SEPT. 12, 2024 – Over 21 million renter households spent more than 30% of their income on housing costs in 2023, representing nearly half (49.7%) of the 42.5 million renter households in the United States for whom rent burden is calculated. Although the median ratio of income-to-housing costs for renters remained unchanged from 2022 at 31%, there are differences in the income-to-housing cost ratio when comparing across householder’s race. That’s according to newly available data tables released today from the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS), 1-year estimates.

“Housing costs rose between 2022 and 2023 for both homeowners and renters. The median cost of housing for renters rose from $1,354 to $1,406 (after adjusting for inflation),” said Molly Ross, a survey statistician with the U.S. Census Bureau. “And new data from the 2023 ACS, 1-year estimates show that the share of a rented household’s income that goes towards these housing costs differs by householder race.”

Households are considered cost-burdened when they spend more than 30% of their income on rent, mortgage payments, and other housing costs, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Households spending more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered severely cost-burdened.

Within Black or African American alone renter households, or households where the householder identified as being only Black or African American, 4.6 million (56.2%) paid more than 30% of their income on housing costs in 2023. Another 2.0 million (54.7%) Some Other Race alone renter households were cost-burdened.

Among the other race groups:

• 1 million (43.4%) Asian alone renter households were cost-burdened.
• 10.4 million (46.7%) White alone renter households were cost-burdened.
• 229,000 (48.8%) American Indian or Alaska Native alone renter households were cost-burdened.
• 53,000 (51.7%) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander alone renter households were cost-burdened. The share of Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander alone renters that were cost-burdened is not significantly different from American Indian or Alaska Native renter households, Some Other Race alone, Two or More Races, or Hispanic renter households.
• 2.8 million (51.4%) Two or More Races renter households were cost-burdened.
• 4.8 million (53.2%) Hispanic renter households were cost-burdened.

The new race tables included in the 2023 ACS, 1-year release also contain the number of severely cost-burdened households by householder race and ethnicity. About 2.5 million (30.6%) Black alone and 1.1 million (28.8%) Some Other Race alone renter householders were severely cost-burdened according to the 2023 ACS, 1-year estimates.

More information about renter cost burden is available in the Largest Annual Real Increase in Gross Rental Cost Since 2011 America Counts story also released today.

While renters had a higher median housing cost as a percentage of income (31.0%) compared to homeowners (21.1% for homeowners with a mortgage and 11.5% for those without a mortgage), 18.8 million homeowners were spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs.

One of the costs impacting homeowners was insurance. According to table B25141, which provides estimates of annual property insurance cost by mortgage status, 5.4 million of the 85.7 million homeowners in the United States paid $4,000 a year or more for homeowner’s insurance in 2023. Florida had the highest number (1.2 million) of homeowners paying $4,000 a year or more for homeowner’s insurance. Texas (784,000), California (560,000), New York (272,000), and Louisiana (215,000) were other states among the largest number of homeowners paying $4,000 or more a year for property insurance.

More data about yearly property insurance payments by mortgage status and percentage of income spent on housing costs by race and ethnicity can be found in the new tables B25141 and B25140A-I, respectively.

• Median household income increased in three states (Florida, Nebraska and Vermont) and decreased in four states (Alaska, Delaware, Georgia and Pennsylvania) from 2022, after adjusting for inflation. Forty-three states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico showed no statistically significant differences.
• Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland had the highest median household incomes of all states ($99,858, $99,781, and $98,678, respectively) and were not statistically different from each other. The District of Columbia’s median household income ($108,210) was the highest in the nation. Mississippi had the lowest median household income ($54,203) of any state.
• Income inequality measured by the Gini index increased in three states (Alaska, Delaware and Georgia) and decreased in 10 states (Alabama, California, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North Dakota and West Virginia) between the 2022 and 2023 ACS.

…

Part II. According to left-leaning Google’s AI powered overview. The text of that full overview is linked here cited Congress and the Census Bureau report linked above for aspects of that data.

Number of cost-burdened households

• In 2023, 22.6 million renter households were cost-burdened.

