• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

ADA Lawsuit

Businesses should simply be able to opt out. Hang a sign, Not ADA Compliant. Let the free market rule.

I've heard the arguments, but cannot think of other civil legislation designed to curb discrimination that involves changing structural characteristics of a building at the owner's expense. At the very least, let us broaden the scope of ADA to include alternate limitations and capacities. I should be able to file a civil suit against Harvard because I am too stupid to attend.
 
Mark,

It seems you read the question I ask wrong, I asked simply by reading this document clearly off the ADA site the average Joe public who does NOT work in our industry, does this publication not tell them if they make alterations they need to do improvements, but were it is hard to improve without major cash out lay they can provide things like signs and curb side service? I am not asking about a place just opening I am talking about places like in your post that were clearly there long before the feds opted in.

I have a friend who a few years back started a pizza delivery service, no chairs no bathroom nothing at all even had the door locked and a sign that said no public access, you could not even enter the building for pick up service they did not allow it.

He called me about building a drop in place metal ramp because the state they are in (CA) all the people around them said your going to get hit being on the main drag, the law suite junkies are in town.

I asked a few questions and it seemed they used the back entrance in the ally all the time, I told them to talk to someone I know who works in CA on ADA access, but till they could get to him, put a proper size sign in the door, fire exit door only, get the local locksmith to put an fire exit bar on the door and make sure the rear exit complies with the fire marshal.

He got a letter just like the others, but it cost him little to nothing because of his business design.

Here is a place that clearly was marked and they noted no access because of the steps and claiming the signs are not allowed.

Ah Jobsaver your not "TOO STUPID" just mentally challenged, get with the program man.....
 
I had an applicant recently try to talk me out of some accessibility requirements on a new project. I joked that, "yeah, I might overlook this if you will pemanently affix an accessibility symbol on the front door with big red circle/slash over it". He realised how that might invite a lawsuit and opted to comply with the code.

(ps. I wouldn't really have overlooked it.)

GPE
 
Look on the bright side... the #1 user group of all the outdoor ramps and handrails I design are skateboarders.

Think of it as a recreational amenity.
 
Note the "readily achieveable" ADA requirement for existing buildings that is based on a can your business afford to remove barriers test.

"While it is not possible for many businesses, especially small businesses, to make their facilities fully accessible, there is much that can be done without much difficulty or expense to improve accessibility. Therefore, the ADA requires that accessibility be improved without taking on excessive expenses that could harm the business."

The usual proof that a business cannot afford to remove barriers is when it goes bankrupt after the suit is filed because they cannot pay the both sides attorney's fees.
 
Jobsaver said:
Businesses should simply be able to opt out. Hang a sign, Not ADA Compliant. Let the free market rule.
Click to expand...
The free market used to encourage signs that said "Whites Only."
 
Jobsaver said:
Structural modifications at the owner's expense are not required to accomodate race. Therein lies the difference.
Click to expand...
So you are saying someone with a disability, does not have the same rights as a black, asian, jew or the Irish; all of which were denied civil rights in this country??

Wow turn your clock forward, take down the confederate flag

Comments like that is Why Bush sign signed the ADA into law. It is about civil rights. Civil rights is not just about race.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mark handler said:
So you are saying someone with a disability, does not have the same rights as a black, asian, jew or the Irish; all of which were denied civil rights in this country??Wow turn your clock forward, take down the confederate flag

Comments like that is Why Bush sign signed the ADA into law. It is about civil rights. Civil rights is not just about race.
Click to expand...
Mark

You missed jobsavers point. Tha ADA is the only civil rights law that requires a business to spend money to comply. What you referenced was an outright refusal of services and required no expenditures on the business owner. They just had to provide equal service to all customers. in other words just let them in the front door and dine in the same room as every one else.
 
Jobsaver said:
Structural modifications at the owner's expense are not required to accomodate race. Therein lies the difference.
Click to expand...
People made economic arguments to support racial discrimination too.

Particularly when it came to housing prices.
 
mtlogcabin said:
MarkYou missed jobsavers point. Tha ADA is the only civil rights law that requires a business to spend money to comply. What you referenced was an outright refusal of services and required no expenditures on the business owner. They just had to provide equal service to all customers. in other words just let them in the front door and dine in the same room as every one else.
Click to expand...
I did not miss the point, buisnesses and property owners have had twenty years to make their buisnesses and properties accessible. Most of those twenty years buisnesses and property owners were flush with money, there will always be excuseses.
 
Brudgers and Mark: You are both so biased (prejudiced) that you are unable to acknowledge the simple truth of the distinction made: Better to point to the confederate flag, or point to the fact that historically people have made (false) economic arguments to support racial discrimination, or to exaggerate that all businesses and property owners in the last twenty years historically and currently are flush with money.

