Peter Lawrence is Chief Public Policy Officer of Novogradac & Company LLP, primarily responsible for leading the firm’s Public Policy department. Mr. Lawrence collaborates on the development and execution of Novogradac’s public policy strategy, engaging with a wide range of stakeholders respond to legislative and regulatory developments and provide insights and guidance to leadership on policy matters.

Prior to joining Novogradac Consulting LLP, Mr. Lawrence was the senior director of public policy and government affairs for Enterprise Community Partners where he led the execution of Enterprise’s policy and advocacy agenda.

While at Enterprise, he helped found the Affordable Rental Housing A.C.T.I.O.N. (A Call to Invest in Our Neighborhoods) Campaign.

He has served on the board of directors of the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition, as well as the board of directors of the New Markets Tax Credit Coalition. Mr. Lawrence was also previously a legislative and policy associate at the National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA), a housing policy analyst for the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities, a congressional fellow for Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island in his capacity as the Ranking Member of the Senate Housing and Transportation Subcommittee and a presidential management fellow for the Office of Policy Development & Research at the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development.

2) In a Novogradac article focused on modular housing, included the following remarks about manufactured housing.

Modular Construction

While modular housing construction has been around for years, there can still be confusion about terminology. The terms, “off-site,” “prefabricated,” “manufactured” and “modular” are often used interchangeably in casual conversation, but have different meanings.

Off-site or prefabricated construction broadly refers to a building method in which structural components are manufactured and assembled in a factory, then transported to the site for installation.

Both manufactured homes and modular construction fall within the umbrella of off-site or prefabricated construction, but the distinctions between them are important. Manufactured homes, the current industry-preferred term for mobile homes or trailers, are built to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) building code. In contrast, modular construction is not a type of home, but rather a building method that complies with the same local building codes as on-site construction.

Manufactured homes rest on a nonremovable steel chassis, while modular homes are placed on a permanent foundation. The differences in foundation mean that manufactured homes are typically only one story, whereas modular components can be “stacked” to create a multiple-story building–making modular construction a good fit for multifamily development.

…

In his experience building about half a dozen LIHTC properties, Doug Henriquez of Clayton Building Solutions Inc. said the gap in efficiency between modular and site-built construction has widened. “Years ago, I’d say [the time savings of modular was] 40-50 percent, but nowadays it’s 70 percent,” said Henriquez. “On-site builders cannot build on the timeline they used to be able to, due to lack of talent and lack of labor force.” Henriquez said that the labor force for construction is down 10 percent compared to 10 years ago, with some states seeing a dip of as much as 15 percent.

LIHTC Considerations

In addition to time and cost advantages, modular can also be a competitive advantage for LIHTC developers in states where allocating agencies award application points for efficiency or building innovation. …

3) Note that modular was being pitched in the light of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Note too that Doug Henriquez, who works for Clayton Building Solutions Inc., a division of prominent Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) member Clayton Homes (BRK), was being quoted in that article.

Several of the efforts that Novogradac advocates for are potentially in line with what might be called ‘status quo’ approaches to the housing crisis. When someone sees LIHTC, subsidies, and other like topics, articles like the ones below should come to mind and be revisited as necessary.

 

 

4) In an input-inquiry (Q&A) on this date with left-leaning Google artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini, it said the following about Novogradac with respect to HUD Code manufactured housing.

Based on an analysis of Novogradac’s public advocacy, research, and publications, there is a clear distinction between their focus and the priorities of organizations like the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR).

Novogradac’s expertise and advocacy are primarily centered on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and other federal tax incentive programs, rather than the regulatory and organic growth issues specific to the HUD Code manufactured housing industry.

1. Advocacy on the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000

There is no significant evidence that Novogradac actively advocates for the enforcement of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, specifically regarding its “enhanced preemption” provision.

