March 27, 2018
Senator Bill Nelson
United States Senate
716 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Bill Nelson:
This letter supports a broad revision of bill MIR18057 as many of the existing statements seem to be in conflict with established conventions, and allow a singular industry to be granted the privilege of participation in the programs set forth through this act.
First and foremost, this bill appears to be reversed in its logic, as Section 4 calls for research that would be beneficial to the purpose of this bill in increasing access to housing by a marginalized contingent of the American populace through:
“an evaluation of barriers limiting the availability of different types of low-cost rental housing; and legislative recommendations to mitigate the barriers, increase access to affordable housing, and reduce homelessness.”
Past attempts at legislating solutions through HUD and its oversight of Manufactured Housing have not created the desired results, so it seems remiss to address safe, fair, affordable housing with yet another act before providing adequate research in advance of proposing solutions. Taking a proactive approach has greater strength and serves a higher purpose in the creation of the standards otherwise loosely set forth through the Act using an inverse model of
Ready – Fire – Aim.
Below are catalogued a few items of consideration as related to the text of the bill. I hope the core need for “innovation” in housing is kept in mind before the provision of a solution, preferably a more openly collaborative model is used to help realize truly innovative housing solutions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thom Stanton
Deputy Director Housing Development Institute
State Chapter Leader (Alabama) American Tiny House Association
Lead Organizer/Developer Uniform Compliance Initiative for Tiny Homes
Response to Bill MIR18057
(Innovative Housing Act of 2018’)
SECTION: “A BILL” (top of proposal)
TEXT: “To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly issue housing quality standards for compact homes, and for other purposes.”
COMMENT: Term “compact home” is undefined in any regulatory standard, compared to both the defined term “Tiny House” within the 2018 International Residential Code, Appendix Q, as well as the more colloquially used “Tiny Home.” Both terms are recognized as monikers for homes constructed to meet the purposes of what you call here an undefined “compact home.” The term “other purposes” should be very clearly defined to invite both opposition and support.
SECTION: Page 2, Lines 1-2
TEXT: “the term ‘compact home’ means a manufactured home”
COMMENT: The text introduces an unknown term alongside a stated definition within an industry already capable of producing housing defined within this bill.
QUESTION: Why would only HUD approved manufacturers be provided the opportunity to participate in this program, one aimed at providing truly “innovative housing?”
REASONING: Thanks to the growing popularity of the Tiny House Movement, custom Tiny Homes have proven to meet many needs that were not being appropriately addressed by existing industries, including Manufactured Homes, as well as custom home builders and recreational vehicle manufacturers.
The Bill as written may not yield the success sought as forcing production through only the existing Manufactured Housing channel limits the very innovation the Innovative Housing Act seeks to solve. Many custom builders would choose to participate in an “innovative housing” program as evidenced with many proofs of concept created within the Tiny Home Industry, which is likely the source of impetus for the proposed Act as designers/builder illustrate that viable housing alternatives exist well below the HUD minimum of 320 SQFT.
As written, this Act enables only manufacturers certified to produce Manufactured Housing to participate in this program.
Manufactured Housing manufacturers have been given the privilege to produce housing in square footages as low as 320 SQFT, though the industry has been remiss in either A) capitalizing on the preexisting interest of a viable market in the use of small forms of affordable housing, B) in producing at a level of industrialized quality sought for above the “code minimum” for manufactured housing without gross homogenization of the housing product, and C) at a price point that meets the initial intent of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, both of which sought to create the same form of standards in the provision of safe and affordable housing.
SECTION: Page 2, Lines 3-5
TEXT: “provides not less than 200 square feet and not more than 600 square feet of livable space”
COMMENT: The International Residential Code (IRC) defines the minimum square footage of a Dwelling Unit as 70 square feet, while Manufactured Housing is defined alternately as 320 or 400 square feet as a minimum. This 400 square foot limit is the line that was clearly defined in 1976 as the tangible separation between Manufactured Houses (MH – 400 square feet and more) and Recreational Vehicles (RV – less than 400 square feet).
QUESTION: Why create a new pseudo-class of housing with a lower square footage limit that overlaps the usual and customary existing parameters that separate MH from RV? Will the new lower square footage minimum become the new low-end specification for Manufactured Houses? Why set an upper end threshold at an arbitrary 600 square feet?
REASONING: Breaking with convention established between MH and RV parameters of size isn’t going to solve anything, and may potentially prohibit this bill for realizing success as the MH and RV industries may lobby for conflicting modification from accepted standards.
