FROM: MARK WEISS

We wish to acknowledge the overwhelming response that MHARR has received from industry members to its March 2016 MHARR Viewpoint column, “As Predicted by MHARR, HUD Delivers Worst of Both Worlds on Installation,” published in the Journal of Manufactured Housing, and also thank those who have taken the time to contact us.

One concern that is expressed often in these responses, is whether the regulation of the manufactured housing industry should remain at the federal level, or whether that authority should be returned to state or even local governments.

The short answer to such questions, which arise from justified frustration with the trajectory of the HUD program under its current management, and a regulatory approach that seems increasingly to be out-of-touch with the real world, is – and for very sound reasons, must be – “no.”

The answer must be “no” because the industry – and more so consumers of affordable housing – must not be victims of the HUD program’s failure to fully and properly implement the law.  To the contrary, this should be a powerful incentive for the industry and consumers to become even more vigilant and resolute in reversing such program mismanagement.

Indeed, the federal law is crucial because of the three unique elements of federal-level regulation that enable manufacturers to produce factory-built housing at affordable prices, i.e., federal preemption, uniform standards and uniform enforcement.  These fundamental characteristics, which cannot be achieved at the state – or even worse – local level, lie at the heart of the costs savings that the industry passes to home buyers in the form of affordable housing, and what distinguishes highly-affordable HUD Code manufactured homes from other types of factory-built housing, such as modular homes, sectionals, pre-fabs, etc. 

That said, the frustration felt by many is justified, but the problem is not the law itself or even the federal program itself.  The 2000 reform law was the product of more than a decade of hard work by all stakeholders, which should not be sacrificed because of matters that can be corrected with some focused and targeted effort by the industry and consumers.

The problem, rather, particularly over the past two years, is – and continues to be – the weak and unaccountable management of the HUD program under a selected, career Administrator, who, under the influence of entrenched revenue-driven contractors, has (unlike her immediate predecessor) distorted and twisted the program into a bureaucratic quagmire that bears no relation to the actual facts on the ground, and has consistently favored the industry’s largest businesses to the detriment of smaller businesses in all sectors.

Instead of abandoning the law and the federal program, the industry and consumers must rather insist that the HUD Secretary comply with the 2000 reform law regarding a new program administrator, and appoint an accountable, non-career administrator for the program as provided by Congress, to put an end to the negative and damaging program trajectory that industry members correctly perceive exists today.  

We thank you again for your responses and please continue to provide us with your observations and input going forward.