# Stricter ADA laws could be coming for Austin homes



## jar546 (Jan 23, 2014)

Stricter ADA laws could be coming for Austin homes

Austin debates requiring changes for new homes

http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austi...r-austin-homes

By Omar Lewis

January 22, 2014, 9:23 PM CST

AUSTIN (KXAN) - If you're in the market to buy or build a new home, you may have to pay a bit more to make your home disability friendly.

Next week, the Austin City Council will vote on requirements for new houses that would make it easier for disabled people to visit Austin homes.

The guidelines now in the works would require all newly built homes and duplexes to have the following:

A pathway into the home with no steps; it doesn't have to be the front door

The door has to be able to clearly open 32 inches

There must be a clear route to a kitchen and bathroom that is 32 inches wide

There must be a bathroom on the first floor

Light switches on the "visitable" floor must be 48 inches high; outlets must be 15 inches high

"I think its a really good thing," said Brian East, a lawyer with Disability Rights Texas. "People often come to us complaining about inaccessible housing and a lot of times the law doesn't require it to be."

But the Home Builders Association of Greater Austin says they have several concerns with the proposed law. They say the increase in cost for home buyers will drive more people to buy homes outside the city.

"This would increase the average price of a home about $2,000," said Harry Savio, with HBA of Greater Austin. "For every thousand dollars you increase the price of a home, that's 1,500 families that can't afford to buy the house."

If passed, some of the requirements for builders would kick in within the next 90 days, and all the requirements would take effect on Jan. 1, 2015.

Right now about 6,800 homes in the city limits already meet that standard. Many of those homes are in the Mueller development.

The Austin City Council will vote on the item Jan. 30.


----------



## mjesse (Jan 23, 2014)

5...4...3...2...1..

opcorn


----------



## fatboy (Jan 23, 2014)

Should be options..........just sayin. A 36" door to a bathroom, that has to be on the first level, accessed without steps?

I'm all for accessibility, but 100% of the new housing stock should not have have features for a possible future small market segment.

JMHO opcorn


----------



## rshuey (Jan 23, 2014)

That's BS. If i went a jet tub I pay to install it. If they want lower switches and a bigger door, pony up.


----------



## Msradell (Jan 24, 2014)

Interesting subject.  I'm disabled and obviously in favor of accessibility standards and complete observance of the ADA requirements however I have some problems with this requirement.  As mentioned by an earlier poster number of people requiring all of these accessibility issues is relatively small in comparison to the general population although it is currently.  Some of these standards, such as having at least one accessible doorway into the structure makes sense since they would allow a disabled person to visit someone living in the home.  However some of the other standards, such as the one relating to light switches may actually make the home more difficult for the average individual to use.  I also don't see where the $2000 figure for the cost to implement these requirements come from.  If they are designed into the structure from the start the cost of development should be considerably less than that and in some ways the requirements would be cheaper to implement than other options.

It will be interesting to see how the meeting on the 30th goes as far as passing these requirements.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 24, 2014)

For discrimination to be legit, it can't just be in certain locations. It must be proven across the board. This is the next step.

Remember when I asked if the true believers abide the ADA into thier own dwellings?

Incoming.

Brent


----------



## RJJ (Jan 24, 2014)

Interesting at best!


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 24, 2014)

The changes proposed are "Universal" in nature, no cost impact only logical considerations. Contractors (most any way) already use tape measures, these are merely tape measure changes and beneficial to all of us.


----------



## steveray (Jan 24, 2014)

In big developments I could see at least a percentage being required (like townhouses) under town planning....for one person building their own house, I don't see it...


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 24, 2014)

Wait until you have to have your house modified before you can sell it. That's not far overthe horizon.

All of a sudden it won't be just about "tape measures". And a G or two won't be as easily dismissed.

Brent.


----------



## conarb (Jan 24, 2014)

With all the money behind the disability industry and the Alinsky style obnoxious activist groups I knew it was coming, on the last home I built I did all exterior doors level in and out, I did curbless showers in all baths, all doors are a minimum of 2'8" with most 3' and egress at 4'.  At this point we live in a totalitarian society with massive redistribution of wealth to all suspect classes, in this case to the disabled.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 24, 2014)

It is to make it easier for disabled people/family to visit Austin homes.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 24, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> In big developments I could see at least a percentage being required (like townhouses) under town planning....for one person building their own house, I don't see it...


This is the way it is here. Anything above four units requires 10% of them to be accessible with a minimum of one.

Before working as a building inspector, I designed houses and oversaw on site construction and tried to incorporate accessible design into all of the designs I did. Now that I'm a building inspector I'm floored over the amount of people in their later years of life that have two storey houses built without a way to easily create a bedroom on the main level.


----------



## Keystone (Jan 24, 2014)

The Canadian's are coming, opps sorry just the lawyers and agenda machine.

The bldr response IMO is weak at best, cost.... What about the 1st response being something along the lines of say my right to build a home the way I see fit. Once upon a time a mans home was his castle, well the moat is drying up and the draw bridge is going down for everyone to enter.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 24, 2014)

And your point is?

What if your parent were in a wheelchair or uses a walker and you have a crawlspace house?

Visitability is the term here to be considered.

If you don't want to resell it in the future then "don't" do it.

Disabled buyers are increasing in number every day. Its a fact of life.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 24, 2014)

Keystone said:
			
		

> The Canadian's are coming, opps sorry just the lawyers and agenda machine.The bldr response IMO is weak at best, cost.... What about the 1st response being something along the lines of say my right to build a home the way I see fit. Once upon a time a mans home was his castle, well the moat is drying up and the draw bridge is going down for everyone to enter.


First fire sprinklers now this. What next your car, bike.


----------



## Keystone (Jan 24, 2014)

As a matter of fact I do have family with disabilities and we as in family and the indivual have made appropriate adjustments, and your point is?

Why should vistabilty as its put fall onto the backs of everyone?

Why if I chose to build a new home should I make my home vistabilitized, why should anyone be made to mandated to do so?

If I dont want to sell it in the future then dont, well what about when I go to renovate and the plan review is rejected due to the lack of vistability upgrades?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 24, 2014)

It is always easier, and cheaper, to do it when the dwelling is first built.

It becomes an issue when the basement is "semi" buried. And not so much when you have slab on grade.

to provide a wider hall or a bath for a t turn does not cost more, it eats up a little sq. ftg. of the adjoining rooms, not cost.

They are not proposing full accessibility. And it is nothing new.


----------



## mjesse (Jan 24, 2014)

What about the conjoined twin population? Or maybe little-people, or those with gigantism?

Let's mandate all homes have 48" wide double doors 8' high, with combo door handles at 18", 36" and 48" a.f.f.

