‘Shams and Delusions’ – Authentic vs Faux Critics – ‘Reality vs Empty Posturing’ – Manufactured Housing Attorney Disputes Industry Leaders on Basics-Performance – Analysis; plus MHMarkets


“Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundest truths, while reality is fabulous.” is a quotation by noted author and thinker Henry David Thoreau, according to the quotable quote source GoodReads. Quizlet explains that Thoreau meant by that expression: “people should focus on reality rather than their dreams.” In an article for English majors practicing criticism entitled “Thoreau Makes Us Think” it says this: “Henry David Thoreau is a very well known author and philosopher with many different works familiar to people around the world. One of his works, Walden, tells of his experiences when moving to and living in a house/cabin by Walden Pond. Throughout this book, he discusses various different things that make us as readers stop to theorize about what he is saying and how it can be applied to us.” Mark Weiss, J.D., is the president and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Washington, D.C. based Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). In his May 2024 “Issues and Perspectives” Weiss opens with a citation from Walden that uses in its opening the words “shams and delusions are esteemed for [the] soundest truths, while reality is fabulous.” It is fair to presume that by citing that passage from Thoreau and his famous book Walden, Weiss is aiming to make professionals in or beyond manufactured housing to think and to do so critically.

Zack Engle in his column “Thoreau Makes Us Think” quoting Walden wrote: “Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundest truths, while reality is fabulous. If men would steadily observe realities only, and not allow themselves to be deluded, life, to compare it with such things as we know, would be like a fairy tale and the Arabian Nights’ Entertainments. If we respected only what is inevitable and has a right to be, music and poetry would resound along the streets.”

Basically, Thoreau is stating that we as people focus too much on superficial and unimportant things, and that it severely limits us.

Authors: M. NEIL BROWNE, KARI E. FREEMAN and CARRIE L. WILLIAMSON in “The IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL THINKING…” explained to university-level students that “Critical thinking is the systematic evaluation of the arguments of others (Browne and Keeley, 1998). In a world where arguments and counterarguments flourish with respect to almost all social questions, students have a fundamental need for the development of attitudes and skills that permit them to negotiate the inescapable dissensus that surrounds them.”

The Graduate School at Nichols College on that same topic of critical thinking skills stated the following. The bold emphasis above and below are added by MHProNews to the original and otherwise unchanged text.

Critical thinking is a cognitive skill with the power to unlock the full potential of your mind. In today’s rapidly evolving society, where information is abundant but discerning its validity is becoming increasingly challenging, the art of critical thinking has never been more crucial.

At Nichols College, we believe that cultivating strong critical thinking abilities is not just a pursuit for the academically inclined, but a fundamental necessity for individuals across all walks of life. Join us as we explore the significance of critical thinking and the remarkable impact it can have on your decision-making, problem-solving, and overall cognitive prowess.” The title of that post is aptly: “Critical Thinking & Why It’s So Important.”

So, in all walks of life, critical thinking skills are important.

Attorneys, which is the legal profession that MHARR’s Weiss was educated to pursue, are taught to be critical thinkers. In the legal world, for every argument, there are one or more counter-arguments. Depending on the venue or context, attorneys are often supposed to forge the best possible argument useful for the advancement of their client’s best interests.

In an era when manufactured housing is suffering from a sustained depression-level shift downward in industry production since the late 1990s, it is remarkable that relatively limited numbers of individuals in the profession are willing to publicly question the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI or in MHVille industry circles, sometimes “the Institute”) at their own statements and behaviors.

To be sure, there are numerous souls who have been involved in manufactured housing for over a quarter of a century that have use of their memories and reasoning abilities that something has gone wrong. Some have expressed concerns, ranging from muted to robust, about MHI’s self-proclaimed mantle of representing “all segments” of the industry.

A close reading of MHI’s history of statements compared to some of their own members statements sheds more light on reality vs. mere fanciful dreams, be those fantasies waking or sleeping. One possible take from the quote by Thoreau that Weiss uses in the opening of his May 2024 Issues and Perspective is the obvious question. Is what MHI is pitching to the industry mere “Shams and delusions” when professionals should be focused on reality?

Following close on the heels of two other MHARR posts, Weiss’ Issues and Perspectives article is shown in Part I. In Part II is additional information with more MHProNews analysis and commentary. Part II will further explore the value of critical thinking as well as the specific topic that Weiss chose to focus on.


ManufacturedHousingAssocForRegulatoryReformMHARRScreenshot 2024-05-06 071922MHProNewsFactCheckAnalysis


‘Reality Versus Empty Posturing’ – Manufactured Housing Association Releases Volley Against Changing from Potent to Tepid Public Pitch for Manufactured Homes


Part I

By Mark Weiss
MAY 2024


Henry David Thoreau, in the classic, “Walden,” lamented that “shams and delusions are esteemed for [the] soundest truths, while reality is fabulous.” He observed that if “men would steadily observe realities only” and “not allow themselves to be deluded,” life would be far better. Although those words were penned nearly two centuries ago, they remain as poignant, relevant and accurate today (if not more so) as when they were first written. And one area where they should be applied – carefully and thoughtfully – in the context of federally-regulated manufactured housing, is with respect to the way that the industry itself refers to and promotes mainstream HUD Code manufactured housing, and presents manufactured housing, both as a product and as an industry, to the homebuying public and government decision-makers including, most especially, those at the federal level, where manufactured housing is comprehensively regulated and controlled.

In this regard, it is beyond any reasonable debate that “affordability” has always been the fundamental defining characteristic – and market-based driver – of the availability, acceptance and utilization of mainstream HUD Code manufactured homes. Indeed, “affordability,” in both absolute and relative terms, is so central to the consumer market for federally-regulated manufactured homes, that the term “affordability” was inserted into federal manufactured housing law by Congress when it adopted the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (2000 Reform Law).

In that watershed law, which marked the emergence of today’s modern, high-quality, energy-efficient, mainstream manufactured housing, the term “affordable” or “affordability” is expressly used at least four times, while there are at least two parallel (and effectively synonymous) references to “cost-effectiveness.” Indeed, the very first legislative purpose of the 2000 Reform Law, as enumerated by Congress, is to “protect the quality, durability, safety and affordability of manufactured homes.” (Emphasis added). The point made abundantly clear by Congress, accordingly, as a matter of law, is that cost-effective “affordability” lies at the heart of the construction, use and regulation of manufactured housing, and that elemental affordability is not to be undermined or subverted by other factors or considerations outside of imperative life-safety. As such, affordability is the fundamental lynchpin of the three main pillars of federal manufactured housing law, as federal preemption, uniform federal standards and uniform federal regulation work in unison to yield inherently affordable manufactured housing and distinguish manufactured housing from all other types of factory-built housing.

Nor has the concept and primary importance of affordability in relation to housing,  homeownership and the manufactured housing market, somehow gone out of style over the 24 years that have elapsed since the enactment of the 2000 Reform Law. If anything, the need for affordable housing and homeownership – at a time when housing affordability in the United States is at an all-time low – has never been greater. As a result, federal government policies to promote the availability of “affordable” housing have never had a higher priority.

How do we know this? For one thing, the Biden Administration is earmarking billions of dollars in federal spending on supposedly “affordable” housing. It also stresses (or at least pays lip service) to the need for “affordable” homeownership in its policy pronouncements. In an April 2024 document, “Decarbonizing the U.S. Economy by 2050 – A Blueprint for the Buildings Sector,” for example, the Administration states: “Any pathway to decarbonization of the buildings sector must be centered in the cross-cutting goals of equity [and] affordability….” (Emphasis added). Nor is housing “affordability” some abstract, amorphous or metaphysical construct that has no specific or well-understood meaning. As HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) noted in an August 2017 article, “Defining Housing Affordability,” “Housing programs in the United States have long measured housing affordability in terms of percentage of income. *** Over time, [a] 30 percent threshold … became the standard for owner-occupied housing, and it remains the indicator of affordability for housing in the United States.” (Emphasis added). By contrast, “households [that] spend more than 30 percent of income on housing costs [are] housing cost burdened.”

Measured against this standard, mainstream HUD Code manufactured housing has always been inherently affordable. In 2022, the last full year for which census data is available, the average sales price of all new manufactured homes was $127,300.00. This compares to a $430,808.00 “average” for a site-built home, excluding the cost of land. That same year, again according to U.S. Census Bureau data, real median household income in the United States was $74,580.00. At the census average price, a 20-year loan on a manufactured home with a 5% downpayment, would cost the borrower less than $1,000.00 per month, or slightly more than 16% of average gross income. By contrast, a mortgage on the “average” site-built home, exclusive of land, would cost approximately $2,300.00 per month over a 30-year loan period at 7.0% interest, requiring 37% or more of the buyer’s gross income, a proportion that would be significantly larger based on net income following the deduction of income and other applicable taxes. And, when the site-built information is brought forward to 2024, the current median monthly home mortgage payment in the United States is $2,775.00 a month, “the most expensive ever” according to media reports.

Against this backdrop of all-too-real disappearing affordability within the broader housing market, it is mystifying and frankly astounding that some within the HUD Code industry would so readily surrender, dispense with and, effectively walk away from the language, concept and reality of “affordability” in relation to mainstream HUD Code manufactured homes, and instead embrace the meaningless linguistic blather of “attainable” housing (much like substituting the recently-invented term of “off-site”-built housing for the traditionally-known term “factory-built” housing). With this term appearing more frequently in both industry trade publications and broader media from manufactured housing producers – among others — the industry would do well to consider the dangers and pitfalls of abandoning the well-known, well-defined and well-appreciated concept, terminology and reality of “affordability.”

So where has this abandonment of “affordability” manifested itself within the industry and – more importantly – why has it been advanced and promoted by some? The answers are fairly easy to find with a bit of research.  The “where” question is perhaps easiest. News releases published in recent years by Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. subsidiary Clayton Homes, Inc. (Clayton) tout “net zero energy” manufactured homes that – wait for it – are “attainable.” In an April 29, 2022 news release announcing a “net zero energy” home displayed at the Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting, Clayton noted that it was committed to build “attainable” homes. Subsequently, in a July 10, 2023 news release announcing the debut of manufactured homes “built to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) “Zero Energy Ready Home” specifications,” Clayton characterized those homes as a response to “rising home energy costs that threaten attainable homeownership.” (Emphasis added). And now – in a step that will come as a surprise to exactly no one – the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) has followed the lead of its largest manufacturer member, to embrace the term “attainable” manufactured housing in its messaging.

So, what is an “attainable” manufactured home? What does that term mean? And why the retreat from “affordable” to “attainable?” Again, the answers are fairly straightforward.  Depending on who you believe, a Clayton “net zero electricity home,” in 2022, cost just under $230,000” before the cost of land and solar panels (per a Clayton news release), or “just under $250,000 “with solar before land costs” (according to a media report). So, in short, a net-zero manufactured home, in 2022, carried a price tag that was nearly double the 2022 cost of an “average” mainstream manufactured home according to the U.S. Census Bureau. It’s easy to see, then, why these homes are characterized with the meaningless word “attainable.” It is because they are not particularly “affordable” when compared with the average modern, energy-efficient mainstream manufactured home and could easily (with both solar panel and land costs) exceed the “affordability” benchmark of 30% of a borrower’s income for the lower and moderate-income Americans who currently – and historically – have constituted the core of the industry’s consumer base.

And what causes these particular “factory-built” homes to be less than “affordable” for many? Because they seek to attain the climate-activist (and DOE) holy grail of net zero energy consumption. And in doing so – as MHARR has argued from day-one against the extremist DOE manufactured housing energy standards – they will exclude huge numbers of Americans from the manufactured housing market, precisely because they will not be truly “attainable” or affordable for many, if not most, of the industry’s historical market demographic.

According to a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) report issued in May 2021, the median income of a manufactured home purchaser (for both mortgage and chattel financing) was between $52,000 and $53,000 per year. According to online resources, a person with an annual income of $52,000 could “comfortably” afford a home costing $158,624, with a 5% downpayment and a monthly payment of $1,300 per month (an estimated home only payment that does not include variables like site fees, utilities, taxes, insurance, or escrows). As noted above, this would cover the cost of the “average” modern-day, new, energy-efficient mainstream, HUD Code manufactured home. But it does not cover – or even come close to covering – the cost of a $250,000(+) supposedly “attainable” net zero manufactured home, plus the cost of land and other essentials needed for net zero living.

So, not only does “attainable” – as contrasted with “affordable” – mean absolutely nothing in relation to manufactured housing, its use demonstrates, once again, that all of the supposed “life-cycle” energy savings on the face of the planet will not benefit, in any conceivable way, the vast majority of current manufactured homebuyers, who would effectively be excluded from the housing market altogether by the additional cost of the measures needed to meet net zero energy criteria. Put differently, it confirms that there is no “life-cycle” – and, therefore, no life-cycle “savings” — for those who do not have a home to begin with, because they cannot afford the home’s purchase price.

This dichotomy once again proves and underscores the essential thrust of MHARR’s longstanding and aggressive opposition to DOE’s horrific manufactured housing “energy” standards. What it does not answer, is why – other than for purposes of posturing, grandstanding (or possibly glomming “energy” tax credits) – anyone in the manufactured housing industry would seek to economically disenfranchise nearly all of its current consumers and market. Unlike the term “attainable,” “economic suicide” does have a specific meaning. And inviting it is not smart.

