Davis Enterprise online

Tuesday September 19, 2006

New housing should be 100 percent inclusive

Published: September 19, 2006

When I moved to Davis in the late 1970s, the city had a well-deserved reputation as a progressive community. City planners, public officials and private developers all played roles in creating innovative and environmentally conscious projects that fostered a sense of community and gave Davis its unique identity.

An opportunity is about to present itself for Davis to again show that it is a national leader on an important social issue. The City Council will soon be considering adoption of a "visitability" ordinance, which will require the city to confront the question of whether new homes in Davis should be designed so that people who use wheelchairs can get inside and, once in, be able to use the bathroom.

Fair housing laws are relatively recent developments. Even in Davis, as John Lofland notes in his book, "Davis: Radical Changes, Deep Constants," College Park was originally restricted to "those of the Caucasian race." Laws prohibiting disability-based discrimination are of even more recent origin, most enacted within the last 15 to 20 years.

Disability discrimination can be subtle — often being a byproduct of the ways we design our communities and construct our buildings. In the Americans With Disabilities Act and state and federal fair housing laws, it's recognized that physical and architectural barriers are among the foremost contributors to the exclusion of people with disabilities — from the workplace, public services, community activities and housing. Removal of these barriers is now acknowledged to be a human and civil rights issue.

New construction — including government buildings, theaters, shopping malls, hotels and apartment complexes — must now meet accessibility standards. But one area remains largely exempt from accessibility requirements — the single-family home. It's still permissible to build houses with no accessible entrance, or with hallways too narrow and bathrooms not designed to permit access by a wheelchair.

The concept of "visitability" means including features that allow someone with a disability to visit, if not necessarily live in, single-family homes. Friends, relatives and neighbors who use wheelchairs are not excluded from social gatherings because of barriers built into the design of homes. Visitability provides the bare minimum in physical access.

The concept of "universal design" would incorporate additional features — as basic as levered door knobs — that, without affecting the usability by everyone, enable people with disabilities to increase their independence and afford them more living options.

Assemblywoman Lois Wolk authored recent legislation requiring developers to provide home buyers with lists of universal design features that the buyer can elect to include at his or her expense. That's commendable, but it does not require that any of the features be included.

When the issue comes before the Davis City Council, excuses and justifications will be offered for why it isn't reasonable to require visitability in more than some small proportion of housing. The question should be, however, how can we justify having anything less than 100 percent visitable, or even universally designed, housing?

The cost of accessibility features is negligible. Problems due to terrain or lot size are almost always solvable. Even with small infill projects, it's often possible to achieve the same density with stacked instead of multi-story units. Exceptions can be incorporated into an ordinance for the rare instances where infeasibility or undue expense is actually demonstrated.

Those who would argue that property owners should be free to do whatever they want on their land probably have never measured the thickness of existing building codes. The supposed absolute rights of property owners must be balanced against the needs of society and the fundamental civil rights of individuals.

Some would argue that 100 percent of new homes should not be designed to accommodate the needs of fewer than 10 percent of the population who need accessible housing. Try that argument out with other protected classes and everyone would recognize the absurdity immediately: Should an apartment owner be permitted to designate only 7 percent of the units for African-American tenants because they make up only 7 percent of California's population?

If not, why should it be permissible to exclude people with mobility disabilities from 90 percent or even 10 or 20 percent of the new (and then resold) homes that come on the market? This would be the result if anything less than 100 percent is set as the standard. The vast majority of housing would remain inaccessible, moreover, because existing homes would not be affected.

Any of us can and many of us will become disabled — over time or in an instant — as the result of aging, accident or illness. A visitable home often means the difference between remaining at home and living in a nursing home.

The City Council has the opportunity to put Davis on the map as a model of inclusiveness and, once again, as a leader in innovative community planning. I hope council members do the right thing.

— Eric Gelber, a UC Davis law school graduate and longtime Davis resident, is managing attorney in the Sacramento office of Protection and Advocacy Inc., where he has practiced disability-rights law for 24 years. He is a former chairman and current member of the Davis Social Services Commission.