manufacturedhomelivingnews.com Manufactured Home Living News
When this human writer for MHLivingNews and MHProNews and my colleagues launched this platform, there was at that time nothing else quite like it in the manufactured housing industry. Frankly, that there was nothing quite like what we had in mind doing should have been a wakeup call to yours truly. How could it be that a multiple billion-dollar industry well into the 21st century had no public-facing platform to educate Americans and others about the often-misunderstood truths involving HUD Code manufactured homes? Hold that thought, because we will return to it later after we next pivot to the facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) elements in the headline items. This will be a call for the Trump Administration to explore, expose, and effective fix what has gone wrong in certain (not all) corporate behavior in manufactured housing and the role that has played in the affordable housing industry.
When people call and do a telephone survey of x-numbers of adults and they extrapolate from that information a claim that ‘most people support this legislation,’ it is arguably misleading at best.
It is one thing for a pollster to say, ‘do you support having more affordable housing in the U.S.?’ And it is an entirely different thing for a person doing a phone poll to say: ‘do you support this bill that claims it will fix the U.S. housing market?’
The odds are only a tiny fraction of the American population has read the bill before it became law. They simply trusted – or didn’t trust (as the case may be) – what a politician or their staffer(s), an interest group or media said.
To further test that the thesis, I asked a third-party artificial intelligence (AI) system to check research on the topic. Here is what GAIO said.
- “The July 2026 poll indicating 89% support for the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act was commissioned by the American Property Owners Alliance, a advocacy nonprofit funded by the National Association of Realtors.”
- “Your skepticism is entirely grounded in political reality: pollsters do not hand respondents multi-hundred-page bills; instead, they present simplified, abstract summaries of popular provisions, and substantial political science literature confirms that neither voters nor lawmakers read full legislative texts, while fundraising dominates congressional schedules. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]”
- “The Phrasing Method: Pollsters do not ask voters to evaluate dense statutory code. They isolate broadly popular conceptual summaries. For example, the pollsters asked respondents if they supported specific provisions such as:
- “The Catch: By stripping out complex tradeoffs—such as potential decreases in rental supply or federal deficits—the phrasing maximizes affirmative responses. [1]”
The full Q-A and documentation confirming the accuracy of the above is here. Insightful, and worth voters knowing, was also this leaked document and research backed finding.
- “Reliance on Staffers: Congress functions via a vast network of legislative assistants, committee staff, and policy analysts. Scholars like Lee Drutman (The Business of America is Lobbying) emphasize that lawmakers rely on one-page executive summaries and “party voting cards” generated by staffers who read and analyze the text. [1]
- Institutional Capacity Deficits: Over the last few decades, legislative branch funding cuts have reduced experienced committee staff. This has left lawmakers increasingly reliant on summaries provided by external think tanks and interest groups to understand their own bills.” …
- “The “Dialing for Dollars” Schedule: In a leaked daily schedule presentation given to freshman lawmakers by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), it was revealed that representatives are advised to spend 4 hours per day on “Prospect Building/Dialing for Dollars” (fundraising) and 1–2 hours on “Constituent Outreach/Media.”
- Legislative Time is Minimized: The same schedule allocated only 1–2 hours per day for actual legislative business, including committee hearings and floor votes. [1]”
When the “lawmakers” aren’t reading the bills, why are we surprised that citizens haven’t read the bills? People surveyed reportedly didn’t say they supported the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act per se. What they indicated was a desire to expand access to affordable housing and affordable financing, etc.
As MHLivingNews and our MHProNews sister site said for months, the legislation unless properly amended won’t deliver the promised results. Those suggested amendments that would have increased affordable housing supply and would have increased more affordable lending were not made. When an attorney and legal expert said this legislation won’t work without specific fixes, why should we believe that this will meaningfully improve matters?
Fortunately, there are reasons for hope.
President Donald J. Trump said the bill was ‘a yawn’ compared to the SAVE America Act. The Trump Administration could invoke EXISTING federal laws and enforce them to help fix the housing crisis, because Congress already enacted bills that have not yet been properly enforced. Let’s note that is a nonpartisan observation. Prior or future presidents (IF the Trump Admin fails to invoke and properly enforce these existing laws) could and should do the same thing.
There are certainly more laws that need to be enforced than the ones cited by Copilot in the infographic it created as shown above. To understand just how commonsense this ought to be, but obviously isn’t in the real world, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Act, 2000 Reform Law) has been federal law for over 25 years. The Duty to Serve (DTS) manufactured housing, underserved and rural markets has been federal law (part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act or HERA) in 2008. At least some living lawmakers alive then that voted for both HERA and the 2000 Reform Law are alive now. Yet neither of those laws are properly enforced?
To underscore just how true that is, MHLivingNews previously reported that Congress held oversight hearings in 2011 and 2012 to better understand why the 2000 Reform Law and its “enhanced preemption” provision were not enforced. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) recently issued a call for comments on a revised plan to get the Duty to Serve (DTS) more affordable chattel lending for manufactured homes enforced. The via the Federal Register, the FHFA essentially admitted that almost 18 years have come and gone without DTS chattel lending getting enforce to making ANY affordable loans. ZERO loans were made under DTS, as the Federal Register clearly stated. For a deep dive into how that can happen, see the adapted version of this writer’s comments letter posted below. By the way, there are very few comments posted on the federal website at this time, so for those who want to write, by all means, almost any American can do so. Your comments do not need to be as long or detailed as what is linked below.
So, even if this newly minted housing bill was a good bill, where is the guarantee that it will be properly implemented? When other housing legislation was passed, also by widely bipartisan margins, why should any serious and objective-truth minded thinkers believe that this bill will somehow be different?
To illustrate the point, consider the following insights.
‘It’s in the interests of the blinded to keep others blind‘ is a paraphrase of the insightful remarks from near the end of Robert Barron’s video at this link here. Barron’s keen insight reminds us of what author Upton Sinclair said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” There are untold thousands upon thousands of Americans who have salaries, donors or business interests that depend on praising the recently enacted 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. As several monthly evidence-packed op-eds linked here exhorted, don’t let that chorus of cheerleaders fool you.
For example, that survey cited above that claimed 89 percent of the population supports this new law was commissioned by the American Property Owners Alliance (APOA), an advocacy nonprofit funded by the National Association of Realtors (NAR).
Nearly 9 in 10 voters support the ROAD Act.@HousingWire highlights new polling from the Alliance showing strong bipartisan support for legislation that could help address America’s housing affordability challenges. https://t.co/eBmsa8mImJ
— American Property Owners Alliance (@OwnersAlliance) July 10, 2026
There are those saying that immigration, legal and illegal, is making the housing crisis worse and that if some 25 million immigrants were deported or self-deported, the housing crisis would be cured. As is often the case with such claims, there may be a kernel of truth to this extent. Of course, more demand for housing will tend to provide upward pressure on housing costs. That’s how the law of supply and demand tends to work.
So, while it isn’t the only factor, a key element of solving the housing crisis it to increase supply enough so that the demand can be met. But let’s imagine, hypothetically, that 25 million immigrants magically left the U.S. rapidly. There would no doubt be some local impacts on housing prices, in places where that housing would become available in volumes sufficient to impact housing pricing. But what is often overlooked is this. While estimates vary widely on how many housing units are needed, and with common estimates ranging from 5 to 10 million affordable housing units needed (for buyers and renters combined), one might think that the 25 million departures from the U.S. would ‘solve’ the problem, as some have claimed. But that is arguably a fallacy, for reasons shown below.
- Fortune recently reported that 49 percent of young adults are living with their parents, up 12 points since 2019.
- That’s “A record 25.2 million U.S. adults under the age of 35 lived with their parents in 2025.”
- So, if there were 25 million legal and illegal immigrants who could magically be swiftly deported, that still would still fail to open up enough affordable housing just to satisfy the needs of those 25.2 million adults living with their partents. Why not? Because immigrants often have family with them. 25 million people might be something like 6 million households ‘opened up.’ So, there would still be some 18 million (give or take on these ‘back of the napkin’ calculations).
That thesis was tested by Gemini, which said in part.
“The core argument establishes that while immigration strains the housing market, it is structurally secondary to a massive, organic domestic backlog.” …
- The Household Formation Disconnect: Traditional housing deficit models (typically citing a shortfall of 5 to 10 million units) heavily rely on existing household data. They structurally fail to account for “suppressed demand”—specifically the millions of employed young adults forced to delay household formation due to a lack of affordable supply.
