Govt wants to make living in your RV (fulltime) illegal

One way to get rid of all the FEMA trailers after the next bad storm. . . :h

DutchmenSport wrote:
I think this statement is wrong:

"That’s right – if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April of this year."

I read the entire article and I don't see anything where it will be illegal to LIVE in an RV. What it's saying is HUD is trying to define the rules for what is consider a 400 square foot RV and what is considered a house. The fine line with Park Models or Destination Trailers is the problem, as they are pushing the limits and are being found in the no-man's-land of the RV - HUD argument.

Further reading, makes me think that if HUD wins, then the benefits of calling an RV a HOME will be redefined. It won't be illegal to live in an RV full time. I don't see that written anywhere. But the person living in an actual RV (400 square feet or less) full time may not to able be claim some tax and loan lending benefits that are available now.

Remember, "HUD" stands for ("Housing" and Urban Development)They are trying to define what is considered a "House", especially if it has wheels. It's a COYA so they have a way of denying mortgage loans intended for low-income families to people wanting to by a "house on wheels".

I actually understand their point of view, having been a home owner myself and having had several VA loans, and having working in the Mortgage Lending industry in my past life.

X2
HUD is a lending institution. They have a plethora of rules right now on how and if you qualify. This just states what they will NOT consider for lending under the HUD guidelines. I see no problem with it as it has nothing to do with real Full-Time RV'ers. Who by the way are not going to go to HUD for a loan. :W

This has been floating around since Feb. and goes further back in time then that. Just someone trying to dig deeper in someone else's pocket or do we cheatum and how's in CYA mode.

Do none of you understand the Fed govt? They're only concerned about getting their cut of the money.

azdryheat wrote:
If it involves the government it can only mean problems for "We The People".

90 percent right. We need government. We just don't need the extra 90 percent we get now.

There is nothing now, nor in the proposed new definition that precludes anyone from living full time in an RV. "Recreation Vehicles" have always by definition been intended for temporary use by the manufacturers, and many of their manuals even clearly state that. The purpose of the new wording, which by the way, the RVIA and other RV groups have been pressing for for some time, is simply to make the separation between RV's and manufactured housing clearer. Under the current wording and HUD standards, some 5'vers and park models could come under HUD's regulations. HUD has made it clear that they do consider 5'vers RV's, and have chosen to ignore any regulation of them. The Escapees RV Club supports the updated definition, albeit with some suggestions to make the difference even clearer. The new definition will make it quite clear that when a manufacturer says his product is an RV, that it meets certain specifications that apply only to RV's. How we, as the end users, chose to use our RV's, will continue to be a personal decision, subject only to local laws and ordinances regarding when and where we can live in our RV's full time. Really, the sky is not falling...

If it involves the government it can only mean problems for "We The People".

I guess HUD has solved all of the other problems on their list and turned the last page over and found this.

I think this statement is wrong:

"That’s right – if this law is passed, living in a tiny house or an RV may become illegal in April of this year."

I read the entire article and I don't see anything where it will be illegal to LIVE in an RV. What it's saying is HUD is trying to define the rules for what is consider a 400 square foot RV and what is considered a house. The fine line with Park Models or Destination Trailers is the problem, as they are pushing the limits and are being found in the no-man's-land of the RV - HUD argument.

Further reading, makes me think that if HUD wins, then the benefits of calling an RV a HOME will be redefined. It won't be illegal to live in an RV full time. I don't see that written anywhere. But the person living in an actual RV (400 square feet or less) full time may not to able be claim some tax and loan lending benefits that are available now.

Remember, "HUD" stands for ("Housing" and Urban Development)They are trying to define what is considered a "House", especially if it has wheels. It's a COYA so they have a way of denying mortgage loans intended for low-income families to people wanting to by a "house on wheels".

I actually understand their point of view, having been a home owner myself and having had several VA loans, and having working in the Mortgage Lending industry in my past life.

rr2254545 wrote:
April Fools

No April Fools this time. It was Posted 3/27.