in serving the community owners needs to provide homes for vacant sites, Real Estate Brokers who market and sell communities along home lenders and other firms providing resources to community owners.

    As is not uncommon at events like this, networking opportunities were abundant. I am more than certain that new relationships were forged, deals discussed and ideas exchanged. That is part of what makes these interactive events such great opportunities for all segments of the industry.

    For those who focused on the Build A Vision For the Future agenda, they were rewarded with session after session of individuals both from within the industry and from other industries sharing their knowledge and experience. Topics relating to marketing, selling, community relations and all the important component of customer service which forward thinkers in the MH Industry are working to accomplish. Not only did the presenters share their knowledge and experience, they also made time for provocative interaction and dialog amongst all of us in attendance. ##

    (Editor's Note: Read more of Rick's commentary – plus photos – on the NCC Fall Leadership forum at this link here.

    You can see NCC dinner cruise and event photos at this link here.)

     

    rick-rand-great-value-homes-manufactured-home-pro-news-industry-voices-guest-blog-.pngRichard J. Rand
    President
    Great Value Homes, Inc.
    9458 N. Fairway Drive
    Milwaukee, WI 53217-1321
    414-352-3855
    414-870-9000 (cell)
    RickRand@gvhinc.net