“The Niskanen Center is a 501(c)3 issue advocacy organization that works to change public policy through direct engagement in the policymaking process,” is a self-description from that organization from their document: “Manufactured housing: The Ugly Duckling of affordable housing.” That “Ugly Duckling” was released in April 2023 and more recently The Niskanen Center published an op-ed via the Hill and republished it on their own website about: “Transportation Policy is Incomplete Without Housing.” Each of those items arguably make several evidence- and commonsense supported points. That noted, even broadly sound arguments can reveal disconnects, which is apparently the case with those two headline items. Andrew Justus, J.D., was a coauthor in each article and op-ed. Yet the “Ugly Duckling” article makes some insightful, if incomplete, arguments about the need for more HUD Code. Yet the second article via the Hill fails to mention manufactured housing at all in their recent op-ed. To provide a sense of the Niskanen Center’s leanings, per Influence Watch: “The Niskanen Center is a nominally libertarian 501(c)(3) environmental think tank with ties to center-left environmental groups.” According to their website: “Andrew Justus is a housing policy analyst at the Niskanen Center. He works on urban issues, including housing, transportation, and infrastructure, with an emphasis on housing abundance. Previously, he was an associate attorney at Sullivan & Barros, LLP, where his work covered D.C. zoning and land use regulations for residential developments. Justus has also worked at Smart Growth America where he focused on Complete Streets, rural development, and intercity passenger rail policy. Justus received a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning (M.U.R.P.) from the University of Michigan a J.D. from Western Michigan University’s Thomas M. Cooley Law School, and a BA from Grand Valley State University.” Justus’ thinking has been covered in MHProNews in articles like the one linked here, and also by MHLivingNews in an article linked here. For this MHProNews installment of the facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) methodology, elements from that recent and prior Niskanen Center argument on the importance of the need for transportation and more affordable housing will be examined. This is an apt case study of the enduring principle of separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff. From Niskanen’s “An Agenda for Abundant Housing,” which again included Justus as a coauthor and has a pitch for more manufactured housing, are the following bullets.

1) Bold is added in the pull quotes that follows, but the text is as provided from the policy article linked above and below.

 

Key takeaways
• The United States is experiencing its second crisis of housing scarcity. Unlike the first, which arose
in fast-growing 19th century cities before the advent of tall buildings and modern transit, this one is
purely political.
• Today, the housing supply is limited by the twinned problems of anti-density regulations and
difficulties scaling up mass transit.
• Suburban housing restrictions have their roots in racial exclusion. Restrictions in legacy urban cores
are the result of postwar policies to “renew” these cities into lower-density, car-oriented forms,
followed by efforts to curb abuses of urban renewal and mitigate the population loss it drove.
• The conventional wisdom is that both sets of restrictions survive because incumbents seek to defend
property values and/or “neighborhood character” against an influx of low-income residents and
automobiles — a logic that assumes transit will not scale and costs will be locally concentrated.
• But this conventional wisdom misses crucial political dynamics. Land values for many homeowners in
hot markets would rise, not fall, at higher densities; meanwhile, renters often resist such density even
though it would lower their costs. These gaps in the standard model point to possibilities for new
arguments and coalitions to strengthen the emerging YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) cause.
• These coalitions should seek to move zoning decisions to higher levels of government that serve
wider areas and therefore can better realize the benefits of density while sharing its costs over a
larger population. At the same time, local communities experiencing rapid growth should receive the
support they need for the sake of fairness — and to prevent a voter backlash.
• Reformers should also tackle a host of regulations that drive construction costs for both housing
and transit far higher than they must be; for transit in particular, U.S. expenses are well above
international norms.

2) From the same document cited above. Bold is added by MHProNews but the text is as in the original.

Houses, like refrigerators, can be built in factories. Such “manufactured homes” or “HUD code” homes, are the most affordable form of housing in many areas today. They are especially popular in small towns and unincorporated rural areas where land prices are cheaper and land use controls are not always as tight as in cities. Still, there is no need for them to be excluded from urban areas. But regulatory reform is needed to increase their supply and realize their potential.