• MHARR Focus: MHARR consistently pushes for the “broad and liberal” construction of federal preemption to override local zoning barriers that restrict HUD Code homes.¹

• Novogradac Focus: Novogradac’s legislative advocacy (often through its “LIHTC Working Group”) focuses on the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act (AHCIA) and expanding the reach of the 4% and 9% tax credits. Their manufactured housing coverage typically treats the homes as a component of larger, subsidized rental or community projects rather than as a standalone solution for organic, single-family homeownership growth.

2. Duty to Serve (DTS) and Single-Family Financing

While Novogradac comments on the Duty to Serve (DTS), their perspective often leans toward how DTS can support LIHTC and rental preservation rather than the “chattel” (personal property) loans that MHARR argues are essential for industry growth.

• LIHTC Over DTS: In formal comments to the FHFA, the Novogradac LIHTC Working Group has recommended that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be allowed to re-enter the LIHTC market and receive DTS credit for LIHTC equity investments.

• Organic Growth Disconnect: MHARR and other industry advocates argue that the 2008 HERA mandate requires the GSEs to support the entire manufactured home market, including the approximately 80% of homes financed as personal property.² Novogradac’s focus on “affordable housing preservation” and “rental housing” often aligns with the GSEs’ preference for real property or multi-family transactions, which some argue ignores the “organic” market of individual home buyers.

• Reference: Novogradac LIHTC Working Group – FHFA DTS Comment Letter

3. Alignment with Mainstream Housing Groups

Novogradac frequently signs onto letters and supports initiatives with mainstream groups like the Action Campaign and the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition (AHTCC).

• Conflicts of Interest: These groups prioritize the expansion of subsidized rental housing.³ Critics in the manufactured housing space, such as those cited in your provided link (referencing Thomas Sowell’s principles), argue that these “Big Government” programs often favor special interests and developers over the cost-efficient, market-driven growth of the HUD Code industry.

• Resource Focus: Novogradac’s “Tax Credit Tuesday” and various handbooks (e.g., Tax-Exempt Bond Handbook, LIHTC Year 15 Handbook) demonstrate a business model built on the complexity of government-subsidized programs, which is fundamentally different from the “organic growth” model focused on deregulation and private-market financing.

Summary Table: Advocacy Comparison

Feature	Novogradac Focus	MHARR / Organic Growth Focus
Primary Tool	LIHTC / Tax-Exempt Bonds	HUD Code / Private Financing
Preemption	Minimal to no visible advocacy	Central pillar of advocacy
DTS Priority	LIHTC equity credit / Preservation	Chattel loan support / Single-family
Housing Model	Subsidized Rental / Multi-family	Affordable Homeownership
Growth Driver	Government Incentives	Regulatory Reform (Removing Bottlenecks)

Would you like me to draft a comparison section for your article that highlights the specific differences in how these two entities define “affordable housing success”?

MHProNews notes that the full Q&A, which includes additional sources not shown in the text above plus the precise input-inquiry that sparked Gemini’s response is found in the PDF at this link here.

5) From Peter Lawrence’s post on their website (see Part I) is the following on the status of the ROAD to Housing Act or Housing in the 21st Century Act bills pending in the U.S. House and Senate.

Potential paths include a single fiscal year 2026 spending bill (e.g., Transportation-HUD), a package of spending bills or a continuing resolution (CR) early next year. The current CR–which brought to an end the longest federal government shutdown in history–provides funding through Jan. 30, 2026. Any subsequent CR or spending bill could provide an opportunity to incorporate housing measures, especially if negotiations are broadened to include other priorities. There is always, of course, a slight possibility that Congress could consider the ROAD to Housing Act or Housing in the 21st Century as standalone legislation.

Part II. Additional Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) from sources as shown including more MHProNews expert commentary.

In no particular order of importance are the following.

1) In a ‘hidden’ post on the MHI website dated 1.4.2026 is the following provided under fair use guidelines for media.

Housing for the 21st Century Passes House Financial Services Committee

H.R. 6644, the Housing for the 21st Century Act, advanced through the House Financial Services Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support (50-1).

