# ADA Lawsuit



## alora (Dec 24, 2010)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/12/24/MNI41GV6FB.DTL

Interesting to see how many business owners, building owners, etc. will turn right around and sue the municipalities for lack of warning...


----------



## mark handler (Dec 24, 2010)

It's all the municipalities fault....


----------



## brudgers (Dec 24, 2010)

_"She believes she would lose too much inventory to be financially viable if she made the changes necessary to create room for a wheelchair to maneuver."_

Obviously, she's only in it for the money.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 24, 2010)

No rubber stamp

http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?3614-What-we-DIDN-T-check...


----------



## tbz (Dec 28, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> _"She believes she would lose too much inventory to be financially viable if she made the changes necessary to create room for a wheelchair to maneuver."_Obviously, she's only in it for the money.


What’s Obvious is you did not really read the articles information correctly.

1. I guess when you have to discard inventory to a level were income is less than output she is making a bad choice to close and move.

Oh I forgot we little business owners just need to start the accounting practices that the government uses spend more than we take in and send IOU’s

2. Yep this owner did nothing to try and comply:



> She says she tried to make every accommodation for Yates when he came to her shop and later hired an ADA access compliance expert to try to understand whether she could meet the federal requirements.Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/23/MNI41GV6FB.DTL#ixzz19PHvwYgY


3. I am guessing money has nothing to do with it?



> Thomas Frankovich, who helped Yates sue a number of Mission District merchants, was the subject of a San Francisco Weekly cover story in 2006, "Wheelchairs of Fortune," for his multimillion-dollar ADA suit business.That same year, Frankovich was barred from filing cases in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for six months after a judge ruled him a vexatious litigant, a legal term for people not acting in good faith when filing suits. Like Dimond, the Mission District merchants sued by Yates also want the city to do more to inform and help protect them from being targeted for access claims.
> 
> Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/23/MNI41GV6FB.DTL#ixzz19PJNBKVa


The main question in the article is correct, why doesn’t the government require notification when applying for a business license a notification of the requirement to meet the federal ADA & CA ADA requirements?

I am wondering why UC Berkley does not require freshman to take a class on ADA and all the other schools?

I am thinking to small here, High schools should be required to teach 1 quarter of ADA 101 to all students before graduating how else are they to know when they start a small business and rent a space.

Oh I forgot the LAWSUIT FERRY will let them know with letters telling them after they open the door without obtaining any building permits since they are not required.

I guess next we will see the street vendors being sued for the cities streets they get permits to sell their products on not being compliant.

The simple question is how you could even say



> Obviously, she's only in it for the money


When the only reason any of the parties noted are doing what they are doing IS FOR THE MONEY!

The last time I checked everyone one is in it for the money on one level or another, otherwise they would live in a hut in the wilderness and not speak to people.


----------



## steveray (Dec 28, 2010)

> The last time I checked everyone one is in it for the money on one level or another, otherwise they would live in a hut in the wilderness and not speak to people.


Ahhhhhhh....if it were only that easy! Not much avilable wilderness left! I think Ted Turner owns it all...


----------



## TimNY (Dec 28, 2010)

tbz said:
			
		

> The main question in the article is correct, why doesn’t the government require notification when applying for a business license a notification of the requirement to meet the federal ADA & CA ADA requirements?


Yeah, and when I got my drivers license nobody told me I wasn't supposed to run people over.. and when I bought that set of steak knives at K-Mart...

On the one hand, the nation wants the government to stay out of their business (health care, anybody?), on the other hand the government needs to hold their hand as they travel the road of life.

How about people take responsibility for their mistakes?  If you're going to run a business, you need to do many things-- file an income tax return, maintain insurances, comply with ADA...


----------



## Frank (Dec 28, 2010)

After the locality gives warning to follow Federal ADA requirements, which for existing building often exceed the building code requirements, shall we also tell them they need to pay their federal taxes, put up the worker's rights posters, not hire illegals, pay minimum wage and overtime, don't sexually harrass the help, keep the snow and ice off the steps, etc etc etc?

Here business licences are primarily for tax collection although there is a planning sign off.


----------



## tbz (Dec 28, 2010)

Accually Tim,

If you take a good look at your drivers mannual they do tell you not to hit people with the vehicle, as for people taking responsibility I beleive the owner did when she closed and went to look for another place so she could meet compliance.

Running a business has many aspects you need to know just like inspecting a building, can all of your receipt the books by heart?  I beleive not, but what Frank lists if you open any standard book on opening a business I beleive you will find all the items he listed in it, but I doubt you will find anything on ADA compliance.  You will also find make sure the building location complies with zoning, fire and building department requirements and get your approvals, which she did.

As for the other items like snow removal a copy of the town ordiances was handed to me by the zoning officer when I researched purchasing a used building and another about renting, the building department gave me a list of items I would need to comply with as did the fire inspector, non-however mentioned ADA.

I could buy a building, get all my CO's, not do any renovations, pay all my taxes, read some really good books but nothing points you to ADA compliance.

Except I know better working in this industry for all these years, the problem is it's in your wheel house, you work with it all the time, you find it hard to beleive others don't have a clue and the lack of direction one finds.

Take the book store owner for instance, she rented the building, moved in I am sure paid and had a fire inspection every year, I am guessing the fire inspector didn't find anything wrong with the access or he would have closed her down.

Now she gets a letter to comply or else, who is this person, what is the problem I have all my approvals.

Simply, ADA information is just not a thought because unless you do renovations to the building and HAVE to hire an architect or designer to do that renovation, you would be surprised how little is known outside that area and I doubt you will find a leasing office or agent that will offer up the information.

Tom


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 28, 2010)

The problem is that too often people only think about the local government because they're there.  They tend to forget that there are state and federal governments as well and that we live in a federal republic where each state is a separate little county and a loose knit collection of common concerns whereby we have a federal system.  At least in California the local government gets to enforce the accessibility regulations.  In some states the locals enforce the building code and don;t care about what the state or federal laws are relative to accessibility.

I feel for the store owner.  Having to retroactively modify to remove existing barriers is not easy and can be a major financial issue.  On the other hand, doing nothing is discriminatory and, well, just plain wrong.

I'd say that the SBA and chamber of commerce should shoulder some of the blame.  THOSE are the places where new businesses go for information and assistance.  If they fail to mention the ADA, then perhaps they need to share in the pain as well.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 28, 2010)

Very few Small start-ups contact the SBA and Chamber of Commerce.

That's one of the problems.


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 28, 2010)

tbz said:
			
		

> I could buy a building, get all my CO's, not do any renovations, pay all my taxes, read some really good books but nothing points you to ADA compliance.


This may be true, but, because of the lawsuits and subsequent reporting, will become increasingly unlikely.

My perception is that most people that are skirting business or building laws know they are skirting them, and weigh the risks. Often, the skirting simply takes the form of not asking, not investigating, or not applying for the permit.


----------



## TimNY (Dec 28, 2010)

I suppose my point is that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.  It is a basic principal of our justice system.

I do feel it is unfortunate that this lady had to close up shop, but also feel it was her obligation to know the laws.  I do feel she made a reasonable effort to try and comply.  Given the cost/benefit she opted to close, which was purely a business decision, just like any other.

