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

[mark handler]

And your First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression Does not trump all other rights.

Just as an example, You do not, through your right of expression, have the right to touch me.

There are limits, to everything

 

[mtlogcabin]

I do not belive in these lawsuits

I for one am glad to hear that. My perception from some of your comments led me to believe you did agree with them. I personally have no problem with a DOJ federal suit. However what CA has created is not positive for the majority of the disabled or business community to reduce barriers for the disabled.

 

[Min&Max]

Getting back to the original intent of this thread--reducing the number of lawsuits is actually not difficult. For new buildings you have to meet ADA standards. The standards should only be written to a reasonable minimum standard--not the wide-ranging, mutating mess we work with now. One national standard that individual states cannot modify in any way, shape or form. Existing buildings built prior to ADA regs do not have to meet ADA regs until they are required to obtain a permit for a remodel/addition. All installations, that are technically feasible, must meet ADA regs with an additional 20% going to ADA mitigation at the site. Doesn't matter how far in the future we go, ADA mitigation is not required until other work requires a permit.

 

[mark handler]

I for one am glad to hear that. My perception from some of your comments led me to believe you did agree with them. I personally have no problem with a DOJ federal suit. However what CA has created is not positive for the majority of the disabled or business community to reduce barriers for the disabled.

Not just CA

Regarding "some" of the lawsuits I have seen, the buildings should have been brought up to compliance, but due to failures of BO's and inspectors, they were not. Some Disabled feel it is their only recourse.

Some BO's and inspectors won't admit they screwed up by not enforcing the access portions of the code.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

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

You are not being attacked. I personally have put my arguments out to all, and NEVER GET

DEBATED ON THE POINTS.

As for your position, based on some points you made, I managed to understand your position and where you are coming from.

I misunderstood that long ago. But your dismissiveness did it help at all.

When I thought you were something you are not, you picked a fight. You wrote, and I quote, "You know nothing about me".

That just invites fun and hilarity. Then you decided to get nasty about it.

A lot of trouble could have been saved with the proper response of "Hey window licker, you got me all wrong. I believe blahblahblah".

Then we can discuss, call each other names and spin around angry, but in a good natured way.

That I understand. We can debate our philosophical differences and be pals.

Brent.

 

[conarb]

We may have a constitutional resolution of these issues, the executive function of government runs all the way from the POTUS down to the dog catchers, the President and the Attorney General have refused to enforce laws that they don't like or feel it impractical to enforce (drug, immigration, and parts of Obamacare), the House is threatening to sue the President to force him and his Attorney General to enforce laws as written by the legislature. If the courts rule in favor of the President then building departments could also use discretion in enforcing laws that they don't like, or feel enforcement would be impractical.

I read a debate between two constitutional scholars, one left-leaning and the other right-leaning, the right-leaning scholar said the executive must enforce all laws as written, the left-leaning scholar agreed that the executive must enforce but that he has discretion as when to enforce, that he could delay enforcement indefinitely if he so chose.

If the courts come down in favor of this administration then building departments could also exercise discretion in enforcement as long as it complies with the court decision.

 

[mark handler]

There is no nexus between the enforcement of drug law, immigration law , and/or parts of Obamacare, and ADA .

There is no nexus between the enforcement State and Federal laws.

I enforce the state codes and laws.

I do not enforce federal codes and laws.

Even if you got a federal court to strike down ADA, I will still need to enforce the state codes and laws. That includes the accessibility codes/laws.

I have NO choice.

Nothing to do with a socialistic or communistic agenda.

 

[conarb]

It's my opinion that if the Supreme Court holds that the President and Attorney General of the United States do not have to enforce all laws, that they can exercise discretion when performing their executive function, then every jurisdiction in the United States will also have the right to exercise discretion in their execution of the laws, absent a closely tailored decision specifically limiting the precedent of their decision to the President and the Attorney General.

 

[mark handler]

It's my opinion that if the Supreme Court holds that the President and Attorney General of the United States do not have to enforce all laws, that they can exercise discretion when performing their executive function, then every jurisdiction in the United States will also have the right to exercise discretion in their execution of the laws, absent a closely tailored decision specifically limiting the precedent of their decision to the President and the Attorney General.

Nothing to do with what I am required to do

 

[conarb]

Nothing to do with what I am required to do

If it gets to the Supreme Court and the Court does rule that the executive can exercise discretion in the enforcement of law you will have the option of enforcing it or not enforcing it at your discretion.

California passed a law making medical marijuana legal under state law, but it was still illegal under Federal law, the Feds started arresting and closing down the purveyors, Attorney General Holder unilaterally decided not to enforce the Federal law, does he have that right or is he bound to enforce all Federal laws? If the Court rules that he has the right to exercise discretion in his enforcement of Federal laws, every jurisdiction in the United States is governed by precedents established by the United States Supreme Court and all jurisdiction will have the right to exercise discretion in their enforcement of all laws. If the case only gets as far as a Federal District Court or the DC Court of Appeals and either or both of them rules for the President their decisions will not be binding upon a local AHJ, for a Federal decision to set a precedent for an AHJ in Southern California the decision would have to come from the District Court for the Southern District of California, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, or the U.S. Supreme Court. Obviously that's not going to happen in the lower courts since Congress will be filing the case in Washington, so it will only apply to you if the Supreme Court takes it, Congress may even ask the Supreme Court for an expedited hearing like they did in Bush vs. Gore this issue is so large and affects the entire nation.

