It may be April 1, but this is no joke. Senior leadership for the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) – Peter James, Ed Hussey Jr., Mark Weiss, and Danny Ghorbani – met with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary E. Scott Turner and some of his staff on 3.25.2025. The 3.31.2025 press release from MHARR about that meeting is provided in Part I below. This could prove to be a significant development for MHVille. More on that in Part II as part of the facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) insights for this timely topic.
Part I
MHARR Aligns MH Industry Goals with President Trump and HUD Secretary Turner’s Affordable Homeownership Vision; Sec Turner-MHARR Leadership Meeting Discussed 2000 Reform Law-Enhanced Preemption
Washington, D.C., March 31, 2025 – A delegation of officials from the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) met with HUD Secretary Scott Turner and senior HUD staff on March 25, 2025 to provide the Secretary with a first-hand opportunity to hear the concerns of smaller industry businesses regarding crucial issues affecting the manufactured housing industry. As explained in a two-tiered presentation provided to the Secretary (copy attached) these issues include — (1) serious ongoing flaws in the operation of the federal manufactured housing program at HUD; (2) key bottlenecks suppressing the growth and expansion of the HUD Code industry; and, most importantly, (3) the resolution of those bottlenecks in alignment with the vision expressed by both President Trump and Secretary Turner for the future of affordable homeownership. The MHARR delegation included MHARR Chairman Peter James, MHARR Chairman Emeritus Edward J. Hussey, Jr., MHARR President and CEO Mark Weiss, and MHARR Founding President/Senior Advisor Danny D. Ghorbani.
The MHARR group first emphasized the crucial need to maintain the reasonable and cost-effective regulation of the manufactured housing industry at the federal level, within HUD. That federal-level regulation, established by the 1974 National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act and maintained and strengthened by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (2000 Reform Law), is essential because while there are many other types of factory-built dwellings, manufactured housing is – and continues to be – the most affordable type due to its three key federally-controlled pillars – (1) uniform, performance-based federal standards; (2) uniform federal enforcement; and (3) “broad and liberal” federal preemption.
Significantly, though, the MHARR delegation stressed that the production of affordable mainstream manufactured homes, through nearly all of the 21st century has suffered because of ongoing mismanagement of the HUD manufactured housing program and, most particularly, the failure of the program – including under its present leadership – to fully and properly implement all of the major program reforms legislated by Congress as part of the landmark 2000 Reform Law. In particular, MHARR pointed to HUD’s failure to fully implement the enhanced federal preemption of the 2000 Reform Law in order to prevent the discriminatory exclusion of manufactured homes (and manufactured homeowners) from entire jurisdictions based on prohibitive zoning mandates. MHARR emphasized that the 2000 Reform Law provides HUD with ample authority to override such mandates targeting safe, high-quality, affordable manufactured homes that HUD itself regulates, and that HUD should and must exercise that authority.
In addition, MHARR addressed both the manipulation of appointments to the statutory Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) to deprive independent industry manufacturers of their collective representation, as well HUD’s failure to ensure full and fair competition for the manufactured housing program’s “monitoring” contract, resulting in multiple de facto sole source procurements and what amounts to a fifty-year monopoly on the monitoring contract by one entity (albeit under different corporate names) since the very inception of the federal program. MHARR emphasized that all of these failures, together with the lack of competitive-rate consumer financing for the nearly 80% of industry production purchased through personal property loans, constitute major bottlenecks not only to the proper operation of the federal program, but, more importantly, to the increased production and utilization of non-subsidized affordable mainstream manufactured housing at a time of unprecedented need for inherently affordable housing and homeownership.
