Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/124916
MHARR VIEWPOINT Resisting Elimination of the Federal HUD Program BY DANNY GHORBANI The total elimination of the federal manufactured housing program has been a long-time goal of an unusual convergence of industry competitors, special interests and certain regulators. Their reasons and motivations may vary, but the objective is the same – ending the federal superintendence of the industry that began in 1974. Without the federal program, though, the uniform, performance-based regulation, federal preemption and uniform federal enforcement which together ensure the unique affordability of manufactured housing, particularly for lower and moderate-income American families, would vanish. How do we know about these detractors and their objectives? Because every so often, they emerge and make their presence known -- the last time during the 12-year legislative battle leading to the enactment of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 when, in multiple venues, they and their baseless claims were presented, considered and soundly rejected. Now, though, apparently enticed by the perception of a weak industry, their seeming success in degrading the availability of manufactured home consumer financing (especially chattel financing) for lower and moderate-income homebuyers, and the perception of an industry unwilling to take-on its opponents in Washington, D.C, the same people are out to finish-off the federal program again, and the vehicle, this time, is an attempted diversion of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation of the HUD program mandated by Congress. First, some background. At the same time that Congress was conducting informational and oversight hearings on the "State of the Manufactured Housing Industry" (November 29, 2011) and the "Implementation of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000" (February 1, 2012), the Chairmen of the House Financial Services Committee and the House Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity – the committees with substantive MAY 2013 12 THE JOURNAL jurisdiction over the federal manufactured housing program – requested a GAO investigation of several carefully targeted issues. As stated in its written referral to GAO, Congress sought an investigation of "how HUD has implemented the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000" and, particularly, "what effect the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee has had on revisions to HUD's manufactured housing construction, safety and installation standards … and … the specific authority of the Consensus Committee in advising HUD." Why were these specific issues targeted by Congress' referral? The answer is obvious. Congress, after a 12-year process, on a bi-partisan and unanimous basis, adopted the 2000 law to achieve a number of crucial national housing goals that are expressed in the purposes of the law and the specific reforms it enacted – i.e., (1) to expand the availability of affordable manufactured housing and manufactured home ownership for American consumers; (2) ensure the parity of affordable HUD-regulated manufactured homes with other types of housing (i.e., non-discrimination); and (3) improve the accountability and transparency of the federal program -- and prevent a return to the type of closed-door decisionmaking that routinely shut-out and ignored the interests of program stakeholders -- through various measures including, most importantly, the establishment of a strong, independent and functional consensus committee and the appointment of a non-career program administrator. Sworn testimony at the congressional hearings, however, by numerous program stakeholders, including MHARR, demonstrated that these 2000 law reforms have not been fully and properly implemented within a program that remains fully controlled by career regulators and program contractors. As a result, manufactured homes continue to be perceived as the "trailers" of yes- teryear, rather than legitimate "housing." At the same time, the single most affordable housing resource available to Americans at all income levels remains outside of the policy mainstream at HUD, effectively excluded from most of the nation's housing opportunity and home finance programs – a policy of outright discrimination against the industry and the lower and moderateincome Americans who rely on its homes. Not surprisingly, then, Congress sought an investigation focused specifically on why and how HUD has failed to implement the key reforms of the good law that it enacted. Now fast-forward to 2013. Suddenly, the focus of the GAO investigation is beginning to look different. For example, GAO has unearthed a 1998 "study" conducted on behalf of HUD's Office of Policy Research and Development (PD&R) by the National Association of Homebuilders' NAHB Research Center, comparing factory and site-built housing – and their regulation – and now appears to be concentrating on issues related to the necessity of federal regulation. Each of these issues, though, has repeatedly been raised in the past by such competitors and detractors, but in each instance, has been soundly rejected by the authoritative bodies that considered them, such as the National Commission on Manufactured Housing and Congress itself. Nevertheless, GAO is now asking, for example, whether manufactured housing and manufactured housing consumers would be better served if the federal program were eliminated and whether "changes at the state and local level (particularly regarding building codes [have] changed the need for [federal] preemption today versus 1974?" And most recently, a leading industry blogger is reporting that "interviewers" are "travelling the country" asking what appear-to-be carefully se- 19 \