Part III
HUD/FHA and Industry Claim
"This Legislation Does Not Provide For The On-Site Completion (Installation) of a Mobile Home Because This Matter Was Best Left To The States".
This would be incomprehensible given the definitions created by lawmakers and the statements being made by lawmakers, including the manufacturers representative on July 23, 1973 before the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs. For lawmakers to have overlooked or decided to turnover to the States a condition that lawmakers characterized as the second most serious safety issue effecting mobile home safety simply is beyond comprehension. This issue was windstorm protection and specifically the support and anchoring of mobile homes, both inseparable from what HUD/FHA and the Industry has inappropriately and separately called installation.
The manufacturers and HUD/FHA, to undermine the Congressional intent of this legislation, have used the term installation. The manufacturers reasons were plain old fashion greed. They simply wanted to continue to pass the cost of repairing their defective products to the consumer or the retailer /dealer / distributor, and did not want to be liable for whether or not their product was safe to use, durable and of quality, they wanted it just as it had always been and because of HUD's complicity, is still the way it is. HUD/FHA's reason for going along with this was good old fashion laziness. It was clear that they did not want the responsibility for any of this program and most directly for enforcement and they most especially did not want the responsibility for this at the far-reaching and remote locations of this country. Their second reason for it was another slap in Congress's face; they ignored the congressional intent and purpose by placing initial cost ahead of the need for safety, quality, and durability of the home. Affordable housing was a hot button topic in 1973 as well and it is possible that HUD/FHA succumbed to political pressure applied by the industry and industry supportive lawmakers; this does not excuse what has been done and is why we have laws to prevent such influences from causing harm. The definitions above and statements below make it clear that lawmakers did not overlook the on-site assembly or completion of a mobile home or turnover the responsibility of the creation of standards for the inappropriately used term, "installation" to the States.
Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs on July 23, 1973.
(1) Senator Brock, (The Act is a result of Senator Brock's Bill)
"For those of us who live in the South or Southeast, when Hurricanes come through there is no question what happens as far as the mobile homes and mobile home parks. We need a national regulation requiring tie downs for mobile homes".
(2) Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee of Housing and Urban,
"Just to see one of these things sitting on a stone or a cement block or something like that with no anchor whatsoever seems to me is virtually an invitation to destruction. I will be very glad to join with Senator Brock and others of this committee in introducing this legislation". (Response to Brock statement - national regulation requiring tie downs)
(3) Senator Brock, following the Chairman's comments, "mobile home overturns due to high winds account for needless death and injuries each year". It has been estimated that 90 percent of all mobile home damage is preventable with proper anchoring, but fewer that 1% of the mobile homes have been properly tied down. Most States do not require that mobile homes be tied down or anchored to their sites".
(4) Senator Brock's s comment immediately following the previous sentence;
"After reviewing current state laws governing mobile home construction, it became clear to me that Federal legislation was necessary to protect mobile home owners".
(5) Representative Frey from Florida;
"Most States and local governments do not require that mobile homes be tied down at the site. Without foundations, mobile homes are particularly vulnerable to being blown over by windstorms".
(6) Representative Frey from Florida;
"Wind damage can occur anywhere in the United States. All but seven States have been characterized as high-wind-loss areas. Sustained winds of over 80 miles per hour have been recorded in most of them.
(7) Representative Frey from Florida;
"As you know, many of the laws in the States regarding mobile homes are in a state of disarray"
(8) Representative Frey from Florida
"There are States that have not adopted (ANSI 119) it and; third where they have adopted it most don't enforce it"
(9) Senator Brock;
"To toughen the Federal standards so it would be very difficult to write any State law that would be any safer or more protective to the individual and the family than what we write because ultimately that is what we are trying to do, is achieve basic protection for the homeowner and his children".
(10) Representative Frey from Florida
Many people in the industry feel that the ANSI (Balanced Consensus Process) code section A119, is the answer to the problem.
The Chairman
This is purely voluntary?
Representative Frey from Florida
That is correct, there are States that have not adopted it and even where adopted there are States that basically don't adopt it for shipping out of State or don't enforce it within the State.
(11) Senator Proxmire
You say they have 3 inspectors for----- (referencing the State of Florida)
Representative Frey
They have increased this to six.
Senator Proxmire
That is pretty pitiful. Out of 700,000 mobile homes, and there are 6 guys out inspecting 700,000 mobile homes. You can't even get a sample.
Note: Senator Proxmire was incorrect when he said 700,000, this was people living in mobile homes.
(12) Representative Frey from Florida
"An Act that would give us uniform standards with State enforcement".
(13) Representative Frey from Florida
You know, I basically start with the State and not with Federal Legislation. I only end up personally going to Federal legislation if I can find no other way to do it or no other way that makes sense to do it, Senator.
In this case, after reviewing all the State laws and problems of the different codes that are adopted; second, States that don't adopt a code; third, States that don't apply a code to any mobile home manufactured within their State to be shipped out; fourth, to the overall problem as the Senator was discussing, of enforcement, where it is pretty ludicrous in many cases, I see no other solution to the problem. Because of this I am driven to the need for national standards and uniform standards.
There are too many references to either the lack of laws governing mobile homes construction or the lack of enforcement within the states to write them all. It would be unreasonable to believe that these lawmakers would make these statements and then write legislation that would allow for the creation of 50 different sets of standards regarding the on-site assembly or completion of a mobile home for what they described as the second most serious mobile home safety issue, windstorm protection.
What was the Manufacturers Representative saying about this legislation?
John Martin, President of the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association.
The manufacturers would like to get out of self-certification, but until we have strong State enforcement programs throughout the country, GOVERNED BY ONE FEDERAL REGULATION AND ONE FEDERAL STANDARD,
John Martin, President of the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association.
