Saturday, September 8th, 2007
Recently, a three page letter was posted to the website by a PBS salesman, Craig McKinley. Because Mr. McKinley did not have the courtesy to write to me individually, opting instead to post his condescending note on the website, I respond in kind. In reviewing the letter and the claims made therein, I was reminded of a quotation from William Shakespeare: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Incidentally, I did not give my occupation in my response to Bob McCornack, which begs the question of Mr. McKinley’s reference to same.
My response to Bob McCornack contained a single paragraph regarding PBS homes:
Preferred Building Systems, recommended to you by Mr. McCornack, is a manufactured housing center, regardless of what the company now calls itself. It is transported to the sight on a truck in two (generally) sections. It fits the definition of manufactured housing in every way. Mr. McCornack argues that “[t]his type of home should also be allowed in Hidden Lake” in spite of the survey wherein a majority of owners opted not to have manufactured homes. Karsten Homes honestly refers to itself as manufactured housing. See, http://www.karstenhomes.com/.
Mr. McKinley extended an invitation to tour his facility, obviously unaware that both I and my investigator toured the PBS facility on different occasions, each speaking with a different salesperson and each receiving different responses to similar questions. Because Mr. McKinley three times accuses me of making factually incorrect statements, I have no choice but to set the record straight. Mr. McKinley, if I have mis-spoken, it is due to misrepresentations made by your sales staff; however, your “Open Letter” only serves to illustrate the huge confusion in term usage regarding alternative housing.
When I visited Preferred Building Systems (PBS) in Albuquerque, I specifically asked about the difference between PBS and Karsten Homes. The response was that Karsten builds mobile homes. The response received by my investigator was that the two are nothing whatsoever alike; however, the salesperson would not elaborate. In truth, Karsten offers two options: a modular home which is constructed pursuant to the International Residential Code (IRC) and a mobile home, which they denote as a manufactured home, built per HUD standards. Like the modular homes offered by Karsten, PBS homes are built pursuant to the IRC (which they reference as the IRBC); however, PBS steadfastly avoids the term “modular”. Karsten Modular Homes are slid onto a foundation (stem wall), as are PBS homes. Neither home is built on a solid moveable axle. Both Karsten and PBS offer 30 year guaranteed shingle roofs. Both Karsten and PBS offer an outside stucco option. Both Karsten and PBS offer log siding as an option. Both Karsten and PBS construct their alternative homes off-site: Karsten within a large metal building and PBS on an outdoor lot, where the homes are placed on 55 gallon drums. PBS refers to themselves as “off-site” construction; yet, in spite of Mr. McKinley’s claim to the contrary, they are no different than Karsten Homes, which also calls its homes “off-site” construction.
Notwithstanding that Mr. McKinley misstates the name of the website, calling it the “Hidden Valley News” website, he also misspells my name. In spite of his praise of PBS, he neglects several things, suggesting that perhaps it is Mr. McKinley who makes factually incorrect statements, merely by omission.
What Mr. McKinley does not tell you during his sales pitch is that according to the salesperson with whom I met, the majority of PBS sales are the average home which weighs about 100,000 lbs. This weight is a sum of all the components of the home, such that the 100,000 lbs. would be the amount pulled across our roads in hauling the unit to the site. During my PI’s visit to PBS, he was told that the addition of amenities, such as beams, granite counters and so forth would increase the weight by “a lot” (no specific answer provided). Obviously, the additions make the home more attractive, but they are not only heavier, but more costly. My salesperson told me that homes larger than 1,000 square feet would be pulled over the highway in two sections, something with which Mr. McKinley takes issue.
Mr. McKinley similarly does not tell you that the cost of delivery will be $25.00 per mile for every mile over 75 miles, nor does he share that the 28 ft. width of the homes will cause traffic delay, due to the transport over state highways. I could not verify, but assume that two trucks would double the cost.
