Lovely...

Quote

A small cadre of lawyers, some from out of state, are using New York City’s age and architectural quirkiness as the foundation for a flood of lawsuits citing violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The lawyers are generally not acting on existing complaints from people with disabilities. Instead, they identify local businesses, like bagel shops and delis, that are not in compliance with the law, and then aggressively recruit plaintiffs from advocacy groups for people with disabilities.

The plaintiffs typically collect $500 for each suit, and each plaintiff can be used several times over. The lawyers, meanwhile, make several thousands of dollars, because the civil rights law entitles them to legal fees from the noncompliant businesses.

[www.nytimes.com]

And this is a surprise WHY ? Sounds like all the blackmailers and scam artists went to law school. In most cases the people they sue are not in violation of the law.


Keep in mind that the ADA act allows for flexibility.

[www.ada.gov]

"Facilities built prior to the passage of the ADA, still have an obligation to remove barriers when it is readily achievable to do so.

[www.adaproject.org]

Readily achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."

Would love to get such a cadre of lawyers interested in taking on business that do not follow code for pedestrian access and accommodation.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

[youtu.be]

Quote
Black
Would love to get such a cadre of lawyers interested in taking on business that do not follow code for pedestrian access and accommodation.

can you explain that in more detail?

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
Black
Would love to get such a cadre of lawyers interested in taking on business that do not follow code for pedestrian access and accommodation.

can you explain that in more detail?

sidewalks

---

So, NYC'ers... your city inspectors aren't doing their jobs ?

I'm reasonably familiar with the commercial building issues from talking to two family members who manage commercial buildings in midtown. Suffice it to say that corruption has been endemic since my grandfather was managing buildings there in the 1920's, and probably before.

My grandfather had a basic rule:
Never Ever Ever bribe someone. Keep up with the requirements. If you fall behind and are inspected, pay the fine. Make the changes required. Follow the law.

Apparently every five years the city inspector's office gets a 'housecleaning' and a few of them end up in jail.

Now my idyllic world where lawyers work to better the human race has been shattered!

Quote
cbelt
In most cases the people they sue are not in violation of the law.

I didn't get that impression reading the linked article. Most of the peopled sued settle within 6 months and make the changes needed. This is incredibly fast and efficient for federal court cases.


ADA is a very good law. It has made life better (in some cases livable at all) for millions of people.

Giving businesses a chance to comply before suing seems fair; however, this law is over 20 years old.

And yes this is how attorneys make money.

As cbelt says, following the law costs less than what it's going to cost if you get caught not following it. Most of these changes that had to be made were minor and not that costly. Legal fees are costly, always.

Lux... well, you can renew your faith. One of history's most famous lawyers was:

Mahatma Ghandi

Quote
mattkime

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
Black
Would love to get such a cadre of lawyers interested in taking on business that do not follow code for pedestrian access and accommodation.

can you explain that in more detail?

sidewalks

Black said businesses. sidewalks are the public realm, therefore government jurisdiction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2012 10:11AM by mrbigstuff.

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
mattkime

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
Black
Would love to get such a cadre of lawyers interested in taking on business that do not follow code for pedestrian access and accommodation.

can you explain that in more detail?

sidewalks

Black said businesses. sidewalks are the public realm, therefore government jurisdiction.

ok, then whats your guess?

---

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
mattkime

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
Black
Would love to get such a cadre of lawyers interested in taking on business that do not follow code for pedestrian access and accommodation.

can you explain that in more detail?

sidewalks

Black said businesses. sidewalks are the public realm, therefore government jurisdiction.

Erm, just because there's a public easement doesn't make the government responsible for building or maintaining sidewalks. The government's 'jurisdiction' is pretty much everywhere. The responsibility to build accessible pedestrian walkways in front of businesses is generally that of the property owner. It's frequently a zoning requirement. Walkways have to be included in development plans, and must meet the specs determined by the jurisdiction. This doesn't mean, of course, that governments never build sidewalks - they do, in parks and other public spaces. But urban streetside sidewaks (and their maintenance, including snow shoveling, ice removal, repair, etc.) are usually the responsibility of the property owner at that address.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2012 10:28AM by rjmacs.