I think the committee has to keep in mind that ONE STANDARD IS ESSENTIAL
John Martin, President of the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association.
We think it is ESSENTIAL THAT WE HAVE ONE STANDARD
John Martin, President of the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association.
To come out and say we are going to have 50 variations of roof load or ANYTHING ELSE will be difficult not only for the manufacturer, but for the consumer.
What happened that would change the manufacturer's strong position on one standard being essential and emphasizing this with the statement that the creation of 50 different standards would not be beneficial to the manufacturers or the consumer? What would drive the manufacturers to want to create 50 different standards for the on-site assembly or on-site completion of a mobile home when the language in the Act made it clear that there was to be only one federal standard for this purpose? What happened has been previously discussed, this legislation made the manufacturers responsible for their product not just to the back door of the factory but all the way through to on-site completion and beyond if it failed to perform as they had certified that it would. Congress was trying to make the manufacturers behave like homebuilders by writing laws that made them responsible for their product until it was finished and ready for occupancy as a home and not like trailer builders. It is difficult to apply the term homebuilder to the manufacturer of this product. They are certainly not homebuilders; a home is defined as a place where one lives. What leaves the factory is not a home or can it be implied that it is such because it cannot be occupied as one; therefore the makers of this product by claiming finished product at the back door of the factory are trailer builders and not homebuilders.
Lawmakers knew that this type of housing was a vital source of affordable housing but they also knew that it was not affordable if it posed an unreasonable risk of injury or death, or was of such poor quality that it not durable. Consumers of this product have been known to walk away, or more accurately run away from their home because it is crumbling around them, and go in search of housing that they can afford. This occurrence has been escalating in the last few years. It has to make one wonder why the manufacturers of this product would want their product associated with junk, or even worse as unsafe. The most prevalent factor is liability, when the chain of responsibility is broken at the back door of the factory this allows the manufacturer to pass this onto others and blame the products problems on others. The second is greed; Lynda McDonnell says it best in her 1973 testimony;
Lynda McDonnell, Center for Auto Safety.
We would also suggest eliminating the section of the bill, which would allow proposed standards to be vetoed solely because they would increase the cost of the mobile home. This clause could easily precipitate frequent court battles from mobile home manufacturers who are notoriously preoccupied with keeping the costs down, whether or not safety and quality suffer in the bargain. Mobile home manufacturers are well aware that the wider the gap between the price of mobile homes and the price of conventional homes, the better their business will be. Because of this, mobile home manufacturers are interested in keeping their homes cheap and they are not likely to favor any standards, which would significantly increase the retail price of their products. If cost alone is allowed to veto proposed construction changes, it is doubtful that the quality and safety of mobile homes will improve substantially with the federal standards. If she could have seen into the future she would be unable to comprehend how right she was about this.
Third; Both the Federal and State governments are so preoccupied with providing affordable housing to its citizens, a noble cause, that they indirectly through their housing programs promote this product as being safe, of quality and durable. This allows the manufacturers largely, mainly because citizens still have a tendency to trust their government to not actually deliver such a product. Although it is unintentional or at least it is hoped that it is, the States have participated in allowing the manufacturer to pass their liability and blame their poor quality products on the States because of improper on-site assembly or completion.
If the current proposed amendment to the FMHCSS Act is passed into law, once again government will have provided the industry with another scapegoat to blame for their poor quality and unsafe products. This will grant them a clean slate since it will appear to be the standards that caused the homes they produce do not perform well. Only this time they will have lower standards that are not based on the performance of the home after the sale, only its initial cost will be a factor. As for HUD/FHA, this same separation of liability for the manufacturers also provided the same for them and a lot less work (laziness-not willing to work or exert oneself).
The proposed amendment to the Act, should it pass will provide HUD/FHA with a way to cover-up what they have done, or more accurately what they have not done and is the real reason that HUD/FHA supports this amendment. Everybody wins if this amendment to the Act passes, lawmakers look like they care about the little guy and they fixed this broken program. The industry will have a clean slate, lower standards with national preemption, and will have HUD/FHA running around the private market place promoting this product as a safe, durable, of quality and an affordable housing option. With this special benefit of the amendment there will be no need for the manufacturers to actually deliver such a safe, durable, and quality product and this will enable them to concentrate on what is really important to them and this is their operating profit. Who doesn't win, the low-income and fixed income citizen whom this Act is intended to insure a safe, quality, and durable place that they can be proud to call their own home.
The "installation" fraud, which has been used to undermine this legislation, could not have been an accident or misunderstanding in the light of the congressional testimony. HUD/FHA has knowingly allowed this fraud to exist for 24 years. In recent years this scam has started to unravel around them as more and more people have stopped listening to what HUD/FHA and the manufacturers present as the facts about what this program was intended to do and are beginning to read and understand for themselves what this Act really says. What was of even greater concern to HUD/FHA and the manufacturers is that some of the State agencies that are responsible for enforcing the standards are starting to understand what this Act and the standards and regulations say. This is what has created the sense of urgency by the manufacturers and HUD/FHA to get Congress to amend this legislation in a way that will legitimize their unethical and possibly illegal activities over the last 24 years. HUD/FHA has a second most likely illegal activity that they want legitimized with this proposed amendment to this legislation and this will be discussed when we discuss Inspection Fees but first lets talk about "Noncompliance with Standards".
Note: Remember that the industry claims that all applicable federal standards have been met at the back door of the factory and this is evidenced by the fact that they put the HUD/FHA label on the home. Stop for just a minute and think about how does a manufacturer guarantee as per their certification that a home traveling down the road at fifty plus miles per hour often in more than one piece, meets all of the applicable federal standards. If this home was occupied at this point it would be an imminent safety hazard and would without a doubt be one big defect. Let's take a look at what the law says is "noncompliance with standards".