# ADA Excuses



## jar546 (Feb 9, 2014)

This is one of the reasons that litigation is the only way to get the attention of businesses who still ignore a civil rights law.

[video=youtube;IECjkYK6O4k]





  feature=c4-overview


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 9, 2014)

Toilet paper holder wouldn't hurt either. Was there soap in the dispenser?


----------



## kilitact (Feb 9, 2014)

That would depend on the history behind the original installation. When was this installed, what is the scope of work they are currently proposing? From the picture one can't determine if this is nonconforming but in the safe harbor.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 9, 2014)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Toilet paper holder wouldn't hurt either. Was there soap in the dispenser?


What toilet paper?  Apparently not necessary


----------



## kilitact (Feb 9, 2014)

In some countries its not. Would you deny those people their right to wipe has they choose?


----------



## ICE (Feb 9, 2014)

I was there for an inspection related to a business license application.  The bathrooms were recently renovated (without any permits).  The women's bathroom door has a lever handle but as you can see, this has a knob.  The excuse is that the men have broken three lever handles and the owner is tired of replacing them.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 9, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> This is one of the reasons that litigation is the only way to get the attention of businesses who still ignore a civil rights law.


Can you post the link, rather embed it, my security program blocks embedded links


----------



## mark handler (Feb 9, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> I was there for an inspection related to a business license application.  The bathrooms were recently renovated (without any permits).  The women's bathroom door has a lever handle but as you can see, this has a knob.  The excuse is that the men have broken three lever handles and the owner is tired of replacing them.
> 
> 
> 
> I recommended a commercial grade door and hardware.


Noncompliant signage on door, this sign is for a wall.

You are right on the knob, non compliant


----------



## ICE (Feb 9, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Noncompliant signage on door, this sign is for a wall.You are right on the knob, non compliant


There ya go.  Who would know this stuff if they didn't have to?  What does a bathroom door sign look like?  And why would it make any difference if this was on the door or the wall next to the door?  Are two signs required, one for the door and one for the wall?

It's missing braille too.  You can see all the smudgy fingerprints trying to find it.  This is a pizza parlor after all.

The wheelchair icon is an insult too.  How about a guy on crutches.  It could be called a Bundy sign.

The sign is discriminatory.  The standing man and the wheelchair man are separated by a wall.  The standing man is in the shape of a man while the wheelchair man is reduced to a misshaped head. The message is loud and clear that the standing man is superior.

Are you just screwing with me?  Is this another dog dish code?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 9, 2014)

In CA and TX

No braille allowed on door sign

Braille required on wall sign

No figures on door sign


----------



## ICE (Feb 9, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> In CA and TXNo braille allowed on door sign
> 
> Braille required on wall sign
> 
> No figures on door sign


Is a wall sign required to be at 42" in case the guy in the wheelchair is blind?

It's odd that the ADA regulations are so restrictive.  It's perfectly understandable to not require braille on a door sign but I don't get why it's not allowed.  And no figures on a door sign but I'm assuming they are required on a wall sign. What's up with that?

Seriously Mark, are you making fun of me?

I think I've discovered why we require floor drains in any restroom with a urinal.

It is so obvious that the ADA was written by the federal government.  I was an inspector for work being done at a military base.  The plans and specifications were amazing.  There were 40 pages on how to handle concrete.  I mean right down to wetting troughs.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 9, 2014)

http://www.riversideca.gov/building/pdf/DisabledAccessDrawings/disabled-signage-toilet-room-id.pdf

Proper signage is very important, most lawsuits start with imprioer signage. It is like a red flag, or blue....


----------



## ICE (Feb 9, 2014)

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/97859466@N05/12413294975/ [/URL]


They may be open to a lawsuit.  The instruction says that braille isn't required but fails to warn that braille isn't allowed.

Here's proof that they forgot about the blind person that's in a wheelchair.



> http://www.flickr.com/photos/97859466@N05/12413299435/


But hey, they remembered the person that reads braille with their nose.



> http://www.flickr.com/photos/97859466@N05/12413439843/


----------



## conarb (Feb 9, 2014)

I see the sign as discriminatory because it discriminates against the transgendered, *we have a new law in California* that mandates that the transgendered be allowed any restroom they want.  I heard a guy (I say 'guy" since he talked in a young man's voice) on NPR saying that a transgendered person must be allowed to use any restroom he/she wants because he/she may feel like a woman when he/she gets up in the morning and put on a dress, but an hour later he/she may need to use the restroom and then her/she identifies as a man.  When questioned he/she said that a transgendered may feel his/her identity change several times throughout the day.

What I am starting to see is new blue signs with both the male and female figures next to the wheelchair bound symbol.    As to toilet heights when ADA first came out they mandated really high toilets that were uncomfortable to all, even the handicapped objected to them as being too high and some kind of compromise was reached about half way, I know it cost a lot of money to business owners to replace them twice, I had to replace several and I know how they bitched about the cost.  As to the toilet paper holders, toilet paper is going out and being replaced by washlets, I went to washlets 25 years ago because of radiation damage to the colon, the last home I built had all washlets, the tree huggers want to eliminate toilet paper altogether.  If no one has seen the new triple signs I'll try to take a picture of one when I go to lunch, they are all over here now.


----------



## conarb (Feb 10, 2014)

Here is a phone camera shot of the ADA signs I am seeing so as not to discriminate against anyone.

View attachment 1002


I guess separating restrooms by gender is now a civil rights violation.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1002


/monthly_2014_02/handicap-sign.jpg.5e24d52ee8aa5a367e6ba1ff3c74259d.jpg


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 10, 2014)

That's the Family Friendly one. Unisex if you have curtain apes.

Transgender stuff is changing all of that anyway, sometimes you feel like youv'e got nuts, sometimes you don't.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 10, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Here is a phone camera shot of the ADA signs I am seeing so as not to discriminate against anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dick

There are violations with the sign starting with, That is a wall sign, not a door sign

Braille not observable

it appears to be mounted above the 60 imch centerline maximum


----------



## conarb (Feb 10, 2014)

In that restaurant there are two adjoining rooms, at first one had the Mens' Room sign and the other the Ladies' Room sign, then both were replaced by these non-discriminatory signs.  I also see baby changing wall hung facilities in both rest rooms.


----------



## conarb (Feb 10, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> DickThere are violations with the sign starting with, That is a wall sign, not a door sign
> 
> Braille not observable
> 
> it appears to be mounted above the 60 imch centerline maximum


I guess they better pay a few thousand dollars to some CASp to get it right so they don't get sued.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 10, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> I guess they better pay a few thousand dollars to some CASp to get it right so they don't get sued.


