# In terms of public buildings, why does society cater to disabled individuals so much? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 15, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345 "2010-08-15T18:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/21 "2010-08-15T20:04:48Z")
Might I also note that everything that makes a building accessable to wheelchairs also makes it accessable to baby carriages? You may think the disabled are an insignificant minority - a highly debateable point - but parents sure as hell aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/22 "2010-08-15T20:05:36Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Can you provide a cite that older apartment buildings can’t rent upper floor units because there’s no elevator? As far as I know, walk-up apartments are still available in older parts of cities like New York. Indeed, I once lived in a third-floor walk-up myself. And the top results in searches along these lines seem to suggest that it’s not an issue. However, I’m certain that I’ve read an explanation, by an architect or architectural critic, over how the problem I described could arise (Christopher Alexander? James Howard Kunstler?), and I’m also certain that I’ve been told, by a building owner, that ADA rules were effectively preventing him from converting the second and third floors to apartments. It may be that the issue arises in structures which have not _always been_ apartments, but which are to be renovated to that purpose. (The renovations-to-apartments that I am aware of _have_ all included elevators.) In any case, I’ll try to find it, and I suppose my assertion should be set aside until then. ---
**Author:** ![Silvorange](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Silvorange](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silvorange)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/23 "2010-08-15T20:15:08Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > Needless to say, when I first visited America (this was the late 90s, I think), I was surprised at the accessibility everywhere. Every sidewalk had a ramp entrance and exit, the street lights beeped (for the blind, I assume), there were these little bumps in the road (for canes, perhaps)… I was blown away. The thing is: Nobody was using them. Nobody happened to be using them while you were looking, you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/24 "2010-08-15T20:15:20Z")
The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990. Before that, several steps had led to it’s adoption. First of all there were the various civil rights movements for racial minorities and women, which set the template for activism by “disadvantaged” groups. Another factor might have been the creation of the ANSI A117.1 standard, which beginning in 1961 codified what was necessary for a building to be fully accessible to the handicapped. Here’s Wiki’s article on the [Disability Rights Movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Disability_rights_movement). In a nutshell, beginning as far back as the early 1960s, Americans collectively began to feel that making sure that people weren’t held back through no fault of their own was a social and moral necessity. In particular, the idea that if the government could effect change for the better in society that it ought to. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/25 "2010-08-15T20:15:43Z")
Society is aging. Google “Fastest Growing Age Group” seniors are becoming the biggest age group and will be for a long time. It makes sense to make buildings as accessible as possible. Thirty years from now you may be the one hobbling up those steps with a cane. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/26 "2010-08-15T20:20:23Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > It’s not about “worth” in the sense of profitability. Our society has made a decision that–to an extent reasonably practicable–we will not allow physical disabilities to exclude some of our people from participation in public life. How did it come to that decision? It wasn’t always the case. > [@](#): > > It’s not just a matter of _their_ needs. The underlying assumption, at least from my point of view, is that _society_ benefits from maximal participation. > > I support this intention, although I’d really like to see the same principle extended to cover, for example, children and elderly and people without cars. Why should it be illegal to build a library that can’t accommodate wheelchairs, but perfectly acceptable to build it in a place that’s only accessible by driving? That’s really interesting. Society, as a whole, gains from having all of its members use social services and patronize businesses? Hmm. I have to think about that more. Why do you think so? > [@](#): > > Personally, I think it’s great. The things you describe don’t help only “the disabled”. They’re good for anyone with mobility issues. That includes the guy on crutches, the lady who just had a knee replacement, etc. True, but I wonder how often this is the case. > [@](#): > > To the best of my knowledge, businesses were only _required_ to implement certain of the things you mention, such as grab bars by toilets and toilet stalls with wider doors. These are, frankly, inexpensive to install and they go a long, long way to making life easier for disabled people. Major infrastructure changes can often be deferred until the relevant architectural feature needs work (e.g., you don’t need to build a ramp until you’re fixing the stairs anyway). As far as I know, that’s correct. > [@](#): > > But why _wouldn’t_ a business want to make it as easy as possible, for as many people as possible, to shop there? Because sometimes accessibility costs more than their disabled customers may bring in? > [@](#): > > Sure, disabled people may need products and services that the rest of us don’t. But they still need to buy food, housewares, clothing, furniture, office supplies, sex toys, and all that other crap. How did you think they bought those things? Special disabled-only stores? Mail order? Yes? I don’t know? How did they before the ADA? > [@](#): > > Why the ADA at all? Because we realized that “the disabled” includes a _lot_ of people (and will include most of us at some time or other), because we have a general sense that it’s fair and reasonable that people should have equal opportunity to use goods and services, and because many architectural features that we don’t notice when we’re able-bodied (such as stairs) are absolute deal-breakers for people with mobility issues. Truth be told, I feel the same way (about the fairness