“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances...”
2. Why should there be “grievances” against HUD (along with potentially several other federal agencies)? To frame the response, consider HUD’s stated mission.
“The mission of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is to foster strong communities by supporting access to quality, affordable housing, expanding the housing supply, and unlocking homeownership opportunities for the American people. The Department is committed to furthering the promise of self-sufficiency in every American while promoting economic development to revitalize rural, tribal, and urban communities across the country.”
See the above mission statement at: https://www.hud.gov/news/hud-no-25-059. Based on known facts and evidence, does anyone who looks at the troubled situation for tens of millions of Americans in the U.S. housing market serious believe that HUD has fulfilled the mission of: “…supporting access to quality, affordable housing, expanding the housing supply, and unlocking homeownership opportunities for the American people.” Who is seriously going to successfully make that argument on behalf of HUD? The word “lackadaisical” comes to mind, which per the Free Dictionary: “Lackadaisical means lacking vitality, spirit, or effort; lazy or idle.” To illustrate, the graphic below via Statista is based on findings by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS), as shown.
Notice that those with lower income have been experiencing increasing stress, while some with higher incomes have been less financially stressed.
The above looks lackadaisical at best. While some may be doing governmental work with vitality, others seem to be going through the motions. How else can we explain the deterioration of affordable housing access in the 21st century? Isn’t it time for some accountability by HUD, alongside other federal and state/local officials?
The following is a pull quote from #25 below.
HUD’s grant to MHI to “examine the impact of local barriers on the placement of manufactured homes and propose necessary regulatory reforms” lands in a landscape where both HUD and MHI already know—by their own and HUD‑funded research—what those barriers are and how to address them.
…
The grant frames zoning barriers as if they are still a knowledge gap rather than an enforcement gap.
…
The problem is not ignorance but political will; another study delays action.
“Americans…demanded a solution to the affordable housing crisis…What is government going to do about it? My view is simple. Government is not capable of solving this problem and history proves it.
…Unfortunately, manufactured housing, commonly referred to as mobile homes, has been stigmatized for decades. Local governments across the country have…regulated them out of existence, based on outdated perceptions…
Today’s manufactured homes are built to dramatically higher standards…They are safer, more energy-efficient, more storm-resistant, and far more attractive than older models. They…remain one of the only truly affordable paths to homeownership.”
Before diving in, let’s stress that while the governmental side of the housing equation will be initially outlined, there are certainly corporate and non-profit concerns that will be probed herein too. More on those aspects further below.
3. HUD is the primary federal regulator of HUD Code manufactured housing.
4. The 2000 Reform Law (Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Law, 2000 Reform Act) stated in part that the purpose of the law is to: “facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured homes” which is found in Section 602 of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (see Manufactured Housing Improvement Act – GovInfo).”
More specifically, the 2000 Reform Law purpose was: “…to facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured homes and to increase homeownership for all Americans”. [1, 2, 3] That legislation is codified in the U.S. Code at 42 U.S.C. 5401(b)(2), which can be verified through the U.S. Code on GovInfo. [1, 2].
Given that manufactured housing dipped to the lowest levels since the late 1950s or early 1960s, isn’t there an evidence-based case to be made that HUD has failed to “facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured homes and to increase homeownership for all Americans”? The black line below reflects manufactured housing in the graphic from the Urban Institute. Notice that at the base of the Urban Institute housing production graphic is this apt statement: “Lack of housing supply is largely responsible for high prices and rents.”
Combining immigration fueled demand (e.g.: 2021-2024) with higher interest rates and costs that soared during the Biden-Harris (D) era, the main factors driving the housing crisis can quickly come into focus.
5. There is an evidence-based argument to be made that HUD has been failing the manufactured home industry’s independents and tens of millions of affordable housing seekers since the original 1974 act went into effect on 6.15.1976 and, if possible, even more so since the 2000 reform law went into effect. As Manny Santana of Cavco Industries told members of Congress:
Dr. Ben Carson, M.D., who became HUD Secretary during President Trump’s first term said some of the regulatory practices regarding manufactured housing were “ridiculous.”
Carson told the industry that there would be a “new era of cooperation” between the federal government and the manufactured housing industry by pushing to reduce regulatory burdens and modernizing aspects of the federal HUD building code for manufactured homes.
Objectively, a look at the facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) reveals that while some regulatory relief emerged for manufactured housing during President Trump’s first term, the annual production graphic illustrates that manufactured housing is operating at less than 30 percent of its last highwater mark in 1998. Meaning, there is plenty of work to do, because the population has grown by over 2o percent since the last high in manufactured housing production that occurred in 1998.
Not only at industry events, but to mainstream media, Dr. Carson acknowledged the problem of local zoning. Highlighting below is added by this writer.
The five-day event that is being co-hosted by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) features new building technologies and updated solutions for housing, that Carson believes can remove some of the “many zoning barriers based on outdated thinking.”
“That’s one of the reasons that we’re having this display, so not only that people can see this and disabuse them of the notions that manufactured housing are trailers and trailer parks and seeing what actually can happen here,” said Carson.
But as information herein will reflect, the barriers of zoning and access to more affordable financing remained. There is an evidence-based argument to be made that much of the housing crisis was caused by the dramatic shortfall in manufactured housing production. Keep in mind that while estimates of the number of affordable housing units needed in the U.S. vary, 5 to 8 million units are among the common figures. What Table’s 1 and 2 reveal is that 6,139,950 new HUD Code manufactured homes were not built in the 21st century, based upon the average production levels of 1995-2000 vs. the average production levels from 2001 to 2025.
Most adult Americans who are of sound mind arguably know from experience that we do not live in a perfect world.
Among the reason that governments exist include dealing with challenges caused by individuals, groups, or nations who may have little or no desire for the good of others.
At least conceptually, the reason the constitutionally limited American government exists is for the broader public good rather than to serve the interests of a favored few.
The break with England was not just a revolt over the British taxation of the colonies but was also due to the perceived injustice that the British Crown favored monopolistic corporate interests (see Boston Tea Party, and here and here).
That outlines valid reasons for grievances against HUD whose failures to serve “…by supporting access to quality, affordable housing, expanding the housing supply, and unlocking homeownership opportunities for the American people…” by cutting off access to some 6.1 plus million inherently affordable manufactured homes in the 21st century.
But there is more.
6. In a more perfect world, once good laws are enacted, there should be no need for associations, trade groups or citizens more broadly to press to have those law enforced.
But the reality is that federal (and other) laws are often improperly enforced or are even twisted from the original intention of lawmakers. One may not need to look much beyond the reporting that includes the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) linked here that asserted several failures by HUD with respect to manufactured housing. Or the FHFA via the Federal Register (see linked here and here) where those federal departments essentially admit that the FHFA failed to properly enforce the Duty to Serve (DTS) manufactured housing.
So, beyond remarks from the industry like Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) member Santana above, or those from former Sec. Carson, there has been years of federal officials directly or indirectly calling out other federal officials at HUD for 21st century failures with respect to the HUD Code manufactured housing. Tables 1 and 2 above provide a useful snapshot that dramatically illustrates just how serious those ‘failures’ have been.
Analogies can be useful. The difference in enforcement of U.S. border policy between the Biden-Harris (D) administration and the Trump-Vance (R) administration is an example of the harm caused by having law(s) improperly enforced. Nor is that a partisan observation, as this writer has been a political independent for over a dozen years. That’s simply a matter of fact as measured by the millions who crossed the border under Biden-Harris (D) and the subsequently rapidly closed border under Trump-Vance (R).
No doubt more housing demand during the Biden-Harris (D) era resulted in increased pressure on housing costs, that is the law of supply and demand at work.
Once upon a time, basic concepts like the Law of Supply and Demand were taught in junior high or high school. So too was another arguably related ‘law,’ known as TANSTAAFL. “There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.” Meaning, someone always pays for that ‘free’ item.
