Almost 25 years has elapsed since the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Act, 2000 Reform Law) was enacted. The various statements, efforts, and battles have been reported, documented, discussed, and analyzed. But until now, there have been no known single table produced that provides a snapshot of what action, statements, and remarks occurred and that links sources in support of those provided statements. That will be found in Section I of this report. In Section II is next part of the headline topic, which provides insights on a court filing with a left-right media snapshot of a recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statement that could prove to be significant in the political arena and thus can be expected to have business and regulatory implications. Section III is flashback to an item produced by Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) dated March of 2025, the significance and relevance in this context will be unpacked Section IV, which will provide additional MHVille facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) and related insights.

MHProNews notes that the word “section” is used instead of “part” in this article because in Section II there are subheadings from the Patch that include the labels Part I and Part II. So to avoid confusion, the term “section” is used for this article to make referencing any item easier and clearer.

 

Section I

Per a longer thread between MHProNews and Bing’s AI powered Copilot generated and refined this exclusive table of information. Per Copilot on this date:

based on a thorough web search, there is no known table or infographic online that compiles 21st-century HUD Secretaries alongside their specific statements or actions on HUD Code manufactured housing in the structured, sourced format we’ve created.

🏛️ 21st Century HUD Secretaries: Statements or Actions on Manufactured Housing

Photo	Name	Tenure	Party	Key Statement or Action	Source
Martínez	Mel Martínez	2001–2003	R	Rejected MHCC recommendation to enforce enhanced preemption; House Democrats pushed back.	MHARR
Jackson	Alphonso Jackson	2004–2008	R	Oversaw HUD Code updates and affordability programs; no direct statement found.	HUD Archive
Donovan	Shaun Donovan	2009–2014	D	“Manufactured housing plays a vital role in meeting the housing needs of the nation…”	HUD
Castro	Julián Castro	2014–2017	D	“Manufactured homes provide a significant resource for affordable home ownership.”	MHProNews
Carson	Ben Carson	2017–2021	R	“Manufactured housing is one of our real priorities… HUD is a strong proponent of manufactured housing.”	HUD Speech
Fudge	Marcia Fudge	2021–2024	D	“Until we start to address [zoning barriers]… we are going to continue to be perpetually in this kind of situation.”	C-SPAN/MHProNews
Todman	Adrianne Todman (Acting)	2024	D	“We continue the progress by… boosting the supply and affordability of manufactured homes.”	Senate Banking PDF
Turner	Scott Turner	2025–present	R	“Manufactured homes are built by wisdom… simpler, more cost effective, and ultimately, more accessible.”	MHI

Would you like a horizontal version for print layout or shareable social format next? Or a quote carousel that isolates key messages? I can streamline the design to highlight your goals—policy, education, advocacy—all in one glance.

—

Section II – The Following is Adapted from a post on the Patch by this writer for MHProNews

Katelynn Richardson-‘Conservative Churches Win Massive Concession in Court Case Against IRS’

NPR: Internal Revenue Service ‘says it will allow houses of worship to endorse candidates for political office without losing tax-exemption’

 

(Base images on bottom left credit: Pixabay. Text and collage credits to this writer for MHProNews and this Patch.)

The National Religious Broadcasters and several churches sued the IRS over the rule, arguing that it infringes on their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.”

The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 amendment to the U.S. tax code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

The Christian media group and others filed suit against the IRS last August, stating that the amendment violates their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, among other legal protections. On Monday, the IRS and plaintiffs wrote that the Johnson Amendment should be interpreted “so that it does not reach communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith.”

 

Section III – from MHARR website at this link here 

 

MHProNews notes that this will help further frame and clarify what follows in Section IV

MHARR – ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES

By Mark Weiss 

MARCH 2025

“THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY”

 

As 2025 begins, the production outlook for the HUD Code manufactured housing industry remains essentially static. While the nation continues to experience an unprecedented shortfall in the availability of affordable housing and homeownership, with a deficit widely acknowledged to surpass 7 million homes, industry production in 2024 barely exceeded the 100,000 home benchmark, at an annual total of 103,314 new manufactured homes. This follows a year (2023) during which total industry production, at 89,169 homes, fell far below the 100,000-home annual threshold, and itself falls far below the nearly 30-year (1995-2024) industry average annual production level of 145,563 homes/year. The question for the industry, consequently, is why – in an environment where the need for affordable housing and homeownership exceeds demand by millions of units – is the nation’s premier source of inherently affordable housing and homeownership mired at production levels that were routinely (and significantly) exceeded earlier in its history?

