Manufactured Housing Assoc for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) Takes Public Stance on Bi-Partisan Bi-Cameral Housing Supply Frameworks Act but Manufactured Housing Institute Still Publicly Mute-FEA
MHProNews reported on Sunday that per a tip it was anticipated that the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) would announce publicly their position on the legislation. That stance by MHARR is found in Part I. MHProNews also reported on 4.20.2025 that the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) has not yet taken a public-facing position on the bill but have rather hidden their thinking on the legislation behind a member-only paywall. MHProNews provides the MHARR press release in Part I. MHProNews will provide additional facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) in Part II.
Part I
Bi-Partisan Housing SupplyBill Seeks Zoning Reform – Could
Augment Enhanced Federal Preemption
Washington, D.C., April 22, 2025 – The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) reports that a bill recently introduced in both houses of Congress (S. 1299/H.R. 2840) by a bi-partisan group of lawmakers (see, copy of Senate bill attached), could potentially benefit manufactured housing consumers and the federally-regulated manufactured housing industry in relation to discriminatory zoning exclusion. Although the bill, the Housing Supply Frameworks Act (HSFA), is generally positive from a HUD Code manufactured housing industry perspective, it’s impact, if enacted, could be limited in that it is not mandatory – i.e., it would not, perse, require the removal or modification of zoning barriers to manufactured homes. Further, it contains certain language and scope deficiencies in relation to HUD code homes that will need to be addressed and corrected during the legislative process.
On the positive side, the bill would not negate, prevent or interfere with enforcement of the enhanced federal preemption of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (2000 Reform Law) to preempt exclusionary zoning edicts, which must remain the ultimate objective of the entire manufactured housing industry. The bill, however, if enacted, could be used to augment the enhanced preemption of the 2000 Reform Law and would potentially begin to address the zoning exclusion that has suppressed the HUD Code manufactured housing industry, even though it would not be sufficient – in and of itself – to fully remedy this chronic bottleneck (see, MHARR May 2, 2024 News Release entitled, “Bottlenecks Suppressing Manufactured Housing Industry Continue Unabated”). As a result, while the industry would be warranted in supporting HSFA, it must continue to aggressively seek enforcement of the 2000 Reform Law’s enhanced preemption provision to eliminate discriminatory zoning exclusion.
At its core, the HSFA bill would establish a federal mechanism to – within three years of enactment — “develop frameworks for best practices on zoning and land-use policies” at both the state and local level. Among other things, the bill specifically references a “reduction of obstacles to a range of housing types at all levels of affordability, including manufactured and modular housing.” In addition, the legislation would provide local and state governments with resources to confront barriers to housing development and construction.
Significantly, the bill specifically references and applies to “affordable housing” – not the meaningless term “attainable” housing (promoted by the Manufactured Housing Institute and a few others) – and expressly defines “affordable” housing as “housing for which the monthly payment is not more than 30 percent of the monthly income of the household.” This is notable for at least two reasons. First, it affirms the continuing relevance and importance of advancing manufactured housing as “affordable housing” – a specific defined statutory term that is used not only in the 2000 Reform Law and HSFA, but in other federal legislation and regulatory provisions. Second, it illustrates the recklessness of using meaningless, undefined terms such as “attainable housing” and/or “off-site housing” (as contrasted with “affordable” or “factory-built” housing) while needlessly abandoning (and sacrificing) the industry’s unique claim and status as the nation’s most affordable, non-subsidized type of housing.
Yet another issue that should be addressed is the HSFA’s pairing of “manufactured” and “modular housing” in one provision (i.e., section 4(c)(2)(G) of the attached bill). Given:
(1) The unique non-subsidized affordability of manufactured housing in relation to all other types and forms of housing;
(2) The fact that manufactured homes – unlike all other types of housing — are constructed in accordance with a unique preemptive federal code and federal enforcement standards; and
(3) The fact that many jurisdictions target HUD Code manufactured homes for discriminatory zoning exclusion specifically because of their construction in accordance with a federal code that ensures their affordability but differs from state and/or local building codes for all other types of site-built and factory-built housing –
manufactured homes should be addressed separately as a unique and defined category of federally-regulated “affordable homes” to be protected from discriminatory and exclusionary zoning mandates under HSFA.
In sum, these and other language issues within HSFA are a reflection of the chaos and confusion that has been unleashed on the HUD Code industry through the use of careless terminology by MHI and a few others. As MHARR has noted previously, the template of inherent “affordability” is an industry strength, both legislatively and with respect to policy, and must not be sacrificed for other illusory notions. Thus HSFA provides an opportunity for the industry to eliminate meaningless, subjective and undefined or ill-defined jargon (such as “attainable” and “off-site”) from its lexicon.
