# Pair sues for more disabled access



## mark handler (Nov 12, 2010)

Pair sues for more disabled access

City contends that places like Balboa Island's Marine Avenue actually exceed ADA requirements.

BALBOA ISLAND — The Balboa Island Ferry and the shops along Marine Avenue are some of the most charming places in Southern California.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-1112-pike-20101111,0,1037918.story&ct=ga&cad=CAcQAhgAIAAoATABOAFAo_7y5gRIAVCSAVgAYgJlbg&cd=G3A-HsgFSKI&usg=AFQjCNHH36N6NGfv68IRLS27amVdMypqvg

That's unless you are disabled, Arnie Pike contends.

Pike, a wheelchair-bound man, and another disabled woman are suing the city to make Balboa Island more accessible. They claim there aren't enough disabled parking spaces along the main shopping street, that the sidewalks are too crowded with benches and signs, and that the Balboa Island Ferry is inaccessible.

After two years of negotiations and court proceedings, the parties are going to trial.

"I want it to be improved for everybody who is disabled," Pike said, "so we can all use the facilities like normal people."

Pike, 72, began using a wheelchair after he suffered a stroke in the 1990s. His co-plaintiff, Christie Rudder, 48, was in a car accident that left her a partial quadriplegic. She also uses a wheelchair.

Rudder has visited family on Little Balboa Island for years, her attorney says, and around 2005 she was unable to park in her normal spaces because the city removed three disabled spots along Marine Avenue.

There is still one disabled space just off Marine, next to the Balboa Island Fire Station. But Pike said that he is unable to extend his wheelchair ramp from his van because the curb there is too high. Because of this and other barriers, the pair claim, the city is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws.

The city contends that the areas in question, including the Marine Avenue area, are accessible. The sidewalks "exceed the requirements of the ADA regulations," the city claims in court records.

It voluntarily installed the disabled space on Park Avenue, the city states, as the ADA rules do not require public agencies to provide this type of disabled parking.

"The city goes out and tries to help the handicapped and a guy like this challenges it," said Councilman Ed Selich, who represents the area. "It seems this guy is punishing the city for going the extra mile."

Pike complained at City Council meetings in 2006 and 2007, but he said that nothing was done. When he called to complain to the city manager at that time, Homer Bludeau, Pike said another representative from the city threatened to remove the only space. Eventually, he decided to take the city to federal court.

Pike and Rudder are suing under California law and the ADA, which requires local governments to provide curb cuts — the indentations created to allow wheelchairs to move from the street onto sidewalks — and to make areas such as the shopping district on Balboa Island generally accessible for disabled individuals.

Because parking is so limited near Marine, Pike says he has to park on side streets or to take the ferry from the Balboa Peninsula.

"That's just the island. Everything is small down here," said Rhonda Binder, 48, who was helping her son, a Boy Scout, sell popcorn on the Marine Avenue sidewalk on Thursday. "There are just certain parameters they should deal with."

But when Pike tries to park on Balboa Peninsula instead and take the ferry, he says it presents a set of other issues.

First, he can't roll from the dock onto the barge because they are at different levels, he says.

The ferry is mentioned in the lawsuit because the city licenses it to transport cars, but the city says it's not responsible for its accessibility.

Besides, the city says that ferry operators use a mat to bridge the gap, and that its process provides enough access. The ADA, the city says, doesn't require physical or structural alterations when other methods are sufficient.

Pike claimed that he plans to sue the ferry separately. He has asked the operators to place a steel plate on a hinge, and it could swing from the ferry down to the dock.

"I'm not asking them to alter the looks of the ferry, only to make it accessible to people with wheelchairs," he said. "It would be cheaper than a lawsuit, but they refuse to do it."

Blair Smith, an operator on the ferry, pointed to a yellow board that they use to bridge the gap on Thursday. He mentioned that they help disabled people on and off.

"It's really easy," he said.

That's not good enough for Pike.

"Yes, they are helpful, but that is not the point," he said.

If Pike gets off the ferry, he says the route he wants to take from the ferry to Marine would be down Park Avenue, and the curbs are not designed for wheelchair access, he says.

A visit this week showed that the named streets have curb cuts, while the alleys appear to have a lip separating the sidewalk and the road.

Pike and Rudder are seeking that the city make alterations to comply with ADA rules, for damages including emotional pain and suffering, and for legal fees.

