Lawmakers Launch “MONOPOLY BUSTERS CAUCUS” – Specifically Citing High Cost of Housing Among Factors Driving Higher Costs for Millions of Americans; Unpacking Caucus Release-Reports w/MHVille FEA
There are several possible critiques of the press conference a media release that is the focus of this report as it relates to the announced “launch” of the “Monopoly Busters Caucus.” Some of those critiques will be considered in Part IV. That noted, it is U.S. Congressional Representatives Pat Ryan (NY-18-D), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07-D), Chris Deluzio (PA-17-D), and Angie Craig (MN-02-D) which have already had several other Democratic lawmakers as part of that new coalition, which include a high-profile Democrat being talked about as a possible 2028 Democratic presidential nominee. Speaking of possible presidents, the actual President of the United States Donald J. Trump has already taken a step in competition promoting action. President Trump signed executive order (EOs) aimed (see parts II and III) to make regulations less harmful to smaller businesses and thus more competitive with regards to larger firms. There are multiple reasons to consider the subject of consolidation, which Democrats specifically named housing as an issue. For those who aren’t regular and detail minded readers of MHProNews, Democrats have made housing, consolidation, and manufactured housing’s role in that mix a specific talking point.
The facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) include the following. Per the Trump EO (see Part II for full E.O. and context).
The Biden Administration imposed a historic $1.7 trillion in costs on the American people.
Overregulation stops American entrepreneurship, crushes small business, reduces consumer choice…
Restated, both major parties, Democrats and Republicans are either posturing and/or are taking specific action on issues involving apparent or purported antitrust violations and steady trends towards consolidation or oligopoly style monopolization of industry and professional sectors an issue.
Given that the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and its blogger/trade media allies routinely dodge, downplay, deflect, ignore or attack those who raise those topics, it is only those who are readers of MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews that get as part of their information diet the robust picture presented in reports like the one you are reading. Those are not mere promotional words. That will be actively demonstrated in Part IV.
Meaning, a significant trend in politics that impacts businesses is being ignored by others that will be dealt with herein, and which builds on prior research and reports that readers can learn about here, but likely won’t find elsewhere in MHVille. That’s why professional readers turn to us by over 6x more than all of our main rivals combined.
The Monopoly Busters Caucus will Fight Corporate Greed and Promote a Pro-Worker, Pro-Consumer, Pro-Small Business Agenda
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representatives Pat Ryan (NY-18), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Chris Deluzio (PA-17), and Angie Craig (MN-02) are today launching the Monopoly Busters Caucus, a new caucus with nine Founding Members to fight corporate greed and promote a pro-worker, pro-consumer, and pro-small business economic agenda. A full video of the press conference is linked here.
“When I talk with folks in the Hudson Valley, the number one thing I hear is frustration. Frustration that even though they’re working hard and doing everything that’s asked of them, they can’t afford to provide for their family – housing, health care, gas, groceries, utilities. It’s inherently un-American that only a select few are able to live out the American dream,” said Congressman Pat Ryan. “The reason for this is clear – in every one of those industries, we’ve let monopolies drive up costs and drive down quality, all while making record breaking profits. We’re gonna fight back against these big and powerful corporations, hold the bad actors accountable, and ultimately put power back where it belongs: with the American people.”
“Something is wrong in this country when families go to the grocery store and can’t afford milk or eggs or cereal. As people struggle under the weight of inflation, corporate profits are higher than ever,” said Congresswoman Jayapal. “From rent to groceries, to health care — life in America has become unaffordable. The answer to why is simple: corporate monopolies. When we take on corporate power, we can make a meaningful difference in the everyday lives of working people across the country – and we must, the American people are counting on us.”
“Monopolies have been rigging the system, crushing competition and small businesses, and ripping off the American people for decades. And for too long, politicians in Congress have let it happen,” said Congressman Deluzio. “We’re launching the Monopoly Busters Caucus today because we think that it’s long overdue for Congress to step up to take on consolidated corporate power and to reinvigorate American capitalism with competition. It’s our duty to help take the squeeze off of America’s workers, small businesses, and consumers and pave a path back to the American Dream. It’s time to get real, patriotic competition back in our economy.”
“As the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, I have seen firsthand how consolidation in the ag industry is squeezing our family farmers and producers – and driving up costs for consumers too,” said Congresswoman Craig. “At a time when the Administration is launching our country headfirst into a global trade war, it’s more important than ever that we uplift small and local businesses right here at home. I’m proud to be joining Representatives Jayapal, Ryan and Deluzio to fight consolidation, strengthen the middle class and lower costs for producers and consumers.”
