The term "manufactured housing" has been officially used by the federal government since 1981, but many people still call this type of housing mobile homes or trailers. The persistence of these outmoded terms reflects how little attention those concerned with housing issues pay to this important segment of the U.S. housing market. Although almost one-third of the country's new homes are manufactured, pervasive negative perceptions—along with questionable but long-established patterns of financing and restrictions—often keep manufactured housing from being considered decent, affordable shelter, let alone valuable real estate.

"Not a Trailer Anymore: Perceptions of Manufactured Housing" reports the findings of two surveys that asked both residents and nonresidents of manufactured housing in the same communities about their perceptions of manufactured housing and its inhabitants. Julia O. Beamish, Rosemary C. Goss, Jorge H. Atiles, and Youngjoo Kim document the common negative perceptions of manufactured housing and show that its residents nevertheless are generally satisfied.

"Why Advocates Need to Rethink Manufactured Housing" offers a penetrating analysis of the complex factors underlying the negative perceptions of manufactured housing and that result in its neglect as a viable housing type, even though it is satisfactory and very affordable. Although Richard Genz targets his paper toward advocates of low-income housing, his analysis is useful for anyone grappling with issues of housing quality and affordability.

Persistent Negative Perceptions

In 1990 some of the authors of "Not a Trailer Anymore" conducted two surveys of eight rural counties in Virginia that had the highest and lowest percentages of manufactured homes in each of four regions of the state. "No previous study," they note, "has systematically examined the attitudes of manufactured homes residents and nonresidents in the same communities." Their article summarizes a full-length publication that gives more detailed survey results.

Using their analysis of the survey results and a thorough literature review, the authors conclude that "community residents…think of [manufactured housing] as old, having a fairly bad appearance, and housing low-income people who exhibit bad social behavior." For example, although more than half of the residents of single-section manufactured homes had incomes above $20,000, most nonresident survey respondents thought that residents had low incomes. Single-section homes in particular perpetuate negative images of residents of trailers—"old units, in bad condition, in a park." Yet these images are also associated with double-section homes, which tend to blend in with conventional, stick-built homes. Ironically, although double-section homes could improve the image of manufactured housing, they do not because community residents typically do not recognize them for what they are.

Conversely, the authors note that "people who reside in manufactured housing are more positive." In general, they are satisfied with their homes, which provide affordable, comfortable, and safe—if not fancy—shelter. Most of them are hard-working people who have lived in their homes for years. But they must constantly deal with the prejudice of the surrounding community.

For manufactured housing to overcome this prejudice, the authors explain, local and state governments must "address the issues that seem to impede its acceptance [because]…most of the problems facing manufactured housing seem to occur at the local level and with community residents who think manufactured housing will impact them negatively." The federal government "has tried to ensure the quality of [manufactured] units and has provided financing mechanisms." Manufacturers, spurred by such initiatives as HUD's PATH program, need to produce better products. But only decisive changes in attitudes and actions by local leaders in both the public and private sectors will enable manufactured housing to be considered more seriously as a key type of affordable housing.

A Matrix of Discrimination

Genz's article, "Why Advocates Need to Rethink Manufactured Housing," targets these local leaders. "When it comes to manufactured housing," Genz explains, "the market is not just speaking, it is shouting. Yet the huge popularity of manufactured housing has prompted only a shrug, and in some cases a cold shoulder, from those who promote housing opportunities." For instance, he quotes one nonprofit developer of low-income housing as saying, "Manufactured housing and community development? An oxymoron."

Why is manufactured housing dismissed and reviled? Genz clearly lays out the reasons. First, he portrays the scope of the mistreatment of manufactured housing residents and the lost opportunity: "Six out of 10 residents have lived in manufactured homes for more than 10 years….What is at stake is…the housing choice of some 8 million households and 18 million people." But because of the persistent stereotypes about manufactured housing residents, communities easily dismiss them as marginal citizens.

Second, Genz shows that people buy manufactured homes because they are inexpensive, are built to uniform standards (according to what he notes is the "only federal building code"), and can be purchased in a way that is more like buying a car than a nonmanufactured house. These factors make it easy "to see why manufactured homes have been chosen by an average of 29 percent of new home buyers every year since 1980."

Third, Genz explains why "national organizations working on affordable housing…are conspicuously quiet about manufactured housing." After examining various underlying factors in detail—and noting the same negative perceptions as Beamish and colleagues,—he summarizes the problem: "Discriminatory treatment of manufactured home residents flows from the unexamined matrix of law, finance, taxation, land use regulations, and custom within which manufactured housing exists." And this matrix bears harmful fruit: Manufactured housing, which should be valued as real property, instead is treated like a used car that is losing its value.

Ultimately, this discriminatory matrix deprives communities of the value of manufactured housing. They are wasting a huge opportunity. For instance, in Henderson County, North Carolina, the tax assessor decided to properly value manufactured homes, and in 2 years the tax rolls increased by $53 million.

Building Home Equity

These two papers lay out research and policy problems in a complementary fashion. Beamish and colleagues offer rigorous survey results that verify the negative perceptions that partially keep manufactured housing from getting the attention it deserves. In this context, Genz's close look at the discriminatory dynamics of the manufactured housing market points to the need for further research that will overturn mistaken assumptions and recognize this market segment's contribution to homeownership and affordable housing.

"Research is needed to sort out the factors that cause [manufactured home] values to go up or down," Genz states. "With better information, policies and practices that build wealth for owners of manufactured homes can be designed." Moreover, Genz's words to advocates apply as well to policymakers and researchers: "Advocates should work toward classifying every home as real estate. Bringing manufactured housing unambiguously into the world of real housing would improve owners' access to resale markets and financing and contribute to the accumulation of wealth."

Together, the two papers illuminate the significant potential of manufactured housing. As the country's housing affordability crisis continues, Genz's conclusion is a ray of hope: "If stereotypes can be overcome, the nonprofit development community could eventually help reinvent manufactured homes as quality, wealth-building, affordable housing."