Liz Wood quería comprar una casa. Corría el año 2006, había estado alquilando por una década y sus pagos mensuales le estaban resultando muy altos. Tenía 43años y un empleo estable como educadora familiar en el que ganaba USD 34.000 al año más beneficios. No quería nada lujoso; simplemente un lugar donde pudiera “crear amor y tener estabilidad”. No quería ir más allá de sus recursos.

De todas maneras, las cuentas no le cuadraban. Wood vive en Duvall, Washington, un pueblo de apenas 7.500 habitantes al pie de las Montañas Cascade. Duvall, inmerso en un bosque frondoso, se encuentra a alrededor de 48 kilómetros de Seattle y apenas 13 kilómetros de la ciudad de Redmond, sede de Microsoft. La mediana de ingresos en Duvall es casi el doble de la del estado de Washington, y las viviendas de la zona son caras. En 2010, la mediana del valor de las viviendas ocupadas en Duvall era de USD 373.500, en comparación con el estimado del estado de USD 262.100, según la Oficina del Censo de los EE. UU.

Entre las pocas opciones que tenía, Wood se decidió finalmente por una casa prefabricada. Por USD 55.000, compró una casa de segunda mano en Duvall Riverside Village, una comunidad de dos hectáreas con 25 viviendas prefabricadas, ubicada en el centro de Duvall. “Vivir aquí es increíble”, declaró. “Mi propiedad da sobre el río, así que cuando salgo de mi casa veo agua, pinos y un sendero por el cual puedo caminar hasta el pueblo vecino. Me despierto por la mañana y escucho a los pájaros. Conozco a todos mis vecinos. Estoy conectada con mi comunidad. Estoy a una cuadra de la comisaría. Me siento segura”.

Pero, aun así, su situación era complicada. Wood era dueña de su casa, pero no del terreno donde estaba ubicada. Alquilaba el terreno por USD 450 mensuales, más el pago del agua y los demás servicios públicos, como el resto de los residentes de Duvall Riverside Village. Por lo tanto, Wood y sus vecinos estaban básicamente a merced del dueño de la propiedad, y no gozaban de la autonomía y seguridad legal asociadas con los modelos de propiedad de vivienda más tradicionales.

El propietario prohibía la construcción de garajes, lo que limitaba las opciones de almacenamiento de los residentes. Cobraba USD 25 al mes por cada automóvil o persona adulta adicional que no se hubiera registrado en el momento de la mudanza. Cobraba USD 5 al mes por cada mascota y los perros no podían quedar sueltos en ningún momento. Había que pagar una cuota mensual de USD 5 por cada dos metros cúbicos de leña extra, que Wood necesitaba para alimentar su estufa. Aunque el propietario había contratado un empleado de mantenimiento, no había instalado alumbrado exterior ni mantenía las calles de la comunidad, que estaban llenas de baches y grietas.

En 2012, Wood y sus vecinos recibieron un aviso por escrito de que el propietario vendía el suelo. A diferencia de otros propietarios, que preferían vender su terreno a un emprendedor inmobiliario, este propietario estaba dispuesto a vendérselo a los residentes. Había aceptado organizar una reunión con los inquilinos, un corredor de bienes raíces y el Centro de Desarrollo Cooperativo del Noroeste (Northwest Cooperative Development Center), una organización sin fines de lucro que apoya a las cooperativas. Las partes consideraron la posibilidad de establecer una cooperativa de residentes sin fines de lucro para comprar la propiedad. De esa manera, podrían conservar el suelo para las casas prefabricadas, seguir viviendo en comunidad y administrar colectivamente un lugar seguro, económico y de alta calidad.

Los residentes votaron a favor de esta propuesta. El propietario tenía dos exigencias. Quería vender su propiedad a un valor justo de mercado y quería completar la venta antes de fin del año. Estaban ya en agosto. Tenían cinco meses.

Además de colaborar con el Centro de Desarrollo Cooperativo del Noroeste, los residentes también comenzaron a trabajar con ROC USA, una organización sin fines de lucro de Nueva Hampshire que ofrece a los residentes de comunidades de casas prefabricadas una combinación de asistencia técnica y financiamiento asequible para comprar su suelo alquilado cuando se pone a la venta. Entre 2008, año en que se fundó, y 2016, ROC USA ha facilitado con éxito 80 transacciones de este tipo en todo el país y consiguió préstamos de financiamiento por más de USD 175 millones.

ROC USA trabaja con una red de ocho filiales regionales, una de las cuales es el Centro de Desarrollo Cooperativo del Noroeste. En Duvall, las organizaciones sin fines de lucro trabajaron con los residentes para hacer un análisis económico de la oferta y confirmar que era una buena oportunidad para que los residentes fueran propietarios de la comunidad. A continuación, las organizaciones ayudaron a los residentes a contratar a un abogado independiente y establecer su cooperativa, que funcionaría como una democracia, en la que los residentes elegirían a sus propios dirigentes. ROC USA ayudó a los residentes a contratar a un ingeniero independiente para realizar la diligencia debida de la propiedad; a conseguir financiamiento a través de la subsidiaria de préstamo de ROC USA, llamada ROC USA Capital; a comprar la propiedad y realizar las reparaciones indispensables; y a organizar la transferencia inmobiliaria.

El 27 de diciembre de ese año, la nueva cooperativa compró Duvall Riverside Village con USD 1,3 millones de financiamiento de ROC USA Capital, y Wood y los demás propietarios pasaron a controlar sus propias viviendas y a preservar de forma permanente 25 viviendas económicas en un pueblo donde la oferta de este tipo de viviendas es escasa.

Los residentes continuaron pagando USD 450 mensuales para alquilar el terreno, pero ahora votan para establecer las reglas de la comunidad y usan el pago del alquiler para realizar mejoras y pagar la hipoteca, los impuestos y los gastos de comunidad.

“Ahora puedes tener un garaje si quieres”, explica Wood, que es la presidente de la cooperativa de residentes de Duvall y miembro de la junta directiva de ROC USA. “E invertimos USD 35.000 para arreglar las calles. Ya no tenemos que vivir con temor, así que la gente está dispuesta a invertir en su casa. Tenemos reuniones anuales para votar sobre proyectos. Si en el presupuesto hay cosas que no necesitamos, podemos reducir nuestro alquiler mensual. En última instancia, controlamos nuestro propio destino”.

Después de completar la venta, ROC USA y el Centro de Desarrollo Cooperativo del Noroeste han seguido proporcionando a los residentes asistencia técnica para garantizar el buen funcionamiento de la comunidad.

“Si simplemente nos hubieran prestado el dinero y nos hubieran dicho: ‘Estas son las pautas, y esto es lo que tienen que hacer’, habríamos fracasado”, explica Wood. “Pero son un recurso constante. Nos ayudan en situaciones difíciles o cuando no sabemos cómo hacer algo de forma legal. Nuestra meta es independizarnos y poder administrar nuestra comunidad como un negocio. Pague sus cuentas y su casa puede quedarse donde está. Punto. Para siempre”.

Beneficios

En 2015, más de 18 millones de estadounidenses vivían en casas prefabricadas, lo cual representaba el 5 por ciento del inventario de viviendas en las áreas metropolitanas de los Estados Unidos, y un 15 por ciento en las comunidades rurales. Su calidad tiene variaciones significativas. Aproximadamente el 25 por ciento de las casas prefabricadas son las casas rodantes frágiles desvencijadas de la década de 1960 y comienzos de la de 1970, fabricadas antes de que el gobierno federal introdujera controles de calidad en 1976. El 75 por ciento restante cumple con las normas federales y muchas son viviendas agradables y energéticamente eficientes, que a simple vista no se pueden distinguir de las viviendas tradicionales construidas sobre el terreno. Si bien las casas prefabricadas han sido despreciadas durante mucho tiempo como el último recurso para vivienda, los modelos actuales son robustos, eficientes y atractivos, con el potencial de aliviar la carencia de viviendas seguras y económicas en el país.

Las casas prefabricadas modernas cuestan aproximadamente la mitad que las construidas sobre el terreno, y se pueden construir cinco veces más rápido, lo que las convierte en una opción realmente viable para los consumidores de bajos ingresos. El proceso de producción tiene menos desperdicios y los modelos que cumplen con las normas Energy Star del gobierno federal ofrecen a los propietarios un importante ahorro de energía. Y son duraderas. Mientras que las casas prefabricadas construidas antes de las regulaciones de 1976 fueron diseñadas para ser portátiles, como vehículos recreativos, los modelos modernos están construidos con materiales más fuertes y diseñados para ser permanentes. Las casas prefabricadas de hoy pueden sustentarse en los mismos tipos de cimientos que se usarían para una estructura construida sobre el terreno, lo que ofrece flexibilidad para usarlas en una amplia gama de geografías y ambientes.

