The REAL Women Shaping the History and Potential Future of Manufactured Housing. Not Yet Household Names, But These Women Merit Well Earned Affordable Housing Crisis Spotlight. MHVille FEA

Scholastica “Gay” Cororaton. Elena Falcettoni. Regina Gray. Maris Jensen. Amy Schmitz. Lisa Tyler. These are some of the names of real women who could, and arguably should, get specific attention for their contributions to a better understanding of the HUD Code manufactured housing industry’s authentic (vs. imagined or narrative-driven) dynamics. Alongside Regina Gray, one might mention Pamela Blumenthal who teamed up with Gray on a timeless affordable housing related topic that pointed out: “The regulatory environment — federal, state, and local — that contributes to the extensive mismatch between supply and need has worsened over time. Federally sponsored commissions, task forces, and councils under both Democratic and Republican administrations have examined the effects of land use regulations on
affordable housing for more than 50 years.” Providing these women’s names from ‘outside’ of the manufactured home industry should not be construed to in any way diminish those women INSIDE manufactured housing who may (or may not) be contributing to the authentic advancement of the industry. Quoting from Part I.

An audit of MHI’s digital resources reveals a striking absence of foundational, third-party pro-industry research generated by respected scholars, raising critical questions regarding fiduciary duty, tax-exempt compliance under IRS Form 990, and potential opportunity costs for shareholders and stakeholders.

1. To adhere to the female-focus of this facts-evidence-analysis (FEA), Pema Chödrön said: “Acknowledging that we are all churned up is the first and most difficult step in any practice. Without compassionate recognition that we are stuck, it’s impossible to liberate ourselves from confusion.” That is in her book The Places That Scare You: A Guide to Fearlessness in Difficult Times, Chapter 4 (“Discomfort Zone”) which “which explores seeing our emotional entanglements and difficulties clearly without denial or evasion. To borrow her concept and apply it to manufactured housing: there is a need to acknowledge that the manufactured housing industry has been “stuck” around or under 100k new HUD Code home shipments for some 8 years (696,121/8=87,015.125) while the ‘sister’ industry of RVs went from trailing manufactured housing to dramatically surpassing it.

2. Or applying this to manufactured housing, when Roxanne Bland who urged: “You want the truth, follow the money.”

3. Or applying Carol Roth’s insight to manufactured housing, when she stated the following.

“In fact, big companies secretly love regulation because regulations are in fact anti-competitive — every new rule, law or compliance measure limits the ability of existing smaller competitors or new start-ups to compete. While big businesses can use their caches of cash to fund new people and procedures to deal with regulation, for many small businesses, a new regulation can put them out of business.” – Carol Roth.

4. From the initial paragraph above, it should be noted that part of the relevance of Scholastica “Gay” Cororaton is because she corrected mistakes (see her footnote #1) that were in the original document that included input from a Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) team member she named in that footnote, yet MHI didn’t call into question the problematic date or terminology in her research? See original way Cororaton work was published until MHProNews’ Kovach contacted her at this link here. In hindsight, the acceptance of errors, the failure to robustly promote manufactured housing, the failure of MHI to rigorously seek enforcement of good laws that were supposed to benefit manufactured housing are part of the consolidation thesis, see here, here, here and here.

5. This MHProNews MHVille facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) is underway.

 

 

 

Part I. MHProNews notes that in most cases in recent years, the human intelligence (HI) part of an article is drafted and is then submitted to third-party artificial intelligence (AIs) for a facts-evidence-analysis check that mimics academic style rigor. In this particular article, not only the preface, but much of Part III was written first (see the HI authored pre-publication draft linked here). So, even though Gemini (and then Copilot) response are shown before Part III, much of Part III was written before and was acts-evidence-analysis (FEA) checked before this response below from the input-inquiry process with Google‘s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini linked here and confirmed here generated the following findings.

Executive Summary

This Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) examines the developing report on the women—both inside and outside the manufactured housing industry—who have shaped its history, research, and potential future. By evaluating independent academic, federal, and trade data against the official posture and public platforms of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), this inquiry addresses whether probing external research highlights a systemic disconnect between MHI’s stated nonprofit mission and its practical outcomes.

