Pressdemocrat.com Conversations Town Hall/News Discussion Article Comments Santa Rosa must pay 2 5 million for disabled access|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
I am also disabled and use a walker to get out and about..I know how important it is to be able to get up on curbs without falling, and to have those doors that you push the pads and they open for you.....I pay taxes for this and I appreciate those who are not handicapped for paying taxes to go for this.
I also understand in this economy, if you are not handicapped or love anyone handicapped how useless you feel it is....I am sorry you feel that way. As Johnny said earlier in a post, if Santa Rosa did the right thing when they built these projects and followed the law and had incorporated these disability items back then....they would not be taking yours and mine tax dollars to re-do this.....be angry for the right reason, not at a diabled person trying to get by as you do.... Bobkur, you obviously are mentally disabled and need other accomodations, you need them badly. sending the disabled to Mexico and asking them to fix the curbs? Why would I do that? I am white and born here and paid into the tax system for 40 years, plus a registered voter.....you need more help than me..... |
||||
|
Most of the sidewalks and curbs in Santa Rosa predate the ADA, but curb modifications, especially in highly traveled downtown locations make sense to assist the disabled. You sound like a reasonable person; what do you as a disabled person think about small business people being forced out of business because their 40+ year old building cannot be retrofitted to meet every tiny ADA "requirement." Initially the laws were supposed to ask for: "reasonable accommodation if it would not impose an "undue hardship" on the operation of the business. Undue hardship is defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of factors such as businesss size, financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation." Of course that has been "bent" by shakedown artists who threaten expensive lawsuits and demand $1,000 for every tiny violation. A 50 year old building could have literally hundreds of violations resulting in demands easily into five and six figures. Sadly it happens all the time and often the money that could have gone to a reasonable solution is paid to "advocates" and/or the business simply closes or moves. |
||||
|
The are put on all new street curb cutouts to provide visual, audible, and tactile warning to persons with all kinds of disabilities, especially blind persons, that the the threshold from the sidewalk to the street is about to be crossed. As in to help a blind person keep from inadvertently stepping into the way of vhicles. |
||||
|
hansutro:
Take a look and start counting the dollars that are wasted on stuff. I had a new office that was not approved because I didn't have a $40 dollar insulation on the sink drain. ---------------------------------- Why didn't you have it? All the requirements are easily accessible at Link in "Business Briefs" designed to easily tell a small businessman like yourself exactly what you need, in clear easy to understand form, with diagrams. You don't need an expensive consultant or attorney to tell you what you need, and you can't count on your contractor or workmen to get it right. You're the captain of the ship and you can't pass the buck. For instance take a look at Link to see what every business needs for disabled parking, and it doesn't have to be professional. You can do it with a paintbrush and unskilled labor for $50. hansutro: What for? So that if the water heater ever got stuck on, AND the pressure value didn't work, AND some person in a wheel chair, pulled up AND was able to get underneath the sink, wouldn't possible have his legs get scalded..... --------------------------------------- The water heater doesn't need to get stuck on. Just manual manipulation, unauthorized resetting, maintenance or aging can produce water hot enough to make the drain pipe hot enough to burn the sensitive skin of someone in a wheelchair. An overweight diabetic person who had lost feeling in legs could suffer life threatening complications from such a burn and not even feel it. Many places of public accommodation have inadequate control of water temperature and have such temperatures. See, what you portray as trivial could be life threatening to some people.If you're going to be so mean and judgmental about things you hate, you should do your homework better to make sure what you hate deserves your hating. hansutro: In the 20 years that we were in that building, not one person rolled up into our office suite, let alone into our bathroom that was for non visitors. ------------------------------------ But tomorrow another tenant that has lots of public traffic may move into the building. It's not just about you. hansutro: Mass examples of waste of money that are extorted by every business man, adds up. No one extorts anything for disability except contractors and consultants that charge excessively inflated prices for disability work. hansutro: They you wonder why small business can not afford to do business in California. I could go on for hours about other arbitrary stupid money wasters for a relatively small group of people. ---------------------------------------------- So we should kill them, or