Hacker News Reader

Comment by TKinNC | Hacker News Reader

This is why cities are going broke.

I live on a small farm in the middle-of-nowhere NC. (20min to even a gas station) I'm currently working with our local zoning dept. to get approval to use my barn in a home-occupation. Even though I'm far away, will have zero employees, and no customers on the property - I'm STILL being forced to spend close to $3K to retrofit for ADA compliance.

Life is not fair. Trying to sue and regulate this country into everyone's idea of "fairness" will bankrupt us and destroy any concept of freedom we still have left.

View on HN

You may have no plans to ever invite the public into a commercially-zoned facility, and in that case, making it wheelchair-accessible might make no sense.

But if you suddenly had to up and move, and sell the space, well, it's still zoned commercial, and presumably someone's running a business out of it, and they might have an employee in a wheelchair.

Commercial spaces have different requirements than residential spaces. It's not just a matter of stamping a form. It's also not surprising that it'd take some extra construction to bring a formerly residential space up to code.

AND, I get that you'd like to defer the actual cost of rezoning onto someone else, but, well, someone's got to actually pay to turn the residential space into commercial...and you're the one who wants to do it and will presumably benefit now from doing so.

$3k to make it accessible to people without two working legs seems pretty reasonable.

It is not zoned commercial. That would cost me tens-of-thousands of dollars. This is forced ADA compliance for a residential space being used in a home-based business.

Work to change the law for your residential home based business then, or fundraise. Like we disabled people have to do, to defend our rights to be in society, shop, work, and use transit while disabled -- and like so many other wheelchair users I know have to do just to get the wheels to get out of their own house. Sorry about your barn, but you seem oddly out to mess with fundamental access for other people because you need to do $3K worth of renovation, and that seems odd to me.

Your situation is quite different than recently constructed sidewalks being unsafe to navigate by people with disabilities or the elderly, and lacking such basic features as curb cuts. Don't be so black and white.

That is exactly my point. She sues, wins and now EVERYONE is forced to comply to a single standard - regardless of the situation. Don't be so naive.

If the city had done a better job of complying with the existing accessibility laws in the first place then she never would have had to resorting to a lawsuit. Hell, if people had done a better job in the first place those laws would not have been necessary at all, and you wouldn't be affected.

I'm sympathetic to your situation, it seems kinda messed up.

I think you are exaggerating the issue though.

Ideally, an intelligent and flexible application of the ADA rules could be envisioned.

(Ideally we would prioritize research into regeneration and fix the real problem.)

One of my friends was born quadriplegic and literally cannot live without help. He can't go to the bathroom without help. He can't pick his nose. Traveling around Seattle with him made me realize the fact that accessibility makes us a worthwhile civilization. We care, and spend to show it.

Consider: If you spend ten thousand dollars on accessibility for your barn, and no one ever uses it, that's a good thing.

Pick your nose and count your blessings.

I see your point and I do consider myself very fortunate to not have to deal with a life-altering disability on a daily basis, but the problem is - "flexible" and "intelligent" just do not apply when it comes to most govt. regulation.

Well met. I hope I didn't sound like a jerk.

As for "flexible" and "intelligent" govt. regulation., I'll admit I chuckled when I typed that in. We'll be regrowing limbs long before that, I'll wager.

I'm not sure how to remedy the situation until then. It sucks that you have this extra burden just to use your own barn.

A single standard that's already required by law. If enough people don't like the law, then they can elect politicians who will change it.

So now everyone benefits from accessibility? I'm still not seeing the problem.

The problem is that business owners are now required to follow these statutes and pay money even if the labor is 100% a guaranteed waste. Having people perform labor that isn't needed and use resources like concrete just to appease the government is a bad thing.

I guess I would have to completely disagree with the idea that it's a "complete waste". And I don't consider accessibility a bad thing.

If no one benefits, then it is a complete waste. If I get paid to write code that never gets used, and it takes me a week, it's a waste of hundreds of dollars of labor. The parent thread pointed out that no disabled person would ever use the upgrade as the property was privately held by non disabled persons, so he's required to pay for no reason. That's nonsense.

edit: Are you retrofitted your entire house to be fully ADA compliant? If not, why should the parent be required to?

Houses are not commercial establishments, and as such are not covered under the ADA. That's the short answer. The parent is creating a commercial establishment.

This is 100% incorrect. A residential structure can still be required to be ADA compliant dependent on use. Do your research.

I just did my research: https://adata.org/faq/does-ada-cover-private-apartments-and-...

If it's 100% incorrect as you claim, surely you can provide evidence supporting your claim?

You don't seem to understand the difference between zoning and use because your link proves my exact point.

A place zoned residential can fall under ADA compliance if the use is commercial. Exactly as that link states. So the first part of your statement "Houses are not commercial establishments" is correct for zoning classification, but you fail on the second half "as such are not covered under the ADA." - a residence operating as a business can be under ADA.

My comment "A residential structure can still be required to be ADA compliant dependent on use." - is 100% correct based on the very evidence you supplied.

At this point, why dont you just accept that this is a very complex topic and one that just maybe I've spent more time navigating than you.

Right, life is not fair. You want something you fight for it. They fight for their benefit. So you too must fight for yours. You don't like to spend for ADA compliance then fight for it. I don't know how, maybe try find a way to sue them back ?

My employer has had to tear out a handicapped ramp because the it's 1" too narrow, and the grade is slightly out of what the current standard mandates. There's no grandfathering of this from what I've been told. Our building mgmt claims it was in compliance when it was initially built. So now they jack hammered a ton of concrete out, and are re-pouring it. For a company our size, the cost isn't significant, but I can't imagine that it's a useful expenditure compared to the previous ramp. When I had knee surgery and was on crutches for 6 weeks, I used it daily. Not fun at all, but usable.

Hey TKinNC, I'd like to ask you a private question. Could you put your contact info in your profile?

Are you Trevor or Eric? I'll send you an email privately.

Trevor. Thanks.

So because "life is not fair", these people should not be allowed to participate in society?

The idea that because someone is inconvenienced they are somehow not "participating in society" is absurd. It was an unfortunate situation, it is bad the person felt embarrassed for a disability, but the solution is not to force regulation and maintenance costs on everyone - that is a road to bankruptcy.

"The idea that because someone is inconvenienced they are somehow not "participating in society" is absurd."

We're not talking inconvenience. We're talking not able to get around at all. That's not an inconvenience. That's not being able to participate in society at all.

"but the solution is not to force regulation and maintenance costs on everyone - that is a road to bankruptcy."

I completely disagree. If it wasn't for those regulations, no one would do it, and these people would not be able to participate. You may wish to look into why these regulations were enacted in the first place, and it wasn't because of lobbyists looking to make a buck.

I dont know what article you are reading, but the one referenced revolved around a single instance of temporary (albeit dangerous) inconvenience. If she was denied the use of a wheelchair altogether, I might see your point. But as others have stated, 100% access is not realistic given the current technology for disabled people.

Maybe instead of regulation and lawsuits, people that are so worked up over this issue should actually try to invent better tech, instead of expecting the govt to solve all our problems and compensate them whenever we dont meet 100% perfection.

And maybe people like you can accept that there are more people than yourselves in the world, and those people have a right to be in society too.

And no, it is entirely realistic to have 100% access in a city. There is zero reason whatsoever that the sidewalk in the story wasn't usable, other than a complete lack of empathy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com