Disability Rights and Fair Housing: Eileen Feldman responds to City of Somerville and SCC. November 2006. In fall, 2006, the City of Somerville contacted then-Disability Commission Chair Eileen Feldman regarding the Community Housing Development Organization's (CDHO) wish to request exemption from accessibility requirements for a substantial rehabilitation of a 6-unit development at 109 Gilman Street. They asked her to weigh in on supporting this request for an examption. Instead, Eileen Feldman urged the City of Somerville and the Somerville Community Corporation to ensure maximum accessibility and to make the common areas and at least one of the 2 first-floor apartments accessible to current and future tenants of this HOME-funded project. In response, SCC informed Ms. Feldman that they would not be following this guidance, because, "it would be an administrative as well as a financial burden" to change their plans at this time. (There were 2 alternate architectural plans drawn up to ensure that at least one unit would be accessible, as well as the common areas of this development. The extra cost for construction for one plan was $17,000; and other costed approximately double that.) Eileen Feldman then responded to SCC's claims with this pro bono document, Response and Guidance to Somerville Department of Housing, written to the City of Somerville's Community Development office as well as the Somerville Community Corporation. She exhorted SCC and the City of Somerville to proactively address the numerous impediments to fair housing for people with disabilities in Somerville. After receiving this document, SCC admitted that they could no longer argue that there was an administrative burden to creating at least one accessible unit, because of HUD's guidance regarding the need to plan for accessibility at the acquisition stage of developing such a project.

1. RESPONSE & GUIDANCE TO SOMERVILLE DEPT. OF HOUSING
To: Paul Mackey, Director, Housing Division,
Dana LeWinter, Special Projects Director,
Evelyn Persoff, Housing Department Specialist
From: Somerville Disabilities Commission Chair E. Feldman
RE: 11/6/06 MEMORANDUM From Somerville Community Corporation's
(SCC) C.Koslow, Requesting Exemption From Accessibility Requirement
for the 6-unit 109 Gilman Street Rehab. Project
DATE: 11/13/06
_________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review and respond to the 4-page Memorandum,
written by C. Koslow of the SCC, requesting exemption from the accessibility requirements
for the 6-unit rehab. of 109 Gilman St.. I have not received the attachments noted in her
memorandum; however, at this time, I would not be commenting on the Architectural
Drawings without also going on a walk through of the site and with a building accessibility
specialist.
This review generated a number of questions and this document is meant to sincerely guide
the City to: 1. consider well the potential liabilities of accepting SCC's rationale as it stands;
2. enhance its support of, and marketability to, people with disabilities; and 3. increase the
options for SCC's programs relevant to accessibility at this time.
Perhaps the most important question, at this time, for the City to determine is:
In the event that a thorough examination of the conditions at 109 Gilman Street by a
qualified Accessibility Specialist warrants the exemption of a wheelchair-accessible
unit in this location, do the programs of SCC, in their entirety, demonstrate a
commitment to, and to the maximum extent feasible, the inclusion of people with
disabilities, as mandated by the Fair Housing Act, regulations of HUD, the ABA, and
in the spirit of the ADA of 1990?

2. OUTLINE OF RESPONSE
I. Background:
A. SCC
Impression #1, SCC Requires Guidance Re: Overall Integration & Implementation of
Standards of Accessibility into Programs.
B. SCC & Gilman street property
Impression, #2: Planning of Gilman St. Project Failed to Acknowledge Access Regs
by June, 2005.
II. HUD, FHA Compliance:
A. Reliance on documents
Impression #3: With regard to Accessibility, SCC's "Reliance" on Regulations, etc.
Lacks Timeliness and fails to acknowledge necessary details.
B. 9 questions to answer
Impression #4: SCC's Argument for Structural Accessibility Exemption Severely
Weakened by Lack of Comprehensive Discussion regarding Project's Achievable
Accessibility.
III. Achievable? Accessible, Adaptable, and Adjustable
IV. Notes re:
A. Risks of noncompliance, Gains of Compliance;
B. Meaningful awareness of the needs of people with disabilities;
C. This writer and this document;
D. a repeated plea to the City of Somerville.

