Weighing the costs of accessibility

Left unspoken this week in Woolwich council’s discussion of yet another report on the unwieldy Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) was the fact the township stands to gain little for the large amount of money it will be forced to spend.

Simply put, very few people are likely to ever use the costly services – having documents available in different formats and making sign language interpreters available, for instance – that are being bandied about at this stage.

There are also expenses related to physical accessibility, including entrances to municipal buildings. In a survey released in 2006, Elmira’s public buildings got a failing grade. The township office building, Elmira Arena, Elmira Pool and library were all singled out for presenting barriers to people with disabilities.

The township was also cited for inaccessible sidewalk curbs, sidewalk conditions and its handicap parking spaces, among others.

Since that time, the township has acquired a new administration building, added an elevator and other amenities at the library and is in the process of building a new multi-purpose recreation facility to replace both the arena and the pool. It has also stepped up repairs to sidewalks, as well as constructing new ones.

None of these projects were undertaken simply because of ODA requirements – although that was a major consideration in moving to a new administration building – but the legislation did come into play.

Designing new buildings to accommodate people with disabilities simply makes sense: The costs are relatively small and makes the facilities open to all residents.

But the issue goes beyond ramps and door openers under provisions of the ODA now under discussion. The term disability cuts a wide swath, as do measures to ensure accessibility. Municipalities are facing huge costs if broad standards are adopted. For small townships like Woolwich and Wellesley, the expenses will be relatively more burdensome. That’s why the province must not only be realistic in the demands placed by the legislation now in draft form, but it must also be prepared to make money available to help municipalities deal with the extra costs.

As Coun. Mark Bauman noted, the provisions of the ODA are akin to downloading of services and expenses, even if it’s a new program. In that light, Woolwich and other municipalities should be demanding increased funding to cover the costs, he noted.

Chief administrative officer David Brenneman said the provisions of the ODA, like other government legislation that establishes requirements but provides no funding, are good in theory but leave municipalities scrambling to comply.
“We’ll be looking for the appropriate level of funding … to implement these ideas.”

Demands for more money from the province are commonplace, but with the ODA criticisms are muted by political correctness: no one wants to be seen as opposing services for the disabled. Nor should they, though there must be careful cost-benefit analyses done.

That said, demographics alone dictate that more of us will fall under the auspices of the ODA. According the Canadian Medical Association, one in eight Canadians – in excess of 3.5 million people – lives with a disability. Advances in health care and an aging population mean that the number of people with disabilities will continue to grow.

Health care costs, especially pharmaceuticals, continue to skyrocket as it is. This legislation will add to the costs. We need to plan now for the future we know is coming.