“El inventario de casas prefabricadas es un componente fundamental de las viviendas económicas del país”, dice George McCarthy, presidente y director ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. “Supera fácilmente dos o tres veces el inventario de viviendas subsidiadas en casi todos los mercados”.

Las casas prefabricadas son más baratas de producir que las construidas sobre el terreno, debido a su proceso de manufactura. Andrea Levere, presidente de Corporation for Enterprise Development, escribió en The Huffington Post que “el término ‘casa prefabricada’ tiene menos que ver con la calidad que con el proceso de producción, que deriva de las cadenas de montaje creadas por Henry Ford. Este modelo permite construir las casas prefabricadas en un ambiente de trabajo más controlado, con costos más predecibles, mayor eficiencia y menos residuos” (Levere 2013).

En 2013, el costo de una nueva casa prefabricada energéticamente eficiente era de USD 64.000, en comparación con los USD 324.500 de una nueva casa construida sobre el terreno, según el censo de los Estados Unidos, aunque el precio de la segunda incluye el suelo. Pero incluso cuando se descuenta el costo del suelo, las casas prefabricadas siguen siendo significativamente más baratas, con un promedio de USD 4 por metro cuadrado, en comparación con USD 8,7 por metro cuadrado para las casas construidas sobre el terreno. Y no son viviendas subsidiadas, lo cual es una ventaja cuando se tiene en cuenta la oferta extremadamente escasa de viviendas subsidiadas en comparación con la demanda. Solo una de cuatro familias que reúne los requisitos debido a sus bajos ingresos recibe una vivienda subsidiada, de acuerdo con la Comisión Bipartidista de Políticas, y se deja al 75 por ciento restante con la necesidad de una alternativa económica sin subsidiar. Al ayudar a cubrir ese vacío, las casas prefabricadas pueden aliviar algo esta demanda de casas subsidiadas que los gobiernos estatales y el gobierno federal tienen tanta dificultad para ofrecer debido a la reducción de sus presupuestos. “La mayoría de las familias que viven en casas prefabricadas serían elegibles para viviendas subsidiadas, pero, en su lugar, eligen esta opción más barata y sin subsidio”, dice McCarthy.

El inventario es también muy versátil, señala McCarthy, y cita el papel que las casas prefabricadas cumplieron en el período inmediatamente posterior al Huracán Sandy. “Los trabajadores de emergencia instalaron 17 casas prefabricadas en Nueva Jersey a pocas semanas del huracán. Estas eran casas permanentes para inquilinos desplazados, no los problemáticos ‘tráileres Katrina’. Y lo hicieron antes de que la mayoría de las organizaciones elaborara siquiera un plan de vivienda. Esto es una muestra de la eficiencia y flexibilidad de las casas prefabricadas. Los plazos de producción son aproximadamente 80 por ciento más cortos que los de las casas construidas sobre el terreno, lo que las convierte en la mejor opción de vivienda como respuesta a las catástrofes”.

De todas maneras, las casas prefabricadas con frecuencia tienen mala reputación, debido, en gran medida, a la percepción equivocada de que los modelos de hoy en día son los mismos que los de las primeras generaciones de casas móviles, antes de la introducción de normas de control de calidad por el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano en 1976. Hoy, hay aproximadamente 2 millones de casas construidas antes de 1976; muchas de ellas apenas se sostienen en pie, y alojan a la población más vulnerable, como los ancianos y discapacitados. Si bien el inventario de viviendas anteriores a 1976 no tiene casi relación con sus contrapartes de la actualidad, estas viviendas más viejas y deterioradas dominan la percepción pública de las casas prefabricadas en los Estados Unidos.

La reputación del inventario de estas viviendas es aún menor por las vulnerabilidades que tienen los residentes que no son dueños del terreno donde viven. Aproximadamente 3 millones de personas viven en una de las 50.000 comunidades de viviendas prefabricadas del país, mientras que otros 3 millones alquilan una casa prefabricada en terrenos privados. Hay comunidades de casas prefabricadas en todos los estados del país. Como en el caso de Duvall Riverside Village, muchas se encuentran en terrenos privilegiados, y los propietarios de esos terrenos reciben habitualmente ofertas de emprendedores inmobiliarios.

Los promotores de casas prefabricadas y de su viabilidad como alternativa de vivienda económica se han enfocado en tres áreas fundamentales de innovación: conservar los parques de casas móviles; reemplazar las unidades anteriores a 1976 por casas energéticamente eficientes y aumentar el acceso a financiamiento asequible, ya que para los compradores potenciales es prácticamente inaccesible en el mercado actual, y es imperativo para acumular un patrimonio neto y preservar el valor de reventa de la casa.

Conservación de las comunidades de casas prefabricadas

La conversión de una comunidad de casas prefabricadas de propiedad privada a una cooperativa de residentes, como se hizo en Duvall Riverside Village, no es frecuente. Por cada comunidad que se ofrece a la venta y se preserva satisfactoriamente como vivienda económica, hay muchas más que se terminan vendiendo para realizar emprendimientos inmobiliarios, y se desplaza a los residentes, quienes quizás no tengan ninguna otra buena alternativa.

“No es tan sencillo como solo mover la casa”, dice Ishbel Dickens, presidente de la Asociación Nacional de Propietarios de Casas Prefabricadas. “Primero está la cuestión de si la casa se puede mover. Puede ser demasiado vieja o inestable para moverse. Y aunque se pueda mover, esta operación es cara, y es muy difícil encontrar un espacio en otra comunidad. En la mayoría de los casos, cuando cierra un parque de casas, los residentes probablemente van a perder la casa y todos sus recursos. Lo más probable es que nunca puedan ser propietarios de una vivienda. Probablemente terminarán en una lista de viviendas subsidiadas, o acabarán viviendo en la calle”.

Hasta cierto punto, es un accidente histórico que tantos parques de casas móviles ocupen terrenos valiosos, dice Paul Bradley, presidente de ROC USA. En las décadas de 1950 y 1960, los estadounidenses comenzaron a comprar casas rodantes, en parte debido al surgimiento de una cultura de recreación al aire libre, y en parte debido a que las fábricas comenzaron a producirlas para utilizar la capacidad de manufactura excedente después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y, así, eran atractivas y asequibles. A medida que las unidades se fueron haciendo más populares, pasaron de ser estructuras transitorias a permanentes, y la gente comenzó a agregar garajes provisionales para sus automóviles y solarios. En ese momento, los planificadores urbanos aceptaron la evolución hacia la permanencia.

Desde su punto de vista, la mayoría de las casas rodantes se encontraban en terrenos periféricos que no se usaban para emprendimientos inmobiliarios. ¿Qué tenía de malo dejar estas casas móviles por un tiempo hasta que las ciudades se expandieran hasta llegar allí, y en ese momento desarrollar el suelo?

“Estas comunidades originales se construyeron con un plan en mente para eliminarlas”, dice Bradley. “En ese entonces, nadie contempló las consecuencias de crear un inventario de viviendas donde los propietarios no podían controlar el suelo donde se encontraban. Nadie anticipó que estas comunidades se llenarían de propietarios de bajos y moderados ingresos, quienes invertían su dinero para comprar estas casas y tenían muy pocas alternativas viables. Y hoy en día todavía estamos tratando de resolver este problema. Esta falta de control del suelo significa que los propietarios de las viviendas viven con una profunda sensación de inseguridad, y de que es absurdo efectuar inversiones en su vivienda, porque nunca las van a poder recuperar. ¿Cuál es la consecuencia para un propietario que no puede invertir racionalmente en su casa? ¿Qué significa esto para el inventario de viviendas? ¿Para los barrios?”

Las políticas de corto plazo para el uso del suelo no son el único problema para preservar las comunidades de casas prefabricadas. Otro obstáculo igualmente oneroso es la falta de protección legal para los residentes. En 34 estados y el Distrito de Columbia, el propietario puede vender el terreno sin dar a los residentes la oportunidad de comprarlo. De hecho, en la mayoría de los estados el propietario no tiene siquiera que notificar a los residentes que la comunidad está a la venta; puede esperar hasta que la propiedad se haya vendido antes de informar a los residentes de la transacción, y dejarlos de golpe en una situación muy frágil. Incluso los 16 estados que exigen al propietario que notifique de forma previa sobre la venta de viviendas prefabricadas a la comunidad no brindan necesariamente las protecciones que requieren los inquilinos. “En la mayoría de los estados con notificación previa, hay tantas limitaciones en los requerimientos de la notificación que pocas veces sirve de algo a los residentes”, dice Carolyn Carter, directora de promoción en el Centro Nacional de Derecho del Consumidor (National Consumer Law Center).

