mark handler
SAWHORSE
It's time to settle Arlington sidewalk accessibility lawsuit
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/28/3770403/its-time-to-settle-arlington-sidewalk.html
Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/28/3770403/its-time-to-settle-arlington-sidewalk.html#storylink=cpy
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided last week not to hear Arlington's appeal in a lawsuit about sidewalks that are inaccessible to people in wheelchairs, there might have been good cause to complain if it left the city with an unreasonable lower court ruling.
It didn't. A September ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Supreme Court let stand, clarified the issues. Good sidewalks are an important city service, perhaps even more important to people who can't overcome physical barriers.
Officially, the 2005 case now heads back to federal district court for trial. Unofficially, Arlington attorneys should get moving on settlement talks.
Lars Etzkorn, who works on federal relations for the National League of Cities, complained about the way the case has gone.
"Certainly, accessibility is important and the ability for all citizens to use resources of a city is important," Etzkorn told the Star-Telegram. "But how a city chooses to spend its scarce funding should be left up to those accountable to their citizens instead of being forced upon by a federal court interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Isn't it the job of federal courts to rule on disputes regarding federal laws? Wouldn't it be good to examine what the 5th Circuit said?
It did not take control of Arlington's budget out of the hands of the City Council.
Federal regulations, the appeals court said, "require only that when a city chooses to construct a new sidewalk or alter an existing one, the city must take reasonable measures to ensure that those sidewalks are readily accessible to individuals with disabilities."
Sidewalks built before the ADA took effect Jan. 26, 1992, "need not be made accessible in most cases," the 5th Circuit said. "And to the extent an existing sidewalk impedes access to some other service, program, or activity, a city may adopt a variety of reasonable accommodations other than structural changes."
Richard Frame, who was paralyzed in a 1999 car wreck, filed the suit and was later joined by other plaintiffs. Their complaints, narrowed to focus on sidewalks built or altered after the ADA went into effect, said some Arlington sidewalks have missing or badly sloped curb ramps or include stretches where the concrete is impassable, noncontiguous, broken or nonexistent.
Part of the city's argument was that sidewalks should be categorized as facilities, for which corrections can be made over time. The 5th Circuit disagreed, saying they "unambiguously are 'services' of a public entity under any reasonable understanding of that term." Discrimination in services face tighter restrictions.
Arlington still has some avenues for argument.
The 5th Circuit said a two-year statute of limitations would apply to the complaints about sidewalk inaccessibility. That could take some sidewalks out of the dispute.
The court also said hypothetical impairments shouldn't be considered. Plaintiffs must show "actual or imminent" constraints to a disabled person's use of a sidewalk.
But the court also said how the two-year time frame should be applied. The clock starts running not when the sidewalk is built or altered but when a disabled person learns or should have known that the new construction or alteration would yield an inaccessible sidewalk.
Taking this case back to trial would be expensive (more so than it has been already) and tedious. Testimony from individual plaintiffs and other handicapped people about which sidewalks have posed what sort of problems probably wouldn't be a shining moment for Arlington.
Better for both sides to agree on reasonable improvements and a timetable to provide them.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/28/3770403/its-time-to-settle-arlington-sidewalk.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/28/3770403/its-time-to-settle-arlington-sidewalk.html
Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/28/3770403/its-time-to-settle-arlington-sidewalk.html#storylink=cpy
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided last week not to hear Arlington's appeal in a lawsuit about sidewalks that are inaccessible to people in wheelchairs, there might have been good cause to complain if it left the city with an unreasonable lower court ruling.
It didn't. A September ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Supreme Court let stand, clarified the issues. Good sidewalks are an important city service, perhaps even more important to people who can't overcome physical barriers.
Officially, the 2005 case now heads back to federal district court for trial. Unofficially, Arlington attorneys should get moving on settlement talks.
Lars Etzkorn, who works on federal relations for the National League of Cities, complained about the way the case has gone.
"Certainly, accessibility is important and the ability for all citizens to use resources of a city is important," Etzkorn told the Star-Telegram. "But how a city chooses to spend its scarce funding should be left up to those accountable to their citizens instead of being forced upon by a federal court interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Isn't it the job of federal courts to rule on disputes regarding federal laws? Wouldn't it be good to examine what the 5th Circuit said?
It did not take control of Arlington's budget out of the hands of the City Council.
Federal regulations, the appeals court said, "require only that when a city chooses to construct a new sidewalk or alter an existing one, the city must take reasonable measures to ensure that those sidewalks are readily accessible to individuals with disabilities."
Sidewalks built before the ADA took effect Jan. 26, 1992, "need not be made accessible in most cases," the 5th Circuit said. "And to the extent an existing sidewalk impedes access to some other service, program, or activity, a city may adopt a variety of reasonable accommodations other than structural changes."
Richard Frame, who was paralyzed in a 1999 car wreck, filed the suit and was later joined by other plaintiffs. Their complaints, narrowed to focus on sidewalks built or altered after the ADA went into effect, said some Arlington sidewalks have missing or badly sloped curb ramps or include stretches where the concrete is impassable, noncontiguous, broken or nonexistent.
Part of the city's argument was that sidewalks should be categorized as facilities, for which corrections can be made over time. The 5th Circuit disagreed, saying they "unambiguously are 'services' of a public entity under any reasonable understanding of that term." Discrimination in services face tighter restrictions.
Arlington still has some avenues for argument.
The 5th Circuit said a two-year statute of limitations would apply to the complaints about sidewalk inaccessibility. That could take some sidewalks out of the dispute.
The court also said hypothetical impairments shouldn't be considered. Plaintiffs must show "actual or imminent" constraints to a disabled person's use of a sidewalk.
But the court also said how the two-year time frame should be applied. The clock starts running not when the sidewalk is built or altered but when a disabled person learns or should have known that the new construction or alteration would yield an inaccessible sidewalk.
Taking this case back to trial would be expensive (more so than it has been already) and tedious. Testimony from individual plaintiffs and other handicapped people about which sidewalks have posed what sort of problems probably wouldn't be a shining moment for Arlington.
Better for both sides to agree on reasonable improvements and a timetable to provide them.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/28/3770403/its-time-to-settle-arlington-sidewalk.html#storylink=cpy