That said, it would be a mistake to think that deporations or self-deporations of millions of more illegals will alone solve the housing crisis. It won’t.
Again, the reasons are simple math. Deportations can help and it may in certain areas result in modest dip in housing costs. But the pent-up demand arguably far exceeds the number of illegal households living in the U.S.
Meaning, even if every illegal were magically deported, there would still be a need for the production of millions of moreinherently affordable housing units.
Nor will ‘more subsidies’ solve the problem because the math simply does not work.
In short, while factors like lower interest rates, higher incomes, or the like can help, perhaps the single biggest need is to create (i.e.: build) more affordable housing. Who says? HUD’s own researchers.
HUD’s Pamela Blumenthal and Regina Gray said: “Without significant new supply, cost burdens are likely to increase as current home prices reach all-time highs…” and “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.”
Imagine, HUD’s researchers said that for over 50 years the causes and cures of the housing crisis have been studied and the contributing factors to the housing shortage have been known.
A few years after those remarks, another HUD report also cited that same figure – over 50 years – of knowing the causes and cures, yet the problems have not been fully addressed by either major party?
That said, and to underscore that these observations aren’t partisan, no political party in the 21st century has properly enforced the 2000 Reform Law nor the Duty to Serve (DTS) manufactured housing. Who says? Beyond the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) or the critiques by GAO and others cited and linked above, the first set of remarks below are from another ex-HUD official, economist Scott Susin. The third report linked below, with respect to the Duty to Serve (DTS) manufactured housing, were essentially admitted by the FHFA as published by the Federal Register.
7. With that factual and evidence-laced backdrop, it was recently learned that HUD issued a federal grant to the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) cited in the HUD press release linked here: https://archives.hud.gov/news/2024/pr24-036.cfm. That press release said the following.
“The Manufactured Housing Institute was awarded $263,544.87 will examine the impact of local barriers on the placement of manufactured homes and propose necessary regulatory reforms to address these constraints.”
“HUD made the award to MHI in March 2024. The current schedule for a draft report to HUD is February 2027, with a final report due March 2027, which is expected to be published a few months later.”
9. Why does that grant from HUD to MHI matter? Several possible reasons.
a) First, there is an evidence-based case to be made that it was a waste of federal tax dollars to pay ANY organization, much less MHI, to study the effects of zoning on manufactured housing. Or to phrase as HUD’s press release cited above expressed the grant to MHI: “…to examine the impact of local barriers on the placement of manufactured homes and propose necessary regulatory reforms to address these constraints.” Why should taxpayers via HUD pay to study an issue that has been studied time and again, including in the landmark research paid for by HUD linked below, which occurred during the Obama-Biden (D) era, which have documented that manufactured homes in neighborhoods adjacent to conventional site-built housing were both appreciating side-by-side.
What the HUD PD&R screen capture – with linked download available below – reflects is a lack of understanding about how enhanced preemption could solve the affordable housing crisis using mostly private capital. The research is useful, but adding in the missing ingredient of enhanced preemption could make it priceless for affordable housing seekers and organic growth minded manufactured home professionals.
Several of the illustrations shown in this report can be opened in many browsers to reveal a larger size. To open this picture, click the image once. When the window opens, click it again to reveal the larger size photo. Several of the illustrations shown in this report can be opened in many browsers to reveal a larger size. To open this picture, click the image once. When the window opens, click it again to reveal the larger size photo.
What HUD’s Blumenthal and Gray revealed is that there is already a potential library of such zoning and regulatory barriers related research.
So, why is HUD paying MHI to do yet another research report when people with common sense and good will should realize that the solution is simple? Zoning barriers need to be removed, and more affordable lending are needed, as MHARR has argued for essentially the bulk of the 21st century. To be fair, MHI has in various Congressional testimony (provided in the collection linked below) has made seemingly similar arguments for at least 14 years.
There will be more on the above regarding past MHI statements and their subsequent behavior further below.
b) Was anyone at HUD under the misimpression that manufactured housing was no longer being zoned out since that research above was performed? If so, then some at HUD were truly negligent in their duties. Because Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS, among others) also documented that manufactured housing were being discriminated against by local zoning officials well in advance of the HUD award to MHI.
Does someone in authority at HUD think MHI will do a better job on such research than Harvard, Pew, or the Urban Institute?
10. From Harvard’s State of the Nation’s Housing (SotNH) page 3. Highlighting was added below.
The decline in new homebuilding is particularly acute for lower-priced homes, due to rising construction and land costs, limited lot availability, and regulatory barriers like minimum lot sizes that restrict entry-level housing production. In 2021, just 24 percent of new homes—or 236,000 units—were under 1,800 square feet, compared with 37 percent of new completions in 1999. Likewise, manufactured housing, often an even more affordable option, totaled just 113,000 shipments in 2022. Although up from recent lows, manufactured home shipments regularly topped 200,000 units annually in the 1980s and 1990s.
Indeed, efforts to increase homeownership cannot be limited to financial products. To truly provide equitable access to homeownership, concerted efforts are needed to reduce the cost and increase the supply of homes available for first-time buyers. Manufactured housing is an affordable path to homeownership that is underutilized in most of the country and could be encouraged by reducing zoning limitations and by providing owners of manufactured homes better access to lower-cost mortgage products like those available to site-built homes. Other general reforms of zoning laws, regulatory restrictions, approval processes, and development fees could help to drive down production prices on the types of more affordable homes that buyers want and need. Lastly, along with the production of new units, policy needs to help preserve the affordable owner-occupied stock to prevent losing properties to disrepair as the housing stock ages.”
The above was prior to the HUD award to MHI. But several other nonprofits have done similar research with similar findings.
11. More recently Pew (see video) and other researchers have noted that zoning and regulatory barriers are blunting manufactured home production. Again, does whoever was in the loop at HUD in the grant-making process seriously believe that MHI was going to provide insights or information that Harvard, Pew Research or Obama-Biden era HUD research failed to find? That rhetorical question should practically answer itself.
12. From the YouTube page for Pew’s video above uploaded on Sep 19, 2025 (yellow highlighting added).
As home prices continue to climb, many Americans are seeking more affordable options. And manufactured homes could be the solution. A new manufactured home installed on a foundation costs 35% to 73% as much as a similar site-built home. In this episode, Rachel Siegel from Pew’s housing policy initiative explains the advantages of buying a manufactured home and debunks old stereotypes that inform the outdated zoning and titling laws that limit access to these types of houses.
So, was the HUD grant perhaps something else entirely? Was it a grant offered for the sake of optics, or worse?
Has anyone who is a regular reader of MHProNews forgotten that former Office of Manufactured Housing Programs (OMHP) official Teresa Payne, J.D. was apparently recruited by MHI to join the MHI ‘team?’ Pray tell, what is it that now ex-HUD OMHP attorney Payne could do for MHI that others at MHI were unable to do already?
Or are the HUD grant, Payne leaving HUD for MHI examples of regulatory capture, the revolving door, and some level of collusion between HUD and MHI? These are not legal conclusions, but they are reasonable questions that investigators arguably ought to be probing with subpoena powers as needed.
15. Senator Rand Paul (KY-R) annual Festivus report highlights known examples of waste, fraud and abuse. According to the report found and unpacked below and linked here.
“This year, I’m spotlighting a jaw-dropping amount of government waste Ñ the kind that makes you wonder if anyone in Washington has ever heard the word “priorities.” A grand total of $1,639,135,969,608, which includes $1.22 trillion in interest payments on the debt.”
16. There have been reports dating back to at least the Ronald Reagan (R) Administration era that said that waste, fraud, abuse, duplication of efforts and the like were costing taxpayers hundreds of billions, and cumulatively, trillions of dollars in unnecessary spending. The point of that with respect to HUD, FHFA, DOE, or any other agency that is overseeing some aspect of manufactured housing or affordable housing more broadly is this. Why should anyone be surprised if HUD and other agencies are wasting taxpayer money? Why should anyone be surprised if HUD shoveled to MHI an award of over a quarter of a million dollars to study an issue that has been studied by organizations arguably far more credible than MHI?