While corporate leaders such as Sam Landy of UMH Properties (UMH) and Gary Shiffman of Sun Communities have emphasized that greenfield development significantly outperforms turnaround operations, the broader industry remains stuck at a fraction of its historic 1990s production peaks. An audit of MHI’s digital resources reveals a striking absence of foundational, third-party pro-industry research generated by respected scholars, raising critical questions regarding fiduciary duty, tax-exempt compliance under IRS Form 990, and potential opportunity costs for shareholders and stakeholders.

Comparative Research and Findings on MHI Visibility

Researcher / Contributor	Professional Affiliation / Background	Focus of Research / Contribution	Found on MHI Website?	Strategic Relevance to MHVille
Scholastica “Gay” Cororaton	Certified Business Economist (CBE), National Association of Realtors (NAR)	Analyzed economic metrics, affordability advantages, and historical market share of manufactured housing vs. apartments.	No (Search yields zero results)	Underscores the failure of trade leadership to weaponize positive third-party housing data to counter public stigma.
Lisa Tyler, PhD	Academic Dean, Bethel University	Conducted comprehensive doctoral research examining community attitudes, zoning barriers, and the 51-fold impact of “stigma”.	No (Search yields zero results)	Highlights the industry’s historical void of academic resources and lack of institutional promotion for supportive scholars.
Elena Falcettoni	Senior Economist, Federal Reserve Board	Researched factory-built housing history, price drops, productivity, and anti-competitive regulatory headwinds.	No (Search yields zero results)	Connects modern underperformance to historical regulatory sabotage and anticompetitive market practices.
Regina Gray	Director, HUD Office of Policy Development & Research	Documented the evolution of the HUD Code as a precursor to modern industrialized construction and global innovation.	No (Limited/Nil direct promotional archive)	Validates the foundational strength of the HUD Code while contrasting government recognition with trade group inaction.
Amy Schmitz, JD	Professor, Moritz School of Law, OSU (formerly Univ. of Colorado)	Examined consumer protections, predatory financing, warranty abuses, and the enhanced preemption mandates of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA).	No	Provides legal backing regarding the necessity of enforcing federal preemption to override restrictive local zoning.
Maris Jensen	Researcher, University of California, Berkeley	Studied market foreclosure, vertical integration patterns, and financing structures contributing to 21st-century consolidation.	No	Exposes how consolidation-focused firms may distort competition and depress organic market growth.

MHI IRS Form 990 Claims vs. Empirical Reality

Form 990 Statutory Claim Part III	Stated Purpose / Obligation	Empirical Observation & Audit Finding	Potential Legal & Fiduciary Implications
Line 4c	Accumulation and distribution of industry information and statistics to government officials, media, and the public.	Website search functions fail to surface vital third-party economic research (e.g., Cororaton, Tyler, Falcettoni).	Failure to actively distribute educational and promotional findings contradicts tax-exempt educational assertions.
Line 4b	Obtaining reasonable federal codes/standards and enhancing the recognition and image of manufactured housing.	Resistance or slow-walking broad national marketing campaigns (e.g., “Go MH!”) while prioritizing narrow consolidation agendas.	Inaction or active thwarting of organic growth initiatives may constitute a breach of fiduciary care for member stakeholders.

Macro-Level Production vs. Historic Share Benchmarks

Era / Period	Benchmark Metric	Estimated Market Share / Output	Key Industry Drivers & Structural Realities
Pre-HUD Code / 1970s	Share of Single-Family Starts	Exceeded 30% of single-family housing production	Rapid industrial innovation, state-level building codes, and expansive consumer placement.
1990s Peak Era	Production & Shipments	Sustained at or above 20% of single-family housing starts	High consumer demand, independent retail networks, and diversified financing options.
Berkshire Era (2000s–Present)	Post-Acquisition Stagnation	Hovering near 9 to 10 percent market share; shipments stuck under 100k annually for nearly 8 years	Widespread corporate consolidation, vertical foreclosure, restrictive zoning, and lack of aggressive institutional defense.

