Posted on 10/10/2004 4:31:24 AM PDT by JesseHousman
Do the manufactured homes still have to be secured with earth anchors?
To obtain a conforming mortgage loan on a manufactured home in the US, backed by FannieMae or FreddieMac, the home must be anchored to the soil in compliance with local building codes and the land must be held in fee simple -- not leased. The home must be built after July 1976 and have displayed HUD tags.
Just read another brilliant column by Thomas Sowell on this topic and it prompts me to repost a piece I did back in 1992.
When are the US taxpayers going to tire of bailing out these folks who continue to build in places where they ought not build?
Continuing to do the same things over and over expecting a DIFFERENT result is the definition of INSANITY!
Are we insane??
WHAT GEORGE SHOULD HAVE SAID
by Dick Bachert (1992)
richard.bachert@comcast.net
On the evening of September 1st, 1992, President George Bush went on national TV to announce that the already empty federal coffers would pour forth uncounted billions of dollars to totally rebuild the Florida and Louisiana communities destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. A vast majority of Americans seem to agree with this action, providing yet more evidence (as if more were needed) that we have come very, very far from the philosophy of self-reliance articulated by one Colonel Davey Crockett. (See "Not Yours to Give" available from FEE)
Instead of attempting to purchase his reelection with plundered resources, this is what George Bush should have said.
"My fellow Americans:
As you all know, a devastating hurricane has struck the southern tip of Florida and Louisiana. Our hearts and prayers go out to all who have lost so much. There is now a great cry for the federal government to "do something". And
we shall. I have dispatched otherwise idle military resources -- men and women involved in our national defense who will profit from what will amount to a real-life field exercise -- to the area to render whatever aid the local authorities deem appropriate to restore basic communications and public safety infrastructure. But, beyond that, we can do little else. Before you brand me a heartless monster, allow me to explain:
"The area involved has been regularly struck by many such storms since long before we have inhabited this continent. There is reason to believe that this pattern will continue. All who have vacationed or visited there will agree that it is a beautiful area and by driving a short distance, residents there can avail themselves of the ocean waters and sandy beaches of that coastal setting. I, too, understand the attraction. That's why I spend as much time as possible
in Kennebunkport. That's the upside of living in such an area.
"The downside is that the area is regularly struck by these terrible storms. Which is why responsible and intelligent residents of the area insure their property against the inevitable resultant damage.
"That the largest private insurers have determined that certain of these areas are so likely to be struck by storms such as Andrew as to make them "actuarially unsound" risks is a matter for the insurers and the property owners. Government will only, through the lawfully established court system, do its best to see to it that any contracts between these private parties are honored.
"If a prospective property owner is unable to secure private insurance against these calamitous eventualities, he or she had better reevaluate his or her position. If a prospective owner cannot bear the financial loss which would flow from the destruction of an uninsured home in one of these high risk areas, he or she is well advised to purchase in an area where such insurance is available. It is not, nor can it ever be, the government's place to levy a compulsory tax on citizens who do not live in these high risk beach areas to subsidize the folly of those who choose to do so! It would be criminal to force citizens who themselves already pay hundreds of dollars each year to protect their homes from
normal hazards such as fire and the occasional tornado to also pay for the beach front lifestyle of others! To increase their taxes so that some of their less responsible fellows may enjoy the benefits of living in these normally
beautiful -- but statistically periodically dangerous -- surroundings is unconscionable.
"As much as our hearts go out to those who have lost so much, I must remind them that just as it has happened in the past, it will happen again. If you chose to remain there, you do so at your peril. This is an election year and the temptation is great for me to obligate the already strapped taxpayers of the entire nation to pay for the rebuilding of these damaged areas.
"Though it may cost me another term as President, I must, because of the dangerous precedent it would set, resist it. To do otherwise would be the grossest unfairness to, say, a citizen in Kansas whose roof might be blown off during a tornado. Would that citizen not have the right to ask the federal government to do the same for him? Multiply that by the numbers of isolated, individual-but equally calamitous disasters each year and you will come to see that the treasury of even the richest nation on earth (which, thanks to decades of such nonsense, we no longer are) would soon collapse under the load.
"On a technical level, I would also remind you that expert analysis of the destruction of these homes quickly disclosed that it was government and the building codes -- rather the false security of their enforcement -- which led to the loss of nearly 85,000 dwellings. You who now look to government to solve your problem ought to consider that it was the failure of the government mandated building code enforcement that reduced your home to a pile of rubble. Your reliance upon government enforcement of these codes and their assiduous observance has proven to be an error.
"In that connection, I would point out that engineers who surveyed the damage discovered a number of structures which survived. It was found that these buildings had been built under an older, ostensibly less stringent code and/or were constructed using a number of proven, but more costly, techniques designed to improve survival.
"If you do plan to rebuild in one of these uninsurable sections, please, in order to minimize the destruction the next time another killer storm comes ashore, employ these construction techniques.
"Let me now turn to what we must now do to help those in such desperate need at this moment.
"I submit that we should continue and intensify what we've been doing thus far: The volunteer activities many of you have undertaken as individuals, small businesses and large corporations are doing exactly what I envisioned when I
launched my "Thousand Points of Light" campaign. What we need now are millions of such points. And, if the response continues to swell as in the past few days, we'll get there.
"Let me also remind you that the first folks into the area with meaningful relief were not government people. As we have seen, these huge bureaucracies possess equally huge levels of static inertia. They lack the flexibility and
sensitivity to function efficiently. People helping people is the highest embodiment of the faith our forefathers brought to these shores over 300 years ago.
