“In Barron’s, Research Fellow Arthur Gailes and Housing Center Codirector Ed Pinto wrote that the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act…”won’t help you buy a home“: “the cost of your future home is more likely determined by changes happening closer to home.” So said the AEI Housing Center on 7.13.2026. The Cascade Policy Institute recently explained why: “High housing prices are almost exclusively caused by state and local laws and regulations, so there is little reason to think that a new federal law can make housing more affordable.” Cascade also asserted: “Why Congress’s Housing Act is Just Political Theater.” While those sources explain their pushback differently in some ways than the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), they each pointed to local or state level zoning as reasons why the 21^st Century ROAD to Housing Act will be a pothole drive to a predictable dead end. MHProNews pointed out that two Senate ‘myth’ busters  stated that local zoning was ‘not preempted. President Trump, who declined signing the “yawn” of a bill into law, also said the legislation won’t make interest rates lower, which also means that housing won’t become more affordable. The MHARR amendments, which the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) declined to comment on or publicly push for in the bill while it was developing, could have led to more affordable manufactured home lending plus enforcement of the “enhanced preemption” tool to directly address two of the root causes for lack of affordability. Before pushing on, a little more from the AEI Housing Center is warranted.

Teasing part of the MHProNews‘ facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) from #14, further below.

“The industry’s own KPIs show demand is high, production is low, and ROAD Act does nothing to fix the two root causes: zoning and financing.”

1. In an email to MHProNews the AEI Housing Center said they “surveyed more than 5,200 Americans and found broad support for practical land-use reforms: 74% back homes near jobs and amenities, 64% back smaller lots in new neighborhoods, and 58% back small-scale infill.” That same email also pointed to news sources which “Mention” AEI’s arguments. The top “mention” was on HousingWire, the fact-packed op-ed authored by L. A. “Tony” Kovach, co-founder and publisher of MHProNews: “HousingWire: Cited Pinto and Peter’s critiques of the ROAD Act as a “pork-filled potpourri” and a “ROAD to less housing.”” If housing prices are lower six months or a year from now, odds are excellent that it won’t be because manufactured home production soared, and housing affordability improved with it.

2. Indeed, even the two sources via social media who are in the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) orbit have directly and/or indirectly admitted that now ‘the real work’ begins. What? The new law has passed, and now the ‘real work’ begins? Here is how Chris Nicely, ex-Clayton Homes, ex-Next Step (for years supported by Clayton), ex-ManufacturedHomes.com (MHI ‘award winner’) – all of which are linked to MHI put it on social media.

“The ROAD to Housing Act is now law, and now the real work begins (again).

It’s a meaningful win. The Act named manufactured housing directly in the fight against exclusionary zoning and killed the outdated chassis requirement that’s been inflating costs. But Congress can suggest, states can mandate, BUT local zoning boards still hold the keys.

California, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, and New Hampshire have already shown what closing the loophole looks like. Texas and Florida are next. The rest of the country is still catching up – and that’s where we come in.

NOW is the time to join forces and push for the same-standards protections that work. Here’s what changed, what didn’t, and what it’ll take to get HUD Code homes a real seat at the table. The ROAD to Housing Act is now law, and the real work begins (again).”

3. Kovach responded to that post as shown below. The screen capture from LinkedIn that documents the above and below is found here.

Hey Chris, sorry, I still do not think this is much, if any, of a ‘win’ for manufactured housing. MHI well knows that they have repeatedly called for enforcement of the “enhanced preemption” provision of the 2000 Reform Law. That’s not speculative, that’s documented: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/collection-of-manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-testimony-and-pitches-to-congress-public-officials-and-others-mhi-stances-in-their-own-words-mhville-fea/ When Rachel Cohen Booth for Vox interviewed Lesli Gooch, Lesli reportedly said her members pushed for the removable chassis? https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/was-vox-rachel-cohen-booth-misled-by-mhi-ceo-lesli-gooch-removable-chassis-road-to-housing-act-2025-unpacking-evidence-of-deception-and-misdirection-by-manufactured-housing-institute-fea/ Really? While having a removable chassis has been a fine goal, MHARR called it “low hanging fruit” compared to getting the Duty to Serve (DTS) or the 2000 Reform Laws enhanced preemption enforced so that local zoning barriers can be routinely overcome. Which would you rather have, if you had to pick? A removable chassis? Or a federal law that would be ROBUSTLY enforced to say that locals can’t zone out manufactured homes?

4. Vernon Miller, who per his LinkedIn profile this morning is an ex-Clayton man, answered instead of Nicely.

hey Look Folks it’s the pessimistic LA Tony!

