• 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.

Attorneys utilize Google Earth in search for ADA parking lot issues

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,892
Location
So. CA
Attorneys utilize Google Earth in search for ADA parking lot issues

By Glenn Kahl Reporter gkahl@mantecabulletin.com 209-249-3539

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/1/article/108206/

The top 10 items in demand letters and claims for businesses to watch out for in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that some attorneys are eyeing in their check list for civil suits have been issued by the California Commission on Disability Access.

Some 20 to 30 attorneys are reportedly scouring the Central Valley and the state for violations occurring in the business communities. Attorney Scott Johnson is being criticized for the numbers of businesses — more than 3,000 so far — he has taken to court for ADA violations.

Executive director of California Against Lawsuit Abuse, Tom Scott, said Johnson has a staff of four that visit businesses in the field searching out violations in addition to assistants sitting at computers using Google Earth to find parking lot violations that they can cite in litigation.

Parking violations related to those with disabilities have “parking” as the number one problem where loading/van access aisles are non-compliant or non-existing.

The second concern is also with parking where the spaces are not compliant with the law.

Thirdly signage in parking lot is not compliant in that parking spaces need to be designated as reserved by a sign showing the symbol of accessibility.

Number four relates to ramps where curb ramps or entrance ramps are not compliant or non-existent followed by number 5 that deals with accessible routes and entries to and from a parking lot or public right of way are not accessible that may include uneven surfaces.

The number of spaces in a parking lot is number six when the parking lot does not contain a minimum number of accessible spaces.

Number seven relates to accessible routes and entry in general where entry doors are not accessible or missing signs or symbol designation accessibility. Number eight involved the access height to a public facility. The heights of surfaces such as counters, bars or tables that are not ADA compliant has been noted. Number nine is also concerned about access within a public facility such as dining or work surfaces not accessible in the route.

Toilet rooms and bathrooms must be accessible.

The commission noted that the above information is not intended to suggest that the top 10 access issues are the same for every city and county in California. It is reflective of only the data received by the commission from law firms in compliance to SB 1186, as noted in its statement.
 
Hmmm ... 3,000 lawsuits at (probably) a minimum of $10K apiece. And how much of that does Mr. Johnson actually put BACK into the community for compliance at those 3,000 businesses?

I'm not saying that the businesses should be allowed to be out of compliance, but just wondering if he's that concerned about compliance shouldn't the whole purpose of his lawsuits be to make the businesses compliant?

Maybe when he's on the financial level of Bill Gates he'll start being more philanthropic ...
 
How can we apply this logic to the federal governments refusal to comply with immigration laws?

I wonder...

Brent
 
Civil rights laws and enforcement was never based on a Pro-Active lets go out and find the violators. It was always viewed as reactionary to a denial of a specific right and a complaint by an individual who was denied that right.

CA with its own laws has created its own problems when it comes to enforcement of accessibility laws within that state.

ADA laws are similar to the federal tax code. Nobody reads and understands the entire law. Business owners are concerned about operating their business which may have been 100% compliant the day they opened. However maybe the paint faded in the parking lot or the parking signage was knocked down, Or the "wife decides to spruce up the restrooms with fancier mirrors that raised the edge because of the frame, not usually on the high priority day to day issues of running a business to correct those "small" items. My question is should the level of payment be the same for a mirror that is 2 inches to high versus a ramp or door that hinders access to the primary function area?
 
I wouldn't have a problem with different tiers of violation. Not meeting a regulation in full could be considered differently than a true limit of accessibility.

Much in the same vein as a shear wall maybe having a few nails at 7" rather the speced 6" vs. a life/safety issue.

Brent
 
Back
Top