logo
Cutting five words from this law could make houses cheaper

Cutting five words from this law could make houses cheaper

Vox3 days ago
is a policy correspondent for Vox covering social policy. She focuses on housing, schools, homelessness, child care, and abortion rights, and has been reporting on these issues for more than a decade.
There exists an almost absurdly simple fix that could help ease the housing crisis. It would cost the government nothing, require deleting just five words from a 50-year-old federal law, and has enjoyed quiet support from housing researchers and leaders for decades.
The target is an obscure regulation that requires every manufactured home to be built on a 'permanent chassis' — a steel trailer frame that can attach to wheels. The idea was that the chassis was necessary — even after the home was installed and the wheels taken off — because manufactured houses, which trace their roots to World War II trailers, could theoretically be moved. Yet by the mid-1970s, most never left their original site, and the chassis remained unused, notable only as a design feature that made the homes stick out.
Getting rid of this 'permanent chassis' mandate could make manufactured homes — already home to 21 million Americans, most of whom earn under $50,000 a year — more attractive, more socially accepted, and even more affordable than they already are.
Roughly 100,000 new manufactured homes are produced each year, but production is down sharply from the 1970s, just before the rule took effect. With 152 existing factories already capable of producing these types of homes, industry leaders say striking the chassis requirement could help scale up manufacturing by hundreds of thousands of houses, especially if paired with zoning reforms. The policy tweak could offer real relief for the housing crunch, especially for first-time buyers and older adults looking to downsize.
Although the change seemed simple to implement, lawmakers failed to amend the mandate for over three decades. There wasn't overwhelming opposition to the proposal, but just enough resistance to nudge politicians toward issues more likely to boost their political capital. But as the housing crisis has intensified nationwide, pressure on Congress to use one of its few direct tools to boost housing supply has become harder to ignore.
Advocates of eliminating the chassis rule think victory might finally be in reach: The Senate Banking Committee is expected to take up the issue in a hearing later this month, as part of a housing package sponsored by Tim Scott, the committee's Republican chair.
The permanent chassis rule and its history offer a window into how smart ideas that could solve real problems can still languish for decades in the fog of federal process. But it also shows what it takes to move even obvious reforms from inertia to action.
The rule
Nearly 40 years ago, policy experts began to notice a troubling trend: For the first time since the Great Depression, homeownership rates were dropping and home prices were going up, partly due to higher interest rates. In 1990, the typical first-time homebuyer earned about $23,400 annually — enough to afford a home up to $59,600, according to the Los Angeles Times, citing data from the National Association of Realtors. But the median price of a new single-family home was roughly $129,900, and existing homes weren't much cheaper, with a median price of $97,500.
But there was a bright spot: manufactured homes. Built in factories on assembly lines, these homes benefit from standardized materials, streamlined labor, and weather-controlled conditions, making them significantly less expensive than traditional site-built housing.
Though long associated with dingy mobile trailers, by the late 20th century many manufactured houses were nearly indistinguishable from site-built ones, offering full kitchens, pitched roofs, and front porches. Nearly 13 million people lived in them.
Consumers buying manufactured homes 'are demonstrating a preference for new construction that is less spacious, has a simpler design with fewer amenities, and uses less expensive materials,' read one HUD-commissioned report from 1998. 'Any perception that consumers today would not be interested in new conventionally-built starter homes with very basic designs and fewer 'extras' is mistaken.'
Yet despite evident consumer demand, the chassis mandate held the sector back. It made production more expensive, restricted architecture flexibility, and gave state and local governments a pretext to exclude the homes through zoning. The permanent chassis feature allowed cities to more easily ban the housing in a given area for being 'mobile' structures, even when they were permanently installed.
The chassis requirement originated in the Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, Congress's first and only national housing code. Lawmakers justified the need for federal standards both to streamline manufacturing and to protect consumers, especially from fire hazards. The law was modeled on the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, reflecting the industry's roots in homes on wheels.
RIVERSIDE, CA – SEPTEMBER 23: Workers weld a chassis together at a Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. factory on September 23, 2005 in Riverside, California. Getty Images
Yet many advocates believe that the chassis rule was included as sabotage by the powerful National Association of Home Builders, which saw manufactured housing as a fast-growing rival to its site-built homes.
'They put it in the original law in 1974 because they were worried about a competitive disadvantage and it's lived there ever since,' said Lesli Gooch, the head of the Manufactured Housing Institute, the largest trade group for the industry.
Regardless of whether one believes the site-built housing industry was originally responsible for hobbling manufactured housing with the chassis rule, it's indisputable that NAHB was one of the most ardent champions for keeping it there.
The fight
Following a failed lawsuit in the mid-1980s to eliminate the rule, the first major legislative attempt came in 1990, when Rep. John Hiler, a Republican from Indiana, introduced amendments to the law. Despite backing from the manufactured housing industry and initial subcommittee approval, the effort ultimately died.