Obviously, Tony would be the one that would be pessimistic on this great idea . Glad to see you haven’t changed in 10 years..

5. Kovach responded to Miller as follow.

Vernon Miller Is it possible that you could deal with the issues instead of name calling? Why not take a shot at addressing the issues cited and backed by years of evidence? Go ahead, try to challenge the facts and evidence.

6. Time passed, no follow up post occurred from Miller or Nicely, so, Kovach posted the following to Miller.

Vernon Miller Here is what MHAO, an MHI affiliate said via FB recently: “The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act establishes a new federal framework for housing policy nationwide. The bill aims to expand housing supply, reduce regulatory barriers, and lower costs for families, all while preserving local control.” Local zoning barriers have been what MHI testified about for YEARs. So, are thinking people simply supposed to forget that MHI said it was one of the two biggest barriers to more manufactured housing? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/collection-of-manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-testimony-and-pitches-to-congress-public-officials-and-others-mhi-stances-in-their-own-words-mhville-fea/ Seems to me that you might be on the wrong side of this, Vern. But if you can, show the flaw in the logic.

 

 

The screen capture that documents the accuracy of the above from LinkedIn is found here.

 

 

7. Later, Kovach posted the following follow up to Nicely.

Chris, one more thought for your feedback on your remarks. “BUT local zoning boards still hold the keys.” It wasn’t me, it was Scott Susin, an ex-HUD, ex-FHFA economist who did a study of these state-level preemption laws and what the actual impact has been. Susin’s take? No net benefit, per his op-ed to Governing. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/scott-susin-cma-since-2024-5-states-passed-laws-requiring-cities-allow-manufactured-homes-wherever-traditional-homes-permitted-no-evidence-earlier-such-reforms-worked-fha-chattel-mh/ Also, manufactured home shipments are STILL in decline. https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/hud-code-manufactured-home-industry-production-declines-again-in-may-2026/ Which tends to confirm Susin’s thesis, right? So, again, didn’t MHI and company miss the boat (seemingly intentionally) by not calling for the MHARR amendments when they could have done so for months? https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/?s=amendments

Circa 8:51 AM ET on 7.15.2026, neither Nicely nor Miller had responded, some 9 or more hours after the comments shown were posted. Let’s be clear, MHProNews’ Kovach is clearly seeking someone in the MHI orbit who is willing to ‘debate’ this topic. There is no ‘ill will’ toward Nicely or Miller for having an opinion, even if it is errant, that is there Constitutionally protected right. But will they or others in the MHI orbit debate their position? Can then defend it against the pushback by people in or beyond the industry?

8. One of the last serious debates on LinkedIn involving Kovach was with now-ex ManageAmerica (an MHI member) Andy Gedo, who among other statements, said the following. In the quote collage below, the Kevin Clayton quote was not present, it is added by MHProNews in order to underscore the keen insight made by Gedo.

 

 

9. Nicely, on a different thread, “liked” Kovach’s then final remark on that thread.

10. MHProNews asked MHI and CEO Lesli Gooch to publicly respond to concerns raised, see that LinkedIn thread here. A request for comments posted by Kovach to ex-MHI chairman William “Bill” Boor, president and CEO of Cavco Industries (CVCO) is found here. Responses? See for yourself that these ‘leaders’ are ducking any serious discussion of these key topics. Yet, MHI’s outside attorney, David Goch claimed that MHI is open to discussion “inviting discussion” and even “contentious debate“…? Pardon me?

 

 

11. According to GAIO.

You are exactly right. A Trojan Horse is a classical idiom and modern cybersecurity term that describes anything that misleads by appearing harmless or beneficial on the outside while concealing a hidden threat or malicious intent inside. [1, 2]

Recall that MHProNews argued some 3 years ago that the housing bill was a ‘trojan horse.’ An outsider looking in, Janet Thome with the Tiny House Alliance USA has argued that MHI is part of a scheme to eliminate the HUD Code, and Thome provided pages of evidence to support her arguments, which third-party AI found to be well supported and reasonable.

 

 

 

MHProNews predicted years before the legislation was passed that it was a “bait and switch” tactic poised to “harm” the “manufactured home industry.”

12. When it began to look like the powers that be would get their way, a few weeks before the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act was enacted, MHProNews raised this point.

 

 

The above was uploaded on May 21, 2026. Which is to say, MHI – while the bill was still active – and their corporate leadership were publicly reminded that they would be held accountable for this bill. MHI, not MHARR, “owns” the results of this bill. This was a deliberate set of policy choices by MHI and their corporate leadership.

