Manufactured housing is the homeownership solve we keep ignoring
“Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they must have such a one as their neighbors have.” — Henry David Thoreau, Walden.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) said on 3.24.2026 that from January 2019 to January 2026: “The median single-family home appreciated by 58.6% over this period, which serves as a good baseline for overall values in the housing market.” Manufactured and “Mobile homes that include land in the listing increased in value by even more, by 70.1%,” per NAR’s research. Mobile and manufactured homes on leased land: “appreciated by less than single-family [site built, conventional] homes, at 51.6%.” What that means is that manufactured housing, even in land-lease communities (sometimes errantly called ‘mobile home parks’ or ‘trailer parks’), are appreciating at about 88% of the rate as single family housing and manufactured homes on owned land are outpacing conventional housing appreciation by 19.6%.
That’s groundbreaking news for a nation where tens of millions are hungering for inherently affordable housing that doesn’t require subsidies.
From a HousingWire article: “If the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is the end of the conversation, then we have already lost.” “The politicians who supported this bill are right to be worried. The median home price in early 2026 remains nearly five times the median household income, a ratio that is fundamentally unsustainable. Young voters, in particular, are no longer looking for incremental change; they are looking for a path to the equity-building machine that defined the middle class for their parents and grandparents.” That author made several useful points but missed this one. Only HUD Code manufactured homes are “inherently affordable.” The NAR Research shows manufactured homes are a wealth-building tool.
In an evidence-linked article, WND said there is a “simple legislative fix needed to solve America’s housing crisis.” It stressed that while all types of housing are needed, because conventional builders can’t meet the price-points and demand, millions of more manufactured homes are essential. Per HousingWire on 3.10.2026: “HUD’s own research shows that, for more than 50 years, lawmakers and public officials have repeatedly promised fixes that never materialized.” That fact-backed op-ed cited the Senate’s issues brief. “The Senate ironically proves their bill won’t work in their own…brief. “Myth 5: The ROAD to Housing Act preempts local zoning decisions. Fact: By design, the 21st CenturyROAD to Housing Act does not preempt local or state zoning. This is one reason why the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities support the bill. Chairman Scott believes zoning decisions are best made locally, not in Washington.” Sorry, but Chairman Scott and anyone who holds that view are clearly wrong. Who says? How about a county commissioner?
Per Polk County Commissioner Bill Braswell: “Affordable Housing: Why manufactured homes must be part of the solution.” “For decades, Americans have demanded a solution to the affordable housing crisis. That discussion almost always begins with the question: 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 often regulated them out of existence, based on outdated perceptions that no longer reflect reality.
Today’s manufactured homes are built to dramatically higher standards than in the past. They are safer, more energy-efficient, more storm-resistant, and far more attractive than older models. They can be installed quickly, and most importantly, they remain one of the only truly affordable paths to homeownership.”
As HousingWire previously reported, there is a seemingly curious mix of Braswell, Pew, Governor Gavin Newsom (CA-D), and the arguably notorious Frank Rolfe, who are among those who have shed critical light on why the housing crisis hasn’t been solved.
HUD‘s own researchers, Pamela Blumenthal and Regina Gray, have said that zoning and local regulation are common problems.
Ranking Member Maxine Waters (CA-D) on the House Financial Services Committee (FSC) called for a conference committee on 3.22.2026 to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills.
Rep. Waters and some of her colleagues made this prior outreach to then HUD Secretary Mel Martinez (R).
“Unfortunately, discrimination against the siting of manufactured homes continues to undermine its full potential to meet the needs of low-income homebuyers.” Citing a “Ford Foundation study on manufactured housing notes that “zoning and code rules continue to be a major barrier,” and that “the vast majority of local governments continue to discriminate against manufactured housing, thereby limiting its potential to meet the need for affordable housing.” You have made homeownership a top Administration priority, emphasizing opportunities for low-income Americans. You have also made reducing local barriers to affordable homeownership a top priority, announcing on June 10th a Department-wide effort to break down such barriers, in order to create “an environment to increase minority homeownership.”
A group of Democratic lawmakers who were part of the bipartisan coalition that adopted the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA, 2000 Reform Law) wrote this.
“We understand that HUD may have concerns about its legal authority to implement this particular proposal. But, we believe HUD should have taken this opportunity to use its expanded legal preemption authority under the [Manufactured Housing Improvement] 2000 Act to develop a Policy Statement or regulation to make it clear that localities may not engage in discriminatory practices that unfairly inhibit or prohibit development and placement of manufactured housing. We understand that some in the industry have asked HUD to take such action and we urge HUD to be responsive to this request.”