Validity of the Female-Focused Research Probe and Fact-Checking

• Fairness of Inquiry: Probing the work of prominent female researchers, economists, and legal scholars (Cororaton, Falcettoni, Gray, Jensen, Schmitz, and Tyler) is entirely valid. It provides an objective, evidence-based lens to evaluate whether the national trade association promotes external validation that refutes common public stigmas.
• Accuracy of Draft References: The citations, quotes, and comparative production metrics utilized throughout the draft accurately reflect published academic literature, federal reports, and historical Census Bureau data.
• Absence from MHI Channels: The fact that independent, highly supportive research documents are entirely absent from MHI’s digital footprint demonstrates a passive—if not active—indifference toward public education, directly challenging the organization’s IRS Form 990 declarations.

Ripple Effects, Corporate Fiduciary Duty, and Shareholder Impact

The strategic choice by dominant, MHI-linked corporate entities (vertically integrated producers, lenders, and community consolidators) to build economic “moats” creates profound negative ripple effects. While restrictive moats and high regulatory barriers protect large balance sheets from new market entrants, they simultaneously suppress total shipment volume.

By failing to aggressively champion national marketing campaigns, failing to secure universal enforcement of the Enhanced Preemption provisions of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, and allowing persistent zoning discrimination to choke off community development, these corporate giants are actively curtailing their own top-line revenues and bottom-line profits. Shareholders and stakeholders in firms like Champion Homes (SKY) and other major market players bear the opportunity cost of depressed production—operating at a mere 25% to 30% of historic peaks during a national affordable housing crisis. Under legal precedent, persistent oversight failures by corporate boards can invite severe scrutiny regarding fiduciary negligence.

Conclusion

The examination of women-led research outside the manufactured housing industry—alongside the scrutiny of leadership execution within it—reveals a stark paradox: while independent scholars consistently validate factory-built housing as an elite solution to the affordable housing crisis, institutional leadership under MHI oversees structural stagnation and consolidation. This probe not only exposes a disconnect between tax-exempt filings and real-world advocacy, but it also provides industry researchers with the quantitative evidence needed to demand true accountability and organic growth. …

— The full input inquiry process that yielded the above is linked here.—

 

Part II. In response to the pre-publication human intelligence authored draft linked here and the input-inquiry process with Microsoft Bing‘s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Copilot linked here and confirmed here was the following findings.

Executive summary

The developing MHProNews article on “The REAL Women Shaping the History and Potential Future of Manufactured Housing” is broadly accurate, well‑grounded in third‑party research, and uses a valid probe—female‑authored, external scholarship—to test whether the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) is living up to its own stated mission and IRS Form 990 claims. Gemini’s FEA is directionally solid and largely consistent with the evidence, though a few points (e.g., Maris Jensen’s “more than fifty percent of single‑family starts” assertion) warrant nuance and clarification.

Online checks and the MHProNews documentation indicate that none of the key women’s research outputs—by Scholastica “Gay” Cororaton, Lisa Tyler, Elena Falcettoni, Regina Gray, Amy Schmitz, or Maris Jensen—are meaningfully surfaced or promoted on MHI’s public‑facing website at this time. MHProNews’ screenshots of “No Results Found” searches for Cororaton and Tyler on manufacturedhousing.org, combined with independent searches, support that conclusion.

Given MHI’s Form 990 claims about “accumulation and distribution of industry information and statistics” and “enhancing the recognition and image of manufactured housing,” the systematic absence of these supportive, pro‑manufactured‑housing research documents is highly relevant. It points toward a pattern of under‑promotion of evidence that could expand organic demand, consistent with MHProNews’ consolidation/gatekeeper thesis and with Jensen’s and Schmitz’s work on vertical foreclosure and regulatory sabotage.

The emailed observation about MHI staging its Innovative Housing Showcase (IHS) during a congressional recess and amid intense Washington focus on China and Xi Jinping’s visit is also telling. Even without judging the tone, the timing choice plausibly reduces policymaker visibility and reinforces the critique that MHI’s public‑relations theater is not strategically aligned with maximizing legislative impact or organic industry growth.

Table 1 – Presence of key women’s research on MHI’s public site

\*Based on MHProNews’ documented searches plus independent web checks; if any isolated mention exists, it is not prominent or systematically leveraged.

