manufacturedhomelivingnews.com Manufactured Home Living News
“The American dream is homeownership, and the unintended effects of new regulation and lack of the secondary market by the GSEs is a path to tragically wipe out the remains of this important housing segment.” – Kevin Clayton, CEO Clayton Homes, in remarks to members of Congress made on behalf of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI). More from Clayton linked here and in a planned follow up report. MHLivingNews notes that GSE is an acronym for Government Sponsored Enterprises (or Enterprises), which generally refers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The remarks below from John Bostick to members of Congress are modestly edited, and those edits will be explained following his remarks in Part II of this report with expert analysis.
Part I
Good morning. My name is John Bostick [speaking on behalf of the] Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). I am also president of Sunshine Homes headquartered in Red Bay, Alabama, and I also live in a Sunshine manufactured home.
Sunshine Homes is a producer of manufactured homes built in accordance with the Federal construction and safety standards enforced by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
MHARR is a national trade association founded in 1985 and based here in Washington, D.C., which represents the views and interests of mostly smaller independent producers of federally-regulated manufactured housing including Sunshine Homes.
With me here today is Ed Hussey [Liberty Homes], my predecessor as the chairman of MHARR, who was chosen by Congress to serve on the National Commission on Manufactured Housing.
Historically, manufactured homes have accounted for about 20 to 25 percent of the new single-family homes sold in the United States. In 1998, our industry manufactured 373,000 homes. Since then, however, the industry has experienced a decline that is unprecedented in severity and length and has seen production and sales decline by nearly 90 percent. In 2010 and 2011, total industry production was approximately 50,000.
The decade-plus decline of the industry is a result of entrenched discrimination against both the product and the market segment that it primarily serves, discrimination that has grown in recent years due to the intentional policy decisions by Federal regulators and as an unintended consequence of other decisions within the Federal bureaucracy; this discrimination was supposed to have been a thing of the past.
More than a decade ago, Congress enacted the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. That landmark Act, which amended the original National Manufactured Housing Act of 1974, was designed based on 12 years of congressional study and the findings of a National Commission on Manufactured Housing to complete the transition of manufactured homes from the trailers of yesteryear to legitimate housing at full parity with other types of homes.
Congress in that law not only acknowledged the importance of the affordability of manufactured homes, making the maintenance of that affordability an express purpose of the Act, but also enacted specific reforms to the HUD Manufactured Housing Programs designed to end past abuses and transform the program into a housing program that would ensure equal treatment in the role of manufactured housing for all purposes within HUD and elsewhere.
The reality has been much different, as is detailed in MHARR’s comprehensive written testimony. HUD has failed to fully and properly implement the vast majority of the key programs that Congress deemed necessary in the 2000 law. After 12 years, Congress needs to send HUD a clear and unmistakable message that the 2000 law means what it says and that HUD must change course and implement the law in accordance with the expressed terms in its full intent and purpose. The 2000 law is not in need of change. It is HUD’s implementation of that law which has to change.
Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking Member Gutierrez, I thank you for holding this hearing, and for the opportunity to appear here today and address the subcommittee.
MHARR has already submitted comprehensive and detailed written testimony addressing all of these issues, and we would ask that it be included in the record for this hearing.
We also look forward to answering any questions that you or your colleagues may have. Thank you.”
Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary
At the time of those remarks to Congress, Bostick was the chairman of MHARR, which was edited out so that some who might not pay close attention to the entire article would not mistakenly think that Bostick remained in that role. As with other trade associations, in or beyond the manufactured housing industry, the chairman of their board of directors changes from time to time. The full remarks by Bostick are found linked here (starting on page 8), and the written statement from MHARR begins on page 38, and remarks by others who testified similarly to Congress about the problems with the lack of proper implementation of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA, 2000 Reform Law, or 2000 Reform Act).
A dozen years have gone by since Bostick said the above.
More than a dozen years have elapsed since Kevin Clayton said what was quoted at the top.
While each remarks is significant, the case can be made that Clayton was paltering in a manner to deflect from potential antitrust or other legal issues. By contrast, MHARR has been consistent and persistent in its words and deeds.
Interestingly, Manuel “Manny” Santana, for Cavco Industries (CVCO) and MHI said the following in remarks to members of Congress on the same day as Bostick’s comments were made (see page 16).
The [Manufactured Housing] Improvement Act underscored the preeminent status of the HUD Code over all other State and local building code. Congress recognized the importance of Federal preemption as a key element to the production and distribution of manufactured housing. A single uniform code is essential to manufacture housing and that it preserves affordability. Unfortunately, HUD has not followed through our request from MHI and the Consensus Committee to update its policy and preemption so that it is more tuned to the Improvement Act.
The Improvement Act specifically calls for the broad and liberal interpretation of the HUD Code. In practice, HUD’s interpretation has been narrow and conservative. This has led to an increase in State and local efforts to support the HUD Code with additional local and State regulations.”
Fast forward over 11 years, and Cavco’s William “Bill” Boor made similar remarks to Congress last July 14, 2023.
Early posts on MHLivingNews, per WordPress, were published on 2013/05/20. The landmark statements by Bostick, Clayton, and Santana were all thus made before this publication was launched. While this publication’s leadership have always supported the full and proper implementation of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA or 2000 Reform Law), frankly, the notion of paltering and posturing for effect may not have been considered at that time. It was only after years of observation, questions, answers (good, bad, mixed or nonexistence in the quality of replies) from MHI leaders and documents like the one found in the report linked here that began to clarify what was occurring within the ranks of manufactured housing by some, not all, industry leaders. Someone obviously can’t write or report about something that is not in hand or that a journalist doesn’t have or don’t know.
It is nearly impossible to imagine how MHI leaders could be asking for similar things as MHARR, verbally or on paper (so to speak), without then logically following through on what should be obvious next steps. Manufactured housing is demonstrably the only known and proven technology at this time which has performed at scale and at a low enough cost with the kind of volumes needed to solve the affordable housing crisis. That is aptly demonstrated in a factual, step-by-step 9-minute read found here.
There are any number of examples of existing laws which are not properly enforced in the U.S.A. today. A popular example commonly used is the southern border, reasonably secured under deposed President Donald J. Trump. Joe Biden, through reportedly dozens of executive orders ‘dismantled’ the border security previously obtained by Trump. Given that immigration is so poorly handled at this time, it should not be a surprise to learn that housing policy and existing laws that could unleash HUD Code manufactured housing to close the affordable housing gaps are also poorly handled too.
The mantra of all sincere, as opposed to posturing and faux, advocates for a robust use of more manufactured housing should be clear. Put good existing laws to work. There are any number of harmful consequences to allowing laws passed by widely bipartisan votes in Congress to languish or be misused. To learn more, see the linked and related report. ###
That’s a wrap on this installment of “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ### (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) (See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHLivingNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing. For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com. This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position, and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
Recent and Related Reports:
The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.