I would further iterate that I do not feel it is the local government's responsibility to proliferate a federal regulation, and trying to shift blame to the local government is not productive.

Also, do not feel that because you hire a RDP you are going to be informed of ADA.  In my experience I wouldn't even assume you are compliant with A117.1 unless there is a good plan checker.  In fact, I have found most RDPs will forego ADA compliance even when I mention it.

Will there be similar sympathy when the crew is grinding lead paint off the neighbor's house and the kids get sick?  I don't think so.

In summary:

1.  I do feel some sympathy for the loss of a business.

2.  I do agree the ADA does not get enough visibility.

3.  I do not agree the local jurisdiction has any responsibility whatsoever to even mutter the words ADA, although I myself do mention it when applicant are in my office.


----------



## Yikes (Dec 28, 2010)

TimNY - I would like to inform you that your avatar does not show an ADA-compliant ramp + handrails leading down into the death pit.  You will therefore be annihilated by legions of attorneys coming to seal your fate.

This. Is. America!


----------



## TimNY (Dec 28, 2010)

I was certain that sign was ADA compliant!


----------



## peach (Dec 28, 2010)

The City doesn't (shouldn't) enforce ADA.. it's civil rights legislation, not building code... if the building meets the building code, it does... and that's where the jurisdiction ends.

We probably need to stop thinking that the building code requirements really give safe harbor... the DOJ could come after us next.


----------



## TimNY (Dec 28, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> We probably need to stop thinking that the building code requirements really give safe harbor... the DOJ could come after us next.


I'm pretty sure they don't want anybody enforcing their laws.. see U.S. v Arizona...


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 29, 2010)

Yikes said:
			
		

> TimNY - I would like to inform you that your avatar does not show an ADA-compliant ramp + handrails leading down into the death pit.  You will therefore be annihilated by legions of attorneys coming to seal your fate.This. Is. America!


LOL! Funny stuff Yikes.

Tim: Your summary reflects the right attitude as a public servant.

Anyone have a case where a municipality has been successfully sued, not merely threatened, for issuing a CO on a non ADA compliant building?


----------



## mark handler (Dec 29, 2010)

they cannot be sued for issuing a CO on a non ADA compliant building. A municipality has no authority to enforce the ADA


----------



## Frank (Dec 29, 2010)

I would think that the locality would be more likely to be sued for trying to enforce the ADA without authority than for issuing a CO for a building that complies with the building code but not the ADA--see the aforementioned US vs AZ.

Enforcing something that you know is not in the code gets into malfeasance territory where you are not protected by the locality or immunity.

The ADA has its own enforcement mechanism that is designed to enrich attorneys in federal court.

Small restaraunt owner here that had been in the same location for decades thought the attoeney's letter was junk mail and tossed it.  He is now pushing $30k to that attorney that filed in fed court.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 29, 2010)

An ADA violation does not occur untill an individual with a disability is personally affected.

A building code violation may occur at anytime.


----------



## FredK (Dec 29, 2010)

FWIW, I was a a new Quick Trip(mini/gas) station when they were laying out their ADA entrance ramp.  Never checked anything on it since it wasn't on any schedule and about two weeks before they opened, they were ripping it out.  Seems since they sell Lotto tickets the state dudes had checked the ramp and were going to cross the store off the sellors lists.  Was totally amazed at that action.

So I guess one can assume that if they sell Lotto tickets they were checked for ADA here in AZ.


----------



## tbz (Dec 29, 2010)

IME Locations that have existed for years before the ADA law was put in to effect have the largest problem with compliance, however compliance has always seemed odd after reading documents like this.

http://www.ada.gov/smbusgd.pdf

Any comments on the food service estabishment providing delivery and or curbside delivery in liu of access?

Comments please


----------



## mark handler (Dec 29, 2010)

tbz said:
			
		

> Any comments on the food service estabishment providing delivery and or curbside delivery in liu of access?


*So the disabled need to eat outside, not the same as curbside delivery of dry cleaning.*

*Curbside delivery did Not work for these guys*

Sacramento's Squeeze Inn owner sad to see it go

http://www.news10.net/news/sto...toryid=74689&catid=2

SACRAMENTO, CA - Travis Hausauer will cook the last cheeseburgers at his tiny Squeeze Inn this weekend before moving to a larger space around the corner.

"Yeah, it'll be sad. This has been part of the Sacramento community for 34 years and it's sad to see it go," Hausauer said during the lunch rush Thursday.

Hausauer's move was prompted by a lawsuit filed last July by a disabled Sacramento woman who complained about the lack of wheelchair access.

The story led to an enormous public outcry and complaints about lawsuit abuse involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff, Kimberly Block, and her attorney, Jason Singleton, ultimately dropped the suit because of public pressure.

Although the Squeeze Inn is unique, the lawsuit that led to its move is not. Hundreds of similar suits are filed each year in Sacramento federal court.

Block and her attorney sued and settled with three other small businesses last year. Paige Hibbert, a Carmichael attorney who defended the Quick Shop Market, said the motivation was clearly financial.

Hibbert pointed out the fact the original complaint was a sloppy cut-and-paste job, placing the Sacramento store in Vacaville.

"Although the plaintiff may have come to this business, her motivating factor was to obtain money to settle the case," Hibbert said.

ADA settlements are generally confidential, but court records show the Quick Shop owners paid $9,500 to Block and Singleton to settle. Singleton has previously instructed the media not to attempt to contact him for comment.

The new Squeeze Inn is scheduled to open Feb. 15. Hausauer recognizes the risk he's taking with customers by moving into a larger space, but said he worried that he would remain a lawsuit target if he stayed put. "Change isn't always good, but sometimes you have no choice," he said.

by George Warren, GWarren@news10.net


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 29, 2010)

Businesses should simply be able to opt out. Hang a sign, Not ADA Compliant. Let the free market rule.

I've heard the arguments, but cannot think of other civil legislation designed to curb discrimination that involves changing structural characteristics of a building at the owner's expense. At the very least, let us broaden the scope of ADA to include alternate limitations and capacities. I should be able to file a civil suit against Harvard because I am too stupid to attend.


----------



## tbz (Dec 30, 2010)

Mark,

It seems you read the question I ask wrong, I asked simply by reading this document clearly off the ADA site the average Joe public who does *NOT* work in our industry, does this publication not tell them if they make alterations they need to do improvements, but were it is hard to improve without major cash out lay they can provide things like signs and curb side service?  I am not asking about a place just opening I am talking about places like in your post that were clearly there long before the feds opted in.

I have a friend who a few years back started a pizza delivery service, no chairs no bathroom nothing at all even had the door locked and a sign that said no public access, you could not even enter the building for pick up service they did not allow it.

He called me about building a drop in place metal ramp because the state they are in (CA) all the people around them said your going to get hit being on the main drag, the law suite junkies are in town.

I asked a few questions and it seemed they used the back entrance in the ally all the time, I told them to talk to someone I know who works in CA on ADA access, but till they could get to him, put a proper size sign in the door, fire exit door only, get the local locksmith to put an fire exit bar on the door and make sure the rear exit complies with the fire marshal.

He got a letter just like the others, but it cost him little to nothing because of his business design.

Here is a place that clearly was marked and they noted no access because of the steps and claiming the signs are not allowed.