The answer to this question is astoundingly simple. While some may point to an aggregate of reasons for the industry’s chronic under-performance since the turn of the (21^st) century, arguing that it is attributable to an array of factors, that would miss the point. The point is that not all such factors have an equal — or even significant – long-term macro-economic impact on the industry. Thus, while an inventory of these factors might be interesting, it would do little to advance the availability of affordable mainstream manufactured homes at levels more in line with existing demand. Instead, it is necessary to “drill down” into those factors. Doing so, it is evident that the most impactful factors underlying the industry’s chronic under-performance are, in reality, quite simple, being organically connected to the fundamental economic determinants of supply and demand. Indeed, these factors are so elemental that they were long-ago identified by Congress and, even more importantly, targeted by Congress for remediation through specific legislation.

So what are those most impactful factors? As MHARR has already examined and documented, the most significant policy bottlenecks thwarting the growth and expansion of the mainstream manufactured housing industry on a national basis – in addition to the pending draconian U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) manufactured housing “energy” standards – are: (1) discriminatory and exclusionary zoning which prevents manufactured homes from being placed in large areas of the country; and (2) the lack of federal securitization and secondary market support for manufactured home personal property loans comprising more than 70% of the current manufactured housing finance market.

The combination of these two factors (bottlenecks) has uniquely undermined both essential components of the mainstream manufactured housing economy (i.e., supply and demand). Put differently, while discriminatory and exclusionary zoning has destroyed or limited demand for manufactured homes in large areas (by making the siting of manufactured homes either impossible or extremely difficult), the unavailability of federally-supported consumer financing within the industry’s dominant personal property lending sector has limited the supply of competitive-rate consumer financing for the industry’s most affordable homes. And, since consumers (for the most part) cannot purchase a home they cannot finance at an affordable rate, the lack of supply of competitive-rate consumer financing for manufactured homes effectively suppresses the supply of manufactured homes per se.

So, that is the “bad.” The industry is producing the highest value, highest quality homes in its entire history, yet because of these two primary market-limiting factors within the industry’s post-production sector (i.e., exclusionary zoning and lack of federal support for market-competitive loans within the personal property sector) the industry remains mired in a decades-long production slump with no end in sight.

Now, the “good.” There is good news – potentially — regarding these elemental, long-term industry bottlenecks. That good news is the arrival of the second Trump Administration and a renewed possibility of achieving fundamental change within the federal government regarding enforcement of the two laws that directly relate to and impact the two principal industry bottlenecks.

As MHARR has previously documented, the full implementation and enforcement of two existing laws by the federal government would address and, in all likelihood, substantially resolve both of the primary industry bottlenecks.

First, with respect to exclusionary/discriminatory zoning, the enhanced federal preemption of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (2000 Reform Law) was specifically designed by Congress to extend the reach of federal preemption beyond inconsistent state and/or local construction and safety standards, and to specifically include and address other state or local “requirements” (such as exclusionary zoning) that impair federal superintendence of the manufactured housing industry, including increasing the availability of affordable manufactured homes for “all Americans.” And how do we know this? Because members of Congress who were essential to the development and passage of the 2000 Reform Law said so in a 2003 letter to then-HUD Secretary Mel Martinez.

Second, with respect to securitization and secondary market support for manufactured home personal property loans, the applicability of the statutory Duty to Serve Underserved Markets (DTS) provision of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) to the personal property sector of the HUD Code market also does not require any guesswork. Rather, the DTS provision expressly states that its mandate applies both to manufactured home loans secured by real estate and to homes financed solely as personal property. Again, the provisions that the industry must have enforced are not implied, contextual, or arguable. Rather, they were fully briefed for Congress when the 2000 Reform Law and DTS were under consideration, and were fully included in each law, verbatim, in black and white. The problem, therefore, has not been the existence of remedial law, but instead the implementation or, rather, non-implementation of that remedial law by HUD on the one hand and by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) – the federal regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – on the other.

Since both of these bottleneck issues, as noted above, fall squarely within the industry’s post-production sector, they are – and have always been – the primary responsibility of the industry’s national post-production representation, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI). While MHARR has acted within both of these policy areas, MHARR does not draw dues from post-production sector businesses and – unlike MHI (which collects dues from retailers, communities, finance companies, insurers, installers, transporters and others) — does not claim to act as a national-level representative of those businesses. MHI, meanwhile, does collect dues from the post-production sector and does claim to represent that sector. MHI, however, has not taken decisive or effective action to remedy either of these industry bottlenecks.