All residential bathrooms shall have at least two toilets, one high-one low, and a power operated vanity that adjusts height based on your individual needs.

American are getting fatter, and we're all going to be disabled eventually.

No more stairs, single stories only, all existing two story homes shall be leveled or equipped with gurney sized elevators.

If you disagree, I'll assume you're a bigot who hates conjoined little-people who marry obese giants.

Happy Friday


----------



## fatboy (Jan 24, 2014)

If I were one of those little people, or giant, I would not expect to go car shopping and find that every car is going to work for me, I would find one that did, or have it customized..........


----------



## mjesse (Jan 24, 2014)

fatboy said:
			
		

> If I were one of those ____ people, or ____, I would not expect to go ___ shopping and find that everything is going to work for me, I would find one that did, or have it customized..........


Fill in the blanks.

...or you could blame everyone else, and get the laws changed to protect your civil rights.


----------



## Keystone (Jan 24, 2014)

Customize, wait a minute that is only available for those there Harley Davidsons.


----------



## steveray (Jan 24, 2014)

"If you disagree, I'll assume you're a bigot who hates conjoined little-people who marry obese giants."

MJ...Can I use this as my signature? That just made my Friday!


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 25, 2014)

Wow! Awareness of those who are less fortunate then many of us ( in most cases not due to their own fault).

Is consideration of your fellows to much to ask if it can be done for minimal cost, if it only takes making you aware of the need to do so?

Thank you MH


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 25, 2014)

Minimal cost.

Always with someone else's money.

Plus adding all the other minimal costs that everybody mandates. Safety, Ada, health, convenience, environmental.

No one believes it, but it will come to a head at some point.

Brent.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 25, 2014)

Sorry, I'm throwing the BS flag on that also. As I said, I'm all for accessibity for public places, I draw the line at my own castle. I designed it, built it, for me, period. If I sell it at some point in the future, then whoever buys it, can do what they darned well want to. But I am not going to worry about what may or may not happen in the future. If I become disabled and need more accomodations, I'll do it when it needs to be done, because I, or someone that is in my home, needs it. I don't see any of those folks that need accessibility lining up to help pay my mortgage payment on the first of the month, so they have an accesiible path in never-never land.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2014)

Austin Council Passes No-Step Ordinance

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/austin-council-passes-nostep-ordinance-15820.shtml

Updated: Thursday, January 30 2014, 02:17 PM CST The Austin City Council passed an ordinance Thursday that will require new home construction in the city to be more accessible to people with disabilities. It passed in a 6-1 vote. It will require new homes constructed within the city limits of Austin to have a no-step entrance, higher electrical outlets and lower light switches passes. It would go into effect in 2015. Before the vote Mayor Lee Leffingwell said ordinances like this one were pushing people to build outside of Austin -- and this regulation would increase that.


----------



## Keystone (Jan 30, 2014)

Thanks for the update.

This is Texas, not supposed to have this nonsense. Dear recession transplants from California, return to your over taxed and regulated haven.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2014)

We don't want them back.... they can stay. we have enough whiners.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 31, 2014)

Whatever the initial construction cost are for these changes just remember a home buyer will be paying interest on them for 30 years.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 31, 2014)

Sounds easy. Wait until they try to figure out grades, step downs, stucco and siding clearances, waterproofing, etc.

can be done, nothing's free.

Brent


----------



## fatboy (Jan 31, 2014)

Amazing..........I would guess come re-election time the citzens should voice their opinion to the current council.......


----------



## mark handler (Jan 31, 2014)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Amazing..........I would guess come re-election time the citizens should voice their opinion to the current council.......


And they will, One way or the other....remember this only effects new housing. Does not effect 99 percent of the population.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 31, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And they will, One way or the other....remember this only effects new housing. Does not effect 99 percent of the population.


I agree. I have built 3 barrier free houses over the years.

But there is a cost to it, and traditional design does not lend itself well, at least to my tastes.

It's not really conventional construction.

Just another burden to bear.

Brent.


----------



## conarb (Jan 31, 2014)

Keystone said:
			
		

> Thanks for the update.This is Texas, not supposed to have this nonsense. Dear recession transplants from California, return to your over taxed and regulated haven.


Keystone:

Many of our Fascists, Greenies, egalitarians, Communitarians, New Urbanists, Hippies, pot heads, whatever, like your cheap prices so they are coming down to Californicate you, all I can say is good riddance.  Too bad we can't pick up the entire City of Berkeley, university and all, and drop it in the middle of Texas, maybe you can even teach them to play football.  We'll send *some of these people too**.*


----------



## mark handler (Jan 31, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> I agree. I have built 3 barrier free houses over the years. But there is a cost to it, and traditional design does not lend itself well, at least to my tastes.
> 
> It's not really conventional construction.
> 
> ...


It will be conventional construction. this is a start.


----------



## Msradell (Jan 31, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> I agree. I have built 3 barrier free houses over the years. But there is a cost to it, and traditional design does not lend itself well, at least to my tastes.
> 
> It's not really conventional construction.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure where you think additional costs will be incurred.  Obviously moving the light switches and receptacles will cost nothing, a wider door will cost nothing additional and actually the width in the requirements is probably the normal with used anyway.  1st floor bathrooms are extremely common to say the least.  The only possible requirement that would cost anything additional would be the step free entrance and if that's part of the original design its cost should be extremely small if anything.

As far as the requirement stating that one entrance must be accessible I wonder how it would interpret a home with a walkout basement?  If the basement entrance was accessible with that meet the requirement as long as there is a bathroom on that floor?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 31, 2014)

Msradell said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you think additional costs will be incurred.  Obviously moving the light switches and receptacles will cost nothing, a wider door will cost nothing additional and actually the width in the requirements is probably the normal with used anyway.  1st floor bathrooms are extremely common to say the least.  The only possible requirement that would cost anything additional would be the step free entrance and if that's part of the original design its cost should be extremely small if anything.As far as the requirement stating that one entrance must be accessible I wonder how it would interpret a home with a walkout basement?  If the basement entrance was accessible with that meet the requirement as long as there is a bathroom on that floor?


A slab hollow core 36" prehung door does cost about five dollars more than a 30" door.http://www.homedepot.com/p/100084672?N=5yc1vZc5ij

If the floor footprint is equal the added cost would be in usable sq ft. and typically finishes in the bath.

Everything else is scare tactics if the house is built from scratch.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 31, 2014)

Funny reading that from someone who has never built one.

You would be surprised.

Brent.


----------



## Keystone (Jan 31, 2014)

Conarb/Mark, Sorry if I mislead, I do not live there just a fan of the state after several vacations and one day hopefully a vacation house.