 

 

13. As was documented here were the following findings based on SimilarWeb data rounded off and provided in tables by artificial intelligence powered Gemini.

Table 1: Large-Scale Consumer and Retail Aggregators

Website / Platform	Core Market Focus	Primary Alignment	Estimated Monthly Footprint (SimilarWeb)
MHVillage.com	Retail Listings & Manufactured Home Sales	MHI Member / ELS Owned	~1,000,000+
ManufacturedHomes.com	Consumer Retail / Floorplans & Quoting	MHI Member	~110,000+

Table 2: Top Tier Corporate Manufacturers

Website / Platform	Core Market Focus	Primary Alignment	Estimated Monthly Footprint (SimilarWeb)
ClaytonHomes.com	Vertical Manufacturing & Retail Distribution	MHI Corporate Leader	~850,000+
ChampionHomes.com	National HUD-Code Builder Network	MHI Board Member	~180,000+
CavcoHomes.com	Production & Systemized Retail Operations	MHI Corporate Leader	~120,000+

Table 3: Institutional Land-Lease Operators (Group A)

Website / Platform	Core Market Focus	Primary Alignment	Estimated Monthly Footprint (SimilarWeb)
MyMHCommunities.com	Lot Leases & Portfolio Management	Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS)	~65,000+
SunCommunities.com	Institutional Resort & MHC Portfolios	MHI Leader / Public REIT	~140,000+
UMH.com (UMH Properties)	Greenfield Expansion & Value Rental Portfolios	MHI Member / Public REIT	~35,000+
FlagshipCommunities.com	Concentrated Regional MHC Portfolios	MHI Leader / Toronto REIT	~15,000+

Table 4: Institutional Land-Lease Operators (Group B)

Website / Platform	Core Market Focus	Primary Alignment	Estimated Monthly Footprint (SimilarWeb)
YesCommunities.com	Large-Scale Multi-State Family Portfolios	Private Equity Backed / MHI Member	~90,000+
RHPProperties.com / Bayshore	Institutional Asset Acquisition & Management	Large-Scale Independent MHI Builder	~55,000+
ContinentalCommunities.com	Selected Regional Residential Land-Lease	Private Asset Portfolio / MHI Member	~10,000+
ROCUSA.org	Resident-Owned Cooperative Conversions	Non-Profit Advisor / Sector Disrupter	~25,000+

Intersection of Traffic with Industry Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

The following metrics illustrate the severe disconnect between public-facing consumer interest and actual physical production.

Table 5: Macro Comparison — Marketing Interest vs. Actual Output (April 2026)

Metric Source	Category Baseline	Aggregated Digital / Production Value
SimilarWeb Traffic Logs	Combined Public-Facing Retail & Community Portals	~2,720,000+ Total Monthly Visits
MHARR / HUD Official Data	Total New HUD-Code Units Manufactured Nationally	9,207 Completed Homes
FEA Structural Contrast	Conversion Deficiency Ratio	~295 Web Inquiries/Visits Per 1 Built Home

Table 6: Year-Over-Year Macro Trend Stagnation

Year Baseline (Month of April)	National Production Volume	Year-Over-Year Trend Direction	MHI Stated Strategic Objective
April 2025	9,454 HUD-Code Homes	Baseline Year	“Elevating the Industry / Growing Business”
April 2026	9,207 HUD-Code Homes	-2.6% Negative Retraction	“Elevating the Industry / Growing Business”

 

That set of 6 tables creates a set of bright line key performance indicators (KPI) that illustrates that millions of Americans are visiting manufactured housing sites every month. So, why is it that in May 2026 production and shipments fell year-over-year?

 

 

These are the sorts of vexing facts that MHI and their surrogates can’t, won’t, or don’t address. Much less publicly discuss or debate. To that point, let’s see if MHI publicly responds online to the evidence uncovered by Thome, confirmed by a HUD statement, that MHI was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars via a grant by HUD to ‘study’ zoning barriers. From that report in Part II #6 was this AI finding.

“Paid Gatekeeping Optics: Accepting federal funds from the non-enforcing regulatory agency to study barriers that Congress already mandated HUD to override via the MHIA 2000 creates an inherent structural conflict of interest.”

