# Parking sign too low? See you in court!



## mark handler (Jan 29, 2017)

Parking sign too low? See you in court!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/handicapped-parking-sign-too-low-see-you-in-court/article/2613117
Imagine you're a small business, and one day you are sued because a posted parking sign in your parking lot is only 59 inches off the ground, and not 60.
You can spend tens of thousands of dollars to fight the suit over several months, or, you can settle for less. It may sound ridiculous, but the law is the law. And for some, it's an opportunity to collect some cash.
Last year an advocacy group in Phoenix filed over 1,000 lawsuits against businesses for violating requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA. In many instances, the plaintiffs demanded thousands of dollars for a settlement over the slightest of technicalities, many of which could be remedied quickly. But remedy was seldom an option. According to TV station ABC-15, which broke this particular story, the charity was assisted by a handicapped individual who acted as the plaintiff on most of the suits, even though the person had not physically been to a number of the properties that were eventually sued.
In Florida, an investigative reporting team discovered a man who had filed over 1,000 ADA lawsuits, one of them even alleging that a business had a toilet paper dispenser that wasn't the right height.
Stories similar to this have sprouted up across the country, and lawmakers have taken notice.
Republican Congressman Ted Poe from Texas is the point man for bipartisan legislation he hopes will reinvigorate the original spirit of the ADA while tamping down on the spigot of dollars flowing from frivolous or predatory lawsuits that can also be a drain on courts. Poe's legislation primarily aims for small businesses to be notified of any deficiencies in their ADA compliance and then have a cure period to fix the violation. The business can only be sued after the notice and cure period have passed.
"The whole purpose of the bill, if there's a problem with the ADA at this particular business, is to fix the problem! But the trolls don't care about fixing the problem, they care about getting the money, which really doesn't even fix the problem!" Poe said.
Three Democratic representatives from California are co-sponsors of the bill. Last year, Governor Jerry Brown signed state legislation that would also give businesses a grace period to fix deficiencies with the ADA, especially those deficiencies related to signage.
Other states have tried to limit the so-called "drive-by lawsuits." Minnesota recently passed a law intended to increase accessibility for disabled individuals while at the same time reducing lawsuits.
Also from the Washington Examiner
Trayvon Martin's parents are considering running for office — perhaps even the White House.
Poe had a nearly identical bill in the house in 2016 that advanced the clock ran out. This year, he says he's already heard positive indications from members of the judiciary committee that his reintroduced bill should get quick approval to move to the house floor.
"The challenge is to let folks understand that this is an improvement of the ADA, this is not a bill that limits the ADA," Poe said.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 30, 2017)

So says he but what of DT? presidential proclamation pending?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> So says he but what of DT? presidential proclamation pending?


Executive orders cannot reverse a law that has been passed by Congress previously. He can direct how it is enforced. And the courts or congress can intervene.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 30, 2017)

Time will tell.


----------



## conarb (Jan 30, 2017)

mark handler said:


> Executive orders cannot reverse a law that has been passed by Congress previously. He can direct how it is enforced. And the courts or congress can intervene.



The problem isn't the law that was passed by Congress, the problem is the regulations that have been written by the DOJ over the last 26-27 years, and it's the regulations that you enforce.  During Trump's campaign he promised to reduce regulations by 70%, we know he hates the Justice Department because of their refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton, the question is whether this anger will result in slashing more than 70% of the regulations written by them?  We also know that he has been subjected to some pretty onerous fines and expenses by the ADA. 

Already today he has signed executive orders limiting new regulations, I'll address getting rid of existing regulations below, but first what he signed today:



			
				Reuters said:
			
		

> President Donald Trump signed an order on Monday that will seek to dramatically pare back federal regulations by requiring agencies to cut two existing regulations for every new rule introduced.
> 
> "This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen. There will be regulation, there will be control, but it will be normalized control," Trump said as he signed the order in the Oval Office, surrounded by a group of small business owners.
> 
> ...



That is new regulations, the other day the *Wall Street Journal published an article* on how Trump can get rid of all rules and regulations instituted during the 8 years of the Obama administration to wipe out what remains of Obama's legacy by using the Congressional Review Act signed by President Clinton in 1996, so that means that Trump could eradicate all agency rules and regulations written after the date of Clinton's signing in 1996 under certain conditions, that's going back not just Obama's 8 years but 20 years.  The CRA required all government agencies to send their rules and regulations to Congress 60 days prior to their taking effect so congress could approve them, agencies seldom if ever did this, so if the DOJ or their Access Board failed to submit their regulations to congress Trump can wipe them out with the stroke of his pen.

