Hacker News Reader

Comment by dentemple | Hacker News Reader

> and likely installing 70k worth of elevators and a 30k sprinkler system in a two story 3k sqft building and even then, if a single person on the review board dislikes the project on a whim, it's out.

Your complaint is that your new business has to not be a fire hazard or completely inaccessible to the mobility-disabled?

I get you on the fact that zoning laws can get pretty wonky, but these requirements here seem pretty reasonable to me.

View on HN

> completely inaccessible to the mobility-disabled?

One of my favorite coffee shops is a little hole in the wall in the basement or an old brick building.

Despite the fact that to get to the shop, you need to go down a narrow set of exterior stairs, the owner was required to put in a wheel-chair accessible bathroom. It's a small space and the bathroom is nearly as big as the seating area.

It's an asinine requirement.

The owner looked into moving to a different spot a block away, which would have been on the main level. He backed out of that when the city told him he needed to install a grease trap to meet code. This despite the fact that nothing he sold contained any sort of grease or oil that would make it down the drain.

Zoning laws and HOAs are great in concept. But they tend to get taken over by the Delores Umbridge [1] types who love nothing more than punishing people for violating stupid rules.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolores_Umbridge

Zoning laws and HOAs really aren't great in concept, but they're also not the same thing as disabled access laws and environmental regulations.

Alright, well lump them all together.

There are ways for laws and regulations to be thoughtfully applied, and there are ways for them to be abused by people who enjoy causing other people pain.

When the regulatory burden is so heavy that only people who have already "made it" can even play, then government has gone too far.

San Jose, CA had a streak of ADA torts that resulted in small businesses closing shop : https://sanjosespotlight.com/access-v-abuse-crema-coffee-in-... https://www.ktvu.com/news/times-up-san-jose-deli-closing-its...

FYI, Crema moved a few blocks away and is still open.

Is it the requirement that is asinine, or the fact that the ADA allows grandfathered exceptions for parts of buildings that are unrenovated?

I'm not sure what possibly could make more sense and be more fair than "if you change it, the changes you meet have to be up to current law" Would it make more sense if we made people raze their entire pre-ADA buildings to renovate anything at all?

> He backed out of that when the city told him he needed to install a grease trap to meet code. This despite the fact that nothing he sold contained any sort of grease or oil that would make it down the drain.

Also, building codes aren't necessarily for the way you plan to use a building, but for the way a building can be used.

> or the way a building can be used.

"can be" means "isn't"

Regulations have to be applied to some measurable standard to be effective. Exceptions based on unmeasurable promises basically guarantee a toothless regulation.

A bathroom stall big enough for a wheelchair is also big enough for someone who can manage the stairs but needs assistance with the toilet. Regulatory requirements can have justifications beyond the most apparent one.

> A bathroom stall big enough for a wheelchair is also big enough for someone who can manage the stairs but needs assistance with the toilet.

And as someone with young children, I think it's a great bathroom. But the truth is it could easily be half the size that it is and still be a perfectly nice bathroom.

sure, and as someone who values inclusion all thing equal. I'm not interested in spending 70k+ to cater to either. It just doesn't make sense for this structure.

> completely inaccessible to the mobility-disabled?

Completely inaccessible to a mobility-disabled person without help.

However, I live in one of those European cities that has kind of quirky small places, sometimes inaccessible to a mobility-disabled person. I also got a good friend who is heavily disabled. Two weeks ago we set up to meet up in one of those places, and when I arrived, a few minutes too late, he was already sitting inside. How? one of the people there helped him get in.

Almost all places are normally accessible mobility-disabled persons, if you only dare to violate the impersonal principle upon which many cities are designed.

If you design relying on others to constantly do the right thing, you eventually find they will get tired of it and not do so. No one has to constantly help your disabled friend, and some may resent it.

That’s quite a cynical view of human nature.

Then the ones who don't want to help a disabled person, can design their place to be accessible without help (and perhaps at the same time explain their motivations so that I'll know to never visit their venue).

In other words, you got slightly confused. I didn't say that all places should be not accessible to disabled people. If I make a place I'd definitely try to make it accessible. However, I did say that if someone can't make such a place, they'll have to take into account that the human thing to do is to personally help disabled people get in it.

If they won't do it I'm sure socially media would know how to handle them.

> completely inaccessible to the mobility-disabled?

