The Masthead

• Review of Score Cards
• New Home Sales
• Service and Customer Satisfaction
• Communities and Retail Sales
• Seller Financing
• Used Home Sales
• Insurance and Ancillary Revenue
• Profiling People Assets – how to make a good hire.
• Marketing and Pursuit.
• And much more!

Marty Lavin has weighed in on a topic that George Allen, Doug Gorman and others have graced our pages with here at MHMSM.com.  Conspiracy theories and our baker’s dozen year turn down in sales since 1998 seem to go hand in glove.  You will want to set the time aside to really read, not to skim, Marty’s Lavin’s latest thoughts.  See how the MH/Grassy Knoll crowd fits in with how we can make personal property lending – and thus our Industry – better.

Conspiracy Theory

Pat Curran joins us for the first time with an Industry Voices guest blog post.   This industry lender will show us his ideas on how we can protect and save Chattel Lending, and promote while protecting the manufactured housing industry.

I first met Pat back in the late 80s, when he was with Foremost, and my team and I were busy retailing manufactured homes in Purcell, OK.  Pat’s is another article that will need more than a skim!  Because he too gets into the trenches, as to what it will take to make personal property (home only or ‘chattel’ lending) truly viable, but it goes into other Industry and national issues too!

Pat’s article, like Marty’s, is for long term Industry thinkers, movers and shakers only.

Finally, I want to give everyone a heads up on what is coming here to MHProNews.com.

Yes, MHProNews.com is already an active URL (web address) for MHMSM.com and MHMarketingSalesManagement.com.  Our rebranding will be phased in over time, so people don’t wake up one day and ask, Hey! What happened to MHMSM.com?  Fear not.  We are still here, and MHMSM.com aka MHProNews.com plans to be for a long time to come.

The next stage will be our new site facelift.

We’ve listened to you our many readers.  The new format will be much more news looking.  Easier navigation.  All the same great current content.  But more features too, some that you won’t find anywhere else that I’ve seen online in manufactured housing.

We will still have those same great columns by top Industry pros.  We will still have the most content, most news, most blogs found on any single known site in the modular and manufactured (factory-built) home industries.

We are and can be your one stop shop for Industry news, tips and views you can use.

We hope to have the new site, which is already well into development, up and running by the end of summer.

Our developer, who also did a site revision for a FoxNews affiliate, says our site is already as large as that new station’s was, and we are much newer!

—As a heads up to all, when we do the site switch over, our site will be down for several hours, maybe the better part of a day.  As large as it is, there will typically be some bugs to work out.  Just be confident that with your patient input, we will make this as smooth as possible.  <—

Please be prepared for what we believe is another big step ahead for the most comprehensive place in America for manufactured and modular housing news, tips and views you can use.  As George Allen said, the Industry turn around needs a good Industry online news source!  We are glad to be that source of choice for you and 60,000 plus others MH Pros in the moon of June, 2010.

Hmmm.  MH Pros.  MH Professionals.  MHProNews.com.  Kinda sums it up, doesn’t it?

We want to thank our sponsors, writers and team members – past, present and to come – for making all this possible for you.

Oh, yes! Speaking of conspiracy theories and manufactured housing.  Please remind me to tell you the latest one that crossed my desk.  It’s a doozie.

Enjoy Marty, Pat and all our fine featured writer contributors.

Let’s catch up again next week.##

Warning: This blog post is not for the faint of heart or for those who think they can skim and get it all.  As an Industry Pro, directly or indirectly, this impacts YOU every day.

In a recent conversation with George F. Allen, I mentioned a discussion topic that Finmark’s Dick Ernst and I shared in preparation for our INdustry in Focus interview with Dick about manufactured home financing.  During that conversation, Mr. Ernst used the memorable phrase, “elephants in the room.” Specifically, we spoke about the challenges that lenders and home owners face when resale time comes.  “That’s the elephant in the room, Tony, that we as an industry need to deal with.” was the gist of Dick’s revealing statement.

The president of a manufactured housing finance company and the senior VP of yet another lender I’ve recently spoken with concur.