I don't know how many ADA regulations were written after 1996, but that horrible swimming pool lift "sit in" in the Congressional hearing comes to mind as one.  This effects only federal ADA regulations, not state or building code regulations, but it would keep ADA litigation out of the Federal Courts confining litigation to the state court systems. 





¹ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-regulations-idUSKBN15E1QU


----------



## Yikes (Jan 30, 2017)

It would seem to me that if ADA is enforced in the courts via civil litigation, then the only options for a new administration are to:
1.  Direct the DOJ to not prosecute ADA cases - - although this would still not prevent any private attorney from litigating.
2.  Ask the congress to revise ADA.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 30, 2017)

I do not see a problem if left to the feds for enforcement. The problems arise when states enact legislation that mimics federal law an then become the avenue for the serial lawsuits where money is the motivation for a plaintiff and his/her attorneys not compliance.

A 59 inch sign height does not deny the use of the parking spot so no civil rights are denied. Should it be corrected? yes. Should it clog the courts with a lawsuit? No.


----------



## conarb (Jan 30, 2017)

Yikes said:


> It would seem to me that if ADA is enforced in the courts via civil litigation, then the only options for a new administration are to:
> 1.  Direct the DOJ to not prosecute ADA cases - - although this would still not prevent any private attorney from litigating.
> 2.  Ask the congress to revise ADA.


No, if the DOJ did not send the legally required rules and/or regulations to Congress within the allotted time then the President can just wipe them off the books, Trump has stated that he wants to reduce Federal regulations by 70% here is an easy to do it, and the CRA says the agency cannot resubmit it, With the order he signed today if the DOJ wants another regulation approved it must delete two existing regulations, the ADA law isn't touched, only the regulations, and regulations like sigh height are ideal regulations to eliminate.  He was  elected to reduce regulations to primarily help small business by reducing the regulatory burden on them. If the states have approved statutes that mimic ADA the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, says in part, "....nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  The ADA gives an entire class of citizens special privileges and protections while simultaneously depriving other citizens of their property.  I would say that if Trump uses the CRA to kill federal ADA privileges that the state mimiced privileges could be held a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Msradell (Jan 30, 2017)

conarb said:


> If the states have approved statutes that mimic ADA the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, says in part, "....nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  The ADA gives an entire class of citizens special privileges and protections while simultaneously depriving other citizens of their property.  I would say that if Trump uses the CRA to kill federal ADA privileges that the state mimiced privileges could be held a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.


You can look at that wording from the other side and say that without the ADA requirements those with disabilities are being denied protection of the law. Granted, some states have taken the requirements to the extreme but overall there's a good basis for the general requirements. Many states have taken to the extreme however. The ADA requirements need to be completely rewritten so that the general aspects remain but the detailed requirements are eliminated. Who cares if a sign is 39.5 inches off the ground instead of 40"? The sign needs to be there but...


----------



## mark handler (Jan 31, 2017)

Yikes said:


> It would seem to me that if ADA is enforced in the courts via civil litigation, .


There has been more action in the courts than from the DOJ.
If you ever read the ADA "law" and not just the standards you will realize that the DOJ Publishes and enforces the standards but they must be consistent with the Access Board Standards. The DOJ does not create the standards they Tweek and Publish them. The US Access Board Creates the standards.
The most Trump can hope for from the DOJ is to stop DOJ enforcement. As noted, that will not stop the civil litigation. *The ONLY way to reform the ADA is through the Congress or Courts.*

AND, a majority of the cases filed are through State Courts, NOT Federal. Most cases in CA, are through the *Superior Court of CALIFORNIA, *Citing State statutes and state laws, NOT through the federal system. Arizona with the almost 2000 cases filed late last year, in STATE court, Citing State statutes and state laws, not federal. 
Trump has NO say in those cases. Even if the ADA were eliminated, there will still be cases in State courts.

