Click bottom right for full screen video.

A+ A A-

Implementation of the Duty to Serve Underserved Markets

  • Written by Mark Weiss



Mr. Donald H. Layton

Chief Executive Officer

Freddie Mac

8200 Jones Branch Drive

McLean, Virginia 22102-3110

Dear Mr. Layton:

I am writing on behalf of the members of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). MHARR members are mostly smaller and medium-sized manufactured housing industry businesses, subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pursuant to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended.

As part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Congress established the “Duty to Serve” (DTS) certain specified markets, including federally-regulated manufactured housing, which, it concluded, had historically been underserved by the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) -- Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  In relevant part, DTS directs the GSEs to develop “loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for mortgages for very low-, low- and moderate-income families” with respect to HUD-regulated manufactured homes, including both manufactured housing real estate loans and personal property – or “chattel” – loans, which comprise the vast bulk of the manufactured housing market (12 U.S.C. 4565(d)(3)).

After nearly a decade of baseless, unjustified, prejudicial and damaging delays (particularly for the smaller industry businesses which MHARR represents), DTS implementation plans for both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were finally submitted to – and approved by – the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in late 2017.  As both Freddie Mac and FHFA are well aware, however, MHARR has been – and continues to be – a highly critical and active opponent of these plans, which are not only ten years too late, but are grossly insufficient and inadequate to meet the policy objectives of DTS, based on their failure to provide, at any time within their three-year terms, market-significant secondary market and securitization support for the chattel loans which comprise more than 80% of the manufactured housing market. MHARR, moreover, will continue that opposition until the fundamental failures of these initial DTS plans are remedied.

            Now, though, MHARR, as a participant in Freddie Mac’s “Manufactured Housing Initiative Task Force” (MHIT), has learned that Freddie Mac apparently plans to divert an unspecified portion of its already minimal and wholly inadequate support of the manufactured housing market under DTS to a so-called “new class” of manufactured homes which is currently being researched and developed on an exclusionary, proprietary basis by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), under the direction and authority of a control group comprised, in relevant part, of executives of the industry’s three largest manufacturers.

At a February 26, 2018 telephone conference meeting of the MHIT, Freddie Mac representative, Ms. Simone Beatty, indicated, for the first time, that Freddie Mac plans to pursue implementation of a “pilot program” -- on an expedited basis (i.e., during June and July 2018) -- for loans on an undefined “new class” of manufactured homes, apparently based on the exclusionary (i.e., limited to MHI members) / proprietary MHI “new class” of manufactured home research and development activity.

Any such action by Freddie Mac (and/or Fannie Mae) would be totally unacceptable to MHARR and would be vehemently opposed by this association. 

First, no such program was included in the 2018-2020 DTS implementation plan submitted by Freddie Mac -- and approved by FHFA – and, as such, would be ultra vires and unlawful.  Second, diverting any portion whatsoever of DTS support to a proprietary product that is developed and manufactured on an exclusive or exclusionary basis by one group of competitors and not generally available or accessible to other industry producers, would be a knowing and intentionally anti-competitive action by Freddie Mac which, again, would be opposed by MHARR by any and all available means. Third, the diversion of any portion whatsoever of DTS manufactured housing support to a “new class” of homes with a reported retail cost as high as $220,000.00 instead of existing types of manufactured housing, which are inherently affordable for very low-, low- and moderate-income American families without the need for costly government subsidies, would violate the letter, intent and fundamental purpose of DTS -- to expand the availability of inherently affordable homeownership for all Americans -- while simultaneously relegating existing types of HUD Code manufactured homes to de facto “second class” status for purposes of financing and all other matters, with entirely predictable anti-competitive and highly damaging impacts.

Based on the foregoing, MHARR, by copy of this letter, is advising Fannie Mae, FHFA, Congress, and relevant Executive Branch agencies of its strenuous objections to any action by Freddie Mac to divert any portion of its DTS activity to such a “new class” of manufactured homes and reserves all of its rights to take any and all necessary further actions.  In addition, MHARR demands:

  1. That it be advised of – and included in -- any and all further discussions, meetings, or conferences of any type or description involving the supposed “new class” of manufactured home and DTS;

  1. That it be provided any and all documents, meeting summaries, minutes, or other documents describing discussions of a “new class” of manufactured home and any party outside of Freddie Mac, including notes of telephone or other discussions maintained by Freddie Mac employees;
  1. That MHARR be provided with any and all materials received by Freddie Mac from any source with respect to the supposed “new class” of manufactured home; and
  1. That it be provided with any recording, or written transcript, or summary of the February 26, 2018 MHIT meeting produced by or on behalf of Freddie Mac.

