Pool Closed Until Further Notice

[mark handler]

You still do not understand, ADA is a Civil Rights law; Civil Rightsis not a "% of the population" thing, It is a Discrimination thing.

In this case, you are saying the disabled cannot use facilities that others can.

It is not just chair users that use the lifts, anyone with mobility impairments that could cause a person "stair difficulties".

 

[mark handler]

Most federal laws are suppose to have a cost/bennifit analysis be done before they are voted on. Wonder what this one is? Or because it is a "civil right" the cost are not considered.

You like many complain about the cost, have never read the ADA or the ADAAG. If you did you would know that a business that serves the public must remove physical “barriers” that are “readily achievable,” which means easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense. The “readily achievable” requirement is based on the size and resources of the business. When a business has resources to remove barriers, it is expected to do so; If/when it does not the DOJ will step in or someone will file a lawsuit.

To assist businesses with complying with the ADA, Section 44 of the IRS Code allows a tax credit for small businesses and Section 190 of the IRS Code allows a tax deduction for all businesses.

There are also tax credits available to businesses that have total revenues of $1,000,000 or less in the previous tax year or 30 or fewer full-time employees. This credit can cover 50% of the eligible access expenditures in a year up to $10,250 (maximum credit of $5000). The tax credit can be used to offset the cost of undertaking barrier removal and alterations to improve accessibility; providing accessible formats such as Braille, large print and audio tape; making available a sign language interpreter or a reader for customers or employees, and for purchasing certain adaptive equipment.

The tax deduction is available to all businesses with a maximum deduction of $15,000 per year. The tax deduction can be claimed for expenses incurred in barrier removal and alterations

IRS Form 8826 for the tax credit for small businesses

ftp://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8826.pdf

 

[mtlogcabin]

When a business has resources to remove barriers, it is expected to do so;

The assumption is ALL businesses have the resources to remove barriers when most do not. A business can not claim a tax break unless they have the money to spend in the first place.

As for the pool lift requirements our city has had a portable lift since the new pool went in about 12 years ago. Now that is not good enough we have to install a permanent lift. That is the part that is excessive.

You still do not understand, ADA is a Civil Rights law

I understand it is a law granting certain rights upon certain individuals at the expense of others enacted by the federal goverment and could just as easily be taken away along with any law granting certain rights or privilages.

 

[brudgers]

As for the pool lift requirements our city has had a portable lift since the new pool went in about 12 years ago. Now that is not good enough we have to install a permanent lift.

Different ADA title for cities than businesses. In the utterly improbable circumstance that your jurisdiction does not do so already...

Use your sovereign taxing authority or impose user fees for the pool.

Or cut salaries in the Building Department.

 

[Msradell]

I understand it is a law granting certain rights upon certain individuals at the expense of others enacted by the federal goverment and could just as easily be taken away along with any law granting certain rights or privilages.

That's certainly one way of looking at it but here's another one: it is a law that allows all citizens to use facilities that they helped pay for (in the case of public facilities) or were they want to spend their money (in the case of businesses).

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I understand it is a law granting certain rights upon certain individuals at the expense of others enacted by the federal goverment and could just as easily be taken away along with any law granting certain rights or privilages.

I understand that you are unconsenting... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;"

 

[globe trekker]

From Matthew 25:40 - “The King will reply, ..‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one

of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

From Matthew 25:45 - “He will reply, ..‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for

one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

 

[brudgers]

From Matthew 25:40 - “The King will reply, ..‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." From Matthew 25:45 - “He will reply, ..‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

Are you suggesting that portable pool lifts are unBiblical?

 

[steveray]

Different ADA title for cities than businesses. In the utterly improbable circumstance that your jurisdiction does not do so already...

Use your sovereign taxing authority or impose user fees for the pool.

Or cut salaries in the Building Department.

Our building department gives at least 50% of what we take in to the Town already (we double our budget at least) to subsidize whatever they want...They cut salaries and we just won't issue permits any more!