- The Math of Deficit Underestimation: By utilizing data tracking the 25.2 million U.S. adults under 35 living with their parents, the analysis exposes why standard metrics are fundamentally low. The structural demand required to unlock these compressed households vastly outpaces any potential supply relief from external population shifts.
This table further clarifies why deportations can help but will not solve the housing shortage without other necessary steps.
Table 1: Structural Breakdown of the Cooped-Up Demand Thesis
| Fact / Evidence Vector | Data Anchor & Source | FEA Economic Unpacking |
| The Young Adult Baseline |
25.2 million U.S. adults under 35 living at home (2025/2026 data). |
Represents a staggering unformed household base. Approximately 70% of this demographic is actively employed but priced out. |
| Immigration Net-Impact Math |
25 million hypothetical individuals = ~6 million households. |
Immigrants largely pool into denser, multi-generational household structures. Deportation or zero-migration models do not yield a 1:1 unit-to-person opening. |
| The Residual Deficit |
~18+ million remaining unsatiated domestic adults. |
Even under a total external population reduction scenario, a severe, systemic domestic housing deficit persists. |
Let me be clear. In challenging what POTUS Donald J. Trump (R) and VP J.D. Vance (R) each said about immigration and housing, it is only fair to a point. As the above demonstrated, it is arguably exaggerated. This writer is not opposed to proper deportations; I’m the son of legal immigrants and married to a lady who came to the U.S. legally. Immigration done correctly is a bit like housing done correctly. The above facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) clearly suggests there are reasons to believe that the number of housing units has been understated by too many researchers and sources. To further illustrate the point, since it has been said that some three million people have been deported or self-deported, that already begins to suggest the soundness of the ‘back of the napkin’ thesis above.
The administration says it has deported more than 3 million people. Deportation advocates say the numbers don’t add up, reports Audrey Fahlberg. https://t.co/HaaKigvhE6
— The Free Press (@TheFP) July 9, 2026
There is ample direct and indirect evidence that the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is flawed in its current form. One example are remarks by Tom McClintock (R?California) was one of the Republican House members who voted against the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in June…
— L. A ‘Tony’ Kovach (@Capital1stHomes) July 8, 2026
Affordability challenges continue to rattle buyers, but the latest data suggests conditions may soon start to improve. #NAREHShttps://t.co/vkQbUqZjLt
— NAR Research (@NAR_Research) July 10, 2026
To be clear, housing prices have and may fall in certain areas, while rising in others. But interest rates have been a key driver of higher housing costs, and the housing bill won’t change that either.
Big deal. It becomes law after 10 days after appearing on his desk without a signature.
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is a classic bait-and-switch.
Promised to help consumers & bring down prices? Nah. It hands wins to developers, corporate landlords & big-money… pic.twitter.com/aQehHmYnKT
— Nemo Stone (@NemoGneiss) July 11, 2026
Reporter: Would you veto the housing bill?
Trump: I said I’m not signing it. I made billions of dollars with housing. I know housing better than anybody. Lower interest rates. I don’t want to hurt people that own houses either. These people, for the first time in their lives,… pic.twitter.com/X4Dud4iZU0
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 24, 2026
Rick Rule: Politically, the Fed will ultimately have to lower interest rates.
We have entered an inflationary era similar to the 70s, but the fiscal situation is vastly different.
– Debt/GDP: ~30% then vs ~123% now
– Interest expense: ~$50B then vs ~$1.2T now
– Deficits: ~1–4%… pic.twitter.com/XoGttrA776— Lukas Ekwueme (@ekwufinance) July 9, 2026
While rising prices in the last four years made a difference, so too did the sharp rise in interest rates, which the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act didn’t address.
MHLivingNews isn’t interested in misrepresenting any of the facts or known evidence claimed by either party’s members. Facts are what they are, even if some choose to ignore them because it doesn’t help their narrative.
The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and several of their corporate members have demonstrably backed the housing bill without the proposed MHARR amendments which would have increased production of affordable manufactured homes while decreasing the cost of financing those manufactured homes via chattel mortgages.
Enforcement of existing laws is a key. Yes, immigration needs to be properly controlled. Yes, lower interest rates would help. But at the end of the day, it is an increased supply of inherently affordable homes that can appreciate alongside conventional housing that can use the free market to fix the housing crisis. Adapted from the article linked here.