Or they can do nothing, be sued

OrTalk with the building Official and get free info

Or a knowledgable customer, like you, could give then some free advice


----------



## Darren Emery (Feb 10, 2014)

You mention 23 years in the video - that bathroom doesn't look like it has 23 years on it - so it's been renovated (at least cosmetically) a time or two.  Plenty of opportunity to get it right.

My wife and I have made a game out of it on our travels - can we ever find a fully compliant bathroom in a gas station or convenience store on our route.  Don't think we've found one yet...


----------



## mark handler (Feb 10, 2014)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> You mention 23 years in the video - that bathroom doesn't look like it has 23 years on it - so it's been renovated (at least cosmetically) a time or two.  Plenty of opportunity to get it right.  My wife and I have made a game out of it on our travels - can we ever find a fully compliant bathroom in a gas station or convenience store on our route.  Don't think we've found one yet...


He is not saying the restroom is 23 years, ADA has been the law of the land for 23+ years, and things are still noncompliant


----------



## Darren Emery (Feb 10, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> He is not saying the restroom is 23 years, ADA has been the law of the land for 23+ years, and things are still noncompliant


  That makes more sense.   Thanks!


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 10, 2014)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> You mention 23 years in the video - that bathroom doesn't look like it has 23 years on it - so it's been renovated (at least cosmetically) a time or two.  Plenty of opportunity to get it right.  My wife and I have made a game out of it on our travels - can we ever find a fully compliant bathroom in a gas station or convenience store on our route.  Don't think we've found one yet...


It's the ADA Roadtrip Game.! Roll the dice...will your attorney be a 30th floor shark, or Saul on the bus bench?

Stop by all you favorite places. Destroy businesses, ruin lives!

The ADA Roadtrip Game is fun for the whole family! Feel superior helping those that won't help themselves! Roll for the big money and pass Go! For your government entitlement.

59.99 plus shipping and handling.

Man. My first million. Get on this ADA train.

Brent


----------



## Darren Emery (Feb 10, 2014)

Brent - you are indeed good at jumping on the "this is ridiculous" bandwagon, and I agree with some of your points.  Would you agree as well, that there are many instances where a business owner could, and should, have done the right thing, a long time ago?

When I first began doing commercial finals in my town (18 years ago) I was amazed at how often the contractor missed ADA related details. Now I can't help but see the violations when I visit other jurisdictions. And BTW - not a single lawsuit has been filed on my behalf.

How difficult (or expensive) is it really, to install a mirror at the correct height?  Or perhaps lever type handles and grab bars?


----------



## conarb (Feb 10, 2014)

Darren:

You are in Kansas, has Kansas incorporated ADA requirements into it's building codes?  For that matter what concern is it of Jeff's, he's in Pennsylvania and to my knowledge Pennsylvania hasn't incorporated ADA into it's codes.  Enforcing ADA is none of your business anymore than enforcing federal immigration or drug laws.  We have a constitutional situation now where the attorney general of the United States is refusing to enforce federal drug laws, this is derilection of his duties since the executive is required to enforce all federal laws, he can't pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce.  As far as I know this is only a California issue.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 10, 2014)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Brent - you are indeed good at jumping on the "this is ridiculous" bandwagon, and I agree with some of your points.  Would you agree as well, that there are many instances where a business owner could, and should, have done the right thing, a long time ago?  When I first began doing commercial finals in my town (18 years ago) I was amazed at how often the contractor missed ADA related details. Now I can't help but see the violations when I visit other jurisdictions. And BTW - not a single lawsuit has been filed on my behalf.
> 
> How difficult (or expensive) is it really, to install a mirror at the correct height?  Or perhaps lever type handles and grab bars?


To your first question. Yes, sometimes.

Second....just a joke. Having a laugh at the ADA Game. We have played more obnoxious road games than that. You have to kill time.

To the last point, how important, really, is the height of a mirror? Only as important as a wonk says it is.

Brent


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 10, 2014)

> ADA has been the law of the land for 23+ years, and things are still noncompliant


This is a true statement, however some seem to think that every facility throughout the United States should be fully compliant by now because of this time frame.

 When I read Americans with Disabilities Act ADA Guide for Small Businesses  http://www.ada.gov/smbusgd.pdf    I believe the ADA along with the DOJ recognize and acknowledge this is not possible for all businesses under the barrier removal requirements to be compliant.

I realize the guideline is not law and can not be used as a defense for a violation.

I see posts on here all the time where the DOJ has "won" a lawsuit. Never have I seen a post where the DOJ agreed with a business owner and settled with some minor modifications. Since a lawsuit by the DOJ is a last resort I assume there are a lot more small settlement agreements then  lawsuits. I would be interested in reading them, not the ones against large or national companies but the ones filed against mom & pop businesses.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 10, 2014)

All they "need to know" is available "for free" on the internet, if only they would look.

Door symbols are intended to be universal, the shape says it all without being able to read (703.7.2.6.1-.3), being tactile no braille is necessary. The contrast with door colors allows for color blind to distinguish the shape.

No wall sign is necessary as that is redundent unless you choose to do so, if done it must comply with ADA signage requirements.


----------



## Darren Emery (Feb 10, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Darren:You are in Kansas, has Kansas incorporated ADA requirements into it's building codes?  For that matter what concern is it of Jeff's, he's in Pennsylvania and to my knowledge Pennsylvania hasn't incorporated ADA into it's codes.  Enforcing ADA is none of your business anymore than enforcing federal immigration or drug laws.  We have a constitutional situation now where the attorney general of the United States is refusing to enforce federal drug laws, this is derilection of his duties since the executive is required to enforce all federal laws, he can't pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce.  As far as I know this is only a California issue.


Conarb - State of Ks attorney general released a directive many years ago (just before I became a city inspector in '96) that building departments in Ks are to review each project for ADA compliance when issuing a building permit.


----------



## Darren Emery (Feb 10, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> To the last point, how important, really, is the height of a mirror? Only as important as a wonk says it is.
> 
> Brent


If you happen to be in a wheelchair, the height of a mirror may be VERY important to you.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 10, 2014)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> If you happen to be in a wheelchair, the height of a mirror may be VERY important to you.


Agree but as a business owner I cannot "tilt" the mirror to make it usable by all. The intent is met but the letter of the law is not.


----------



## Darren Emery (Feb 10, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Agree but as a business owner I cannot "tilt" the mirror to make it usable by all. The intent is met but the letter of the law is not.


Good point - I have often thought the tilted mirror at about 42" (common height of lavatory + backsplash in my experience) is a good solution, but do not have the authority to "flex" on these ADA issues.  Very frustrating at times.


----------



## conarb (Feb 10, 2014)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Conarb - State of Ks attorney general released a directive many years ago (just before I became a city inspector in '96) that building departments in Ks are to review each project for ADA compliance when issuing a building permit.