Democrats caved to consumer groups concerned that striking the requirement could lead to lowering other safety standards and to opposition by both the site-built housing industry and HUD. Whether through bureaucratic complacency or regulatory capture by traditional homebuilders, the federal housing agency rarely pressed, and in some cases actively opposed, amending the law, despite its own research detailing again and again the problems a permanent chassis posed for manufactured housing.
Four years later, the National Commission on Manufactured Housing formally recommended eliminating the chassis requirement, affirming that the homes could be built just as safely without one. (Homes without a chassis would still be subject to all HUD construction standards.) But the report arrived just months before the 1994 midterm elections, and Congress was already consumed by fierce partisan battles over budget and crime bills.
Some critics believe the two main trade groups — the Manufactured Housing Institute and the less prominent Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform —often failed to be as politically aggressive about removing the chassis rule as they could have been.
When I asked Gooch why it's taken so long for Congress to tackle this issue, she acknowledged her group didn't really start applying pressure until eight years ago.
'In 2017, I had a dialogue with our technical activities committee, and we said, 'Okay, what is it that we need to do to move manufactured housing forward?' and the chassis issue was raised,' Gooch recalled. It was then, she said, that MHI started to really discuss how to change the legislation.
MHI now takes credit for neutralizing opposition from traditional homebuilders, and notes some of its biggest members are also members of NAHB, which likely helped too. Other advocates I spoke to argue that NAHB just is in a weaker place politically to fight these kinds of reforms than in the past, given the scale of the housing crisis.
Liz Thompson, a spokesperson for NAHB, told me that while her group is not 'publicly lobbying' against changing the chassis rule, they do still have 'concerns' that the manufactured housing sector is being held to less stringent wind and energy standards, creating 'an economic disadvantage' for their site-built home members.
Mike Kinsella, who leads Up for Growth, a federal housing supply advocacy group, said his lobbying over the last eight years has led him to conclude there's no such thing as a straightforward fix in Congress.
'Even the most practical and well-reasoned proposals face uphill battles and significant delays,' he said. Many housing advocates working at the state level are used to a more linear legislative process, where bills move predictably through committees to a governor's desk, Kinsella noted. But in Congress, where standalone bills rarely advance, the whole process becomes a more intense battle of competing priorities on larger, must-pass packages.
So for decades, the issue has languished, too technical to generate public pressure, too threatening for quiet passage, and not high-profile enough for any politician to really champion it.
New urgency to solve the housing crisis
Manufactured housing has never lacked a compelling economic case — but today, it's become far harder to dismiss. Factory-built homes stand out as one of the most obvious ways to move the needle on affordability—and one of the few housing tools within the federal government's reach. That it doesn't deepen the deficit is an added plus.
The buzzy 'abundance' movement, fueled by Ezra Klein (a Vox co-founder) and Derek Thompson's bestselling book, has also helped shift the politics around regulatory reform — including most recently in California, where Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation to weaken a state environmental law long blamed for blocking housing construction. And Barack Obama, who spoke about the need to build more housing at the Democratic National Convention last August, came out harder this month with a blunt assessment, telling donors that 'I don't want to know your ideology, because you can't build anything. It does not matter.'
Removing the old rule?
Even with everyone supposedly on board, legislative reform can still move surprisingly slowly.
In 2023, Republican Rep. John Rose of Tennessee introduced a bill to strike the five words 'built on a permanent chassis' from the definition of a manufactured home in federal law. But MHI withdrew its support.
The trade group, which represents not just manufacturers but also lenders, retailers, and insurers, cited the need to further study the proposal to assess potential ripple effects that could hurt state and local players. This vague stance puzzled advocates, given that any federal change would still include a transition period for states and cities to align their regulations.
Similarly stymied — though for different reasons — was Sen. Scott's Road to Housing Act last year, a package of bills aimed at boosting affordability that included striking the chassis rule. Then-Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, blocked the package because it also included a bill that could have required minor changes from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and possibly the Dodd-Frank Act — a can of worms Brown preferred not to open. Brown lost his election in November, and Scott now sits as chair.
Scott's bill proposes a somewhat softer version of Rose's 2023 legislation. Scott's would offer states flexibility around chassis requirements, with the idea that states would have time to harmonize whatever other laws and rules they needed to.
Though this offers a less immediate fix, most advocates are cautiously hopeful about this state opt-in strategy, so long as it doesn't include legislative poison pills — meaning provisions that would make the policy unworkable in practice.
'We're open to multiple approaches, we just want to make sure that there aren't any drafting errors in a state-by-state certification approach that might permanently prevent states from certifying their compliance…in the event that they miss their first certification deadline,' said Alex Armlovich, a Niskanen Center housing analyst who has been advocating for the change.
Sean Roberts, the CEO of Villa, a company that produces factory-built accessory dwelling units, says removing the permanent chassis rule will result in more homes getting built across the board. 'People could afford the homes more easily. Kind of everybody wins, you know, there's not a whole lot of downside to it,' he said. 'So we're very supportive of it, and we see it as being a really positive thing.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Coca-Cola hopes a major change will win back customers
Coca-Cola hopes a major change will win back customers

