http://www.thewheelchairsite.com/blogs/wheelchair_wheels_in_the_city/archive/2006/07/07/95946.aspxIf it's not accessible, we make it accessible! Perfect accessibility is a wonderful dream and a worthy goal. In reality, until stairs are eliminated, technological aids are everywhere, and smooth terrain covers the earth, there are still plenty of obstaclesenCommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)http://www.thewheelchairsite.com/blogs/wheelchair_wheels_in_the_city/archive/2006/07/07/95946.aspx#112082Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:51:50 GMT1449d2a9-4708-4928-a2bb-aa25fd8853ed:112082EricI enjoyed this post. It reminds me of a story I read in the Toronto Star (I think): Someone wanted to see a change in building codes so that all new structures - including private homes - were accessible. I may draw a chorus of boos, but I thought it was an unreasonable proposition. Make all public buildings accessible? Absolutely. But private homes? Should people be required to bear this finaincial burden? What if they simply prefer a design aesthetic that isn't effectively accessible? The point isn't that making private homes accessible is bad - not at all - the point is that private citizens, building homes with private funds, should have the right to decide for themselves. If they have friends who need accessibility, maybe they'll want an accessible home. But if they don't, should the government tell them to install design features that will never be used? And surely, as you've said, a building that isn't accessible can still be made "accommodating" can't it? Is non-accessibility in a private home perceived as a huge "Disabled people not wanted here" sign? And how far do we extend this idea - should all houses have to be deisgned with blind people in mind, even if no one in the household has impaired vision? Where does it end?