Acknowledge the distinction made, and then argue your case. Otherwise, you are simply practicing bigotry through the usual means that bigots employ; innuendo, deception, exaggeration, intolerance, and fanaticism.
 
Complying with ADA is just a cost of doing business. Just like providing life-safety systems and off-street parking.

And if you want to talk about unfunded government mandates, off-street parking is by far the most expensive ever created.
 
Gotta go with brudgers on this one.

I guess nobody here has amortization in their zoning code? That's where you take a legally pre-existing business and give them a few years to find someplace else to live.

Pretty much like the ADA..
 
I guess nobody here has amortization in their zoning code? That's where you take a legally pre-existing business and give them a few years to find someplace else to live.
Click to expand...
Never heard of it.

How do you make a "Legally pre-existing business" move? On what grounds? Did they asked to be re-zoned?

Sounds like eminate domain without having to pay the business for it losses when you force it to move. Lost customers, lost revenue during the relocation and don't forget the ADA modifications they had to do to make the existing facility compliant.
 
Jobsaver said:
I agree with brudgers that ADA compliance is just a cost of doing business, but do not believe the law is a just law, because it is a law that taxes to benefit an exclusive few.
Click to expand...
What taxes?
 
mtlogcabin said:
Never heard of it.How do you make a "Legally pre-existing business" move? On what grounds? Did they asked to be re-zoned?

Sounds like eminate domain without having to pay the business for it losses when you force it to move. Lost customers, lost revenue during the relocation and don't forget the ADA modifications they had to do to make the existing facility compliant.
Click to expand...
Businesses don't own customers, so where is the taking?
 
mtlogcabin said:
Never heard of it.How do you make a "Legally pre-existing business" move? On what grounds? Did they asked to be re-zoned?

Sounds like eminate domain without having to pay the business for it losses when you force it to move. Lost customers, lost revenue during the relocation and don't forget the ADA modifications they had to do to make the existing facility compliant.
Click to expand...
..and totally legal in NY. Our zoning code eliminated discos and nightclubs with amortization.

Code: 
In ordering the compulsory termination of a... nonconforming use... a definite and reasonable amortization period during which the nonconforming use use may continue while the investment value remaining after the date of the termination is amortized....The right to maintain a nonconforming... nightclub... shall be terminated either upon the date that there is a change of ownership or operation...

ADA is not alone...
 
Jobsaver said:
taxes (v): to make difficult or excessive demands on
Click to expand...
To require a buisness to allow a disabled person to use a public accomidation, is is the law. You may define it as anything you want (ie; Tax) but it is the law, if you don't like it, change it. But until you do, you cant choose which part of the law you want to enforce, as you enforce the building code, you need to enforce chapter 11 of the code.

Can't wait 'til you get a little older, have a disability, let's hear from you then......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As always, a reasonable law has become unreasonable. You only need to leave interpretation of a law up to some nitwit, left-wing zeolot to have common sense and reasonable accomodation become draconian, overreaching govt. intrusian. When signed by Bush Sr., I do not believe that anyone would have foresaw that a business would have to relocate based on ADA alone.
 
Most interesting: Accessibility in Chapter 11 of the IBC covers the things that are considered 'safe harbor'. How many jurisdictions adopt the International Existing Building Code? Depending on the level of 'work' Accessibility requirements are still out of the IBC, Chapter 11. ICC worked long and hard to get the IBC certified as 'safe harbor': meaning that if you enforce the IBC accessibility requirements, you have done the best you can under the building code. As a local jurisdiction we do not enforce the ADA, which is Federal regulation. We mention to our customers that there is an active ADA faction in our town, and that we don't enforce their requirements; however, we do enforce Chapter 11 of the IBC. When taken all together existing buildings which change use and occupancy sometimes have difficulties with accessibility issues. What's an owner to do? Tear it down. Remodel beyond the original scope at more expense than demolition and rebuilding? Find a different property? Lease-holders often don't have the money to do 'what's required' nor do the building owners. What is to be done? I think the building codes allow one to do the best they can within reason. When you have 'vexatious litigants' that's not enough.

In order to make everything equal, handicapped people shouldn't have special privileges, or more rights than able-bodied people. Instead of all the closest parking spaces being accessible, only half should be: that way you have a 50% chance. The other half of the required accessible parking spaces should be at the fartherest distance. Every building with more than one story should have an elevator or escalator, maybe both. Existing buildings should be demolished when they reach their 'obsolete' date. No questions, just tear it down and build a new one that meets current code. Historic buildings will have to go. Who needs history, we can make our own, every 50- 100 years. Oh, and I want to be on the committee that determines what 'obsolete' means.

I hear common sense died. Too bad. The world could use an infusion of common sense; it might be found to be an antidote for 'vexatious litigants.' :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top