3. I. BACKGROUND
One must review the mission of SCC as well as the history of this particular project, to
understand more fully how SCC has approached the issue of accessibility at 109 Gilman
Street. We must also review what those mandates are from the Federal, State and local
legislation, evolving regulations, codes, and ordinances as they apply not only to the Gilman
Street project, but also to SCC as a whole.
A. SCC's Stated Mission
From the Annual Report, 2005, "Strengthening Our Roots": " OUR MISSION STATEMENT
Somerville Community Corporation (SCC) is a membership organization that provides
leadership for sustaining the city of Somerville as a vibrant, diverse and tolerant community.
We develop and preserve affordable housing. We offer services and lead community
organizing that supports low and moderate-income Somerville residents in their efforts to
achieve economic stability and increase civic participation."
In the 11/06/06 memorandum, SCC claims that the "soft costs" of "2) hiring an accessibility
consultant, which will become necessary to determine which of the state and federal
accessibility rules apply to this project" and "3) conducting a property line survey to ensure
that the necessary ramps fit within our property" and "4) additional architectural time" (p. 3,
2nd paragraph under Financial Burden), "could add over $4,000 of additional costs" to the
project.
Discussion:
In the HUD Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse1 discussions of accessibility and the Fair
Housing Act, it is stated:
" There is implicit recognition that all may not understand
accessibility provisions in the Fair Housing Act."
HUD's Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines clearly state:
"Builders have been on notice since January 23, 1989 -- the
publication date of the final Fair Housing rule, that
undertaking construction after January 13, 1990 without
adequate attention to accessibility considerations would be
at the builder's risk."
SCC's arguments regarding "additional soft costs", as well as the overall "financial
burden argument" show a lack of acknowledgement of the ongoing requirements for
accessibility, and a lack of commitment to the needs of people with disabilities. This is
incompatible with the stated goals of SCC and utterly illogical for a company that
rehabilitates properties for the L/M housing market in partnership with Federal, State and
local funds and resources.
1
http://www.huduser.org/rbc/index.asp

4. At the very least, SCC should immediately create policies that further their goals in step
with the current climate of accessibility awareness. In addition, they should retain an
Access Specialist on staff to guide them in compliance and the spirit of accessibility.
They should also proactively take steps to ensure that their other projects are monitored
and adapted toward accessibility. And such "soft costs" should, instead, be
institutionalized as normal and ongoing operational costs in their overall budget.
Therefore,
IMPRESSION #1, SCC Requires Guidance RE: Overall Integration &
Implementation of Standards of Accessibility.
B. Gilman Street Apartments
From the SCC website
(http://somervillecdc.org/housingdev/projects/index.shtml#bowstreet):
"
The Somerville Community Corporation purchased 109 Gilman Street, a 6-unit rental
building in the Winter Hill neighborhood, in June 2005. The Gilman Street Apartments are
all three-bedroom/one bath units with large kitchens and living/dining rooms. In fall 2006,
SCC will begin a moderate rehab of the building, including updating the kitchens and baths,
replacing the exterior siding, and rebuilding the front entryway.
The development team for the Gilman Street Apartments includes Katharine MacPhail at
dEmios Architects and Winn Residential Property Managers. Financing for the project is
provided by Central Bank, the City of Somerville, the Somerville Affordable Housing Trust,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community
Development, the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and the US Department
of Housing and Community Development."
In the 11/6 Memorandum, Ms. Koslow states, "As a result of receiving local HOME funding
from the City of Somerville, this project has triggered Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973." (p. 1, 2nd Para.).
In addition, on page 4, SCC reasons an "Undue Administrative Burden", as follows: " As is
the nature of government subsidized affordable housing projects, there are many
sources and much paper work already required to fund 109 Gilman Street. Currently
there are two sources in the acquisition loan and five in the construction and permanent
Loans. In order to cover the cost of the accessible unit, we will need to apply for
Additional funding, most likely through the state!s Department of Housing and
Community Development. This additional time and paperwork required will create an
administrative burden and additional delay."
Discussion:
The acquisition of this property, using Federal, State and local funds, occurred in 2005. By
virtue of that acquisition and its clear intent to develop the property, federal accessibility and
Civil Rights legislation/regulations that were triggered at that time include2:
2
Although the readers of this document are knowledgeable about these details, it is necessary to include them here for
completeness' sake.

