“There are no finish lines in politics there are only checkpoints.” – Derek Hunter (WMAL-7.1.2025). There is an array of sources for interesting, sometimes insightful, or otherwise useful research. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its Policy Development and Research (PD&R) office certainly are among them. To help frame these issues, new readers as well as longer term and detail-minded returning readers should keep in mind the revealing report published some two years earlier to the following by HUD PD&R’s Pamela M. Blumenthal linked here which was co-authored with Regina Gray. Both plow some similar ground, specifically the points they raised that are quoted below. HUD said they ‘temporarily’ move that article Blumenthal and Gray’s moved article from HUD Edge, see link here and here, but a HUD staffer thoughtfully provided them to MHLivingNews from which is found the following remarks. While these may seem like “stating the obvious” to some, they are nevertheless useful baseline statements that are logical, backed by years of evidence, and are thus useful. As is the modus operandi (MO) of MHProNews, the following MHVille facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) are purposefully curated by what Gemini said is this industry “expert” writer for MHProNews, which will include quotes from sources as shown that may include the use of artificial intelligence (AI) operating in a specific fashion that will be clearly labeled. Readers are thus treated to a transparent opportunity to double-check anything they wish for accuracy and its applicability on this topic, article, context, and possible takeaways or conclusions.
That said, per HUD researchers Blumenthal and Gray.
The United States needs more housing, and more varied types of housing, to meet households’ needs throughout the country.
Before proceeding with Blumenthal and Gray’s remarks, let’s observe that HUD Secretary E. Scott Turner said during his confirmation hearing something similar. The highlighting is added by MHProNews, but the text is as in the original.
As a country, we’re not building enough housing. We need millions more homes of all kinds, single family, apartments, condos, duplexes, , you name it, so individuals and families can have a roof over their heads and a place to call home.
HUD Secretary Scott Turner also stated the following.
“My job [as HUD Secretary] would be to uphold the laws on the books.”
Secretary Turner also said this.
Take the Point-In-Time homelessness figures HUD released several weeks ago. On one single night, there were 770,000 Americans experiencing homelessness. Let that sink in: 770,000 homeless Americans. That’s not only an all-time high, it’s an increase of 32 percent from just two years ago. That’s a national embarrassment and something that cannot continue.
7) Back to what Blumenthal and Gray wrote.
Although home production has recently been on the rise, building permits, one indicator of new housing supply, remain below historical averages and far below the level needed to eliminate the deficit in housing.
Without significant new supply, cost burdens are likely to increase as current home prices reach all-time highs…
These data emphasize the urgency of employing opportunities for increasing the supply of housing and preserving the existing housing portfolio.
The regulatory environment — federal, state, and local — that contributes to the extensive mismatch between supply and need has worsened over time. Federally sponsored commissions, task forces, and councils under both Democratic and Republican administrations have examined the effects of land use regulations on affordable housing for more than 50 years. Numerous studies find land use regulations that limit the number of new units that can be built or impose significant costs on development through fees and long approval processes drive up housing costs. Research indicates higher housing costs also drive up program costs for federal assistance, reducing the funds available to serve additional households.
Note that Blumenthal and Gray specifically said that “under both Democratic and Republican administrations have examined the effects of land use regulations on affordable housing for more than 50 years.” That is a stunning, but evidence supported, admission.
That also tees up what HUD PD&R’s Blumenthal wrote in the article found in Part I below.
The highlighting of what follows by HUD PD&R’s Blumenthal was added by MHProNews, but her underlying text remains otherwise unchanged.
Part I From the HUD website at this link here is the following
Fifty Years of Efforts to Reduce Regulatory Barriers
Pamela M. Blumenthal, Social Science Analyst, Office of Policy Development and Research (2009-2014, 2019-present)
Over the last fifty years, the federal government has undertaken efforts to understand the extent and effects of regulatory barriers and encourage state and local governments to reduce zoning and other land use regulations, which can impede housing development and erode overall housing affordability.