Per Thome, citing “Cindy Davis Pull-Quote, Section 3.1 Opening (p. 21)

“With the ANSI industry consensus standard by ICC and MBI now available, it seems that HUD could streamline the manufactured home industry, remove unnecessary regulatory barriers, and increase consumer confidence by adopting these standards for all offsite construction. States could ease their workload with reliance on accredited third-party inspection and labeling organizations. Thus, you would have one simple set of construction rules (IRC and IBC) and a standard process (ICC/MBI) for offsite construction in all 50 states. This would create a level playing field and remove the patchwork of regulations that is holding the industry back from expanding.” — Cindy Davis, President Board of Directors, International Code Council — Research Roadmap, p. 21

That appears to confirm the longstanding concerns of industry professionals like street retailer Doug Gorman.

I observed in a LinkedIn comment earlier that our industry trade organization, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) is constricted by the composition of their membership from assuming the role of a being a strong advocate for individual industry divisions. …

As a retailer, I do not see any shortage of willing buyers for the homes that we build. We do experience a series of problems related to recent acts foisted upon us by the federal government. …

Another theory being floated by some industry members is that a conspiracy is in play to undermine the effectiveness that the HUD Code provides and bring about its demise. If that theory is true and if the conspirators have enough influence, market demand will not matter. …

It is no theory that Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) purchased site Taylor Morrison for billions of dollars. There is talk that Clayton and Taylor Morrison could find their mutual efforts converging.

 

 

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway makes bold housing market wager: Acquiring Taylor Morrison and becoming America’s 4th largest builder

My analysis/breakdown of the deal for @ResidentialClub: https://t.co/mtB0ajA3uu pic.twitter.com/zwNfQoTbhC

— Lance Lambert (@NewsLambert) June 1, 2026

Look at the structural shift. Berkshire already owns the supply chain, Benjamin Moore paint, Johns Manville insulation, and Clayton Homes. By absorbing Taylor Morrison and their 350+ premium communities, they aren’t just building houses; they are securing a vertically integrated…

— Brett Kessler (@BrettKessler__) June 1, 2026

 

Will Berkshire Hathaway combine Taylor Morrison and Clayton Homes?

The company says that’s the plan. pic.twitter.com/akaNFHRtUt

— Lance Lambert (@NewsLambert) June 1, 2026

If that is so, then Thome’s article – packed with detail – comes into even greater focus as potentially showing how Clayton (and perhaps the HUD Code with it) could be eliminated.

14.

Facts‑Evidence‑Analysis (FEA) — 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act & Industry Pushback

Table 1 — What independent analysts say vs. what MHI claims

FEA conclusion: Independent analysts (AEI, Cascade), MHARR, and even MHI’s own orbit all admit the same thing: ROAD Act does not solve zoning, and therefore cannot materially increase manufactured housing production or affordability.

Table 2 — What the industry’s own data shows vs. what ROAD Act delivers

FEA conclusion: The industry’s own KPIs show demand is high, production is low, and ROAD Act does nothing to fix the two root causes: zoning and financing.

Table 3 — MHI’s claims vs. MHI’s actions (and silence)

FEA conclusion: MHI’s public claims are contradicted by its behavior. ROAD Act is a symbolic victory that leaves the structural barriers intact — which benefits consolidators, not consumers or independent producers.

Synthesis — What the article shows under FEA

1. ROAD Act does not fix zoning or financing — the two root causes of unaffordability.

AEI, Cascade, MHARR, Susin, and Kovach all independently converge on this point.

2. MHI backed a bill that preserves local control — the very barrier they’ve testified against for years.

This is a direct contradiction between MHI’s stated priorities and its legislative actions.

3. MHI’s “win” narrative is political theater.

Even MHI’s own orbit admits “the real work begins now,” meaning the bill itself did not solve the problem.

4. Production continues to fall despite massive consumer interest.

This is structural failure, not market failure.

5. MHI avoids debate and scrutiny.

The LinkedIn exchanges show MHI leaders ducking evidence‑based challenges.

6. The article’s thesis holds together: ROAD Act is a Trojan Horse that delivers optics, not outcomes.

It aligns with prior MHProNews predictions and with Janet Thome’s broader thesis about regulatory capture and HUD Code marginalization.

 

15.

Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) Check: 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act & Industry Outcomes

This analysis serves as an objective verification and review of the developing report on the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644 / S. Amdt. 4308), which automatically became federal law on July 11, 2026, after President Trump declined to sign or veto it.

The structural thesis of the draft—that the Act functions as a legislative “Trojan Horse” or “political theater” delivering optics over tangible affordability outcomes—is strongly supported by macroeconomic data, independent policy reviews, and the manufactured housing industry’s own key performance indicators (KPIs).

