The "Visitability Rules" approved by city of Austin (new house, neighborhoods)

[Trainwreck20]

the doorways or bathroom

The doorway to the house, and the doorway to one ground floor bathroom, has to be ADA width. I think there was something else about the ground-floor bathroom, but I forget....

Since it was about 'visiting', not living, it makes sense not to deal with the kitchen or all the doors, I suppose.

[verybadgnome]

This is a bad idea. Private homes are not the same as public accommodations. Have other cities passed such measures?

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

This is a bad idea. Private homes are not the same as public accommodations. Have other cities passed such measures?

Most cities have them for public housing.
Do new home also require a wheelchair accessible bathroom on the first floor ?

The movement want to get all housing changed so that all new homes are built accessible from the start.

Farther-reaching visitability rules could loom ahead for Austinites

It's an international movement.
From the below it says 25 state/local municipalities have mandated ordinances.
Visitability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Trainwreck20]

From Wiki:

In the United States, successful Visitability legislation has been passed in many localities, including Atlanta, Georgia; Pima County, Arizona; Bolingbrook, Illinois; San Antonio, Texas; and the State of California.

No idea on what extent those may go to compared to Austin.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

It's an international movement.
From the below it says 25 state/local municipalities have mandated ordinances.
Visitability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there is a statist bandwagon, count on Austin to jump on it.

Glad I've bought my last house in Austin. Another nail in the affordability coffin.

[Decidigi]

This is kind of ridiculous. Why change homes for the possibility of a disabled guest at the expense of the homeowner?

I can see doing it for publicly funded housing. Not private.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Another nail in the affordability coffin.

I just don't see it.

When people talk about affordability, they're mostly talking about affordability close in (they're not complaining about the lack, or presence, of cheap houses in Leander).

There's minimal green-field new single family house construction in actual Austin city limits (it's mostly in the outer suburbs). That which exists is usually on the outskirts of Austin anyhow (again, so not really contributing to the real affordability discussion). Close in, it's mostly fully custom jobs, including demo and rebuild (ie $$$$). These rules should have a minimal effect on that total cost.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There's minimal green-field new single family house construction in actual Austin city limits (it's mostly in the outer suburbs). That which exists is usually on the outskirts of Austin anyhow (again, so not really contributing to the real affordability discussion). Close in, it's mostly fully custom jobs, including demo and rebuild (ie $$$$). These rules should have a minimal effect on that total cost.

Center city myopia. #1, define "minimal"? There is still developable space inside the city limits, especially south. #2, this doesn't just apply to SFR - it applies to every residence built henceforth. That $2K will get baked into every sale, for almost zero ROI.

Except now we like ourselves even better.

[Komeht]

I would be OK with this with an opt-out + fee-in-lieu so long as the F-I-L is reasonable (250 bucks sounds about right). F-I-L revenues could go to fund ramps and whatnot for truly needy folks.

I don't think that many houses will require $2,000 extra for this - but some certainly will. And that's a ridiculous ask in a city that has long grown unaffordable to many and is quickly headed to unaffordable to most.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Center city myopia.

As I said, the whole "affordability" arguement is mostly centered on the center city. That's where people are already getting priced out of.

Originally Posted by scm53

#1, define "minimal"?

Housing starts in the actual city compared to housing starts in Leander, Plugerville, Round Rock, Cedar Park, Manor, Kyle, Buda, San Marcos, etc.

Originally Posted by scm53

There is still developable space inside the city limits, especially south.

Certainly. But again, that's mostly on the outskirts and is mostly being done by large developers. In which case, any added expense is basically amortized among a bunch of houses and is small (they just change their models and use them for hundreds/thousands of houses). The actual material/labor cost of these changes is small.

Originally Posted by scm53

#2, this doesn't just apply to SFR - it applies to every residence built henceforth.

It applies through quadplexes. But since basically no triplexes or quadplexes are being built, that really doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by scm53

That $2K will get baked into every sale, for almost zero ROI.

It won't be 2K for anything but custom builds, in which case it's not really affecting affordability (still government overreach, perhaps, but not an affordability problem).