Financing does not distinguish PBS from manufactured housing. Mr. McKinney takes pride in the fact that PBS homes qualify for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages, but claims that manufactured homes do not. With all due respect, Mr. McKinney is mistaken. According to Fannie Mae spokesman Clyde Ensslin, “Affordable housing is central to our charter and our mission, and manufactured housing is a component of affordable housing.” Similarly, according to the Freddie Mac website, Freddie Mac is committed to purchasing mortgages secured by manufactured homes in support of its commitment to expand homeownership opportunities
Mr. McKinley is a salesperson and makes his living selling PBS homes. He does not disclose what he must surely be aware, that once an alternative home is allowed into a particular subdivision, the homeowner’s association cannot discriminate to the extent of allowing other, similar homes into the area.
In an attempt to advance his cause (and perhaps sales), Mr. McKinley misrepresents the holding of Aragon v. Brown, 134 N.M. 459, 78 P.3d 913, 2003-NMCA-126, 2003 -NMCA- 126 (Ct.App. 2003). The Aragon court considered restrictive covenants which were clear and unambiguous, which specifically disallowed manufactured homes (which were not defined), but did allow PBS homes. As recognized by Mr. McKinley, the Hidden Lake area is undergoing some “turmoil regarding the Restrictive Covenants in regards to permissible structures” as our covenants are, unlike those in Aragon, not clear and unambiguous. For one thing, the Vista Landowners Association in Aragon amended their covenants, specifically distinguishing what those property owners considered to be manufactured housing as opposed to PBS and the covenant specifically allowed PBS homes. Hidden Lake does not have such a covenant. An additional distinction in Aragon, was that PBS homes had always been allowed in the subdivision, as opposed to other kinds of alternative housing, placing potential buyers on notice. HLPOA has not “always” allowed PBS homes in the subdivision.
As in Aragon, when we purchased our lot at Hidden lake, we were on notice as to the type of home acceptable in the area. All we had to do was look at the Gabaldon home (currently on the market for $1.25 million), the Hudson home, the Vlk’s, the Vorst property, the Collins’ lodge, the Fink residence and the Hatchell home to name a few.
The Aragon decision acknowledged the confusion in the terminology of trailers versus mobile homes versus manufactured homes; however, in Baker v. Aday, No. 1999-NMCA-123 (Ct. App. 1999), the district court determined that the commonly accepted meaning of “trailer” in 1965 was “trailer house” or “house trailer” and that a manufactured home did not fall under the definition of trailer.
The confusion in terminology persists within and without the industry. For example, in spite of Baker, Karsten flatly refers to its mobile homes as “manufactured homes”. Rowe’s “Modular” Homes actually sells only mobile homes. The discrepancy in terms used by people within the industry supports why the Covenant Committee provided definitions to ensure that property owners understood the difference between modular, manufactured, pre-fab and stick-built homes. We were also concerned about persons misunderstanding exactly what they were agreeing to for future construction at Hidden Lake.
In constructing our home, we were mindful of the intent of Covenant I, while maintaining our independence in design and financial ability. The Covenant Committee, similarly referred to the intent of Covenant I in working with Covenant II, Dwellings. Covenant I, Intent, reads:
It is the intent of these covenants to protect and enhance the value, desirability and attractiveness of said property, and to prevent the construction of improper or unsuitable improvements. Restrictions are kept to a minimum while keeping in constant focus the right of property owners to enjoy their property in attractive surroundings free of nuisance, undue noise and danger. Further, it is intended that the natural environment be disturbed as little as possible.
Overriding the issue of alternative housing is the March 2007 survey, wherein property owners overwhelmingly agreed that they would accept “…selected manufactured housing (e.g., modular or kit homes) with several sections transported to and assembled on site with the house interior completed on site…” This essentially excludes PBS, regardless of whether it decides to call itself manufactured, modular, off-site, alternative housing or off-site mansions.
