• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Accessibility postings

Status
Not open for further replies.
mjesse said:
This is the type of ridiculous hyperbole that derails a thread
Click to expand...
That is a bit of a strong statement to make but if that is the opinion of the poster then they are entitled to their opinion. I disagree with that statement because today's lack of compliance is due to greed and ignorance whereas what he is referring to was pure hatred due to ignorance.
 
I certainly agree that many of the threads in this section have become derailed, mainly by those who feel that ADA requirements are absurd and the number of disabled persons is widely over reported. I for one am disabled and involved in various enforcement activities and always like to see what's happening elsewhere whether it be through legal recourse, lawsuit, administrative directives or any other method. Too much time may be spent on lawsuit issues but I still like seeing them here, especially ones outside of California which is closer to what the rest of us have to deal with.
 
mainly by those who feel that ADA requirements are absurd
Click to expand...
It is not that they are absurd, heck most of the ADA requirements are in the codes for new construction. It is how they are being applied to existing facilities (built prior to ADA adoption) through state regulations that have created a means for certain individuals to use the law for simple acts of extortion.

A minority can pass by the same business for years and never be "discriminated" against. Until they enter and are refused service based on the fact they are a minority there is no act of discrimination. Yet a disabled person only has to see that a business does not have an accessible entry to that same business regardless of intent to enter or not and their "civil rights" have been violated and they can be "entitled" to monetary damages.
 
There is no doubt that some take advantage of the situation which affects businesses. Just remember that 20 years is a long time to work towards compliance with a civil rights law. You can debate it all that you want but the fact remains that it is a law that was passed and it must be abided by. Again, 20 years is a really long time and that fact in itself works agains the defendants in their cases.
 
So if I see time after time, that a pre-ADA business with viewable non-compliant features; a business that I don't intend to use (but others might), and there is no local enforcement mechanism in place because the ADA is a law (and not a code) [the local building department being an agency of a T-II with a programatic duty to comply with the ADA?]

I am therefore to ignore this constant reminder (psych damage to me?) that I am unique (due to my disability) and others are normal?

My state law has indicated that I am allowed to identify this and receive a bounty (smiling) for doing the programatic work of the T-IIs (their code enforcement people?) only if the T-II noted the retroactive requirement in their code? State attorney general changes opinion on this matter subject to their political advantage.

What is the value of a national law if not locally implimentd?

Remember smog controls on existing vehicles? Buildings last a lot longer unlike cars. Must the barriers be allowed to remain until the building is replaced/remodeled?

You have seen what happens to some motorcycle riders when they dump and are injured? Don't they benefit form barrier removal/ (smiling)
 
What is the value of a national law if not locally implimentd?
Click to expand...
Ask the DOJ who are suing states who want to enforce the borders. evidently they place no value on national law.

a business that I don't intend to use (but others might)
Click to expand...
If you never intend to use the business then your rights can not have been violated.

I am therefore to ignore this constant reminder (psych damage to me?) that I am unique (due to my disability) and others are normal?
Click to expand...
Now you are claiming psych damage because of a constant reminder? What other things might be a reminder that might be psych damage to someone? A mirror or reflective glass, How about a child that ask an innocent question about your limitations or watching a sporting event you may no longer be able to participate in.

Now I am really going to sound cold here but reality is you are unique not because of your disability but how you function in life with it and the attitude you portray.
 
JPohling said:
officially derailed once again!
Click to expand...
What was derailed?

The OP stated

This is not the place to discuss the merits of ADA, civil rights or the law. Because of this I will no longer post the articles, news and reposts I receive.
Click to expand...
That was his opinion about this forum and others disagreed.

Until the administrator states the discussions are no longer permitted we should be free to give varying opinions and discussions as long as we are civil
 
Jar said:
You can debate it all that you want but the fact remains that it is a law that was passed and it must be abided by
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, there are bad laws that can be overturned, and it's the regulations, not the law itself, that are so onerous. An example in Civil rights law originally passed in 1964 to redress past grievances that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. After passage regulations were written requiring quotas, in the 1978 Bakke decision the Supreme Court ruled that quotas were unconstitutional but invited the DOJ to write new constitutional regulations, so they did and substituted Affirmative Action, in 2003 in it's Grutter decision the Court ruled Affirmative Action unconstitutional but Justice O'Connor gave the suspect classes 25 years to join the mainstream of society, earlier this year in 2013 the Court addressed the issue again in Fisher, the Court sua sponte suggesting that diversity could be an end in itself that would not discriminate against others, unbelievably subjecting all suspect classes to special treatment indefinitely.

It's going to take a lot of money but someone should start a court action to get a lot of these discriminatory accessibility regulations thrown out and forcing the DOJ to write new constitutional regulations implementing the intent of the original legislation.
 
We are here to design too and enforce the codes. That is what these threads should be about. If there are individuals that want to try and overturn the laws and ultimately the codes it should be done in in a thread dedicated to that instead of polluting threads. There are plenty of other codes that are problematic, not just accessibility but that is the only one you guys like to harp on.
 
MASSDRIVER said:
How specifically did this thread get "polluted"?It's remarkably on track from op

Brent
Click to expand...
Hey I've tried to send it off course like an asteroid headed towards Earth. I even got Jeff to help. But alas and alak, Mark seems determined. There's the possibility that he is of Korean descent, in which case, nothing anyone says will make a difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JPohling said:
polluted? not specifically this thread, just most accessibility threads in general we get the same old stuff
Click to expand...
Not really. Useful information on code facts generally go unmolested. Others bear some kind of analysis.

Brent.
 
Not really, accidents happen. If there were curb cuts he would not have been in the street, but I do not believe we need to retroactively install curb cuts at every existing corner.
 
JPohling said:
Not really, accidents happen. If there were curb cuts he would not have been in the street, but I do not believe we need to retroactively install curb cuts at every existing corner.
Click to expand...
See. You just assume. There ARE curb cuts. He did not need to be in the street. But the article makes it sound like he was unjustly forced into the street. I say he got squashed by being stupid.

So I called bs.

And why not retro? Why is the city different than business?

Greedy ignorant governments.

Brent.
 
As you can see i did not post or research on the issue. I dont really bother looking at things i have no interest in. he is dead.......move on. I agree, then there really is no case is there
 
That's fine JP, but why do you wish for others to also not discuss?

If you want to accept everything at face value, then great. Don't participate. But also please don't cry foul when others want to engage.

Brent
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top