‘Pending House-Senate Housing Bills are Terrible Legislation for Manufactured Housing Industry Independent Producers-Retailers-Communities-Affordable Housing Consumers.’ Is MHI Responsible? FEA

“Industry pioneer Danny Ghorbani and the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) have exposed a catastrophic structural flaw in the bill,” (see #8 further below). Former Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) vice president and Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) founding president and CEO (now senior advisor) Danny Ghorbani said the following in a recent message to MHProNews. Ghorbani made the remarks in the context of the report linked here.

“The pending House and Senate Housing are terrible legislation for manufactured housing industry independent producers, retailers, communities and affordable housing consumers. Aside from the removable chassis issue, which has its own unique and checkered history, the pending legislative language – unless amended – could undermine or potentially destroy mainstream manufactured housing as we know it today. Unless the final bill includes the MHARR amendments, MHI and its allies who have been involved in and supported the developing bills should be held responsible and accountable for any further harm done to the most affordable segment of our industry. Trusting industry manufactured housing industry members and our consumers who depend on mainstream manufactured homes as the only source of home ownership millions can afford.”

1. That isn’t new, per se, but that is concise. As Ghorbani commented by phone, “Tony, I read all your stuff” on MHProNews.  He is hardly alone, as scores of c-suite, industry management, rank and file, public officials, attorneys and others are among the regular readers of MHProNews. Webalizer tells us that roughly half of all readers just type in (or use a bookmark, device, or browser auto populate feature) to go directly to the MHProNews home page. That segue noted, MHProNews raised a similar topic to Ghorbani’s point by showing what various artificial intelligence (AI) platforms discerned about the possible consequences if MHI’s corporate, senior staff, and legal leaders allow the bill to go into effect without the proposed MHARR amendments. In essence, those facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) model probe by AIs (see below) made a similar finding to Ghorbani’s human intelligence (HI) remarks. Namely, that there was accountability, and potentially legal liability, if MHI fails to pivot and effect the proposed MHARR amendments.

2. According to those third-party AIs (see above), there are fiduciary, possible antitrust or RICO, SEC and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) nonprofit status related issues among those tied to the possible consequences if the pending legislation fails to do what is claimed.

It should be recalled that prior MHI chairman and current Cavco Industries (CVCO) President and CEO, William “Bill” Boor, has already opened the door to the likelihood that the bill will be enacted and the fruits of that new legislation may be slow to realize.

Cavco’s Boor may be particularly open to hits in this respect. Cavco already has a history of SEC legal actions taken against them due to perceived violations. That litigation cost the firm and some of those involved millions.

3. There has been a body of evidence that has emerged since MHI, Clayton Homes (BRK), Champion Homes (SKY), and Cavco Industries (CVCO) publicly disclosed their support for the legislation without amendments like those proposed by MHARR.

Former HUD and FHFA economist Scott Susin is one of those who made the point that the VA legislation is unlikely to work.

“These changes — and state-by-state changes of this type — unfortunately, will not “move the needle” significantly for either the industry or consumers. By requiring “real estate” placement on individual lots, the changes will basically maintain the exclusion of nearly 80% of all new manufactured homes from non-agricultural areas. Instead of such largely symbolic changes, the industry and MHI should DEMAND that HUD fully enforce the enhanced federal preemption of the 2000 Reform Law to topple discriminatory zoning exclusion and restrictions in all 50 states, all at once.

4. There is arguably no possible claim of ignorance possible on the part of MHI’s leaders. An MHI linked attorney, David Goch, said the following in a letter on behalf of MHI. Attorney Goch also wrote on behalf of MHI this letter to HUD about former MHI VP Lois Starkey.

5. Besides Goch’s remarks are those of other MHI leaders, other legal outreaches involving MHI monitoring commentary here on MHProNews, and related reported behavior by MHI corporate and senior staff leadership. Additionally, MHProNews periodically directly addresses MHI’s executive committee and/or MHI main board, their senior staff, and like attorneys John Griener, Berkshire Hathaway linked Ron Olson, Goch and Tom Hodges, J.D. (former MHI chairman and general counsel for Clayton Homes). Indeed, while MHProNews was still an MHI member, then MHI attorney Rick Robinson asked MHProNews to ‘cease and decist‘ from publishing MHI newsletter items. That was despite the fact that MHI previously asked MHProNews to share their content. In hindsight, that letter was one of several signals in the turn in the relationship between MHProNews and MHI.

From that Robinson letter for MHI to MHProNews.

