Reducing the number of disability compliance lawsuits in our community: reader opinio

[mark handler]

,,,,, defense costs can be the last straw.

Tax credits and rebates are avalible, And it is cheaper to prevent the lawsuit prior to the lawsuit than defend, after the suit is filed

It was almost 25 years ago that it became law, how much time is too much

 

[Frank]

Tax credits and rebates are avalible, And it is cheaper to prevent the lawsuit prior to the lawsuit than defend, after the suit is filedIt was almost 25 years ago that it became law, how much time is too much

It is not a question of time it is a question of feasability--many of these corrections are not achievable without major changes to the building or the site if not full tear down and redevelopment.

I see it regularly in change of use meetings where the project simply does not go there, because the existing building is not accessible and it is not readily achievable to make it so due to space grade and elevation issues--therefore the building sits vacant and deteriorating. Removing barriers can be alot more difficult and expensive than taking down a "No Colourds Allowed" sign.

A small business that does not have the $100,000 plus at the margin to correct all the accessibility issues likely does not have the $50,000 to defend the lawsuit.

 

[mark handler]

It is not a question of time it is a question of feasability--many of these corrections are not achievable without major changes to the building or the site if not full tear down and redevelopment.I see it regularly in change of use meetings where the project simply does not go there, because the existing building is not accessible and it is not readily achievable to make it so due to space grade and elevation issues--therefore the building sits vacant and deteriorating. Removing barriers can be alot more difficult and expensive than taking down a "No Colourds Allowed" sign.

I have NEVER seen a lawsuit filed where access is not readily achievable.

It is always a case where they think the law does not apply to them, or were given bad advice, usually by contractors, saying they are exempt or "grandfathered"

 

[MASSDRIVER]

The point is not the lawsuits.

It is the cost and feasibility.

The weakness was making a law creating a class of people to be discriminated against. It's far different putting a sign up preventing a certain person from services, and blaming a building for doing the same.

If the codes were building codes, it would not be an issue, in the sense of discrimination.

I really have very little problem with the Ada codes in new construction. You can just factor in the cost and either do it, or don't. Remodels should be handled otherwise.

Brent.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Tax credits and rebates are available

A business has to have the financial ability to make the improvement prior to receiving a tax credit or rebate.

Businesses come and go in as little as 90 days or a couple of years. The financial burden should rest with the property owner period for parking lots, accessible route into the building and restroom configuration all others possible violations that are outside the property owners control should rest with the business owner.

 

[Frank]

I have NEVER seen a lawsuit filed where access is not readily achievable.It is always a case where they think the law does not apply to them, or were given bad advice, usually by contractors, saying they are exempt or "grandfathered"

That is because at the demand letter received stage, before the lawsuit is filed, they evaluate the cost of correction, and the cost of defense and when neither is feasable they close up shop.

A small business person clearing under $100,000 per year facing a $30-100,000 expense may well decide it is not worth the hassle any more and liquidate.

 

[ADAguy]

Please be clear, ADA is a "law", not a code. Codes impliment the minimum requirements of the law.

There in lies the ongoing issue, not that the removal of barriers cannot be done, it continues to be and ongoing failure to "inform" businesses of their "ongoing" legal responsibility.

In hindsight the need to "continuosly "inform" should have been foreseen, and enforced by the AG.

 

[mark handler]

Any excuse...Wow, not one due to threat of ADA Lawsuits

It's always somone elses fault.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2013/09/12/five-reasons-8-out-of-10-businesses-fail/

Five Reasons 8 Out Of 10 Businesses Fail

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Any excuse...Wow, not one due to threat of ADA LawsuitsIt's always somone elses fault.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2013/09/12/five-reasons-8-out-of-10-businesses-fail/

Five Reasons 8 Out Of 10 Businesses Fail

So, having read the article,I thought I would put some thought into it.