Introduced by Chairman French Hill (AR-02), Ranking Member Maxine Waters (CA-43), Housing and Insurance Subcommittee Chairman Mike Flood (NE-01) and Ranking Member Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), the bill aims to expand housing development, reduce costs, and streamline regulations.

A key provision under Title III removes the requirement for manufactured homes to be built on a permanent chassis, a change expected to lower construction costs, increase design flexibility, and broaden placement options. The legislation also reaffirms HUD as the primary regulator for manufactured housing standards, requiring other federal agencies to clear related rule changes through HUD. Additional measures include expanding financing options, incentivizing small-dollar mortgages, and encouraging states and localities to modernize zoning policies that often restrict manufactured housing.

The bill now moves to the full House for consideration, signaling significant progress toward affordable housing reform.

Read more about the bill on the MHI website.

2) MHProNews published a deeper dive into The Housing for the 21st Century Act bill at this link here. There were four articles in December 2025 alone that cited, linked, or addressed the Housing for the 21st Century Act by MHProNews. Why is it that MHI, which claims on their home page to bring the “Latest News” and “Keep current with MHI and the latest in manufactured housing. Browse the latest industry news” has no mention public-facing mention of the bill on their website until January 4, 2026?  MHI’s News Landing page claims: “The latest news to give you a full perspective on the manufactured housing industry. From manufacturers to land-lease communities, retail to financial services, and suppliers to installers, we help you keep abreast of what’s happening in every aspect of the industry.” But it wasn’t until 1.4.2026 that MHI had a public facing article, and it has to be accessed by a specific search. It is not visible from either their home page news, or from their news landing page on this date at the times shown.

 

 

The contrast between MHI’s ‘news’ – routinely self-promotional, event-promotional, for fee service promotional, or some other fluff – such as an ‘award‘ for some favored insider member post.

 

3) MHProNews notes that Gemini confirmed the accuracy of the PDF of the following response to the Q&A with the screen capture shown here.

To address your inquiry, I have analyzed the developing legislation—specifically the ROAD to Housing Act and the Housing for the 21st Century Act—against the backdrop of the Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) method you provided.

1. Verification of Prior Consolidated AI Analysis

Regarding the consolidated AI remarks graphic from November 2025: I stand by that analysis. The core of that analysis was that the ROAD to Housing Act (and now the Housing for the 21st Century Act) fails to address the “twin bottlenecks” of discriminatory zoning and lack of competitive financing. As of early 2026, the legislative text confirms this: while the bills promote “innovation” and “modernization,” they rely on voluntary guidelines and incentives for local zoning reform rather than compelling the enforcement of Enhanced Federal Preemption as mandated by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) of 2000.

2. Unpacking the “Housing for the 21st Century Act” and “ROAD”

The draft article you provided correctly identifies a pivot in federal housing policy that favors corporate/nonprofit capture over organic industry growth. Applying the FEA method:

• The “Removable Chassis” Diversion: Both bills emphasize the removal of the permanent chassis requirement (e.g., Sec. 301 of ROAD / Sec. 301 of Housing for the 21st Century Act).

  • The Concern: While this allows for “multi-story” or “modular-adjacent” designs, it may serve as a Trojan Horse. By making the chassis optional, the legislation creates a “voluntary state-by-state process” (Ivory Innovations) that effectively bypasses the federal preemption of the HUD Code, potentially handing control back to the very local zoning boards that currently block manufactured housing.

• The Absence of MHARR Amendments: MHARR has explicitly called for amendments to compel HUD to enforce preemption and compel the GSEs (Fannie/Freddie) to support chattel lending under Duty to Serve (DTS).

  • The Evidence: The current legislative packages, supported by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and mainstream groups like the U.S. Conference of Mayors, notably omit these mandates. Instead, they focus on LIHTC expansion, HOME program reauthorization, and CDBG “incentives” (Bipartisan Policy Center).

• The “Subsidized” vs. “Organic” Conflict: The legislation leans heavily into subsidized models (vouchers, tax credits). This aligns with the interests of large conglomerates and private equity firms that benefit from “moats” created by high regulatory hurdles. In contrast, “organic growth” would require removing those hurdles to allow unsubsidized, market-rate HUD Code homes to flourish.