In accordance with the foregoing, MHARR will closely monitor the HSFA bill and will seek appropriate modifications going forward.
The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform is a Washington, D.C.- based national trade association representing the views and interests of independent producers of federally-regulated manufactured housing.
Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary
1) As MHProNews reported on Sunday 4.20.2025, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) has taken no public stance on its website on this legislation. A search for the bill yields a member only page that requires a login. As of 4.23.2025 at 6.06 AM ET, there is still no change to the reality reflected in the annotated screen capture below.
2) That said, MHI has in fact signed onto a letter of support for this legislation last year, during the Biden-Harris (D) era. Note the screen capture is from May 2024. One has to use a specific search to find the bill in order to see the item below.
3) As MHProNews noted, there is no mention of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Act, 2000 Reform Law), nor of the “enhanced preemption” provision that MHI is on record, in an apparently ‘lip service’ fashion, supporting. There is an apparent ‘split’ between what some of MHI’s leading members, including board of director members, say in their investor relations (IR) pitches and what MHI says from time-to-time that they want on paper. Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS), for example, specifically says that they find it is a “strategic advantage” for them that NIMBYism is keeping “almost no new supply.” In many devices and browsers, to see the item below in a larger size, click here and follow the prompts. This is a black and white difference between than what MHI has said that they want in their IRS Form 990. That IRS 990 statement must be made under oath by their president and it must be reviewed by their board before it is filed.
4) There is an increasingly apparent duality to MHI’s words and MHI behavior, particularly when remarks by some of their leading consolidation-focused members are considered as contrasted by the ‘official’ position taken by MHI. Three different AI systems (Bing‘s Copilot, Google‘s Gemini, xAI’s Grok) have in their own words said that MHI’s behavior lacks transparency and is inconsistent with their stated claims. As an example, Copilot said this (see two bottom quotes on this next graphic).
5) This is an example of how Gemini said there is evidence of potential antitrust behavior. The blue gray on the top right is the question, the answer in white is from AI powered Gemini.
6) When pressed for greater clarity, and no ambiguity, Gemini said the following.
7) While Biden-Harris (D) were still in office, MHI missed several opportunities to press for “enhanced preemption” and they obviously failed every time.
8) So, while MHARR is saying that they see potential for the Housing Supply Framework bill IF certain things in the proposal are addressed, MHI is simply supporting it (based on the letter linked here. But since MHI has NOT gone public on this topic more recently and have hidden their stance behind a member only login, they are once more revealing themselves as being opaque instead of transparent. So, it begs the question. Why is MHI so wishy-washy? Why are they working with the competitors of manufactured housing instead of working with MHARR to get “enhanced preemption” enforced, especially since that is ALREADY federal law?
9) xAI’s Grok was more blunt in its assessments. Grok said that was is occurring in MHVille is a “heist” or a “scam.” Grok said the industry is operating as a rigged game.
10) The “scam” take by Grok is not so different than what Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of MHARR said was a “shell game” being played in manufactured housing that was generating an “illusion of motion” with little or no substantial results to show for their supposed ‘efforts.’
13) Because MHI’s corporate and staff leaders – as well as outside attorneys or their public relations contractor – remain mute in the face of the industry, these evidence-based and logical concerns stand publicly unchallenged. One such outreach effort from the report linked here is shown below.
from:
L. A. Tony Kovach<latonyk@gmail.com> for MHProNews.
to:
William “Bill” Boor @ Cavco.com (CVCO and MHI leader) investor_relations@cavco.com, Norman Ball @ cavco.com, Leo Poggione @ forahouse.com (Leo Poggione is the prior MHI chair and his location was purchased by Cavco-CVCO).
cc:
Gregory Palm @ craig-hallum (Palm has asked one of the few reasonably tough questions for Cavco Industries leaders during an earnings call. Per sources Palm and Craig Hallum monitor and read MHProNews. See linked report further below.) Lesli Gooch @mfghome.org (MHI CEO) David Goch @wc-b.com (long-time outside attorney for MHI).
Bill and others at Cavco and MHI,
You know the drill. Please email your reaction to the article involving Cavco and the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) published this morning. We plan to do a report on the Patch today, so a prompt response is valued.
Email your thoughts to my attention. No word limits. PDF attachments to document your statements are welcomed.
Thank you.
L. A. ‘Tony’ Kovach for MHProNews.
PS: While Cavco and MHI linked responses are welcome on any article we’ve published the specific article in question is the first one linked below.
Cavco’s Bill Boor has a fiduciary duty to both manufactured housing industry stakeholder and to CVCO shareholders too. They are arguably failing in both areas.
