# Pool Closed Until Further Notice



## mark handler (Mar 14, 2012)

Pool Closed Until Further Notice

Posted by Walter Olson

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/pool-closed-until-further-notice/

Tomorrow is a deadline that looms large for worried pool operators at hotels and public recreation facilities across the country, as USA Today reports:

Hoteliers must have pool lifts to provide disabled people equal access to pools and whirlpools, or at least have a plan in place to acquire a lift. If they don’t, they face possible civil penalties of as much as $55,000.

As Conn Carroll at the Washington Examiner explains, the mandate has taken an even more irrational form than might have been expected. Because the elevator lifts are space-consuming, unsightly, potential hazards to curious children, and unlikely to be used very often, many pool operators assumed it would be enough to purchase a portable lift that could be wheeled over to poolside on user request and stored when not in use. No such luck: the Obama administration has announced that the lifts must not only be of permanent construction, but must apply to each separate “water feature”, so that a pool with adjoining spa would need two of them. “Each lift costs between $3,000 and $10,000 and installation can add $5,000 to $10,000 to the total.” Many budget hostelries are expected to simply shutter their pools until further notice rather than take the risk that entrepreneurial fast-buck artists will begin filing complaints against them for cash settlements, as in California’s notorious ADA filing mills.

I think Carroll probably goes too far when he suggests that the Obama administration made the rules unreasonable in order to give its friends in the ADA bar more litigation to file. The problem is more that this administration (and not just this one) has outsourced its thinking on the law to advocates in the legal academia-disabled rights-”public interest law” community, which tends to embrace interpretations and applications of the law geared to advance ambitious versions of social change. In the pool case, the federal appointee in charge (according to this blog post) was Samuel Bagenstos, who after his stint in the Obama Justice Department has now returned to legal academia, where he is perhaps the leading proponent of expansive ADA interpretation. (His view of abusive ADA suits — he puts the term “abusive” in quotation marks — is here.) Academia’s other best-known advocate of an expansively interpreted ADA (and a drafter of the law) is Chai Feldblum of Georgetown Law, who serves the Obama administration as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Don’t look to Republicans for relief on this. The Bush administrations both pere et fils were consistently wretched on it, and a large bloc of GOP members of Congress predictably joins the Democrats in opposing legislative ideas for even modest rollback of the ADA’s most extreme applications.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 15, 2012)

Arizona resorts scramble to provide pool lifts for disabled

Posted: Mar 14, 2012 9:31 PM PDT

Updated: Mar 15, 2012 5:52 AM PDT

By Heather Moore

http://www.kpho.com/story/17162353/arizona-resorts-scramble-to-provide-pool-lifts-for-disabled

PHOENIX (CBS5) - Time is running out for cities and Valley resorts to upgrade their pools.

They have until Thursday, March 15, to add permanent pool lifts, and many of them aren't going to make the deadline.

Clarification on this new regulation just came down about six weeks ago to the American Hotel and Lodging Association, but it was passed in 2010 involving the Americans with Disabilities Act and access to pools.

"In all of my years I've never seen anything like this," said Debbie Johnson of the Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association.

Come Thursday, those big changes are mandated at 300,000 pools all across the country.

A new rule from the Department of Justice says a permanent chairlift is required for the disabled in every single pool and spa on any public facility.

"Right now a lot of people are scrambling to get this done with the concern that a portable lift or multiple portable lifts could be sufficient," explained Johnson.

Hundreds of Arizona resorts are among those affected.

The majority of them currently have a portable lift available upon request like the Royal Palms, but they say not one guest has asked for it.

"We've been open since 1997, and we've never used it," said Greg Miller of Destination Hotels and Resorts, which represents the Royal Palms.

Nevertheless, to be in compliance with the ADA, resort management has ordered five permanent lifts for their pools and spas at a cost of $40,000. They will have to shut those areas down this month,  the busiest of the year, to install them.

"No one has any objection at all to being accommodating to a wheelchair user. We're very committed to that. This just seems a bit cumbersome," said Miller.

There are also the issues of the altered aesthetics with permanent large metal fixtures and more importantly, safety concerns and liability issues that go along with the new equipment.

"We have to then manage that and make sure that no one gets hurt using this thing inappropriately," Miller added.

Johnson believes some pools will be forced to close at smaller hotels and businesses all over the nation because of cost and liability issues, but she says no one is insensitive to the needs of disabled Americans. "Everybody has said, 'We understand. We want to be compliant and make sure we're accessible, but let's find a reasonable way to do it.'"

CBS 5 spoke with the city of Phoenix's Parks and Recreation Department, which operates 28 aquatic centers. They believe they're in compliance because they have a plan in place to install the lifts over the next five years.

Copyright 2012 KPHO (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 15, 2012)

Flippen BS.....removable/portable lifts should be sufficient. JMHO


----------



## Frank (Mar 15, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Pool Closed Until Further NoticePosted by Walter Olson
> 
> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/pool-closed-until-further-notice/
> 
> Don’t look to Republicans for relief on this. The Bush administrations both pere et fils were consistently wretched on it, and a large bloc of GOP members of Congress predictably joins the Democrats in opposing legislative ideas for even modest rollback of the ADA’s most extreme applications.


I vividly remember listening to the Dan Quayle- Al Gore vice presidential debate where there was a question regarding the then new ADA and they both agreed it was a good idea and was not going to cost anybody anything extra--I heard that and exclaimed to the wife--WTF are they smoking?

And yes alot of the ADA is a lawyers relief act.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 15, 2012)

Deadline for changes to federal disability law hits Utah, nation

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile/53708559-78/ada-county-pools-accessible.html.csp

Building professionals and business owners, along with all levels of government, are on notice: As of Thursday, your buildings must not have architectural barriers that would hinder people with disabilities from using and enjoying what you have to offer.

Actually, that’s been the law of the land for more than 20 years. But in 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice adopted sweeping new design standards to supplant those enacted in 1991, with compliance expected by March 15, 2012.

What’s new is a special focus on places for recreation — including all gyms, bowling alleys, boating docks, swimming pools, amusement parks, fitness rooms and golf courses, both full-size and miniature — which were not covered in the original law.

Salt Lake County officials say they are in compliance. "We should be accessible to anybody who shows up" at any of the county’s swimming pools, said Wayne Johnson, a Parks and Recreation assistant division director.

At the Holladay Lions pool, people who swim with the University of Utah’s Therapeutic Recreation & Independent Lifestyles (TRAILS) program used the pool’s new wheelchair lift for the first time Wednesday, said program coordinator Tanja Kari.

In the past, participants needed helpers for a complex transfer from wheelchairs to the pool. The lift will allow them to be more independent.

"That’s our whole focus. We do everything out in the community," Kari said. "We are integrated into the core of Utah, doing all the same sports."

It’s private businesses that need to be watched, say advocates for disabled people. Think of all the parking lots, front desks, hotel pools, hot tubs and fitness rooms, golf courses, bank night deposit slots, you name it: They must be accessible unless proprietors can convince the Justice Department or courts that changes aren’t readily achievable without a high level of difficulty or expense.

It’s not enough just to say, "‘I can’t afford it,’" said Kevin Maher, the ADA expert for the Washington, D.C.-based American Hotel & Lodging Association.

The Americans With Disabilities Act aims to make all of society accessible to people with disabilities. Utah’s Disabled Rights Action Committee (DRAC) has prodded restaurants, service stations, banks and the Utah Transit Authority to comply with the law.

In June, DRAC member Barbara Toomer, who uses a wheelchair, sued Wells Fargo banks in Davis County because low concrete barriers made it impossible for her to reach their night depositories. A similar lawsuit against Wells Fargo in Salt Lake County was resolved, and the Davis County case is heading that way, said Salt Lake City civil-rights lawyer Brian Barnard, DRAC’s attorney.

Though the Justice Department is responsible for ADA compliance, there are no ADA "police." It’s up to individuals to report ADA violations. In Utah, the Disability Law Center and DRAC are willing to intervene and, if necessary, go to court.

Barnard said businesses often have ADA compliance specialists whose contacts are listed on web sites — another good place to lodge complaints. But if nothing is done, "OK, great, I’ll sue someone," he said. "The law’s been around a long time. These people really shouldn’t be warned or told to get in compliance."

Complying is just good business, Maher said. For the past 18 months, he said, his group has mounted an intensive education campaign for its member hoteliers.

"It’s a definite deadline. They have to have to have things done or have taken steps toward compliance," Maher said. "I’ve answered hundreds of calls from members."