Table 2 – MHI IRS Form 990 claims vs. observed practice

Table 3 – Production benchmarks and consolidation dynamics

Gemini’s summary of these benchmarks is broadly accurate, but Jensen’s “more than fifty percent of single‑family housing starts” language for mid‑1970s factory‑built housing should be treated as an upper‑bound academic framing rather than a settled empirical consensus; NAR’s Cororaton and other data point closer to one‑third.

Table 4 – Ripple effects, fiduciary duty, and the “moat” strategy

Assessment of Gemini’s FEA and the emailed IHS timing tip

• Gemini’s work:
  • Strengths: It correctly identifies the absence of these women’s research on MHI’s site, ties that absence to Form 990 claims, and frames the consolidation/gatekeeper thesis in a way that aligns with Jensen, Schmitz, and MHProNews’ prior FEA cycles.
  • Nuances: As noted, the “more than fifty percent of single‑family starts” claim for factory‑built housing in the mid‑1970s should be treated cautiously; Cororaton’s roughly one‑third benchmark is better supported by NAR/Census data.
• IHS timing tip:
  • Holding the Innovative Housing Showcase during a week when Congress is in recess and Washington is consumed by a major foreign‑policy event (e.g., Xi’s visit) predictably reduces lawmaker and agency bandwidth for manufactured housing. That choice is consistent with a pattern of high‑visibility “dog and pony” events that generate optics but not maximum policy leverage—again fitting the critique that MHI’s actions often serve image management more than aggressive, outcome‑oriented advocacy.

Conclusion

The female‑focused research probe is a valid and revealing way to test whether MHI is living up to its own mission and IRS Form 990 claims. The developing MHProNews article accurately cites and integrates the work of Cororaton, Tyler, Falcettoni, Gray, Schmitz, and Jensen; no material factual inaccuracies emerge from this FEA, aside from the need to nuance Jensen’s high market‑share framing with NAR/Census benchmarks.

Taken together, the absence of these women’s research from MHI’s public footprint, the underuse of MHIA enhanced preemption and HUD Code narratives, the timing of events like IHS, and the consolidation dynamics documented by Jensen and others all point in the same direction: a trade association and set of dominant firms whose strategies protect moats and market power at the expense of organic growth, fuller affordability impact, and potentially their own shareholders’ long‑term revenues and profits.

 

 

Part III. Additional Information from Sources as Shown plus More MHProNews Expert Analysis

In no particular order of importance are the following, and not in alphbetical order.

1. From Lisa Tyler | Examining Community Attitudes Toward Manufactured Housing.

“Despite many studies focused on various housing issues, inadequate academic resources have existed regarding the manufactured housing industry. Zhou (2009) encountered challenges of inadequate information while conducting a doctoral level dissertation on traditional and manufactured housing. According to Zhou, insufficient information existed about the manufactured housing market. Despite the relative importance of manufactured housing in rural communities, researchers and consumers have encountered a lack of information about manufactured homes and their residents (Aman & Yarnal, 2010). Data classification and accessibility issues that prevented rural policymakers from addressing the needs of manufactured home residents have contributed to the lack of available information (Aman & Yarnal, 2010). Although extensive literature has focused on housing tenure choices between renting and owning, studies have not differentiated between owning traditional and manufactured homes (Zhou, 2009). In addition, McCarty and Hepworth (2012) noted that most scholarly work on manufactured home communities has remained outdated, and references to crime in the unique neighborhoods do not exist. Mimura et al. (2010) recognized the lack of existing literature on the association between pride and manufactured home ownership.” (page 49-50 in MS WORD version).

“Despite evidence that disproved misconceptions and negative perceptions of manufactured homes and their residents, negative stereotypes continued to influence local governments to impose regulatory restrictions on the housing type (Dawkins & Koebel, 2010).” (page 88-89 in MS WORD version).

An MS WORD search of her thesis reflected 51 times the word “stigma” was used.

The word perception or perceptions was found 219 times Dr. Tyler’s thesis.

The word “negative” was found 107 times.

