MGibson said:
Just remember that you could trip, fall and end up a member of that small minority.
To start, I want to say that I should be allowed to design my own home however I wish. If I want to install Hasbro’s Slippery Steps, I should be free to do so. OTOH, this would be shortsighted and costly to me. At some point, I will be disabled myself, or I will want to sell my home to someone else.
The disabled are not a “small minority”, and this segment of our society is growing rapidly. Almost all of us, if we survive to a moderately ripe age, will be disabled.
My 7yo son is disabled. Though he learned to walk recently, he’ll always have crutches and braces, and he’ll spend much of his life in a wheelchair. Since he was born, we’ve discovered just how inaccessable many places are.
I also care for four disabled elderly people in my own home. They range in age from 65 to 90, with a variety of physical problems from heart failure to Alzheimer’s. One man can walk only ten feet (with his walker) before having to rest. My other man has terrible balance and is in constant danger of tripping or slipping. One of my ladies is wheelchair-dependent. My other lady can’t get out of bed at all. Being young and healthy may seem to be the norm, but it is really not.
My house was built in 1914, so it wasn’t handicapped-friendly in the least. A couple of minor changes have made it comfortable for my old folks and for my son. We installed a wheelchair ramp so gorgeous and integral to the style of our house that passersby rave about it. (Ramps do not have to be hideous, astro-turfed, rickety things.)
When we refinished our hardwood floors, we chose a slightly rougher, matte finish instead of the usual slippery gloss. It looks just as beautiful, but is safer for everyone.
We redid the downstairs bathroom to include a big shower with a built-in bench. It includes a couple of grab-bars; these features are much, much cheaper to install from the beginning. If you don’t want grab-bars in your new shower, it would still be wise to put the extra support into the wall so you can add a grab-bar in the future. Otherwise, you’ll have to rip out the wall.
The bathroom door was not wide enough for a wheelchair- until we rehung the door so that it swings out instead of into the bathroom. This gives us the extra couple of inches we needed to maneuver a wheelchair. An inexpensive toilet extender makes using the potty possible for everyone.
Accomodations for the disabled are not things that will make life difficult for able-bodied people. Instead, they make life easier for everyone, healthy or not. Someday, we’ll all need these accomodations or have a loved-one who does.
Brilliant example. I personally like the way you did a lot of those alterations, myself; CP and the associated lack of fine motor skills also cursed me with a supreme lack of balance (I can walk, but stuff like riding a bike is out) that has made certain daily tasks trying before I personally invented small tricks to get around them.
One thing about how inaccessible places are is how many people overlook the little things that don’t cost much, and actually make life easier for everyone.
I can guarantee that at some point, everyone in this room is either going to have, have a friend or family member that has, or work with someone who has disabilities. At that point, you’ll see how pitiful the usual ways of complying with ADA are.
My personal experience is with the blind and visually impaired, so I’ll start there.
With computers: One of the better pieces of tech to hit the street in the last few years is JAWS, a screenreader by Hunter Joyce. While the standard “Eloquence” voice drives me batty after a few hours, the app as it stands is brilliant. It even works with a Braille Lite with minor installation fiddles, so that access becomes simple.
However, do as I’ve seen some do, and combine it with a microphone and a package like Dragon Naturally Speaking (though, that’s expensive as hell; Dragon could be semi-validly accused of overpricing). Can we say productivity improvement? You hardly have to look at the screen when typing. You speak, listen, and speak some more. That’s natural, fast, and only takes 5 seconds in Word to correct stupid spelling errors for homonyms.
One bitchpoint, though, is how few web developers actually consider accessibility issues: It isn’t that hard, but a lot of them go for flashy, kewl-looking designs, without considering those using screen-readers or other such devices.
With moving around: As holly mentions, ramps can be made to look GREAT. I’m sure if builders can find an architect with a decent knowledge of accessibility issues, you can get ramps to look good anywhere, and otherwise simplify the property so everybody has an easier time of it. Just, be good to those in wheelchairs or those who may help wheelchairs, and watch how much sand/dirt your property forces people to move through; Wheelchairs get STUCK in mud. Stuck quite badly. (Found that out while playing Challenger baseball a few years back; Man, do they ever get stuck. Jersey mud has the grip of concrete.)
Well written post, Holly. I do have one quibble. Yes, we or our loved ones will all be disables some day, but we don’t know what type of disability we’ll have. A ramp won’t do me any good when I go deaf or blind, or even when I’m too weak to climb stairs.
*Originally posted by december *
**
Wanna bet a ramp won't help if you're blind? Some stairs tend to be just a bit too deep for cane-users (most blind people; though the split between cane/guide-animal (since people now use pygmy horses too) is about 50-50 in my observation for adults, you don't get one til 18 at minimum). How do you know you don't have one of those houses, or won't? Besides, with a cane, ramps are EASIER, AFAIK. Less chance of tripping someone (or yourself) with your cane, which is a continual problem when norms (what I call people who have NO CLUE about the blind, and especially to moving when people using canes are about) are around; Which is most people.Just remember that your point is completely irrelevant to the question I posed.
Marc
Except that he hasn’t been contradicted by “the evidence.” You, on the other hand, hold to your position with admirable loyalty in the face of all evidence that it is incorrect. The Black’s Law Dictionary definition you cite sets forth, although perhaps too elliptically for you, that the common law is judge-based law, not statutory law. It says:
Emphasis added. In other words, if it isn’t based upon statute (the “express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature”) – like, say, judicial holdings and dicta – then it is part of the common law.
Emphasis added. Perhaps it would clear things up to point out the the Black’s definitions given are just that – definitions, plural. The common law is all law prior to the American Revolution, but it is also modern judge-based law not grounded in statute. That doesn’t mean the common law must be both; it means it may be either. I consider it a minor failing that Black’s does not number its defintions (and thereby make clear that there is more than one), but it does not.
For example, in my jurisdiction (Washington State), the codified law (the statutes) do not define simple assault, except to say that assault in the third degree (simple assault) is “assault not amounting to assault in the secord of first degree.” So how is simple assault defined? It is defined by looking at the common law definition of assault, as articulated in the case law – prior cases in which simple assault has already been defined. So do we look at case law from before the American Revolution? No. We look at the most recent and relevent (“on point”) binding or persuasive decisions we can find that use this judicially created definition. Now, if you go back far enough, would you find that the definition of simple assault was originated in the mists of time? Maybe so. But that will not change that what “common law” is generally understood to mean today is that body of law that exists without statutory basis, and that the most common source of non-statutory law – common law – is judicial decisions.
No less than four lawyers have now attempted to explain this fundamental and straight-forward concept to you. If you still don’t get it, feel free to admit that, but kindly stop telling us all that we’re wrong – without any basis – because, with all due respect, the person who is wrong here is you.
That last post was directed at IZZYR – forgot to say that.
They aren’t suing cause the homes aren’t accesssible, they are suing because the TOUR of them wasn’t accessible:
“Wheelchair users sue Parade of Homes over access
Activists say law requires builders to provide ways for them to tour pricey houses.”
They were expensive homes & probably a lot of times new disabled people have large insurance settlements to spend on purchasing a home & would like to have a fair chance to see them in order to purchase them. duh.
Hey…that’s a cheap shot.
Most of the disabled are hardly rich. Far, FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from it in fact.
I forget the exact number, but I think something like 60-70% of the disabled are unemployed or underemployed. (Anyone have any better stats on that? Mine are 2+ years old.)
I think I must make a request of you - perhaps both here and in any other threads as well - that you be clear as to what you believe my position to be, and in what manner you rare attempting to contradict it.
The issue in this thread are the claim by december that laws which require too much judicial interpretation, e.g. the ADA, are undemocratic. DSYoungEsq disputed this, noting among other things that “English jurisprudence has at its roots the notion that much of the law that governs us is developed by the courts; we call this “common law”.” My response included the observation that the basis of the common law was customs etc. of the people, which makes them quite democratic indeed. DSY, by leaving out this fact, and merely saying that these laws were “developed” by the courts, was presenting was is at best a misleading picture. The Black’s Law Dictionary definition that I cited says that “the common law comprises the body of these principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usage’s and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usage’s and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.” This confirms my position that the common law is based on the cusoms of the people, and further suggests the the role of the judiciary is not so much in “developing” but rather “recognizing, affirming, and enforcing”, a much more democratic role.
Please clarify in what manner you mean to contradict my position.
