-
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.
News from the ADAAG, we don't need no stinking ADAAG desk
- Thread starter brudgers
- Start date
jpranch
REGISTERED
Re: News from the ADAAG, we don't need no stinking ADAAG desk
ADAAG, Now there is another federal government beauty! DOJ has done such a great job up-dating that code.... woops, I'm sorry... Civil Rights Legislation... Dose anybody know how many more decades will pass or how many persidents will take a dirt nap before DOJ can manage to do ONE UP-DATE??? Did 16 1/2 years of AGAGG (no typo). As much as I hate to admit it the ICC/ANSI A117.1 is a much, much better standard and more comperhensive document. The ONLY reason the A117.1 is scerwed-up is trying to comply with HUD (DUH) (HUD spelled backwards) and ADA. The feds should get the heck out of the way on this one for sure!
ADAAG, Now there is another federal government beauty! DOJ has done such a great job up-dating that code.... woops, I'm sorry... Civil Rights Legislation... Dose anybody know how many more decades will pass or how many persidents will take a dirt nap before DOJ can manage to do ONE UP-DATE??? Did 16 1/2 years of AGAGG (no typo). As much as I hate to admit it the ICC/ANSI A117.1 is a much, much better standard and more comperhensive document. The ONLY reason the A117.1 is scerwed-up is trying to comply with HUD (DUH) (HUD spelled backwards) and ADA. The feds should get the heck out of the way on this one for sure!
Re: News from the ADAAG, we don't need no stinking ADAAG desk
Even more important than the accessibility issues is this little gem:
Even more important than the accessibility issues is this little gem:
Apparently, this courthouse did not even satisfy the purpose for which it was built -- to hold trials in accordance with the constitution:Anderson Independent-Mail said:
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution said:
Section 14 of the South Carolina Constitution said:
Re: News from the ADAAG, we don't need no stinking ADAAG desk
I mean if an elevated platform is necessary to the business, and the Owner can just not hire persons with mobility impairments.
It's simple supply and demand.
And we all know the free market is the font of our liberty.
Glen Beck said so.
Yeah, what business do are elected representatives have deciding on minimum Civil Rights requirements when there's the ICC?jpranch said:
I mean if an elevated platform is necessary to the business, and the Owner can just not hire persons with mobility impairments.
It's simple supply and demand.
And we all know the free market is the font of our liberty.
Glen Beck said so.
JBI
REGISTERED
Re: News from the ADAAG, we don't need no stinking ADAAG desk
And people wonder why I don't listen to Glen Beck...
And people wonder why I don't listen to Glen Beck...
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: News from the ADAAG, we don't need no stinking ADAAG desk
But seriously folks. . .
Getting back to jp's question. The adoption is likely to be near the end of 2010 or possibly the beginning of 2011. The senate has finally approved (late October) the head deputy appointment at the DoJ who is in charge of civil rights affairs. His team has been in place awaiting his arrival.
The first step is to review comments made since the last notice was issued on rule-making. They will likely make a few changes - especially since the new A117.1 will be out and it would be silly to suggest rules that are already outdated (but, then again, we ARE talking about the federal government). Then they need to make a public notice of rule-making changes; solicit comments; address those comments in a new rule-making notice; get more comments; compile the document; send it to OBM for financial impact assessment; address the OBM review comments; send it back out for final public comment input; tweak; and send back to the OBM. If after this last review there are no additional costs not included in the initial review, the rules go into effect either when published in the National Register or when indicated in the rules themselves.
Given all this back and forth, it is likely that it will be the end of the year 2010 or early the next year before it will have any effect on us. Clinton didn't think it needed to be revised yet and GW took it off his radar on 9-11, not bringing it back until it became twilight rule-making which was stopped by the incoming administration (performed by every incoming president since John Adams so it's not a political gender issue).
So, there you have it. More than you ever wanted to know, I'm sure. :ugeek:
But seriously folks. . .
Getting back to jp's question. The adoption is likely to be near the end of 2010 or possibly the beginning of 2011. The senate has finally approved (late October) the head deputy appointment at the DoJ who is in charge of civil rights affairs. His team has been in place awaiting his arrival.
The first step is to review comments made since the last notice was issued on rule-making. They will likely make a few changes - especially since the new A117.1 will be out and it would be silly to suggest rules that are already outdated (but, then again, we ARE talking about the federal government). Then they need to make a public notice of rule-making changes; solicit comments; address those comments in a new rule-making notice; get more comments; compile the document; send it to OBM for financial impact assessment; address the OBM review comments; send it back out for final public comment input; tweak; and send back to the OBM. If after this last review there are no additional costs not included in the initial review, the rules go into effect either when published in the National Register or when indicated in the rules themselves.
Given all this back and forth, it is likely that it will be the end of the year 2010 or early the next year before it will have any effect on us. Clinton didn't think it needed to be revised yet and GW took it off his radar on 9-11, not bringing it back until it became twilight rule-making which was stopped by the incoming administration (performed by every incoming president since John Adams so it's not a political gender issue).
So, there you have it. More than you ever wanted to know, I'm sure. :ugeek:
jpranch
REGISTERED
Re: News from the ADAAG, we don't need no stinking ADAAG desk
I was only referring to the Title-III protion ant the extreamly long time the DOJ has taken to do an up-date.
I was only referring to the Title-III protion ant the extreamly long time the DOJ has taken to do an up-date.
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: News from the ADAAG, we don't need no stinking ADAAG desk
That's what I was talking about - Title III and its accompanying ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)
Title II needs updating as well. Currently the local AHJ has the option of using the ADAAG or the UFAS (a REEEEEEALLY old document from the 1960's and patched together for the last few decades. Title I is fairly static and Title IV and V have had changes.
The new thing is called by a number of names (and I'm sure you can think of a few they don't officially recognize) but may end up being called the ADA-ABA because, in addition to the ADA portion of design, they are adding the Architectural Barriers Act as well. Imagine that! - making their own federal buildings subject to the same requirements that they make all commercial buildings subject.
That's what I was talking about - Title III and its accompanying ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)
Title II needs updating as well. Currently the local AHJ has the option of using the ADAAG or the UFAS (a REEEEEEALLY old document from the 1960's and patched together for the last few decades. Title I is fairly static and Title IV and V have had changes.
The new thing is called by a number of names (and I'm sure you can think of a few they don't officially recognize) but may end up being called the ADA-ABA because, in addition to the ADA portion of design, they are adding the Architectural Barriers Act as well. Imagine that! - making their own federal buildings subject to the same requirements that they make all commercial buildings subject.