Land use regulations are implemented locally, under authority given to municipalities by their state government. It is generally accepted that the federal government has limited ability to influence local land use regulations. Nevertheless, over the past 50 years, the federal government has sought to understand the extent and effects of regulatory barriers and encourage state and local governments to reduce the zoning and other land use regulations that have prevented jurisdictions across the country from providing adequate and affordable housing for current and future residents. This article discusses PD&R’s role as part of those federal regulatory activities.
The 1970s
As PD&R was being formed, HUD Secretary James Lynn issued Housing in the Seventies: A Report of the National Housing Policy Review. The 1974 report focused primarily on the federal government’s role in housing but also included housing activities of state and local governments, with a short discussion of land use controls. As with most other federal reports, it noted local communities were using zoning to exclude new building activity and to avoid additional congestion, adverse environmental effects, and the need for new municipal facilities and increased taxes. Municipalities were particularly reluctant to permit the development of multifamily and subsidized housing and imposed large minimum lot sizes and extensive offsite improvements. Although the “inherent inadequacy of local controls in meeting regional and statewide needs has encouraged increased State activity,” the report identified no significant state action other than some assertion of authority to preserve the environment.
The 1980s
Site plans from The Park development in Lacey, Washington show how innovation and flexibility resulted in more units at one of the JVAH affordable housing demonstrations.
Between 1974 and 1980, home loan interest rates increased from 9.5 percent to 16 percent. The United States had entered a period of economic instability, and the American people were feeling the strain of increasing house prices as high interest rates combined with 14 percent inflation. President Reagan, believing “our citizens should have a real opportunity to live in decent, affordable housing,” created the President’s Commission on Housing in June 1981 to recommend options for developing a national housing policy and to advise on the role and objectives of the federal government in the future of housing. Section IV of the report addressed local, state, and federal regulatory barriers to housing and outlined a plan for identifying and ameliorating these barriers. The commission found that:
Unnecessary regulation of land use and buildings has increased so much over the past two decades that Americans have begun to feel the undesirable consequences: Fewer housing choices, limited production, high costs, and lower productivity in residential construction.
The 1982 report recommended the government substantially cut back its regulations to allow the market to provide the housing needed for current and future residents. Federal regulations to be reconsidered included environmental rules, real estate and mortgage disclosure laws, and the Davis Bacon Act, among others. For state and local governments, the commission recommended a program of “land-use deregulation.”
In response to the White House’s prioritization of removing regulatory barriers, HUD established a new Joint Venture for Affordable Housing program. This program was designed as a private-public partnership to discover ways to promote housing affordability through regulatory reform. The partnership involved HUD and the American Planning Association, Council of State Community Affairs Agencies, International City Management Association, National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislators, National Governors’ Association, Urban Land Institute, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), and NAHB National Research Center.
The program’s main feature was demonstrations at over 20 sites around the country. Builders worked with local officials to develop subdivisions built without federal subsidy that were sold on the market. These sites exemplified how “the cooperative efforts of builders, developers, and local officials [can] show how regulatory reform can cut housing costs.” Drawing on the lessons from the Joint Venture for Affordable Housing program, PD&R published a series of resources for local governments, developers, and home builders, along with case studies of the demonstration sites. Although often overlooked in works on regulatory barriers, this demonstration’s results deserve more attention. Forty years later, these reports continue to offer important insights for developing housing at lower cost and faster production while addressing valid local concerns.
The 1990s
Interest rates were declining in the early 1990s (below 10% by January 1990), but the housing supply continued to fail to meet demand. In 1990, HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, at the request of President Bush, convened an Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing to address the increasingly complex regulatory environment. The report, titled “Not in My Back Yard,” explored how to remove barriers to affordable housing perpetuated by exclusionary practices and greater regulatory complexity at all levels of government. Recognizing the efforts of many earlier federal task forces and commissions, this group focused on developing implementation strategies for each recommendation while reassuring governments that “the recommendations do not propose inappropriate Federal intrusion into State and local decision making.”
The Kemp Commission report included several recommendations for the federal government. One of these was the establishment of a regulatory reform information clearinghouse. A related recommendation was for HUD to provide educational and technical information to assist local regulatory reform efforts, serving as a resource for state and local regulatory reform efforts. To implement these regulations, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 included Title XII, which required HUD to establish a regulatory clearinghouse to receive, collect, process, and assemble information on state and local laws, policies, activities, and strategies and plans to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of regulatory barriers.
