A couple of things one should look at when being side tracked by industry people. Read the code of Federal Regulations Congress put into place. 24 CFR 3280 states how mobile homes should be built and 24 CFR 3282 states how the agencies (SAA) should be ran to protect the consumer. Then you have the state regulations and/or statutes that are supposed to be in place to protect the consumer. (Check with your state for this information). One might suspect ALL these intities are rubbing each others shoulders since the consumer ends up getting the worst end of it. What if the media were to run a survey on television and radio to ask the public(mobile homeowners) to provide input about these so-called federally regulated mobile homes and ask two questions: 1. Were you able to get warranty work in a reasonable amount of time, and 2. What do you think of the quality of your mobile home? What do you think the stats would be? Probably not very good for the industry. This just might spark a light into the consumer to wonder just how safe these things are. One would wonder what changes might be made to these industries? However, the industries are out to keep this information from the public because they know the mobile homes would not be purchased and stockholders would probably be selling stocks as fast as they could before they lost their money. So to keep this somewhat simple, the industry is counting on the consumer to be ignorant of the basic facts. Mobile homes are poorly constructed. And it is not until the consumer gets the shaft and is forced into becoming an expert on his or her home that they find out how the real game is played. If you have had an inspection because of a complaint you filed or if the manufacturer filed an "industry" complaint, you have seen how this works. Did you notice how they tend to selectively write down things? OR they just won't admit to a defect? This is because the Code Of Federal Regulations (24 CFR 3282) states they have to notify the consumer(s) of such defect: " The manufacturer shall provide notification as set out in this subpart with respect to all manufactured homes produced by the manufacturer in which there exists or may exist an imminent safety hazard or serious defect. The manufacturer shall provide such notification with respect to manufactured homes produced by the manufacturer in which a defect exists or may exist if the manufacturer has information indicating that the defect may exist in a class of manufactured homes that is identifiable because the cause of the defect or defects actually known to the manufacturer is such that the same defect would probably have been systematically introduced into more than one manufactured home during the course of production. This is just one of the many regulations that state how they are "supposed" to do business. If they can't build a good home, what makes you think they want to do more paperwork. So, if they ignore it, they are in the clear. All you need to do is read the regulations to see how these guys work. They can paint you a beautiful picture, but in reality it is all in black and white. So, call me "disgruntled" or "one of the few" if you(industry) want to entice the "consumers" come buy a "defective" mobile home. I am educating these consumers so they know what they are up against when they buy a mobile home that is "non-compliant" before they ever move into it. This is not even counting the many defects(failure to comply with the Act). In all seriousness, consumers should really read the "Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards" and "MANUFACTURED HOME PROCEDURAL AND ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS". (They are easy to find. Use any search engine and query these or click just on the links above). Don't take the word of these guys in the industry who could care less about your safety. Read about mobile home safety from the U.S. Fire Administration. These are reputable organizations, and not just my word about the safety concerns of consumers who own mobile homes. Then make your decision as to whether you want to buy a mobile home. And, make sure they leave your "running gear" on your property. They are an "intergral part of the home" as stated in 24 CFR 3280. They belong to you, the homeowner. You paid or are paying for them. They are part of the home. This is another money maker for them. I wonder if these guys taking the "running gear" are reporting this revenue to the tax people. They certainly are not reporting this to the legal authorities. They would go to jail for theft. Duh. Let's think about this one. I (the consumer) just bought a new mobile home. The retailer/installer/dealer/manufacturer brings my new home to my property. They set it up. Then they remove the "running gear" because they are supposed to. Ok, this could be acceptable. But when they load it up and take it from my property, they just stole something I just paid for or I will be paying for over the next thirty years. They take it and sell it to a recycler and make money off something they stole from me that I will be paying for over the next thirty years. Does this sound ok to you? I would think not, but it happens on a daily basis. So, how much money do you think these guys make off of other peoples property? And they think it is abolutely fair practice. Hey industry guys, consumers are catching on.

That's right - I only want to own two homes. My primary residence is out in the boondocks and I have a dumpy condo in town close to work. I'll keep the dumpy condo just to avoid the daily commute but I really hate the city but that's where the jobs are. What I want to do is eventually move my primary residence from East Boondocks to West Boondocks. Thought I would do this later in the year until this home caught my eye.

Cashing in any stock to throw good money after bad on a "home" that depreciates as soon as it rolls off the lot is just about the worst idea ever. No bank will lend on an older mobile home regardless if it has footings or not, despite the "information" provided by the self interested relative that's trying to snooker you here. The entire value of that property is in the land only. If you can afford to buy it cash outright and live in it while you construct a conventional home on it, that's the only way it would ever make sense to purchase. If you cannot afford to do that under any new environmental regulations that exist to protect the lake, then pass this "opportunity" by.

Thanks for replying Cathy. My family has a home on 2 acres now. The home is paid off. It is a site built home. I want to keep part of the land. I have planted many trees here, including where the house is. But, I am thinking about in the future when our family is 2 people instead of 3, and we have to take care of 2 acres and the washer and dryer are in the basement. The tractor has to cut 2 times the area that it just may be possibly having to cut. I am thinking if I could have our Insurance and annual taxes cut in half, the one floor living and if the current home was sold, I would only need to cut half the lawn. But, I haven't got the okay of the whole family on this plan. The area where I live,there is nothing here. WE are about 55-60 miles from Pittsburgh. There aren't any good paying jobs here. In 1995, my husband at the time and I had a Dutch doublewide home, on a basement foundation. We were young (in our 20's) and a loan for $65,000. And we ended up divorcing (he cheated) and the house went for taxes. I wished I had gotten a single wide on piers, then I maybe could've payed the payments. well, anyhow, the doublewide is next to my now home, where my mother, brother and I now live. The neighbor is nice and all. But, as you can imagine my mother really doesn't want to give up this current site built home. Sometimes she says she does because it reminds her of my dad, he passed away in a nursing home in Feb 2016. But, I really, think I need to save a good bit and then get my own MH. My brother is 34 years old, he just may find someone and get married, then my mom and I would need to move, but, really, he is a big video gamer, and goes to comic conventions in Pittsburgh, so..... maybe not. But anyway, Cathy, back in 1995, the doublewide was about $40,000 without the basement and utilities, that all added about $20,000. We saw a single wide that was also $40,000, that's why we went with the doublewide. If I could go back I would've picked the single wide. And put it on piers, then we could'nt have borrowed on it. He ended up getting a line of credit. He got a new car and computers and a few other things. I never got anything out of it. I am telling the truth. I am actually embarrassed that I got nothing out of it. Anyways Cathy, I will need to save some money before I search for anything but a really older used MH.