There are many definitions of disAbled, depending on who is doing the defining. The A is capitalized, because people with disAbilities have abilities and should not be dissed. At some point, we’ll describe people in a more evolved manner, and not lump people who require adaptations, assistive technology, or accessible architecture and design all into one word, which can carry stereotypical meanings, depending upon who is using the term.

Some musicians that you may have heard of, that had different types of disAbilities include: Beethoven, Bach, and Schumann.

If you sincerely want to learn more, I offer this link:
Models of Disability from the Connections for Community leadership group in MI. http://www.copower.org/leader/models.htm

In addition, it’s good to check my stats, so please go to the U.S. Census site at the Disability Main page, at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/disability.html

That will help you gain an overview of national statistics and I’m sure you will be able to figure out how to drill down to find out about Somerville’s statistics relevant to current disability knowledge base.

1 in 5 people in this city are disabled over the age of 5? Please define disabled because I have a tough time believeing 20% of the population in this city is disabled. Where are they all hiding? I don’t see them wheeling around or grocery shopping at Johnnies or Stop & Shop. That number cannot be correct unless you’re defining disabled as people who wear glasses.

And what’s with the ‘A’ in the middle of disabled?

What would it look like, if we as a community, refused to subtract, isolate, discard or marginalize anyone in our distinctive, diverse, colorful urban village (no matter what their socioeconomic status)?

Kill ‘em only if they don’t kill you first.

You miss my point. There really are no barriers to the worst kind of discrimination in buildings of three units or less, and any incentive to increase what is inevitable discrimination will only hurt those most vulnerable.

A corollary point, incidentally, is that a disproportionate number of units are actually OWNED by those elders you claim to be protecting. They are terrified of restrictions, and, at least fifteen years ago when we did our study, they often kept their second or third units empty rather than deal with a contentious or litigious tenant. THAT helps no one, and that’s why we developed those somewhat elaborate schemes to involve churches and other intermediaries to protect both tenant and landlord from each others’ predations.

My point, once again, is that there is a critical need for a real housing policy that maintains the diversity of a city facing the dramatic inflationary pressures of new mass transit. AHOC has failed – in my opinion failed miserably – to address affordability by and for young adults and others most vulnerable to market pressures. That, incidentally, does NOT include people with disabilities who have recourse to Section 8, as well as modest (but complex) renovation funding to make older units accessible if it is at all economically feasible. What is at risk here is precisely what Cambridge has lost: units more expensive than Section 8, and less expensive than Affordable formulae (or $1200 to $1400/month). They will totally disappear without a serious effort to raise serious money, probably through a tax on real estate transfers, as we suggested over a dozen years ago. The perfect time to install such a tax – and there is both state law and adequate precedent for such a transfer tax based on the Cape’s transfer tax and creation of set aside conservation land – is when the market is DOWN, and when differentials with Cambridge and Medford and Arlington are largely moot.

Instead of a housing policy to assure diversity, you guys have created a housing policy to pit small homeowners against their co-resident tenants. That is idiotic, destructive to both community and policy, and quite typical of the Cambridge policy that failed so miserably there to retain any hint of diverse housing.

America began caring about accessibility and including people with disABilities in 1968, with the Architectural Barriers Act. I don’t know what prevents our leaders and public from implementing civil rights legislation like that, but I am not giving up on any, and all, of these regulations being enforced someday, Harry.

And I can’t tell how you read it, but approximately 20% of Somervillians over the age of 5 are disAbled. I gave the numbers above, because those are more likely the heads of households.

Please tell us more about how you are barely keeping your head above water, if you feel like it, Harry? What kinds of details are not being considered?

And how would this proposed ordinance “strong-arm” you? Are you planning an imminent conversion?

Best to you and thanks!

And did I read this correctly?

“…Somerville’s 2000 census 9,731 residents 21-64 years that are disAbled…”

Huh? That’s an awful high % of disabled folks between 21 and 64 here in Somerville. Between those under 21 and those over 65 – that probably takes our total population down to ~60,000 (from ~78,000). ~ 10,000 of those are disabled? And 100% of the houses don’t have accommodations for the disabled? Where are they staying now and how will we ever get all the 2 and 3-family house ADA compliant for them? Something doesn’t add up here.