Darren:

I don't doubt you but you have to agree that is strange, the state attorney general is not charged to enforce federal law, he enforces state statutes, are you charged with enforcing other federal laws?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 10, 2014)

New must meet the strict code height, But in a retrofit attach a new mirror, at proper height, to wall adjacent to lav


----------



## Darren Emery (Feb 10, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Darren:I don't doubt you but you have to agree that is strange, the state attorney general is not charged to enforce federal law, he enforces state statutes, are you charged with enforcing other federal laws?


There are state statutes bringing the ADA into play for the AHJ during construction.


----------



## conarb (Feb 10, 2014)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> There are state statutes bringing the ADA into play for the AHJ during construction.


I having lunch with another attorney today and I'm going to knock it around with him, is the ADA brought in by reference into your statutes?  If so do you have the section number?  Maybe I can look it up, print it out and we can discuss it.  Granting special privileges to certain classes was supposed to be constitutional only as a time delimited remedy as redress for past grievances, Justice O'Connor said 25 more years 10 years ago.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 10, 2014)

A sloped mirror only allows me to see the top of my head, not my face. Want to apply makeup to the top of "your" head?

Ride around in a WC for a day and you just might better understand user issues.


----------



## Darren Emery (Feb 10, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> I having lunch with another attorney today and I'm going to knock it around with him, is the ADA brought in by reference into your statutes?  If so do you have the section number?  Maybe I can look it up, print it out and we can discuss it.  Granting special privileges to certain classes was supposed to be constitutional only as a time delimited remedy as redress for past grievances, Justice O'Connor said 25 more years 10 years ago.


See Chapter 58 - Section 13

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/statute/058_000_0000_chapter/058_013_0000_article/


----------



## Frank (Feb 10, 2014)

Is it even legal for states to enforce the ADA through reference or through the adoption of state codes that follow the federal provisions?  It is appearantly illegal for states to enforce immigration law through parallel state statues.

"Today's ruling appropriately bars the state of Arizona from effectively criminalizing unlawful status in the state and confirms the federal government's exclusive authority to regulate in the area of immigration," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

Waiting for Holder to file similar suit stopping state building codes from enforcing accessibility issues.


----------



## Mac (Feb 10, 2014)

Personally, I'm not very familiar with the ADA, but I sure am familiar with ANSI A117.1. If a building - and component spaces - comply with A117, does that mean it's ADA compliant too?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 10, 2014)

ANSI 117.1 2003 {?} is a safe harbor document

I think it is 03, I will check tonight....


----------



## Wayne (Feb 10, 2014)

Re: ADA Excuses



			
				mark handler said:
			
		

> ANSI 117.1 2003 {?} is a safe harbor documentI think it is 03, I will check tonight....


Of the top of my head I believe that HUD uses it as a safe harbor document. I can't remember about the DOJ.


----------



## Mech (Feb 11, 2014)

What is a safe harbor document?


----------



## Wayne (Feb 11, 2014)

Re: ADA Excuses



			
				Mech said:
			
		

> What is a safe harbor document?


It essentially means a document has been approved and meets the minimum qualifications of the current standard or law such as ANSI being used for design in lieu of ADA design standards in some limited areas.  You are in a "safe harbor".


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 11, 2014)

Not yet its not, if it were CA would except it.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 11, 2014)

You are "waiting" why?

Feds write laws of national importance and expect states to draft enabling laws of their own based on the minimums set by the Feds, no?

Is not a code an enforceable law?


----------



## conarb (Feb 11, 2014)

ADA Guy said:
			
		

> Feds write laws of national importance and expect states to draft  enabling laws of their own based on the minimums set by the Feds, no?


What about our drug laws?  Not only state medical marijauna but Colorado and Washington passing recreational marijuana laws in direct contradiction of the federal laws.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

The  DOJ did accept the 2003 for the ADAAG but it is not in the scoping documents of the 2010. It is in the FAIR HOUSING Guidelines.

But anyone who complies with the ANSI 117.1 won't have an issue with the DOJ. The 2010 ADASAD is based on the ANSI documents with slight variations.

I will continue to say if you comply with the code in force in your area you will not have any lawsuits,  it it the people that do not want to comply or don't think they need to comply with the accessibility codes at all are the ones that get sued

So I was incorrect that it was a safe harbor doc for the 2010 ADASAD


----------



## Frank (Feb 11, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> You are "waiting" why? Feds write laws of national importance and expect states to draft enabling laws of their own based on the minimums set by the Feds, no?
> 
> Is not a code an enforceable law?


It depends on if the federal laws are favored by the current administration or not--Immigration is an example where the Feds have repeatedly under various administrations have decided they do not want to enforce so they wont let the states enforce.

Energy code-- the states are not permitted to enforce higher equipment efficiency requirements than the federal requirements.

California had to get federal permission to enforce lower emmission requirements on cars and appliances.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 11, 2014)

Ah, those words "it depends", depends on: "If enforced (subject to local interpretation - "code enforcement officers?)", "if Politically correct (want to remain in office?)", if budget allows (agency (staffing) or property owner?, if implementing regulations are written and approved for inclusion in state law, etc.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 11, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Darren:You are in Kansas, has Kansas incorporated ADA requirements into it's building codes?  For that matter what concern is it of Jeff's, he's in Pennsylvania and to my knowledge Pennsylvania hasn't incorporated ADA into it's codes.  Enforcing ADA is none of your business anymore than enforcing federal immigration or drug laws.  We have a constitutional situation now where the attorney general of the United States is refusing to enforce federal drug laws, this is derilection of his duties since the executive is required to enforce all federal laws, he can't pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce.  As far as I know this is only a California issue.


FYI the PA Dept of L&I adopted the ADA and has been enforcing it right from the beginning.  In April of 2004 PA adopted the I-Codes and local & State enforcement is Chapter 11 and Appendix J of the IBC along with the ANSI A117.1

This is nothing new whatsoever to PA.  And, for the record, this was a bathroom in Florida.


----------



## Alias (Feb 11, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Ride around in a WC for a day and you just might better understand user issues.


Amen to that.

Sue, been there, done that.........