The reason for the number of cases is lack of enforcement and lack of education. People have let things slide for years. All new buildings and *MOST, *not all, remolded buildings, built in the last 25+ years should be accessible. And as I have repeatedly stated, the enforcement process does need reform, the courts, though unqualified, seem to be the only recourse for some.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 31, 2017)

A simple way for enforcement of their state ADA laws is to incorporate some of the simple ADA regs into the property maintenance code.
 Parking lot striping and signage, accessible routes where sidewalks may have elevation changes due to settling, tree roots or frost heave are a couple that come to mind. A simple correction letter and if not corrected then a civil citation to the property owner. No lawyers, nobody filing serial lawsuits for monetary gain because it is no longer a civil rights issue it is a property maintenance requirement that be be addressed by complaints or active enforcement by a jurisdiction


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 31, 2017)

I have said this before, with our codes containing ADA requirements for new and altered buildings those buildings become enforceable for noncompliance by Code Enforcement which by state law can issue fines for noncompliance. Why don't/won't building departments use this to enforce correction of noncompliance?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 31, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> I have said this before, with our codes containing ADA requirements for new and altered buildings those buildings become enforceable for noncompliance by Code Enforcement which by state law can issue fines for noncompliance. Why don't/won't building departments use this to enforce correction of noncompliance?



The building code is not a maintenance code and a building official does not have the authority to enforce all of the provisions of the code over the life of the building. To accomplish this it must be done through something like the property maintenance code and the budget and workforce to react to the complaints.

A] 104.6 Right of entry.
Where it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of this code, or where the building official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition which is contrary to or in violation of this code which makes the structure or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous,

3401.2 Maintenance.
Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. Devices or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed.


----------



## conarb (Jan 31, 2017)

Mark said:
			
		

> The most Trump can hope for from the DOJ is to stop DOJ enforcement. As noted, that will not stop the civil litigation. The ONLY way to reform the ADA is through the Congress or Courts.



Wrong, in Trump's mandate to reduce regulations by 70% he can use the power granted him under the Congressional Reporting Act to unilaterally wipe out all regulations written after Clinton's signing in 1996, look at *the history of the Access Board* to see how far he can go back.  

I did just learn something from Mark's post, I thought the Access Board was part of the DOJ, I now know that it is a separate federal agency.  Ask yourself, if you had a mandate to eliminate 70% of the 200,000 pages of rules and regulations;



			
				US Gov said:
			
		

> Control of the Regulatory Process
> 
> Federal regulations created by the regulatory agencies are subject to review by both the president and Congress under Executive Order 12866 and the Congressional Review Act.
> 
> ...





			
				CNS News said:
			
		

> Randy Johnson, senior vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, distributed a handout of a Congressional Research Service analysis of a 2008 study commissioned by the Small Business Administration that estimated the annual compliance price for all federal regulations at $1.7 trillion that year.
> 
> Seventy percent of the regulations were economic, accounting for $1.236 trillion of the annual cost. The other regulations were, in order of cost, environment regulations ($281 billion), tax compliance ($160 billion) and occupational safety and health and homeland security ($75 billion).
> 
> ...



The mandate here is to reduce regulations, if you were in Trump's shoes where would you cut the 70%?  Obviously those you can unilaterally cut without going through Congress would be your first choice. 

¹ http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations_2.htm

² http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/under-obama-11327-pages-federal-regulations-added


----------



## JBI (Jan 31, 2017)

Sign height is an easily correctable 'violation'. The courts, once involved, need to exercise proper juris prudence and simply order the sign adjusted with no penalties imposed. That would be consistent with the intent of the law and the regulations. 
Code enforcement is not supposed to be about 'punitive' remedies as a first action. 
Code enforcement needs to address the identified violations expeditiously in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 1, 2017)

I think 59 inches off the ground could comply with ADA.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 6, 2017)

*2010 ADASAD 502.6* Identification. Parking space identification signs shall include the International Symbol of Accessibility complying with 703.7.2.1. Signs identifying van parking spaces shall contain the designation "van accessible." *Signs shall be 60 inches minimum* above the finish floor or ground surface measured to the bottom of the sign.
_If in a POT_
*307.4 Vertical Clearance.* Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches high minimum.

*ADASAD 104.1.1 Construction and Manufacturing Tolerances.* All dimensions are subject to conventional industry tolerances *except *where the requirement is stated as a range with* specific* minimum and *maximum end points*.

_The 2010 ADASAD give a specific Max-point, ADASAD 502.6 does not say approximately 60"._


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 6, 2017)

It depends.  A sign conveys information.  The access board has determined that the "sign" isn't the physical metal, but the wording itself.  So, if the metal of the sign was at 59-inches but the wording was at 60-inches, then it complies.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 6, 2017)

A most interesting interpretation for which I thank you. The 502.6 wording would seem to indicate otherwise but I don't disagree. Has the Access Board posted the "determination?