This isn't Pike's first ADA lawsuit. He has sued local governments and agencies, including the Orange County Transportation Authority, to get more disabled access to facilities. He sued a farmer in Placentia in 2007 because his wheelchair sunk into gravel and he was unable to access a fruit stand.

Pike has also sued the "Dancing with the Stars" television show because the CBS studio where it is filmed did not have disabled-accessible seating.

In each case he says that money has not been the focus, but that he wants changes to be made first. He does seek damages, he says, to heighten the threat.

"That's the only way to get the attention of anybody," he says.

Pike has settled with cities in the past, but was unwilling to disclose the terms


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 12, 2010)

Does this sort of thing actually happen outside of california?

I'm just asking cuz generally it is not a story about a person in idaho or nebraska or iowa.


----------



## conarb (Nov 12, 2010)

RKTECT said:
			
		

> Does this sort of thing actually happen outside of california?


I don't know about outside of California, but inside California it's gotten pretty bad.  I went to my structural engineer's office the other day, there were two large vacant disabled parking spaces right at the front door, and a few more in the lot.  Every space was filled with the exception of the disabled spaces, I sat in the lot along with three other cars for about 15 minutes waiting for a space; meanwhile while we were waiting, not one disabled driver came into the lot and the disabled spaces remained vacant.  This has really gotten out of hand, We don't dare take them because the cops look to give tickets because the fines are so large that they are very profitable for the cities.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 12, 2010)

rktect 1 said:
			
		

> Does this sort of thing actually happen outside of california?I'm just asking cuz generally it is not a story about a person in idaho or nebraska or iowa.


All over the US

ADA Settlements and Consent Agreements

http://www.ada.gov/settlemt.htm


----------



## conarb (Nov 12, 2010)

Sure it's nationwide, in Nevada even the brothels have handicap ramps.


View attachment 254


Have to wonder if it's for the use of the customers or the employees.​
View attachment 254


/monthly_2010_11/brothel03.jpg.5c535d37e9770dc1d7cb20d3810d97c0.jpg


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 12, 2010)

Huh?  So thats a chicken ranch?


----------



## brudgers (Nov 12, 2010)

It happens more in California because State law provides for damages and there is a large population.

Many other states don't believe in free markets.


----------



## conarb (Nov 12, 2010)

Brudgers said:
			
		

> Many other states don't believe in free markets.


So it's a free market when state law sets up privileged classes?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 12, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> privileged classes?


No, It's called *protected *class

Just wait till your in a wheelchair.....


----------



## Gene Boecker (Nov 12, 2010)

Yes, there was a case in Tennessee where the man sued the city and won because they did not plow the roads or shovel the bridges in winter so that he could take his motorized scooter over the road.  If there were no sidewalks this would make some sense.  But there are sidewalks and those were being cleared.  He wanted to ride his scooter on the road and the courts agreed.

(PS  Hi folks!  I'm in bt I'll be out again)


----------



## conarb (Nov 12, 2010)

Mark said:
			
		

> No, It's called *protected *classJust wait till your in a wheelchair...


No it isn't, there is no such terminology at law, it's called "Suspect Class", the term "protected class" is a term of the politically correct, not a term of law.

The problem is that suspect classes have in many instances become privileged classes, when I complained to the structural engineer the other day about the lack of parking in his parking lot, he told me that the problem is all the Handicap spaces, he's never seen a person in a wheelchair in the building and the Handicap spaces sit vacant all day while the parking lot can't handle the normal business load.  The entire disabled parking situation has become a farce, most of the people having the privilege convince doctors to certify them when they aren't really disabled.

If I do end up in a wheelchair I will not request special consideration, I see many so-called disabled people who are in reality obese because or their own lack of caloric  intake control, they should get no more legal preferences than an alcoholic should get for his lack of alcholic intake control.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 12, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> No it isn't, there is no such terminology at law, .


Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:

Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866

Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964

Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)

Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)

Gender identity (in some jurisdictions and not in others)

*Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990*

Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974

Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

http://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html


----------



## Gene Boecker (Nov 12, 2010)

Gee!  I didn't realize I was old enough to be a protected class!

(Almost feels like saying I'm a protected species.)


----------



## mark handler (Nov 12, 2010)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Gee!  I didn't realize I was old enough to be a protected class!  (Almost feels like saying I'm a protected species.)