Ah Jobsaver your not "TOO STUPID" just mentally challenged, get with the program man.....


----------



## georgia plans exam (Dec 30, 2010)

I had an applicant recently try to talk me out of some accessibility requirements on a new project. I joked that, "yeah, I might overlook this if you will pemanently affix an accessibility symbol on the front door with big red circle/slash over it". He realised how that might invite a lawsuit and opted to comply with the code.

(ps. I wouldn't really have overlooked it.)

GPE


----------



## Yikes (Dec 30, 2010)

Look on the bright side... the #1 user group of all the outdoor ramps and handrails I design are skateboarders.

Think of it as a recreational amenity.


----------



## Frank (Dec 30, 2010)

Note the "readily achieveable" ADA requirement for existing buildings that is based on a can your business afford to remove barriers test.

"While it is not possible for many businesses, especially small businesses, to make their facilities fully accessible, there is much that can be done without much difficulty or expense to improve accessibility. Therefore, the ADA requires that accessibility be improved without taking on excessive expenses that could harm the business."

The usual proof that a business cannot afford to remove barriers is when it goes bankrupt after the suit is filed because they cannot pay the both sides attorney's fees.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 2, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Businesses should simply be able to opt out. Hang a sign, Not ADA Compliant. Let the free market rule.


The free market used to encourage signs that said "Whites Only."


----------



## conarb (Jan 3, 2011)

Well if we are going to impose totalitarian laws on people maybe we should emulate China and start throwing environmentalists in prison, maybe beat them a little while they are in as well.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 3, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The free market used to encourage signs that said "Whites Only."


Structural modifications at the owner's expense are not required to accomodate race. Therein lies the difference.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 3, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Structural modifications at the owner's expense are not required to accomodate race. Therein lies the difference.


So you are saying someone with a disability, does not have the same rights as a black, asian, jew or the Irish; all of which were denied civil rights in this country??

Wow turn your clock forward, take down the confederate flag

Comments like that is Why Bush sign signed the ADA into law. It is about civil rights. Civil rights is not just about race.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 3, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> So you are saying someone with a disability, does not have the same rights as a black, asian, jew or the Irish; all of which were denied civil rights in this country??Wow turn your clock forward, take down the confederate flag
> 
> Comments like that is Why Bush sign signed the ADA into law. It is about civil rights. Civil rights is not just about race.


Mark

You missed jobsavers point. Tha ADA is the only civil rights law that requires a business to spend money to comply. What you referenced was an outright refusal of services and required no expenditures on the business owner. They just had to provide equal service to all customers. in other words just let them in the front door and dine in the same room as every one else.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 3, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Structural modifications at the owner's expense are not required to accomodate race. Therein lies the difference.


People made economic arguments to support racial discrimination too.

Particularly when it came to housing prices.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 3, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> MarkYou missed jobsavers point. Tha ADA is the only civil rights law that requires a business to spend money to comply. What you referenced was an outright refusal of services and required no expenditures on the business owner. They just had to provide equal service to all customers. in other words just let them in the front door and dine in the same room as every one else.


I did not miss the point, buisnesses and property owners have had twenty years to make their buisnesses and properties accessible. Most of those twenty years buisnesses and property owners were  flush with money, there will always be excuseses.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 3, 2011)

Brudgers and Mark: You are both so biased (prejudiced) that you are unable to acknowledge the simple truth of the distinction made: Better to point to the confederate flag, or point to the fact that historically people have made (false) economic arguments to support racial discrimination, or to exaggerate that all businesses and property owners in the last twenty years historically and currently are flush with money.

Acknowledge the distinction made, and then argue your case. Otherwise, you are simply practicing bigotry through the usual means that bigots employ; innuendo, deception, exaggeration, intolerance, and fanaticism.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 3, 2011)

Complying with ADA is just a cost of doing business. Just like providing life-safety systems and off-street parking.

And if you want to talk about unfunded government mandates, off-street parking is by far the most expensive ever created.


----------



## TimNY (Jan 3, 2011)

Gotta go with brudgers on this one.

I guess nobody here has amortization in their zoning code?  That's where you take a legally pre-existing business and give them a few years to find someplace else to live.

Pretty much like the ADA..


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 3, 2011)

I agree with brudgers that ADA compliance is just a cost of doing business, but do not believe the law is a just law, because it is a law that taxes to benefit an exclusive few.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 3, 2011)

> I guess nobody here has amortization in their zoning code? That's where you take a legally pre-existing business and give them a few years to find someplace else to live.


Never heard of it.

How do you make a "Legally pre-existing business" move? On what grounds? Did they asked to be re-zoned?

Sounds like eminate domain without having to pay the business for it losses when you force it to move. Lost customers, lost revenue during the relocation and don't forget the ADA modifications they had to do to make the existing facility compliant.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 3, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> I agree with brudgers that ADA compliance is just a cost of doing business, but do not believe the law is a just law, because it is a law that taxes to benefit an exclusive few.


What taxes?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 3, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Never heard of it.How do you make a "Legally pre-existing business" move? On what grounds? Did they asked to be re-zoned?
> 
> Sounds like eminate domain without having to pay the business for it losses when you force it to move. Lost customers, lost revenue during the relocation and don't forget the ADA modifications they had to do to make the existing facility compliant.


Businesses don't own customers, so where is the taking?


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 4, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> What taxes?


taxes (v): to make difficult or excessive demands on


----------



## TimNY (Jan 4, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Never heard of it.How do you make a "Legally pre-existing business" move? On what grounds? Did they asked to be re-zoned?
> 
> Sounds like eminate domain without having to pay the business for it losses when you force it to move. Lost customers, lost revenue during the relocation and don't forget the ADA modifications they had to do to make the existing facility compliant.


..and totally legal in NY.  Our zoning code eliminated discos and nightclubs with amortization.


```
In ordering the compulsory termination of a... nonconforming use... a definite and reasonable amortization period during which the nonconforming use use may continue while the investment value remaining after the date of the termination is amortized....The right to maintain a nonconforming... nightclub... shall be terminated either upon the date that there is a change of ownership or operation...
```

ADA is not alone...


----------



## mark handler (Jan 4, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> taxes (v): to make difficult or excessive demands on


To require a buisness to allow a disabled person to use a public accomidation, is is the law. You may define it as anything you want (ie; Tax) but it is the law, if you don't like it, change it. But until you do, you cant choose which part of the law you want to enforce, as you enforce the building code, you need to enforce chapter 11 of the code.

Can't wait 'til you get a little older, have a disability, let's hear from you then......


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 4, 2011)

As always, a reasonable law has become unreasonable. You only need to leave interpretation of a law up to some nitwit, left-wing zeolot to have common sense and reasonable accomodation become draconian, overreaching govt. intrusian. When signed by Bush Sr., I do not believe that anyone would have foresaw that a business would have to relocate based on ADA alone.