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. ##


Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary

1) On the date and time shown, MHARR has 3 new relevant items so far in May 2024. By contrast, MHI has nothing new under their home page news segment month-to-date. MHI is far larger in both staff and budget. MHI has a supposedly professional public relations person they have contracted. Molly Boyle with “FPMGI” has yet to respond to an MHProNews inquiry, even though the MHI website states on this date: “There’s a lot to know about today’s manufactured homes. Contact our media relations team to learn more.” If there is so much to know, then why doesn’t MHI share it with the industry and the public at large, as MHARR does? As recently as yesterday or in several reports last week, MHI has taken odd or self-contradictory stances that left-leaning Bing’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Copilot has described as in need of critical evaluation. Copilot has effectively lauded MHARR for consistency in their messaging and advocacy, while lamenting that MHI has said one thing in emails and then failed to post it on their own website. Copilot has noted the range of criticism about MHI and its methods.

2) This screen capture below is how the 2H 2023 refreshed MHI website home page looked on 5.8.2024 at about 4:18 AM ET. As Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of MHAR has noted in a new “Issues and Perspectives” MHI has oddly shifted to using the phrase “attainable” instead of the traditional and arguably clearer and more appealing/approachable phrasing of “affordable” that MHVille advocates have long used. As Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of MHARR has noted in a new “Issues and Perspectives” provided in Part I above, MHI has oddly shifted to using the phrase “attainable” instead of the traditional and arguably clearer and more appealing/approachable phrasing of “affordable” that MHVille advocates have long used.


Note: to expand this image below to a larger or full size, see the instructions

below the graphic below or click the image and follow the prompts.

Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. 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.

Note: to expand this image below to a larger or full size, see the instructions

below the graphic below or click the image and follow the prompts.

Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. 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.


3) “A “bait and switch” takes place when a seller creates an appealing but ingenuine offer to sell a product or service, which the seller does not actually intend to sell.” That’s per Cornell law school’s widely referenced Legal Information Institute (LII).

4) According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC): “The FTC has issued a Notice that it has determined that bait and switch sales practices are unfair or deceptive trade practices, and violate the FTC Act.”

5) The following Q&A occurred with Bing’s Copilot on 5.8.2024.

What does this expression mean: “Grow your business – Get the tools, platform and information you need”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsCertainly! The expression “Grow your business – Get the tools, platform, and information you need” emphasizes the importance of equipping your business with the necessary resources to achieve growth. Let’s break it down:

  1. Grow Your Business: This part encourages business owners to focus on expansion and development. It implies that growth is a deliberate process that requires effort, strategy, and action.
  2. Get the Tools: Refers to using specific tools and technologies that can enhance efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness. These tools can range from software applications to marketing platforms, analytics solutions, and more.
  3. Platform: A platform provides a foundation for your business operations. It could be a website, an e-commerce platform, a social media channel, or any other digital space where you interact with customers, sell products, or promote your brand.
  4. Information You Need: Access to relevant information is crucial for making informed decisions. This includes market research, customer insights, industry trends, financial data, and more. Having the right information empowers you to navigate challenges and seize opportunities.

In summary, the expression encourages businesses to proactively seek out the necessary tools, technology, and knowledge to foster growth and success. Whether you’re a startup, a small business, or a large corporation, investing in these resources can significantly impact your trajectory1Additionally, if you’re interested in exploring specific tools for business growth, there are various online resources available, such as the 117 Best Online Business Tools and the 30 Best Startup Tools & Resources23. These lists cover a wide range of tools and platforms to help businesses thrive. 🌱🚀 …”



Okay, on the Manufactured Housing Institute home page https://www.manufacturedhousing.org/ on this date (5.8.2024) that expression is found, quoting: “Grow your business Get the tools, platform and information you need” – so, what does that mean to someone in manufactured housing? What is the pitch that the Manufactured Housing Institute seems to be making with that choice of words?

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsCertainly! Let’s explore the significance of the expression “Grow your business – Get the tools, platform, and information you need” within the context of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and the manufactured housing industry:

  1. Elevating Housing Innovation; Expanding Attainable Homeownership:
    • The MHI serves as the national trade organization representing all segments of the factory-built housing industry.
    • Their mission includes advocacyindustry leadership, and acting as a trusted partner for industry stakeholders.
    • By emphasizing “Elevating Housing Innovation” and “Expanding Attainable Homeownership,” they underscore their commitment to improving housing options for Americans.
  2. “Grow Your Business – Get the Tools, Platform, and Information You Need”:
    • “Grow Your Business”: This phrase encourages businesses within the manufactured housing industry to focus on expansion and development. It implies that growth is an intentional process that requires effort, strategy, and action.
    • “Get the Tools”: Refers to using specific tools and technologies that enhance efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness. These tools could include software applications, marketing platforms, analytics solutions, and more.
    • “Platform”: A platform provides a foundation for business operations. In this context, it likely refers to digital platforms (websites, e-commerce portals, etc.) where industry professionals can interact with customers, promote their brand, and conduct business.
    • “Information You Need”: Access to relevant information is crucial for informed decision-making. This includes market research, customer insights, industry trends, financial data, and more. Having the right information empowers businesses to navigate challenges and seize opportunities.
  3. Manufactured Housing’s Role in the American Dream:
  4. Industry Resources and Advocacy:

In summary, the MHI’s choice of words reflects their commitment to supporting industry growth, innovation, and homeownership. By providing tools, platforms, and information, they aim to empower businesses and contribute to the American dream of attainable housing for all. 🏡🌟21.

Learn more

Okay. On 5.6.2024 the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform sent out an email to industry members, public officials and others interested in manufactured housing. That same emailed message was posted as an Issues and Perspective by Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of MHARR at this link here: https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/mharr-issues-and-perspectives-reality-versus-empty-posturing/ What are some key points and takeaways from that perspective by Weiss?

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsCertainly! Let’s explore some key points and takeaways from Mark Weiss, J.D.’s “Issues and Perspectives” article titled “Reality Versus Empty Posturing”, which was posted by the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). Here are the highlights:

  1. Thoreau’s Lament on Shams and Delusions:
    • Weiss begins by referencing Henry David Thoreau’s classic work, “Walden.”
    • Thoreau lamented that “shams and delusions are esteemed for [the] soundest truths, while reality is fabulous.”
    • This sets the tone for discussing the gap between rhetoric and actual action in the manufactured housing industry.
  2. Challenging Empty Posturing:
    • Mark Weiss critiques the prevalence of empty posturing within the industry.
    • He highlights instances where words and promises do not align with tangible results.
    • The focus is on moving beyond mere rhetoric and addressing real issues.
  3. Affordable Housing Crisis and Federal Programs:
    • The article likely delves into the ongoing affordable housing crisis and how manufactured housing can play a crucial role.
    • It may discuss the consistent failure of federal government programs to effectively support affordable housing initiatives.
    • Weiss might emphasize the need for practical solutions rather than empty promises.
  4. Reality Check for Industry Stakeholders:
    • Weiss likely calls for a reality check among industry stakeholders.
    • Instead of relying solely on grand statements, he advocates for concrete actions that benefit consumers and professionals in the manufactured housing sector.