Para proteger mejor a los residentes, los promotores respaldan reformas legislativas a las leyes estatales e incentivos tributarios para que los propietarios vendan el suelo a los residentes. La estrategia más efectiva consiste en promulgar leyes estatales que requieren al dueño que dé un aviso anticipado de la venta a los residentes (idealmente de 60 días) junto con la oportunidad de comprar la propiedad, señala Carter. Según ella, seis estados tienen leyes que “funcionan en la práctica, y brindan oportunidades reales para que los residentes compren sus comunidades”: Nueva Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Florida, Vermont y Delaware. Dice también que Oregón promulgó una legislación prometedora en enero de 2015. “En estos estados con avisos efectivos y leyes que brindan la oportunidad de comprar, está tomando fuerza el que los residentes se conviertan en propietarios”, explica Carter.Aproximadamente el 46 por ciento de las 80 comunidades respaldadas por ROC USA se encuentra en Nueva Hampshire o Massachusetts, dos estados pequeños con algunas de las protecciones más efectivas del país para los residentes. Hay 89 cooperativas de residentes adicionales en Nueva Hampshire anteriores al lanzamiento de ROC USA.

Para comprender el valor de las leyes firmes de protección para los residentes, basta con contar la historia de Ryder Woods, un parque de 174 casas móviles en Milford, Connecticut, a 18 kilómetros al sur de New Haven, pegado a una carretera principal. Connecticut es uno de 19 estados que ofrecen incentivos tributarios o brindan a los residentes “algunas” protecciones cuando se vende la comunidad, aunque también presenta “importantes vacíos”, según Carter.

En 1998, el dueño de Ryder Woods vendió su propiedad a emprendedores inmobiliarios. Informó a los residentes por medio de avisos de desalojo, en contravención de las leyes estatales, que le exigían no solo dar un aviso por adelantado de la venta pendiente sino también ofrecerles la oportunidad de ser los primeros en comprar el suelo. Ryder Woods tenía una asociación de propietarios activa y rápidamente se organizaron protestas, peticiones y campañas ante la legislatura estatal para cancelar la venta. Finalmente, los medios de comunicación se hicieron cargo de la historia, y una abogada de Milford ofreció sus servicios de forma voluntaria para ayudarlos. A medida que profundizaba en el caso, se dio cuenta de que la ley estaba del lado de los residentes, y que la comunidad necesitaba más respaldo legal que el que ella podía ofrecer por sí sola. Pidió ayuda a un amigo y colega, socio de una importante compañía de Hartford, que aceptó tomar el caso pro bono y asignó la tarea a un equipo de abogados. El caso finalizó en un juicio y en última instancia llegó hasta la corte suprema estatal. El comprador original, que no estaba interesado en este embrollo legal, vendió la propiedad a un segundo emprendedor.

Cuatro años después de la venta original, el tribunal falló a favor de los residentes. En un pacto sin precedentes, y como parte del acuerdo, el segundo emprendedor compró un nuevo terreno a un kilómetro y medio de la parcela original y allí reconstruyó completamente la comunidad. El emprendedor compró 174 casas móviles nuevas y las vendió a los residentes a un precio significativamente reducido, con hipotecas más favorables que cualquier otra financiación convencional del mercado. Construyó un centro comunitario y un estanque que completó con cisnes. Y, como parte del acuerdo, dio a los residentes la oportunidad de formar una cooperativa y comprar el terreno, lo cual hicieron en 2009 con un financiamiento de compra de USD 5,4 millones de ROC USA Capital. La escritura de compra se firmó en las oficinas de la mencionada compañía de Hartford, la cual siguió prestando sus servicios de forma voluntaria a los residentes hasta que se completó la venta. Hoy, en el suelo que ocupaba la comunidad original de Ryder Woods, hay una tienda de Walmart.

“A veces, cuando recordamos lo que pasó, pensamos que fue una locura. Contratamos un autobús, fuimos a Hartford, hablamos con la legislatura y luchamos. Nos juntamos y ganamos contra dos emprendedores multimillonarios”, explica Lynn Nugent, de 68 años, vendedora a tiempo parcial en una tienda de Sears, y uno de los residentes que ayudó a organizar la campaña, junto con su marido, cerrajero jubilado. “Yo siempre digo: antes pertenecíamos a otra persona; ahora nos pertenecemosa nosotros mismos”.

Mejor acceso a casas prefabricadas económicas y de calidad

A diferencia de los residentes de Ryder Woods, muchos propietarios de casas prefabricadas tienen problemas para conseguir una unidad de calidad con un financiamiento asequible. De nuevo, el principal responsable es la legislación. Según la ley federal, las casas prefabricadas se consideran una propiedad personal, como un automóvil o una embarcación, y no una propiedad inmueble como las casas tradicionales. Por lo tanto, los compradores no pueden acceder a préstamos hipotecarios. En cambio, el financiamiento se realiza por medio de préstamos personales. Estos préstamos son más caros que las hipotecas, con un promedio de tasas de interés 50 a 500 puntos básicos, y con menores protecciones al consumidor. Más del 70 por ciento de los préstamos para la compra de casas prefabricadas es de este tipo, considerado un sustituto de productos subprime.

“Esta situación de pertenecer a un segundo nivel es una de las mayores limitaciones para aumentar el inventario de casas prefabricadas permanentemente asequibles”, dice McCarthy. “Es un obstáculo a la financiación de las casas, lo que incrementa su costo y reduciendo el potencial de acumulación de patrimonio neto, porque reduce la demanda efectiva de unidades existentes”.

Si bien la solución ideal sería cambiar las leyes federales de la titulación, no es probable que ocurra. En cambio, Next Step, una organización sin fines de lucro de Kentucky, ha establecido el concepto de “Viviendas Prefabricadas Hechas Correctamente” (Manufactured Housing Done Right o MHDR)”. Esta estrategia innovadora pone casas prefabricadas asequibles de alta calidad —junto con el financiamiento correspondiente— a disposición de consumidores de ingresos bajos a moderados, por medio de una combinación de casas térmicamente eficientes, educación a los compradores y financiamiento barato.

Primero, Next Step brinda a los compradores de bajos ingresos acceso a casas prefabricadas de alta calidad. La organización creó una cartera de modelos sólidos y asequibles. Cada casa de Next Step cumple o excede las normas Energy Star, reduce tanto los costos de los servicios públicos para el propietario como la huella medioambiental. De acuerdo con Next Step, las pruebas han demostrado que estas casas son un 30 por ciento más eficientes que una casa básica que cumple con el código de edificación, y 10 a 15 por ciento más eficientes que una casa Energy Star básica. En promedio, esto genera un ahorro de energía de USD 1.800 al año por cada casa móvil anterior a 1976 reemplazada, y USD 360 al año por cada casa nueva establecida.

Además, las casas de Next Step fueron “diseñadas para garantizar que sean económicas al tiempo que cumplen con las normas de calidad”. Se instalan sobre cimientos permanentes, proporcionando un mayor soporte estructural contra el viento y reducen los problemas de asentamiento. Las casas tienen pisos y aislamiento de alta calidad, lo cual ayuda a aumentar su durabilidad y reducir los gastos de energía. Y como el problema principal de los cimientos es el agua, las casas de Next Step tienen protecciones adicionales contra la humedad.

Mejor acceso a financiamiento sostenible

Next Step también asegura a los compradores de vivienda un financiamiento seguro, sostenible y económico. “Uno de los problemas de esta industria es que los mercados de capital no participan de forma importante”, explica Stacey Epperson, Directora Ejecutiva de Next Step. “No hay un mercado secundario significativo, de manera que hay muy pocos prestamistas en el mercado y muy pocas opciones para los compradores. Nuestra solución es preparar a nuestros prestatarios para que sean propietarios, y después conseguirles buenos préstamos”.

Next Step trabaja con una combinación de prestamistas con y sin fines de lucro, aprobados por la organización, que proporcionan un financiamiento seguro a precios razonables. Como contrapartida, reduce el riesgo de los prestamistas. Las casas están diseñadas para cumplir con los requisitos de los prestamistas, y los compradores reciben capacitación financiera integral para que puedan tener éxito como compradores. Por lo tanto, los compradores de casas de Next Step no solo obtienen una mejor hipoteca inicial, sino que tienen la capacidad para acumular patrimonio neto y obtener un buen precio de reventa cuando decidan vender su casa.

Además, cada casa de Next Step se instala sobre un cimiento permanente para que el propietario pueda cumplir con los requisitos de ciertos programas hipotecarios con garantía gubernamental, que son menos onerosos que un préstamo personal. Next Step estima que, hacia 2015, había ahorrado a sus 173 propietarios aproximadamente USD 16,1 millones en pagos de interés.

“Cerca del 75 por ciento del financiamiento de casas prefabricadas se hace con préstamos personales. Pero el 70 por ciento de casas nuevas prefabricadas se instala en suelos privados donde, en muchos casos, la casa se podría colocar sobre un cimiento permanente, y el dueño podría obtener una hipoteca de largo plazo con una baja tasa de interés”, dice Epperson.