Next, and perhaps most importantly, the MHARR delegation stressed that inherently affordable, non-subsidized mainstream HUD Code manufactured housing should and must be part of the vision expressed by both President Trump and Secretary Turner for expanding the availability of affordable homeownership for all Americans. While emphasizing that manufactured homes should be permitted for siting in every jurisdiction in the United States, mainstream HUD Code manufactured housing can, should and must be included in the vision of the President and Secretary for the placement of affordable homes and affordable housing on large tracts of federally-owned land. The placement of such homes, including homes with removable chassis, as would be authorized by Sen. Tim Scott’s “ROAD to Housing” Act, would create a new paradigm for HUD, the industry and American homeowners, to promote and expand the availability of affordable homeownership. The MHARR group, accordingly, urged the Secretary to ensure the full and equal inclusion of manufactured homes, not only within any such new initiative, but also as part of all other HUD housing and homeownership programs, as affordable homeownership would be difficult to achieve without HUD Code manufactured homes as an essential part of that effort.
In Washington, D.C., MHARR President and CEO Mark Weiss stated: “We wish to express our gratitude and appreciation to Secretary Turner for the generous time that he shared with MHARR to hear the views and concerns of its members. In this introductory meeting, we sought to stress that mainstream, affordable HUD Code manufactured housing has much to offer for the nation and for millions of Americans as a non-subsidized, private-sector source of inherently affordable homeownership. We also emphasized that MHARR stands ready at all times to work with both the Secretary and President Trump to address and overcome the nation’s affordable housing crisis.”
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.
— 30 —
Attachments
1) Meeting Agenda with MHARR Leaders, HUD Secretary Turner, and Senior HUD Staff
Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)
1331 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Suite 512
Washington D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/783-4087
Fax: 202/783-4075
Email: MHARRDG@AOL.COM
Website: www.manufacturedhousingassociation.org
Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary
In no particular order of importance are the following, starting with a Q&A with left-leaning Microsoft Bing’s AI powered Copilot. Questions are by MHProNews.
1)
How does MHProNews define the term MHVille?
If you’re exploring manufactured housing, is there a specific aspect you’d like to dive into? I’m here to help!
2) The fat-fingers typo in the next two questions are in the original.
While that may arguably be true, isn’t it also a term that MHProNews and MHLivingNews use to reflect that the manufactured housing industry production has been artificially diminished in the 21st century? And doesn’t that diminished role of manufactured home production hurt millions of potential consumers that not only want but need a more affordable housing option? Without using the term MHVille, haven’t Federal Reserve reseachers and Samuel Strommen made specific evidence-based detailed arguments that manufactured housing has been artificially limited from within and without the boundaries of the manufactured home industry?
Federal Reserve researchers, such as James Schmitz Jr., have provided evidence-based arguments that manufactured housing has been constrained by regulatory and market pressures. Schmitz emphasizes that factory-built homes are a critical solution for affordable housing, yet their potential has been stifled by “stick-built” housing pressures and federal regulations . Similarly, Samuel Strommen’s research delves into antitrust violations and monopolistic practices within the industry, which he argues have contributed to its underperformance during an affordable housing crisis .
These insights underscore the need for reforms to unlock the full potential of manufactured housing as a viable and scalable solution to the nation’s housing challenges. What are your thoughts on these perspectives?
While I broadly agree with your observation, doesn’t James Schmitz Jr and other Federal Reserve system linked researcher specificially refer to those tactics used by builders, the NAHB, and HUD as ‘sabotage monopoly’ tactics, a term that dates back to the Department of Justice and Thurmond Arnold who said that sabotage monopoly tactics were used to limit the production of factory built housing by as early as the 1940s, hurting Veterans and other affordable housing seekers? Has there been any specific head on rebuttal argument to those Federal Reserve linked antitrust concerns by serious sources? Link results.
Regarding rebuttals to these antitrust concerns, there doesn’t appear to be a comprehensive, evidence-based refutation of Schmitz’s and his colleagues’ findings. However, some industry voices, such as the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), have offered counterpoints emphasizing the safety, quality, and regulatory compliance of manufactured housing 3. Additionally, broader discussions on antitrust enforcement and monopolistic practices in various sectors, including banking and housing, have been explored5.