Only for Employment


----------



## conarb (Nov 12, 2010)

Mark said:
			
		

> *Once again you don;t know what you are talking about*Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.


I don't know what law school you went to but I was taught that the correct terminology was "suspect class". Cite Federal Law that uses other terminology, if it does then that might be good grounds for challenge.


----------



## tbz (Nov 14, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> It happens more in California because State law provides for damages and there is a large population.Many other states don't believe in free markets.


brudgers,

As someone who lost 76% of my heart muscle and has a hard time walking distances, I value many aspects of the ADA act of 1990's put in to place.  However, as an American citizen I find it totally wrong what is going on with personal law suits as noted.

My freedom of choice as an American allows to me to visit were ever I would like to go, if someplace is not accessible I don't believe I have the right to sue for damages, nor sue the entity, rather just report the violation to the federal government, if they don't respond, then sue the federal governing body, being the justice department to move to getting something done.

There should be no personal monitory gain, only costs for lawyers at a fixed rate if any.

You talk about free market, yet the mere fact that no one can refuse access to anyone does not make it a free market, I am not free to make a choice of who one wants to provide services and access in to a business.  It is simply a government market.

In my home town which is a old mining and farming town here in NJ, the main street of shops and stores were built mainly between 1835 and 1935, I don't believe there is a building on the main strip less than 70 years of age.  Of which 80% of them are at least 4' above grade and only 4-5 feet set back from the sidewalks at best.

The amount of reconstruction required to these historical buildings to meet 100% is just wrong in my opinion, though been done.

There was a small fishing shop there for years, the cost to make it compliant for access was more than 2 times what this man made in a year, do you think it was fare this man lost his lively hood and building which was in the family for over 100 years because of ADA, I am curious what protects those just trying to make a meager living.

Good intentions, the laws suits are just a reality of personal gain for money period, if there was no financial gain for them, how many of them would file suit, i doubt many.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 14, 2010)

tbz said:
			
		

> brudgers,As someone who lost 76% of my heart muscle and has a hard time walking distances, I value many aspects of the ADA act of 1990's put in to place.  However, as an American citizen I find it totally wrong what is going on with personal law suits as noted.
> 
> My freedom of choice as an American allows to me to visit were ever I would like to go, if someplace is not accessible I don't believe I have the right to sue for damages, nor sue the entity, rather just report the violation to the federal government, if they don't respond, then sue the federal governing body, being the justice department to move to getting something done.
> 
> ...


You are free not to sue. However, businesses profit from non-compliance with accessibility laws. Where there is no punishment for non-compliance only the wealthy can afford to file suit when their rights are violated.

If a business can't afford to comply, then they cannot afford to be in business. It's no different from a business that cannot afford to buy stock for its shelves and therefore steals it.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 14, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> So it's a free market when state law sets up privileged classes?


Such as corporations?


----------



## tbz (Nov 15, 2010)

> You are free not to sue. However, businesses profit from non-compliance with accessibility laws. Where there is no punishment for non-compliance only the wealthy can afford to file suit when their rights are violated.If a business can't afford to comply, then they cannot afford to be in business. It's no different from a business that cannot afford to buy stock for its shelves and therefore steals it.


One can afford to be in business making fly's for fishing men and selling rods and reels in a building that is paid off and only owing annual taxes.  When you are required to do over $60,000.00 in construction to make your small shop accessible from the street, which also requires you to pay for the street improvements all because the government says so, sorry I don't agree with you that they don't have a right to be in business that has existed for over 70 years.

Sorry, but this person lived within their means and was forced out of business by the goverment, there are such things as small business out there though you might not believe in it.

The ADA lawsuits do not hurt big business, they hurt very small family business just making it, though I guess this means nothing anymore.

Love it when no one looks out for for all the little guys, not just a few.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 15, 2010)

The law of unintended consequences

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/09/01/good_intentions_gone_bad/page/1


----------



## brudgers (Nov 15, 2010)

tbz said:
			
		

> One can afford to be in business making fly's for fishing men and selling rods and reels in a building that is paid off and only owing annual taxes.  When you are required to do over $60,000.00 in construction to make your small shop accessible from the street, which also requires you to pay for the street improvements all because the government says so, sorry I don't agree with you that they don't have a right to be in business that has existed for over 70 years.Sorry, but this person lived within their means and was forced out of business by the goverment, there are such things as small business out there though you might not believe in it.
> 
> The ADA lawsuits do not hurt big business, they hurt very small family business just making it, though I guess this means nothing anymore.
> 
> Love it when no one looks out for for all the little guys, not just a few.