En parte, el modelo de MHDR es innovador porque es escalable. Next Step se capacita y depende de una red de organizaciones miembros sin fines de lucro para implementar el modelo en sus comunidades respectivas. Next Step vende casas a sus miembros a precios competitivos, y después las organizaciones miembro supervisan el proceso de identificar y educar a los compradores, ayuda a conseguir el préstamo y administra la instalación. 

“En el modelo tradicional de la industria, no había manera de que una organización sin fines de lucro pudiera comprar una casa prefabricada a precios de mayorista. Esto es lo que hemos diseñado, y, como resultado, podemos ofrecer una vivienda mucho más económica que si la organización sin fines de lucro o el propietario trataran de comprarlas por sí mismos”, explica Kevin Clayton, presidente y Director Ejecutivo de Clayton Homes, uno de los productores más grandes de casas prefabricadas del país, y uno de los proveedores de largo plazo de Next Step.

“El programa Next Step funciona porque prepara a la gente para tener éxito”, dice Clayton. “Next Step les ofrece asesoramiento para ser propietarios y les brinda apoyo si tienen problemas económicos en el futuro. Pueden comprar su casa por mucho menos dinero, acumular patrimonio neto y pagar una cuota mensual baja por su préstamo y sus costos de energía”.

Cyndee Curtis, una propietaria de Next Step, está de acuerdo. Curtis tenía 27 años, era soltera y estaba embarazada cuando compró una casa móvil usada modelo Fleetwood de 1971 por USD 5.000 en 2001. La colocó en un lote de su propiedad en las afueras de Great Falls, Montana.

“No tenía dinero, no tenía un título universitario, y no tenía opciones”, dice Curtis. “El viejo tanque séptico de acero tenía agujeros por el óxido, era como una bomba de tiempo. La alfombra estaba completamente gastada, el linóleo debajo de la alfombra tenía agujeros de quemaduras, y el cielorraso tenía fugas donde se había colocado una extensión de la casa. Todos los años compraba libros de construcción, iba a Home Depot y preguntaba cómo arreglar esa fuga. Y todos los años me encontraba en la situación de arreglarla sola. Había moho en el umbral de la puerta debido a esa fuga, y tenía un recién nacido viviendo en la casa”.

En 2005, Curtis volvió a la universidad por dos años, obtuvo su título de enfermera y comenzó a trabajar como enfermera práctica registrada; ganaba USD 28.500 por año. “Estaba ganando un sueldo decente, y podía explorar mis opciones”, dijo Curtis, madre soltera de dos hijos. “Quería conseguir un lugar donde mis hijos pudieran crecer con orgullo, y aprovechar el lote al máximo”.

Pero su historial de crédito no era bueno, y finalmente recaló en NeighborWorks Montana, un miembro sin fines de lucro de Next Step, que le informó sobre el programa de Next Step. En los dos años y medio siguientes, Curtis trabajó con el personal de NeighborWorks Montana para reparar su historial de crédito. Con su ayuda, consiguió una hipoteca y compró una casa de Next Step por USD 102.000, que incluía no sólo la casa sino también la extracción, eliminación y recambio de su viejo sistema séptico. Como la casa de Next Step está instalada sobre un cimiento permanente que reúne ciertas calificaciones, y debido a haberse mejorado el historial de crédito, los ingresos y las condiciones de vivienda de Curtis, pudo conseguir una hipoteca del programa de Desarrollo Rural del Departamento de Agricultura de los EE. UU., mucho menos onerosa que los préstamos personales comunes. Además, mientras que la casa móvil anterior de Curtis tenía un título equivalente a un automóvil, su casa de Next Step tiene una escritura similar a la de una casa construida sobre el terreno. Por lo tanto, un futuro comprador también estará en condiciones de solicitar una hipoteca tradicional.

Curtis dice que su casa de Next Step le ha proporcionado ahorros significativos de energía. “Tengo 40 metros cuadrados más que antes. Antes tenía un baño; ahora tengo dos. Y, sin embargo, mis gastos de gas y electricidad se han reducido en dos tercios”.

Dice, además: “Mi casa es mil por ciento mejor que donde vivía antes. Si una persona entra a mi casa, no se da cuenta de que es prefabricada. Tiene lindas puertas, con paredes texturizadas. Se parece a cualquier otra casa nueva donde uno quisiera vivir. A veces la gente cree que tiene que sufrir con una vivienda en malas condiciones. Yo sé lo que es vivir así, y les quiero decir que, si trabajan con dedicación, pueden mejorar su vida y la de su familia”.

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en el número de Land Lines de julio de 2015.

Loren Berlin es escritora y consultora de comunicaciones del área metropolitana de Chicago. Contacto: loren@lorenberlin.com.

Referencias

Levere, Andrea. 2013. “Hurricane Sandy and the Merits of Manufactured Housing.” Huffington Post. 8 de enero. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-levere/hurricane-sandy-manufactured-housing_b_2426797.html.

In 2015 and 2016, representatives from various public agencies, foundations, and nonprofit groups in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and Denver participated in “capital absorption” workshops, to forge solutions to local affordable housing shortages through strategies that attract land, capital, and other resources. They represented not just housing, but transit, planning, and economic development organizations—stakeholders that often don’t join forces to solve problems, even though they work on overlapping issues in identical geographies.

At one of these meetings in 2016, Abigail Thorne-Lyman, program manager for transit-oriented development (TOD) at Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)—a public transportation system that annually shuttles more than 125 million passengers across the region—realized her agency might be able to make a game-changing contribution to solving the local housing crisis, which is among the nation’s largest. More than 250,000 of the region’s very low-income households lack access to affordable housing. The median home value is San Francisco is $1,147,300, compared to $197,500 nationally; the median monthly rent is a whopping $4,350, more than three times the national median rent of $1,500. Nearly half of local renters spend more than 30 percent of income on rent.

Each six-member team of participants from each region had drafted a spreadsheet of all pending development projects that included affordable housing units. “Staring at our list, we realized that capital wasn’t the primary constraint to building more housing,” explains Thorne-Lyman. “What we needed—the missing piece, so to speak—was land.”

In the Bay Area, developers don’t buy land until they are confident they can assemble the necessary financing for their project, making it difficult to compete in a hot real estate market, Thorne-Lyman says. But BART already owned 300 acres across the region.

That evening, Thorne-Lyman started imagining scenarios in which BART made all its land available for developments that included affordable housing. She ran the numbers. “I saw that we could produce maybe 30,000 units if we put our land in play,” she explains. Ten thousand units could be affordable—which is significant, given that the typical affordable housing development in the Bay Area produces 50 to 200 units. “And if we put ourselves out there first, maybe other transit agencies in other counties would come along,” as BART serves only four of the Bay Area’s nine counties. Together they could make an even bigger dent. “The 30,000 units could turn into 60,000 units, all on public land,” says Thorne-Lyman.

Thorne-Lyman and the rest of the capital absorption team delivered the analysis to BART’s general manager, Grace Crunican. Both Crunican and the BART board of directors decided to increase the agency’s commitment to both market-rate and affordable housing on BART land. Then they asked Thorne-Lyman and the team to model scenarios above and beyond any they had privately imagined.

“That conversation with Grace was like a slingshot,” says Thorne-Lyman. “We had these ideas and played them out. Then the board asked for an even more ambitious vision for our land. Through our work with the capital absorption team, we had all these willing partners—including the affordable housing advocates, community development financial institutions, and foundations—who backed up the idea and pushed it out to the public.”

BART’s new TOD development targets, adopted in December 2016, call for production of 20,000 new housing units and 4.5 million square feet of office space on BART land by 2040. At least 35 percent of these units—7,000, to be exact—will be affordable to low- and very low-income households. So far, BART has produced 760 affordable units on its land, meaning the agency has some work to do. Nonetheless, Thorne-Lyman is encouraged by the challenge. “California has this affordable housing crisis, and we can say that BART will be part of the solution,” she explains. “We have land. And we are willing to offer it up.” 

“Someone has to be thinking big about how to address this crisis. We are putting forward something big,” she says.

The Capital Absorption Framework

The capital absorption workshops that Thorne-Lyman attended were part of a pilot program designed to help cities attract and deploy community investment and to leverage other critical resources, such as land and expertise, to achieve their goals. Community investment is defined as “investments intended to achieve social and environmental benefits in underserved communities—such as loans, bonds, tax-credit equity, and structured investment vehicles.”

The program’s chief architect, Robin Hacke, says, “It’s a way to make resources go to places where they’re not going by themselves, to address the failures of mainstream finance to produce enough affordable housing, reduce health disparities, or minimize the impact of climate change on vulnerable places, among other factors tied to land use.”