They (plaintiff's) want to split hairs, there is more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 6, 2017)

You are welcome.  It came from the Access Board but I researched it a while ago, I don't know where it is posted.  But it is posted somewhere (not much help).

Visual alarms are funny this way as well.  I'd probably be remiss if I did not bring it up.  Access board determined that the *entire lens* of the appliance must be above 80-inches.  In other words, it's not the height of the device but the height of the lens.  People get this wrong all the time.  I know that there is an ADA Technical Advisory on this, but I can't find it as they have changed the link.  When off by 1-inch, this can be fixable by getting visual alarms with the lens in the upper portion of the device.  You can get that 1-inch back if they measured incorrectly.


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 6, 2017)

ICC/ANSI A117.1-2006 502.7 Identification.
Where accessible parking spaces are required to be identified by signs, the signs shall include the International Symbol of Accessibility complying with Section 703.6.3.1. Signs identifying van parking spaces shall contain the designation “van accessible.” Such signs shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum above the floor of the parking space, measured to the bottom of the sign.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 6, 2017)

Correct, the "sign" being the message (wording).


----------



## mark handler (Feb 6, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> A most interesting interpretation for which I thank you. The 502.6 wording would seem to indicate otherwise but I don't disagree. Has the Access Board posted the "determination?
> 
> They (plaintiff's) want to split hairs, there is more than one way to skin a cat.


The "Metal" Is part of the sign.
It maynot be part of the "signage", since the 1980's I have been reading court cases and interps on the accessibility issues, and have never heard or read that interpretation about the letters(text)  vs tha backing. I will need to call the access board on that one.

I do know of some sections that measure to the text, but they relate to the sight impaired.  Ie, room signage, braille cells, exctera.  Not parking or wayfinding signage.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 6, 2017)

It is the same concept as the visual alarm, or even tactile.  Look up tactile and they even spell it out in that code.  Think about it for a minute - if you have a very large "border" with no information, that regulates the requirement?  Or is it the _conveyance_ of the information what is really important, and the ability to see it and read it?

That is why I said that I think 59-inches _could_ comply.  But if I was to advise someone who is going to put up a sign, I'd still tell them 60-inches and leave it at that.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 6, 2017)

Also the table on character height (703.5.5) seems to support my conclusion.  See column header _"Height to Finish Floor or Ground From
Baseline of Character."_

PS - Rick I think you are pulling from the 91, we are now on the 2010


----------



## mark handler (Feb 6, 2017)

I have a call into someone at the access board, they will call me back.


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 6, 2017)

_If you went by the bottom of the characters on a parking sign you would go by this:

ICC/ANSI A117.1-2006 703.2.9 Height Above Floor. 
Visual characters shall be 40 inches (1015 mm) minimum above the floor of the viewing position, measured to the baseline of the character. Heights shall comply with Table 703.2.4, based on the size of the characters on the sign._

Notice their is no exception for parking signs here. But parking signs are in a different chapter.
There's no floor in a parking lot too, so I don't think you can go by the baseline of the characters.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 6, 2017)

ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 definition
sign: An architectural element composed of displayed textual, symbolic, tactile, or pictorial information.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 6, 2017)

mark handler said:


> I have a call into someone at the access board, they will call me back.



OK.  If they don't agree with me, then let me know who it is so I can call them and straighten this whole thing out.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 6, 2017)

Rick18071 said:


> _If you went by the bottom of the characters on a parking sign you would go by this:
> 
> ICC/ANSI A117.1-2006 703.2.9 Height Above Floor.
> Visual characters shall be 40 inches (1015 mm) minimum above the floor of the viewing position, measured to the baseline of the character. Heights shall comply with Table 703.2.4, based on the size of the characters on the sign._
> ...




You're missing the concept entirely.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 6, 2017)

mtlogcabin said:


> ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 definition
> sign: An architectural element composed of displayed textual, symbolic, tactile, or pictorial information.



So what?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 6, 2017)

Filthy McNasty said:


> Correct, the "sign" being the message (wording).


The ICC definition would not agree with you about measuring to the pictorial or words.  
I agree with your position and in my state I can actually accept a non-life safety code violation and not enforce the letter of the code on a case by case basis.

