Mobile home dwellers in rural desert towns face extreme temperatures

Photo by Patrick Reichboth,Unsplash

Extreme heat in the summer and cold in the winter pose risks for mobile home residents in Madras, a rural desert town in Oregon, Claire Carlson of The Daily Yonder reported. 

Data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shows that 15% of houses in rural areas are manufactured or mobile homes.

Because many of the homes are old, they are often “less energy efficient and can have issues like mold and other dangerous health hazards,” Carlson wrote.

These poor living conditions can be deadly: 20% of deaths during the 2021 heat dome in Oregon were among mobile home residents. And it is only expected to get worse with climate change.

Nonprofits such as the Energy Trust in Oregon help to replace old, manufactured homes with new ones built to withstand the extreme temperatures.

However, according to Professor Patricia Solís from Arizona State University, “there are probably around 175,000 mobile and manufactured homes that are older in the state that need to have some kind of weatherization done to it.”

She believes the solution lies in tackling two issues: the affordable housing crisis and climate change. But it would require government investment in building more manufactured homes. 

Solís’ reasoning is that manufactured homes are less expensive, would provide affordable housing and can be outfitted with energy-efficient technology to adapt to the climate. 

After a blaze destroyed 80% of a town's homes in 2020, the community's remaining 145 residents are still recovering

Malden rebuilt its fire department, city hall and post office.
(Photo by Jesse Tinsley, Spokesman-Review)

Over Labor Day weekend 2020, an electrical fire burned through Malden, Washington, and its neighboring community, Pine City. "While no deaths were reported, the fire burned 80% of the town’s homes and multiple rail bridges," reports Monica Carrillo-Casas of The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash. Malden residents are still rebuilding and healing from the fire's aftermath.

After the blaze, some Malden residents chose to leave. Chandelle Frick, treasurer for Malden, said the "town’s population has fallen from 200 to 145 people since the fire," Carrillo-Casas writes. Out of the 120 homes the fire destroyed, "at least 25 have been rebuilt, including nine of those by the Mennonite and Amish communities."

Malden resident Jessica Landry is "living in one of the houses the Amish and Mennonite communities built," Carrillo-Casas writes. "Ever since [the fire], the fear of another fire taking over the town lingers in the back of her mind."

Landry is sure some Malden residents may never get over the shock and destruction the blaze left in its wake. She told Carrillo-Casas, "There are a lot of people who still have PTSD when it comes to that. . . .We still get that heightened awareness and struggle."

Even with the emotional scars and population loss, Malden's remaining townspeople are working hard to rebuild. The town received a settlement from the electrical company involved and grant money. With those funds, Malden residents invested in "a new building that combines a fire station, post office and town hall," Carrillo-Casas reports.

The town still needs a new sewer system, and many residents still don't have permanent homes. A lack of funds has limited some recovery efforts. Carrillo-Casas adds, "An estimated 40% of the people who lost homes were uninsured."

Most community members realize they have to rely on each other. Frick told the Spokesman, "It takes a community coming together and seeking funding."

A housing program for working Americans is in 'political limbo'; more than 40% of its builds were in rural places

A new home built in Owsley County, Ky. with HOME
funding. (Partnership Housing, Ky., photo)

Since the 1990s, grants from the HOME Investment Partnership have helped fill financial gaps, so more affordable housing is available for working Americans. But the program's funding isn't included in the new federal budget, and its future remains uncertain.

The loss of HOME's investment in communities would be particularly painful for "Appalachian towns and rural counties where government aid is sparse and investors are few," report Charlotte Kramon, Jesse Bedayn, Michaela Herbst and Aaron Kessler of The Associated Press. Over the past 30 years, the program has "helped build or repair more than 1.3 million affordable homes of which at least 540,000 were in congressional districts that are rural or significantly rural."

Even though the program has spent more than $35 billion helping to address the country's affordable housing crisis, "a spokesperson for HUD, which administers the program, said HOME isn’t as effective as other programs where the money would be better spent," AP reports. Some Senate Republicans are working to save the program by including it in their draft budgets.

