• 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.

Pair sues for more disabled access

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,883
Location
So. CA
Pair sues for more disabled access

City contends that places like Balboa Island's Marine Avenue actually exceed ADA requirements.

BALBOA ISLAND — The Balboa Island Ferry and the shops along Marine Avenue are some of the most charming places in Southern California.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-1112-pike-20101111,0,1037918.story&ct=ga&cad=CAcQAhgAIAAoATABOAFAo_7y5gRIAVCSAVgAYgJlbg&cd=G3A-HsgFSKI&usg=AFQjCNHH36N6NGfv68IRLS27amVdMypqvg

That's unless you are disabled, Arnie Pike contends.

Pike, a wheelchair-bound man, and another disabled woman are suing the city to make Balboa Island more accessible. They claim there aren't enough disabled parking spaces along the main shopping street, that the sidewalks are too crowded with benches and signs, and that the Balboa Island Ferry is inaccessible.

After two years of negotiations and court proceedings, the parties are going to trial.

"I want it to be improved for everybody who is disabled," Pike said, "so we can all use the facilities like normal people."

Pike, 72, began using a wheelchair after he suffered a stroke in the 1990s. His co-plaintiff, Christie Rudder, 48, was in a car accident that left her a partial quadriplegic. She also uses a wheelchair.

Rudder has visited family on Little Balboa Island for years, her attorney says, and around 2005 she was unable to park in her normal spaces because the city removed three disabled spots along Marine Avenue.

There is still one disabled space just off Marine, next to the Balboa Island Fire Station. But Pike said that he is unable to extend his wheelchair ramp from his van because the curb there is too high. Because of this and other barriers, the pair claim, the city is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws.

The city contends that the areas in question, including the Marine Avenue area, are accessible. The sidewalks "exceed the requirements of the ADA regulations," the city claims in court records.

It voluntarily installed the disabled space on Park Avenue, the city states, as the ADA rules do not require public agencies to provide this type of disabled parking.

"The city goes out and tries to help the handicapped and a guy like this challenges it," said Councilman Ed Selich, who represents the area. "It seems this guy is punishing the city for going the extra mile."

Pike complained at City Council meetings in 2006 and 2007, but he said that nothing was done. When he called to complain to the city manager at that time, Homer Bludeau, Pike said another representative from the city threatened to remove the only space. Eventually, he decided to take the city to federal court.

Pike and Rudder are suing under California law and the ADA, which requires local governments to provide curb cuts — the indentations created to allow wheelchairs to move from the street onto sidewalks — and to make areas such as the shopping district on Balboa Island generally accessible for disabled individuals.

Because parking is so limited near Marine, Pike says he has to park on side streets or to take the ferry from the Balboa Peninsula.

"That's just the island. Everything is small down here," said Rhonda Binder, 48, who was helping her son, a Boy Scout, sell popcorn on the Marine Avenue sidewalk on Thursday. "There are just certain parameters they should deal with."

But when Pike tries to park on Balboa Peninsula instead and take the ferry, he says it presents a set of other issues.

First, he can't roll from the dock onto the barge because they are at different levels, he says.

The ferry is mentioned in the lawsuit because the city licenses it to transport cars, but the city says it's not responsible for its accessibility.

Besides, the city says that ferry operators use a mat to bridge the gap, and that its process provides enough access. The ADA, the city says, doesn't require physical or structural alterations when other methods are sufficient.

Pike claimed that he plans to sue the ferry separately. He has asked the operators to place a steel plate on a hinge, and it could swing from the ferry down to the dock.

"I'm not asking them to alter the looks of the ferry, only to make it accessible to people with wheelchairs," he said. "It would be cheaper than a lawsuit, but they refuse to do it."

Blair Smith, an operator on the ferry, pointed to a yellow board that they use to bridge the gap on Thursday. He mentioned that they help disabled people on and off.

"It's really easy," he said.

That's not good enough for Pike.

"Yes, they are helpful, but that is not the point," he said.

If Pike gets off the ferry, he says the route he wants to take from the ferry to Marine would be down Park Avenue, and the curbs are not designed for wheelchair access, he says.

A visit this week showed that the named streets have curb cuts, while the alleys appear to have a lip separating the sidewalk and the road.

Pike and Rudder are seeking that the city make alterations to comply with ADA rules, for damages including emotional pain and suffering, and for legal fees.

This isn't Pike's first ADA lawsuit. He has sued local governments and agencies, including the Orange County Transportation Authority, to get more disabled access to facilities. He sued a farmer in Placentia in 2007 because his wheelchair sunk into gravel and he was unable to access a fruit stand.