You can't hire children at 25 cents an hour to manufacture your goods either.

You can't dump benzene in the stream behind your shop....Well, ok, if it's Jersey you can, but most places you can't.

But in any case, a $60,000 fifteen year loan backed by an unmortgaged  buiding will run a few hundred dollars a month.  It's just a cost of doing business.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 15, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The law of unintended consequenceshttp://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/09/01/good_intentions_gone_bad/page/1


The law of hypocrisy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel#David_Schultz_incident


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 15, 2010)

Try and get a business loan today


----------



## tbz (Nov 15, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> You can't hire children at 25 cents an hour to manufacture your goods either.You can't dump benzene in the stream behind your shop....Well, ok, if it's Jersey you can, but most places you can't.
> 
> But in any case, a $60,000 fifteen year loan backed by an unmortgaged  buiding will run a few hundred dollars a month.  It's just a cost of doing business.


It's seems obvious that you are unaware of how hard it is for small family businesses that have existed for generations to even get loans for projects like this when their annual net is less than 10% of the cost.

Next because the building is not ADA compliant, the banks don't loan on it because of no resale value and the high costs to bring in to compliance.

Now Let's look at the fact that the local historical society put a lock on the town because it is so old that it takes 2 years to even get your designs approved, yet a building permit.  And because of the historical society the banks again want no part of it without large points and interest rates.

Let's just look at reality here, Joe Smuck files suit on Pete's shoe repair for only one reason, money in the pocket, otherwise they would be using that money to improve access in other areas.  This is the reality of it, if there was no money in it other than paying the lawyers cost to get it done, the law suits would not be done, so they simply are kicking the small buisness in the face for pocket money, not access as some would beleive otherwise they would not settle.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 15, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Try and get a business loan today


ADA has been in effect for 20 years.

A $60,000 mortgage on a decent piece of commercial real estate should not be that hard to obtain.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 15, 2010)

tbz said:
			
		

> It's seems obvious that you are unaware of how hard it is for small family businesses that have existed for generations to even get loans for projects like this when their annual net is less than 10% of the cost.


If their net is less than $6000 a year, then they don't have much to complain about in regards to losing their business.

They would make more as a greeter at Walmart.

BTW, lousy business decisions is not an excuse for non-compliance.


----------



## tbz (Nov 15, 2010)

> BTW, lousy business decisions is not an excuse for non-compliance.


What is so lousy with having a business for 50 years, paying all your bills and owning a property handed down through the family prior to WW2 that you paid the govement more taxes on than you could ever sell it for and then have that same entity turn around and tell you by the way you have to change everything.  Not making excessive amounts of money is not a lousey business decision, it was a simple living, that was well within his means till the goverment said you now have to do this.

The man did what he loved for a living and never hurt a sole, but stick it to the little guy for trying to live a simple life.

The only thing lousy I guess is that he had no greed or belief in that he was entitled to more than a basic life.


----------



## peach (Nov 15, 2010)

OK... so 3 ADA spaces are required/provided in a parking lot.. and legitimately disabled persons are parked there.. what does the 4th person (also legitimately disabled) park?

We can't accommodate everyone all the time..  that's just the way it is.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2010)

tbz said:
			
		

> What is so lousy with having a business for 50 years, paying all your bills and owning a property handed down through the family prior to WW2 that you paid the govement more taxes on than you could ever sell it for and then have that same entity turn around and tell you by the way you have to change everything.  Not making excessive amounts of money is not a lousey business decision, it was a simple living, that was well within his means till the goverment said you now have to do this.The man did what he loved for a living and never hurt a sole, but stick it to the little guy for trying to live a simple life.
> 
> The only thing lousy I guess is that he had no greed or belief in that he was entitled to more than a basic life.


Just imagine all that hard work they put into inheriting property.

To have everything you were given at birth just disappear after twenty years without a business plan.

You really gotta' feel for those people.