----------



## ewenme (Jan 4, 2011)

Most interesting: Accessibility in Chapter 11 of the IBC covers the things that are considered 'safe harbor'.  How many jurisdictions adopt the International Existing Building Code? Depending on the level of 'work' Accessibility requirements are still out of the IBC, Chapter 11. ICC worked long and hard to get the IBC certified as 'safe harbor': meaning that if you enforce the IBC accessibility requirements, you have done the best you can under the building code. As a local jurisdiction we do not enforce the ADA, which is Federal regulation. We mention to our customers that there is an active ADA faction in our town, and that we don't enforce their requirements; however, we do enforce Chapter 11 of the IBC. When taken all together existing buildings which change use and occupancy sometimes have difficulties with accessibility issues. What's an owner to do? Tear it down. Remodel beyond the original scope at more expense than demolition and rebuilding? Find a different property? Lease-holders often don't have the money to do 'what's required' nor do the building owners. What is to be done? I think the building codes allow one to do the best they can within reason. When you have 'vexatious litigants' that's not enough.

In order to make everything equal, handicapped people shouldn't have special privileges, or more rights than able-bodied people. Instead of all the closest parking spaces being accessible, only half should be: that way you have a 50% chance. The other half of the required accessible parking spaces should be at the fartherest distance. Every building with more than one story should have an elevator or escalator, maybe both. Existing buildings should be demolished when they reach their 'obsolete' date. No questions, just tear it down and build a new one that meets current code. Historic buildings will have to go. Who needs history, we can make our own, every 50- 100 years. Oh, and I want to be on the committee that determines what 'obsolete' means.

I hear common sense died. Too bad. The world could use an infusion of common sense; it might be found to be an antidote for 'vexatious litigants.'


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 4, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> To require a buisness to allow a disabled person to use a public accomidation, is is the law. You may define it as anything you want (ie; Tax) but it is the law, if you don't like it, change it. But until you do, you cant choose which part of the law you want to enforce, as you enforce the building code, you need to enforce chapter 11 of the code.Can't wait 'til you get a little older, have a disability, let's hear from you then......


I have, in an appropriate forum, discussed in plain language, that I believe civil ADA legislation is unjust law, and why.

Nobody is disputing the fact of the existance of the law. Nobody has attempted to define the law as a tax. These are examples of innuendo.

The last step of implying that a personal disability would change my viewpoint is a good example of fanaticism. Surely, a rational man in a reasoned debate would presume that I am in consideration of the likelihood of my own disability.


----------



## Frank (Jan 4, 2011)

Min&Max said:
			
		

> As always, a reasonable law has become unreasonable. You only need to leave interpretation of a law up to some nitwit, left-wing zeolot to have common sense and reasonable accomodation become draconian, overreaching govt. intrusian. When signed by Bush Sr., I do not believe that anyone would have foresaw that a business would have to relocate based on ADA alone.


The memorable moment of the Quayle-Gore Vice Presidential debate was when they both agreed that the ADA was a good thing and that with proper design it was not going to cost anybody anything.

After that if Al Gore says the sun is up, I put a hand on my wallet and then look out the window to check.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 4, 2011)

Ewenme

T.S. Eliot, NICE


----------



## mark handler (Jan 4, 2011)

jobsaver said:
			
		

> nobody has attempted to define the law as a tax.


you did....



			
				jobsaver said:
			
		

> it is a law that taxes to benefit an exclusive few.





			
				jobsaver said:
			
		

> taxes (v): To make difficult or excessive demands on


----------



## Frank (Jan 4, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> I have, in an appropriate forum, discussed in plain language, that I believe civil ADA legislation is unjust law, and why..


The ADA legislation pretends that it is as easy to facilitate use and access by the disabled of whatever degree, as it is to remove a "No Coloreds Allowed" sign.

Unfortunately reality say it just aint so.

And as with many other rules and regulations the costs to a small business is not that much less than for a large business and has a very disproportionate cost impact.

Per the 2006 I-Codes

A 2000 sq ft small specialty shop with 10 parking spaces gets 1 HC space with 8 ft access aisle, 2 accessible bathrooms taking up 100 sq ft, 1 accessible checkout, and 2 accessible exits.

A 200 000 sq ft Wallyworld store with 1000 parking spaces gets 20 HC spaces that share acess aisles and most have 5 ft vs 8 ft aisles, 2 accessible toilet stalls and a family bathroom taking up 150 sq ft, 5 accessible checkouts, and 2 accessible exits.

20% of parking budget vs  2%,  5% of floor area for accessible bathrooms vs 0.075%, the checkout vs 5 of 25, both exits get ramps vs 2 of 4 or more.

The proportional impact on the little guy is over tenfold that on the Big Box


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 4, 2011)

Frank: good point. I would support a remedy that might allow an exception for smaller sized privately owned businesses, provided the businesses are not owned or leased by a governmental body.

MarK: Great example of using deception. Pretend you do not understand that one word can mean different things, and interchange according to your own purpose.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 4, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Great example of using deception. Pretend you do not understand that one word can mean different things, and interchange according to your own purpose.


i THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB OF THAT ALL BY YOUR SELF, NO HELP FROM ME NEEDED


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 4, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> You may define it as anything you want (ie; Tax) but it is the law


After carefully reading these posts, and the Webster's, I concede that my use of the word, "taxing", may be causing part of the confusion. I did not mean it in the connotation of a governmental tax involving money, but as a verb, an act of making excessive demands upon another. Maybe it does mean the same thing?


----------



## texasbo (Jan 4, 2011)

Just be happy it is, for the moment,  limited to feigning confusion due to multiple definitions. It hasn't spiraled out of control to the point that the accessibility fanatics are calling you a racist because you think the law is unjust.

They will.

Thomas Jefferson hasn't even been invoked...

Edit: never mind...sigh.... I just didn't go back far enough in the thread. I love how every argument with some people always turns to racism, regardless of whether or not it has anything whatsoever to do with racism. Cheap, underhanded, unwarranted.


----------



## tbz (Jan 4, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Can't wait 'til you get a little older, have a disability, let's hear from you then......


So Mark what do you consider your disability?  I have 74% heart muscle loss and to walk more than a few 100 yards pretty much ends my day, not to mention even trying to climb stairs.  I feel the law is incorrect.



			
				TimNY said:
			
		

> ..and totally legal in NY. Our zoning code eliminated discos and nightclubs with amortization.
> 
> Code:
> 
> ...


Tim based on your post the termination is either upon change of ownership or operation.  Thus a pre-existing small business that was in place prior to 1990 and has made no changes in either can continue.  However, those same business are being sued weekly and that is were I find fault.


----------



## TimNY (Jan 4, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> Tim based on your post the termination is either upon change of ownership or operation.  Thus a pre-existing small business that was in place prior to 1990 and has made no changes in either can continue.  However, those same business are being sued weekly and that is were I find fault.


Based on the second paragraph, yes.

Based on the first paragraph, your business will be terminated whether or not you sell.  The amortization concluded before I worked there, but I believe it was a couple of years.  ADA was 20.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 4, 2011)

http://www.ada.gov/taxincent.pdf

Internal Revenue Code, Section 190, businesses can take a business expense deduction of up to *$15,000 per year *for costs of removing barriers in facilities or vehicles.

The tax breaks have been available since the first signing....

MULTIPLY THAT OVER 20 YEARS THAT'S $300,000 OF IMPROVEMENTS, PER BUISNESS, SO FAR.

Stop the crocodile tears….


----------



## mark handler (Jan 4, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> Thus a pre-existing small business that was in place prior to 1990 and has made no changes in either can continue.  However, those same business are being sued weekly and that is were I find fault.


