mark handler
SAWHORSE
texasbotexasbo said:
Your summarizations and interpretations are not the same as my comments
-
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 Lawsuit
- Thread starter alora
- Start date
Your summarizations and interpretations are not the same as my comments
Yikes
SAWHORSE
The application of ADA is this simple - and this complex:
Did someone who interacts with the public intend to discriminate against a person with a disability?
Intent involves getting inside a person's head to figure out their motivation. Because this is not easily discernable, it is prone to manipulation by both plaintiffs and defendants. It means lots of money spent on investigations and expert witnesses and attorneys, in addition to actual civil penalties should the defendant lose.
A person's intent can change over time. A definition of what constitutes discrimination can change over time. the definition of disability changes over time. That's why there is no grandfather clause. And it is a scary thing for many people when the government is allowed via the courts to determine intent. The only way to be absolutely certain of ADA compliance is to have a judgment in court; everything else is a best guess.
As a pain-avoidance technique, it is usually easier and cheaper to follow some generally accepted objective, external standards that will cause people to not bother looking further into our (internal) intentions. That's where most of us come in - people can utilize our services to provide a facade (literally) of respectable intentions.
Our means to accomplish this is an evolving set of objective societal standards and metrics (ADAAG), a fence or hedge if you will, that merely symbolize our intent to not discriminate. Anything that crosses that boundary grabs the attention of those who question intent. In that instance the intent is further judged by subjective notions such as "reasonable" and "readily achievable".
Thus, there is no grandfathering; existing facilities that fall anywhere short of the generally-accepted-yet-evolving metrics are an invitation to look deeper into intent to discriminate.
Did someone who interacts with the public intend to discriminate against a person with a disability?
Intent involves getting inside a person's head to figure out their motivation. Because this is not easily discernable, it is prone to manipulation by both plaintiffs and defendants. It means lots of money spent on investigations and expert witnesses and attorneys, in addition to actual civil penalties should the defendant lose.
A person's intent can change over time. A definition of what constitutes discrimination can change over time. the definition of disability changes over time. That's why there is no grandfather clause. And it is a scary thing for many people when the government is allowed via the courts to determine intent. The only way to be absolutely certain of ADA compliance is to have a judgment in court; everything else is a best guess.
As a pain-avoidance technique, it is usually easier and cheaper to follow some generally accepted objective, external standards that will cause people to not bother looking further into our (internal) intentions. That's where most of us come in - people can utilize our services to provide a facade (literally) of respectable intentions.
Our means to accomplish this is an evolving set of objective societal standards and metrics (ADAAG), a fence or hedge if you will, that merely symbolize our intent to not discriminate. Anything that crosses that boundary grabs the attention of those who question intent. In that instance the intent is further judged by subjective notions such as "reasonable" and "readily achievable".
Thus, there is no grandfathering; existing facilities that fall anywhere short of the generally-accepted-yet-evolving metrics are an invitation to look deeper into intent to discriminate.
He is in California--almost enough said. I would guess the most overregulated state in America requires a design professional to be involved in designing almost ANYTHING connected with ADA accessibility. Just think how well one could fund their retirement off this. As always follow the money.
conarb
REGISTERED
Min&Max:
Not all of us Californians are complete wackos, but I have to admit that a lot are. I still think he's planning to profit off it and probably already has his ACSp designation, the interesting thing we should wait and see is the outcome of the Federal lawsuit against Arizona, and Arizona is in the same Federal Circuit as California, if the Feds prevail it could prevent all states from enacting statutes in areas of law usurped by the Federal Government, if the courts come down on Obama's side that a state can't pass statutes in areas of law usurped by the Feds like immigration, then they won't be able to pass statutes in other areas usurped by the Feds like disability rights.
That would throw it out of the building codes, and you won't be able to enforce disability statutes anymore than you can enforce immigration law.
Not all of us Californians are complete wackos, but I have to admit that a lot are. I still think he's planning to profit off it and probably already has his ACSp designation, the interesting thing we should wait and see is the outcome of the Federal lawsuit against Arizona, and Arizona is in the same Federal Circuit as California, if the Feds prevail it could prevent all states from enacting statutes in areas of law usurped by the Federal Government, if the courts come down on Obama's side that a state can't pass statutes in areas of law usurped by the Feds like immigration, then they won't be able to pass statutes in other areas usurped by the Feds like disability rights.
That would throw it out of the building codes, and you won't be able to enforce disability statutes anymore than you can enforce immigration law.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Dickconarb said:
There you go thinking again, and wrong again, As I already posted, No I am not a CASP. No I do not "profit off it".
Time for you to stop speculating about me and for you to look in the mirror.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
Wait - - someone already mentioned genocide, and I missed it?
If it's not in context of the argument, I don't know if it counts as a Goodwin award winner...
; )
If it's not in context of the argument, I don't know if it counts as a Goodwin award winner...
; )
Conarb,
Sounds good to me. I won't have to look at a lot of "stuff" they have been pushing into our laps in the past. No ADA, no lead base paint and no asbestos just to mention a few. If it originates with the feds and they have sole jurisdiction, that is OK by me.
Sounds good to me. I won't have to look at a lot of "stuff" they have been pushing into our laps in the past. No ADA, no lead base paint and no asbestos just to mention a few. If it originates with the feds and they have sole jurisdiction, that is OK by me.
I'd say it's your call, Yikes.Yikes said:
In the interest of full disclosure, I really had neither Hitler nor the Nazis in mind when I was comparing the annihilation of a race to sleeping in on a rainy day, but it does nicely illustrate your point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mac
Gold Member
Conarb comes close with reference to totalitarian China, but I don't think he has the right language to really count.
