by L. A. ‘Tony’ Kovach
The subject of a new association raises numerous issues that deserve exploration. Some of the many questions that should be asked, include:
-
Who are involved in this so-called new association?
-
What are their goals?
-
What is the ‘controversy’ that some allege has been ‘Manufactured’ as part of the effort to promote their agenda?
We will explore those and other issues in this exclusive report and analysis.
Who are Involved
-
George F. Allen, PMN Publishing and “Community Investor” website
-
Spencer Roane, Pentagon Properties, promoter of a lease purchase option program
-
Ken Rishel, Rishel Consulting and Precision Financial
-
Michael Power, “Boot Camps,” along with related “manuals,” etc..
What are their goals?
Good question. According to George Allen, who is the apparent leader, has to this point declined repeated opportunities to answer questions on this – and other topics – from MHProNews.
So let’s begin with what Ken Rishel penned in defense of his ally and friend, George Allen.
Julie Anderson – who emails Rishel’s newsletter that are used to market his services a opened her list of articles for January 2013 she drew attention to with these words:
“…There are several articles that may interest you. If you own a manufactured home community, you may be interested in reading about a fledgling association called the Manufactured Home Community Owners Association of North America (pg. 5).”
An in depth look at the entire column and paragraph by paragraph analysis may be found at the download linked here.
But in summary, Rishel’s column is self-contradictory, ignores or twists numerous facts and is clearly supportive of Allen’s endeavor. Why? Is it because the foursome of Allen, Rishel, Roane and Power routinely cross promote each other? Could it be because Rishel may end up the new leader of this association once Allen sells his business interests to it and retires?
What Does Allen say himself?
But now let’s juxtapose Ken Rishel’s rather glowing and glamorized account to Mr. Allen’s own words.
Quoting directly from his own writing in his email of 12.2.2012 that linked to his weekly message, George Allen said, quoting verbatim:
“Can’t sell GFA/PMN, so maybe birth MHCA…”
Allen’s own writings support the notion that his two pronged goal may be summarized in the following ways:
-
Try to pressure MHI to buy him out, so he can retire. This writer’s impression is that this view is held by a number of members of MHI.
-
If he can’t pressure MHI to buy him out, then to create an organization that essentially buys him out in a different fashion.
Quoting from Allen’s published writings verbatim:
“National Advocacy. ‘Are we getting our money’s worth?’ – dues and PAC Fund wise, by continuing, after 27 years, to support two somewhat overlapping national, not for profit, manufactured housing trade entities in and near our nation’s capitol? This is not, by any means, the first time this vital question has been raised from and among the businessmen and women grassroots of the HUD – Code manufactured housing industry. Or, ‘is there a better way’ on the horizon? Possibly, one overarching national body, Advocating the interests of all segments of the MHIndustry, including the land lease lifestyle community realty asset class; or two: one representing all HUD Code manufactured housing production & distribution segments of the industry; another representing all the real estate development and investment – related segments. Hmm?”
Also quoting from Allen:
And, if you’re reading this, and are a LLLCommunity owner/operator, and interested in the rare opportunity to be a Charter Member of the Manufactured Home Communities Association of North America, or MHCA in short, simply phone the aforementioned MHIndustry HOTLINE, and provide your contact information. Remember, the new, not for profit MHCA is being launched to continue the ‘statistical Research & comprehensive Resource servicing’ of land lease community owners/operators nationwide, and maybe Canada; services heretofore provided by GFA Management, Inc., dba PMN Publishing. NOTEs. It’s hoped and planned the MHCA will effectively complement national Advocacy efforts of and by MHI, as long as one group of NCC members (e.g. largest property portfolio ‘players’) don’t preempt legislative and regulatory concerns of small to mid – sized owners/operators of land lease lifestyle communities. And, if you’re wondering ‘Why didn’t MHI absorb aforementioned ‘statistical Research & comprehensive Resource servicing’ of LLLCommunities when given the opportunity, on two separate occasions? Ask them, when you phone to join as a direct, dues – paying member.
Let’s note anew the point that some statements are contradictory in Allen’s writings. For example, on the one hand, he has stated he doesn’t intended to compete with MHI and the NCC and will do no advocacy. Yet, on the other hand, he questions the value of their advocacy?