For Freddie Mac, after ten years of inaction on DTS, followed by a blatantly inadequate DTS implementation plan, to now even consider diverting any aspect or portion of DTS to a “new class” of proprietary, high-priced, non-affordable manufactured home, is indefensible, inexcusable, in direct defiance of DTS, and unacceptable.



                                                                        Mark Weiss

                                                                        President and CEO

cc:  Hon. Michael Crapo

       Hon. Sherrod Brown

       Hon. Jeb Hensarling

       Hon. Maxine Waters

       Hon. Jeff Sessions

       Hon. Mick Mulvaney

       Hon. Gary Cohn

        Hon. Melvin Watt


Comprehensive MHARR Comments on HUD Review Of Manufactured Housing Regulations

  • Written by Soheyla Kovach

MHARRAs MHARR previously advised you, HUD, on January 26, 2018, announced a comprehensive, “top-to-bottom” review of all its existing and pending manufactured housing regulations and related “regulatory actions,” pursuant to Trump Administration Executive Orders (EOs) 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) and 13777 (“Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”).

In response to HUD’s request for comments from stakeholders and members of the public regarding this review, MHARR, on February 20, 2018, has submitted detailed and comprehensive comments (see, copy attached) addressing multiple aspects of the HUD program (including, but not limited to, existing and proposed standards, regulations, interpretive rules, interpretive bulletins, “field guidance” memoranda and other related regulatory pronouncements) that should either be repealed or significantly modified in accordance with the regulatory reform policies enunciated in EOs 13771 and 13777.

Due to the extreme importance of this matter, MHARR encourages all industry members to submit comments to HUD in connection with this critical regulatory review, in advance of the rapidly-approaching February 26, 2018 comment deadline.  Given MHARR’s 35-year focus on these major issues and – in particular – the full and proper implementation of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, we urge industry members to review the attached document, and to reference or incorporate all or part of those comments in (or with) their own submissions.

Again, it is extremely important that these key reforms to the broken HUD regulatory program be fully implemented by the Department.



HUD Delays Re-Solicitation of MH Monitoring Contract

  • Written by Mark Weiss

MHARRAs a follow-up to MHARR’s memorandum of January 9, 2018 regarding changes within the HUD manufactured housing program and its memorandum of November 28, 2017 regarding the re-solicitation of the HUD manufactured housing program monitoring contract, MHARR can now confirm that the monitoring contract re-solicitation – originally scheduled for December 29, 2017 as reported by HUD’s contracting officer at the Department’s November 16, 2017 “industry day” event – was not issued on the projected date.

MHARR, at the “industry day” event, and, more importantly, in December 12, 2017 correspondence with Trump Administration officials at HUD, specifically objected to the highly-truncated response period for the re-solicitation – just 15 business days – which MHARR maintained (and continues to assert) represents an inequitable and improper advantage for the current, 40-year incumbent monitoring contractor. As MHARR noted in its November 28, 2017 report: “for a contract that during its last five-year term (with options) was valued in excess of $25 million, HUD is expecting to issue a solicitation package just before the end of the current year – i.e., December 29, 2017 – with responses from offerors due just 22 days later, on January 19, 2017.  With weekends and federal holidays (i.e., January 1, 2018) removed, this will leave bidders just 15 business days to analyze and digest the extensive bid package and submit an equally-extensive proposal in order to even be competitive with a 40-year incumbent.”

Similarly, the contract was expected to be split into two separate contracts which, as MHARR noted, “will have the de facto impact of making it more costly, particularly for non-incumbent offerors, to bid – i.e., developing and submitting two complete bid packages rather than one – and more difficult and burdensome for those non-incumbent offerors to develop and submit two bid packages within an unnecessarily truncated and limited bid response period.

In its December 12, 2017 correspondence with the Trump Administration’s Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for the HUD program, MHARR specifically asked her to “intervene in this process as soon as possible to prevent it from replicating [the contract’s] history of non-competitive procurements.”

MHARR will continue to carefully monitor this monitoring contract solicitation as part of its ongoing engagement with Trump Administration officials at HUD.

