Manadatory Visitability for New Homes in Austin?

Date Tuesday, May 20th, 2008 at 9:50 pm Posts By admin

Having recently experienced the City of Austin permit process it’s interesting to hear about an additional set of requirements. This story popped up today in one of my real estate news feeds:

AUSTIN (Austin Business Journal) – A proposed city ordinance could require local home builders to equip all new single-family homes with features designed especially for disabled individuals and the elderly…

The article mentions the following proposed requirements:

  • at least one building entrance on the first floor served by a ramp or no-step entrance
  • doors that are at least 32 inches wide
  • hallways that are at least 36 inches across and level with door thresholds
  • first-floor bathrooms with reinforced walls capable of supporting grab bars

Perhaps this proposal was made with the best intentions, but is it necessary? Many of the above requirements can be installed on an existing home. Is there a shortage of homes with these features?

When government must intervene, I prefer the carrot to the stick. Instead of a hard requirement, could the city provide an incentive for builders to include the above features? This would preserve the choice for builders/homeowners and address the issue (with sufficient incentive).

What do you think? Share in the comments!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 20th, 2008 at 9:50 pm and is filed under Austin, Listings, News, Tips, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Filed under Austin, Listings, News, Tips, Uncategorized

Related Posts

16 Responses to “Manadatory Visitability for New Homes in Austin?”

  1. Tim Says:
    May 21st, 2008 at 10:38 am

    I have a lot of sympathy for the disabled. Most people are not going to be able to fundamentally alter the floorplan of their house once they realize their needs have changed.

    Homebuyers won’t notice these changes anymore than they notice what gague of wire they have in their house. It’s not as though the requirement is to make the bathrooms handicapped accessible. Just adds the potential. These are simply code changes.

    They’ll make sure the backdoor slab is level (I think they should have more teeth and require the entrance be in the front). Use different doors, and reinforce the powder bath walls. Trivial. Much ado about nothing.

  2. Matt Risinger Says:
    May 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    This ordinance seems to have great intentions, but it’s not a simple change. This is a very hilly town and to require a ramped entrance to every home can potentially mean $Thousands$ of dollars to comply with this ordinance. My understanding is that you also need an accessible bathroom on the first level which isn’t always easy to accomplish. I agree with Ryan that it’s a good idea but shouldn’t be mandated on every home. Public building should absolutely accomadate every handicapped person, but do our private homes need that same accomadation? I don’t believe we need to mandate every new home to meet these requuirements. Lets give an incentive to build accessable, maybe a speedier permit process for homes that meet this visitabilty ordinance? A one or two day permit time would definitely be a good carrot to meet these guidelines! I hear that Habitat For Humanity is really against this ordinance for affordabilty reasons. A few thousand in extra costs is a huge deal if you’ve got a $100,000 (or less)construction budget!

  3. Tim Says:
    May 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Ok, let me take the pro-business side of things.

    This is a great idea. Boomers are nearing retirment age. Austin is one of the top retirement destinations and ensuring that they’ll be able to age gracefully in the homes they buy makes it even more attractive. By mandating these changes the city of Austin is ensuring that all builders are on a level playing field. It’s especially great for low-end builders that might otherwise not be able to offer these great features for fear of being undercut by their competitors.

    The market has been able to absorb the costs of GFCI outlets, grade limits to driveways and mandatory fire alarms. It’ll do just fine.

    Funny how we didn’t hear the ABOR complaining in this case:

    http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=50258

    The market can bear requiring Masonry, and that’s the city playing big-brother, but requiring that homes be required to be able to be converted to handicapped accessible at a future date is a sign of 1984.

  4. Matt Risinger Says:
    May 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Tim, Good point about Boomers. Definitely an aging population. But, this is not a life/safety/health concern like those electrical and fire codes you mentioned. Someone building a new home with a limited budget is now mandated to add significant costs to their house to allow for visitors to have better access. Seems like the costs vs benefit isn’t worth mandating to ALL new construction in the city of Austin. I’ll bet ABOR would be upset if this was mandated to be added to all homes at the time of re-sale much like they’re unhappy about the Mayor’s plan to retrofit mandated energy effeciency upgrades at the time of resale.

  5. Matt Risinger Says:
    May 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Sorry to dominate these comments but this affects my future clients. Check out the Austin Business Journal Poll…
    http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/poll/index.html?poll_id=5635
    Results are 94% of pollers said No to this proposal.

  6. Ryan Brown Says:
    May 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Great points from Matt & Tim. Thanks for weighing in. I think it gets a little confusing because we are trying to address two separate questions:

    1 - Why should anyone build homes to meet ‘visitability’ requirements?
    2 - Why should government mandate that all new homes must meet ‘visitability’ requirements?