Despite the program's effectiveness in some regions, it is often criticized for its cumbersome red tape. Kramon adds, "A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to reduce HOME’s notorious red tape that even proponents say slows construction."

Meanwhile, its future remains in political crosshairs, where it is needed by working Americans, but is easier for lawmakers to eliminate without drawing public ire. Kramon explains, "HOME is an easier target than programs such as vouchers because most people would not immediately lose their housing."

If HOME funding is axed or even drastically cut, places like rural Owsley County, Kentucky, will feel it. "Affordable homes are needed there, but tough to build in a region that doesn’t attract larger-scale rental developments that federal dollars typically go toward," AP reports. "Partnership Housing in Owsley has relied on the program to build the majority of its affordable homes for at least a dozen years."

Rural homeownership history includes Sears catalog homes. Thousands still stand today.

Modern reproduction of Sears catalog house in Battle Ground,
Indiana. (Photo by Rosemary Thornton, Wikimedia via the Yonder)

Beginning in the early 1900s, many rural Americans built their homes with construction kits from Sears, the former catalog sales giant. "Between 1908 and 1942, Sears sold some 70,000 customizable home kits across the country through the company’s Modern Home catalog," reports Pat Raia of The Daily Yonder.

Sears kit homes were particularly popular in the Midwest, including "Illinois, Ohio and Missouri, and almost all of them were located in rural or suburban areas," Raia writes. While the build-your-own-home kit appealed to consumers who wanted to save on labor costs, purchasing everything from one source was especially convenient for rural customers who could live long distances from construction suppliers.

The Sears catalog offered kits that included "a sketch of the house, a floor plan, and a basic cost that ranged from $360 to more than $2,000," Raia writes. Once purchased, Sears would send an initial "boxcar containing pieces to get the kit home buyer started. Subsequent deliveries would contain materials for each remaining phase of the construction."

The kits served a dual economic function, providing a path for homeownership and boosting the local economies. Sears Homes Chicagoland blogger Lara Solonickne told Raia, "Many customers had help building the houses from local carpenters and other tradesmen. By the early 1930s, few customers were building the homes by themselves."

Despite being built in stages by people with varying degrees of home construction expertise, many Sears-kit homes are still standing. Raia adds, "Judith Chabot, a researcher who authenticates Sears kit homes, said that there are more than 18,668 on the National List of Sears kit homes still standing around the U.S., and there are likely even more."

While kit-built homes may lack some conveniences newer homes offer, today's purchasers choose them for their unique history and sound construction.

Rural housing support is on the chopping block. Proposal would cut billions from programs rural residents use.

The proposed budget would cut many USDA housing
programs that help rural Americans. (Adobe photo)

 

President Trump's newly released federal budget proposal cuts billions from rural housing support programs. "If adopted by Congress, key Department of Agriculture rural development and housing programs would be completely eliminated," reports Joe Belden for The Daily Yonder. "Major Housing and Urban Development programs that are important in rural areas also would get zero dollars next year, and many social safety net programs would be cut."

Similar cuts were suggested and rejected during Trump's first term, but this Congress may think differently.

The new budget ends funding for the 502 loan program, which has existed since the 1950s, and has helped "2.2 million low-income rural families to become homeowners," Belden writes.

Trump's 2026 budget cuts billions in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development disbursements by ending financial support for Community Development Block Grants and the HOME program, which "were used extensively in rural areas and small cities," Belden reports. "One of the federal government’s most important and largest social safety net programs, tenant-based rental assistance, would be cut by $26.7 billion."

Other proposed cuts that could impact rural communities include the end of the Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program, zero funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund’s discretionary grants and the elimination of the Community Services Block Grant program.

Along with cuts, the proposed budget has a silver lining, which "says that it furthers investment in rural communities by creating a new $100 million award program that would provide access to affordable financing and spur economic development in rural America," Belden explains. "This new program would require 60% of Community Development Financial Institutions’ loans and investments to go to rural areas."

Congress will decide during its budgetary process how to act on the president's budget proposal.