ADA Excuses

[steveray]

MJ....The question is....Who decides "impracticable"?

 

[Min&Max]

MJ....The question is....Who decides "impracticable"?

The AHJ or the appropriate appeals board.

 

[mjesse]

I everyone believed that, the dissent and vitriol would vanish from this board.

It seems reasonable to me to have this type of "wiggle room" for an AHJ to use.

But others might argue that sending a chair user to the back door is blatant discrimination.

The building in my Google link "appears" to be completely inaccessible from the front and the slope of the street lends to the "impracticable" decision. Is everyone in agreement that a back door entrance is acceptable for this building constructed in 1997?

 

[MASSDRIVER]

The impractical and the historic is at the crux of my argument that it is a manufactured discrimination.

I really am open to education here. I say it patently is not discrimination if we allow it under certain conditions.

I have asked before; what historical or impractical condition exists to prevents blacks, women, or gays from using a facility?

I can't think of one. If you can, what is it?

If minorities could not access Old Town Auburn, it would have to be demolished riki-tic and rebuild to a non discriminatory standard.

As it stands, we CAN discriminate against the handicapped because history is more important.

Brent.

 

[steveray]

MJ....wiggle room is tough to defend in court.....that is why most people are unwilling to use it.....

 

[nitramnaed]

Here is a phone camera shot of the ADA signs I am seeing so as not to discriminate against anyone. View attachment 2271 I guess separating restrooms by gender is now a civil rights violation.

Aren't we just talking about allowing both single occupancy bathrooms to be labeled Unisex which is now allowed by code. I don't see practicality here being some type of conspiracy to make everyone transgender.

 

[ADAguy]

Look at post 2003 constructed buildings as examples after 10 years of enforcement, 2013 t.i.'s after twenty years. Recession or not, how hard is it to refuse C of O's to builders when they can't even build new improvements that are compliant on sites that are not topographicly or structualy impacted?

I visited a 2012 vintage 2.5 mil resturaunt T.I. in Pasadena the other night, nice interior ramp, elevator but no circle/triangle on the RR's doors, non-contrasting stripes on the stair nosings. It is these obvious items that grab me.

 

[mark handler]

Is it just this simple?Section 35.151 of 28 CFR Part 35

§ 35.151 New construction and alterations.

(a) Design and construction.

(2) Exception for structural impracticability.

(i) Full compliance with the requirements of this section is not required where a

public entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the

requirements.

If so, that's not the feeling I get from most of our discussions.

Yes, Sometimes, maybe. ........not always

In most cases it is money and NOT structural or site inpractibility. Money is not the issue in new construction. Only with buildings built BEFORE ADA

 

[mtlogcabin]

Money may not be an issue as far as ADA compliance but it is always a factor if a project will be built or not.

I agree ADA is not the only regs increasing cost, they are just one of many.

 

[Mech]

Money may not be an issue as far as ADA compliance but it is always a factor if a project will be built or not.

Or the size of the project. 3,100 sf accessible second floor or 3,000 sf non-accessible second floor.

 

[Msradell]

The Shaw building at 163 Sacramento Street looks to be built in 1997. Let's use that as an example...https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=38.894961,-121.078063&cbp=13,87.3,0,0,0&cbll=38.894961,-121.078080&q=163+sacramento+st.+auburn+ca&ei=92P-UtnWBcqCyQHUioDQDw&ved=0CCcQxB0wAA

That buildings a great example! It's actually an example of how accessibility could have been very easily and cheaply incorporated into the building if it had been considered in the original design! If the 2 sections of that building had been built on the same plane instead of having a step between them the uphill side of the porch area would have been level with the sidewalk that runs along the street. It could've then been very easily accessible to everyone!! The building probably would've cost anymore, quite possibly even less than it did. It's just a matter of taking accessibility into account during the design process.