Accessible housing issues

[ijmorlan]

What does profit have to do with it? Why is it OK to build a townhouse complex for sale as a condo with inaccessible entrances but not one to be rented out?

What about a duplex? One unit up, one unit down. Elevator?

What I mean by a basement apartment not having level entry is that the entry cannot be reached accessibly. Anyway, why is the reaching the entry so important, in itself? If the apartment itself isn’t accessible it doesn’t do anybody much good. Doesn’t make sense to allow a step immediately inside the door but not immediately outside the door.

Profit matters because I subscribe to the notion that landlords are a fundamental cause of housing supply issues. I don't believe it is just to profit off of land or property ownership. Condos typically imply collective ownership. Any revenue a board earns is intended to be returned to the property itself. There are still flaws with collective ownership, it's not a panacea but it's a model I prefer.

If those duplex units are to be rented then yes, elevator.

Entry matters because I don't believe there's a way to make a home that is accessible in a universal fashion. Different disabilities require different accommodations. It probably isn't possible in practice to achieve universal access to entry either, but it's a target.

I am not going to respond to your other post. Equating accessibility to having a barbecue is deeply off-putting to me, and I don't think there's any value in us having that conversation.

How do landlords cause housing supply issues? Until condominiums were invented you couldn’t even have a large building without a landlord of some sort. There are entire countries where it’s perfectly normal for people of most income levels to live in rental accommodation; some of these are significantly more socialist than Canada, and yet they still haven’t outlawed rentals. Anyway the point is you seem to think people buying condos are capable of deciding whether they need an elevator but people looking to rent aren’t capable of making this decision.

Congratulations, you just made duplexes significantly less affordable.

As to barbecue vs. accessibility, yes of course accessibility is a necessity for some people whereas a barbecue is not, and I think I’ve written enough here to be entitled to expect that people understand that I’m not somebody who thinks everybody should sink or swim regardless of ability or resources. My point is that I actually believe people are capable of making choices for themselves and can trade off different features of a property. It makes zero sense for us all, as a society, to spend a huge amount of money for elevators in small buildings when most people don’t even need them. As long as we have accessibility rules that ensure that a substantial fraction of properties are accessible, then there will be no problem with access for those who need it.

Changing circumstances have been mentioned. Guess what, when people have kids or when their kids grow up or when they get or lose a better paying job they might also have to or want to move. That’s simply not a problem that is reasonable to solve by making it illegal to build a triplex without an elevator.

Also you might want to think more about the actual consequences of what you’re suggesting. So it’s OK to build an owner-occupied duplex without an elevator, but if it is to be rented it needs an elevator? Great! I can duplex my house to provide a living space for one of my kids as they grow up; but now when they move out it becomes illegal for me to rent out the perfectly good unit in which they were living because there is no elevator. This is the sort of rule that brings the whole notion of government into disrepute.

One thing that is for sure, we’re never going to house everybody if we insist on everybody having expensive accommodation.

General rule: believing “rich people bad” is not a good framing for fixing any problems.