ADA myths remain: there is no such thing as a grandfather clause in the ADA. .


----------



## texasbo (Jan 4, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> http://www.ada.gov/taxincent.pdfInternal Revenue Code, Section 190, businesses can take a business expense deduction of up to *$15,000 per year *for costs of removing barriers in facilities or vehicles.
> 
> The tax breaks have been available since the first signing....
> 
> ...


Well that's more like it; so it's not just the shop owner's cost of doing business, it's also the taxpayer's... That makes it all better.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 4, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Complying with ADA is just a cost of doing business.


Ya, and in some parts of Jersey, paying Guido protection money is "just the cost of doing business". That doesn't make it right.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 4, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Can't wait 'til you get a little older, have a disability, let's hear from you then......


Please spare us that worn out old argument.

Can't wait 'til you can't afford a vacation home in the Hamptons, let's hear from you then....

Can't wait 'til your kid that runs a 7 second forty doesn't make varsity wide receiver, let's hear from you then...

Shall I go on?

Everybody is entitled to a home in the Hamptons and to have their kid first string on varsity, right? I demand equality!


----------



## brudgers (Jan 4, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Surely, a rational man in a reasoned debate would presume that I am in consideration of the likelihood of my own disability.


Should your position become reasoned, then perhaps such consideration will be due.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 4, 2011)

Frank said:
			
		

> The ADA legislation pretends that it is as easy to facilitate use and access by the disabled of whatever degree, as it is to remove a "No Coloreds Allowed" sign.Unfortunately reality say it just aint so.
> 
> And as with many other rules and regulations the costs to a small business is not that much less than for a large business and has a very disproportionate cost impact.
> 
> ...


Umm...people were killed trying to end racial discrimination.

ADA compliance is far simpler.

You just hire an architect and a contractor.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 4, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> ADA myths remain: there is no such thing as a grandfather clause in the ADA. .


Mark you are clearly mistaken.

Here is a link to pictures of ADA's grandfather:

grandpa.link


----------



## texasbo (Jan 4, 2011)

Fixed it for you:



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Umm...people were killed trying to end racial discrimination.ADA compliance is far more lucrative for architects and contractors.


Apparently, racial discrimination was a good tool for you to use as an irrelevant strawman in forum debates, but ADA, well, now there is the goose that laid the golden egg.

I'm sure those who suffered and died in civil rights struggles are real proud you're using their efforts as a pawn to try to make a point that has nothing to do with them.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Apparently, racial discrimination was a good tool for you to use as an irrelevant strawman in forum debates, but ADA, well, now there is the goose that laid the golden egg.I'm sure those who suffered and died in civil rights struggles are real proud you're using their efforts as a pawn to try to make a point that has nothing to do with them.


I merely point out that the structure of the arguments against ADA could be used to rationalize forms of discrimination which are less politically correct.


----------



## conarb (Jan 5, 2011)

California has a new law SB 1608, now instead of slimy lawyers profiting off the disabled and businesses we will have slimy architects and building inspectors racing to get CASp certification to use the disabled to profit off businesses, to say nothing of a whole new bureaucracy set up in a bankrupt state.   I think I like it the old way better, let the slimy lawyers profit rather than slime ball architects and building departments.



			
				California Chamber of Commerce said:
			
		

> *Businesses should hire a CASp.* A certified access specialist  (CASp) is a person business owners can be assured has been tested and  certified by the state as an expert in disability access laws. SB 1608  sets up a process whereby business owners can voluntarily hire a CASp to  inspect their buildings to ensure compliance with disability access  standards and obtain an inspection report as proof they did so. A link  to a list of certified CASp inspectors is available at *www.calchamber.com/ADA*.
> *Improved expertise in new construction and building inspections.*  For the first time, there will be minimum continuing education  requirements for building inspectors and architects on disability access  laws, to help reduce the problem of new construction failing to comply.  Moreover, by July 2010, local building inspection offices will be  required to have at least one CASp on staff, available to provide  consultation. Eventually all permitting and plan checks must be  CASp-inspected.
> 
> _When: _The continuing education  requirement will apply to license renewals beginning July 1, 2009. A  CASp should be on staff in building inspection offices by July 1, 2010.
> ...


¹ http://www.calchamber.com/Headlines/Pages/SB1608DisabilityAccessLawReformHowDoesItHelpBusinessOwners.aspx


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I merely point out that the structure of the arguments against ADA could be used to rationalize forms of discrimination which are less politically correct.


Yes, and I suppose you could use the structure of arguments against genocide to rationalize why you want to call in sick on a rainy day.

The problem is, it isn't rationalizing, it's sensationalizing, it adds a tone of hostility that isn't necessary, and most importantly, it compares apples to oranges.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Complying with ADA is just a cost of doing business. Just like providing life-safety systems and off-street parking.And if you want to talk about unfunded government mandates, off-street parking is by far the most expensive ever created.


The difference is, life safety systems and off-street parking benefit the entire population, including the handicapped. Apparently you prefer laws that require the general public to pay ridiculous sums of money to create an elite class to those that are good for everyone?


----------



## tbz (Jan 5, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> ADA myths remain: there is no such thing as a grandfather clause in the ADA. .


Mark your miss quotes are becoming common place daily, the comparison was between a zoning law being grandfathered and ADA which is not, hence my point the suites come walking in because ADA is not grandfathered.

The point being for the majority who don't WORK IN THIS INDUSTRY and run a simple small business, you believe they should do research in to the unknown everyday because they are in small business rather than what they do, the point I keep making that you can’t seem to understand is that MOST SMALL business owners from a simpler time have no clue about the ADA requirements, are misinformed because from their time grandfather laws ment something and do not work in circles or talk with people or file for things that point out that they need to research and make these updates thus your 20 year argument by all accounts though numerically correct to a point, is placed against all the scams we hear about each day and letters like the suites are viewed as just another scam, and to a major degree most are just another scam for money only.



> Originally Posted by mark handler  http://www.ada.gov/taxincent.pdf
> 
> Internal Revenue Code, Section 190, businesses can take a business expense deduction of up to $15,000 per year for costs of removing barriers in facilities or vehicles.
> 
> ...


Again Mark that’s great if the information was sent out on the top of the 1040A Form each year since 1992 so a business could see and know about it, I'll even consider that maybe they did it once.  But I would venture a guess that all on the site do not read the tax law each year to that degree, nor do they take CEU courses in it like accountants and even those accountants that do, if you took a survey of accountants, I like to know how many even now about it or tell their clients baout it?

The basic point you all seem to not gather is that we all ask each other questions each day on this site and others past sites about this industry and this topic comes up daily, WE ALL WORK WITH IT.

The vast major majority of the public in business does not nor do they know they have a need to know to talk or hire those of us in this industry because,

For the record, it was just 5 years ago that pretty much every building inspector I talked with nationally when our asked about ADA requirements they told us don’t talk to us about that, call the FED’s

So for the first 15 years of 20 and even today those who work around it daily still don’t help with direction that much.

Oh and just a quick question it is a tax credit right, the goverment does not send you the money up front to make the improvements?  So you have to first make a profit of more than you might need to just live a simple life, then you need to do the work, then apply for up to $15,000.00 to get back because you need to make the tax payments based on projections, and then wait to get it back I beleive?


