Does Manufactured Housing Affect the Public Safety?
By: John Taylor
Founder - "The American Internet Society of Manufactured Home Owners"

Most people who do not live in manufactured housing probably feel that manufactured home safety does not affect their safety. For this reason most pay, little if any attention to manufactured housing and the people who occupy manufactured housing. This is where most people have missed the boat so to speak. Poorly constructed and/or installed manufactured housing poses not only a risk of injury or death to the occupants, but flying debris from a manufactured home that is destroyed by high winds can cause injury and/or death, and property damage to those who live around manufactured homes. In addition, this can cause increases in the cost of insurance to the public, puts a strain on the Federal Disaster Relief fund (tax dollars), cause unnecessary increases in the use of building resources, and causes damage to our environment. Everyone pays in one form or another for unsafe manufactured housing.

A 1993 study by the U.S. Department of Commerce of the devastation caused by Hurricane Andrew states that only a small percentage of the overall affected area of Florida were subjected to 140 mph winds. It goes on to state that most manufactured homes in the path of Hurricane Andrew suffered structural damage at wind speeds of approximately 90 mph, and most suffered complete destruction at wind speeds under 120 mph. In 1994, because of this devastation to manufactured housing left in the wake of Hurricane Andrew, HUD published tougher windstorm standards.

In June 1995, the Florida Manufactured Housing Association (FMHA) and some of the manufacturers challenged the revised Windstorm protection standards before the Federal Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit. The FMHA, and the manufacturers argued, citing a similar case concerning convertible automobiles, that it was the consumers right to make an informed choice to live less safely in exchange for lower housing costs. In the Courts ruling against the FMHA and the manufacturers, Justice Carnes wrote:

The windstorm protection standards promulgated under the Manufactured Housing Act are designed to protect not only the occupant of manufactured homes, but also other members of the public who could be affected by flying debris during high winds. HUD quoted in the Final Rule a Federal Emergency management study that found the disintegration of siding and roofs of manufactured home contributed significantly to the generation of airborne debris during Hurricane Andrew. Potential victims of flying debris from manufactured housing, unlike the purchasers of convertibles, do not have the opportunity to choose between cost and safety. What the manufacturers propose would be the equivalent of allowing automobile purchasers to buy discount automobiles with unsafe brakes, a consumer choice option that would sacrifice the safety of innocent people who would be given no choice in the matter.

In December 2000, the 106th Congress, led by Senator Gramm (R-TX) and Senator Shelby (R-AL) passed an industry-drafted amendment to the Manufactured Housing Act. This amendment, among other things, was intended to undo the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. Congress did this by deleting the original purpose of the Act, which was to protect not only the occupant of manufactured homes, but also other members of the public from injury, death, property damage, and high insurance cost. This was replaced with a new purpose for the manufactured Housing Act, which is to assure the public a source of cheap manufactured housing. As well, the amendment lowers the standard of protection provided to the occupants of manufactured housing. What we now have is a law that not only requires that the safety standards for manufactured housing be lowered, but that they be lowered as often as is necessary to assure the public a source of cheap manufactured housing. In other words, Congress gave the manufacturers of this product what the courts would not. Congress's amendment to the Manufactured Housing Act is, "the equivalent of allowing automobile purchasers to buy discount automobiles with unsafe brakes", a consumer choice option that will sacrifice the safety of innocent people who in this case, are given no choice in the matter.

The Manufactured Housing Industry knows that if the gap between the cost of their product, and the cost of site built housing narrows, that those that can still afford their product will most likely opt for site built housing. Those that cannot afford this option will probably not be able to afford their product. How much safety, durability, and quality do the manufactures want to eliminate from the standards? However much is necessary to keep their sales strong, and profit margins high.

Congress could have gotten cheap manufactured housing by simply repealing the Manufactured Housing Act. So why is Congress so interested in having a law that assures cheap manufactured housing. There are actually several reasons, but there are two reasons that stand out. First, the Manufactured Housing Act prohibits your State from imposing tougher standards for the safety of manufactured housing whenever a federal standard for the same is in affect. Without a federal law to prevent your State from imposing stricter safety standards to protect the public, Congress could not assure the public a source of cheap manufactured housing. So much for the political theme that the power belongs at home and not in Washington D.C. Second, surely most can remember a campaign add, or some politician at one time or another touting the number of new low-income homeowners there are because of their affordable housing initiative. The better the sales of manufactured homes, the higher the numbers of new low-income homeowners. How much safety, durability, and quality will Federal legislators allow to be eliminated from the standards? However much is necessary to keep the industry sales strong and thereby provide them with the kind of numbers that make them look good.

While the government and industry's reasons for wanting cheap manufactured housing may differ, their agenda to keep this product cheap is the same. This creates a danger for both the public, and the purchasers of this product. If the government wants safe manufactured housing, and the industry wants cheap manufactured housing, this forces the two differing agendas to seek a balance, which was the objective of the original law. With the same agenda and consideration for the public safety eliminated, there are no checks and balances, and without checks and balances, Congress cannot assure the public that their safety will not be sacrificed in this bargain with the industry to provide a source of cheap manufactured housing to the public.

With each passing year without a major Hurricane striking the United States Coast, the odds of the occurrence of such a major Hurricane increases. Think about this and the purpose of Congress's new law the next time someone moves a manufactured home into the area where you live.