    Obviously there are many reason why a homeowner or builder would want to make their home meet these requirements. Tim mentioned the growing number of Baby Boomer buyers as a financial reason. There is also the concern for guests/residents who may one-day need these features. No disagreement here, however I think this is tangential to the issue at hand.

    The second question is the heart of the issue, and I would need to see more data to be able to answer it. I would first want to see a clear statement of the problem we need to solve. Only then can we determine whether the costs Tim & Matt mention are worth the benefit.

    If data suggests there is a shortage of ‘visitable’ homes, and further data shows the average cost for these features is minimal, then I think everyone would support it.

    Relevant links:
    See Austin Political Report’s coverage of this issue here: Public Rule Forcing Private Homes To Be Wheel-Chair Accessible Irks Austinites

    The Poll mentioned is here Austin Business Journal Poll on Mandatory Visitability Standards

  7. Tim Says:
    May 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    That polling question is a tad leading. Of course, a business journal reader would tend to be against it. Especially when they mention in the polling question that houses might cost more. It would be interesting to see if that 5% against maps up with ABJ’s mobility impaired readership.

    I agree that a study on visitability would be interesting. But it won’t change the final question - Will the city take a strong stand to help make itself more accessible. No matter what the cost it’s going to be too much, because the majority doesn’t like footing the bill for the minority.

    This is why we don’t have direct democracy. Sometimes hard choices have to be made to benefit small groups over the will of the mob.

  8. Joy Says:
    May 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    Let’s just look at this with basic common sense.

    I have a friend who was given the charge to defend theatre owners when patrons using wheelchairs sued to get access to seating closer in than the back row. As you know the theatres lost and rightfully so. I am sure there are wheelchairs in alot of theatres every day.

    Conversely,I have also been a homeowner for 12 years and not once have encountered the need for the accomodations mentioned in this ordinance, although I am in contact with the disabled nearly ever day.

    I can afford to make these modifications in the home I will soon be building in Austin. I just vehemantly resent government giving me design constraints I will likely never need, unless one of my elderly parents move in.
    In that case I will be more than happy to do so.

  9. Bob Says:
    May 25th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    Is this in addition to the Federal Fair Housing Act? As I understand the FHA - a percentage of all new apartments and speculative homes are required to meet the visibility requirements outlined above. How are these new rules different?

    for reference… here is the FHA design manual.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2525473/Fair-Housing-Act-Design-Manual-ch1?ga_related_doc=1

  10. Spencer Says:
    May 30th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Once again Austin proves it is the national leader in disability rights. Austin was the first city to have lifts on all of its buses, one of the first to have a visitability ordinance and now it has a great opportunity to be a leader again. The City of Austin staff and political leadership enjoy a great relationship with local disability rights advocates.

    This is not for people that currently have disabilities. This will ensure that all of us will be able to age in place and not be forced out of our homes in the event of a major accident.

    Imagine getting injured, spending all of your savings on treatment and then having to spend even more on home modifications.

    Hopefully all of us will live long enough to need assistance one day.

    It’s not about THEM, its about US.

  11. jack Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    What is the problem? I have built numerous homes with provisions for elevators, etc. Break a leg or sprain a knee and evaluate your needs…most homes add to the pain. Aren’t well planned and designed home supposed to be considerate of the human form? Just an idea.

  12. Eric Rauser Says:
    June 4th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

    The entry issue might sound like a good idea, but in actual practice it will be a big problem.

    Slabs need be at least 8″ out of the soil with grade sloping away from the house, and the CIty of Austin Green Building Dept recommends at least 12″. At 1:12 pitch, you’re looking at 12 feet of ramp or more, not including landings. For a post and beam foundation this would be even worse. We have arrived at these rules after years of flooded houses and rotten framing problems. In relation to these problems, visitation seems less important.

  13. Matt Risinger Says:
    June 4th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Very astute comment Eric. Implementation of this ordinance (if it passes) is not a simple matter.

  14. Update to Austin Visitability Ordinance | InspiredAustin.com Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 12:43 am

    [...] We had a lot of great comments on my last post about the possibility of mandatory visitability features for new homes in Austin. [...]

  15. Austin Visitability Outcome | InspiredAustin.com Says:
    June 21st, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    [...] Mandatory Visitability for New Homes in Austin (14 comments) [...]

  16. Betty Saenz REALTOR® GRI, SRES® Says:
    August 13th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    No, I do not think mandatory. Hard and rigid rules cause problems. However, as a REALTOR who has helped the disabled find a home with ADA features- I would like to see a voluntary website to advertise these homes. They are hard to fid. I have 1 for sale now and am looking for a place to place an ad. Can’t find any- Something like ADA accessible Homes in Austin.com or ADA Feature Homes in Austin.com??? I have a great home with ADA features- I want to share it with people who need it.

Leave a Reply