(The Center Square) – Legislation designed to protect residents in Pennsylvania’s manufactured home communities has been stalled in committee for a year, leaving homeowners, residents, and the industry itself in limbo.
Both sides have concerns, but for different reasons. Residents fear being priced out of their homes without new protections, while property owners view the proposal as rent control, warning it could create financial pressures.
The bills were referred to the Republican-majority Senate Urban Affairs and Housing Committee last June. House Bill 1250, sponsored by Rep. Liz Hanbidge, D-Blue Bell, passed the lower chamber with a 144-59 vote, including support from 42 Republicans. Its companions, Senate Bills 745 and 746, were introduced by Sen. Judy Schwank, D-Reading.
Both versions would tie lot rent increases to the consumer price index, while allowing additional increases to cover extraordinary operating expenses or repairs.
Manufactured homeowners typically own their homes, but not the land beneath them. Supporters of the legislation say that makes residents vulnerable to steep lot rent increases, especially as private equity firms and out-of-state corporations acquire manufactured home communities.
Opponents argue the bills would amount to de facto rent control and say the process for seeking larger, above- inflation increases would be cumbersome.
Jared Surnamer, president of Valley Community Management, is a second-generation manufactured housing operator whose company owns and operates 11 communities in the Lehigh Valley. The company also sells new HUD-code manufactured homes. He told The Center Square average tenancy in his communities is around 13 years.
Surnamer described manufactured housing as an important affordable homeownership option in a tight housing market, offering a lower-cost alternative to site-built housing.
He also explained that manufactured homes could help increase housing supply, but zoning rules often treat HUD code homes differently than stick-built homes, which are broadly permitted in residential areas. Manufactured homes, he said, are frequently limited to certain zones or communities, restricting their ability to help meet demand.
“If we were truly interested in creating more supply, I think this would help… again, this is not necessarily helping my business, but I believe that’s the more fair and more effective way to actually address the housing crisis,” Surnamer said.
Surnamer said he has read some of the heart-wrenching stories of residents facing large rent increases. But he described his company as a “mom and pop” owner with a 40-year history of trailing the market on lot rents. The average lot rent in his communities is about $600 per month, though it varies by amenities. Historically, he said, annual increases averaged about 3%, but over the past two years they have risen closer to 6% or 7%.
Still, Surnamer said he is concerned about whether his communities could remain viable under the proposed legislation. His goal, he said, is to avoid steep increases, keep communities full, and sell quality homes at fair prices.
“I’m just a little bit nervous, frankly, if this passes,” he said.
Industry representatives say the bills unfairly target manufactured home communities while leaving apartment and site-built rental owners free to raise rents without similar limits, even though they serve the same housing market. They contend the proposal could discourage investment, reduce quality and supply in communities, and narrow choices for lower-income households.
The Pennsylvania Manufactured Housing Association also opposes the bills.
Mary Gaiski, the association’s executive vice president, oversees legislative, regulatory, educational and promotional initiatives on behalf of the manufactured and modular housing industry.
Gaiski told the Center Square the association opposes rent control in general, arguing the legislation would cap what community owners can charge without capping their expenses. She said the process to seek larger, above-inflation increases for required upgrades – such as water, sewer, or stormwater systems – is cumbersome and would drive up costs that could ultimately be passed on to residents.
She noted that manufactured homes make up a small share of the housing market – about 4% – including those in communities and on private land.
“They will tell you this won’t affect the small operators,” Gaiski said. “But it will, because they still have to operate within the same parameters, and the larger guys would probably have an easier way to navigate that, or to find the dollars. It truly isn’t going to be equitable across the board for all types of owners out there, if it does pass.”
Both Gaiski and Surnamer said they do not support predatory practices. Supporters of the legislation say the bills are aimed at those practices, not responsible community owners.
Bob Besecker, founder of the Coalition of Manufactured Home Communities of Pennsylvania, has been working to get the bills passed for several years. He said the group has grown to over 150 member communities.
Besecker told The Center Square that neither the coalition nor the legislation should threaten community owners desiring to serve residents and keep housing affordable.
“The out-of-state corporations and private equity firms started this problem,” he said. “If they are not complicit in price gouging their residents, the legislation is not a threat to them.”
A statement emailed to The Center Square from Schwank’s office pushed back on efforts to label the legislation as rent control.
The statement said claims that Senate Bill 745 would “cap rent increases at 4%” are simply false. Instead, it said, the bill establishes a baseline rent-stabilization range tied to long-term inflation and does not explicitly set a “control” percentage point. That inflation number is subject to year-to-year fluctuations, as previously seen.
Owners may exceed the standard limit by an additional 2% for documented extraordinary operating expenses, and they may impose additional temporary surcharges for major infrastructure improvements or required health and safety repairs, it continues. These provisions allow increases well beyond 4% when paired with that year’s inflation rate and when justified.
The goal, according to the statement, is transparency and fairness, not an artificial cap or a one-size-fits-all rent ceiling.
“It is well established that industries and their lobbying arms have a greater voice in Harrisburg than everyday Pennsylvanians,” said Schwank. “While the Pennsylvania Manufactured Housing Association has the ear of top lawmakers, manufactured home residents have struggled to get meetings with the very lawmakers who are allowing bills that would provide them with economic relief to die in committee.
“I would respectfully suggest that manufactured home community operators spend more time meeting the needs of their residents and less time using their influence to block reasonable reforms designed to protect veterans, seniors, and people with disabilities.”