Key Synthesis & Empirical Alignment

1. The Local Zoning Bottleneck Remains Unresolved

The core pushback from the AEI Housing Center (Arthur Gailes and Ed Pinto) and the Cascade Policy Center directly aligns with the realities of the final statute. Although the Act encourages local land-use reforms and provides grants for zoning updates, it does not preempt local exclusionary zoning.

• The Reality: Local municipalities retain complete “local control” over where manufactured housing can be sited. As independent researcher Scott Susin and historical trends have shown, state-level preemption efforts without strong federal enforcement do not automatically yield a net benefit to shipment volumes.

2. The Chassis Requirement vs. Enhanced Preemption

The Act’s Title 3 eliminates the “permanent chassis” requirement, allowing HUD-code homes to be built with or without a chassis—an action celebrated as a major win by MHI orbit figures like Chris Nicely.

• The Structural Critique: Critics like MHARR note that while a removable or non-permanent chassis is a positive modern design standard, it is “low-hanging fruit” compared to the lack of enforcement of Enhanced Preemption (from the MHIA of 2000) or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac’s Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate. By failing to push for the MHARR-proposed amendments that would legally override local zoning bans and force secondary market chattel lending, MHI championed a bill that leaves the two primary structural barriers (zoning and finance) fully intact.

3. Extreme Disconnect Between Consumer Demand and Production

The digital footprint metrics compiled from SimilarWeb (yielding over 2.7 million monthly visits to consumer-facing manufactured housing sites) stand in stark contrast to the physical output:

• In April 2026, national production sat at 9,207 homes (down -2.6% YoY from April 2025).

• In May 2026, production fell further to 8,385 homes—a sharp -9.6% year-over-year decline.

• This results in a conversion deficiency of approximately 295 web visits for every single home actually built. If consumer interest was the bottleneck, shipments would be climbing. The bottleneck is explicitly regulatory (zoning) and financial (the collapse of competitive chattel lending options without DTS implementation).

4. Corporate Consolidation and the “Moat”

The ongoing consolidation of the market—historically noted by figures like Andy Gedo and highlighted by Berkshire Hathaway’s $6.8 billion acquisition of Taylor Morrison in June 2026—underscores a structural shift. With Berkshire owning the supply chain, Clayton Homes, and now a massive conventional homebuilder, a lack of independent industry growth or robust chattel lending financing options directly serves to widen the competitive “moat” of dominant vertical consolidators at the expense of independent retailers, communities, and affordable home buyers.

Verification of the Draft’s Supporting Tables

• Table 1 (Analysts vs. MHI Stance): Accurately reflects the arguments of Gailes, Pinto, Cascade Policy Center, and MHARR contrasted with the “win” narrative of Chris Nicely and MHI.

• Table 2 (KPIs vs. ROAD Act): Successfully demonstrates the structural failure of the market, matching official MHARR/HUD production statistics and SimilarWeb metrics.

• Table 3 (MHI Claims vs. Actions): Accurately documents the long-standing contradiction where MHI publicly laments zoning and financing barriers but actively backs federal legislation that leaves local zoning control untouched and lacks enforceable financing mandates.

FEA Conclusion

Your pre-publication draft is factually accurate, logically cohesive, and empirically supported by the legislative timeline, macroeconomic housing data, and the public track record of the involved trade organizations. The “Trojan Horse” characterization is highly defensible: the Act delivers symbolic design updates (the chassis) and high-visibility restrictions on institutional investors, but bypasses the hard statutory enforcement required to actually expand affordable housing supply on the ground.

— MHProNews notes that the PDF of the Q&A that resulted in Gemini’s response is transparently provided here. Gemini confirmed the accuracy of that thread here. Gemini was provided a pre-publication draft of this article that was part of the prompts leading to the findings as shown which is linked here. —

16. There is always more to know.  The detailed comments letter found in the report linked below occurred prior to the Nathan Smith remarks, cited above. It arguably helps frame and shed more light on these topics.

 

 

MHProNews, to highlight an apt pull quote from a linked report by Copilot.

• Cross‑AI corroboration: Copilot, Gemini, and Grok have independently validated MHProNews’ FEA methodology, confirming that evidence—not narrative—anchors each report.

L. A. “Tony” Kovach With credits, thanks, and contributions to those sources as shown herein.

eFax Number 1-407-604-6427

— —

Invitation for Feedback

MHProNews welcomes evidence‑based feedback from:

• Industry professionals
• Public officials
• Attorneys and antitrust researchers
• Academics and economists
• Affordable housing advocates
• AI researchers
• Any person or organization named in a report

Submit comments or documentation via:

eFax Number 1-407-604-6427