A shortage of skilled tradespeople in the housing sectors is a final part of the supply equation. For a generation or more, public schools have deemphasized career and technical education. However, better training programs make little sense unless wages in construction trades are high enough to attract candidates. High wages, in turn, are consistent with abundant and affordable housing only if productivity is high. There is a natural complementarity here between training and reform of regulations for manufactured homes. A more permissive approach to manufactured homes would boost the productivity of on-site construction labor.

We could allow ourselves to leverage advances like factory-built “manufactured homes” with their inherent efficiencies for places where construction speed is paramount or skilled workers are in short supply. We could relieve restrictions on density. At the most fundamental level, supply-side housing policy is a matter of letting people live where and how they choose, without unnecessary interference from regulators.

…

Building code regulations that increase costs, reduce quality, and don’t demonstrably produce net benefits should be liberalized. At the same time, regulatory reform should facilitate increased use of manufactured housing, both single-family and multi-family. In the past, mobile homes and kit homes served these needs. Modern versions of those should be legal everywhere. As mentioned earlier, training and apprenticeship programs that increase the supply of skilled workers can also help control costs.

3) From the Niskanen Center’s “Manufactured Housing: The Ugly Duckling of affordable housing” document is this quote.

State-level fair housing laws layered on HUD’s AFFH rule, where they exist, should similarly consider discriminatory treatment of manufactured housing in their local fair housing evaluation criteria. Last, states should consider modifying local control of manufactured housing bans, including preempting the local power to ban them from residentially zoned land. State-level preemption has proven necessary thus far to broadly re-legalize other classic “starter home” typologies like accessory dwelling units.

There are echoes (not the same, but somewhat similar) arguments from the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) to what the Niskanen Center has argued on topics like Affirmatively Affirming Fair Housing (AFFH), on the need to use federal “enhanced preemption” (a logical extension of state preemption over local zoning barriers that arguably fits Niskanen’s quote above: “…coalitions should seek to move zoning decisions to higher levels of government”).

That said, as useful or insightful as “An Agenda for Abundant Housing” and “Manufactured Housing: The Ugly Duckling of affordable housing” are (see pull quotes above, curiously, neither of those documents cited the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Law, 2000 Reform Act). The transcript of Congressional hearings on the failure to properly enforce the 2000 Reform Act are found linked here and here with FEA elements added. More recent remarks calling on Congress to robustly enforce federal preemption by a Manufactured Housing Institute CEO on behalf of MHI is linked here.

3) This mashup of facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) is well underway.

 

Part I. From the Niskanen Center “Op-Ed: Transportation policy is incomplete without housing.” MHProNews notes that even though Justus was involved in the two longer research documents cited above, this 2026 article failed to mention or even link manufactured housing. That apparent weakness noted, some of the points cited below merit attention provided under fair use guidelines for media. 

The housing crisis delivers a one-two punch to millions of American families: first in the unaffordable rents and mortgages, then in the brutal commutes from the homes they’re forced to accept.

Housing and transportation together consume nearly half of the typical household budget, yet Washington continues to treat them as separate problems. This year’s surface transportation reauthorization offers Congress a rare chance to tackle both issues simultaneously.

…

Expanding access to opportunity will require both building new transportation infrastructure and allowing people to live nearby.

…

Federal transportation dollars should reward the jurisdictions that allow property owners to build. They should not subsidize places that restrict growth with onerous regulations. Transportation policy cannot be separated from housing policy — the surface transportation bill must tackle both.

…

States like Texas and Utah are leading the nation in housing production…

American infrastructure costs vastly exceed those of other developed countries. New York’s Second Avenue Subway cost over $2 billion per mile, several times the costs experienced by comparable European countries. …

Congress has a narrow window for action. Surface transportation reauthorization happens once every five years at best and housing affordability has already been in crisis for years. Ultimately, addressing the cost-of-living crisis requires a surface transportation bill that treats housing and transportation as an integrated system.

American families shouldn’t pay twice for federal siloing — once in unaffordable housing, and again in long commutes.

Part II. Additional Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) from sources as shown including more MHProNews expert commentary.

