Rhode Island Senate Bill S2409

Rhode Island 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/24
• Refer: 2/12/24

Caption

Establishes a new article in the state building code that provides that certain new housing construction contain at least one floor that meets the requirements for a Type C "ANSI'' Standards for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities.

Impact

The passage of S2409 will have significant implications for state laws regarding housing design and construction. Specifically, it will incorporate new accessibility standards into the Rhode Island State Building Code, which will mandate that developers include features conducive to visitability for all new housing projects that fall under the specified categories. Supporters of the bill argue that this will improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities and promote greater independence. Additionally, it addresses a growing need for accessible housing within the community, reflecting a progressive approach to housing policy in Rhode Island.

Summary

S2409, known as the Rhode Island Inclusive Home Design Act, aims to amend the State Building Code to require that certain new housing constructions provide at least one floor that meets the accessibility standards set forth by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type C units. This legislation reflects an effort to enhance housing accessibility and inclusivity, ensuring that new homes cater to a diverse range of residents, including those with mobility challenges. The bill identifies covered dwelling units that qualify under this regulation and mandates compliance from those entities that receive various forms of governmental financial assistance in relation to housing construction.

Contention

While the bill has garnered support from various advocacy groups committed to inclusivity and accessibility, there are concerns regarding potential burdens it may impose on developers and builders. Some stakeholders fear that these requirements could lead to increased construction costs, citing that while the legislation stipulates a cost increase should not exceed one percent, actual costs may vary. Proponents counter these arguments by emphasizing the long-term societal benefits of creating more accessible spaces and the necessity of adapting to an aging population that increasingly requires accessible living environments. As such, the debate reflects broader discussions on balancing economic feasibility with social responsibility in housing development.