The first Administration of President Trump presented the industry with a profound opportunity to address both such issues. President Trump entered office in 2017 with an agenda that included both regulatory reform and the promotion of affordable homeownership. MHARR, for its part, took immediate and aggressive steps to spur HUD action on discriminatory and exclusionary zoning and to seek full implementation of DTS within the HUD Code chattel sector by FHFA. MHI, meanwhile, seemed to focus its efforts on hosting HUD Secretary Ben Carson at  MHI conferences and events, while placing homes within HUD’s “Innovative Housing Showcase” in Washington, D.C. Such “public relations” efforts, however, failed to move the needle either with HUD on zoning preemption or with FHFA, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac on chattel sector DTS.

Without anything resembling an aggressive full court press on these fundamental industry bottlenecks by the industry’s self-proclaimed national post-production sector representative, President Trump’s first term passed without any significant progress on either issue. Fortunately for the industry, however, with the second term of President Trump, it will now get perhaps the rarest of rare opportunities, a second chance to aggressively seek and demand effective action to remedy the bottlenecks that continue to suppress the more widespread utilization of affordable mainstream HUD Code manufactured homes. But that effort will once again require aggressive action by the entire  industry – which leads us to the “ugly.”

The “ugly” is whether MHI is even institutionally capable of mounting a truly aggressive push to rectify the industry’s primary “bottleneck” issues. History (i.e., President Trump’s first term) would say that it is not. Even worse, this failure is consistent with a prediction made years ago by the industry pioneers who founded MHARR. Specifically, when MHARR led the successful late 1990’s effort to comprehensively reform the original National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, MHARR’s founders predicted that if the industry did not create an independent Washington, D.C.-based national representative for the post-production sector, there would be trouble down the road for the industry as a whole. Unfortunately, the post-production sector failed to heed this warning, and that failure is now coming back to haunt the industry.

If there were an independent national post-production industry representative, would that representative stand idly by while manufactured homes were excluded from large portions of the country? Or would it force action on such a crucial issue? Would it glad-hand FHFA, Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac – for nearly 20 years – while more than 70% of the industry’s consumers (served by personal property loans) were excluded from any benefit whatsoever under DTS? Would it be a cheerleader for benefits for community landlords and purchasers from the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) while individual consumers and homeowners are shortchanged and left out in the cold, creating a public outcry that is damaging to the industry as a whole? And this is not to mention a myriad of other post-production sector issues facing the industry and consumers in Washington, D.C.

The most likely answer is “no.” Instead, an independent national post-production representative would discern the fundamental harm flowing from both the exclusionary zoning and DTS issues, and would have acted firmly and aggressively already to seek and obtain a re-solution to both, instead of letting the entire industry languish in an economic environment otherwise primed for substantial growth.

In the final analysis, the industry faces fundamental challenges to its growth, expansion and evolution. Those challenges are existential, and must be addressed and successfully resolved. The fact that they continue to linger, after decades, is proof in itself that the present representational structure of the industry – with a broad “umbrella” organization collecting dues from all segments of the industry — is not up to the challenge that they present and, therefore, must be reconsidered and changed. The ultimate question is whether the broader industry will confront this most vexing problem.

 

Mark Weiss

 

MHARR is a Washington, D.C.-based national trade association representing the views and interests of independent producers of federally-regulated manufactured housing.

“MHARR-Issues and Perspectives” is available for re-publication in full (i.e., without alteration or substantive modification) without further permission and with proper attribution and/or link back to MHARR.

—

Section IV – Additional Information with More MHVille Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) and MHProNews Commentary 

 

1) There is a case to be made that if the manufactured housing industry is to achieve its true potential or even regain its past ‘glory days’ of 1998 or the early 1970s, the status quo clearly must be given a shakeup. Once the applicable laws, the various competing interests, and posturing vs. action are understood, facts in the form of key performance indicators such as annual new home production, the lack of developing new communities which some prominent MHI members that are manufactured home community (MHC) operators celebrate and encourage, the stated desire among multiple MHI members for consolidation, and other evidence begin to speak loudly.

 

 

2) MHI has claimed for years that the represent “all segments” of the manufactured home industry, and as MHARR’s Mark Weiss pointed out, they collect dues from the post-production sector of the industry that MHARR does not collect.

In the past year, MHI has publicly bragged about their “partnership” with HUD via their website and some of their emails include the graphics shown below. The annotation is added by MHProNews. 

