Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/84809
MHARR VIEWPOINT MHARR Appeals to Obama and Romney for Action BY DANNY GHORBANI In a bi-partisan effort to inform, educate and ultimately hold the next administration ac- countable, MHARR has written to President Obama and Governor Romney asking whichever of them is elected to take decisive action to help restore and revitalize the manu- factured housing industry as a leading source of non-subsidized affordable housing for millions of American families. The decline that has plagued the industry and its consumers for the past decade -- and its causes -- have been fully documented by MHARR as part of a congressional engagement and oversight process initiated by its Board of Directors immediately after theNovember 2010 election. An 86% decline in production since 1998, a 72% decline in the number of operat- ing factories and corresponding losses in the number of retailers and industry-wide employ- ment, have been caused primarily by three re- lated factors – (1) baseless federal financing policies – both public and private -- that dis- criminate against manufactured homes and manufactured housing consumers and (2) anti- quated federal policies on production and virtu- ally all other aspects of manufactured housing flowing fromthe incomplete and inadequate im- plementation of applicable federal laws, result- ing from a short-sighted and biased mentality that has led to (3) the near-total exclusion of manufactured housing from the nation's hous- ing – and especially affordable housing – pro- grams at all levels of government. All of this – the decline itself and its causes – should be unacceptable to the industry. With an average price less than one-third the cost of a typical site-built home and less costly than even rental housing, manufactured home pro- duction should not be hovering near record OCTOBER 2012 12 THE JOURNAL lows. With all the laws Congress has enacted on a bi-partisan basis for the benefit of the in- dustry and its consumers, manufactured homes should have the status of legitimate "housing" at all levels of government, for all purposes, with discrimination a thing of the past and par- ity with other housing the rule of the day. And even though the industry pro- vides a private sector affordable housing solution that should remain within the private sec- tor and not be co-opted by government, manufactured housing should be treated fairly by – and should be an essential part of – all potentially applica- ble government housing pro- grams, instead of being relegated to second-class status (at best). In- deed, manufactured housing should be a top priority for these programs given the fact that it is the only type of housing comprehensively reg- ulated by the federal government itself. The industry, in short, should be doing bet- ter, can do better and needs to do better, and should not tolerate or accept the same time- worn, tired excuses for why it's not -- and why it's not the powerful player it should be in the nation's capital. Consequently, the entire in- dustry should likewise ponder the future course for its success, and it too should inform, edu- cate and hold the next administration account- able for specific, effective remedial action after the election. To gauge the industry's overall weakness as a political force inWashington, D.C., one need only look at the federal government's spending priorities for housing and the role of manufac- tured housing in the nation's housing programs. Manufactured housing is not even on the radar screen, even though it's the nation's most af- fordable non-subsidized housing and the only type of housing with the proven capacity to pro- vide affordable home ownership within the reach of every American regardless of income. As a result, its consumers do not share access to the same types of housing programs Americans not only enjoy, but that other take for granted. For example, in 2012, HUD plans to spend some 47.9 billion taxpayer dol- lars. According to the 2012 HUD budget, this sum will be used to sup- port a dizzying array of programs, all designed, supposedly, to advanceHUD'smission of "cre- ating strong, sustainable, inclusive communi- ties and quality, affordable homes for all" – a mission that seems tailor-made for manufac- tured housing. Of the total $47.9 billion, a whopping 72 percent, or $34.5 billion, will be allocated to "rental assistance." Another 23 percent, just over $11 billion, will be used to "allowHUD to partner with communities to de- velop and repair affordable housing or support economic development activities and infra- structure." So, what aboutmanufactured hous- ing? What about manufactured housing "communities?"What about the entrepreneurs who would like to develop affordable manufac- tured housing communities and create Ameri- can jobs in the process? And what about the consumers who would like to use such programs to live in a manufactured housing community? For them, and for the industry, there is noth-