# Accessibility postings



## mark handler (Dec 11, 2013)

Well in excess of eighty percent of posts in the disability forum have gone off topic of the original posting.

This is not the place to discuss the merits of ADA, civil rights or the law.

Because of this I will no longer post the articles, news and reposts I receive.

If anyone wants me to comment on a particular issue please PM me.


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 11, 2013)

Over the yeras, I have read many accessibility posts in the disability forum while lurking. I learned a lot. Thanks. When newer to the forum, I have also been guilty of going off topic. Sorry.

Still, I think the work you do is important to the forum and another solution might be found.


----------



## Codegeek (Dec 11, 2013)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Over the yeras, I have read many accessibility posts in the disability forum while lurking. I learned a lot. Thanks. When newer to the forum, I have also been guilty of going off topic. Sorry. Still, I think the work you do is important to the forum and another solution might be found.


I agree.  I have learned a lot from your posts as well.  Please do not stop.


----------



## Mac (Dec 11, 2013)

Ditto the above comment.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 11, 2013)

Pitiful.

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Dec 11, 2013)

Mark,  Please continue to post as you have previously.  The moderators should keep things on track, and if that does not work then we will do it for them.  The benefits to many outweigh the desires of the few.


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Dec 11, 2013)

I agree with the others Mark, you have always found time to reply to several questions on accessibility issues & I also thank you, so please continue


----------



## jar546 (Dec 11, 2013)

Mark, As owner of the forum I am urging you to continue your posts.  I feel as though they are extremely important to the industry and need to be brought to the table and discussed.  It is imperative that we air our opinions and viewpoints in a healthy, professional manner for all subjects.  Just as an FYI, the majority of all posts that are more than 4-5 replies go off topic anyway so there is nothing new there.  Accessibility is no different.

Both you and your posts bring a lot more to this forum than you realize.  Let's not go backwards.

Jeff


----------



## pete_t (Dec 11, 2013)

Agree with the others, please continue with your posts.


----------



## conarb (Dec 11, 2013)

While I agree that Mark's knowledge of ADA law and his contributions in helping others interpret this, at times conflicting, law are very valuable, I don't think constant posting of lawsuits is productive, it also appears that he is advocating strict rather than reasonable compliance.  I'd say the reasonable approach would be to stop posting the legal/judicial enforcement but continue posting the administrative interpretation and enforcement, ADA is unique in having a private right of enforcement, although in California CalOSHA now has a private right of enforcement. I never saw any overt discrimination against the handicapped until this law and all the newspaper articles about the litigation that appear to be exposing blackmail.

As I recall our old Bulletin Board collapsed with the overt advocacy of fire sprinklers, and I have to wonder if many are lost here with all the disability posts, civil rights law is political, in states that have not codified ADA into the building codes I don't see that it has any place here, anymore than enforcing OSHA, Immigration, or federal drug law.  I guess those of us offended can vote with our feet and/or our dollars.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 11, 2013)

I like Marks posts, and want him to continue. But has editorial style posts which are open for debate, scrutiny and dissent.

(My opinion ).

That makes the threads fun. It's called debate and discussion and I disagree they go off track, rather they just remain flexible for comment.

Marks Ada facts are just that, code facts. I don't generally even comment on those as I'm out of my lane.

But you can't post things that are are open for opinion then get arrogant and p1ssy when you get called on it.

Brent


----------



## rshuey (Dec 11, 2013)

Hearing other's opinions and job experiences are vital in learning. Dialog is a good thing.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 11, 2013)

Well, I'll chime in, sometimes going OT spins into a bigger, or smaller discussion. Should a new thread be started? Maybe, maybe not........but I don't think halting the conversation solves anything, and face it Mark, you are pretty much our accessibility guru. Don't pull back.. JMHO


----------



## ICE (Dec 11, 2013)

Has anyone seen my moisture meter?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 11, 2013)

It's on the tip of Jar's wet index finger.

Brent


----------



## ICE (Dec 11, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> It's on the tip of Jar's wet index finger. Brent


I'm not so sure I want it now.


----------



## ICE (Dec 11, 2013)

Seriously Mark, this forum is more about ADA than anything else.  The forum could lose the likes of me and only fatboy would notice but what you bring is important.

Besides that, whenever I see your name, I get a vision of Chelsea.  Now you wouldn't ruin that for me would you?

When a thread starts to drift, put it back on track.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 11, 2013)

I am guilty of taking some of his post off track. I do agree Mark is a "guru" when it comes to ADA issues and suggesting products that will aid in achieving compliance.

Since most of the predatory lawsuit articles are related to California why not just post them in the California specific section and "continue posting the administrative interpretation and enforcement" (as Conarb stated) of the DOJ lawsuits. 

I don't care how they do it in California but I do want to keep builders and designers informed on bad designs that may not be compliant under the DOJ's authority.


----------



## mjesse (Dec 11, 2013)

Cutting and pasting articles about ADA lawsuits isn't exactly opening the doors for "on topic" discussion.