Is this perhaps part of the reason why MHI’s CEO Dick Jennison and other industry leaders don’t wish to take a public position at this time, because it is difficult to know what – if anything – Allen and others will say and do, given so many contradictory remarks?
The Score on the Four
Industry owners, executives and other professionals that have spoken with MHProNews off the record note that the four people promoting this ‘new association’ are routinely cross-promoting and cross-marketing each others’ services.
Concerns about their motivation remain unanswered, since they have declined repeated opportunities to answer our direct questions about the goals of the proposed association. Meanwhile their published musings remain clearly contradictory, as this report and analysis demonstrates.
So what is a reasonable industry professional supposed to think about such an alleged ‘association?’
What is the ‘controversy’ that some allege has been ‘Manufactured’ as part of the effort to promote their ‘new association’ agenda?
Quoting directly from his own email of 12.2.2012, George Allen said,
“Can’t sell GFA/PMN, so maybe birth MHCA…”
While both Allen and Roane have been very public in expressing their dissatisfaction about David Lentz, MHI and NCC and others, MHProNews is aware that the two met with the NCC chairman and MHI staff only a few hours after their alleged incident in San Antonio, TX. The subject? Allegedly, the potential buy out of Allen’s business interests.
So why the fuss by Allen and Roane? Let’s explore.
According to sources, during that previously scheduled private meeting, neither Allen nor Roane expressed any concern regarding the alleged incident during the NCC meeting. Indeed, if the two individuals were so aggrieved, one wonders why they even proceeded with the private meeting, let alone failing to use the private opportunity to express dissatisfaction with their perceived mistreatment at the NCC meeting. This writer personally witnessed the participants exiting the private meeting, and all where smiling and jovial, including Allen and Roane.
Even a full 24 hours later at the MHI Board Meeting, which Mr. Allen attended, he uttered not a single public word to express his alleged “outrage” at how he and Mr. Roane were supposedly ill-treated the day before.
In fact, it took days before Allen or Roane began expressing complaints.
Those complaints were made via email and via Allen’s published missives. Some of those emails were forwarded to MHProNews and we also reviewed published writing. Demands on MHI – via those electronic and print means – were made for apologies, and for a refund of the meeting fees, among other points ‘raised’ by the pair. Some or many of those demands where then circulated to others, making them no longer ‘private’ but public.
With the above facts in mind, one has to wonder if the orchestrated campaign of divisiveness and negativity that followed, was simply a manufactured controversy to help them launch a new “Manufactured Housing Association?” The facts certainly may lead one to support such a conclusion!
MHProNews has also been provided a letter from a third party, being circulated via email by Spence Roane, addressed to Roane from the law firm of Webster, Chamberlain and Bean. MHProNews confirmed that a similar letter was addressed to Allen by the same law firm.
When asked about the letter, MHI said the attorney was involved in response to prior correspondence to MHI from Allen and Roane which suggested that insufficient resolution to their demands might result in potential litigation against MHI.
So that account would indicate that MHI’s engaging an attorney was a defensive move, not an offensive one.
When MHI CEO Jennison was asked about the attorney’s letter, he said that such correspondence is only done with the approval of the MHI Executive committee and that MHI declined to share a copy of the letters with MHProNews that were addressed to Allen or Roane.
Jennison expressed regret at the public distribution of private correspondence by one or more outside parties.
MHProNews observes that such emailed distribution reinforces the previously cited unclear motivations of the involved individuals, who shared the attorney letter and complained about the public comments made by NCC Chairman Lentz and related complaints. The documents and emails we reviewed about those complaints by Allen and Roane to others were made without giving the full context for why Lentz or others MHI acted as they did.
By ‘spinning’ or ignoring certain facts in their version of events, did Allen and Roane hope to gain sympathy and cause outrage against MHI or the NCC? Especially among those who were not in San Antonio to see what took place for themselves?
Jennison added that MHI’s focus for 2013 was to continue to work on issues that bring value to their members, which represents all segments of the manufactured housing industry. He cited the recent passage of the Energy Star tax credit, accomplished in concert with others, during the otherwise nearly paralyzed lame duck session of Congress.