As George and I spoke, he commented on the customer or secondary (resale) market side with, “I was going to say, you’re right, that is the second elephant in the room.  This is an important topic, Tony. Maybe you should consider doing a Linkedin or blog post on it.” GFA being correct, I agreed.  As a result of that advice, a lively Linkedin MHC group discussion has begun…

So here I am suggesting to an Industry pro like yourself that we need to take a long, hard look at how to change this avoidable and troubling dynamic.  We need a process that allows an MH customer or finance company to exit at least as easily from their manufactured home asset as someone might from a conventional stick built house.

Why?

Because as long as we have elephants in the room, those pachyderms will be pushing out of the room customers, investors, lenders, public officials and a whole host of opportunities that we otherwise would deserve!  We can be:

• Selling more homes.
• Have happier manufactured home owners.
• Get more MH referrals.
• Enjoy more, better, happier…these are some of the rewards for solving the ‘problem pachyderms’ issue!

The bottom line is you can make more money long term, and so can the Industry, once we face and fix this plaguing problem.

Yet some – perhaps many – who will read this may knee jerk in opposition.  Why?

Let’s take a look…

VMF and 21st stated in the MHI Summer Meeting with FHA officials that when they take in a repossession, they wholesale that repo 65% of the time.  Other lenders in the room were nodding or made sounds that indicated that Berkshire Hathaway affiliates are not alone.  Now they may make this ‘work,’ but at what cost? Higher rates on manufactured homes than conventional housing are certainly among the sad consequences.

Less lending availability is another avoidable consequence!

Why has the FHA set such a high bar on finance companies who will be doing FHA Title I loans?  Because of past industry losses in financing.

Why do the GSEs hesitate to lend on MH chattel, in spite of the Duty to Serve mandate from Congress?  Because of past industry losses in financing.

Why are so many MH communities doing in house financing?  To the tune of billions of dollars?  Because it is almost a necessity, due to past industry losses in financing.

Why does Ken Rishel and company teach community operators and retailers how to raise the capital and do legally compliant ‘captive chattel financing?’  Because there aren’t enough MH chattel lenders available without doing it in house.  I’d bet that Ken would also ad that because doing it in house is a profit center of it’s own…when it is done right!

Now, please don’t shoot the messenger for reporting what you already know.

The only way to deal with the elephant in the room that no one wants to touch is to look closely at the various dynamics and then do what it takes. If we as a manufactured housing professional, company or as an Industry want to climb out of the Industry’s financing limiting doldrums, we better deal with the issues head on!

When a MHIndustry lender is wholesaling off repo inventory 2 times out of 3, that means that some out there are ‘getting a good deal.’  But the ‘good deal’ to a community, retailer or wholesaler means a lender took a beating.  When the lender takes enough beatings, they may say, ENOUGH!  That leads to the skittish behavior of FHA and The GSEs on this subject.  Those losses on repos cause other financial institutions and potential lenders to look warily at the manufactured housing product, because Conseco/Greentree is not ancient history to them.

Now please don’t misread this.

For example, the government agencies have Congressional mandates.  They should serve manufactured housing as the law requires, period, end of story!  In my world and yours, if Congress passes a law, we obey. If you don’t like it, you work to change it. But if you and I simply fail to obey a law, then we get fined, prosecuted, jailed, or strung up.  I say, the GSEs and FHA should do as Congress mandated.  They should do so broadly, rapidly and effectively.   These agencies should find the solution to the elephants in the room issue as part of the implementation of the legislation that Congress created and the president signed into law.

This means that the FHA and the GSEs should find a way to make the programs sustainable and work long term.

We in the Industry, if we are smart, should help them.

That is what MHI and those Industry leaders were trying to do in DC a few weeks ago, trying to shed light with Vicki Bott and other FHA and HUD officials on ways to make their program work.  Because a sustainable program is a win for everyone!

But let’s go back to those who can’t resist doing that wholesale deal on a repo.

And let’s go back to those lenders who shed their inventory at bargain basement rates.

Knowingly or not, each are contributing to the long term history in the financing/resale realm that has plagued our Industry, those elephants in the room.

