• 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.

Manhattan restaurant featured in 'Seinfeld' discriminates against the disabled

Mass, at what point do you draw a line between the value/cost of a life, access and code mandated requirements?
 
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.... :)
 
steveray said:
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.... :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
jar546 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
ADAguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
ADAguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top