“The Manufactured Housing Institute was awarded $263,544.87 will examine the impact of local barriers on the placement of manufactured homes and propose necessary regulatory reforms to address these constraints.”
“HUD made the award to MHI in March 2024. The current schedule for a draft report to HUD is February 2027, with a final report due March 2027, which is expected to be published a few months later.”
By the time MHI publishes the report that HUD granted that money for, will their report already be outdated, biased, meaningless or worse? Is it timed to give MHI another talking point for their latest narrative should the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act fail to deliver on its promises?
Besides, the “regulatory reforms” that MHI says it will propose have arguably already been federal law for over a quarter of a century. As was noted above, MHI cited in remarks to Congress several times, as has the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). 3 years to produce a report on zoning barriers? Once more, the word lackadaisical comes to mind. It looks more like performance art for the sake of optics, rather than a serious effort to get to the root issues and resolve them. Who says? How about 3rd party artificial intelligence (AI), which are known for their pattern recognition abilities?
Note that two artificial intelligence systems will be provided with the draft version of this report for them to unpack. Stay tuned for that, further below.
15. I’ve been doing federal comment letters since the Obama-Biden (D) administration. They have at times been cited and/or posted by federal officials beyond their respective regulatory comment’s dockets. That said, there is arguably little evidence that some of these giant federal agencies seem to care if they are accomplishing the claimed HUD mission they were created to accomplish. Because the solution is simple. Enforce existing laws on a routine and robust basis. More on that further below. Now, pivoting to other influences beyond federal officials.
MHI is celebrating the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act as if it is a win. But until more affordable lending is brought on-line and zoning barriers are dealt with in as effective a manner as ADUs were addressed in CA via state preemption, it is all but guaranteed that very little will change for HUD Code manufactured housing. Which is another way of saying consolidation and low production will likely continue.
These are examples of what preemption done properly can accomplish. Apply these state level lessons to HUD Code manufactured housing at the federal level to grasp the potential boom that could occur if only federal officials were doing their respective jobs properly and were robustly and routinely implementing long-standing federal laws.
16. The solution to the affordable housing crisis may seem complex, but it can be boiled down to simply ideas that some federal officials, including some at HUD and GAO, have already documented. For example. HUD Secretary Ben Carson, M.D., said during his term at HUD the following.
“Our nation’s shortage of affordable housing is ultimately an issue of supply and demand. With millions of people in need, high demand is already guaranteed. That’s why HUD has focused our strategy on increasing supply – namely, but promoting initiatives, programs, techniques, and technologies that produce more affordable homes.”
…
“Manufactured housing has emerged out of the limestone and stepped into the limelight, to address precisely this need.”
…
“Sustainable homeownership is the number one builder of capital for most American families.”
…
“With comparable home appreciation rates to site-built homes, manufactured homes exhibit their own extraordinary potential to be a wealth creation tool for ordinary, everyday American families.”
See the last paragraph above that starts with the statement that manufactured homes appreciate in value at a rate similar to site-built home, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Then HUD Secretary Ben Carson, M.D., quote is from the official comments as prepared, per the HUD website, on May 7, 2019. So, keep in mind that those costs per square foot for conventional housing and manufactured homes have risen since then. But the savings rate is about the same.
b) MHProNews has done previous MHI site checks on this topic with the same results. To see the image below in a larger size, in many devices or browsers, click here and follow the prompts.
c) The details clearly need to be sorted out. This letter is not to be construed as pointing out a specific individual(s) in government, nonprofits, corporate or others who may be responsible for this or that oversights, errors, and failures on behalf of taxpayers and other Americans. But with a bloated federal budget, with tales of waste, fraud and abuse that date back before the Reagan era (he simply popularized and brought attention to that issue), one might think that HUD would look first to their own archives, then look online at other third-party research, before passing out any more money to MHI for ‘research.’ As of the time of the recent report linked below, MHI lacks a collection of its own federal testimony to Congress on manufactured housing issues. That being so, again for emphasis, why would anyone at HUD approve a nickel of grant money for MHI?
The HUD award to MHI itself smacks of conflicts of interest. After all, MHI has said for month after month the following about their 50 year “partnership” with HUD on their home page.
MHI claimed to be “celebrating” a “50 Year Partnership with HUD.” If so, then why has HUD failed to enforce the “enhanced preemption” provision of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000? As the “collection” of MHI congressional testimony documents on MHProNews demonstrated, MHI has asked for that time and again. Yet MHI can’t get their ‘partners’ at HUD to enforce that key part of federal law? The troubling conclusion that several researchers and advocates have come to is that there is a combination of factors: regulatory capture, the Iron Triangle, the Revolving Door, plus an agenda that benefits consolidators of the manufactured home industry over that of those who seek robust organic growth that could in fact help solve the affordable housing crisis in a manner similar to what Dr. Carson and others have suggested.
d) Additionally, this letter was part of a Washington Post report on manufactured housing. Notice this letter attorney David Goch, J.D., on behalf of MHI referred to HUD as “a client of MHI.”
Several of the illustrations shown in this report can be opened in many browsers to reveal a larger size. To open this picture, click the image once. When the window opens, click it again to reveal the larger size photo. Use your browsers back key to return to the article.
Regardless of how outrageous that claim by Goch on behalf of MHI may have been on the surface, it may nevertheless signal MHI’s thinking of HUD as a “client,” which along with their “partnership” logo shown above again suggests or indicates “regulatory capture.” But if it is regulatory capture, then why hasn’t MHI used that “capture” to leverage HUD into enforcing federal preemption on a robust and routine basis? That topic will be briefly explored further below.
17. Be that as it may, there are inherent conflicts of interest that ought to be considered, both from the HUD side and from the MHI side of the equation. MHI has argued to Congress and others that the 2000 Reform Law includes what is often called an “enhanced preemption” provision. Here below is an example of annotated screen shots of a letter from then VP (now CEO) Lesli Gooch to Dr. Carson. That Gooch to Carson letter is found here.
That is provided for a variety of reasons. Among them? Why would MHI ask for, much less accept, hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money to ‘study’ an issue that Dr. Lesli Gooch already explained to HUD Sec. Carson what a key solution is? Namely, enforce existing law. The solution was pointed out in 2003 when Democratic lawmakers who were part of the bi-partisan coalition that enacted the 2000 Reform Law addressed then HUD Secretary Mel Martinez. They urged Martinez to enforce the law on preemption (see annotated screen capture below). As was noted earlier, zoning and placement barriers are at or near the top of the challenges that limit manufactured housing. But that is why the President Bill Clinton (D) signed 2000 Reform Law provided the tools to HUD to overcome the zoning issues that Sec. Carson and others have acknowledged exist.
DTS could potentially be influenced by HUD officials, but FHA Title I falls directly under the HUD umbrella. No less a figure than Kevin Clayton said that the lack of liquidity, the lack of access to secondary financial markets, caused thousands of businesses in manufactured housing to fail after 2000. When there are thousands of fewer retailers to sell, thousands of fewer land-lease communities (more closures than new communities opening) and fewer plants to produce HUD Code homes, why is there any surprise that manufactured housing production plummeted in the 21st century?
The money given by HUD to MHI could be responded to with three initial words. “Enforce existing laws.” Then, MHI could quote themselves and others who they have cited previously. Since zoning barriers are a key, overcoming zoning barriers with “enhanced federal preemption” is also a key. It will be fascinating to see what MHI produces for HUD for that 263K.
MHProNews Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
If lack of liquidity (lack of capital for financing in a more competitive way) is keeping some potential buyers out of the housing market, then enforcing the laws on DTS and FHA Title I are part of the solution. Where is the evidence that MHI’s Dr. Gooch spoke to HUD Secretary Carson (R), or HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge (D) face to face about federal preemption enforcement? Why is there a lack of evidence that MHI’s Gooch, now their CEO, pressed FHFA officials, or FHA officials, for enforcement of laws that were meant to increase liquidity and more affordable purchases of single family manufactured homes? There was no lack of opportunity for Gooch and other MHI officials to address such issues, as their own photo ops routinely imply for those with the eyes to see.