First, it references a select group, businesses younger than 18 months. The premise is that 80% of those fail. Many of those businesses may not have anything to do with a storefront or building that would have any ADA contact. Even so, some of those may be in retail in new, compliant buildings. Some may be like me with no building except my home.

In 18 months you would have to be discovered by some attorney or handicapper and have a suit brought against you. So pretty much, this particular article does not even reference those businesses that may be inpacted, or impacted yet, by an ADA suit.

But since we apparently like the "%" a lot, lets use it.

40% of small businesses are profitable.

30% break even.

30% are continually losing money.

9% have a chance of surviving 10 years

So these are the ones we are actually probably referring to.

Here is an info-graphic:

http://smallbiztrends.com/2013/03/infographic-failed-small-businesses.html

Notice that businesses with fewer than 20 employees stand only a 9% chance of staying alive 10 years. Only 37% make it 4 years. Retail dies 80% of the time, restaurants 60%. It says we have lost over 7,100 restaurants during the recession, and that was a year ago. I'm speculating these are the most likely outfits to be targeted by an ADA suit. And if not a suit, if in an older TI, may have to make upgrades.

So essentially, this information above and in the Forbes article points to those businesses not at risk for some sort of ADA attack or expense. Unless they had to pour out money from the get-go tho make a facility compliant. Any monies put tothat maybe coild have been sourced to keep the outfit viable, such as hiring a consultant. That's just missing information that the above does not address.

So more to the point, (and I do not believe this goes unnoticed by the ADA vultures, of all stripes) You can't get blood out of a turnip. The only place for a bloodsucker to get blood is from a juicy artery. Those arteries are the businesses that are viable and successful, those that can withstand an attack and live through the process.

Those making a profit.

Of course, this means that any reference to an ADA suit putting people out of business will be skewed drastically down. There are those that have to fold up as they were marginal to begin with, and those that can and will pay, because they can. They have to to stay operational.

Now with all this information showing that basically you don't stand much of a chance of being successful, and knowing how difficult and uncommon it is to do so, why would anyone be a proponent of making it yet MORE difficult? Not just the ADA crap, but all the other hostile business actions, especially in California.

Is the goal to see just what it takes to break somebody, or just leave?

You would have to have your head in the toilet to not understand why, after 20+ years there is still a lack of compliance. It's just another crap sandwich someone has to eat and it gets de-prioritized until it becomes near-fatal, along with 20 other things.

If you think regulations and crap laws won't drive a business away, then I recommend referencing Magpul and Beretta's move out of their respective states after the loss of second amendment rights.

But I digress; The Forbes article illustrates FOR the argument that ADA costs are detrimental to business, not AGAINST it.

Brent.

 

[ADAguy]

So, having read the article,I thought I would put some thought into it.First, it references a select group, businesses younger than 18 months. The premise is that 80% of those fail. Many of those businesses may not have anything to do with a storefront or building that would have any ADA contact. Even so, some of those may be in retail in new, compliant buildings. Some may be like me with no building except my home.

In 18 months you would have to be discovered by some attorney or handicapper and have a suit brought against you. So pretty much, this particular article does not even reference those businesses that may be inpacted, or impacted yet, by an ADA suit.

But since we apparently like the "%" a lot, lets use it.

40% of small businesses are profitable.

30% break even.

30% are continually losing money.

9% have a chance of surviving 10 years

So these are the ones we are actually probably referring to.

Here is an info-graphic:

http://smallbiztrends.com/2013/03/infographic-failed-small-businesses.html

Notice that businesses with fewer than 20 employees stand only a 9% chance of staying alive 10 years. Only 37% make it 4 years. Retail dies 80% of the time, restaurants 60%. It says we have lost over 7,100 restaurants during the recession, and that was a year ago. I'm speculating these are the most likely outfits to be targeted by an ADA suit. And if not a suit, if in an older TI, may have to make upgrades.