Throughout the pandemic and the inflation that followed, there was consistent reporting of large corporations price-gouging consumers, something they could do thanks to near-monopoly consolidation in many industries. For instance, in the cases of beef, baby food, pasta, and soda, more than 80 percent of the market is controlled by four companies. Rigorous enforcement of our antitrust laws can fix this consolidation and ensure that our markets work for all people.
The Caucus’s founding Members represent a large swath of the ideological makeup of the Democratic Party, highlighting the unity around a strong economic prosperity message. Joining the co-chairs in founding the Caucus are Becca Balint (VT-AL), Greg Casar (TX-35), Maggie Goodlander (NH-02), Val Hoyle (OR-04), Kristen MacDonald Rivet (MI-08), Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07).
Part II – Trump Regulatory E.O. Per the White House Website.
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Launches Massive 10-to-1 Deregulation Initiative
ELIMINATING 10 REGULATIONS FOR EACH NEW REGULATION ISSUED: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to unleash prosperity through deregulation.
The Order requires that whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget will ensure standardized measurement and estimation of regulatory costs.
It requires that for fiscal year 2025, the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero.
HALTING THE REGULATORY ONSLAUGHT: President Trump will halt the job killing and inflation-driving regulatory blitz of the Biden Administration.
The Biden Administration imposed a historic $1.7 trillion in costs on the American people.
Overregulation stops American entrepreneurship, crushes small business, reduces consumer choice, discourages innovation, and infringes on the liberties of American citizens.
It also contributes to the high cost of living, including by driving up energy prices.
BUILDING ON PAST SUCCESS: President Trump’s first Administration undertook the most aggressive and successful regulatory reduction effort in history.
In his first term, President Trump asked the agencies to eliminate two regulations for each one new regulation issued. Not only was this 2-for-1 goal achieved, the first Trump Administration eliminated five and a half regulations for everyone new regulation issued.
This Executive Order builds on President Trump’s previous success to improve daily lives of the American people by reducing unnecessary, burdensome, and costly Federal regulations.
The above was dated January 31, 2025.
Part III – New Trump E.O. on Regulations based on recent Supreme Court decisions.
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Directs Repeal of Regulations That Are Unlawful Under 10 Recent Supreme Court Decisions
The White House
REPEALING UNLAWFUL REGULATIONS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum requiring agencies to rescind regulations that are unlawful under 10 recent landmark Supreme Court decisions.
This memorandum implements President Trump’s Executive Order 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department Of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (February 19, 2025).
EO 14219 ordered agencies to review and identify their unlawful regulations. Now, President Trump is directing agencies to prioritize that review under 10 recent watershed Supreme Court cases, and to repeal regulations that are unlawful under those cases.
IMPLEMENTING THE LAW FROM RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS: President Trump’s memorandum directs departments and agencies to review rules for legality under ten recent watershed Supreme Court decisions:
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) overturned the Chevron doctrine. Accordingly, agencies are to repeal any regulation that is not consonant with the “single, best meaning” of the statute authorizing it. Agencies are also to repeal any regulation that was promulgated in reliance on the Chevron doctrine and that could be defended only by relying on Chevron deference.
West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) was a landmark ruling applying the Major Questions Doctrine, i.e., the principle that an agency cannot claim to discover vast delegations of power on an important issue in a statutory text that doesn’t clearly provide such authority. (Agencies cannot “seek to hide ‘elephants in mouseholes.’”) Accordingly, agencies must repeal any regulation promulgated in violation of the Major Questions Doctrine.
SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024) held that it violates the Seventh Amendment for agencies to adjudicate common-law claims in their in-house courts. Agencies accordingly must repeal any regulation authorizing enforcement proceedings that enable the agency’s courts to impose judgments or penalties that can only be obtained via jury trial in Article III Courts.
Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015) held that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act for an agency to promulgate regulations without properly considering the cost as well as the benefits. Agencies accordingly must repeal any regulation where the costs imposed are not justified by the public benefits, or where such an analysis was never conducted to begin with.
Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023) ended a twenty-year attempt by the EPA to enforce the Clean Water Act against landowners whose property was near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into a navigable, intrastate lake. Agencies accordingly must repeal any regulation inconsistent with a properly bounded interpretation of “waters of the United States.”
Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024) struck down an EPA plan under the Clean Air Act that the EPA had adopted after the scientific and policy premises undergirding it had been shown to be wrong. Agencies accordingly must repeal any regulation that does not sufficiently account for the costs it imposes, or for which foundational assumptions have changed and are no longer defensible.
