Re: Americans with Disabilities Act - Title III
From: Diana Carroll (dianaecarrollgmail.com)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM, R Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net> 
wrote:

>  Time marches on, and our standards of minimal sufficiency advance.  Forty
> years ago, few cars had air conditioning, and none had air bags.  But today
> ... well, you get the picture.


Which means, to a large extent, the tradeoffs were regulated by law.

The result, in cars, is fewer deaths by auto accident...but bigger cars
also means more traffic, consumption of fuel, parking problems, etc.

In the end it was probably a reasonable tradeoff, but it was a tradeoff
nonetheless, and continues to be.

> I predict than in another 20 years or so, pissing and moaning about
accessibility codes and universal design will be a thing of the past.

You may be right, some day, having so-called "universal design" may
be...pardon the pun...universal.  If so, we will certainly also see an
associated universal increase in home size, resource usage and cost.

Or...you may be wrong.  There MAY, as we approach proverbial "peak oil" and
with the ever increasing global climate change under way, be a larger
social shift towards smaller, lighter, less resource intensive...at the
cost of other priorities, including accessibility.

Already people are pushing back on some codes that were put there at
popular insistence...we cohousers are familiar with the pushing against
zoning regulations mandating minimum lot sizes and maximum occupancy
densities.

And where will society lean in the trade-off between accessibility and
affordability as we slide towards a smaller middle class, a greater divide
between haves and have-nots and a general reduction in standard of living?
 Who can say.

Diana

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.