Small property owners are barely keeping their heads above water now. Why should we have to incur extra time, relocation and regulation expenses for out tenants just to appease a misguided group of tenant advocates trying to pass an ordinance that will not benefit those it claims to want to benefit (elderly/disabled/low-income).

What – I think – Joe was advocating was that the city’s efforts should be more geared to building and providing more affordable housing for the disabled/low-income/elderly. There are already many groups out there that the city should lean on and methods to get proper (and ADA compliant) units available. Strong-arming small property owners – who are barely making it now – into offering perpetual (and non-ADA complaint) housing makes no sense.

I do applaud your efforts to help the disabled, but sadly this isn’t the way.

Absolutely, there are many non discrimination regulations, statutes, legislation, and those are applicable to all facilities, services, activities!

But here’s the reality factor: Who is actually monitoring and enforcing them? Those laws and regs. are absolutely not being monitored or enforced by our local elected leadership and their designated staff.

In Somerville, where vacant units are few, I will make a guess that one hundred percent of available units on the market are utterly inaccessible to mobility impaired and sensory impaired individuals, even after undergoing significant rehabilitation.

In addition, it is mandatory for our city’s OSPCD staff to examine, document, and send to HUD an updated Impediments to Fair Housing report that incorporates the housing affordability and discrimination issues facing low income people with disAbilities (who are more than 30% of the residents in our poverty-concentrated neighborhoods). (This is found in 24 CFR 91.) How unfortunate, that our city’s experts have so far ignored even these HUD-mandated regulations with impunity!

That’s all the more reason for a local ordinance that respects these issues.

Now about the “Historically speaking” argument, you must know that people with severe lifelong disAbilities were, historically speaking, completely sidelined and hidden from society-either kept hidden within family homes, or in institutions, where every day was a misery for everyone concerned.

And in local Planning and Zoning policy, there is certainly an adherence to, and pride in, Somerville’s historic character. Recently I noted how the city’s Planning Staff approved of the removal of a ramp from a beautiful house abutting Summer Street. They said, “The redesigned front porch will be more historically accurate than what previously existed when the structure was operated as a funeral home. ” Well, yeah… before this was a public facility, it was a private house that was inaccessible to wheelchair users. yeah, now it’s back to that.

I agree that most owners will not allow a renter applicant to even see the inside of any available units if they are wheelchair-users, or are Blind, or are Deaf, or are 65+. Yep, I agree, that’s going to happen- and few, if any, applicants will make an MCAD complaint, even if it seems obvious that they were excluded based on disAbility and/or age.

Now, if we look at the current State and federal regulations, we find even more reason to protect the current housing situation of Elderly and disAbled residents:

Since the majority of housing in Somerville was built before 1920, Federal or State accessibility regs will not mandate that they become accessible, until rehabilitated. Here’s a general run down:

-The Fair Housing Amendments Act (as amended) of 1988 only applies to new construction of multifamily housing of 4+ units.
-The State Architectural Access building code only applies to new construction of 3+ units built after 9/1/96, or existing dwelling of 12+ units for rent, hire or lease undergoing major alteration, renovation and reconstruction.
-The ADA only applies, in Title II public housing, to multi-family buildings of 15+ units.
-And Title III of the ADA applies only to common use areas.

Thus, if we engage a historically speaking as well as a conditions-on-the-ground discussion, it is clear that the dearth of housing opportunities for people who are unable to deal with stairs upholds the necessity of this proposed ordinance, which at least provides some small measure of protection on paper for our neighbors on fixed incomes, with lifelong and degenerative disAbilities, who are currently finding a way to afford to live in an independent and integrated manner in our community, in smaller housing buildings.

So, I’m sure I don’t feel your point of view, Joe, because I am not a small-property owner. However, I’d like to understand. Can you or others explain,using figures and facts, how providing low income renters some measure of time and relocation expenses would trigger undue burdens for the small property owner?

And finally (for the moment!) what are the characteristics of Somervillian “YUPPIES,” circa 2009? Please dismantle that term for me so that I know more about what it refers to! And if I meet ‘em on the road, should I kill ‘em?

Before you go too far out on a limb regarding discrimination, be aware that for two or three unit buildings there IS NO DISCRIMINATION enforcement. They are specifically exempt since they are historically family oriented buildings, wherein tenants were and are still recruited by word of mouth rather than third party placement. Most Section 8 units are NOT in two to three unit buildings, specifically because of this factor. In other words, your condo bill is the first general incentive to encourage precisely the kind of discrimination you seek to reduce.

You ought to think of this rental situation from the direction of a real small property owner. I am quite dependent on my tenants’ rent to cover the mortgage. There are very few resources available should they decide to withhold rent. That rental is critical to my financial stability. It is an odd and dangerous paradox that most small property owners are at least as vulnerable as their tenants to issues of displacement, financial insolvency, and litigation. That is precisely why landlords and tenants ought to recognize their mutual dependence rather than be polarized as the current draft bill frames it.

It’s the yuppies who cannot tolerate that paradox, not those of us who like living here.

You are right- I do not own a property, and fail to know your point of view. I definitely appreciate what you’ve pointed out! I’ll bet a 2/3 family home costs a bundle, and even more in West Somerville than East. (I took a moment to check: today’s listings for 2 + 3 family homes range between 340,000 – 600,000). In addition, I’m sure there are renters from hell just like there are landlords from hell.

However, if 2/3 family homes are not included in the ordinance, then the majority of constituents would be left out. The most recent (2005) Somerville Housing Needs Assessment states, “Somerville has roughly 31,555 occupied housing units. The majority of these units are located in 2 or 3 family homes and are renter-occupied. An estimated 66% of all units are renter-occupied.. (p.2).” Later in the report (p.17) there’s a chart of types of buildings: 47% are two family and 21% are 3 family. Buildings with 4+ units= 19%, and I’m assuming that includes most of the 40B inventory, which was surveyed in 2002 to include 2900 units. (Of those, 1,294 are listed as affordable Elderly and/or disAbled units.)

Somerville’s 2000 census counted 8,099 residents that are 65+ years, and 9,731 residents 21-64 years that are disAbled. That’s where the issue speaks to me. Clearly, many of these residents are renters living in 2/3 family houses, and, for the most part, this is a population that is likely to have a fixed income. These people are at the mercy of the market and do require some additional time and resources in order to find new housing, should the owner wish to convert.

As for the housing discrimination cases, thanks for following up by examining the report I mentioned! However, some small corrections to your overview: it covers 217 out of the 371 cities and towns in MA, and from 2004 – 2006 (2 yrs.). In addition, your point would be a good one if it weren’t for the fact that only a bare minimum of people that experience discrimination of any kind are likely to report it. There’s a great study on barriers to access to justice in MA that was put out a couple of years ago- I’m sorry I don’t have the time to ferret that out right now, Harry, but I think it was published in 2007. At any rate, it is clear that people that are economically disadvantaged have a much harder time absorbing and responding to discrimination victimization- so the numbers in that DHCD report do only show those who succeeded in accessing the MA Commission Against Discrimination offices, who completed their complaint registration processes.

I do not understand why you claim that most of those MCAD complaints are frivolous, Harry! Your statement, “many of those cases were thrown out for being frivolous and just professional tenants looking to play the free-rent card while litigation was on-going” sounds like a myth to me! Please clarify that?

(In addition, what are the characteristics of a “professional tenant”?! I’m truly curious!)

So, I can only answer one of your last questions. I’m looking at this from the perspective of an advocate for Elderly/DisAbled people, and lack the knowledge and experience to answer your thoughtful questions about rent control, etc. All I can say is that this proposed ordinance is dealing with Somerville’s on-the-ground conditions and it appears that it will shield a majority of our committed neighbors from being ousted from our community in a frantic and traumatic way, if the owner wishes to convert. In addition, it does seem to be an ordinance that should not be toxic to humane landlords, and might even increase some relationship-building between tenant and landlord. Let the numbers speak: Somerville’s constituents are nearly 70% renters; and their existing shelter is mainly within 2/3 family homes.

And why Somerville?: Somerville is where I live, and I consider it a very, very special community, with a multitude of intellectual and creative capital, and an incredibly diverse, stimulating bunch of neighbors – both on the street, and- as you’ve illustrated- also online! Thanks so much for this dialogue, Harry!