Remember that these points are based on my understanding of the context and the information available. For a comprehensive analysis, I recommend reading the full article directly from the MHARR website1. Mark Weiss’s perspectives often provide valuable insights into the manufactured housing industry’s realities and challenges. 🏠🔍

Learn more
8) Note what Copilot pointed out. Using the Walden quote from Thoreau: “This sets the tone for discussing the gap between rhetoric and actual action in the manufactured housing industry.”
  • Weiss might emphasize the need for practical solutions rather than empty promises.
  • Weiss likely calls for a reality check among industry stakeholders.
  • Instead of relying solely on grand statements, he advocates for concrete actions that benefit consumers and professionals in the manufactured housing sector.



Okay, in prior Q&As with you Copilot, we have noted that there are critics of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) who are or where members of that trade group. Frank Rolfe in a recent interview explored in depth by Manufactured Home Pro News noted that Rolfe said he blamed the Manufactured Housing Institute for emphasizing their more costly CrossMod homes rather than work with prior HUD Secretary Ben Carson who was offering to and actually helped promote inherently affordable mainstream manufactured housing. Neal Haney led two state associations out of affiliate membership in MHI because they were failing to advance the industry’s agenda. Longtime MHI member Marty Lavin, J.D., faulted MHI with these words: “So the association [MHI] is not there for the Industry, unless the interests of the Big Boys join the industry‘s.” Bob Crawford while president and CEO for Dick Moore housing called for a new trade group to supplant MHI because their advocacy was so ineffective that he gave it a 5 out of 10, which would be an F or failing grade. Doug Ryan at CFED (since rebranded as Prosperity Now) is pro-manufactured housing, but is a critic of MHI saying that they were deferring to Clayton Homes so that their affiliated lending could further monopolize the industry because MHI was failing to press the Duty to Serve issue with the FHFA. Last Year, Mark Weiss told MHLivingNews that https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/inexcusable-and-major-problem-exclusive-mhlivingnews-question-and-answer-qa-with-mark-weiss-j-d-president-and-ceo-of-manufactured-housing-association-for-regulatory-reform-mharr/ remarks by MHI Ceo Lesli Gooch were inexcusable and a major problem. Samuel Strommen has accused MHI of acting on behalf of their larger members in a manner that fosters consolidation and provided over 130 footnotes and some 17 pages of research to support his allegations. Those are just some of the critics of MHI on key issues. Which begs the question. Given that the industry today is operating less than 25 percent of its prior last high water mark in 1998, is it fair to question the sincerity of MHI when they say “grow your business” or similar remarks?  Hypothetically speaking, isn’t it at least plausible, as some critics have argued, that what is growing at MHI are the portfolios of consolidators, and that getting new members may create new opportunities for consolidators to consolidate smaller member firms? And if so, is that arguably a kind of bait and switch tactic by MHI to claim something that it has no apparent intention of fulfilling under its current leadership? After all, former MHI President and CEO Chris Stinebert said in 2004 that the industry was ready for a recovery back to the levels of the 1990s. Yet, the industry’s national production today is lower than it was in 2004, and much lower than it was in 1998.


Critics of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) have raised valid concerns about the organization’s actions and priorities. Let’s delve into some of these criticisms and explore the accuracy of their portrayals:

  1. Emphasis on Costly CrossMod Homes:
    • Frank Rolfe, a well-known figure in the industry, has criticized MHI for emphasizing more expensive CrossMod homes rather than promoting inherently affordable mainstream manufactured housing.
    • This raises questions about MHI’s alignment with the industry’s best interests and affordability goals.
  2. Failure to Advance Industry Agenda:
    • Neal Haney’s decision to lead two state associations out of affiliate membership in MHI highlights dissatisfaction with the organization’s ability to advance the industry’s agenda.
    • If MHI is not effectively advocating for the industry, it raises concerns about its purpose and effectiveness.
  3. Big Boys vs. Industry Interests:
    • Longtime MHI member Marty Lavin’s assertion that MHI serves the interests of the “Big Boys” rather than the broader industry echoes concerns about representation and priorities.
    • Advocacy should benefit all industry stakeholders, not just a select few.
  4. Advocacy Ineffectiveness and Calls for a New Trade Group:
    • Bob Crawford’s call for a new trade group to supplant MHI due to its ineffective advocacy underscores dissatisfaction with MHI’s performance.
    • If MHI’s efforts are failing, it raises questions about its leadership and strategy.
  5. Duty to Serve Issue and Monopolization:
    • Doug Ryan’s criticism that MHI deferred to Clayton Homes, potentially allowing affiliated lending to monopolize the industry, highlights regulatory concerns.
    • Advocacy organizations should actively address critical issues like the Duty to Serve mandate.
  6. Inexcusable Remarks by MHI CEO:
    • Mark Weiss’s assessment of MHI CEO Lesli Gooch’s remarks as “inexcusable” underscores the importance of responsible communication.
    • Transparency and accountability matter in industry leadership.
  7. Consolidation and Intentions:
    • Samuel Strommen’s extensive research accusing MHI of acting on behalf of larger members in a way that fosters consolidation raises serious questions.
    • If MHI’s actions inadvertently benefit consolidators, it challenges their commitment to the broader industry.
  8. Industry Production Decline:
    • The decline in national manufactured housing production compared to previous years, despite optimistic predictions, raises doubts about MHI’s effectiveness.
    • Former MHI President and CEO Chris Stinebert’s 2004 prediction of recovery to 1990s levels remains unfulfilled.

In summary, the sincerity of MHI’s “grow your business” statements is indeed fair to question. Critics argue that MHI’s focus may be on consolidators rather than the industry as a whole. Whether this is a bait-and-switch tactic or a result of leadership decisions, it warrants scrutiny. The industry’s current production levels highlight the need for effective advocacy and strategic leadership to achieve meaningful growth123. 🏠🔍

Learn more

Fair enough. Again, hypothetically speaking, what are some of the potential places where complaints about MHI and its advocacy could be lodged? If there was, hypothetically, legal action taken by past or current MHI members who may have trusted the association’s claims about advocating for growth rather than apparently favoring consolidation of the industry into the hands of what Lavin called “Big Boys” in the industry, and since this appears to be a 21st century pattern that is ongoing, so statues of limitation have not yet begun to run, what kinds of legal liability or legal challenges might MHI senior staff or board leaders face?