It's the online equivalent of sticking a "love is..." cartoon on the fridge and calling it a romantic gesture.

The threads go off topic because not everyone agrees that rules and regulations should be followed strictly to the letter. *Good discussion leads to better understanding*, that's good for everyone.

Don't just take your ball and go home. _"Don't go....please....we'll be your friend"_

Your posts lead to good discussions. Personal attacks are usually moderated out, though most negative comments aren't attacking you personally. Stick around, share your info, we're all better for it.

We all have an emotional interest in doing our jobs even though we may not always agree. I like it that way. If it gets cold and impersonal, we move closer to the dystopian future.


----------



## ADAguy (Dec 11, 2013)

"Getting along" is fine until we leave California and have to experience in many other states a level of access not even remotely close to ours.

Unaccessible drinking fountains are equal to the "White's only signs of the 50-60-'s.

Most of you understand the "end game", it is getting there that continues to resisted by many.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 11, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen my moisture meter?


Hmmm, I think I just did.


----------



## ICE (Dec 12, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I think I just did.


Do me a favor and pull the batteries before they leak.


----------



## mjesse (Dec 12, 2013)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Unaccessible drinking fountains are equal to the "White's only signs of the 50-60-'s


This is the type of ridiculous hyperbole that derails a thread


----------



## jar546 (Dec 12, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Do me a favor and pull the batteries before they leak.


They are included but not installed so you are safe for a few more years.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 12, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> This is the type of ridiculous hyperbole that derails a thread


That is a bit of a strong statement to make but if that is the opinion of the poster then they are entitled to their opinion.  I disagree with that statement because today's lack of compliance is due to greed and ignorance whereas what he is referring to was pure hatred due to ignorance.


----------



## Msradell (Dec 12, 2013)

I certainly agree that many of the threads in this section have become derailed, mainly by those who feel that ADA requirements are absurd and the number of disabled persons is widely over reported.  I for one am disabled and involved in various enforcement activities and always like to see what's happening elsewhere whether it be through legal recourse, lawsuit, administrative directives or any other method.  Too much time may be spent on lawsuit issues but I still like seeing them here, especially ones outside of California which is closer to what the rest of us have to deal with.


----------



## ICE (Dec 12, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> They are included but not installed so you are safe for a few more years.


Is there an extended warranty available?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 12, 2013)

> mainly by those who feel that ADA requirements are absurd


It is not that they are absurd, heck most of the ADA requirements are in the codes for new construction. It is how they are being applied to existing facilities (built prior to ADA adoption) through state regulations that have created a means for certain individuals to use the law for simple acts of extortion.

A minority can pass by the same business for years and never be "discriminated" against. Until they enter and are refused service based on the fact they are a minority there is no act of discrimination. Yet a disabled person only has to see that a business does not have an accessible entry to that same business regardless of intent to enter or not and their "civil rights" have been violated and they can be "entitled" to monetary damages.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 12, 2013)

There is no doubt that some take advantage of the situation which affects businesses.  Just remember that 20 years is a long time to work towards compliance with a civil rights law.  You can debate it all that you want but the fact remains that it is a law that was passed and it must be abided by.  Again, 20 years is a really long time and that fact in itself works agains the defendants in their cases.


----------



## ADAguy (Dec 12, 2013)

So if I see time after time, that a pre-ADA business with viewable non-compliant features; a business that I don't intend to use (but others might), and there is no local enforcement mechanism in place because the ADA is a law (and not a code) [the local building department being an agency of a T-II with a programatic duty to comply with the ADA?]

I am therefore to ignore this constant reminder (psych damage to me?) that I am unique (due to my disability) and others are normal?

My state law has indicated that I am allowed to identify this and receive a bounty (smiling) for doing the programatic work of the T-IIs (their code enforcement people?) only if the T-II noted the retroactive requirement in their code? State attorney general changes opinion on this matter subject to their political advantage.

What is the value of a national law if not locally implimentd?

Remember smog controls on existing vehicles? Buildings last a lot longer unlike cars. Must the barriers be allowed to remain until the building is replaced/remodeled?

You have seen what happens to some motorcycle riders when they dump and are injured? Don't they benefit form barrier removal/ (smiling)


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 12, 2013)

Good laws can lead to bad enforcement techniques


----------



## JPohling (Dec 12, 2013)

officially derailed once again!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 12, 2013)

> What is the value of a national law if not locally implimentd?


Ask the DOJ who are suing states who want to enforce the borders. evidently they place no value on national law.



> a business that I don't intend to use (but others might)


If you never intend to use the business then your rights can not have been violated.



> I am therefore to ignore this constant reminder (psych damage to me?) that I am unique (due to my disability) and others are normal?


Now you are claiming psych damage because of a constant reminder? What other things might be a reminder that might be psych damage to someone? A mirror or reflective glass, How about a child that ask an innocent question about your limitations or watching a sporting event you may no longer be able to participate in.

Now I am really going to sound cold here but reality is you are unique not because of your disability but how you function in life with it and the attitude you portray.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 12, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> officially derailed once again!


What was derailed?

The OP stated



> This is not the place to discuss the merits of ADA, civil rights or the law. Because of this I will no longer post the articles, news and reposts I receive.


That was his opinion about this forum and others disagreed.

Until the administrator states the discussions are no longer permitted we should be free to give varying opinions and discussions as long as we are civil


----------



## conarb (Dec 12, 2013)

Jar said:
			
		

> You can debate it all that you want but the fact remains that it is a law that was passed and it must be abided by


Not necessarily, there are bad laws that can be overturned, and it's the regulations, not the law itself, that are so onerous.  An example in Civil rights law originally passed in 1964 to redress past grievances that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. After passage regulations were written requiring quotas, in the 1978 Bakke decision the Supreme Court ruled that quotas were unconstitutional but invited the DOJ to write new constitutional regulations, so they did and substituted Affirmative Action, in 2003 in it's Grutter decision the Court ruled Affirmative Action unconstitutional but Justice O'Connor gave the suspect classes 25 years to join the mainstream of society, earlier this year in 2013 the Court addressed the issue again in Fisher, the Court _sua sponte_ suggesting that diversity could be an end in itself that would not discriminate against others, unbelievably subjecting all suspect classes to special treatment indefinitely.

It's going to take a lot of money but someone should start a court action to get a lot of these discriminatory accessibility regulations thrown out and forcing the DOJ to write new constitutional regulations implementing the intent of the original legislation.


----------



## JPohling (Dec 12, 2013)

We are here to design too and enforce the codes.  That is what these threads should be about.  If there are individuals that want to try and overturn the laws and ultimately the codes it should be done in in a thread dedicated to that instead of polluting threads.  There are plenty of other codes that are problematic, not just accessibility but that is the only one you guys like to harp on.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 12, 2013)

How specifically did this thread get "polluted"?

It's remarkably on track from op

Brent


----------



## mjesse (Dec 12, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> How specifically did this thread get "polluted"?It's remarkably on track from op
> 
> Brent


Big picture of a moisture meter??

Kidding, of course. I'm not complaining.


----------



## ICE (Dec 12, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> How specifically did this thread get "polluted"?It's remarkably on track from op
> 
> Brent


Hey I've tried to send it off course like an asteroid headed towards Earth. I even got Jeff to help. But alas and alak, Mark seems determined. There's the possibility that he is of Korean descent, in which case, nothing anyone says will make a difference.


----------



## Mech (Dec 12, 2013)

Post an article and lock the thread to avoid comments / replies all together. :?:


----------



## JPohling (Dec 12, 2013)

polluted?  not specifically this thread,  just most accessibility threads in general we get the same old stuff


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 12, 2013)

Excellent suggestion comrade!

Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 12, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> polluted?  not specifically this thread,  just most accessibility threads in general we get the same old stuff


Not really. Useful information on code facts generally go unmolested. Others bear some kind of analysis.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 12, 2013)

Jp, do think a thread like this benefits from some analysis?

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/accessibility/12097-after-handcapped-mans-death-city-faces-lawsuit-lack-curb-ramps.html

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Dec 12, 2013)

Not really,  accidents happen.  If there were curb cuts he would not have been in the street, but I do not believe we need to retroactively install curb cuts at every existing corner.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 12, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Not really,  accidents happen.  If there were curb cuts he would not have been in the street, but I do not believe we need to retroactively install curb cuts at every existing corner.


See. You just assume. There ARE curb cuts. He did not need to be in the street. But the article makes it sound like he was unjustly forced into the street. I say he got squashed by being stupid.

So I called bs.

And why not retro? Why is the city different than business?

Greedy ignorant governments.

Brent.


----------



## JPohling (Dec 12, 2013)

As you can see i did not post or research on the issue.  I dont really bother looking at things i have no interest in.  he is dead.......move on.    I agree, then there really is no case is there


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 12, 2013)

That's fine JP, but why do you wish for others to also not discuss?

If you want to accept everything at face value, then great. Don't participate. But also please don't cry foul when others want to engage.

Brent


----------



## Sifu (Dec 12, 2013)

I value the input, I might not agree all the time but I always end up leaving with more info than I came with.  Sometimes I may have to wade through the tall grass to get to the info but that too usually gives me more information.  Even if you quit posting, I'll still be asking the questions.  The question is, who do we want answering them?


----------



## jar546 (Dec 12, 2013)

I am going to remind everyone again that this law IS in effect and has been for 20 years.  Those that oppose it or don't agree with all of it had 20 years to get it changed by lobbying their congressmen and senators.  It is, therefore in effect whether we like what it has been causing litigation wise and I don't see or know of any plans to change it anytime soon at the federal level.

So you can second guess the "real stories" or intent or whatever you want, BUT, with a reactive law that is POORLY enforced at a local level, this is what you end up with, like it or not.  I am not saying all of the litigation is right or wrong but it is the only method to finally force compliance on those that have resisted through intent or ignorance for 20 years.  In addition, there area a lot of non-compliant "mom & pop" type businesses that make loads of cash and are living very well off at the expense of non-compliance.

You don't like it?  Then do something to change it.  There are talkers and there are doers.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 13, 2013)

> I am going to remind everyone again that this law IS in effect and has been for 20 years


There are literally 100's of laws on the books that government has ignored or chosen not to enforce but I will not name them because the administrator has asked to keep politics off of the forum.


----------



## conarb (Dec 13, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I am going to remind everyone again that this law IS in effect and has been for 20 years.  Those that oppose it or don't agree with all of it had 20 years to get it changed by lobbying their congressmen and senators.  It is, therefore in effect whether we like what it has been causing litigation wise and I don't see or know of any plans to change it anytime soon at the federal level.So you can second guess the "real stories" or intent or whatever you want, BUT, with a reactive law that is POORLY enforced at a local level, this is what you end up with, like it or not.  I am not saying all of the litigation is right or wrong but it is the only method to finally force compliance on those that have resisted through intent or ignorance for 20 years.  In addition, there area a lot of non-compliant "mom & pop" type businesses that make loads of cash and are living very well off at the expense of non-compliance.
> 
> You don't like it?  Then do something to change it.  There are talkers and there are doers.


I would like to remind you that you cannot enforce the ADA, you can only enforce state statutes or local ordinances, if you are enforcing ADA even in a state with a similar statute you are violating ADA.



			
				ADA said:
			
		

> The enforcement of state codes is the responsibility of state or local  officials – usually through plan reviews and building inspections. The  ADA relies on the traditional method of civil rights enforcement through  litigation in federal courts.   Local officials do not have the  authority to enforce the ADA on behalf of the federal government.¹


I've looked but can't find the names of the states, if any other than California, that have their own statutes purporting to enforce the ADA law.

¹ http://www.ada.gov/certcode.htm


----------



## jar546 (Dec 13, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> I would like to remind you that you cannot enforce the ADA, you can only enforce state statutes or local ordinances, if you are enforcing ADA even in a state with a similar statute you are violating ADA.  I've looked but can't find the names of the states, if any other than California, that have their own statutes purporting to enforce the ADA law.
> 
> ¹ http://www.ada.gov/certcode.htm


It is poorly enforced in states and areas that did not adopt it separately for them to enforce it.  I am fully aware it is a reactive law with zero enforcement by local officials but many states and regions have adopted it separately.  Regardless, it is still a problem.


----------



## conarb (Dec 13, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> It is poorly enforced in states and areas that did not adopt it separately for them to enforce it.  I am fully aware it is a reactive law with zero enforcement by local officials but many states and regions have adopted it separately.  Regardless, it is still a problem.


The law says that it is illegal to enforce it if it is not codified, the law itself is not a problem, other than the private right of enforcement, the problem is the absurd regulations as adopted to interpret the law.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 13, 2013)

[h=1]Department of Justice ADA Responsibilities:

          ADA Certification of State and Local Accessibility Requirements[/h]

The ADA specifically recognizes the importance of eliminating structural and architectural barriers by requiring all new or altered facilities subject to the ADA to be readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. Covered entities must comply with the Department's ADA regulations, including the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Facilities that must comply with the ADA Standards may also be required to comply with accessibility requirements established under state or local laws. There are thousands of jurisdictions in the United States that adopt or enforce building codes, some of which also include accessibility requirements. Although many state codes are based on national models, there can be significant variations among the state and local code requirements. Design and construction under state and local codes complies with the ADA only when the codes provide accessibility that equals or exceeds the ADA requirements. When these laws are inconsistent, the burden falls on building owners and design professionals to ensure compliance with both federal and state laws.

The enforcement of state codes is the responsibility of state or local officials – usually through plan reviews and building inspections. The ADA relies on the traditional method of civil rights enforcement through litigation in federal courts.   Local officials do not have the authority to enforce the ADA on behalf of the federal government. 

In an effort both to facilitate compliance with all applicable laws and to mitigate the tension between federal and state enforcement processes, the ADA authorizes the Department of Justice, upon request of state or local officials, to certify that state or local accessibility laws meet or exceed the requirements of the ADA.  Certification bridges the gap between the federal and state enforcement processes. The certification process neither delegates ADA enforcement authority to the states nor eliminates an individual's right to seek relief through the federal courts. However, effective enforcement of a certified code can mitigate the need for federal enforcement by ensuring that new or altered buildings are accessible. This process gives building owners and design professionals some assurance in advance of construction that the ADA requirements will be satisfied. And, if a lawsuit is filed, compliance with a certified code may be offered as rebuttable evidence of compliance with the ADA.

[h=1]http://www.ada.gov/certcode.htm[/h]


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 13, 2013)

[h=4]*Readily  Achievable Barrier Removal *[/h]The ADA requires that small businesses remove architectural barriers in  existing facilities when it is "readily achievable" to do so. Readily  achievable means "easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense."  This requirement is based on the size and resources of a business. So,   businesses with more resources are expected to remove more barriers than  businesses with fewer resources.

Readily achievable barrier removal may include providing an accessible  route from a parking lot to the business's entrance, installing an entrance  ramp, widening a doorway, installing accessible door hardware, repositioning  shelves, or moving tables, chairs, display racks, vending machines, or other  furniture. When removing barriers, businesses are required to comply with the  Standards to the extent possible. For example, where there is not enough space  to install a ramp with a slope that complies with the Standards, a business  may install a ramp with a slightly steeper slope. However, any deviation from  the Standards must not pose a significant safety risk.

Even the feds agree that cost to the business should be considered based on the financial ability of the business.

Achieving accessibility in existing buildings is not black and white nor because it has been the law for 20 years. A building owner could have had a barrier removal plan that is expected to take 25 years to complete and he is behind 4 years because of the economy or other financial hardship.

Yes sometimes the plans get ignored and put on the back burner but again that is the feds responsibility to achieve compliance


----------



## jar546 (Dec 13, 2013)

If the ADA language is clear about the requirements based on size and resources of a business, why don't more defendants use this to their advantage? After all it is often a court that is making a legal decision argued by the attorneys.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 13, 2013)

Maybe they do and we don't hear about the ones the DOJ loose only the ones they are successful at.

Maybe just maybe when the DOJ investigate they actually review the facts and never take that business to court because the owners did all they could financially afford over the years to provide barrier removal.


----------



## JPohling (Dec 13, 2013)

Brent- Not sure where you got that idea, but its true that I have no real interest in discussing the shortcomings of a law.  If that is what you would like to do it would be great if it was confined to a single thread with that as the intention of the thread rather than having this discussion instigated in many threads that really contribute no value to the thread.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 13, 2013)

Without discussion there would be no change. We would still be in the dark ages.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 18, 2013)

Repeating exactly the same argument over and over expecting a different outcome, can become even more unproductive. And there will be a new dark age because they are not learning anything.


----------



## JPohling (Dec 18, 2013)

pretty sure that is the definition of insanity


----------



## conarb (Dec 18, 2013)

Many businesses in San Francisco have been shut down by the rolling blackmailers, Chinatown was hit the worst with many  businesses were over 150 years old and barely 10' wide with stairways going up, one of the worst cases was Sam Wo's, we used to go to San Francisco just to eat their sizzling rice soup.  They said it would take $200,000 to comply with ADA, I don't see how they could have done it for any amount of money, in this video note the steep stairway as you enter, the kitchen was downstairs, the dining room up those steep stairs with a dumb waiter next to the stairs constantly pulling food up to the dining room


[video=youtube;Pnrs6Hzp6Kg]


----------



## mjesse (Dec 18, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> Many businesses in San Francisco have been shut down by the rolling blackmailers, Chinatown was hit the worst with many  businesses were over 150 years old and barely 10' wide with stairways going up, one of the worst cases was Sam Wo's, we used to go to San Francisco just to eat their sizzling rice soup.  They said it would take $200,000 to comply with ADA, I don't see how they could have done it for any amount of money, in this video note the steep stairway as you enter, the kitchen was downstairs, the dining room up those steep stairs with a dumb waiter next to the stairs constantly pulling food up to the dining room
> [video=youtube;Pnrs6Hzp6Kg]


A damn shame.

But the others will say "They've had 110 years to make it right. No sympathy"


----------



## tmurray (Dec 18, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Maybe they do and we don't hear about the ones the DOJ loose only the ones they are successful at.Maybe just maybe when the DOJ investigate they actually review the facts and never take that business to court because the owners did all they could financially afford over the years to provide barrier removal.


In my experience, here in Canada, the media is quick to jump on the government beating bandwagon. The media panders to the general population that thinks all government employees are making big bucks leaning on shovels and playing minesweeper on their computers. It would be typical of the media to point out the occasions where the government just shut down businesses, and not the times when a reasonable person went in to evaluate and worked with the business to make them as accommodating as possible. People don't want to watch people being reasonable on tv. They want to watch disasters that make them feel better about their own lives. Look at the recent crop of "reality" tv.

Fair and balanced reporting is dead and we all killed it.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 18, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Repeating exactly the same argument over and over expecting a different outcome, can become even more unproductive. And there will be a new dark age because they are not learning anything.


Talking to yourself?  

Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 18, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> the occasions where the government just shut down businesses, and not the times when a reasonable person went in to evaluate and worked with the business to make them as accommodating as possible.


The most frightening thing in the world is a government agent showing up at your door saying "I'm here to help. "

Paraphrased from Ronald Reagan.

Brent.

P.s. My lovely wife works for the government. I am entitled to comment.