Slimy contractors will also be needed to make these accessibility improvements - and their costs will likely include profit!
Slimy contractors will also be needed to make these accessibility improvements - and their costs will likely include profit!
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Boy! I step away from the conversation for a few minutes (ok, a week or two) and THIS happens!
Anyone got another handful of mud?
Anyone got another handful of mud?
FredK
Gold Member
While I would like to agree, it's the same arguement one get's in other things we inspect.Jobsaver said:
Easier to say this is the minimum need and so the Wally Worlds get the breaks based on size then not having to comply with the anything. Ain't fair but what is?
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
The 20% rule is still applicable so there are exceptions in magnitude. However, barrier removal for public accommodations is a must. Given the circumstances, an equivalent facilitation could be posed, rather than causing a business to vacate a building. People are just not being creative in looking for solutions. The city could help if it would allow ramps on the public sidewalks. From what I understand from the original article, there is a complaint that a person cannot get up a step into the business. True, that's tough with a wheelchair. A ramp outside would work. And, rather than have the business move or belly-up (which would remove the service intended to be provided in the first place) a button could be provided on the exterior of the building that would alert the owner of an accessibility need. The owner would then go to the exterior to see what help could be provided. Granted, this excepting would be ludicrous for a 40,000 SF facility where there is room to make accommodations. But for smaller venues, this seems to be one option that is not even being considered.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
I was thinking about it this morning - -
* With the building code, we start with a set of prescriptive standards, and we use performance standards only as an alternative means of compliance.
* In contrast, with ADA, we start with a performance standard (thou shalt not discriminate), and hope that there are enough prescriptive methods (ADAAG) that will be a safe harbor alternative to potential litigation as a means to prove or disprove litigation.
The prescriptive stuff is clear and generally logical. Thus, it appeals to an engineer's mindset and a business owner's mindset.
Part of the discomfort with ADA is that its core is a fuzzy, subjective performance standard.
* With the building code, we start with a set of prescriptive standards, and we use performance standards only as an alternative means of compliance.
* In contrast, with ADA, we start with a performance standard (thou shalt not discriminate), and hope that there are enough prescriptive methods (ADAAG) that will be a safe harbor alternative to potential litigation as a means to prove or disprove litigation.
The prescriptive stuff is clear and generally logical. Thus, it appeals to an engineer's mindset and a business owner's mindset.
Part of the discomfort with ADA is that its core is a fuzzy, subjective performance standard.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
I don't think it rose to the level of Goodwin's law. I was just trying to lighten the mood around here a bit.texasbo said:
And if I ever invoke Goodwin's law when the subject really is about Nazis, you have my permission to slap some sense into me.
That's a good point, Yikes.Yikes said:
Might I add that the other part of the discomfort is that it's an oppressive law that creates an elite class and discriminates against the VAST MAJORITY of the population. It is a law that was preposterous the day it was introduced, and has gone downhill from there. It's a law that taxes, yes taxes businesses, provides a free lunch for the litigious and a moral hunting ground for liberal zealots, and should be repealed.
That is the other part of the discomfort with ADA.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
If the states stayed away from ADA then all the court cases would be handled by the DOJ and Gene's scenario would most likely be a daily reality.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
That's why you have permission to slap me... lest Goodwin's law, though originally well intentioned, implode on itself.texasbo said:
Like one of those comics when the monster with the burning laser eyes accidentally looks at itself in a mirror...
mark handler
SAWHORSE
What truly amazes me is the lack of understanding by 99% of you that ADA is Federal civil rights laws that ensure equal opportunity for people with disabilities.
It is NOT a building code.
99% of you have no authority to enforce or interpret it. It is not codified for your enforcement.
You all need to enforce your state access laws, for most Chapter 11 or ICC/ANSI 117, not the ADA.
Architects and Owners need to deal with it, not building officials
It is NOT a building code.
99% of you have no authority to enforce or interpret it. It is not codified for your enforcement.
You all need to enforce your state access laws, for most Chapter 11 or ICC/ANSI 117, not the ADA.
Architects and Owners need to deal with it, not building officials
mark handler
SAWHORSE
True, but that is a different issue.texasbo said:
Mark:
You are correct in that building officials don't enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] but we do enforce the ACCESSIBILITY requirements of Chapter 11 of the IBC, and if we adopt them the ICC/ANSI A117.1 Standards for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. The vigor of the enforcement of Chapter 11, etc., is probably dependent upon the AHJ [City, County, etc.] and its constituents. Whether a jurisdiction is proactive or not, the rules remain the same: enforce the building code requirements fairly and equally, and to the best of one's abilities.
Why get so over-wrought about the fine line between ADA and IBC? The means to the end are similar, sometimes not perfectly congruent, and in the end life goes on. IMHO.
Carol
You are correct in that building officials don't enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] but we do enforce the ACCESSIBILITY requirements of Chapter 11 of the IBC, and if we adopt them the ICC/ANSI A117.1 Standards for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. The vigor of the enforcement of Chapter 11, etc., is probably dependent upon the AHJ [City, County, etc.] and its constituents. Whether a jurisdiction is proactive or not, the rules remain the same: enforce the building code requirements fairly and equally, and to the best of one's abilities.
Why get so over-wrought about the fine line between ADA and IBC? The means to the end are similar, sometimes not perfectly congruent, and in the end life goes on. IMHO.
Carol