Before writing this, I also spoke with a wholesale repo buyer, who effectively said:

“If they are going to sell me a home at these prices, why would I say no?”

I admit, that has to be tempting.  But a number of points come up in analyzing this long term, and you can think of them as well or better than I.

Now, please note, the wholesale buyer has learned how to move that inventory.  So why can’t the lender do the same?

I spoke with a long term MH lender, who effectively said:

“I have x homes and x millions tied up in inventory in just the x market.  The regulators are checking our files right now.  We want to continue to do MH lending.  But every time a ‘park’ (his term) bills me for lot rent, every time a park fails to help resell a home at retail, every time a home sits and sits instead of resells for a good price, every time I have to move a home in order to get it sold, it puts that much more pressure on our manufactured home financing program.”

Do we need to lose another lender(s) before we learn our lesson?  Hello?  If we are the ‘survivors’ of the Great MH Lending Meltdown that started around the turn of the century, who needs coffee?

Now all of these are actual or paraphrased comments from real people who didn’t ask to be named for obvious reasons, and each one is revealing.

To the future potential of the MHIndustry, these viewpoints and their implications are chilling.

Let’s imagine for a moment, that FHFA, in the aftermath of the tidal wave of comments they received last month, relented.  Let’s say they put a program in place that really met the intent of Congress in the Duty to Serve legislative provisions.  Let’s further imagine that FHA modified their threshold for Title I lenders, lowering the amount and making more capital thereby available to the Industry.

Then let’s image that nothing has changed about the resale/remarketing issue.  What would eventually happen?

They’d take their lumps for a while, then go back to Congress and understandably say, “we told you so!”

So now ladies and gents, we better tackle this once and for all.  We should not only work on Congress and these agencies to get the financing we need, but also work with them to make sure that repos don’t result in big losses.

That is just long term, common sense.

That said, one gent told me recently that in our Industry long term may be 10 minutes to 10 days.  “I’ve got the end of the month coming up, and have to get this deal done!”  Oye, vez.  We have to think 10 weeks, 10 months and 10 years ahead too.  A dozen years have gone by since we sank from nearly 373,000 shipments to under 50,000 last year.  We are inching up this year, and that is good.  It reminds us that we can grow again.  But if we don’t buckle down and do ALL that it takes, we will have a shorter and shallower bubble than we had in the roaring 90s.

Or, we can have the best years the Industry has ever had.  The choice is in our hands.

Let us shift gears and briefly look at an example that may lead to a solution.

Back in the late 80s (and again in the early 2000s), I was in a leadership role of  a successful resale programs for various manufactured housing lenders.  We:

• set up a structured approach that reduced their losses, accelerated their resale time line and got assets back on the books at prices that were close to new ‘repo fighter’ home prices then.
• There were legal and systemic limits that kept us from selling repos for even more, but I am here to say, we could have sold those homes for more money had the financing system allowed for it.
• We didn’t buy repos ourselves, meaning we didn’t compete against the lenders repos with our own inventory, as to me that seemed like a conflict of interest.
• Our team did repo sales for lenders, period!  We got paid commissions, and we earned a lot of those.  We also received got paid some spiffs and other incentives, all above board, that were part of our agreement.
• We looked at issues and we dealt with them in the best fashion possible to control costs for lenders and limit their losses.

Late 80s MH Industry Article collage, recounted results helping lenders save money on repos.

It wasn’t perfect, but it worked a lot better for those MH lender clients than they had elsewhere in that state.  We know this because they said so, and backed it up by bringing us ever increasing levels of inventory, and then asked us to expand into different markets in other states.

Foremost Insurance Kudos Letter to our Repo Retail Center

That was then.  Maybe there are similar efforts out there now, but:

• where are they now?
• If they are out there, why are key MHIndustry lenders still wholesaling 65% of the time?
• If they aren’t out there, why aren’t MHIndustry lenders creating a program that works for all long term?

Ladies and gents, this isn’t rocket science. This is about discipline, solution orientation and will power.  Other industries face this issue and make it work.

