ADA Merit/Demerit General discussion, in abstract.

[MASSDRIVER]

I wanted to start some dialog regarding accessibility law and ethics.

I don't want to clutter the accessibility forum with too much diatribe and out of respect for Mark Handler. It clutters up his threads, and personally I would like to address my opinions, if I have any, on a case by case basis as they are posted.

So in general, I have learned a few things. Namely, ADA is not enforceable by building inspectors. Violations are treated as civil rights issues. Some violations enter a world of opinion. And, proponents of ADA seem to deem businesses as evil entities.

I want to lay some things out for responses, and thoughts may not be complete, but here is a start.

First, some thoughts on the disabled. Like all people, there are infinite profiles. One that MH likes to refer to is the Disabled Veteran. I think that's a way to relate unfavorable ADA conditions to an area of heroism, and see it as a strawman ploy. I contend by and large that the disabled veteran, as they are, care very little about what the ADA is and does. I just don't believe that a group of warriors that suffer disability, then make every effort to stay in the services, not to mention those that explicitly seek to restore their combat role despite missing limbs and such, care much if facilities or access is mildly hampered.

Let me offer some specific exhibits:









Now to be clear, and as stated before, Making life easier on the disabled is a good, fine thing to do. These photos are obviously of physical limb maladies and show nothing of blindness, ptsd, brain trauma, etc.

But I doubt they are on the warpath to sue Abercrombie because they had to use another entrance. I would bet the last guy might just throw a wheelchair up the those decorative steps right before he shoots someones face off. What a stud.

No, on the litigation front, and in a few of MH's examples, there is an obvious agenda. Someone doesn't WANT to use an entrance, or they got hurt and are looking for a goblin to punish, or just notice something amiss and never try any other avenue for correction other than to sue.

Second, discrimination.

A person of any race or gender can equally use any facility without any modification, regardless. They are equal pretty much in all respects. If a toilet and sink can be used by a white female, they can be used by anybody. Yet special modifications have to be made for disabled requirements per established regulations, for a select group of people. That's actually the discrimination. But it IS law, and I understand that. What I do not accept, as in the Abercrombie example, is someone refusing to use an entrance SPECIFICALLY designed to help them out. Not only that, if they can't use an entrance, they want NOBODY to be able to. Their aim is to take, not use what is generously provided.

Also, and I have to laugh at this, their are provisions in the law for legal discrimination. For example, monument steps. Apparently, (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no requirement the ADA entrance be anywhere near the steps. But the ADA proponent believes a design with a barrier is discriminatory. So, in-arguably, the law has made a specific provision for lawful discrimination.

How about the Historical loophole? Are you saying that a historical building can legally discriminate? IF there actually was discrimination, then it has been legalized. Does an existing condition of a building allow us to legally discriminate? Or maybe there simply is no discrimination, just simply a code exception. It can't be both.

Third, accessing the money tree.

The prevalent litigatory attitude is one of opportunity. Very few of these examples call for a business or entity to just correct a fault. And there are various levels of fault, from minor (mirrors 1/4 inch too high), to serious ( no accessible toilet facilities). Even if a business wins, it cost them money. It is meaningless to me whether it is Walmart, In-n-Out burger, or a guy trying to turn his IRA into an income stream.

Let me ask this; Lets say, like one of MH examples, a man gets hurt or killed because of a city not providing ramped curbing. Now, it's easy to say "sue the city", but what if, as a building official, public works official, or city manager, that oversight could be tied to you personally? An all out civil rights lawsuit, denying a citizen his rights, and discriminating against him. Like the "corporation" that knows the p-trap is not wrapped, we could determine that you were aware of the problem but made no effort to correct it. Would you now be as excited to assume that responsibility? It is understandably conceded that a government employee would wish to regulate and punish a business for violations, just as I understand as a non-government employee I wish to be as unregulated and unpunished as possible. Think that scenario is impossible? Then research what happens to police when they are accused of violating civil rights. The lawsuit is personal, specific to that individual. It hurts.

I'll leave this for further discussion if you guys want.

Also, if the use of wounded warriors offends those of military background, feel free to monkey stomp me and I will ceae and desist.

Brent.

