"The American Internet Society of Manufactured Home Owners", I believe it was. These people really are griped about manufactured housing! Do you guys think any of this is true, or is it just a couple of people with sour grapes? (I noticed on one article it said it was prepared by a couple of people, then it said "Co-members of TAISMHO". You think this means they are the only members?)
The url is www.geocities.com/taismho. I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
Wow! I went to a site that I saw recommended on here....sm
-
Threnody
Re: Wow! I went to a site that I saw recommended on here....sm
What exactly IS their complaint? I mean, they seem to have their panties in a wad about something, but a crapload of documentation really doesn't say anything.
Like any site on Geocities should be deemed as menacing in the first place....
Like any site on Geocities should be deemed as menacing in the first place....
-
Peggy
Re: Hey Threnody- Let's hear Your Experience
Well, wherethehellavyoubeen? I want to hear all about how you're loving living in your new Homestead. Any problems? What's the electric bill like? Are these houses really energy efficient or was that just a lot of hot air (pun intended) from Bob Murray? (smile). did the dealership provide good customer service? Details, details, we want details!
-
Jason
Re: Hey Threnody- Let's hear Your Experience
I agree - ignore the complaints on the geocities website. The geo forum appears to be an opinion board for home owners with both buyers remorse and a low end MF home.
-
Threnody
Re: Hey Threnody- Let's hear Your Experience
Gonna make a new post for this, it's a long one!
-
John Taylor
Re: TAISMHO
It is of no relevance how many people belong to the society of manufactured home owners given the nature of the website. If you ignore rmurray’s advice to ignore the site, you will find that for the most part, the white papers are a discussion about publicly available records and reports and not the opinions of people with buyer’s remorse.
It was a given that defenders of the status quo would seek to discredit any source of information that threatens the status quo. This is why all cites or quotes in the white papers, if it is not already self-evident, have references at the end to the reports, laws, and records that were cited or quoted. Simply, if you don’t believe it, look it up for yourself. The following is a list of sources of the information contained on the TAISMHO site and no one, including rmurray, can stop you from obtaining copies of the same reports or records that have been cited in the white papers.
The National Archives of the Library of Congress (LOC)
The National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST),
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
The US Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD),
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
The Federal Register
The GeoCouncil
The following have also contributed although it was not their intent.
Coalition of State Administrative Agencies (COSAA)
The Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA),
The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), Office of General Counsel
The Manufactured Home Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR).
If you can’t find the information, which is referenced in the reports, by way of one of the sources listed in the white papers, feel free to send an email to [email protected] with the specifics about what you are seeking.
As for having it out for manufactured housing, we have nothing against manufactured housing, we do however have a problem with the flagrant misrepresentation to the public (the certification) of this product as having performance characteristics, which no one in this industry has any knowledge of whether it does or doesn’t, as evidenced by the MHI drafted FTC publication; “How to Buy a Manufactured Home”.
Here’s a question, a [new] manufactured home is sitting on its axles and tires, it is unanchored, it has no utilities, and it is in pieces; when any one of these conditions exists, is this product fit for the ordinary use for which it was intended (42 USC 5402(3)). Is a [new] manufactured home [reasonably] safe for the ordinary use for which it was intended when it is in pieces, unanchored, or sitting on its axles and tires (42 USC 5402(8)?
If you answer [no] to any part of these questions, then it simple, this [new] manufactured home is not performing as intended and therefore, it does not comply with the MHCSS (42 USC 5402 (3) & (7)). Regardless of the fiction put forth by the manufacturers representatives and [their government agents], or the presence of the [manufacturer’s red certification label], it is violation of federal law to complete the sale of the manufacturer’s [new] manufactured home to a purchaser until the manufacturer has remedied all such performance defects in their product (42 USC 5409(a)(1)). Returning to the MHI drafted FTC publication “How to Buy a Manufactured Home”, the manufacturer freely admits (they have knowledge) that they have no way of knowing if their product will perform as they intend, yet they certify that their product will perform in accordance with the MHCSS, which is at best, misleading in a material respect, which is another violation of federal law (42 USC 5409(a)(4)).
