"ILLEGAL TO LIVE IN AN RV FULL TIME" A new HUD proposal on the horizon

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Gary, from what I've read, the pressure for the definition wording change came primarily from the RV industry, not HUD. Park models and larger 5'vers long ago reached sizes that could, under the current wording, fall within HUD's areas of responsibility. HUD has said that they have chosen to basically ignore the existence of the large 5'vers, since it's obvious that they are RV's, despite not fitting within the HUD RV size requirements. Park models were not quite so fortunate, with a recent turf war over how the maximum 400 sq ft requirement should be measured. The new wording eliminates those concerns by more clearly defining an RV. Under the new proposed wording, essentially if the manufacturer says it's an RV built to ANSI RV standards, then it's an RV regardless of the size, and HUD has no jurisdiction over it. And there's nothing in either the current or the proposed wording that outlaws using any RV for full time living.
 
NY_Dutch said:
HUD has said that they have chosen to basically ignore the existence of the large 5'vers, since it's obvious that they are RV's, despite not fitting within the HUD RV size requirements.
Click to expand...

And that's the part that worries me. That is the current stance, but to me that means that the future is not guaranteed. I guess I just don't trust bureaucrats.
 
  And to make things a little goofier...

  In some Florida municipalities (cities or counties) there's a strong distinguising between Manufactured Housing lots and Recreational Vehicle lots. An RV no matter how big can't be put on a MH lot and a Mobile (Manufactured) Housing can't be put on an RV lot no matter how small. And they're already there.

  They'll be grandfathered of course. A coop park I'm involved in has four "too big" park models as rentals.

  But we sure don't want HUD involved if we can avoid it.
 
  On a side note, the City of Rockledge Florida has recently enacted zoning variances creating a "Tiny House" community within the old part of the city down towards the Indian River. The ordinance contains the usual stuff such as setbacks, building standards etc but simply reduces structure size and lot size. Unfortunately it doesn't include "Tiny Houses on Wheels."

  The short version is that it's a lot better to have hipsters in new Tiny Houses than no one in falling-down houses.
 
SargeW said:
And that's the part that worries me. That is the current stance, but to me that means that the future is not guaranteed. I guess I just don't trust bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

That's what the new wording is intended to clear up, Marty. The difference will no longer need to be based on HUD's current stance, but on a clear definition.
 
I can't add much to this discussion, only to add that I have enjoyed this thread, and found the banter between Dutch and Gary enlightening. As much as I blamed some of this on the "Tiny Houses", it's clear that the real problem is with the park models, which really blurs the line between RVs and Manufactured Housing.
 
Yeah, park models have been in contention for quite awhile, and the RVIA has been lobbying for clarification on that. There have already been some changes in that area, but there is a new round under discussion now.

The issue for HUD is that in many areas there are large parks full of park model "RVs" that are used as year-around quarters. That's fairly common in southern areas, e.g. Florida, south Texas, and Arizona. We aren't talking snowbirds - these are retirement homes or inexpensive housing for young couples. It's a significant problem in Florida when a tropical storm strikes, and it doesn't take a hurricane to literally blow them away.
 
Could this be used by the IRS to eliminate RV mortgages as a tax deduction?
 
Not unless the tax laws are radically changed. The tax code definition of what is or is not tax deductible as a first or second home is totally independent of the HUD definitions and makes no reference at all to "RV" or any of the the terms used in these definitions. Nor does it require that the abode be a fulltime residence.
 
Despite my well-known cynicism, I do not see anything nefarious in the HUD proposal as far as the RV industry is concerned. The revised definition clearly makes "RV" a special category and exempt from manufactured home rules. However, "tiny homes" and park models may be affected if they don't meet either RV standards or the more stringent manufactured home standards. In essence, they will have to be one or the other.

The business about using an RV "fulltime" is a separate question and not really affected by the HUD definitions.
 
I'm philosophically opposed to beating dead horses but many of you have raised legitimate concerns about the wording of this proposal. Realizing that the problem has been there all along doesn't make it less of a potential issue. My take is that the Escapees proposal (http://rvdailyreport.com/industry/escapees-supports-hud-rv-definition-with-exceptions/) for a tweaking of the wording is the best answer to calming most of our concerns. If everyone who has any problems with the current proposal would send a message to HUD that you are concerned, and that you would prefer the Escapees proposed wording, it would likely do the most good. It's sort of like voting. Your vote might not count for much but the accumulation if many votes can sometimes tip the scales.
Bob
 
sadixon49 said:
I think a lot of this is being driven by those "Tiny Houses" that you see on HGTV and A&E, and all over the TV channels. They are clearly not RVs, but they're not truly manufactured houses either. Just where would they fall in code application? You've got some local contractor stick building a house on the back of a utility trailer, just what is that? What codes does he follow? Does he follow any codes? Who inspects it? I watch these programs and scream at my TV, just buy an RV!

One other point, I just bought a new motorhome, the owners manual I received with it applies to all Thor Motorcoaches, and couldn't be more clear. If you full time in 1 of their coaches, it will void the warranty.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one saying that too. hahahaha
 
yfx4 said:
Could this be used by the IRS to eliminate RV mortgages as a tax deduction?
Click to expand...

I think the IRS would have to change their own definitions first. That's certainly possible, but RV's have been defined by most manufacturers, the RVIA, the NFPA, and HUD as intended for part time recreational use anyway, and the IRS has still seen fit to put them in the same category as land based second or seasonal homes. The current wording changes are simply to make it clearer which of the current "grey area" RV's, large 5'vers and park models, are really RV's, and not manufactured housing.
 
Gary RV Roamer said:
Detroit John wrote:
Have all those much-discussed RV quality issues suddenly gone away?  I'm sure many here would love to own such an RV!  ;)
Click to expand...

show me any manufactured house that still looks like a quality built residence... after going 60+ mph back and forth all across the country.
 
malexander said:
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help". HAHAHA
Click to expand...

Actually one day a FEMA rep came to our door and said that.  He was and he did and we thank him for it.  If you have ever been flooded out, you may appreciate seeing him.
 
yfx4 said:
Could this be used by the IRS to eliminate RV mortgages as a tax deduction?
Click to expand...

IRS and HUD are two different government agencies and don't necessarily have to talk to each other. Why should they? The criteria for deducting interest and taxes on a second (or even a first) home for tax purposes isn't up for discussion for now.
 
Thank you all for your input and the link to the other thread. It is great information!!!
 
Hello,

Escapees just published an article on the subject:
https://escapees.com/articles-and-blogs?view=entry&id=1439

Cheers,
--
  Vall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,042 (members: 29, guests: 1,013)

Forum statistics

Threads
131,929
Posts
1,387,669
Members
137,677
Latest member
automedicmobile
Back
Top Bottom