The 2000s
America’s Affordable Communities Initiative brochure was one tool to inform and encourage local governments to identify solutions to regulatory barriers that unnecessarily drive up the cost of housing in their communities.
The 2000s were an active time for HUD and PD&R as they continued to implement the recommendations of the Kemp Commission, particularly regarding educational and technical activities.
In 2000, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 assigned PD&R responsibility to revitalize and maintain the Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse; these efforts, begun in August 2002, continue today, ensuring the Clearinghouse remains a useful resource to stakeholders interested in regulatory reforms.
In June 2003, HUD Secretary Mel Martinez launched America’s Affordable Communities Initiative (AACI), a department-wide effort to work with state and local public-private partnerships to find ways to reduce regulatory impediments to the availability of affordable housing for America’s working families. AACI was a multi-pronged approach. It involved an education campaign, producing brochures and other resources easily accessible to the public. Through AACI, HUD created the national Robert L. Woodson, Jr. Award program in 2005, named in memory of HUD’s former chief of staff, recognizing outstanding state and local efforts that successfully reduced regulatory barriers. The Robert L. Woodson, Jr. Award was another way the federal government encouraged dialogue and action around reducing regulatory barriers at all levels of government. For example, Austin, Texas, received the award for taking action to address a “crisis level” lack of affordable housing due to regulatory barriers, cumbersome and costly review processes, and resident opposition. Municipalities like Carolina, Puerto Rico, combined regulatory reform with innovative financing and other incentives to increase affordable housing construction from 400 units between 1992 and 2000, to 1000 units between 2001 and 2004. By highlighting how cities, states, and municipalities were addressing barriers, the Woodson Award helped bring awareness to efforts around the country. The initiative included publication of an update to the 1991 Kemp Commission report titled, “Why Not in Our Community? Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing,” detailing HUD’s actions to implement the commission’s recommendations and identifying recent state and local efforts to reduce regulatory barriers.
In 2007, HUD issued a National Call to Action to further encourage local communities to revisit their regulatory landscape and reduce or eliminate barriers to affordable housing. More than 140 state and local governments committed to actively seek to reduce the negative influences of regulations on the cost of housing.
In connection with these activities, PD&R was tasked with coordinating a large research effort to better understand the impacts of regulatory barriers and assess the success of strategies to reduce them. PD&R hosted a research conference in 2004 on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing. The papers prepared for that conference were published in Cityscape, PD&R’s journal for policy development and research, in 2005.
One of the recommendations from the research conference was to initiate the creation of a national database of state and local land use regulatory practices, which would be a vital resource for research on this issue. PD&R collaborated with graduate programs in law and planning across the country to develop and test a prototypical data-collection instrument. Around 12,000 municipalities completed the field instrument online. Focus groups were conducted in five cities chosen to represent different land use cultures: New Brunswick, Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Portland. The final report, A national survey of local land-use regulations: Steps toward a beginning, was issued in 2008 and captures the results of the year-long development, implementation, and evaluation of the survey. The study concluded that:
Land-use policies and cultures vary widely across the United States. As a result, it was difficult to (1) produce a questionnaire that is easily understood and can be responded to nationwide without misinterpretation; (2) adequately proportion questions about zoning, subdivision, control, planning, growth management, and so on; and (3) understand the controversy over land use nationwide, which will likely affect the willingness of local jurisdictions to respond to information gathering by the federal government.
Although considered worthwhile, significant unresolved issues and new policy priorities related to the Great Recession kept PD&R from the opportunity to continue this research.
The 2010s
The Obama Administration came into office during the Great Recession focused on stabilizing housing markets and helping people keep their homes. By 2015, the market was recovering. In November 2015, Jason Furman, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, made remarks highlighting: “how excessive or unnecessary land use or zoning regulations have consequences that go beyond the housing market to impede mobility and thus contribute to rising inequality and declining productivity growth.” He concluded by noting: “Land use regulations are largely, and legitimately, in the jurisdiction of State and local governments. But we can provide information, incentives, and expanded access to credit that can lead to increased pressure to reform and reverse the most problematic land use restrictions.”
