Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Paul Bradley's avatar

I share your current working theory in part. The chattel collapse of 2000 remains partly responsible for tepid MH unit sales. Following 2000, the sub-prime run-up to 2008 drew many traditional MH buyers into unsustainable (it turned out) single family homes. Then the crash, credit tightening and resulting regulatory response to 2008 impacted MH chattel lending and home sales. But, what explains the last 5 - 7 years as housing demand really heated up?

From here, I go to zoning and planning approvals first. The number of MH communities being built roughly equals the number being closed down. Second, as someone who talks with a lot of would-be buyers, the MH community industry has a water cooler problem - i.e. what people say when you announce, "we are looking at a mobile home."

Dave Ramsey calls MH a depreciable asset and asks "why would you do that?" MH community closures put people out on the street - e.g. in Indiana with just 60 days notice - and subject people to what the Washington Post wrote were "massive rent increases." It all contributes to reluctant consumers and that narrows demand.

My view: The industry is in need of structural change. Long-term leases and access to residential mortgage loans (i.e. home only mortgages on leasehold land) would be one why to say and mean that these are permanent homes and worthy of residential mortgage loans. Think about MHCs as "true lease" communities and present that paradigm to town planners and the buying public. Our work is in helping homeowners form co-ops to buy their communities. That's the surest way to ensure that homeowners have long-term security and affordability. www.ROCUSA.org

Expand full comment
Anonymous Coward's avatar

I’m a little dubious about that 50,000 MH community number. I suspect the figure comes from a Homeland Security database of communities, which includes a lot of parks that no longer exist and many are under 25 pads.

The financing is a huge component of stagnant production numbers, and the personal property vs real property makes capital for the financing more expensive. The public policy around MH, making them difficult to qualify for rent support, exclusionary zoning, lower tax revenue (because of the personal v real property issue) conspire to make them a less attractive housing option for public support. Finally, outside of retirement communities, they’re invisible to most people and therefore no one recognizes the affordable component of these communities.

There’s also the issue of capital for park owners and Fannie/Freddie debt availability, but that’s a much longer comment.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts