HUD wants to outlaw RV living.

[uhftx]

HUD Wants to Outlaw Tiny Homes and RV Living
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – which ironically was founded to end poverty and racial injustice in housing – proposed a law last month that would make living in a recreational vehicle – and potentially a tiny home – illegal.

While recreational vehicles are currently exempt from housing regulations, the proposed change would allow them to keep their exempt status only so long as no one is “living” in them.

HUD complains in a summary of its proposed rule that some RVs “are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square-foot maximum” and “are being marketed as suitable for year-round living.”

The rule would re-define exempt recreational vehicles as a “factory-build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy” and requires RV manufacturers to “prominently display” that definition in the kitchen of all RVs for sale.

[link to returntonow.net]

[dieselguy]

In general our Gubberment has a nose problem ... always stuck somewhere it doesn't belong. As I see it ... it will only worsen with today's movers and thinkers.

[K0LCB]

My understanding of the proposal is the RVIA wants a better definition of RV vs park models, or FEMA trailers

[richfaa]

These are not residences they are Recreational Vehicle's. They are not designed to be lived in full time they do not even make code for a full time residence. The RV companies market them and full time use to dupe us into buying them.

[DQDick]

I really don't much care. I'm going to full time in mine. I don't think they really have the time or the manpower to stop me. Besides we have shows on TV showing you how to make a home out one or more shipping containers and many folks are living in Amish built sheds. In fact we have one of those also. At our Kansas home base we have a shed with AC and all the facilities including the old fold out bed from our Monty. Folks that used to stay in our guest room at the stick house can now visit and stay in the guest cabin. The cow is already out of the barn and the feds will just have to learn to live with it.

[MARK A]

I love my country but I fear my Government..
I would just say, let them try and stop me.

Mark

[Eagleback]

The U in HUD means "Urban" That means living in a city. There just mad that they cant live in an RV because there in the city and the current laws and codes do not allow it. and also lost tax dollars from property tax to pay for there wages.

[JandC]

Maybe they would be better served to concentrate on homeless people living full time in tents and cardboard boxes in our major cities than worrying about anything to do with full time living in an RV.

[Dam Worker]

I have to agree with Eagleback. They want more taxes bottom line. I remember an old saying " they really aren't your friends" seems pretty accurate to me. I also agree with the statement about tent, cardboard etc cities. I think Portland OR moved an illegal city into one of the parking garages. Seattle area converted a parking area into a homeless city, even towed in their cars, trucks, etc. and RVs to live in.
I hope HUD gets going on that right away.

Tom Marty

[richfaa]

The rules on living in a RV have been on the books for decades. If the Structure meets the code for a residence it will be OK.Rv's do not. Proptery taxes pay in part for the infrastructure of a area schools, etc. The RV manufactures want to sell Rv's and will say anything to sell us one. They are becoming more and more blatant in marketing that the RV is full time residence. The clarification of the "rules" will not effect those of us who full time. it is about clear and honest marketing.. Like how is your arctic package doing.

[jgavin]

Might consider reading this: http://www.snopes.com/hud-tiny-homes-ban/

[Beau2010]

In 1976, HUD established regulations setting standards for mobile home construction. Instantly, thousands of pre-1976 trailers were rendered worthless because they could not be sold, either as new or used. This did not stop anyone from continuing to live in the older trailers. On numerous occasions, only when the last resident died, the old trailer was disposed of. Recreation vehicles were exempted from these regs and on several occasions since, the regs have been amended. The latest proposal still exempts RVs that are BUILT for RECREATIONAL USE. What an owner does with the RV is not the concern of these regs. They are directed at the manufacturer. That is why Keystone and all other manufacturers will void their warranty for any RV being used as a full-time residence. Obviously the fearmongers can't make a good story out of the truth so they make up BS like this to keep the sheep scared. And the sheep always fall for it.

[richfaa]

We saw many of these pre 76 Residential units being torn down or crushed during our school bus driving days. The fact is the manufact urers market these things as suitable for full time use and people buy them and use them as residences. The manufactures should be held accountable for the truth of their marketing claims.

The manufacturers are guilty of false marketing claims and that is the issue.

[bncinwv]

quote:Originally posted by Beau2010

That is why Keystone and all other manufacturers will void their warranty for any RV being used as a full-time residence

I have never heard of Keystone voiding the warranty because someone is using their rv???

Bingo

[richfaa]

Bingo is Correct Keystone is fully aware of how those of us who full time or long time use our Rigs .We are long timers and have never had a warranty issue or any other issue rejected by Keystone based on our Rv use. This is a excellent example of false marketing. Market them for full time use but forget about that and service then anyhow. The concern with the manufacturer is to sell RV's and anything goes..

[Beau2010]

Read your owner's manual; mine clearly states that the warranty will be voided if a hitch is added to the rear or if used as a permanent residence.

[bncinwv]

I stand by my statement, in my nine years on this forum, I have never heard of Keystone denying warranty claims because of using your rv. In fact, the sales brochure for the last couple of years specifically touts the warranty features with regards to full-time living. Perhaps on previous models, they "could" void the warranty versus "will", but I have heard of no instances where this actually happened.
Bingo

[WaltBennett]

quote:Originally posted by Beau2010

In 1976, HUD established regulations setting standards for mobile home construction. Instantly, thousands of pre-1976 trailers were rendered worthless because they could not be sold, either as new or used. This did not stop anyone from continuing to live in the older trailers. On numerous occasions, only when the last resident died, the old trailer was disposed of. Recreation vehicles were exempted from these regs and on several occasions since, the regs have been amended. The latest proposal still exempts RVs that are BUILT for RECREATIONAL USE. What an owner does with the RV is not the concern of these regs. They are directed at the manufacturer. That is why Keystone and all other manufacturers will void their warranty for any RV being used as a full-time residence. Obviously the fearmongers can't make a good story out of the truth so they make up BS like this to keep the sheep scared. And the sheep always fall for it.

And this is where the argument of 'big government' or this being anything new falls flat on it's face. RVs are supposedly limited to 400 sq. feet in size. I really believe the new regs have been caused by the tiny house thing. There are manufacturers totally ignoring the HUD regs and making anything they feel they can sell, and most of the time, putting them on wheels. The RV industry has pretty much been abiding by them (although I'm not certain about large toy haulers with those convertible to a deck ramps). I really believe HUD has been, for the most part, just trying to be certain purchasers of these things get something that's actually safe to live in. Many of us full-time in our Montanas, but that is our individual decision.

Because of the LACK of HUD regulations concerning RVs, it took Katrina and the debacle of what happened to people living in FEMA trailers (RVs but without holding tanks) for them to mandate no more paneling that used formaldehyde - the outgassing of it was causing all kinds of health problems when people in the south lived in them all buttoned up with the AC running. Up until then all our rigs had this kind of paneling, but since we were only temporarily in them, no health issues and the outgassing stopped after a year or two. There are many kinds of big government rules and regulations that actually are a good thing.

And, without a doubt, Keystone and every other RV maker will NEVER up front tell anyone that they're not supposed to full-time in one of their rigs. The only place any disclaimer like that will be found is in very small print on a back page or somewhere similar.

[richfaa]

Same here been on this forum for 11 years and can not remember anyone being refused warranty work based on the use of their RV. It is all deceptive marketing on the part of manufacturers in their greed to sell Rv's at any cost. The Rv is not a residence it is a recreat ional vehicle.

[egregg57]

Good discussion, Folks!