I believe that we have too many regulations and/or too little ability for individuals to override or ignore in a common sense way regulations on the books that are too costly given a cost/benefit analysis. There are so many regulations that I can't possibly go through each one and where I differ so I will just take one:  the ADA.  Now, this regulation was popular in both parties when enacted and, in fact, signed into law by the first President Bush. I like the idea and think it is very sound to include it in new construction and in some remodels, depending on the situation (cost/benefit).  That said, I have seen in my tenure as a housing facilities manager that it has been required in many absurd situations in which there is no way to override the decision with common sense.  For instance, any remodel of an apartment at my college requiring bringing it up to ADA standards even though we had many apartments that were fully up to ADA standards.  Now, this is a hilly college where very few people with mobility issues choose to come to school.  There was more than adequate housing for any situation for any disability, so why make them all be upgraded - often adding 30% to the cost while decreasing the livability for those who were in the space. The reasoning was that someone with a disability might visit the place.  Come on?  The cost/benefit is not reasonable. That's just one of hundreds of examples I could give.  We have to find a way where common sense can prevail.  The left does not seem to feel this is an issue and, in fact, responds dramatically whenever there is a hint of a change on this (such as the recently passed bill in the house that would change requirements for ADA lawsuits - I am for that change.)

I will give another example.  Recently, on King St in Santa Cruz, the city needed to repave. But to do so, they had to change every intersection to the newest ADA standard.  Now, all of them were sloped for wheelchairs and have etching of the concrete for the blind, but the new standard are raised dots for the blind.  So the cost to City from a simple repaving to this massive project was many times what it would have been.  Again, come on?  The City is going broke from pension obligations, there are pot-holed streets all over the city, there is a massive homeless problem, there is severe water problem, etc - and we have to change to bumps??  This does not pass common sense nor any sort of cost/benefit analysis.

There is only so much money we have to address our massive problems. We could save a bundle with a little common sense in the regulation world.

Comment