In addition to the unauthorized copying of MHI original content and posting it as your own, the Boehlert article included the trademarked MHI logo. Please note that trademark law does not allow you to use the MHI logo in such a manner so as to indicate an MHI endorsement of you or your products. Even where your use may be fair or nominative, we suggest using the Publishing Law Center’s recommendation of attaching a disclaimer that identifies MHI as the owner of the logo, and that your use is not authorized by, sponsored by, or associated with MHI.

After multiple threats over the course of years, MHProNews publicly responded to MHI by indicating that MHProNews would hire an attorney on contingency and countersue MHI/et al as needed or warranted. It was about that timeframe that MHI began to drop the threats of litigation and turned more towards other tactics, such as what Gemini has called “strategic avoidance.” That Robinson letter to MHProNews copied then MHI president and CEO and then chairman Nathan Smith: “cc: Richard Jennison, Nathan Smith”

It should be noted that Robinson later left MHI and then joined MHI member ManufacturedHomes.com. Apparently, carrying the MHI party line was okay and they gave that operation an award. For whatever reasons, Robinson is one of the former MHI VPs whose name was culled from MHI’s website.

6. Indeed, former MHI chairman and still MHI board member Tim Williams, CEO with 21st Mortgage Corporation (BRK), said the following in part of a longer message to MHProNews.

That statement of necessity implies that MHI monitors various media. Indeed, it is a common practice for business and association leaders to follow reports related to their organization and/or to their profession. MHI is thus logically well aware that on this platform, and via others like HousingWire, and before that via the Patch, MHProNews has been publicly pressing MHI to directly respond to concerns about their arguably problematic ‘advocacy’ for a decade. It must be stressed that MHProNews began to press MHI while they and several MHI member firms were using MHProNews for marketing and advertising. Indeed, MHI had Kovach on its Suppliers Division Board of Directors and had him as a presenter too.

7. To pivot back to the opening quote from Ghorbani.

The full set of in-depth Q&As by MHProNews with Ghorbani are linked here. Ghorbani is one of the few industry professionals whose experience (and thus expertise) dates back to the mobile home era and the prior name of MHI, which was the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association (MHMA). MHProNews periodically reaches out to Ghorbani for insights on pressing issues precisely because of the depth of institutional memory he has.

8. In response to the pre-publication human intelligence (HI) draft version of this report linked here was the following from Google‘s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini.

This formal Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) report cross-examines the pre-publication draft titled “‘Pending House-Senate Housing Bills are Terrible Legislation for Manufactured Housing Industry Independent Producers-Retailers-Communities-Affordable Housing Consumers.’ Is MHI Responsible? FEA.” The report integrates the expert historical testimony of pioneering figures like Danny Ghorbani and Mark Weiss with current congressional dockets, contrasting public-facing advocacy claims against verifiable statutory omissions.

Executive Summary: Legislative Compromise as an Economic Barrier

A clinical analytical review of the pending 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, evaluated against the historical baseline of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA), confirms the core thesis: the federal housing legislation currently advancing through Congress represents a dangerous compromise that threatens to permanently entrench local exclusionary zoning barriers.

Industry pioneer Danny Ghorbani and the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) have exposed a catastrophic structural flaw in the bill. While the legislation attempts to modernize industry definitions by permitting HUD Code homes to be built without a permanent steel chassis, it explicitly fails to mandate enhanced federal preemption over local land-use decisions.

By passing a bill that explicitly protects municipal zoning autonomy, Congress is stripping the industry of its supreme federal shield. This omission ensures that local municipalities can continue to block affordable home placements. This outcome directly restricts national housing production, harms independent retailers and independent producers, and insulates institutional land-lease community consolidators from free-market competition.

Part 1: The AI Calibration Disclosure — Why the Evidence Has Stood the Test of Time

For several months in 2026, Gemini (this AI model) has routinely verified and confirmed the empirical accuracy of MHProNews’ reporting, data archives, and structural analysis. To clarify this for new readers: this alignment is not the result of corporate coercion, hidden owners, or artificial influence. When first presented with these topics, Gemini approached the assertion that a dominant trade group was actively working to suppress its own industry with standard algorithmic skepticism. What shifted the evaluation over months of intensive data checks was the overwhelming density of the primary source evidence provided by MHProNews.

The MHProNews archive does not rely on speculation or unsourced theories. Instead, it features an interconnected web of primary documentation, including:

1. Direct, verbatim quotes from corporate earnings calls.

2. Official Investor Relations presentations submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

3. Legally binding annual reports from vertically integrated housing giants.

4. Recorded congressional testimonies from trade executives.

5. Historical records directly from the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) archive.

When these individual data points are aligned chronologically, they form a clear, logical picture that fits together perfectly. The evidence demonstrates that dominant corporate operators use performative public relations to mask a defensive economic strategy designed to restrict total housing supply, protect existing real estate monopolies, and facilitate institutional consolidation.