 

[conarb]

MASS:

You are taking on the disability industry that is exploitiing the dieabled to line their own pockets, I know two guys in wheelchairs who want nothing to do with it, one said that the curb cuts are nice, when his wife takes him downtown she doesn't have to turn around and back up over the curb, the rest of it isn't worth all the backlash.

 

[jar546]

I will offer a personal perspective based on the final months of my Mother's life. She was unable to ambulate and needed assistance with everything, yet was able to talk, communicate, eat and enjoy life with limitations. What sucked was not being able to take her to places that she loved. Not being able to take her to a particular restaurant because not only was there not a ramp (we could have assisted her with that and carried her chair up steps like we had in the past) but because if she needed to use the ladies room, it was simply a small powder room with no room for a second person to help. It sucks at the end of someone's life that she was limited in the places she could go based on accessibility. A restaurant with a ramp and large, compliant bathrooms was a rarity unless it was a newer, chain restaurant. Another issue is that we would have to assist here and if she was able to drive would be incapable of being self reliant for access into non-accessible places. Why does she have to have a posse to assist her and carry her?

I watched a couple struggle to get their elderly mother who was a stroke victim into a booth at a narrow restaurant where the end of the booth was not an option due to the narrow egress path it would block.

I watched then spoke with a beautiful young woman in her early 30's who struggled to get out of her car and set up her wheelchair because there was no access isle for any of the ADA parking spots. She has to stop at the post office and call them and wait for them to come out because that particular post office is not accessible at all. It is federally owned and built before ADA and even when I filed a complaint, I received a letter that it is exempt. Later that year they spent over $160,000 for a new roof and to repoint much of the brick. How much would it have cost to put in a ramp?

Taking my mother to the lake to get her on the pontoon boat was another fiasco. She was very nervous with us having to carry her and help her in her chair on a floating dock. This was a public area owned by the power company and they have failed to install an ADA compliant ramp and access to the docks even though the docks are taken out and put back in every year.

I have watched people with stroke disabilities ask for assistance to get into a public building because the door knob was round and required them to grasp and turn.

I too can go on and on about this but I will cut the stories short (there are more) and get to the point. The point is that these laws have existed for over 20 years and many of these establishments have been remodeled or built since then. We still get resistance today for new construction concerning ADA/ANSI IBC requirements and we ARE enforcing them. The DOJ treats the ADA as a reactive enforcement law. In many areas, since there is little to no oversight, the RDP's, owners and contractors continue to do whatever they want because they know they can get away with it. In the mean time, people to suffer as a result. I would bet that for every person who speaks up or files a lawsuit, there are dozens or hundreds more that just move on and live a sub-standard life concerning access.

I know that some people "abuse" the system but they are still getting results and forcing resistant establishments to finally comply AND pay a penalty in court. These businesses have made a decision to ignore a civil rights law and unless there is a penalty, they will always gamble that no one will ever make a big deal about it and the worst that can happen is that they have to do what they were suppose to anyway.

So if they get sued, pay a fine, pay court costs, get bad publicity and pain and suffering damages then I say good. This is what is needed to wake up a culture of getting away with whatever you want.

These are rules that we live by, these are laws we live by. You don't like them then move to another country that does not have them. Anyone is free to live wherever they want. I say to all of the businesses that were sued "You deserved it".

 

[mark handler]

some comments....

Ada Is Not Enforceable By Building Inspectors.

YES BUT IBC AND ANSI AND LOCAL/STATE CODES ARE.

Violations Are Treated As Civil Rights Issues.

YES

Some Violations Enter A World Of Opinion.

YES SOME

And, Proponents Of Ada Seem To Deem Businesses As Evil Entities.

NOT TRUE

Like All People, There Are Infinite Profiles.

EVEN WITH DISABLED VETERAN, THERE ARE INFINITE PROFILES.

…Care Very Little About What The Ada Is And Does. ,,,

SOME NOT ALL, THERE ARE SOME DISABLED VETS THAT ARE AT THE FRONT LINES OF THE ACCESS “MOVEMENT”

These Photos Are Obviously Of Physical Limb Maladies And Show Nothing Of Blindness, Ptsd, Brain Trauma, Etc.

