JPohling said:
So it sounds like the lawsuit actually triggered him to purchase real estate which will benefit him and expand a successful business which in turn will benefit him and also expanded his customer base. poor guy. And just think...............In order to comply he had to provide accessible parking and sanitary facilities! what will they ask for next!
You must like Rube Goldberg contraptions because that is the most convoluted un-understandable explanation for spending other people's money that could be contrived.
But first, lets look at an excerpt or two from the decree:
Defendants cooperated in the investigation of this matter. Following receipt of the results of the United States’ investigation, Defendants began and intend to undertake significant renovations of the existing restaurant facility in order to make the facilities and services accessible in compliance with the ADA. Defendants deny liability for any violation of title III of the ADA with respect to Cotton’s Restaurant and/or any other applicable law regarding the rights of individuals with disabilities. Defendants allege that the estimated cost of the renovations and additions related to the removal of barriers and to attain accessibility is approximately $240,000. Defendant Blalock, Harris & Martin, Inc. alleges that it will have lost approximately $76,000 in lost sales during the temporary closure of Cotton’s Restaurant to effect the removal of barriers to accessibility. Finally, Defendants Chris and Barbara Ybarra allege that because the previous owner would not participate in the renovations required by the ADA and implementing regulations, these Defendants allege they have purchased the real property on October 2, 2012, for the sum of $750,000 so that they could control the real property in order to effect the renovations required. The United States position is that Defendants’ failure to remove the architectural barriers to access constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(B)(i) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.503(a); and constitutes unlawful discrimination that raises an issue of general public importance within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(B)(ii) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.503(b).
So they are in cooperation mode. They are spending a quarter of a million dollars for specific renovations for a FEW people. They are buying out a property for $750,000. Just so they could do the renovations the previous owner would not.
Now, in the spirit of the header on the top of this page under "Building Codes Forum" I offer a dissenting opinion.
Do you think $750,000 costs $750,000?
Not really. I doubt heavily the owner, even if he had that capitol under his mattress, would foolishly lay it out for a real estate purchase. If he procured a jumbo loan for the full amount at the lowest going rate of around 5% for 30 years he will have paid close to $700,000 dollars for it, so his outlay will be more to the tune North of 1.4 million. That will pop him for what...$4,500 a month. Just the loan.
Judging by his menu it is mid-scale price-wise, but I would figure entree, dessert and a couple of pops runs a diner say 55 bucks. Typical restaurants, in this price range, according to this article, are looking at a profit margin below 2%.
The Average Profit Margin for a Restaurant | Chron.com
At that rate, at an average 55 dollar bill, the profit will be a buck ten. Let's say they are banging away are are super profitable and make $5.00 on that. That means they have to sell 150,000 dinners to pay the cost of the real estate and 140,000 more for the loan costs. That's 9,666 per year over the life of the loan. About 27 per day. A will bet you a paycheck they don't get 20 disabled customers a day, no days off, work Christmas and MLK Day too.
So no amount of percieved additional business will pay for the property.
But let's forget that. Hell, his rent may be what the loan stroke is. I won't complicate matters with right-offs and such.
So let's look at the costs of renovations only. It looks like around $250,000 give or take. To minimize that costs and not pay for the costs of borrowing the money ( he's already strapped by the jumbo commercial at this point).
He has to sell 50,000 meals at the mean rate to cover costs. At the rate of 27 per day it will take the handicapped a little over 5 years to pay for their part of this heist. Buy the way, this is taking ALL the profit so far, in a generous calculation.
Now the kicker is WE ALL are paying for it, otherwise it would be a complete impossibility to do. In the meantime, in his "ignorance of the law" He is supposed to be versed in ADA, Health code, labor code, fire and building code, immigration, purchasing practices, Obamacare, and whatever the hell else comes up. And for that you wish to strip him of money because he has the "means" and is ignorant of building minutia and esoterica that supposedly YOU get paid to know, and generates experts such as Mr. Handler that takes years of education to learn.
Where are the ethics of society here?
I'm sorry...what were you saying again?
Brent.