We…

Can…

Too!

I don’t quote sources unless they wish or agree to be quoted or have spoken in public.  So  privately to me or via posted comments, I am hereby inviting industry members to comment on the elephants in the room.

Please share your experiences and viewpoints.  Please agree or disagree.

Heck, let’s have a debate here if you want to, that is what posted comments are for too.

We as MH professionals, companies and as an Industry have to move the resale/re-marketing subject ahead.

We don’t need endless meetings and another task force that later disbands, for whatever reasons.  I am not criticizing anyone, but I am challenging every stake holder to think this through and resolve it for the long term benefit of all involved.

Some MHCommunity operators do a good job at this.  If they can, others can too.

How do you solve a big problem?  You face it squarely and deal with it honestly.

How do you eat an elephant?  One proverbial bite at a time. # #

_________

End Note:

A few The Masthead blog posts ago, I touched on this topic lightly.  It was part of the broader subject of what are our Industry’s strengths and weaknesses are.  That post referenced how we could be doing 200,000 to 800,000+ new annual manufactured home shipments a year!  Not someday, right now. If you missed that prior post due to vacations or whatever, you might want to read or re-read it.

I was thinking back to the repo glut of the late 90′s and early 2000′s.

• Do we miss selling 372,000+ homes a year?
• Do we miss having full communities?
• Do we miss building new MHCs or fee simple developments?
• Do we want factories that are at or near capacity?
• Do we miss having more retailers?
• Do we miss more lenders, vendors…

Please read, or re-read this blog post linked below.  It outlines the path for MHIndustry  business growth today.

http://www.mhmarketingsalesmanagement.com/blogs/tonykovach/manufactured-housing-industry-growth-potential/ # #

_________

L.A. ‘Tony’ Kovach, MHM

Publisher, MH Marketer and The Masthead blogger

Manufactured Home Marketing Sales Management trade journal at www.MHMarketingSalesManagement.com aka www.MHMSM.com

tony@mhmsm.com

847-730-3692

We are seeing signs of an uptick in Industry home shipments, as reported by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) in recent months. What is the potential of the Manufactured Housing Industry today? What are the factors holding back the sales of manufactured homes? Let us take a brief survey of this timely and important topic.

In the upper Midwest area of Chicago where I am based, new manufactured housing costs tends to be about 40% or so below the price of new conventional construction that is similar in size. While the percentage of savings may vary from region to region, perhaps with lower savings in the South, higher savings in the North, we know that generally factory building can produce quality while saving money. Let’s imagine we had a cell phone called the xPhone that looked like and performed like an Apple iPhone, but was 40% lower in cost. One might imagine that the market potential for that product would be huge.

So applying that analogy to the manufactured housing industry, what are the elements or factors that support our growth, and what are the items that hinder our growth?

Industry Growth Factors include, but are not limited to:

• aging housing stock in much of the U.S.
• ever growing U.S. population
• high cost of conventional housing construction
• declining incomes
• growing population of retirees, limited fixed incomes
• the perception that Earth’s resources are limited or dwindling, and that greener more sustainable designs and building processes make good economic and public policy sense.

Hindering the manufactured housing Industry’s growth factors include, but are not limited to:

• remarketing, resale of homes; the lack of a strong resale mechanism that mirrors the real estate market hurts hampers every aspect of our Industry; starting with financing
• the appreciation vs depreciation issue
• the image issue (some of this is due to older ‘mobile home parks’ with old pre-HUD Code mobile homes, but other factors contribute, such as the media, lack of PR/remarketing, etc.)
• lack of a broad based marketing, educational, image building outreach to Americans and public officials; while a national GO RVing style campaign that worked so well for the recreational vehicle industry has been spoken about many times, it has never gone beyond the discussion stage in the manufactured housing industry as a whole
• financing and regulatory challenges
• a wide variety of skill sets among industry professionals, from companies who do a solid job of personnel development, motivation and training, to firms where the lack of same is dismal and apparent.

These lists could go on. But the point is this; the start of any growth program is candidly identifying the issues, and then just as honestly and aggressively addressing them!