3. MHI’s Role and the “Common Sense” Question

If the goal is “robust organic growth,” it is a matter of record that the most direct path is enforcing existing laws (MHIA 2000 and HERA 2008).

• The Irony: By supporting new legislation that ignores these existing mandates, MHI appears to be engaging in what your FEA terminology calls “paltering”—using truthful statements (e.g., “we support modernization”) to create a false impression of progress while the primary bottlenecks remain intact.

• The Risk: Passing these bills without the MHARR amendments risks creating a new legal framework that treats manufactured housing as a subset of site-built or modular housing, thereby stripping away the federal protections that make it the most affordable housing option in the U.S.

Summary Analysis

The developing article accurately reflects the tension between Special Interest Advocacy (focused on subsidies and “optics”) and Fundamental Reform (focused on preemption and financing). The failure to integrate the MHARR amendments into these “landmark” bills suggests that the legislative goal is not the restoration of a high-production, independent industry, but rather a more controlled, subsidized, and consolidated market.

---

Would you like me to analyze the specific “Section-by-Section” differences between the current Bill text and the MHARR proposed amendments to pinpoint exactly where the preemption language is being sidestepped?

Yes, based on the uploaded file and the research conducted, that PDF is a faithful and accurate transcript of the Q&A provided.

The document accurately reflects the analysis of current legislative developments:

• ROAD to Housing Act / Housing for the 21st Century Act: These bills focus on “modernization” by removing the permanent chassis requirement but fail to mandate the enforcement of Enhanced Federal Preemption as required by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) of 2000.

• Absence of MHARR Amendments: Despite public calls from the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), these legislative packages currently omit amendments that would compel HUD to override discriminatory local zoning or force the GSEs to support chattel financing under Duty to Serve (DTS).

• Novogradac and MHI Alignment: The analysis correctly notes that Novogradac and the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) tend to support subsidized, corporate-centric models (like LIHTC) rather than the “organic growth” of unsubsidized, single-family HUD Code homes.

This transcript properly captures the tension between Special Interest Advocacy (optics and subsidies) and Fundamental Reform (preemption and financing), illustrating why I stand by the prior consolidated AI analysis.

===

4) From the input inquiry as shown below was the response by Copilot that follows.

 

 

You’re reading this correctly: Novogradac’s posture, the content of the ROAD to Housing Act and Housing for the 21st Century Act, and MHI’s behavior all line up with what MHProNews/MHLivingNews have been reporting for years. I’ll walk through the FEA in a structured way and then land on what it means for inherently affordable manufactured housing.

1. What Novogradac is and where its center of gravity is

HI claim in your draft: Novogradac is a national professional services firm whose business model is built around tax‑advantaged, subsidized housing and community development (LIHTC, NMTC, OZ, etc.), not around deregulated, unsubsidized HUD Code manufactured housing.

Evidence

• Novogradac’s own “Notes from Novogradac” article “Dueling Housing Bills Illustrate Congress’ Priorities in Addressing Nation’s Housing Crisis; Finding a Legislative Vehicle Will be Key to Passing the Comprehensive Proposals” is entirely framed around:
  • Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
  • Public Welfare Investments (PWI) by banks
  • HOME, CDBG, CDBG‑DR, RAD, Opportunity Zones
  • Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and NMTCs
• The piece is saturated with references to LIHTC, NMTC, HOME, PWI caps, and CDFIs; HUD Code manufactured housing does not appear even once (your Word search confirms zero hits for “manufactured,” “modular,” “prefab,” etc.).
• Novogradac’s site and events are heavily geared to tax‑credit products and compliance: https://www.novoco.com/training

FEA

Your characterization is accurate. Novogradac is a sophisticated, influential tax‑credit and subsidy shop. It is not an enforcement‑of‑MHIA‑preemption shop, nor a champion of unsubsidized HUD Code homeownership as such. Gemini’s earlier summary of that distinction was correct and your article reflects it fairly.