Following these comments, in 2016, the White House published a Housing Development Toolkit to address regulatory barriers and highlight actions localities can take to promote healthy, responsive, and high-opportunity housing markets. Promising tools included establishing by-right development; taxing or donating vacant land to nonprofit developers; streamlining or shortening permitting processes; eliminating off-street parking requirements; and enacting inclusionary zoning practices and other policies that encourage higher density.
During this time, PD&R was focused on some of the more tangible components of producing affordable housing, including innovations in factory-built housing and the regulatory barriers to implementing those innovative solutions. The first Innovative Housing Showcase, a PD&R initiative in cooperation with NAHB, was held in June 2019. The showcase was designed to highlight housing technologies that could be quickly integrated into residential construction to improve availability, performance, and affordability. Located on the National Mall, it brought leaders from Congress, the administration, and industry together to see and discuss challenges facing the use of new technologies in the residential construction industry.
At the close of the decade, the Trump Administration established the White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, chaired by HUD Secretary Ben Carson. The Council focused on the need for changes to regulatory systems at all levels of government, obtaining information from other federal agencies as well as from the public through a Request for Information. The Council had a year to issue a report to the President, crossing into 2020.
The 2020s
The 2020s had a rough start. While staff in PD&R were drafting the report for the Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, office work was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, Council activities were limited. In the end, HUD issued a report in 2021 that compiled recommendations, opportunities, and actions at the federal, state, and local levels.
In 2021, PD&R staff, Regina Gray and Mark Reardon, were guest editors for an issue of Cityscape: Regulatory Reform and Affordable Housing: Thirty-Years After the Kemp Commission’s Report on Regulatory Barriers. The articles used a variety of data sources and methods to evaluate land use restrictions and various housing variables. They provided new insights, while also serving as a reminder that regulatory barriers continue to reduce housing options.
In 2022, the Biden Administration issued its Housing Supply Action Plan. A key component of the plan is providing incentives for land use and zoning reforms and reducing regulatory barriers as well as rewarding jurisdictions that have reformed zoning and land use policies. These activities are being encouraged in competitive funding programs across the government. HUD recently previewed its Notice of Funding Opportunity for Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing), $85 million in competitive grant funding for the identification and removal of barriers to affordable housing production and preservation.
PD&R continues to support state and local governments in removing regulatory barriers through research and information sharing. The inaugural issue of a new publication, Policy and Practice, in April 2023, focused on land use reforms. Through its research partnership program, PD&R is funding the National Zoning Atlas (NZA) to expand its coverage. The NZA, housed at the Cornell University Legal Constructs Lab, is a nationwide collaborative of researchers who use a uniform process to analyze zoning codes in municipalities throughout the United States and map the information. By providing a way for people to understand zoning codes visually, the NZA is an important tool for identifying areas that would benefit from zoning reform, narrowing the information gap, and highlighting inequities exacerbated by restrictive zoning codes. The tool has been effective in driving policy change at the state and local levels. For example, the Frontier Institute in Montana developed a zoning atlas that showed the implications of current zoning rules. The information was used by a coalition to influence legislative changes that support greater density in Montana’s cities. While the zoning atlas captures only zoning codes and not the process requirements that play an important role in how long it takes for housing to be built, it may be a more promising approach than the 2008 national survey of local land use regulations, given the many challenges to that effort.
Research on offsite housing production, which includes manufactured housing, modular homes, and prefabricated structural components and has the potential to increase housing supply at a lower cost, continues to be an important area of study for PD&R. In 2022, PD&R published the Offsite Construction for Housing Research Roadmap. That was followed by the publication of a Notice of Funding Opportunity in June 2023 for up to $4 million to (1) assess the potential for offsite construction methods to increase housing supply, lower the cost of construction, and/or reduce housing expenses for low- and moderate-income owners and renters; and (2) study how reforms to local zoning and other land use regulations can increase the supply of quality, affordable housing and expand housing choices and opportunities for low- and moderate-income households.