But urban streetside sidewaks (and their maintenance, including snow shoveling, ice removal, repair, etc.) are usually the responsibility of the property owner at that address.


maintenance, yes. but zoning? sorry, that is really not true. in rural areas and in suburban developments, that may also be true, IF the property is privately held. but, in the urban areas, your statement is incorrect. and, IIRC, Black lives in deepest, urban Chicago, where it most definitely would be the jurisdiction of the gubmint.

'nother edit: repair is not included in maintenance on government property. you can get into trouble for "repairing" publicly held property.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2012 10:52AM by mrbigstuff.

Quote
mattkime

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
mattkime

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
Black
Would love to get such a cadre of lawyers interested in taking on business that do not follow code for pedestrian access and accommodation.

can you explain that in more detail?

sidewalks

Black said businesses. sidewalks are the public realm, therefore government jurisdiction.

ok, then whats your guess?

I was asking Black when you guessed for him. why don't we just wait and see what he has to say, hmm?

What's troublesome is that these attorneys have become the defacto building inspectors, and are well compensated for that. As are their entirely fictitious plaintiffs.

Fine. So essentially New York has privatized ADA building inspections. Correct ? And this is a *good* thing ? The city abrogating their responsibility to a profit driven enterprise that uses legal blackmail to both cause (some) change and enrich itself ?

Blech. This is equivalent to the 18th century practice of giving 'letters of marque' to a 'privateer', making their piracy on the high seas 'legal'.

Quote
cbelt3
What's troublesome is that these attorneys have become the defacto building inspectors, and are well compensated for that. As are their entirely fictitious plaintiffs.

Fine. So essentially New York has privatized ADA building inspections. Correct ? And this is a *good* thing ? The city abrogating their responsibility to a profit driven enterprise that uses legal blackmail to both cause (some) change and enrich itself ?

Blech. This is equivalent to the 18th century practice of giving 'letters of marque' to a 'privateer', making their piracy on the high seas 'legal'.

I disagree with your characterization.

This practice may seem unsavory due to the repeat plaintiffs, but this is New York City, with 8 million people and 100,000 buildings.
So these attorneys find 100 or so ADA violations? That hardly makes them building inspectors for the city.
Doesn't really seem like that big of a deal, and the net result is that the ADA violation gets fixed.
Given that the owners are obligated to follow this 20 year old law and could have spent small sums to be in compliance before getting sued, it's tough to feel sorry for them.

What's irritating is that there are disabled people who are sent out to find businesses just so that the lawyers can go after them. This isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon, this is lawyers finding a way to extort businesses on a regular basis. The fact that it involves disabled plaintiffs provides the lawyers with Teflon against criticism.

We had a friend who ran a shop in our neighborhood, and there was a man with no legs who visited in their shop on a regular basis. He just had to get his wheelchair over a little teeny tiny bit of a curb and he had no problem.

One day our neighborhood had a person who was going around seeking out businesses to sue, and this person stopped in front of our friend's shop banging the wheelchair against the little curb and yelling "I can't get in, I can't get in". Total BS.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

We had a restaurant who was sued because you had to ring a bell and request that they bring their handicapped ramp out for you to use.

This neighborhood is full of businesses in buildings that are 200+ years old and parts of it are registered as historical. Here's a restaurant trying to work around that, and they get in trouble because the supposed patron found it "embarrassing" that they had to bring the ramp out for them. Again, total BS.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

I'm fine with a business owner being told to make the changes you describe. It's within the law. And dignity was a big reason that we needed the ADA in the first place.

I also appreciate taking the point of view of the business owner who is hassled and has to spend some money in order to better serve all of his or her customers and be in compliance with the law. Doing business is not always a cake walk.

the ADA laws are selectively enforced in older areas, and it's for a reason. I speak from experience. frankly, it is difficult to mandate physical changes as drastic as some of the codes call for without totally wrecking the livelihood of many small businesses. I can tell you what happens, on a typical violation that is found: owner of building gets a notice that something is not up to code in his tenant's space. s/he goes to tenant to make him aware of the violation. tenant is told to fix it or the city/town/county may shut them down. some negotiation takes place, usually with the burden of the cost of improvements borne by the tenant who, in many situations, is eking out a living at whatever business. tenant then has to go and make the improvements, possibly taking up valuable floor space from the business, sometimes structural changes that cost large sums of money. in the end, the owner will pay very little to nothing for the upgrade to the building and the tenant will bear the brunt of the cost and the lost floor space. yes, it will be better for people who use walkers and wheelchairs but the primary beneficiaries will be the building owners.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2012 11:26AM by mrbigstuff.