5. 1. Architectural Barriers Act, 1968 (buildings financed in whole or in part by the U.S. must
be physically accessible for people with disabilities).
2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 1973 as amended (ensuring that people with
disabilities will have the same opportunities in Federal programs as people without
disabilities).
3. Fair Housing Act. FHA Accessibility Amendments enacted in 1988. (accessibility design
regulations apply to buildings built, renovated, rehabilitated, etc. after March 13, 1991).
4. Titles II & III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 1990 (guarantees that all programs,
regardless of funding, are made accessible to all persons, in the areas of employment,
public accommodations, transportations, state and local programs, and communications).
In addition, there are no less than 5 relevant Fair Housing Executive Orders3. In addition,
HUD offers specific guidance on standard monitoring practices for property acquisition in the
CPD Monitoring Handbook, Chapter 254 and also for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Standards, Chapter 22, once the property is made marketable.
SCC's responsibility to conduct preliminary cost estimates for accessibility alterations and the
subsequent responsibility to create realistic architectural plans to include fullest possible
accessibility began at the very imagining of this project, or at least by acquisition date, 2005-
not at this time, as claimed in the 11/6 Memorandum.
It seems that any delay caused by investigating, planning, and detailing the inclusion of
alternate and fullest possible accessibility features in the Gilman Street property before
beginning the rehab must be considered, at this time, to be essential and necessary
components of the overall project, and should not be used to detail exclusionary or exemption
rationales with regards to accessibility requirements. If anything, the delay is caused by
SCC's (and their funder's) lack of alertness to HUD's and FHA's well-articulated policies and
regulations regarding accessibility and lack of clear policies and procedures of compliance
monitoring.
Therefore,
Impression, #2, Planning of Gilman St. Project Failed to Acknowledge Access Regs by
June, 2005.
II. HUD, FHA compliance, etc.
A. Reliance on regulations, etc.
SCC states in 11/6 Memorandum: "As we have discussed, HUD Notice CPD-05-09 issued
November 3, 2005, brought to our attention the need to evaluate whether 109 Gilman was
required to have an accessible unit upon rehabilitation."
SCC states (from website): " In fall 2006, SCC will begin a moderate rehab of the building,
3
SEE http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/index.cfm
4
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/library/monitoring/handbook.cfm#25
ALSO SEE: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/lawsregs/notices/2005/05-02.pdf

6. including updating the kitchens and baths, replacing the exterior siding, and rebuilding the
front entryway. "
Discussion : SCC Memorandum Relies on HUD Notices and UFAS.
SCC relies on certain HUD Notices and Federal Standards (UFAS) to support a rationale for
exempting small (less than 15 unit) rehab projects from accessibility requirements. These
are: HUD Notice CPD-05-09, the UFAS Section 4.1.6(3) and definition of "structural
impracticability, and HUD Notice PIH 93-18.
Since 2000, HUD has issued three Notices -- two from CPD and one from Housing
-- to remind HOME and CDBG recipients of their obligation to comply with Section
504 and other related laws. In 200O HUD issued CPD Notice 00-9; this was
extended in 20035. CPD Notice 05-09 reinforces those 2,
Of these, SCC only incompletely references the 2005 CPD Notice 05-09. The
paragraph SCC refers to reads, in entirety (underlining added herein for relevance
to the discussions which follow):
"Other alterations -- When other alterations that do not meet
the regulatory definition of substantial alterations are undertaken
in multifamily rental housing projects of any size, these
alterations must, to the maximum extent feasible, make the
dwelling units accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, until a minimum of 5 percent of the dwelling units (but
not less than one unit) are accessible to people with mobility
impairments, unless HUD prescribes a higher number pursuant
to 24 CFR 8.23(b)(2). If alterations of single elements or spaces
of a dwelling unit, when considered together, amount to an
alteration of a dwelling unit, then the entire dwelling unit shall be
made accessible. For this category of rehabilitation the
additional 2 percent of the dwelling units requirement for
individuals with sensory impairments does not apply. Alterations
to common spaces must, to the maximum extent feasible, make
those areas accessible. A recipient is not required to make a
dwelling unit, common area, facility or element accessible, if
doing so would impose undue financial and administrative
burdens on the operation of the multifamily housing project (24
CFR 8.23(b)). Therefore, with regards to covered alterations,
recipients are only required to provide access up to the point of
being an undue financial and administrative burden."
Further, from CPD Notices of 2003 and 2005, re Section 504:
"New [FY03] Construction Requirements from 24CFR 8.22(a):
1. Any multifamily rental new construction housing containing 5
5
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/lawsregs/notices/2003/03-13.pdf