Hacke, who is the director of the Center for Community Investment at the Lincoln Institute, is utilizing a new “systems change” strategy that she designed in collaboration with colleagues David Wood of Harvard University’s Initiative for Responsible Investment, Katie Grace Deane, and Marian Urquilla. Called the Capital Absorption Framework, the model is predicated on this idea that mainstream capital markets frequently fail to address the needs of low-income communities, requiring a systemic approach to repair this breakdown and achieve meaningful outcomes at scale (opposed to one-off projects that are difficult to accomplish and, even when successful, fail to move the needle in a significant way). By “bringing to the table” stakeholders who rarely join forces to solve problems despite having aligned interests, the model also augments available assets and power, helping to identify effective new tools and strategies to address unmet community needs.

The framework is a response to challenges Hacke and Urquilla faced while working on The Integration Initiative, an $80 million program begun in 2010 to improve the lives of low-income residents in five pilot cities—Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Newark. Administered by Living Cities, the idea was to align interests across a range of players and invest capital in neighborhoods that traditionally can’t access funds.

The Integration Initiative demonstrated that participating cities not only lacked capital; they lacked the capacity to absorb and deploy the funds allotted to them through the program, says Hacke.

“Spatially inequitable distribution of low-income people across the United States grew from decades of public policy that basically starved communities of capital, through redlining by banks or redlining aided and abetted by the Federal Housing Administration,” says George McCarthy, president and chief executive of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, who was involved in The Integration Initiative during his tenure at the Ford Foundation.

Systems Change

In order to overcome the effects of discrimination and the market’s failure to deliver adequate goods, services, and opportunities to disadvantaged communities, we need to ensure that capital can flow to those places. Ensuring that residents can thrive means finding ways to finance affordable housing; developing healthy environments with access to fresh food and safe places to walk, bike, and play; and providing access to quality education and jobs. It is not enough simply to invest in a single project and expect places to be transformed. The Center for Community Investment is committed to strengthening the systems that engage a community in planning for its future, creating a platform and network of relationships that unite the institutions and individuals with the capacity to advance the community’s vision; developing and executing investment transactions that implement that vision; and shaping the policies and practices that accelerate how transactions proceed.

—Robin Hacke

“Because we starved communities of capital, we think the way to help them recover is just to provide them with money. But that misses the point that over the years we didn’t just strip out the capital but also the capacity of those places to help themselves. Many people in the community development movement believe that if we just find a way to get more capital to places, then good things are going to happen. But one of the hard lessons we have learned is that, even if you can get the money to those communities, they don’t necessarily have a way to use it. It may sound like I’m blaming the victim, but that’s not it. Rather, it’s understanding that when you deny a place critical resources for long enough and then suddenly provide it, the community may not be ready to deploy it. It’s like people. If you starve someone for too long and then provide food, that person may not be able to eat it.”

Managing the Pipeline

“To deploy capital successfully, places need to identify sources of capital as well as projects that can use it. Proponents of impact investment have focused on organizing capital supplydemand for investment,” Hacke says. “For example, in Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland, they were not primarily looking at housing. They wanted to accelerate all kinds of development, including commercial and mixed-use developments. Getting the right set of deals and the right conditions to supply capacity to those deals required much more than just investment capital. The work took longer than we expected and required much more upfront arrangement of the plumbing than we had anticipated,” she adds.

“Despite the great need in disadvantaged communities, stakeholders have to overcome major obstacles to complete projects,” says Hacke. “If people don’t believe that the deals have a decent-sized chance, they give up on them. So we organize stakeholders around what is most urgent at that time and organize the resources that way as well to increase the probability and the confidence that the critical deals will get done.”

The lack of confidence stems from the cold truth that community development projects are usually difficult to realize (figure 1). Hacke confronts that fact head-on by asking participants to identify what she calls “exemplary community impact deals. The ones that stick out in people’s minds as representative of the field tend to be complex, time-consuming, and politically fraught, balancing the interests of many stakeholders and blending many different sources of capital with varied constraints and requirements. Practitioners evoke the language of heroic quests to describe these deals.”

Identifying and examining “exemplary deals” is helpful in two ways. First, it highlights the complex and convoluted nature of many community investment projects, clarifying the need for a more efficient, scalable strategy. More importantly, analyzing exemplary deals can help stakeholders determine the potential resources and constraints of the larger community development system, including the engagement level of various players, the availability of an array of skills and resources, and opportunities for collaboration.

3 Components of an Effective Community Investment System

Once stakeholders in a region have used the exemplary deals framework to examine how the community investment system is currently operating, the next step is to identify ways to improve the functioning of that system so that it can deliver impact at greater scale. As organized by the framework, an effective system requires three things, which are the focus of Hacke’s work with communities.

Identify Shared Priorities

First, stakeholders must articulate a well-defined set of priorities that are widely embraced across the community. Affordable housing is not always the anchor for establishing these priorities, but it was the easiest starting point in Hacke’s pilot programs—in part because the field has reliable, effective funding sources, such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and a robust network of experienced organizations.

“We work really hard to convene and build cross-sector relationships so that we can operate from a set of shared priorities,” says Thomas Yee, the Initiatives Officer at LA THRIVES, a nonprofit that works to advance the equity agenda around smart growth and participated in the Capital Absorption Framework pilot.

“There’s going to be disagreement among really progressive advocates, elected officials, and private developers, so it takes a lot of working together, building trust, and finding common ground. But that’s the way to organize system-level approaches. It allows you to boil down the work to a few principles that excite people and keep them focused on the system instead of their particular neighborhood or project.”

One of the shared priorities to emerge out of the Los Angeles work is the importance of ensuring that LA Metro, the public agency responsible for bus and rail services in Los Angeles County, effectively serves low-income residents, who are the agency’s core riders.

Prior to joining the workshops, LA Metro knew its core riders were low-income. Based on the findings of a research study the agency had commissioned prior to joining the Los Angeles team, the agency also understood how it could assist those riders to live near transit lines. It was developing aggressive housing targets on agency-owned land when it joined the LA THRIVES collaborative.

“The sea change was coming together to get LA Metro to think about what that means for how the agency runs its business—about the bottom-line question of what happens if those core riders are living farther and farther away from existing transit systems,” explains Yee.

According to Yee, LA Metro was interested in additional ways to counter displacement, and joining the collaborative was “really the water needed to grow those seeds.”

The idea that low-income riders would be pushed farther afield disturbed the other members of the pilot’s Los Angeles team. The transportation planners balked at the cost and inefficiencies of expanding service to outlying areas, while the conservationists worried about the environmental impact.

The community advocates were concerned about economic and social isolation, and the housing folk feared there was a lack of affordable housing in the outer ring areas. Resolving this issue correctly would present an opportunity to simultaneously address these seemingly unrelated concerns, and so it became a shared priority among the collaborative. In response, LA Metro adopted a new term for thinking about transit in the context of displacement: the Transit-Oriented Communities frame.

But LA Metro wanted to do more. It was clear that, unlike BART, the agency did not have much additional land that could allow for thousands of new affordable housing units. Instead, LA Metro, in partnership with other members of the team, created a loan fund to support the development of affordable housing and retention of existing low-rent, nonrestricted units near the agency’s transit lines. Critically, the units do not have to be on agency-owned land, but they must be close enough to provide easy access to the transit.

“We are so excited that LA Metro is willing to make investments off their property,” says Yee. “Making it easier to develop affordable housing on agency-owned land is one thing—and obviously a huge step in and of itself. But for them to go beyond agency-owned land is a big innovation and demonstrates a commitment to limiting the displacement of core riders.”

Establish a Pipeline of Deals

Once stakeholders identify a set of strategic priorities, they can then focus on establishing a pipeline of deals—the second step in implementing the framework. Stakeholders begin by examining deals in progress, analyzing whether they support the priorities and where there may be gaps.

The practice of examining the deal pipeline also helps to highlight the resources that are necessary for success.

For the Denver team, analyzing the city’s pipeline resulted in the recognition that the team needed to focus more on attracting mission-driven private capital, says Dace West, a leader of the Denver pilot and, at the time, executive director of Mile High Connects, a nonprofit with a mission to ensure that the Metro Denver regional transit system fosters communities that offer all residents the opportunity for a high quality of life.

“We had this powerful moment as a community when we realized that the way we are doing community development work is really driven by specific, restrictive funding sources that are more mature systems—like tax credits, which are oversubscribed—or, in other cases, sources of capital that are not very predictable,” says West, referring to the takeaways from the pipeline analysis.

“We realized that we are so often falling short in the developments we are working on because of an inability to be very systematic about the way we draw down and deploy capital. So, going forward, we are very focused now on how we leverage private-sector impact investment capital into the system, looking at traditional capital sources in new ways and at what we need to do to unlock significant capital seeking a place to land,” West says.

“We have discovered, from deep and intentional work, that impact means really different things to impact investors. When some say they want impact, what they are really saying is that they want to be able to squint and see something good; that is good enough for them, because what they really want is liquidity and rates of return. We think, ‘That’s good to know, because we have been wasting our time on these things that aren’t real issues.’ Now we can focus on questions such as: what is that target rate of return, and where are the right places to leverage that capital versus other kinds of capital? And that’s been a real ‘aha’ moment—this recognition that real estate, which is something we had been thinking of as a more traditional investment, can be an actual community impact investment, which creates new and interesting connections.”

