Litigious Disabled Man Now Targeting Richmond District Businesses

[mark handler]

Litigious Disabled Man Now Targeting Richmond District Businesses

12/27/10

Craig Thomas Yates, who is one of a number of wheelchair-bound people in California who make a living by suing businesses for ADA non-compliance — and thereby, they argue, calling attention to the plight of the disabled and the widespread compliance issues everywhere — has moved on from the Mission (where he and his attorney were instrumental in shutting down Chile Lindo) and into the Richmond. The Chron reports that Yates has filed suit against three businesses in the same building for ADA non-compliance, including Thidwick Books and (we believe, though the Chron doesn't mention them by name) Village Pizzeria. Several of the business owners are said to be closing or moving due to the suits, including the bookstore owner, given that they can not afford the fines or the improvements that would make them compliant.

Tim Thimesch, Yates's current attorney, rejects the idea that Yates is primarily motivated by cash — though the 20-year-old law does allow for claimants like Yates to seek $4,000 in damages for each impediment found on a business's premises. Lea Dimond, the owner of Thidwick Books, calls this "vexatious litigation," and in fact Yates's attorney in the Mission district cases was barred from a Los Angeles court for being a "vexatious litigant" in his filing of so many similar ADA cases.

It is unclear whether Village Pizzeria is among the businesses closing or relocating, but Supervisor Eric Mar is looking into the issue of businesses who feel they were not adequately informed by the City when they first received their permits of any compliance issues they might face. Also, Mar encourages businesses who want to make any necessary ADA improvements to seek help with financing from the City's small business office.

http://sanfrancisco.grubstreet.com/2010/12/litigious_disabled_man_now_tar.html

 

[jar546]

I see the problem with the system but still realize:

Many business that have zero local accessibility laws and even some that do still do not do their homework to see what is required before they open their business. They leave themselves vulnerable.

To this day, this is usually the number one surprise to business owners. They never want to build an ADA compliant bathroom, never think about an accessible entrance, tactile exit signs, etc. They just want to move walls and paint.

 

[tbz]

So Jar,

Was the double posting in honnor of the new avatar?

 

[tbz]

Jar,

As for business's not wanting to comply, it comes down to what is the minimum I need to do, to get the doors open and start generating cash flow. This is the number one thing drilled in to students that take business classes.

1. Example: Should I buy a new $40,000.00 truck with XYZ payment a month or buy a used truck that I might get 2 years out of for now for $7,000.00, payments a lot less?

2. This bathroom already exist in the building I am renting and the city issued a C/O, why do I have to change it and spend XYZ amount?

Those that work in this field every day know what to expect, those who don't very little exists outside the bubble.

As for compliance, many AHJ are getting things done now that the majority of the building codes adopted are in line with what the DOJ publishes as requirements.

Did you not post a recent ramp question about what we all saw wrong?

How long has PA been on a state wide building code system and in your NE section of the state how many buildings do you run into remodeling that never had permits when built?

The Access is getting done more rapid now not because of these law suites, but because building codes are inline with ADA and when new work is getting done, upgrades are being made.

I will make one more simple point,

Everyone complains that the law has been in effect since 92, so what, it took 12 years to make the first widely agreed update and then 6 more years to dopt it from there.

And during that time when was all the real education and out reach done to get everyone on board?

IMO, the fed's should have mandated the states to implement the requirements in to the building codes and if they didn't have a building code in effect, require the states to enact a minimum code for these requirements with an inspection process.

Had it been done that way in 92, by 2000 most of what we talk about today would not exist.

 

[jar546]

Part of business sense (I am a business owner) is this: If you can't afford to do it right and compliant with all applicable laws then you cannot afford to do it.

I see this as a very simple, common sense standard. Find a location for your business that will cost you less up front because it has the minimum requirements already in place or it will cost you less capital to start up even though it may be a little more per month on your lease.

Ignorance to laws is not an excuse because you are trying to start a business.