let them die, and not waste money on them? hansutro: If your figures for disabled people include the "New Disabilities" like overweight (fat) people, or other disabilities, the new politically correct crap is putting a disservice to the people that are really disabled and do require consideration! ----------------------------------------- No, now see there you go again, putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, implying they are true, and then arguing against the "straw man" you have created, implying that it represents me, and my position, and vilifying it. That's a known devious technique in rhetoric and logic, called "straw man", used by people who can't win on the facts. Like the lawyers say, if the facts and the law are on your side, pound the facts and the law, and if they aren't, pound the table. |
||||
|
gaj:
Most of the sidewalks and curbs in Santa Rosa predate the ADA, but curb modifications, especially in highly traveled downtown locations make sense to assist the disabled. You sound like a reasonable person; what do you as a disabled person think about small business people being forced out of business because their 40+ year old building cannot be retrofitted to meet every tiny ADA "requirement." ------------------------------------------- That's NOT the way the ADA works, and you should wash your mouth out with soap. No modifications have to be made to old buildings until major remodeling is done. ADA requirements are not "tiny" i.e. trivial. They are requirements worked out by Congress after taking testimony from literally hundreds of thousands of people, and each and every one of them has an important purpose in helping a disabled person achieve A BASIC AND NECESSARY LIFE FUNCTION. You misrepresent the law and insult people who are desperately trying to do things that you take for granted. Take a long walk. Go to church. Talk to your pastor. gaj: Initially the laws were supposed to ask for: "reasonable accommodation if it would not impose an "undue hardship" on the operation of the business. Undue hardship is defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of factors such as businesss size, financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation." ---------------------------------------- That's exactly the way it works. Each case is judged on its merits, taking into consideration the business's financial resources and hardship. gaj: Of course that has been "bent" by shakedown artists who threaten expensive lawsuits and demand $1,000 for every tiny violation. You misrepresent the way the law works. The ONLY way this law is enforced is by the federal government and disabled people, suing and collecting damages. There are no police for this law. Disabled people who sue are the police, and people, lots of whom have the kind of prejudiced attitude towards disabled access civil rights that you and some others in this forum display, don't comply unless and until they have to pay. gaj: A 50 year old building could have literally hundreds of violations resulting in demands easily into five and six figures. No 50 year old building can be required to make modifications resulting in five and six figures, or any figures, until major remodeling takes place. You SERIOUSLY misrepresent this law, and by doing so you are adding immeasurably to the burden of all disabled persons gaj: Sadly it happens all the time and often the money that could have gone to a reasonable solution is paid to "advocates" No money is paid in any ADA lawsuit to "advocates" only disabled people and their attorneys, and they only get the money if their civil rights to access have been violated, and the money is to pay them for the loss of their civil rights, just like the insurance company pays for the loss of your stereo, but in this case the guilty party pays. You take somebody's civil rights, you have to pay. It's fair. Once again you misrepresent the law in a way that makes others who are uninformed get a mistaken and adverse view of it which ultimately places more burden on all disabled persons. gaj: and/or the business simply closes or moves. No business has to close or move to avoid the ADA. |
||||
|
gaj:
Of course that has been "bent" by shakedown artists who threaten expensive lawsuits and demand $1,000 for every tiny violation. -------------------------------------- People who sue are not shakedown artists. In California, any disabled person can sue for violations of the ADA, in Superior Court with an attorney, or in Small Claims Court without an attorney, and the minimum amount of damages the court must award is $4000. If you're a disabled person with a parking placard you're entitled to $4000 civil rights damages in Small Claims court to the jerk who parks unlawfully in the disabled parking space you need, or the company that owns the delivery truck that parks in the cross hatch lines of the access aisle of the disabled parking lot. And the jerk would deserve it, because it doesn't make it just inconvenient for the disabled person, it makes it impossible. And what would they have to do otherwise - walk thirty feet. There's a sign in front and a blue line on the ground, and you stay on your side of it or there are consequences, just like the line down the middle of the road. You don't hear people whining about wanting to drive just a little or just for a few minutes on the wrong side of that