----------



## KZQuixote (Jan 5, 2011)

> Originally Posted by mark handlerhttp://www.ada.gov/taxincent.pdf
> 
> Internal Revenue Code, Section 190, businesses can take a business expense deduction of up to $15,000 per year for costs of removing barriers in facilities or vehicles.
> 
> ...


This section is not something that's intended to be a bone tossed to property owners by the ADA. Rather, it's a limitation on how much a property owner may write off when performing upgrades. Generally business expenses of all types are deductible some may have to be depreciated but they're already a deduction.

This section does nothing to help a property owner or small business owner.

Bill


----------



## JMORRISON (Jan 5, 2011)

> The tax breaks have been available since the first signing....MULTIPLY THAT OVER 20 YEARS THAT'S $300,000 OF IMPROVEMENTS, PER BUISNESS, SO FAR.


Tax rate 28%,  $15,000/year deduction= actual cost of improvement $10,800

Multiply that by 20 years and that's $216,000 out of pocket


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

Now tell me what bait shop couldn't afford that...


----------



## mark handler (Jan 5, 2011)

No amount of facts can open a closed mind


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

Posted by Mark Handler, then overwritten: "So now you're a tax lawyer Bill?"

It takes a tax lawyer to determine if handicapped modifications cost money?


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> It takes a tax lawyer to determine if handicapped modifications cost money?


Only in Mark's world, where saying something completely irrelevant is considered a defense against logic.


----------



## conarb (Jan 5, 2011)

One has to wonder about Mark's almost fanatic interest in this subject, is he a registered CASp intending to profit from it?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 5, 2011)

Great minds have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds...


----------



## mark handler (Jan 5, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> One has to wonder about Mark's almost fanatic interest in this subject, is he a registered CASp intending to profit from it?


No i'm not like you selling triple pane window where not needed


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

deleted - duplicate


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> One has to wonder about Mark's almost fanatic interest in this subject, is he a registered CASp intending to profit from it?


He's just tired of all of the racism and Confederate flag waving that invariably accompanies lack of appreciation for the ADA...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 5, 2011)

*Existing buildings never had to meet ADAAG requirements and that is where some of the confusion is. ADAAG does not come into play until a remodel or alteration is being done. *

*III-4.4200 Readily achievable barrier removal. *Public accommodations are required to remove barriers only when it is "readily achievable" to do so. "Readily achievable" means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.

How does the "readily achievable" standard relate to other standards in the ADA? The ADA establishes different standards for existing facilities and new construction. In existing facilities, where retrofitting may be expensive, the requirement to provide access is less stringent than it is in new construction and alterations, where accessibility can be incorporated in the initial stages of design and construction without a significant increase in cost.

This standard also requires a lesser degree of effort on the part of a public accommodation than the "undue burden" limitation on the auxiliary aids requirements of the ADA. In that sense, it can be characterized as a lower standard. The readily achievable standard is also less demanding than the "undue hardship" standard in title I, which limits the obligation to make reasonable accommodation in employment.

How does a public accommodation determine when barrier removal is readily achievable? Determining if barrier removal is readily achievable is necessarily a case-by-case judgment. Factors to consider include:

1) The nature and cost of the action;

2)

The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention measures; or any other impact of the action on the operation of the site;

3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the site or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity;

4)

If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and

5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any parent corporation or entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the parent corporation or entity.



If the public accommodation is a facility that is owned or operated by a parent entity that conducts operations at many different sites, the public accommodation must consider the resources of both the local facility and the parent entity to determine if removal of a particular barrier is "readily achievable. " The administrative and fiscal relationship between the local facility and the parent entity must also be considered in evaluating what resources are available for any particular act of barrier removal.

What barriers will it be "readily achievable" to remove? There is no definitive answer to this question because determinations as to which barriers can be removed without much difficulty or expense must be made on a case-by-case basis.

The Department's regulation contains a list of 21 examples of modifications that may be readily achievable:

1) Installing ramps;

2) Making curb cuts in sidewalks and entrances;

3) Repositioning shelves;

4) Rearranging tables, chairs, vending machines, display racks, and other furniture;

5) Repositioning telephones;

6) Adding raised markings on elevator control buttons;

7) Installing flashing alarm lights;

8) Widening doors;

9) Installing offset hinges to widen doorways;

10) Eliminating a turnstile or providing an alternative accessible path;

11) Installing accessible door hardware;

12) Installing grab bars in toilet stalls;

13) Rearranging toilet partitions to increase maneuvering space;

14) Insulating lavatory pipes under sinks to prevent burns;

15) Installing a raised toilet seat;

16) Installing a full-length bathroom mirror;

17) Repositioning the paper towel dispenser in a bathroom;

18) Creating designated accessible parking spaces;

19) Installing an accessible paper cup dispenser at an existing inaccessible water fountain;

20) Removing high pile, low density carpeting; or

21) Installing vehicle hand controls.


----------



## steveray (Jan 5, 2011)

Bottom line is..it IS the law... just like any other... could it be more publicized, yes...are we all bound to follow it, yes... if you don't want to be informed or think, go get a job in wal mart istead of starting your own business.  Or contact your local governmental officials and secede...

  Maybe if they talked about it on American Idiot...ooops Idol...


----------



## KZQuixote (Jan 5, 2011)

> Posted by Mark Handler, then overwritten: "So now you're a tax lawyer Bill?"


Don't need to be a tax lawyer to know that business expenses are deductible till some one imposes a rule that limits the amount of the deduction.

34 years of running a small business does provide some perspective.

Bill


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Great minds have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds...


Congratulations on the lofty opinion you have of you. You should be proud that you received such a sincere compliment. From yourself.

So let's take a look at the arsenal of arguments Mark makes for the ADA:

1) To oppose it is racist

2) If you oppose it you have a Confederate flag

3) If you oppose it you have turned your clock back

4) Just wait 'til you're old

5) What's wrong with it? If businesses don't like it, they can get the taxpayers to help subsidize it

6) I have a great mind and you have a mediocre mind

Nice points Mark, but somehow, I've a feeling they've failed to convince many people. There may be some who still think ADA is ok after reading your arguments, but you aren't the best ambassador for the program....


----------



## mark handler (Jan 5, 2011)

Bricked up minds are hard to open.

Your points are not what was said, or are taken out of context, except number six.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Your points are not what was said, or are taken out of context, except number six.


You got two pats on the back in the same thread from yourself; that's awesome. Got to be some kind of record.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 5, 2011)

Texasbo. You may be on shaky ground here. Mark is unquestionably the champion and expert authority at taking things out of context . . . oh wait . . . I forgot about brudgers.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 5, 2011)

OK folks, time to cool off...if you don't have anything productive to add to the thread, well, then don't. JMHO


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Bricked up minds are hard to open.Your points are not what was said, or are taken out of context, except number six.


Really?

1,2,3: (Post #33) "So you are saying someone with a disability, does not have the same rights as a black, asian, jew or the Irish; all of which were denied civil rights in this country??

Wow turn your clock forward, take down the confederate flag"

4: (Post #46): "Can't wait 'til you get a little older, have a disability, let's hear from you then......"