----------



## Rio (Nov 16, 2010)

The ADA laws are some of worst legislation to ever come out of congress; they're a giant money making machine for lawyers and have ruined many a small business unjustly.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 16, 2010)

Rio said:
			
		

> The ADA laws are some of worst legislation to ever come out of congress; they're a giant money making machine for lawyers and have ruined many a small business unjustly.


And just as the "green" BS will ultimately get shouted down when people come to their senses, the voice of reason will ultimately prevail regarding the ridiculous handicapped requirements, and some common sense will take over.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 16, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Just imagine all that hard work they put into inheriting property.To have everything you were given at birth just disappear after twenty years without a business plan.
> 
> You really gotta' feel for those people.


It's neither your concern nor mine how they got it, how hard they worked for it, or whether or not they had a business plan. It was theirs.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> It's neither your concern nor mine how they got it, how hard they worked for it, or whether or not they had a business plan. It was theirs.


Their ownership interest in the real-estate is part and parcel of the same legal system as ADA. The property is no more or less theirs than the responsibility to comply with ADA is theirs.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 16, 2010)

So the right to property ownership is subject to the whimsical interpretations of the Department of Justice? I say it's not.

ADA is a great employment program for architects, but as it becomes more and more oppressive to the general public, they will stop it. The needs of a very, very few will not forever outweigh the rights of everyone else. Especially when those perceived needs are carried, or interpreted, to preposterous extremes.

And "just wait until you're in a wheelchair" is a most ridiculous argument.


----------



## conarb (Nov 16, 2010)

The Stanford Magazine had an article on beauty bias, demanding equality for ugly people, in response someone quoted Alexis de Tocqueville.



> Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.  Alexis de Tocqueville


----------



## tbz (Nov 16, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Their ownership interest in the real-estate is part and parcel of the same legal system as ADA. The property is no more or less theirs than the responsibility to comply with ADA is theirs.


I guess when money is all that matters in peoples minds you just don't get that people want a simple life not ruled at every turn with massive amounts of costs.

To turn it back on point the simple fact is that no one should be able to file suit againts another person or business for not having access.  Its a simple truth, the government made the law and the government should be the only one that can enforce and file suit!

The local building department can't enforce ADA requirements unless the state or local AHJ adopted a piggy backed copy of the federal standard for them to use on their own.

So no single person or group should be able to file the suit for finacial gain.

The fines and penalties should come from the government cash cow and they should work with the entity to get them to comply.  Each instance should be looked at realistically, not microscopictly and a model that has seemed to work is OSHA, they seem to have everyones interests at heart not just the banks.

Thats the simple point, the reality is that if you are lucky 1% of the suits you are seeing and reading about are about access and 99% is about pockets being filled.

So I see it as nothing more than personal greed hiding behind good intentions.


----------



## tbz (Nov 16, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> The Stanford Magazine had an article on beauty bias, demanding equality for ugly people, in response someone quoted Alexis de Tocqueville.


Conrad, 10 thumbs up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> So the right to property ownership is subject to the whimsical interpretations of the Department of Justice? I say it's not.


The ownership interest in property is established by the same legal system that gives us the ADA and the DOJ.

It is no more or less a right than the right to accessibility.

You've put Robocop on a Unicorn: an individual's private property ownership  often outweigh the rights of everyone else.


----------



## conarb (Nov 17, 2010)

Maybe well-meaning AHJs should waive permit fees for ADA work?  On the same day in 2003 I picked up two permits, both for $42,000, one for a window replacement on a residence at $693, the other for the ADA compliance on a church, on the church I spent $1,550 for an architect and $1,060 for the permit, I asked the permit tech why the church was more than the residence since both were $42,000, he said that they charged more for commercial than residential, and ADA work on a church was commercial.  Why should government agencies, architects, and yes us contractors profiteer on ADA work?


----------



## brudgers (Nov 17, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> Maybe well-meaning AHJs should waive permit fees for ADA work?  On the same day in 2003 I picked up two permits, both for $42,000, one for a window replacement on a residence at $693, the other for the ADA compliance on a church, on the church I spent $1,550 for an architect and $1,060 for the permit, I asked the permit tech why the church was more than the residence since both were $42,000, he said that they charged more for commercial than residential, and ADA work on a church was commercial.  Why should government agencies, architects, and yes us contractors profiteer on ADA work?


This is the problem with anecdotal evidence.

People often don't know WTF they are talking about.