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

Alias said:
			
		

> "Quote Originally Posted by ADAguy
> 
> Ride around in a WC for a day and you just might better understand user issues."
> 
> ...


ditto   to   that


----------



## conarb (Feb 11, 2014)

I mentioned that I was having lunch with a probate attorney yesterday, his problem is that he's the attorney for a trust that includes several buildings, in the process of administrating the trust he has had appraisals done on all real property, on one commercial property the appraiser has noted possible ADA violations that could negatively affect value, the appraisal is conditioned upon obtaining estimates of the cost of correction.  I told him that he was stepping into a minefield, that his best option was to put the property on the market rather than distributing it to one or more beneficiaries fully disclosing the appraisal, and that I couldn't give him an estimate without plans for compliance.  I told him about California's CASp program but warned him to be prepared to get ripped off, it could cost in the thousands, I told him that after getting the report to retain an architect to design the necessary work, but to be sure that the architect selected carried E&O insurance that would name all contractors and other parties as additionally insured, a contractor's general liability insurance does not include the work of design professionals, so we generals have to get named on the architect's policies as additionally insured.  I've done that for years but recently have found that some architects' insurers are refusing to name contractors on their policies. After all that I could give him a cost estimate of compliance so he could sell or distribute the property.  It is his opinion from what he's heard and read that all attorneys representing these rolling extortionists should be disbarred, that the real problem here is a state bar problem.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

New ADA and Energy Use Disclosure Requirements for Commercial Property Owners

Beginning July 1, 2013, owners of commercial property in California will need to comply with new disclosure requirements when entering a new lease, amending a lease, or when owners sell or finance a commercial building.  The first disclosure requirement relates to disability access and the other requirement relates to a building’s energy use and consumption.

Certified Access Specialist Disclosure

Under California SB 1186, commercial property owners must include a disclosure in all commercial leases or lease amendments stating whether the property has been inspected by a certified access specialist and, if so, whether the property is in compliance with construction-related accessibility standards.   A certified access specialist (also known as a “CASp”) is a professional certified by the State of California to assess commercial properties and their compliance with federal and state disability-related laws and regulations.  After an inspection, the specialist issues a report which identifies areas of non-compliance with accessibility standards.  The report can be used by property owners to create a practical and financially reasonable plan for fixing problems in advance of litigation.

While the CASp disclosure in leases and lease amendments is mandatory, property owners are not required obtain such inspections.  The new law provides incentives, however, to having the building inspected.  Property owners who timely correct ADA violations identified in a CASp report or have had their property inspected by an approved inspector prior to being served with a complaint by an ADA plaintiff can be eligible for reduced statutory damages or a 90 day stay of proceedings in the event of a lawsuit.   The stay is granted to give the owner the opportunity to correct accessibility issues and dismiss the lawsuit.

Energy Use Reporting

Another California law, known as AB 1103, provides that prior to the leasing, sale or financing of an entire commercial building of more than 50,000 square feet (the requirement hits smaller buildings in 2014 – all the way down to 5,000 square feet on July 1, 2014!), the landlord, seller or borrower is required to disclose energy use data for the building for the prior 12 months, together with information regarding the building’s operating characteristics and ENERGY STAR Energy Performance Score.  To comply, building owners are required to open an account for the building at the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager Website, operated by the US EPA, no later than 30 days prior to the date the disclosure is required.  Under the law, once an account is opened, utility companies are required to provide energy data within 30 days of the date of the request.   Then, the owner must log back in to the account, complete a compliance report, and download certain Energy Use Materials for disclosure to the prospective tenant, purchaser or lender.   The disclosure requirement applies to virtually all commercial building use types.

The ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is a free online software tool that allows property owners to track and evaluate energy consumption in light of the occupancy of the building in specified land use categories.  A building is given a score on a scale of 1 to 100.  A rating of 50 means that the building performs at the midpoint when compared with similar buildings.  The Portfolio Manager uses national weather data to compare buildings in similar climates, so that buildings in locations that have snow in the winter and high humidity in the summer are not are scored against buildings in temperate climates. A building that scores 75 or above qualifies for an ENERGY STAR certification.  Because the consequences of having a poor score can have consequences in attracting tenants that have green building requirements, it is important for property owners to retain knowledgeable staff or consultants to handle the inputs into the ENERGY STAR database.  Even small mistakes can affect an overall score considerably in the wrong direction.

The new law will allow tenants, buyers and lenders to compare a building’s  performance with other similar buildings.  In addition, the disclosure requirement provides more information than a disclosure of monthly utility bills, as is typical when tenants evaluate utility pass through expenses, buyers estimate future operating costs in their pro formas, or when lenders evaluate which assets have a better ability to maintain profitability and support loan repayment.  On the other hand, the cost and expense of complying with the law’s new disclosure requirement is an added cost of doing business as a commercial property owner in California


----------



## conarb (Feb 11, 2014)

Thanks Mark, I have copied that and sent it to him.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 11, 2014)

CASp is not a rip off conarb, just like anything else it is buyer beware.

Lawmakers finally heard me and added the suto commercial disclaimer requirement into the bill. It is only a notice to inform but does not require you to have a survey or report performed.

It has caught the attention of BOMA who missed it during the hearings (smiling). Fact is if no realtor is involved then we will still have owner to tenant leases written without disclosure and the requirement does not extend to sales of commercial property, here again it remains buyer beware.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Thanks Mark, I have copied that and sent it to him.


Send thim this link

ADA Inspection Service Area - Northern California

http://accesscompliancesurvey.com/index.html


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 11, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> CASp is not a rip off conarb, just like anything else it is buyer beware.Lawmakers finally heard me and added the suto commercial disclaimer requirement into the bill. It is only a notice to inform but does not require you to have a survey or report performed.
> 
> It has caught the attention of BOMA who missed it during the hearings (smiling). Fact is if no realtor is involved then we will still have owner to tenant leases written without disclosure and the requirement does not extend to sales of commercial property, here again it remains buyer beware.


Casp may not ALWAYS be ripoff.

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Feb 11, 2014)

Mark,  Those prices on that link are a bargain


----------



## kilitact (Feb 11, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> A sloped mirror only allows me to see the top of my head, not my face. Want to apply makeup to the top of "your" head?Ride around in a WC for a day and you just might better understand user issues.


And the tall person will do what? Apply makup where it don't belong.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Mark,  Those prices on that link are a bargain


Just like any service shop around

Dick keeps harping on 2000 to 2500 minimum and what I am seeing is pricing all over the map


----------



## conarb (Feb 12, 2014)

If legitimate attorneys think that members of the bar should be disciplined by the state bar for exploiting the disabled for profit, shouldn't architects and CASps be disciplined for exploiting them as well?  I remember once I pulled a permit to do ADA work in a major Catholic church and was suprised at the building department's fees vs. a residential permit, I explained that the work was exempt from ADA and voluntary on the part of the church.  I was told that churches are commercial buildings and pay higher fees than residential like any other business, so shouldn't building departments charge lower fees for ADA work rather than exploiting the disabled for their profit?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> .... so shouldn't building departments charge lower fees for ADA work rather than exploiting the disabled for their profit?


Talk to your State Senator and Assembly person. I think they will refer you to the "tax breaks" that have been previously ridiculed


----------



## conarb (Feb 12, 2014)

Mark:

Since you are now a CBO does your department charge higher permit fees for ADA work like Contra Costa County does?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Mark:Since you are now a CBO does your department charge higher permit fees for ADA work like Contra Costa County does?