MHARR Officials Meet with Hud Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson — Pledge Full Cooperation to Advance Reform Of HUD MH Program

  • Written by Mark Weiss

MHARRWashington, D.C., January 30, 2018 – On January 29, 2018, a delegation of officials from the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) met with HUD Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson, to provide the Secretary with a first-hand opportunity to hear the concerns of smaller industry businesses regarding the operation of the federal manufactured housing program and its failure to fully and properly implement the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (2000 reform law). MHARR participants in the meeting included James Shea, Jr., Chairman, Mike Cappaert, Vice Chairman, John Bostick, Immediate Past-Chairman, Mark Weiss, President and CEO, and Danny Ghorbani, Senior Advisor. The agenda for the meeting focused on the most critical issues currently facing the industry and its consumers, both with respect to the full and proper implementation of the 2000 reform law and consumer financing, including the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) Title I manufactured housing program (see, copy of meeting agenda, attached). 

Left to right Danny Ghorbani James Shea Jr. HUD Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson Michael Cappaert Mark Weiss John Bostick A 

Left to right: Danny Ghorbani, James Shea Jr., HUD Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson, Michael Cappaert, Mark Weiss, John Bostick

The MHARR delegation, in particular, briefed the Secretary on HUD’s 18-year failure to fully and properly implement the 2000 reform law, which was enacted with overwhelming bi-partisan support in both houses of Congress. MHARR outlined, during the meeting, four main components of the 2000 reform law that HUD has not only failed to implement under prior administrations, but has, in fact, affirmatively distorted, ignored and/or misapplied.  This has not only caused significant and unnecessary harm to the industry’s smaller businesses, but, more importantly, has deprived hundreds-of-thousands of moderate and lower-income families of the affordable, non-subsidized homeownership opportunities that only manufactured housing can provide.

In this regard, MHARR’s delegation thanked Secretary Carson for having initiated action to address critical regulatory matters within the federal manufactured housing program in accordance with Trump Administration Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. The MHARR officials pledged to work with the Secretary and HUD to advance this crucial undertaking, and as the only industry organization with institutional memory dating back to the original federal manufactured housing law more than 40 years ago, promised to provide the Department – during the current 30-day regulatory review comment period – with relevant historical background and remedial suggestions/solutions to restore the unique and essential federal manufactured housing program to full compliance with both the terms and objectives of the 2000 reform law.

As part of this dialogue, the MHARR officials also emphasized non-regulatory aspects of the 2000 reform law that should – and must – be properly implemented.  These include (but are not limited to); the appointment of a new non-career program administrator; the reform of program contracting procedures and the selection of a new monitoring contractor; full utilization of the MHCC in accordance with the 2000 reform law; and full implementation and enforcement of the enhanced federal preemption mandated by the 2000 reform law.

Further, the MHARR delegation advised the Secretary that with the failure of the Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA) to fully implement the Duty to Serve Underserved Markets directive of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), lower and moderate-income Americans would need, more than ever, the full utilization and incorporation of manufactured housing by HUD into all of its housing programs, as well as the reform and/or repeal of the “10-10” rule implemented by Ginnie Mae in 2010, which has largely eliminated Ginne Mae-supported FHA Title I financing for the 80% of manufactured homes that are sold and financed as personal property (chattel).

In Washington, D.C., MHARR President and CEO Mark Weiss stated: “MHARR sincerely appreciates meeting with Secretary Carson in order to thank him for the regulatory reform initiatives that he has started to undertake, and to fully apprise him and other key officials at HUD of the specific concerns of smaller industry businesses. MHARR looks forward to continuing to work with Secretary Carson and his team at HUD in order to restore the manufactured housing program to its original mission and goal – to not only ensure the safety of manufactured homes, but also to ensure their availability as the nation’s premier source of affordable, non-subsidized housing and home-ownership for millions of Americans.”

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

MHARR Officials Meet with Hud Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson -pdf

“Diversion, Distraction or Destruction — And Time to Raise the Red Flag?”

  • Written by Mark Weiss

MHARRHUD Code manufactured housing production market is currently held by one manufacturer, Clayton Homes, Inc. (Clayton), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Corporation

Whether this particular statistic is entirely accurate or not is immaterial.  What is material, is that the juggernaut created by this combination of the largest industry producers, is having two related – and simultaneously negative -- impacts for the broader industry, for the smaller businesses that have constituted the traditional core of the industry, and for the moderate and lower-income homebuyers that the HUD Code industry has traditionally served.