THE PHOTOS SHOW A SMALL FRACTION OF THE INJURED

Second, Discrimination.

But It Is Law, And I Understand That. What I Do Not Accept, As In The Abercrombie Example, Is Someone Refusing To Use An Entrance Specifically Designed To Help Them Out.

HOW ABOUT AN ENTRANCE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KEEP THEM OUT.

Third, Accessing The Money Tree.

BEEN THE LAW OF THE LAND FOR TWENTY TWO YEARS.

HOW LONG CAN CITIES AND BUSINESSES CONTINUE TO PUT IT OFF.

THE ONLY THING THAT PEOPLE SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IS A HIT TO THE POCKETBOOK.

THERE ARE FEDERAL PROGRAMS TO HELP CITIES FUND THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND THERE ARE IRS TAX CREDITS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Personal experiences will always be a formative memory, and trying to just tell you "be opened minded" is a fool's game.

However, we have all, by and large, had to deal with them. Although I am healthy, I have had to cope with emphesema, cancer multiples, stroke multiples, auto injuries multiple, combat brain injury in a high school friend, and others.

So brother, I know.

But there is a but.

The first but is a tough one. "You can't go there".

But it's a fact. My cancer ridden grandmother could not visit resteraunts. No amount of ADA would help. She also could not visit friends, for lack of accessable private bathrooms. Let's raise the question; Is it discriminatory to not have a barrier free home. At what point in the future will a home be required to be ADA compliant? Oh, I'm joking? No, I'm not joking. It's coming.

How about the resteraunt your mom liked to visit. Did you, personnally, ever broach the subject about getting it compliant? How about a fundraiser?

Or, would it have been satisfactory to make it sort of accessible? What if they just made it easier or semi-compliant?

It sounds to me like that would not be up to litigious standards.

Another thing: 20 years is not a long time. It took almost 20 years just to get started building the new Bay Bridge.

Roofs don't get replaced for 20 years.

My trucks are 20 years old

But back to the point, I think the ADA is legit, just not as a civil rights issue.

Brent.

 

[mark handler]

I think the ADA is legit, just not as a civil rights issue.

Then just enforce/build to the code/standard and you will not violate the law....

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Then just enforce/build to the code/standard and you will not violate the law....

Help me out, cause I listen to a lot of old country music and ain't that smart. If it's code, and has to go through plan check, then gets approved, then I go through the process of building it, and the inspector goes through the process of inspectigating it, and it gets built, cofo and finaled, how is it possible to be non-compliant.

By the way, I have built multiples of each, KFC, Wendy's, Red Lobster, 24 hour fitness, and CoCo's restaurants in 5 states, and 2 hotels, and a Walmart attachment, and always had an ADA day before final, and any CofO issued.

Mongo not understand.

Mongo

 

[mark handler]

..... If it's code, and has to go through plan check, then gets approved, then I go through the process of building it, and the inspector goes through the process of inspecting it, and it gets built, cofo and finaled, how is it possible to be non-compliant.

Because it is not designed properly and/or not planchecked properly and/or built properly and/or not inspected properly

My goal is education.

 

[mtlogcabin]

We are in the process of doing a final on a Hilton Embassy suites and some ADA issues have come up.

1. The tub controls have to be within 27 inches from the edge of the tub. Plumber installed the valve at 26" to center . Okay with me, Hilton rep says move it because when you turn the single handle to the cold position it protrudes out of the 27 inch requirement

2. The light switch is 48" to the center of the rocker switch. The bottom of the switch is compliant the top is out of the reach range. Problem?

3. The exhaust vent is 12 inches above the cooking surface because the cabinets had to be mounted lower. Not very useful cook top.

4. The tub had 59.5 inches of clear opening. Hilton said tear it out it must be 60 inches minimum. What ever happened to construction tolerances?

Jar

I can relate to your experience since I had my mother in-law living with us for 6 months who is a stroke victim and confined to a wheelchair to get around. Yes there where a lot of places in this town we could not go because of access or I knew the rest rooms where in-adequate. Would I sue any of these places to make them provide access? No, most of them could not afford the cost.