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsHypothetically, if past or current members of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) were to take legal action based on their dissatisfaction with MHI’s advocacy and perceived favoritism toward larger industry players, several potential legal avenues could be explored. Keep in mind that this is a general overview, and specific legal advice should be sought from legal professionals. Here are some possibilities:

  1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty:
    • MHI board members and senior staff owe a fiduciary duty to the organization and its members.
    • If it can be demonstrated that they prioritized the interests of “Big Boys” (larger industry players) over the broader membership, it might constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.
    • Legal challenges could arise based on this breach.
  2. False Advertising or Misrepresentation:
    • If MHI made claims about advocating for industry growth while allegedly favoring consolidation, members who relied on these claims might argue that they were misled.
    • Legal action could be pursued under consumer protection laws related to false advertising or misrepresentation.
  3. Antitrust Violations:
    • Allegations of anticompetitive behavior or monopolistic practices could be raised.
    • If MHI’s actions inadvertently facilitated consolidation to the detriment of smaller members, antitrust claims might be considered.
  4. Breach of Contract:
    • MHI’s membership agreements likely outline the organization’s responsibilities and commitments.
    • If MHI failed to fulfill its obligations (e.g., advocating for the industry as a whole), members could claim breach of contract.
  5. Negligence or Professional Malpractice:
    • Members might argue that MHI’s negligence or professional malpractice harmed their interests.
    • For example, if MHI failed to address critical issues (such as the Duty to Serve mandate), it could be seen as negligent.
  6. Derivative Actions:
    • Members could bring derivative actions on behalf of MHI itself.
    • These actions allow members to challenge decisions made by the organization’s leadership.
  7. Class Action Lawsuits:
    • If a significant number of members share similar grievances, a class action lawsuit might be pursued.
    • This would consolidate individual claims into a single legal action.
  8. Defamation or Libel Claims:
    • If MHI’s leadership made false statements about the industry or individual members, defamation claims could arise.
    • However, proving defamation can be challenging.
  9. Challenges to Regulatory Influence:
    • If MHI’s actions influenced regulatory decisions (e.g., deferring to Clayton Homes), legal challenges might focus on regulatory agencies’ compliance with their duties.
  10. Corporate Governance Disputes:
    • Legal actions could center on internal governance issues, such as transparency, accountability, and conflicts of interest.

Remember that legal proceedings are complex, and outcomes depend on specific circumstances, evidence, and applicable laws. If members believe their rights have been violated, consulting with legal professionals is essential to assess the viability of legal challenges. 📜⚖️ .



Okay, also hypothetically. There are several Manufactured Housing Institute members on their board of directors who also happen to be consolidators of their particular segment of the manufactured home industry. There are also some state asssociation members on the MHI board of directors. What are their legal responsibilities in the face of this apparent disconnect between what MHI says – claiming they are working for industry growth – when the evidence for most of the last two decades routinely reflects that they have failed to take common sense steps that might in fact cause growth? What should those board members do? And if those board members fail to do what is good for the overall good of the industry, what liabilities are they exposing themselves or their organization to for failing in their respective fiduciary duties?

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsHypothetically, when board members of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) find themselves in a situation where there is a disconnect between MHI’s stated mission (working for industry growth) and the actual outcomes (lack of growth), they have several legal responsibilities and potential liabilities:

  1. Fiduciary Duties:
    • Duty of Care: Board members must act with reasonable care, diligence, and informed decision-making. They should actively seek information, ask questions, and make informed choices.
    • Duty of Loyalty: Board members must prioritize the best interests of the organization (MHI) and its members. They should avoid conflicts of interest and refrain from actions that benefit themselves or other specific members disproportionately.
  2. Addressing the Disconnect:
    • Board members should critically assess whether MHI’s actions align with its stated mission.
    • If there is a disconnect, they should raise concerns within the board, seek transparency, and advocate for corrective measures.
  3. Transparency and Accountability:
    • Board members should demand transparency from MHI leadership regarding decisions, strategies, and outcomes.
    • If they suspect that MHI’s actions are not in the best interest of the industry, they should seek explanations and demand accountability.
  4. Advocacy for Industry Growth:
    • Board members should actively advocate for industry growth, affordability, and consumer welfare.
    • If MHI’s efforts fall short, they should push for alternative approaches or reforms.
  5. Mitigating Legal Risks:
    • By failing to address the disconnect, board members risk legal challenges from members who feel their interests were not adequately represented.
    • Potential liabilities include breach of fiduciary duty claims, breach of contract, and negligence.
  6. Potential Legal Challenges:
    • Derivative Lawsuits: Members could bring derivative lawsuits on behalf of MHI if they believe the organization’s leadership failed in its duties.
    • Class Action Lawsuits: If many members share similar grievances, a class action lawsuit might emerge.
    • Personal Liability: Board members could be personally liable if their actions or inactions harm the organization or its members.
  7. Conflict Resolution and Advocacy:
    • Board members should actively engage in discussions, propose solutions, and advocate for industry-friendly policies.
    • If MHI’s leadership resists change, they may need to consider alternative paths, such as forming a new trade group.
  8. Documenting Dissent:
    • Board members should document their concerns, objections, and efforts to address the disconnect.
    • Clear records can protect them if legal challenges arise.

In summary, board members have a duty to act in the best interest of the organization and its members. If they fail to address the disconnect between MHI’s claims and outcomes, they risk legal repercussions. Advocacy for industry growth and transparency is crucial to fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities . 🏢⚖️…”



Interesting, thanks. Next, let’s consider an organization such as MHAction. According to evidence from a rival manufactured home resident group reported on Manufactured Home Living News, as well as other research since, MHAction appears to be a pop-up style organization that is funded by the Tides nonprofit. The Tides in turn has reportedly received funding from Warren Buffett, via a Buffett funded nonprofit group. Buffett led Berkshire Hathaway appears to benefit from the status quo at MHI and in the industry via their well documented moat philosophy, which has arguably allowed Clayton Homes and their affiliated lenders 21st Mortgage Corporation (21st) and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance (VMF) to excercise signficant influence in the production, retail, and community sectors of the industry, correct? Evidence developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) indicates that that 21st and VMF dominate manufactured home lending. The Seattle Times and others in media have documented tactics that led to fines and allegations of predatory lending, antitrust violations, and harm to minorities that caused Rep. Maxine Waters (CA-D) and some of her colleagues to press the CFPB and Department of Justice to take legal action against Clayton and their lending, correct? With that backdrop, it seems curious that MHAction – sometimes in concert with other nonprofits – to document harms to residents in the community sector of the industry without necessarily advocating for the logical most useful courses of action based on the circumstances. That seems to beg the question, is MHAction acting as a sincere or faux advoacy group? Are they slyly benefiting the consolidators of the industry? And if so, hypothetically, what kind of legal risks does MHAction expose itself to if they fail to press for pragmatic solutions like a robust enforcement of enhanced preemption under the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, vigorous antitrust or RICO law enforcement against the consolidators at MHI, or even for an investigation of MHI and their dominating members with relevant state and federal officials? Link your responses.