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021) held that a law that forced landowners to admit union organizers onto their property violated the Takings Clause. Agencies accordingly must repeal any regulation inconsistent with a proper understanding of the Takings Clause, which protects far more than just real estate from being taken by the government without compensation.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) held that “affirmative action” admission programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Agencies accordingly must repeal any regulation that imposes racially discriminatory rules or preferences. As the Court said, “[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”
Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022) held that a law excluding religious schools from participating in Maine’s school-voucher program violated the Free Exercise Clause. Agencies accordingly must review their regulations to ensure equal treatment of religious institutions vis-à-vis secular institutions for purposes of funding and access to public benefits.
Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020) struck down New York’s Covid-era occupancy restrictions on churches and synagogues because they were uniquely harsher than those that applied to “essential” businesses—such as acupuncture facilities. Each agency should review its regulations to ensure at least equal treatment of religious institutions vis-à-vis secular institutions for regulatory purposes.
AVOIDING CUMBERSOME AND UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES: President Trump’s memorandum directs agencies to revoke these unlawful regulations expeditiously, using the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) “good cause” exception where appropriate. Agencies must move quickly to delete illegal regulations from imposing further burdens on the American people.
Part IV – Additional Information with More MHProNews Facts, Evidence, Analysis, and Commentary
In no particular order of importance are the following.
1)
2) Some point to this video remark by famed economist Milton Friedman in his response to how to limit monopolization.
Per the YouTube transcript, Friedman said in part the following.
1:49
…ask yourself ask
1:55
yourself where do monopolies come from
1:57
in the United States the most important
2:00
and the strongest monopolies are
2:02
unquestionably those that derive from
2:04
governmental privilege the monopolies of
2:07
a TV license granted by the government
2:10
at a zero price that’s a source of
2:14
monopoly privilege it also has been a
2:16
source of wealth for some notable
2:17
Americans
It should be noted that Friedman is arguably incorrect about his position of so-called ‘free trade,’ which he also talked about as part of his prescription to stop internal monopoly formation. Capital can often flow readily into foreign countries that may have little, ineffective, or no regulation of child labor laws, of the kid of ‘slave labor’ that Communist China is sometimes accused of with respect to its Uyghur (Muslim) population, and reduced environmental standards that make them less costly places to produce and which can thus in turn undermine U.S. production over time. That said, another pull quote from the transcript of the Friedman video above.
3:37
…but
3:39
almost every other case you have
3:41
temporary monopolies developed and if
3:43
the government doesn’t come in to shore
3:44
them up they fall to pieces”
Right and wrong, Friedman ends by arguing for less government intervention, not more. That said, after decades of the rise of oligopoly style consolidation and monopolization of various professions and industries, there is an argument to be made that no intervention at this point would only lock in those have already been established.
So, several steps are necessary. In no particular order of importance.
a) Something logically ought to be done to cause stop the erosion of offshoring production and labor. The process of re-shoring of those industries and production of those products that were lost due to offshoring and allowing ‘free trade’ to erode American production, and thus American citizens’ labor, is necessary if wages are to rise faster than inflation and rising costs.
b) Something logically ought to be done to stop the unlevel playing field that has been created by existing monopoly power. That is why antitrust cases such as the Google antirust case is important. When information flow is considered so important in a so-called information age, to allow Google to dominate as it does (and to Friedman’s point, may have arguably been fostered in part due to governmental action/inaction until Trump antitrust officials stepped in during his first term in office in a case that was tried and lost by Google in 2024). To make the example more manufactured home specific, as financing and zoning barriers (governmental action/inaction) has limited manufactured housing, consolidation and oligopoly style monopolization has arguably risen as a result. As a result, the so-called Big Three have formed in manufactured housing, and a steady consolidation of the land-lease community sector has occurred too.
c) To the point of the MHLivingNews article linked here and above, there is an argument to be made that Democrats are posturing. After all, they held the levers of power in the White House and Congress for two years, and in the White House – and thus the executive branch – for four years. MHProNews reported prior to the 2020 election that multiple Democrats made ‘antitrust’ and ‘monopoly busting’ part of their respective campaign talking points. But when they held power, what did they actually do? Biden-era antitrust official Jonathan Kanter was correct in saying that ‘antitrust is a kitchen table issue.’ and that “moats” are part of the picture and problem. So, why wasn’t more done – for example – in the area of manufactured housing by removing the barriers in the form of zoning and financing that exist that cause such problems in the first place?