5: (Post #60): "Internal Revenue Code, Section 190, businesses can take a business expense deduction of up to $15,000 per year for costs of removing barriers in facilities or vehicles.

The tax breaks have been available since the first signing....

MULTIPLY THAT OVER 20 YEARS THAT'S $300,000 OF IMPROVEMENTS, PER BUISNESS, SO FAR.

Stop the crocodile tears…. "

And: "Most of those twenty years buisnesses and property owners were flush with money, there will always be excuseses."

Sorry Mark, you said every one of them.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 5, 2011)

Waiting for Goodwin's law to come into play here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 5, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> OK folks, time to cool off...if you don't have anything productive to add to the thread, well, then don't. JMHO


I enjoy Mark's posted articles and all of the banter. ADA should be reformed to create exceptions for very small business locations.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 5, 2011)

And, personally, I agree.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Congratulations on the lofty opinion you have of you. You should be proud that you received such a sincere compliment. From yourself.So let's take a look at the arsenal of arguments Mark makes for the ADA:
> 
> 1) To oppose it is racist
> 
> ...


texasbo

Your summarizations and interpretations are not the same as my comments


----------



## Yikes (Jan 5, 2011)

The application of ADA is this simple - and this complex:

Did someone who interacts with the public intend to discriminate against a person with a disability?

Intent involves getting inside a person's head to figure out their motivation.  Because this is not easily discernable, it is prone to manipulation by both plaintiffs and defendants.  It means lots of money spent on investigations and expert witnesses and attorneys, in addition to actual civil penalties should the defendant lose.

A person's intent can change over time.  A definition of what constitutes discrimination can change over time.  the definition of disability changes over time.  That's why there is no grandfather clause.  And it is a scary thing for many people when the government is allowed via the courts to determine intent.  The only way to be absolutely certain of ADA compliance is to have a judgment in court; everything else is a best guess.

As a pain-avoidance technique, it is usually easier and cheaper to follow some generally accepted objective, external standards that will cause people to not bother looking further into our (internal) intentions.  That's where most of us come in - people can utilize our services to provide a facade (literally) of respectable intentions.

Our means to accomplish this is an evolving set of objective societal standards and metrics (ADAAG), a fence or hedge if you will, that merely symbolize our intent to not discriminate.  Anything that crosses that boundary grabs the attention of those who question intent.  In that instance the intent is further judged by subjective notions such as "reasonable" and "readily achievable".

Thus, there is no grandfathering; existing facilities that fall anywhere short of the generally-accepted-yet-evolving metrics are an invitation to look deeper into intent to discriminate.


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 5, 2011)

He is in California--almost enough said. I would guess the most overregulated state in America requires a design professional to be involved in designing almost ANYTHING connected with ADA accessibility. Just think how well one could fund their retirement off this. As always follow the money.


----------



## conarb (Jan 5, 2011)

Min&Max:

Not all of us Californians are complete wackos, but I have to admit that a lot are.  I still think he's planning to profit off it and probably already has his ACSp designation, the interesting thing we should wait and see is the outcome of the Federal lawsuit against Arizona, and Arizona is in the same Federal Circuit as California, if the Feds prevail it could prevent all states from enacting statutes in areas of law usurped by the Federal Government, if the courts come down on Obama's side that a state can't pass statutes in areas of law usurped by the Feds like immigration, then they won't be able to pass statutes in other areas usurped by the Feds like disability rights.

That would throw it out of the building codes, and you won't be able to enforce disability statutes anymore than you can enforce immigration law.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 5, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Min&Max:I still think he's planning to profit off it and probably already has his ACSp designation,
> 
> .


Dick

There you go thinking again, *and wrong again,* As I already posted, No I am not a CASP. No I do not "profit off it".

Time for you to stop speculating about me and for you to look in the mirror.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Yes, and I suppose you could use the structure of arguments against genocide to rationalize why you want to call in sick on a rainy day.The problem is, it isn't rationalizing, it's sensationalizing, it adds a tone of hostility that isn't necessary, and most importantly, it compares apples to oranges.


It compares civil rights to civil rights.

I apologize for not meeting your standards for political correctness.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 5, 2011)

Wait - - someone already mentioned genocide, and I missed it?

If it's not in context of the argument, I don't know if it counts as a Goodwin award winner...

; )


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 5, 2011)

Conarb,

Sounds good to me. I won't have to look at a lot of "stuff" they have been pushing into our laps in the past. No ADA, no lead base paint and no asbestos just to mention a few. If it originates with the feds and they have sole jurisdiction, that is OK by me.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 5, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> Wait - - someone already mentioned genocide, and I missed it?  If it's not in context of the argument, I don't know if it counts as a Goodwin award winner...
> 
> ; )


I'd say it's your call, Yikes.

In the interest of full disclosure, I really had neither Hitler nor the Nazis in mind when I was comparing the annihilation of a race to sleeping in on a rainy day, but it does nicely illustrate your point.


----------



## Mac (Jan 6, 2011)

Conarb comes close with reference to totalitarian China, but I don't think he has the right language to really count.

Slimy contractors will also be needed to make these accessibility improvements - and their costs will likely include profit!


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jan 6, 2011)

Boy!  I step away from the conversation for a few minutes (ok, a week or two) and THIS happens!

Anyone got another handful of mud?


----------



## FredK (Jan 6, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> I enjoy Mark's posted articles and all of the banter. ADA should be reformed to create exceptions for very small business locations.


While I would like to agree, it's the same arguement one get's in other things we inspect.

Easier to say this is the minimum need and so the Wally Worlds get the breaks based on size then not having to comply with the anything.  Ain't fair but what is?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jan 6, 2011)

The 20% rule is still applicable so there are exceptions in magnitude.  However, barrier removal for public accommodations is a must.  Given the circumstances, an equivalent facilitation could be posed, rather than causing a business to vacate a building.  People are just not being creative in looking for solutions.  The city could help if it would allow ramps on the public sidewalks.  From what I understand from the original article, there is a complaint that a person cannot get up a step into the business.  True, that's tough with a wheelchair.  A ramp outside would work.  And, rather than have the business move or belly-up (which would remove the service intended to be provided in the first place) a button could be provided on the exterior of the building that would alert the owner of an accessibility need.  The owner would then go to the exterior to see what help could be provided.  Granted, this excepting would be ludicrous for a 40,000 SF facility where there is room to make accommodations.  But for smaller venues, this seems to be one option that is not even being considered.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 6, 2011)

I was thinking about it this morning - -

* With the building code, we start with a set of _prescriptive_ standards, and we use performance standards only as an alternative means of compliance.

* In contrast, with ADA, we start with a _performance_ standard (thou shalt not discriminate), and hope that there are enough prescriptive methods (ADAAG) that will be a safe harbor alternative to potential litigation as a means to prove or disprove litigation.

The prescriptive stuff is clear and generally logical.  Thus, it appeals to an engineer's mindset and a business owner's mindset.

Part of the discomfort with ADA is that its core is a fuzzy, subjective performance standard.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 6, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I'd say it's your call, Yikes. In the interest of full disclosure, I really had neither Hitler nor the Nazis in mind when I was comparing the annihilation of a race to sleeping in on a rainy day, but it does nicely illustrate your point.