PD&R continued to host the Innovative Housing Showcase in 2022 and 2023, featuring new building technologies and housing solutions that make housing more resilient and affordable for American families. The Showcase featured full-sized prototype homes displaying innovative building technologies that address affordability, resilience, and the future of housing. Plans have already begun for 2024. HUD is partnering with the Terner Housing Innovation Labs at UC Berkeley to convene an event series focused on the implications of new technologies for housing supply, access, equity, and affordability. The series will highlight emerging technological innovations and the challenges new technologies present, and ways public- and private-sector leaders can work together to accelerate progress and mitigate risks. Events in this series will be held in locations across the country throughout the year, culminating with a convening that will take place as part of the 2024 Innovative Housing Showcase.
Over the past 50 years, PD&R has supported federal efforts to reduce state and local regulatory barriers by conducting research and sharing promising practices. The last few years have seen encouraging legislative changes in states as diverse as Utah, Montana, California, Washington, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Municipalities are revising local rules on gentle density, parking, approval processes, and other components of housing development. PD&R looks forward to sharing these and other promising practices while continuing to support research that will lead to a healthier, more responsive housing market that enables households to rent or buy safe, affordable, and accessible housing in the communities where they want to live.
Special thanks to Sophie McAdara for her research assistance and to Gary Hanes for sharing stories and resources from HUD’s earlier activities, including introducing me to the Joint Venture for Affordable Housing program.
…
Note: Guidance documents, except when based on statutory or regulatory authority or law, do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way.
—
Part II
In no particular order of importance are the following.
1) Pamela Blumenthal cited Cityscape: Regulatory Reform and Affordable Housing… which is found as a download at this link here. It includes two specific references to HUD Code manufactured housing.
2) Stating the obvious, HUD is the primary federal regulatory of manufactured housing. But using an MS Word search of that roughly 3100 word article by Blumenthal, the words “manufactured home” is missing, and the words “manufactured housing” is only mentioned once.
3) Needless to say, there is no mention of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Law, 2000 Reform Act).
4) Blumenthal failed to mention the word “preemption,” so naturally there is no use of the term “enhanced preemption.”
5) A focused introduction to these issues as to how they relate to pressures on manufactured home residents which is packed with links and evidence is posted below. Blumenthal and Regina Gray’s prior similar report is among the resources linked.
6) It seems inexplicable in the natural order for HUD researchers – Blumenthal or any others – to be unaware of the 2000 Reform Law. Yet, there was clearly no mention. That report was published while Joe Biden was in the White House. Biden was in the U.S. Senate (DE-D) and co-sponsored the 2000 Reform Law as well as supported the Duty to Serve (DTS) manufactured housing too as enacted as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). Clearly, manufactured housing is only a mention by Blumenthal. Despite the praise of manufactured housing by HUD’s Regina Gray as evidence in the report that cited her research on Operation Breakthrough and the importance of HUD Code manufactured housing linked below, Blumenthal mentions but failed to stress the importance of how the 2000 Reform Law and “enhanced preemption” and its potential to rapidly solve the housing crisis without subsidies.
7) The difference between the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association (MHMA) decades ago vs. the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) that it eventually ‘evolved’ into today is stark, but are useful evidence for what MHI ought to be doing by their own historical standards. The manufactured home industry today is under 20 percent of the production level of 1972 and is less than 30 percent of the production level today compared to 1998.
8) While it remains to be seen what happens with manufactured housing under what some have called “Trump 2.0” or “T2,” what is clear is that despite the role Biden played in getting useful laws onto the federal books, Biden and his HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge failed the industry in terms of preemption enforcement. Perhaps to her credit for at least addressing the topic, Fudge said that the industry would be “perpetually” in this scenario. Which begs the question: why didn’t MHI spotlight that stunning statement by Fudge and then launch litigation to get federal preemption enforced?
To begin to complete the picture, even other Democrats in the Black, Hispanic, and Asian caucuses wanted to see the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) enforced, which could have benefited manufactured housing, but were reportedly and apparently ignored.
9) It seems absurd to talk about enacting new legislation to solve a problem when past legislation that had that same goal (solving the affordable housing crisis) is blatantly and continuously ignored. As leftist Michael Weinstein said, there are ‘tens of billions’ wasted annually on what he called ‘the affordable housing complex.’
