There is nothing quite like the glow of a parent about something that your child has done that has made you proud. Perhaps a close second is when thoughtful leaders take their reading on MHLivingNews and MHProNews so seriously, that they are inspired to dig in and strive to learn even more.
We applaud that effort.
The following comment and extended quote came in recently from a leader who after reading about the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, went back to the original 1974 law, to learn still more.
Here was part of what he wrote, “My comment: Wow! The intro [to the 1974 law] alone has some really good stuff.”
Quoting from that introduction from the “National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974,” that community leader cited this next phrase.
“The primary objective of this title is the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.”
The reader added, “One surprise: This established the National Institute of Building Sciences, but their site has nothing related to manufactured homes.” That is a sad, but an apt commentary on how the industry has shrunk from heydays to its currently low state, roughly 75 percent lower sales levels than in 1998.
That said, for possibility thinkers, that should be viewed in the light of ‘The manufactured home industry did it before, which means we can do it again, and even better.’
That same source sent Section 101 of the original act. We’ll make one point now, and more after this section. Recall that the MHIA 2000 builds upon the original act and strengthened the original National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act. So, the notion of limiting manufactured homes to rural areas only is pure nonsense, based upon the history of the law and our industry.
Here is Section 101 of the 1974 Law
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress finds and declares that the Nation’s cities, towns, and smaller urban communities face critical social, economic, and environmental problems arising in significant measure from—
(1) the growth of population in metropolitan and other urban areas, and the concentration of persons of lower income in central cities; and
(2) inadequate public and private investment and reinvestment in housing and other physical facilities, and related public and social services, resulting in the growth and persistence of urban slums and blight and the marked deterioration of the quality of the urban environment.
(b) The Congress further finds and declares that the future welfare of the Nation and the well-being of its citizens depend on the establishment and maintenance of viable urban communities as social, economic, and political entities, and require—
(1) systematic and sustained action by Federal, State, and local governments to eliminate blight, to conserve and renew older urban areas, to improve the living environment of low- and moderate-income families, and to develop new centers of population growth and economic activity;
(2) substantial expansion of and greater continuity in the scope and level of Federal assistance, together with increased private investment in support of community development activities; and
(3) continuing effort at all levels of government to streamline programs and improve the functioning of agencies responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating community development efforts.
(c) The primary objective of this title is the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. Consistent with this primary objective, the Federal assistance provided in this title is for the support of community development activities which are directed toward the following specific objectives—
(1) the elimination of slums and blight and the prevention of blighting influences and the deterioration of property and neighborhood and community facilities of importance to the welfare of the community, principally persons of low and moderate income;
(2) the elimination of conditions which are detrimental to health, safety, and public welfare, through code enforcement, demolition, interim rehabilitation assistance, and related activities;
(3) the conservation and expansion of the Nation’s housing stock in order to provide a decent home and a suitable living environment for all persons, but principally those of low and moderate income;
(4) the expansion and improvement of the quantity and quality of community services, principally for persons of low and moderate income, which are essential for sound community development and for the development of viable urban communities;
(5) a more rational utilization of land and other natural resources and the better arrangement of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and other needed activity centers;
(6) the reduction of the isolation of income groups within communities and geographical areas and the promotion of an increase in the diversity and vitality of neighborhoods through the spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for persons of lower income and the revitalization of deteriorating or deteriorated neighborhoods to attract persons of higher income; and
(7) the restoration and preservation of properties of special value for historic, architectural, or esthetic reasons. It is the intent of Congress that the Federal assistance made available under this title not be utilized to reduce substantially the amount of local financial support for community development activities below the level of such support prior to the availability of such assistance,
(d) It is also the purpose of this title to further the development of a national urban growth policy by consolidating a number of complex and overlapping programs of financial assistance to communities of varying sizes and needs into a consistent system of Federal aid which—
(1) provides assistance on an annual basis, with maximum certainty and minimum delay, upon which communities can rely in their planning;
(2) encourages community development activities which are consistent with comprehensive local and areawide development planning;
(3) furthers achievement of the national housing goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family; and
(4) fosters the undertaking of housing and community development activities in a coordinated and mutually supportive manner…
When one reads that, it becomes ever clearer why there is no need for the bill that has now reportedly been suspended, see a related report, linked here. With respect to the above, here is an expert’s comment on this topic.
“The link and the language cited go to and are from the original 1974 National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act. That original law was first amended to change “mobile home” to “manufactured home.” It was then amended in 2000 by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. The 2000 law, among other things, modified the federal preemption language of old section 604(d). It also deleted (in its entirety) the original language of section 605 of the 1974 law, which dealt with the Manufactured Housing Advisory Council. Since the section 605 Advisory Council was disbanded and replaced by the section 604 MHCC, the 2000 law inserted new content regarding installation regulation in section 605.”
MHProNews Analysis
A large part of what our industry needs to return to greatness could be summed up in two phrases. ‘Understand and enforce good federal laws that are already on the books.’ Plus ‘Support educational efforts to the industry’s professionals and the public that is based upon third-party supported facts, evidence, and research.’
Which begs the question. Why isn’t the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) publicly, energetically, and consistently beat the drum, over and over, on those two themes? Let that question hang, or you can learn more at this link here, among dozens of others that are possible.
That’s your latest healthy dose of addictive and necessary insights found only here on MHProNews — your home for “News Through the Lens of Manufactured Homes and Factory-Built Housing,” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (News, analysis, and commentary.)
Soheyla is a managing member of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com. Connect with us on LinkedIn here and here.
Related Reports:
Click the image/text box below to access relevant, related information.