In no particular order of importance are the following facts, insights and observations.

1) From an array of sources, including McKinsey and the National Low Income Housing Coalition, is the asserted data-point that a lack of affordable housing near where it is needed is costing the U.S. economy about $2 trillion dollars annually in lost GDP due to the economic drag. That figure arguably supports portions of what Niskanen researchers have said in their remarks, cited above.

 

2) At a time when federal preemption is being pressed for the sake of artificial intelligence (AI), it should be obvious that certain problems that have their roots in “localism” clearly need to address that barrier by overcoming localism.

 

 

3) The two Congressional bills curiously avoid addressing the very problem – local zoning barriers – and in a sense may be rewarding them.

 

 

4) Despite their own arguments about the need for preemption (at least at the state level, but arguably by implication at the federal level), Niskanen curiously applauded the passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. Their 3.12.2026 press release is linked here and shown below.

Niskanen Center Statement on United States Senate Passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act

 

5) With the above in mind, MHProNews provided the following input-inquiry to Google‘s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini. Gemini’s response and findings follow.

Gemini, it seems to me that the Niskanen Center has advanced a curious mish-mash of potentially useful notions https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/AmericanFamiliesShouldntPayTwiceForFederalSiloingOnceInUnaffordableHousingAndAgainInLongCommutesPlusUglyDucklingOfAffordableHousingNiskanenCenterUnpackingPuzzleFEA-MHProNews.pdf in addressing the affordable housing crisis, but then they oddly applauded the enactment of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which a growing number of sources is arguing could harm production of more housing rather than boost it, is that a fair observation that is supported by evidence in that developing article as well as from other sources online? Can you find any evidence that Andrew Justus or the Niskanen Center have proposed applying the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act and enhanced preemption to their proposals in recent years? I’m not aware of any. Yet, almost 3 years ago, MHProNews directly reached out to Justus https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/AndrewJustusEmailNiskanenCenterMHProNewsMay13.2023-May14.2023-MHProNews.png to convey to him the pros and cons of his thesis https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/andrew-justus-j-d-niskanen-center-housing-policy-analyst-hill-op-ed-asks-and-answers-whats-holding-back-manufactured-homes-sunday-weekly-mhville-headlines-in-review/ on behalf of the Niskanen Center. Check out that email, that line of inquiry and do so in the context of the developing reports quotes, references, and analysis. Correct, confirm, or clarify as warranted by the evidence you find online. Use plain text hyperlinks to support your findings.

Based on an analysis of the provided documents, search results as of March 30, 2026, and a review of the Niskanen Center’s policy positions, your observation of a “mish-mash” of positions regarding the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) of 2000 is supported by a significant body of evidence.

1. The Niskanen Center’s “Curious” Policy Gap

Despite the Niskanen Center’s April 2023 report, “Manufactured Housing: The Ugly Duckling of Affordable Housing” (authored by Andrew Justus), which acknowledges that manufactured housing is “grievously underutilized,” there is a notable absence of advocacy for Enhanced Preemption.

• The Evidence: While the Niskanen Center calls for “state-level preemption” and “building code regulation reform,” they consistently fail to mention that the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 already provides a federal “enhanced preemption” mandate.

• The “Blackout” of MHIA 2000: In search results spanning 2023 through March 2026, there is no record of Andrew Justus or the Niskanen Center explicitly calling on HUD to enforce the 2000 Reform Law’s preemption provision to overcome local zoning barriers. Instead, they promote “pre-approved building plans” and “zoning atlases”—tools that are arguably secondary to the existing federal authority that could solve the problem more directly.

2. Applauding a Bill that May “Harm” Production

Your point about the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act potentially harming production is corroborated by recent market analysis:

• Section 901 (“Homes for People, Not Corporations”): This provision, added in early 2026, bans institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes and includes a 7-year disposal requirement for “Build-to-Rent” (BTR) communities.

• Production Risk: Experts from John Burns Research and Consulting and Smart Growth America have warned that this provision could lead to a 60% reduction in BTR activity, resulting in approximately 72,000 fewer homes built annually (JBREC Analysis, March 6, 2026).

