[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Paul O'Hanlon
Date: 2/1/2002
Time: 3:56:00 PM
Remote Name: 216.158.3.101
Advocates in Pittsburgh want to wage a campaign in City Council for an Ordinance that would require new single family homes to be "visitable". A number of cities have "visitability" ordinances (Atlanta, Austin, to name a few). All of these (with the exception of Santa Monica) address only single family homes constructed with some public investment. What do people think are our chances of surviving a legal challenge if we try for a "universal" ordinance that applies to all new construction? Visitability is a newer concept that gets beyond the fractional mindset of accessibility. Policy up to now talks of 5% accessible (and thus 95% inaccessible). Inaccessible neighborhoods lead to isolation and exclusion of people with disabilities. Also, we have significant public health problems created when people (usually seniors) lose the ability to get into, or out of their house; who have to choose between being on the floor of their home with the toilet or the kitchen. We pay an enormous cost as a society for this by forcing people out of their homes and into nursing homes and other institutional care. A house is visitable if it has 1 no-step entrance (front, back, side -- who cares), halls and doorways wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair, and a toilet on the first floor that a wheelchair user could use. My sense is that if a local governmental entity justified the ordinance on public health and safety grounds (like ordinances dealing with wiring and banning lead pipes), that a court challenge would be reviewed on a rational basis analysis -- and likely to survive challenge. Any thoughts, any experience in such an endeavor?