Investigators are trained to seek an answer to the question, cui bono? Who benefits from a certain situation? Buffett made clear early on that Clayton’s lending would be held in portfolio by Berkshire. That plan would backfire if the FHFA enforced the law on DTS. The evidence clearly suggests that insiders with the FHFA and GSEs worked behind the scenes with MHI and the Clayton affiliated lending to NOT get DTS lending implemented. Photo credit, MHI. Left – Tom Hodges, Clayton Homes General Counsel and MHI Chairman, Lesli Gooch, CEO MHI. Flanking HUD Secretary Ben Carson are Kevin Clayton and Gov. Kay Ivey (AL-R). Note: MHI’s photo didn’t identify any of those shown above. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/warren-buffett-lieutenant-kevin-clayton-shows-off-hud-secretary-carson-touts-crossmod-manufactured-housing/https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/whistleblower-payout-cavco-cvco-settle-with-sec-in-securities-and-exchange-commission-case-vs-cavco-former-ceo-joseph-stegmayer-daniel-urness-21-cv-01507-u-s-district-court-of-az/ As a reminder, quoting a source or providing a document from a source should not be construed as an endorsement of that source. MHProNews Notice: In many devices and browsers, the image above and others found in this report can be expanded to show a larger image. For instance, in some devices, you click the image above and then click ‘open in a new window.’ Once opened in a new window, take that image and click it to enlarge the size as desired. To return to this page, x out of (close) that window. That said, the reason there is no result on this search phrase on Google is because there is no known evidence that MHI asked for, much less obtained, such a ‘housing coalition letter.’ So why does MHI seemingly help mainstream housing, but fails to get the favor returned? How useful for most independents in our industry is that odd pattern? Answer: not very.
In a Congressional hearing with Secretary Fudge, a Republican lawmaker pressed her in a CSPAN recorded session, for her to enforce federal preemption. Fudge responded “Until we start to address this we are going to perpetually be in this kind of situation.” 5 years later, Fudge was proven correct.Federal preemption is still not enforced. Keep in mind that Joe Biden (D), then a U.S. Senator from Delaware, was a co-sponsor of the 2000 Reform Law.
Once upon a time, MHI had documents on the public facing side of their website regarding federal enhanced preemption. But as the MHProNews fact-checks below documented, they apparently culled their site of those terms and documents. Why?
But prior to the buyout of Clayton Homes by Warren Buffett (BRK), MHI had documents like the one below that were ‘tracking’ implementation of the 2000 Reform Law. MHI also had posts like the one below that annotated screen capture about DTS.
While the arrows and notes by MHProNews can be useful, go back in time in your own mind to the period when this document and the one that follows were first issued. That was 2003. Nearly 2 decades have elapsed. The second MHI document clearly indicates that MHI was working with MHARR to make “enhanced preemption” and better financing options for manufactured housing a reality. What derailed that era of cooperation between MHI and MHARR? Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts. While the arrows and notes by MHProNews can be useful, go back in time in your own mind to the period when this document and the one that follows were first issued. That was 2003. Nearly 2 decades have elapsed. The second MHI document clearly indicates that MHI was working with MHARR to make “enhanced preemption” and better financing options for manufactured housing a reality. What derailed that era of cooperation between MHI and MHARR? Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
18. What would be the motivation for MHI and/or several of their ‘leading members’ to effectively suppress their own industry’s production? That’s an important question.
By allowing the industry to underperform, by failing to press for full enforcement of existing laws meant to benefit affordable home seekers and thus manufactured housing production, smaller firms over time get choked out for capital and lack of sales.
When the time comes to close or sell, who do they turn to? Most routinely, it is MHI-linked consolidators.
That national class action antitrust suit cited and linked above includes 8 of 11 defendants who are MHI members.
One of those firms, Murex Properties, has indicated via a court filing that they seek to settle the case and have apparently offered to provide documents and testimony to the plaintiffs as part of that settlement. It is possible that by the fall of 2026, there may be public documents that even more clearly indicate that many of MHI’s leading brands are more focused on consolidation than they are on organic growth.
Nor are these points and concerns merely speculative, as multiple AIs have observed when reviewing the evidence. MHI member firms in their own investor-relations pitches have at times made it abundantly clear that they like the status quo because limiting new developing makes their existing properties potentially more valuable. In the annotated screen capture below, Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) says that a “Supply Constrained Asset Class” is “a strategic advantage for ELS.”
As Strommen expressed it in the quote graphic shown above, the apparent antitrust violations purportedly involving multiple MHI members are “both blatant and subtle.” Waite and other MHI board members have been repeatedly asked to respond to or explain the grant and related issues. There was no known response.
So, this is not merely speculative. There is direct evidence (see the above as examples) of corporate interests linked to MHI clearly stating in their own words to current and potential investors that limited supply was part of their business model. Are we to think that no one at HUD is reading MHProNews so that they can see such items being reported? It is well known that HUD officials are among MHProNews’ readers.
While there are details thought should ideally be fleshed out, the REITs have openly declared that zoning barriers are embraced by their business model. That is an automatic conflict of interest, IMHO, for MHI to be provided a grant to ‘study’ zoning barriers given such clear evidence. But it isn’t just land-lease communities. Champion Homes (SKY) CEO Tim Larson said they ‘support’ the mission of the community customers.
Strommen’s antitrust research, cited earlier, specifically named MHI as a key hinge. Strommen pointedly said that these were potentially criminal, not just civil, antitrust violations.
20. Various manufactured housing industry members, researchers, advocates and others have at times summed up the plight of manufactured housing as is shown below the production graphs.
21. With federal laws that are supposed to promote more manufactured housing enacted in 2000 and 2008, how is it possible that HUD Code manufactured housing fell to levels lower than occurred when the industry was young circa 1960?
The challenges that face manufactured housing and which limit organic expansion of the industry are often summed up as follows.
a). Zoning and placement barriers.
b). Regulatory pressures (example, DOE energy rule).
c). Image issues, which impact local officials, media, researchers and others.
d). Lack of consistent (or any) serious enforcement of existing laws.
MHI is well aware of these issues, and doubtlessly, so are at least some present and/or former officials at HUD. HUD’s own research has said that the problems facing affordable housing in America have been known by both major parties for 50 years. HUD is the primary regulator of HUD Code manufactured housing. HUD’s Regina Gray has said that the most significant achievement of Operation Breakthrough was the HUD Code for manufactured housing (see #22).
But to further illustrate arguably corrupt behavior by MHI, which should not get a dime of taxpayer money, compare what has happened in the 21st century between the RV industry and the manufactured home industry. RVs are a ‘luxury’ or discretionary item for most people. Manufactured homes, by comparison, are an affordable housing option – a necessity for millions. Yet, RVs have outproduced manufactured housing during the 21st century? The following is from a report linked here.
Table 3
Table 4
Year
RV Shipments
Year
New MH Production
1995
247,072
1995
344,930
1996
247,533
1996
363,345
1997
254,558
1997
353,686
1998
292,655
1998
373,143
1999
321,201
1999
348,075
2000
300,085
2000
250,366
2001
256,809
2001
193,120
2002
311,025
2002
165,489
2003
320,851
2003
130,815
2004
370032
2004
130,748
2005
384454
2005
146,881
2006
390,362
2006
117,373
2007
353,588
2007
95,752
2008
237,095
2008
81,457
2009
165,709
2009
49,683
2010
242,284
2010
50,056
2011
252,407
2011
51,618
2012
285,749
2012
54,881
2013
321,127
2013
60,228
2014
356,735
2014
64,334
2015
374,246
2015
70,544
2016
430,691
2016
81,136
2017
504,599
2017
92,902
2018
483,672
2018
96,555
2019
406,070
2019
94,615
2020
430,412
2020
94,390
2021
600,240
2021
105,772
2022
493,268
2022
112,882
2023
313,174
2023
89,169
2024
333,733
2024
103,314
Per Gemini’s analysis of the above from the report linked here.
