tfp12

"THE FINE PRINT"

The musings of Michael Schrader

                  ACCOMMODATING THE RIDICULOUS
(Published in 1994 in the Farmington Press-Leader. Posted on 23 July 2001)

         I, for one, am a strong believer in equal rights. I believe that every American should have equal opportunity, and that every reasonable attempt should be made to eliminate barriers, both social and physical. Unfortunately, in our attempt to eliminate these barriers, we have overcompensated, and passed laws and regulations that at times could be perceived as ridiculous.
      Case in point: handicap accessibility standards. It is relatively simple to make a new structure comply to handicap accessibility standards: build it to comply with all accessibility requirements. For existing structures, compliance with the letter of the law may be impractical, if not impossible.
       I know of a small service business that wanted to purchase a residential building and convert it into offices. This residential structure was already zoned commercial, but had never been occupied by a business. As it turned out, since this structure had never been occupied as a business, it would have to be modified to comply with all accessibility requirements before a business occupancy permit could be issued.
       This business had no retail sales; the only individuals needing access to the building were the employees. Since none of the employees were handicapped, the owner assumed that the business would not need to be handicapped accessible. That was not the case.
       In order to obtain the business occupancy permit, the county told the owner that he must provide two handicapped accessible entrances.   In order to comply with county standards, each entrance would require a 60 foot long handicap ramp. However, due to the configuration of the lot, construction of the required ramps would be: impractical, if not impossible; prohibitively expensive.
       Thus a serious dilemma: spend a prohibitive amount to bring an old structure into compliance, or demolish old structures and replace them with new? Historic preservation or handicap access compliance? In many cases, it would be more cost effective to demolish historic structures than to bring them into compliance with handicap accessibility mandates.
       Ironically, many of the civil rights (i.e. handicap accessibility) advocates and historic preservationists are one in the same. Unfortunately, many of the mandates for handicap accessibility made law by the advocates are so stringent that the renovation and reuse of historic structures is not a viable option.
       Which then, is a higher priority: historic preservation or complete compliance with handicap accessibility standards? Is it better to demolish a historic structure or deny complete accessibility?
       Is the present of greater value than the past? Should the rights of all citizens to appreciate a historic structure be superseded by the rights of a minority? Do the good of the many outweigh the good of a few? Or vice versa?
       How stringent should accessibility standards be?   Should every institution be completely accessible to everyone? If so, should unisex fraternal organizations be eliminated? (After all, both sexes do not have access to unisex organizations.) Should religious organizations be eliminated or be secularized?
       Total accessibility will have a significant impact on the way we do business and live. We as a society need to determine if this is what we want, and if so, if we are prepared for the consequences.