Under the federal rules there is no definition of a sign that I could find and I do not care since I do not enforec their rules


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 7, 2017)

Thanks but I'm not sure everybody understands my position.  Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 60-inches is incorrect - "to the bottom of the sign" like everyone says.  I'm just saying that in reality 59-inches _could_ be correct, since the actual sign would be the lettering (provided the lettering is beneath the symbol - if the symbol is beneath the lettering then the sign would be the bottom of the symbol).  It's really common sense and if I had to defend someone where they got in trouble because the sign was 59-inches I think I would have a good run of it.

But like I said, if I had to give direction I'd just use the 60-inches to the bottom.  It's much simpler to do that and I can see why the feds just use that measurement.  It's a lot cleaner and easier.  Besides, how many people even include the "van accessible" part in that 60-inch measurement?  I see this mistake all the time.  Usually people put up the main sign and then stick the "van accessible" below it, which would be wrong.


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 7, 2017)

I never care how high the "$200 FINE" sign is. Also I'm not sure why this is even put up. Would this be a local ordinance or an ADA requirement? And who would enforce it? The FBI?


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 7, 2017)

It could be a local ordinance, or it could be state law.  It is not ADA.  In Florida (for instance) it is statute.  So Florida statute and ADA come together:

_"The space must be posted with a permanent above-grade sign of a color and design approved by the Department of Transportation, which is placed on or at least 60 inches above the finished floor or ground surface measured to the bottom of the sign and which bears the international symbol of accessibility meeting the requirements of s. 703.7.2.1 of the standards and the caption “PARKING BY DISABLED PERMIT ONLY.” Such a sign erected after October 1, 1996, must indicate the penalty for illegal use of the space. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in a theme park..."_ 

So if you happen to be a contractor or business owner in Florida, make sure that wording is part of the sign.  Check your state statutes and local AHJ rules and laws.

Who would enforce?  Could be state trooper, or local cop.  Could be a building code official.  Could be someone who files a lawsuit, etc.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 7, 2017)

You are also correct with regards to the lense height. We have always enforced the 80" to the bottom of the lense in CA.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 8, 2017)

*This is the response to my Query to the access board*


Our online guide to the 2010 ADA Standards, Chapter 5, Parking, shows and says:
*Identification [§216.5, §502.6]*




Sign includes the background, see attached. Measure, as shown.

Accessible spaces must be identified by signs with the International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA) (§703.7.2.1). Signs identifying van spaces must include the term “van accessible.” This designation is informative and does not restrict use of such spaces to van users only. No other text or content is required by the Standards.

Signs must be at least 60” high measured to the bottom edge so that they are visible while vehicles are parked in a space. Signs can be on posts, or where feasible, on walls or suspended from ceilings (an 80” minimum headroom clearance is required at signs suspended above circulation paths (§307.4)). ISA designations on the parking surface, even if required by a state or local government, cannot substitute for above-ground signs that remain visible at all times.

Link to Guide:  https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/guide-to-the-ada-standards

Paul Beatty
Technical Assistance: U.S. Access Board ta@Access-Board.gov


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 8, 2017)

I am aware of that.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 8, 2017)

Filthy McNasty said:


> *The access board has determined that the "sign" isn't the physical metal, but the wording itself.*  So, if the metal of the sign was at 59-inches but the wording was at 60-inches, then it complies.


 *NOT TRUE*



Filthy McNasty said:


> I am aware of that.


*NOT TRUE, see your previous comment*

The sign is measured to the bottom, as exhibit, provided by the Access Board shows....Based on your comment the sign would also exclude the ISA.
"....look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."---Albert Einstein


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 8, 2017)

That technical assistance guy isn't a member of the board.  He's some technical assistance guy that works there.  He would first have to understand my point in order to correctly interpret and answer the point that I made.  I understand it is just easier to point to the guideline, and get you off the "to do" list.

Secondly, "background" is different than border, like I said.  I never made any comments about background, only about the border.  I could have a huge sign with a 30-inch border with no information, and placing that sign at 60-inches would be useless as it would probably violate the height requirement.

In some instances NO parking sign is even required.  So it's not that big of a deal if the bottom of the sign is at 59-inches and the wording is at 60-inches like I said.  I don't think it would get one sued.  But like I said, if I had to advise someone on this issue I would just say 60-inches.

Kudos to those who actually understand the concept of what a sign is.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 8, 2017)

Filthy McNasty said:


> That technical assistance guy isn't a member of the board.  He's some technical assistance guy that works there.  He would first have to understand my point in order to correctly interpret and answer the point that I made.  I understand it is just easier to point to the guideline, and get you off the "to do" list.
> 
> Secondly, "background" is different than border, like I said.  I never made any comments about background, only about the border.  I could have a huge sign with a 30-inch border with no information, and placing that sign at 60-inches would be useless as it would probably violate the height requirement.
> 
> ...


