State accessibility panel weighs conflict between two worthy aims

A MEETING OF the state Architectural Access Board Subcommittee on Regulations doesn’t sound like a setting for passionate debate pitting talk of civil rights against the challenge of revitalizing the state’s most economically distressed communities. But amid the invocation of obscure acronyms and weedy talk of building code subsections, that conflict was at the center of a public hearing on Wednesday, marked by emotion-filled testimony with potentially far-reaching consequences.
At issue is a state regulation dating to 1968 aimed at promoting greater accommodation in buildings for people with disabilities. The rule stipulates that anytime the cost of a renovation project exceeds 30 percent of a property’s assessed value the work must also incorporate changes to make it fully accessible for those with disabilities. That could mean anything from installing elevators to expanding doorways and reconfiguring bathrooms to accommodate those in wheelchairs.
Disability rights advocates say the so-called 30-percent rule has been a vital cornerstone of the state’s effort to expand access for disabled people to everything from housing and commercial properties to houses of worship and other gathering places. It made the state a trailblazer in the disability rights movement, adopted more than two decades before the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Those calling for changes say they fully support expanding accessibility and maintaining the 30-percent rule. But they say the rule is being applied unfairly in a way that is holding back economically distressed communities that already face considerable hurdles in jumpstarting revitalization efforts.
Because property values are much lower in places like Holyoke and Springfield than in the Boston area, but construction costs don’t vary nearly as much across the state, they say the cost of renovations far more easily exceeds the 30-percent threshold in those communities. When costly accessibility mandates are added to a project’s budget, they say, property owners frequently opt to abandon the renovation altogether.
The rule was adopted as “a tool to be fair, but it isn’t fair. It isn’t fair because of the inequality around our property values,” said state Rep. Mary Keefe of Worcester, one of almost two dozen people who testified at Wednesday’s hearing. “What it’s created here in my district is a lot of what people would term as blight,” she said, telling the subcommittee that the rule has contributed to the neglect of properties.
Tamara Small, CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts, which represents commercial property owners, testified that the rule has become “a significant barrier to investment and redevelopment throughout the Commonwealth … particularly in communities outside of greater Boston.” She said the median property value in Springfield in 2022 was $198,500, which meant renovation costs greater than $59,000 would trigger the rule. “As a result,” she said, “many buildings with lower valuations are never upgraded to create safe and modern, accessible spaces, because it is cost prohibitive to upgrade the entire building.”
Disability rights advocates pushed back vigorously against the idea of relaxing the regulation. “The 30-percent rule ensures that major investments in properties benefit everyone, creating a more inclusive society where all individuals can participate fully,” said Dawn Oates, the parent of a disabled child. “Without this rule, accessibility improvements could remain perpetually delayed or deferred.”
Steve Higgins, the executive director of Independence Associates, an East Bridgewater nonprofit that helps people with disabilities live independently in the community, excoriated those advocating for changes to the rule. He accused them of treating those with disabilities as “costs and burdens.”
“It’s insulting when legislators and others decide to devalue us as persons with disabilities,” said Higgins, who uses a wheelchair. “Access is a civil right. It does not have a monetary cost.”
Those arguing that the rule has stymied revitalization efforts in communities with lower property values say one straightforward change would be to make the 30-percent threshold apply to the replacement cost of property – which does not vary that widely by location – and not its assessed value.
Tying the rule to assessed values, said state Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield, has unfairly hamstrung communities like hers. “We don’t want to get rid of the 30-percent rule; we want to change it so there’s equity across the state,” she said. “The people of Pittsfield should have the same access to affordable, accessible housing units as the people of Needham or Cambridge or Natick, and right now they do not have that.”
While the rule may be holding back rehabilitation of property in some communities, Carol Steinberg, a disability rights attorney and wheelchair user who is vice chair of the regulations subcommittee, said she has yet to hear how changing the 30-percent rule to apply to replacement cost or other potential modifications to the regulation would lead to more accessible housing units.
The subcommittee plans to discuss the testimony from Wednesday’s hearing at its next meeting, in February, as it considers whether to recommend changes to the regulation.
Andre Leroux, director of the Gateway Cities Innovation Institute at MassINC, testified in favor of changing the rule. (MassINC, a statewide civic nonprofit, is the publisher of CommonWealth Beacon.) He suggested the debate shouldn’t be viewed as a zero-sum argument between two competing goals.
“We’re talking about fairness for everybody,” said Leroux. “We have a lot of confidence that the board will be able to craft a fair solution for everyone that balances these interests.”
That may prove easier said than done.
