Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Manufactured Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House hearing spotlights barriers, bills and tenant risks in manufactured housing
Summary
Witnesses and members told a House Financial Services subcommittee that manufactured housing could expand affordable homeownership but faces federal-regulatory confusion, financing gaps, local zoning barriers and consumer-protection risks after private-equity purchases of communities.
Members of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance heard competing views Tuesday on how manufactured housing could expand affordable homeownership — and on what federal and local changes would be needed to do it safely.
The hearing focused on federal regulatory clarity, financing and protections for residents in land-lease communities as lawmakers considered two measures and other proposals that would affect manufactured homes. Subcommittee Chairman Max Flood said 2 bills were noticed for the hearing: Congressman John Rose's Expansion of Attainable Homeownership Through Manufactured Housing Act, which would remove the statutory requirement that manufactured homes be built on a permanent chassis, and a draft bill from the chairman that would give HUD explicit authority to review and approve manufacturing standards affecting manufactured homes.
The matter matters because manufactured housing represents one of the most affordable paths to homeownership for millions of Americans, but deployment is limited by regulatory conflicts, constrained financing and local zoning.
Bill Boor, chief executive officer of Cavco Industries and chairman of the Manufactured Housing Institute, told the panel that manufactured housing is “the most affordable path to homeownership for millions of Americans” and urged Congress to reaffirm HUD's role. “Congress should pass legislation to reaffirm HUD's sole authority over all federal construction standards for manufactured homes,” Boor said, arguing that conflicting standards from other agencies — he cited a Department of Energy rulemaking attempt — would raise costs and undermine affordability.
Advocates and legal services attorneys warned the committee that manufactured homeowners already face financial and tenure risks in many communities. Colton Flew, senior attorney at Mountain State Justice, described instances after private-equity purchases of parks in Mercer County, West Virginia, where operators issued large rent increases with short notice. Flew recounted three examples, saying one couple's lot rent increased 75% (from $300 to $525), another household's lot rent rose 20% (from $225 to $495) and several residents faced eviction threats while park upkeep deteriorated. “Manufactured homes are fundamentally different than stick built homes,” Flew said. “Manufactured homes, also called mobile homes, are not so mobile. They have a finite lifespan, and moving them can be cost prohibitive.”
Witnesses urged changes on several fronts rather than immediate subsidy expansions. They pushed for: statutory clarification that HUD is the sole federal regulator for manufactured-home construction and installation; modernization of the chassis requirement to allow lower-profile and multistory designs; expanded secondary-market financing (home-only loans and cross-mod inclusion) from FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and stronger federal guidance to overcome local zoning exclusions. Boor and other industry witnesses also asked Congress to direct HUD to update its 1997 policy statement and to exercise its preemption authority where jurisdictions attempt to exclude HUD-code homes.
Panel members also raised tenant-protection and disaster-resilience issues. Several Democrats warned that proposed federal budget cuts to HUD and rental assistance would undercut any private-sector innovation by reducing housing stability. Flew and other witnesses proposed incentives for resident purchase or conversion to resident-owned communities and urged that expansions in secondary-market financing include borrower and community protections.
No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing. The chair gave members five legislative days to submit extraneous material for the record, and witnesses were asked to respond to written questions by June 20, 2025.
Less urgent details discussed toward the end of the hearing included examples of HUD-code duplex and multisection products and calls from industry representatives for state-level coordination to align financing rules with any federal changes.