and reasonableness), but it doesn’t seem like that’d stand up in a hard debate. How was Congress swayed? Did they immediately agree that it was the right and nice thing to do, to do no opposition? Did businessowners see the wisdom in this right off the bat? > [@cwthree](#): > > ]I hope you’re being facetious. The overwhelming majority of disabled people don’t need a personal attendant to drive a car or get in and out of it. > > A majority of able-bodied adults don’t need ramps, either. How did we arrive at the current makeup of services that we did? > > > [@Reply](#): > > > > Or: Could you convince a modern-day Sparta that services to the disabled are worth it? > > Probably not. On the other hand, could you convince a modern-day American that the Spartan culture is really something to aspire to? It’s not America vs Sparta, but the shades of gray in between. > [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#): > > How are the mentally ill, the colorblind and the homeless at a disadvantage when it comes to going to public buildings? And please do not give examples of people being run off for loitering. I’m talking about needing to do business at a public building and being mentally ill, homeless or colorblind keeps them from doing so without reasonable accommodation. Sorry, that’s not what I meant. I meant that if the overarching goal was to equalize society, we could be spending resources on fixing those other issues – i.e., the question would be whether to spend a billion dollars on helping the homeless or on building ramps, not whether to provide ramps for both the physically challenged and the colorblind. (And I realize that the ADA doesn’t make the government pay [except for public buildings and enforcement], but if businesses weren’t paying for ramps, for example, they could be taxed to better other issues that may or may not affect their direct customer base but would benefit society as a whole) > [@](#): > > You do not want your intentions questioned but yet you say ignorant things like “if many disabilities are non-visible” and expect to be taken as a non-troll? IF they are non-visible? Do you honestly believe that all disabilities are things that you can see with your own eyes? If so, I’m not sure anyone here can help you. Eh, you’re taking that “if” way out of context. Replace it with “given”. It’s not that I doubt some disabilities are non-visible, but that useful statistics may be hard to find precisely because not all disabilities are easily seen or otherwise counted. ---
**Author:** ![Hakuna\_Matata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hakuna\_Matata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hakuna_Matata)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/27 "2010-08-15T20:21:13Z")
The ADA and the FHA are both laws passed to protect the rights on individuals with a wide range of disabilities mainly in new construction. Most existing buildings are exempt unless they do a certain amount of remodel work or are public buildings. Th The expense to make a new building ADA or FHA compliant would be difficult to gauge and in general probably is very small relative to the overall cost of new construction. As I design a building it is just part of the work I do. I personally think it is a good thing to have these sorts of design parameters in place. Part of my job as an Architect is to protect the healthy safety and welfare of the general public–that also includes those with disabilities. Why do we put smoke doors in buildings–they are expensive and rarely (hopefully never) get used. They serve a miniscule portion of the public (those in the building), but I bet you would be thankful when you are in a building and it is on fire! ADA and FHA access is similar in that it is part of the cost of building a building and it is place to protect those with accessibility issues. Just like smoke doors are there to protect the users in case of a fire. I fail to see the difference frankly. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/28 "2010-08-15T20:29:45Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Might I also note that everything that makes a building accessable to wheelchairs also makes it accessable to baby carriages? > > You may think the disabled are an insignificant minority - a highly debateable point To be honest, I really don’t know if they’re an insignificant minority. I think I’ll keep an eye out from now on for people using the ramps and such in non-obvious ways… I think this is fascinating. > [@](#): > > - but parents sure as hell aren’t. Hah. As a bicyclist, they’re also great for the rare times I need to get on or off a sidewalk, but that’s still just a nice side effect of the original intentions. > [@Silvorange](#): > > Nobody happened to be using them while you were looking, you mean. Point taken. By the same metric, most of America’s sidewalks are probably useless too 😉 > [@aceplace57](#): > > Society is aging. Google “Fastest Growing Age Group” seniors are becoming the biggest age group and will be for a long time. > > It makes sense to make buildings as accessible as possible. Thirty years from now you may be the one hobbling up those steps with a cane. 😉 Another good point. > [@Lumpy](#): > > The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990. Before that, several steps had led to it’s adoption. First of all there were the various civil rights movements for racial minorities and women, which set the template for activism by “disadvantaged” groups. Another factor might have been the creation of the ANSI A117.1 standard, which beginning in 1961 codified what was necessary for a building to be fully accessible to the handicapped. Here’s Wiki’s article on the [Disability Rights Movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Disability_rights_movement). > > In a nutshell, beginning as far back as the early 1960s, Americans collectively began to feel that making sure that people weren’t held back through no fault of their own was a social and moral necessity. In particular, the idea that if the government could effect change for the better in society that it ought to. Exactly the kind of thing I was looking for… thank you. I never knew there was a disability rights movement. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/29 "2010-08-15T20:36:02Z")
