In conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance will be demonstrating a new pilot program that changes the implementation of Energy Star standards in modular home development.

Among the features are the ability for EPA approval to be made in the factory, rather than on the site.  In the new system, the plant is then required to make sure that it continues to meet the Energy Star guidelines in the assembly of its homes.

Under the new system, a plant is given an Energy Star certification.  That new “Quality Assured” certification is displayed on each home, along with the current Energy Star symbol.

The Pilot Program Registration Form is available online.  This is a pdf.  The endeavor will go on a pilot program throughout 2008.

This will certainly appeal to builders.   At the same time, its very possible that certifying plants, and not individual homes, will desensitize the process of consumer protections.  Some variability in the build that occurs from home to home will not be caught.

Last week, a large mobile home park in North Raleigh, North Carolina dropped its bid for a rezoning.  The owner had sought the rezoning in order to sell to a developer who hoped to build a multiuse facility on the site.  The new development would have included a shopping center, more than one commercial office building, rows of dense single family condos and homes, and even some open space.

An attorney for the developer, who was not identified but was believed to be WJ Properties, asserted that credit markets made the decision.   It wasn’t possible to get a loan for a new shopping center, even in a relatively ideal location.

So, here we have a developer testifying to how credit markets have altered their business.  If you can’t get a loan, you can’t do any work.

But compare that with another trend, which says that banks are suddenly changing their mind about rental housing.  The National Association of Realtors says that rents are going up.

Right now, the hard money to get for a prospective non-profit that wants to buy a loan is the second.  It is one thing to get that first 75 percent, but finding someone to take a subordinated position is harder.

US District Court Judge Stephen Larson believes that poor communication is reducing the likelihood that Duroville, a large mobile home park in California, can stay open.

Duroville houses several thousand farmworkers in the Coachella Valley. There are several hundred mobile homes on the site, which is within land managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs but owned by an private landlord, Harvey Duro.

Since last year, the park has been managed by an outside group, the Housing Renaissance Fund. HRF specializes in bringing capital and other resources to revitalizing distressed properties. The park received a $3 million loan to make changes.

The park consists of 40 acres, on the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Reservation.  That is part of the problem and part of the explanation for why Duroville exists.  Outside of the scope of authority of local housing agencies, those most experienced and informed about how to enforce minimum housing standards are prevented from acting.  Moreover, since many are illegal, the residents are not too forthcoming with officials about their housing problems.

Federal Intervention

The U.S. Attorney’s office sought to close the park in April. Larson ruled against that. He has given the park’s owners until August 21st to document improvement on at least 14 of 21 objectives that he outlined in that earlier statement.

A mosquito abatement program has been recognized as one of those needs. Progress in that goal is one of the pieces of evidence that Larson seeks.

This week, Larson set a December 16th, 2008 date for a trial, in the event that papers are not produced to document improvements made in the park to put it back into compliance with minimum housing standards.

A Contentious Place

The park is the object of a lot of debate. Many people have strong feels about minimum housing standards. Many reports talk about the low quality of the environment in the park – from ponds of untreated sewage, to electrical equipment that is unsafe, to dogs that are not restrained.

Duroville has its own perspective, one that is worth mentioning.  The New York Times quotes Alan Singer about the idea of shutting down Duroville.  “If Duroville is shut down,” he says, “where will these thousands live?”

That is a good point.  The demand for low-wage workers will remain as long as Americans do not want to pick fruit in 110 degree heat for minimum wage without benefits.

This story touches a separate, and perhaps stronger current. It is a touchstone for disagreements about immigration. Critical voices that rail against the park are readily engaged in counter arguments by people who support the tenants. Many of the tenants pick fruit and vegetables in the fertile fields that surround the park. Others work in service industries. The area is not far from Palm Springs, California, a region with many retirees and vacationers.

Now there is news that last week’s massive housing bill, aimed at staunching the real estate and mortgage industry crisis, will extend support to the foreclosure problem.  The solution is a tax credit of $7500 for people who buy foreclosed properties.

This could be a bonanza for the right investor with a careful business plan.  Already, some banks are ramping up their foreclosed properties portfolios.

My question is, as usual, what will this mean for manufactured housing?  Will there be language that eliminates personal property-designated homes from qualifying for this relief?

I was at a celebration in a successful park last week. There was a tent that covered the audience, who sat in folding metal chairs. It was hot, but not too hot. We had sheet cake.  Grown men held up a small marble trophy and spoke about meaning and purpose. It was a good day.

Afterwards, I spoke with a legislator who was attending the event. She was new to manufactured housing. Roughly paraphrasing her words, she said “I always think of manufactured housing as something to be avoided, people losing their equity and not having good quality homes. This is not like that.”

On this day, she saw Parrish Manor. She saw mobile homes that were outfitted with heat pumps, on manicured lots with sidewalks, street lamps, paved asphalt streetscapes with valley curbs and signage designed for safety. It changed her mind.

But not everyone gets out to visit a good park. Without exposure to these kinds of examples, what is left? Well, a lot of voices will say some of the same comments that this representative was making prior to her epiphany.

I hear people saying that “mobile homes don’t appreciate.” Well, perhaps they do not, but perhaps they do. I would argue that they can. Certainly, those mobile home owners who received $1 million for each of their lots in Florida last year managed to get some equity. For many, it is just the opposite — they are under water. There are all kinds of experiences for residents of mobile homes. The point is, the financial outcomes are hardly homogenous and for the most part are tied up in a number of dependent factors, such as neighborhood quality, location, proximity to jobs or schools, and infrastructure.

It is just as relevant, though, to gauge the suitability of manufactured housing by comparing how they would be if, alternatively, they were renting a home. Of course, there would be no appreciation at all in a rental unit.

It is a favorable comparison. Any equity that a resident of manufactured housing retains is icing on the cake, by comparison.

It is also relevant. The residents at Homestead Village, which this column has featured in recent weeks, would most likely find their next home in an apartment if they had been forced out. If they had to go rent, a 2 bedroom apartment in Raleigh begins at $500. A lot of people in singlewides, if they had to choose a different mode of home residence, would go into an apartment.

In the Triangle, mobile homes are either cheaper or comparable in price to apartments. The difference is slight, but nonetheless it is apparent. More than half (51.3 percent) of mobile home renters pay below 30 percent of their income on rent. By contrast, only 48 percent of renters in large (more than 20 units) multifamily buildings pay below 30 percent of income. (American Community Survey, 2006, table C25073). When you look at people paying an especially high burden, people in large multifamily apartment buildings are even more likely to be struggling. About 45 percent of those renters in Wake County pay more than 35 percent of their income on rent, compared to just 36.8 percent of mobile home residents.