The hotlink in the electronically conveyed statement that follows was edited in by MHProNews for clarity. “Tony, Very nice article and analysis. That said, you missed a few of their [i.e.: MHI] more cynical and devious proposals.” That message was sent earlier this week and proposed a phone call that subsequently took place between the tipster and MHProNews. That party is reasonably well known and has deep ties to distinct segments of the manufactured housing industry. What follows in Part I are statements written (quoted) and paraphrased (when spoken) as notes were taken during the call (as also occurs in other calls). MHProNews offers these statements and allegations because they are relevant and seem to broadly fit known facts. As the headline indicates, some of the language was salty, which MHProNews doesn’t use, but our publication has at various times quoted others using such language. Both major national trade groups were named, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). All of the big three companies were named (Clayton, Champion, and Cavco), and some of the independents were named as shown in the headline (i.e.: Legacy Housing (LEGH) and Sunshine Homes).
The spark that ignited these statements was the formal testimony from William “Bill” Boor to Congress and the related facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) found at this link here. It should be noted that pre-dawn on this date (5.28.2025) those remarks by Boor to MHI are not found on the public side of the MHI website (see the illustration in Part II, further below). Indeed, MHI’s so-called news has not been updated in over a month and a half.
More facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) of the above and the remarks provided from the tipster in Part I are found in Part II.
‘MHI finally publicly agrees with the bottleneck’s argument [raised by MHARR] for past five years. But they [MHI] are going about it the wrong way. They [MHI] are screwing up zoning. They are screwing up the GSEs. Why didn’t they [MHI] this 5 years ago?’
Part I – Tipster to MHProNews
1) Electronic message to MHProNews that form the source. Typos are in the original and the [bracketed] remarks that follow is the correct spelling added by MHProNews.
These jokers at MHI are finally throwing their collective hands in the air and say UNCLE! And while they don’t say it directly, they concede THAT MHARR (and MHProNews, too) HAVE BEEN CORRECT AND RIGHT ON TARGET ON ALL THESE ISSUES ALL ALONG. They Parrott and mimick [i.e.: mimic] all MHARR’s arguments and language(s) since Trump took office in 2017, but try to make them innacous [i.e.: innocuous] by putting their own spins and CHANGES on them, with the former fairly tolerable and the latter an absolut [i.e.: absolute] no no for…small businesses.
2) During the call that followed that source’s message (which is edited for length and to protect that party’s identity) included the following. Further below are more comments sent electronically. While these various communications took place over a few days, it should be emphasized that they represent a singular line of thinking from the source.
3) Per the caller to MHProNews.
‘[MHI] fucked up the first term of Trump.’
‘[MHI Insiders] are trying to push higher end manufactured homes in a way that will undermine mainstream manufactured homes built to base federal standards.’ Those base standard manufactured homes, that MHARR calls “mainstream” manufactured homes, they are the bread and butter of the industry’s producers.
‘What are CrossMods? They are HUD Code homes. [MHI Insiders] are trying to take a trademarked product and codify that into federal law. You [i.e.: MHI] can’t do that. You [i.e.: MHI] can’t legally take a trademarked product and build legislation around it like they are trying to do with single section CrossMod homes. Imagine if MHI wanted to take, say, a Legacy [Housing] Heritage [model] and they wanted to create legislation that includes that model name in the law. You [MHI] can’t do that. But that’s what they are doing by using CrossMods in a proposed bill, because CrossMod is a name that MHI has trademarked.’
As a [HUD Code] manufacturer, as long as you [i.e.: the HUD Code builder] meet the base federal standards, you can do anything you want after that. You [i.e.: the HUD Code producer] can upgrade a manufactured home as much as you want.
‘It is easier for MHI’s biggest members [Clayton Homes (BRK), Champion Homes (SKY), Cavco Industries (CVCO)] to build a manufactured home with higher standards, but that is not what most consumers of manufactured housing are buying.’