You might want to take a look at this. What you describe sounds like a poorly written lease agreement that did not take ADA compliance responsibility into account. Either that or the tenant did not have good legal representation. Both owners and tenants are responsible for compliance under the law. There is a lot of confusion about this, but it can be solved if tenants are more careful about their leases to begin with.

[www.lawyersagainstlawsuitabuse.com]

My old neighborhood lost its library branch because bringing it up to ADA compliance would have cost millions. There had never been any complaints. It was in a Historic Register neighborhood, and the building was built in 1922. The library system had the choice of violating the Historic Register or violating ADA. There has to be some compromise possible. One more thing--I have a bad back. ATMs are getting closer and closer to the ground. Using an ATM at knee-height is not exactly dignified for those of us who are "abled." ADA is mainly a good law but it has its problems, and it needs to be reexamined.

Quote
Gutenberg
One more thing--I have a bad back. ATMs are getting closer and closer to the ground. Using an ATM at knee-height is not exactly dignified for those of us who are "abled." ADA is mainly a good law but it has its problems, and it needs to be reexamined.

Is it possible that if you're unable to bend over and use a lower-placed ATM, you're not as able-bodied as you suggest here?

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

What library was that?

Exemptions to ADA compliance are permitted for historic buildings.

Here is what the justice dept. gave as an example of a small town historic library building and their review of the ADA:

"The town library is a historic structure that is listed on the State historic register. The two entrances to the facility each have four steps and no accessible entrance is provided. The town consults with an architect to determine if an accessible entrance can be provided and is told that a ramp or lift cannot be added to either entrance without a significant change to the exterior of the building. After reviewing the ADA requirements, the town learns that qualified historic buildings and facilities are not required to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a historic property. The State historic preservation office is consulted and it determines that the exterior cannot be modified. Because physical modifications to the entrances cannot be made, the town changes its policies and provides access to the library services in an "alternate manner" upon request. Library staff are trained to take requests over the telephone, to look up information for individuals with disabilities who cannot use the library, to provide information over the telephone, and to provide curbside service for books and library publications or to mail items to individuals upon request. Library staff may also meet with an individual in another accessible location when the telephone service is not effective. The library publicizes a telephone number for requesting these alternate services in its publications and announcements."

[www.ada.gov]

Unfortunately the wheelchair access lobby is the strongest currently in defining "access". Often regulations on access are written in terms of chair access, and do not take into consideration other types of physical limitations. Or as a blind friend once pointed out, two-thirds of the accommodations made for chair access in many locations got in his way. So we end up with ATM's, elevator buttons and other items at heights that are a problem for many others. Maybe in another few decades a balanced approach will come about, I am not holding my breath.

Physical access to buildings is only one part of the ADA.

For the blind and deaf, fighting discrimination in employment, education and telecommunications has been the triumph of the ADA, from what I understand. Pedestrian safety and building access still has to meet their needs too. It's not just about one group or one disability.

Yes, there is an exemption for the exterior of a building. My old library branch had interior problems as well, and unfortunately you can't swing a hammer to renovate without bringing the structure to ADA standards. The building was split-level, with the main floor well above street level. I participated in the planning of a brand new regional library that was at the time entirely ADA compliant. Since then the rules have changed for platform lifts, so that will have to be replaced.

Have you seen some of the latest ATMs? they are not that much above knee level. It's idiotic. I think we should make concessions for people who are blind, deaf, using a wheelchair, etc. But some things need to come with a grandfather clause.

I've seen lower ATM's but none that required me to bend much, and I'm 5'8". Does somebody have a photo of a walk-up ATM that is unreasonable for standing adults? I'd address that with the bank, maybe there is a nearby machine at the usual height?