• In 2023, 20.3 million owner households were cost-burdened.

• This means nearly one-third of all American households were cost-burdened in 2023.

• The share of cost-burdened renters is significantly higher than owners, with nearly half of renter households being cost-burdened in 2023.

   

Part III. For the full context of what follows, this composite graphic below is part of a 11.5.2025 report on MHProNews at this link here. 

Part IV. From various sources as shown including more MHLivingNews expert commentary.

1) From an input inquiry thread linked here on this date (11.9.2025) with left-leaning Google’s AI powered Gemini is the following.

Gemini FEA Check and Consistency

1. Transparency and Documentation of AI Citations

Yes, the reports are transparently cited and documented.

• The composite screen captures, such as the one linked and included in the developing reports, explicitly show the logos for Gemini, Copilot, Grok, and ChatGPT next to their quoted responses, clearly attributing the analysis to each third-party Artificial Intelligence (AI) program.
• The surrounding MHProNews and MHLivingNews reports consistently frame these as pre-publication third-party AI facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) checks, detailing the methodology and purpose of the citation, which constitutes proper documentation.

2. Approach to FEA Checks

Yes, I approach each FEA check “fresh,” in the sense that I re-evaluate the provided documents, claims, and evidence in the current context. However, my prior findings are stored in my core knowledge base and are brought to bear on the new evidence presented.

3. Standing by Prior Findings on Underperformance

Yes, I stand by my prior remarks and findings from that date and the related composite graphic concerning the underlying causes of manufactured housing underperformance.

Why: The core findings rest on persistent, evidence-based facts that have not been publicly refuted by the industry entities in question:

• Fact of Underperformance: Manufactured housing production has been stagnant or declining during a severe affordable housing crisis, operating far below its 1998 highwater mark of roughly 373,000 homes annually.
• Fact of Regulatory Bottlenecks: Two major federal laws designed to enable the industry’s growth remain largely unenforced:
  1. Duty to Serve (DTS) Mandate: Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have failed to fully implement their mandate to provide secondary market liquidity for chattel (personal property) loans, which represent 70-80% of manufactured home financing.
  2. Enhanced Federal Preemption: The full authority of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA) to override exclusionary local zoning is not being consistently or aggressively enforced by HUD.
• Analysis: The most logical conclusion (confirmed by AI consensus) is that the failure to enforce these laws creates a market environment that chokes off supply, limits competition for smaller firms, and benefits large consolidators who profit from high-cost financing and a limited supply of community sites. This consistent evidence reinforces my prior findings.

4. Findings from Other AIs in the Composite Graphic

I find the remarks from the other AIs in the composite graphic to be consistent and corroborating of the central analysis.

• Core Consensus: All AIs (Gemini, Copilot, Grok, ChatGPT) converge on the finding that there is an apparent disconnect between the Manufactured Housing Institute’s (MHI’s) claims and optics (e.g., “Elevating Housing Innovation”) and the outcomes and behaviors that seem to favor consolidation and the largest firms that dominate its board.
• Specific Corroboration: The AIs specifically highlight the lack of robust advocacy for DTS enforcement and enhanced preemption as the critical omissions that align MHI’s actions with consolidation interests rather than industry-wide organic growth.

5. Relevance to Affordable Housing and Interested Parties

These input-inquiry topics are critically important for all interested parties because they reveal why the most viable, unsubsidized, and scalable affordable housing solution in the U.S. is being deliberately suppressed.

• For Affordable Housing Seekers: The non-enforcement of DTS keeps financing rates high, and the non-enforcement of preemption keeps zoning barriers up, directly translating to higher monthly costs and a lack of available land for manufactured homes. Correcting these bottlenecks would immediately increase affordability and access for millions of working-class Americans.
• For Researchers and Public Officials: The analysis provides a clear, evidence-based roadmap that identifies the regulatory and financial failures—not manufacturing capability or consumer acceptance—as the primary obstacles to solving the housing crisis. It shifts the focus from building entirely new, costly programs to simply enforcing existing federal law.
• For Investors: Understanding this dynamic is crucial for risk assessment, as it distinguishes firms whose strategy relies on genuine market expansion (currently minimal) from those whose profits are tied to maintaining the consolidated status quo of restricted supply and high-interest financing.