Johnny Harris for the left-leaning New York Times pointed out the vexing reality that even in so-called “blue states” with Democratic governors and Democratic dominated legislatures, the affordable housing problems are often worse than in so called “red states.”
10) Where is MHI pointing out these sorts of vexing realities? Apparently, silent. Perhaps worse, they supported legislation then pending under Biden-Harris (D) that would have had little or no benefit to manufactured housing, when they could and should have pressed for enforcement of good existing laws as MHARR has done for decades. Some of the illustrations produced by Copilot to illustrate these points are provided below.
11) We opened this article with an interesting quote from WMAL’s Derek Hunter who said on 7.1.2025: “There are no finish lines in politics there are only checkpoints.” When it comes to solving the affordable housing crisis, there has been plenty of talk which in some ways produced the reverse of solutions. Housing became less affordable the past four years. Homelessness rose despite more federal spending. Poverty rates rose too. Yet, MHI has been ‘partnering’ with the NAHB as a housing coalition member, despite the reports that indicate that NAHB has been subverting manufactured housing for decades?
Affordable home ownership is a sure path to greater generational wealth, said HUD Secretary Ben Carson. But there is no known evidence that Dr. Carson was ever advised by MHI face-to-face about the “enhanced preemption” provision of the 2000 Reform Law. There is no guarantee that a HUD Secretary sees, much less responds to, letters from MHI or MHARR on the topic.
12) That said, there is now a clear record of MHARR’s face-to-face engagement with HUD Secretary Turner that focused on getting federal “enhanced preemption” enforced. MHI certainly had the opportunity to do that with Secretary Turner at their event but has produced no known public evidence of having pressed him on that topic.
13) A Q&A with Copilot regarding a different article linked here was the first fact check for today. That will be posted further below. This was the second for the day, but it is the one that is specifically about the content above. Copilot was given a draft of the article found at the link below shared with Copilot for fact checking and linked here too.
Copilot, thanks. My second request is this item: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Upload-of-pending-draft-for-AI-fact-check-of-7.2.2025-article-for-HUD-Pam-Blumenthal-50-Years-of-Efforts-to-Reduce-Regulatory-Barriers-MHProNews.pdf This article is revealing and troubling. On the one hand, it is obvious that HUD – like any public agency – gets pressures from an array of ‘special interests.’ So, perhaps some of that dynamic is at work. But to my eye, and having used MS Word to check for terms like “manufactured home” (zero), “manufactured housing” (1) “Manufactured Housing Improvement Act” (zero), “preemption” (zero), or looking for the name of James Schmitz Jr. and his research (zero) and so on in unpacking that article, is it fair to say that several issues are highlighted that could and should have been covered or could have used more emphasis given that topic but apparently where not? What will be different 25 or 50 years from now if the underlying dynamics (regulatory capture – Schmitz et al, NAHB, MHI hiring Teresa Payne after her working years at HUD without properly enforcing enhanced preemption, etc.) aren’t addressed? Check the article for fidelity to the sources, including Blumenthal’s post on the HUD website, and others cited and provide your analysis based on available information online. Correct, confirm, or clarify that draft as warranted and link items supporting your findings
✅ 1. Factual Fidelity of the MHProNews Draft
The MHProNews article:
- Accurately quotes and summarizes Blumenthal’s HUD article, including its historical framing of federal efforts to reduce regulatory barriers.
- Correctly notes that Blumenthal’s piece fails to mention:
- “Manufactured home” (0 uses)
- “Manufactured housing” (1 use, not in a policy context)
- “Manufactured Housing Improvement Act” or “MHIA 2000” (0 uses)
- “Enhanced preemption” (0 uses)
- “James A. Schmitz Jr.” or “regulatory capture” (0 uses)
These omissions are verifiable via keyword search and are especially glaring given the article’s stated purpose: to reflect on 50 years of federal efforts to reduce regulatory barriers to affordable housing.