The law, prior to the MHI Act of 2000, held no one responsible for the performance of this product but the manufacturer; now, who knows. The law’s construction made it no one’s responsibility but the manufacturer’s to establish a quality assurance process that would assure that thier product would perform as intended once the sale to the purchaser was complete. Simply, the law was constructed to assure the public safety by assuring that the manufacturers of this product retained their [liability, also known as legal responsibility to the public], for the performance of their product. Even the most redundant mind should be capable of grasping why the manufacturers would prefer that anyone other than them be held legally accountable by the public when their product fails to perform as intended.
Good day,
John Taylor
It was a given that defenders of the status quo would seek to discredit any source of information that threatens the status quo. This is why all cites or quotes in the white papers, if it is not already self-evident, have references at the end to the reports, laws, and records that were cited or quoted. Simply, if you don’t believe it, look it up for yourself. The following is a list of sources of the information contained on the TAISMHO site and no one, including rmurray, can stop you from obtaining copies of the same reports or records that have been cited in the white papers.
The National Archives of the Library of Congress (LOC)
The National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST),
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
The US Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD),
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
The Federal Register
The GeoCouncil
The following have also contributed although it was not their intent.
Coalition of State Administrative Agencies (COSAA)
The Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA),
The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), Office of General Counsel
The Manufactured Home Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR).
If you can’t find the information, which is referenced in the reports, by way of one of the sources listed in the white papers, feel free to send an email to [email protected] with the specifics about what you are seeking.
As for having it out for manufactured housing, we have nothing against manufactured housing, we do however have a problem with the flagrant misrepresentation to the public (the certification) of this product as having performance characteristics, which no one in this industry has any knowledge of whether it does or doesn’t, as evidenced by the MHI drafted FTC publication; “How to Buy a Manufactured Home”.
Here’s a question, a [new] manufactured home is sitting on its axles and tires, it is unanchored, it has no utilities, and it is in pieces; when any one of these conditions exists, is this product fit for the ordinary use for which it was intended (42 USC 5402(3)). Is a [new] manufactured home [reasonably] safe for the ordinary use for which it was intended when it is in pieces, unanchored, or sitting on its axles and tires (42 USC 5402(8)?
If you answer [no] to any part of these questions, then it simple, this [new] manufactured home is not performing as intended and therefore, it does not comply with the MHCSS (42 USC 5402 (3) & (7)). Regardless of the fiction put forth by the manufacturers representatives and [their government agents], or the presence of the [manufacturer’s red certification label], it is violation of federal law to complete the sale of the manufacturer’s [new] manufactured home to a purchaser until the manufacturer has remedied all such performance defects in their product (42 USC 5409(a)(1)). Returning to the MHI drafted FTC publication “How to Buy a Manufactured Home”, the manufacturer freely admits (they have knowledge) that they have no way of knowing if their product will perform as they intend, yet they certify that their product will perform in accordance with the MHCSS, which is at best, misleading in a material respect, which is another violation of federal law (42 USC 5409(a)(4)).
The law, prior to the MHI Act of 2000, held no one responsible for the performance of this product but the manufacturer; now, who knows. The law’s construction made it no one’s responsibility but the manufacturer’s to establish a quality assurance process that would assure that thier product would perform as intended once the sale to the purchaser was complete. Simply, the law was constructed to assure the public safety by assuring that the manufacturers of this product retained their [liability, also known as legal responsibility to the public], for the performance of their product. Even the most redundant mind should be capable of grasping why the manufacturers would prefer that anyone other than them be held legally accountable by the public when their product fails to perform as intended.
Good day,
John Taylor
-
John
Re: TAISMHO
It appears that using your example "Here’s a question, a [new] manufactured home is sitting on its axles and tires, it is unanchored, it has no utilities, and it is in pieces; when any one of these conditions exists, is this product fit for the ordinary use for which it was intended" if the lumber used to build site home were still on the truck, does that make it a bad home. This seems to be a long winded ditribe to justify the existance of a web site.
There are thousands of manufactured homes in this country and there is a problem with some of them, much like cars, toasters and site built homes. I am not employed in the building trade either M/H or other but have a 1978 DW that has served us well for 9 years and I am thinking of replacing. I have had far less trouble with my 1300 sf DW than my 3800 sf brick home so to say that MH are no good must come from lack of knowledge. There is nothing wrong with most manufactured housing in the way they are constructed, there is a lot wrong with the way they are sold and assembled, but that is a local dealer issue. You do a good job of confusing an issue and explaining it so no one understands what the problem or cure is.