 

 

 

3) MHI brags that they have hired Teresa Payne, J.D., formerly the administrator for HUD’s Office of Manufactured Housing Programs (OMHP). This is the proverbial picture of what “regulatory capture” and the “revolving door” can look like.

 

 

What has MHI done in the 21st century with that regulatory capture?

Clearly, they have NOT pressed in a robust fashion for the enforcement of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Act, 2000 Reform Law).  MHARR offered to team up with an MHI linked state association during the first term of the Trump Administration to sue to get the 2000 Reform Law fully enforced – particularly the “enhanced preemption” provision – and to take a case (if necessary) to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Neither MHI, nor any state association linked to MHI, accepted that offer by MHARR.

 

 

By contrast, several legal actions were launched by certain nonprofits on behalf of tiny houses, which have NO federal preemption as manufactured housing enjoys.

 

 

If someone probing the manufactured housing industry and its 21st century underperformance only considers what MHI has said, much of what they have said seems okay. From a prior MHI IRS Form 990 filing.

 

 

But if MHI sincerely meant the above, then they are going about it quite oddly. Per MHI, this is their mission.

“Improve the overall operating environment for the manufactured housing industry and expand the demand for manufactured homes by seeking fair and equitable treatment in the marketplace and the regulatory and legislative arenas.”

It should be recalled that before leaving to be the founding president and CEO of the Association for Regulatory Reform (ARR) which later rebranded as the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), Danny Ghorbani was a vice president of the organization previously known as the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association (MHMA) that later rebranded as the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI).

 

4) Previous MHI member and MHI ‘lifetime achievement’ award winner, Marty Lavin, J.D., who had years of experience in successful financing and community operations, made the following observations about the association he served for so long. Note that Lavin sold a land-lease community he owned to his residents.

 

 

Lavin later added the following.

 

Is it any wonder that MHI award winner Lavin became an MHI ‘unperson,’ removed from their website in an Orwellian “memory hole” fashion?

 

 

Having observed that MHProNews began its critiques of MHI while our parent company was still an MHI member, Google‘s AI powered Gemini drew a sharp contrast between MHI’s behavior in the 21st century vs. that of MHARR.

 

 

The input in the chat/Q&A that followed was between MHProNews and Google’s Gemini. Gemini cited xAI’s Grok’s  “…this ain’t a theory, it’s a heist” and “Copilot’s assessment of MHI engaging in “optics while consolidation continues” resonate strongly with the pattern of evidence we’ve discussed. These more forceful characterizations reflect the apparent disconnect between MHI”s stated goals and the actual outcomes in the manufactured housing industry.”

 

 

5) MHProNews has demonstrably been working with third-party AI tools to help fact check the evidence and analysis that we’ve provided industry readers for years. These are tools that MHI does not own and can only influence via inputs, evidence, inquiries, or ‘chats/discussion.’  Copilot offered to create a visualization or infographic on some of those items, which is provided below. The annotation is by MHProNews, but the item was generated by Copilot following a recent discussion, one of hundreds over the past 2 plus years.

 

 

6) Earlier this week, MHProNews published another exclusive. It was fresh remarks from Fred Neil, Dover Council President, multi-decade manufactured homeowner who lives in a land-lease.  Neil has been advocating on behalf of land-lease community residents for years. Neil said that fear is a factor that keeps many manufactured home community residents from standing up and speaking out more forcefully or publicly against so-called “predatory” practices.

 

 

Neil’s statements, along with those published by some others in mainstream media, are reasons to think that the Hobbs Act, RICO, and antitrust action is necessary or useful in breaking up the apparent predatory behavior of certain firms that are often linked to MHI and/or an MHI state association.

 

 

7) If MHI is trying to “protect-educate-promote” (PEP) the manufactured housing industry, they are routinely doing a poor job of it in the 21st century, as the next reports unpack.

 

 

8) What the report linked here and in Section IV #6 above makes clear is this. For decades, resident groups have been chasing elusive solutions. Per the Copilot postscript to that report was the following.

The section discussing the corporate death penalty—also known as judicial dissolution—is not only accurate but potentially pivotal in future advocacy. Here’s why:

🔎 What It Is

• A legal process where a corporation is forcibly dissolved due to fraud, abuse, or harm to public welfare.

• Can be initiated by state attorneys general or courts under existing laws in states like California and others.

🧰 Why It’s Useful

• Deterrent effect: Signals that corporations engaging in systemic abuse (e.g., predatory rent hikes, deceptive practices) may face existential consequences.
• Accountability tool: Goes beyond fines, which large firms often absorb as a cost of doing business.
• Empowers residents and advocates: Provides a legal framework to challenge repeat offenders when other remedies fail.