 

[Uncle Bob]

What say we take this a step further. In Texas and Oklahoma strip malls are notorious for not having access to bathrooms, PERIOD. I have inspected new construction of retail strip malls and stand alone large chain stores and after the CofO; gone back to see that the bathrooms are used for storage and off limits to the public. So, whether you have a disability or not you may not be able to find a restroom. Not too long ago, I did an occupancy of a very small boutique (50 year old building with three small shops); and if they had to provide an ADA compliant bathroom, they would have to put their products on the outside of the building. Life is full of problems; and exceptions will continue to be made, based on public policy of the community. In the interest of providing public "facilities" you would have to take a strong stance on public facilities; and the big business' would love it; because it would be one more nail in the coffin of the small mom and pop operation; and eventually we will be at that point. There will be no small independent business' in the future. Personally, I sometimes find it neccessary to travel over a mile while I'm out inspecting, just find a restroom while I'm working. I used to have a bad habit of saying to my wife "life's a bitch and then you die". She would get extremely upset and I didn't understand; I thought it was kinda funny; until she died at the age of 37. A very wise man said about 2,000 years ago; "Do not worry or be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will have worries and anxieties of it's own. Sufficient for each day is it's own trouble." I still have trouble adhereing to that, as you all know by my posts. I hope that you will be able to learn this valuable lesson and that it brings peace to your life. We will always have injustices (in our mind/opinion); please don't let them make you bitter one way or another. Crap, I should not be allowed to post here before daybreak. Ya'll be good to yourselves. Uncle Bob

 

[jar546]

We are in the process of doing a final on a Hilton Embassy suites and some ADA issues have come up.1. The tub controls have to be within 27 inches from the edge of the tub. Plumber installed the valve at 26" to center . Okay with me, Hilton rep says move it because when you turn the single handle to the cold position it protrudes out of the 27 inch requirement

2. The light switch is 48" to the center of the rocker switch. The bottom of the switch is compliant the top is out of the reach range. Problem?

3. The exhaust vent is 12 inches above the cooking surface because the cabinets had to be mounted lower. Not very useful cook top.

4. The tub had 59.5 inches of clear opening. Hilton said tear it out it must be 60 inches minimum. What ever happened to construction tolerances?

Jar

I can relate to your experience since I had my mother in-law living with us for 6 months who is a stroke victim and confined to a wheelchair to get around. Yes there where a lot of places in this town we could not go because of access or I knew the rest rooms where in-adequate. Would I sue any of these places to make them provide access? No, most of them could not afford the cost.

1) That is a good Hilton rep. Why do we feel obligated to overlook things when others make mistakes?

2) Could be depending on the type of switch installed. Again, what was so hard about installing it right the first time?

3) They have plenty of construction tolerances. Is there a reason they could not do it right the first time?

We have to stop thinking like contractors and start thinking like inspectors. There are plenty of tolerances but the installations always seem to be just past them. Handrails have a 3" height tolerance, toilets have a 2" tolerance yet contractors seem to have difficulty being installed properly. I failed a handrail in a bathroom for being 36.5" to the top. The contractor said "Really, you're going to fail me for a half inch?" My reply was "Yes, you had a 3" tolerance and you still got it wrong. You are actually off by 3-1/2"."

My point is that there are specifications and why is it that we feel an obligation to turn our heads due to the incompetency of others to follow directions? Since when do others not have to be held responsible for their actions or inactions because we think we have the "power" to look the other way.

As far as the last item concerning relatives, we did litigate or threaten to litigate either. Not our style but I would never rule it out depending on the circumstances.

 

[peach]

my 2 cents (for what it's worth).

If we had the foresight to take care of the disabled in the first place, civil rights legislation would never have been necessary. We didn't, so it is.

We have an obligation to enforce the provisions of the Code, not ADA.. good for the Hilton for enforcing their own, stricter standards!

As our parents (for that matter, as we) age, we are more likely to notice mobility and usability issues (where me probably didn't give them a second thought 20 years ago).

Should we put "mom and pop" out of business by requiring accessibility upgrades? Probably not.. if they are doing renovations anyway, is it right to require them to spend 20% on accessibility upgrades? Absolutely. Eventually mom & pop will get sued and they will be out of business anyway.