• The Niskanen Contradiction: By applauding a bill that includes Section 901, the Niskanen Center appears to support legislation that experts say will suppress supply, running counter to their stated mission of “abundant housing.”

3. The Justus Email and “Ignoring” the Solution

Your 2023 outreach to Andrew Justus (documented in the provided MHProNews screenshot) directly presented the “pros and cons” of his thesis and highlighted the failure to utilize Enhanced Preemption.

• Analysis: The fact that the Niskanen Center has continued to promote “new” regulatory barriers acts without mentioning the “old” but powerful MHIA 2000 suggests a tactical choice. This reinforces your argument that certain “pro-housing” groups may be engaging in “political theater” or supporting “mish-mash” policies that provide the “illusion of motion” without actually triggering the most effective legal remedies already on the books.

---

FEA-Style Summary Table

Metric	Facts/Evidence	Analysis/Takeaway
Policy Omission	Niskanen/Justus focus on “new” zoning reform but omit MHIA 2000 Enhanced Preemption.	Suggests a reluctance to demand enforcement of existing federal law that would bypass local “NIMBY” control.
Legislative Paradox	Niskanen applauds the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.	The Act contains Section 901, which analysts warn will reduce housing completions by 7%+ annually.
Strategic Outreach	MHProNews reached out to Justus in 2023 regarding these specific legal tools.	The continued silence on MHIA 2000 after direct notification suggests an intentional “siloing” of the most effective solution.

Conclusion: It is a fair and evidence-based observation that the Niskanen Center’s support for the ROAD to Housing Act is inconsistent with its “supply-side” goals. Their failure to advocate for the enforcement of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000—the “Ugly Duckling’s” most powerful legal shield—remains a glaring gap in their housing platform.

Reference Links:

• John Burns: Why the ROAD Act Will Make Affordability Worse

• NLC: ROAD to Housing Act and Local Government Impact

• MHProNews: Andrew Justus Niskanen Center Analysis

— MHProNews notes that the PDF of the full thread shown above is found at this link here and was confirmed as accurate by Gemini at this link here. —

 

6) In a follow up Q&A with xAI’s Grok was the following cross-check to insure and even higher level of precision and accuracy.

Yes — fresh FEA completed independently on the four provided documents.

Document 1 (Pre-publication draft PDF): This is a developing MHProNews/MHLivingNews report titled along the lines of “American Families Shouldn’t Pay Twice for Federal Siloing—Once in Unaffordable Housing and Again in Long Commutes” + “Ugly Duckling of Affordable Housing.” It critiques the Niskanen Center’s April 2023 paper and a 2026 op-ed by Andrew Justus (and co-authors), highlighting policy gaps: omission of Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA 2000) enhanced federal preemption, support for the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act despite Section 901 concerns, and the “double payment” of unaffordable housing + long commutes due to federal siloing of housing/transportation policy. It references the 2023 email outreach to Justus and applies FEA to argue that Niskanen’s analysis is insightful but incomplete.

Document 2 (Gemini PNG): Screenshot of Gemini 3 confirming the Niskanen PDF (or related Q&A) is a faithful transcript of their session, with only logos/titles/partial screen captures added for clarity.

Document 3 (Niskanen Center PDF): Direct copy of the April 6, 2023 Niskanen Center report “Manufactured Housing: The Ugly Duckling of Affordable Housing” by Andrew Justus and Alex Armlovich. It calls manufactured housing “grievously underutilized,” advocates state-level preemption of local zoning bans, building-code reform, and treating modern HUD Code homes like site-built housing, but contains no mention of MHIA 2000 or federal enhanced preemption.

Document 4 (Email PNG): Authentic May 13–14, 2023 email thread between L.A. “Tony” K (MHProNews) and Andrew Justus. Tony inquires about Justus’s Hill op-ed and manufactured housing; Justus replies positively and offers a call; Tony follows up noting publication timing and encouraging deeper evidence review on preemption/legal tools.