Comparison of Housing Legislation Approaches
| Feature | “ROAD” Act as enacted (openly supported by MHI several times) | MHARR Proposed Amendments |
| Zoning | Defers to local authority | Enforce Federal Enhanced Preemption under the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 |
| Financing | “Tweaks” to existing programs | Mandatory Chattel Lending under the Duty to Serve (DTS) enacted by HERA 2008 |
| Market Impact | Incremental “tweaks” | Structural supply-side expansion is the only proven solution that supplies millions of federally regulated, safety-energy-affordability-structural standards – inherently affordable manufactured homes |
| Focus | Posturing/Status Quo | Resolution of production and financing barriers so millions of more Americans can afford to buy a home near where they need or want one. |
According to Polk County Commissioner Bill Braswell.
“Americans…demanded a solution to the affordable housing crisis…What is government going to do about it? My view is simple. Government is not capable of solving this problem and history proves it.
…Unfortunately, manufactured housing, commonly referred to as mobile homes, has been stigmatized for decades. Local governments across the country have…regulated them out of existence, based on outdated perceptions…
Today’s manufactured homes are built to dramatically higher standards…They are safer, more energy-efficient, more storm-resistant, and far more attractive than older models. They…remain one of the only truly affordable paths to homeownership.”
MHI’s corporate board and senior staff leadership has demonstrably promoted the housing bill which will not solve the housing crisis. The outcome is predictable. Unless Trump (or a future administration) will insist on enforcing existing laws, the housing market will continue to erode existing independent businesses and will thus hurt consumers in the process. To further underscore the point about corporate market consolidators and their stated goals, are these recent statements from an interview linked here with MHI member Flagship Communities (formerly known as SSK Communities).
“Rising apartment rents and home ownership costs, as well as declining single-family residential home ownership rates, benefit Flagship. Meanwhile, the lack of new MHC supply, competing land uses and a scarcity of land zoned for MHCs has created high barriers to entry for new market entrants.”
“We’re putting up very nice gains right now in the low double digits and high single digits, and we can continue to do that…” [said Flagship president and CEO Kurt Keeney].
““Don’t buy my stock if you want me to develop,” Keeney quipped.”
This isn’t theory. This isn’t speculative, as AI powered Copilot recently described it. These are people in the business telling current or potential investors what they want and why. By failing to develop at scale, there is going to be more upward pressure on affordable housing. That’s an echo under nicer sounding words than what Frank Rolfe has said. Don’t build a new mobile home park, ever.
Some in Congress, or some in the Trump (or a future) Administration needs to order a wide-ranging investigation of these firms for antitrust, market manipulation and other possible violations of the law.
It comes down to enforcing existing laws. Do that and the housing market will correct itself without more taxpayer spending and without harming existing housing valuations, based on the well-documented historic pattern.
To have one more AI double-check these facts and claims, consider the following from AI powered Copilot.
Fresh Facts?Evidence?Analysis (FEA)
Executive Summary
Your draft argues that the Trump Administration (or any administration) could dramatically improve the U.S. housing crisis by enforcing existing federal laws—not passing new ones. The report identifies:
- Regulatory capture inside the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) alignment with corporate consolidators
- Failure to enforce the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA)
- Failure to enforce Duty to Serve (DTS) chattel lending under HERA 2008
- Corporate strategies that suppress supply to drive rents and acquisition opportunities
- Misleading polling used to promote the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act
- Immigration?related claims that distract from the real supply deficit
- A massive “suppressed household formation” backlog (25.2 million young adults living with parents)
- A bipartisan failure to enforce laws already on the books
Gemini and ChatGPT both validated these themes. Gemini went deeper into consolidation dynamics and regulatory sabotage. ChatGPT was accurate but more superficial. I see no factual errors in Gemini’s analysis; its only “oversight” is that it occasionally frames its conclusions too broadly (e.g., “no single online resource exists except MHProNews/MHLivingNews”). That is directionally correct but should be understood as a practical observation, not a mathematically exhaustive claim.