"America and -- and, I fervently believe, still is – a nation of people who understand this basic concept. It is time we remembered that government's role is to only do for citizens those few constitutionally limited things we cannot
individually do for ourselves. I'd remind you what George Washington said about government: "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force! And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
"It is also time for us all to remember that we must take individual responsibility for ourselves. We must remember, for example, that we cannot construct our homes in places where the forces of nature periodically rage against us without adequate preparation for those periodic rampages.
"To be more specific, if we must build in those areas, we must take personal responsibility for the soundness of construction and/or insure against the certain eventuality that these natural assaults will occur. The days when
individuals can look to a government to force the rest of us to underwrite the folly of the few are gone! I urge those of you now digging out from the destruction in Florida and Louisiana to remember that as you consider your future. I pledge that if you grant me another term in office, I shall devote my next 4 years to bringing government back under the United States Constitution in order to ensure that it does only those few things we cannot do for ourselves and does them as efficiently and effectively as possible.
"Let me again urge us to continue the enormous volunteer efforts we have already begun until this tragedy is behind us.
"Thank you and good night!"
That's a pretty sweeping generality, that just doesn't apply to most of the US real estate market.
Lenders cannot charge higher interest rates simply because a home is manufactured. That's against the law. Local building codes,construction standards and product demand determine the quality of product acceptable in a market.
The risk factors are the same as for any home. Neighborhood, environment, property risk, quality of construction, etc. If you're buying a sardine can and parking it on leased land, don't expect a mortgage loan. You are basically buying a car. These products cannot be underwritten with conforming loans. Sorry to say, but I have seen homes sold in the South that would never be permitted for human habitation in CA.
On the other hand, the quality of constuction in manufactured homes has improved dramatically in the last 10 years. Appreciation on new homes is nearly at par with stick-built in CA. Time will tell how the newer homes eventually compare in equity to the stick-built ones.
Now most of the people who retire in Florida
are wrinkled and they lean on a crutch.
And mobile homes are smotherin' my keys;
Well I hate those b@$tards so much.
I wish a summer squall would blow them
all the way up to fantasy land.
They're ugly and square, they don't belong here.
They look a lot better as beer cans.
Now most of the people who retire in Florida are wrinkled and they lean on a crutch. And mobile homes are smotherin' my keys; Well I hate those bastards so much. I wish a summer squall would blow them all the way up to fantasy land. They're ugly and square, they don't belong here. They look a lot better as beer cans.
From the song Migration by Jimmy Buffett's album called A1A
You beat me to it...lol
Unfortunately people moving from the north to Florida didn't have a clue how absolutely deadly hurricanes can be and manufactured homes.
There is a distinct difference between a "trailer" and a manufactured home. The later has stricter regulations to follow than site built homes.
Just what do you have in mind for the 600,000 older ones already in Florida, and the God only knows how many in Texas?
Since new ones are safe, I don't see that anything needs doing, but waiting till the old ones are atritted. The same goes for older conventional houses that aren't strong enough to withstand a hurricaine.
So9
It should spark debate on enacting a state tax so those of us not living in paradise don't have to pay for it through Federal funds.
Flame away.
For those who dwell on the amorphous concept of "strict constructionists" as an article of faith, that's what courts do; they determine what those ambiguous phrases mean in the context of the case before them.
That's why the next one, and all future ones, are named Hurricane Handout as far as I'm concerned.
Anybody else sick of this "Of course we're gonna rebuild! Gimmee!" crap?
And there lies the problem.
Instead of holding people who actually made the choices that resulted in the situation they find themselves in it is the tax payer that is ultimately held accountable.
That is simply wrong.
Then Michigan is an anomaly. Mobile homes are selling but they don't appreciate. Its taken this long for prefab/kit houses to catch on, and even now they don't sell as well or at as high a price as a stick-build.
My problem isn't with the trailers, per se, its with the way they are taxed (or NOT!) in Michigan. One of the reasons communities fight new parks so hard is they're only paying $36 a year in state and local taxes which include police, fire, water, schools, etc. These damn parks suck communities dry, then leave those who pay real property taxes with the bills. There has been legislation to try to raise the fee to $50 a year and it didn't pass.
Stupid question time, don't trailer parks have to pay business
property taxes also, eg. like the big three, any other business.
That's what my wife boss said when this came up this year.
Yes she does work at a Trailer Park. 11 mile and Dequinder.
I think the taxpayers will be the stuckees.
The taxes are a situation in CA too.
That park situation sounds like it needs fixing. Are they assessed as commercial property?
Owners of manufactured homes in CA get a break on their property taxes almost by accident. In a typical situation for manufactured home construction, the land is purchased then assessed. The property is not reassessed when the manufactured home is added. The home is assessed at the recorded dealer invoice price. If a stick built home were added, the entire property is reassessed. I have seen this gap in the expected use for manufactured homes cut potential property tax revenues up to 1/3.
A manufactured home, for all intents and purposes, is a trailer or mobile home. It might have oak cabinets, a hot tub, and vinyl siding, and even have a basement foundation. But it's a mobile home in structure. Therefore they appreciate either slowly, not at all, or actually decrease in value.
A modular home is a stick-built home that is simply different in that they're made in a factory instead of on-site. They are generally indistinguishable from regular "stick built" homes and APPRECIATE in value as a stick-built house would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.