7. or more units – both the units and the common areas of the
building must be accessible
2. Minimum of 5%, but at least one unit, must be accessible to
the mobility impaired
3. Additional 2% of the units must be accessible to those with
sensory impairments unless HUD requires a higher number per
24CFR 8.22(c)."
Regarding the confusion around the many accessibility standards, all 3
Notices state:
" Accessibility Standards
Dwelling units designed and constructed in accordance with the
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) will be deemed
to comply with the Section 504 regulation. For copies of UFAS,
contact the HUD Distribution Center at 1-800-767-7468; hearing
or speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by
calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1- 800-877-
8339. Accessible units must be, to the maximum extent feasible,
distributed throughout the projects and sites, and must be
available in a sufficient range of sizes and amenities so as not to
limit choice."
plus:
"It must be noted that, in many cases, new construction of rental
projects funded in the HOME/CDBG Programs must meet both
the Fair Housing Act and the Section 504 new construction
requirements. Where two or more accessibility standards apply,
the housing provider is required to follow and apply both
standards, so that maximum accessibility is obtained."
In addition, these CPD Notices emphasize the practicability and value of utilizing Principles
of Universal Design, as well as Visitability principles. Regarding Visitability
recommendations:
"Visitability
Although not a requirement, it is recommended that all design,
construction and alterations incorporate, whenever practical, the
concept of Visitability in addition to the requirements under
Section 504 and the Fair Housing Act.
Visitability is a design concept, which for very little or no
additional cost enables persons with disabilities to visit relatives,
friends, and neighbors in their homes within a community.
Design Considerations
Visitability design incorporates the following in all construction or

8. alterations, in addition to the applicable requirements of Section
504 and the Fair Housing Act, whenever practical and possible
for as many units as possible within a development:
• Provide a 32" clear opening in all bathroom and interior
doorways.
• Provide at least one accessible means of egress/ingress for
each unit.
Benefits
Visitability also expands the availability of housing options for
individuals who may not require full accessibility. It will assist project
owners in making reasonable accommodations and reduce, in some
cases, the need for structural modifications or transfers when
individuals become disabled in place. Visitability will also improve
the marketability of units. Further information regarding the concept
of visitability may be obtained through the HUD web page
(http://www.huduser.org/publications/pubasst/strategies.html).
In addition, these Notices consistently state the importance of updated Self-
Evaluations:
"The Notice also recommends that recipients conduct updated
self evaluations as a useful tool for enhancing efforts to comply
with accessibility requirements in HOME/CDBG programs, as
well as to document those efforts. "
As for Principles of Universal Design, the Fair Housing Manual was authored
in 1996 (recently republished6) by the genius architect, Ron Mace, himself a
wheelchair user. This Manual is referenced at the HUD User Policy
Development and Research Information Service, which describes its essential
points as follows:
"The Fair Housing Design Manual provides comprehensive
information and guidance for meeting accessibility provisions
required in the design and construction of multifamily housing
covered by the Fair Housing Act. The manual explains the
application of HUD's Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines to all
aspects of multifamily housing projects, referencing the 1986
ANSI A117.1 American National Standard for Buildings and
Facilities. The introduction contains an overview of the Act and
the types of buildings/dwellings that it covers, outlines other laws
and standards that regulate accessible design, briefly discusses
6
To order "Fair Housing Act Design Manual", visit the HUD USER website at
www.huduser.org/publications/destech/fairhousing.html. For people who have the 1996 edition, updated pages are free of
charge and are available for ordering online.

9. the different types of disabilities, and presents a glossary of
terms. Part 2 presents a detailed, illustrated explanation of the
seven requirements of the guidelines. These include: 1)
accessible building entrance on an accessible road; 2)
accessible and usable public and common use areas; 3) usable
doors; 4) accessible route into and through the covered unit; 5)
light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other
environmental controls in accessible locations; 6) reinforced
walls for grab bars; and 7) usable kitchens and bathrooms.
There are three appendices."
Summary, Reliance on Regs. Rationale for Exemption:
As is noted above, the HUD Notices of 2000 (issued December 26, 2000) and 2003 (issued
November 23, 2003), also were written for the express purpose "to remind recipients of
Federal funds for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) or the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program of their obligation to comply with Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Act, and HUD's implementing Regulations
(24 CFR Parts 8 and 100, respectively), which prohibit discrimination based on disability and
establish requirements for program accessibility and physical accessibility in connection with
housing programs."
It seems that SCC should have been alert to these Notices by the time of the
Walnut Street Apartments as well as the Linden Street Apartments rehabs, and
planned all subsequent rehabs accordingly. In addition, the Bow Street
apartments and the Sewall Place project may not be in minimal compliance, either.
Therefore,
IMPRESSION #3, With regard to Accessibility, SCC's "Reliance" on
Regulations, etc. lacks timeliness and fails to acknowledge necessary
details.
B. Nine Questions that SCC should have answered in their
Memorandum
SCC states: " In fall 2006, SCC will begin a moderate rehab of the building,
including updating the kitchens and baths, replacing the exterior siding, and
rebuilding the front entryway. "
Regardless of whether this is a moderate or substantial rehabilitation of the property, SCC
fails to provide details in this Memorandum, which would show appropriate and thorough
attention to the following questions:
1. re: to the maximum extent feasible, make the dwelling units accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities
How has SCC ensured that accessibility is integrated into the project to the maximum
extent possible?