One of those connections is to Denver’s housing finance agency.

“As we have been thinking about ways this new capital could land, we have discovered that we have a very unusual housing finance agency.

It is very creative and flexible and is already managing a huge number of siloed, structured funds that have a community purpose in some way,” says West. “We are working to build out a platform that uses the agency as a base to draw in capital that can go to specific sleeves but can also flow across those gaps and allow us to pursue projects driven by the community and its needs. The housing finance agency is not responding merely to existing funding sources any longer; it’s acting as a broad-based intermediary that can work across and among agencies in the system.”

Create an Enabling Environment

After building out a pipeline of deals, it’s a natural next step to the final piece of the framework—strengthening the “enabling environment.” This is defined as “the latent conditions that shape the system’s operations,” including but not limited to “the presence or absence of needed skills and capacities, political realities, formal and informal relationships among key actors, and the cultural norms and behaviors that manifest differently in different places.”

In the capital absorption workshops, participants are asked to figure out which areas of the environment are or are not working well, and which policies and practices directly affect their strategic priorities. In doing so, they can better grasp the opportunities and limitations inherent in the current system.

For Thorne-Lyman and the rest of the San Francisco team, it was analysis of the enabling environment—of what resources are and are not available and functioning well in the ecosystem of affordable housing—that immediately revealed that shortage of land.

Center for Community Investment

Thorne-Lyman is not the only one excited by the work that has come out of the Capital Absorption Framework. McCarthy is also encouraged.

“Land is one of a community’s most valuable and scarce resources,” he says. “Land policies can play a central role in attracting or generating the investment needed to tackle vacancies and blight produced by dysfunctional land markets or to address the disparate impact of pollution and climate change on poor and disadvantaged families.”

For that reason, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy launched the Center for Community Investment in 2016 with support from The Kresge Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and Surdna Foundation. The Center is a leadership development, research, and capacity-building initiative to help communities mobilize capital and leverage land and other assets to achieve their economic, social, and environmental priorities. Hacke will direct the new center and use it as a platform to advance the capital absorption model.

“We have seen over and over again that land really is an important part of the solution, whether we are talking about the health of people or green infrastructure and the health of natural ecosystems. Being at the Lincoln Institute, which has such tremendous expertise in the use of land to generate and capture value, is a real boon for us,” says Hacke.

Building on the success of the pilot, the Center for Community Investment has launched a new initiative, Connect Capital, aimed at helping cities and regions across the country improve access to opportunities so that everyone has a fair chance to lead a healthy and productive life. The Center is working with cross-sector partnerships that are reshaping local systems and deploying capital to make their communities healthier, more cohesive, resilient, and vibrant. Selected teams receive coaching and the opportunity to participate in learning sessions to help them strengthen their local community investment system.

At Lincoln, Hacke hopes to expand her work by piloting it in additional communities. Participants in the pilot cohort encourage those cities to seize on the opportunity. “When we started this work two years ago, it felt like an abstract academic exercise replete with homework assignments. But we hung in there with their approach and have seen such value in the framework,” says Christopher Goett, a senior program officer at the California Community Foundation, one of the supporters of the Los Angeles pilot. “Robin, Katie, David, and Marian pulled together a safe space that allowed us to tackle difficult work and created a support system that strengthened over time. In hindsight, these activities have been critical moments for us in our evolution and growth.”

“Community and economic development work is often addressed through programs in their own respective silos, but that’s not how the world operates,” Goett says. “Average Angelenos wake up and use transit to get to work or drop off their children at school. Systems such as housing, employment, and education all interact, and that’s how the Center’s frame is laid out.”

“For someone who manages a smart growth portfolio here at the California Community Foundation, the framework continues to become increasingly useful; smart growth is, by its nature, integrated. We have to think about public health at the same time we think about infrastructure and housing, and with this frame we can walk through the transit-oriented development door and still see the anti-displacement and housing angles.”

Revised in January 2018, this article originally appeared in April 2017 Land Lines.

Loren Berlin is a writer and independent communications consultant in Chicago.

Photograph: Courtesy of Abode Communities

References

Bay Area Council Economic Institute. 2016. “Solving the Housing Affordability Crisis: How Policies Change the Number of San Francisco Households Burdened by Housing Costs.” (October). http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/BACEI_Housing_10_2016.pdf

Hacke, Robin, David Wood, and Marian Urquilla. 2015. “Community Investment: Focusing on the System.” Working paper. Troy, MI: Kresge Foundation.

Truong, K. 2016, October 11. “Here Are 11 Solutions to the Bay Area Housing Crisis.” San Francisco Business Times. October 11.

Zillow.com. “San Francisco Home Prices and Values.” https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/

Zillow.com. “United States Home Prices and Values.” https://www.zillow.com/home-values/
 

Liz Wood wanted to buy a house. It was 2006, she had been renting for A decade, and her monthly payments were getting high. She was 43 and steadily employed, earning $34,000 annually plus benefits as a family educator. She didn’t want anything fancy, just a place where she could “gather love and bring stability.” She would stay within her means.

Nonetheless, the math was tricky. Wood lives in Duvall, Washington, a town of roughly 7,500 in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains. Steeped in lush forest, Duvall is about 30 miles from Seattle and a mere eight miles from the City of Redmond, the headquarters for Microsoft. The median income in Duvall is nearly twice that of the state of Washington, and homes in this area are expensive. In 2010, the median value of owner-occupied homes in Duvall was $373,500, compared to $262,100 for the state, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

With few options, Wood eventually decided on manufactured housing. For $55,000, she purchased a used factory-built home in Duvall Riverside Village, a four-acre community of 25 manufactured homes in the middle of downtown Duvall. “It’s amazing here,” she says. “I live on riverfront property, so when I walk out my door I see water, pine trees, and a walking trail that goes from my house to the next town. I wake up in the morning hearing birds. I know all my neighbors. I’m connected to my community. I’m a block from the police station. I feel safe.”

But it was still difficult. Wood owned her house, but not the land on which it sits. Instead, she rented the plot for $450 a month, plus water and utilities, as did the other residents of Duvall Riverside Village. As a result, Wood and her neighbors remained largely at the mercy of the property owner, their landlord, and forfeited much of the autonomy and security associated with more traditional home ownership models.

Their landlord prohibited garages, leaving residents limited storage options. He charged them $25 a month per additional car or adult beyond those registered at the time of move-in. He charged $5 a month for every pet and required dogs to be leashed at all times. There was a $5 monthly fee for every extra half-cord of firewood, which Wood needed to fuel her stove. Though he employed a groundskeeper, he didn’t install outdoor lights, nor did he maintain the community roads, which were pocked and cracked.

In 2012, Wood and her neighbors received a written notice that the owner was selling the land. Unlike many owners, who prefer to sell their properties to a developer, this landlord was open to selling to residents. He had agreed to host a meeting with the tenants, a real estate broker, and the Northwest Cooperative Development Center, a nonprofit that supports cooperatives. The parties discussed the possibility of establishing a nonprofit, resident-owned cooperative to purchase the property. In doing so, they would conserve the land for manufactured housing, continue living there as a community, and collectively manage it to guarantee a safe, affordable, high-quality experience.

The residents voted to go for it. The landlord had two demands. He wanted fair market value, and he wanted to complete the sale by the end of the year. It was already August. They had five months.

In addition to the collaboration with Northwest Cooperative Development Center, the residents also began working with ROC USA, a New Hampshire–based nonprofit organization that offers residents of manufactured housing communities a mix of technical assistance and affordable financing to purchase their rented land when it becomes available for sale. Between its establishment in 2008 and 2016, ROC USA has successfully facilitated 80 of these transactions nationally and secured more than $175 million in financing for them.

ROC USA works with a network of eight regional affiliates, including the Northwest Cooperative Development Center. In Duvall, the nonprofits worked together with the residents to assess the economics of a possible deal and to confirm that the community was a good fit for resident ownership. Next, the organizations helped the residents to hire a third-party lawyer and establish their cooperative, which would operate as a democracy with residents elected into leadership positions by fellow residents. ROC USA assisted the residents to hire an independent engineer and conduct due diligence of the property; secure financing through ROC USA’s lending subsidiary, ROC USA Capital, to purchase the property and undertake critical repairs; and organize the real estate transfer.

On December 27 of that year, the newly formed cooperative bought the Duvall Riverside Village with $1.3 million in purchase financing from ROC USA Capital, granting Wood and her fellow home owners control over their living arrangements, and permanently preserving 25 affordable homes in a town where such housing stock is scarce.

The residents continue to pay $450 a month to rent the land, but now they vote to determine community rules, and use the rent to make improvements and to pay the community’s mortgage, taxes, and expenses.