MHI’s president also pointed to the recently reported meeting with CFPB’s Richard Cordray. “Very few national trade associations, let alone associations of our size, have accomplished a personal face to face meeting with (CFPB) Director Cordray.” Jennison said. “That is just a recent example of where MHI’s focus is in advancing and safeguarding our industry in today’s challenging legislative and regulatory environment.”
Not about personalities, but about the wisdom or goals of the ‘association’
One must note that none of the four involved in this ‘new association’ effort are being disparaged. They have the right to do what they wish within the law and sound morality; after all, this is America. No doubt each of the four have at times done – and perhaps will do – good things in their businesses within the industry.
But this analysis isn’t about the past, it is about these specific recent events. And the reasons for questions and concerns about their efforts to launch a ‘new association’ are many.
Negative, Sudden Impact?
Sources tell MHProNews.com that at times Allen’s or others in his group’s missives get picked up and/or are sent to investors, Wall Street, regulators or public officials. When that happens, community operators, lenders and other industry professionals have to invest time and energy ‘walking back’ questionable, muddled statements or those demonstrably inaccurate.
Manufactured Housing Professionals, imagine the potential impact of the scenarios above! Can you see how such activity may negatively impact establishing more industry lending opportunities, adversely impact the values of communities or harm sensitive regulatory or policy discussions? Please see the Masthead post for January 13, 2013.
Caveat emptor
For anyone considering this new group, the ancient Latin maxim caveat emptor, “let the buyer (of such an “association membership”) beware!”
Why should prospects question or avoid this not yet, so-called association?
Let’s suggest a sampling of the questions that a wise buyer of such membership ‘services’ should be asking:
-
Should incomplete and misleading statements by this alleged association’s promoters be a concern to prospective supporters?
-
Are there contradictory statements by the four apparent ring leaders themselves? If so, why? If so, how does that help their credibility? After all, an association without credibility isn’t much of an association is it?
-
Allen’s 2 year +/- stated desire to retire. Why pay to put Allen into a new organization, when the ‘founder’ is seeking retirement?
-
Is the Timing right or wrong? As one industry manger expressed, if this were 1998 and we were shipping 372,000 + homes, the Industry might be better able to sustain such a questionable effort. But it is 2013, we have risen from a new baseline of some 50,000 shipments +/- for three years, to some 57,000+/- shipments in 2012.
-
Do we want to fragment our advocacy in Washington or other capitals even more than it already is due to MHI and MHARR challenges?
When we look at the recent decision by the CFPB, one must wonder, what influenced their call? Could it be that missives like Allen’s or MHARR’s Danny Ghorbani or others may have been picked up by someone in DC? Could that have undermined efforts by MHI and states – lead by Texas MHA – who put in the hard work it took to get into the room with CFPB’s Director Richard Cordray?
There are many questions that can be asked. Will the foursome agree to answer these and others such questions before taking the money of those who would pay for such a questionable organization?
We will close with an observation by a seasoned MH executive who is not a part of MHI, who at this point in time was speaking off the record. This respected leader said off the record in part, quoting as follows:
“If history has taught us anything, it is that success requires a unified industry effort. The enactment of Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 was a result of a unified industry effort. Today, the stakes are even higher. In my opinion, the establishment of another industry interest group is self-serving, not serving the best interest of the industry.”
We may cover more of those details and related in a possible follow up report. But what we have are 4 individuals who won’t answer direct questions, but will put out their own statements while ducking any attempt at analysis. Is there something to hide? If not, why do they not answer straightforward questions?
The bottom line seems to be that a manufactured controversy is being used to promote a so-called new association that at times claims its propoents say will do no advocacy, at times they hint otherwise. No wonder MHI’s Dick Jennision doesn’t want to comment yet. Until they make their plans transparent, and settle on a common story line, what is there for MHI to comment upon?
But the letter attached makes it clear that MHI will not be silent once this foursome make their plans clearly known. ##
1) The download of the email circulated letter to Spencer Roane from Webster, Chamberlain and Bean is attached here.
2) The entire contents and in depth analysis of Ken Rishel’s pro-George Allen association column, is linked here.
3) The entire contents and in depth analysis of one George Allen’s most recent blog post – plus a surprising written admission about his operation! – are attached within this document, and are linked here.
