ADA being applied to homebuilding? You gotta be kidding ...

I stayed up later than usual last night, and as a result saw part of an episode of “Politically Incorrect” with Bill Maher.

I was only tangentially watching the show, so I missed part of the intro of this story. However, Bill was reading from a newspaper article about a town council (I want to say it was in California, but I can’t be sure) considering a requirement that all private residences being built in the town must have access for disabled people.

This completely flabbergasted me. A governing body wants to REQUIRE homeowners to provide disabled access in their home? If I want to build a new house in this town, I’ve got to provide a way for disabled people to get in even if I don’t want to? Even if it costs me more money?

Now, granted, this would only affect new construction, or major home renovations (defined as renovations exceeding 50 percent of the home’s value); residents wouldn’t have to renovate their home to be in compliance with this requirement. At least, that’s how the issue was presented on Politically Incorrect.

I’ve done a Web search with Google this morning, but wasn’t able to find info on the story. Not knowing the name of the town hurts, I’m sure. But if this is even remotely true, it boggles my mind. Why should I have to build my house to suit a hypothetical disabled person who may never come to visit me in the first place? Why can’t I build my house to suit me, as long as I obey the zoning laws?

Somebody tell me I heard this wrong.

A point.

From the info you provided, it’s likely that the ADA has nothing to do with this. It sounds more like (an absolutely stupid) zoning ordinance.
The crap that gets stuck into zoning rules never fails to amaze me, such as mandatory lawns in the desert, which was the subject of a Pit thread about a month ago.

Sua

To some degree, I can see some wisdom in having certain parts of the house accessible, doorways being one example.

However, it does cost a lot of money to make a house completely ADA-compliant, and I don’t hear of a lot of disabled-advocacy groups protesting because of lack of housing.

Robin

As a planner, I must emphasize that zoning would probably have absolutely NOTHING to do with such stupid legislation. Zoning governs such things as land use, lot size, building height and setbacks, architectural design, signage, landscaping, parking and other related aspects of the built environment. Excepting requirements for handicapped parking spaces, there’s usually no mention of accessibility in a typical North American zoning code.

Sounds like a stupid local amendment to the building code. Building codes cover thigns such as door widths, stair size, how far a toilet has to be from a sink, and other minutae dealing with the structural aspects of a building.

For a similar discussion see this thread. In any case, what at least one activist wanted 46-52 inch wide doors (rather than the normal 28 inch or so wide doors). I don’t want my doors to be that wide. I don’t find it visually pleasing and furthermore, I’d rather have the wall space.

Fenris

Sua, Maher specifically mentioned the ADA as the reason for this proposed law. I dunno if that was his own interpretation or a quote from the newspaper story, though. At any rate, the law would only affect this one town, unless others decide to roll with it.

The proposed law, if I’m remembering right, will state that one entrance to the house has to be “disabled-friendly.” The panel discussed this as though it would mean making a doorway wide enough to admit a wheelchair. But Maher pointed out that if you have steps leading up to your front door, you’ve gotta build a wheelchair ramp to comply with the law. That makes no sense whatsoever.

What gets me is that two of the panelists, a comedian and a Congressman, fully supported the proposed law and were frankly surprised that someone would find fault with it. The audience kept applauding the points they were making. Further inflaming my ire about this proposed law was that Dan Cortese, the rock-jock guy from MTV, was the only one trashing it. If this is the best we can muster to fight for individual freedoms, I’m a bit concerned.

I’m not exactly an assault-weapon ultra-conservative, but dadGUM if that don’t make me want to start complaining about liberals in the government.

I’m a firm believer in the value and wisdom of the ADA and I don’t like Maher OR Sauron bashing it when the “villain” in this story is some local governmental body whose work is being paraphrased and embroidered by Maher and was then imperfectly heard by Sauron. I realize you were trying to track down the full story, but perhaps it would be best if you were to get ALL the information before you light into “the liberals in government.”

dropzone, please point out to me where I complained about the ADA. I support the ADA. I just don’t think it should be used as a justification for making private homes accessible to those with disabilities. I see that as an infringement of my rights (assuming, of course, that I would ever want to live in this town; also assuming, of course, that I can actually find out what town I’m talking about).