“Now, you can have a garage if you want,” explains Wood, who is president of the Duvall residents’ cooperative and a ROC USA board member. “And we spent $35,000 to fix the roads. We don’t have to live in fear anymore, so people are willing to invest in their homes. We have annual meetings to vote in projects. We can lower the monthly rent if we are over-budgeting for things we don’t need. The bottom line is that we are in control of our own destiny.”

Upon completing the sale, ROC USA and the Northwest Cooperative Development Center have continued providing the residents with technical support to ensure smooth operations.

“If they had just lent us the money and said, ‘these are the guidelines, here’s what you need to do, have at it,’ we would have failed,” explains Wood. “But they are an ongoing resource. They help us with tough situations, or when we don’t know how to do something legally. The goal is for us to become independent and to be able to run our community like a business. Pay your bills, and your house can stay where it is. Period. Forever.”

Benefits

Across the United States, more than 18 million Americans live in factory-built homes, which represent 5 percent of the nation’s housing stock in metro areas, and 15 percent in rural communities as of 2015. They range significantly in quality.  Roughly 25 percent of today’s manufactured housing stock is the stereotyped, rickety trailers from the 1960s and early 1970s, produced before the federal government introduced quality controls in 1976. The remaining 75 percent complies with the federal standards and includes charming, energy-efficient homes, indistinguishable to the untrained eye from their site-built counterparts. Though manufactured homes have long been cast aside as a housing choice of last resort, today’s models are robust, efficient, and inviting, with the potential to help alleviate the nation’s shortage of safe, affordable housing.

Modern manufactured homes cost approximately half as much as their site-built counterparts and can be built five times faster, making them a genuinely viable option for low-income consumers. The production process is less wasteful, and models that comply with the federal government’s Energy Star standards offer home owners meaningful energy savings. And they are durable. Whereas manufactured homes built prior to the 1976 regulations were made to be portable, like recreational vehicles, modern models are built with stronger materials and designed to be permanent. Today’s manufactured homes can sit on any foundation that would otherwise accommodate a site-built structure, creating the flexibility to use the housing in a wide range of geographies and environments.

“The manufactured housing stock is a critical component of the nation’s affordable housing,” says George McCarthy, president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. “It easily outnumbers our subsidized stock two or three times in almost every market.”

Manufactured homes are cheaper to produce than site-built houses because of the manufacturing process. As Andrea Levere, president of the Corporation for Enterprise Development, wrote in the Huffington Post, the “term ‘manufactured housing’ itself has less to do with quality and more to do with the production process, which is a derivative of Ford’s assembly lines. This model allows manufactured homes to be built in a more controlled work environment, translating into predictable costs, increased efficiencies, and reduced waste” (Levere 2013).

In 2013, a new, energy-efficient manufactured home cost $64,000, compared to $324,500 for a new, site-built one, according to the U.S. Census, though the price for the latter includes the land. Even after stripping out the land costs, manufactured homes are still significantly less expensive, averaging $44 per square foot, versus $94 per square foot for site-built homes. And they are unsubsidized, which is a boon given the extremely short supply of subsidized housing compared to demand. Only one in four income-qualified families receives a housing subsidy, according to the Bipartisan Policy Commission, leaving the remaining 75 percent in need of an affordable, unsubsidized alternative. By helping to fill that gap, manufactured housing can relieve some of the demand for subsidized housing that state and federal governments are struggling to supply in the face of shrinking budgets. “The majority of families who live in manufactured housing would qualify for subsidized housing, but instead they choose this less expensive and unsubsidized option,” says McCarthy.

The stock is also very versatile, argues McCarthy, who cites its role in housing people during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. “Recovery workers got 17 manufactured homes on the ground in New Jersey within weeks of the hurricane—permanent homes for displaced renters, not the problematic ‘Katrina trailers.’ And they did it before most organizations even had a housing plan. This speaks to the efficiency and nimbleness of building manufactured housing. The production times are about 80 percent shorter than for site-built homes, making them the best housing option for disaster response.”

Nevertheless, manufactured housing often gets a bad rap, due largely to the widespread misperception that today’s models are the same as the earliest generations of mobile homes built prior to the introduction of quality control standards by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1976. Today, there are roughly 2 million of these pre-1976 homes; many are barely hanging together and house the nation’s most vulnerable populations, including the elderly and disabled. Though the pre-1976 stock is virtually unrelated to its present-day counterpart, these older, dilapidated dwellings dominate the general public perception of manufactured homes in the United States.

The housing stock’s reputation is further diminished by the vulnerabilities facing home owners who do not own the land on which they live. Roughly 3 million people live in one of the nation’s 50,000 manufactured housing communities, while another 3 million rent on private property. There are manufactured housing communities in every state in the country. Like Duvall Riverside Village, many of them are on prime real estate, and the landowners routinely receive purchase offers from developers.

Advocates working to improve the manufactured home ownership experience, and to promote the stock’s viability as affordable housing, are focusing on three critical areas of innovation: conserving mobile-home parks; replacing pre-1976 units with modern, energy-efficient homes; and increasing access to affordable financing, which is virtually unavailable for potential buyers in the current market, and is imperative to building equity and preserving a home’s resale value.

Conserving Manufactured Housing Communities

The conversion of Duvall Riverside Village from a privately owned mobile home community to a resident-owned cooperative is not common. For every community available for purchase that is successfully preserved as affordable housing, there are many more that end up sold for redevelopment, displacing residents who may lack good alternatives.

“It’s not as simple as just moving the home,” says Ishbel Dickens, president of the National Manufactured Home Owners Association. “First, there’s the question of whether the home can even be moved. It may be too old or unstable to survive a move. And even if it can be moved, it’s expensive to do so, and very hard to find a space in another community. In most instances, when a park closes, the residents are probably going to lose the home and all their equity in it.  In all likelihood, they will never own a home again. They’ll likely end up on a wait list for subsidized housing, or may even end up homeless.”

To some degree, it’s an accident of history that so many of today’s mobile home parks occupy plots of coveted real estate, says Paul Bradley, president of ROC USA. As he explains it, in the late 1950s and 1960s, Americans began to embrace transportable trailers and campers, in part because of a cultural shift toward outdoor recreation, and in part because post–World War II factories began producing them to utilize excess manufacturing capacity, making them widely available and affordable. As the units grew in popularity, they transitioned from temporary structures to permanent ones, and people began adding makeshift carports and sunrooms. At the time, urban planners accepted the evolution toward permanency. As they saw it, most of the trailers were on land that no one else was using in outer-circle developments. Why not let these campers stay for awhile, until the cities expanded to meet them, at which point the land would be redeveloped?

“These original communities were built with a plan to close them,” says Bradley. “Back then, no one contemplated the full implications of creating a housing stock for which home owners lacked control of the underlying land. No one anticipated that these communities would be full of low- and moderate-income home owners who spent their own money to buy these homes and had few alternatives. And that’s what we are still grappling with today. That lack of control over the land means that home owners live with a deep sense of insecurity and the feeling that it’s irrational to make investments in their properties because they won’t get it back. What’s the implication for home owners who cannot rationally argue for investing in their home? What does that mean for the housing stock? For neighborhoods?”

Short-sighted land use policies are not the only challenge to preserving manufactured housing communities. An equally onerous obstacle is the lack of legal protections afforded to residents. In 34 states and the District of Columbia, the landowner can sell the property without giving residents the opportunity to purchase it. In fact, in most states, the landowner doesn’t have to notify residents that the community is for sale; the landowner can wait until the property has been sold to inform residents of the transaction, suddenly leaving them in a tenuous position. Even the 16 states that require the owner of a manufactured housing community to provide residents advance notice of a sale do not necessarily afford tenants the necessary protections. “In most of the states with advance notice, there are so many limitations on the notice requirements that it is rarely of any use to residents,” says Carolyn Carter, director of advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center.

To better protect residents, advocates support legislative reforms to state laws and tax incentives for landowners who sell to residents. The most effective of these strategies are state laws requiring a landowner to give residents both advance notice of the sale—ideally 60 days—and the opportunity to purchase the property, argues Carter. According to her, six states have laws that “work on the ground and provide effective opportunities for residents to purchase their communities,” including New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Florida, Vermont, and Delaware. She says Oregon passed promising legislation in January 2015.

“In those states with effective notice and opportunity to purchase laws, resident ownership takes off,” Carter explains. Roughly 46 percent of the 80 communities that ROC USA supports are in either New Hampshire or Massachusetts—two small states with some of the nation’s strongest resident protections. There are 89 additional resident-owned cooperatives in New Hampshire that predate ROC USA’s launch.

To understand the value of strong consumer laws for residents, consider the story of Ryder Woods, a 174-unit mobile home park in Milford, Connecticut, 11 miles south of New Haven, just off a major thoroughfare. Connecticut is one of 19 states that either offer tax incentives or provide residents “some” protections when a community is sold, but also contain “significant gaps,” according to Carter.