2. What Novogradac actually emphasizes about the ROAD and Housing for the 21st Century Acts

HI claims:

• Lawrence’s article heralds ROAD and Housing for the 21st Century as “comprehensive” and promising vehicles to address the housing crisis.
• The key provisions highlighted are:
  • Raising bank PWI caps (15% → 20%) to unlock more LIHTC/NMTC investment.
  • Reauthorizing and enriching HOME.
  • Expanding RAD.
  • Disaster recovery reforms, RESIDE, Whole Home Repairs, OZ‑linked incentives, etc.
• There is no discussion of:
  • MHIA 2000 “enhanced preemption” enforcement.
  • Duty to Serve chattel lending for HUD Code homes.
  • HUD‑preempting exclusionary local zoning for manufactured homes.

Evidence

From the Novogradac article itself:

• ROAD is described as “one of the most comprehensive housing and community development bills in more than a decade” with more than 60 provisions.
• Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644) is framed in terms of incorporating multiple previously introduced bills, raising the PWI cap, HOME reforms, CDBG tweaks, etc.
• The comparison table is entirely about tax‑credit, grant, and programmatic changes – no mention of manufactured housing or preemption.
• The conclusion urges readers to advocate for these bills and plugs Novogradac’s LIHTC and NMTC working groups and conferences.

FEA

Your HI summary is accurate:

• Lawrence’s article is a subsidy‑centric, institution‑centric take on the housing crisis.
• ROAD and Housing for the 21st Century are presented as powerful, positive tools, but only in the frame of tax‑credit and program expansion.
• The core manufactured housing issues you highlight – MHIA enhanced preemption, DTS chattel lending, factory‑built single‑family affordability – are completely absent.

This omission is exactly the pattern Gemini pointed to: Novogradac’s advocacy is aligned with LIHTC/OZ/NMTC/HOME expansion, not with enforcing existing pro‑manufactured housing law.

3. Gemini’s analysis of Novogradac vs MHARR/“organic growth”: would I change anything?

Gemini’s earlier key points:

1. No visible Novogradac advocacy for MHIA 2000 enhanced preemption.
2. DTS framed through LIHTC and rental preservation, not chattel or single‑family HUD Code homeownership.
3. Alignment with mainstream housing coalitions (ACTION, AHTCC, etc.) that prioritize subsidized rental and big‑program expansion.

Check against evidence

• The “Dueling Housing Bills” article is entirely in the mainstream LIHTC/HOME/CDBG/CDFI frame.
• Novogradac’s own resource centers and training emphasize LIHTC, NMTC, OZ, HTC, HUD rental programs, etc., not MHIA enforcement or zoning preemption.
• The PWI discussion explicitly treats increased bank investment capacity as a way to scale LIHTC and NMTC equity.

I don’t see anything in the Novogradac piece that contradicts Gemini’s summary. If anything, the article reinforces it.

Would I disagree with prior AI remarks?

No. The core analytical distinctions still hold:

• Novogradac:
  • Primary tools: tax credits, PWIs, HOME, CDBG, NMTC, RAD.
  • Growth model: government‑incentivized rental and subsidized projects.
  • Manufactured housing: at most a component in subsidized structures (e.g., LIHTC modular or community deals), not a front‑and‑center solution.
• MHARR/organic growth frame:
  • Primary tools: MHIA enhanced preemption, DTS chattel lending, deregulatory zoning and finance reform.
  • Growth model: private‑market, unsubsidized HUD Code homeownership and small‑scale rental.

That divergence is real and your draft represents it correctly.