10. 2. re: If alterations of single elements or spaces of a dwelling unit, when considered
together, amount to an alteration of a dwelling unit, then the entire dwelling unit shall be
made accessible.
How will SCC increase accessibility when updating the kitchens and baths?
3. re: and the common areas of the building must be accessible
What are the common areas (both interior and exterior) and how are they
being made accessible?
4. re: Additional 2% of the units must be accessible to those with sensory
impairments
What percent and how will 109 Gilman Street be made accessible to
people who are visually and/or hearing impaired, or have other sensory
impairments?
5. re: Accessible units must be, to the maximum extent feasible, distributed
throughout the projects and sites, and must be available in a sufficient range
of sizes and amenities so as not to limit choice."
In the event that a thorough examination of the conditions at 109 Gilman Street by a
qualified Accessibility Specialist warrants the exemption of a fully mobility-
accessible unit in this location, do the programs of SCC, in their entirety,
demonstrate a commitment to, and to the maximum extent feasible, the inclusion of
people with disabilities, as mandated by the Fair Housing Act, regulations of HUD, the
ABA, and in the spirit of the ADA of 1990?
6. re: must meet both the Fair Housing Act and the Section 504 new
construction requirements. Where two or more accessibility standards apply,
the housing provider is required to follow and apply both standards, so that
maximum accessibility is obtained."
Are Scoping and Technical Requirements being relied upon in
conjunction with the Fair Housing Act and HUD's regulations, and the
Guidelines?
Which of the (seven)" Safe Harbor" documents has SCC adopted for its
analysis of the accessibility challenges of Gilman Street- and for all their
projects?
7. re: Visitability In fall 2006, SCC will begin a moderate rehab of the building, including
updating the kitchens and baths, replacing the exterior siding, and rebuilding the front
entryway.
Will the front entryway be modified to achieve ground level visitability?
8. re: The Notice also recommends that recipients conduct updated self
evaluations as a useful tool for enhancing efforts to comply with accessibility
requirements in HOME/CDBG programs, as well as to document those efforts.
When was the last Self Evaluation (per ADA administrative mandates)
conducted by SCC (with its partners), and where is that documented, for
review? Are policies for the next Self Evaluation -and resultant transition
plan, in place?

11. 9. re: 1) accessible building entrance on an accessible road; 2) accessible
and usable public and common use areas; 3) usable doors; 4) accessible
route into and through the covered unit; 5) light switches, electrical outlets,
thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations; 6)
reinforced walls for grab bars; and 7) usable kitchens and bathrooms.
These are also listed on the City's Website. How many of these
minimum accessibility requirements are currently planned for, and how
will SCC increase the achievability of each of these items, with the 109
Gilman rehab?
Therefore,
Impression #4: SCC's Argument for Exemption Severely Weakened by
Lack of Comprehensive Discussion regarding achievable Accessibility.
III. Achievable? Accessible, Adaptable and Adjustable
SCC and its partners need to acquaint themselves with the above concepts
and discover achievable goals for 109 Gilman Street as well as take a
proactive (leadership) stance regarding projects that are currently considered
"finished."
While it is true that accessibility can cost "extra" money, these costs are
clearly recovered by the enhanced marketability of the product. In this day
and age, the concept of accessibility should be well integrated into all
structural planning, as well as all public programs, activities, etc. at any
company and local level.
If, indeed, a qualified Access Specialist does deem the structural
enhancements to achieve fullest mobility access to be an undue hardship for
the project at Gilman Street at this time, there are still various options for SCC
to include in the building plans before actual rehab work begins, which will
provide people with various types of disabilities the opportunity to consider this
housing.
For example, in the rehabs of the kitchens, adjustable heights would be a
feature of shelves, cupboards, etc. SCC should pay someone to help them
consider these options. An excellent idea would be to hire a consumer of
products for people with disabilities, and then retain that person on their staff.
This person might provide research capabilities, as well as "on the street"
guidance. This would certainly help SCC distinguish themselves as a leader in
their industry.
IV. SOME NOTES:
A. Risks of noncompliance, Gains of Compliance;
I do not presume to know the City's risk. Although my readers are well aware,