Ever hear of the phrase "alternative facts".....


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 8, 2017)

mark handler said:


> *NOT TRUE*
> 
> *NOT TRUE, see your previous comment*
> 
> ...




I'm not sure what the hangup is with Einstein, or what you are trying to prove by making it a mission to prove me wrong.  But I think it has done quite the opposite.  My comments are vaild, as is my point.  I will stand by what I said.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 8, 2017)

For our accessibility requirements we usually specify a range that the feature shall be located within or that the lower edge of a feature must be at a certain elevation. Signage must conform to CSA B651-04. Interpretation is left to the enforcement agencies as the requirements are in the code, which is not a legally binding document until adopted by a local government. This allows us to be a little more reasonable in our interpretation and application (meet the spirit of the requirement instead of the exact words). 

For instance, I'm dealing with a renovation of a restaurant and if a urinal is provided in a barrier free washroom, it must have a clear approach width, the rim must be located at a specific height and grab bars must be provided. Urinal is already there and mounted 1.5" too high. So, I told them that if the scope of work becomes such that they can remount the urinal at the proper height that they were to do so. Some people might question who in their right mind would do this if not required to do so. I've had folks do it because it made sense based on how the scope of work changed. I've had folks just do it anyway. There's not really any penalty for not doing it here. Mostly, people want their businesses as welcoming as possible to everyone. Who's going back to a business that they are uncomfortable using?


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 8, 2017)

Plumbing fixtures such as urinals and grab bars are different from signs, but I understand your point.  Some ADA elements have absolute measurements, and some have a specified range of measurements.  Tolerances are not applicable when there is a specified range of measurements, as the tolerances are already accounted for in the range given.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 8, 2017)

To further clarify, it is your belief that a sign is the background material (which may be made of many materials) on which the information image is printed.  
The viewable (readable) information (image) on the sign is (should be) the measureable element of concern.

Code/ ADA may/does mandate the minimal dimensions of the sign and the lettering on it as well as the mounting height relative to how it is supported (wall, pole, etc.) and where it is viewed from.


----------



## conarb (Feb 8, 2017)

What if the requisite information/symbols are painted on the wall, is the whole wall the sign?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 8, 2017)

reductio ad absurdum


----------



## conarb (Feb 8, 2017)

mark handler said:


> reductio ad absurdum



The whole ADA is absurd, it does nothing but make people hate handicapped people, especially as they circle parking lots trying to find a place to park when half the lot is filled with empty handicapped spaces. 

We've come to the point that cities and states are refusing to obey federal law, if cities and states don't have to obey law why do we citizens have to obey any laws?



			
				Mercury News said:
			
		

> SAN FRANCISCO — Saying they could lose more than $1 billion in federal funding, the city and county of San Francisco sued President Donald Trump on Tuesday over his executive order last week withholding monies from sanctuary cities.
> 
> San Francisco’s sanctuary status prohibits law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration officials’ detainer requests, and limiting when local officers can give Immigration and Customs Enforcement advanced notice of a person’s release from custody.
> 
> ...



Let the city do without the $1.2 billion, nobody seems to care what it costs to comply with ADA.  BTW, violating the 10th Amendment is the exact same argument the southern states made when ordered to comply with civil rights law by virtue of the 14th Amendment giving the federal government sovereignty over the states. 


¹ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/...nctuary-city-order-could-lose-over-1-billion/


----------



## conarb (Feb 8, 2017)

Filthy McNasty said:


> I'm not sure what the hangup is with Einstein, or what you are trying to prove by making it a mission to prove me wrong.  But I think it has done quite the opposite.  My comments are vaild, as is my point.  I will stand by what I said.



Filthy:

Handler has made it his mission to use this forum to promote George Soros' financed ADA, Soros also finances #blacklivesmatter, Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Invasions of Libya and Syria to release Muslims throughout Europe and destroy what's left of Western Civilization for the Rockefeller/Rothschild One World Order government, Mark Handler is a citizen of the world who is doing his part to destroy our sovereign nation.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 8, 2017)

Easy Viking, this is not the place to impunge MH. His contributions to this forum are appreciated and keep us on point. He produces facts, not aquisations.

Did you ever belong to the John Birch Society?