1. Accuracy of MHI Leadership Quotes
The quotes attributed to prior Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) presidents/CEOs Chris Stinebert and Richard “Dick” Jennison are factually grounded in the historical record.
Richard Jennison: At the 2014 Louisville Show, Jennison publicly claimed the industry could achieve 500,000 units annually.
Chris Stinebert: Stinebert previously emphasized the industry’s potential to reach 300,000 to 400,000 units, citing the 1998 peak of 373,143 units as proof of capacity.
Comparison: The current reality is a stark “revealing comparison.” Despite a national housing shortage estimated at over 7 million units, production has stagnated. In 2023, shipments fell below 90,000 units, and 2024–2025 data shows the industry lingering near 100,000 units—roughly 27% of its 1998 capacity.
2. RV vs. MH: The Luxury vs. Necessity “Yardstick”
The comparison between the Recreation Vehicle (RV) and Manufactured Housing (MH) industries is a significant metric for evaluating MHI’s effectiveness.
Production Data: In 2021, the RV industry shipped over 600,000 units (RVIA). In contrast, manufactured housing produced only 105,772 units that same year.
Cost Per Square Foot: You are correct that RVs generally cost more per square foot. While a new manufactured home averaged $87–$124 per square foot in 2024-2025, high-end RVs often exceed $200–$400 per square foot due to specialized automotive components, slide-outs, and luxury finishes.
Analysis: If a “luxury” discretionary item (RVs) can consistently outperform a “necessity” (affordable housing) by a ratio of roughly 6-to-1, it suggests a failure in market penetration or regulatory advocacy by the primary MH trade group (MHI).
3. Mark Weiss Interview & Regulatory Bottlenecks
Attorney Mark Weiss (MHARR) identifies two primary “bottlenecks” that MHI has allegedly failed to resolve:
Enhanced Preemption (MHIA 2000): The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 was designed to give HUD the power to override local zoning that excludes manufactured homes. Weiss notes that HUD has not enforced this “enhanced preemption,” and MHI has not aggressively litigated to compel them to do so.
Duty to Serve (DTS): Despite the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 mandating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support manufactured home chattel (home-only) loans, the FHFA has largely permitted the GSEs to avoid the most critical segment of the market.
Confirmation: Online evidence supports Weiss’s contention that production remains “mired” at levels far below historical norms because these legal tools remain “on the shelf” rather than being actively enforced.
Table 5: Rhetoric vs. Reality
Metric
MHI Narrative/Goals
Historical/Actual Data
Annual Production Goal
500,000 Units (Jennison)
~100,000 Units (2024-2025)
Legal Enforcement
Claims “advocacy” for MHIA 2000
Zero landmark litigation for Preemption
Financing (DTS)
Claims “working with GSEs”
Minimal/Zero chattel loan support from GSEs
Market Comparison
Leading “affordable housing”
Outperformed 6:1 by luxury RV industry
The documents provided are faithful and accurate representations of these industry disconnects, substantiated by federal production reports and the legislative history of the MHIA of 2000.
22. Given those facts and the evidence, why was there any need to give MHI an award for any amount of money at all to study an issue that HUD and MHI both know the causes and cures? To be clear, it isn’t simply that MHI should not have gotten that grant, although that does raise conflicts of interest arguably both for HUD and for MHI. HUD shouldn’t give anyone a dime more to study issues that have been studied by others, and by HUD, for years to decades.
23, Perhaps HUD is giving out grants to create an illusion of caring about solving affordable housing or manufactured homes more specifically? Detail minded-readers of MHProNews may recall the reports linked below, which asserted that there are those who claim that solving the housing crisis would mess up various corporate and special interests.
With that backdrop, let’s provide these puzzling pieces of facts and evidence for analysis (FEA) by third-party AIs.
Copilot produced the infographic above after its involvement in the deep dive article linked here: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/unfathomable-incomprehensibly-weakened-mharr-rips-manufactured-housing-institute-manufacturedhousing-org-or-mhi-in-press-release-and-letters-to-doe-hud-white-house-mhi-mask-off-fea/. MHProNews notes that while it is true that MHProNews is known to be followed by C-suite leaders in manufactured housing, that should not be misunderstood to mean that corporate officials always like what they read. As the infographic suggests, MHProNews follows the facts and evidence and for years has used third-party artificial intelligence (AI) as a facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) checking tool. No one else in MHProNews does what MHLivingNews and MHProNews do in highly transparent and evidence-based ‘connect the dots’ reporting. MHProNews Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
There is an evidence-based argument to be made that one reason MHProNews has about 101 times the visitors that MHI’s website has (see SimilarWeb and other data below), is because of the preponderance of documents and evidence that is presented. It doesn’t take long to crank out a 400-word press release style blog post that sings the praises of MHI and their favored brands. To do a letter like this takes days of effort. The AI cross checks are the fastest and easiest part.
Per known data from SimilarWeb and other sources, which neither MHI nor its allied ‘news’ sites have directly challenged, MHProNews easily reaches more readers than all of them combined. Why? Perhaps it is because we organize and check the facts, lay out the evidence, and provide sound analysis through the lens of an industry expert.
One more set of items from the report linked here.
Table 6: More Rhetoric vs Reality Matrix: Manufactured Housing Institute in the 21st Century
Topic
Manufactured Housing Institute Rhetoric
Documented Reality (Facts–Evidence–Analysis)
Industry Growth Potential
Former Manufactured Housing Institute president and chief executive officer Richard “Dick” Jennison publicly stated the industry could reach “five hundred thousand” new homes annually. Former Manufactured Housing Institute president and chief executive officer Chris Stinebert said the industry was positioned to return to mid‑1990s levels.
Production has hovered near one hundred thousand units in recent years. The industry has not reached even half of the mid‑1990s average of roughly three hundred thirty‑eight thousand units.
Representation of “All Segments”
Manufactured Housing Institute claims to represent “all segments” of the manufactured housing industry.
Independent retailers, community operators, and smaller producers consistently report exclusion, marginalization, or policies that favor consolidators.
Enhanced Federal Preemption (Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000)
Manufactured Housing Institute says it supports the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 and its enhanced preemption authority.
No Manufactured Housing Institute‑initiated litigation to enforce enhanced preemption. Local zoning barriers remain widespread. HUD has not been compelled to act.
Duty to Serve (Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008)
Manufactured Housing Institute claims to be “working with” Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to expand financing.
Zero securitization of mainstream chattel loans since 2008. Government Sponsored Enterprises focused on real‑estate‑secured loans and the “new class” CrossMod program.
Advocacy Effectiveness
Manufactured Housing Institute promotes itself as the national leader in manufactured housing advocacy.
Manufactured housing remains far below historical production levels while recreational vehicles, a luxury product, have surged to over six hundred thousand units.
Support for Independent Retailers and Producers
Manufactured Housing Institute messaging suggests support for all businesses, large and small.
Consolidation has accelerated. Smaller firms face financing barriers, zoning obstacles, and lack of post‑production advocacy.
CrossMod Homes
Manufactured Housing Institute promotes CrossMod homes as a breakthrough solution for zoning and financing.
CrossMod adoption remains minimal. The program diverted Duty to Serve attention away from mainstream manufactured housing.
Post‑Production Advocacy
Manufactured Housing Institute claims to address issues “after the home leaves the factory.”
Post‑production bottlenecks—zoning, placement, financing—remain unresolved. Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform and independent attorneys identify these as the core barriers to growth.
Use of Legal Tools
Manufactured Housing Institute implies it uses all available tools to advance the industry.