‘They [MHI Insiders] are trying to f-ck Legacy [Housing], Sunshine [Homes], and all of the [HUD Code] independents.’
‘You [MHProNews] can be an independent referee, you can say what you want, while calling out what MHI has now admitted in writing via [MHI chairman] Bill Boor’s remarks [to Congress].’
‘Tony, if you re-read Bill Boor’s testimony. They [MHI] finally are saying what MHARR said during the first Trump term. They [MHI] could have done this [during] First Trump administration. They [effectively] admitted MHARR was right. [MHI] Didn’t do a damn thing about [enhanced preemption, Duty to Serve, DOE energy rule for manufactured housing] during the Trump’s first term.’
‘They [MHI insiders] are screwing up zoning. They [MHI insiders] are screwing up the GSEs. Why didn’t they [MHI insiders] do this 5 years ago?’
There is legitimacy to what you [MHProNews] said. Why didn’t she [MHI’s Lesli Gooch] do anything about energy? The only one that didn’t go along was MHARR and your publications.
‘They [MHI] have people and time on their hands to do these things. [They are] Trying to tire people out so they will get their way.’
‘They [MHI insiders] have used [their contacts at] HUD and HUD’s inspection contractor to make things difficult for independents. They have often tried to go around the MHCC [Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee] in ways to make life difficult for independents.
‘By tiring producers out, by delaying the implementation of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act and the Duty to Serve, they have been fostering consolidation.’
‘They [MHI] want to put mainstream manufactured homes out [of business].’
‘I will send you my notes on Bill Boor’s testimony.’
MHProNews notes that there was much more during that over an hour call. Some of that may be the subject of a possible follow up.
3) Electronic message from the tipster to MHProNews.
As promised, attached is a copy of [Bill Boor’s] MHI’s Testimony [to Congress] which includes my brief observations. Review this document closely and carefully, as one can connect the dots and literally write a book about what the heck is going on with what they are trying to do here. That being said humorously, the dots can and should be connected and the document can and should be used for numerous purposes, depending. There are many other relevant details in these 13 pages that can and should be explored and exposed, but I tried to keep my observations fairly brief and on the main legislative matters at this time.
4) Screen shots of William C. “Bill” Boor’s remarks on behalf of MHI.
a) Comments were handwritten by the source on either side of this page where the parenthesis style marks were made.
MHProNews notes that it is apparent from both spoken and written remarks that the source is a regular reader of both national trade groups, of MHProNews and other industry trade media and bloggers. Paraphrasing what was written (exact quote may be a tell in this case). The tipster pointed out that the MHI Chairman Boor seemed to mimic what MHARR has said on these issues. Why didn’t MHI simply join efforts with MHARR five or more years ago if MHI is sincere about this statement?
b) Continuing handwritten markup by the source to MHProNews regarding Bill Boor’s remarks on behalf of MHI.
The source observed that Boor initially used “affordable” multiple times before pivoting towards the word “attainable.” Verbally and in writing, the source pointed out that “affordable” has a specific definition, as MHARR, MHProNews, and MHLivingNews (besides HUD and others) have noted for years. Other remarks by the source are a possible tell for the firm that source is associated with. “There is a reason why MHI doesn’t mention” and the tipster itemized bullets Boor’s remarks omitted. While the source didn’t use the word “paltering” that is arguably part of that party’s implication.
The source cited and quoted MHARR’s previously published remarks about their meeting with HUD Secretary Scott Turner. If MHI is serious, why doesn’t MHI simply make a joint agreement with MHARR instead of claiming (as Boor said, see screen shot above of MHI’s statement to Congress) “I am thus pleased to offer this testimony on behalf of the entire manufactured housing industry.”