line now do you. It's just a matter of motivation, and a lot of it boils down to a selfish immature "who are you to tell me what to do". Contrary to urban legend spread by people who won't take the time to really understand disability civil rights, people don't get sued, and they don't pay anything, unless they have a genuine violation. If you try to sue someone without a genuine violation, when you get to court the judge will fine you, and your attorney too, and if you're really flagrant, the judge can put you both in jail for a few days. Courts don't like people wasting their time. If you owe someone $4000 civil rights damages, they're doing you a favor and being generous if they offer to settle out of court for $1000, and save you $3000, and probably at least $5000 attorney fees. It doesn't take more than a few cheap or free minutes of an attorney's time to be able to tell you the other side has a case, and you better settle and thank them, and people don't settle for $1000, "just to avoid litigation". They pay it to avoid more expensive litigation their attorneys tell them they would probably lose. They say they settled "to avoid litigation" leaving out the words "that we would probably lose" to save face. If you take someone's civil rights, and you owe them $4000, they're giving you a discount at $1000, and you should thank them and not demean them. |
||||
|
So the $55,000 we paid to a shakedown artist is all in my imagination? You sir, are ignorant of how the law is being abused. Educate yourself for crying out loud. Didn't you read the link about the Sacramento restaurant I posted? That is a tiny example. Perhaps you recall Clint Eastwood being sued for his old building? He won because he had the money to burn fighting the driveby lawsuit; most business owners don't and settle. This guy was infamous around here for years: Link And has been at it recently: Link There are many others running the same racket: Link |
||||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by anchorbaby:
crybaby Side walks and ramps were put there for you,. It's called public safety. Apparently a concept you haven't grasp. |
||||
|
You know it's funny, but I'm not thinking of myself. The thing is, when lawmakers pass laws to protect the disabled, you think they (the disabled) would be grateful. They are given safe passage from point a to point b. But rather than abide by the rules, they don't. It not only endangers them but causes undue stress on an unsuspecting driver. Who expects wheelchairs in the street......or bikes or skateboarders or pedestrians or squirrels. At least the squirrels don't know any better. As tax payers, we have provided bike lanes so that people on bikes can still dart in and out of traffic. We provide skateboard areas but the kids still are out on the streets. We provide ramps for the disabled but they use the street. Pedestrians still jay walk. Yeah, it’s just part of life. You know what though? If somebody runs your ass over, you better assume some of the responsibility of being stupid, that’s all I’m saying. Laws passed that aren’t enforceable and mandates that serve no purpose are stupid. If you want to live, then don’t play Russian roulette with a loaded gun. |
||||
|
And by the way, the crack about loosing arms and legs........very mean spirited. Seek help. |
||||
|
gaj, I've read your references. What's your point regarding the articles of ADA lawsuits? You've implied certain things, but I'm not convinced, and I want to know what your point is exactly so I can respond to it. What do you see as wrong? Pretend I'm 12 years old.
Also, I can see you're angry about what you perceive as injustice, and I hate injustice too, but the way to fight injustice is intelligent constructive conversation about issues, and angry people who call each other names don't tend to have intelligent constructive conversations which result in solutions to injustice. I bet you're the kind of guy who would never say in person to someone, "You're ignorant" but the internet seems to bring out the worst manners in people, and that's sad because the internet can be such a wonderful forum, but if people lose their manners and just call each other names like elementary school children, it becomes a jungle that polite intelligent people don't want to venture into. I think we have a public duty in public discussions of important public issues to stick to issues and not descend to personal insult. I'm a person who is an advocate, and I believe what I advocate is fair, but I want to know both sides of the story. I'd like to hear what you have to say, but I'm not having much success. If you can convince me, I might even have some influence to change the world your way. I'm actually not ignorant at all. I'm a senior, I'm very intelligent and well educated, I read at a high rate of speed with high retention, and I read widely. I've looked into these matters deeply over decades of experience. I have a lot to say about those articles, but first I'd like you to say just what you think is wrong, without explicatives and hyperbole, like Joe Friday says, "Just the facts, sir" Hit me with your best shot, but pretend I'm the judge and if you get out of line I'm gonna slap you in jail ;-)
|
||||
|
"The disabled" isn't a unitary thing as you infer. Just because some disabled people may do some things doesn't mean all disabled people do.