Here are the new rules about ATM's. Height is only one part of it, it's more about usability by people with hearing and vision disabilities.

[www.diebold.com]

Quote

It's not just about one group or one disability.

That is what it is supposed to be in theory, in practice there are different advocacy groups that have had various levels of influence. So the access is uneven across disabilities and locations.

Quote
JoeH

Quote

It's not just about one group or one disability.

That is what it is supposed to be in theory, in practice there are different advocacy groups that have had various levels of influence. So the access is uneven across disabilities and locations.

I'm sure that's true but I don't agree that there isn't good advocacy for the blind or deaf. There are 11 million legally blind Americans and 1.6 million in wheelchairs but not in institutions. The ATM modifications that have just gone into law centered primarily on the needs of the seeing and hearing-impaired.

I really don't care if you believe me or not, LD. I don't feel obliged to come up with photographic evidence for your amusement. FYI if you would like to visit it is a First Mariner Bank ATM in the 1700 block of Aliceanna Street, Fells Point, Baltimore, Maryland 21231.

Maybe the ATM in the lobby of my CU is closer. It is in Hadley, MA. So low it hurts my back to use it. Certainly not a good height for a legally blind person to use. As for a hearing impaired person, the screen is also too low, and difficult to read the screen or control pad.

ADA is entirely well-intentioned and, overall, better that it's in place than not. but, it's a helluva big gorilla in a small room.

I've been tempted to use my toes to push the touchscreens on the new Bank Of America touch screens that are practally mounted on the floor. They sure don't often work with my fingers.

Or some other appropriate appendage.

I'm not getting what is new about this.
The screen height requirement for wheelchair access has been in place for ATM's since 1990.
I've personally never been bothered by it, but sorry to hear that some of you have been.
The communications-aid enhancements are new and don't involve changing the heights of the machines. Mostly they involve software changes but in some cases a whole new screen and other functional changes.

If you have different info about the new laws (2010) regarding ADA and ATM's then let us know.

I would hazard to guess that it's less of a hardship for most people to bend down to use an ATM than it is for most chair-bound people to lift themselves up out of a wheelchair to use one. Just sayin'.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote

The screen height requirement for wheelchair access has been in place for ATM's since 1990

The height requirement did not go into immediate effect, and it did not require them as low as I am seeing them lately. The actual requirement was that they be accessible, height was not specified. Some locations handled it with a mix of heights, others had machines with dual control so one was proper height for a person standing and the other suitable for someone in a chair. It is lately where the installation is one machine, one set of controls, and all set so low that it is an issue bending down. Add to that a screen that is at the wrong angle for a standing person to read, and that makes a couple I have seen practically unusable.

I would report that to the bank or retailer offering the service then. The current height requirements are that the machine be no lower than 15 inches from the ground, and no higher than 48 inches. The screen has to be viewable from no more than 40 inches off the ground. A lot of machines have been in compliance with that for years already.

(here's a diagram, page 4)
[www.cabeandcato.com]



It could be worse.
[www.thesun.co.uk]

Yep, in other words at max height of 48" for the machine the screen is at about my belt height. The keypad is at a point well below comfortable reach unless it has another that is mounted higher. So machines I am talking about are compliant with the new regulations, and are too low. So, what use is reporting it to the owner? They are compliant.

If the machine isn't usable to you, you need one that is. Report it. The point of ATMs is not to render them unusable to most users. Does the provider have another machine nearby?

It sounds like a bad design. The ATM at our neighborhood grocer is low (4 ft high) but I can see the screen fine perfectly fine at 5'8" without bending, I just lower my head.

Quote
JoeH
Unfortunately the wheelchair access lobby is the strongest currently in defining "access". Often regulations on access are written in terms of chair access, and do not take into consideration other types of physical limitations. Or as a blind friend once pointed out, two-thirds of the accommodations made for chair access in many locations got in his way. So we end up with ATM's, elevator buttons and other items at heights that are a problem for many others. Maybe in another few decades a balanced approach will come about, I am not holding my breath.