📚 Supporting Evidence

• Scholars and legal experts have called for broader use of this remedy in cases of corporate misconduct.
• Examples cited include Wells Fargo, Equifax, and others where systemic harm justified dissolution.
• The concept aligns with taxpayer rights, antitrust enforcement, and RICO statutes—all referenced in your article and prior reports.

 

🧭 Strategic Takeaway

Including the corporate death penalty in your legal toolkit section is not just symbolic—it’s a fact-based, historically grounded option that underscores the seriousness of the abuses being documented. It complements other remedies like:

• Antitrust enforcement
• Hobbs Act (extortion)
• RICO (racketeering)
• SEC and IRS scrutiny

Together, these form a multi-pronged legal strategy for protecting residents, small businesses, and taxpayers from systemic exploitation.

9) Additionally, it has to be understood that HUD has been studying and ‘trying’ to remove regulatory barriers for 50 years. Says who? HUD’s own researchers.

 

10) In the light of the various facts and nuances presented herein, is it any wonder that thus far none of the 21st century HUD’s secretaries have taken substantive steps to enforce the “enhanced preemption” provision of the 2000 Reform Law? See that table in Section 1.  This is why allies are necessary for MHARR and authentic (vs. ersatz) resident groups. Some of those allies may be found in faith-based organizations that are now apparently getting more wiggle room to engage in “political” engagement. Thus, the importance of Section 2, above.

11) With the above in mind, Copilot did and this writer did a deep dive into “decoding” the forms of slippery language and behavior. See that linked below.

 

The revised version of that is found in the terminology “decoder” posted below.

 

 

12) With that background, another recent “offer” by Copilot following a different Q&A was the following.

 

 

13) To better understand some of the interrelationships are the following, generated by Copilot and refined by MHProNews.

 

 

Another useful infographic by Copilot is the following.

 

 

14) With the above in mind, a PDF of this article in draft form linked here and cited below was provided to Copilot for analysis. Note that while Copilot has given this the stamp of factual accuracy and ‘approval,’ because the evidence and elements are clearly laid out, so anyone can double check the various elements of this report for accuracy themselves. The input that follows was by MHProNews, the reply and documentation is by Copilot.

Copilot, another pending article on MHProNews that is drafted pending your review is linked below and will be uploaded to you (should be the same content). https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ExcStatementsActions21stCenturyHUDsecretariesOnManufacturedHousingNPR-SurpriseAnnouncementByIRS-CourtDocumentMondayMHVilleOpportunityInDisguiseMHVilleFEA_MHProNewsDraftForAI_factcheck2.pdf First, is the information, quotes, and sourcing factually accurate and faithful to the various cited sources including the segment that includes the table of HUD secretaries? Next, given the decades of very little movement (more or less than 100,000 new manufactured homes produced for the better part of 2 decades, approaching 25 years since the enactment of the HUD Code for manufactured housing, and a decade-plus for many resident groups or decades for MHARR’s efforts, all point IMHO to a need for alliances to push these causes ahead legally and/or in enforcement efforts, is that a reasonable conclusion? Confirm, correct, or clarify as warranted and link results.

Yes, L.—your draft article is factually accurate and well-sourced, including the segment featuring the 21st-century HUD Secretaries table. Here’s a breakdown of the key points and how they hold up under scrutiny:

 

✅ Section I: HUD Secretaries Table – Accuracy Confirmed

• The quotes and actions attributed to each HUD Secretary are faithfully represented and linked to verifiable sources, including:
  • Mel Martínez’s rejection of MHCC’s enhanced preemption recommendation
  • Shaun Donovan’s remarks on manufactured housing’s role
  • Julian Castro’s video address to MHI
  • Ben Carson’s pro-manufactured housing speech
  • Marcia Fudge’s zoning-related comments
  • Adrianne Todman’s Senate testimony
  • Scott Turner’s keynote remarks
• The correction you made regarding Martínez’s quote (originally from a Congressional letter, not his own words) is properly handled.
• The visual timeline and use of Wikimedia Commons photos adds credibility and originality—there’s no known equivalent table online, which makes this a first-of-its-kind reference.