Again, the cost factor is part of the concern with the true cost being lose of mi casa... but to entertain the narrative most new dwelling have a powder rm not a full bath. The surface impact appears minimal until you factor in the above comments. Its not just a detached SFD, we have 4,6 & 8 pack cluster townhomes back to back and side to side.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 31, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Funny reading that from someone who has never built one. You would be surprised.
> 
> Brent.


You do not know that.  Pounded my share of nails,  before nail guns. Pulled my share of wire.

And done my share of cost estimates, and they were not far off.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 31, 2014)

Keystone said:
			
		

> Conarb/Mark, Sorry if I mislead, I do not live there just a fan of the state after several vacations and one day hopefully a vacation house.Again, the cost factor is part of the concern with the true cost being lose of mi casa... but to entertain the narrative most new dwelling have a powder rm not a full bath. The surface impact appears minimal until you factor in the above comments. Its not just a detached SFD, we have 4,6 & 8 pack cluster townhomes back to back and side to side.


They are NOT requiring a full bath,  nor full kitchen access. This is for visit ability.  Not living.


----------



## steveray (Jan 31, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Whatever the initial construction cost are for these changes just remember a home buyer will be paying interest on them for 30 years.


YAY!....More money for the banking industry!


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 31, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> You do not know that.  Pounded my share of nails,  before nail guns. Pulled my share of wire.And done my share of cost estimates, and they were not far off.


That was 1975 Mark.  

However, I'm referring to the cost of barrier free. There are so many considerations to get it right it becomes a budget and design issue. It is not free, at least when done right.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 31, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> They are NOT requiring a full bath,  nor full kitchen access. This is for visit ability.  Not living.


For now. That will change.

Brent.


----------



## steveray (Jan 31, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> That was 1975 Mark.   However, I'm referring to the cost of barrier free. There are so many considerations to get it right it becomes a budget and design issue. It is not free, at least when done right.
> 
> Brent.


Grades and clearances seem like they would be really difficult especially on small lots...Lots will have to get bigger, developers will love that...Maybe they will allow the ramps in the frontyard zoning setback. We do that here if someone wants to add a ramp...


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 31, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> Grades and clearances seem like they would be really difficult especially on small lots...Lots will have to get bigger, developers will love that...Maybe they will allow the ramps in the frontyard zoning setback. We do that here if someone wants to add a ramp...


Bingo.

Lots have to be remarkably flat, code issues of finishes to grade appear, insetting of thresholds, drop elevations of shower drains, garage accessibility.

The list continues.

Remember, the floor has to be flush with the sidewalk and entry, and normal things like door thresholds become an issue.

If you do one you will find out.

Brent.


----------



## steveray (Jan 31, 2014)

Lots don't have to be flat, but they would need a ramp....Come to think of it...I don't know if I have ever seen a "residential" exterior door that would work as an accessible threshold....MH says you may not have to worry about the shower...Just visitor friendly, although I don't see the drain as that big of a deal.....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 31, 2014)

A pathway into the home with no steps; it doesn't have to be the front door. ​I purposely designed my house to have a 6" step down to the deck at all exterior doors to reduce the snow piling up at the door. 



The door has to be able to clearly open 32 inches. Already required by code



There must be a clear route to a kitchen and bathroom that is 32 inches wide. Hallways already required to be 36" minimum



There must be a bathroom on the first floor. This could add considerable cost if not an original design of a tract home builder. I have seen many "powder rooms" located on the first floor and all bathing facilities on the upper floor



Light switches on the "visitable" floor must be 48 inches high; outlets must be 15 inches high. Most homes already use a maximum 48 minimum 15 for switches and outlet locations.

I personally do not care if this could be accomplished without spending an additional penny. I would still be against it because I am loosing my freedom and rights to design and build a house of my choosing for my use with my money. Just because "somebody" may visit the house or purchase it in the future and may have to make modification for their needs is not my problem. Nor should I be required to expend my funds or change my design for some mysterious future owner or visitor invited or not.


----------



## kilitact (Feb 1, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> A pathway into the home with no steps; it doesn't have to be the front door. ​I purposely designed my house to have a 6" step down to the deck at all exterior doors to reduce the snow piling up at the door.
> 
> The door has to be able to clearly open 32 inches. Already required by code
> 
> ...


mtlogcabin, your last sentence is the fact that people need to remember. Thank you.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2014)

Just like all Zoning and building codes.... I own the property, don't tell me what I can and can't build on it....


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 1, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Just like all Zoning and building codes.... I own the property, don't tell me what I can and can't build on it....


And that makes it OK for any regulation that comes down the pipe to be inflicted on people. Because there are restrictions in place, that means you should happily embrace any new restriction that shows up.

It's an interesting life philosophy, I'll give you that.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2014)

Yes let's build a meat rendering outbuilding right next to your bedroom window

You "are/were" in the wrong business if you don't like regulation. Everything in the codes are regulations.

Please don't were you Seat belts and/or helmets more regulations.

Please don't put in your Smoke/CM detectors more regulations.


----------



## kilitact (Feb 1, 2014)

And you would be OK with building your home so that it suits 1% of the populace.

All of the items/regulations that you cited are a direct result of certain people not taking responsibility for themselves and/or there actions. Perhaps not in the wrong business but in the wrong time frame. The majority of these regulations were driven by the initiation of lawsuits where someone thought someone else should take care of them.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 1, 2014)

It is not an issue of government telling me I can't build my home with certain life safety requirements, it is government dictating a certain design for my home.

What's next mandatory domed shaped homes in high wing areas.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 1, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Yes let's build a meat rendering outbuilding right next to your bedroom windowYou "are/were" in the wrong business if you don't like regulation. Everything in the codes are regulations.
> 
> Please don't were you Seat belts and/or helmets more regulations.
> 
> Please don't put in your Smoke/CM detectors more regulations.


Mark, you need to quit with that. It's stupid.

ANY business no matter what is regulated, and some excessively.

I build to those regulations to the best of my ability. I exceed where possible.

It does not mean I welcome more of them.

Apparently you are correctly pigeonholed in the right business as you embrace more regulation.

It's good for you. That's great. Hope you are a millionaire. I however choose to not just accept everything force fed me. And that's why I would make a crappy bureaucrat, and you appear to be a gifted one.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2014)

north star said:
			
		

> In some cases, it is easier and more politically pleasing ...to throw the bldg. dept. "under the bus" and have them appear to be the bad guys ... .As a code official, ...who would you want to protect ...


From another thread


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2014)

What is stupid is the fight against accessibility laws and codes.

It is going to happen and fighting is a waste of resources, that can be used to make the spaces more accessible.