Like all businesses, hotels have been required by the ADA to deal with building design and parking lots. The ADA allows "safe harbor" under the 1991 standards for business and government facilities not quite up to date as long as they make required changes when they renovate.

But because recreation facilities weren’t included then, there is no safe harbor. They must be accessible.

Pools, for example, must have two means of entry for disabled people. Lifts are the easiest solutions for small pools; larger pools can have sloped entries and grab-bar-equipped access routes called transfer walls.

Maher said his members haven’t seen heavy use of accessibility devices, but that probably will change as the boomer generation — more used to getting regular exercise and more used to getting what they want than earlier generations — increasingly experiences limits on mobility.

Steven Carlson, manager of Olympus Hills Lanes in Salt Lake City, said his bowling alley, built in 1964, has been ADA-compliant for 14 years after retrofits to the building entry and bowling lanes with access ramps. While the coffee shop isn’t accessible, Carlson said, employees bring food to anyone who orders it lane-side, an acceptable ADA alternative.

Other bowling businesses in the valley, he said, were built to be accessible from the get-go.

That is now required of all new construction. Mary Ann Cowen, Salt Lake County’s ADA compliance officer, said the first county building to be constructed under the new rules is the $42.8 million District Attorney’s Office on State Street.

Johnson said there will be transfer chairs to help disabled people get into the hot pools at county swim facilities, though they had to fill a wading pool at the Marv Jensen pool in South Jordan with cement because there was no way to make it accessible.

Two county golf courses, Mick Riley and Meadowbrook, make wheelchairs available, Johnson said.

The county has rebuilt park playgrounds with ramps and fibar, the engineered wood chips that people who use wheelchairs can navigate. Draper City went even further: The Draper Riverton Rotary Club raised funds to build Jordan River Rotary Park to exceed ADA requirements for its playground, said Brad Jensen, Draper’s parks and trails manager.


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 15, 2012)

Greetings,

Yea I just read about this today. I think it's nuts requiring this and not grandfathering old pools. Talk about government over reach.

BS


----------



## mark handler (Mar 15, 2012)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Greetings,Yea I just read about this today. I think it's nuts requiring this and not grandfathering old pools. Talk about government over reach.
> 
> BS


Actually, that’s been the law of the land for more than 20 years. They have had a plenty of notice.


----------



## Msradell (Mar 15, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> CBS 5 spoke with the city of Phoenix's Parks and Recreation Department, which operates 28 aquatic centers. They believe they're in compliance because they have a plan in place to install the lifts over the next five years.


The law requires everyplace to have them by March 15, how was having a plan to install them over the next five years acceptable?  If that works then every hotel and other business where they are required would use the same loophole.


----------



## imhotep (Mar 15, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Actually, that’s been the law of the land for more than 20 years. They have had a plenty of notice.


So if it has been the law of the land for more than 20 years what is the significance of March 15, 2012?


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 15, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Actually, that’s been the law of the land for more than 20 years. They have had a plenty of notice.


Not Hardly!

To quote your own post:

"Actually, that’s been the law of the land for more than 20 years. But in 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice adopted sweeping new design standards to supplant those enacted in 1991, with compliance expected by March 15, 2012.

What’s new is a special focus on places for recreation — including all gyms, bowling alleys, boating docks, swimming pools, amusement parks, fitness rooms and golf courses, both full-size and miniature — which were not covered in the original law."

It's a ridiculous requirement!

Bill


----------



## incognito (Mar 16, 2012)

Pool owners should close their pools and post a sign indicating the reason for closed pools is over-reaching regs of DOJ and disabled who cannot accept the fact they are disabled and not able to do everything able-bodied people can.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> ... how was having a plan to install them over the next five years acceptable....


 If is not readily achievable to immediately provide an accessible means of entry and exit at every pool, then the entity must remove barriers to the extent that it is readily achievable to do so. It is important to note that the barrier removal obligation is a continuing one, and it is expected that a business will take steps to improve accessibility over time.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> To quote your own post:


Just because I post something does not mean I agree with it or wrote it.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> ....ridiculous ....


In this day and age, So is any kind of discrimination.


----------



## Sifu (Mar 16, 2012)

Just a thought.......We all hear about market driven changes.  In other words, "let the public decide if they want electric cars instead of the gov't subsidizing them with our tax dollars".  So can the market drive accessibility changes?  There is no doubt that there is going to be a significant increase in those requiring accessible facilities in the near future.  That being the case, would it maybe be smart business to offer accessible facilities to that segment of the population.  If a particular hotel chain does not have accessible pools and another does could the market determine which would be more successful?  Or is it the thoought that if left to our own devices we would completely ignore those needs?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 16, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Flippen BS.....removable/portable lifts should be sufficient. JMHO


  People rent them for CO.  Then they disappear.

  Same as ramps in nightclubs.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 16, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Not Hardly!  To quote your own post:  "Actually, that’s been the law of the land for more than 20 years. But in 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice adopted sweeping new design standards to supplant those enacted in 1991, with compliance expected by March 15, 2012.  What’s new is a special focus on places for recreation — including all gyms, bowling alleys, boating docks, swimming pools, amusement parks, fitness rooms and golf courses, both full-size and miniature — which were not covered in the original law."  It's a ridiculous requirement!    Bill


  All of those operations were required to accommodate people with disabilities since 1991.  The difference is that now there are specific guidelines for those industries.

  I.e. they don't get to claim ignorance when they violate people's civil rights.

  BTW, I didn't think Ted had a dog.

  However, your  Kaczynski impersonation is better than your Foghorn.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 16, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> Just a thought.......We all hear about market driven changes.  In other words, "let the public decide if they want electric cars instead of the gov't subsidizing them with our tax dollars".  So can the market drive accessibility changes?  There is no doubt that there is going to be a significant increase in those requiring accessible facilities in the near future.  That being the case, would it maybe be smart business to offer accessible facilities to that segment of the population.  If a particular hotel chain does not have accessible pools and another does could the market determine which would be more successful?  Or is it the thoought that if left to our own devices we would completely ignore those needs?


  The market can drive accessibility changes.  In places like California where market based solutions are available.

  Where there are no financial disincentives for non-compliance, it's another story.

  I wish people would get their premises and conclusions straight.

  If you want big government, don't allow private law suits for damages.

  If you want the free market, allow it.


----------



## Rio (Mar 16, 2012)

Time for tort reform, especially in California regarding ADA compliance.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 16, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If you want big government, don't allow private law suits for damages.





			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> If you want the free market, allow it.


Which do you prefer?


----------



## fatboy (Mar 16, 2012)

"People rent them for CO.

Then they disappear."

Then thats when the lawsuit should come into play, blatantly disregarding the law.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> Just a thought.......We all hear about market driven changes.  In other words, "let the public decide


So, If someone decides to post a no blacks, no irish no jew sign, we should let the public decide...discrimination of anykind is wrong. ADA is a civil rights law.

You are discriminating againt our vets.

Are you advocating keeping someone that gave their limbs to defend your rights, cannot use the facilities?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 16, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Which do you prefer?


  Active protection of civil rights.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 16, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> "People rent them for CO.  Then they disappear."  Then thats when the lawsuit should come into play, blatantly disregarding the law.


  Anyone whose place of business requires navigating architectural barriers is blatantly disregarding the law - it's been around for 20 years.


----------



## conarb (Mar 16, 2012)

There is a difference between actively discriminating against a suspect class, and just not taking affirmative action in favor of one. A popular comic strip has been highlighting the discrimination against Asians in our elite college systems.


View attachment 1247

	

		
			
		

		
	
In today's paper

another one. ​Our major universities discriminating against a non-suspect class to make room for less-qualified suspect classes is evil active discrimination for social engineering purposes, much diifferent from a hotel not knowing about a law favoring suspect classes and not moving forward to accomodate them in compliance with the law.

View attachment 543


View attachment 543


/monthly_2012_03/mallard.jpg.7fe85362193c37bbdbc4196e93915972.jpg


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If is not readily achievable to immediately provide an accessible means of entry and exit at every pool, then the entity must remove barriers to the extent that it is readily achievable to do so. It is important to note that the barrier removal obligation is a continuing one, and it is expected that a business will take steps to improve accessibility over time.


....     .


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 16, 2012)

The DOJ must realize there will be a problem for facilities to change from portable lifts to permanently installed lifts

Dear Official,

Yesterday, Thursday, March 15, 2012, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release stating that the deadline for pool and spa compliance with the American with Disabilities Act will be extended for 60 days. This means that at a minimum, the compliance date has been extended until May 19, 2012. The DOJ is requesting comments as to whether to further extend the compliance date until September 17, 2012 to allow additional time to address misunderstandings made known to them regarding compliance with these ADA requirements. 

It is not clear whether the DOJ will accept and consider comments on the actual requirements, or only on whether further deadline extension is needed. APSP will continue to monitor the situation and provide instructions for commenting once the official notice is posted in the Federal Register on March 20, 2012.

In the meantime, APSP members can access the DOJ’s *Technical Assistance Document*, the ADA’s *2010 Accessibility Standards*, and other online tools including FAQ’s and a webinar "Obligations and Opportunities Under the 2010 ADA Regulations," at *APSP.org/ADA*.

For more information about the ADA as it relates to pools and spas, visit *ADA.gov*.

Sincerely,







Carvin DiGiovanni

Senior Director, Technical & Standards


----------



## fatboy (Mar 16, 2012)

Dear Official,



Yesterday, Thursday, March 15, 2012, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release stating that the deadline for pool and spa compliance with the American with Disabilities Act will be extended for 60 days. This means that at a minimum, the compliance date has been extended until May 19, 2012. The DOJ is requesting comments as to whether to further extend the compliance date until September 17, 2012 to allow additional time to address misunderstandings made known to them regarding compliance with these ADA requirements. 



It is not clear whether the DOJ will accept and consider comments on the actual requirements, or only on whether further deadline extension is needed. APSP will continue to monitor the situation and provide instructions for commenting once the official notice is posted in the Federal Register on March 20, 2012.

In the meantime, APSP members can access the DOJ’s *Technical Assistance Document*, the ADA’s *2010 Accessibility Standards*, and other online tools including FAQ’s and a webinar "Obligations and Opportunities Under the 2010 ADA Regulations," at *APSP.org/ADA*.



For more information about the ADA as it relates to pools and spas, visit *ADA.gov*.

Sincerely,






Carvin DiGiovanni

Senior Director, Technical & Standards


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 16, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> BTW, I didn't think Ted had a dog.
> 
> However, your  Kaczynski impersonation is better than your Foghorn.


His name was Kamden. He was a 100 lb German Wirehair/ Golden Retriever mix. He always told me his favorite flavor of dog was french vanilla.






FogHorn became irrelevant so I retired him .

Bill


----------



## Alias (Mar 16, 2012)

incognito said:
			
		

> Pool owners should close their pools and post a sign indicating the reason for closed pools is over-reaching regs of DOJ and disabled who cannot accept the fact they are disabled and not able to do everything able-bodied people can.


Sorry, I don't agree.  Swimming can be one of the few exercise opportunities for the disabled.  Our disabled and seniors attend water therapy classes at the local pool during the summer.  The City installed a lift at the local public pool about five years ago, catching up to CA ADA. BTW, our public pool is only open for about three months a year.


----------



## Alias (Mar 16, 2012)

Rio said:
			
		

> Time for tort reform, especially in California regarding ADA compliance.


Agreed.  :cowboy


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 16, 2012)

DOJ issues 60 day delay for pools

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/mar/15/pool-mageddon-avoided-now/


----------



## Msradell (Mar 16, 2012)

incognito said:
			
		

> Pool owners should close their pools and post a sign indicating the reason for closed pools is over-reaching regs of DOJ and disabled who cannot accept the fact they are disabled and not able to do everything able-bodied people can.


 And may you spend the rest of your life confined to a wheelchair!


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> And may you spend the rest of your life confined to a wheelchair!


Calm down.

Take a breath......

Walk Away

Close Your Eyes

Find Some Solitude

Go Outside

Find Some Water

lie down somewhere


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 16, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> And may you spend the rest of your life confined to a wheelchair!


Ever read "Player Piano"? Would you consider wearing a ball and chain because you are not disabled?

I agree, there's no place today, for discrimination of any sort but if anyone thinks the DOJ can make disabled folks whole, they're kidding themselves and wasting my money.

Sometimes Life's a bitch.

Bill


----------



## Sifu (Mar 16, 2012)

Has California already addressed tort reform in some measure by limiting punitive damages?  Has that action done anything to curtail lawsuits?

Probably a lot of the time even if a particular civil action is obviously without merit those who sit in judgement have a hard time ruling against the ADA side, either due to over-riding sentimentality or maybe just the image it would carry with it.  The unfortunate thing about this is it gives the appearance to those on the outside that all cases are frivoulous, while burying the valid cases among them.  Until the judges and juries learn to tell the difference we'll have to deal with all cases.  We can't throw out the baby with bath water.  It would be nice though if agencies like the DOJ would also use a more discerning eye when they agree to proceed or provide support to some of those actions.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

Has California already addressed tort reform in some measure by limiting punitive damages?

* No*

Has that action done anything to curtail lawsuits?

* No*


----------



## Sifu (Mar 16, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> So, If someone decides to post a no blacks, no irish no jew sign, we should let the public decide...discrimination of anykind is wrong. ADA is a civil rights law. You are discriminating againt our vets.
> 
> Are you advocating keeping someone that gave their limbs to defend your rights, cannot use the facilities?


Not advocating anything, just posing a thought.  It requires a lot of thought, a lot of critical thinking and not knee-jerk reactions.  I am not sure you make a fair comparison.  I am not saying a business should deny someone the use of something, as did Woolworth's in the 60's.  I am asking this; if the ABC hotel corp. decides to put in accessible facilities and the XYZ hotel corp does not, does the public have the option to choose between the two?  After all, it could be said that if we forcefully impose rules that are prohibitively expensive (some are) then the XYZ corp. would need to raise its price.  If that happens have we now price it too high for a segment of the population........have we now discriminated against the poor?  Now both the ABC and the XYZ have too high a price for the poor.  Does the gov't. come in now and limit the price so we aren't discriminating against the poor?  Is it better to have one hotel without enough rooms for everyone that can set whatever price it wants because the gov't regs put the other one out of business or two hotels, with the second one not as accessible and making them both affordable?  Where is the end?

It cost a great deal to provide accessibility.  It cost nothing to serve blacks at a lunch counter.  Indeed, it could be said that ending that discrimination saved money, there being no need for separate facilities and duplication of services.  Before anyone gets mad at me, I am an advocate for sensible, reasonable accessibility regulation.  Ask yourself this, what is enough?  How far are you willing to go or make someone else go.  There has to be a limit.  Some folks may have a lower limit than others.  I also believe when any code goes too far, or gets too confusing there is enevitable resistance.  The best code is the most easily understood and the most easily implimentable, otherwise it becomes easier to cheat, run, hide or just plain close shop than to comply.


----------



## Sifu (Mar 16, 2012)

Am I wrong about the punative limits or just ignorant of the relationship between punative damages and tort reform?  That is an honest question, not a smart-*** one.  As to curtailing the suits I assumed that answer would be no since I think that would be up to the lawyers and plaintiffs and I am sure there will never be a shortage of those.  Thats why I think the hope (if there is any) is in the sense of judges and juries.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

Discrimination is discrimination.

That is what the ADA, a civil rights law says.

A law Signed by the first Bush, not Obama, twenty years old.

Prorate the cost over twenty years.

And Did you know there are state and federal tax deductions for accessibility upgrades?

I've been hearing about the "cost" for twenty years, time to stop wineing about "cost"


----------



## Sifu (Mar 16, 2012)

So what is your limit then?  Elevator to Everest?  I guess reasonable people can disagree on things.  I for one don't drink the kool-aid.  If the gov't says its discrimination....well I guess they never get it wrong.  What will you do if they tell you to put in a ramp, a pool lift, braille signs, level carpet, truncated domes etc. etc. in your home just in case a member of the general public might someday come over to sell you an encyclopedia.  Oh, it will be OK because they will give you a tax deduction.  Think that can't happen?  Just look how thick the code books are now.  I'll say this again, I am an advocate for accessibility but I am not a nut about it.  My life has been severely impacted by disability so I think I have a pretty clear perspective on it.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

So once again, you deflect and dismiss it.

That's why we have the issue, it has been deflected and dismissed for twenty years.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 16, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> So what is your limit then?  Elevator to Everest?  .