Notice in the first quoted paragraph above:

According to Zhou, insufficient information existed about the manufactured housing market.

Why is there “insufficient information” about “the manufactured housing market” when the purpose of an institute has been defined as:

“a specialized, formal body dedicated to the advancement, research, education and advocacy of a specific industry.”

It is worth noting that Tyler cited L. A. “Tony” Kovach in her acknowledgements. Quoting: “I am incredibly appreciative of Tony “L.A. Tony K” Kovach’s insight, feedback, and valuable opportunities to
generate interest and support for my research topic. I am an honored recipient of your generosity in sharing your extensive knowledge and experience.” He was the only industry professional specifically named in that fashion, even though other unnamed mentions of supportive industry professionals are found. To this day (9.25.2026), there is nothing on the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) website about Dr. Tyler’s important, manufactured housing industry focused research. Which begs questions. Why wasn’t Tyler given some level of encouragement during her academic preparation for her thesis? Or why no public-facing mention from MHI on their site even years after her research was published? An “institute” is supposed to do precisely such promotional, education, and advocacy style work. Thus, the lack of mention of Tyler or others in this FEA model discussion is significant and noteworthy.

There is much more to know about Dr. Tyler’s work, which may be the subject of a future article either on MHProNews and/or on MHLivingNews. Watch for it.

2.  Scholastica “Gay” Cororaton, NAR. The first of the annotated screen shots below was posted on November 24, 2020.  Nearly 6 years later, and some 8 years after Cororaton’s article was published, is this same research found on MHI’s website?

 

 

3. Regina Gray.

Quoting Gray (see post linked below)” “Operation Breakthrough’s biggest accomplishment, however, was the adoption of the HUD Code, which introduced the industry and the world to manufactured housing.” Gray also said: “In fact, in our recent engagements with international delegations, officials have characterized the HUD Code as a precursor to innovation in industrialized construction. Although discussions to modernize the HUD Code are ongoing, nations such as Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Japan look to the code to demonstrate the benefits of industrialized housing construction.” Is that or more from HUD’s Regina Gray on MHI’s website?

 

 

4. Elena Falcettoni. What makes Falcettoni, a colleague of James “Jim” Schmitz Jr. and his similar work or perhaps particular noteworthy in this context is that Falcettoni appeared to present at the same symposium that MHI CEO Lesli Gooch did. Is Falcettoni found on the MHI website on this date? Per her bio-in-brief here (page 32): “Elena is a Sr. Economist at the Federal Reserve Board. Her research interests are health economics, inequality, and affordable housing.”

 

a) From Falcettoni‘s page 33.

With the new dataset, we show that:
o Factory-built housing has been underreported substantially by focusing on mobile homes
only
o Factory-built housing was a massive share of single-family housing (60% in 1970) and
dropped substantially over the years (separate paper on policies that affected this)

b) In her work with Jim Schmitz, Jr., see the report below.

c) Falcettoni and her colleagues pointed out how far superior the industry’s results were in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That’s hardly an endorsement of MHI’s 21st century performance as measured by key performance indicators. Falcettoni et al covered, at least by implication, points made by MHProNews in reports like the ones below.

 

d) Per Falcettoni et al:

Banning of Mobile Homes. Factory-homes that pre-dated Mobile Homes, again, Modular Homes and panelized homes, were not banned from traditional housing channels. They were permitted in single-family residential districts. They were subject to the same building codes and zoning ordinances as traditionally built homes. But they faced significant opposition.

e) Also, per Falcettoni et al:

Related Literature.²³ Our forebears wrote extensively about factory-built housing and its great potential during the first half of the 20th century (see below). But after 1950, our profession simply forgot about factory-built homes and their great potential. One exception were the economists at Morgan Guaranty Trust Company (MGTC) who wrote a series of articles on the potential of factory-built housing in the late 1960s and the early 1970s.²⁴ MGTC (1969) illustrated, for example, that over the period 1948-1968, residential construction costs rose roughly 100 percent, while prices of durable goods manufacturing (containing industries of similar nature to factory-built housing) rose only 22 percent.