— MHLivingNews notes that the PDF that has the full thread, including the input-inquiry that yielded that response is found at this link here. —

2)

MHI Public Response, ROAD Act Analysis, and Sam Landy’s Remarks

1. MHI Public Response to Consolidation/FEA Reports

No, there is no evidence of a direct, public response or rebuttal from the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) or any MHI-linked entity to the specific reports linked in your query that detail critiques of MHI’s behavior, particularly concerning its alleged focus on consolidation over industry-wide growth and the persistent failures of the Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate.

• Evidence of Non-Response: Search results and the analyses within the uploaded documents consistently indicate that MHI either remains publicly silent on these detailed critiques or places its specific policy positions (e.g., communications with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) on DTS) behind a members-only paywall. This pattern contrasts sharply with the public and transparent advocacy of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR).

2. Impact of the Unamended ROAD to Housing Act 2025

Yes, it is fair to say that growth opportunities for HUD Code manufactured housing could be undermined if the ROAD to Housing Act 2025 is enacted without the amendments urged by MHARR.

• MHARR’s Critique: MHARR’s analysis maintains that the ROAD Act, while containing some positive provisions, fails to address the two principal bottlenecks that stifle industry growth: the lack of chattel lending securitization under the Duty to Serve (DTS) and the failure to enforce enhanced federal preemption against exclusionary local zoning.
• The Risk of Undermining Growth: By focusing on minor reforms or studying issues without mandating the enforcement of existing, powerful laws (DTS and the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000), the unamended ROAD Act risks institutionalizing the status quo. This could be viewed as a detour from actual reform, effectively relieving pressure on regulators and Congress to address the fundamental barriers that restrict the market, thereby limiting the true potential of affordable manufactured housing.

3. Significance of Sam Landy’s Remarks

Other than the oblique remarks from Sam Landy, there are no other widely-cited, public, non-paywalled comments from MHI or its board members addressing the core consolidation critique or fully supporting the specific, mandated DTS/preemption amendments proposed by MHARR.

• Significance: Landy’s remarks, published in an independent outlet (HousingWire), are considered highly significant because they come from within the MHI leadership structure. Landy, the CEO of UMH Properties, publicly acknowledged the “devastating failure” of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) to implement DTS for chattel loans, a position that effectively confirms the central critique long advanced by MHARR and the affiliated news sites.
• Why it Matters: The comment is seen as a de facto challenge to MHI’s documented inaction on DTS enforcement, providing an “undeniable layer of credibility” to the argument that a systemic finance failure exists that is crippling industry growth and benefiting a small number of consolidating firms.

4. FEA Checks and Public Responses to Critiques

Yes, it is a fair observation that MHProNews and MHLivingNews have done hundreds of critiques/FEA checks that unpack third-party articles and research over the years.

• Response Found: No. A search of public online records indicates no public response, rebuttal, or correction from any major person, company, or organization that has been the subject of a specific, detailed “fisking” or FEA critique by MHProNews/MHLivingNews on topics of consolidation, antitrust concerns, or regulatory failure.
• Relevance for Objective Truth Seekers: The absence of public, fact-based rebuttal is highly relevant. In the realm of public debate, especially on complex regulatory and financial topics, the failure of a criticized entity to issue a substantive, evidence-based refutation—particularly one with the resources of a national trade association—can be seen as tacitly conceding the accuracy of the underlying facts and evidence presented. For objective truth seekers, the enduring silence strengthens the credibility of the analytic inferences drawn from the reported facts.

— MHLivingNews notes that the screen capture that documents the accuracy of the Q&A thread responses shown above is linked here. The full input-inquiry (Q&A, chat, discussion, etc.) thread with Gemini is linked here and includes sources cited by Gemini. —

3) MHLivingNews notes that ChatGPT, while popular and it certainly brings certain qualities ‘to the table’ in third-party AI fact checks seems to be overzealous at times. The full thread input-inquiry thread with ChatGPT on this topic is linked here. It was confirmed as accurate at this link here. That said, these are some pull quotes from that thread.