No all occupancies are charged based on the value of the work equally. I have visited several chuches and assisied with accessibility issues, for free


----------



## conarb (Feb 12, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> No all occupancies are charged based on the value of the work equally. I have visited several chuches and assisied with accessibility issues, for free


That's nice of you, it would be interesting to poll the building inspectors here to see how many charge higher fees for commercial than residential, and hence charge more for ADA compliance.


----------



## ICE (Feb 12, 2014)

I don't know about the rest of you but I have found churches to be notorious scofflaws when it comes to obtaining permits.  If they paid  triple for every permit, they would still only be paying half of what they should.  To top it off, they get an attitude when you refuse to waive fees.

Taxpayers do not pay for a building dept., users do.  So if you use the services of the building dept., you must pay for it


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 12, 2014)

> Taxpayers do not pay for a building dept., users do. So if you use the services of the building dept., you must pay for it


Agree and our fees are based on the value of construction. We do not make a distinction between residential or commercial nor do we care if it is for ADA, profit or non-profit entities everybody pays

Zoning will consider ADA ramps as part of a sidewalk and allow them to encroach into set backs on existing buildings.


----------



## Alias (Feb 12, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> That's nice of you, it would be interesting to poll the building inspectors here to see how many charge higher fees for commercial than residential, and hence charge more for ADA compliance.


City of Alturas' permit fees are based on valuation, not whether the project is commercial or residential.  Churches are charged the same as everyone else for permits.

Sue


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2014)

Alias said:
			
		

> City of Alturas' permit fees are based on valuation, not whether the project is commercial or residential.  Churches are charged the same as everyone else for permits.  Sue


As you should, the state of California mandates fees be based on the cost of the department to administer the services for that project, usually a fee formula based on the valuation of the work.

Cities can no longer use the permit process to generate revenue for the city.


----------



## ICE (Feb 12, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> As you should, the state of California mandates fees be based on the cost of the department to administer the services for that project, usually a fee formula based on the valuation of the work.Cities can no longer use the permit process to generate revenue for the city.


That has been the rule for as long as I have been an inspector.  The cities that I have worked in generated three to four times what it cost...still do...always will.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> That has been the rule for as long as I have been an inspector.  The cities that I have worked in generated three to four times what it cost...still do...always will.


That's because there are "administrative" costs, transportation, office support staff, reprographics, computers, excreta, not just based on your salary.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 12, 2014)

State mandates we can have one year of operating cost in reserves plus current budget so basically two years worth of funds in reserve. Went through every bit of it when the bottom fell out. We finally have one year in reserve built back up.

We also pay "rent" for our portion of city hall as other deparments do. It was a way to have enterprise funds transferred into the general fund.


----------



## ICE (Feb 12, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> That's because there are "administrative" costs, transportation, office support staff, reprographics, computers, excreta, not just based on your salary.


Those admin costs don't come close to exhausting the supply of money left over after salary is covered.


----------



## conarb (Feb 12, 2014)

In the past building departments were profit centers, for instance making profits to support other agencies that take in no money, like social services, in fact that inspector how died recently that I mentioned here once bragged to me that his department was the most profitable in the county.  That all changed in 1978 with Prop 13 and subsequent initiatives, taxes required a 2/3 vote of the electorate but fees for services rendered were exempt, the courts determined that fees for services were just that, if they exceeded the cost of delivery of those services they became taxes subject to a vote of the electorate.

Building departments were so profitable that many counties and cities routinely ignored the law and continued charging more then the cost of delivery of services, eventfully the NAHB started supplying legal representation to builders to bring actions against the greedy jurisdictions and routinely winning, unbelievably many paid the fines and continued right on charging exorbitant fees, only to get sued again and keep right on charging the exorbitant fees on the basis that they made more money paying legal fees and fines and continuing their overcharging.

I don't hear about lawsuits anymore since the various AHJs have become adept at bundling other overhead into their fee structure  What I do see now as outrageous is our local communist groups have got an affordable housing law passed with no source of funding, bright city attorneys brought the affordable housing administration into the building departments, so the costs of affordable housing are absorbed into the building departments, of course when challenged they say we builders will profit from building affordable housing.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Those admin costs don't come close to exhausting the supply of money left over after salary is covered.


So you are saying your building department is not obeying state law....


----------



## ICE (Feb 12, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> So you are saying your building department is not obeying state law....


Name one that is.


----------



## conarb (Feb 12, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> So you are saying your building department is not obeying state law....


Mark:

He's probably not taking into consideration the enormous costs of lifetime health benefits and pensions.  This is why building inspection should be privatized, pay one time and it's over.


----------



## steveray (Feb 12, 2014)

We don't all get pensions...or lifer benefits.....I would bet every town in CT takes in 3 times what it spends...There was a lawsuit over fees brought in by the builders that got granted class action status in Madison CT I believe....



			
				conarb said:
			
		

> Mark:He's probably not taking into consideration the enormous costs of lifetime health benefits and pensions.  This is why building inspection should be privatized, pay one time and it's over.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> We don't all get pensions...or lifer benefits.....I would bet every town in CT takes in 3 times what it spends...There was a lawsuit over fees brought in by the builders that got granted class action status in Madison CT I believe....


This is a California thing....


----------



## conarb (Feb 12, 2014)

Just to give you an idea of what these public servant's benefits cost us taxpayers, we had a public hospital on the verge of bankruptcy, eventually a nearby private hospital took over the bankrupt public hospital.  The public hospital was run by an elected hospital district, there were two elected directors who refused to go away and spent $600,000 of district money litigating the matter, the two were Grace Ellis 85 years old, and Ron Leone 65 years old, just look at the actuarial cost of providing them lifetime benefits:



			
				Halfway to Concord said:
			
		

> Given the overwhelming support for the District’s dissolution one would  think that Ellis would accept the inevitability and facilitate the  closure process by addressing the District’s $700,000-plus liability for  the lifetime health and dental benefits that only she and Concord’s  Vice Mayor Ron Leone and their families receive.¹


These people do nothing since the district has nothing to do now that the hospital has been taken over, I think they attended one meeting a month to discuss their only business, their own meeting fees and benefits.  BTW, Leone also gets free benefits from the City of Concord for his "service" as vice-mayor.

¹ http://halfwaytoconcord.com/the-inevitable-end-of-the-mt-diablo-health-care-district/


----------



## fatboy (Feb 12, 2014)

And............once again CA, would you please stop lumping all public servants into to your diatribes???????????