I didn’t hear specific points (such as the name of the town) during the beginning of the discussion on Politically Incorrect. I followed the conversation after that, though, and I stand by my interpretation of what was being said.

Tell you what – you explain to me how the ADA is supposed to apply to homebuilding, and I’ll admit I’m being too harsh on the local governing body who’s considering this asinine law.

  1. The title of this thread is "ADA being applied to homebuilding? You gotta be kidding … " Perhaps I overinterpreted and overstated your position.

  2. It doesn’t, at least for housing of four units or under. It applies to access to public accommodations and commercial facilities (buildings open to the public), access to public and commercial transportation and telecommunication, and discrimination in employment. Here it is; read it yourself. As an aside, you may notice that transvestites are specifically NOT protected. :wink:

Local laws sometimes extend some of the accessibility requirements into new construction, but they are generally benign. Lever door knobs are easier for the fully-abled to use, too, especially with an armload of junk.

The ADA requires doors to have a clear width of only 32", which is not only considerably less than what that activist wants but is actually smaller than most current exterior doors. 32" is considered enough to fit a wheelchair through.

Gotcha, drop. As I said, I have no beef with the ADA, and I agree with it. But I do have a problem when a local governing authority takes it upon themselves to apply a section of the ADA to private housing. Now, the town council (or whatever it is) in question may not be pulling word-for-word from the ADA and sticking into the building code for private residences, but they are definitely (at least according to a quote from a newspaper read by Bill Maher) basing their proposed new building code on section of the ADA – specifically, requiring at least one doorway to be accessible by disabled people.

The local governing authority is the group of yahoos I’m pissed at, not the people who wrote and enforce the ADA.

Did anyone else by chance see this episode of Politically Incorrect?

Reading more, I come to the realization that I can SELL you a home you can’t get into but have to make reasonable accomodation if I want to RENT it to you. I love the law!

My personal bone to pick with the ADA bashers is that they are mostly able-bodied and live in a fantasy that they will remain so their entire lives. Nope. If you live long enough you will appreciate that somebody made the world a little easier to get around in. You will eventually spend time in a wheelchair. Your arthritis will get bad enough that a round door knob is hard to use. Your bad knees will make you happy for that ramp in the sidewalk at the curb.

I recently designed a home theater for a couple in their seventies. Yeah, they both get around okay now, but I made sure the aisles were wide enough for a wheelchair. It would be a shame for them to not be able to use this fabulous, and fabulously expensive, theater because I hadn’t thought ahead for them.

Yeah, representative democracy unfortunately results in complete morons getting into office. For instance, look at (fill in name of ANY elected body)! But local government is the worst. Rank amateurs with a lot of power.

Well you see, this is exactly the sort of attitude that conservatives object to. It should be up to homeoweners to think ahead, not the government. If people don’t plan ahead, then they should deal with the consequences. The government shouldn’t be forcing people to plan ahead. And just because I may some day need a service doesn’t mean I think other people should be forced to pay for it. Theft isn’t any less bad if someday I’ll the one getting the money. It’s one thing to require minor modifications that cose virtually nothing compared to the trouble they save, but the ADA is being used to force companies to make expensive modifications for other people’s benefit, and I don’t think that’s right.

I have several beefs with the ADA, or at least its implementation.

Every corner in the subdivision where I grew up now has a curb-cut, which I believe (though am not certain) was a requirement of the ADA. This strikes me as an outrageous use of government resources–I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone in a wheelchair there over the 25 years I lived there. A more sensible solution to this problem would have been to require, upon application, curb-cuts in all corners in say, a five-block radius, on the direct route to schools and to the nearest bus stop, all made within one week of the application being made. Required in all new construction or replacements? Sure. In all commercially-zoned areas? Without a doubt. But to replace every single corner with a curb-cut which may never be used is, again, not an efficient use of government resources.

I also have issues with the ADA as applies to historic structures (wheelchair ramps on 17th-century structures?) and professional golf tournaments (I expect that one is all argued out, but should certainly be in another thread if need be).

The motivation behind the ADA is certainly well-founded, though I think the law itself (or, again perhaps its understanding at the local level) is a bit over-reaching and too much a one-size fits all solution.

**
Neither of my grandparents needed a wheelchair and they lived to their mid 80’s. My wife’s grandfather is in his late 80’s and he isn’t in a wheelchair either. And so far as I know none of them had any great difficulty using doorknobs. How long does one have to live before they need a wheelchair?

