“As a private attorney, every lawsuit that I file is to make money, because that’s how I make a living,”
|
“As a private attorney, every lawsuit that I file is to make money, because that’s how I make a living,”
|
04-17-2012, 03:10 PM
mattkime wrote: can you explain that in more detail? sidewalks Black said businesses. sidewalks are the public realm, therefore government jurisdiction.
04-17-2012, 03:21 PM
mrbigstuff wrote: can you explain that in more detail? sidewalks Black said businesses. sidewalks are the public realm, therefore government jurisdiction. ok, then whats your guess?
04-17-2012, 03:25 PM
mrbigstuff wrote: 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.
04-17-2012, 03:40 PM
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.
04-17-2012, 03:43 PM
mattkime wrote: 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?
04-17-2012, 03:44 PM
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'.
04-17-2012, 03:53 PM
cbelt3 wrote: 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.
04-17-2012, 04:12 PM
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.
04-17-2012, 04:14 PM
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.
04-17-2012, 04:24 PM
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. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