I, like probably at least 1/2 to 3/4 of us, are on the same ol' IRS/401K retirement plan..........and neither one of them look rosy. And don't even start on the health insurance. Just because we work for a government entity, doesn't mean we are all on the gravy train.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2014)

fatboy said:
			
		

> And............once again CA, would you please stop lumping all public servants into to your diatribes??????????? I, like probably at least 1/2 to 3/4 of us, are on the same ol' IRS/401K retirement plan..........and neither one of them look rosy. And don't even start on the health insurance. Just because we work for a government entity, doesn't mean we are all on the gravy train.


And Me, a contract worker, no benefits or retirement


----------



## kilitact (Feb 12, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And Me, a contract worker, no benefits or retirement


It's not to late to spend some time putting together a benefit package for yourself.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 13, 2014)

kilitact said:
			
		

> It's not to late to spend some time putting together a benefit package for yourself.


I have myself taken care of thanks.  I have retirement set up from former employers. I do not have a benefit package from my current contract city.

And I plan on working for the next twenty yeasrs...


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2014)

fatboy said:
			
		

> And............once again CA, would you please stop lumping all public servants into to your diatribes??????????? I, like probably at least 1/2 to 3/4 of us, are on the same ol' IRS/401K retirement plan..........and neither one of them look rosy. And don't even start on the health insurance. Just because we work for a government entity, doesn't mean we are all on the gravy train.


The public reads the newspaper exposés about public employees, mostly firemen and policemen, and thinks all public employees are retiring at 50 with huge benefits.  When I budget for permits I changed the name several years ago to "Government Fees", and Special Inspections are right below those fees, I even have them asking why they have to pay for inspections when they have to pay for special inspections?  Maybe you guys ought to use the press to separate yourselves from the other public employees who are ripping off the taxpayers?  Just look at this thread, building departments profiting off permit fees, why don't you guys exercise your whistle-blower rights and inform your local DAs as to what's going on?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 13, 2014)

Most of us don't dwell on the negative. That's for the naysayers.  Lead by example.

Newspapers won't do any good.  They deal with the negative, thinking that is news.


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2014)

Government corruption and over-regulation are far bigger problems than say non-code compliant construction, we have to pay taxes, we have to pay government fees, but if we build without competent architects, engineers, or contractors that is our own fault. Recently Balaji S. Srinivasan called for Silicon Valley to secede (in a Y Combinator address to standing applause) from over-regulation and over taxation in the United States¹.

i don't completely agree with the New York Times interpretation, but he is saying that technology is going to destroy the Paper Belt and it's stymieing taxation and regulation, technology is going to get blamed for destroying jobs and the outdated status quo.



			
				Balaji S. Srinivasan said:
			
		

> So the reason why is that today it’s Silicon Valley versus what I call  the Paper Belt. So there’s four cities that used to run the United  States in the postwar era: Boston with higher ed; New York City with  Madison Avenue, books, Wall Street, and newspapers; Los Angeles with  movies, music, Hollywood; and, of course, DC with laws and regulations,  formally running it. And so I call them the Paper Belt, after the Rust  Belt of yore. And in the last twenty years, a new competitor to the  Paper Belt arose out of nowhere: Silicon Valley. And by accident, we’re  putting a horse head in all of their beds. We are becoming stronger than  all of them combined.²


 We need to free up geniuses like Srinivasan who became a multimillionaire in his college dorm room, and stop throwing our resources at our least productive citizens.

¹ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/us/silicon-valley-roused-by-secession-call.html?_r=2&

² http://nydwracu.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/transcript-balaji-srinivasan-on-silicon-valleys-ultimate-exit/


----------



## ICE (Feb 13, 2014)

> Just look at this thread, building departments profiting off permit fees, why don't you guys exercise your whistle-blower rights and inform your local DAs as to what's going on?


That's what pays for all my stuff.


----------



## Msradell (Feb 13, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Those admin costs don't come close to exhausting the supply of money left over after salary is covered.


Don't forget that, the costs to keep you around are much higher than just your salary.  In addition to those other items mentioned earlier there is a huge category called benefits.  It includes vacation, insurance, retirement, sick time, etc..  These items easily at 50% to your salary and that of everyone else.  What about vehicles, mileage and so forth?  Those are also a huge expenses that have to come out of the fees.  I'm betting the fees are much closer to the actual charges than you think they are.


----------



## ICE (Feb 13, 2014)

I remember one million dollar years with 2.5 employees. Wages and benefits were under $400k.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 13, 2014)

Quite a jungle you work in eh? In LA we have city councilman having upgrades done to their garages with city crews and no permits, until the LA Times gets wind of it and then he is placed on the chopping block!

Does your area lack for muckraking reporters looking for the next Pulitzer?


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2014)

An interesting observation here is that the strongest advocates of ADA here are architects, Mark Handler, ADA Guy, and MSRadell are all architects.  What's happened to architects, why aren't they out being the next Frank Lloyd Wright, Frank Gehry, or Mies van der Rohe?  Apple is building a new headquarters, they turned to 78 year old Sir Norman Foster, Facebook is designing a new headquarters, they turned to 84 year old Frank Gehry.  These tech corporations are chaired by really young guys who usually surround themselves with other young guys, why are they turning to old guys for creative architecture?


----------



## JPohling (Feb 13, 2014)

because they didn't have their life sucked out of them dealing with accessibility issues...............but in all actuality both of those offices are staffed with young designers


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> because they didn't have their life sucked out of them dealing with accessibility issues...............but in all actuality both of those offices are staffed with young designers


You got it right, but add all the other politically correct social engineering taught in our public universities for the whole answer.  I've heard said that architecture is the greatest art, we seemed to be going in the right direction after WWII but somehow dropped back into the 19th century designing/building sealed up boxes to "save the planet" and all the poor and disadvantaged.

Mark keeps screaming "... it's Civil Rights", this year is the 50th anniversary of Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights act, since we have lost our rights of free speech and freedom of association I can't even repeat what Johnson said *when the law was passed*, this was documented by  FBI Agent *Ronald Kessler* who was assigned to the White House and Air Force One.  The whole thing is political, Bush I signed the law granting quasi-suspect class status for the ADA law to buy votes.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 13, 2014)

Mark does not scream. He tactfully responds.

Brent.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 13, 2014)

Yes he does,

and FG "designs" 3 dimensional billboards as do many other architect/designers.  What ever became of "Form" follows "Function"?

Architecture is supposed to based on a buildings plan conforming to its use.

FG fought the acoustic engineer of the Disney over the need for a shoebox as the optimum sound chamber. Drape it any way you want, he did; but don't alter the shoe box proportions.

Yes, his "sculptures" become civic draws by their dramatic contrasts to the status quo. Appropriate in certain instances but not all.