On the one hand, this “consortium” of companies (among others), acting through MHI, has arguably failed, over the course of nearly two decades, to accomplish -- or even seek -- the full and proper implementation of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, with all of its intended benefits for manufactured housing and manufactured homebuyers but, instead, has taken actions and advocated positions that MHARR has had to block, oppose and/or fix (including, but not limited to: excessive energy regulation; unnecessary fire sprinkler standards, expanded in-plant regulation, and the selection of a career program administrator, rather than a non-career appointee, contrary to the law, to name just a few) in order to protect the industry and consumers. On the other, as is now becoming evident through their role in pursuing a so-called “new class” of manufactured homes, is an alarming trend toward activity that could further undermine free-market competition and concentrate yet more market power in the hands of the same few dominant companies.

Such combined activity by the largest three producers within the manufactured housing market (with Champion having now acquired significant additional market share through its reported merger with the Skyline Corporation) to, in MHI’s words, “help [MHI] members create” a new “class” of manufactured homes, and simultaneously “help with MHI’s legislative and regulatory efforts to change the existing HUD Code.” (See, February 8, 2017 MHI “Housing Alert”) (Emphasis added), involves decisions and actions that warrant careful analysis and consideration not only by the broader industry, but by relevant authorities as well.  Indeed, while couched in generalities and vagaries over the past year, what this activity ultimately means to the industry as a whole, to the multitude of smaller industry businesses struggling to compete and survive in an over-regulated market increasingly dominated by a handful of large producers and their finance affiliates, and to the mostly lower and moderate-income Americans who rely on traditional manufactured housing as the nation’s primary source of inherently affordable, non-subsidized housing and home-ownership, could become a matter of economic life or death – i.e., a matter of the survival of the industry, its businesses and its products as they have existed for well-over a half-century, or their replacement by something far different. 

Given the potentially far-reaching, industry and market-altering consequences of this secretive activity, it is both appropriate and necessary to ask: (1) what this “new class” of manufactured home initiative entails; (2) by whom is it being advanced and how; (3) why is it being advanced; (4) why is it being advanced now; and (5) who, ultimately, would benefit – or suffer -- from its realization (or failure)? And, flowing from that analysis, is the proverbial sixty-four thousand-dollar question – i.e., what should smaller businesses within the industry and the American consumers who rely upon affordable, non-subsidized manufactured housing, as provided by the industry in its current and long-term traditional configuration, do (or seek to do) about all this?

These crucial questions -- and their answers – do not exist in a vacuum.  Instead, they arise against a specific backdrop and context of activity by and within the broader industry that is, itself, highly relevant. That context, in a nutshell, for a comprehensively federally-regulated industry – and notwithstanding the significant regulatory reform opportunities presented by the election of President Trump – is one of regulatory policies and actions (including the production and financing of HUD Code homes) that have devastated manufactured housing production levels (down 78 percent since 1998 despite a slow rebound from historic-low production levels in 2009), eliminated significant numbers of mostly smaller industry businesses, and have simultaneously allowed and driven an unhealthy consolidation within the industry’s production and post-production sectors that could ultimately be highly detrimental to both the industry and its consumers.

These actions and policies include, but are not limited to: (1) excessive, unnecessary and unreasonably-costly federal regulation (particularly over the last four years) by HUD that has disproportionately harmed smaller industry businesses while simultaneously benefiting the largest industry conglomerates; (2) pending efforts by other federal agencies to impose unnecessary, draconian and debilitating regulations on manufactured housing (including, but not limited to so-called “energy conservation” standards) that will also result in excessive, unreasonable and unnecessary regulatory compliance-cost increases; (3) an inadequately-competitive consumer financing market, dominated by the BHC-supported Clayton finance subsidiaries, as a consequence of the discriminatory failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide virtually any securitization or secondary market support for manufactured housing consumer loans; (4) glacial progress (if any) toward the legitimate (i.e., market-significant) implementation of the Duty to Serve Underserved Markets (DTS) mandate for the eighty-percent of the HUD Code market represented by chattel loans; and (5) the baseless, discriminatory local exclusion of manufactured homes from vast swaths of the country (particularly urban and suburban areas), among other things.

And, it is at the intersection of these demonstrable failures and the overriding self-interest of the industry-dominant corporate conglomerates, where the answers to the preceding questions can be found. 