I don't think it rose to the level of Goodwin's law.  I was just trying to lighten the mood around here a bit.

And if I ever invoke Goodwin's law when the subject _really is about Nazis_, you have my permission to slap some sense into me.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 6, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> I don't think it rose to the level of Goodwin's law.  I was just trying to lighten the mood around here a bit.And if I ever invoke Goodwin's law when the subject _really is about Nazis_, you have my permission to slap some sense into me.


Well, if the subject really is about Nazis, isn't Godwins Law in play before the first response is even made?


----------



## texasbo (Jan 6, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> Part of the discomfort with ADA is that its core is a fuzzy, subjective performance standard.


That's a good point, Yikes.

Might I add that the other part of the discomfort is that it's an oppressive law that creates an elite class and discriminates against the VAST MAJORITY of the population. It is a law that was preposterous the day it was introduced, and has gone downhill from there. It's a law that taxes, yes taxes businesses, provides a free lunch for the litigious and a moral hunting ground for liberal zealots, and should be repealed.

That is the other part of the discomfort with ADA.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 6, 2011)

If the states stayed away from ADA then all the court cases would be handled by the DOJ and Gene's scenario would most likely be a daily reality.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 6, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Well, if the subject really is about Nazis, isn't Godwins Law in play before the first response is even made?


That's why you have permission to slap me... lest Goodwin's law, though originally well intentioned, implode on itself.

Like one of those comics when the monster with the burning laser eyes accidentally looks at itself in a mirror...


----------



## mark handler (Jan 6, 2011)

What truly amazes me is the lack of understanding by 99% of you that ADA is Federal civil rights laws that ensure equal opportunity for people with disabilities.

It is NOT a building code.

99% of you have no authority to enforce or interpret it. It is not codified for your enforcement.

You all need to enforce your state access laws, for most Chapter 11 or ICC/ANSI 117, not the ADA.

Architects and Owners need to deal with it,  not building officials


----------



## texasbo (Jan 6, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> What truly amazes me is the lack of understanding by 99% of you that ADA is Federal civil rights laws that ensure equal opportunity for people with disabilities. It is NOT a building code.
> 
> 99% of you have no authority to enforce or interpret it. It is not codified for your enforcement.
> 
> You all need to enforce your state access laws, for most Chapter 11 or ICC/ANSI 117, not the ADA.


Mark, I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that. But aren't we still allowed to hate it if we want to?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 6, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Mark, I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that. But aren't we still allowed to hate it if we want to?


True, but that is a different issue.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 6, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> That's why you have permission to slap me... lest Goodwin's law, though originally well intentioned, implode on itself.


Excellent point.


----------



## ewenme (Jan 6, 2011)

Mark:

You are correct in that building officials don't enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] but we do enforce the ACCESSIBILITY requirements of Chapter 11 of the IBC, and if we adopt them the ICC/ANSI A117.1 Standards for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. The vigor of the enforcement of Chapter 11, etc., is probably dependent upon the AHJ [City, County, etc.] and its constituents. Whether a jurisdiction is proactive or not, the rules remain the same: enforce the building code requirements fairly and equally, and to the best of one's abilities.

Why get so over-wrought about the fine line between ADA and IBC? The means to the end are similar, sometimes not perfectly congruent, and in the end life goes on. IMHO.

Carol


----------



## Yikes (Jan 6, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Excellent point.


I chose my words carefully as an analogy, because there is the potential for ADA itself to likewise implode on itself.

About 10 years ago, theon a nearby large public (deep pockets) University that has a hilly campus, the old sidewalks were getting too narrow for the increased foot and wheelchair traffic in a particular area, and students were spilling into the roadway on a hilly inside-curve.

The university developed plans to build a staircase thatdown the hillside on this inside-curve, thus reducing foot-traffic for the sidewalk and making things safer for everyone.  However, there was insufficient room for a corresponding ramp... the exisitng curving sidwalk itself _was_ the "ramp" equivalent.  Partway through the construction process, the university's attorney determined that the staircase constituted a shortcut, and to avoid the appearance of discrimination against those who couldn't wheel down the shortcut, it was better to have no staircase at all.

Today, the old sidewalk remains, more crowded and dangerous than ever.  The most straightforward solution to equal facilitation for all was to provide equal misery for all.

Who was the winner here?  ADA imploded on itself.


----------



## conarb (Jan 6, 2011)

Because of ongoing newspaper articles on this subject a radio talk show devoted much of the afternoon on it, they had one of the plaintiff's attorneys on and another attorney who defended small business owners against what she called extortion lawsuits. The plaintiff's attorney gave his professional litigants 20% of the take and retained 80% for his fees.



			
				San Francisco Chronicle said:
			
		

> "We have seen hundreds of instances with similar characteristics," Dick-Endrizzi said. "Small businesses  like pizza places and video stores, where there's not a lot of profit  being made ... they don't have the financial capacity to hire architects  and lawyers."
> Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/05/BUGU1H4IR9.DTL#ixzz1AJthbDAo
> 
> 
> ​


----------



## brudgers (Jan 6, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Because of ongoing newspaper articles on this subject a radio talk show devoted much of the afternoon on it, they had one of the plaintiff's attorneys on and another attorney who defended small business owners against what she called extortion lawsuits. The plaintiff's attorney gave his professional litigants 20% of the take and retained 80% for his fees.


I'm sure this fairy tale ends with, "and the business owners donated every profit to homeless orphans, their attorney's accepted hugs in lieu of payment, and they all lived happily ever  after in a land of beer, unicorns and rainbows."

Businesses don't comply for the money.


----------



## incognito (Jan 7, 2011)

Geez, you would think that is a bad thing for businesses to make a profit. Anyone who has a problem with it should join the happy citizens in Cuba. As I understand it the refuge boats have plenty of room for any one desiring to make the return trip.


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 7, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> What truly amazes me is the lack of understanding by 99% of you that ADA is Federal civil rights laws that ensure equal opportunity for people with disabilities. Architects and Owners need to deal with it, not building officials





			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> Mark, I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that. But aren't we still allowed to hate it if we want to?





			
				mark handler said:
			
		

> True, but that is a different issue.





			
				Yikes said:
			
		

> I chose my words carefully as an analogy, because there is the potential for ADA itself to likewise implode on itself.





			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> I'm sure this fairy tale ends with, "and the business owners donated every profit to homeless orphans, their attorney's accepted hugs in lieu of payment, and they all lived happily ever  after in a land of beer, unicorns and rainbows."


The _Accessibility Topic_, and particularly, this _ADA Lawsuit _thread, has apparently imploded on itself.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 7, 2011)

incognito said:
			
		

> Geez, you would think that is a bad thing for businesses to make a profit. Anyone who has a problem with it should join the happy citizens in Cuba. As I understand it the refuge boats have plenty of room for any one desiring to make the return trip.


I don't have any problem with businesses making a profit.

I just expect them to do so legally.

If you don't like that, move to Russia.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I'm sure this fairy tale ends with, "and the business owners donated every profit to homeless orphans, their attorney's accepted hugs in lieu of payment, and they all lived happily ever  after in a land of beer, unicorns and rainbows."


Unicorns and rainbows are not accessible to me - -I think I'm gonna sue both of them!


----------