Pike has also sued the "Dancing with the Stars" television show because the CBS studio where it is filmed did not have disabled-accessible seating.

In each case he says that money has not been the focus, but that he wants changes to be made first. He does seek damages, he says, to heighten the threat.

"That's the only way to get the attention of anybody," he says.

Pike has settled with cities in the past, but was unwilling to disclose the terms
 
Does this sort of thing actually happen outside of california?

I'm just asking cuz generally it is not a story about a person in idaho or nebraska or iowa.
 
RKTECT said:
Does this sort of thing actually happen outside of california?
I don't know about outside of California, but inside California it's gotten pretty bad. I went to my structural engineer's office the other day, there were two large vacant disabled parking spaces right at the front door, and a few more in the lot. Every space was filled with the exception of the disabled spaces, I sat in the lot along with three other cars for about 15 minutes waiting for a space; meanwhile while we were waiting, not one disabled driver came into the lot and the disabled spaces remained vacant. This has really gotten out of hand, We don't dare take them because the cops look to give tickets because the fines are so large that they are very profitable for the cities.
 
It happens more in California because State law provides for damages and there is a large population.

Many other states don't believe in free markets.
 
Yes, there was a case in Tennessee where the man sued the city and won because they did not plow the roads or shovel the bridges in winter so that he could take his motorized scooter over the road. If there were no sidewalks this would make some sense. But there are sidewalks and those were being cleared. He wanted to ride his scooter on the road and the courts agreed.

(PS Hi folks! I'm in bt I'll be out again)
 
Mark said:
No, It's called protected classJust wait till your in a wheelchair...
No it isn't, there is no such terminology at law, it's called "Suspect Class", the term "protected class" is a term of the politically correct, not a term of law.

The problem is that suspect classes have in many instances become privileged classes, when I complained to the structural engineer the other day about the lack of parking in his parking lot, he told me that the problem is all the Handicap spaces, he's never seen a person in a wheelchair in the building and the Handicap spaces sit vacant all day while the parking lot can't handle the normal business load. The entire disabled parking situation has become a farce, most of the people having the privilege convince doctors to certify them when they aren't really disabled.

If I do end up in a wheelchair I will not request special consideration, I see many so-called disabled people who are in reality obese because or their own lack of caloric intake control, they should get no more legal preferences than an alcoholic should get for his lack of alcholic intake control.
 
conarb said:
No it isn't, there is no such terminology at law, .
Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:

Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866

Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964

Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)

Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)

Gender identity (in some jurisdictions and not in others)

Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974

Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

http://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark said:
Once again you don;t know what you are talking aboutProtected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.
I don't know what law school you went to but I was taught that the correct terminology was "suspect class". Cite Federal Law that uses other terminology, if it does then that might be good grounds for challenge.
 
brudgers said:
It happens more in California because State law provides for damages and there is a large population.Many other states don't believe in free markets.
brudgers,

As someone who lost 76% of my heart muscle and has a hard time walking distances, I value many aspects of the ADA act of 1990's put in to place. However, as an American citizen I find it totally wrong what is going on with personal law suits as noted.

My freedom of choice as an American allows to me to visit were ever I would like to go, if someplace is not accessible I don't believe I have the right to sue for damages, nor sue the entity, rather just report the violation to the federal government, if they don't respond, then sue the federal governing body, being the justice department to move to getting something done.

There should be no personal monitory gain, only costs for lawyers at a fixed rate if any.

You talk about free market, yet the mere fact that no one can refuse access to anyone does not make it a free market, I am not free to make a choice of who one wants to provide services and access in to a business. It is simply a government market.

In my home town which is a old mining and farming town here in NJ, the main street of shops and stores were built mainly between 1835 and 1935, I don't believe there is a building on the main strip less than 70 years of age. Of which 80% of them are at least 4' above grade and only 4-5 feet set back from the sidewalks at best.

The amount of reconstruction required to these historical buildings to meet 100% is just wrong in my opinion, though been done.

There was a small fishing shop there for years, the cost to make it compliant for access was more than 2 times what this man made in a year, do you think it was fare this man lost his lively hood and building which was in the family for over 100 years because of ADA, I am curious what protects those just trying to make a meager living.

Good intentions, the laws suits are just a reality of personal gain for money period, if there was no financial gain for them, how many of them would file suit, i doubt many.
 
tbz said:
brudgers,As someone who lost 76% of my heart muscle and has a hard time walking distances, I value many aspects of the ADA act of 1990's put in to place. However, as an American citizen I find it totally wrong what is going on with personal law suits as noted.