First, for all the secretiveness that has shrouded the details of this “new class of home” activity, its general contours and objectives – i.e., questions 1 and 2 above, what the “new class” of manufactured home activity is all about, who is advancing it and how -- have been the subject of a great deal of pseudo-public talk and targeted disclosures. Thus, in a February 8, 2017 “Housing Alert,” MHI states that the initiative’s “goal is to obtain information on [the] wants, needs, preferences and perceptions [of various underserved homebuyers] and then develop a strategy to help members create an offering that meets the housing needs of these groups … and help with MHI’s legislative and regulatory efforts to change the existing HUD Code. For this research initiative, MHI is working with a diverse group of its manufacturer members and Ducker Worldwide, a respected independent consultant with extensive experience in the residential housing industry, including both site-built and manufactured housing” (Emphasis added). The same “Housing Alert” identifies members of the “Task Force” responsible for the “new class of home” initiative, with the President and CEO of Clayton Homes, Inc., the Chairman and CEO of Cavco Industries, Inc., the President of Champion Home Builders, the President and CEO of Skyline Corporation (now reportedly merging with Champion) and the President of MHI, constituting five of the seven named members, and the “Managing Principal of Ducker Worldwide” identified as the sixth member of the “Task Force.”

From this MHI description, certain key facts emerge: (1) the initiative and potential development of a “new class” of manufactured homes is restricted to MHI “members;” (2) the initiative and potential development of a “new class” of manufactured homes is directed and controlled by a sub-group of MHI members that, in turn, is dominated by the industry’s largest manufacturers; (3) the initiative “Task Force,” or, more accurately, “control group,” includes no small businesses or small business representatives; (4) the initiative control group includes no representative(s) of a business or businesses engaged solely or specifically in the industry’s post-production sector; and (5) the initiative control group includes no state association representatives -- among other things.  The “new class” of homes “initiative,” therefore, is a cooperative project of a market-dominant group of ostensible “competitors,” apparently seeking coordinated market advantage – and expanded market dominance.

In addition, the “new class” of homes initiative is expressly tied by MHI to efforts to “change” the existing federal standards governing the construction, safety and installation of manufactured homes in unspecified and unstated ways, presumably to accommodate (or otherwise facilitate) unnamed aspects of the “new class” of home and those who produce (and are otherwise connected with sales of) that “new class” of homes. Thus, development of the “new class” of manufactured home by a restricted group of the industry’s three largest producers is targeted to drive corresponding government relations advocacy seeking changes to existing legal requirements (or, potentially new legal criteria) relating to those homes and their sale.  This “new class” of homes, in turn, would have the likely effect of relegating traditional manufactured homes back to the status of “trailers,” thereby effectively undermining the work done by MHARR and others over the course of decades to achieve statutory and policy parity between traditional manufactured homes and all other types of residential construction, with corresponding negative impacts for producers and retailers of those homes and current owners/purchasers of those homes in the form of potentially reduced value and suppressed appreciation.

Nor is this apparent effort to “grease the skids” and elevate the status of a “new class” of manufactured homes – controlled by the industry’s market-dominant producers -- necessarily restricted to production standards and regulations.

Sales and production of traditional manufactured homes have been unnecessarily restricted (for decades) due, in part, to the unavailability of secondary market and securitization support for manufactured housing consumer loans by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This lack of support has prevented full and robust competition within the manufactured housing market, has allowed the existing market-dominant companies to maintain higher-cost interest rates through their captive finance affiliates, and has limited the availability of consumer financing for potential purchasers of manufactured homes.  Congress sought to remedy this ongoing failure through the Duty to Serve Underserved Markets provision of the Housing and Economic Reform Act of 2008 (HERA), but the GSEs have consistently resisted -- and continue, at a minimum, to resist and delay -- the market-significant implementation of DTS, particularly with respect to manufactured housing chattel loans. Thus, it is relevant that in July 2017 -- prior to FHFA approval of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac DTS “final” so-called “implementation” plans -- the aforementioned “Managing Principal of Ducker Worldwide” leading the “new class of homes” research initiative and serving as a member of the “new class of homes” control group, led (according to a Ducker Worldwide publication) “a seminar for various leaders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” coincidentally addressing the same topics as his “research” work for MHI (which dates back to at least February 2014).  

Whether this contact with FHFA and the GSEs was isolated or is part of a broader pattern  is not known.  Nor is it clear what potential impact this contact (or possibly others) might have had on the “final” GSE DTS “implementation” plans or their approval by FHFA, which -- some 10-13 years-out from the enactment of DTS -- would serve, at a maximum, a paltry 1.85% of the manufactured housing chattel loan market.