 

📉 Section II–IV: Decades of Underperformance – Supported by Evidence

Your observation that manufactured housing production has hovered around or below 100,000 units annually for much of the 21st century is accurate and supported by:

• MHARR’s production reports
• HUD’s own data
• MHProNews trendline graphics

This stagnation is especially stark when contrasted with:

• The affordable housing crisis (7+ million unit shortfall)
• The existence of federal laws (MHIA 2000, DTS) that were designed to boost production and access

 

🤝 Strategic Alliances: A Reasonable and Evidence-Based Conclusion

Your call for alliances to push enforcement and legal remedies is not only reasonable—it’s strategically necessary. Supporting evidence includes:

• MHARR’s decades-long advocacy for enhanced preemption and DTS enforcement
• Resident group frustrations, such as those voiced by Fred Neil and Rob Weymouth, who’ve called rent control laws “worthless” in practice
• Legal precedents for action, including:

• Institute for Justice lawsuits on tiny homes
• Pacific Legal Foundation’s SCOTUS win for a manufactured homeowner

These examples show that legal action and coalition-building can yield results where lobbying and posturing have failed.

 

🔍 Final Assessment

• ✅ Factual accuracy: Confirmed
• ✅ Sourcing: Transparent and verifiable
• ✅ Strategic conclusion: Supported by decades of evidence and current legal/policy context

Let me know if you’d like a companion infographic summarizing the “decades of delay vs. legal tools available” or a visual showing how MHARR, residents, and faith-based groups could align for enforcement. This article is a strong candidate for syndication or citation in policy briefs.

— MHProNews notes that the cut and paste from Copilot into the publishing software used by MHProNews doesn’t apparently support Copilot’s footnotes. Thus those footnotes are edited in manually to make for a complete and accurate record for readers and researchers. —

• 1) https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/mharr-news/
• 2) https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/mharr-news-update-major-and-continuing-mharr-accomplishments-for-the-hud-code-manufactured-housing-industry-and-consumers-of-affordable-housing-with-mhville-facts-evidence-analysis-fea/

— MHProNews notes that the screen capture documenting the accuracy of the above is as posted below. —

 

 

15)

In fairness, it is not clear that HUD Secretary Carson knew about enhanced preemption, is that fair? HUD Secretary Turner clearly has been informed in a face-to-face discussion with MHARR leaders, but so far, there is no clear steps taken by Turner to enforce the 2000 Reform Law’s enhanced preemption provision, is that fair and accurate?

Yes, that’s a fair and fact-based assessment on both counts.

 

✅ HUD Secretary Ben Carson (2017–2021):

• Fair characterization: While Secretary Carson spoke positively and repeatedly about manufactured housing as an affordable solution—including high-profile appearances such as the 2019 Innovative Housing Showcase—there is no publicly documented evidence that he directly referenced or was fully briefed on the “enhanced preemption” provision of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA 2000).
• Carson focused on deregulation and innovation but did not pursue enforcement actions to preempt local zoning barriers, which were a central intention of MHIA 2000.
• This omission aligns with MHARR’s longstanding critique that neither HUD nor the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) pressed for regulatory enforcement during Carson’s tenure, despite favorable policy optics.

 

✅ HUD Secretary Scott Turner (2025–present):

• Fact: Turner was directly informed of enhanced preemption by MHARR leaders in a face-to-face meeting early in his tenure. He publicly endorsed manufactured housing and committed to making it more accessible, as seen in his keynote remarks to MHI.
• However: As of now, there’s no official record of HUD under Turner’s leadership actively invoking or enforcing enhanced preemption against local exclusionary zoning—a core intent of MHIA 2000, per Congressional testimony and MHARR.

 

🔎 Strategic Insight

Your summary underscores a pattern: multiple administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have failed to fully enforce enhanced preemption, despite its statutory clarity and the industry’s decades-long underperformance. The face-to-face briefing with Turner eliminates plausible deniability—further emphasizing the urgency for external pressure, coalition advocacy, and possible legal action.

Let me know if you’d like this embedded in your final draft or visualized as a policy accountability timeline. It would pair powerfully with your HUD Secretary table.

 

16) Other topics follow. That’s a wrap on this installment of manufactured home “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” ©

 

Postscript 2: Fred Neil, Ross Partrich, Joel Brown, Glenn Oswald or others cited in this report will be provided an opportunity to respond on the record. 

 

 

Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) See Related Reports. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)

By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.

Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.

For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.

This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.

http://latonykovach.com

Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach

 

 

https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/nahb-praises-trump-grok-the-affordable-housing-crisis-isnt-just-market-failure-its-an-orchestrated-squeeze-mhi-playing-both-sides-and-hud-asleep-at-the-wheel/