The present and next FLW will be seen as Santiago Calatrava. He has completed more and varied projects in less time and of larger scale then all of the architects you have mentioned.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 13, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Yes he does, *A recent development*and FG "designs" 3 dimensional billboards as do many other architect/designers.  What ever became of "Form" follows "Function"?
> 
> Architecture is supposed to based on a buildings plan conforming to its use.
> 
> ...


Gehry is a brain up on nearly everyone.

As for scale and completion time, ask yourself "why"?

Freedom from burden will be your answer.

The Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam, et al will be in the same catagory.

Brent.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 14, 2014)

Gehry is an "old" sculptur/architect who has infected too many generations of architects.

Like FLW his buildings leak. He leaves the details to staff.


----------



## conarb (Feb 14, 2014)

In 1969 I flew to Rio and Brasilia to see the dramatic work of Oscar Niemeyer and other Brazilian architects, stairs without railings and all kinds of creative designs that could never be done under our regulation, we have put not only safety but commercial interests and political agenda ahead of creativity.  I think a lot of this has to do with our insane egalitarianism, a cousin from Germany has to come to the United States on business, the last time he was here he told me that he drove from home to Budapest in his Mercedes averaging 200 kph (124 mph), slower cars stay right allowing more expensive cars to stay in the faster lanes.  Here slow cars block fast cars, we even have to line up behind bicycles here slowing down commerce.  Is it any wonder that Germany is dominating Europe now? I move over for Ferraris and Bentleys, but Toyotas and bicycles don't move over for me.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 14, 2014)

I you want to drive 200 move to Germany. We have equal rights here. Just because you drive an expensive car, in your case a hummer,  does not mean i need to pull over for you. Respect is earned not demanded.


----------



## conarb (Feb 14, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I you want to drive 200 move to Germany. We have equal rights here. Just because you drive an expensive car, in your case a hummer,  does not mean i need to pull over for you. Respect is earned not demanded.


If we have equal rights why are some classes of people given special rights?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 14, 2014)

Are you talking about driving 200?

Or are you talking about having equal access to goods and services? Equal rights.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 14, 2014)

The goal of the ADA. is to "provide equal opportunities for all Americans" -- not to "identify a particular group of individuals who are entitled to some kind of special treatment","special class" or "preferential treatment".

Until we start thinking in the terms of inclusive or universal design, you will continue to think of them as special, not included.


----------



## conarb (Feb 14, 2014)

Mark said:
			
		

> The goal of the ADA. is to "provide equal opportunities for all  Americans" -- not to "identify a particular group of individuals who are  entitled to some kind of special treatment","special class" or  "preferential treatment".


At law the disabled are identified as a *as a Suspect Class* entitled to special treatment.  A single individual can force a store owner to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars that he may not have or be able to obtain vastly deteriorating the store owner's life for the benefit of a few.

In the case above, as Hilary would say: "What, at this point, difference does it make?" Had there been no special parking and curb cut he may have had to park further away, push his walker further, lift it up a step at the curb, but the disabled seemed to make it around before ADA.  There has never, to my knowledge, been a cost benefit analysis done to determine if there is any real value to these expensive, confusing, regulations. I bet the government has no idea the total costs of these laws, from what I've seen it has to be in the many billions.  People are different, some are tall others are short, some are smart others are dumb, some are ambitious others are lazy.  I recall the days when stores had "Help Wanted, No Irish Need Apply" signs in the windows, many business had signs "We reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone", now businesses, particularly restaurants, react in fear whenever someone comes in in a wheelchair, a person can bring a Pit Bull into a restaurant and if the restaurant has a "No Dogs Allowed" policy all the person with the dog has to say is "He's a Service Dog" (or cat or duck) and the restaurant can't ask one more question, even though others may leave out of fear.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 14, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I you want to drive 200 move to Germany. We have equal rights here. Just because you drive an expensive car, in your case a hummer,  does not mean i need to pull over for you. Respect is earned not demanded.


You should write that 100 times on the blackboard tomorrow.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 14, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> You should write that 100 times on the blackboard tomorrow.Brent.


No I will start with the BUISNESS AND PROFESSIONs code

I have Never asked for it or expected it from you nor will I never give it to you


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 14, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> No I will start with the BUISNESS AND PROFESSIONs codeI have Never asked for it or expected it from you nor will I never give it to you


The WHAT? Hands shakey?

Say what you want to say, I know what your are getting at. Don't be mealy mouthed.

Tell these fine folks what you got.

Then get ready.

You know nothing about me. Boy.

Brent.


----------



## Msradell (Feb 14, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> An interesting observation here is that the strongest advocates of ADA here are architects, Mark Handler, ADA Guy, and MSRadell are all architects.


I resent that!  I'm an engineer, not an architect.  Many can we actually have to work for a living.:mrgreen:

I also happen to be disabled and confined to a wheelchair!


----------



## conarb (Feb 14, 2014)

Msradell said:
			
		

> I resent that!  I'm an engineer, not an architect.  Many can we actually have to work for a living.:mrgreen:I also happen to be disabled and confined to a wheelchair!


Sorry about that, I could have sworn that I looked at your profile long ago and it said architect.  I just looked again and it says project engineer now.

BTW, in 1973 I was building a timber framed home in the Orinda Country Club cantilevered over a creek (when Fish and Game didn't have regulations interfering with building near creeks), on the other side of the creek a very interesting home was going up, it was a series of white stucco pavilions, it was interesting enough that I went over there, the owner was there in a wheelchair, he introduced himself as "Larry", I don't recall the last name.

  About 15 years later I was talking to a friend who was a small builder, two of his sons had made it real well as tract builders, he told me that after they had worked for him a few years that he told them that he had taught them all he knew, he took them to meet the same Larry, Larry had been a very successful land developer and took young men under his wing and taught them them the tricks of buying land and getting it approved for development.  Apparently Larry had been in a wheelchair most, it not all, of his life and his disability didn't keep him from being successful and making a lot of money.


----------



## ICE (Feb 14, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The goal of the ADA. is to "provide equal opportunities for all Americans" Until we start thinking in the terms of inclusive or universal design, you will continue to think of them as special, not included.


I attended a chapter 11B class today.  The instructor was a guy named Mark Wood.  Quite often during the class, his answer to a question was, "Does that sound inclusive?"

If you think of accessibility laws as not giving any special privilege to any select group, but rather, simply including the disadvantaged in everyday life; it all seems logical.

Then he showed a slide of a wheel chair that can climb a mountain and I came back to my senses.  I think that most people wouldn't argue against the merits of ADA but many think society went about it all wrong.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 14, 2014)

There is a sociological danger too that has to be part of the dialog. At some point you can convince people they have no access if it is not cogent with some approved standard. In other words, you train a group, the disabled, that they cannot access a place, only because it is labeled as not to standard. Is it REALLY inaccessible, or just somewhat difficult to access? Are there actual barriers or just annoyances.

