March 18, 2002

On Taking the Long View on Accessibility

What do these people have in common: a mother with a baby in a stroller, a delivery person on Rollerblades, a middle-aged person in a wheelchair, and an elderly man with a collapsible shopping cart full of groceries?

Answer: They all benefit from curb cuts. These little ramps from sidewalks into crosswalks were designed to make the streets safer and more accessible for people with mobility disabilities. But — surprise, surprise — what's good for people with disabilities often turns out to be good for people without them.

This same logic holds true for so-called visitability ordinances. Visitability refers to the fact that people with disabilities often are barred from visiting friends' homes because they can't get in, or can't use the bathroom once they arrive. These ordinances require each new home to be built with a few basic wheelchair-accessible features such as slightly wider downstairs doors and hallways, a larger downstairs bathroom and one "zero-step" entrance to the home — making them visitable by anyone, with or without a disability.

William Altaffer

Pima County, Ariz., (home of MDA's national headquarters) and Naperville, Ill., have become the first two municipalities in the nation to pass visitability ordinances for all private new home construction. The passage of the Arizona ordinance was due in large part to the leadership of William Altaffer, a Tucson attorney with spinal muscular atrophy spinal muscular atrophy who serves on the steering committee of MDA's Task Force on Public Awareness. MDA Director of Online services Tom Bush — affected by spinal muscular atrophy — also testified in favor of the ordinance.

The Arizona and Illinois ordinances take another step toward equal access, down a road already paved by federal regulations for apartment buildings and public places, and by a few federal, state and local rules for housing built with public monies.

But, oh, the outrage these private home ordinances have sparked! "It's social engineering!" opponents hotly charge. "You're taking away the freedom of choice of able-bodied people!"

You'd think the ordinances required all new homes to be fully ramped and to include elevators, while in fact they require slight modifications at a minimal cost during the building stage. For example, the Pima County ordinance requires bathroom walls to be reinforced to accommodate grab bars (not to have grab bars). By reinforcing the wall prior to putting up the wallboard, adding grab bars is a simple and cheap modification. By contrast, reinforcing a wall — or widening a doorway or expanding a bathroom — after construction is complicated and expensive.

These commonsense requirements, like curb cuts, help people with varying needs. Accessibility benefits people who are caring for elderly parents, or who are getting older themselves and don't want to move, or who are temporarily disabled in accidents.

Who can predict when a need for greater accessibility will arise? Who can predict how many people will live in a house before its usefulness has ended?

Visitability ordinances are humane, cost-conscious and forward-thinking additions to building codes. We hope more municipalities will see past the shortsighted opposition and turn them into law.

With every best wish…

The Ross Report Archive