So essentially, this information above and in the Forbes article points to those businesses not at risk for some sort of ADA attack or expense. Unless they had to pour out money from the get-go tho make a facility compliant. Any monies put tothat maybe coild have been sourced to keep the outfit viable, such as hiring a consultant. That's just missing information that the above does not address.

So more to the point, (and I do not believe this goes unnoticed by the ADA vultures, of all stripes) You can't get blood out of a turnip. The only place for a bloodsucker to get blood is from a juicy artery. Those arteries are the businesses that are viable and successful, those that can withstand an attack and live through the process.

Those making a profit.

Of course, this means that any reference to an ADA suit putting people out of business will be skewed drastically down. There are those that have to fold up as they were marginal to begin with, and those that can and will pay, because they can. They have to to stay operational.

Now with all this information showing that basically you don't stand much of a chance of being successful, and knowing how difficult and uncommon it is to do so, why would anyone be a proponent of making it yet MORE difficult? Not just the ADA crap, but all the other hostile business actions, especially in California.

Is the goal to see just what it takes to break somebody, or just leave?

You would have to have your head in the toilet to not understand why, after 20+ years there is still a lack of compliance. It's just another crap sandwich someone has to eat and it gets de-prioritized until it becomes near-fatal, along with 20 other things.

If you think regulations and crap laws won't drive a business away, then I recommend referencing Magpul and Beretta's move out of their respective states after the loss of second amendment rights.

But I digress; The Forbes article illustrates FOR the argument that ADA costs are detrimental to business, not AGAINST it.

Brent.

If you "chose" to play a game, you need to know the rules first, don't you? If not, the odds are that one day the "stripes" will cite you and you may lose.

 

[mjesse]

If you "chose" to play a game, you need to know the rules first, don't you? If not, the odds are that one day the "stripes" will cite you and you may lose.

If the "rules" didn't encompass more than 800 different reference materials, each 400-1200 pages thick, an entrepreneur might have more than a fighting chance.

Throw in the fact that many federal, state, and local "rules" are open to interpretation by public service flunkies, and today's small business owner is playing a "game" that few win.

Small business owner/operators built this country, and many of the rulemakers* are bound to destroy them.

*Rulemakers:

Government (Federal, State, and Local) sponsored by...

Special Interest Groups + Lobbyists

Mega Corporations (profits trump rules) "too big to fail" leading to...

Outsourcing (more profitable to play on a field with fewer/no rules)

Sympathizers (Mr. Business Owner is discriminating against ________)

Attorneys (building their own profits from disputes between all of the above)

Etc.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

In the case where lawyers have nothing to loose; how just to punish those by coercion that are not guilty.

 

[Frank]

If you "chose" to play a game, you need to know the rules first, don't you? If not, the odds are that one day the "stripes" will cite you and you may lose.

Way too often businesses large and small don't do their due dilligance and run into regulatory compliance issues that kill or wound the business in the startup stage, I know of legions of examples, some accessibility others fire and building code related, others zoning regulations. Some act on the better ask forgiveness than to ask for permission theory.

A few, house based assisted living 8 person-- adds 4 bedrooms on the back of the house and their contractor does not mention any where on the application or plans that it is assisted living--after completion asked for building inspection for Social Services to go to 16--nope--not sprinklered, zoning does not permit, and Utilities Connection fees for new use not paid. $80k spent on addition that can not be used to increase capacity.

Company buys 300 000 sq ft warehouse and converts to printing plant with thousands of gallons of 1B flammable inks without getting an architect or fire protection engineer to do overall plan and neglects to get several needed building permits when building 60 000 sq ft press room using foam insulated metal panels. Height and area issues, drainage, fire rating issues, sprinkler issues (ESFR with 55 gallon drums of ink), electrical classification issues, egress issues, etc. $30 million invested so far--project on hold months after projected opening date, as the engineering is now being done to try to get it straightened out.

Day care for seniors set up in an unsprinklered warehouse building builds walls without permits and calls to get Social Services Building inspection approval--everything is painted and decorated furniture in place--not permitted in unsprinklered building and accessibility issues (2-8 doors with knobs)--end of project investment down the drain.