In PA, since 1927 we had the Fire & Panic Act. ADA compliance came about much later and the state enforced ADA standards until 2004 when the ANSI 117.1 2003 became part of the PA-UCC. We have thousands of buildings in PA that are not "certified" under the PA Fire & Panic Act of 1927 (1927-2004) or the PA-UCC (2004-present). Our legislators realized this and put in place some minimum standards to bring these "uncertified" buildings up to par to be able to actually have a certificate of occupancy. Of course, accessibility is a major part of it. These "uncertified" buildings came about as people built commercial buildings without permits and PA L&I oversight. There is no grandfathering a building that was illegal to begin with.

I hope this clarifies the PA question.

 

[peach]

jar.. how did you get the picture of me and my sister?

 

[jar546]

FRom your facebook

 

[tbz]

I see this as a very simple, common sense standard. Find a location for your business that will cost you less up front because it has the minimum requirements already in place or it will cost you less capital to start up even though it may be a little more per month on your lease.Ignorance to laws is not an excuse because you are trying to start a business.

In PA, since 1927 we had the Fire & Panic Act. ADA compliance came about much later and the state enforced ADA standards until 2004 when the ANSI 117.1 2003 became part of the PA-UCC. We have thousands of buildings in PA that are not "certified" under the PA Fire & Panic Act of 1927 (1927-2004) or the PA-UCC (2004-present). Our legislators realized this and put in place some minimum standards to bring these "uncertified" buildings up to par to be able to actually have a certificate of occupancy. Of course, accessibility is a major part of it. These "uncertified" buildings came about as people built commercial buildings without permits and PA L&I oversight. There is no grandfathering a building that was illegal to begin with.

I hope this clarifies the PA question.

So from your post, I am to gather that ADA compliance is something that business owners prior to 1990 should have known about when they started their business?

And since they have been operating their business without changing anything that requires permits, they should be fully aware of this?

For the record I built my camp in Dimock PA from 1973 - 1984 and went to L&I with everything and half my buildings built they gave me letters telling me to do what I wanted they had no jurisdiction and permits were not required, I made sure I submitted and then got the letters saying do what you want.

I even built a commercial in ground pool certified by them with a liner, not concrete because of the ground.

I am very familiar with what PA had in place prior to 2004 and then what changes came about.

The misconception is you think what you know is common knowledge to perspective business owners who have nothing to do with the building industry and as you know many design professionals fail to inform their clients and when those business owners get all the local approvals and open and for some reason they don’t know about ADA compliance.

Not to mention that ANSI/A117.1-2003 does not comply with some everyday items in the 1992-ADAAG which was in effect until this past September.

 

[mark handler]

so from your post, i am to gather that ada compliance is something that business owners prior to 1990 should have known about when they started their business?.

after 1990?

 

[peach]

ANSI 117 doesn't necessarily mean the construction meets ADA.. having said that, the ADA (if I recall correctly), doesn't require a building owner to spend more than 20% of the construction cost for additional accessibility. I point to my current jurisdiction where there are numerous offices on second floors (without elevators).. it was a business before, it's a business now.. and the building is 200 years old.

So, having said that.. where my favored nail place may be on the 2nd floor of one of these buildings, I may have to find one on the 1st floor.

Sueing the 2nd floor business will do nothing more than put money in my pocket (or put a tax revenue business out of business).. nothing to increase the accessibility of the space.

 

[KZQuixote]

: If you can't afford to do it right and compliant with all applicable laws then you cannot afford to do it....Ignorance to laws is not an excuse because you are trying to start a business.

Like the Avatar guy!

I'm with you to a point, but we're still not connecting on the "creating the wealth" thing Are you suggesting that every entrepreneur should hire an accessibility consultant before deciding where his/her folks, who actually do the work, that adds the value, should work? If so where should that line item be placed in the business plan and how about the guy just over the AHJ's line where it don't matter any how?

Small Business drives this country. I'd like to see more encouragement of small business.

How 'bout it?

Bill

 

[mark handler]

How 'bout it?

How 'bout civil rights.........................................

 

[brudgers]

How 'bout civil rights.........................................

Get with the program...those who complain about lack of access are only in it for the money and small businesses exist only to protect our rights.

 

[Mark K]

"Get with the program...those who complain about lack of access are only in it for the money and small businesses exist only to protect our rights. "

Sounds like an argument for getting rid of building departments since they get in the way of small businesses.

 

[brudgers]

Permits?

We don't need no stinking permits!