The real need appears to be the ability for builders and manufacturers to access a common code base (e.g. IRC 2018 with Appendix Q) that allows for tiny/compact houses to be produced off-site and arrive with a level of recognized compliance. While it is true that a certified factory can meet this need, but resources exist — namely 3rd party unit inspection — that will aid builders in producing off-site housing that meets federal, statutory, and municipal requirements for both housing in its construction and Dwelling Unit placement and use through appropriate application of zoning ordinances.
SECTION: Page 2, Lines 6-7
TEXT: “is valued at not more than $50 per square foot”
COMMENT: This is a completely unrealistic figure, and uses a non-linear mode of measure.
QUESTION: Can we determine another more applicable metric?
REASONING: The “cost per square foot” model isn’t as uniformly applicable in structures of the size proposed within this Act. Combining the minimum requirements as those commonly accepted as defining a Dwelling Unit (i.e. food prep, personal sanitation, and sleeping quarters) plus other qualifications required within a small residence (air conditioning, air exchange, moisture evacuation, egress, fire/life safety protocols) are likely to provide general design parameters that — when coupled with requisite cost models (i.e. low-end and high-end) — provide a more reliable baseline for designers/builders/manufacturers to follow in providing product meeting the need for truly innovative housing solutions.
SECTION: Page 2, Lines 14-17
TEXT: “access to cooking and bathroom facilities, whether incorporated in the structure of the home or within a shared communal area associated with the home”
COMMENT: The proposal is mixing housing with community development.
QUESTION: Why not consider a broader document that segments a definition of the community and its accommodations with the requirements of a dwelling unit, its design restrictions and allowances, as well as model codes for construction, land use, and inspection protocols?
REASONING: The current document mostly surrounds creation of a house (construction code), which is obviously related to housing and community development (mostly land use). It seems more applicable to have a point of focus or to delineate purposes, regulations, restrictions, metrics, and management into portions of a document supporting a more salient overarching vision with actional means of its achievement.
SECTION: Page 2, Lines 18-19
TEXT: “complies with all applicable State and local laws, rules, ordinances, and regulations”
COMMENT: This is a broad statement within a document which seems to seek an allowance for a highly restrictive means of qualifying production.
QUESTION: Why not provide more specifics, albeit a breakdown that support the Act’s scope?
REASONING: Yes – Something needs to meet all applicable rules/regs. But this section touches on points that need specification as a code base for unit production, placement of compliant units within a housing complex that may include accommodations not held within a “sleeping unit” versus those in a Dwelling Unit.
The mix of general and specific requirements in the bill don’t provide enough of a parameter for a viable model(s) to be presented to meet need within a basic framework that supplies general guidelines alongside strict requirements for the formation of best practices that meet an (as yet defined) model building code.
SECTION: Page 4, Lines 3-5
TEXT: “establish housing quality standards that are specific to compact homes”
COMMENT: Housing standards are already well defined and the means for their management exists outside of the auspices of HUD.
QUESTION: Why limit this broad sweeping and potentially world-changing opportunity to create an “Innovative Housing Act” by only placing it into the hands of an industry that has not properly managed prior opportunities to meet the same objectives?
REASONING: Manufactured Housing is a great model, but not the only avenue to success.
The term “innovation” can be interpreted to imply that there are varied means of meeting needs, while success in manufacturing means looking only at the numbers (specifically price and profit). These are diametrically opposed agendas in which manufacturing means and motive have streamlined production to the near exclusion of innovation.
Sadly, prior acts of privilege, including the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, stand as an illustration of the reason why one industry, especially one with such a troubled past, should be granted a new Act of privilege in the singular production of a new and potentially viable form of both innovative and affordable housing.
The Manufactured Housing industry has moved through phases of its existence, changing its name to offset negative connotations associated with the means of housing production. For example, “mobile home” is outmoded and eschewed by the very industry that coined the term as the form of housing the industry produced came to represent low quality, poor investment, high risk, and — oddly — a near absence of mobility.
Even today, low cost manufactured housing is typically built to “code minimum” and is viewed as nearly disposable housing. The mere presence of a Manufactured Home is often viewed as a prospective deterrent to property sale, depreciating a key purpose for this form of “affordable housing” in that a unit can be attached to land and become a positive asset in real estate valuation.
While other residential construction standards exist, only production in a compliant facility is deemed suitable for the term Manufactured Housing (and special use it’s granted for an allowance of off-site production). Enforcing factory production lacks any sense of democracy, and has proven to have limited value in meeting needs.
Enactment of such a bill may simply enable a single industry to own all production opportunity, whether it chooses to appropriately meet the stated needs of the constituency it set forth to serve.
Live Large — Go Tiny!
Thom Stanton