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Coca-Cola hopes a major change will win back customers

Coca-Cola hopes a major change will win back customers originally appeared on TheStreet. Coca-Cola () is continuing to see a startling pattern in its sales as customers shift gears on their drink preferences. In the company's second-quarter earnings report for 2025, Coca-Cola revealed that while its operating income in the U.S. increased by 18% year-over-year during the quarter, concrete sales in the region remained flat and unit case volume declined by 1%. 💵💰Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter 💰💵 In the report, the company said that the decrease in unit case volume was mainly due to a 'decline in Trademark Coca-Cola.'During an earnings call on July 22, Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey said that the company's U.S. business is suffering from 'the continued uncertainty and pressure on some socioeconomic segments of consumers.' 'There's some pressure in those with lower incomes,' said Quincey. He said that Coca-Cola will continue to swiftly take action to reverse low sales, including doubling down on affordability. 'Our granular action plans to win back consumers with contextually relevant advertising, more focused value and affordability initiatives, and close customer partnerships are working,' he said. Coca-Cola confirms major change to beverages In addition to these initiatives, the company also confirmed that it will be going back to sweetening its Coke beverages with cane sugar to help attract health-conscious consumers. 'We're gonna be bringing a Coke, sweetened with U.S. cane sugar into the market this fall,' said Quincey. 'And I think that will be an enduring option for consumers.' He also indicated that Coca-Cola may experiment with using other sweetening options consumers may prefer for its beverages."Actually, we use cane sugar in a number of our other brands in the U.S. portfolio from lemonades to teas, some of the coffee stuff, some of the vitamin water drinks," said Quincey. "So that is blended into some of our other products, and so we are definitely looking to use the whole toolbox, the whole toolkit of available sweetening options to some extent where there are consumer preferences." Coca-Cola's announcement comes after President Donald Trump said in a July 1 post on Truth Social that he had a conversation with the company about making this change. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' wrote Trump in the post. 'I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!' Coca-Cola leans into changing consumer behavior Many Americans have gradually become more health-conscious about the food and beverages they consume, a trend that spiked in popularity amid the Covid pandemic in 2020. This has impacted the sales of many food and beverage giants. In the beverage industry specifically, the consumption of soft drinks and other sweetened beverages has been declining since the mid-1990s, according to a recent survey from financial services firm Lazard. The Lazard survey also revealed that many consumers are choosing to purchase natural, healthy beverages, which contain fewer ingredients and promise health benefits. Consumers are even less focused on the price of natural, healthy beverages, as 68% of the survey respondents claimed that the drinks' ingredients are a top concern and 67% said that they are concerned about the drinks being all natural. In 1984, Coca-Cola, like many of its competitors at the time, began rapidly increasing its use of high fructose corn syrup in its soft drinks in the U.S. More Retail: Costco quietly plans to offer a convenient service for customers T-Mobile pulls the plug on generous offer, angering customers AT&T makes generous offer to older customers While high fructose corn syrup, which is made from corn, is a less expensive alternative to sugar, it is linked to health issues such as obesity and fatty liver disease since ​​the liver metabolizes fructose. Consumption of high fructose corn syrup is considered more risky to human health than cane sugar due to its higher levels of CRP/inflammation. So it is no surprise that consumers are straying away from beverages that contain this ingredient. Instead, new soda brands such as Olipop and Poppi have recently grown in popularity among consumers due to its healthier ingredients. During the earnings call, Quincey said Coca-Cola will always lean toward evolving consumer preferences. 'We're always, I don't think just us, but I think the industry, given its size, its attractiveness, and its growth potential, we're always looking for opportunities to innovate, and see where there's an intersection of new ideas and where consumer preferences are evolving towards,' said Quincey. 'Remembering that actually most innovations don't work in the long run, but I think it's a good sign that, including ourselves, are trying lots of different things.'Coca-Cola hopes a major change will win back customers first appeared on TheStreet on Jul 24, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jul 24, 2025, where it first appeared. Sign in to access your portfolio