Churches are exempt from ADA.

Congratulations, you are now Fox News.


----------



## conarb (Nov 17, 2010)

Brudgers said:
			
		

> Churches are exempt from ADA.


Well why the Hell did the County charge me?  2003 was 7 years ago so the statute has expired, I would have sued the SOBs had I known.

So what you are saying is that they are exempt from compliance but if they voluntarily comply they get charged exorbitant fees?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 17, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> Well why the Hell did the County charge me?  2003 was 7 years ago so the statute has expired, I would have sued the SOBs had I known.So what you are saying is that they are exempt from compliance but if they voluntarily comply they get charged exorbitant fees?


Places of worship are exempt from the ADA rules, But they are *NOT* exempt from California Accessibility Laws, rules and codes. The So called SOB's are doing their job.

Sound like the church is more inclusive than some on this board.


----------



## conarb (Nov 17, 2010)

Mark said:
			
		

> Sound like the church is more inclusive than some on this board.


Your comments on inclusionism smack of egalitarianism.



			
				Capitalism Magazine said:
			
		

> *Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an "equality" in end  results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort,  achieves that which others cannot. Trends in modern education reflect  this egalitarian hatred of achievement. In an attempt to "dumb down" all  students to the lowest common denominator, today's educators no longer  promote excellence and students of superior ability. Rather, they focus  on the slow and the diseased, crippling the most talented in the  process.*That some people are exceptional -- that some have more intelligence,  are more beautiful or work harder than others -- is a threat to  egalitarians. Talent and ability create inequality. To rectify this  supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable.  Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better  than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the  strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak. We  must worship a zero and sneer at a creator.¹


Codes, Statutes, and Laws have no business promoting political and social agenda.

¹ http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/diversity/3417-egalitarianism-the-new-torture-rack.html


----------



## mark handler (Nov 17, 2010)

Once again we have gone, off topic


----------



## conarb (Nov 17, 2010)

I read a letter to the editor in our local paper the other day espousing egalitarianism.



			
				Contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> *Sport?* The language of sport: win, lose, defeat, conquer, thrash, hurt, beat, victory, fastest ... all the words and phrases of cruel experiences on the fields, in the pools, on the courts. What a shame. Where's the fun, the pleasure?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From Berkeley, and Big Game Week no less

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/letters/ci_16599126


----------



## mark handler (Nov 17, 2010)

Once again we have gone, off topic


----------



## conarb (Nov 17, 2010)

Mark said:
			
		

> And yet you learned nothing


I guess I learned that Communists are egalitarians who want no scores in games, disabled people playing in the NBS, NFL, and MLB.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 17, 2010)

Once again we have gone, off topic


----------



## beach (Nov 17, 2010)

In California, it's T-24 not ADA..... I don't see an exception for Places of Religious Worship, AKA..... Church. Is there a section?

Oops.... never mind...didn't see the next page..


----------



## conarb (Nov 17, 2010)

Mark said:
			
		

> ....we are hoping that will soon happen to you.


You say "we", I have to wonder what others think of this little exchange?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 17, 2010)

Once again we have gone, off topic


----------



## mark handler (Nov 17, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> You say "we", I have to wonder what others think of this little exchange?


argumentum ad populum


----------



## brudgers (Nov 18, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Sound like the church is more inclusive than some on this board.


Comparing organizations such as churches to individuals such as board members is an error of logic.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 18, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Comparing organizations such as churches to individuals such as board members is an error of logic.


No more than allowing corperations and other organizations to pump money into the political system , but That too is off topic.


----------



## conarb (Nov 18, 2010)

Mark said:
			
		

> No more than allowing corperations and other organizations to pump money into the political system , but That too is off topic.


Like Fascist environmental organizations outspending "Big Oil" 3 to 1 to defeat Prop 23, but that too is off topic.



> Environmentalists opposed to Prop. 23 were originally portrayed in news  reports--and in their own words--as Davids fighting Goliath, out-gunned  and out-resourced by oil companies.  Yet Greens outspent Big Oil $30  million to $10 million, and defeated the measure 61% to 39%, drawing  considerable support among Republican voters in the state. ¹


¹ http://bigthink.com/ideas/24860


----------



## texasbo (Nov 19, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The ownership interest in property is established by the same legal system that gives us the ADA and the DOJ.It is no more or less a right than the right to accessibility.
> 
> You've put Robocop on a Unicorn: an individual's private property ownership  often outweigh the rights of everyone else.