Notice how several researchers have commented on the lack of information about manufactured housing and/or the history of the manufactured housing/pre-HUD Code mobile home industry? By implication, that is arguably a slam on MHI as an “institute” in the sense of: “a specialized, formal body dedicated to the advancement, research, education, and advocacy of a specific industry.”

f) From the footnotes of Falcettoni et al:

² See, for example, Thurman Arnold (1947) for how resistance by incumbents in the stick-built sector sabotaged factory production of homes. Arnold, among many other accomplishments, ran the antitrust division at the Department of Justice under FDR from 1938-1943. He brought indictments against many groups that were sabotaging factory-built homes during his tenure. More below on the sabotage of factory- built homes.

This is also where the Q&A with Rachel Cohen Booth and MHI CEO Lesli Gooch comes into play.  Quoting Gooch, per Cohen Booth.

“In 2017, I had a dialogue with our technical activities committee, and we said, ‘Okay, what is it that we need to do to move manufactured housing forward?’ and the chassis issue was raised,” Gooch recalled. It was then, she said, that MHI started to really discuss how to change the legislation.”

On several levels that is troubling, perhaps even absurd, IF the goal was to advance the number of new manufactured home shipments was the topic. While the RV industry was rising, the manufactured home industry was sliding. It is often pointed out that mobile homes emerged from the RV industry. They have some common history. But RVs are often a discretionary purchase. Manufactured homes for millions are an affordable housing necessity.

 

 

So, the linkage between proper understanding of the HUD Code manufactured housing industry, proper acceptance of the industry, and measurable results ought to be nearly inescapable. Yet, some of the very third-party research that could help lift the industry’s understanding and acceptance is not to be found on the MHI website? That is why Scholastica “Gay” Cororaton, Elena Falcettoni, Regina Gray, Maris Jensen, Amy Schmitz and Lisa Tyler are and will remain relevant. One might critique those women on other topics, or even for items that they may have handled differently. Nevertheless, their research individually and collectively raised the proper understanding of why manufactured homes are necessary and ought to be warmly embraced. Yet, if MHI is serious about some of their prior IRS Form 990 claims, appears to be lacking the very kind of 3rd party information that might raise industry performance? The logical facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) model disconnect is stark. Newcomers and returning readers alike are reminded that a nonprofit has to file certain forms and reporting to obtain and maintain their nonprofit status and that those are done under penalty of perjury.

 

5. Amy Schmitz. Professor Amy J Schmitz, J.D., is currently at the Moritz School of Law at OSU. Per her webpage their: “A distinguished scholar, Professor Schmitz has published over 75 articles in law journals and books…” At the time of this article on manufactured housing and the law, she was an associate professor at the University of Colorado School of Law. She credited Emily Lauck, Christian Earle, Jennifer Owens for research assistance.

Per Schmitz, after explaining that she will use MH to describe both pre-HUD Code mobile homes and post-HUD Code manufactured homes, she said this.

Many Americans aspire to home ownership. This is because homes provide shelter, and, perhaps more importantly, they may provide status along with communal, emotional, and financial security.¹ However, home ownership can be one’s greatest dream or worst nightmare.² This is especially true for owners of ‘‘mobile homes,’’ referred to as ‘‘manufactured homes’’ (collectively ‘‘MHs’’ in this Article) if built post-1976 in accordance with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) codes.³ MH dwellers experience nightmares as a result of political, social, and geographical marginalization.

..

Meanwhile, Congress enacted the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) in 2000.

…

The MHIA also ensures that these minimum installation standards and dispute resolution programs would preempt any contrary state laws.¹⁰

…

“MH sites are limited due to zoning restrictions and dwindling lot space.”

…

MHs have become an important source of housing for families that cannot afford to purchase conventional homes, or even to rent decent apartments. These MHs serve unique functions in the housing market, and offer opportunities for low-income consumers to build equity and communal connections.

…

Powerful MH manufacturers, lenders, retailers, and park owners (collectively referred to in this article as MH insiders)⁴⁹ wield significant control in the MH market, which may help them reap cost savings that they may share with consumers.⁵⁰ However, this control also perpetuates warranty and financing abuses by MH manufacturers and lenders.⁵¹ Some MH park landlords further augment these abuses by imposing onerous expenses and living conditions on MH owners who generally must rent spaces for their homes in these parks.