The half a loaf is better than none approach has always made sense to me. Some states or area associations have done videos to promote the manufactured home lifestyle. One effort that has drawn attention and results is linked below:

We need more companies that will do, individually or in tandem with others, their own marketing and educational campaigns. We need more associations and organizations, individually or in unison with others, working to tap the incredible potential of the factory built housing world. We need some action, vs. more talk.

What is our industry’s potential?

On pages 107 – 108 of the new book, The Manufactured Housing Revolution, we see a common sense process that could grow sales to 229,600 HUD Code homes per year, to higher end range of 816,060 homes per year! That top number would represent an industry record year.

What are you willing to do to make those numbers a reality? It is your future. Let us work smarter to make that future brighter and more profitable. # #

L.A. ‘Tony’ Kovach, MHM
Manufactured Home Marketing Sales Management trade journal at www.MHMarketingSalesManagement.com aka www.MHMSM.com
tony@mhmsm.com
847-730-3692

An Industry Giant has died.

A decade ago who would have dreamed such a thing? We stand in requiem to mourn the loss of the manufactured housing giant Fleetwood Enterprises.

As we ponder over 50 years of Fleetwood’s service to affordable homes for throngs in America, what are we to say? What are we to feel and think?

Let’s have a moment of silence…

…

..and then ask, how can we help avoid this again? How can we protect the large and small from such a shocking fall?

It is not my intention here and now to parse what happened in the late 90s and early this century that lead up to the fall of Fleetwood. Our Eric Miller will do a report you will find in his Industry In Focus on the facts regarding the Fleetwood Enterprises liquidation.

What I will say is this. We have to be open to both the fundamentals that brought our industry to be, and be open to new ways that can help us adapt and grow in a changing world. We can’t expect yesterday’s successes to carry us on forever. A false move can be costly. We have to be more nimble, more able to adapt, change and grow.

This event holds important lesson for us all.

Fleetwood Enterprises, we will remember. Rest in Peace. # #

L. A. “Tony” Kovach, MHM
Manufactured Home Marketing Sales Management or MHMSM.com
tony@mhmsm.com
847-730-3692.

A letter came to my attention that was circulated via email. The letter which follows my introduction here addresses the growing concern over HUD’s ‘handling’ of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee, or MHCC. The MHCC is a critical body from the Industry’s perspective. The MHCC exists to protect the interests of both the Industry and the public, while providing safeguards for all concerned. If you are in the Industry, the MHCC is important to you!

Sadly, too many in the HUD Code Industry fail to recognize the importance role that the MHCC is intended to play. So as you dig into this topic with me, you’ll see that indeed “storm clouds are gathering” over the MHCC and HUD officials’ recent actions regarding the MHCC is an import issue! The Manufactured Home Industry obviously needs Manufactured Homes that are appealing, durable, well designed, safe and affordable. The MHCC was designed to play a key role in that process.

In the memo that follows this introduction below, the concerns are being expressed by officials at MHARR, one of the two national Industry trade organizations. Certainly the concerns are also true among members of the MHCC and others in the HUD Code Home Industry regarding the ‘handling’ of the MHCC by HUD.

To put it bluntly, many believe that some at HUD are trying to neuter the MHCC, and strip it of its legally established status ‘check valve’ status.

The MHCC was established by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA 2000), so it has a legal status. The MHCC exists as a check point to keep HUD, the federal government or other forces from arbitrarily imposing their will upon the Manufactured Housing Industry, notably in the construction of homes and construction-related regulations.