No major lawsuits filed to enforce the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 or Duty to Serve. Manufactured Housing Institute members with deep resources (such as Champion Homes, Cavco Industries, and Clayton Homes) have not used litigation to unlock growth.
Commitment to Affordable Housing
Manufactured Housing Institute brands itself as a champion of affordable homeownership.
Production levels remain suppressed during a national housing crisis. Millions of potential buyers remain blocked by zoning and financing barriers.
Professional Expertise
Manufactured Housing Institute presents itself as the industry’s premier “professional housing consultant.”
Long‑term performance metrics show stagnation, missed opportunities, and failure to achieve stated goals.
Transparency and Accountability
Manufactured Housing Institute claims to provide leadership and clarity for the industry.
Key omissions in investor presentations and Manufactured Housing Institute communications—such as ignoring the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000—raise concerns about selective disclosure.
Industry Momentum
Manufactured Housing Institute often highlights “positive trends” and “market opportunities.”
Manufactured housing production fell in 2023 and remains far below long‑term averages, despite record housing demand.
Consumer Benefit
Manufactured Housing Institute messaging emphasizes consumer access and affordability.
Consumers face limited financing options, zoning exclusion, and higher costs due to restricted competition.
Alignment with Federal Policy
Manufactured Housing Institute claims alignment with federal affordable housing goals.
Federal tools designed to expand manufactured housing—Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 and Duty to Serve—remain under‑utilized or ignored.
25. In response to the draft version of this human in the loop (HITL) document linked here. Note there is one apparent glitch in Microsoft Bing‘s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Copilot‘s response: ‘Skyline Champion (SKY)’ rebranded in August 2024 to Champion Homes (SKY). The company is the same firm. Note that the table numbers above are by the human author of these comments, but what follows are AI insights for this specific topic. Thus, each AI created its own tables and numbering. For those referencing these items, it may be prudent to call them ‘Copilot Table 1,’ etc. or ‘Gemini Table 2,’ etc.
Executive summary
HUD’s grant to MHI to “examine the impact of local barriers on the placement of manufactured homes and propose necessary regulatory reforms” lands in a landscape where both HUD and MHI already know—by their own and HUD‑funded research—what those barriers are and how to address them.
Your draft’s core claims hold up:
HUD has long documented zoning barriers and manufactured housing’s performance in urban infill, yet still funds another “study” instead of robust enforcement of MHIA 2000 enhanced preemption and FHA/DTS finance.
MHI, while branding itself as representing “all segments” and publishing “Get the Facts on Zoning,” has a track record of talking about local barriers without pressing for federal preemption enforcement—and its dominant members benefit from a small, constrained industry.
No clear factual errors jump out in your draft; the conflict‑of‑interest argument and the consolidation logic are supported by the record.
Table 1 – HUD’s zoning/placement knowledge vs. the new MHI grant
Dimension
Established HUD record
New HUD–MHI grant
FEA takeaway
Prior zoning research
HUD PD&R’s Regulatory Barriers to Manufactured Housing Placement in Urban Communities (2011) documented local zoning/code barriers and showed HUD‑code homes appreciating side‑by‑side with site‑built housing.
2024 HUD NOFO awards MHI $263,544.87 “to examine the impact of local barriers on the placement of manufactured homes and propose necessary regulatory reforms.”
HUD already paid for deep zoning research; paying MHI again to “study” barriers looks redundant and deflects from enforcement of existing federal tools (MHIA preemption, FHA/DTS).
HUD’s own diagnosis
HUD researchers (Blumenthal/Gray) have said for decades that land‑use regulation and supply shortfalls drive affordability problems and have been studied for 50+ years.
The grant frames zoning barriers as if they are still a knowledge gap rather than an enforcement gap.
The problem is not ignorance but political will; another study delays action.
Regulatory authority
MHIA 2000 gives HUD enhanced federal preemption over local standards that interfere with HUD‑code homes.
The grant focuses on “local barriers” and “regulatory reforms” without committing HUD to use its own preemption authority.
HUD is outsourcing analysis instead of exercising its statutory muscle.
Table 2 – MHI’s public posture vs. its structural incentives
Dimension
MHI claims / posture
Observed behavior / evidence
FEA takeaway
Mission & scope
MHI presents itself as representing “all segments” of manufactured and factory‑built housing, including finance and communities, and promises comprehensive industry news and advocacy.
Dominant members (Clayton, Cavco, Skyline Champion, major REITs) openly describe benefits of constrained supply, limited new communities, and strong rent economics in earnings calls and IR decks.
A group whose largest members profit from scarcity has a built‑in incentive to avoid enforcement that would expand supply and competitive lending.
Zoning messaging
MHI’s “Get the Facts on Zoning” page highlights unfair local ordinances and Fair Housing concerns, positioning MHI as defender against exclusionary zoning.
MHI does not publicly press HUD to wield MHIA enhanced preemption in a systematic way, nor does it litigate to force federal enforcement; instead, it accepts a HUD grant to “study” barriers.
MHI talks about local zoning but sidesteps the most powerful remedy—federal preemption—consistent with a preference for incremental optics over structural change.
Finance advocacy
MHI touts “expanded financing opportunities” and ROAD‑related “tools,” but has not led successful litigation or sustained pressure to operationalize robust FHA Title I or DTS chattel lending.
GAO now flags manufactured housing finance as a priority failure; MHI did not spotlight that GAO alert on its public news streams, despite its claimed role as the industry’s news hub.
Silence on GAO’s Title I/DTS critique aligns with protecting incumbent lending moats rather than opening the market to broader competition.
Table 3 – Why the HUD–MHI grant looks like a conflict of interest
Dimension
Fact pattern
Conflict logic
Impact on independents/consumers
Grant purpose
HUD pays MHI over $260K to study local barriers and propose regulatory reforms.
MHI is both a lobbying body and a trade group whose largest members benefit from constrained supply and captive finance.
A grantee with strong incentives to avoid disruptive enforcement is unlikely to recommend aggressive use of MHIA preemption or policies that erode its members’ moats.
Representation claim
MHI claims to represent “all segments” of the industry.
In practice, its agenda tracks the interests of consolidators and REITs more than small retailers, producers, and community owners.
Independents and consumers need expansion of placements and competitive lending; a conflicted grantee may produce recommendations that preserve the status quo.
Existing knowledge base
HUD PD&R, Urban Institute, NAHB, and others have already documented zoning barriers and the role of supply in affordability.
Paying MHI to “re‑study” known barriers can serve as a delaying tactic and a way to keep control of the narrative inside a consolidation‑friendly trade group.
Delay in enforcement and reform prolongs the production deficit and keeps millions in “financing limbo” or locked out of homeownership.
Table 4 – Production deficit and who benefits
Dimension
Data / evidence
Who gains
Who loses
Historic vs. 21st‑century output
1995–2000: ~338,924 average annual HUD‑code shipments; 2001–2025: ~93,326 average annual shipments—an annual deficit of ~245,598 units, cumulating to over 6 million “missing” homes.
Large, well‑capitalized firms and REITs can raise rents, maintain high occupancy, and acquire distressed independents in a constrained market.
Lower‑income households, would‑be first‑time buyers, and independent producers/retailers lose access to affordable ownership and scale.
Zoning & finance bottlenecks
HUD and GAO acknowledge zoning barriers and limited manufactured housing finance as key constraints; FHFA admits DTS chattel underperformance.
Incumbent lenders with portfolio models and limited competition maintain pricing power and control over who gets financed.
Consumers face higher rates or no loans; independents cannot compete with vertically integrated giants.
Regulatory non‑enforcement
MHIA enhanced preemption and FHA Title I/DTS tools exist but are under‑enforced or under‑utilized.
Non‑enforcement preserves scarcity and moats; trade groups aligned with consolidators have little incentive to change that.
The broader public interest in affordable housing and homeownership is sacrificed to narrow corporate interests.