 

[mark handler]

The assumption is ALL businesses have the resources to remove barriers when most do not. A business can not claim a tax break unless they have the money to spend in the first place.As for the pool lift requirements our city has had a portable lift since the new pool went in about 12 years ago. Now that is not good enough we have to install a permanent lift. That is the part that is excessive.

I understand it is a law granting certain rights upon certain individuals at the expense of others enacted by the federal goverment and could just as easily be taken away along with any law granting certain rights or privilages.

A Business that serves the public must remove physical “barriers” that are “readily achievable,” which means easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense. If the buisness does not have the resources to remove barriers.

The buisness needs to have a written transition plan on when it will.

Just like a restarant that needs to put in a hood, that they claim they can't afford, It is the Code and the Law.

The law does not "granting certain rights" to "those" people, it grants equal access to all

 

[conarb]

As Globe Trecker states, this is religion, religion has no place in our laws, and codes become laws. Any inspector who even suggests that ADA be complied with when it isn't in the adopted code should be sued for damages incurred.

 

[mtlogcabin]

A Business that serves the public must remove physical “barriers” that are “readily achievable,” which means easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense. If the buisness does not have the resources to remove barriers. The buisness needs to have a written transition plan on when it will.

That is how it is suppose to work and I agree with that. I disagree with all buildings should be compliant because it has been 20 years. Some businesses move into and out of buildings with no change of use no major modifications so few things get addressed.

The new business owners move in, could have been Oct 2011 that is when their transition plan would start and they should not be held liable for the non compliant portions that previous business or property owners neglected.

 

[globe trekker]

For clarification (to some), I did not state that this was religion, or

that the "pool lifts" are un-Biblical.

I DID however, provide food for thought. If you are convicted by your

conscience, that is a good thing, because it means that you actually

have one.

Why don't we just revert back to denying access to a lot of things

& groups? The disabled, ..wounded veterans, ..certain minorities,

..certain religious groups, ..anyone who is not 100% healthy and

still got all of their limbs & digits. Might as well include the

(tobacco) smokers & alcohol consumers too, ..young kids (that

would be from birth to say, about 16 or 17 yrs. in age), ..the elderly

of course, and on and on and on. No need to try and comply with

any of the laws. Why don't we just allow the individual business

owners (nationwide) to decide who should have Access to their

facilities & to what extent that Access should be. Because, some

business owners are similar to home builders, ..they will not

provide anything, not even at a minimum. This is not all

business owners, nor all builders.

I contend that this is; like most things, a money issue rather

than a religious issue, however, there are Biblical principles at

work, ..or should be.

Let the stoning begin, or rather, ..continue!

 

[brudgers]

That is how it is suppose to work and I agree with that. I disagree with all buildings should be compliant because it has been 20 years. Some businesses move into and out of buildings with no change of use no major modifications so few things get addressed. The new business owners move in, could have been Oct 2011 that is when their transition plan would start and they should not be held liable for the non compliant portions that previous business or property owners neglected.

I agree they shouldn't be liable. Right up until the moment they open their doors for business.

It's a free market.

They could have chosen a compliant location.

If they cannot afford one.

They should move to the USSR.

 

[brudgers]

there are Biblical principles at work

and Con***ian principles (e.g. venerating the elderly), and Buddhist principles (e.g. alleviating suffering) and good old fashioned humanist principles (e.g. universal rights) - there are even Communist principles at work (e.g. a disabled worker's paradise). Why, I'd bet that your local mullah could probably explain the ways in which the ADA is consistent with the Koran.

One doesn't need to be touched by a noodlie appendage to act ethically.

[edit] When did "Con***ian" become a bad word, Jeff?

 

[gbhammer]

Any inspector who even suggests that ADA be complied with when it isn't in the adopted code should be sued for damages incurred.

What a completely inane comment.

When a plan for a restaurant comes across my desk and they have no hand sinks in the kitchen I make a note that this may be an issue with the health department. Why when I do not enforce health codes, because they will fail to pass the health department review and will need to make revisions to the plans.

Not my problem yet it is the right way to conduct oneself.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I contend that this is; like most things, a money issue rather than a religious issue,

however, there are Biblical principles at work, ...or should be.

