Posted: December 2nd, 2014

pros and cons of requiring all new private residential construction to be built in such a way to accommodate persons with disabilities

pros and cons of requiring all new private residential construction to be built in such a way to accommodate persons with disabilities

So for a little overview. My company is providing an overview on the pros and cons of requiring all new private residential construction to be built in such a way to accommodate persons with disabilities. We are presenting some pros and cons.
Here is the ‘abstract’ from the piece (so you see the context):
In September 2013, the City Council of Vancouver, British Columbia unanimously passed a new bylaw improving the accessibility and adaptability of all newly-constructed homes. The bylaw, which went into effect in March of this year, was the first of its kind, requiring developers to build housing that is accessible for people with disabilities.  As a result, today, all new construction in Vancouver is required to have wider doors, stairs, and hallways, easier to open lever door-handles (no doorknobs), barrier-free showers, lower light switches, and many other universal design features.  These accessibility changes apply to all new homes, apartments, and condominiums, regardless of whether they are inhabited by people with disabilities, making them “visitable” for everyone.  People with disabilities are already the world’s largest minority; with increasing human longevity (the number of older adults around the world is set to soar over the next 20 years), is universal housing design something that should be mandated on a national or global scale?  Our paper examines the benefits and advantages of universal housing design as well as the barriers and reasons it may not be practical or realistic to implement on a larger scale.  We will also examine the issue of personal choice and whether laws mandating the design of private homes would encroach on civil liberties.

–    Intro to there being cons to doing this
–    Although it is an admirable endeavor, it flirts between being impractical, to being encroachment, to potentially causing a backlash against the group this is trying to protect.
–    Item 1: People don’t realize they need it (younger adults are reluctant to acknowledge/admit that they are likely to face mobility issues as they age) – making them not interested in a house built for someone with mobility issues (for example they would likely prefer the shower built for ‘beauty’ instead of the wheelchair accusable shower.)
–    Item 2: Encroaches on personal choice for private property from the homebuyer building the custom home, to home builder building a community of homes. Potentially puts builders at a disadvantage if they are being required to build a home that won’t appeal to their demographic. This in turn could lead to housing collapses in some areas or a shift from new construction to simply buying exempt-already built properties.
–    Item 3: Is it possibly discriminatory in nature to certain groups of persons with disabilities. By focusing all attention on mobility improvements and forcing those to be taken care of regardless of current to mid-term need, are we depriving other persons with disabilities (non-mobility related) to be shortchanged in the process? Why stop there, why not brail and voice activated requirements, computerized items to assist with conditions such as ALS, upgraded breathed apparatus for those with respiratory conditions.
–    Item 4: This is clearly a well intentioned policy, but are we going to create some unintended consequences for persons with disabilities. By making it so restrictive to build new construction, to force private property to engage in expenditures for such things (even if not a financial burden), are we going to create an environment that shuns persons with disabilities or looks to balance the scales in such a way to compensate themselves for it. (Look at some potential concerns that have been raised of negatives from the Americans with Disabilities Act…. Also connect a parallel of what occurred in U.S. history in some ‘well-intentioned’ states when it came to slavery. For example the case of Ohio that banned slavery as being wrong, but then also banned African American’s from living there http://slavenorth.com/ohio.htm )

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