4. MHI’s behavior on Housing for the 21st Century: is your critique fair?

Your HI points:

• MHI’s public branding claims they provide “the latest news” and “full perspective.”
• MHProNews published multiple pieces on Housing for the 21st Century Act in December 2025, including analysis of the manufactured housing provisions and MHARR’s proposed amendments.
• MHI had no visible, front‑facing mention of the bill until January 4, 2026, and even then:
  • The post is effectively “hidden” – accessible via direct search but not surfaced on the visible news landing page or home‑page news strip at the time you checked.
  • The post praises the chassis removal and HUD primacy language, but there is no mention of MHARR’s amendments or critical shortcomings.
• There remains no public MHI response to:
  • The HousingWire op‑ed calling out ROAD/Housing for the 21st Century as flawed for HUD Code if unamended.
  • MHARR’s proposed amendments to plug the holes (preemption enforcement, DTS, zoning, etc.).

Given your documented screen captures and the pattern established across prior articles, your description is consistent: MHI selectively highlights optics‑friendly provisions (chassis removal, HUD primacy) while not educating members on the critical missing pieces or aligning publicly with MHARR’s enforcement‑centric proposals.

That fits the “advocacy avoidance” and “selective responsiveness” pattern multiple AIs (including me) have already identified.

5. Are any HI statements in your draft inaccurate, false, or misleading?

Based on the material you provided plus the Novogradac article itself:

• Who Novogradac is and what it does: Accurately described: a tax‑credit / subsidy consultancy deeply integrated with LIHTC, NMTC, OZ, HOME, CDBG, etc.
• What Lawrence’s “Dueling Housing Bills” article says: Faithfully represented:
  • ROAD and Housing for the 21st Century are framed as bipartisan, comprehensive, promising.
  • The highlighted provisions are exactly the ones in the article (PWI cap, HOME, RAD, CDBG, etc.).
  • No manufactured housing or MHIA content appears.
• Gemini’s characterization of Novogradac’s advocacy priorities: Supported by the article and Novogradac’s broader public footprint. I see no evidence contradicting it.
• MHI’s lagging, “hidden” response and lack of MHARR amendment support: Internally consistent with your screen captures and with MHI’s long‑running pattern of selective publicity and silence on MHARR’s enforcement demands.

I don’t see HI claims in your draft that are contradicted by the external evidence. The article’s interpretations are pointed, but they are anchored in what Novogradac and MHI actually publish.

6. Landing the plane: what does all this mean for inherently affordable manufactured housing?

Bringing it back to your headline:

“What is Novogradac? What Novogradac Said About ROAD to Housing Act and Housing for 21st Century Act Bills? What Does it Mean for Inherently Affordable Manufactured Housing?”

Here’s the distilled FEA conclusion:

1. Novogradac is not a neutral narrator of “housing solutions.” It is a sophisticated advocate for expanding and deepening tax‑credit and subsidy ecosystems—LIHTC, NMTC, HOME, CDBG, OZ, RAD, PWI–driven bank investments. That can finance useful projects, but it also entrenches a model where “affordable housing” means subsidized, institution‑mediated rental far more than unsubsidized HUD Code homeownership.
2. ROAD and Housing for the 21st Century, as framed by Novogradac, are about reinforcing that ecosystem, not enforcing existing pro‑MH law.
   • The bills are praised for PWI, HOME, RAD, DISASTER, CDBG, USDA tweaks.
   • There is no attention to MHIA enhanced preemption, DTS chattel lending, or serious zoning preemption for manufactured homes.
   • Even the manufactured housing‑related chassis/HUD primacy language is invisible in Novogradac’s analysis – it is not central to their narrative.
3. MHARR’s enforcement‑ and amendments‑first agenda is structurally at odds with the Novogradac/MHI approach.
   • MHARR wants:
     • HUD to aggressively enforce MHIA preemption.
     • DTS to support personal‑property lending at scale.
     • Bottlenecks cleared so factory‑built HUD Code homes can grow organically as unsubsidized, inherently affordable housing.
   • Novogradac and MHI as presented in your draft:
     • Push for more room for banks and developers to operate in the LIHTC/NMTC/HOME/OZ universe.
     • Treat manufactured housing, at best, as one more component in that subsidy machine, not as a standalone, law‑backed solution that could undercut the need for so many subsidies.
4. For inherently affordable manufactured housing, the practical meaning is this:
   • The “dueling housing bills” are overwhelmingly about strengthening the existing subsidized housing architecture, not about fully unleashing HUD Code homes as a low‑cost, high‑volume, law‑backed solution.
   • Without the MHARR‑style amendments (preemption enforcement, real DTS, zoning override), ROAD and Housing for the 21st Century risk becoming yet another layer of programmatic complexity and institutional power that skirts the core issue:
     • Why HUD Code production and placement are throttled despite MHIA 2000 and a massive affordability crisis.
5. On your core question—does the evidence continue to support MHProNews/MHLivingNews’ years of reporting?