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Dec 19, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Talking to yourself?   Brent


ad hominem


----------



## jar546 (Dec 19, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> Many businesses in San Francisco have been shut down by the rolling blackmailers, Chinatown was hit the worst with many  businesses were over 150 years old and barely 10' wide with stairways going up, one of the worst cases was Sam Wo's, we used to go to San Francisco just to eat their sizzling rice soup.  They said it would take $200,000 to comply with ADA, I don't see how they could have done it for any amount of money, in this video note the steep stairway as you enter, the kitchen was downstairs, the dining room up those steep stairs with a dumb waiter next to the stairs constantly pulling food up to the dining room
> [video=youtube;Pnrs6Hzp6Kg]


The report said it was closing for "health and safety issues" and at no point did I hear anything about ADA although it may have been part of the issue.  Health and safety does not equate to ADA problems so I would like to know what the point of this post was?

I see a business that failed to maintain a safe and healthy environment and won't let my heartstrings be pulled to project the real issue of failure to invest in the future of your business by routine maintenance and upkeep.


----------



## conarb (Dec 19, 2013)

It was in the Chronicle along with other Chinatown businesses shutting down because of ADA.  It started with ADA, went to the building department and earthquake, the health department.  If you doubt it just look at that stairway right at the front door, that is the only way up to the dining room, the entire lower level was kitchen.



			
				Inside Scoop said:
			
		

> It was going to take an estimated $300k to bring the building up to  modern code. Since Sam Wo did not own the property of 813 Washington  Street, negotiation was needed with the landlord to split the cost. It  came down to Sam Wo to fork out about $200k and the building owner about  $100k to fix up the place. (I know many of you thought it was a simple,  “hosing down the place with some volunteers to get it spanking clean  and ta-da! Reopen!” No. It was not as simple as that and again, it  wasn’t due to health code violations that shut us down, it was the  building code. Yes. Believe it. Anyway…)¹


ADA is in the building code along with structural requirements.  I've earthquake proofed several San Francisco buildings and that building could be done easily with a steel frame, especially as narrow as it is, but getting access from the sloping sidewalk to an elevator at the entrance would be very difficult.  I think the only way to do is to gut the building, install the footings and steel frame, then put the dining room downstairs and the kitchen upstairs, a large ADA compliant elevator could be put in the back of the building for disabled employees that could serve as the dumb waiter. I do red iron frames on houses and even additions now 
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 2192

	

		
			
		

		
	
After Chinatown they hit the Mission District:





			
				Mission Local said:
			
		

> The Mission Merchants’ agenda lists meeting with mayoral candidate  Joanna Rees, and talks of making Valencia Street the “culinary fast lane  of the West Coast.” However, the business owners present at the Tuesday  meeting only want to talk about one thing: an increasing number of  lawsuits for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by what  they call “serial litigators.” “There’s a group of predatory lawyers that use the law to their  advantage and target small businesses, especially restaurants owned by  minorities,” says Regina Dick-Endrizzi, executive director of the city’s  Small Business Commission. The Americans with Disabilities Act  is a civil rights law enacted in 1990. It prohibits discrimination  based on disability and requires that buildings be accessible to people  with disabilities. A revised version of the law took effect in March  2011. A series of complaints hit Mission Street businesses six or seven  months ago, and now they’re back, Dick-Endrizzi says. Restaurants are  especially targeted, she added, because there’s more money to be made.  Those attending today’s meeting at Garçon appear to know this. Fear is  in the air. No one wants their establishment named in an article about  the ADA.²


¹ http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2013/09/03/sam-wo-seeks-a-new-location-amidst-uncertainty-with-historic-chinatown-address/² http://missionlocal.org/2011/08/business-owners-fear-%E2%80%9Cdrive-by%E2%80%9D-ada-lawsuits/
View attachment 959


View attachment 959


/monthly_2013_03/2342.jpg.05597bf7b86d50c328f964748845ed28.jpg


----------



## mark handler (Dec 19, 2013)

You are right Jeff,

The owner stated "... that the three-story restaurant has been having problems with the fire department and the kitchen is too old, too. He says that he won’t reopen, at 813 Washington..."   http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2012/04/19/chinatown-institution-sam-wo-is-closing/

Nothing about ADA or any lawsuits.

Once again false information, disciminated as facts.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 19, 2013)

The building had no walls and was sandwiched between the exterior walls of 2 other buildings.  It was an alley way.  The renovation costs were structural in nature and of course would have resulted in ADA upgrades as well IF they decided to structurally take care of a building in an earthquake zone.  Yeah, they really need tons of people on the 2nd floor during an earthquake.   Again, misleading information skewed designed to pull heart strings due to nostalgia.  Everything eventually ends and structures don't last forever, especially one that is that old and was a converted alley way. It was going to be a sad story at 100 years or 200 years but eventually it was going to end regardless.


----------



## mjesse (Dec 19, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Again, misleading information... designed to pull heart strings...


The root cause of many of today's rules and regulations.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 19, 2013)

tmurray,

"Mine sweeper?", Solitaire, it's preset on the Dell.  

pc1


----------



## JBI (Dec 19, 2013)

"ADA is in the building code along with structural requirements."