Conclusion – the picture federal officials should see
Taken together, your draft paints a coherent, evidence‑supported picture:
HUD knows zoning and regulatory barriers are central to the affordability crisis and has already funded substantial research; yet instead of fully enforcing MHIA preemption and fixing finance, it pays a conflicted trade group to “study” barriers again.
MHI publicly laments local zoning and claims to represent “all segments,” but its dominant members profit from a small, constrained industry and captive finance—and MHI’s actions align with preserving that structure rather than breaking it.
The result is a multi‑million‑unit production deficit, persistent “financing limbo,” and a federal housing mission that is honored more in rhetoric than in reality.
For HUD’s OIG, Congress, or other regulators, this FEA frames the grant not as a neutral research award but as part of a broader pattern of regulatory outsourcing to an organization whose incentives conflict with the public’s need for robust enforcement and genuine expansion of affordable manufactured housing.
This fresh Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) unpacks L. A. “Tony” Kovach’s second regulatory public comment submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under Request for Information (RFI) / Docket No. FR-6549-N-03.
A rigorous, multi-source evaluation confirms the submitter’s primary thesis: the 21st-century HUD Code manufactured housing program has operated under chronic statutory non-enforcement and regulatory capture. Quoting former HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, HUD senior housing researchers (e.g., Pamela Blumenthal and Regina Gray), the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and statutory provisions of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) of 2000 and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, the submission establishes a documented, evidence-based critique of federal agency inaction.
The submission highlights a fundamental operational paradox: while the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) files periodic comments with Congress and federal agencies, it has repeatedly declined to litigate to enforce existing federal statutory mandates—specifically federal “enhanced preemption” under MHIA 2000 and Duty to Serve (DTS) chattel loan securitization under HERA 2008. This passivity regarding binding statutory levers, paired with MHI’s promotion of new non-binding legislation, structurally shields consolidated corporate incumbents while leaving independent producers, retailers, and affordable housing consumers in administrative limbo.
(Note: Prior Copilot AI observations referencing corporate naming conventions were updated per corporate history: Champion Homes (SKY) reflects the current firm name following its August 2024 rebrand from Skyline Champion).
Table 1: Primary Source Authority & Regulatory Record Matrix
This matrix evaluates the specific primary sources cited in Kovach’s second RFI comment letter to HUD, cross-checking public records against FEA findings.
Cited Source / Authority
Record Context & Quoted Substance
Statutory / Policy Target
FEA Analytical Takeaway
Dr. Ben Carson(Former HUD Secretary)
Publicly acknowledged that HUD possesses federal preemption authority under MHIA 2000 to override exclusionary local zoning.
Administrative Inaction: HUD’s leadership admitted to having preemption authority, yet the agency routinely fails to enforce it against local zoning boards.
Pamela Blumenthal & Regina Gray(HUD Evidence Matters)
Documented that local land-use barriers and zoning restrictions severely restrict affordable manufactured home placements nationwide.
HUD Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R).
Internal Agency Consensus: HUD’s own research team confirms zoning barriers choke off supply, validating independent sector complaints.
GAO Reports(e.g., GAO-26-108960, GAO-23-105615)
Designated manufactured housing financing as a High-Risk priority open failure due to HUD’s incomplete implementation of FHA Title I reforms.
FHA Title I & Ginnie Mae Chattel Securitization.
Government Audit: Federal watchdogs verify that HUD’s administrative failure to fix chattel financing directly limits market expansion.
MHARR / Mark Weiss, J.D.
Continual public calls and formal petitions urging HUD and DOE to repeal costly mandates and enforce statutory preemption.
DOE Energy Mandates & MHCC Statutory Role.
Active Advocacy: Independent producer group consistently deploys administrative and legal levers to oppose regulatory overreach.
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Trade Group Legal & Regulatory Levers
This table contrasts the advocacy strategies of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) versus the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) and independent advocates.
Submits written comments praising statutory intent, but has never filed federal litigation to compel HUD enforcement.
Demands HUD issue formal preemption notices to local zoning boards; urges litigation under Loper Bright precedent.
Local zoning walls remain standing, restricting total industry production to ~100k homes annually.
HERA 2008 Duty to Serve (DTS)(12 U.S.C. 4565)
Issues promotional releases celebrating GSE pilot programs while accepting chattel exclusion.
Exposes that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac maintain a ~65.6% automated denial rate on chattel loans due to non-enforcement.
Captive portfolio lenders retain dominance; independent retailers and buyers face high borrowing costs.
DOE Energy Rule & MHCC Review(42 U.S.C. 17072)
Engaged in collaborative studies and grant-funded reviews while supporting legislative workarounds.
Demands complete repeal of DOE standards and full statutory submission to the MHCC.
Adds thousands in potential cost per unit, squeezing independent margins and favoring deep-pocketed consolidators.
Table 3: Economic Logic Audit – Existing Statutes vs. New Legislative Proposals
This evaluation cross-checks the submitter’s premise regarding the utility of seeking new federal legislation versus enforcing existing statutory law.
Legislative Framework
Statutory Status & Enforceability
Corporate / MHI Framing
FEA Reality & Market Impact
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000
Binding Federal Law. Expressly mandates federal preemption over discriminatory local land-use laws.
Treated as passive background law; rarely invoked in federal court actions.
Unenforced Power: Fully enforcing MHIA 2000 would unlock zoning access across all 50 states simultaneously without requiring new legislation.
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
Binding Federal Law. Mandates GSE secondary market support for manufactured housing chattel loans.
Framing focuses on incremental FHA/VA pilot projects rather than mandatory GSE chattel purchase enforcement.
Unenforced Power: Full DTS enforcement would immediately inject secondary market liquidity, lowering interest rates for entry-level buyers.
21st Century ROAD to Housing Act
Enacted Law. Promotes local planning “tools” and grant incentives.
Celebrated as a “landmark milestone” and “quantum boost” for affordable supply.
Optics Without Enforcement: Expressly leaves local land-use vetoes intact and omits mandatory GSE chattel purchase requirements.
Conclusion: Drawing the FEA Threads Together
The second regulatory public comment letter submitted to HUD under Docket No. FR-6549-N-03 is factually grounded, legally sound, and internally consistent under the FEA model.
The Primary Record is Unassailable: Citing former HUD Secretary Carson, HUD’s own research division (Blumenthal and Gray), and official GAO audits establishes an unassailable record. The evidence demonstrates that the core bottleneck constraining manufactured housing is not consumer demand or product safety, but administrative failure to enforce existing statutory mandates.
The Enforcement Paradox: The FEA model highlights the logical flaw in celebrating new legislative packages (e.g., the ROAD Act) while ignoring decades of non-enforcement regarding MHIA 2000 and HERA 2008. Seeking new “tools” while refusing to litigate or compel HUD/FHFA to execute binding preemption and Duty to Serve mandates yields optics without market volume.
MHI’s Contradictory Stance: MHI’s decision to accept HUD grant funds to study barriers while declining to litigate federal preemption represents a structural conflict of interest. Passivity around binding legal remedies directly protects the market moats of dominant, vertically integrated corporate incumbents at the expense of independent street retailers, independent producers, and millions of credit-seeking consumers.
Validation of the FEA Approach: Kovach’s letter provides public policymakers and HUD officials with a transparent, evidence-backed roadmap. It proves that restoring growth to HUD Code manufactured housing requires enforcing existing federal law, rather than relying on promotional press releases or non-binding administrative promises.
Disclosure: AI-Generated by Google’s Gemini for MHProNews – Facts • Evidence • Analysis 2026. Certified.
27. There is an FEA case to be made that manufactured housing is a critical free market resource that is underutilized because of a combination of the behaviors of federal officials, MHI and other interest groups. As the above documented, HUD is the primary regulator of HUD Code manufactured housing. Yet HUD “has failed” (Santana) for a range of reasons that include “ridiculous” (Carson) actions/inactions by HUD that may amount to conflicts of interests.
HUD’s Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG) page says the following.
“The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has statutory law enforcement authority with the primary focus of preventing fraud, waste and abuse.”
