Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/95278
MHARR VIEWPOINT Two Simple And Essential Steps to Turn Around the Federal Program BY DANNY GHORBANI The just-concluded October 23-25, 2012 Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) meeting in Washington, D.C. offers the best evidence yet of the continuing deteriora- tion of the federalmanufactured housing program and the role, authority and independence of the MHCC, asHUD continues its effort to transform the Committee froma unique statutory consensus body to a run-of-the-mill "advisory" committee, with devastating results for both the industry and consumers. MHARR has been warning of this gradual but calculated deterioration and its serious repercus- sions for the industry since 2004, when HUD took the first steps to undermine key aspects of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 and especially its centerpiece reform -- an independent and robustMHCC – followed by the de facto elimination of the appointed programad- ministrator position, all culminating in a Febru- ary 2010 "interpretive rule" that effectively gutted a critical provision of the 2000 law. The industry, though, ignoring these warn- ings, has continued with business-as-usual with HUD for nearly a decade, enabling program reg- ulators to continue circumventing the 2000 law while bringing the entire program to its current unprecedented low point. Quite simply, it's in- conceivable that successive program managers would so brazenly ignore the letter and intent of the law if the entire industry had worked to hold them --and the program – fully accountable. More importantly, the continuing deterioration of the program has reached a critical red line that should be unacceptable to the entire industry, and a rallying point for a renewed effort, regard- less of which party controls the White House be- ginning in January 2013, to demand full compliance with the 2000 law, beginning with the two most serious and consequential compli- ance issues – the restoration of an appointed non- DECEMBER 2012 14 THE JOURNAL career program administrator and collective in- dustry voting representation on the MHCC. To fully understand the importance of these is- sues, one has to acknowledge the undeniable re- ality thatmore than ten years after the enactment of the 2000 law, the HUD program, on its cur- rent track, has reached a new, historic low, in terms of: (1) its isolation from the policy main- stream at HUD; (2) its position and influence within HUD; and (3) its respect for the MHCC and the legitimate statutory role of that body – all spelling disas- ter for the industry and the con- sumers who rely on it for affordable homeownership. For example, the HUD pro- gram, as reiterated at themeet- ing, now falls under the authority of HUD's "Office of RiskManagement and Regulatory Affairs." Being paired with "risk management" functions is not only prejudicial to the industry by implying that manufactured housing is somehow "riskier" than other types of housing, but also keeps manufac- tured housing separate and excluded from main- stream HUD programs that spend billions of tax dollars promoting affordable housing – effectively discriminating against both manufactured hous- ing and manufactured housing consumers. To permanently repair the damage that has been done though, and ensure ultimate HUD compliance with all relevant reforms of the 2000 law, will require a full-court-press by the indus- try and consumers to restore the institutional safeguards essential to a properly functioning HUD program and MHCC – the appointment of a non-career program administrator and voting collective industry representation on theMHCC. The role of an appointed administrator in en- suring full and proper program compliance with all the reforms of the 2000 law cannot be over- stated. When the program did, in fact, have an appointed administrator, soon after the enact- ment of the 2000 law, the HUD program began to get "on track." The MHCC was established and constituted in accordance with the law – al- lowing full and effective participation rights for all program stakeholders – and functioned effec- tively, churning out major regulatory proposals man- dated by the 2000 law, such as installation stan- dards and procedures, Subpart I reforms and sub- stantive standards revi- sions. Ever since the appointed administrator – for personal reasons – switched to career status, however, and the program has come under the authority of successive career managers, it has steadily reverted back to the "trailer" program that Congress sought to trans- form through the 2000 law, complete with a re- version to closed-door de facto rulemaking and rulemaking by "interpretation" favoring larger en- tities, as well as steadily tightening constraints and limitations on the MHCC which have un- dermined its role, authority, independence and, most importantly, its fundamental balance – which is where collective industry representation comes in. Since return of the program to the control of career regulators, HUD has refused to appoint collective industry representatives as voting MHCC members – violating an understanding with the industry and consumers at the time the 2000 law was en- acted. The latest excuse is that a White House directive bars lobbyists from membership on federal "advisory" \ 21