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers says he won't seek third term in battleground Wisconsin
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers says he won't seek third term in battleground Wisconsin

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers says he won't seek third term in battleground Wisconsin

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin's Democratic governor, Tony Evers, announced Thursday that he will not seek a third term in 2026, creating the first open race for governor in the battleground state in 16 years. It will be Wisconsin's highest profile race next year, as Democrats also angle to take control of the Legislature thanks to redrawn election maps that are friendlier to the party. They are also targeting two congressional districts as Democrats nationwide try to retake the House. The Legislature has been under Republican control since 2011, and some Democrats had hoped that Evers, 73, would run for a third term to give him a chance to potentially work with a Democratic-controlled one. Evers often clashes with Republicans Evers has drawn the ire of President Donald Trump's administration, and his tenure has been marked by his often contentious relationship with the Legislature. Before Evers even took office, Republicans convened a lame-duck session to pass a package of laws to weaken his power. Evers angered Republicans during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 when he ordered schools and nonessential businesses to close, issued a statewide mask mandate and tried, unsuccessfully, to delay the state's April presidential primary. Republicans broke with tradition to reject 21 Evers appointees. They also blocked many of his proposals, including expanding Medicare, legalizing marijuana and spending more on child care, K-12 schools and higher education. Evers used his broad veto powers to stop Republicans from enacting a wide range of conservative priorities, including making voting requirements more strict, expanding gun rights, growing the private school voucher program and making abortions more difficult to obtain. But Evers did work with Republicans to pass the most recent state budget, which included $1.5 billion in tax cuts prioritized by the GOP and more funding for both K-12 special education and the University of Wisconsin. Evers also worked with Republicans to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee and funnel more money to local governments. Evers pushed for the redrawing of Wisconsin's legislative boundary lines, which the state Supreme Court ordered after liberal justices gained a majority in 2023. The maps drawn by Republicans, which had been in place for more than a decade, were widely regarded as among the most gerrymandered in the country. The new maps drawn by Evers are more favorable to Democrats and helped them pick up seats in last November's election. Democrats are optimistic that they can win control of at least one legislative chamber next year. Evers waited until after he signed the state budget before making his retirement announcement. Possible candidates The open race is sure to attract several Democratic and Republican candidates. Democrats mentioned as potential candidates include Attorney General Josh Kaul, Lt. Gov. Sarah Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys, Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski, Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and suburban Milwaukee businessman Bill Berrien are running as Republicans. Others, including U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and state Senate President Mary Felzkowski, are considering it. The last open race for governor was in 2010, when Democratic incumbent Jim Doyle, similar to Evers, opted not to seek a third term. Republican Scott Walker won that year and served two terms before Evers defeated him in 2018. The only Wisconsin governor to be elected to a third four-year term was Republican Tommy Thompson, who served from 1986 to 2001. He resigned midway through his fourth term. Evers won his first race by just over 1 percentage point in 2018. He won reelection by just over 3 points in 2022. Before being elected governor, Evers worked for 10 years as state superintendent of education after a career as a teacher and school administrator. The folksy governor Evers positioned himself as a folksy governor who would sprinkle the occasional mild swear word into his comments and other Midwestern colloquialisms such as 'holy mackerel' and 'folks.' His mild-mannered demeanor stood in stark contrast to Trump and other political firebrands. 'I think he is the most quintessential Wisconsin politician I've ever seen,' said Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who has been in elected office since 1991. After winning reelection in 2022, Evers noted that he is frequently described as boring, but said: 'As it turns out, boring wins.'

