mark handler
SAWHORSE
Editorials
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/08/24/2422898/under-ada-is-a-sidewalk-an-essential.html#ixzz0xciNa5kW
Does Arlington illegally discriminate against people who use wheelchairs?
Five years into a lawsuit claiming repeated violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it's still not certain what changes, if any, the city needs to make to sidewalks and parking lots.
But it does seem clear the case will probably land in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Richard Frame, a 25-year Arlington resident who became a quadriplegic after a 1999 traffic accident, said the suit started with his seeking better access around two hospitals and downtown.
Other plaintiffs joined with claims of missing or badly sloped curb ramps; impassable, noncontinuous or nonexistent sidewalks; and inadequate handicap parking in such areas as Abram and Division streets, California Lane, Randol Mill and East Copeland roads and Green Oaks and UTA boulevards.
U.S. District Judge Terry Means dismissed the suit in 2008. In an eyebrow-raising footnote, Means noted that Frame had filed 14 "accommodation discrimination" lawsuits, including against private businesses, and had voluntarily dropped most.
"Needless to say, the court is growing weary of Frame's ADA grievances," Means wrote.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially upheld the dismissal -- but on Monday reversed itself and on a 2-1 vote offered a narrow interpretation of the ADA's requirements.
The law was designed to make sure that physical, mental or health impairments don't exclude individuals from opportunities that other Americans have. Among other things, it requires equal access to public "services, programs or activities."
Now the dispute is over whether sidewalks, curbs and parking lots are services and programs or whether they're simply facilities.
Cities must make immediate changes when disabled individuals are denied access to services or programs, but not just because a physical facility doesn't comply with the law. The issue is what constitutes denial of services.
The city says lack of a van-accessible parking sign at a city park or public building isn't a viable claim if it doesn't deny anyone access to the park or, say, impede voting.
That's essentially the 5th Circuit's view.
But here's the problem. Under the court's reasoning, a sidewalk with a utility pole in the middle isn't the same as the office where residents can pay their water bill.
That would mean the city doesn't have to make the sidewalk passable unless the pole prevents someone in a wheelchair from getting to the water office services.
But that can't be right.
Surely the ADA doesn't require Tarrant County, for instance, to make the plaza outside the county administration building accessible for wheelchair-bound residents who visit to renew their car registrations -- but not for those who merely want to cross to the other end of the block.
Anyone who uses public sidewalks understands that providing and maintaining them are core city services, regardless of where travelers are bound.
But what's the extent of the problem in Arlington?
Assistant City Attorney Denise Wilkerson said all projects since the ADA took effect in 1992 have been certified as passing Texas standards.
New construction must be accessible, and parts of the city have undergone major renovations.
Frame acknowledged that "wherever they do something, it's very good" but says older areas still need addressing.
It seems that tax dollars would better go to infrastructure than litigation. But leaving the 5th Circuit's interpretation intact could be worse than having the case play out.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/08/24/2422898/under-ada-is-a-sidewalk-an-essential.html#ixzz0xciWhcTg
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/08/24/2422898/under-ada-is-a-sidewalk-an-essential.html#ixzz0xciNa5kW
Does Arlington illegally discriminate against people who use wheelchairs?
Five years into a lawsuit claiming repeated violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it's still not certain what changes, if any, the city needs to make to sidewalks and parking lots.
But it does seem clear the case will probably land in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Richard Frame, a 25-year Arlington resident who became a quadriplegic after a 1999 traffic accident, said the suit started with his seeking better access around two hospitals and downtown.
Other plaintiffs joined with claims of missing or badly sloped curb ramps; impassable, noncontinuous or nonexistent sidewalks; and inadequate handicap parking in such areas as Abram and Division streets, California Lane, Randol Mill and East Copeland roads and Green Oaks and UTA boulevards.
U.S. District Judge Terry Means dismissed the suit in 2008. In an eyebrow-raising footnote, Means noted that Frame had filed 14 "accommodation discrimination" lawsuits, including against private businesses, and had voluntarily dropped most.
"Needless to say, the court is growing weary of Frame's ADA grievances," Means wrote.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially upheld the dismissal -- but on Monday reversed itself and on a 2-1 vote offered a narrow interpretation of the ADA's requirements.
The law was designed to make sure that physical, mental or health impairments don't exclude individuals from opportunities that other Americans have. Among other things, it requires equal access to public "services, programs or activities."
Now the dispute is over whether sidewalks, curbs and parking lots are services and programs or whether they're simply facilities.
Cities must make immediate changes when disabled individuals are denied access to services or programs, but not just because a physical facility doesn't comply with the law. The issue is what constitutes denial of services.
The city says lack of a van-accessible parking sign at a city park or public building isn't a viable claim if it doesn't deny anyone access to the park or, say, impede voting.
That's essentially the 5th Circuit's view.
But here's the problem. Under the court's reasoning, a sidewalk with a utility pole in the middle isn't the same as the office where residents can pay their water bill.
That would mean the city doesn't have to make the sidewalk passable unless the pole prevents someone in a wheelchair from getting to the water office services.
But that can't be right.
Surely the ADA doesn't require Tarrant County, for instance, to make the plaza outside the county administration building accessible for wheelchair-bound residents who visit to renew their car registrations -- but not for those who merely want to cross to the other end of the block.
Anyone who uses public sidewalks understands that providing and maintaining them are core city services, regardless of where travelers are bound.
But what's the extent of the problem in Arlington?
Assistant City Attorney Denise Wilkerson said all projects since the ADA took effect in 1992 have been certified as passing Texas standards.
New construction must be accessible, and parts of the city have undergone major renovations.
Frame acknowledged that "wherever they do something, it's very good" but says older areas still need addressing.
It seems that tax dollars would better go to infrastructure than litigation. But leaving the 5th Circuit's interpretation intact could be worse than having the case play out.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/08/24/2422898/under-ada-is-a-sidewalk-an-essential.html#ixzz0xciWhcTg