Proposed federal rule change draws concerns from some fulltimers

[youngfulltimers]

I researched a proposed rule change announced Monday by HUD. The goal was to differentiate between RVs and mobile homes. But some are concerned about a separate passage that reiterates motorhomes and travel trailers are for recreational uses and not to become someone's primary residence.

 

I hope to follow up with a lot of stakeholders to learn what, if any, impact this change has, if approved. Feel free to read what I know so far based on a little research: http://youngfulltimers.com/federal-government-pushing-for-disclaimers-discouraging-full-time-rv-living/

 

Will enjoy hearing what folks think so far...outside of the handful of public comments already submitted electronically.

[Barbaraok]

Go look at

 

http://www.rvnetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=121863&hl=

 

Lots of upset about nothing. It takes a lot of practice to understand how to read FR announcements

[youngfulltimers]

Go look at

 

http://www.rvnetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=121863&hl=

 

Lots of upset about nothing. It takes a lot of practice to understand how to read FR announcements

 

Sorry about that, tried finding but couldn't locate a past thread! Glad to see folks up on the news, even if they may be overreacting. I agree it seems to mostly come down to building standards. It's the unintended consequences (think: what if?) that folks are worried about.

[R. Walter]

Go look at

 

http://www.rvnetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=121863&hl=

 

Lots of upset about nothing. It takes a lot of practice to understand how to read FR announcements

 

And... so...? Can you help others understand???

[Barbaraok]

 

And... so...? Can you help others understand???

 

I spelled out what the difference is in the other thread. Included links, and listed an example of what was the important things to look at. Suggest you read the whole thread, some more has been added by others

[freestoneangler]

Interesting. At the crux of this seems to be the old adage... follow the money. In this case government wanting to assure they squeeze every last dime they can from the supply base (citizenry). In particular those legal citizens who choose to ramble around our United States of America free of the trappings associated with traditional dwellings. Can you imagine if everyone did this, what would happen to the government coffers. There is no doubt in my mind that new rules limiting full-time RV life will be proposed should they represent a significant enough decrease in tax revenue streams.

[Zulu]

Interesting. At the crux of this seems to be the old adage... follow the money. In this case government wanting to assure they squeeze every last dime they can from the supply base (citizenry). In particular those legal citizens who choose to ramble around our United States of America free of the trappings associated with traditional dwellings. Can you imagine if everyone did this, what would happen to the government coffers. There is no doubt in my mind that new rules limiting full-time RV life will be proposed should they represent a significant enough decrease in tax revenue streams.

 

Like moths to a flame . . .

 

Um, this gub'ment reg is sponsored by these guys . . . last paragraph if you're in a hurry.

[Ray,IN]

Thanks Zulu. That pdf spells it out. The RVIA wants exemption from more stringent building specifications for park models by identifying them as specifically separate from mobile homes. Included in this, by omission, are the standards of NFPA , which are included in the federal register, and thus law.

[Dutch_12078]

Thanks Zulu. That pdf spells it out. The RVIA wants exemption from more stringent building specifications for park models by identifying them as specifically separate from mobile homes. Included in this, by omission, are the standards of NFPA , which are included in the federal register, and thus law.

 

The standard used for mobile RV RVIA certification is NFPA 1192. And 1192 includes the applicable sections of NFPA 70 (NEC) by reference. Park models are also certified to the ANSI A119.5 standard, written by the RVIA.

[mysticmd]

Thanks, Zulu yup,- in a hurry and rather new, so don't cotton much to reading all the old threads with inside humor, kibitzing, sarcasm and jabs here and there. Appreciate your efforts.

[deecee]

Much less about building standards, loan standards, or such other side-business.

Larger impact, which the RV manufacturer orgs forget to mention entirely is that of property taxes, which is why Mobile Home manufacturers are pushing that issue against the RV Park Model manufacturers.

 

See http://www.rvnetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=121863&p=827487

[Dutch_12078]

Much less about building standards, loan standards, or such other side-business.

 

Larger impact, which the RV manufacturer orgs forget to mention entirely is that of property taxes, which is why Mobile Home manufacturers are pushing that issue against the RV Park Model manufacturers.

 

See http://www.rvnetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=121863&p=827487

 

Since the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee worked along side the RVIA and HUD in agreeing on the new definition that exempts park models from HUD regulation, I guess they didn't push very hard.

[deecee]

 

Since the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee worked along side the RVIA and HUD in agreeing on the new definition that exempts park models from HUD regulation, I guess they didn't push very hard.

No, you are right. In fact they all seemed to get along quite amicably.. Especially compared to how the original discussion started back when.

See for example from http://www.woodallscm.com/2014/12/hud-advisors-want-a-grandfather-clause/

 

HUD recently announced that it planned to figure porches in the 400-square-foot maximum marking the line between RVs and manufactured housing effective April 1, a move that alarmed park operators and park model RV manufacturers across the country.

“If park model RVs with factory-built porches are no longer defined as recreational vehicles, local zoning officials could require them to be removed from campgrounds,” Sims said. “The regulatory change could also make park models subject to local property taxes.”

 

 

Jeff Sims, was/is director of state relations and government affairs for the National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds (ARC).. Worried about among other Property Taxes.

 

On the other hand, as soon as HUD gave up on the "include porches in park model size", the rest of them (RVIA, ARC, ..) should have been less fearful and argumentative; making coming to a consensus quite a bit easier.

[Dutch_12078]

I think the 2014 HUD announcement about the 400 sq ft rule in hindsight was probably a good thing, since it served as a catalyst in bringing the diverse groups together to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution.