Yeah, you said it a little better than I did. Still, though, I don’t consider it any less democratic than the fact that Cabinet-level agencies, with heads appointed by the President, can issue policies that have wide-reaching effects.
Hey, I don’t think anyone is on my side. 
<<For example, I co-lead a number of hikes, and once escorted an elderly hiker back to her car when she decided she shouldn’t go farther, while the remainder of the participants continued on with the other hike leader. But I don’t see how a hike can be made accessible to a person in a wheelchair.>>
I’m sure you know this, but not every disabled person uses a wheelchair. (Or “is bound to”…my friends who use wheelchairs comment on that as “My! How kinky!”) One of my dear friends was a rock climber before she had an accident and messed up her knee; now she uses a cane. She would LOVE to go on a hike or nature walk, and appropriate accomodation would simply include letting her decide whether the length and difficulty of the hike was appropriate for her.
As for whether private homes should meet the standards or not…I believe that all homes should have accessible bathrooms and doors. Sure, you and all your friends may be able bodied now. But when you, your best friend, or your child is hurt in an auto accident, part of your grieving and worrying shouldn’t have to be “Oh, God. Now how are they ever going to pee at my house?”
My parents planned and built a house after I left home. I asked my mom once why she didn’t plan in slightly wider doors, and she said “Because we don’t know anyone who uses a wheelchair.” I said “So you plan to live here for the rest of your life, but you know for a fact that you’ll never fall and break your ankle?”
Corr
Corr, I guess I can see your point, but I doubt I will renovate my home with one eye towards the possible wheelchair-occupancy of myself, a family member or a friend. Maybe it’s some kind of “insurance policy” but it doesn’t seem like a sound financial bet. If I break my ankle, I will probably be on crutches for a short time, and will not need significant architectural changes to my house.
Now I suppose that an older person might be concerned about breaking something major, like a hip or pelvis, but the people I know who have broken these bones and joints have not been wheelchair-bound for an extended period of time.
Yes, I have a friend who is in a wheelchair because of her MD. She has come to our friend’s homes and apartments a lot, and has no trouble peeing or doing anything else, thank you very much. She would never dream of lecturing someone for the layout of their house if they are able-bodied.
IzzyR
Here is a link to the ADA Architectural Guidelines They are not vague at all. When you have to apply them can be vague, and that’s what this particular lawsuit is about. Every new commercial building, school, place of business, etc. must comply with these guidelines. Private houses and clubs don’t. Except when they become “public”. And I think that DSYoungEsq has explained that very well.
Building codes (such as BOCA) contain elements of the ADA, but they address issues of safety rather than access.
Corrvin has raised an important issue that many people, such as my parents, are starting to deal with - namely, how will we be old in our house? It’s a relatively new trend to stay in your house for as long as you can. Normally you would be moved to a nursing home that is constructed for that purpose. There are many changes that could be made to standard residential constuction methods that would allow many more years of accessible living. Wide doors and low thresholds are one example. But either because of cost or short-sighted thinking (or marketing) they are not done. I’m trying to imagine selling a house to an “active” couple in their 50’s by extolling all of the features that will let them use wheelchairs in the house.
And Fenris, I agree that the guy is sounding kookier the more he talks. It’s very similar to bnorton’s definition of “recommend”.
pld: My feeling is that the judiciary, at the levels that these decisions are made, is appointed by the elected representatives anyway. If we (supposedly) trust the elected officials to hash out and enact these laws, why should we not trust them to appoint to the judiciary people who will provide the real-world interpretations in a reasonable manner?
Not to mention that in some places judges are directly elected, so they’re not even “one step further removed from the people.”
I’m sure there would be more demand for handicap-accesibility if it weren’t for the fact that hardly anybody can bear to visualize themselves as decrepit old folks or otherwise less-abled.
WTF? Either part of the tour involves cooking at the house or these people are more interested in free money than making things easier for themselves.
You can renovate later for handicapped access to your home. It doesn’t make sense to jack up the costs of all private homes for facilities that will be needed in relatively few cases.
Are there such things as handicapped-access porta-potties? Might be a relatively cheap investment in goodwill for functions like the Charity Tour of Homes. Though if you’re going to liken going into a house through a patio door to being relegated to the back of the bus, you probably won’t cotton to the idea of a porta-potty.
DSYoung is absolutely right, Izzy. “Common law” is defined as follows:
Sua
epeepunk
OK, well something is vague. (I should also note that the ADA covers a lot more than architectural guidelines, e.g. test taking for mentally challenged people etc.)
This document published by Yale University The History of the Common Law of England by Matthew Hale 1713 seems to agree with me. OTOH the Columbia Encyclopedia seems to agree with you.
from somewebsiteorother
It would appear that you guys are wrong.
If you’re going to be rude and sarcastic, the least you could do is have some rational basis for doing so. You say my analysis was “in the face of the myriad of facts presented”, and as evidence you provide facts that were not presented. So you’re complaining that I ignored facts that weren’t even mentioned? I should be clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that when I say that something “looks like X”, I mean that the facts presented make me think it is X, not that I know that is X regardless of any other pieces of evidence that you may manage to dig up. Not that you likely care, but it is actually possible to point out that someone’s impression is based on incomplete facts without being an asshole.
Assuming that the purpose of the book was to inspire people to use common sense, and that you read it, I would say that it was a colossal failure.
Wring
I guess my point wasn’t quite clear. I was not basing my statement on the principle that the accomodations should be made by the handicapped person, but on the principle that to sue one must have suffered significant harm. If having to get people to help you into a room is not significant hardship, then you shouldn’t be able to sue over it. And if it is significant hardship, then it’s not reasonable to ask that the tour organization do it.
RTFirefly:
That’s absurd. Perhaps that’s what lawyers mean by “discrimination” (although I doubt it), but that description is definitely not what the word “discrimination” means in normal use.
The other night on ‘Politically Incorrect’ they were discussing a city somewhere in the south that has a new requirement that ALL homes be built to be handicapped accessible. No exceptions. The rule applied to all new construction, and all renovations over a certain dollar value or percentage of house value.
The argument was that these homes eventually get sold, and if they don’t have handicap accessibility it puts a burden on handicapped people who cannot find housing without spending their own money to renovate a place.
In other words, the building codes have become a form of welfare, distributing the cost of building handicapped facilities among home owners so that the handicapped don’t have to pay for them.
The frightening thing was that three of the four panel members saw absolutely nothing wrong with this. It was pointed out that this drives up the cost of housing and limits many architectural choices (no more spiral staircases, for example). And the cost of expanding the floor space in an existing home will now be exhorbitant. For example, an attic renovation becomes almost impossible as it’s very difficult to make attic space accessible to the handicapped.
This kind of stuff frightens me. How many more fundamental rights have to stomped on in order to accomodate everyone and everything?
I’ll preface this post by letting everyone know that I’m 22 and a lifelong paraplegic. I use a manual wheelchair to get around. As might be expected, some of the posts about this topic made me very angry and upset. Before I get into it, let me say this: I agree with those people who say that the lawsuit is silly. After all, it is private property.
HOWEVER, I feel that no able-bodied person can truly understand what sort of feelings this lawsuit was born from, and that can result in responses that sound mean, when the poster might merely not have a true understanding of the feelings of wheelchair users.
quote:
Originally posted by Fenris
“Bad news for you, disabled folks: there are some things you just won’t be able to do! That’s unfortunate, but society can’t cure every problem you might have. I believe society should…no MUST do it’s best to see that you are given access wherever possible, but your part of the deal is to understand that “wherever possible” means that it can’t happen everywhere”
I submit that most “disabled folks” don’t want society to bow down and kiss their feet. Incidentally, the word “disabled” encompasses many more situations and conditions than those that require physical accomodations. Hence, I shall specify “wheelchair users” as a subset of “disabled people”. Political correctness can be ridiculous sometimes. Disabled people DO, however, desire to be as equal a part of society as possible.
Only recently has it become acceptable for disabled people to come out into society, much less demand a fair shake. We have only come this far because we forced the issue, not because society in general felt like being generous. In the area of disabled issues, there is farther to go. Just ask any wheelchair users who have had their wheelchair handlebars leaned on by someone. Ask a roomful of wheelchair users how many times they have heard themselves referred to by a stranger as, “the wheelchair” (i.e. “Honey, watch out for the wheelchair!”). For wheelchair users, part of equality lies in being able to go to most of the same places able-bodied people do. Isn’t that “reasonable”? Incidentally, the word “reasonable” can be used as both a word to help weelchair users fight for their rights as well as a loophole for businesses.
I suspect that many non-wheelchair-using Dopers have no idea just how many shops, restaurants, dance clubs, bars, etc., are inaccessible to people who have to use wheelchairs. One step at the front door prevents me from entering a shop on my own. A small plank of wood over part of the stairs could maybe correct that. I cannot, however, ask the shop owner to consider this because I cannot get into the shop. Is that reasonable?
Sometimes the place is accessible, but you have to really want to go. If I want to go to a particular bar/club near my college, I must go through the kitchen. The main entrance is not wheelchair accessible. To ride to the second floor of the Student Union at my former university, I have to get in the same elevator in which the garbage travels. Everyone else can use the stairs. Is that reasonable?
And yes, I do choose to go to those places. However, having to go in one entrance while everyone else goes in another does make me feel like a second class citizen. It is degrading. However, I (and most disabled people) have learned to deal with it while trying to change things.
To sum up my rant, I think that while the point of the quoted Doper is valid, the underlying message seems to be; “You’re out in public, we’re letting you vent, we’ve made a few changes, so be grateful and stop bitching!”.
To that I say, yes, there have been many changes in building codes. Yes, there have been some changes in the way in which society views all disabled people, not just wheelchair users. And yes, I am glad about those things. Those victories were fought for, not simply dropped in the laps of disabled people. They came about because enough people bitched for long enough, and some people finally listened. The only way to change injustice is to call attention to it, and some of these activists do cross the line, but many more don’t. I ask able-bodied people to think about the lives of disabled people and question whether what most of us want is really that unreasonable.
I’ll start my reply off my putting forth my biases here: I have, my entire life, been visually impaired. I’m blind in my right eye. I’ve also suffered from a decent case of CP. I can walk, but I have crap for motor skills. I have to agree with both of these paragraphs; If you aren’t disabled (blind, deaf, para/quadrapalegic, etc), it’s hard to understand the depth of feeling these things can be brought forth from. Doesn’t mean you can’t, just means it’s harder. Example:
I just got back from a precollege program at Drew University run by the NJ Commission for the Blind. Before that, my contact with other blind/visually impaired people has been limited; Mostly because it’s taken me all of my life thus far, 17 long years, to fully accept my visual impairment. I cannot describe the feelings I felt when someone (now someone I regard as a friend, a bigger accomplishment than you might think given that I’ve also suffered from clinical depression for a lot of reasons) asked me to guide them…And, promptly, we nearly got run over by someone in a freakin golf cart who ignored the cane my friend carried everywhere on campus. That’s stuff that’s been around since damn near forever, the White Cane Law. And still people don’t realize. See why we might get frustrated, folks?
That's known as stupidity. I gather from the rest of your post that you're in a college town. Hint from someone younger, to everybody who might deal with these kinds of problems: Use the muscles of bureaucracy, but be a self-advocate first. If your college has an office dealing with disabled students...Work with them and the student gov't types. Using them to help, mail stuff to every shop owner you can find alerting them to the simple things like that. Plaster signs around if you have to.
A lot of ADA issues are caused as much by ignorance as by malignment from others; Most people simply don't KNOW what we (the disabled) can do. Hell, I've lived my life with limited vision, but I came into that precollege program I mentioned as, for all intents, a sighted person. Same biases, same preconceptions. Fortunately, I found a friend willing to slap me around, a thing for which I am eternally grateful. If that's me, imagine what somebody who rarely interacts with the blind thinks!
Soooooo much agreement here.
A lot of times, able-bodied people treat the disabled as slightly better than animals. Case in point: Braille/Cassette publishing. I cannot tell in any language known to man how difficult it is to find stuff done in Braille, or unabridged on cassettes, which is something a brief search woke me up too...And royally annoyed me about. For LARGE publishers (Think Random House...any of your major ones, no matter the field)...There is NO organized thought about the disabled. It's difficult at best to find stuff in Braille or properly done on cassette, especially if it isn't a textbook. (Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, at http://www.rfbd.org, does by every account I've had a really good job for textbooks; However, they're a nonprofit running on a relatively small budget, so the selection can be small.) For small publishers, it's impossible to find stuff. I poked around at a large publisher (whom shall remain nameless), and eventually sent email to a customer service desk. I asked if they had <titles> in Braille or on cassette, since I had the time and I'd gotten someone at Drew interested in them. The response I got back read, word for word:
‘The blind read novels?’
The way other parts of the message came out, if you replaced ‘The blind’ with ‘Dogs’, you would get the proper train of thought.
So, in sum: Do I agree with the lawsuit that started this thread? No. As the head RA at this program I went to wonderfully put it (I’m paraphrasing; It’s been a long 4 weeks, and my memory is a blur): We live in a sighted world. It’s not going to adapt to us on some levels, because, really…A lot of the population either doesn’t know, doesn’t care, or doesn’t want to care about our concerns. To a certain point, we have to adapt to it.
Do I agree that the attitude cosmopolitan was replying to, (that the disabled should sit down and shut up and go back into our holes because we’ve been (pitifully, IMHO) responded to when we screamed for 10-20 years, and we should just accept being outsiders), is wrong, disgusting, and a sad commentary on how society views the disabled? Yes.
Definitely, yes.
I realize, I’m speaking with the fury of the newly converted. You could say the half-blind has been made to see on the inside recently.
{fixed bold. --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 08-19-2001 at 12:07 PM]
**
So it is bad for someone to be concerned that they’re giving you enough room? I don’t imagine many people say “watch out for the wheelchair” in a malevolent tone.
**
Let’s be fair here. Reasonable is also a word that can be stretched by organizations for the handicapped. Some deaf organizations think it is reasonable for movie theaters to put teleprompters up for them.
**
And if he puts a wooden plank up that sticks out will it present a hazard to those walking by?
**
Yes it is reasonable. Entering through the kitchen doesn’t make you a second class citizen. I know many buildings have freight elevators but I didn’t know they had elevators specifically devoted to garbage.
**
Just how far should society in general go in order to cater to a small minority?
Sometimes it is unreasonable. New York City had planned on putting some public urinals out. The city didn’t even have to pay for the units and it’d probably go a long way towards preventing people from relieving themselves on buildings or in the alley. But they weren’t handicapped accessable so various organizations protested them. And when some city officials attempted to amend the handicapped laws of the state to allow these bathrooms people screamed bloody murder. Never mind that these bathrooms would have helped many inhabitants of the city. They weren’t accessable to a small minority in the population so they couldn’t be used. Does that sound reasonable?
Marc
IzzyR has done a great job of nailing down my position.
May I add one more nail. Minty, I’s sure you’d oppose a law providing a big fine for “unreasonably bad behaviour.”
My sister is disabled (she has one leg, bad vision. For months at a time she’s had to use a walker, and/or wheelchair.)
She never was offended deeply that she had to go in through a different door, or a freight elevator, or whatever. As long as people were polite, didn’t act as if she were “putting them out”, why should she care?
As far as the “look out for the wheelchair” comment - I think it depends on how it’s taken, and who is saying it. It could merely mean (as Marc pointed out) that someone is trying to make way for a wheelchair. It’s what needs the room - the wheelchair. No one is calling you a “wheelchair”. I think it all depends on who is saying it, and the tone they are saying it. YMMV.
I do share the frustration that so many places do not design things with the disabled in mind. I remember there was an exhibit (for Science Fiction movie props) that we went to see. My sister could not get close up enough to see them, and the guards would not allow her to do so. All they needed to do was to escort her closer, make sure she didn’t spit on anything, etc. etc., but they wouldn’t do that. I thought that stunk. She did too.
I notice that, in the posts since I actually addressed the legal issues involved in the situation referenced in the OP, no one has addressed the actual legal discussion. As is often the case, when stripped of the baggage of provocative language and caustic rhetoric, few really complain about the common-sense approach the law actually takes.
The ADA is not by any means perfect. There are parts of it that have been less than helpful to those with disabilities, and parts which have been quite abused by those who go overboard in advocating the “rights” of the disabled. But, in general, with its emphasis on what can reasonably be accomplished, the result of application of the ADA has been quite unalarming (and this opinion from someone who used to represent employers in, among other things, disability discrimination complaints).
As for the by now ridiculous by-play on the term “common law”, let us just note that the examples offered by those in “opposition” have all noted that the court system of ye olde England was quite involved in development of said “common” law. Without going into detail, the local courts applied in cases presented to them the law that the local inhabitants felt should apply. This was over time consolidated into a set of general rules applicable throughout England, usually by the carrying of the various ideas from one shire to another by the various officials of the King, who would ride the circuit of shires dispensing the King’s justice. As time passed, this consolidation had added to it a number of ideas that were spawned by the various learned judges of the land. Thus, it has always been the case that the courts of England have had a role in shaping the common law of the land. I’m not sure why it is necessary to dispute this concept, nor why someone advocating a contrary viewpoint would reference evidence supporting it.
That argument tactic always had me confused, too.
More on topic: Keep in mind that it is NOT uncommon for British judges to quote American or Canadian legal opinions in their opinions (when in England or Wales; Scottish law is weird), or vice versa. (US judges, oddly, don’t seem to do it as much as Canadian or British judges.) If anybody looked over to England, they would see that, lately, ADA-like cases have been apparently overturned in streams. Could that have an effect regarding ADA decisions/precedents in the US?
A strange approach to take when contradicted by the evidence. But hey, whatever works for you.