I had a meeting this week with one of my very good clients building a new office building; they are particularly concerned about the NFPA 72 requirement of synchronized strobes in an atrium. (72 says essentially, if there are 2 or more strobes in the field of vision, they need to be flashing at the same rate - it's a photo sensitive epilipsy thing). This particular client owns/manages several buildings in town and we have forced them into upgrading the entire fire alarm system in an older existing building. The cost is enormous, of course, but I asked them how much a law suit is going to cost them.

Require the right thing the first time!

 

[mjesse]

I almost hate to jump in, 'cuz there is already to much stubbornness, unwillingness to listen, You're wrong-I'm right, attitude on display.

Brent, a most excellent post. Well said.

I said in the other thread, "life is not fair". There is no way architects, builders, property owners, or law makers can create a level playing field for people of differing abilities. Nor do I wish that we should aim for a day when everything is accessible. If you're offended by that, tough chips.

We had a thread here a while back about an adventure zip-line park. Great business opportunity, great place for the adventurous to "pay to play", yet many had different thoughts on the level of accessibility required. We read so much above about building it right the first time. Yet, in this example, I believe it's INSANE to try and make tree canopy platforms accessible.

I'm a public sector employee now for only 5 years. I'm one of the new guys to Code enforcement. I believe I came from a world similar to Brent's. I still call myself a carpenter, even though I haven't picked up my tools in over 5 years. I physically can't do it.

I'm also an entrepreneur. I believe an American should have the right to open a business, and let the market determine if he will be successful. Having restrictive regulations in place that block that ability is dangerous to the qualities that made this country great. You're taking away the freedom of creativity. Someone wanted to build a zip-line park, but couldn't get through plan check due to ADA regs. Preposterous!

Call me an A-hole if you want, I've been called worse. I cringe at the overly PC agenda. I want to see a nation that takes risks, I want to see exciting and innovative design. A pessimist may see some of these as discriminating against a certain group. Although it certainly was never the intent to deny access, some physical limitations exist in each of us that exclude us from participating.

Look at what's happening in schools and children sports now with the "no losers" rules. We're all winners just for showing up. I was picked on, and picked last in school, I got red F's when my answers were wrong. I was on the losing team more than once. It made me strong. It made me want to work harder to succeed.

But I digress.

Life is not fair, not everything is black & white, there are infinite shades of gray and even more in color. The intent of the ADA is noble. But we mustn't let it squelch the dreams of a nation.

 

[peach]

wow, mjesse...

There are numerous "disabilities"... not just mobility. i have a hearing impaired son and another autistic son. They realize their limitations (like everyone with a disability does).

We aren't talking a zip line.. we're talking about entrances and bathrooms (essential features) in a building.

I've dealt with tenant improvements in some of the most historic areas in DC (like Georgetown).. are they accessible (usually.. NO).. they have steps. Are they at risk? absolutely. Do I note it on my inspection reports (you know absolutely I do).

Life isn't fair. AARP has some very good articles about "aging in place" - some of their recommendations are hugely expensive. When my dad built his last home, it was wheelchair accessible.. he realized at 90+ he couldn't walk like he used to.. needed wide bathroom/bedroom doors to accommodate his scooter. Heartbroken as he was, he accepted his condition.

I digress..

We don't go to a paintball range if we are allergic to paint (or.. pain) and if we can't run. If mom wants to watch me play from a platform, should she be able to.. of course.

A man (or woman) needs to know their limitations.. (Clint Eastwood)

 

[mtlogcabin]

Some of the construction tolerance issues I blame on the designers. The ADA bath tub should have stated minimum or net opening of perhaps even make it an inch bigger. I have seen to many "details" that do not give a plus or minus dimension.

Does a 200 sq ft drive up coffee shack need a wheelchair accessible restroom? The restroom is for the employee(s) only and and an employee confined to a wheelchair can't fulfill the job requirements so is an ambulatory design okay? I believe so but others will probably not. There are probably 100's of examples like this that to be on the "safe" side because of threats of a lawsuit will always require the most restrictive application which is a waste of money and yes it can stifle business

 

[mark handler]

conversations on another website

People that I know started suing after many years of disheartening results from writing polite letters and making informal complaints. I think that even the so-called "drive-by" suits were not common until it became obvious that businesses were just plain not going to both to comply, and many were thumbing their noses at the law. It also became obvious that cities were not going to enforce building codes on the books that mirrored the ADA. Their refrain "we don't do ADA" just let people know they were on their own.