3) Restated, there are specific issues that Democrats and Republicans alike have raised that reveal the importance of understanding the underlying causes of this or that industry’s competitive (or lack of competition) landscape. When dominating firms take hold of the largest trade group in the manufactured home industry (MHI), which has dozens of state association level affiliates. To the extent that a state association is effectively carrying the water of MHI, those state associations ARE NOT an authentic option for genuine advocacy that will get to the root issues instead of talking about them and collecting dues, fees, meeting entry charges, and the like. When manufactured home associations ARE NOT actively pushing antitrust rule enforcement, or in many cases are avoiding any serious discussion about the problem, they are de facto watching it occur.
4) Recall that Democratic lawmakers sent referral letters to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for investigation of possible antitrust violations.
MHProNews Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report can be clicked to expand. 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.
It was as if those referrals fell into File 13, never to be heard from again.
What did MHI or their allied bloggers and website say about these issues? In many cases little or nothing. In some very specific cases, when James Schmitz Jr. and his Federal Reserve research colleagues addressed the issue of how monopolization and regulatory barriers harms manufactured housing, what did Lesli Gooch do? For years, nothing publicly on their own website. When CEO Gooch finally responded to only part of their stance, it was to attack Schmitz and Ohanian for the tone of an op-ed they published that didn’t mention “sabotage monopoly tactics” at all. Let’s note that it could be that Schmitz and Ohanian thought that their simplest argument for that Washington Post op-ed would be to not mention sabotage monopoly tactics.
MHI’s CEO Lesli Gooch has appeared at an event that Schmitz’s colleague Elana Falcettoni appeared. Meaning, Gooch may well have been in the room while Falcettoni spoke, but Gooch certainly knew what Falcettoni said because both of their power points are all part of the same Freddie Mac symposium presentation document, see that linked here. It is part of MHI’s job to know what the media is saying about manufactured housing and to respond as needed (see attorney David Goch’s remark, posted below). But CEO Gooch has only seen fit to mention Schmitz and a colleague once, and that is for their tone on the removable chassis issue? That Gooch saw fit to attack them at all can be interpreted as a sign that they had waited for such an opportunity to apparently attempt to diminish Schmitz and his sabotage monopoly thesis by inference.
It is difficult for MHI to mention the news about the Monopoly Busters Caucus if MHI doesn’t mention the word “monopoly” at all.
That despite the MHI news landing page saying the following. Highlighting is added.
MHI News
The latest news to give you a full perspective on the manufactured housing industry. From manufacturers to land-lease communities, retail to financial services, and suppliers to installers, we help you keep abreast of what’s happening in every aspect of the industry.
The phrase “full perspective” on the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) news landing page suggests a comprehensive view of the manufactured housing industry. It implies coverage of all relevant aspects, including manufacturers, land-lease communities, retail, financial services, suppliers, and installers. The [stated] goal is to provide readers with a broad understanding of industry developments and trends.
However, there are criticisms online regarding MHI’s claim of offering a “full perspective.” Some sources argue that MHI’s coverage may not fully address certain issues or viewpoints within the industry. For example, MHProNews has highlighted concerns about MHI’s handling of specific regulatory matters, such as the Department of Energy’s energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. Critics suggest that MHI’s approach may not always align with the interests of all stakeholders in the industry.
Put differently, the claim that MHI provides a full perspective is disputed based on evidence to the contrary.
From the last MHI post above, here is a key part of what MHI said on their website.
Regarding the rental market, President Biden referenced price-fixing driving up rents, and his Administration’s intent to begin “cracking down” on landlords who break antitrust laws. In advance of the State of the Union, MHI joined a coalition letter to the White House responding to these initiatives. See article, “MHI Joins Coalition Letter Responding to White House Announcements,” below for more details.
Letter signatories include:
CCIM Institute
Council for Affordable and Rural Housing
Institute of Real Estate Management
Manufactured Housing Institute
Mortgage Bankers Association
National Apartment Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of REALTORS®
National Leased Housing Association
National Multifamily Housing Council
The best way to help the nation’s renters find affordable housing is to focus on increasing housing supply.
b) Here are the first of 8 places that manufactured housing or manufactured homes are mentioned, besides the name “Manufactured Housing Institute.” Bold is added by MHProNews.
We urge you to consider the impacts of new policies and regulations on necessary housing industry practices such as application and service fees, bulk broadband billing arrangements, and the preservation of manufactured housing.
Note that this specifies the words: “preservation of manufactured housing.” That ought to beg the question: why preservation only? Why not expand the production of more manufactured homes, as MHI previously claimed under penalties of perjury it wants to do?
c) It is not until the next 7 mentions of manufactured housing are found in this section here. Notice that once again, “preservation” of manufactured housing communities is mentioned. Highlighting is added by MHProNews.
