{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0260950605778192, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.469879518072289, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Viability of Voluntary Visitability

“Visitability,” or access for persons with disabilities, especially those using wheelchairs, to domestic buildings, such as houses and condominiums, is emerging as a matter requiring policy discussion, if not intervention and guidance. Few cities, counties, or states in the United States of America have policies in this area. Irvine, California, was an early jurisdiction to take up this concern and opted for a voluntary private initiative. This is a case study of visitability in Irvine. It reveals that the voluntary approach was not working as expected; few homebuyers were opting for the visitability features. In an unexpected positive development, builders began to voluntarily include several visitability components. This raises interesting questions regarding whether visitabilty ought to be a public policy, with regulatory force to compel compliance, or voluntary, and if the latter, who (builder or home buyer) should select which visitability elements to adopt, and how to address social equity and justice concerns.