• 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.

ADA is a good law but not enforcement

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,888
Location
So. CA
Tuesday, Apr. 03, 2012

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/04/03/2754124/issac-j-bailey-overbearing-regulation.html

Issac J. Bailey | Overbearing regulation needs to be changed

By Issac J. By Bailey - A Different Perspective

Horry County maybe at the apex of a curious case of two sides agreeing but still not seeming to come up with a workable solution to a problem everyone wants to solve.

Horry County has more active public swimming pools than any other county in South Carolina – 2,383 in all – each of which is subject to a new regulation under the American with Disabilities Act.

That regulation mandates that every pool, lazy river and hot tub must have a fixed pool lift, which for some establishments means the purchase of multiple lifts that can cost at least $3,000. There is a less expensive option, portable lifts that can be called into action when a handicapped person needs one, but for some reason that is neither enough for government regulators nor advocates for handicapped access.

A disabled person would have to call an employee to move a portable lift in place and “wait for five minutes or however long for that person to get free” David Zoellner, managing attorney for Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities in Charleston, told my colleague for a story last week.

So the choice is between maybe making a disabled person wait five minutes or so to get an employee to assist him or possibly adding thousands – maybe tens of thousands – of dollars in extra expenses for businesses, many of whom have been hit hard by the 2008 recession from which we all are still trying to recover.

And that doesn’t even include what should be another obvious consideration. Does it make sense to force a business to buy permanent, expensive equipment that maybe used only a handful of times a year?

The disabled should have equal access to public accommodations, including swimming pools, lazy rivers and hot tubs. For that reason alone, the ADA is a worthy law. It has improved the lives of many.

No one is arguing against that point. The question is how best to address the needs and rights of the disabled and businesses.

The solution should be effective – allowing the disabled to enjoy amenities the rest of us do – but not overbearing on those whose livelihoods could be unnecessarily imperiled by regulations that go too far or are not well thought out.

The portable lifts meet both tests; the permanent lifts meet only one.

It shouldn’t be hard to figure out which way to go.

Inflexible regulations such as these are the kinds that make people more suspicious of government over-reach and less likely to support wise, necessary regulation.

That’s what makes this issue so fraught with peril, because it undermines a system that improves all our lives.

Government regulation in and of itself is not bad. In fact, many economists and financial experts said we did not have the right kinds of regulations in place to have prevented the 2008 financial economic collapse.

And some regulations make the marketplace more efficient and save businesses time, money and energy. A few years ago, area gas stations happily submitted to – even asked for – uniform guidelines that forced customers to either pay for their gas at the pump or pay for it in advance inside the store. That regulation did a variety of things. It kept the marketplace fair, because had a store that had been experiencing a string of drive-offs implemented the policy on its own, it would instantly be at a disadvantage to the store across the street which didn’t because it wasn’t as affected by drive-offs.

It was not overbearing as many stores were moving in that direction any way.

And it saved taxpayers money. Instead of having the cops chase people who drive off without paying for a tank of gas, they have instead been able to focus on more serious crime.

Sensible regulations make our lives better in a variety of ways.

But overbearing ones can undermine the entire system.

Contact ISSAC J. BAILEY at 626-0357.

Read more here: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/04/03/2754124/issac-j-bailey-overbearing-regulation.html#storylink=cpy
 
He posted this in response to my statement about our city having to do away with our portable lift and install a permanent lift

mtlogcabin

Regarding access to your City owned Pool:

2010 ADA Safe harbor. If a public entity has constructed or altered required elements of a path of travel in accordance with the specifications in either the 1991 Standards or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards before March 15, 2012, the public entity is not required to retrofit such elements to reflect incremental changes in the 2010 Standards solely because of an alteration to a primary function area served by that path of travel.

Instead of knee jerk reactions READ THE 2010 Scoping documents
Does it mean the portables can stay? I would say yes but the knee jerk reactions from the articles he post indicate they can't. Even public entities would have to comply as some posted article implies.

It would be nice if the DOJ would clarify the issue by answering two questions.

Are existing facilities with portable lifts compliant with the 2010 ADA regulations? Yes or No.

Are portable lifts for new facities compliant with the 2010 ADA regulations? Yes or No.
 
Are existing facilities with portable lifts compliant with the 2010 ADA regulations?

Unfortunetly no. Within the new 2010 ADA Standards are the requirements for access into pools and whirlpools at public facilities (Hotels, Municipal pools, etc.). The original standard from 1991 did not have any requirements for this type of access so this becomes a new requirement that owners need to comply with. There is no "grandfathering" of original pools. This becomes an issue of "Barrier Removal" for existing facilities. The following is an exerpt from a letter from the DOJ to the American Hotel and Lodging Association dated 2.12.2012:

Title III of the ADA requires that public accommodations (e.g., owners, operators, lessors and lessees of hotels, resorts, swim clubs, and sites of events open to the public) remove physical barriers in each existing building or facility to the extent that it is readily achievable to do so (i.e., easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense). Known as readily achievable barrier removal, this requirement has been in effect since January 26, 1992, and public accommodations since that date have been required to engage in barrier removal in existing buildings and facilities on an ongoing basis. The regulation implementing the ADA barrier removal obligation recognizes that it is not always readily achievable to remove all architectural barriers in an existing building at the outset, and, as discussed further below, sets forth priorities for removal of barriers over time.

2010 Standards add supplemental requirements to the ongoing barrier removal obligation, including requirements for accessible means of entry and exit for pools, spas, and wading pools. These requirements are found at sections 242 and 1009 of the 2010 Standards. If a hotel or motel has more than one pool, it must remove barriers, to the extent that it is readily achievable, at each pool. If is not readily achievable to immediately provide an accessible means of entry and exit at every pool, then the covered entity must remove barriers to the extent that it is readily achievable to do so. It is important to note that the barrier removal obligation is a continuing one, and it is expected that a business will take steps to improve accessibility over time.

So there is a process of determining whether the modification is "readily achievable" which is a really hard phrase to begin to define.

Are portable lifts for new facities compliant with the 2010 ADA regulations?

No.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top