Convenience store builds addition on the back without permits, inadequate structural, no footings, improper wiring, no hood for fryers, accessibility issues, and mostly on the neighbors property. It was removed. Unfortunately the business stayed with its vice issues.

And we do provide site visits for proposed changes of use to let small and large businesses know what the potential issues are building, fire, zoning, utilites etc. before they sign the lease, and we do not charge for this service. If there is no work needed it will get you your new CO.

 

[mark handler]

If not ADA, they will blame the EPA, or the taxes, or business licensing or the planning department for not allowing a larger sign.

Businesses always blame everything and everyone, but themselves.

If I can do shoddy work here, or use another jobs funds, I can keep my Flyby-night contracting business going... If I get caught it is the regulators/ inspectors fault I failed.

 

[ADAguy]

You can tell them what they "need to know" but don't want to hear until the cows come home. Its "not their fault". Wa, Wa, Wa!

Follow Hammurabi.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

And the above two posts speak for themselves.

Animosity and foul attitude.

The administrative class at work.

Brent.

 

[conarb]

And the above two posts speak for themselves.Animosity and foul attitude.

The administrative class at work.

Brent.

That's because they are Socialists who believe in "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.", National Socialism in Germany led to Hitler, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the USSR led to Stalin, socialism always leads to tyranny, and we are far down the road to tyranny now.

I've got a solution, tax everybody the same, instead of taxing the producers to support the civil servants and redistribute the money to the non-producers tax everyone the same, this will soon end and we won't be taking money from people according to their abilities and redistributing it to those with little or no abilities.

 

[mark handler]

That's because they are Socialists who believe in "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.", National Socialism in Germany led to Hitler, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the USSR led to Stalin, socialism always leads to tyranny, and we are far down the road to tyranny now.I've got a solution, tax everybody the same, instead of taxing the producers to support the civil servants and redistribute the money to the non-producers tax everyone the same, this will soon end and we won't be taking money from people according to their abilities and redistributing it to those with little or no abilities.

And calling me names and flat taxation helps reduce accessibility lawsuits how?

 

[ADAguy]

MH, Conarb is a contractor and a construction defects expert, "need I say more?" He just builds "to suit" (smiling).

 

[mark handler]

MH, Conarb is a contractor and a construction defects expert, "need I say more?" He just builds "to suit" (smiling).

And calling people names helps reduce accessibility lawsuits how?

 

[conarb]

And calling people names helps reduce accessibility lawsuits how?

Because you are constantly and incessantly promoting this law, a law patently unconstitutional infringing upon our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association. The law piggybacked on civil rights laws intended as redress for prior grievances of blacks who were discriminated against. That legislation was only intended to be temporary, nobody I've seen ever discriminated against handicapped people, people usually went out of their way to help handicapped people until now that the disabled have adopted obnoxious behavior extorting money and special accommodations. Most handicapped people I know what nothing to do with these laws because of the prejudice they've caused, most don't even realize that a whole industry has sprouted up exploiting them and their situation, they read about the unreasonable lawsuits in the newspapers, and they see the problems in the parking lots, but they don't realize that people are exploiting their situation.

One might ask why some civil rights organization doesn't bring a class action suit rendering these laws unconstitutional? The answer is that no one wants to be perceived as going against unfortunate people, so those profiteering off this unfortunate situation are lining their pockets exploiting the truly handicapped. I had hopes that the ACLU would do something but they haven't, a prior generation of the ACLU took a very politically unpopular case against the city of Skokie Illinois in 1977, Skokie had a high Jewish population including several Holocaust survivors, the Nazi party deliberately chose Skokie to stage a parade knowing about the Holocaust survivors, Skokie refused the permit application, the ACLU brought an action against Skokie based upon the legal principle that the Nazi's First Amendment free speech rights trumped any damages that the Jewish population might suffer. That case took guts since a high percentage of ACLU members (read financial supporters) were Jewish and the ACLU did suffer a major drop in both membership and donations, but they did it as a matter of principle. ¹ Too bad this generation of the ACLU doesn't have the guts that those in the 70s had.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

