Accessible housing issues

[ijmorlan]

Edit: You said “If those duplex units are to be rented then yes, elevator.” I just don’t see how this is compatible with being concerned about affordability. If not enough units get built because it is illegal to build affordable units then that doesn’t help anybody.

One of my core principles is that accessibility is a right. That's fundamentally in opposition to the compromises you are willing to make in service of affordability, which I do agree is also a right. I respect that there's compromises that would have to be made to fulfill my goal but it's also not some discrete change to make to the world, it goes part in parcel with the changes to society that mostly I think we agree about.

Just because it’s a right doesn’t mean it’s a right to have every single dwelling unit have it. I think I have the right to eat at restaurants without worrying about my allergies, but that doesn’t mean Thai cuisine is not allowed to exist.

Personally I think in our society it’s reasonable to provide appropriate nursing care as a right; but it would be absurd to require every dwelling unit to have nursing care available on site. Even requiring every large apartment building to require it is probably unreasonable.

Well, in exactly the same way, it’s unreasonable to demand that every apartment in every duplex and triplex be accessible. As long as the (or really “a”) “ground floor” of every new duplex and triplex has accessible entry, and if larger buildings have elevators (and no gratuitous barriers) then we’re doing pretty well.

You've decided to create some kind of zero sum game between affordable and accessible housing. Along the way you've filled your posts with invective and personal attacks. 100% accessible entry for rental units does not equate to elimination of all affordable housing.

I’m not creating the zero sum game. It’s just a fact that if it is illegal to do things like replace detached houses with duplexes, fewer dwelling units will be provided; and if it is unnecessarily expensive to do then that will also result in fewer dwelling units being provided.

This also isn’t just about accessibility vs. affordability. It’s also about unreasonable (and unnecessary) interference with personal decisions. Suppose somebody owns a duplex with one accessible and one inaccessible unit, and lives in the inaccessible unit. If I understand you correctly you think (in effect, even if you haven’t said so) that it should be illegal for them to move from the inaccessible unit to the accessible one and rent out the inaccessible one instead.

Bottom line, what I said before, not every single dwelling unit needs to be accessible. It’s just not needed, not economical, and not reasonable to require by law; and any reasonable advocate for people with accessibility needs will recognize the truth of that, especially if they are also an advocate for people with affordability needs.

Finally, I just glanced through the entire thread and I’m now quite confused: I don’t see how anybody could claim that I have “filled [my] posts with invective and personal attacks”. If you could point at one or two specific examples I would find it helpful, although “filled” implies more than just one or two examples written at a heated moment.