In 1998, Ryder Woods’ landowner sold the property to developers. He informed the residents via eviction notices, in violation of state laws requiring him both to give them advance notice of the pending sale and to provide them the right of first refusal to purchase the land. Ryder Woods had an active home owners association, and very quickly they organized protests and petitions and lobbied the state legislature to reverse the sale. Eventually, the local news picked up their story, at which point a Milford-based attorney volunteered her services to help them. As she dug into the case, she realized that the law was on the side of the residents and that the community needed more legal support than she alone could offer. She enlisted help from a friend and fellow attorney—a partner at a prominent, Hartford-based firm—who agreed to take the case pro bono and assigned it a team of attorneys. The case ended up going to trial, eventually making its way to the state’s highest court. Uninterested in the unfolding legal headache, the original buyer resold the property to a second developer.

Four years after the original sale, the courts ruled in favor of the residents. In an unprecedented deal, and as required as part of the settlement, the second developer purchased a new piece of land a mile from the original parcel and completely rebuilt the community there. The developer purchased 174 new mobile homes and sold them to the residents at significantly reduced prices with more favorable mortgage terms than any available in the conventional financing market. He built a community center and a pond, complete with swans. And, as required by their agreement, he provided the residents the opportunity to form a cooperative and buy the land, which they did in 2009 with $5.4 million in purchase financing from ROC USA Capital. They closed on their purchase in the offices of the Hartford firm, which had continued to volunteer its services to the residents through the sale’s completion. Today, there is a Walmart on the land that housed the original Ryder Woods community.

“Sometimes, when we look back, we think it was crazy. We chartered a bus, went to Hartford, spoke to the legislature, and just fought it. We stuck together and won against two big-time, billion-dollar developers,” explains Lynn Nugent, 68, a part-time merchandise associate at Sears, and one of the residents who helped organize the campaign, along with her husband, a retired locksmith. “Now I always say, ‘Somebody else used to own us, and now we own ourselves.’”

Improving Access to Quality, Affordable Manufactured Homes

Unlike the residents of Ryder Woods, many owners of manufactured homes struggle to secure a quality unit with affordable financing. Here again, legislation is a primary culprit. Under federal law, manufactured homes are considered personal property, like a car or a boat, opposed to the real property designation assigned to traditional homes. Consequently, buyers cannot access mortgage loans. Instead, financing is available in the form of personal “chattel” loans. More expensive than mortgage loans, they average an additional 50 to 500 basis points and provide fewer consumer protections. More than 70 percent of purchase loans for manufactured homes are these higher-cost loans, which are considered a proxy for subprime products.  

“This second-tier status is one of the biggest limitations to increasing the stock of permanently affordable manufactured homes,” says McCarthy. “It makes financing the homes more challenging and expensive than it should be, and it diminishes the homes’ wealth-building potential because it reduces effective demand for existing units.”

While the dream fix would be to change federal titling laws, such revisions are not forthcoming. Instead, Next Step, a Kentucky-based nonprofit organization, has established “Manufactured Housing Done Right (MHDR).” This innovative strategy works to make high-quality, affordable manufactured homes—and financing—available to low- and moderate-income consumers through a combination of energy-efficient houses, home buyer education, and affordable financing.

First, Next Step gives low-income buyers access to high-quality manufactured homes. The organization created a portfolio of models that are both robust and affordable. Each Next Step home meets or exceeds Energy Star standards, reducing utility costs for the home owner and shrinking the environmental footprint. According to Next Step, testing has shown these homes to be 30 percent more efficient than a baseline code home and 10 to 15 percent more efficient than a baseline Energy Star home. On average, this results in $1,800 in energy savings each year for every pre-1976 mobile home replacement and $360 each year for every new home placement.

Additionally, Next Step homes are “value engineered to ensure affordability while upholding quality standards.” They are installed on permanent foundations, providing for greater structural support against wind and reducing settling issues. The homes contain high-quality flooring and insulation, which help to increase durability and reduce energy costs. And because water is the number one problem for foundations, Next Step homes contain additional safeguards to protect against moisture.

Improving Access to Sustainable Financing

Next Step also makes sure the home buyers can secure sustainable, affordable financing. “One of the problems facing the industry is that the capital markets don’t participate in a big way,” explains Stacey Epperson, CEO of Next Step. “The secondary market is not there in any meaningful way, so there are very few lenders in this marketplace and very few options for buyers. Our solution is to prepare our borrowers for home ownership, and then bring them good loans.”

Next Step works with a mix of nonprofit and for-profit lenders, vetted by the organization, to provide safe, reasonably priced financing. In return, Next Step reduces the lenders’ risk. The homes are designed to meet the lenders’ requirements, and the home buyers receive comprehensive financial education so that they are equipped to succeed as home buyers. Consequently, Next Step home buyers not only secure a better initial mortgage, but also have the capacity to build equity and obtain a good resale price for the home should they decide to sell it one day.

Importantly, each Next Step home is placed on a permanent foundation in order to qualify the home owner for certain government-backed mortgage programs, which are less expensive than a chattel product. Next Step estimates it has saved its 173 home buyers approximately $16.1 million in interest payments as of 2015.

“Close to 75 percent of all financing for manufactured housing is going out as chattel. But 70 percent of new manufactured homes are going out on private land where, in many cases, the home could be put on a permanent foundation, and the owner could get a mortgage with a lower interest rate and a longer term,” says Epperson.

The MHDR model is innovative in part because it is scalable. Next Step trains and relies on a membership network of nonprofit organizations to implement the model in their respective communities. Next Step sells the homes to members at competitive prices, and then member organizations oversee the process of identifying and educating buyers, assisting them to secure the loan, and managing the installation.

“The way the industry works, there has never really been a way for a nonprofit to buy a manufactured home at wholesale prices. That’s what we’ve engineered, and that’s what makes these homes a lot more affordable than if the nonprofit or home owner tried to buy them on their own,” explains Kevin Clayton, president and CEO of Clayton Homes, one of the nation’s largest producers of manufactured housing, and one of Next Step’s long-time supporters.

“The Next Step program works because it sets people up for success,” says Clayton. “Next Step takes them through home ownership counseling, and supports home owners if they have a hardship down the road. They get to buy the house for a lot less than they otherwise could have, build equity in the home, and have a low monthly loan payment and energy costs.”

Cyndee Curtis, a Next Step home owner, agrees. Curtis was 27, single, and pregnant when she purchased a used, 1971 Fleetwood mobile home for $5,000 in 2001. She put it on the lot she owned just outside the town of Great Falls, Montana.

“I didn’t have money, I didn’t have a degree, and I didn’t have choices,” says Curtis. “The old steel septic tank was a ticking time bomb, with rust holes. The carpet was worn through, the linoleum underneath had burn spots on it, and the ceiling leaked where an addition had been added. Every year, I would buy construction books, go to Home Depot, and ask how to fix that leak. And every year I ended up there by myself, trying to fix it. There was mold on the doorway from that leak, and I had a newborn in there.”

In 2005, Curtis went back to school for two years, obtained her nursing degree, and began working as a licensed practical nurse, earning $28,500 a year. “I figured now I am earning a livable wage and can explore my options,” says the single mother of two. “I wanted something that my kids could grow up in and be proud of, and to make the most of owning the lot I lived on.”

But her credit was poor, and eventually she ended up at NeighborWorks Montana, a nonprofit Next Step Network member that told her about the Next Step program. Over the next two and a half years, Curtis worked with the staff of NeighborWorks Montana to repair her credit. With their assistance, she secured a mortgage and purchased a Next Step home for $102,000, which included not only the house but also the removal, disposal, and replacement of her old septic system.  Because the Next Step home is on a permanent foundation that meets certain qualifications—and because of Curtis’s improved credit history, income, and geography—she qualified for a mortgage from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development program, which was significantly less expensive than the more common chattel products. Additionally, whereas Curtis’s previous mobile home was titled like a car, her Next Step home is deeded like a site-built house. Consequently, a future buyer will also be eligible to apply for a traditional mortgage.

Curtis says her Next Step home has provided her significant energy savings. “I have 400 square feet more now than I had previously. I went from having one bathroom to two. And still both my gas and power bills have been cut by about two-thirds.”

She continues. “My house is a thousand percent better than what I lived in before. If a person goes inside my house, they can’t tell it’s a manufactured home. It has nice doorways, nice walls that are textured. It looks like any new home you would want to live in.”

“Sometimes people think they have to suffer with poor housing conditions. I know how it is, and I want them to know that if you put in some hard work,  you can make a difference for yourself and your family.”

This article originally appeared in July 2015 Land Lines.

Loren Berlin is a writer and communications consultant based in Greater Chicago. She can be reached at loren@lorenberlin.com.

References

Levere, Andrea. 2013. “Hurricane Sandy and the Merits of Manufactured Housing.” Huffington Post. January 8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-leverehurricane-sandy-manufactured-housing_b_2426797.html