Regarding the MHCC, the MHIA of 2000 says in part:

‘‘(3) CONSENSUS COMMITTEE.—
‘‘(A) PURPOSE.—There is established a committee to be known as the ‘consensus committee’, which shall, in accordance with this title—
‘‘(i) provide periodic recommendations to the (HUD) Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the Federal
manufactured housing construction and safety standards in accordance with this subsection;
‘‘(ii) provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the procedural and enforcement regulations, including regulations specifying the permissible scope and conduct of monitoring in accordance with subsection (b);
‘‘(iii) be organized and carry out its business in a manner that guarantees a fair opportunity for the
expression and consideration of various positions and for public participation; and
‘‘(iv) be deemed to be an advisory committee not composed of Federal employees.”
(Note: the parenthetical addition of the word HUD – short for Dept of Housing and Urban Development – used above was added for clarity).
In fact, this might be an appropriate place to share the purpose of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 or MHIA of 2000, which Congress passed and the president signed into law. Here it is:
SEC. 602. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
‘‘(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this title are—

‘‘(1) to protect the quality, durability, safety, and affordability
of manufactured homes;

‘‘(2) to facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured
homes and to increase homeownership for all Americans;

‘‘(3) to provide for the establishment of practical, uniform,
and, to the extent possible, performance-based Federal construction
standards for manufactured homes;

‘‘(4) to encourage innovative and cost-effective construction
techniques for manufactured homes;

‘‘(5) to protect residents of manufactured homes with
respect to personal injuries and the amount of insurance costs
and property damages in manufactured housing, consistent
with the other purposes of this section;

‘‘(6) to establish a balanced consensus process for the
development, revision, and interpretation of Federal construction
and safety standards for manufactured homes and related
regulations for the enforcement of such standards;

‘‘(7) to ensure uniform and effective enforcement of Federal
construction and safety standards for manufactured homes;
and

‘‘(8) to ensure that the public interest in, and need for,
affordable manufactured housing is duly considered in all determinations
relating to the Federal standards and their enforcement.’’
(Note: bold lettering above added for emphasis).
For those of you who are ready to read the entire MHIA of 2000, we have posted the entire Act at this link,

http://mhmsm.com/downloads/Manufactured_Housing_Improvement_Act_of_2000.pdf

with the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 found starting on page 55.

We are a pro-Industry publication. We are here to provide news and views you can use. We’ve often stated – and will restate again – the fact that www.MHMarketingSalesManagement.com as an Industry Trade publication is neutral and doesn’t ‘parse’ or attempt to analyze who says what among trade organizations, etc..

www.MHMSM.com does from time to time, point out the well known fact that there are differences in the reporting between national associations or others in the industry, a point made in my article in the May issue on the MHCC’s April 2010 meeting in Tulsa, OK.

In researching the memo below and asking HUD, industry leaders and others to share their perspectives on this, it should be noted that no one stepped forward to speak ‘on the record.’ Yet virtually everyone I contacted had something to say off the record! Now that fact is in itself is telling, because here in America, we should feel comfortable and safe sharing our candid views that are stated intelligently, respectfully and without histrionics or hyperbole.  We call that ‘freedom of speech!’

One of the comments that came in to me off the record while researching this article below is quoted extensively here:
“I want to begin by thanking Danny Ghorbani for sharing the information on the recent MHCC meeting in Tulsa with the public. Shortly before the meeting, MHCC members were informed that certain governmental bodies had found that the MHCC is a Federal Advisory Committee and, as such, must follow the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Due to this ruling, HUD:

• Re-wrote the MHCC Bylaws. In the past, the MHCC re-wrote the Bylaws and voted to accept, reject or amend them with HUD’s final approval. Under FACA, HUD writes and approves the MHCC Bylaws.
• Decided during the Tulsa MHCC meeting that certain non-committee members were allowed to speak, while others were not, an action which shocked many of us, but HUD is now in charge of the meetings.
• Dissolved the MHCC Planning & Prioritization Subcommittee, which is a very critical action. This subcommittee received all proposed changes to the manufactured housing standards of construction, and assigned each a priority and to a specific subcommittee to develop a recommendation for the full MHCC’s action.
• Totally took over the function of developing an agenda for the meeting, down to which specific items would be discussed by each subcommittee during their meetings. In the past, the chair would ask subcommittee chairs how much time they wanted scheduled for their meetings and try to accommodate them. We would also try not to schedule the subcommittee meetings concurrently so a person could be an active member of more than one subcommittee. The Chair of the Subcommittee then set the agenda according to the priorities and other actions subcommittee members wanted to discuss.
• Personally, I also disagree with the decision by HUD and/or the current administration in Washington, DC regarding lobbyists serving on federal committees. According to HUD, if a person is a registered lobbyist (and many of the employees of national and state organizations are lobbyists), they cannot serve on the MHCC. I believe that in many cases, these employees of state and national organizations are excellent candidates for the MHCC. Often they represent various segments of the industry and speak with a variety of industry members over time. In most cases, they would certainly be better candidates for MHCC positions than someone who has never been in a manufactured home before (and this has happened).