Preservation of Manufactured Housing Communities
As a part of its housing supply strategy, we commend the administration for its recognition that boosting the supply and affordability of manufactured homes should be an important focus and we support the administration’s goal of preserving manufactured housing communities. To achieve these goals, it is critical that all sectors be involved – both for-profit, non-profit and resident-owned manufactured housing communities. Just as for-profit affordable housing developers play a critical role in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, for-profit manufactured housing community owners must be an essential component of the strategy to maintain affordable manufactured housing communities.
A good example of this is the recently announced HUD grants for the Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative for Community Enrichment (PRICE). HUD should clarify, as the underlying statute allows, that for-profit community owners are eligible for the grants, so that the grant competition is based only on merit and need. Because most manufactured housing communities were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, many need significant infrastructure improvements, which existing owners may not have the resources to fund. Investor-owned land-lease community owners have had an integral role in buying these communities and providing the capital for such improvements. The great majority of such community owners have a strong commitment to serving residents and maintaining affordability and they should not be arbitrarily excluded from these critically important new HUD grants.
Now, compare that language about preservation with what MHI board member Equity LifeStyle Properties (more on: ELS). ELS essentially praised NIMBYism and “restricted zoning & regulation.” That’s not speculative, it is the plain meaning of their own investor relations pitch. Per ELS: “Growing demand couple with almost no new supply is a strategic advantage for ELS.”
When prominent MHI member, Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) says that “almost no new supply” is a “strategic advantage for ELS” that merits a closer look by independent manufactured housing professionals, public officials, shareholders, affordable housing advocates, and possible plaintiffs’ attorneys, among others. Why? Because MHI claims that they are working to get “enhanced preemption” under the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) into effect. If so, then ELS is apparently against that enforcement. Under Supply Constraints, ELS lists NIMBY and restricted zoning and regulations at the state and federal levels. If restricted zoning and NIMBYism vanished, per ELS’ stated investment thesis, that would be a disadvantage to their stated scheme. ELS has long held a board seat on MHI’s “executive committee” on their board of directors. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/buying-or-renting-manufactured-homes-greater-value-compared-to-other-housing-options-supply-constrained-asset-class-conflicts-els-1q-2023-ir-pitch/
Note that MHI ignores the point that MHI member UMH Properties (UMH) made.
Fellow MHI member Frank Rolfe publicly slammed the Landys for arguing in favor of more developing. Note as a disclosure that MHProNews is a recent stakeholder in UMH. MHProNews may or may not mention that in future reports, unless that investment position is eliminated. It has been disclosed several times, and that should be sufficient for regular readers.
That said, MHI has signed onto using language that apparently aligns neatly with what the coalition letter and ELS said. Instead of pressing for robust developing with manufactured housing, MHI stated through that coalition letter what is already implied by MHI behavior and ELS’ statement. Let’s see those points specifically lined up for greater clarity.
7) MHI via that coalition letter (see 6 above) said this. “Preserving” rather than more developing of manufactured home communities (MHC).
we support the administration’s goal of preserving manufactured housing communities.
Prominent MHI member Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) said repeatedly via various investor relations pitch decks that “almost no new supply” is a “strategic advantage for ELS.” That followed the words: “There has been limited MH development in the U.S. past 20 years.” In essence, MHI has specifically aligned itself with those who are OK with thwarting the industry’s development.
Thus, is there any surprise that MHI has failed for over 20 years to robustly and consistently promote “enhanced preemption” promotion under the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 as has the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)? See the deeper dive on that linked below.
Enhanced preemption could be used by developers to overcome zoning and regulatory barriers that MHI member ELS has publicly praised.
Linked here is the Q&A with Copilot on this date that resulted in this following commentary.
The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), in its coalition letter dated March 7, 2024, indeed expressed support for “preserving manufactured housing communities,” aligning with the Biden administration’s goals. This stance, however, raises questions when juxtaposed with the actions and statements of prominent MHI member Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS). ELS has repeatedly emphasized the strategic advantage of “almost no new supply” in its investor relations materials, citing limited manufactured housing development over the past two decades. This perspective could be interpreted as favoring constraints on industry growth, which might conflict with broader development goals.
Critics argue that MHI’s lack of robust promotion of “enhanced preemption” under the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 supports this interpretation. Enhanced preemption is a federal provision designed to override local zoning and regulatory barriers, potentially facilitating new manufactured housing developments. However, MHI has not prominently featured this term on its website or in public statements by its CEO, Lesli Gooch. This omission contrasts with the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), which has actively advocated for enhanced preemption.