There are thousands of manufactured homes in this country and there is a problem with some of them, much like cars, toasters and site built homes. I am not employed in the building trade either M/H or other but have a 1978 DW that has served us well for 9 years and I am thinking of replacing. I have had far less trouble with my 1300 sf DW than my 3800 sf brick home so to say that MH are no good must come from lack of knowledge. There is nothing wrong with most manufactured housing in the way they are constructed, there is a lot wrong with the way they are sold and assembled, but that is a local dealer issue. You do a good job of confusing an issue and explaining it so no one understands what the problem or cure is.
-
John Taylor
Re: TAISMHO
John,
I'm sorry you got confused over the cure -
Excerpt from the previous post:
Simply, the law was constructed to assure the public safety by assuring that the manufacturers of this product retained their [liability, also known as legal responsibility to the public], for the performance of their product.
The cure lies in putting the responsibility for the performance of the manufacturer’s manufactured home back on the shoulders of the manufacturer of the product, which is where it belongs. To put this in plain English for you, once you have done this, there won’t be a problem with the way the dealer assembles the home because the manufacturer to keep from getting his ass sued off will make dam sure that the dealer or whoever is assembling the manufacturer’s manufactured home, at the home site, is doing the job right – it’s called product quality assurance. Where you came up with the notion that assembling a home is not the same as constructing a home is beyond me, their meaning is the same. The notion that they are mysteriously different is one of this industry’s urban legends or in other words, it’s a myth. Dealers do not design and/or construct or assemble manufactured homes, they sale them and they shouldn’t be in the business of doing any work that impacts the performance of the manufacturer’s manufactured home unless the manufacturer has educated and trained them to perform this type of work on their behalf.
Emphasis was placed on [new]([] emphasis added) manufactured homes. You buy a [new] car and it is delivered to you without a brake system or without some safety component installed. Even if you agreed to this or this was what you wanted, this does not change the underlying fact that this [new] car is not safe for the ordinary use for which it was intended, and it does not change the fact that this [new] car does not comply with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Regardless of what you wanted or what you were talked into, federal law prohibits you, the dealer, and/or the auto manufacturer from entering into a contract or agreement for the purchase of such a [new] car. Guess what, The Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act contains the same provision of law. Why can’t you do this if you want to, well, in spite of arguments in Federal Court by industry attorneys asserting that you do have this right, the court (a republican majority court to boot) was not swayed by their arguments. To sum up the courts decision, your decision to sacrifice safety in exchange for lower housing costs has an impact on the public safety, which is not given a choice in your decision to sacrifice their safety. No matter how slight you think their sacrifice to be, you have not the right to make this decision for them and this is the reason the public has established a law that prohibits you or anyone else from making this decision without their consent, which can only be given by a Congressional change to the law.
As for my manufactured home, it has also served me well to date, just as your 1978 DW apparently has, despite the fact that this home did not and does not comply with all applicable manufactured home construction and safety standards. Would I have purchased this home had I known upfront that my new home purchase would maybe or maybe not comply with the standards? The answer is no and this is where the underlying fraud lies. I, and many others just like me, bought new homes under the premise that we were buying a product that complied with strict federal standards. In hindsight, we should have known something was wrong when they never said which ones. We paid for homes that the manufacturer represented by affixing to the home in plain sight for all the world to witness, [their label of compliance] testifying that their product is in compliance with [all] applicable MHCSS, not just some of them.
For some reason I feel like this is falling on death ears, but Good night anyway,
John Taylor
I'm sorry you got confused over the cure -
Excerpt from the previous post:
Simply, the law was constructed to assure the public safety by assuring that the manufacturers of this product retained their [liability, also known as legal responsibility to the public], for the performance of their product.