12. certain things are worth noting in this document:
• Regardless whether the local inspector has approved the building or not, in
the event of a complaint, HUD has statutory responsibility to conduct an
investigation.
• If a building that is covered by the FHAct accessible design and construction
requirements was not built in compliance with those requirements, and a tenant asks for
modifications that would bring the unit into compliance with the Act, the owner is responsible
for paying for those modifications if the owner was involved in the design and/or
construction of the building
• If violations are found, the liability would spread to the City, the architects,
builders, developers, and others.
• Costs to correct violations can be quite high.
• If violations are found, the project will have reduced revenue.
• Compliance demands could expand to the entire site, including parking
(very difficult to retrofit!).
• Inaccessibility risks include injury lawsuits.
.
The most important risk- the bottom line for responsible companies- is that
Civil Rights are violated.
On the other hand,
• Housing projects which are accessible are also sustainable.
• "They meet the needs of an aging population", who can "age in place."
• Grab bars, wider doorways,etc. are features which encourage independent
living.
• Prospective buyers with disabilities can come from within or outside the
City
Local governments should be role models in providing highest standards of
accessibility and inclusiveness for all citizens and residents and consistently
monitor all projects for realistic compliance to the maximum extent practicable.
The most important gain is that Civil Rights are maintained.
B. Meaningful awareness of the needs of people with disabilities
Without a doubt, people with mobility, sensory, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities must consistently
face undue burdens as they attempt to gain fair and equitable opportunities in all aspects of civic life,
including affordable and accessible housing. There are no exemptions for them; the conditions, which
are named "disability", are generally lifelong.
In Somerville, the percentage of persons with at least one disability, who do not live in group homes or
institutions, are not college students- and of whom speak either English or Spanish as their primary
language- and filled out a Census form in 2005- is 12%, according to the ACS.7 Adding in group
homes, elderly, institutionalized, and immigrant populations, a more realistic estimate is closer to 20%,
all of whom deserve equitable social services, health care, and accessibility built-into the civic
environment at every level and source in order to reach their fullest potentials as community
participants.
7
SEE: U.S. Census, American Fact Finder, 2005: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

13. participants.
Of the Somerville residents with a disability between ages 16-64 years, 33.9% are employed; as
contrasted with 79.9% with no disability employed. Those below poverty level are 32.6% with a
disability; 14.1% with no disability. Based upon the map of poverty in Somerville (see the Disabilities
Commission's Recommendations 20058), the majority of these residents reside in Union Square.
Thus, affordable housing in Somerville is clearly an important "gap" need, which SCC strives to fill;
affordable ACCESSIBLE housing in Somerville is also a dire need, which SCC is mandated to fulfill to
the fullest extent and within the context of its stated mission.
C. This writer and this document
My relevant expertise is in the areas of Disability policy, advocacy, social services, and health care. I
am neither a lawyer nor an architect. However, I do have more than a usual familiarity with some
construction language as well as civil rights legislation.
I believe I have reviewed the SCC memorandum in a fair manner, and I conducted an extensive review
of over 20 pertinent Federal and HUD documents, along with a review of the history and current
housing and disability policy and relevant CDBG and HOME issues.
The most important question (for me) to consider was: Is this better than nothing? After all, this Project
will serve 2 formerly homeless families; the sooner the better! But I feel that SCC and the City can
certainly raise their standards of excellency in responding to the needs of their consumers with
disabilities, which includes people who are homeless and have dealt with extreme poverty. And
consistency in matters of ADA compliance must be established ASAP.
This document is meant to sincerely guide the City so that the potential liability issues are carefully
addressed, and in the most timely manner available (at this time). Please forgive any
misunderstandings on my part of the culture for which it is written and regarding whom it addresses.
This response document represents over 50 hours of my time and energy; I was not offered
remuneration for these efforts. Nor did I receive any remuneration from any Disability Commission
funds, nor any advocacy groups, construction, architectural, or community corporations, or any other
group or person(s).
D. a repeated plea to the City of Somerville.
I again urge the City of Somerville Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development to invest
in at least a part time staff expert in Disability Policy and Access Issues, in order to proactively care for
potential liability issues as much as is possible; and to envision and create a sustainable, fully
accessorized, technically resourced, and able 21st century environment for the residents, workers, and
visitors of Somerville.
8
SEE Commission for Persons With Disabilities, City of Somerville website, right-side .PDF link "Recommendations
Report"