MHARR and other sources reported on the August 17th MHCC conference call with HUD. The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) release provided a brief history on how HUD moved from “voluntary compliance” on expanded in plant inspections which was later deemed “not optional” by HUD. This was done in-spite of past opposition at the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) and without further consultation by the MHCC. Sources state this subverts a key purpose of the MHCC, which was created as a check on regulations created by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA 2000). Sources tell MHProNews.com that without reasonable controls of HUD regulators and their contracted agents, smaller manufacturers can be regulated out of existence, especially when shipment levels are at historic lows. This in turn can cause higher prices for retailers, communities and consumers. As Doug Gorman and others who have served on the MHCC have previously reported to MHProNews.com, this is precisely the types of efforts MHARR takes on that the industry needs. Gorman noted that the MHIA of 2000 requires HUD to do a cost benefit analysis of such regulations, which is also the position of MHARR. A link for the full MHARR press release is here.
(File Photo credit: MHProNews.com April 2010 MHCC meeting)
Editor’s Note: While most of our blogs and feature articles have the ability to post comments, Daily Business News stories do not often get posted comments. That said, this one has already had two posted. Click the comments tab, and within the bounds of civility and common sense, readers comments are welcome and encouraged. Naturally, no ‘spam’ is allowed. MHI issued their own report on this subject one day after MHARR’s, which is part of the MHI Week in Review at this link.
5 thoughts on “HUD accused of ‘end around’ that poses threat to manufactured housing companies”
Doug
My point in the past regarding MHARR is that MHARR always makes it clear that their role is to protect the consumer from unnecessary costs related to the regulatory nature of the manufactured housing industry. Since manufacturers bear most of the regulatory burden, MHARR’s focus is with manufacturers. MHI is not as well positioned for battles of that type since the very nature of MHI role is support all industry segments.
“According to the federal law that created the MHCC, before issuing any proceduraln or enforcement regulation or interpretative bulletin, HUD must submit nit to the MHCC and provide the MHCC with 120 days to review it and nsubmit comments. If HUD then rejects any significant comment provided byn the MHCC, it must publish the proposed regulation, the MHCCu2019s written ncomments and HUDu2019s response in the Federal Register. Sources have nreported that they believe HUD has violated this section of the law nnumerous times.” # #nnThis comment above was submitted for publication by a sourcenwith ties to the MHCC.nnTony Kovach
Bill Matchneer
For the record, the rule in question was given to the MHCC for 120 review in the Spring of 2009, a period that HUD extended as a courtesy to the MHCC.u00a0 At the end of this period, MHARR and former Chairman Roberts convinced the MHCC to vote not to comment on the rule.u00a0u00a0Since most consider this to be an important rule,u00a0the vote not to comment was au00a0strangeu00a0one indeed.u00a0u00a0As result of this vote,u00a0HUDu00a0proceed to develop theu00a0proposed rule withoutu00a0the MHCC comment the statute allowed for.u00a0u00a0Now that the rule is nearing publication, not only does MHARR wantu00a0a do over, but is blamingu00a0HUD for the results of its own actions.u00a0u00a0 So what else is new.u00a0
Emg
Two words, OVER REGULATION.
Don
Posted from someone that just purchased a Oak Creek Home and cannot get inital repairs or owners documentation. There is a serious problem in this industry.
My point in the past regarding MHARR is that MHARR always makes it clear that their role is to protect the consumer from unnecessary costs related to the regulatory nature of the manufactured housing industry. Since manufacturers bear most of the regulatory burden, MHARR’s focus is with manufacturers. MHI is not as well positioned for battles of that type since the very nature of MHI role is support all industry segments.
“According to the federal law that created the MHCC, before issuing any proceduraln or enforcement regulation or interpretative bulletin, HUD must submit nit to the MHCC and provide the MHCC with 120 days to review it and nsubmit comments. If HUD then rejects any significant comment provided byn the MHCC, it must publish the proposed regulation, the MHCCu2019s written ncomments and HUDu2019s response in the Federal Register. Sources have nreported that they believe HUD has violated this section of the law nnumerous times.” # #nnThis comment above was submitted for publication by a sourcenwith ties to the MHCC.nnTony Kovach
For the record, the rule in question was given to the MHCC for 120 review in the Spring of 2009, a period that HUD extended as a courtesy to the MHCC.u00a0 At the end of this period, MHARR and former Chairman Roberts convinced the MHCC to vote not to comment on the rule.u00a0u00a0Since most consider this to be an important rule,u00a0the vote not to comment was au00a0strangeu00a0one indeed.u00a0u00a0As result of this vote,u00a0HUDu00a0proceed to develop theu00a0proposed rule withoutu00a0the MHCC comment the statute allowed for.u00a0u00a0Now that the rule is nearing publication, not only does MHARR wantu00a0a do over, but is blamingu00a0HUD for the results of its own actions.u00a0u00a0 So what else is new.u00a0
Two words, OVER REGULATION.
Posted from someone that just purchased a Oak Creek Home and cannot get inital repairs or owners documentation. There is a serious problem in this industry.