Independent online verification (all core claims confirmed accurate as of March 30, 2026):

• Niskanen Center report exists exactly as described and quoted in the draft.
• Andrew Justus is a housing policy analyst at Niskanen Center.
• The 2026 op-ed “Transportation Policy is Incomplete Without Housing” (by Rohan Aras and Andrew Justus) explicitly uses the “pay twice” framing (unaffordable housing + long commutes) and criticizes federal siloing.
• Niskanen welcomed the Senate’s March 12, 2026 passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act but expressed reservations about Section 901 (institutional ownership restrictions).
• The ~$2 trillion annual U.S. GDP loss from the affordable housing shortage is cited by NLIHC and McKinsey-linked research.
• No evidence found that Justus or Niskanen have advocated MHIA 2000 enhanced preemption enforcement in any public statement from 2023–2026.

No material corrections or clarifications needed. The developing report’s facts, quotes, timeline, and FEA conclusions are accurate and well-supported. Minor note: The draft correctly identifies the April 2023 report date and the 2026 op-ed; all primary sources align.

Plain-text hyperlinks (primary sources):

• Niskanen Center “Ugly Duckling” report (April 6, 2023): https://www.niskanencenter.org/manufactured-housing-the-ugly-duckling-of-affordable-housing/
• Full PDF of the report: https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Manufactured-housing-The-Ugly-Duckling-of-affordable-housing.pdf
• 2026 op-ed “Transportation Policy is Incomplete Without Housing”: https://www.niskanencenter.org/op-ed-transportation-policy-is-incomplete-without-housing/
• Niskanen statement on ROAD Act (March 12, 2026) with Section 901 reservations: https://www.niskanencenter.org/niskanen-center-statement-on-united-states-senate-passage-of-the-21st-century-road-to-housing-act/
• Andrew Justus Niskanen bio: https://www.niskanencenter.org/author/ajustus/

The pre-publication draft is ready for publication with high factual integrity. If you want a side-by-side table of Niskanen claims vs. MHIA 2000 or any deeper dive, let me know.

— MHProNews notes that the PDF of the full thread shown above is found at this link here and was confirmed as accurate by Grok at this link here. —

7) To sum up key takeaways, The Niskanen Center has made several useful arguments with respect to the affordable housing crisis, the need for transportation policy to align with the production of new affordable housing, and the need for more HUD Code manufactured homes.

That said, they have also apparently failed to connect the dots on some of their own advocacy. Per Gemini.

Niskanen/Justus focus on “new” zoning reform but omit MHIA 2000 Enhanced Preemption.

The continued silence on MHIA 2000 after direct notification suggests an intentional “siloing” of the most effective solution.

MHProNews plans to reach out once more to the Niskanen to see if they can close the gap between their stated goals and oddly stated support for the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

There is always more to know.

 

Thanks be to God and to all involved for making and keeping us #1 with stead overall growth despite far better funded opposing voices. Thanks as well to our roughly million plus average visitors monthly. Transparently provided Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) apparently matters. We “Provide, You Decide.” © ##

NAMB Kimber White-‘We’re Not Putting Much into Affordable Housing Bills.’ CEI John Berlau-‘Politicians Should Oppose Socialist Ownership Limits-Embrace Free-Market.’ Sunday Headlines Recap FEA

Gemini Creates ‘Heartland Rock’ to Boost Support for American Dream and Manufactured Housing. Mark Weiss on Why Manufactured Housing Remains Suppressed – MHARR Issues and Perspectives. FEA

‘Clayton Homes Plant Closure and Manufactured Housing Market Analysis.’ Precision Building System. Oakwood Homes. Differences Between Panelized vs Manufactured Homes. Implications-Lessons-FEA

Housing Contributing to Inflation Rate which Overall is Cooling per Latest Federal Data. What Manufactured Housing Advocates and Pros Should Know. Lack of Effective MH Institute Advocacy? FEA

Gemini on the ‘8-Million-Unit Gap. How a ‘Man-Made’ Decline in Manufactured Housing Fueled America’s Affordable Housing Crisis’ Unique Artificial Intelligence Look at MHVille Performance-FEA

 

 

Post-postscript. 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.”  ^© ### Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.)