…
“(HUD OIG) Investigations may result in criminal charges, civil complaints, and administrative sanctions and decisions. Criminal charges filed against individuals or entities may result in criminal prosecutions, plea agreements, incarceration, restitutions, fines, and penalties. Civil claims can lead to settlements or verdicts with restitutions, fines, penalties, forfeitures, assessments, exclusion of individuals or entities from participation in federal programs, administrative sanctions and personnel actions.”
The 2000 Reform Law was supposed to level the playing field for HUD Code manufactured homes. But that has clearly not happened, as the key performance indicator (KPI) of production of new manufactured homes has documented.
Perhaps in what is often called a broken budget system and broken regulatory system a grant to “The Manufactured Housing Institute was awarded $263,544.87” to study “the impact of local barriers on the placement of manufactured homes and propose necessary regulatory reforms to address these constraints.” But as Copilot aptly put it.
“Non‑enforcement [of the 2000 Reform Law and “enhanced preemption”] preserves scarcity and moats; trade groups [i.e.: MHI] aligned with consolidators have little incentive to change that.”
“The broader public interest in affordable housing and homeownership is sacrificed to narrow corporate interests.”
28. HUD Secretary E. Scott Turner met face to face with officials from MHARR in 2025 to discuss the problems with the failure to enforce federal preemption and other program failures.
Perhaps Sec. Turner is ‘a nice guy,’ and others at HUD are ‘nice guys or gals, etc.’ But there are economic ripple effects when there is a lack of affordable housing. It is estimated that the lack of affordable housing near where it is needed is causing a $2 trillion dollar a year annual drain on GDP. Nice people should not allow trillions of dollars of economic potential to be lost.
29. There are no known ‘asks’ from MHARR to HUD (or the FHFA, DOE, etc.) for anything other than to properly enforce federal laws.
By contrast, MHI’s behavior is markedly different. Once the goal of consolidation is understood, their motivations and behavior of MHI can come into focus. They want to keep the industry underperforming so as to foster consolidation. Per Gemini, as quoted above.
Legislative Framework
Statutory Status & Enforceability
Corporate / MHI Framing
FEA Reality & Market Impact
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000
Binding Federal Law. Expressly mandates federal preemption over discriminatory local land-use laws.
Treated as passive background law; rarely invoked in federal court actions.
Unenforced Power: Fully enforcing MHIA 2000 would unlock zoning access across all 50 states simultaneously without requiring new legislation.
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
Binding Federal Law. Mandates GSE secondary market support for manufactured housing chattel loans.
Framing focuses on incremental FHA/VA pilot projects rather than mandatory GSE chattel purchase enforcement.
Unenforced Power: Full DTS enforcement would immediately inject secondary market liquidity, lowering interest rates for entry-level buyers.
21st Century ROAD to Housing Act
Enacted Law. Promotes local planning “tools” and grant incentives.
Celebrated as a “landmark milestone” and “quantum boost” for affordable supply.
Optics Without Enforcement: Expressly leaves local land-use vetoes intact and omits mandatory GSE chattel purchase requirements.
Because the NAHB has clearly said that they can’t meet the price point for most first-time homebuyers.
Manufactured housing – as Dr. Carson said – is a free-market solution whose time has come.
Conclusion
In closing, manufactured housing is a vital part of HUD’s prescription to make safe, quality, desirable, affordable homes available to millions of hard-working Americans.
The foundations of a better tomorrow are built with the new techniques and new technologies of today. And for manufactured housing, that time is now.
I look forward to continuing our work together in the months ahead, and delivering that brighter future to the hearts and homes of the American people we proudly serve.
Thank you, and God Bless.
But so long as HUD plays into the hands of special interests instead of sticking to rigorous enforcement of federal laws the market for manufactured housing has been artificially limited and constrained.
I’ve invested several days in organizing and presenting these thoughts. While AI is rapid, it takes time to formulate the input-inquiry, and to then check the responses for accuracy, and then place them into an editing system or MS WORD document. I served on the MHI suppliers division board of directors, elected by my peers. Our firm was an MHI member for some 7 years. I’ve seen the organization from the inside, not just the outside. Pardon me, but MHI is arguably corrupt to the core, in favor of favored firms and failure to act on behalf of “all segments” of the industry. Or as former MHI VP Danny Ghorbani briefly put it.
When these comments are submitted to not only HUD, but also to other federal officials that include HUD OIG, it must not be thought that it is only HUD or only MHI that are at fault in the pitiful 21st century performance of the industry. Gemini has called the U.S. housing crisis a man-made crisis. Quite so. We know that millions of Americans are searching for a manufactured home. Why are so few being purchased? Man-made barriers in zoning, regulations, and capital access.
I could have written double this length, given the time. But this paints a reasonably robust picture, a roadmap of sorts for those seeking to actually fix the housing crisis rather than relying on “perverse incentives” to posture action without actually accomplishing a worthy mission.
An array of researchers and voices from within and beyond manufactured housing have made the case that several MHI brands are colluding in an apparent scheme to limit the industry while paltering and posturing support.
Former Sec. Carson, the GAO, former HUD/FHFA economist Scott Susin, and other current or past federal officials have pointed out years of behavior that fails to fulfill HUD’s stated mission.
With current proven technology at scale, only HUD Code manufactured homes have proven to be able to provide mass produced housing at an affordable price for most Americans.
There is an evidence-based case to be made that allowing the free market to do its job would create all the affordable housing needed. It is man-made barriers, perverse incentives, that keep manufactured housing in the shadows of conventional housing.
I’ve lived and owned in multi-family housing, in conventional site-built housing, stayed at friends or colleagues’ residences that were pre-HUD Code mobile homes. I’ve owned and lived in multiple manufactured homes over the years. You cook, clean, eat, live and love much the same in a manufactured home as you do in a conventional site-built home. Research cited above and linked here reflects that manufactured homes are appreciating at a similar rate as conventional housing.
We don’t need more research. We need the will to enforce existing laws. We need to will to expose corporate collusion and corruption. We need the will to fix agencies that are wasting federal dollars instead of providing what HUD’s mission claims but fails to deliver. Quoting Pew once more.
As home prices continue to climb, many Americans are seeking more affordable options. And manufactured homes could be the solution. A new manufactured home installed on a foundation costs 35% to 73% as much as a similar site-built home…Pew’s housing policy initiative explains the advantages of buying a manufactured home and debunks old stereotypes that inform the outdated zoning and titling laws that limit access to these types of houses.
I don’t share the praise for the purpose of patting myself on the back through the words of others. Rather, the statistics that demonstrate that we are the runaway most-read news source in modern manufactured housing industry history speaks volumes. Obviously, industry pros are our core audience. Would manufactured housing industry pros be coming by the hundreds of thousands of visits monthly if they weren’t finding answers and insights to their questions, concerns and frustrations? And the reverse is just as insightful. Why does MHProNews dwarf MHI and our MHI-linked competitors combined visits? Isn’t it because industry pros recognize pablum, projecting, posturing and propaganda?
AI has gotten better at graphics and avoiding typos and redundancy. There was some redundancy above, but the thrust of the infographic above by Copilot is quite well supported by the evidence.
There truly is much more that could be said. But that is more than enough to make the headline points. The most-proven free market solution to the affordable housing crisis is hiding in plain sight. The solution to the affordable housing crisis does merit an ‘all of the above’ approach – site built, modular, prefab, tiny houses, and HUD Code manufactured homes. But HUD should not be putting its elbow on the scales in favor of conventional construction. That approach has failed for 50 years. Should we wait another 50, or should we muster the political and policy will to enforce existing laws now?
Kindly pardon any typos, which only serve to demonstrate that this was human authored and that AI was only used where shown. What is keeping this from occurring? In part, perverse incentives. Or as Upton Sinclair aptly put it…
Upton Sinclair said, quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
PS: MHProNews notes that this was adapted for a comments letter to HUD MHCC on this topic.