 

[ADAguy]

Welcome to the merry go round, a never ending story of appeals, rewrites and lack of speciifity.

If it gets to the Supreme Court and the Court does rule that the executive can exercise discretion in the enforcement of law you will have the option of enforcing it or not enforcing it at your discretion. California passed a law making medical marijuana legal under state law, but it was still illegal under Federal law, the Feds started arresting and closing down the purveyors, Attorney General Holder unilaterally decided not to enforce the Federal law, does he have that right or is he bound to enforce all Federal laws? If the Court rules that he has the right to exercise discretion in his enforcement of Federal laws, every jurisdiction in the United States is governed by precedents established by the United States Supreme Court and all jurisdiction will have the right to exercise discretion in their enforcement of all laws. If the case only gets as far as a Federal District Court or the DC Court of Appeals and either or both of them rules for the President their decisions will not be binding upon a local AHJ, for a Federal decision to set a precedent for an AHJ in Southern California the decision would have to come from the District Court for the Southern District of California, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, or the U.S. Supreme Court. Obviously that's not going to happen in the lower courts since Congress will be filing the case in Washington, so it will only apply to you if the Supreme Court takes it, Congress may even ask the Supreme Court for an expedited hearing like they did in Bush vs. Gore this issue is so large and affects the entire nation.

 

[mark handler]

Until directed by the State, We will continue to enforce the state Law/code.

The Supreme Court will not interfere with state rights on Accessibility

 

[conarb]

Until directed by the State, We will continue to enforce the state Law/code.The Supreme Court will not interfere with state rights on Accessibility

Mark:

You don't understand, the Supreme Court is not going to rule on disability, it may rule on executive discretion, but the latest news is that Obama is bracing for impeachment instead of the lawsuit on executive discretion. Too bad, we really need a court ruling on executive discretion.

 

[mark handler]

Mark:You don't understand, the Supreme Court is not going to rule on disability, it may rule on executive discretion, but the latest news is that Obama is bracing for impeachment instead of the lawsuit on executive discretion. Too bad, we really need a court ruling on executive discretion.

So you continually bringing up the Supreme Court is just a f*rt in the wind and has nothing to do with the stopping the lawsuits in CA

 

[mark handler]

Mark:You don't understand, the Supreme Court is not going to rule on disability, it may rule on executive discretion, but the latest news is that Obama is bracing for impeachment instead of the lawsuit on executive discretion. Too bad, we really need a court ruling on executive discretion.

So you want me to stop enforcing a law but you want to impeach Obama for not enforcing the laws of the land.

 

[conarb]

So you want me to stop enforcing a law but you want to impeach Obama for not enforcing the laws of the land.

No, I want the courts to decide whether the executive has to enforce the letter of the law or can exercise discretion as to whether to enforce a law, and which parts to enforce and which not to enforce. I think the test should be reasonableness, and much of disability law is not reasonable.

 

[mark handler]

No, I want the courts to decide whether the executive has to enforce the letter of the law or can exercise discretion as to whether to enforce a law, and which parts to enforce and which not to enforce. I think the test should be reasonableness, and much of disability law is not reasonable.

Posting on this website will not help the courts decide whether "the executive" has to enforce the letter of the ADA law, that YOU do not want enforced.

 

[conarb]

Posting on this website will not help the courts decide whether "the executive" has to enforce the letter of the ADA law, that YOU do not want enforced.

True, and why do you post incessantly on this website about accessibility? At what point do you draw the line when it comes to enforcing codes? The classic question is why the German soldiers shoved the prisoners into the ovens, if they had drawn the line way in advance it would never have happened, we now have all kinds of tyrannical laws, some in the codes like telling a man ho much water or energy he can use, forcing him to recycle building materials, it's time to stop these totalitarian codes.

In the 50s and 60s a good friend of mine was Oakland's only black building inspector (a SE BTW), the social engineers of that day decided to get rid of the black population by condemning their property, Oakland condemned and leveled all of West Oakland, San Francisco condemned and leveled all of it's Western Addition, Warren was assigned the job of red tagging all of West Oakland (he invited me along one day). I see the social engineers of today no different than the social engineers of then, taking people's liberty and property away but from a 180° different perspective, mindless civil servants doing their job to keep their job.

 

[mark handler]

True, and why do you post incessantly on this website about accessibility? At what point do you draw the line when it comes to enforcing codes? The classic question is why the German soldiers shoved the prisoners into the ovens, if they had drawn the line way in advance it would never have happened, we now have all kinds of tyrannical laws, some in the codes like telling a man ho much water or energy he can use, forcing him to recycle building materials, it's time to stop these totalitarian codes.

Yes I am a Nazi, because I enforce the law/code. Me requiring a ramp is the same as a German soldier putting a jew in an oven.

A police officer is a Nazi because he/she enforces drug laws.

You are a hero becase you think the laws/codes are totalitarian

now that we cleared all that up, time for one of us to take a pill....

I will contiue to post

 

[ADAguy]

Unless they are "less than the minimum of ADA Standards" The revised 2013 CBC seems to have addressed this, no?