If you spend anytime in a larger urban location, San Francisco is what I'm familiar with, you quickly find out that most everything is up at least one flight of stairs, yet being handicapped is not a new development. You see the same old people everyday with canes and walkers, blind, missing an arm...the same ones have to live up stairs, navigate tight spaces, deal with hills and slopes, etc.

What we as a society do not want to do is weaken our populace, and weaken our disabled EVEN FURTHER, by convincing them they only survive by the grace given by a bureaucrat.

We can see that behavior first hand right now as there is no problem with some people being on unemployment for 2 years strait, and when that runs out miraculously becoming disabled. Some to avoid work, some because no work is available.  Any shame or unacceptance of being out of work is being bred out of us. The same will be true of the disabled expectations of the world if there is not some sort of pushback.

Msradell, If you don't mind, I have a question for you. Non-confrontational, just because I'm ignorant. What would you describe, because you are using a wheelchair, as a true barrier to you? How about things that are just an annoyance? Do you like those stupid yellow dots?    Seriously, I'm not trying to set you up or anything.

Thanks,

Brent.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 14, 2014)

oh my!  "The same will be true of the disabled expectations of the world if there is not some sort of pushback."  please explain further your thoughts behind this statement.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 14, 2014)

First, look up Auburn ca. Do a street view walk around. Should that city be leveled and brought into compliance? If not, why not? Should the disabled expect that?  Is it not discrimination to have such obvious barriers?

Brent.


----------



## mjesse (Feb 14, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> First, look up Auburn ca. Do a street view walk around. Should that city be leveled and brought into compliance? If not, why not? Should the disabled expect that?  Is it not discrimination to have such obvious barriers?Brent.


The Shaw building at 163 Sacramento Street looks to be built in 1997. Let's use that as an example...

https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=38.894961,-121.078063&cbp=13,87.3,0,0,0&cbll=38.894961,-121.078080&q=163+sacramento+st.+auburn+ca&ei=92P-UtnWBcqCyQHUioDQDw&ved=0CCcQxB0wAA


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 14, 2014)

mjesse said:
			
		

> The Shaw building at 163 Sacramento Street looks to be built in 1997. Let's use that as an example...https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=38.894961,-121.078063&cbp=13,87.3,0,0,0&cbll=38.894961,-121.078080&q=163+sacramento+st.+auburn+ca&ei=92P-UtnWBcqCyQHUioDQDw&ved=0CCcQxB0wAA


Good example. Look around old town.

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Feb 14, 2014)

Read the code. It is addressed.


----------



## mjesse (Feb 14, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Read the code. It is addressed.


Is it just this simple?

Section 35.151 of 28 CFR Part 35

§ 35.151 New construction and alterations.

(a) Design and construction.

(2) Exception for structural impracticability.

(i) *Full compliance* with the requirements of this section is *not required* where a

public entity can demonstrate that it is *structurally impracticable* to meet the

requirements.

If so, that's not the feeling I get from most of our discussions.


----------



## steveray (Feb 14, 2014)

MJ....The question is....Who decides "impracticable"?


----------



## Min&Max (Feb 14, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> MJ....The question is....Who decides "impracticable"?


The AHJ or the appropriate appeals board.


----------



## mjesse (Feb 14, 2014)

I everyone believed that, the dissent and vitriol would vanish from this board.

It seems reasonable to me to have this type of "wiggle room" for an AHJ to use.

But others might argue that sending a chair user to the back door is blatant discrimination.

The building in my Google link "appears" to be completely inaccessible from the front and the slope of the street lends to the "impracticable" decision. Is everyone in agreement that a back door entrance is acceptable for this building constructed in 1997?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 14, 2014)

The impractical and the historic is at the crux of my argument that it is a manufactured discrimination.

I really am open to education here. I say it patently is not discrimination if we allow it under certain conditions.

I have asked before; what historical or impractical condition exists to prevents blacks, women, or gays from using a facility?

I can't think of one. If you can, what is it?

If minorities could not access Old Town Auburn, it would have to be demolished riki-tic and rebuild to a non discriminatory standard.

As it stands, we CAN discriminate against the handicapped because history is more important.

Brent.


----------



## steveray (Feb 14, 2014)

MJ....wiggle room is tough to defend in court.....that is why most people are unwilling to use it.....


----------



## nitramnaed (Feb 14, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Here is a phone camera shot of the ADA signs I am seeing so as not to discriminate against anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Aren't we just talking about allowing both single occupancy bathrooms to be labeled Unisex which is now allowed by code.  I don't see practicality here being some type of conspiracy to make everyone transgender.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 15, 2014)

Look at post 2003 constructed buildings as examples after 10 years of enforcement, 2013 t.i.'s after twenty years. Recession or not, how hard is it to refuse C of O's to builders when they can't even build new improvements that are compliant on sites that are not topographicly or structualy impacted?

I visited a 2012 vintage 2.5 mil resturaunt T.I. in Pasadena the other night, nice interior ramp, elevator but no circle/triangle on the RR's doors, non-contrasting stripes on the stair nosings. It is these obvious items that grab me.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 15, 2014)

mjesse said:
			
		

> Is it just this simple?Section 35.151 of 28 CFR Part 35
> 
> § 35.151 New construction and alterations.
> 
> ...


Yes, Sometimes, maybe. ........not always

In most cases it is money and NOT structural or site inpractibility. Money is not the issue in new construction. Only with buildings built BEFORE ADA


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 15, 2014)

Money may not be an issue as far as ADA compliance but it is always a factor if a project will be built or not.

I agree ADA is not the only regs increasing cost, they are just one of many.


----------



## Mech (Feb 15, 2014)

> Money may not be an issue as far as ADA compliance but it is always a factor if a project will be built or not.


Or the size of the project.  3,100 sf accessible second floor or 3,000 sf non-accessible second floor.


----------



## Msradell (Feb 15, 2014)

mjesse said:
			
		

> The Shaw building at 163 Sacramento Street looks to be built in 1997. Let's use that as an example...https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=38.894961,-121.078063&cbp=13,87.3,0,0,0&cbll=38.894961,-121.078080&q=163+sacramento+st.+auburn+ca&ei=92P-UtnWBcqCyQHUioDQDw&ved=0CCcQxB0wAA


That buildings a great example!  It's actually an example of how accessibility could have been very easily and cheaply incorporated into the building if it had been considered in the original design!  If the 2 sections of that building had been built on the same plane instead of having a step between them the uphill side of the porch area would have been level with the sidewalk that runs along the street.  It could've then been very easily accessible to everyone!!  The building probably would've cost anymore, quite possibly even less than it did.  It's just a matter of taking accessibility into account during the design process.


----------