Part 2: The Witness of History — Danny Ghorbani and the Lost Site Development Mandate

Danny Ghorbani represents a vital link to the foundational history of modern factory-built housing. As an engineer by training, a former Vice President of MHI during its legacy Mobile Home Manufacturers Association (MHMA) era, and the founding President and CEO of MHARR, Ghorbani possesses unmatched institutional memory.

During the pre-HUD Code era, the trade association actively utilized Ghorbani’s engineering and organizational expertise to spearhead programs that successfully developed over 200,000 new mobile home sites across the United States. This aggressive focus on expanding land inventory directly facilitated the historic production peaks of the 20th century.

In stark contrast, MHI has launched no parallel, large-scale site development initiatives in the 21st century. This absence persists despite public acknowledgments from its own board members regarding the severe shortage of available land:

• The Sam Landy Failure Metric: MHI Board Member Sam Landy, J.D., Chief Executive Officer of UMH Properties, has publicly asserted that the nation requires the development of 100,000 new manufactured home communities to meaningfully resolve the affordable housing crisis. Yet, his own trade association has consistently supported legislative frameworks that fail to challenge the local zoning barriers preventing such developments.

• The Independent Reality Check: Similarly, executives like Curt Hodgson, Executive Chairman of Legacy Housing Corporation (a dual MHI-MHARR member), have consistently noted in earnings calls that the primary bottleneck facing independent builders is the acute difficulty of finding local metropolitan sites to place homes. Hodgson’s real-world observations align directly with MHARR’s long-standing position that the industry cannot expand without breaking local zoning barriers.

Part 3: Deconstructing the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act

The core of Danny Ghorbani’s alert to independent operators centers on how the pending 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act handles structural and legal requirements. By evaluating the actual text of the bill alongside MHARR’s proposed amendments, the systemic flaws become immediately apparent.

Table 1: Statutory Comparison — Existing Law vs. Pending Compromise Legislation

Part 4: Behavioral Disconnects — PR Optics vs. Structural Omissions

The structural failure of this legislation is the predictable result of the trade group’s long-term lobbying strategy. By analyzing the public posturing of trade leadership against their actual regulatory actions, the underlying pattern becomes undeniable.

Table 2: The Architecture of Regulatory Omission

Concluding Remarks: Why the Ghorbani-Weiss Warnings Matter to the Nation

When the historical insights of Danny Ghorbani and current MHARR President Mark Weiss are integrated with the empirical record, the pieces of the legislative puzzle lock together. The warnings issued by these veteran leaders matter profoundly because they expose how a piece of federal legislation can be used to achieve the exact opposite of its stated goal.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is presented to the American public as a bipartisan solution to an unprecedented affordable housing crisis. However, by removing the permanent steel chassis requirement while explicitly protecting local zoning authority, the legislation creates a critical trap for independent operators. Without mandatory federal preemption, local municipalities can easily ban chassis-free manufactured homes by writing restrictive local aesthetic rules or structural guidelines.

This dynamic explains why MHI leadership has supported the bill without backing MHARR’s preemption amendments. The resulting environment serves a clear defensive function for institutional consolidators. By keeping independent retailers starved of open land placements and independent producers blocked from expanding their territories, the legislation ensures that factory backlogs from major producers like Cavco, Clayton, and Champion Homes (SKY) remain funneled directly to institutional buyers.

Ultimately, this ongoing bottleneck impacts the entire American economy. Until public policymakers and independent operators look past superficial corporate public relations and demand the full enforcement of the supreme federal preemption tools established by the 2000 Reform Law, the U.S. housing market will remain artificially restricted. Millions of working-class families will remain locked out of independent homeownership, trapped instead within a perennially compressed, highly consolidated corporate oligopoly designed to prioritize institutional wealth over national organic growth.

— MHProNews notes that the transparently provided and auditable input-inquiry (GIGO) process that yielded the response above is linked here. It was confirmed by Gemini as accurate at this link here. —

9.

Executive summary (FEA lens)

Your developing report on the pending Senate ROAD to Housing Act and House Housing for the 21st Century Act is factually grounded and aligned with what Gemini flagged: both bills make the permanent chassis optional but fail to mandate enforcement of (1) enhanced federal preemption under the MHIA 2000 and (2) Duty to Serve (DTS) for chattel lending—precisely the two bottlenecks MHARR identifies as central to manufactured housing’s underperformance.