If MHI is working “on behalf of the entire manufactured home industry,” as Boor claimed, then why has MHI in recent years avoided any mention of MHARR and has demonstrably and openly worked instead with conventional housing trade associations instead?
c)
The source pointed out that Boor on behalf of MHI repeatedly used the word “affordable” which is found in federal law, and then shifted to language found on MHI’s website, namely: “attainable.” The word “attainable” is arguably a weaker word and is NOT supported by federal law, which the source asserts could become a problem if this legislation would be enacted without significant changes.
Recall too: “Testimony of Alicia Huey on Behalf of the National Association of Home Builders Before the House Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance Hearing on “How Mandates Like ESG Distort Markets and Drive Up Costs for Insurance and Housing.”
NAHB’s Huey told Congress: “There currently is no federal framework for regulating ESG, yet a growing number of policies have been emerging over the past several years at the federal, state and local levels to do just that.” That is a similar observation to the remark made by the MHI-linked tipster.
Huey also told Congress: “Small businesses are not equipped to deal with ESG paperwork and reporting obligations or further delays to their projects. They are family-operated businesses that generally lack in-house counsel or compliance experts.”
Huey said: “As a benchmark, 87.5 million households (roughly 69% of all U.S. households) are not able to afford a median-priced new home.” MHProNews notes that NAHB more recently said that percentage that can’t buy a median priced site-built house is up to about 75% of all U.S. households.
Huey elaborated.
NAHB continues to urge both Congress and the Administration to address the primary factors limiting builders’ ability to increase the supply and affordability of new housing. These factors can be summarized as the five L’s: lack of labor, lack of lots and land, lumber and materials shortages, lending challenges, and finally laws and regulatory burdens. While there is no silver bullet, rather than further incentivizing and supporting ESG policies that unnecessarily add to the regulatory burdens home builders already face and further impede the ability of our industry to increase the supply of affordable housing nationwide, NAHB urges Congress to pass legislation to alleviate these regulatory burdens and let the market forces determine how best to incorporate ESG considerations into the residential sector.
While the tipster did NOT cite Huey’s remarks, they are parallel in several ways. MHI is asking for new legislation to fix issues that the source asserted could largely be addressed by MHI pushing for the full and effective enforcement of EXISTING laws. In essence, there are some parallels between the tipster’s observations and those of NAHB. It is also worth noting that Huey opposed the Biden-Harris (D) era energy standards being promoted. Huey further linked NAHB research that said just how much federal regulations were costing single family and multi-family building in the way of increased costs. Those items from Huey are found in the bullets’ below.
- [3] https://eyeonhousing.org/2021/05/regulation–now–accounts–for–93870–of–the–average–new–home–price/
- [4] https://www.nahb.org/news–and–economics/press–releases/2022/06/new–research–shows–regulations–accountfor–40–point–6–percent–of–apartment–development–costs
d) Pivoting back to the tipster’s markup of Boor’s remarks for MHI.
e) At the asterisks were the following handwritten remarks. On the right and verbally there were remarks that pointed to the use of the term “preempt” vs. “enhanced preemption.” MHProNews notes that the source is correct to emphasize that point, because the 1974 law that went into effect on June 15, 1976 also had federal preemption. After years of experience, the industry came to the conclusion that initial federal preemption language was not strong enough. Thus, a key need to reform the law which occurred with the enactment of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (a.k.a. MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Act, 2000 Reform Law).
Total BS, as the industry has been doing this since 1976 by building innovative model homes over and above HUD’s minimum standards. This is very important, as it is the basis for trumping their Crossmod argument. Attainable has nothing to do with [the] industry continuing its innovations, but high end [manufactured] homes don’t sell as well.
f) The next section had so many handwritten notes that it is not practical at this time to show that page. That said, among the points from Boor’s formal statement to Congress on behalf of MHI included this. The first quote is what Boor/MHI had to say, followed by some of the essence of the remarks made by the tipster to MHProNews.