It's a real stretch comparing equally the rights to property ownership with the laws regulating accessibility. That's like saying that laws prohibiting marrying your sister are the same as those for murder. Ya, they're both laws, but that's about it. If your point was that they are both laws, well, I guess you made your point. Fortunately, they aren't quite equal, YET. That's why I don't have to make my home accessible to handicapped people. YET.

And I can't disagree with the example of fallacy in the inversion: unfortunately, you're right. The rights of an individual property owner are too often dictated by an oppressive government and frivolous whims of the handicapped community (and their lawyers). A property owner is not even given the simple right to decide who they can and can't allow on their own property. However, given the rapidly increasing level of absurdity regarding these claims, cases, and settlements, the public ultimately will cease to allow the ridiculous waste of money (both private and taxpayer) payed out to these vigilante handicapped people and their lawyers.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 19, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> Like Fascist environmental organizations outspending "Big Oil" 3 to 1 to defeat Prop 23, but that too is off topic. ¹ http://bigthink.com/ideas/24860


I've been at the Texas ICSC convention for the last couple of days, and I have missed out on some serious fun. I'd love to see the posts that were deleted/edited...

Conarb, come to Texas, please. You'd like it here. You belong here.


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2010)

Texasbo said:
			
		

> Conarb, come to Texas, please. You'd like it here. You belong here.


Interestingly a lot of my friends here are Texans, including my attorney.  But if I left California would there be any freedom-loving Californians left?  Were I to leave, I'm sure there are many radical environmentalists here willing to pay my way to Texas.


----------



## conarb (Nov 19, 2010)

Texasbo:

Texas governor's advice to California:



> Channel 10 News]    "I'll be leaving here and talking to business men and women about relocating to the state of Texas," said Perry.When asked which ones, he replied, "I can't tell you."Unlike California, Texas has a healthy, balanced budget and leads the country in job growth."There  is a reason that four out of five private sector jobs created in  America from 2005 to present were in the state of Texas," said Perry.  He  was brutally honest about the state of California and quick to point  out what he thinks California state leaders are doing wrong."You have a government that is dysfunctional. You're over-taxing, *you're over-regulating, you're over-litigating*," said Perry.¹


Yes he is recruiting us, ADA is a good example as to why Texas is cleaning our clock economic-wise:  *you're over-regulating, you're over-litigating*¹ http://www.10news.com/news/25835123/detail.html


----------



## mark handler (Nov 21, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> Interestingly a lot of my friends here are Texans, including my attorney.  But if I left California would there be any freedom-loving Californians left?  Were I to leave, I'm sure there are many radical environmentalists here willing to pay my way to Texas.


----------



## peach (Nov 21, 2010)

yeah... and... ???


----------



## texasbo (Nov 22, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

>


I always have to chuckle when presented with this argument. Since the beginning of human activity, land, territories, and countries have been conquered. That's just the way it is. We took land from the Indians; sorry, no apologies from me. Now the question is, are we going to let it be taken from us? We have a choice.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 29, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I always have to chuckle when presented with this argument. Since the beginning of human activity, land, territories, and countries have been conquered. That's just the way it is. We took land from the Indians; sorry, no apologies from me. Now the question is, are we going to let it be taken from us? We have a choice.


Based on your reasoning a person is entitled to your property through the use of force.

I guess you'd rather be shot than sued.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 30, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Based on your reasoning a person is entitled to your property through the use of force.I guess you'd rather be shot than sued.


No brudgers, based on my observation of history, since the beginning of time, lands have been conquered. That's just the way it is. It's up to you whether or not to face the truth.

And based on my observation of history, one day all of what is now our property will be taken. It wont be while I'm alive, but it is inevitable.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 30, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> No brudgers, based on my observation of history, since the beginning of time, lands have been conquered. That's just the way it is. It's up to you whether or not to face the truth. And based on my observation of history, one day all of what is now our property will be taken. It wont be while I'm alive, but it is inevitable.


It's up to each of us to see the truth.

I'd humbly suggest that ADA interferes somewhat less with anyone's life than the Texas Rangers interfered with those of the Comanches.