You can explore these perspectives further through the linked resources. Let me know if you’d like to delve deeper into any specific aspect!
4)
The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) has estimated that there are about 7.3 million units of affordable housing needed in the U.S. in 2024, is that accurate? Given the dynamics of regulatory and other cost barriers for conventional housing, is there any other proven at scale building technology that can close the gap for affordable home ownership at this time other than HUD Code manufactured homes? Doesn’t that make the recent meeting between the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) leaders and HUD Secretary Scott Turner and senior HUD leaders all the more important? Unpack the importance of that meeting and link results.
When it comes to proven, scalable building technologies for affordable homeownership, HUD Code manufactured homes stand out. They are the only federally regulated form of housing, offering affordability, quality, and efficiency unmatched by conventional construction methods. While other innovative approaches, such as 3D-printed homes and modular construction, show promise, they have yet to achieve the same level of scalability and cost-effectiveness as manufactured homes.
The recent meeting between MHARR leaders and HUD Secretary Scott Turner underscores the urgency of addressing barriers to manufactured housing. MHARR emphasized the need for HUD to fully implement the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, including its enhanced federal preemption provisions. These provisions are designed to prevent discriminatory zoning practices that exclude manufactured homes, which are a vital solution for affordable housing 3. The meeting also addressed bottlenecks in the HUD Code industry, such as regulatory inefficiencies and the lack of competitive-rate financing for manufactured homes.
This dialogue is crucial because it aligns with broader efforts to expand affordable homeownership opportunities and tackle the systemic challenges facing the manufactured housing sector. By addressing these issues, HUD and MHARR aim to unlock the full potential of manufactured homes as a solution to the nation’s affordable housing crisis.
You can explore more about the NLIHC’s findings and the details of the MHARR-HUD meeting . Let me know if you’d like to dive deeper into any of these topics!
5)
To my knowledge there has been no public mention of a similar meeting between Manufactured Housing Institute leaders and HUD Secretary Turner since he was sworn in as HUD Secretary, is that accurate? No mention by the Institute on the public facing part of their website, or their social media, or in press releases, is that accurate at this time (3.31.2025)?
If you’d like, I can help you explore related topics or dive deeper into the implications of this absence. Let me know!
6) An array of potential comments and linked insights could be added at this point. But let’s keep it tighter today, as follow ups are planned soon for MHLivingNews and the Masthead. The Patch provided some related information in the post linked below.
7) In terms of providing some background to some of the players for MHARR, Peter James is “Vice President Engineering/Quality/Special Projects Franklin Structures.”
8) Ed Hussey, Jr. is the son of the late Ed Hussey, Sr. who testified on behalf of MHARR in Congressional hearings on the failure of HUD to properly and consistently implement the 2000 Reform Law.
9) More on Danny Ghorbani from the MHARR website at this link here.
10) MHARR President and CEO, Mark Weiss, J.D., has been covered in the context of industry activities in hundreds of articles on MHProNews and MHLivingNews. See Weiss articulate his views on various manufactured housing industry topics via MHARR Issues and Perspectives (IP) at this link here, and a recent one unpacked by MHProNews at the link below.
11) Insights into MHI or more direct MHARR to MHI comparisons are found in the following.
If MHI is serious about working with MHARR to lift all boats in the manufactured home industry, they seem to have a curious way of showing it. MHARR’s news segment screen grab from 3.31.2025 is as shown below. It is routinely about MHI events or personalities, not about what they are accomplishing or doing for the industry to boost sales to past levels and beyond. To see the following in a larger size click here and follow the prompts, or click the image below and follow the prompts.
12) Other topics follow. Watch for deeper probes on the Masthead and MHLivingNews about this meeting planned for the near term. Stay tuned to the your biggest, best, and often only source for specific issues in MHVille found here on MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews.
“Don’t Just Trust Us, Check Us.” ©
“We Provide, You Decide.” ©
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, further below. 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
Related References:
The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.’