Nobody’s going to bitch about that. What people are going to bitch about is being forced to make their private homes handi-friendly.

Marc

  1. And I am happy to hear that. Never? Never on crutches? No walkers? No cateract operations that blinded them temporarily? Disability CAN strike any of us and is more likely to as we age.

  2. The Ryan managed to:

This was said though I am no government agent and am just the bozo designing their theater. And it IS my job to think ahead for them. That’s why I’m paid the “big bucks”: to use the knowledge I have accumulated over the years to help and even think for the customer. It’s the basis of a service-based economy. I also told them where to put the speakers for the best sound–is that also a part of the Great Liberal Conspiracy?

  1. So far there is no basis for that complaint beyond a poorly-heard quote from a comedy program. Nobody has come forward with a GD-quality cite. Without that it’s just a rightwing wet dream of paranoia.

You were doing your job, and that’s great (although I would quibble a little if you designed it that way without any consultation with the client, especially if it made the installation more difficult or expensive). But should the government mandate that my husband and I, at ages 29 and 33 respectively, should be required to make our home theatre accessible, even if it costs us more money? Or should we be able to take our own risks? That’s what people are annoyed about.

What the hell, I wade into the pit…

First of all, if ADA-requirements are built in the DESIGN of a building, before the first brick is laid or the first 2x4 nailed, the cost is (I’m told) not that much different from non-ADA construction. Note this must all be done BEFORE you start building.

It costs far more to modify a doorway to 32" than to build it in that way from the start.

And ADA is NOT just about people in wheel chairs. Old folks who can still walk but aren’t so steady on their feet will also find curb-cuts useful, too. There’s a particular type of heel fracture most commonly caused by stepping down, say from a traditional curb, and curb-cuts reduce the incidence of those, too, thereby keeping the able-bodied able bodied. Yes, the zeal to comply can be taken to excess, but when you replace a sidewalk (as must inevitably happen) replacing it with a curb-cut isn’t going to hurt anyone.

We’re all so used to seeing clumby retro-fits that we DON’T see the ADA-compliant buildings that were designed that way and don’t look clumsy.

Ever notice how hotel bathrooms are now sporting grab-bars in the showers and tubs? That’s ADA, but why should that stress you out? I’m able-bodied but I find having an extra bar to grab keeps me steadier, too - and bathroom falls can be serious for anyone. I’ve also seen hotel bathrooms with “shower stools” - little stools that can be sat on in the shower if you need that, or just become a handy place to stack your PJ’s while you’re bathing if you don’t need it.

Maybe I won’t ever need an ADA living area - but I have disabled relatives I’d like to see occassionally, and I’d like them to be able to come and go on their own.

A house with steps at one entrace and a grade-level entryway at another is ADA compliant, too. You only need a wheelchair ramp if both entrances have steps.

It all reminds me of the historical protests when the Chicago housing code required buildings of brick instead of wood (nasty thing, that fire…), insisted that all dwellings have TWO entry/exists, and also that all rooms where people might live (everything except closets and bathrooms) have access to air and light through a window. Now, no one thinks much, if at all, about these requirements. Buildings are designed that way from the get go, and if they weren’t folks would probably protest.

Should private citizens be forced to make new construction ADA compliant? Should they be forced to adhere to any building code? In urban areas, at least, people do not stay in a house for generations anymore - even if you build it you probably won’t keep it for life. That’s different than if you build it and keep it til you die. Why should I, the second owner, have to pay to fix the deficiencies of you, the builder? Especially when it’s much cheaper to do all this from the start instead of modifying later.

Truthfully, I have mixed feelings on this one, but I think the folks who are assuming they won’t ever need the ADA are sticking their heads in the sand. Maybe they won’t - but more and more people are living long enough to find their physical abilities restricted. And even among the young, it only takes one accident to put you among the no-longer-able-bodied.

Until it’s shown that is happening ANYWHERE we are blowing smoke.

And would a noted cheapskate like me make a customer pay EXTRA for something they don’t want or need? I treat their money just like my own, except multiplied ten-thousandfold. Good design doesn’t always cost extra. It just requires planning.

Something less to trip over when you are jogging and makes it safer for your kids who are too young to ride their bikes in the street, too.