Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/60637
MHARR VIEWPOINT Homeowner-Community Issues Impacting Congressional Efforts BY DANNY GHORBANI Twice now, in consecutive congressional hear- ings focused on manufactured housing, home- owner witnesses, while praising the quality and affordability of manufactured homes -- with one even proclaiming she "loved" her manufactured home -- have taken the opportunity to lambaste homeowner-community activities and relation- ships, thereby raising the profile of a nagging issue that has been festering in the background for years. Whether these criticisms have any valid- ity or not, is not the issue -- at least at the na- tional level. The simple fact that they are being voiced, points to a gradually-evolving political vulnerability for the industry on other matters di- rectly impacting its fragile recovery and future growth that can only be addressed and resolved in the nation's capital. Because of this vulnerabil- ity and because it has now been caught off-guard, twice, the industry's post-production sector should not only elevate this issue on its list of pri- orities, but also convey to lawmakers in Wash- ington, D.C., in a clear, undiluted, accurate, factual and effective manner, the steps that it is taking to address such criticisms. At a minimum, homeowner complaints con- cerning what amount to landlord-tenant matters unrelated to the federal program and federal laws relating to manufactured housing were a needless distraction, particularly from the February 1, 2012 oversight hearing and its crucial objective of probingHUD's failure, aftermore than a decade, to fully and properly implement key reforms of the 2000 law – a failure that is fueling a worsening cycle of discrimination against HUD Code homes and consumers. The problem, though, goes well beyond any one hearing. Put simply, the festering issues highlighted by such complaints resonate with key groups of lawmakers whose support the industry will need to address and resolve major, all-too- real national-level problems in Washington, APRIL 2012 12 THE JOURNAL D.C. affecting its basic survival. These include, but are not limited to the implementation of the 2000 law, public and private financing, the SAFE Act, Dodd-Frank and other related matters, in- cluding the pending General Accountability Of- fice (GAO) investigation of the HUD program, which strengthen the likeli- hood of further congressional oversight and activity to pro- tect the integrity of the federal program. Thus, effectively addressing these post-produc- tion issues and conveying that message and information to lawmakers at the national level will be crucial to efforts to en- gage Congress on these funda- mentally important issues in the nation's capital. As industry veterans are aware, manufactured housing is – and long has been -- admired and re- spected by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Washington, D.C. Elected officials instinctively realize that manufactured housing is unequaled as a source of affordable home ownership and is the only form of home ownership available to millions of Americans, especially lower and moderate-in- come families. They recognize thatmanufactured housing is affordable, without taxpayer-funded subsidies, and that the industry provides much- needed jobs – especially highly sought-after man- ufacturing jobs -- across the nation's heartland. They also know that when the industry ap- proaches Congress, it is not to seek special treat- ment or federal tax dollars…just an even playing field and parity with other types of housing in order to continue providing these opportunities. This bi-partisan recognition and appreciation of the benefits and advantages of HUD Code manufactured housing was invaluable in assem- bling a broad coalition in Congress that was able to pass the 2000 law in both houses of Congress via unanimous consent. That law, of course, was not only designed to complete the transition of manufactured homes from the "trailers" of yes- teryear to legitimate housing and ensure parity with other types of homes, but also to address and resolve two key "loose- ends" of consumer protec- tion remaining after the original 1974 federalman- ufactured housing law – i.e., proper installation and dispute resolution. By addressing these two issues to the satisfaction of all in Congress, but espe- cially those in the fore- front of consumer protection, the industry was able to secure legislation that significantly ad- vanced its status, stature and interests. Unfor- tunately, though, with the failure of federal regulators to fully and properly implement this and other laws, Congress must once again step-in … thus the resurgence of these long-simmering homeowner-community issues at the national level. Adding to this political vulnerability is the changing composition of the relevant congres- sional committees. With the impending retire- ment of Rep. Barney Frank at the end of the current session, the Democrat leadership on housing and finance issues in the House of Rep- resentatives is increasingly being taken up by law- makers representing urban districts with little or no manufactured housing, thus increasing the prospect for misunderstandings arising from the conflation of these state and/or local post-pro- duction issues with the federal program and the federal role in public and private consumer fi- nancing, while threatening a broader negative