You don't read the posts and I know you have not read the ADA or the ADAAG

As I posted before



> If is not readily achievable to immediately provide an accessible means of entry and exit at every pool, then the entity must remove barriers to the extent that it is readily achievable to do so. It is important to note that the barrier removal obligation is a continuing one, and it is expected that a business will take steps to improve accessibility over time.


----------



## Sifu (Mar 17, 2012)

For the record, I do read the posts and I have read the ADA/ADAAG.  But unlike you I don't pretend to know everything.  Reading/knowing a code or law does not mean agreeing with it in jack-boot fashion in practice or in principle.  I ask questions and pose thoughtful ideas which I hope will engage thoughtful response and in this case that time has passed.  I use this forum to gain knowledge and insight and if possible by some miracle give it if I can.  This thread has ceased to provide any engaging debate and unfortunately has degraded into defensive posturing.  I will continue to believe there is a limit to the intervention into our lives and businesses and you will not.  We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 17, 2012)

Delete     .


----------



## brudgers (Mar 17, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Sometimes Life's a bitch.


  So it goes.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 17, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> Reading/knowing a code or law does not mean agreeing with it in jack-boot fashion in practice or in principle.  .


  Judges are conferring to determine if Godwin's law has been invoked.


----------



## incognito (Mar 18, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> And may you spend the rest of your life confined to a wheelchair!


Funny stuff Msradell. And I would be willing to bet you're in the front row on Sunday morning as well.

New construction and a percentage of each remodel project should strive to meet ADA regs. But this "over the top" bull "stuff" of requiring existing to modify or be fined is crazy. It's easy to bluster about civil rights and cost not being an issue when you are not the one having to pay for this nonsense.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 18, 2012)

incognito said:
			
		

> Funny stuff Msradell. And I would be willing to bet you're in the front row on Sunday morning as well.New construction and a percentage of each remodel project should strive to meet ADA regs. But this "over the top" bull "stuff" of requiring existing to modify or be fined is crazy. It's easy to bluster about civil rights and cost not being an issue when you are not the one having to pay for this nonsense.


Any project that is less than twenty years old, there is no excuse

Any project that is older than twenty years, If access is not readily achievable to provide an accessible means of entry and exit at every pool, then the entity must remove barriers to the *extent that it is readily achievable to do so.* It is important to note that the barrier removal obligation is a continuing one, and it is expected that a business will take steps to improve accessibility over time.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 18, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> But unlike you I don't pretend to know everything.


If you don't like what I post, report it, or don't read what I post.


----------



## conarb (Mar 18, 2012)

The ADA is not code and does not belong here, any more than asking building officials to enforce Immigration or OSHA laws.  Chapter 11 of the IBC does address disabilities, but doesn't address swimming pool lifts, California reserved Chapter 11, but does have Chapter 11-A and 11-B, 11-B does address swimming pool lifts, but Mark's original post addressed the Cato Institute's comments nationally:



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> I think Carroll probably goes too far when he suggests that the Obama  administration made the rules unreasonable in order to give its friends  in the ADA bar more litigation to file. The problem is more that this  administration (and not just this one) has outsourced its thinking on  the law to advocates in the legal academia-disabled rights-”public  interest law” community, which tends to embrace interpretations and  applications of the law geared to advance ambitious versions of social  change. In the pool case, the federal appointee in charge (according to  this blog post) was Samuel Bagenstos, who after his stint in the Obama  Justice Department has now returned to legal academia, where he is  perhaps the leading proponent of expansive ADA interpretation. (His view  of abusive ADA suits — he puts the term “abusive” in quotation marks —  is here.) Academia’s other best-known advocate of an expansively  interpreted ADA (and a drafter of the law) is Chai Feldblum of  Georgetown Law, who serves the Obama administration as head of the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission.Don’t look to Republicans for relief on this. The Bush administrations  both pere et fils were consistently wretched on it, and a large bloc of  GOP members of Congress predictably joins the Democrats in opposing  legislative ideas for even modest rollback of the ADA’s most extreme  applications.


 Mark's second post addressed Arizona attempts at Federal law compliance, not building code compliance, so why are we even talking about Federal law compliance, especially on something so contentious as ADA?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 18, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> so why are we even talking about Federal law compliance, especially on something so contentious as ADA?


#1 If you don't like what I post, report it, or don't read what I post.

#2 Many states, including CA, does require, By statute, the compliance to ADA

#3 Many states Do not use Chapter 11 as their accessibility code, but instead enforce the ADA as their accessibility code.

#4 It is part of the industry and pertinent, If you think it is irrelevant don't read the posts


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 19, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> In this day and age, So is any kind of discrimination.


What about reverse discriminatiom?


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 19, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> What about reverse discriminatiom?


According to the current administration, there is no such thing.

Bill


----------



## Builder Bob (Mar 19, 2012)

It is real simple, close the pool, back fill it, and make an accessible butterfly garden.......

This is a case of making governemnt regulations that are costly with limited returns........ if you don't agree with it, don't build a pool at your motel/hotel.

It is that simple.....


----------



## north star (Mar 19, 2012)

*=  =*

Swimming pools at [ most ] motels / hotels are a desirable

feature to attract families / business.

*= =*


----------



## mark handler (Mar 19, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> What about reverse discriminatiom?


And how is making a pool accessiuble to all, reverse discriminatiom?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 19, 2012)

ADA Defense Lawyer: What Does The Ada Pool Lift Compliance Extension Mean To You? | By Jim Butler

 JMBM Global Hospitality Group®

http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/154000320/4055339.html

ADA Defense Lawyer: What does the ADA pool lift compliance extension of May 15 mean for you?

First, let's be clear that all compliance dates have NOT been extended!

Extended deadline for pool lifts is May 15

Responding to concerns expressed by the hotel, pool and spa manufacturing industries, and those of a number of U.S. Congressmen, on March 15, the White House plunged into the swimming pool access controversy by issuing a 60-day an extension to implement the 2010 ADA Standards for pool lifts. As a result of this action, the new deadline for installing pool lifts is May 15, 2012, but that too may change.

March 15 deadline remains for all other provisions of new ADA Standards

The March 15, 2012 compliance date remains in effect for all other provisions of the 2010 Standards. The Department of Justice will soon publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking giving the public 15 days to express their views. We expect the hotel and pool and spa industries will take a much more active role in the public comment process than they did when the 2010 Standards were initially open for comment.

Events have been moving very fast when the official government position changes 180 degrees in less than 24 hours. And that his what has happened. So my ADA expert partner, Marty Orlick, and I thought it might be helpful to explain what is going on, and what it likely means to you.

Here it is...

Where has all the confusion come from?

The 2010 Standards (which were to go into effect March 15, 2012) do not mention "fixed" pool lifts. The confusion over the new ADA pool lift requirements intensified on January 31, 2012 when the Department of Justice (DOJ) "clarified" its position on pool lifts in a letter to the AH&LA stating that:

•Pool lifts must be "fixed" to pool and spa decks at all times that the pool or spa is open to the public. Portable pool lifts would not comply with the new Standards (unless a fixed pool lift was not readily achievable), and

•Pool lifts cannot be shared among different water elements (i.e. a pool and spa).

The DOJ's clarification that only fixed pool lifts are permissible at pools and spas caught most by surprise and raised more questions than it answered. This was a significant change in the 2010 Standards which make no mention of "fixed" pool lifts. Many had relied on the published 2010 Standards in an effort to manufacture enough pool lifts to meet the needs of the hotel industry, and the diligent have been purchasing and installing them.

Pool lift manufacturers and distributors have been in full production for months, making and selling portable pool lifts which they proudly advertised on their websites as "ADA Compliant" or as "meeting all of the ADA requirements." Many thought these portable devices were preferable, because they could be utilized when disabled guests needed them and be shared between the pool and spas as needed.

This DOJ's pronouncement 18 months after promulgation of the new rules sent tsunami-sized waves through the hotel and pool and spa lift industries.

A huge gap to be bridged

Pool and spa industry estimates are that less than 5,000 pool lifts were sold in the U.S. in 2011 and that there are an estimated 300,000 public pools and spas in the country that need to comply with the 2010 Standards. There was no ready source to provide an adequate number of pool lifts to meet this demand, despite desperate efforts by manufacturers to design and produce them.

Critics say that the DOJ did not adequately take into consideration whether the pool lift industry could scale to such numbers, particularly for fixed pool lifts, in such a short time. Although there are some pool lift manufacturers who designed fixed devices, many did not.