1. Support Chairman Flood’s Proposal to Restore the Primacy of the HUD Code
For decades, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has served as the sole federal regulator for the construction and safety standards of manufactured homes through the HUD Code. This system has ensured a consistent, performance-based national standard that balances safety, durability, and affordability. However, this regulatory clarity is now under threat due to conflicting standards issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) and due to state and local requirements that impede placement of HUD Code homes.
Per the source, MHARR’s prior remarks to MHProNews and related documents published by MHProNews have indicated for years: that “…MHI destroyed by supporting by supporting DOE’s energy rule for a long time.”
Other handwritten remarks included these statements.
“MHI agreed with all these [DOE related rule making on energy rule] including negotiated rule making until it [MHI] was forced [by publicity from MHProNews, MHLivingNews and MHARR] to sue!”
Much of what was handwritten on that page tended to confirm points previously published by MHProNews over the years, as the source pointed out that MHI could have pivoted years ago.
So, why is MHI now belatedly adopted in part some of MHARR’s language without mentioning MHARR? If MHI has wanted these goals all along, then much of its behavior for the past decade or more contradict these recent statements.
g) The markup of Page 5 of Boor’s testimony to Congress also had so many handwritten statements that it would be difficult to properly display it below. So, a few pull quotes will provide some of the flavor.
The first five paragraphs from Boor’s testimony included this statement.
“MHI initially agreed with all (see page 4).”
The tipster noted that the examples of bottlenecks on zoning and placement fails to stress that these were the reasons that “enhanced preemption.” were made federal law via the 2000 Reform Law.
MHProNews, not the source, notes that MHI and MHARR both participated in hearings in 2011 and 2012 held by Congress. That said, the source made the point that MHI has on various occasions used the enhanced preemption language, but did not do so in this instance. The omissions by MHI reveal a self-contradictory stance, a similar finding to that of various AI systems that have scanned the internet on behalf of MHProNews chat threads.
At the bottom of Page 5 of Boor’s testimony to Congress, this was handwritten.
“Terrible proposal as it is devoid of the two main MH arguments (1) Enhanced preemption (2) Fed Code vs. IRC Code”
To elaborate on that, during the call, the tipster said that single family housing in the U.S. are either built to some local variation of the International Residential Code (IRC) or to the federal HUD Code for manufactured housing. Modular homes, for example, are built to a state/local building code based on the IRC.
The source indicated that Boor’s remarks on page 6 that named the “Manufactured Housing Improvement Act” which Boor also called “the 2000 Act” vs. MHI’s more common abbreviation of the MHIA or MHIA 2000. The source stressed that elements of the final two paragraphs appeared to be a “very weak” version of what MHProNews and MHARR have written about in various Q&As on this topic over the years.
The source said that while new legislation, if properly modified, could help in certain ways (such as removing the restriction of requiring the chassis to remain on a HUD Code manufactured home). But per the tipster, the solution is to take a “case” [i.e.: lawsuit]:
“all the way to the Supreme Court – MHI is buying time with this water-down position.”
…
“They don’t even mention “enhanced preemption!” And the history of the 2000 Law as to why Congress adopted it…”
…Doesn’t go far enough…’
Verbally, the caller asserted that these tactics were designed to appear to the industry and others who are not deeply involved in the details and nuances to “buy time.”
While MHI is ‘buying time’ with this posturing, they hope to consolidate more of the manufactured home industry.
h) On page 7, among the remarks from the source’s handwritten statements is Boor’s sentence “However, HUD Needs to align its actions with the current law.” That, per the source, appears to mirror what MHARR has been saying about “alignment” but HUD’s Turner and the Trump Administration.
i) On page 7 of Boor’s testimony is another page of numerous handwritten notes and mark ups. Among them, under the Daniel R. Mandelker footnote, was this.
Total BS! Again, MHI is buying time until they have got rid of mainstream MHs, then they’ll bring all these factual arguments back in for real expensive HUD Code home (CrossMod) and the remaining other high end [manufactured] homes.
j) Page 8 said in part that the title to Representative Rose’s proposed “Expansion of Attainable Homeownership through Manufactured Housing Act” said that starting with the title, “the bill must change.”