But given the lack of market-significant implementation of DTS in the now-FHFA-approved “final” DTS implementation plans, and other aspects of both plans that would empower the largest industry conglomerates and their respective affiliates and surrogates to influence the alleged “implementation” of DTS, detailed in a recent (January 5, 2018) MHARR News Release – including, but not limited to: (1) an announcement that Fannie Mae will become a (presumably dues-paying) “member of the Manufactured Housing Institute,” (presumably utilizing funds subject to FHFA/federal government conservatorship); (2) an announcement by Fannie Mae that it will create a “manufactured housing advisory council” that will include “one industry trade association” and multiple other members, but only one “smaller” manufacturer; (3) an announcement by Freddie Mac that it will “partner” with “Next Step Network, Inc.,” a beneficiary of extensive grants from Clayton and MHI to, among other things, conduct a “working group,” the “Smart MH Task Force,”  to “provide market intelligence and data to inform loan product needs,” without ensuring either a balance of interests or the inclusion of small businesses or small business representatives within that “working group;” and (4) creation of a new “MH Select” program (developed through the involvement of a former MHI Vice President) for certain “quality manufactured homes” based on criteria that exceed certain HUD standards (including “back door” energy criteria promoted by an MHI affiliate, the “Systems Building Research Alliance”) – one is left to wonder what impact the Ducker Worldwide (and possibly other contacts with the GSEs and FHFA) might have had, given the market-based reality that every day which goes by without the market-significant implementation of DTS, is a massive economic gift to Clayton, the Clayton finance affiliates, BHC and their respective beneficiaries.

As to questions 3, 4 and 5, above – i.e., why this “new class of homes” initiative is being advanced; why it’s being advanced now; and who, ultimately, will benefit from its realization, the answers should be mostly apparent.  Quite simply, it would appear that this “initiative” it is being advanced -- primarily – to benefit the industry’s largest conglomerates by allowing those conglomerates to: (1) maximize and expand their existing market advantages and domination; and (2) further weaken and undermine remaining competitors by effectively positioning traditional manufactured homes as a “second-class” product in terms of both regulation, financing terms and financing availability. 

Moreover, it appears that this effort is being advanced now because the industry stands at a political/historical crossroads with the election of a transparently anti-regulation, pro-jobs, pro-small business and pro-affordable homeownership Administration in Washington, D.C. The manufactured housing industry, as MHARR has stressed continually, is the beneficiary of two outstanding federal laws, the 1974 manufactured housing law, as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 and the “Duty to Serve.” These laws, as written and enacted, should provide manufactured housing and the manufactured housing industry with significant market advantages, sufficient to support annual production levels in the hundreds-of-thousands-of homes, if they were fully and properly implemented.  The fact that they have not been implemented in that manner, has been the constant focus of MHARR – and the target of most of its legislative and administrative activity -- for years.  But now, just when it appears that an administration is in place which may finally be committed to fundamentally change the leadership, composition and nature of the HUD manufactured housing program in ways that could open the floodgates for new production, new producers and increased competition, based on reduced regulatory burdens and greater affordability for millions of Americans, the industry-dominant conglomerates within MHI seem to be shifting the focus of that organization in ways that would help to preserve and expand the conglomerates’ market-dominance to the detriment of others.

None of the secretiveness that has surrounded the “new class” of homes activity is necessary to achieve any legitimate purpose.  New types of manufactured home designs with new features or amenities are not, in any way, objectionable. The manufactured housing industry should – and must – evolve in order to grow and expand.  New features, new designs and new models,  even if they exceed current federal standards, are not problematic in and of themselves.  The HUD Code, as established by federal law, is a base standard that can always by exceeded.  And, if need be, new ideas can be brought to the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) for proposed changes to the standards and regulations if they achieve consensus support.  But there is a legitimate, open, public process to achieve all this, which does not involve or require secretiveness, restrictions on involvement or participation, or coordination and de facto control by the industry’s largest conglomerates.  Nor does it require changes to a law that itself is flexible and adaptable enough to meet the changing needs of consumers and the industry -- when it is entrusted to the proper hands.

The issue, therefore, is ultimately one of intent and purpose.  New products are fine.  But a secretive program to change the essence of manufactured housing, that would effectively relegate the industry’s existing product(s) to some sort of “second-class” status – with corresponding changes to the industry’s governing law – for the purpose of securing even greater competitive advantages for already market-dominant industry businesses, is not fine and, in fact, must be resisted by the broader industry and consumers as well.