I do not have a personal bias against either Karsten or PBS homes; however, I do not believe they comport with the mandates of Covenant I, nor do they comply with the directives of the property owner survey. My husband and I could easily live in a PBS or Karsten home when we retire and purchase acreage, sans covenants and neighbors. I continue to believe them to be manufactured homes, regardless of how they are labeled, as I know that good lobbying can undermine monikers and covenant definitions. Referring again to the bard: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose; By any other name would smell as sweet.” -William F. Shakespeare.
Posted by Don Fink for Liane Kerr
Monday, July 16th, 2007
This is in response Mr. Bob McCornack’s letter regarding Covenant II and an attempt to explain the work done this past year by the Covenants Committee. Mr. McCornack suggests that we use a simpler definition of what is and what is not allowed in order to support the building of manufactured homes. In essence, while claiming to argue against manufactured housing, Mr. McCornack is in fact, suggesting manufactured housing. Within the body of his suggestion, Mr. McCornack agrees that manufactured or mobile homes should not be allowed in Hidden Lake and argues that they are built to meet the HUD codes, not the more rigorous codes that are used for stick-built homes. He also agrees that manufactured homes tend to depreciate in value.
Mr. McCornack argues the main difference between homes that tend to appreciate in value versus depreciate in value is the building codes that the homes are built to meet. Having researched this issue extensively, I do not agree with Mr. McCornack’s claim. I have a considerable file to support that building codes are just one of many factors in the depreciation analysis.
Mr. McCornack does not provide the name of the local Angel Fire appraiser who “indicated” that manufactured homes appreciate in value just like the stick-built homes that are located near them. In researching the impact of manufactured homes on existing property values and anticipating a possible lawsuit, I personally spoke with two appraisers who stated that manufactured homes do affect existing real estate values.
Mr. McCornack references moving an existing $1 million stick-built home from Red River to Hidden Lake as being excluded from the covenant. This self-serving “example” presumes that Mr. McCornack is considering moving an existing $1 million dollar home into the neighborhood, something which I posit, is blatantly false. This also presumes that the ACC would not approve the home.
Preferred Building Systems, recommended to you by Mr. McCornack, is a manufactured housing center, regardless of what the company now calls itself. It is transported to the site on a truck in two (generally) sections. It fits the definition of manufactured housing in every way. Mr. McCornack argues that “[t]his type of home should also be allowed in Hidden Lake” in spite of the survey wherein a majority of owners opted not to have manufactured homes. Karsten Homes honestly refers to itself as manufactured housing. See, http://www.karstenhomes.com/.
Like many of you, after last year’s eight hour annual meeting, I left disappointed in the direction of our association. However, because I wanted to ensure the integrity of Hidden Lake, I volunteered and chaired the Covenants Committee. I personally shared the Hidden Lake Property Owners survey with the committee so that we could incorporate your concerns into our discussions. You may recall that the majority of property owners did not approve of manufactured housing in Hidden Lake.
The covenants committee was incredibly thorough. I saved the notes and comments from each of the members and in reviewing them, am reminded of how thoughtful the members of the committee were in attempting to redraft each covenant in order to address concerns of the membership at large.
The committee worked democratically, debating a particular suggestion on any given issue and voting via email. Using this process, several items were considered and incorporated into the final drafts and several were not. For example, I was the only homeowner on the committee and with another member, urged that the ACC be composed of a majority of homeowners, to ensure the integrity of construction. We were overruled and you do not see my suggestion in the final version for your consideration.
Another member, Marjorie McCornack, suggested the version proposed by Bob McCornack, lot 8. Marjorie prefaced many of her arguments/comments with “Bob and I” or “We”, so there is no doubt in my mind that Bob’s concerns were also being addressed by the committee. The version now recommended by Mr. McCornack was considered by the committee and overruled. In spite of that, Mr. McCornack presents the membership with his attempts to make an end-run around the efforts of the committee vote and place manufactured homes within our community.
Mr. McCornack’s proposal excludes reference to the committee’s concern about being built to withstand the harsh Hidden Lake winter environment and comply with the fire code; it excludes reference to approval by the Hidden Lake Architectural control committee before construction commences; it excludes consistency, something which the committee strove to protect within the covenants.
