Betty Dunkerly's so-called "visitability" ordinance (pdf) is on the June 18 Austin City Council agenda. I don't know whether Council will actually consider it on Wednesday but since I haven't weighed in on this ordinance before, I thought I'd take what may be my last chance.
This ordinance actually has little to do with "visitability." Visitors don't need light switches or outlets at a certain level; they don't need thermostats or breaker boxes at a certain level; they generally don't need lever door handles. Reinforced bathroom walls won't do them any good unless handrails are mounted on the walls -- and the ordinance doesn't require handrails. A 3-4" threshold step at the front door is not an insurmountable obstacle, even for wheelchairs, with a little help.
Most people who support this ordinance instead argue that these are equitable accommodations to disabled homeowners or will permit us to "age in place."
I think most of the proposals are pretty bad ideas. A few are good ideas. My take on the specific proposals is below the jump.
One general point first. Don't confuse the economic justification for these proposals with the justification for public-space accommodations. There is a big difference between the two. We all bear the cost of accessibility accommodations in public, commercial spaces. However, that cost is spread over a large group of people; each of us bears a tiny share of the total. And since these are public spaces, we can be confident that some mobility-impaired visitors will benefit from them, and will benefit greatly. A cost-benefit analysis is still necessary to justify the mandates, but we can be confident that there are large, positive numbers in the "benefits" column. .
This isn't necessarily true when the City requires accessibility improvements in private homes. If a home is occupied by someone who does not need the modification, then the money invested in it is simply wasted. That's a significant amount of waste if, say, only 1 in 20 homeowners needs the modification. It's a significant amount of waste even if only 1 in 2 homeowners needs the modification. (Many people won't need these even if they "age in place." Even then, requiring these investments before they are needed imposes an opportunity cost.)
Mandating improvements in private homes thus can be justified only when the improvements are much more expensive to retrofit than to install during construction. Even then, the cost-benefit calculations are more difficult because the improvements often impose a much higher cost on people who don't need them.
On to the specific provisions. Here are the ones I think are bad ideas:
Ramp or "no-step" building entrance. The ordinance requires each new home to have "at least one building entrance on the first story served by a ramp or no-step entrance." A "no-step entrance" means one where the "maximum distance between the interior floor level of the building entrance and the adjacent walking surface level [is not] greater than one-half inch."
Neither of these is a good alternative. A ramp can be installed just as easily after construction as during construction. The people who need the ramp will have to pay the full cost of it in either case. But the ordinance will make people who don't need a ramp pay the full cost of one, too. That's a flat waste of money for these people, with no offsetting benefit for the people who would benefit.
Home builders will likely use ramps because "no step" entrances have a significant disadvantage. Thresholds are elevated from the exterior surface because it helps keep moisture out of the house. This is why my front door threshold is over 3 inches above the exterior surface and my rear threshold is 5 inches above the exterior surface. The rear patio or front entrance does not have to flood; the wind pushes storm water up against the door. Doors aren't good at keeping out water. Threshold seepage would become a common problem with "no step" entrances.
Interior lever door handles. Another unnecessary mandate. Builders already offer lever handles for new homes. They are upgrades because they're a little nicer and a little more expensive than the basic round knobs. They are relatively cheap upgrades, though. They're easy to retrofit, too. Home Depot has half an aisle devoted to door handle hardware.
Lever handles are a problem for families with toddlers. I have a toddler and, until recently, he could not open door knobs -- a decidedly good thing. In fact, if I had lever handles in my house, I would probably remove them and install knobs. This is an example of the ordinance shifting the full cost of an improvement from one group of people to another. It doesn't save any money on net; it just specifies that a different group of people spend the money.
Accessible routes within dwelling units. "A dwelling unit must provide an accessible route through the hallway and passageways of the first story of the dwelling unit." Good-bye interior steps. No split levels, at least not without interior ramps. That's not really a popular design feature today, but I guess it won't be making a comeback any time soon. Given the relative ease of installing ramps, though, this proposal seems unnecessary.
Thermostats no more than 48" high. My two-and-a-half year old helpfully agreed to an experiment this evening. I stuck a magnet on the fridge 48" off the floor and asked him to reach it. No problem. (I concede that he's tall for his age.)
My son loves thermostats. He's constantly asking us to pick him up to play with them. They light up and the numbers on the screen change when you push the buttons. Fun stuff. Our thermostats are 5' off the floor and completely out of reach for him. He'd wreak havoc if they were just 4' high.
Toddlers aside, thermostats are 5' above the floor for a perfectly good reason: It is easier for people of average height to read them. If you are 6' tall, you have to stoop to read a thermostat that is only 4' off the ground. That's a real inconvenience when you have to do it a thousand times a year. And the ordinance would put 19 out of 20 people to that inconvenience.
On the other hand, it's relatively easy to lower a thermostat. An electrician can do it without tearing up the drywall. I imagine most builders will lower the thermostat for a fee. I think this minor cost to a relative handful is dwarfed by the cost to the average homeowner of constantly stooping to adjust the thermostat -- not to mention the cost to homeowners with young children.
Those are the bad ones. Here are the proposals that are probably a good idea:
Light switches no more than 48" above the floor. Our light switches are 50" off the ground. Those extra two inches don't matter.
Electric outlets no less than 18" above the floor. Ours are 12" off the ground. An extra 6" inches wouldn't make a big difference.
Breaker boxes no more than 48" above the floor. It is a major, major undertaking to move a breaker box. People rarely access their breaker boxes, so there is no inconvenience in having it 4' off the ground rather than 5'. The only potential problem is that children will then be able to reach it. My indoor breaker box came with a lock, though, so I don't see this as a real problem.
Reinforced walls in a first-floor bathroom. This is an example of a requirement that imposes minimum cost up-front but would be hard to retrofit.
Here is the only close call:
Minimum first-floor door widths. The ordinance requires that all first-floor doors be 30" wide. Some of my first-floor doors (bathroom, closet) are 24" wide. The study door is 30". The laundry room door is 32". Builders say this will impose a significant cost to change. I can see that changing the door widths dramatically -- especially for small bathrooms -- could mean a lot of expense in the design phase. I don't see much expense in the construction phase, though, and this is one of those modifications that would be costly to retrofit. I'm undecided.
One last note. The ordinance requires a building entrance "served by an accessible route, including a walking surface from a garage, ramp, sidewalk, or public right-of-way that is within 200 feet of the building entrance." I'm not sure what this means. If this means that every home must have a paved sidewalk to the front or back door door, then you are talking about a serious cost. It has no economic justification, either. The disabled person who needs the sidewalk will have to pay the full cost anyway. There is no need to make others pay the full cost when they don't want it.