“Diversion, Distraction or Destruction — And Time to Raise the Red Flag?”-pdf


MHARR’s Year-Long Effort With Trump Administration Poised To Pay Huge Benefits

  • Written by Mark Weiss

MHARRMHARR efforts over the past year to halt and reverse the regulatory excesses of the HUD manufactured housing program based on the regulatory freeze order imposed on all federal agencies by the Trump Administration on January 20, 2017 and subsequent Trump Administration Executive Orders (EOs) – specifically EO 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” issued January 30, 2017 and EO 13777 “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” issued on February 24, 2017 – have now produced significant results, with HUD announcing on January 25, 2018 that it will be conducting a “wholesale” review of HUD manufactured housing program regulations and regulatory actions pursuant to those Executive Orders, as specifically requested by MHARR, designed to “identify regulations that stifle affordable housing and job creation.”

A complete, high-level review of all such actions by the new HUD administration, together with the re-assignment and replacement of the previous program administrator, have been priority objectives for MHARR since day-one of the Trump Administration. With the previous administrator now having been re-assigned elsewhere within HUD, this latest action – which MHARR had specifically sought during multiple in-person meetings with Trump Administration officials at HUD, in correspondence with the Secretary (and other HUD officials) on March 6, 2017, May 5, 2017, June 29, 2017 and July 27, 2017, and in extensive written comments filed on June 7, 2017 regarding HUD’s implementation of EO 13777, and on August 17, 2017 regarding the proposed HUD “frost-free” IB -- begins to address the second element of MHARR’s effort with the new administration, to halt and where possible, reverse HUD regulatory actions which undermine the fundamental affordability of manufactured housing without providing corresponding benefits to consumers.

January 25, 2018 news release announcing the HUD regulatory review and a linked Federal Register draft announcement of the review (attached), states that the Department will review – and is seeking comment on – “all current and planned regulatory actions affecting manufactured housing” including, but not limited to: (1) all rules listed in the federal Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (i.e., Semiannual Regulatory Agenda); (2) the pending HUD Interpretive Bulletin (IB) on “frost-free” foundations (which is not listed in the most recent Unified Agenda); and (3) “the effectiveness of HUD’s on-site completion of construction regulations, its Subpart I notification and correction procedures, and its Alternate Construction approval process.” In the interim, the Federal Register announcement confirms that “HUD does not anticipate moving forward with any manufactured housing regulations pending completion of its review.”

With the announcement of this top-to-bottom review of HUD manufactured housing regulation, MHARR will continue to press for the repeal and/or modification of multiple HUD edicts which result in substantial costs for consumers with either little or no corresponding consumer benefits, as well as related matters which have driven such destructive regulation and/or have harmed the industry and consumers, including, but not limited to, full and fair competition for the manufactured housing program monitoring contract and reform of the HUD Federal Housing Administration Title I manufactured housing program, including the withdrawal of the Ginnie Mae 10-10 rule, which has collapsed manufactured home loan originations through that program.

MHARR will keep you apprised of further developments regarding this critical matter as it moves forward.


Manufactured Housing Production Up in November 2017

  • Written by Mark Weiss

MHARRWashington, D.C., January 5, 2018 – 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), year-over-year manufactured housing industry production grew once again during November 2017. Just-released statistics indicate that HUD Code manufacturers produced 8,602 homes in November 2017, a 21.1% increase over the 7,098 HUD Code homes produced during November 2016. Cumulative industry production for 2017 now totals 85,657 homes, a 15.5% increase over the 74,141 HUD Code homes produced over the same period in 2016.

A further analysis of the official industry statistics shows that the top ten shipment states from the beginning of the industry production rebound in August 2011 through November 2017  — with cumulative, monthly, current year (2017) and prior year (2016) shipments per category as indicated — are:


The latest information for November 2017 results in no changes to the cumulative top-ten list.

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

Daily Business News Briefs

Skyline, UMH Gain, Manufactured Housing CV Soars, S&P, NASDAQ Hit New H…

Noteworthy headlines on – CNNMoney – Fox trying to pull Jesse Watters from O’Reilly comedy tour. Oil stocks are the biggest losers of 2017. US unemployment hits 4.4 percent, lowest...


Read more

New Player Enters Manufactured Home, Communites, RV Game

Gelt Inc., a Tarzana, California based real estate investment firm, has announced the formation of a new subsidiary to purchase and manage manufactured home and RV communities. According to the...