To express disappointment that one of our committee members had a say in the drafting, but was overruled and is now shopping her agenda in a different forum is an understatement. I suppose that I could disregard the committee’s vote and now shop my idea that composition of the ACC should be a majority of homeowners.
Am I defensive of the work my committee did? You bet I am, as to sit idly by and say nothing negates the purpose of a committee, which works diligently on behalf of all the membership and tries to set individual agendas aside. Was I aware that the proponents of manufactured housing were still advocating same? Yes, as many of Marjorie’s comments referenced Bob. Was I naive in believing that the committee process works? Absolutely.
The most important covenant is Covenant I, Intent, which advances the enhancement of value, desirability and attractiveness of Hidden Lake property and prevents the construction of improper or unsuitable improvements. The Covenants Committee tried to harmonize each covenant with the existing covenants and they were presented to the Board in that fashion. The Board; however, parsed the proposals and sent them to you in a cafeteria-style, vote covenant by convent plan. The Covenants should not be considered piecemeal to make way for Manufactured Housing. Alternatively, I move to ban Manufactured Housing of any kind from Hidden Lake–that’s simple enough. The Covenants should be considered in the manner in which the committee reviewed and incorporated them—all or nothing. To do anything else is to nullify the work of the committee.
Liane Kerr, Lot 49
<!--StartFragment -->
Posted in Off-Site Construction, General News | 2 Comments »
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006
We are the McCornacks, and we own lot 8. At the end of the HLPOA annual meeting, we mentioned that we would like to proceed forward with the planning and construction of a home built by Luxury Living Homes. Don Fink mentioned this in his notes regarding the annual meeting. Because this home is not built on-site, and off-site construction has been a cause for concern by some property owners, we wanted to communicate our plans to the Hidden Lake property owners, encourage them to visit the Luxury Living Homes model in Angel Fire (located on Highway 434 in Angel Fire just north of Willie’s Smokehouse on the west side of the highway), and let them know we welcome their comments regarding our plans.
We mentioned in the first paragraph that the home we are considering would be built off-site. Because it is built off-site, we have heard this type of home referred to as a manufactured home, a pre-fab home, a modular home, and other similar labels. Luxury Living Homes themselves refer to it as off site conventional construction. Personally, we no longer care how people refer to it as long as they are judging the home itself and not the label attached to it, and as long as people understand it is not a mobile home. The reason the term off-site conventional construction is used is to convey the fact that the actual construction is the same as on-site construction – same materials, same building codes, same overall building techniques – but the majority of the home is constructed off site. Once built, the home is transported and completed at the home site. A home built by Luxury Living Homes is transported in four major sections. The home is permanently installed on a foundation at the home site. When complete, the manner of construction – off-site versus on-site – is not evident. The home that we have in mind is the Candlewood model which is a two-story, chalet-style home approximately 1740 square feet in size with a 24’ by 46’ footprint. It would contain a great room, kitchen, utility room, a master bedroom and bathroom, two extra bedrooms with a shared full bathroom, and either an attached 2-car garage or a combination basement/2 car garage. The model also includes a nice large deck.Our goal is to submit a home proposal package to the HLPOA board’s Architectural Control Committee in October and work toward having a home in place by next summer. We think we actually could have a package together by September, but we wish to give people an opportunity to comment, so we set October as our target. To reach this goal we will be working with Luxury Living Homes to prepare a preliminary set of plans showing our chosen floor plan, various elevations, the foundation, and a site plan.
In talking with several people at the HLPOA annual meeting, we heard several positive comments about Luxury Living Homes. People had either seen the model or had looked at the brochures we brought to the meeting. We do feel that this home would be of the style and quality desired for Hidden Lake; however, in the spirit of cooperativeness, as we proceed forward toward our October goal, we will take into account comments provided on this web site, as well as those sent directly to us at mccornack_lot8@yahoo.com before we submit our package to the Architectural Control Committee.