That would be incorrect, Sir. There are accessibility requirements in the code and a referenced ANSI Standard, but the ADA is the domain of the DOJ _*not*_ the local Code Official.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 19, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> The root cause of many of today's rules and regulations.


Yep. And the only reason Ada exists at all.

Brent.


----------



## Darren Emery (Dec 19, 2013)

Brent,

Are you saying that the only reason the ADA exists is due to misleading information, designed to pull at heart strings?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 19, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Brent,  Are you saying that the only reason the ADA exists is due to misleading information, designed to pull at heart strings?


Yes. Not codes of accessibility but the Ada.

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Dec 19, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Yes. Not codes of accessibility but the Ada. Brent


You obviously don't know that most lawsuits are not filed based on the ADA but on noncompliance with the CBC


----------



## JPohling (Dec 19, 2013)

Brent, every morning I read thru the recent posts just to have a laugh.


----------



## conarb (Dec 19, 2013)

The facts are (as I remember them) the owner was sent a demand letter by an ADA attorney for $6,000 which he refused to pay, the attorney then threatened to file a complaint with code enforcement and did.  The city then inspected the restaurant and came up with a list of mandates. The property owner is currently trying to sell the vacant property. If they sue the courts now require every lawsuit go to voluntary arbitration, this usually results in a compromise but either side can reject the award and request a court trial, I've read that the litigants in ADA cases lose over 90% of the time, the disability attorneys have now found it more profitable to turn them in to the building department if they don't pay their demands.



			
				SamWo said:
			
		

> *Important Announcement*         It has come to our attention that the building owner of 813 Washington  St (San Francisco) have been using Sam Wo's name to sell the property.  We want to state clearly that as of *Monday, July 29, 2013*,  Sam Wo is no longer associated with the building at 813 Washington  Street in San Francisco. There is no lease agreement between Sam Wo and  the building owner of 813 Washington St. There also been no  authorization or permission for the building owner to use our name.  Currently, we are in search of a new location for a new home to restart  Sam Wo. --Julie        ¹


 One might say that the rolling blackmailers and their attorneys are doing the city a service identifying the buildings that don't meet current codes, then 99+% of the city will have to be rebuilt.   Being obnoxious activists and blackmailing people does not win friends and influence people.

¹ http://www.samwo-restaurant.com/


----------



## mark handler (Dec 19, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> The facts are (as I remember them) the owner was sent a demand letter by an ADA attorney for $6,000 which he refused to pay, the attorney then threatened to file a complaint with code enforcement and did.  The city then inspected the restaurant and came up with a list of mandates. The property owner is currently trying to sell the vacant property. If they sue the courts now require every lawsuit go to voluntary arbitration, this usually results in a compromise but either side can reject the award and request a court trial, I've read that the litigants in ADA cases lose over 90% of the time, the disability attorneys have now found it more profitable to turn them in to the building department if they don't pay their demands. One might say that the rolling blackmailers and their attorneys are doing the city a service identifying the buildings that don't meet current codes, then 99+% of the city will have to be rebuilt.   Being obnoxious activists and blackmailing people does not win friends and influence people.
> 
> ¹ http://www.samwo-restaurant.com/


Nothing in the posts you cited says Sam Wo closed becouse of accessibility.

It is your spin.


----------



## Mech (Dec 19, 2013)

> You obviously don't know that most lawsuits are not filed based on the ADA but on noncompliance with the CBC


CBC = California Building Code?


----------



## mjesse (Dec 19, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Brent, every morning I read thru the recent posts just to have a laugh.


That's why we're here. Happy to help.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 19, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> You obviously don't know that most lawsuits are not filed based on the ADA but on noncompliance with the CBC


I swear you have the reading comprehension of a brick. Apologies to bricks.

And what is your fascination with Fox News? Why do you get all your information from there?

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Dec 19, 2013)

more insults!  great.  see if you can get back on track..............

I have personally eaten at several of these chinese restaurants located in chinatown.  It is not unusual to have the non code complying (and I dont mean accessibility codes) stairway as the only access to an assembly use (dining area) on the second floor with the kitchen located on the ground floor and immediately adjacent to the exit stair without any protection.  so...............if someone turns in a business for (obvious) accessibility issues and the code compliance officer comes out and sees a fire hazard of a kitchen that you essentially are exiting thru as a part of the escape route from a space that has a single exit when it requires two and they refuse to make improvements to a building that they do not own and choose to relocate then I guess its the disabled peoples fault?  Sounds to me like we are benefiting from improved fire life safety.:devil


----------



## conarb (Dec 19, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> .....I guess its the disabled peoples fault?  Sounds to me like we are benefiting from improved fire life safety.


You chose to patronize those places knowing full well that they were not code compliant, they are part of our culture and heritage, you could have patronized an antiseptic modern facility without the charm.  The fact is that places like Sam Wo have existed for many years while nobody complained, the only time these concerns would have surfaced is when and if a permit to remodel was issued.  It took one blackmailer in a wheelchair to initiate the chain of events that took Sam Wo's out of San Francisco's culture.  In effect the disabled person was saying "If I can't go in there nobody else is going to go in there, or you can give me $6,000 and I'll let you continue to go in there."