Let the stoning begin, or rather, ..continue!

whether economics or religion is the excuse given for agreeing or disagreeing with the implementation and enforcement of the ADA & ADASAD, it is a matter of ethics that underlines the debate. The same excuses are given for common non-accessibility code compliance issues with churches and small businesses.

 

[mark handler]

mtlogcabin

Regarding access to your City owned Pool:

2010 ADA Safe harbor. If a public entity has constructed or altered required elements of a path of travel in accordance with the specifications in either the 1991 Standards or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards before March 15, 2012, the public entity is not required to retrofit such elements to reflect incremental changes in the 2010 Standards solely because of an alteration to a primary function area served by that path of travel.

Instead of knee jerk reactions READ THE 2010 Scoping documents.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

As Globe Trecker states, this is religion, religion has no place in our laws, and codes become laws. Any inspector who even suggests that ADA be complied with when it isn't in the adopted code should be sued for damages incurred.

I would have assumed that would have been done already in California...I wonder what is taking those lawyers so long to get after these inspectors.

There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch.

 

[gbhammer]

I agree the old fashion ways are the best a gal should never have to pay for herself on a date.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I agree they shouldn't be liable.Right up until the moment they open their doors for business.

It's a free market.

They could have chosen a compliant location.

If they cannot afford one.

They should move to the USSR.

That is the attitude that pretty much sums up my frustrations about the ADA and intolerence of some who so vehemently champion enforcement.

 

[ICE]

It’s not too late to stop the madness. The goal of 100% of the built environment being accessible to <1% of the population is laudable lunacy that will never be achieved. The sums spent in the effort are staggering with questionable results. The bastardizing of designs and the carbon footprint of construction devoted to accessibility is not acknowledged.

Yes I concede that it must suck to be stuck in a wheelchair. Life will do that to some and the rest of society isn’t wrong in wanting to help the disadvantaged. But there are limits and screwing up the entire place for the sake of the <1% is overboard. Requiring a chair lift for pools to accommodate <.01% of the population is the tail wagging the dog.

There is another way. The billions that are spent on accessible construction could be spent on improving wheelchair technology. What would two million enhanced wheelchairs cost? I’m talking about a chair that climbs stairs, lifts and lowers, slices and dices with ease. $10,000.00 a pop is a few billion. Not a lot of money to make the entire planet accessible and not just new construction and those locations that get sued.

As it stands, if you build, you will accommodate wheelchairs. If you are in business, you will accommodate wheelchairs. Wouldn’t it be smarter to provide wheelchairs that overcome the obstacle rather than remove the obstacle?

I am sure that builders and business owners would relish relinquishing a tenth of what they do now and do away with the hassle. Most can’t figure out what they need to do without architects, CASP and lawsuits.

The fact that the government is behind it all, means that it will continue to expand. The first objective of a bureaucracy is to further itself and once they run out of accessibility ideas for humans you can bet that they will start in on our pets.

Other minorities have watched the success of the disabled lobby and now we have same-sex marriages poking in the back door. I am surprised that we aren’t paying for the honeymoon.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

It’s not too late to stop the madness. The goal of 100% of the built environment being accessible to <1% of the population is laudable lunacy that will never be achieved.

I beg of you to support your claim that the goal of accessibility regulation is in fact to make 100% of the built environment accessible. To make such a claim without any substantiation is equally madening, and if not an outright joke, then certainly on provided by a lunatic.

If you want to your arguement to be taken seriously, then you might consider, at the very least, to make a factual and serious claim at the beginning.

 

[ICE]

I beg of you to support your claim that the goal of accessibility regulation is in fact to make 100% of the built environment accessible. To make such a claim without any substantiation is equally maddening, and if not an outright joke, then certainly one provided by a lunatic. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, then you might consider, at the very least, to make a factual and serious claim at the beginning.

I take that you don't agree with me. Shirley there must be a goal. If not, then it's just a random jab at the populace to remind us who is in charge. So since you dispute my assessment, what pray tell, is your version of the goal?

If we take this on a sentence at a time it will drag on too long so perhaps you could point out the insanity of the major premise.