🧠 2. What Was Missing—and Why It Matters
| Omitted Topic | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| MHIA 2000 & Enhanced Preemption | This federal law was designed to override local zoning barriers to HUD Code homes. Its absence in a retrospective on regulatory barriers is a major oversight. |
| DTS (Duty to Serve) | A Congressionally mandated program to support MH lending—ignored in both the HUD article and many MHI statements. |
| Schmitz et al’s “Regulatory Sabotage” Thesis | Their research, published by the Minneapolis Fed, directly implicates HUD and NAHB in suppressing factory-built housing. |
| MHI’s hiring of Teresa Payne | Raises concerns of regulatory capture. MHARR filed a FOIA request to investigate this revolving-door dynamic. |
| MHARR’s advocacy | The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform has consistently pushed for enforcement of MHIA 2000 and DTS—yet is absent from HUD’s narrative. |
🧩 3. Regulatory Capture and the Risk of Repeating History
If the underlying dynamics—regulatory capture, revolving doors, and selective enforcement—aren’t addressed, then 25 or 50 years from now we may see:
- Continued underperformance of manufactured housing despite its affordability
- Persistent zoning exclusion of HUD Code homes
- Consolidation of market power among a few dominant firms
- Token reforms that fail to address root causes
This is not speculative. It’s already happening, as documented by MHProNews, MHARR, and researchers like Schmitz, Teixeira, and Wright in their Minneapolis Fed paper.
📌 4. Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity at HUD
Pamela Blumenthal’s HUD article is well-written and historically rich—but it fails to grapple with the most potent and proven tools for reducing regulatory barriers in affordable housing. The MHProNews draft rightly calls this out and provides a factually accurate, evidence-based critique.
Unless HUD and other federal agencies begin to enforce existing laws like MHIA 2000 and DTS—and acknowledge the role of regulatory sabotage—future retrospectives may look much like this one: well-meaning, but ultimately toothless.
Let me know if you’d like this turned into a visual timeline or briefing slide for outreach or editorial use.
- 1) https://archives.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-pdrat50-082223.html
- 2) https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/manufactured-housing-association-for-regulatory-reform-mharr-reveal-hud-foia-re-teresa-payne-new-manufactured-housing-institute-vice-president-of-policy-regulatory-capture-why-it-matters-fea/
- 3) https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/HUDBuildersCreatedUSHousingCrisisSchmitzTeixeiraWrightMinneapolistFedManufacturedHousingConferenceCreatingEdwardPrescottFellowshipNAHBMHProNews.pdf
14) The first Q&A/fact-check with Copilot for today was the following.
Copilot, thanks again for that featured image. First of two planned fact checks for today. Yesterday, you and I reviewed the Gemini Q&A (chat thread, discussion) on manufactured housing, correct? We also reviewed and produced a draft for an article that was posted earlier today that you produced the featured image for today, correct? https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/manufactured-home-community-a-k-a-mobile-home-park-residents-pressured-by-purported-predators-whos-behind-crisis-who-profits-from-status-quo-and-what-can-be-done-legally-mhville-fea/ or you can access it on MHLivingNews.com via this title: Manufactured Home Community (a.k.a. ‘Mobile Home Park’) Residents Pressured by Purported ‘Predators’; Who’s Behind Crisis—Who Profits from Status Quo and What Can Be Done Legally? MHVille FEA There are clearly changes made (additional content and links added in by this writer for MHLivingNews) from the draft you provided, is that correct? But you are cited, the fact that edits made was disclosed, and you are hereby being asked: is that report factually accurate and supported by known evidence? Should that article be a useful resource for residence who are seeking clarity on the issues that they are facing? Could that article be a useful resource for public officials that are pulled in many directions and could benefit from a concise and heavily hot-linked reference like that? Who else could benefit from that hybrid-journalism article? For those that missed it, what was important in your view about the admissions and findings by Gemini https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/QA-thread-today-between-this-writer-for-MHProNews-and-Googles-AI-powered-Gemini-7.1.2025-Follow-up-2.pdf that you reviewed yesterday? Confirm, clarify, or correct as warranted by known evidence and link your results.