----------



## David Henderson (Dec 19, 2013)

Hell if someone has owned a business for a long time and has not done anything to improve the accessibility of the place shame on them for not trying to improve it at all.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 19, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> more insults!  great.  see if you can get back on track..............:devil


You must finally be getting tired of Marks insulting other members intelligence.

Brent


----------



## conarb (Dec 19, 2013)

David Henderson said:
			
		

> Hell if someone has owned a business for a long time and has not done anything to improve the accessibility of the place shame on them for not trying to improve it at all.


David:

I moved into a "lift slab" building at *1494 Solano Avenue* in your fair city in 1957 when it was new, I moved there because I was working in Albany on U.C. Berkeley's married students housing putting asbestos siding on the buildings to the university's specifications.  There were several lift slab apartment complexes build in Berkeley (one about 6 stories high), I moved there because it was a very modern building.  They poured a stack of slabs on the ground and a crane lifted them up as workers ran in and put steel columns between each slab as it was raised, they stopped when one collapsed in Berkeley squashing a few workers.    Look at the seismic code violations there, and can you imagine walls of single pane glass, all heated by electric baseboard resistance heating.

1) Should you go condemn the building for being out of code?

2) Should you condemn the building if someone pulled a permit to remodel a kitchen?

3) Should you condemn the building because the elevator isn't accessible?

4) What would you do if a disabled person rolled into your department complaining that the elevator wasn't accessible?

Let's face it, they've had 57 years to bring that building up to code.


----------



## JPohling (Dec 19, 2013)

The restaurants that I have experienced in Chinatown have way more code issues that accessibility.  That is the reason they have been shut down.  Including Sam Wo.  wait till they target the produce stands!


----------



## JPohling (Dec 19, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> You must finally be getting tired of Marks insulting other members intelligence. Brent


Actually when it comes to this topic I completely concur with his observations.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 19, 2013)

Mech said:
			
		

> CBC = California Building Code?


Yes.......


----------



## mark handler (Dec 19, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> You must finally be getting tired of Marks insulting other members intelligence. Brent


Only behind yours


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 19, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Actually when it comes to this topic I completely concur with his observations.


Of course you do. He has one good contribution at post # 71

Good, strait forward retort. And I think in this case he is right. Ada is just one consideration of a large construction problem. IF, if you are going to attack these institutions, then you have to go by the book. As this is an old alleyway, you can make a case for total demolition and no rebuild if it can't accommodate modern code.

I say "if" because personally I believe if I want to eat in an old rundown Chinese resteraunt I don't thing it's any  bodies business to tell me I can't.

But if your going to apply this metric of compliance you may have to damn near tear down San Francisco from Columbus street east.

As an aside, a little humor goes a long way. There's a old saying "don't dish it out if you can't take it."

Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 19, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Only behind yours


Behind my what?

As to your ad homonym, I say e clampus vitus.

Brent


----------



## fatboy (Dec 19, 2013)

Let's play nice folks............


----------



## mark handler (Dec 19, 2013)

Thats why you used my image as  your profile picture....the begining of Criminal Stalking


----------



## JPohling (Dec 19, 2013)

tear it down and rebuild it...............sounds like job security to me


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 19, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Thats why you used my image as  your profile picture....the begining of Criminal Stalking


Not to mention the rockin porn mustache.

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Dec 20, 2013)

If the building departments would stop granting final approval of construction that is inaccessible, there would be no lawsuits.

The enforcement mechanism chosen by Congress, for the ADA  and the State of California, for the state accessibility codes, is effective, however draconian in some circumstances.

It does work though.

Unlike the building departments which frequently do not.

If you do not like the law, propose something better to your legislator.


----------



## David Henderson (Dec 20, 2013)

conarb,

 no to 1&3 would do research and find out why on 4. Don't know if building was done to code 57 years ago, but that's the code applied until they do something else then that part will be brought to today's standards.This ain't Berkeley


----------



## conarb (Dec 20, 2013)

David Henderson said:
			
		

> conarb, no to 1&3 would do research and find out why on 4. Don't know if building was done to code 57 years ago, but that's the code applied until they do something else then that part will be brought to today's standards.This ain't Berkeley


David:

That's my point, we don't go putting businesses out of business because they don't meet code and we don't condemn existing buildings because they don't comply with current codes, before we do such things there must be a clear and present danger, this applies to California's accessibility standards as well.  As far as ADA is concerned it is Federal law and is not enforced by building departments, in fact the law says it cannot be enforced by the states.


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2013)

I think we must have a moderator with Tourette Syndrome.

Where's brudgers when you need him?


----------



## jar546 (Dec 20, 2013)

Merry Christmas to all.  This thread is officially closed as it has run its usefulness and has turned unprofessional.

This is a sensitive subject so some for whatever reason and not everyone posting is "close enough to center" to keep it real.  So yeah, the big bad wolf is blowing down this house.


----------