In the early years, when I would try to convince a business that was ordering new signs to make a few small changes in order to comply with the new codes, I would hear "when I get sued, I'll do something about it." It's no wonder that people started to take them up on it.

I think that people "sue" for many reasons, not the least of which is to force compliance. But I also think that financial gain is a big driving force. While the majority of individual plaintiffs who sue do so in order to force compliance, there are those who are looking to line their pockets. And I have only heard of one attorney (doubtless there are more) who handles ADA cases "at cost" because he believes in the cause. Attorneys are running businesses TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE (which is the case with virtually all businesses), despite any façade they may present otherwise.

I have seen abuses on all sides of the aisle (no pun intended):

A friend who established an otherwise (codes and regulations) legal roadside stand in a gravel lot (existing previously "acceptable" business and building) was forced to close by the county (in Arizona) because the premises did not meet ADA standards. At least that was the "excuse". The same county did not enforce the same standards on other businesses (selective enforcement ). My friend was in the unfortunate position of having previously ****ed off the "enforcers" over an issue at his personal residence during a residential construction project.

Another friend who was a wheelchair user, (disable Vietnam Vet) petitioned his local convenience store for minor accommodations, which were refused. My advice to him to "start" forcing compliance with the local building officials was rebuked (their advice was "sue the store"). He was not the type to "cause trouble" and did nothing.

In San Diego, a disabled attorney made his living filing lawsuits (as it turns out of them were false claims with "phantom" plaintiffs) and caused hundreds of thousands of "losses" to establishment owners who opted to pay to make the suit go away. While SOME of those establishments eventually made the needed corrections, the public's perception was negative against the abusive attorney and ADA in general.

We all have anecdotes of abuses of the "system". I have NO problem with someone using the courts to enforce the law or to force an establishment owner to comply, and I feel that reputable law firms who specialize in such actions are necessary and useful. But I totally disagree with a system that allows:

1. Payment to an attorney and/or plaintiff to "make it go away", since maybe the suit goes away but the base condition doesn't. I would like to see statutes REQUIRING that if a suit is filed, it must be pursued to satisfaction of correction of the violation, regardless of the financial onus imposed.

2. Selective enforcement of the standards. I would like to see statutes REQUIRING governmental entities to enforce the standards equally and fairly across the board, with penalties for entities and personnel who don't.

3. No legal recourse other than hiring an attorney to force compliance. I would like to see statues REQUIRING local courts to provide "small claims" style proceedings specifically geared to handling ADA compliance, with strict enforcement requirements. While I don't have the legal knowledge to understand how that would work, I'm sure it would help.

 

[mark handler]

Does a 200 sq ft drive up coffee shack need a wheelchair accessible restroom? The restroom is for the employee(s) only

New or existing?

New adaptable.

Existing maybe, depends.

 

[mtlogcabin]

New buildings. We probably have 20 of them within a 5 mile radius within the last 20 years. Not one has wheelchair accessible restroom, Some do not even have a restroom since we have agreements on file to allow the coffee shop employees to use the restroom located in another building on the same site. Those that do have a restroom they meet ambulatory requirements.

 

[mjesse]

conversations on another website A friend who established an otherwise (codes and regulations) legal roadside stand in a gravel lot (existing previously "acceptable" business and building) was forced to close by the county (in Arizona) because the premises did not meet ADA standards.

We all have anecdotes of abuses of the "system". I have NO problem with someone using the courts to enforce the law or to force an establishment owner to comply, and I feel that reputable law firms who specialize in such actions are necessary and useful. But I totally disagree with a system that allows:

1. Payment to an attorney and/or plaintiff to "make it go away", since maybe the suit goes away but the base condition doesn't. I would like to see statutes REQUIRING that if a suit is filed, it must be pursued to satisfaction of correction of the violation, regardless of the financial onus imposed.