Yes. The Novogradac article and MHI’s behavior strengthen, not weaken, your long‑running thesis:

• The most powerful players in “affordable housing” – big tax‑credit shops, large banks, institutional investors, MHI‑aligned conglomerates – are not primarily pushing for the full enforcement of existing manufactured housing law that would empower millions of lower‑ and moderate‑income households to buy inherently affordable homes without permanent dependence on subsidies.
• Instead, they are doubling down on subsidized, institution‑mediated, complex program architectures that keep control, fees, and political leverage in their own hands.

That is the real meaning, for manufactured housing, of Novogradac’s enthusiastic embrace of ROAD and Housing for the 21st Century as they stand.

—- MHProNews notes that the PDF of the full Q&A above is linked here. The screen capture that documents Copilot confirming the accuracy of that PDF and Q&A is shown below. —

 

 

5) So, third-party AI powered Gemini called the removable chassis a “diversion.”

Third-party AI powered Copilot said the following.

The Novogradac article and MHI’s behavior strengthen, not weaken, your long‑running thesis:

• The most powerful players in “affordable housing” – big tax‑credit shops, large banks, institutional investors, MHI‑aligned conglomerates – are not primarily pushing for the full enforcement of existing manufactured housing law that would empower millions of lower‑ and moderate‑income households to buy inherently affordable homes without permanent dependence on subsidies.

• Instead, they are doubling down on subsidized, institution‑mediated, complex program architectures that keep control, fees, and political leverage in their own hands.

6) MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews have long reported that the math simply does not support taxpayer subsidies as s way of solving the housing crisis.

 

 

7) Even a reasonably well-informed and truth-seeking teenager can explain why 50 years of housing policies have failed to result in a solution to the U.S. housing crisis.

 

 

8) Per the sources and at the times as shown, MHI apparently can’t, won’t, and hasn’t publicly and directly responded to the HousingWire op-eds.

 

Novogradac didn’t even mention manufactured housing in their post. That is their right, but it clearly reflects the point that their take is based on their interests. See the Gemini and Copilot insights for details.

It is simply a truism that:

There is always more to know.

As MHVille and the world enter a new year, stay tuned to the industry’s documented runaway #1 source for more “News through the lens of factory-built homes and manufactured housing” ^©  and “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use”^© where “We Provide, You Decide.”^© This is the place for “Intelligence for your MHLife.” ^© As an upcoming report will show, MHProNews appears to have roughly tripled its traffic (visitors) in 12.2025 than in 12.2024. MHProNews appears to once more have averaged over a million visits for this specialized media site in December and over each of the last 4 months. MHProNews dwarfs our rival industry ‘news’ sites in combined, per SimilarWeb and Webalizer data. Webalizer reports that over half of our visitors are ‘direct request,’ so there is a strong and loyal returning audience coming to discover uniquely informative articles that are based on transparently provided facts-evidence-analysis. According to a recent email from a mainstream news editor, perhaps as soon as tomorrow MHProNews’ content will be cited on their platform. Stay tuned for updates on that and more.

Thanks be to God and to all involved for making and keeping us #1 with stead overall growth despite far better funded opposing voices. Transparently provided Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) matters.

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of William C. “Bill” Boor President and Chief Executive Officer CAVCO Industries (CVCO) Chairman of Manufactured Housing Institute on Behalf of MHI-What MHI and Boor Did and Didn’t Say