Our hotel clients report that fixed pool lift demand cannot be met. Since January 31, 2012, manufacturers have been working round the clock to develop retrofit solutions to "fix" their lifts to pool and spa decks.

Why relief was/is needed

Hotel owners and operators contacted their elected representatives who in turn contacted the DOJ and the White House to express concerns about promoting access to pools and spas for the disabled community while recognizing the legitimate interests of public safety and hotel operations.

With less than 2 months' notice, installing fixed pool lifts was all but impossible. These lifts simply do not exist in the quantities necessary to meet the demand.

The lack of inventory and manufacturing capability for compliant pool lifts and the focused efforts of the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHL&A) played significant parts in today's executive decision to postpone the compliance date for pool lifts.

What you should do now...

So, the compliance date for installing pool lifts is now May 15, 2012 and may be extended again. At this point, the 2010 technical Standards are unresolved. You should have a plan in place to comply with the new pool and spa access requirements. However, you may be well advised to put your toe in the water before you take the plunge to buy pool lifts until the DOJ determines precisely what types of pool lifts satisfy with the Standards.

JMBM's ADA Compliance and Litigation Group has been working closely with design professionals and hotel owners to develop solutions to pool lift compliance challenge.


----------



## globe trekker (Mar 19, 2012)

Seems like we have another one of Jeff's (requested) Hot Topics.

If you saw a veteran with service connected disabilities, ..missing

limbs, other, would you also deny their access to a swimming pool.

Please keep in mind that if they have the service connected disabilities,

they likely have them for protecting the freedom to have that business

open in the first place, and that most, if not all U.S. citizens have

the LUXURY to enjoy those freedoms. And for the record, our U.S.

freedoms are a luxury, but DO come at a very high price.

Could it be that the price of freedom for all in the U.S., is becoming

a little more visible?

If a business owner is going to deny a veteran access to their

swimming pool, at least thank them for their service in the process!

.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 19, 2012)

The articles are relevant in my State as building codes.  Discrimination is discrimination, and we wouldn't need laws to protect against it if it was not prevalent, even in new construction.

I doubt we would have State regulations requiring a minimum building code, or it's enforcement mandate, if everyone actually built safe structures.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 19, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And how is making a pool accessiuble to all, reverse discriminatiom?


  He's a white male, duh.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 19, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> He's a white male, duh.


*Ya so is he, lets keep both out of pools*


----------



## brudgers (Mar 19, 2012)

Look Mark, there are 5000 pools with lifts. Shouldn't that be enough for those people?


----------



## globe trekker (Mar 19, 2012)

> Shouldn't that be enough for those people?


God help us.. !.


----------



## Alias (Mar 19, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> God help us.. !.


Ditto the sentiment globe trekker!


----------



## Alias (Mar 19, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Shouldn't that be enough for those people?


Hey, I resemble that remark!  I have been "one of those people".


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 19, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And how is making a pool accessible to all, reverse discrimination?


The issue of the pool has nothing to do with reverse discrimination. Earlier you posted about any kind of discrimination, I made comment about reverse discrimination to see what you're reply was to it. For whatever reason most civil rights activist ignore or refuse to acknowledge the affects of reverse discrimination. Countries have outlawed civil rights because of reverse discrimination. I am not on one side or the other; I just enforce the code and try hard to make people aware of the ADA.



			
				mark handler said:
			
		

> So once again, you deflect and dismiss it. That's why we have the issue, it has been deflected and dismissed for twenty years.


I believe (JMO) that property owners and business owners who had pools before the law was passed should only be made to comply with the 20% rule as they remodel. New construction should comply, and those who ignored the law in the last 20 years.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 19, 2012)

Pool owners face new ADA accessibility regulation

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2012/mar/20/easing-access/

 By DAVID ROYER

New federal regulations requiring chair lifts and other renovations to public swimming pools went into effect Thursday, March 15, but the tangle of new requirements is leaving many pool owners treading water while they wait for clarity on the rules.

The update to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991 was passed in 2010 and is designed to make public facilities – including the swimming pools in many hotels and health clubs – more accessible for the disabled.

“It’s so complicated, and people are really holding off on making decisions because they keep changing stuff,” said June Whitehurst, co-owner of Mid South Pool Builders in Collierville, who said she lately has been taking multiple calls per day from clients asking what they need to do.

In general, under the new guidelines, pools and spas that are open to the public will require either a sloped entry or mechanical chair lift. Pools larger than 300 linear feet will require two ADA-accessible means of entry.

While March 15 is the enforcement date, the Department of Justice says the new regulations won’t be enforced until someone files a complaint with them. Even then, according to a representative with the ADA information line, the DOJ may give owners some time to make the upgrades, perhaps three to six months, though the exact length of time has not been determined.

For most existing pools, Whitehurst said, the most cost-effective way to stay in compliance is to install a battery-powered chair lift to lower disabled swimmers into the water.

The chair lifts she sells start at about $3,500. Installation and any structural or electrical renovations needed to accommodate the lift can add several thousand dollars to the price.

“It’s really hard for some of these facilities to come up with this kind of money all of a sudden,” Whitehurst said.

The rush to retrofit nationwide has led to a three-week backorder for some of the lifts. Whitehurst said some businesses are slow to commit to a significant investment. Others may choose to close their pools.

Alka Patel, general manager of the Days Inn at Graceland, said she recently spent several thousand dollars renovating her hotel’s pool to satisfy a different safety regulation and had been advised to wait before investing in the new ADA upgrades.

The guitar-shaped pool at Days Inn at Graceland is a draw for tourists and backdrop for weddings, but its distinctive design wasn’t built for handicapped accessibility. Patel said there is no lifeguard on duty for disabled swimmers, leading to more safety concerns.

“It’s a guitar-shaped show pool,” she said. “What, do they want us to dig up the concrete and revamp the pool?”

Closing the pool might be an option for her as well as owners of other hotels she’d spoken to, Patel said.

Other pools in the Memphis area are forging ahead with renovations.

YMCA of Memphis and the Mid-South has spent $75,000 to bring its 12 indoor and outdoor pools into compliance, said Stacy Coughlin, the group’s vice president of youth development. That cost doesn’t include hot tubs and whirlpools, which also must comply with the regulations.

“All of our aquatic facilities are able to serve physically challenged people at the present time, but to get into compliance with ADA regulations, it will require a pretty heavy investment,” Coughlin said.

Though the 2010 ADA update wasn’t a big factor in the YMCA’s recent decision to close the old Mason YMCA near the University of Memphis in December, Coughlin said the retrofit would have been part of a multimillion-dollar overhaul the old location would have required.

Germantown Athletic Club director Phil Rogers was in discussions with city leaders last week to determine what the club needs to do to comply, though he said he was still confused by some of the regulations.

The facility, which maintains an indoor and an outdoor lap pool and a children’s splash pool, has three chairlifts and has ordered one more, Rogers said.

“Ultimately, I think there’s a lot of confusion out there,” Rogers said.


----------



## north star (Mar 19, 2012)

*= = =*

gbhammer,

I think that you have stated at least one of the major rubs in this

discussion......."Those that have ignored the law for the last 20

years"......It is now time to pay up for all of that ignoring......Some

businesses have been reaping the benefits of having non-compliant

pools & facilities, ...they have been living on borrowed time.



** * **


----------



## mark handler (Mar 19, 2012)

And the postponement is kicking the can down the road


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 19, 2012)

> Others may choose to close their pools.


There is that law of un-intended consequences at work again



> Patel said there is no lifeguard on duty for disabled swimmers, leading to more safety concerns.


Should a lifeguard be required?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 19, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *= = =*gbhammer,
> 
> I think that you have stated at least one of the major rubs in this
> 
> ...


If no one has filed a complaint on a facility in 20 years did you ever think that no handicap person wanted to use the pool in 20 years.

Just how many complaint have been filed with the DOJ about pool access.

If I remember one of Marks previous post less than 1.5% of the population is in a wheel chair.

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.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 19, 2012)

*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 (Mar 19, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

*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 (Mar 20, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> *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 (Mar 20, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

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 (Mar 20, 2012)

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

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 (Mar 20, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

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 (Mar 20, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 20, 2012)

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


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 20, 2012)

> I agree they shouldn't be liable.Right up until the moment they open their doors for business.
> 
> It's a free market.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## ICE (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 22, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> 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.


I don't know that dragging this out is all that bad...I mean, this thread is only 5 pages long and still under a hundred posts.