>>Completely inaccessible to a mobility-disabled person without help.

Same thing.

No, read again.

So where should we draw the line? An 170 year old existing building should never be used for anything because it's not handicap accesible? I can't run an espresso machine that would be perfectly acceptable to use in the same structure for residential reasons but it is magically a fire risk once it is zoned commercial?

Sorry but that does not hold up under scrutiny.

Your 170 year old building can still be used even though it is not handicap accessible.

But construction or renovation of that building done in 2020 has to meet the laws of 2020.

Which destroys the appeal of the building in the first place

If the plan was to build a new "traditional style" building, would the fact that a wheelchair ramp breaking the style/appeal of the building be a reason to bypass accessibility requirements?

The title of the article is "Why Every City Feels the Same Now". If someone is going to build a new traditional style building, they can't complain about why every city feels the same.

The building is ready to use as is. Nothing needs to be constructed.

You’re not modifying the property or the way it is being used at all?

This “building in a residential neighborhood” is already configured for use in commercial foodservice?

Or is it a residence now?

I literally want to install a single espresso machines and have some pour overs and french presses and set up tables and chairs. There is already a commercial grade dishwasher and fridge that the current tenant installed. I would have to install a grease trap to meet regulation which also is nonsensical given that I'm not cooking here but at least that is reasonably priced.

As far as I'm concerned none of this is "build out" more like furnishing.

The problem is preventative maintenance seems to fall under the ADA, or at least no one has challenged it.

I can see both sides. On one hand if no one was forced to do anything many people may never be able to leave their house. On the other, Hardvard was sued and took down a bunch of freely provided lectures because they had no tractable way to caption them.

These are also building codes, not zoning laws. They're both regulations, but the public policy justifications are much different. (The waters are often muddied by defenders of restrictive zoning using spurious health and safety arguments.)

True although I'm fighting both.

> if a single person on the review board dislikes the project on a whim, it's out.

This probably sucks.

and secondly, why do you need an elevator for a 2 story building which will basically be used for a cafe? It's not a freaking life saving emergency service where you need people to provide access to every part of building.

In my opinion an elevator never counts as a disability device. In case of fire they are not safe to use in general, leaving those who need them trapped.

I agree that the disabled need access to everything, I don't have a solution to the problem.

Well, if we specifically talk about a cafe then I do see that it's problem if the owner can build the cafe only on the second floor. Even in that case it's a simple math to decide if it's worth spending 70K$ and make it accessible to disabled people. It should be left entirely to the owner to decide. City should not force him to install it. And it's entirely the cafe owner's problem not the disabled person's problem unless it's the only coffee shop on the street.

This is not within the rights of the owner to do. It is illegal for a business to discriminate against disabled people in the US, and this means renovations must reasonably accommodate the disabled. This is not a rule from the city, this is US law.

Maybe it's different in different states. I lived in a 3 storey apartment in MA without any elevators. If a person is bound to wheelchairs then there was no way for that person to get into the apartment.

Federal law is the same in all states. Maybe your apartment building was built before 1991?

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/d...

Yes, I think it's older than 1991. If its law then I wonder why they did not build ramps to provide entry to at least the first floor. Elevator is definitely out of question without tearing apart the entire building.

If the building was construction prior to 1991, the construction wouldn’t have been subject to ADA requirements because the ADA did not exist then.

I agree and I am sure the apartment owner makes a hell lot of money than a cafe owner. If they (govt. and apartment owners) really cared about disabled people they could have easily added ramps to the buildings in last 30 years. They are probably just taking advantage of loopholes.

It’s not a loophole. The ADA simply doesn’t require people to add accommodations unless construction or renovation is taking place. It was a very intentional provision.

I don't want to drag this, but 2 years ago they installed new steps outside all buildings in the complex. Basically replaced old precast concrete steps with new precast concrete steps. Probably that doesn't qualify as renovation and doesn't need inspection or approvals.

3 story or less residential apparently doesn't need an elevator.

That's what I believed till today!

How can you call it completely inaccessible when presumably most of the seating is on the first floor?

It's all on the second floor up a single stair case.

Quite literally, yes. You're asking for a level of safety and accessibility to be provided that locks basically anyone without access to $300k+ out of going into business. It's not like the building has those accessibility and safety features now. Why should it matter if it doesn't have them when this business opens?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com