 

[mark handler]

Because you are constantly and incessantly promoting this law, a law patently unconstitutional infringing upon our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association. The law piggybacked on civil rights laws intended as redress for prior grievances of blacks who were discriminated against. That legislation was only intended to be temporary, nobody I've seen ever discriminated against handicapped people, people usually went out of their way to help handicapped people until now that the disabled have adopted obnoxious behavior extorting money and special accommodations. Most handicapped people I know what nothing to do with these laws because of the prejudice they've caused, most don't even realize that a whole industry has sprouted up exploiting them and their situation, they read about the unreasonable lawsuits in the newspapers, and they see the problems in the parking lots, but they don't realize that people are exploiting their situation. One might ask why some civil rights organization doesn't bring a class action suit rendering these laws unconstitutional? The answer is that no one wants to be perceived as going against unfortunate people, so those profiteering off this unfortunate situation are lining their pockets exploiting the truly handicapped. I had hopes that the ACLU would do something but they haven't, a prior generation of the ACLU took a very politically unpopular case against the city of Skokie Illinois in 1977, Skokie had a high Jewish population including several Holocaust survivors, the Nazi party deliberately chose Skokie to stage a parade knowing about the Holocaust survivors, Skokie refused the permit application, the ACLU brought an action against Skokie based upon the legal principle that the Nazi's First Amendment free speech rights trumped any damages that the Jewish population might suffer. That case took guts since a high percentage of ACLU members (read financial supporters) were Jewish and the ACLU did suffer a major drop in both membership and donations, but they did it as a matter of principle. ¹ Too bad this generation of the ACLU doesn't have the guts that those in the 70s had.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

And calling me names and flat taxation helps reduce accessibility lawsuits how?

In your arguments, you seem to agree with the freedoms the ACLU and with the Nazis

Calling me names is not going to alter the laws.

And me posting articles about ADA lawsuits are intended to promote conversation and debate not attacks, you and Brent attack without adding any value

 

[conarb]

And calling me names and flat taxation helps reduce accessibility lawsuits how?In your arguments, you seem to agree with the freedoms the ACLU and with the Nazis

Calling me names is not going to alter the laws.

I knew that you were going to say that, neither the ACLU nor I agree with the Nazi's position, but the case stands for the legal fact that First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression trump all other rights.

The fact is that these laws are redistribution of wealth, redistribution from businesses and taxpayers to those exploiting the disabled for profit, my understanding from handicapped friends is that very little of it actually helps them.

If everybody paid the costs of this equally there would be much more public outcry, as it is only half of the population even pays income taxes so they don't care, and of course all business make fortunes so they can afford it, who cares?

 

[mark handler]

I knew that you were going to say that, neither the ACLU nor I agree with the Nazi's position, but the case stands for the legal fact that First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression trump all other rights.The fact is that these laws are redistribution of wealth, redistribution from businesses and taxpayers to those exploiting the disabled for profit, my understanding from handicapped friends is that very little of it actually helps them.

If everybody paid the costs of this equally there would be much more public outcry, as it is only half of the population even pays income taxes so they don't care, and of course all business make fortunes so they can afford it, who cares?

The Nazis march has noting to do with redistribution of wealth, you need to talk with OTHER Disabled people. They are your friends becase they agree with you.

Maybe you need to get out more often.

You seem to misunderstand my position on all this.

If someone builds something it should be built accessible.

Old buildings should be made accessible when altered.

I do belive all public accomidations should be accessible

I do not belive in these lawsuits.

If you would read my postings I have Never said I agree with the lawsuits.

In my postings I have stated Professional and Personal opinions on what is and isnt accessible