As to major points of insanity, proclaiming a 100% compliance goal when current regulations rarely require over 20% compliance, is a good starting point.  I fail to see the correlation between that and an intended goal of 100%, especially when the percentage of built environment for public areas usually requires only 5% compliance, and has consistently for the last 10 plus years.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 22, 2012)

In regards to your wheel-chair statements, I think you have a fundamental reasoning flaw in your argument.  To continue creating wheel-chairs at all will not resolve the issue...I think you need to aim towards mechanized robotic graphted interfaces (any suggestions for a better name with an acronym would be helpful), so that disabilities that are not addressed by the limitations of wheel-chair can also be covered.  I would love to have a terminator eye to spot code violations on inspections and cite the correct code...for example.


----------



## ICE (Mar 22, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I don't know that dragging this out is all that bad...I mean, this thread is only 5 pages long and still under a hundred posts.  As to major points of insanity, proclaiming a 100% compliance goal when current regulations rarely require over 20% compliance, is a good starting point.  I fail to see the correlation between that and an intended goal of 100%, especially when the percentage of built environment for public areas usually requires only 5% compliance, and has consistently for the last 10 plus years.


When you toss numbers out there I get a little spooked.  First of all, I'm not all that good with math and secondly, the numbers always seem to be dealing with someone else because my ADA issue is always much bigger.

The two man tax office has enough ADA bathroom for a Piggly Wiggly but thankfully only five percent of what gets done is compliant.  At least that's the perception.

Here I sit in the parking lot of a Staples Store and I see a sign by the entrance to the parking lot that has the wheel chair logo so that the <1%ers can be assured that there is a place to park.  What a waste of sheet metal.

The other day at the doctors office I noticed that most every sign had tactile lettering.  That's great but blind people don't know that there is a sign to rub in the first place.

Well I am on vacation and it's time to do something else.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 22, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> In regards to your wheel-chair statements, I think you have a fundamental reasoning flaw in your argument.  To continue creating wheel-chairs at all will not resolve the issue...I think you need to aim towards mechanized robotic graphted interfaces (any suggestions for a better name with an acronym would be helpful), so that disabilities that are not addressed by the limitations of wheel-chair can also be covered.  I would love to have a terminator eye to spot code violations on inspections and cite the correct code...for example.


You have code eye on the mental incontinence today.



			
				Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Dear SOB,I am GBHammer's doctor familiaris.  GBhammer has contracted conjunctivitis of the code eye.  I am hereby prescribing he take the remainder of the day to recover fully from his ailment and in order to protect his co-workers from contagion.
> 
> Thank You,
> 
> Dr. Papio


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 22, 2012)

ICE...enjoy the vacation!  Some have said that Staples stores are also a waste of sheet metal.

GB...you mean mental dia...oh nevermind.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 22, 2012)

Vacation? What is that?

ICE stop keeping tabs while your vacating. Even though we miss ya when you're not here kickn the cooler.


----------



## Msradell (Mar 22, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> 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.


You definitely need to do some fact checking.  The percentages you cite our way off from the true numbers.



> 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.


There was one of these available a few years ago and they cost about $35,000 each.  They worked very well for some individuals but the problem was that the person using them had to have a very good mental capacity.  This meant they were not usable by many potential users.  At that time insurance would not pay for them so very few people could afford them.  If you would like to donate one to me I would love one!  They also had some limitations and obviously swimming pools which is the original subject of this thread is one of them.

Another fact you seem to be missing is that our population is aging and the elderly have an even higher disability percentage than the normal population.


----------



## Msradell (Mar 22, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Here I sit in the parking lot of a Staples Store and I see a sign by the entrance to the parking lot that has the wheel chair logo so that the <1%ers can be assured that there is a place to park.  What a waste of sheet metal.


Again your statistics don't match the actual case.  In the case of handicapped parking I think anybody who ever gets a splinter can get their Dr. to write them a prescription for handicapped parking!  In addition it seems that every Lexus, BMW, etc. comes with its own handicapped placard.  We have a hard time finding available handicapped spaces, especially ones for our van because of the abuse.  Just take a look at the people who use the handicapped spaces sometime and see how many really deserve them!


----------



## GBrackins (Mar 22, 2012)

do like I do, when I see someone parked in a handicapped space without a handicap decal I call the police. I called once for a state trooper vehicle parked in a space. And then wait for the police to arrive and to hear their excuse. Amazing the things you hear ...


----------



## GBrackins (Mar 22, 2012)

I've always heard that education costs ....


----------



## incognito (Mar 23, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Again your statistics don't match the actual case.  In the case of handicapped parking I think anybody who ever gets a splinter can get their Dr. to write them a prescription for handicapped parking!  In addition it seems that every Lexus, BMW, etc. comes with its own handicapped placard.  We have a hard time finding available handicapped spaces, especially ones for our van because of the abuse.  Just take a look at the people who use the handicapped spaces sometime and see how many really deserve them!


Nothing better than a handicapped person pointing a finger at someone they do not consider handicapped enough to receive handicap consideration.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 23, 2012)

I noticed this thread getting bigger so I finally read the first page, then scanned.  I will offer my take on ADA in general, which includes the lift for pools.

I live in an area that has a very high elderly per capita ratio.  At one point we were the 2nd highest elderly population per capita in the US.  We have a lot of people on oxygen with limited capacity to walk, many now using those scooters in place of wheelchairs (it helps their self esteem and makes them more mobile) and many have had strokes and only have use of 1 hand and or side of their bodies.  This is an old coal mining area(no longer prevalent)  that has plenty of black lung recipients, and former miners with missing limbs.  Since many of these people have been scarred for life for simply working for a living, don't they deserve the same benefits as the rest of us?  At one point 17% of us will be disabled, even if it is temporary.  Knee surgery, broken limbs, etc. all come into play on a daily basis for the younger population and the elderly too.

With all of the whining about ADA, I wonder if anyone has ever had the experience of trying to help a family member with their disability?  Did you ever have to stop a meal and leave a restaurant because there was not an ADA bathroom and you had to take the person home immediately so they can relieve themselves?  It is asking too much to have businesses slowly come into compliance over the past 20 years?  Who are we to judge the quality of life of others?

Frivolous lawsuits are a whole other subject and something that should be a separate thread.  That is a problem that needs to be addressed.  Let's not bash a good program because very, very few abuse it by utilizing the legal system.  That is a legal system issue, not an ADA issue.

My mother recently passed away this past July at the young age of 64.  Prior to her passing, for the last 2 years, her health had declined.  We went out of our way to help her have a normal life.  Getting help to get her onto the floating dock at the lake so we can get her onto the pontoon boat for a ride.  The docks are brought in every year and fixed during the winter, but never, ever brought up to ADA standards, not even close, not even an attempt.  We were unable to take her to some of her favorite places to eat because there was no way to get her into the building without making a spectacle and embarrassing her.  Some places simply had not ADA bathroom that gave us enough room to help her so we did not even make that an option.

I watch people struggle in parking lots because the parking is not set up properly.  I met a young girl, 35 years old who parked near me in a lot without proper ADA parking.  She has been in a wheelchair since she was 14.  There was no access isle and she struggled to open her door enough to get her wheelchair out and set it up so she can transfer herself.  She was very independent.  I have since taken over as BCO in the municipality and made the owners re-stripe it correctly when I caught them re-striping recently with no regard for compliance.

I am a scuba diving instructor and am working towards a specialty instructor status to help disabled veterans become certified.  The pool lifts really help us in that regard.  Lets not take opportunity away from others.


----------



## globe trekker (Mar 23, 2012)

Very well stated Jeff!

IMO, there is a disconnect with a "me" vs. "them" mentality. Anyone

who has ever been around or associated with the elderly or physically

or mentally challenged (us code officials notwithstanding) certainly

recognizes the challenges in the built environment.

Until you are personally affected by some type of temporary or

permanent limitation, I do not know if you (figuratively speaking) can

appreciate some type of accomodations that will assist your everyday

life.

I would say that most of us on here are from the Baby Boom of the

late 50's. As we get older, .."if" we get older, I can only hope that

we had enough foresight to try and improve our surroundings by the

resources available to us. Growing older is not for the faint of heart!

Spend some time with or around any elderly person, and I am quite

sure that they will enlighten you about their struggles in daily

life, not to mention the other multiple types of the physically

challenged individuals.

In the U.S. today, we have become a very "ME" only society, with

not much regard for anyone else. In some instances, even in our

own families. I also remember the abuse and all out hateful

attitude from some, to the veterans returning from Vietnam.