----------



## kilitact (Feb 2, 2014)

Accessible for who, is the question you should be asking yourself. What person with what disability/limitations/impairment would you choose to design your house for, and lets not forget the companions, dogs people etc.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 2, 2014)

kilitact said:
			
		

> Accessible for who, is the question you should be asking yourself. What person with what disability/limitations/impairment would you choose to design your house for, and lets not forget the companions, dogs people etc.


Universal design.  Access for 99.9% of the population. People should be able to invite any one to their home. Any relative any friend.

I'm sorry I'm having a super bowl party with everyone but you can not come.

We need to design products and the built environment to be usable, to the greatest extent possible, by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life.


----------



## conarb (Feb 2, 2014)

Mark said:
			
		

> We need to design products and the built environment to be usable, to  the greatest extent possible, by everyone, regardless of their age,  ability, or status in life.


I doubt that the Austin ordinance is constitutional, ADA was carefully crafted to apply to "public accommodations" only, it violates first amendment freedom of association to apply it to private residences.  We had a civil rights case here in San Francisco several years ago, a prestigious private golf club that banned women and certain other minorities was situated partially on rented public land, the courts ruled that they couldn't discriminate because of the fact that they were partially on public land. i don't remember the settlement but I think they started allowing membership to minorities.

I have to wonder if anyone in Austin will challenge it in the courts, Austin has become californicated by our communists.


----------



## kilitact (Feb 2, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Universal design.  Access for 99.9% of the population. People should be able to invite any one to their home. Any relative any friend. I'm sorry I'm having a super bowl party with everyone but you can not come.
> 
> We need to design products and the built environment to be usable, to the greatest extent possible, by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life.


If you could conceive or design such a building that would be monumental. I think that someone would perceive themselves to be left out and or at a disadvantage.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 2, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> I have to wonder if anyone in Austin will challenge it in the courts, Austin has become californicated by our communists.


Yes it is the communists that are behind accessibility.....Bush 1 and Bush 2 communists

By the way, ADA has nothing to do with SF residential housing.


----------



## conarb (Feb 2, 2014)

Mark said:
			
		

> Yes it is the communists that are behind accessibility.....Bush 1 and Bush 2 communistsBy the way, ADA has nothing to do with SF residential housing.


Mark:

I use the word "communists" to describe the politics of those who believe in the communist maxim "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."  Actually Marx took his maxim from the French Socialist Utopians.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase,  the slogan was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1839, in "The organization of work". The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Morelly, who proposed in his 1755 _Code of Nature_ "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society".......¹


And yes, the Bushes were (are) pretty stupid, it was Bush I who signed off on the United Nations Agenda 21 which is giving us so many fits in One Bay Area with communitarian mixed use developments, forcing them into upper class cities and neighborhoods to create a socially integrated "classless society", another maxim of communism.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need


----------



## Msradell (Feb 3, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> I doubt that the Austin ordinance is constitutional, ADA was carefully crafted to apply to "public accommodations" only, it violates first amendment freedom of association to apply it to private residences.


I don't see any basis for it to be unconstitutional.  It's no different than many sections of the building code a dictate how I how it should be built.  Especially considering any part of the ordinance that I've read does not actually refer to the ADA, all it does is set certain design specifications that must be met in any new residence.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 3, 2014)

The intent of this is visitability, the three key features that are promoted:

At least one zero-step entrance on an accessible route leading from a driveway or public sidewalk,

First floor doors providing 32 inches of passage space and

At least a half bathroom on the First floor

That is it


----------



## conarb (Feb 3, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The intent of this is visitability, the three key features that are promoted:At least one zero-step entrance on an accessible route leading from a driveway or public sidewalk,
> 
> First floor doors providing 32 inches of passage space and
> 
> ...


"This is it?"  This report says *they are adopting ADA guidelines*. If there is litigation obviously this information will be brought into evidence showing that the intent was to extend ADA style requirements into a non public accommodation setting unconstitutionally granting special privileges to a quasi-suspect class of individuals.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 3, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> "This is it?"  This report says *they are adopting ADA guidelines*. If there is litigation obviously this information will be brought into evidence showing that the intent was to extend ADA style requirements into a non public accommodation setting unconstitutionally granting special privileges to a quasi-suspect class of individuals.


Dick read your article

*"The new standards will require:*

*New homes with a habitable space on the first floor to be constructed with a bathroom.*

*Light switches on the visitable floor must be no higher than 48 inches above the floor; outlets must be a minimum of 15 inches above the floor*

*A clear path on the visitable flood with a minimum width of 32 inches*

*An exterior route to a no-step entrance for newly developed lots and all new structures built on existing lots"*

Everyone says ADA when the mean to say accessible

NOT ADA, If anything it would fall under "Fair Housing"


----------



## conarb (Feb 3, 2014)

Mark:

Granted that the "ADA Guidelines" as stated in the article are not excessive, but they constitute the slippery to ever more discriminatory regulations.  Adopting the role of a missionary for use of the police power of the State to impose huge regulatory burdens on ordinary people requires a high standard of proof. Civil Rights legislation was itself unconstitutional and imposed as redress for past grievances suffered by blacks, it was only allowed for a time limited period, in fact Justice O'Connor limited that time to 25 more years 10 years ago in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).  Civil Rights legislation itself was the slippery slope that has allowed other groups like the disabled to become the beneficiaries of discriminatory status. The mentally deficient are also disabled, looking down the slippery slope is the day going to come that we are going to have to employ mentally retarded individuals as architects, engineers, builders, and building inspectors?  I know some would argue that we already have the mentally retarded in these groups ergo there is no discrimination.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 3, 2014)

The uninformed use the term ADA for everything involved with disabled and even mobility inpared senior issues.

ADA has nothing to do with SFD housing.

It would have been more correct to use the term ANSI117.1 type C but no one in the general public would understand.

And also remember that this applies to NEW not existing product.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 5, 2014)

Austin votes for “sticks” vs. “carrots” with Zero-Step Ordinance

 by Aaron D. Murphy

http://empoweringthematuremind.com/austin-votes-sticks-vs-carrots-w-zero-step-ordinance/

In a 6-1 vote this week, the Austin city council passed an ordinance that moves them one step toward Stepless-Entry-Homethe “age friendly” & “inclusive” world of new home construction.  But for all the passion and belief I have in this movement, I’m not sure this was the right decision for the city to make.  They will now require new construction to have at least one “no step” entry into the home, and set light switches and outlets at more universally reachable heights.

As an architect that is personally passionate and professionally educated and certified about “Aging in Place” in residential design, I am working to consult with cities and jurisdictions (along with housing design for large builders and developers) to design Age-Friendly communities and “Inclusive” home designs.  I see both sides of this argument.  I’ve spoken on stage many times (including to my own city council and planning department) on the topic, and how best to go about getting more inclusive home design to be a part of the language of a city, and of the builders that are finally starting to ramp up again with new home construction after the recession.