The tipster asserted that Clayton Homes et al have been giving “a lot of money” to certain lawmakers to that are involved in these various legislative efforts.
k) One of the markups by the source on Page 8 underscored Boor’s line for MHI that said: “…the MHCC and HUD cannot authorize innovative designs that enable manufactured homes to meet more of America’s housing needs until the law is changed.” The tipster’s remarks said in part.
“A total lie as the industry has been doing it (i.e.: innovative designs) for decades.”
Perhaps to mock the way that Boor began to shift from affordable to attainable, the word “affordable” is circled and the source wrote: “Then why attainable?”
l) The source clearly asserts that attainable is not only not supported by current federal law, but its use in a law could result in “confusion” and “chaos” if an item is called into question and taken to court. The word “attainable” “must” be changed if these bills are to become law, that tipster asserted.
On page 9, next to the first paragraph, is written this.
NO! Congress cannot write a law for a model and or brand!
Also, on page 9, is written that the call for allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to allow single section CrossMod homes is due to this.
“Because the multi-section CrossMods are not selling.”
New readers and those who have been following MHProNews for years should recall the remarks from a different MHI linked source and builder who said this.
m) MHProNews notes that various AI systems have checked the web for MHProNews and confirmed that there are no known apparent national totals provided by MHI, Clayton Homes (BRK), Champion Homes (SKY), or Cavco Industries (CVCO) on CrossMod sales. So, this tipster and the AI systems each support the other without citing the other.
n) Remarks about paragraph three from page 9 indicate the obvious contradiction between what Boor said and the disconnects with his failure to push “mainstream” manufactured homes vs. this outsized push for “CrossMods.” As MHProNews and others have said for years, the logical course of action would have been to press for adoption of full enforcement of the “enhanced preemption” provision of manufactured housing for all manufactured homes. CrossMods are just another manufactured home that has upgrades. It is wrong, per the source, to try to push a trademarked product (i.e.: CrossMods, which MHI trademarked) into federal law.
o) The source criticized MHI’s efforts on the Duty to Serve in a manner that largely aligns with what MHARR and MHProNews has previously reported. Per the tipster.
“Any & all MHs, built over and above HUD existing min code can and routinely are bult with all such bells and whistles…then why single out a model and/or brand such as CrossMod?”
p) There were no handwritten remarks on pages 10 and 11.
q) On page 12 there were many markups in the Conclusion.
For example, the words “affordable” and later “attainable” is circled, but with the word attainable it says:
“Please define! Why not just affordable”
Recall the prior remark that using both “attainable” and “affordable,” when only affordable is formally defined by HUD could lead to litigation and more delays. Meanwhile, industry consolidation continues. At the bottom of the page is this next to an asterisk.
Important Note – Congress must hold oversight hearing to force HUD, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to fully and properly implement both the 2000 Reform Law and Duty to Serve mandate
r) That’s the last handwritten note on the Boor document to Congress on behalf of MHI.
Part II – Additional Facts-Evidence-Analysis and Related Commentary
1) Stating the obvious can bring clarity. No two people express themselves in exactly the same way, not even identical twins. Two people can look at the same document and based on a range of factors, can understand that document in unique ways.
While the tipster cited in Part I expressed certain nuanced disagreements with MHProNews and suggested that MHARR should do more to expose what MHI is doing, that source also said and wrote statements that indicated for the most part they agreed with MHProNews and MHARR but felt this platform’s recent report and analysis was too long and needed to emphasize certain points more clearly. But as this report reflects, that source’s remarks and related were not much shorter than ours was.
So, for clarity and emphasis, the tipster’s statements represent that caller’s view. MHProNews stands by the prior report. Those points made, as noted, for the most part that party’s insights largely support prior MHProNews reporting. More on that further below.