I'm just glad that the drive thru ATM at my old bank had braille keys for the blind... that was nice of them...

Quote
hal

Quote
JoeH
Unfortunately the wheelchair access lobby is the strongest currently in defining "access". Often regulations on access are written in terms of chair access, and do not take into consideration other types of physical limitations. Or as a blind friend once pointed out, two-thirds of the accommodations made for chair access in many locations got in his way. So we end up with ATM's, elevator buttons and other items at heights that are a problem for many others. Maybe in another few decades a balanced approach will come about, I am not holding my breath.

I'm just glad that the drive thru ATM at my old bank had braille keys for the blind... that was nice of them...

that. is. hilarious.

Braille in the drive-in. Yes, and the 'Picture Menus are available for the illiterate' signs.

Reminds me of those bumper stickers "Illiterate ! Write for free help !"

Reality on the ATM of course is that they're all made with the same keypad, regardless of location (well, except for the ones with skimmers attached to them by thieves.).

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
Black
Would love to get such a cadre of lawyers interested in taking on business that do not follow code for pedestrian access and accommodation.

can you explain that in more detail?

In a hurry, but brief examples:
-A local Home Depot builds a new store, completely out of compliance with current code, set back hundreds of feet from the public way with no continuous sidewalk to the entrance, forcing pedestrians onto the playing field with cars in teh parking lot.
-A local CVS does build to code with the entrance abutting the public sidewalk, but builds a fence blocking that access and forcing pedestrians to walk through the parking lot to enter the store, in violation of the spirit and probably the letter of the law.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

completely out of compliance with current code,

how do you know this? how could it get built if it's "out of compliance?" was there a lawsuit?

no continuous sidewalk to the entrance, forcing pedestrians onto the playing field with cars in teh parking lot.

builds a fence blocking that access and forcing pedestrians to walk through the parking lot to enter the store


^ those are legitimate complaints but they may not have been addressed in the original plans submitted to the approving authority and/or the approval board did not require them to be submitted. I am a big proponent of ped access and I agree with you. And, in this case, like you originally stated, it would be the businesses responsible to make the improvements (or construct them per the approved plans).

There are some excellent examples of walkable parking lots and Target is one company that is making an effort to shield peds from cars.

Quote
mrbigstuff
completely out of compliance with current code,

how do you know this? how could it get built if it's "out of compliance?" was there a lawsuit?

no continuous sidewalk to the entrance, forcing pedestrians onto the playing field with cars in teh parking lot.

builds a fence blocking that access and forcing pedestrians to walk through the parking lot to enter the store


^ those are legitimate complaints but they may not have been addressed in the original plans submitted to the approving authority and/or the approval board did not require them to be submitted. I am a big proponent of ped access and I agree with you. And, in this case, like you originally stated, it would be the businesses responsible to make the improvements (or construct them per the approved plans).

There are some excellent examples of walkable parking lots and Target is one company that is making an effort to shield peds from cars.

How do I know? Because I'm familiar with the code.
How could it get built if not in compliance? In Chicago?
Was there a Lawsuit? ??? I'm saying I'd like to see a lawsuit.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
Black

Quote
mrbigstuff
completely out of compliance with current code,

how do you know this? how could it get built if it's "out of compliance?" was there a lawsuit?

no continuous sidewalk to the entrance, forcing pedestrians onto the playing field with cars in teh parking lot.

builds a fence blocking that access and forcing pedestrians to walk through the parking lot to enter the store


^ those are legitimate complaints but they may not have been addressed in the original plans submitted to the approving authority and/or the approval board did not require them to be submitted. I am a big proponent of ped access and I agree with you. And, in this case, like you originally stated, it would be the businesses responsible to make the improvements (or construct them per the approved plans).

There are some excellent examples of walkable parking lots and Target is one company that is making an effort to shield peds from cars.

How do I know? Because I'm familiar with the code.
How could it get built if not in compliance? In Chicago?
Was there a Lawsuit? ??? I'm saying I'd like to see a lawsuit.

So, you have reported this to the building commission in your municipality and they agree with your assessment?

I'm still confused by what you say is a problem with the "code" you are familiar with and how that business has violated it. Again, was that what was approved?