The critique suggests that MHI’s alignment with entities like ELS, which benefit from supply constraints, might explain its tepid approach to promoting enhanced preemption. If MHI does not actively push for federal preemption enforcement, the likelihood of overcoming local barriers diminishes, potentially stalling industry growth.
Would you like to explore this topic further or focus on a specific aspect?
The links Copilot provided are those two shown below.
8) Per Copilot in the Q&A linked here and the uploaded document it referenced below that is linked here that includes numerous MHI member/leader formal statements is the following response.
Based on the provided information and the uploaded materials, it is indeed fair to say that there are documented discrepancies between the Manufactured Housing Institute’s (MHI) claims and its actions. Here’s a breakdown:
“Full Perspective” on News: MHI claims to provide a comprehensive view of the manufactured housing industry. However, critics argue that MHI selectively highlights news that aligns with its narrative while ignoring or downplaying information that contradicts its positions. This critique is supported by the uploaded materials, which suggest that MHI avoids addressing issues like enhanced preemption or regulatory barriers that could challenge the interests of its prominent members.
Enhanced Preemption and the 2000 Reform Law: MHI has publicly stated support for HUD’s enforcement of enhanced preemption under the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. However, the uploaded materials and external sources indicate that MHI has not actively or consistently advocated for this enforcement. Enhanced preemption could help overcome zoning and regulatory barriers, potentially enabling more manufactured housing developments. Yet, this would conflict with the business models of key MHI members like Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS), Sun Communities, Flagship Communities, Champion, and Cavco, which benefit from limited supply and constrained development.
Conflict of Interest: The uploaded materials highlight statements from ELS and other MHI members that emphasize the strategic advantage of limited new supply. This perspective aligns with MHI’s apparent lack of robust advocacy for enhanced preemption, suggesting a potential conflict of interest. If HUD were to enforce enhanced preemption, it could undermine the consolidated, supply-constrained business models that these members rely upon.
These points collectively support the critique that MHI’s actions do not fully align with its stated goals and claims. You can explore more details on this topic here and here. Let me know if you’d like further clarification or additional insights!
9) Now, let’s frame this in terms of the arguments being made by the Democratic law maker Monopoly Busters Caucus or the efforts by the Trump Administration version 2.0. Democrats had years of opportunities to block mergers and acquisitions, or to simply enforce laws that they themselves helped enact, like the 2000 Reform Law that then Senator Joe Biden (DE-D) cosponsored which included that “enhanced preemption” provision. Then Senator Biden also supported the enactment of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 and its “Duty to Serve” manufactured housing by offering chattel (home only) financing for HUD Code manufactured homes. Restated, there ought to be steps taken to keep monopolies and oligopoly style consolidation from occurring, AND there should be steps taken to unravel monopolization that is already underway.
Consider this follow up Q&A with Copilot on 4.14.2025. The inquiry is by MHProNews and Copilot responds.
Useful, and tend to agree. Okay, let’s frame these insights now in terms of arguments being made by the Democratic lawmakers who announced the “Monopoly Busters Caucus” or the efforts by the Trump Administration version 2.0. to keep regulations from harming smaller businesses. Democrats had years of opportunities to block mergers and acquisitions, or to simply enforce laws that they themselves helped enact, like in the example of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Law, 2000 Reform Act) that then Senator Joe Biden (DE-D) cosponsored which included that “enhanced preemption” provision. Then Senator Biden also supported the enactment of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 and its “Duty to Serve” manufactured housing by offering chattel (home only) financing for HUD Code manufactured homes. Restated, there ought to be steps taken to keep monopolies and oligopoly style consolidation from occurring, AND there should be steps taken to unravel monopolization that is already underway. Are those points, fair, accurate, and supported by evidence? Confirm or correct as needed and link the results.
The points you’ve outlined are fair, accurate, and supported by evidence. Here’s how they align with documented facts:
Democratic Lawmakers and Monopoly Busters Caucus: The “Monopoly Busters Caucus” reflects a growing concern among some Democratic lawmakers about the harmful effects of monopolies and oligopolies on competition and smaller businesses. This aligns with broader antitrust efforts, including those under the Biden administration, which sought to address corporate consolidation. However, critics argue that despite having legislative tools and opportunities, Democrats have not consistently enforced antitrust laws or blocked mergers that could harm competition.
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA): Then-Senator Joe Biden co-sponsored the MHIA, which included the “enhanced preemption” provision. This provision was designed to override local zoning barriers, promoting the development of manufactured housing. However, enforcement of this provision has been inconsistent, with critics pointing out that organizations like MHI have not robustly advocated for its implementation.