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsMHAction, as an advocacy group, has drawn attention due to its funding sources and its focus on documenting harms to residents in the manufactured home community sector. Let’s explore some key points related to MHAction, its funding, and potential legal risks:

  1. Funding and Warren Buffett:
    • MHAction has been funded in part by billionaire Warren Buffett.
    • The Tides nonprofit, which supports MHAction, has reportedly received funding from Buffett’s family foundation.
    • This financial connection raises questions about the group’s motivations and alignment with industry players.
  2. Clayton Homes and Industry Influence:
    • Clayton Homes, a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary, has significant influence in the manufactured housing industry.
    • Their affiliated lenders, 21st Mortgage Corporation (21st) and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance (VMF), dominate manufactured home lending.
    • Evidence from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) highlights concerns about predatory lending and antitrust violations.
  3. Legal Risks for MHAction:
    • MHAction could face legal risks if it fails to advocate for pragmatic solutions that benefit residents and address industry challenges.
    • Potential legal risks include:
      • Breach of Fiduciary Duty: If MHAction’s actions harm residents or fail to address critical issues, they may be accused of breaching their duty to advocate effectively.
      • Misrepresentation or False Advertising: If MHAction misrepresents its intentions or fails to pursue meaningful solutions, it could face legal challenges related to false advertising.
      • Failure to Act in the Best Interest of Members: Advocacy groups have a responsibility to act in the best interest of their members. Failure to do so could lead to legal consequences.
      • Lack of Transparency: If MHAction’s funding sources or motivations are not transparent, it may face legal scrutiny.
      • Derivative Lawsuits: Members could bring derivative lawsuits against MHAction if they believe the organization is not fulfilling its mission effectively.
  4. Pragmatic Solutions:
    • MHAction should consider advocating for practical solutions, such as robust enforcement of enhanced preemption, antitrust enforcement, and investigations into industry practices.
    • Focusing on residents’ well-being and industry transparency is essential to avoid legal pitfalls.

In summary, MHAction’s actions and funding sources raise questions about its sincerity and alignment with industry players. Legal risks may arise if they fail to advocate effectively for residents and address critical industry issues1234. 🏢⚖️

Learn more

> Useful, thanks. Okay, what about the fear factor? It has been widely reported by sources in mainstream media that several manufactured home community residents are afraid of retaliation from their community operators who are accused of predatory behavior, correct? It is also open to question how many employees and managers in Manufactured Housing Institute linked brands are fearful of playing the role of whistleblower, given how pervasive the purported culture of consolidation seems to be at MHI and several MHI linked state associations too. Hypothetically, what sort of steps should or could residents, employees, or managers who are aware of the problems but may be hesitant to speak up, what could they do given the current dynamics? Link your results.


Fear of retaliation is a significant concern in various contexts, including manufactured home communities and industry organizations. Let’s explore this issue and consider potential steps for residents, employees, and managers who are aware of problems but hesitant to speak up:

  1. Fear of Retaliation in Manufactured Home Communities:
    • Residents: Many manufactured home community residents fear retaliation from community operators. These fears stem from concerns about eviction, rent increases, or other negative consequences if they complain about poor conditions, discrimination, or mistreatment.
    • Employees and Managers: Similarly, employees and managers within the industry may hesitate to blow the whistle due to concerns about job security, professional relationships, and potential backlash.
  2. Steps for Residents:
    • Know Your Rights: Residents should educate themselves about their rights under fair housing laws and community regulations. Understanding what protections exist can empower them.
    • Document Everything: Keep records of any issues, complaints, or incidents. Document dates, times, and details. This documentation can be crucial if retaliation occurs.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with an attorney or a local legal aid organization. They can provide guidance on how to address problems while minimizing risks.
    • Collective Action: Consider joining or forming a residents’ association. Collective action can provide strength and support when addressing community issues.
  3. Steps for Employees and Managers:
    • Know Whistleblower Protections: Understand the legal protections available to whistleblowers. Federal and state laws often shield employees from retaliation when reporting wrongdoing.
    • Anonymous Reporting: If possible, use anonymous channels to report concerns. Some organizations have hotlines or online reporting systems that protect the whistleblower’s identity.
    • Document Concerns: Like residents, employees and managers should document any issues they observe. This documentation can serve as evidence if retaliation occurs.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with an employment attorney to understand your rights and options. They can guide you on the best course of action.
    • Collective Action: Consider connecting with other employees who share similar concerns. Collective action may provide more leverage and protection.
  4. Industry-Wide Considerations:
    • Culture Shift: Industry organizations, including the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), should foster a culture that encourages transparency, accountability, and ethical behavior. This shift requires leadership commitment.
    • Whistleblower Policies: Organizations should establish clear whistleblower policies that protect employees and managers who report wrongdoing. These policies should outline reporting channels and safeguards against retaliation.
    • Education and Training: Provide education and training on fair housing laws, ethical conduct, and the importance of reporting concerns. This helps create a supportive environment for whistleblowers.

In summary, addressing fear of retaliation requires a multifaceted approach. Residents, employees, and managers must be informed, empowered, and supported. Industry organizations should prioritize ethical behavior and create mechanisms for reporting without fear of reprisal1234. 🏠⚖️

Learn more



It seems to me that there is plenty of evidence and information that reflects the concerns that this Q&A (chat) thread has covered. One might think that public officials should be probing the companies and organizations that seem to be preying on smaller businesses and consumer groups. While there are obvious exceptions, it seems that generally what legislators and others in state, local, or federal government tend to do is treat symptoms instead of taking steps that address core issues. What common sense legal and investigative steps might public officials take to expose these concerns and concerns with the authentic goal of bringing such predatory and harmful practices to an end? After all, it has been documented that without millions of more manufactured homes, the affordable housing crisis can’t be solved with conventional housing alone, correct? Link results.

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsYou raise an important point. Addressing predatory practices in the housing industry requires proactive steps from public officials. Let’s explore some common-sense legal and investigative measures they can take to expose and combat these concerns:

  1. Strengthen Regulatory Oversight:
    • Audit and Inspect: Regularly audit and inspect housing providers, lenders, and industry organizations. Investigate complaints thoroughly.
    • Enforce Existing Laws: Ensure that existing fair housing laws are enforced rigorously. Investigate any violations promptly.
    • Whistleblower Protections: Strengthen protections for whistleblowers who report industry misconduct. Encourage employees and residents to come forward without fear of retaliation.
  2. Transparency and Reporting:
    • Public Reporting: Publish data on housing providers’ practices, complaints, and enforcement actions. Transparency helps identify patterns and hold violators accountable.
    • Consumer Complaint Portals: Create user-friendly online portals where residents and employees can report concerns anonymously. Make these portals accessible and widely known.
  3. Collaborate with Advocacy Groups:
    • Work with Advocates: Collaborate with nonprofit organizations, advocacy groups, and community leaders. They often have firsthand knowledge of industry issues.
    • Joint Investigations: Conduct joint investigations with advocacy groups to uncover predatory practices. Pool resources and expertise.
  4. Enhance Preemption Enforcement:
    • Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA): Strengthen enforcement of enhanced preemption provisions under MHIA. Ensure that state and local regulations do not hinder manufactured housing affordability.
    • Federal Agencies: Coordinate with federal agencies (e.g., HUD) to ensure consistent enforcement.
  5. Antitrust and RICO Investigations:
    • Antitrust Enforcement: Investigate potential anticompetitive behavior by industry players. Address monopolistic practices that harm consumers.
    • Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO): If evidence suggests organized wrongdoing, consider RICO investigations. This can expose systemic issues.
  6. Public Hearings and Testimony:
    • Legislative Hearings: Hold public hearings where residents, employees, and experts can testify about industry practices. Gather firsthand accounts.
    • Legislation Based on Testimony: Use testimony to inform new legislation or regulatory reforms.
  7. Data Collection and Analysis:
    • Comprehensive Data: Collect comprehensive data on housing affordability, predatory practices, and industry dynamics. Analyze trends and identify areas for intervention.
    • Research Partnerships: Collaborate with research institutions to conduct independent studies on industry practices.
  8. Promote Affordable Housing Alternatives:
    • Manufactured Homes: Encourage the development of more manufactured homes. Address zoning restrictions and promote innovative financing options.
    • Mixed-Use Communities: Explore mixed-use developments that integrate affordable housing with other amenities.
  9. Educate Consumers and Industry Professionals:
    • Consumer Awareness Campaigns: Educate consumers about their rights, fair housing laws, and how to report violations.
    • Industry Training: Provide training to industry professionals on ethical practices, fair housing, and compliance.
  10. Public-Private Partnerships:
    • Collaborate with Industry: Engage with responsible industry players who prioritize consumer welfare. Encourage self-regulation and best practices.
    • Incentives for Compliance: Offer incentives (e.g., tax breaks) to companies that adhere to fair practices.

In summary, public officials must take a multifaceted approach, combining legal enforcement, transparency, collaboration, and education. By addressing core issues, we can move toward a housing industry that serves all Americans, especially those affected by the affordable housing crisis123. 🏠⚖️

Learn more


Summarize key notions, evidence, and possible action steps covered in this thread.

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsCertainly! Let’s summarize the key points, evidence, and potential action steps discussed in this conversation:

  1. Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) Concerns:
    • Critics have raised concerns about MHI’s actions, favoritism toward larger players, and failure to promote industry growth.
    • Evidence suggests a disconnect between MHI’s claims and actual outcomes.
    • Legal risks for MHI board members include breach of fiduciary duty, false advertising, and negligence.
  2. MHAction and Funding:
    • MHAction, funded in part by Warren Buffett, focuses on documenting harms to manufactured home community residents.
    • Questions arise about MHAction’s sincerity and alignment with industry players.
    • Legal risks for MHAction include breach of duty, misrepresentation, and lack of transparency.
  3. Fear of Retaliation:
    • Residents fear retaliation from community operators.
    • Employees and managers may hesitate to blow the whistle due to job security concerns.
    • Steps include knowing rights, documenting issues, seeking legal advice, and collective action.
  4. Public Officials’ Role:
    • Public officials should:
      • Strengthen regulatory oversight.
      • Enhance preemption enforcement.
      • Investigate antitrust violations.
      • Promote affordable housing alternatives.
      • Educate consumers and industry professionals.
      • Collaborate with advocacy groups.
  5. Addressing Core Issues:
    • Addressing predatory practices requires a multifaceted approach.
    • Transparency, accountability, and ethical behavior are essential.
    • Industry growth, affordability, and consumer welfare should be prioritized.

In summary, addressing industry challenges involves legal action, transparency, education, and collaboration. By focusing on core issues, we can work toward a more equitable and thriving housing industry. 🏠⚖️ …”


16) After years of carefully documenting evidence from a range of sources, MHLivingNews and/or MHProNews have developed what appears to be the largest and most popular collections of research, facts, data, and evidence that reflects why manufactured housing has been underperforming during an affordable housing crisis.  Complementing those efforts and leading the charge from the nonprofit side is MHARR.

As MHARR’s Weiss has argued, what is needed isn’t “Shams and delusions” no matter how appealing they may seem to be. What is needed instead is to deal with reality and for those in a position to act to do so authentically, instead of in some “sham” fashion.

See the linked reports that follow to see more evidence of the concerns and to learn more.














https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/black-holes-in-journalism-kristina-borjesson-only-released-half-information-govt-agencies-big-media-woes-shadows-of-liberty-acclaimed-full-documentary-with-exclusive-annotate/ and https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/runaway-corporate-monopoly-power-inequality-generating-machine-ultra-rich-get-richer-but-5-billion-grow-poorer-says-oxfam-per-inequality-report-facts-with-u-s-and-mhville-in/


Former MHI state affiliates broke away and in 2018 formed the National Association for Manufactured Housing Community Owners, NAMHCO. They cited MHI’s years of failures as part of their reason for doing so.


See his context and the full ‘debate’ context in the report, linked here. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/epic-kevin-clayton-moat-rant-analysis-lesli-gooch-debate-defense-doug-ryan-charge-end-clayton-monopoly-over-manufactured-housing-breaching-buffett-berkshire-clayton-monopolistic-moat-method/


Strommen Manufactured Housing Institute remark: MHI is a mouthpiece of the Big 3 – in apparent Restraint of Trade and Should Not Get NOERR protection. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/true-tale-of-four-attorneys-research-into-manufactured-housing-what-they-reveal-about-why-manufactured-homes-are-underperforming-during-an-affordable-housing-crisis-facts-and-analysis/

Note: to expand this image below to a larger or full size, see the instructions

below the graphic below or click the image and follow the prompts.

Ironically, Skyline Champion’s own investor pitch-deck provides ample evidence for manufactured housing industry underperformance. That same pitch-deck further provides evidence that Mergers and Acquisitions are a key part of their business model. What is there in such revelations that Birch and Williams miss? Bear in mind, that they are mere stand-ins who voluntarily raised their hands in defense of Berkshire and MHI firms like Skyline Champion. Notice: Several of the illustrations shown in this report can be opened in many browsers to reveal a larger size. To open this picture, click the image once. When the window opens, click it again to reveal the larger size photo. Use your browsers back key to return to the article. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/true-tale-of-four-attorneys-research-into-manufactured-housing-what-they-reveal-about-why-manufactured-homes-are-underperforming-during-an-affordable-housing-crisis-facts-and-analysis/and https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/democratic-congressional-staffer-alleged-manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-anti-consumer-manufactured-housing-institute-leaders-decline-comment-sam-strommen-antitrust-case-allegations-anal/


Mark Weiss and MHARR continue to do yeoman’s work in systematically documenting the problematic patterns that often involve their larger trade group rival. Not only is MHARR dealing with public officials, but they also have apparently felt compelled to deal with issues related to the industry historic underperformance.  Numerous questions about conflicts of interest and seemingly deceptive tactics at MHI exist, as the Q&A with Copilot only begins to skim the surface.