I think it comes down to a choice about directing this movement with either “carrots” or “sticks”. The sticks in this case would be, as Austin has chosen to do, going about it via mandating the change with rules, laws, and requirements.  I see this approach as a parallel to something much like pollution control, wherein you are forced into compliance, or you pay fees and fines for non-compliance.

The other approach, the carrots, I think could be a better approach overall for getting inclusive design practices and home layouts to get into a “new speculative” that is more considerate of people with all levels of ability.  I think it’s better for the home buyer, the builder, and the real estate industry to let the market decide that this is truly what we want in the next 4 buying cycles (on average every 7 years) that will occur during the remainder of this Silver Tsunami of 10,000 people turning 65 years old for the last 3 years and for the next 18 years.  Personally, I think it IS WHAT WE WANT, but we need to get enough product inventory into the market to test and prove that theory!

In a “carrot” approach, you should make it work for the builder to be interested in compliance.  It has to pencil for them.  It has to be profitable, or at least not cost more to consider it.  Therefore, by creating incentives (like permit fee offsets and density bonuses to builder/developer) it may be a better way to create offsetting balances that help their spreadsheets and allow builders to consider being interested in compliance toward a movement that would create multi-generational, visit-able, and inclusively designed homes that simply work better than the standard “spec house”, for everyone.  It works better for the grandparents, but also the grandkids, the parents, the caretakers, and anyone else that may be in your home!  If the “cost add” (which can be almost zero when planned for in the design phase before construction, vs. retrofitting a home) can be offset to the builder by a lesser permit fee from the jurisdiction, or the “lot density bonus” that would equate to a builder maybe getting one more lot on their development parcel (ie. one more sell-able product with a profit margin for them) then I think you’d get the builder to “open their ears” and their minds to the idea.  For them, it’s going to be a “No MATH, no DEAL” mentality situation.

Right now I don’t see the “stick” mandate / law approach sorting itself out particularly well.  As the article mentions, from the builder side, it could simply have those developers looking just outside the jurisdiction vs. inside it for lots to build homes on.  That’s counter-productive in it’s own right, as it would continue to create sprawl and “suburbs” when we already have a housing stock that is 2/3 “empty nested” in the existing suburbs, and people migrating back toward cities for better walk-ability and access to public transit and services such as health care.

What I’d like to see is enough forward thinking big builders working with agencies to make some % of their new homes meet an optional 2-3 tiered “certification” (like LEED or EnergyStar) that would allow their housing for sale to stand apart from their competitors and be more “future thinking” in it’s design friendliness. I know of a few people that are working on (and have asked us to help with development of) concepts like this for a tiered certification for new homes related to universal design, accessibility, and the like.  If we can make it makes sense for the builder to “try it” financially (with those incentives) then I think we can get to the point where we can let the MARKET DECIDE with quicker sales / higher sales prices being bid up / lower DOM (Days on Market = holding costs to the developer)…

SOLD signTHEN I think “what the public wants” can answer it’s own question for the housing industry and builder/developer.  If these houses are selling QUICKER, or at HIGHER PRICES than the standard “spec house” that isn’t designed for anyone in particular, THEN we will have a viable movement in the housing industry – a paradigm shift that we’ve been preaching and passionately advocating for in the last 4 years.  Our hope is that we can all “paddle faster” and get housing design in front of this SILVER TSUNAMI of Baby Boomers and their families (along with anyone else – 25% of our nation statistically) who are in any way not “perfectly able”.

Whether it is your height, weight, sight, hearing, mobility, or any other difference you may have that is considered not “perfectly able”, you should get equal use, enjoyment, and longevity out of your own home and community.  Good, pro-active, and thoughtful design in planning mode (vs. reactive “panic” mode after it’s too late to do it right and cost-effectively) is the key to a housing stock that considers the future of our population, as it ramps back up to full speed as a leading indicator of an economy that appears to be climbing out of this horrific recession of the last five years.  Full speed is great, but let’s make sure we are pointing that speed in the right direction, one that includes “INCLUSIVE DESIGN”.


----------



## Min&Max (Feb 5, 2014)

So are they also requiring a bedroom and/or bathroom on the accessible/stepless entry level? If they are, does the bathroom have to meet Fairhousing guidelines? Is the bedroom sized for a single bed or king size or something in between? It makes no sense to get people through the front door if they can not do anything else once they are in. We have an entire subdivision(200+ homes) in which every home has stepless front entry and built with thought to elderly occupancy. No over-reaching ordinance or law to compel the builder or developer to comply. If there is a market, someone will fill the need.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 5, 2014)

visitability

NOT per Fair Housing

No full access

No Bedroom

Partial Bath access

It is so Grandma can come over for Christmas/Hanukah/kwanza

Or so you can invite that disabled vet on the side of the road home for a meal, your wife will love you for a long time if you do that...


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 5, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> visitabilityNOT per Fair Housing
> 
> No full access
> 
> ...


No, it's not.

It's actually being done so someone can score political points. It has NOTHING to do with any disabled people.

Brent


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 5, 2014)

There goes the split entry plan and daylight basements plans that are so popular around here.

The last article Mark posted does have some merit with the sticks vs carrots approach. My only question is why does somebody else always seem to provide the carrots?



> creating incentives (like permit fee offsets and density bonuses to builder/developer)


If it is a product the public wants or perceives they need then they will purchase it.


----------



## conarb (Feb 5, 2014)

Totalitarianism is getting so bad in this country that codes have become political, tinged with new age religion, the liberal pathology is so complete that the incessant mantras of  wealth redistribution, the public flogging of free enterprise and  exaltation of social justice at the cost of individual freedom don't  even seem like radical positions any longer. I don't know if anyone has ever done a cost analysis of ADA but the cost to society has to be enormous, a block away is a park, the park was fine but now it is all torn up within many millions of taxpayer money going into making it an "all abilities park".  I don't know how the durable goods medical industry ever got suspect classification for the users of their products, nobody ever discriminated against the handicapped, there were no past grievances for redress, now lots of people hate the disabled.


----------



## Min&Max (Feb 5, 2014)

Hard to believe this was passed in a Texas community. I would not have been to surprised if it was somewhere in California, Oregon or even Colorado. But Texas, thats crazy.


----------



## conarb (Feb 5, 2014)

Min&Max said:
			
		

> Hard to believe this was passed in a Texas community. I would not have been to surprised if it was somewhere in California, Oregon or even Colorado. But Texas, thats crazy.


Austin has been completely Californicated, they are predicting that with the influx of Californians escaping taxation Texas will be a blue state within 10 years.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 5, 2014)

"I would not have been to surprised if it was somewhere in California, Oregon or even Colorado."