"They are given safe passage from point to point" What does that mean? Who gives them "safe passage". As for wheelchairs on the street, the most common reason for that is lack of curb cutouts at intersections, which causes people in wheelchairs to have to use the street. Also, it doesn't matter if you don't expect a person in a wheelchair to be there, as a driver you are required to expect the unexpected. Highways are for people not cars, and if the person in the wheel chair has to use the roadway because of not curb cutouts, as they often do, as a driver you have a responsibility to avoid them. The other most common cause of wheelchairs in the street is intoxicated or mentally ill people, but because some people in wheelchairs may use the streets doesn't mean "the disabled" use the streets, so all disabled people are bad. See what a subtle form of discrimination and insult you practice on the 99 percent of disabled people who don't use the street? Because you have seen some people in wheelchairs on the street, you imply that all the good fine honorable upstanding respectable disabled people in wheelchairs who have never used the streets are jerks. As for "If someone runs your ass over … " Implying that people on bicycles and wheelchairs deserve to get run over: Tax payers have not necessarily provided bike lanes in Santa Rosa. Because of long time Santa Rosa traffic engineer Eugene Benton's flagrant disregard for state traffic and highway laws and standards, a large percentage of "Bike Lanes" in Santa Rosa are not as wide as required by law (The Highway Design Manual), and are not wide enough to be safe, and the City of Santa Rosa is just asking to be sued to correct that unlawful safety hazard, which not only endangers cyclists, but causes people like you who see them avoiding unsafe and unlawful so-called "Bike Lanes" to heap insult on them. I don't defend bicyclists who don't obey traffic laws. They should be cited just like motorists, but see how different things can look when you really look into them and know the fact. When you judge someone's character you have a responsibility to be careful. A lot of innocent people died because "We all know he's guilty, let's just hang him". You never have a right to nor an excuse for "running someone over". You have a legal and moral duty to never drive faster than you can stop in the distance you can see ahead. It's a crime, a violation of California's Basic Speed Law, to travel anywhere faster than you can stop in the distance you can see ahead. If you run into something that's in front of you, and it didn't jump in front of you, you're at fault, period, end of story, no argument. When people talk about running over a bicyclist "in a blind curve" that's reckless driving and manslaughter. By long and well settled law, highways are for people, not vehicles, and a person on foot, or bicycle, or even horse, has an equal right to use the highway at all times. All persons have a duty to share the highway safely. People who drive cars have no superior right to the highway and have no right to drive in such a way as to endanger non-motorized users. If you're driving in a curve so fast you can't stop in the distance you can see ahead, that's by definition reckless driving, just as bad as passing on a blind curve risking a head on. No driver ever has any right to nor excuse for "running someone's ass over", and it's kind of violently threatening and reckless and irresponsible for you to suggest it in a public forum, and subtly suggest that others should "run their asses over" because they're "playing Russian roulette". If someone gets hurt you'll go to jail and people who do that deserve it. Pretend that's your mother in the wheelchair in the blind curve.
|
||||
|
Ps. I have a friend who owns thousands of sheep that used to graze in the hills above Berkeley for fire control. He brings them into town at 3 AM, up University Avenue, in a herd, the whole herd. The sheep have the right of way by law, and all motorists have to wait until the herd passes up University Avenue. The Berkeley Police enforce it.
Sometimes people ride horses on streets for good reason and neither bicycles nor horse can be prohibited from streets, by state law. Highways are for people not cars, and the only place you don't have duty to avoid and a right not to expect people in wheelchairs, scooters, bicycles, horses, or on foot, is a freeway, and even on a freeway you can expect pedestrians, bicycles, and horses if there is no alternate route, such as between the Caldecotte Tunnel and Orinda on Highway 24. Pedestrians, horses, and bicycles are only prohibited on freeways where there are signs prohibiting them, and they are permitted on some freeways because there is no alternate route. California Vehicle Code Sec. 21759. The driver of any vehicle approaching any horse drawn vehicle, any ridden animal, or any livestock shall exercise proper control of his vehicle and shall reduce speed or stop as may appear necessary or as may be signaled or otherwise requested by any person driving, riding or in charge of the animal or livestock in order to avoid frightening and to safeguard the animal or livestock and to insure the safety of any person driving or riding the animal or in charge of the livestock. |
||||
|
Yea that was mean. Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
||||
|
My apologies for calling you ignorant; obstinate might have been a better term, (ok, that was a joke). The "advocates" in the links provided do not care about the mitigations, they want to get paid. Business owners want one simple thing before anyone can "demand" to be paid. The business owner should have a reasonable time (90 days?) to address any issues before paying off an "advocate." In our case we paid the "advocate" more than the cost of the mitigations, even though our facilities had been inspected by several ADA consultants prior to being sued by the "advocates." One day I got a call from a legit customer about a legit concern regarding one of our front doors; they were too hard to open...he did not want to get paid, he wanted to be able to enter our facility. Within two weeks I had the doors converted to opening electrically and the disabled man in his wheelchair was stunned and thrilled that his concern had been addressed. Most small business persons, I believe, would be happy to handle things in that manner...especially in this economy. Wouldn't you rather have a small business with limited funds actually pay for mitigations rather than simply pay off drive by "advocates" and/or close? Why don't small business owners simply take the suits to court? The legal costs to defend yourself are at times impossible to afford and, even if you win, like Clint Eastwood did, your opponent has lost little and is forced to pay nothing...unless you counter sue, which small business owners usually cannot afford. |
||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page First | Previous | Next | Last |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|
Pressdemocrat.com Conversations Town Hall/News Discussion Article Comments Santa Rosa must pay 2 5 million for disabled access© 2008 The Press Democrat