> [@Hakuna\_Matata](#): > > The ADA and the FHA are both laws passed to protect the rights on individuals with a wide range of disabilities mainly in new construction. Most existing buildings are exempt unless they do a certain amount of remodel work or are public buildings. Th > > The expense to make a new building ADA or FHA compliant would be difficult to gauge and in general probably is very small relative to the overall cost of new construction. As I design a building it is just part of the work I do. I personally think it is a good thing to have these sorts of design parameters in place. > > Part of my job as an Architect is to protect the healthy safety and welfare of the general public–that also includes those with disabilities. Why do we put smoke doors in buildings–they are expensive and rarely (hopefully never) get used. They serve a miniscule portion of the public (those in the building), but I bet you would be thankful when you are in a building and it is on fire! ADA and FHA access is similar in that it is part of the cost of building a building and it is place to protect those with accessibility issues. Just like smoke doors are there to protect the users in case of a fire. I fail to see the difference frankly. FHA=functional hazard analysis, or something else? That’s a very interesting comparison. Thank you. Do you ever have to deal with retrofits (FHA or ADA)? What’s that like? ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/30 "2010-08-15T20:40:24Z")
FHA = Fair Housing Act. Every day here in Chicago, I see people in wheelchairs and with crutches going to and from work on public transportation (commuter trains and buses). Due to the ADA, they can hold down a job and support themselves, rather than being a strain on their family or the government. ---
**Author:** ![Silvorange](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Silvorange](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silvorange)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/31 "2010-08-15T20:41:14Z")
What has bothered me over the years is that many churches, not being bound by the ADA, simply don’t bother. While helping a wheelchair-using friend of mine search for a new church, I found many that did not have ramps. I was told that they didn’t need ramps because they didn’t have any members in wheelchairs. Of course they didn’t, if nobody in a wheelchair could join! Apparently they were all waiting for someone in the congregation to become disabled. ---
**Author:** ![Hakuna\_Matata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hakuna\_Matata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hakuna_Matata)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/32 "2010-08-15T20:41:43Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > FHA=functional hazard analysis, or something else? > > That’s a very interesting comparison. Thank you. > > Do you ever have to deal with retrofits (FHA or ADA)? What’s that like? oh sorry. FHA Fair Housing Act–it applies to multi family buildings ADA American with Disabilties Act applies to public buildings Personally I haven’t done retrofits. The way both the ADA and FHA get compliance is via law suits. They are not building codes (both are laws) so the building department doesn’t review for compliance. Well now they are more integrated so by default if you meet the current proscriptive requirements of the building codes you will meet the FHA and ADA. But in general they are enforced by lawsuit. Retrofits though would be just a matter of fitting things in. I think you are overestimating the costs of compliance relative to the overall costs of a building. It is pennies relatively. There are few buildings that it would make an impact on - although there are some buildings that would be ruined by meeting the acts in my opinion. But I personally think they are good laws. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/33 "2010-08-15T21:10:21Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > > [@spark240](#): > > > > Our society has made a decision that–to an extent reasonably practicable–we will not allow physical disabilities to exclude some of our people from participation in public life. > > How did it come to that decision? It wasn’t always the case. I’m sure others can better relate the history. My glib short answer is that the physically disabled had better advocates than some other more-or-less-marginalized groups, probably in part because some people _become_ disabled mid-life, after building wealth and influence. > [@Reply](#): > > Society, as a whole, gains from having all of its members use social services and patronize businesses? Sure. Businesses generally want the largest possible pool of potential customers, of course. But beyond that, maximal participation of all groups in public institutions and activities, is pretty much what makes a vibrant society. It’s not just using “services,” it’s about making all people feel that the larger society is _theirs_, too, and that they have both a right to and an interest in its quality and success. Our overall, shared culture is far richer for having fuller participation of women and black people, right? Civil rights for these groups is not just about them; it’s about all of us. Accessibility for the physically disabled perhaps isn’t quite the same as civil rights, at a moral level, but it is functionally similar. When we fail, on whatever terms, to include people, we lose the benefit of their contributions. As I noted earlier, there’s plenty of room for improving accessibility designs for non-disabled people. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/34 "2010-08-15T21:34:41Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > > > Can you provide a cite that older apartment buildings can’t rent upper floor units because there’s no elevator? As far as I know, walk-up apartments are still available in older parts of cities like New York. > > Indeed, I once lived in a third-floor walk-up myself. And the top results in searches along these lines seem to suggest that it’s not an issue. > > However, I’m certain that I’ve read an explanation, by an architect or architectural critic, over how the problem I described could arise (Christopher Alexander? James Howard Kunstler?), and I’m also certain that I’ve been told, by a building owner, that ADA rules were effectively preventing him from converting the second and third floors to apartments. As **Hakuna Matata** mentioned, older buildings are not subject ADA rules unless a certain amount of renovation occurs. Presumably that would include conversion of an existing building into apartments. (And as I’ve said, lots of people aside from the wheelchair-bound find elevators useful, including the unfit, those with children in strollers, those with granny carts containing groceries, those expecting to get furniture or packages delivered, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/35 "2010-08-15T21:37:07Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Try spending a week in a chair and see how you like it. I will gladly loan someone my spare wheelchair for them to try living in a chair for a week. Hell, I have 2 spare sets of crutches that I will loan out. You try getting the rather heavy front door to a commercial building open using crutches and then try to get takeout food … carry your drink _how_? Luggage in an airport? Escalator instead of an elevator? ---
**Author:** ![Q.N.Jones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3da27b/32.png) [@Q.N.Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.N.Jones)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/36 "2010-08-15T21:50:28Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > Why should the general public subsidize their needs? The handicapped can get help from their family, pay for technological solutions, hire caretakers, or simply be left to their devices (or lack thereof) like the homeless and uninsured are. What makes the handicapped more worthy of subsidized services compared to the rest of the underprivileged? If we make it virtually impossible for anyone with a handicap to work, then there will be far more people with handicaps on SSI and SSDI. In the long run, it is better for society and our economy if we make it as easy as possible for the largest number of people to work. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/37 "2010-08-15T21:56:11Z")
If the question is why was the ADA passed, the ADA itself will answer it. > [@](#): > > SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 42USC 12101. > > (a) Findings. The Congress finds that > > (1) some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a whole is growing older; > > (2) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem; > > (3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services; > > (4) unlike individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of disability have often had no legal recourse to redress such discrimination; > > (5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities; > > (6) census data, national polls, and other studies have documented that people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society, and are severely disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally; > > (7) individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society; > > (8) the Nations proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self- sufficiency for such individuals; and > > (9) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity. > > (b) Purpose. It is the purpose of this Act > > (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities; > > (2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; > > (3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in this Act on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and > > (4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day- to- day by people with disabilities. ---
**Author:** ![whiterabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/cab0a1/32.png) [@whiterabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whiterabbit)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/38 "2010-08-15T22:47:03Z")
> [@Silvorange](#): > > What has bothered me over the years is that many churches, not being bound by the ADA, simply don’t bother. Or else they miss the obvious. I was once a member of a UU church that did some major bathroom renovations, and when I went into the accessible stall, they’d put the purse hook _waaaaaay_ up at the top, like in all the others. I pointed out to somebody that they might want to put the hook down where people in chairs and whatnot could actually use it. This is not an uncommon thing anywhere where stalls exist, but that time I could do something about it! They fixed it pretty quickly. It’s the little things. I live in a 1940s-ish log cabin, originally built more for tourists but now privately rented. I adore it. However, the light switches are mounted a good five feet up; I am 4’2" and have to reach over my head to get to them. The front door’s doorknob is also _really_ high, about four feet. It’d be a huge pain to retrofit so I haven’t asked if they can do anything about it; after all, I can reach them, it’s just a PITA. But if I were in a chair I couldn’t turn the lights on in the house I rent. Nobody should be in the position of having to look for a place to live where they can _reach the damn light switches._ Making buildings and whatnot accessible seems like it’s something that is so obviously a general good thing I can’t imagine anybody honestly thinks it’s a waste of time and money. ---
**Author:** ![lorene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/65b543/32.png) [@lorene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lorene)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/39 "2010-08-15T23:56:27Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > Hah. As a bicyclist, they’re also great for the rare times I need to get on or off a sidewalk, but that’s still just a nice side effect of the original intentions. That’s where the idea of [Universal Design](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design) comes in. Makes getting around easier for everyone; not just those with disabilities. I wonder if the fact that you are from elsewhere is contributing to some of the early confusion in this thread. Is English your first language? What you later describe as mere curiosity about how the ADA came about sounded initially like you were saying that no one should bother trying to accommodate people with disabilities. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345/40 "2010-08-16T00:12:16Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > I’m talking about things like handicap ramps, automatic doors, special restrooms, buses, crosswalks, parking spaces, etc. There must be considerable expense in retrofitting much of the country to serve this relatively small portion of the population (is that correct?) and this can’t be profitable for any but niche businesses that cater to the disabled. > > What’s the rationale behind this act of apparent… I don’t know, compassion? > > What do you think about it, personally? > > ETA: The thread title should read “public buildings and services”. I haven’t read anyone else’s responses yet; I felt the need to come right in and say it. If it’s a public building, it isn’t ‘catering’ - access is a right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-terms-of-public-buildings-why-does-society-cater-to-disabled-individuals-so-much/550345.md?page=3)