2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

On the topic of forcing requirements for green upgrades to homes and buildings, I am all for it. My husband is in a wheelchair and deals with the lack in older buildings of ADA accessibility all the time. Anytime you update an older building it is required to make it accessible (although there are some annoying loopholes here and there) But this requirement is one that architects deal with all the time and although it makes remodeling a space a bit more expensive I don't think I could find a person who would disagree that it is a necessary requirement. Adding building requirements to save the earth for future generation's seems like a no brainer to me.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context