https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/rest-of-story-residents-media-complain-rhp-properties-on-evictions-discrimination-stiff-hikes-havenpark-communities-named-where-is-manufactured-housing-institutes-code/ Note: Havenpark, per a source, is no longer an MHI member, but the reason for that is unclear. If Havenpark was booted, why are others tolerated? Or did Havanpark’s leaders, after fact checks like this one, figure out that it simply didn’t make sense to stay a member of MHI and they just left MHI on their own?
ManufacturedHousingInstituteHitByAntitrustAllegationsInOpEd_MHI-AttorneyDavidGochMollyBoyleAskedRespondEvidenceBasedConcernsCopilot-AiFac CheckRefersToMHIsOrwellianApproachMHProNews
When MHI leaders and outside attorneys are asked by MHProNews to respond to remarks like the one posted above, they routinely remain silent. A recent example of MHI failing to respond to a standing invitation to weigh in, supplemented by an almost business-daily publicly announced remark to that effect, is a specific contact with respect to the timely and demonstrably relevant topics linked here. MHI launched the use of that new logo in 2022 when manufactured home production was in the early phase of what became a sharp 15-month long production downturn. Meaning, MHI’s use of such slogans are similar to Soviet-style or Orwellian propaganda slogans.  https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/manufactured-housing-institute-hit-by-antitrust-allegations-in-op-ed-mhi-attorney-boyle-asked-to-respond-to-evidence-based-concerns-ai-fact-check-refers-to-mhis-orwellian/


In business and politics, there are numerous examples of surprising turns of events, head-fakes, and narratives that if believed can lead to false conclusions.




True Tale of Four Attorneys Research into Manufactured Housing – What They Reveal About Why Manufactured Homes Are Underperforming During an Affordable Housing Crisis – Facts and Analysis


Still and quote are from the video posted on this page. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/we-need-to-remove-the-shackles-on-our-industry-mhi-ceos-historic-call-for-cfpb-feds-to-unleash-manufactured-home-industry-growth-via-more-lending-marty-lavin-in/
MHI has been ducking accountability for years, as these documented examples linked immediately above and below reflect. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/4-quick-documented-examples-of-manufactured-housing-institute-leaders-publicly-ducking-out-on-explaining-their-performance-or-lack-thereof-els-howard-walker/

“Antitrust laws…are the Magna Carta of free
enterprise. They are as important to the
preservation of economic freedom and our
free-enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is
to the protection of our fundamental personal

  • U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall
    United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.,
    405 U.S. 596, 610 (1972)


Department of Justice (DoJ) – “Price fixing, bid rigging, and other forms of collusion are illegal and are subject to criminal prosecution by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice.”

  • “Most criminal antitrust prosecutions involve price fixing, bid rigging, or market division or allocation schemes. Each of these forms of collusion may be prosecuted criminally if they occurred, at least in part, within the past five years. Proving such a crime does not require us to show that the conspirators entered into a formal written or express agreement. Price fixing, bid rigging, and other collusive agreements can be established either by direct evidence, such as the testimony of a participant, or by circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious bid patterns, travel and expense reports, telephone records, and business diary entries.” (Emphasis added by MHProNews).
  • “Market division or allocation schemes are agreements in which competitors divide markets among themselves.”


Part III – Our Daily Business News on MHProNews stock market recap which features our business-daily at-a-glance update of over 2 dozen manufactured housing industry stocks.

This segment of the Daily Business News on MHProNews is the recap of yesterday evening’s market report, so that investors can see at glance the type of topics may have influenced other investors. Thus, our format includes our signature left (CNN Business) and right (Newsmax) ‘market moving’ headlines.

The macro market moves graphics below provide context and comparisons for those invested in or tracking manufactured housing connected equities. Meaning, you can see ‘at a glance’ how manufactured housing connected firms do compared to other segments of the broader equities market.

In minutes a day readers can get a good sense of significant or major events while keeping up with the trends that may be impacting manufactured housing connected investing.

Headlines from left-of-center CNN Business – 5.7.2024

  • Slaughterhouse cleaning company fined $649,000 for child workers
  • Demonstrators are seen at the pro-Palestinian encampment at the Columbia University in New York on Sunday.
  • Trump-appointed judges say they’ll boycott Columbia grads over university’s handling of protests
  • TikTok sues to block prospective US app ban
  • Panera is dropping Charged Lemonade, the subject of multiple wrongful death lawsuits
  • New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft at AT&T Stadium on October 1, 2023 in Arlington, Texas.
  • ‘Draw a line in the sand, but don’t draw a swastika,’ Kraft foundation tells campus protesters
  • Columbia’s student journalists produced New York magazine’s cover story. Here’s how they did it
  • People walk by an Apple store in Glendale, California, on December 26.
  • Apple unveils new iPad Pro with ‘outrageously powerful’ AI-powered chip
  • The new Swiss Army Knife will be missing a key feature
  • In an aerial view, cars travel along Interstate 80 on January 16, 2024 in Berkeley, California.
  • Fender benders mean serious high-tech repairs now
  • A woman casts her ballot in the 2020 general election inside the Basset Place Mall in El Paso, Texas on November 3, 2020.
  • It’s a presidential election year. Here’s what that could mean for your 401(k)
  • The alleged architect of a multibillion-dollar fraud that shook Wall Street heads to trial
  • Europe risks losing its biggest oil companies to America
  • Americans have spent their savings. Economists worry about what comes next
  • UBS makes first profit since Credit Suisse rescue
  • Elizabeth Holmes shaves more time off her sentence
  • Nintendo says Switch successor will be unveiled by March 2025
  • Kremlin critic Kara-Murza wins Pulitzer Prize for columns written from prison cell
  • FAA opens new probe into Boeing, this time involving 787 Dreamliner inspections
  • When grief and AI collide: These people are communicating with the dead
  • Warren Buffett compares AI to nuclear weapons in stark warning
  • Howard Schultz wants Starbucks to fix its American business
  • Trump Media fires accounting firm after old one accused of being a ‘sham audit mill’
  • Three things investors probably don’t know, but should


In instances such as Apollo, Berkshire Hathaway, Blackstone or others, manufactured housing may only be part of their corporate interests. Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. 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.
Notice: MHProNews invites the firms named in these reports to respond to any concerns about possibly inaccurate information via email that identifies the concern and offers evidence that sheds a different light on the topic discussed. That said, neither MHI nor MHI publicly traded ‘insider brands’ have done so. They’ve been repeatedly invited to do so, including but not limited to an outreach on Dec 7, 2o23 and Feb 25, 2024.


mas kovach mhpronews shopping with soheyla .jp

Get our ‘read-hot’ industry-leading 

get our ‘read-hot’ industry-leading emailed headline news updates

Scroll to Top