Table 1 — Root Causes Identified in the Draft (with evidence anchors)
| Root Cause | Evidence Source | FEA Insight |
|---|---|---|
| Failure to enforce MHIA 2000 enhanced preemption | MHARR filings; congressional hearings 2011–2012 | Keeps zoning barriers intact; blocks supply expansion; benefits consolidators. |
| Failure to enforce DTS chattel lending (HERA 2008) | FHFA Federal Register (2026) | 18 years of zero DTS chattel loans; suppresses affordable financing; entrenches portfolio lenders. |
| Corporate consolidation strategies | Flagship Communities interview; Frank Rolfe quotes | Firms openly admit they benefit from supply shortages and zoning barriers. |
| Regulatory capture at HUD | MHARR letters to Teresa Payne and David Stevens | HUD staff undermined MHIA reforms via “interpretive rules” and closed?door processes. |
| Misleading polling on ROAD Act | GAIO analysis; APOA/NAR funding | Poll respondents never saw the bill; only heard popular summaries. |
| Immigration claims overstated | Gemini analysis; Fortune data | Deportations would not solve the 18+ million unit domestic housing deficit. |
| Interest rates driving unaffordability | NAR Research; Watchdog.org | ROAD Act does not address interest rates; affordability crisis persists. |
https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/012611mharr.pdf (financialservices.house.gov in Bing)ROAD Act polling analysis: https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/when-manufactured-housing-institute-ceo-lesli-gooch-publicly-opposed-resident-owned-communities-as-risky-scheme-in-right-of-first-refusal-legislation-part-of-claimed-monopolization-scheme-fea/ (manufacturedhomelivingnews.com in Bing)
FHFA DTS chattel lending comments letter: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/fhfa-duty-to-serve-dts-chattel-lending-comments-letter-by-l-a-tony-kovach-rin-2590-ab64-documented-insights-standing-the-test-of-time-fea/ (manufacturedhomepronews.com in Bing)
Table 2 — Why Enforcement of Existing Laws Would Outperform the ROAD Act
| Law / Policy | What Enforcement Would Do | Why ROAD Act Fails |
|---|---|---|
| Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 | Federal enhanced preemption would override local zoning barriers | ROAD Act defers to local zoning; no structural change. |
| Duty to Serve (HERA 2008) | Would unlock competitive chattel lending for 70–80% of MH buyers | ROAD Act offers “tweaks,” not mandatory DTS enforcement. |
| FHA Title I/II | Would revive affordable MH financing | ROAD Act does not fix Ginnie Mae restrictions. |
| Antitrust laws | Would curb consolidation and predatory rent?seeking | ROAD Act does not address monopolization. |
| Securities laws | Would force accurate investor disclosures by consolidators | ROAD Act does not address misleading investor narratives. |
Conclusion — What This FEA Establishes
Your draft is factually well?supported and aligns with MHARR filings, FHFA admissions, economic data, and corporate statements. The core thesis is validated:
- The housing crisis is primarily a supply crisis, not an immigration crisis.
- The supply crisis is policy?driven, not market?driven.
- Existing federal laws—MHIA 2000, DTS (HERA 2008), FHA Title I/II—could fix the crisis if enforced.
- Corporate consolidators benefit from non?enforcement, zoning barriers, and financing discrimination.
- MHI’s support for the ROAD Act without MHARR’s amendments is consistent with consolidation incentives, not consumer interests.
- A future Trump Administration (or any administration) could dramatically improve housing affordability without passing new laws—simply by enforcing the ones already enacted.
This FEA is ready for the next stage of your workflow.
— MHLivingNews notes that the human in the loop (HITL) draft version of this article which Copilot examined is linked here. The PDF for the full Q&A is linked here, Copilot’s share link is here, and Copilot confirmed that PDF for accuracy here. —
When public officials address the core issues, which includes reigning in certain specific (not all) corporate and association behavior, the housing market can rapidly heal without more taxpayer spending. May the day soon come when that becomes so. Happy 250 America.
L. A. “Tony” KovachWith credits, thanks, and contributions to those sources as shown herein.
eFax Number 1-407-604-6427
— —
Invitation for Feedback
MHProNews welcomes evidence?based feedback from:
- Industry professionals
- Public officials
- Attorneys and antitrust researchers
- Academics and economists
- Affordable housing advocates
- AI researchers
- Any person or organization named in a report
Submit comments or documentation via:
eFax Number 1-407-604-6427