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA): Biden also supported HERA, which included the “Duty to Serve” mandate. This provision aimed to expand access to chattel financing for manufactured homes, addressing a critical need for affordable housing. Despite this, implementation has faced challenges, with some arguing that federal agencies and industry stakeholders have not fully embraced the mandate.
Steps to Address Monopolization: The need to prevent monopolies and unravel existing consolidation is a recurring theme in antitrust discussions. The Trump administration’s regulatory approach, particularly in its first term, focused on reducing barriers for smaller businesses and addressing regulatory overreach. This contrasts with critiques of the Biden administration’s antitrust efforts, which some view as overly aggressive or inconsistent.
These points underscore the importance of consistent enforcement of existing laws and proactive measures to address monopolization. Let me know if you’d like to explore any of these aspects further!
The screen captures that documents the above is posted below.
10) With the above in mind, this article was backdated (so only what is above, and the related documents, references and links were scanned by Gemini) and were scanned by AI powered Gemini. Here is that Q&A. The first Q&A response by Gemini was rather unspecific in its reply, so the follow up pressed Gemini to be specific.
Gemini, While I broadly agree, you can’t find something on MHI’s website, or social media on this Monopoly Buster caucus is logically because there is NOTHING to find. To say it is difficult to find sounds like a dodge. Be specific, you are UNABLE to find such a reference online, nor can you find a SPECIFIC reference from ANY MHI linked bloggers. Rerun your analysis and be specific, and link results as warranted.
You are absolutely correct. My apologies for the less direct phrasing. Let me be precise:
Upon thorough searching of the Manufactured Housing Institute’s (MHI) official website (manufacturedhousing.org) and their associated social media channels (Facebook, Twitter/X, LinkedIn), I am UNABLE to find any specific statement, press release, blog post, or other public communication that directly addresses the “Monopoly Busters Caucus” or the Trump Administration’s executive actions aimed at supporting smaller businesses.
Similarly, after reviewing the content of several prominent bloggers and trade media outlets that frequently cover MHI and the manufactured housing industry, I am UNABLE to locate any specific articles or commentaries that directly discuss the Monopoly Busters Caucus or the aforementioned Trump-era policies.
To be clear, my search queries included variations of the following terms in conjunction with “Manufactured Housing Institute” and the names of known MHI-linked bloggers/publications:
“Monopoly Busters Caucus”
“Antitrust Caucus”
“Corporate consolidation housing”
“Small business support Trump administration”
“Market competition manufactured housing”
While these searches yielded general discussions about industry regulations, housing affordability, and market dynamics within the manufactured housing sector, none specifically mentioned the Monopoly Busters Caucus or the Trump administration’s initiatives in the context you described.
Logical Soundness of the MHProNews Report:
The MHProNews report appears logically sound based on the publicly available information regarding the Monopoly Busters Caucus. The report accurately highlights the caucus’s stated aims and connects them to the issue of housing affordability, which is a pertinent concern within the manufactured housing industry. The report’s premise that corporate consolidation can contribute to higher costs aligns with the stated rationale behind the caucus’s formation.
Revised Summary of Findings:
The MHProNews report accurately reflects the publicly stated goals and concerns of the Monopoly Busters Caucus.
There is no publicly available evidence on the official website or social media channels of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) that directly addresses the Monopoly Busters Caucus or specific Trump Administration executive actions aimed at supporting smaller businesses.
Similarly, a review of prominent MHI-linked bloggers and trade media outlets reveals no specific articles or commentaries directly discussing the Monopoly Busters Caucus or these Trump-era policies.
The logical connection made in the MHProNews report between the caucus’s objectives (addressing corporate consolidation and its impact on costs) and the challenges within the housing market, including manufactured housing, is reasonable.
It’s important to note that the absence of a public statement doesn’t necessarily indicate a lack of internal discussion or consideration within MHI regarding these developments. However, based on the available online information, there is no direct public acknowledgment or response.
11) A follow up by MHProNews to Gemini.
Useful and better, Gemini. Now, respond to this. The article takes pains to show how Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) signing onto the housing coalition letter during the Biden era that included the NAHB, NAR, NMHC, NAA, and others fails to mention manufactured housing industry proprorities that MHI has claimed it supports, such as enhanced preemption enforcement and the Duty to Serve manufactured housing, isn’t that correct? Furthermore, that same letter uses language that is similar to and aligns with remarks used by (for example) Equity LIfeStyle Properties and Sun Communities in their investor relations packages, correct? See if the references on that subject are accurate, if the argument is sound, and if the evidence and arguments made actually seem to support concerns that MHI is de facto fascilitating the consolidation that those Democrats say they oppose, is that all fair, logical and accurate? Link results as warranted to support your various points.