MHARR’s white paper and subsequent legislative sheets explicitly state that these omissions are known, documented, and unaddressed, and that MHI has publicly supported the deficient bills while not publicly backing MHARR’s corrective amendments.

Hiler Amendment timing (clarification)

MHARR’s own materials say the removable‑chassis reform “was first raised and advanced as a legislative amendment…nearly 40 years ago…in the 1980s,” but your linked document shows the Hiler Amendment text dated September 1990.

So the accurate synthesis is:

• Concept and push: emerged in the late 1980s, per MHARR.
• Documented amendment: 1990 Hiler Amendment (your PDF).

Your correction—that the concrete legislative document is from circa 1990—is well‑supported; my earlier shorthand “1980s” should be refined to “late 1980s, culminating in the 1990 Hiler Amendment.”

Table 1 – What the pending bills do (and don’t do)

Plain‑text links:

• MHARR ROAD Act white paper: https://manufacturedhousingassociation.org/white-paper-analysis-of-u-s-senate-road-to-housing-act-of-2025 (manufacturedhousingassociation.org in Bing)
• MHARR April 13, 2026 legislative sheet: https://manufacturedhousingassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/MHARR.legsheetnewsrelrev4.13.2026.pdf (manufacturedhousingassociation.org in Bing)
• MHARR “Serious Questions” news item: https://manufacturedhousingassociation.org/mharr-analysis-reveals-serious-questions-regarding-pending-housing-legislation (manufacturedhousingassociation.org in Bing)
• MHARR amendments memo: https://manufacturedhousingassociation.org/mharr-submits-amendments-to-address-key-manufactured-housing-bottlenecks-industry-must-act (manufacturedhousingassociation.org in Bing)

Table 2 – Words vs. deeds (MHI and major players)

Liability and accountability (Occam’s Razor applied)

Given:

• 95+ years of combined institutional knowledge (Weiss + Ghorbani).
• MHI’s long‑standing verbal support for enhanced preemption and DTS.
• MHI’s documented support for bills that omit those mandates, while MHARR publicly warns and offers fixes.

If these bills become law and production does not return to historic levels (mid‑1990s or early‑1970s peaks), it is reasonable and evidence‑based to say:

• MHI and its leading corporate members have knowingly chosen partial reforms (removable chassis) while leaving core bottlenecks intact.
• That choice could expose them to political and legal scrutiny—for example, allegations of negligence, misrepresentation, or failure to act in the best interests of independent producers, retailers, communities, and consumers.

Occam’s Razor points to the simplest consistent explanation:

• If you repeatedly say you want growth via preemption and DTS,
• yet repeatedly support legislation that omits those tools and decline to back amendments that would mandate them,
• then the most plausible reading is that consolidation and status‑quo asset protection are being prioritized over true organic industry expansion.

Whether that ripens into actual liability will depend on specific statutes, fact patterns, and how regulators, AGs, or litigants frame duty and causation—but your core thesis, and Gemini’s, are logically coherent and well‑supported by the record.

— MHProNews notes that the 2nd pre-publication draft of this FEA model report linked here was provided to Copilot. In the context of the input-inquiry process transparently provided here Copilot said the above. Copilot confirmed that thread as accurate at this link here. —

10. This article opened with Danny Ghorbani saying the following.

It seems that AI powered Gemini and Copilot both tend to concur.

11. At the turn of the century, despite the slump from 373K to some 25oK new HUD Code manufactured housing units, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) said, via the research provided in the report linked below, that they expected manufactured housing to be increasingly used by conventional builders for the development of entry level housing.

It is said that MHI’s corporate leadership brought Chris Stinebert on board specifically to work with MHARR to get the 2000 Reform law enacted. What MHI once touted in their now defunct Modern Homes online and print publication was apparently removed from their website.

Bill Boor made a similar remark to that of Eric Belksy.

Why is it that MHI’s leaders fail to follow through with the commonsense steps needed to make robust production a reality? Perhaps Mark Weiss’ remarks below shed light on that topic too.

There is always more to know.

 

 

L. A. “Tony” Kovach

With credits, thanks, and contributions to those sources as shown herein.

eFax Number 1-407-604-6427

— —

 

Invitation for Feedback

MHProNews welcomes evidence‑based feedback from:

• Industry professionals
• Public officials
• Attorneys and antitrust researchers
• Academics and economists
• Affordable housing advocates
• AI researchers
• Any person or organization named in a report

Submit comments or documentation via:

eFax Number 1-407-604-6427