----------



## conarb (Nov 30, 2010)

The Indians had no legal or title system for land, nobody here owned anything, the white man didn't steal anything from anyone, they settled land much like the Indians did when they came here from Asia, but the white man established ownership. Every title policy I've read here in California goes back to Spanish land grants, that's as far back as ownership goes.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 30, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> It's up to each of us to see the truth.I'd humbly suggest that ADA interferes somewhat less with anyone's life than the Texas Rangers interfered with those of the Comanches.


And I'd humbly suggest that ADA interferes significantly more with everyone's life than when they were just allowed to operate their business and serve who they chose to serve.

I'd also humbly suggest you reread your own words:

Brudgers: "The ownership interest in property is established by the same legal system that gives us the ADA and the DOJ.

It is no more or less a right than the right to accessibility."

Remember brudgers, it's part and parcel. But now it's a matter of degrees. Oh wait, you can't pick and choose... Or can you, if it suits the point you're trying to make?


----------



## brudgers (Nov 30, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> The Indians had no legal or title system for land, nobody here owned anything, the white man didn't steal anything from anyone, they settled land much like the Indians did when they came here from Asia, but the white man established ownership. Every title policy I've read here in California goes back to Spanish land grants, that's as far back as ownership goes.


Land Grants?

The King of Spain came to own the land how?

Ah yes, the force of arms.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 30, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> And I'd humbly suggest that ADA interferes significantly more with everyone's life than when they were just allowed to operate their business and serve who they chose to serve.I'd also humbly suggest you reread your own words:
> 
> Brudgers: "The ownership interest in property is established by the same legal system that gives us the ADA and the DOJ.
> 
> ...


Dennis was wrong.

Supreme executive power derives from a farcical aquatic ceremony.


----------



## texasbo (Nov 30, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Land Grants?The King of Spain came to own the land how?
> 
> Ah yes, the force of arms.


Uhhh...Yeah....; you act as if it's a foreign notion to you. The force of arms; you know - the thing that kept you from bowing to the queen, or pledging allegiance to the Union Jack, or whatever other nonsense they do these days.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 30, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Uhhh...Yeah....; you act as if it's a foreign notion to you. The force of arms; you know - the thing that kept you from bowing to the queen, or pledging allegiance to the Union Jack, or whatever other nonsense they do these days.


and likewise requires businesses to provide accessibility [and prohibits them from owning slaves in small part thanks to several of my fore bearers].


----------



## texasbo (Nov 30, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> and likewise requires businesses to provide accessibility [and prohibits them from owning slaves in small part thanks to several of my fore bearers].


I love the way you constantly hold up ADA as the antithesis of slavery, when in fact one is a law that discriminated against an entire race of people and the other gives preferential treatment to a very tiny segment of the population, and is oppressive to the remainder.

And in fact both have precipitated the force of arms....as well as revolutionary changes in the laws themselves....

I deplore them both.


----------



## conarb (Nov 30, 2010)

Brudgers said:
			
		

> Land Grants?The King of Spain came to own the land how?
> 
> Ah yes, the force of arms.


The Indians never owned the land, they had no legal title. They came here and occupied it without setting up any system of ownership, they had no more right to ownership than the subsequent European settlers.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 30, 2010)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I love the way you constantly hold up ADA as the antithesis of slavery, when in fact one is a law that discriminated against an entire race of people and the other gives preferential treatment to a very tiny segment of the population, and is oppressive to the remainder. And in fact both have precipitated the force of arms....as well as revolutionary changes in the laws themselves....
> 
> I deplore them both.


Private property rights also required revolutionary changes in the law.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 30, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> The Indians never owned the land, they had no legal title. They came here and occupied it without setting up any system of ownership, they had no more right to ownership than the subsequent European settlers.


The idea that the indigenous peoples of the Americas should have had deeds from the King of Spain is patently absurd.

Their possession predated the existence of a Spanish king.


----------



## conarb (Nov 30, 2010)

Brudgers said:
			
		

> The idea that the indigenous peoples of the Americas should have had deeds from the King of Spain is patently absurd.


I didn't say that, but since they didn't have a legal system establishing ownership there was no ownership, they didn't own the land.  Most think they came here from Asia 17,000 years ago, the Europeans started coming and staying 500 years ago, if they couldn't establish a system of ownership during that time frame too bad. Nobody owned the land, you can't steal something that nobody owns.


----------