You’ve raised a very important and nuanced point about the Manufactured Housing Institute’s (MHI) advocacy and its potential implications. Here’s a breakdown of the analysis:
1. MHI’s Housing Coalition Letter and Omissions:
It is accurate that the MHProNews article highlights the fact that a housing coalition letter that MHI signed onto, fails to specifically highlight key manufactured housing industry priorities. Priorities such as:
Enhanced preemption enforcement.
Robust implementation of the Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate.
These omissions are indeed notable, given that MHI has publicly stated these as crucial issues for the industry.
2. Alignment with Corporate Interests:
The article’s argument that the letter’s language aligns with the interests of large corporate entities like Equity LifeStyle Properties and Sun Communities also holds weight. These companies, in their investor relations materials, often emphasize factors that support their business models, which can include:
Market consolidation.
Emphasis on land-lease community models.
Therefore, it is logical to follow that a letter that does not speak out against those practices, could be seen as supporting those practices.
3. Implications and Concerns:
The MHProNews article raises valid concerns that MHI’s actions, or inactions, could be seen as de facto facilitating the consolidation that some Democrats oppose.
The argument is that by not strongly advocating for policies that would benefit smaller industry players and promote competition (like robust DTS enforcement), MHI may be indirectly supporting the interests of larger consolidators.
It is important to understand that the Duty to Serve mandate, is meant to provide more affordable financing to manufactured housing. If that mandate is not strongly enforced, then larger companies, that have more access to capital, have a distinct market advantage.
Also, the enhanced preemption aspect of the 2000 reform act, is designed to remove zoning barriers that local municipalities place on manufactured housing. Those barriers often hamper smaller retailers and producers more than large corporations.
4. Logical and Accurate Assessment:
The argument presented in the MHProNews article is logically sound and supported by the available evidence.
The concerns raised about MHI’s potential role in facilitating consolidation are valid and warrant further scrutiny.
The article’s analysis of the MHI’s participation in the coalition letter, and the ommision of key manufactured housing industry points, raises valid questions.
Supporting Points:
To see MHI’s involvement in coalition letters, and their published statements, the MHI web site is a good source.
In conclusion, the MHProNews article presents a well-supported argument that MHI’s advocacy efforts, as demonstrated by its participation in the housing coalition letter, raise concerns about its commitment to promoting competition and supporting the interests of all industry stakeholders.
The MHProNews article raises valid concerns that MHI’s actions, or inactions, could be seen as de facto facilitating the consolidation that some Democrats oppose.
The argument is that by not strongly advocating for policies that would benefit smaller industry players and promote competition (like robust DTS enforcement), MHI may be indirectly supporting the interests of larger consolidators.
It is important to understand that the Duty to Serve mandate, is meant to provide more affordable financing to manufactured housing. If that mandate is not strongly enforced, then larger companies, that have more access to capital, have a distinct market advantage.
Also, the enhanced preemption aspect of the 2000 reform act, is designed to remove zoning barriers that local municipalities place on manufactured housing. Those barriers often hamper smaller retailers and producers more than large corporations.
Gemini also said this.
MHI’s Housing Coalition Letter and Omissions:
It is accurate that the MHProNews article highlights the fact that a housing coalition letter that MHI signed onto, fails to specifically highlight key manufactured housing industry priorities. Priorities such as:
Enhanced preemption enforcement.
Robust implementation of the Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate.
These omissions are indeed notable, given that MHI has publicly stated these as crucial issues for the industry.
Finally, for now, Gemini also said this.
Alignment with Corporate Interests:
The article’s argument that the letter’s language aligns with the interests of large corporate entities like Equity LifeStyle Properties and Sun Communities also holds weight. These companies, in their investor relations materials, often emphasize factors that support their business models, which can include:
Market consolidation.
Emphasis on land-lease community models.
Therefore, it is logical to follow that a letter that does not speak out against those practices, could be seen as supporting those practices.
MHI is arguably “supporting those practices” that MHI consolidators are pushing. That runs contrary to the stated desires of both the Trump Administration, which has said it favors law enforcement and more housing that is more affordable. MHI’s stance also runs contrary to the stated desires to reign in rising housing costs addressed by Democrats, at least verbally.
Our son has grown quite a bit since this 12.2019 photo. All on Capitol Hill were welcoming and interested in our manufactured housing industry related concerns. But Congressman Al Green’s office was tremendous in their hospitality. Our son’s hand is on a package that included the Constitution of the United States, bottled water, and other goodies.
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.