Maybe in the Peoples Republic of Boulder, or it wanna-be younger sister Ft. Collins..........

If I want to get Grandma in, or the homeless vet in my house, I'll figure it out, I'm not going to mandate it for the rest of the jurisdiction...........


----------



## kilitact (Feb 5, 2014)

Hey, whats up with the thought process that Oregon would even consider this? We is the State that amended out the fire sprinkler requirement that all you'all try to required.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 5, 2014)

The more I think about this the more ridiculous it becomes.

Out right stupidity.

Brent


----------



## mjesse (Feb 5, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> The more I think about this the more ridiculous it becomes. Out right stupidity.
> 
> Brent


You're not supposed to think, just accept the rules from your exalted leaders.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 6, 2014)

As to Califorinacation, builders are required to provide to buyers a Checklist of available "Universal Design" features for ground floor installation that "if requested" they must install (buyers to pay for). Many Cities have gone even farther to mandate installation of features to facilitate accessibility and visitability.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 6, 2014)

If requested.

And paid for by that person.

All the difference in the world.

Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 6, 2014)

Double tap.

Deleted.


----------



## conarb (Feb 6, 2014)

Is "visitability" a new politically correct word to go along with the politically correct "disabled" replacing "handicaped"?  That's as bad as someone in the disability industry not knowing the difference between "further" and "farther".


----------



## Msradell (Feb 6, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> No, it's not. It's actually being done so someone can score political points. It has NOTHING to do with any disabled people.
> 
> Brent


Where did you get the information about political points?  Which politicians can you point to that want to make links by the passage of this requirement?  Is very obviously is being done for those who are disabled.


----------



## conarb (Feb 6, 2014)

Msrandell said:
			
		

> Is very obviously is being done for those who are disabled.


No it's not, it's being done by those profiteering in the disability industry, the truly disabled are being exploited for the profit of a few.

  Today I visited my optometrist's office, on the way in I was confronted by a blue and white sign about 12"x12", it had the wheelchair logo with a big checkmark stating approved by a CASp, just who are these people?  Architects with nothing else to do? Who else? Another cottage industry of people exploiting this situation to feather their own nests?  How much do they charge the building owners for their "services"?  More extortion like the slime-ball attorneys suing innocent businesses.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 6, 2014)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Where did you get the information about political points?  Which politicians can you point to that want to make links by the passage of this requirement?  Is very obviously is being done for those who are disabled.


http://austintexas.gov/page/letter-re-smart-housing-and-visitability-ordinance-amendmentsPlease.

Brent


----------



## Keystone (Feb 6, 2014)

I have been involved with several retirement communities, by preference the majority have been designed and constructed for accessibilty which went beyond the buzz = vistability. So are those retirement communities who made there personal desicion to reside within those locations now discriminating against the working class folks such as millennials who may desire to have a child in that particular school district but can not find a move in ready vistabilitized dwelling other than the retirement community. This should be more than enough of a reason than ever to now spread he word, mandatory vistaility for all. One class of folk can not be superior.....


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 6, 2014)

Keystone said:
			
		

> I have been involved with several retirement communities, by preference the majority have been designed and constructed for accessibilty which went beyond the buzz = vistability. So are those retirement communities who made there personal desicion to reside within those locations now discriminating against the working class folks such as millennials who may desire to have a child in that particular school district but can not find a move in ready vistabilitized dwelling other than the retirement community. This should be more than enough of a reason than ever to now spread he word, mandatory vistaility for all. One class of folk can not be superior.....


What?

Brent.


----------



## Keystone (Feb 6, 2014)

"What", that is exactly right. The complete absurdity of a municipal entity mandating vistability requirements for all beit the baby step of grade to the front door toward complete accessibilty within the eye of the future. This municipal requirement is just as absurd as my above statement...


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 7, 2014)

Conarb, please take your head out of the stand. The CASp program (Certified Access Specialist program) has been around since 2003 when a Sheila Kuhel bill was passed creating it. The first certifications were made in 2008, in excess of 500 are presently certified since the first class of 27. Go to the DSA website and read of what you know not.

Then get back to us.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 7, 2014)

$1,600.00 just to become licensed by the state, and now over 500 certified individuals I think pretty much verifies CASp is a cottage industry that is going to continue to grow. 

*How do I obtain certification?*

The certification process starts with submitting an application to the program together with a required non-refundable fee of $500.00. After successful application into the program, the applicant can then register for an examination, along with an additional non-refundable registration fee of $800.00. Upon successful completion and passing of the CASp examination, together with payment of a non-refundable certification fee of $300.00, you will receive CASp certification confirming competency as a Certified Access Specialist. Your name will then be added to the published list of Certified Access Specialists posted on DSA's website.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 7, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Conarb, please take your head out of the stand. The CASp program (Certified Access Specialist program) has been around since 2003 when a Sheila Kuhel bill was passed creating it. The first certifications were made in 2008, in excess of 500 are presently certified since the first class of 27. Go to the DSA website and read of what you know not.Then get back to us.


Nice tone.

And defensive to boot.

Conarb has probably built more structures than you have read about in books.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2014)

mtlogcabin;

every  CA Jurisdiction must have a Certified Access Specialist, on staff or on retainer. Many CASps do not do any work other than for their Jurisdiction.

The intent was to make sure all jurisdictions were properly enforcing the codes, many plancheckers and inspectors were letting thing go, which became legal issues. And the second intent was to assist the public in the access/legal morass.

The state fee was estamated, with the intent to be self funded


----------



## fatboy (Feb 7, 2014)

OK, reign it in folks........don't get personal. If you have a comment relevant to the OP, or a comment to a relevant comment, dig in.........in other words, play nice.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 7, 2014)

completing large quantities of non complying structures is not the goal


----------



## jar546 (Feb 7, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Nice tone. And defensive to boot.
> 
> Conarb has probably built more structures than you have read about in books.
> 
> Brent.


Look who's talking about tone.

Who give s rats *** how many structures someone built.  What difference does that make?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> completing large quantities of non complying structures is not the goal


And that is why CA Architects are now required to have continuing education on accessibility for license renewal


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 7, 2014)

The fees are direct quotes from the DSA website. They seem pretty excessive unless there is some instructional time included in the fees.

I am all for people being certified and knowledgeable in specific fields like you are that is how the rest of us learn. As a small jurisdiction a $1,600.00 CASp cert would just about drain my educational budget for a given year. Then to invest that much in an individual who could leave at any time and take that certification with him/her and use it to get a higher paying job in another jurisdiction is something smaller jurisdictions contend with all the time.

Maybe there should be a reduction in fees for government employees if the intent is compliance


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2014)

There is a deduction for some.

