Manhattan restaurant featured in 'Seinfeld' discriminates against the disabled

[ADAguy]

Mass, at what point do you draw a line between the value/cost of a life, access and code mandated requirements?

 

[steveray]

Just saying Brent....ADA, building code, no one is really looking at ROI...someone(s) decided it was required, until we can get them to unrequire it, it is what it is...They are starting to let building officials vote now you know, anything is possible now....

 

[JPohling]

so perhaps its a quality of life debate then......................

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Mass, at what point do you draw a line between the value/cost of a life, access and code mandated requirements?

You just drew the line in your comment. It's obvious.

Brent.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Just saying Brent....ADA, building code, no one is really looking at ROI...someone(s) decided it was required, until we can get them to unrequire it, it is what it is...They are starting to let building officials vote now you know, anything is possible now....

I'm with you Steve I get that. But ROI simply is not a valid argument on its own. Accessibility simply costs money with no chance of return.

You can argue other merits if you like, and we know it's law. But trying to stack on the notion of economic benifit as a profit generator is provably false. That dog won't hunt.

Brent.

 

[jar546]

Are we forgetting that contractors do the work and supply houses provide material which is good for the economy? This is an investment in the economy and not every aspect of every business has an ROI. Some things are just simply required and part of doing business.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Are we forgetting that contractors do the work and supply houses provide material which is good for the economy? This is an investment in the economy and not every aspect of every business has an ROI. Some things are just simply required and part of doing business.

That is a better, valid point. But that does not support the argument that the accessibility work helps generate income. That cost will never recoup, standing on its own merit.

Brent

 

[ADAguy]

Recouping cost was never the intent of the ADA, no more than recouping the cost of civil rights which far exceed the costs related to ADA site improvements.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Recouping cost was never the intent of the ADA, no more than recouping the cost of civil rights which far exceed the costs related to ADA site improvements.

That was not your point here:

"There is both short and long term "green" in "blue" if you look beyond the up front cost.

It does add "cents" to your bottom line if you want to "serve" the public."

 

[Paul Sweet]

The restaurant shouldn't be held solely liable if they tried to get permission to build a ramp in the sidewalk but the city denied it. They should be held liable if they didn't even ask to build a ramp in the sidewalk.

 

[ADAguy]

It was intended as a counterpoint to your claim that accessible improvements do not create greater cash flow. Each "segment" of the population denied access is a potential dollar lost. Most proprietors want all the dollars they can get in their doors.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

It was intended as a counterpoint to your claim that accessible improvements do not create greater cash flow. Each "segment" of the population denied access is a potential dollar lost. Most proprietors want all the dollars they can get in their doors.

I understood that.

Most proprietors also understand you don't spend 10 dollars to get one dollar back. That is the reality of accessibility features, for the most part.

Brent.