My freedom of choice as an American allows to me to visit were ever I would like to go, if someplace is not accessible I don't believe I have the right to sue for damages, nor sue the entity, rather just report the violation to the federal government, if they don't respond, then sue the federal governing body, being the justice department to move to getting something done.

There should be no personal monitory gain, only costs for lawyers at a fixed rate if any.

You talk about free market, yet the mere fact that no one can refuse access to anyone does not make it a free market, I am not free to make a choice of who one wants to provide services and access in to a business. It is simply a government market.

In my home town which is a old mining and farming town here in NJ, the main street of shops and stores were built mainly between 1835 and 1935, I don't believe there is a building on the main strip less than 70 years of age. Of which 80% of them are at least 4' above grade and only 4-5 feet set back from the sidewalks at best.

The amount of reconstruction required to these historical buildings to meet 100% is just wrong in my opinion, though been done.

There was a small fishing shop there for years, the cost to make it compliant for access was more than 2 times what this man made in a year, do you think it was fare this man lost his lively hood and building which was in the family for over 100 years because of ADA, I am curious what protects those just trying to make a meager living.

Good intentions, the laws suits are just a reality of personal gain for money period, if there was no financial gain for them, how many of them would file suit, i doubt many.
You are free not to sue. However, businesses profit from non-compliance with accessibility laws. Where there is no punishment for non-compliance only the wealthy can afford to file suit when their rights are violated.

If a business can't afford to comply, then they cannot afford to be in business. It's no different from a business that cannot afford to buy stock for its shelves and therefore steals it.
 
You are free not to sue. However, businesses profit from non-compliance with accessibility laws. Where there is no punishment for non-compliance only the wealthy can afford to file suit when their rights are violated.If a business can't afford to comply, then they cannot afford to be in business. It's no different from a business that cannot afford to buy stock for its shelves and therefore steals it.
One can afford to be in business making fly's for fishing men and selling rods and reels in a building that is paid off and only owing annual taxes. When you are required to do over $60,000.00 in construction to make your small shop accessible from the street, which also requires you to pay for the street improvements all because the government says so, sorry I don't agree with you that they don't have a right to be in business that has existed for over 70 years.

Sorry, but this person lived within their means and was forced out of business by the goverment, there are such things as small business out there though you might not believe in it.

The ADA lawsuits do not hurt big business, they hurt very small family business just making it, though I guess this means nothing anymore.

Love it when no one looks out for for all the little guys, not just a few.
 
tbz said:
One can afford to be in business making fly's for fishing men and selling rods and reels in a building that is paid off and only owing annual taxes. When you are required to do over $60,000.00 in construction to make your small shop accessible from the street, which also requires you to pay for the street improvements all because the government says so, sorry I don't agree with you that they don't have a right to be in business that has existed for over 70 years.Sorry, but this person lived within their means and was forced out of business by the goverment, there are such things as small business out there though you might not believe in it.

The ADA lawsuits do not hurt big business, they hurt very small family business just making it, though I guess this means nothing anymore.

Love it when no one looks out for for all the little guys, not just a few.
You can't hire children at 25 cents an hour to manufacture your goods either.

You can't dump benzene in the stream behind your shop....Well, ok, if it's Jersey you can, but most places you can't.

But in any case, a $60,000 fifteen year loan backed by an unmortgaged buiding will run a few hundred dollars a month. It's just a cost of doing business.
 
brudgers said:
You can't hire children at 25 cents an hour to manufacture your goods either.You can't dump benzene in the stream behind your shop....Well, ok, if it's Jersey you can, but most places you can't.

But in any case, a $60,000 fifteen year loan backed by an unmortgaged buiding will run a few hundred dollars a month. It's just a cost of doing business.
It's seems obvious that you are unaware of how hard it is for small family businesses that have existed for generations to even get loans for projects like this when their annual net is less than 10% of the cost.

Next because the building is not ADA compliant, the banks don't loan on it because of no resale value and the high costs to bring in to compliance.

Now Let's look at the fact that the local historical society put a lock on the town because it is so old that it takes 2 years to even get your designs approved, yet a building permit. And because of the historical society the banks again want no part of it without large points and interest rates.

Let's just look at reality here, Joe Smuck files suit on Pete's shoe repair for only one reason, money in the pocket, otherwise they would be using that money to improve access in other areas. This is the reality of it, if there was no money in it other than paying the lawyers cost to get it done, the law suits would not be done, so they simply are kicking the small buisness in the face for pocket money, not access as some would beleive otherwise they would not settle.
 
Back
Top