UPDATE: Justice Department will meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's imprisoned girlfriend
UPDATE: Justice Department will meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's imprisoned girlfriend

American Press

time14 minutes ago

  • American Press

UPDATE: Justice Department will meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's imprisoned girlfriend

Ghislaine Maxwell, founder of the terraMar Project, attends a press conference June 25, 2013, on the Issue of Oceans in Sustainable Development Goals at the United Nations headquarters. (Associated Press Archives) Justice Department officials were set to meet on Thursday with Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned girlfriend of financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a person familiar with the matter. The meeting in Florida, which Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Tuesday he was working to arrange, is part of an ongoing Justice Department effort to cast itself as transparent following fierce backlash from parts of President Donald Trump's base over an earlier refusal to release additional records in the Epstein investigation. In a social media post Tuesday, Blanche said that Trump 'has told us to release all credible evidence' and that if Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the Justice Department 'will hear what she has to say.' A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Thursday. The person who confirmed the meeting insisted on anonymity to describe a closed-door encounter to The Associated Press. A lawyer for Maxwell confirmed on Tuesday there were discussions with the government and said Maxwell 'will always testify truthfully.' The House Committee on Oversight issued a subpoena on Wednesday for Maxwell to testify before committee officials in August. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence and is housed at a low-security federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida. She was sentenced three years ago after being convicted of helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls. Officials have said Epstein killed himself in his New York jail cell while awaiting trial in 2019, but his case has generated endless attention and conspiracy theories because of his and Maxwell's links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires. Earlier this month, the Justice Department said it would not release more files related to the Epstein investigation, despite promises that claimed otherwise from Attorney General Pam Bondi. The department also said an Epstein client list does not exist. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Bondi told Trump in May that his name was among high-profile people mentioned in government files of Epstein, though the mention does not imply wrongdoing. Trump, a Republican, has said that he once thought Epstein was a 'terrific guy' but that they later had a falling out. A subcommittee on Wednesday also voted to subpoena the Justice Department for documents related to Epstein. And senators in both major political parties have expressed openness to holding hearings on the matter after Congress' August recess. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, has introduced legislation with bipartisan support that would require the Justice Department to 'make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials' related to Epstein and his associates. House Speaker Mike Johnson and the Republican majority leader, Rep. Steve Scalise, both of Louisiana, have said they will address whatever outstanding Epstein-related issues are in Congress when they return from recess. Epstein, under a 2008 nonprosecution agreement, pleaded guilty in Florida to state charges of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. That allowed him to avert a possible life sentence, instead serving 13 months in a work release program. He was required to make payments to victims and register as a sex offender. In 2019, Epstein was charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan for nearly identical allegations.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store