this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
4 points (66.7% liked)

Yes in my backyard!

326 readers
1 users here now

In this community, we believe in saying yes to:

Typical YIMBY policies include:

Typical housing crisis "solutions" YIMBYs are wary of:

YIMBYism transcends the typical left-right political divide; please be respectful of fellow YIMBYs with differing political views. That said, please report anyone saying anything hateful or bigoted.

Reading List

Viewing List

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let's try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Additionally, it is preferred (although not mandatory) to post a brief submission statement in the body of link posts. This is just to give a brief summary and/or description of why you think it's relevant here. Hopefully this will encourage more discussion in this community.

Recommended Communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
4
Greenwich, UK is demanding that a new, occupied rental building be torn down because it is larger and uglier than what was agreed upon during the planning phase. (www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Considering my home is a single family dwelling, it is accessibility compliant since I don't have compliance to meet and the house certainly didn't have one when it was built 70 years ago. That's a straw man argument and not what we are discussing.

We are talking about a new construction that wasn't compliant at the time it was built, who leased out the apartments knowing it wasn't compliant.

I did list the government taking ownership as an option. Along with mandating them to bring it into compliance. Considering they also built larger than they were allowed to, its not like they could shrink the building though.

If the building was designed with flagrent disregard for the planning committee and disability accessibility requirements, what else did they decide wasn't important to follow? Fire code? Building standards? In my opinion, these things put the whole building in question.

A housing shortcut shouldn't mean we accept people living in substandard or potentially dangerous housing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So a wealthy person's million dollar property doesn't need accessibility, but a poor person's apartment does, and if it doesn't the state will throw them out to protect them from the inaccessible apartment building.

The reasonable thing to do is fine the builder and move on.

For old and wealthy and fashionable gentrified buildings, we accept or work around their inaccessibility. For new buildings, it must be made accessible no matter the cost?

The building exists now. At this point refitting it to be accessible is no easier for it than for your house. Maybe a good deal harder.

I'm not arguing the builder shouldn't be punished. Of course they should.

My point is the building shouldn't be mangled or destroyed to bring it into complaince when plenty of older buildings are considered fit for purpose with the same flaws.

Sure, the law says your house is allowed to be inaccessible and this building is not. That might be the law but it doesn't make it justice.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

You are comparing apples to oranges. You simply cannot equate single family dwelling and shared living. It's a disingenuous argument.

A single family dwelling, regardless of wealth, does not require disabled access. It's a private residence and not a business. If a disabled individual wanted to purchase a residence, they would have the onus of making it accessible to their specific needs. As it is theirs. There is no implied public access. People are not allowed in my home unless invites.

An apartment building is a business, no matter how you want to try and frame it. If people are paying rent, there is a business transaction.

Business are required to meet accessibility requirements. Public spaces like gymnasiums (even if restricted to tenants) require accessibility.

At this point, I'm not sure why I'm arguing on this point. Any comparison to a single family dwelling is fallacious and continuing to argue the point would be pointless.

For "old and wealthy and fashionably gentrified" building you've entirely misinterpreted the situation. Wealth and gentrification don't play in at all. Age certainly does. Many accessibility requirements were not on the books when they were built. There are many low income building that have poor access grandfathered in.

I don't like that someone loses housing. I don't like that there is a housing shortage. But to allow the building to stand while in violation of all the planning is a bad situation.

Forcing the company to pay for relocation, any difference in rent, and any increased transportation costs from the move to compensate the inconveniences residents seems like a good compromise.

Then the land can be used for not shit housing.