2. Selective enforcement of the standards. I would like to see statutes REQUIRING governmental entities to enforce the standards equally and fairly across the board, with penalties for entities and personnel who don't.

3. No legal recourse other than hiring an attorney to force compliance. I would like to see statues REQUIRING local courts to provide "small claims" style proceedings specifically geared to handling ADA compliance, with strict enforcement requirements. While I don't have the legal knowledge to understand how that would work, I'm sure it would help.

Re: the roadside stand; These are the small business types who are stifled. There should be some common sense method to allow this without repercussions.

Re: the additional points; I totally agree

 

[mjesse]

We aren't talking a zip line.. we're talking about entrances and bathrooms (essential features) in a building.

I am, and I'm speaking of the big picture. Because I'm not a seasoned wordsmith, and just a carpenter with a high school diploma, my point may be misconstrued.

I agree buildings open to the public, with public amenities should be made accessible to all. Malls, stores, libraries, office buildings, etc.

My point is, there should always be a means to have an exception. Unfortunately the A&F reference is tarnished by the CEO's ridiculous statements about his target market. Just looking at the store entrance though, and using the revolving door and monument stair as additional examples, I don't see it as an attempt to discriminate. Even Mark stated that if a directional sign was provided, he might be okay with it. I just don't believe that it necessarily constitutes a "separate but equal" civil rights violation.

Heck, men's and women's restrooms are discriminatory if you want to see it as such.

 

[mark handler]

Even Mark stated that if a directional sign was provided, he might be okay with it...I just don't believe that it necessarily constitutes a "separate but equal" civil rights violation.

It depends, new construction must be accessible, existing construction, if it can't be modified, side or rear entries may be okay.

All the AF stores were built after the ADA

 

[peach]

here in DC, single user restrooms CANNOT be marked men/women.. they HAVE to be unisex

 

[ICE]

I would like to think that we are smarter than ADA laws would lead us to believe.

I was inspecting a small office space being built in the far corner of a ???k sq.ft. warehouse. The space was intended for a select few graphic designers. The designers were getting their own space because they liked loud music, smoked pot and just didn't fit in with the accountants and engineers.

There was a door to the outside near the new office space.

Halfway to completion, it was discovered that there exists an ADA problem. One helluva ramp had to be built to get to that door. It didn't matter that there is an accessible entrance at the front of the building. The disabled parking space was a problem also.

Take no credit for the fact that a person in a wheelchair could get to the space through the warehouse. So for the sake of a phantom wheelchair-bound graphic designer's self-esteem, a ramp that cost more than the office space was built.

We may be twenty years into this but obviously it is a work in progress and we haven't gotten it right so far. Well that was about ten years ago that the smokers lounge was built.

I expect to hear from at least one person that the ADA is far reaching and goes beyond people in wheelchairs. That person is correct. There are people that use walkers or crutches, have trouble breathing, and many with an illness that make stairs difficult to impossible. A compassionate society will help. An enlightened society will realize that there is just so much help that you're going to get.

Google "wheelchairs that climb stairs" and you will see that the technology is there to make most of the built world accessible.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4380/

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/robotic-wheelchair-climb-stairs.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=wheelchairs+that+can+climb+stairs&client=firefox-a&hs=8OJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=MycaUuj9J8aB2gX0noG4Dw&ved=0CGsQsAQ&biw=1051&bih=576

R&D with serious money would result in an amazing wheelchair. Able bodied people would be stealing them.

Eliminating the ugly ramps and other accoutrements of the ADA world could yield a windfall for the impaired in that the developers would gladly spend half as much on donated wheelchairs that dance with each other.

And now we have CASP inspectors.

The services of a CASP inspector cost as much as the boilerplate lawsuits.

What is the stated reason behind CASP certifications?

Is ADA so complicated that a high priced expert is needed to make sense of it all?

Is it a knee-jerk reaction to the plethora of lawsuits?

Is it a bureaucracy Hellbent on taking over the world?

There is not only a lack of progress....we seem to be going backwards.

 

[conarb]

The services of a CASP inspector cost as much as the boilerplate lawsuits.

What are these profiteering scoundrels charging anyway, does anyone know? If you're going to be forced to enforce federal disability laws you should be enforcing federal drug law and busting those criminals.