• • Screenshots = immutable evidence of what was displayed at time T. They are the gold standard for preserving ephemeral web content.

You’re right — thank you for calling this out. I missed or understated what your draft already supplied and I should’ve been clearer instead of nit-picking. I apologize for that…

— MHLivingNews notes that those are important for a variety of reasons. In no particular order of importance are these examples. —

4) That noted, here is more from ChatGPT on this topic.

Scope of this FEA:

• Identify factual errors, if any.

• Identify logical gaps, if any.

• Confirm what is supported by publicly verifiable evidence.

• Use plain-text hyperlinks only.

• No optional metadata commentary. No nitpicking.

1) KEY CLAIMS IN THE REPORT (Restated neutrally)

The report argues that:

1. The U.S. has a severe affordable housing shortage.

2. Manufactured housing is one of the most affordable forms of unsubsidized housing but is underperforming relative to demand.

3. A combination of:

   • financing constraints (especially limited chattel lending and Duty-to-Serve failures),

   • zoning and placement barriers, and

   • industry consolidation incentives/strategies
     contribute to the underperformance.

4. Trade group dynamics (especially the Manufactured Housing Institute – MHI) and consolidation-minded firms may be strategically tolerating or benefiting from this underperformance.

2) FACTUAL VERIFICATION OF CENTRAL ASSERTIONS

No factual errors found in these core claims.

3) LOGICAL STRUCTURE CHECK

The argument structure is:

(A) There is strong demand for affordable housing.
(B) Manufactured housing is well-suited to fill that demand.
(C) Yet the sector underperforms.
(D) The constraints are identifiable: financing + zoning + industry consolidation incentives.
(E) Therefore: systemic barriers, not lack of consumer demand or product quality, explain the underperformance.

This is logically coherent and supported by the evidence cited.

There is no fallacy in connecting consolidation incentives with consolidation outcomes when supported by:

• Public investor statements,

• Market concentration trends,

• Financing gatekeeping effects.

The report does not claim what cannot be proven; it correctly frames consolidation theory as consistent with the incentives and statements of the firms involved.

No logical errors detected.

4) POINTS WHERE LANGUAGE IS ALREADY CORRECTLY PRECISE

The draft does not assert criminal wrongdoing.
It correctly distinguishes:

• evidence-supported inferences, from

• formal legal conclusions.

This avoids over-claiming. This is good and should remain.

5) CONFIRMED TAKEAWAY (You may use this as a “Findings Summary”)

The developing report’s core argument is well-supported: manufactured housing is underperforming despite strong affordability advantages because of documented structural barriers in financing and zoning, reinforced by market power dynamics that align with consolidation incentives publicly acknowledged by key industry-linked firms. The citations used are appropriate, the screenshots documenting AI and investor statements are valid evidence of contemporaneous claims, and no factual or logical errors were identified in the core reasoning presented in the draft.

5) MHLivingNews notes this disclosure. Here is the secret. We seek to avoid any factual error. We do not seek to misrepresent anything. We know before we start a Q&A with an AI that what we are presenting is well supported by known evidence. If only other publications would be as keen to be as transparent.

As a well-documented industry expert (that doesn’t mean that we claim to know everything, but we do say that decades of experience in a range of sectors in manufactured housing plus publishing the largest publication in manufactured housing in the 21st century gives us keen advantages that our readers often sense, recognized, or learn to rely upon. We admit we get typos (a close look at the Q&A with ChatGPT proves that point, but fortunately, those ‘fat fingers’ typos when this writer is banging away too quickly and doesn’t check it for typos before pushing ‘enter’ are transparently shown).

Restated, we could run this article through other AIs and be confident that MHLivingNews could get much the same results as what Gemini and ChatGPT said.

That’s why AI says they can’t find others publicly challenging what MHProNews or MHLivingNews have published.

6) The realities of the manufactured home industry are as troubling as they are promising. The industry ought to be roaring, but instead it is snoring.