Proposed HUD rule on RV USE Definition

This is most likely a way that RVIA and RVDA can help the RV industry. If the RV industry was required to maintain more quality standards, like HUD, the consumer may get better RVs. Can you just imagine? An RV with no problems?:B

korbe wrote:
I do know that designing RV and mobile home parks will change. Manufacturers and park developers use the strict definitions on what can and cannot happen. We can create "motels on wheels" and the construction standards are not nearly as strict as a standard motel. HUD doesn't like that too much.

All this wording change does is make the difference between RV's and manufactured housing clearer, eliminating the current grey area affecting some park models and potentially some large 5'vers if HUD decided to stop ignoring them. The change codifies that difference instead of it being dependent on the current HUD administration's position on the difference. Basically, under the proposed wording if a manufacturer says its product meets the NFPA 1192 standards for RV's or the ANSI A119.5 standards for park models RV's, it does NOT fall within HUD's jurisdiction. I see nothing there that would change park designs, either RV or manufactured housing. The same basic definition has existed since 1982 as far as the intended purpose of an RV goes, and that does not change with the new clearer wording.

Oh god... Someone make it stop.

I do know that designing RV and mobile home parks will change. Manufacturers and park developers use the strict definitions on what can and cannot happen. We can create "motels on wheels" and the construction standards are not nearly as strict as a standard motel. HUD doesn't like that too much.

Dutch_12078 wrote:
The amount of misinformation floating around about this basic rewording of the long standing (1982) HUD RV definition is simply amazing.

As is the number of participants here who don't follow the day to day conversations and then jump in and post the same (mis)information for the 35th time. :(

I posted on the previous threads, this is n attempt for HUD to tighten the financial belt who they guarantee home loans to by redefining what is a "house" and what is an "RV." Park Models 400 square feet are the real problem. HUD already will not guarantee a home loan on an RV. AND there is nothing keeping anyone from full timing in an RV. You just can't get a HUD home guaranteed loan to purchase an RV. (but that already exists.) It may also eliminate any possibility of calling an RV a "second home" and subject to tax write off for income tax purposes. But as far as the RV life-style ... I don't see any impact at all.

The amount of misinformation floating around about this basic rewording of the long standing (1982) HUD RV definition is simply amazing. The fact is the RVIA, RVDA, and other RV related groups have been pressing for a clearer definition for years now. There is nothing in either the current or proposed wording that would have any effect on fulltimers. Here's a joint statement from the RVIA, RVDA, and ARVC regarding the proposal: Clicky

As stated - posted and discussed several times. The rules (currently being revised) are to further define manufactured housing and will not affect the RV community as some doomsayers are concluding.

Rob

This has been posted and discussed several times.
I think this sums it up:

"Perhaps this is to protect people from unsafe living conditions, but they won't be too safe when they are homeless and on the streets."

"We don't need more restrictions on housing when so many people are homeless, living below poverty level and underemployed. This would just put more people living out of the streets or living illegally just trying to live day to day. Stop this nonsense and throw this out."


Do you really think our government would try to squeeze more money out of us? :B