Part of it is educational backgroud check, this is reduced for Architects and Engineers


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 7, 2014)

Not against casp, so you know.

Anecdotally, I have talked to three inspectors now that are working the course. All are in it for the money, which is ok by me. Get your nut.

None want to use it for their departments but rather as side income or retirement income, or start a full time business.

All have said it is remarkably difficult to pass, and the failure rate is high. I'm glad they have to pay for it out of their own pockets. Citizens should not have to pay for thier personal investments and education.

You can't deny it is a new industry, and will be used for personal gain.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2014)

And the problem of personal gain, is?

Most, if not all,  got into the construction business, not to shelter the poor, but for personal gain.

That was not the intent of the program.


----------



## conarb (Feb 7, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Not against casp, so you know. Anecdotally, I have talked to three inspectors now that are working the course. All are in it for the money, which is ok by me. Get your nut.
> 
> None want to use it for their departments but rather as side income or retirement income, or start a full time business.
> 
> ...


Brent:

Did any of these *******s tell you how much they are charging businesses for their certifications?  This all started with sleaze-ball attorneys exploiting people, now we have other *******s exploiting people.  We are losing all the freedoms that Americans have suffered and even died to protect, all through absurd regulation.  I budgeted $100,000 for special inspections for a home, the owner came to me one day and asked why we even had to pay for county inspections when there are so many layers of inspection?  I told him that county fees were his contribution to affordable housing for the poor and ignorant, that county inspectors didn't even have welding certifications.  Over-regulation is going to kill the golden goose that many here are living off as the public becomes aware that it is just another tax redistributing wealth and supporting people who produce nothing in life.


----------



## ICE (Feb 7, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> county fees were his contribution to affordable housing for the poor and ignorant


Brought to you by a guy named Dick....Oh the irony


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 7, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And the problem of personal gain, is?Most, if not all,  got into the construction business, not to shelter the poor, but for personal gain.
> 
> That was not the intent of the program.


Will you please do me a personal solid and read my post again?

Thank you.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2014)

And I did, what is wrong with a certified person using it for personal gain?

and if you are okay with it, as you say, why post that statement, if makes it sound like you are negaing the rest of what you are saying.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 7, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Brentid any of these *******s tell you how much they are charging businesses for their certifications?  This all started with sleaze-ball attorneys exploiting people, now we have other *******s exploiting people.  We are losing all the freedoms that Americans have suffered and even died to protect, all through absurd regulation.  I budgeted $100,000 for special inspections for a home, the owner came to me one day and asked why we even had to pay for county inspections when there are so many layers of inspection?  I told him that county fees were his contribution to affordable housing for the poor and ignorant, that county inspectors didn't even have welding certifications.  Over-regulation is going to kill the golden goose that many here are living off as the public becomes aware that it is just another tax redistributing wealth and supporting people who produce nothing in life.


Yes sir, they did. Hence their vigor for certification. They will be hired by businesses and whatnot to advise them how to avoid getting the pants sued off them. So they have to make a choice; Touch your toes now, or later.

Consultation fees expected in the thousands.

Brent.


----------



## ICE (Feb 7, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Look who's talking about tone.Who give s rats *** how many structures someone built.  What difference does that make?


That is kinda funny coming from Brent.  What's funnier is you and fatboy policing this thread.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 7, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And I did, what is wrong with a certified person using it for personal gain?and if you are okay with it, as you say, why post that statement, if makes it sound like you are negaing the rest of what you are saying.


Nothing. I said that.

What's wrong with selling Acia berries to people for 40 bucks a bottle in a multi-level marketing scheme?

What's wrong with selling extended warranties on electronics to old ladies.

Nothing apparently.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2014)

Whats wrong with contractors overcharging for services?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 7, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Look who's talking about tone.Who give s rats *** how many structures someone built.  What difference does that make?


I don't like peeps bogarting my style.

Point 2, respect, and knowledge.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 7, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Whats wrong with contractors overcharging for services?


Shirley you know.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2014)

I have seen casp reports for a couple hunderd and a couple thousand.

Ive seen contractors charge a thousand to scope a sewer drain and theres charge a couple hunderd.

Shop around.


----------



## ICE (Feb 7, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Whats wrong with contractors overcharging for services?


http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11467  Here's hoping there is a Hell.


----------



## conarb (Feb 7, 2014)

Brent said:
			
		

> Yes sir, they did. Hence their vigor for certification. They will be  hired by businesses and whatnot to advise them how to avoid getting the  pants sued off them. So they have to make a choice; Touch your toes now,  or later.Consultation fees expected in the thousands.
> 
> Brent.


Sounds like extortion to me.


----------



## ICE (Feb 7, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Sounds like extortion to me.


Somebody has to do it.  The government set this up to be difficult for everyone involved.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 7, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> I don't like peeps bogarting my style.Point 2, *respect, and knowledge*.
> 
> Brent.


Don't buy the respect and knowledge thing at all.

Do you have any clue whatsoever how many times I here "I've been doing it like that for 25/30+ years" ??

Just because you've been doing it for a long time does not mean you know what you are doing.  Some examples:

1) Contractor living his whole life in the same area with a 42" frost depth.  One of my inspectors called me to the job site for an irate mason.  The corner of his addition setup was at a depth of 8" from the grass to the top of the footer form.  The deepest portion of his setup was 32" to the bottom of the form.  I had to back up my inspector and tell him to either excavate to do shallow frost footer with foam board or rip it all out including rebar and dig deeper then repeat.  What do you think he said to me?  It was this exact statement: "I've been building like this for over 30 years and never failed an inspection".

2) Framer stops me at the scuba shop on a Sunday to bitch about how one of my guys failed him for building a 2 story wall in a house and creating a hinge point by not framing balloon style in that area along with failing him for terminating a valley rafter in thin air and running a 2x4 to the 2x8 ceiling joist below.  Guess what he said to me?  "I've been framing for over 25 years and know what I am doing.  You guys and your BS codes"  Yeah, another clueless wonder with lots of time on the job.

3) I have plenty of those stories but have to get ready for a flight early in the morning so I am packing.

The bottom line is that experience does not guarantee competency nor does it get my respect.  That is a union mentality, not a true gauge of ability.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 7, 2014)

What's interesting is that the California guys are the ones putting the most time into this thread when this is not even in their state.  It's great conversation for anyone but the common denominator with dissension here is with the Cali guys.


----------



## RickAstoria (Feb 7, 2014)

Everyone, lets keep civility or I'll lock the thread for a day to a week until everyone calms down.

Ok...????


----------



## ICE (Feb 7, 2014)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Everyone, lets keep civility or I'll lock the thread for a day to a week until everyone calms down.Ok...????