Waters and her colleagues also stated the following to the then HUD Secretary.
“Thus, the 2000 Act expressly provides, for the first time, for “Federal preemption,” and states that this should be “broadly and liberally construed” to ensure that local “requirements” do not affect “Federal superintendence of the manufactured housing industry.” Combined with the expansion of the findings and purposes of the Act to include for the first time the “availability of affordable manufactured homes,” the 2000 Act changes have transformed the Act from solely being a consumer protection law to also being an affordable housing law.
More specifically, these combined changes have given HUD the legal authority to preempt local requirements or restrictions which discriminate against the siting of manufactured homes (compared to other single family housing) simply because they are HUD-code homes. We ask that HUD use this authority to develop a Policy Statement or regulation to address this issue, and we offer to work with you to ensure that it comports with Congressional intent.”
Sec. Martinez failed to do what Waters and her colleagues asked.
While there were multiple factors, the combination of local zoning barriers plus more limited financing, manufactured housing production plunged in the 21st century from the levels experienced from 1995-2000.
Table 1Based on information from MHARR, IBTS, MH Merchandiser, MHI, and other sources (including our own tabulations and analysis).HUD Code Manufactured Home Production by YearsNational TotalsAverage annual production for years shown1995-20002,033,545338,9242001-20252,436,45297,458
That difference between production levels in the closing years of the 20th century compared (1995-2000) to the 21st century (2001-2025) reveals an eye-opening data point. The annual deficit in production from the last six years of the 20th century vs. the production of HUD Code manufactured homes in the 21st century is 241,466. Multiply that deficit by 25 years: 241,466×25= 6,036,650. That six-million-unit deficit is soberingly similar to the estimated 4-8+ million U.S. housing units needed, based on various sources and estimates for how many affordable housing units are needed in the U.S.
Restated, that table is another data point demonstrating how critical manufactured housing is to the nation’s affordable housing needs.
MHARR stresses that two amendments could fix the zoning and financing barriers by mandating routine enforcement of laws that have existed since 2000 and 2008. In fairness to the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), they have at times said similarly.
But that begs the question. If MHI wants to see federal “enhanced preemption” and the Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate enforced by HUD and the FHFA, then why have they failed to join MHARR in publicly calling for exactly that by Congress? Because the bottom line is that without millions of more inherently affordable HUD Code manufactured homes, there will be no solution to the affordable housing crisis. The math, legislative language, and history prove that to be true. So why did MHI endorse both the House and Senate bills without any call for amendments? Additionally, why does MHI so routinely fail to properly promote studies or statements like those cited herein?
President Donald J. Trump (R) signed executive orders (EOs) “Removing Regulatory Barriers To Affordable Home Construction.” Those EOs were signed the day after the Senate enacted its version of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. The “Secretary of Housing and Urban Development…and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)…within their respective authorities, consider eliminating unduly burdensome rules and reforming programs that constrain residential development and impede housing affordability.” That could be interpreted by HUD and the FHFA in a manner consistent with the two MHARR amendments.
No 21st-century Democrat or Republican Administration properly mandated federal preemption, nor DTS for chattel manufactured home lending.
Not Bush-Cheney (R),
Not Obama-Biden (D),
Not Trump-Pence (R),
Not Biden-Harris (D).
This is true despite Senator Joe Biden (DE-D) reportedly supporting/voting for both HERA 2008 and the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000.
Special interests often prefer the status quo and favor legislation or regulations that largely preserve it. That’s true for special interests in manufactured housing, which MHI tends to represent. The so-called predatory manufactured home firms’ business model is based on allowing too few new manufactured homes and communities to be built. Sam Landy-UMH Properties style thinking are how the many defeat the money earned by firms defending against antitrust claims, 8 of 11 of which are MHI members (Google case Case#1.23-cv-06715 Filed 1.26.26 Judge Franklin U. Valderrama SECOND_AMENDED complaint). If the Trump Administration and/or Congress want to do more than virtue signal or posture, overcoming zoning and finance barriers via mandates ala MHARR’s proposed amendments is how that could be swiftly accomplished. Over 50 years of jawboning ought to give way to mandates that work.
Tony Kovach is the co-founder of ManufacturedHomeProNews.com and ManufacturedHomeLivingNews.com.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: zeb@hwmedia.com.