Or, just maybe, it’s good to make infrastructure accessible?

He's got an unpopular opinion (and calling out the ADA specifically is probably the worst of the examples that can be chosen) but its worth a thought. When the choice is forced to be "perfect, or none at all", a possible outcome is none at all.

On the balance, I find most of these rules to be acceptable most of the time, but it should always be considered that it can be taken too far.

Regulation is a commitment that we prefer "none at all" to the status quo. No more, no less. We talk about regulation creating desirable outcomes, but that's an oversimplification - the ADA does not hire or conscript anyone into the business of creating accessible infrastructure. It threatens that if they won't make their infrastructure accessible, they can't have any. The threat of "none at all" is the whole mechanism.

Which is just fine so long as we remember that none at all is inaccessible to everyone.

Is opposing accessibility the hill you want to die on?

Do you have a ballpark for the financial and human cost of making our basic infrastructure not-accessible?