That type of mentality, IMO, sure seems to resemble the attitude

towards the ADA / elderly / challenged community.

To me, it is not "What is this country coming to", ..rather, "What

have WE already become?" Again, ..God help us!

JEFF: My sincerest condolences to you & your family on the loss

of your momma! :-(

Been there and done that! It sucks!


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> .   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.


Yes you do need to do some fact checking; try 19 percent. The numbers keep growing as the population grows older

Population Distribution

54 million

Number of people who have a disability. 54 million

They represent 19 percent of the civilian noninstitutionalized population.

By age —

•5 percent of children 5 to 17 have disabilities.

•10 percent of people 18 to 64 have disabilities.

•38 percent of adults 65 and older have disabilities.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2012)

That's a lot of wheelchairs.  I wonder what the census bureau includes in the list of disabilities.

I don't advocate an abandonment of ADA, I just think that many mistakes have been made in the approach to the problem.

Here is an example: 400K sq ft. warehouse with 3500 sq.ft. of ADA compliant office space.  The tenant decided to build 600 sq.ft. of office space at the far end of the building, including a bathroom.  A door to the exterior was installed so a ramp was required.  The elevation change is large and so too is the ramp.  The required ramp cost as much as the office space.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 23, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Here is an example: 400K sq ft. warehouse with 3500 sq.ft. of ADA compliant office space.  The tenant decided to build 600 sq.ft. of office space at the far end of the building, including a bathroom.  A door to the exterior was installed so a ramp was required.  The elevation change is large and so too is the ramp.  The required ramp cost as much as the office space.


That could just as easily be an example of poor design/planning as adverse effects of accessibility regulations.  Is there a 20% exemption in CBC code for remodel projects?  I find ignorance is responsible for more costs than the price of self-education in most cases.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> That's a lot of wheelchairs.  I wonder what the census bureau includes in the list of disabilities.  .


Wheelchair Users in US

1 out of 250 persons

US Dept of Health

They do not have a listing for Walkers Canes and other mobility disabilities



			
				ICE said:
			
		

> Here is an example: 400K sq ft. warehouse with 3500 sq.ft. of ADA compliant office space.  The tenant decided to build 600 sq.ft. of office space at the far end of the building, including a bathroom.  A door to the exterior was installed so a ramp was required.  The elevation change is large and so too is the ramp.  The required ramp cost as much as the office space.


California, *not the ADA and not the IBC,* requires all exits to be accessible.

The ADA and the IBC allows for a percent yo be accessible.

Don't blame the ADA for a CA requirement.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 23, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> Very well stated Jeff!  IMO, there is a disconnect with a "me" vs. "them" mentality. Anyone who has ever been around or associated with the elderly or physically or mentally challenged (us code officials notwithstanding) certainly recognizes the challenges in the built environment.  Until you are personally affected by some type of temporary or permanent limitation, I do not know if you (figuratively speaking) can appreciate some type of accomodations that will assist your everyday life.  I would say that most of us on here are from the Baby Boom of the late 50's. As we get older, .."if" we get older, I can only hope that we had enough foresight to try and improve our surroundings by the resources available to us. Growing older is not for the faint of heart! Spend some time with or around any elderly person, and I am quite sure that they will enlighten you about their struggles in daily life, not to mention the other multiple types of the physically challenged individuals.  In the U.S. today, we have become a very "ME" only society, with not much regard for anyone else. In some instances, even in our own families. I also remember the abuse and all out hateful attitude from some, to the veterans returning from Vietnam. That type of mentality, IMO, sure seems to resemble the attitude towards the ADA / elderly / challenged community.  To me, it is not "What is this country coming to", ..rather, "What have WE already become?"


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xZOrWK6d4g


----------



## Msradell (Mar 23, 2012)

GBrackins said:
			
		

> do like I do, when I see someone parked in a handicapped space without a handicap decal I call the police. I called once for a state trooper vehicle parked in a space. And then wait for the police to arrive and to hear their excuse. Amazing the things you hear ...


The problem is in many cases the vehicle does have the appropriate marking but the user is not.  They're using someone else's placard, have fraudulently obtained one or have just changed the date on an expired one!  Part of the problem is the actual placard in most states has no identification as to who should be using it.  One shining exception is South Carolina that puts a picture of the person who obtained the placard directly on it for identification purposess!  Another issue is that some states issue two placards instead of just one which certainly encourages fraudulent use.



			
				incognito said:
			
		

> Nothing better than a handicapped person pointing a finger at someone they do not consider handicapped enough to receive handicap consideration.


Certainly better than somebody who isn't handicapped making fun of those who are!


----------



## brudgers (Mar 23, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> The problem is in many cases the vehicle does have the appropriate marking but the user is not.  They're using someone else's placard, have fraudulently obtained one or have just changed the date on an expired one!  Part of the problem is the actual placard in most states has no identification as to who should be using it.  One shining exception is South Carolina that puts a picture of the person who obtained the placard directly on it for identification purposess!  Another issue is that some states issue two placards instead of just one which certainly encourages fraudulent use.  Certainly better than somebody who isn't handicapped making fun of those who are!


  You have successfully made an argument for more Accessible spaces.


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Certainly better than somebody who isn't handicapped making fun of those who are!


I don't know but I've been told, that it's an insult to use the term "handicapped."  Another rule is that the disadvantaged parking logo that's painted on the pavement can't be more than 3' in dimension because it draws undo attention to the disadvantaged individual.  There are signs galore, stripes and more but if that paint covers more than 3' a lawsuit can follow, and has.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 23, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> I don't know but I've been told, that it's an insult to use the term "handicapped."  Another rule is that the disadvantaged parking logo that's painted on the pavement can't be more than 3' in dimension because it draws undo attention to the disadvantaged individual.  There are signs galore, stripes and more but if that paint covers more than 3' a lawsuit can follow, and has.


Where is snopes when you them?

If you are looking for the correct nomenclature, I might suggest that while I am disadvantaged (economically) in several ways, I am not disabled.  Having ability and or access versus having advantage are dissimilar.


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2012)

Well actually I'm not looking for the correct nomenclature.  I'm not on any one side of any issue regarding ADA.  For one thing, I don't know much about it other than the little an inspector must apply.  For another it's not interesting for me as it is for so many others that visit the forum.   I chimed in to get the thread moving again and that's it.  I agree with what I said but that's just me so don't take it personal.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 26, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> I agree with what I said but that's just me so don't take it personal.


I try hard not to, and didn't...but as you said, some in the forum take certain topics more seriously than others.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 26, 2012)

Are you suggesting that some people don't expect the Spanish Inquisition?


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 26, 2012)

I suppose it is not too much of a stretch to equate today’s regulatory mandates especially from the current administration, to the Spanish Inquisition. They most definitely have the very same goals:

Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs' (White House / DOJ)decision to fund the Inquisition such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, suppressing conversos (Republicans / conservatives), profiting from confiscation of the property of convicted heretics (the wealthy), reducing social tensions (creating class warfare)and protecting the kingdom from the danger of a fifth column (Tea Party).


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 26, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I suppose it is not too much of a stretch to equate today’s regulatory mandates to the Spanish Inquisition.


okay...and still Monty Python-esque.



			
				gbhammer said:
			
		

> They most definitely have the very same goals:Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs' *(White House / DOJ)* decision to fund the Inquisition such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, suppressing conversos (Republicans / conservatives), profiting from confiscation of the property of convicted heretics (the wealthy), reducing social tensions (creating class warfare)and protecting the kingdom from the danger of a fifth column (Tea Party).


A bit of a stretch, and a bit much on the political bend for this forum (IMO)...especially given that several of the Monarch's, from both non-tea drinking parties, have had a hand in the mandate of this thread in which we are discussing.  maybe we could steer the conversation back towards the OP, or create an OT.

How was the day off?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 26, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I suppose it is not too much of a stretch to equate today’s regulatory mandates especially from the current administration, to the Spanish Inquisition. They most definitely have the very same goals:Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs' (White House / DOJ)decision to fund the Inquisition such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, suppressing conversos (Republicans / conservatives), profiting from confiscation of the property of convicted heretics (the wealthy), reducing social tensions (creating class warfare)and protecting the kingdom from the danger of a fifth column (Tea Party).