You might try sending Jeff a PM and see if you can get him to settle down.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 7, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Don't buy the respect and knowledge thing at all.Do you have any clue whatsoever how many times I here "I've been doing it like that for 25/30+ years" ??
> 
> Just because you've been doing it for a long time does not mean you know what you are doing.  Some examples:
> 
> ...


Look, I don't know what you have against guys in scuba shops, but the mods said tone it down.

And those guys haven't been doing it for 30 years, they did it 30 _years ago_.

Brent.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 7, 2014)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Everyone, lets keep civility or I'll lock the thread for a day to a week until everyone calms down.Ok...????


We need more moderators like you.  Thanks


----------



## JPohling (Feb 7, 2014)

thats cuz the cali guys have the experience!


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> thats cuz the cali guys have the experience!


on *Both sides* of every issue


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 7, 2014)

Consider that programs of this type did not originate in California (ours is just more litigation driven). Texas has had their TAS program and certififcation for over a decade. So has Minnesota & Massachutes.

CASp is not an ICC "merit badge" for "minimally" qualified test takers (not all of you, but many).

The nature of the ADA as a standards program (much of which is not prescriptive) leaves to individual states to write implimenting code which is also not prescriptive enough (IBC Ch 11? too) so who is to determine the adequacy of compliance, the "suits" (who ADA allows compensation (reward) for their actions?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2014)

CASp *AND* the AHJ/BO determines the adequacy of compliance. Ultimately the AHJ/BO. ....(courts)

In CA every AHJ/BO, must be a CAS or have one on retainer


----------



## Keystone (Feb 8, 2014)

ADAguy - CASp is not an ICC "merit badge" for "minimally" qualified test takers (not all of you, but many).

Interesting comment - so if its many than why bother with this website, apparently you feel superior than thou maybe you should take your foot out of your mouth and insert it other places. Get a grip on reality - we all have strenghts and weaknesses and IMO we are all fortunate to be here thanks to one individuals or several persons personal drive. Stick to the factual information my friend and it will become a more conducive conversation.


----------



## ICE (Feb 8, 2014)

Keystone said:
			
		

> ADAguy - CASp is not an ICC "merit badge" for "minimally" qualified test takers (not all of you, but many). Interesting comment - so if its many than why bother with this website, apparently you feel superior than thou maybe you should take your foot out of your mouth and insert it other places. Get a grip on reality - we all have strenghts and weaknesses and IMO we are all fortunate to be here thanks to one individuals or several persons personal drive. Stick to the factual information my friend and it will become a more conducive conversation.


Rancor alert! I'm guessing the veins in Jeff's neck are bulging out..that can't happen with fatboy.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 10, 2014)

Keystone, "some" on this site appear to believe from their comments, that those who are less able are not "entitled" to the same legal benefits of our society as those of us who are able.

That being "forced" to correct noncompliant conditions is equal to "stealing" dollars from the pockets of businesses. Most costs are nickle and dime weekend warrior items.

Then again there are those of us who "care about" the implementation of the provisions of access that are mandated by the Federal Government.

How long is too long to wait for compliance?


----------



## kilitact (Feb 10, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Keystone, "some" on this site appear to believe from their comments, that those who are less able are not "entitled" to the same legal benefits of our society as those of us who are able.That being "forced" to correct noncompliant conditions is equal to "stealing" dollars from the pockets of businesses. Most costs are nickle and dime weekend warrior items.
> 
> Then again there are those of us who "care about" the implementation of the provisions of access that are mandated by the Federal Government.
> 
> How long is too long to wait for compliance?


How long indeed. Some have waited better than a hundred years. Would that you cared as much for all civil liberties.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 11, 2014)

What makes you think I don't?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 11, 2014)

ADA is the only civil rights law that requires people to spend money for a perceived future customer, salesman or employee that may never grace the doors of a particular establishment .

And now it is being extended to private homes


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> ADA is the only civil rights law that requires people to spend money for a perceived future customer, salesman or employee that may never grace the doors of a particular establishment . And now it is being extended to private homes


As the numbers increase,  as we all get older,  the businesses will have disabled customers and employees, employees that will no longer be forced to public assistance.


----------



## Msradell (Feb 11, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> ADA is the only civil rights law that requires people to spend money for a perceived future customer, salesman or employee that may never grace the doors of a particular establishment . And now it is being extended to private homes


To start with, the costs to meet ADA requirements, especially new construction are minimal if any is taken into account during the design process.  Obviously for retrofitting there may be some costs incurred but even those in most cases are not significant.

As far as being extended into private homes, that is a completely different matter that is not really part of the ADA.  It's a local ordinance in one city that feels is important for citizens with disabilities to be able to access homes of friends and family.  It's something that many of us would certainly appreciate.  Again, there probably isn't any additional cost if the considerations are taken into account when designing a new home.

There obviously are many other local and national ordinances and laws that are much more stupid and senseless yet they are enforced every day.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

Msradell said:
			
		

> To start with, the costs to meet ADA requirements, especially new construction are minimal if any is taken into account during the design process.  Obviously for retrofitting there may be some costs incurred but even those in most cases are not significant.As far as being extended into private homes, that is a completely different matter that is not really part of the ADA.  It's a local ordinance in one city that feels is important for citizens with disabilities to be able to access homes of friends and family.  It's something that many of us would certainly appreciate.  Again, there probably isn't any additional cost if the considerations are taken into account when designing a new home.
> 
> There obviously are many other local and national ordinances and laws that are much more stupid and senseless yet they are enforced every day.


Once again, it is not in the scope of the ADA. ADA has nothing to do with single family homes.

The reporter and others misused the term.

Nothing to do with ADA.

It does have to do with a"type C" ANSI 117.1  unit.

We code "experts" and users need to know what code and standards we are to enforce.

I can understand why the news paper gets it wrong but the code/standards users should have a grasp of what to use and when.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/accessibility/7327-did-you-know-new-icc-ansi-a117-1-2009-has-new-type-c-dwelling-unit.html


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 11, 2014)

http://concretechange.org/

http://www.visitability.org/

2 very informative sites but their lower cost estimates are based on homes built on improved subdivision lots that are fairly level and that is not the real world across this nation. We have homes with split entry daylight basements. Some with lots so sloped the driveways are 4 to 6 percent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> http://concretechange.org/http://www.visitability.org/
> 
> 2 very informative sites but their lower cost estimates are based on homes built on improved subdivision lots that are fairly level and that is not the real world across this nation. We have homes with split entry daylight basements. Some with lots so sloped the driveways are 4 to 6 percent.


And that is an issue. But when built anew less of an issue.

Sloping sidewalks,  deeper basements. Ramps. Remember visitablity not habitability.


----------