I believe this change in how the MHCC is controlled by HUD is something which must be brought before Congress. I do not believe it can be repaired at any lower level.”

It should be noted that industry voices tell me that it is doubtful at least that Congress intended the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to apply to the MHCC, nor was the interpretation used from the outset of the functioning of the MHCC.

To rephrase that, applying the FACA to the MHCC is a recent and novel approach by HUD towards this Industry and public representative body.

What I’d like to urge Industry readers is to get into the meat of this issue, and then communicate your perspective to MHI, MHARR and directly to HUD on how you see the handling of the MHCC.

I’d point out that Danny Ghorbani and MHARR themselves are suggesting that this issue can and should be addressed by the Industry – and he mentions both MHI and MHARR as representing Industry interests – with HUD first.

Most of my sources tell me that this is an issue that won’t go away; in fact it will continue to heat up in the days ahead. So the storm clouds gather, because the MHCC plays a vital and often misunderstood or under appreciated role in our Industry.

MHARR often sends us news items, as does MHI. We post both organizations’ news routinely, and both get widely read on our Ezine. This particular item below came to me from a third party, and NOT from MHARR directly.

Against this backdrop, let me share the unedited letter below which sparked this research, as it relates to this topic of the MHCC and HUD’s recent actions.

============= start of MHARR letter ============

Ms. Susan Brenton, MHCC Chair
Mr. Bill Lagano, MHCC Vice Chair

Dear Susan and Bill:

I am writing to follow-up on the significant response that we have received regarding the April 2010 MHCC meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

As you both know first-hand and, unfortunately, had to endure, what occurred at this meeting was outrageous and should be unacceptable to all federal program stakeholders. Nor should it be tolerated, either by the leadership of the Committee or by Committee members who should be committed to the role, authority, functionality and independence of the MHCC.

We understand, for example, that as the MHCC Chair, you were barred from even recognizing MHARR’s representative for a question or comment, while Department employees, consultants, contractors and other special interests were allowed to speak based on the formality of a “request” by a Committee. This is censorship that undermines the Committee’s access to the collective experience, knowledge, expertise and institutional memory of the regulated party that has been painstakingly accumulated in the nation’s capital over the course of four decades, and that is simply not available from any other source. In addition, it deprives Committee members of essential information relevant to their deliberations and votes on issues that are crucial to the industry and consumers.

Because this is discriminatory and arbitrary, and because it leaves important facts and perspectives off the table, we are surprised that Committee members did not openly oppose — and challenge — these rulings. We recognize, however, that the format of the meetings does not lend itself to such challenges. We also understand the frustration that has been conveyed to us by various Committee members.

Indeed, many program stakeholders are now beginning to recognize the importance of having the collective representation of the program’s regulated parties (i.e., the industry and particularly manufacturers) on the Committee as voting members, given their institutional memory, knowledge and expertise regarding the complex issues that the MHCC must regularly face. Unfortunately, the quick acquiescence of our sister association (MHI) in this exclusion of collective industry representatives, provided a ready excuse for the prior program management to eliminate MHARR from the Committee as well, under the guise of compliance with a White House “preference” to bar registered lobbyists from service on federal advisory committees. A recent MHARR analysis of this “guidance” however, reveals that it was overstated by the prior program management and that collective industry representation on the MHCC should be restored in order to balance input to the Committee from regulators, contractors, consultants and special interests, as was on display at the Tulsa meeting.