Remember, the ADA, was Bush, NOT Obama

George H W Bush Signed the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Bill in  1990


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 26, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Remember, the ADA, was Bush, NOT ObamaGeorge H W Bush Signed the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Bill in  1990


Your absolutely correct plenty of regs pushed by all, and the ADA in and of itself is no bad thing. That was not the point I was trying to bludgeon.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 26, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Remember, the ADA, was Bush, NOT Obama George H W Bush Signed the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Bill in  1990


  I think it's worth mentioning that the Federal rule making process for the revised guidelines occurred entirely under Bush the Worse.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 26, 2012)

I'm still watching the My Generation video post by Brudgers.  As a bass player, I idolized John Entwistle.  Love the ground breaking bass riffs.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 3, 2012)

DOJ Extends ADA Compliance Date for Pools and Spas

http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/regblog/2012/04/doj-extends-ada-compliance-date-for-pools-and-spas.html

Maxwell Blum | 04/03/12

In a decision applauded yesterday by the U.S. Small Business Administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently pushed back to May 2012 the date by which owners or operators of pools and spas must comply with new disability accesss standards. At the same time, the DOJ also released a notice of proposed rulemaking that would push the compliance deadline back still further to September 2012.

In 2010, the DOJ had acted under the Americans with Disabilities Act to create a set of Standards for Accessible Design for, among other things, existing and future pools and spas used in public accomodations and commercial and government-owned facilities.

Under the 2010 standards, existing pool owners are required to remove architectural access barriers if doing so is “readily achievable,” meaning that the modification “can be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” For example, a hotel might install a pool lift which meets the requirements for such devices as outlined in the 2010 Standards, if doing so is financially feasible.

The American Hotel and Lodging Association (AH & LA) expressed confusion about what commercial entities are required to do to comply with the 2010 standards, given the lack of bright line rules concerning how significant improvements need to be and when a business’s financial resources are deemed ample enough to activate the modification requirement.  The group also raised concerns about the safety of some access devices that the standards purportedly would encourage facilities to install.

The DOJ responded to these concerns by noting that the lack of bright line rules was intentional given the varied circumstances businesses find themselves in. The DOJ suggested that businesses without the resources to comply should create implementation plans. It further noted that it knew of no evidence to warrant safety concerns about access tools.

The 2010 standards, which new pools built after March 15th still must meet, mandate that “large” pools (greater than 300 feet) have at least two accessible entry points, such as fixed pool lifts or sloped entries, while “small” pools are required to have at least one.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 26, 2012)

Pools may close instead of installing pricey chairlift

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120426/BUSINESS01/304260063/Pools-may-close-instead-installing-pricey-chairlift

Hotels say measure to add lifts for disabled is too costly

3:20 AM, Apr. 26, 2012

Some pools and spas, including the whirlpool at the Courtyard Marriott Hotel downtown, may close rather than comply with a federal rule that all public pools and hot tubs must install an expensive chairlift for the disabled.

Hotel operators are crying foul because they say there are less costly fixes that work just as well as the lift equipment federal officials want installed by May 21. They’re seeking a delay of at least six months.

“It’s going to cost hotel operators nearly $1 billion to comply with these rules, and in many cases, the answer will be to fill in the pools and take out the hot tubs rather than adding the lifts, which can cost $12,000 or more each (to install),” said Greg Adkins, president of the Tennessee Hospitality Association, which represents hotel owners.

The rules are being issued by the U.S. Justice Department under the Americans With Disabilities Act — or ADA — and they will affect more than 300,000 pools and spas around the country.

Advocates for the disabled favor the government’s initiative and say they’re opposed to any steps by hotel operators to delay things. The rules were written in 2010.

“It’s obviously a necessary thing. I’m glad they’re going to start to crack down. I have used them, and as a camp counselor, I’ve helped others with disabilities use them,” said Evan Espey of Nashville, who was born with spina bifida and uses a wheelchair.

“Pool owners have had plenty of time to come into compliance,” said Bob Kibler, executive director of the Technology Access Center in Nashville, which helps disabled people use technology to overcome handicaps.

Still, some hotel and motel owners say the cost of installation is high and they might close pools rather than pay for the chairlifts.

“We will be closing ours,” said Dennis Barber, general manager of the Courtyard Marriott Downtown. “We have only a whirlpool spa, and it doesn’t get a lot of use to start with, so it doesn’t make sense to spend the money on a lift. If it was very popular, we would have to consider that.”

Rules sent out initially by the Justice Department would have allowed hotels and other venues to use less-expensive portable lifts that could have been shared between adjacent spas and pools at a property. Now, though, the Justice Department says only fixed, permanently installed lifts will be allowed.

For many smaller hotels and motels even having a swimming pool was an afterthought, said Nashville hotel consultant Drew Dimond.

“We will see many of those facilities eliminate pools altogether — just fill them in — unless it’s a resort like Opryland, where it’s an integral part of the operation,” Dimond said.

The lifts cost up to $8,000 apiece, and installation can double the price tag, industry officials said.

“It’s wonderful for someone who is incapacitated, but it is an unreasonable request, especially when they won’t let them use portable lifts,” Dimond said. “They will have to jack-hammer the pool deck to install one.”

Larger pools — with more than 300 feet of side walls — will have to have two lifts or a sloped entry that safely can accommodate a wheelchair.

“In some locations, the lifts themselves can create other hazards that are dangerous not only for disabled people, but for children and other guests,” Adkins contends.

Large hotel chains such as Hilton are working to comply with the rules, and places such as the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center already have them in place.

“New, ADA-compliant chairlifts were installed at all three of our pools and the hot tub at the beginning of April,” said Gaylord Opryland spokeswoman Jenny Barker. “As a property with 2,881 rooms, we find they are used fairly regularly.”

The Hilton Nashville Downtown also has ordered equipment and plans to install it.

Other pool operators, such as the YMCA, say they won’t be able to meet the May 21 deadline because manufacturers have huge backlogs of orders and can’t provide the devices in time.

“We initially ordered the portable lifts for our pools but had to go back and cancel those and order the fixed lifts,” said Jessica Fain, spokeswoman for YMCA of Middle Tennessee, which has pool facilities in 13 counties.

“We expected to be compliant by the deadline, but we’re having the same issue we had with mandated pool drain covers a couple of year ago,” she said. “We have ordered them, but there is a backlog and we’re waiting.”

Government-run pools affected

Metropolitan Nashville already has installed the required lifts at its pools, but not at Wave Country, where they’re not required, said Tommy Lynch, director of the city’s Parks and Recreation Department.

Unlike privately owned pools such as those at hotels and the YMCA, there are no penalties to force government bodies to install the lifts, Lynch said. In the private sector, fines can run into the thousands of dollars for noncompliance.

Tennessee’s state parks are mostly not in compliance yet, and probably won’t be until there is money allocated by the General Assembly to pay for the lifts, said parks spokeswoman Meg Lockhart.

“Historically, coming into compliance with ADA guidelines is considered an ongoing process, and it can be a challenge in terms of funding and planning,” Lockhart said.

Many hotel operators are hoping for the deadline extension and perhaps a new comment period that would allow questions to be raised again about allowing portable lifts as a compromise, said Adkins of the hospitality association.

“We’re asking the Department of Justice to work with us and at least allow portable lifts,” he said.

Contact Tennessean business writer G. Chambers Williams III at 615-259-8076 or cwilliams1@tennessean.com.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 26, 2012)

This is probably a dumb question. I could not find a definition of pool or spa in the 2010 ADA Standards, may be I overlooked it. It states that a pool must provide at least 2 accessible means of entry, if less than 300-feet it must have one, if the one is a pool lift. Wadding pools must have a sloped entry. The lack of definitions makes me wonder, would a cuddles and bubbles (2-person jacuzzi) platform tub be considered a wadding pool or spa?


----------



## Msradell (Apr 26, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Pools may close instead of installing pricey chairliftGovernment-run pools affected
> 
> Metropolitan Nashville already has installed the required lifts at its pools, but not at Wave Country, where they’re not required, said Tommy Lynch, director of the city’s Parks and Recreation Department.
> 
> Unlike privately owned pools such as those at hotels and the YMCA, there are no penalties to force government bodies to install the lifts, Lynch said. In the private sector, fines can run into the thousands of dollars for noncompliance.


Sounds like a typical application of governmental laws, do is I say, not as I do!  It's interesting to note that other sections of the ADA are equally enforced and the DOJ has actually filed suits against some cities for noncompliance.


----------



## Coug Dad (May 25, 2012)

Upon further review by the replay official in the booth:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/24/feds-promise-swimming-pool-rules-are-flexible/


----------