The cure lies in putting the responsibility for the performance of the manufacturer’s manufactured home back on the shoulders of the manufacturer of the product, which is where it belongs. To put this in plain English for you, once you have done this, there won’t be a problem with the way the dealer assembles the home because the manufacturer to keep from getting his ass sued off will make dam sure that the dealer or whoever is assembling the manufacturer’s manufactured home, at the home site, is doing the job right – it’s called product quality assurance. Where you came up with the notion that assembling a home is not the same as constructing a home is beyond me, their meaning is the same. The notion that they are mysteriously different is one of this industry’s urban legends or in other words, it’s a myth. Dealers do not design and/or construct or assemble manufactured homes, they sale them and they shouldn’t be in the business of doing any work that impacts the performance of the manufacturer’s manufactured home unless the manufacturer has educated and trained them to perform this type of work on their behalf.
Emphasis was placed on [new]([] emphasis added) manufactured homes. You buy a [new] car and it is delivered to you without a brake system or without some safety component installed. Even if you agreed to this or this was what you wanted, this does not change the underlying fact that this [new] car is not safe for the ordinary use for which it was intended, and it does not change the fact that this [new] car does not comply with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Regardless of what you wanted or what you were talked into, federal law prohibits you, the dealer, and/or the auto manufacturer from entering into a contract or agreement for the purchase of such a [new] car. Guess what, The Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act contains the same provision of law. Why can’t you do this if you want to, well, in spite of arguments in Federal Court by industry attorneys asserting that you do have this right, the court (a republican majority court to boot) was not swayed by their arguments. To sum up the courts decision, your decision to sacrifice safety in exchange for lower housing costs has an impact on the public safety, which is not given a choice in your decision to sacrifice their safety. No matter how slight you think their sacrifice to be, you have not the right to make this decision for them and this is the reason the public has established a law that prohibits you or anyone else from making this decision without their consent, which can only be given by a Congressional change to the law.
As for my manufactured home, it has also served me well to date, just as your 1978 DW apparently has, despite the fact that this home did not and does not comply with all applicable manufactured home construction and safety standards. Would I have purchased this home had I known upfront that my new home purchase would maybe or maybe not comply with the standards? The answer is no and this is where the underlying fraud lies. I, and many others just like me, bought new homes under the premise that we were buying a product that complied with strict federal standards. In hindsight, we should have known something was wrong when they never said which ones. We paid for homes that the manufacturer represented by affixing to the home in plain sight for all the world to witness, [their label of compliance] testifying that their product is in compliance with [all] applicable MHCSS, not just some of them.
For some reason I feel like this is falling on death ears, but Good night anyway,
John Taylor
-
John
Re: TAISMHO
I believe your point is that the manufacturer is the one responsible for every aspect of the home which is not the case. To use your analogy of the car without brakes, it is the dealers responsibility to correct the problem under the manufacturers warranty, the same should hold true for MH but it seems many give away that right. The same should be true of MH but in many instances it is not. An automobile has to meet certain standards or the manufacturer is liable and the same is true for a MH.
I would not sign away my rights when I purchased a car and I would treat the purchase of a MH the same way. If you were not satisfied with the home, why did you close on it? Did you get a qualified inspector to check the home? One of the traps of MH is that in many cases they are dealing with first time home buyers or marginal credit buyers and the opportunity for the seller to take advantage of the buyer is there. It is the buyers responsibility to protect him/herself .To insure that your get what you pay for have the profit held in escrow until the home is inspected and all items are cleared. Do not sign away your legal rights by accepting mediation in the event of a claim. Amend your contract to have the manufacturer responsible for any defects if not fixed within 30 days. The buyer accepts the terms of a contract and it is up to the buyer to protect their rights.
I would not sign away my rights when I purchased a car and I would treat the purchase of a MH the same way. If you were not satisfied with the home, why did you close on it? Did you get a qualified inspector to check the home? One of the traps of MH is that in many cases they are dealing with first time home buyers or marginal credit buyers and the opportunity for the seller to take advantage of the buyer is there. It is the buyers responsibility to protect him/herself .To insure that your get what you pay for have the profit held in escrow until the home is inspected and all items are cleared. Do not sign away your legal rights by accepting mediation in the event of a claim. Amend your contract to have the manufacturer responsible for any defects if not fixed within 30 days. The buyer accepts the terms of a contract and it is up to the buyer to protect their rights.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests