Public Rule Forcing Private Homes To Be Wheel-Chair Accessible Irks Austinites
A proposed rule making the rounds at City Hall to require homeowners to make their private property wheel-chair accessible in case disabled individuals come to visit isn’t winning any popularity contests, according to a survey sponsored by the Austin Business Journal on its website.
“This is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of,” one respondent writes, echoing a sentiment expressed in many comments in the survey, which was running 94 percent against the proposal when last we checked, with five percent in favor, and the remaining one percent apparently too gobsmacked to know what to think.
The idea has been endorsed by outgoing council member Betty Dunkerly and is being pushed by activists with ADAPT, reportedly as a test case that they hope to take to other cities around the country if they succeed here.
Or as another ABJ respondent asks: “Is this California????”
Posted on May 22, 2008 – 8:49 am by APR
13 Responses to “Public Rule Forcing Private Homes To Be Wheel-Chair Accessible Irks Austinites”
This has been more like California than Austin for many years now. But I agree… this proposal is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of. Even for this council.
By The Chief on May 22, 2008
bah. ABJ readership is hardly representative of the city. This regulation would apply only to new housing, so your first sentence is highly misleading. What’s so asinine about making our housing stock accessible to the disabled?
By Kedron Jerome Touvell on May 23, 2008
New housing was only 5% of the total housing stock last year. This ordinance would not make a dent on truly making places “visitable”. For a true visitability ordinance, apply it across the board to multi-family (not just hte 10% ADA), point-of-sale, remodels, etc. What about those condos downtown? Apts.?
Rushing into and approving this ordinance spells disaster.
By Mama on May 23, 2008
I agree with Mama. ADAPT is using this as a test case and readily admits that they plan to expand it to all existing houses if they win this first victory. So, far from being “highly misleading,” the first sentence is the real issue.
By The Chief on May 23, 2008
ADAPT is a great organization and Bob Kafka is one of the smartest people around. People with disabilities face zillions of challenges in every day life that don’t ever occur to most of the nondisabled. ADAPT’s mission is to make society confront and address that fact. They chain themselves to things and do in-your-face stuff because their perspective is they are fighting for civil rights.
Since I haven’t looked at the proposal I have no idea whether it is the most effective way to accomplish the “visitable” goal. But the publicity they will probably get from pushing the proposal would certainly increase public awareness of the difficulty people with disabilities have doing something as simple as visiting friends. And they might get something in the process.
By hope on May 23, 2008
Handicapped folks make up something like 3% of the population. I don’t see why I have to have a ramp just because I might one day have a friend in a wheelchair who wants to come over. If that is the case, can’t I just help him/her in?
I can’t imagine that if someone with a disability wanted a new home, a builder would say they couldn’t address the needs, but making all new homes “visitable” is a pretty brash solution that will surely cost every new homebuyer a lot more money.
This seems to be the way our council is headed though. Lots of folks who know better than anyone else how we should live. So much for keeping Austin weird. Keep Austin Mcmorrison sounds pretty stupid to me.
By austindownthedrain on May 23, 2008
Dunkerly supports this ridiculous overkill because she’s a bit clueless, on her way out of office, and apparently under the spell of that “great organization” ADAPT and its “in-your-face stuff.”
Morrison would probably make it even worse. At least Dunkerly hasn’t usually tried to impose her “i-know-better-than-you” personal aesthetic while in office. Morrison looks down her long nose at those of us that fail to see the brilliance of her own opinions.
As for this proposed ordinance, builders and remodelers should offer to modify plans for disabled homebuyers who want/need them. The council should get their uninformed noses out of everyone else’s personal business.
By Tom Bates on May 23, 2008
Here’s a website that lays out the arguments for the visitability requirements.
http://concretechange.org/
Even if you don’t agree with the proposed solution, the issues raised are compelling IMO. I am particularly struck by the one about people who develop a disability after they move into their home. With the aging population, that’s a real concern. Not everyone will have the money to make home modifications and not everyone will want to move. Alternatively, you could create a pot of grant or loan funding people could apply for. Because fewer people would perceive it as a personal hit it might be more feasible than home building standards. But that’s the kind of thing that would probably be perpetually underfunded and on the top of the list of things to cut when budgets get tight.
By hope on May 23, 2008
YEAH! Lets pay 10k more for a house because someone I sell it to in 10 years might get old one day and need a rail to pee.
COME ON! Is this what Austin is coming to? A busybody council with nothing to do but sell off land to sky rise developers and make the hope of buying my own house one day almost impossible.
Awesome.
By austindownthedrain on May 26, 2008
What ever happened to personal property rights? I understand the need for building codes. Originally they were intended to protect occupants and their neighbors from harm. Electric codes keep you from getting electrocuted or your house burning down and catching your neighbor’s house on fire. Then came energy efficient building codes. Which make economic sense for a community to limit the cost of upgrading power stations because the local housing is environmentally inefficient. (I’m referring to the current codes not the ridiculous ordinance being looked at for updating all older homes at the time of sale.) But requiring homeowners to have their home built to ADAPT’s standards is completely beyond the pale. So how invasive does our city council want to get? What comes next? That every new home built be required to have a defibrillator installed because someone may experience heart failure after their walk up the front ramp?
By Leo on May 29, 2008
Leo - good comment.
- City council laws/regs like this are simply to get income from ‘permits’-'inspections’ and ‘approvals’; they aren’t there for the ‘greater good’ - that’s simply a misnomer so if you vote against it they can turn it around on you and call you a heartless bastard.
When in fact you have the long term rights (private property) and economic costs of ALL at heart - but no one wants to hear about that. Rather than deal with the real issue of “where the hell has all the tax money been blown” and using their money wisely by arranging a grant process for these individuals to get assistance for private property renovations- they would rather steal more of Everyone’s tax dollars to increase their capabilities.
Hey - while we’re at it, why don’t we increase the size,scope, and salary of the Council men/women? They’re working so hard at spending our money?
That’s socialism for ya’ - good luck.
By JMB on Jun 2, 2008
by the way, I lived with a friend in a wheelchair for over a year. We made due at our rental residence just fine with smart designs on the cheap with the help of the local community; with little economic impact to the overall community and infringed upon no-one’s private property rights. It can be done without the government’s help, are you willing to try without giving up your rights?
By JMB on Jun 2, 2008
This is a tough ordinance to discuss, we have a duty to protect and serve those less fortunate. We must mandate public spaces to be accessible to all people, but we’re talking about private houses here. Life, Safety, Health, & Effeciency issues are important to regulate in private homes, but I belive this ordinance reaches too far. Why do we need to mandate visitabilty in EVERY new home built in Austin? At a very minimum this will add $hundreds$ of dollars (more likely $thousands$) to the price of a new home in Austin. This seems analogous to mandating that every new car sold in Austin be handicap accessable. If you need or want these features in a new home then ask your builder or architect to design them, but don’t force every family to buy a feature they don’t need.
By Matt on Jun 3, 2008