MHProNews Note depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
Note that in the emailed outreach above Greg Palm was included. See that report linked below. Will history repeat? Will Palm or a colleague of his ask tough, probing questions about MHVille and Cavco underperformance during an upcoming Cavco earning call? Time will tell.
]
14) MHProNews has documented time and again that it has repeatedly offered to discuss or debate these concerns. MHI’s response in recent years has been to posture more, spotlight some other item that seemingly deflects from the key issues that are discussed, outlined, or linked herein. MHI fails to be transparent via MHProNews despite the fact that MHI leaders for years praised MHProNews for accuracy, factual reporting, and sound analysis.
15) But give MHI leadership credit where it is due. It takes a certain kind of skill to keep manufactured housing underperforming for an extended period of time for as long as they have without having federal or state public officials formally charge them with antitrust and RICO violations. There are so many research reports that point to possible antitrust violations that MHI leaders may be setting a post-Madoff record.
Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) in on the record remarks emailed to MHProNews. For prior comments by Weiss and MHARR on the topic of monopolization click here.
So, like MHI or not, trust MHI or not, you might be tempted to admire them for their consistent chutzpah in the face of their ever-more obvious communication tactics.
MHProNews Notes: the screen capture illustrates the accuracy of the Q&A with Copilot on the topic shown. Note 2: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
MHProNews Note depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
There are some things so obviously exaggerated and phony in MHI’s lazy efforts at posturing, paltering and posing as to be laughable for the better informed. It is 4.23.2025 as this is being written. At this time, MHI’s news segment still looks like this screen capture below, unchanged since 4.7.2025. What? No news involving manufactured housing in the past two weeks?
Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
16) Candidly, MHI’s leadership, and that of several of their ‘leading’ members, have to be in a tough spot. As was noted earlier, Gemini was recently asked to create a plausible explanation for MHI’s behavior during much (not all) of the 21st century in the so-called Berkshire Hathaway era of the industry. Gemini did as asked. Gemini created plausible arguments, using MHI’s talking points, that might seem to superficially make sense. That said, Gemini concluded with these words.
Unambiguous Analysis:
It is a reasonable and evidence-based conclusion that the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) exhibits a pattern of stating its commitment to market growth while its actions and the business models of its dominant members, as reported and analyzed in the provided links, suggest a greater emphasis on consolidation and maintaining the existing market dynamics, which benefit from limited new supply due to regulatory barriers. The lack of significant progress in overcoming these barriers, despite the clear mandate of “enhanced preemption,” further supports the assertion that MHI’s efforts may be more focused on public relations and protecting the interests of its largest players within the current constrained market rather than actively pursuing the organic growth of the industry as a whole. This raises serious questions about whether MHI is truly fulfilling its stated mission to grow the market for manufactured housing.
Almost a year has come and gone since MHProNews challenged MHI with the post below. The silence is deafening. It is as relevant today as it was then. Plus, it directly ties into this topic raised by MHARR in their email and post yesterday.
17) The evidence that a proverbial legal noose is tightening around several of these corporate leaders that hold so much sway at MHI appears to be building and gaining momentum. As Blue Orca style reports and antitrust legal action seems to be building, it is a fair question if MHI’s leadership purported duplicity will have a legal reckoning.
18) IF MHI linked corporate leaders gain or find the cojones to address MHProNews/MHLivingNews raised concerns directly, count on this platform to so advise readers.
Until then, it seems that MHI leaders may take certain behaviors as an indirect response to MHARR, MHProNews, MHLivingNews. See the linked reports to learn more on subjects that MHI has obviously not covered which means their claims about “news” on their site are apparently false.
MHProNews Note depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts. “There are many kinds of journalism, but at the heart of their constitutional responsibilities, journalists are in the business of monitoring and keeping a check on people and institutions in power.” – American Press Institute.Click here to subscribe to the most complete and obviously most read manufactured housing industry news in seconds. Enter your desired email address, press submit, confirm in your inbox. Then You’re All Set for x2 weekly emailed news updates! To report a news tip – either ON or OFF the record – click the image above or send an email to iReportMHNewsTips@mhmsm.com – To help us spot your message in our volume of email, please put the words NEWS TIP or COMMENTS in the subject line. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/is-a-recession-looming-john-carney-econ-data-including-housing-insights-paul-bradley-on-integrity-community-solutions-hud-sec-scott-turner-pivot-plus-sunday-weekly-mhville-headlines-recap/
There are reasons why AI has said thatMHProNews has more than 6x the combined readership of MHI and its affiliated bloggers and trade media.
Our son has grown quite a bit since this 12.2019 photo. All on Capitol Hill were welcoming and interested in our manufactured housing industry related concerns. But Congressman Al Green’s office was tremendous in their hospitality. Our son’s hand is on a package that included the Constitution of the United States, bottled water, and other goodies.
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.