Posted by Don Fink for the McCornacks
Posted in Off-Site Construction | 1 Comment »
Monday, June 12th, 2006
What constitutes a manufactured home?
I would venture to say that many of you have a home in which some of the components are “manufactured”… Prefabricated wall panels, floor panels, roof trusses, precut and prefitted logs… etc. Quite frankly… manufactured homes are generally of higher quality, lower cost and a better value than most site constructed, stick built homes. As an independent quality consultant of more than 25 years, who has worked with some of the players in the manufactured building component industry (trusses, wall and floor panels), I can tell you that, in my opinion, the end result of the finished product is superior to that of most site built homes.
The affordability of manufactured housing is mainly attributable to the efficiencies of the factory process. The controlled environment and assembly-line techniques remove many of the problems of the site-built sector, such as poor weather, theft, vandalism and damage to building products and materials stored on site (anyone in Hidden Lakes had construction labor problems?). Also, factory employees are trained, scheduled and managed by one employer, as opposed to the system of contracted labor in the site-built sector.
Manufactured home producers also benefit from the economies of scale which result from being able to purchase large quantities of building materials and products. As a result they are able to negotiate the lowest possible price for items that are invariably more expensive in a site-built house. Many will fall under the EPA’s Energy Star compliance program.
Here are some of the categories that “Manufactured Housing” fall under:
Manufactured Homes: These are homes built entirely in the factory under a federal building code administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (commonly known as the HUD Code) went into effect June 15, 1976. Manufactured homes may be single- or multi-section and are transported to the site and installed. The federal standards regulate manufactured housing design and construction, strength and durability, transportability, fire resistance, energy efficiency and quality. The HUD Code also sets performance standards for the heating, plumbing, air conditioning, thermal and electrical systems. It is the only federally-regulated national building code. On-site additions, such as garages, decks and porches, often add to the attractiveness of manufactured homes and must be built to local, state or regional building codes.
Modular Homes: These factory-built homes are built to the state, local or regional code where the home will be located. Modules are transported to the site and installed.
Panelized Homes: These are factory-built homes in which panels - a whole wall with windows, doors, wiring and outside siding - are transported to the site and assembled. The homes must meet state or local building codes where they are sited. A panelized home is a pre-engineered structure. The theory behind this type of construction is that as most parts of the building are pre-built in a controlled environment, the craftspeople will not be affected by weather, lack of materials at hand, unexpected costs or other obstacles that arise whenever one is building a house on site.
A panelized homes should not be confused with modular or mobile homes. Panelization should best be understood as one step above stick framing. When a contractor is stick framing, he has an assortment of lifts of wood delivered to the site where he then has the crew take the studs, cut and assemble them into ‘panels’ that are then tilted up into place and fastened down.
Pre-Cut Homes: This is the name for factory-built housing in which building materials are factory-cut to design specifications, transported to the site and assembled. Pre-cut homes include kit, log and dome homes. These homes must meet local, state or regional building codes.
Mobile Homes: This is the term used for manufactured homes produced prior to June 15, 1976, when the HUD Code went into effect. By 1970, these homes were built to voluntary industry standards that were eventually enforced by 45 of the 48 contiguous states.
From what I’ve seen… the only way you can tell if a home has pre-fabricated components is to tear into the walls or substructure and look at the assembly techniques… if you see beat up studs and joists, splintered ends and joints that are out-of-square… you are looking at a locally built/constructed home. Pre-fabricated panelized homes are characterized by square walls, clean cuts on the components and the use of steel nailer plates.
Take a look at some of these websites… these are not your fathers “mobile homes”.
http://www.skylinehomes.com/factory_tour.php
http://www.harvesthomes.com/construction_movie.html
http://www.harvesthomes.com/faqs.html
http://www.harvesthomes.com/specs.html
http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/lib/showtemp_detail.asp?id=231&cat=5
Drop the predjudice against manufactured housing… look again at how the industry has progressed
Brad Snyder
Lot #79