As it is, we trust that the MHCC’s Tulsa meeting was planned and conducted under the auspices of the previous program management, as it was clearly influenced by the policies and decisions of that management over the past several years. Hopefully, the new program leadership at HUD will take major steps to fully comply with section 602(b)(6) of the law — maintaining and advancing this centerpiece reform of the 2000 law going forward — as restoration of the role, authority, functionality and independence of the MHCC should be and remain a top priority for the industry, consumers and all program stakeholders.

MHARR continues to thank both of you for your hard work on the Committee and your patience under difficult circumstances.

Danny

cc: Ms. Teresa Payne
HUD Code Manufacturers
MHCC Members
Danny D. Ghorbani
President
Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform
1331 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite 508
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/783-4087
Fax: 202/783-4075
Email: DANNYGHORBANI@AOL.COM

Last week, Don Westphal sent us an Industry Voices Guest Blog post on the topic of HR 5019. The bill past the House and is now headed on to the Senate for action.

I personally picked up the phone and my watch. It took me a total of 3 minutes to call the Capitol Switchboard’s number at (202) 224-3121, get the phone number to my representative here in IL, then call his office’s number and ask for my congressman to vote for HR 5019. They took my name and address. Painless! No apathy! No fear!

Now if HR 5019 passes the Senate and is signed into law, at this point here is how the legislation looks. H.R. 5019 would authorize a total of $6.6 billion, primarily for a new Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program. This would be run by the Department of Energy (DOE) and would provide rebates to contractors for energy-efficient remodeling on existing homes. Contractors would give discounts to consumers for the retrofits and the contractors would be reimbursed by the federal government via rebates. The manufactured housing amendment by Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana would offer $7,500 rebates which may be used to facilitate the purchase of a new Energy Star qualified home. Hill’s amendment also adds a ‘decommissioning grant’ up to $2,500 to cover the cost of removing the old home.

Think major dollars that would flow into our industry.

My point is simple. Pick up the phone. Call your Senator’s offices this week. Take the 5 to 10 minutes and then get others to do the same! Pass the link on to this blog post,

http://www.mhmarketingsalesmanagement.com/blogs/tonykovach/practical-politics-pickup-the-phone/

or to the related stories for background, which I’m posting below.

http://www.mhmarketingsalesmanagement.com/blogs/industryvoices/house-vote-expected-thursday-600-million-to-replace-outdated-mobile-homes-with-energy-star-homes/

The link to the MHI news story about this topic posted on our site is:

http://www.mhmarketingsalesmanagement.com/mhi-news/560-mhi-energy-efficient-manufactured-housing-legislation-passes-house

Or if you don’t need to know more than the fact that this could trigger the sale of 6000 new Energy Star HUD Code home homes, then just cut to the chase and dial for dollars!

Now some are going to lament this as another government handout in the long train of multi-billion dollar handouts since the new Administration took office. I’m sympathetic to that perspective. Good people with that viewpoint can and should work to change the tax and spend dynamics of Washington come the November mid-term elections.

Until then, we had better be practical. Let’s be smart business people and industry professionals! Let’s get the dollars those added dollars our industry needs! Every other industry is lobbying for big bucks in Washington, and we are foolish if we don’t get ‘our fair share.’ Let’s get real. This bill’s passage could be a significant move for our Industry. This bill is especially useful as it relates to residents without older houses in MHCs, their Community operators and those who serve land lease communities.

Think about all those pre-HUD Code homes in MHCs that need to be ‘retired’ and ‘decommissioned.’ Think about how the sale of new Energy Star rated homes to those residents would improve the lives of those involved. Think about how some 600 million dollars (or more) could represent the sale of 6000 new HUD Code homes. Think about the jobs, the economic flow that would create. Think if it isn’t coming to our industry, it will just go to someone else’s industry. That’s the practical reality of the scene today.

So pick up the phone and call. I did and you can too. This week, dial for dollars again.

The Capitol Switchboard’s number (202) 224-3121. Ask your Senator to support HR 5019 as amended by Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana. The Industry that you are in will be glad you did. You should feel good about making such a call too. Then get others involved. Together, we can make a difference. Working together, we can turn around the fortunes of our great Industry. ##