----------



## conarb (Feb 8, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> Easy Viking, this is not the place to impunge MH. His contributions to this forum are appreciated and keep us on point. He produces facts, not aquisations.
> 
> Did you ever belong to the John Birch Society?



No, but I have a degree in philosophy form Stanford, with emphasis on epistemology, here is *Soros' Open Society site on disability*, I think Handler has destroyed this forum with his obsession with disability and nit-picking, I thought I was alone but see that finally Filthy McNasty has seen through him.  

For your information Soros attended the London School of Economics when the philosopher Karl Popper was teaching there, Popper and Soros advocate an open society or world without borders and egalitarianism, as opposed to the meritocracy we have now.  

You tell me, what is Handler's obsession with ADA?  Why is he such a nit-picker for detail?  Filthy brings up his obsession with Einstein, why?  Who cares if a sign is 1" too high?  If you haven't noticed we just elected a President to reduce and reform regulations.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 8, 2017)

I completely appreciate all of the information provided by MH on accessibility as it is beneficial to me on a daily basis.  
I do not appreciate unwanted political discussions on a building code forum.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 8, 2017)

Con appears to believe that a society without rules can thrive and grow, why then were the Ten Commandments and Hammurabis's laws written?
Does not the existence of a society require leadership and laws?

Our Forum exists to discuss "reasonable" solutions to codes lacking prescriptive direction.

My son to is a Phil major too but it has not hindered his advancement in society or the IT world, only his disappointment with decisions made by "others" over whom he has no control and who don't care about the consequences of their actions..


----------



## conarb (Feb 8, 2017)

I am merely supporting Filthy in his objections to MH:


			
				Filthy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the hangup is with Einstein, or what you are trying to prove by making it a mission to prove me wrong. But I think it has done quite the opposite. My comments are vaild, as is my point. I will stand by what I said.



Filthy is trying to make a reasonable interpretation to an inch on a sign, MH is demanding an unreasonable letter of the law interpretation, I had lunch with another attorney today and brought this up, his comment was "take it to court any judge will throw it out", the problem is it costs a lot of money to take things to court so people are blackmailed into doing whatever any unreasonable inspector demands. 



			
				JPohling said:
			
		

> I do not appreciate unwanted political discussions on a building code forum



The problem is codes are now political, if Trump makes good on his promise to wipe out 70% of ADA regulations this forum should be Exhibit A, even inspectors argue about the interpretation of the regulations. I ask again why?  Why has ADA become the dominate subject of this forum?  The last I looked this was a Building Code Forum, not an ADA forum.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Feb 8, 2017)

I do like and enjoy the ADA, though.  I don't take it as political.  I won't get into my personal details, but I know what it is like not to be able to walk...or to have to look for the nearest bench because I don't know at what point in time I might just collapse.  Can't go further than that (I don't post personal info on the web), but I can say now -- that everything is A OK.  My father in Cleveland rebuilt me, and I am iron man.  My father is a specialist in adult reconstruction.  Seriously, I would not mess with me.  I am bionic.  I am better and stronger than I was before.  I have no restrictions.  So I feel for these people.  I've been in their shoes, so I can relate to ADA laws and why they were created in the first place.  We have to do something for these people....I think that is the spirit that ADA was created.

That being said, originally there was no requirement for a parking sign.  Even with the 2010 ADA, there are some business that don't even require a parking sign.  This was a heated and contested issue with the access board, but nevertheless, in the end - some businesses do not have to put up a sign.

Which brings me back to my original point.  Unless you have a natural "feel" for ADA and it's purpose, you can never be a good inspector or interpreter of these seemingly mind-boggling regulations.  Pulling into a parking space is fluid.  Nothing stays the same.  The letters and the heights change with every centimeter that the car enters the stall.  So I know that the title of this post and the article is just meant to grab attention.  A much better title would have been,* "Mirror too low?  See you in court!"*  At least that would be black and white.  Signs are such strange and beautiful creatures...

Peace, 
Iron Man


----------



## Paul Sweet (Feb 9, 2017)

I don't always agree with Mark Handler, but I appreciate his knowledge of the ADA and accessibility requirements.

The ADA requirements closely follow ANSI A117.1, which was developed by code groups and handicap advocacy groups.  The problem started when the feds adopted their version of it as a civil rights law to be enforced by lawsuits.  It's surprising that it took so long for certain lawyers to discover they could make several thousand dollars quickly for discrepancies of 1/2 inch.  The Unruh law in California was originally written to penalize people who practiced blatant discrimination against minorities by not letting them apply for jobs, eat in certain restaurants, etc.  Unfortunately it became a convenient bludgeon for these attorneys.