…

On the whole, MH residents have soft political voices, especially in comparison with MH insiders.

…

…but many criticized HUD for failing to address growing problems with installation and costly dispute resolution.⁹⁰ This criticism sparked Congress to enact the MHIA in 2000, aimed at providing a fair and efficient means for resolving warranty claims, regulations ensuring the safe installation of MHs, and clarification of the federal government’s preemptive regulation of the MH industry.⁹¹

…

Predatory Financing of MHs

Note Schmitz repeatedly and correctly addressed the clarification (meaning, strengthening) of the “federal government’s preemptive regulation of the MH industry.⁹¹” That is in line with what the plain language of the law says, and what numerous individuals involved in both major trade groups, lawmakers involved in the process, attorneys, and others have said about “enhanced preemption.”

These insights by Amy Schmitz are from 2004. They could in several respects could arguably be cited as being relevant today.

6. Maris Jensen. Her research documents patterns of consolidation, their timeframe and causes. Jensen cited ‘vertical foreclosure’ and financing as among the keys that de facto sheds light on why the industry shrank dramatically in the 21st century.

 

 

7. While this is research is relevant on several levels, among them are the concerns previously published by MHProNews about how MHI’s performance on publishing (or not publishing) information that could advance the industry intersects with their claims to the IRS that are the basis of their nonprofit status. One must keep in mind that IRS Form 990 filings are completed under penalties of perjury.

 

 

 

 

8. It seems increasingly difficult for MHI to claim that they are seeking organic industry growth when they fail to take the obvious and logical steps that would accomplish that industry growth. For example, why would MHI leaders say no to a national campaign to grow the industry when that campaign is effectively paid by consumers?

 

 

9. Which points out that while there are women who have arguably provided valuable research and information that could advance manufactured housing, there are also women INSIDE manufactured housing who have arguably failed in that same duty, despite fiduciary requirements for them to do so, based upon their role.  One example of that is Lesli Gooch, but there are others. Women in the industry who are arguably failing the industry may be the subject of a planned follow up. Stay tuned.

 

 

10.  As an email to MHProNews, commenting on the Innovative Housing Showcase (IHS) which occurred this week said:

“…MHI had its dog and pony show in Washington this week, and if you want to know how dumb and stupid these people are, they did this in a week when Congress is in recess and the whole Washington, White House, Government Agencies are fully consumed with China and XI’s visit — go figure!”

Given that such schedules are set months in advance, didn’t that observation about the timing of IHS 2026 make a valid point? But the question might be, was it ‘dumb and stupid’ or was okay with MHI’s leadership, because they want to be able to point to something (e.g.: IHS 2026) as a promotion, without going deeper and seeing if several years of those events have made any measurable difference for manufactured housing acceptance? If so, the industry’s data doesn’t reflect that, thus the relevance of the remark.

 

 

11. This list of women who have produced manufactured housing industry relevant research is not exhaustive. For example, Esther Sullivan, often cited in some circles, was not mentioned or considered and was NOT submitted to third-party AIs for this article. Why not? Because there are reasons why MHI would be able to express to avoid quoting or mentioning Sullivan – unless it was to try to debunk some of Sullivan’s research.

 

12. There is an FEA-based case to be made those other pragmatic reasons to cite the research by these women. For example:

• Single women and married or unmarried couples that include a woman account for the vast majority—roughly 82% to 88%—of all U.S. home purchases. [1, 2]
• Married couples: Account for 62% of all buyers (the vast majority of which include a woman). [1, 2]
• Single women: Account for 20% to 21% of all buyers (making them the second-largest overall buyer group). [1, 2]

Meaning, if you want to appeal to more women why not use the research that included or was spearheaded by a woman? It is a no-brainer. Yet, once more, MHI has failed to do what ought to be a ‘no-brainer.’

These are not oversights. These are choices. There are people in the MHI orbit who promote women in the industry, but they do so for women who are either in MHI, or who are promoting aspects of the MHI-and consolidation focused corporate narrative.

13. 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