[AnthonyMouse]

> the curb cut effect

Which itself is kind of an interesting example of how these things should work, because the curbs are maintained by the government, so the compliance cost is getting paid by the taxpayer.

Which is as it should be, because if something is to be required as a public benefit then it should be paid for out of public funds rather than as an unfunded mandate. Then thing like curb cuts continue to be a good deal so people are happy to fund them, whereas measures that cost more than they're worth get the level of opposition that they should because the taxpayer has to pay for them. And either way you would stop stressing smaller companies and causing market consolidation by increasing compliance costs.

[sparqlittlestar]

Doesn't your argument hinge on the fact that roads and sidewalks are public works anyway?

The fact that compliance costs outprices some smaller companies rather shows that we as a society prefer to have accomodations, than live in one where such accomodations are only affordable to the affluent.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Doesn't your argument hinge on the fact that roads and sidewalks are public works anyway?

Not at all, it just happens that we're already doing the right thing in that case because it wasn't possible to stick the wrong party with the bill.

> The fact that compliance costs outprices some smaller companies rather shows that we as a society prefer to have accomodations, than live in one where such accomodations are only affordable to the affluent.

It isn't the consumers being priced out, it's the producers. Which in turn causes the market to consolidate so that only the affluent can afford the big company monopolist's product anyway, and everyone else not only doesn't get accommodations but can't even afford the product or service anymore. Housing is a solid example of this; unfunded mandates make construction significantly more expensive and now millions of people can't afford a home.

Whereas if the taxpayer had to fund everything the government mandates, the mandates would have to account for the cost directly rather than hiding it inside the price of everything else, allowing people to make better choices about which ones are worth what they cost.