----------



## conarb (Feb 9, 2017)

Paul Sweet said:


> I don't always agree with Mark Handler, but I appreciate his knowledge of the ADA and accessibility requirements.



But why is it overwhelming this forum?  Is it more important than structural and other important code requirements? I know of a couple who have left here because of it, one in particular called me several times to discuss MH's taking the forum over. 



			
				Paul said:
			
		

> The ADA requirements closely follow ANSI A117.1, which was developed by code groups and handicap advocacy groups.



But those groups have been funded by George Soros' Open Society and other NGOs, his intent is to destroy nations and make everyone citizens of the world, these things don't get legs without money.


----------



## ICE (Feb 9, 2017)

conarb said:


> But why is it overwhelming this forum?  Is it more important than structural and other important code requirements? I know of a couple who have left here because of it, one in particular called me several times to discuss MH's taking the forum over.



Well duh! It's an accessibility forum.  If Mark is eager to post there why would that bother anyone.   There's not more of what you're looking for because people aren't bringing it around.  You can't fault Mark for that. 
I dominated the contractor talk forum for years and nobody complained....well there was one guy but he got over it.  I stopped and what's become of it.... it's pretty damned quiet that's what.

The truth is that Mark is a wonderful source of information on accessibility and much more.


----------



## conarb (Feb 9, 2017)

ICE said:


> Well duh! It's an accessibility forum.  If Mark is eager to post there why would that bother anyone.   There's not more of what you're looking for because people aren't bringing it around.  You can't fault Mark for that.
> I dominated the contractor talk forum for years and nobody complained....well there was one guy but he got over it.  I stopped and what's become of it.... it's pretty damned quiet that's what.
> 
> The truth is that Mark is a wonderful source of information on accessibility and much more.


Tiger, I thought about that but just decided to write "forum" for simplicity's sake, I meant  the entire "Building Code Forum".

We have a new Attorney General as of today, hopefully he's going to be cleaning house and clearing out 70% of the regulations now in place, he's under a lot of pressure to address other matters and at this point I don't see anyone demanding that he clean up the Access Board or other DOJ regulations related to the ADA.  Obviously from the disputes here it is a mess of badly drafted rules and regulations.  The regulations you are enforcing today will not be the regulations you will be enforcing a year from now, then of course there will be the conflicts between new federal regulations and state regulations.

Hopefully we can get to the point that we don't label some classes as inferior granting them special privileges and start treating everybody equal like the Constitution says.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 10, 2017)

Equal is only equal if all of us are the same. As this is not the case in our society we choose to assist those who are less able/fortunate than others. I regret that you find this to be less than equal.

We no longer live in the dark ages but are connected by technologies undreamed of and seen as witchcraft back then.

Would you have us cast off those less fortunate then you by denying them the opportunity to become more equal to you in your eyes?


----------



## conarb (Feb 10, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> Equal is only equal if all of us are the same. As this is not the case in our society we choose to assist those who are less able/fortunate than others. I regret that you find this to be less than equal.
> 
> We no longer live in the dark ages but are connected by technologies undreamed of and seen as witchcraft back then.
> 
> Would you have us cast off those less fortunate then you by denying them the opportunity to become more equal to you in your eyes?



ADAguy:

That is not in the Constitution, amend the Constitution if enough people believe that, are you a "do-gooder" or just making money off it?


----------



## tmurray (Feb 10, 2017)

I think we can all agree that the litigation associated with ADA does not help greatly with compliance. Alternative forms of compliance should be reviewed for a more suitable alternative. That being said, unless someone here has the ability to change the law (either through a legal challenge or through an amendment) what does the argument solve? everyone is just getting worked up and there is nothing productive that will ever come from it. 

Posting of current case law is generally helpful for anyone in that field. Posting of proposed legislation helps others look at their own systems and compare and contrast with the objective being an improvement over what they had before. I'm not even subject to ADA and I read this section on a regular basis.


----------



## conarb (Feb 10, 2017)

I had a discussion the other day with a retired attorney friend, if the AG eliminates 70% of it the productive thing to do is determine which 30% is best to keep and/or reform it, our problem is that we are in California and the governor has vowed to fight Trump's reforms so I won't do us any good.


----------