2) The source noted that MHI hadn’t yet made Boor’s remarks to Congress publicly available. To document that point are the following.
3) From a prior Q&A by MHProNews with Gemini about Clayton Homes latest CrossMods push.
So, while the caller criticized MHProNews for not pushing on the CrossMods portion of the Boor/MHI testimony, as was noted earlier above, MHProNews stands by the accuracy and balance of our recent and years of prior reports on these issues.
While the source criticized MHI and far more favorably cited MHARR, MHProNews, MHLivingNews while verbally berating some other bloggers/publishers in the industry, it may be worth noting that the tipster didn’t mention MHARR’s offer in 2019 to join hands with MHI and/or an MHI linked state association to sue and take the “enhanced preemption” to the Supreme Court. Yet that would tend to support the caller’s thesis.
4) Without citing MHARR’s thesis of the “illusion of motion,” the source essentially was making a very similar point.
5) Without citing the Danny Ghorbani quote below, the tipster in that person’s own words, was saying that MHI was foot-dragging while posturing activities that will fail to accomplish what the 2000 Reform Law already did. Restated, the positions were broadly similar, but not the same.
6) Several past and present MHI presidents/CEOs were named by this source. The sources stance on Champion may at least superficially be a bit more nuanced than MHProNews is on them, Cavco and Clayton Homes. MHProNews would disagree on that caller’s nuance, as it is our evidence-backed perspective that the 3Cs are working largely in conjunction with each other. Samuel Strommen and others have indicated the same.
That said, in fairness to the source, candidly MHProNews mainly listened and took notes for over an hour. We didn’t ask for clarification on their view of Champion’s behavior vs. Clayton and Cavco.
7) Besides slamming MHI, the source cursed numbers of state association leaders for their failure to stand up to MHI’s leadership.
8) After that call, the handwritten markup of Boor’s testimony was electronically provided to MHProNews by that tipster.
There were a few points during the call that MHProNews asked for the source to clarify his verbal views on these topics. That’s said to clarify that the above broadly reflects that party’s views. While they largely align with that of MHProNews, MHLivingNews, or MHARR, there were some nuances that stood apart. As has been noted, MHProNews stands by its prior reports. Should MHARR decide to respond to the tipster’s points, that could be included in a future report.
9) For more insights on these topics, see the linked reports and follow the crosslinks. Should MHI, an MHI linked source or attorney want to respond to these concerns raised herein or previously, as usual, MHProNews would plan to share their response verbatim.
10) The timing of these tips is potentially interesting on several levels, because MHProNews had planned a report that pulls back the contradictory statements made by MHI on its insiders on the Duty to Serve (DTS) issue.
As a programming notice, more on that DTS subject, which will include a document obtained from MHI is planned for the near term. Stay tuned. Information on specific corporations, including earnings calls, are also on tap.
PS 1. For those who recall this tipster’s observations linked below, while the two use some similar language and made some similar observations, they are two distinct individuals. A close look at both will make that abundantly clear.
PS 2: from the above is this pull quote. Per Gemini.
Despite Boor’s emphasis, “CrossMod” has been a demonstrable market failure. The “Big Three” manufacturers (Clayton, Champion, Cavco) have never publicly disclosed their CrossMod sales figures, and independent estimates suggest extremely low production numbers (e.g., around 100 total units over years, or less than 1% of some manufacturers’ sales).
-
-
Significantly, MHI itself, in a document later reported on, admitted that “Developers therefore are moving away from CrossMods®,” directly contradicting the continued public push for the product.
-
Critics’ Allegations of “Paltering,” “Posturing,” and “Trojan Horse” Tactics:
-
PS: Copilot’s response to a previous inquiry opened with these words:
“Your assessment is well-supported by available evidence and aligns with documented trends in the manufactured housing industry.”
Reminder. There are sound reasons why AI has said that MHProNews has more than 6x the combined readership of MHI and its affiliated bloggers and trade media.
Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) See Related Reports. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
