Revealing what two former Manufactured Housing Institute Presidents/CEOs said undermines narratives
There is a widely spread narrative that has circulated for years in what we lovingly call MHVille. According to that narrative, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) represent “all segments” of the factory-built housing industry. Quoting MHI, they are: “Leading advocates” for manufactured housing. The MHI home page tells the credulous: “We are your trusted partner, advocate and industry leader.” Indeed, casual looks at the MHI website may appear much like other trade association websites. It is only with a closer look by the well-informed that a different reality begins to emerge to what they claim.
Under “Issues and Advocacy” on the MHI website states: “MHI is the federal policy voice for all segments of the offsite built housing industry, serving as the industry’s leading advocate on federal and legislative matters. MHI ensures the manufactured housing industry speaks as a unified voice in Washington.” With those thoughts in mind, a series of facts and quotes from past MHI presidents and chief executive officers (CEOs), combined with data points from the recreational vehicle (RV) and manufactured housing industries shed a sobering light on the Arlington, VA based trade association’s bold claims.
In an interview with The Wall Street Transcript (TWST) the following question was asked of then Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) president and CEO, Chris Stinebert. “Are all these issues [that depressed manufactured housing sales] pretty much behind you?” MHI’s Stinebert said the following. “I would have to say yes. Inventory levels are very good and back to balanced levels. The high level repossessions from loans made during the 1990s, which have plagued the industry, have returned to manageable levels. The performance of loans made over the last several years continues to improve. The underwriting guidelines and terms for financing the homes has been vastly improved to the extent that some feel that there has been an over-reaction and an over-tightening and that some credit-worthy purchasers or customers do not have the ability to purchase a manufactured home but easily qualify for a site-built home. But there are other positive factors as well.”
That was 2004 when the entire industry produced only 130,748 new HUD Code homes. Fast-forward to 2015.
MHI President and CEO Richard “Dick” Jennison said the following to dozens of industry professionals in video recorded remarks at the Louisville Manufactured Housing Show.
“Why not half-a-million” new manufactured homes sold annually, Jennison rhetorically asked. “We can get there,” MHI’s CEO assured his listeners.
To frame the context, in the mid-to-late 1990s, the manufactured housing (MH) industry produced 2,033,545 new HUD Code homes from 1995 to 2000. That’s an average of some 338,924 new manufactured homes a year for six years.
According to the latest data from the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) in November 2025: “Just-released statistics indicate that HUD Code manufacturers produced 7,203 new homes in November 2025, a 16.2% decrease from the 8,597 new HUD Code homes produced in November 2024. Cumulative production for 2025 now totals 95,938 new HUD Code homes, as compared with 96,236 over the same period in 2024, a .3% decrease.” From 2021 to 2024, the manufactured home industry produced 411,137 new homes. That’s just over 102,784 new homes annually for the most recent full four years.
So, the industry was performing at a 3.297x higher rate of annual performance a quarter of a century ago, when the population was smaller than now. While that does come up on occasion, why isn’t that data point a routine factual statement in mainstream reporting on the affordable housing crisis?
Next, let’s compare manufactured housing insights to the RV industry. From 1995 to 2000, the RVIA reported there were 1,663,104 or 277,184 new RVs a year average. The manufactured home industry was averaging over 18 percent higher production totals compared to RVs shipped during those years. Fast-forward to the years 2021 to 2024. When manufactured housing produced 411,137 new homes, the RV industry shipped 1,740,415 new units of all types (towable and motorized). Meaning, RVs trailed manufactured housing by about 18 percent from 1995-2000. But from 2021 to 2024, RVs outpaced manufactured housing by 4.23 to 1.
4.23 new RVs shipped to for every 1 new manufactured home.
RVs are discretionary for most people, or a ‘luxury item.’
By contrast, manufactured homes are an affordable housing necessity for some 22 million Americans.
But if someone is reading pro-MHI commentary, either directly from MHI or from bloggers/trade media that are MHI members who are mimicking MHI talking points, one would think the manufactured housing industry’s leaders at MHI are doing a terrific job. But if so, then why is the manufactured housing industry operating at only about 27 percent of its last high in 1998?