Read more

Website Upgrade – on MHProNews Begins This Weekend

The long-anticipated upgrade to to version 3.0 will begin this weekend. The site will go down, starting Friday night/Saturday morning Eastern time. We anticipate the site coming back up...


Read more

Analyst, Investor Action at Skyline – What’s Happening?

For Skyline Homes, a recent rough patch has analysts and investors making moves. According to the Cerbat Gem, TheStreet downgraded shares of the company from a “c” rating to a...


Read more

MHARR on Tariffs, DOE, and, Federalized Installation – Exclusive Report and…

The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) has released its latest Washington Update, an exclusive report and analysis that addresses key issues with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban...


Read more

Magnificent May – New Reports, Announcements, and Schedule

Beginning with RC Williams hot new exclusive this morning on the behind-the-scenes developments in the nation’s capital regarding manufactured housing lending, Magnificent May will continue the MHProNews tradition of independent...


Read more

Patrick Rises Over 3 Percent, Manufactured Housing CV Broader Markets Jump

Noteworthy headlines on – CNNMoney – United and dragged passenger reach settlement. Southwest Airlines: We won’t overbook anymore. China’s Uber worth $50 billion after raising more cash. 10 things United...


Read more

Is Time Finally up for the CFPB?

Movement by the House Financial Services Committee, led by Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), could spell the end for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as we know it. According to ACA...


Read more

More First Nations Turning to Modular

Throughout Canada, many First Nations native tribes are struggling with the dual challenge of quality, and affordable, housing. Mold and other natural elements, when combined with overcrowding, present issues tribal...


Read more

Bark Worse than Bite? Manufactured Housing Institute Slams Trump Administra…

Comments from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on CNBC yesterday regarding proposed anti-subsidy tariffs on Canadian goods raised quite a stir. “The tariff is not the beginning of a trade war with...


Read more

Drama in Ohio: Fake News, Facts and Myths

The ongoing battle between the Ohio Manufactured Housing Association (OMHA) and Ohio Governor John Kasich over the status of the Ohio Manufactured Housing Commission (OMHC) has been taken to a...


Read more

New Sponsors

You Might Like


Press Releases

Zoning, Opening up Urban Infill and Making Sure Citizens who want Manufactured Homes are Heard

by Ed Schafer For the last three or four years, the South Carolina association’s focus is to move beyond killing bad zoning proposals and working to reopen areas that have been closed to manufactured homes for many years.

Schafer, Ed %COMMENTS 05-09-2016 September 2016

Zoning Eased to Allow MH for Flood Victims

Following up on a story concerning the flooding in Minot, North Dakota last spring, KFYR-TV reports the Minot City Council is relaxing zoning requirements to allow manufactured homes to be sited in areas not previously zoned for them, sometimes to the chagrin of neighbors. Working on a case by case basis, many of the homes [...]...

Matthew Silver %COMMENTS 09-05-2012 Daily Business News

Zoning Commission Recommends against Expansion of Manufactured Home Community

The Yellowstone County Zoning Commission unanimously turned down a zone change application that would have allowed Cherry Creek Estates manufactured home community (MHC) to expand by adding as many as 80 manufactured homes, reports billingsgazette. While the Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners will have the final say when it meets in...

Matthew Silver %COMMENTS 12-04-2016 Daily Business News

Zoning Changes on Tap for Manufactured Housing

A new proposal from the Columbus Junction (Iowa) Planning and Zoning Commission to the city council would create a manufactured housing (MH) district, and delete MH from R-2 and R-3 residential districts. According to, current ordinances require any MH outside of a community to be placed on a permanent foundation and converted...

Matthew Silver %COMMENTS 27-09-2013 Daily Business News

Zoning Changes Could Affect Manufactured Housing

by RC Williams The Washington County, Maryland Board of Commissioners is holding a public hearing today regarding several proposed changes to the county’s zoning ordinance, including ones that affect manufactured homes.

Williams, RC %COMMENTS 04-03-2017 March 2017

Zoning Changes Allow Modular Units

Following up on a story we last posted May 2, 2012 about modular medical units temporarily placed on a property to house loved ones with special needs, MHProNews has learned several states, including Virginia, New York, and California have enacted legislation to allow these units to override local regulations and be sited on properties not [...]...

Matthew Silver %COMMENTS 24-07-2012 Daily Business News