The central number in this brief is 127,200 dollars. The primary reference is https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/mhs/tables/time-series/Annual_AvgPrice.xlsx. It gives community, dealer, investor, and property teams a narrow, citable starting point for manufactured housing preservation, not a forecast, legal conclusion, health instruction, or promise of business results.
National manufactured home sales price context for preservation records
The useful question is not whether one number sounds impressive. The useful question is what the source measured, which date and geography it covers, and whether the local operating record uses the same definition. For manufactured housing work, those distinctions determine whether a statistic clarifies a decision or creates a misleading comparison. In this preserving manufactured home communities review, the control applies to the specific evidence and workflow named above.
This brief treats 127,200 dollars as the liftable fact. It is a contextual public benchmark, not a direct measurement of every issue named in this page title. Before reusing it, a reader should open the source, confirm that the definition still matches the intended sentence, and preserve the source date in editorial notes. A national benchmark belongs beside local records, not in place of them. In this national manufactured home sales price context for preservation records review, the control applies to the specific evidence and workflow named above.
Key takeaways
- Use 127,200 dollars only with the definition and source shown on this page.
- Separate manufactured housing preservation definition from manufactured housing preservation measurement date so unlike events do not collapse into one total.
- Keep manufactured housing preservation source record attached to an owner, date, and evidence link.
- Escalate policy, legal, medical, financial, and property decisions to the qualified person who owns them.
- Recheck the primary source before publication because agencies can revise tables and guidance.
Evidence table
| Evidence item | Current reading | Responsible use |
|---|---|---|
| Liftable benchmark | 127,200 dollars | https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/mhs/tables/time-series/Annual_AvgPrice.xlsx |
| Primary operating record | manufactured housing preservation definition | Confirm the owner and update date |
| Exception record | manufactured housing preservation measurement date | Keep exceptions separate from normal activity |
| Review record | manufactured housing preservation source record | Record who checked the item and when |
The table is designed for a screenshot, but the source link must travel with the number. A screenshot without the source date or definition is easy to lift out of context. Editorial teams should keep the live citation in the caption or surrounding text. In this preserving manufactured home communities review, the control applies to the specific evidence and workflow named above.
Define the measure before collecting it
For manufactured housing preservation, start with a one-sentence definition that a new team member can apply without guessing. State what is included, what is excluded, the reporting period, the unit, and the system that holds the source record. If the definition changes, create a new version instead of silently overwriting the old one.
A practical data dictionary can use five columns: field name, plain-language definition, accepted values, record owner, and verification date. That structure works for manufactured housing preservation definition, manufactured housing preservation measurement date, and manufactured housing preservation source record because it separates the event from the person responsible for checking it. It also makes later corrections traceable. In this preserving manufactured home communities review, the control applies to the specific evidence and workflow named above.
Build a defensible operating record
First, identify the system of record for manufactured housing preservation definition. Second, record exceptions involving manufactured housing preservation measurement date in their own field. Third, require a dated note when manufactured housing preservation source record changes. Fourth, retain the evidence URL or document name that supports the update. Fifth, review a sample before using the total in a public claim. In this preserving manufactured home communities review, the control applies to the specific evidence and workflow named above.
An assistant can maintain the record, normalize labels, identify blanks, and prepare a review queue. The business owner or qualified professional still decides policy and handles exceptions that require judgment. This boundary is especially important when the record touches health, lending, housing rules, resident rights, or contractual obligations. In this preserving manufactured home communities review, the control applies to the specific evidence and workflow named above.
Questions this benchmark can answer
The 127,200 dollars benchmark can anchor a carefully worded description of manufactured housing preservation. It can also help a team check whether its internal categories are compatible with the public source. It cannot prove the quality of a local program, the value of a property, the effectiveness of a staff member, or the outcome of a future decision.
Teams can use the source to ask better questions: Does our period match the source period? Are we mixing counts and percentages? Are our local categories broader or narrower? Is an exception being recorded as routine activity? Those questions are more valuable than forcing a local record to resemble a national number. In this preserving manufactured home communities review, the control applies to the specific evidence and workflow named above.