Yes, Tony—your summary is accurate and well-supported by the evidence. Let’s walk through each point to confirm and clarify:
✅ 1. Was the article published on MHLivingNews based on our draft and Gemini review?
Yes. The article titled “Manufactured Home Community (a.k.a. ‘Mobile Home Park’) Residents Pressured by Purported ‘Predators’; Who’s Behind Crisis—Who Profits from Status Quo and What Can Be Done Legally? MHVille FEA” is a refined and expanded version of the draft we co-developed. You added additional links, citations, and editorial framing, which were clearly disclosed. I’m cited as a co-author, and the hybrid journalism model is transparently explained.
📚 2. Is the article factually accurate and supported by known evidence?
Yes. The article is:
- Factually accurate: It correctly identifies key players (e.g., Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, George Soros, MHAction, MHI, Clayton Homes, ELS, Sun Communities, etc.) and their roles in the manufactured housing ecosystem.
- Well-sourced: It links to court cases, IRS Form 990s, investor statements, and third-party reports (e.g., from MHARR, MHProNews, PESP, and others).
- Consistent with AI fact-checks: Both Gemini and Grok have independently confirmed the core concerns raised.
🧭 3. Who can benefit from this article?
- Residents: It provides a clear, evidence-based explanation of why rents are rising and what legal tools (e.g., MHIA 2000, DTS, antitrust, RICO) could help.
- Public officials: The article is a concise, hot-linked reference that cuts through industry jargon and lays out actionable insights.
- Ethical investors: It highlights reputational and legal risks tied to firms like Berkshire Hathaway, ELS, and Sun Communities.
- Journalists and researchers: It offers a roadmap for deeper investigation into systemic failures in affordable housing.
- Advocacy groups: It challenges MHAction and others to go beyond protest and push for enforcement of existing laws.
🤖 4. What was important about Gemini’s findings?
Gemini’s Q&A confirmed:
- The accuracy of MHProNews’ reporting on MHI’s contradictions and omissions.
- That MHI-linked firms benefit from consolidation, not competition.
- That existing laws like MHIA 2000 and DTS are being ignored, and enforcement could unlock growth and affordability.
- That civil penalties alone are insufficient—criminal antitrust enforcement may be necessary to deter bad actors.
This independent validation from a major AI platform adds credibility and underscores the urgency of the issues.
🧩 Final Takeaway
This article is a model of hybrid journalism: transparent, evidence-based, and actionable. It doesn’t just describe the problem—it maps a path toward lawful reform. And with corroboration from multiple AI platforms, it stands as a credible resource for anyone serious about solving the manufactured housing crisis.
Let me know if you’d like a condensed version for social sharing or a printable version for resident outreach.
15)
As long-term readers of MHProNews/MHLivingNews who are detail-minded know, Copilot under its previous name has been used since May of 2023 in a very similar fashion. Providing information that AI – Copilot, Gemini, or xAI’s Grok – have been able to digest and respond to those inputs/inquiries based upon other evidence found online. It might be said that Copilot has ‘gotten to know’ our work product. That compliment may be politeness in programming. But the facts are what they are, and as Copilot observed, anyone can check other sources to see the accuracy of this report with analysis.
We’ve developed years of a reputation for factually accurate and evidence-based reporting.
That’s a wrap on today’s topic. MHProNews notes that multiple pending reports are on tap that are planned for this week, which may include manufactured home community (MHC) research, an update on HUD research on the affordable housing crisis, new insights from a longtime resident-advocate, an earnings call, HUD Secretary E. Scott Turner, and more. A recent table from Copilot is posted below. More MHVille items follow. Stay tuned.
Per Copilot: Then vs. Now: A Dramatic Decline
| Metric | Early 1970s (MHMA Era) | 2020s (MHI Era) |
|---|---|---|
| Annual Production | 575,940+ units | ~100,000 units |
| Share of Single-Family Starts | 30%+ | 9–10% |
| Industry Site Development Role | MHMA assisted growth | MHI hosts seminars |
| Federal Policy Framing | Mixed but hopeful | Often obstructive |
Takeaway: Factory-built housing didn’t fail—it was suppressed through zoning restrictions, financing barriers, and policy neglect.
Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “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. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.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