In November, HousingWire published an evidence-packed op-ed that cited MHI board member Sam Landy, J.D.
Landy explained that zoning and financing barriers were keeping manufactured housing from achieving its potential. That is curiously similar to the “bottlenecks” terminology that MHARR has been saying for years are throttling manufactured housing’s true potential. Perhaps that is coincidental, or perhaps Landy has been comparing what MHARR has said to what MHI says and does?
What is clear is from the HousingWire op-ed here is that it has drawn no known public rebuke from Landy. Landy is the leader of the billion-dollar UMH Properties operation, so he certainly has the ability to issue a press release any time he wants to do so.
According to legal sources tied to the still-pending antitrust litigation in manufactured housing to MHProNews: “We plan to file an amended complaint by January 26.” Time will tell, but there are reasons to believe those attorneys may expand their pleadings in a fashion that more directly points the legal finger at MHI as an integral part of their pleadings. If so, you read it here first. As a HousingWire op-ed stated: “MHI is the apparent trade group referenced by [Judge] Valderrama and plaintiffs. MHI no longer publicly lists members, but according to a prior MHI published list found here, 8 of the 11 defendants are MHI members.”
The stark difference between RV shipments and manufactured housing production since 2000 begs multiple questions.
• Given the fact that manufactured housing corporate and senior MHI staff leaders are educated, seasoned veterans, how is it possible that they have failed to pursue legal action to enforce existing laws that could cause a surge in new home sales and thus production?
• MHARR stays laser focused on calling for robust enforcement of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act and its “enhanced preemption” provision. MHARR calls for full implementation of the Duty to Serve (DTS) manufactured housing.
• On paper, MHI similarly says they support federal “enhanced preemption” and DTS. But in recent years, MHI pretends that MHARR doesn’t exist and teams up with conventional housing trade groups. Logically, if MHI were serious about getting the “enhanced preemption” provision of federal law enforced that could overcome zoning and placement barriers limiting sales and thus production, then why hasn’t MHI teamed up with MHARR?
• When at least two MHI members asked the Biden-Harris (D) era FHFA to enforce DTS for chattel loans, why didn’t MHI join MHARR in that effort?
AI-powered Copilot, after reviewing the elements of the report linked here, said the following.
“A Good-Faith Manufactured Housing Institute Would Have…
o Used the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 as intended.
o Forced Duty to Serve implementation.
o Fought zoning discrimination.
o Protected independents.
o Expanded consumer access.
o Grown the industry back to its proven capacity.”
MHI would have accepted MHARR’s offer in 2019 to sue to get federal preemption enforced.
Per Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of MHARR.
“MHI’s emphasis on the currently-pending legislation – as I alluded to in my response to your first question – essentially “misses the boat.” Sure, we should all want the “permanent chassis” mandate removed from the law. Its anachronistic and it limits or makes more costly certain installation configurations where manufactured homes could provide a cost effective solution for more Americans in more and more diverse locations and areas. But that, in itself, is low-hanging fruit, not a real or significant challenge maintained by those who wish to suppress the mainstream manufactured housing industry or stifle (or eliminate) it as a competitor in the housing market.”
Without defending the NAHB, it is understandable that they are fighting for the interests of conventional builders.
But what is more difficult to grasp is why MHI’s key members seem more focused on consolidation and “optics,” given that Sam Landy led UMH has said that their business model is producing a higher rate of return, plus UMH is doing so without ‘predatory’ behavior. Meaning, there is a case to be made that state and federal investigators, plus curious mainstream media reporters, should be probing MHI and their consolidation-focused brands. Who says? Multiple artificial intelligence (AI) systems known for their pattern recognition abilities.
When the draft version of this article was provided to AI powered Gemini for a facts evidence-analysis (FEA) check, Google’s AI said: “the synthesis of these two datasets to critique trade association effectiveness is not currently found in any other mainstream venue. The “4.23 to 1″ outperformance ratio of RVs over manufactured housing appears to be an original analytical finding of this draft.” Gemini also said: “The [op-ed] correctly identifies that while the population has grown, the “necessity” industry (MH) has shrunk while the “discretionary” industry (RV) has expanded significantly.” ##
Tony Kovach is a managing member of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected].
English (US) · 