IZZYR –
Again, and as I clearly stated in my last post – no, he was not. His posts were not “misleading,” they were absolutely, 100% correct. As were MINTY’s comments on the subject, and as were SUA’s. It is not “misleading” to state that, in our modern society, “common law” is not grounded in the “customs, etc. of the people.” “Common law,” as the term is most generally used today, refers to court-made law, not specifically grounded in statute. I also note that you said:
But this, of course, is precisely what the “common law,” as that term is generally understood today, means: The “lawmaking” done by judges, elected or not, as found and reflected in that body of law we call case law. In effect, you have stated that you are in favor of the common law in the light of what you think the term means (democratic reflection of “custom”), but you have shown that you are not in favor of the common law in light of what it really means (case law).
And yes, I see that you restated the Black’s Dictionary, though to what purpose I cannot imagine. My having quoted and emphasized it extensively should prove that I am familiar with it. But it does not:
Again, the common law, as that term is generally understood, is the non-statutory based case law – that is, the case law that does not apply or interpret legislative enactmments. It remains the common law without regard to whether it is based upon the “customs” of the people – highly unlikely – or whether it is based on prior case law and current judicial analysis. I’m sorry if this makes the system seem less democratic to you, but judge-made law is obviously and inherently not democratic. You cannot make it more so by correctly noting that it often deals with the common law (true), but then attempting to define the common law as something that, in this day and age, it generally is not.
I would also note that this is not really something you can reasonably expect to maintain a “position” on. The common law means what it means to those who use the term with any regularity and have any reason to know what it means when it is used – the lawyers. I can only tell you what it means – as better people than I have already attempted to do – but I cannot make you believe me. Your disbelief, however, will not change what the term really means, though it may well cause you considerable confusion if you find yourself discussing it again and you continue to insist on using your own personal definition instead of the definition generally understoodby those who use the term.
Hoo boy…I might have to use two seperate posts to respond. We’ll see.
quote:
Originally posted by MGibson
“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.”
quote:
Originally posted by yosemitebabe
“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.”
No, concern is not bad, nor do I think these people are being malevolent. I doubt that anyone intends to call me a wheelchair. I do, however, think that the phrasing is poor and that it indicates a lessening of personhood. Does it take that much more breath to say, “Honey, watch out for the lady in the wheelchair!”? I’m not an overly sensitive type, but I do find that a bit irritating. I am a person who uses a wheelchair, not merely a wheelchair. The phrasing I commented on contradicts that.
quote:
Originally posted by MGibson
“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.”
Very true. I think I commented in my post that some disabled activists do go too far. If I didn’t, I’m saying it now.
quote:
Originally posted by MGibson
“And if he puts a wooden plank up that sticks out will it present a hazard to those walking by?”
Well, that is a possibility. An assessment would have to be made to see if the cons outweighed the pros. I wouldn’t scream for a makeshift ramp to be put down if I thought it was going to end up tripping people. I am not malevolent either 
I would, perhaps, suggest that a concrete ramp be put in, if financially feasable. That can be assessed. I was just (theoretically) commenting on the least expensive option that would allow me to do business with that shop.
quote:
Originally posted by MGibson
“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.”
quote:
Originally posted by yosemitebabe
“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?”
Okay, I’m going to answer these comments in reverse order. First, yosemitebabe’s comments.
I don’t throw fits or let it create some festering resentment when I’m forced to go in a back entrance. Really. I promise. People think of me as being very even-tempered, actually I suppose that the back-entrance thing bugs me because it underscores my difference. I realize that I will never be “normal”. I accept it, really I do. However, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t bug me sometimes, usually when I’ve been having a bad day.
I was having this discussion with my best friend (who also uses a wheelchair) only yesterday. She feels the same way…I believe that the idea is, we don’t hold some grudge against the owners, but we do think that the current accomodations suck and encourage owners to rethink their accessibility standards.
And as for MGibson’s comments…
First, the example I used with the garbage was specific to that university. I apologize if I didn’t make that clear.
Second, I’d like to take issue with the idea that “entering through the kitchen does not make you a second class citizen.” I know I just went over this, but bear with me.
Allright, maybe it doesn’t make me a second class citizen. Maybe I should rephrase what I said. “It makes me look and feel like a second class citizen” is what I ought to have said.
Like I said…I realize it’s not malice, and I don’t go into paroxysms of anger when I must enter through a kitchen or another back entrance. It does, however, enhance my “weirdness” a bit. I guess it comes down to, I get stared at enough in my daily life, I don’t need more if I can avoid it. I know that sometimes front-door accessibility is impossible, but other cases and places it might be avoidable.
quote:
originally posted by MGibson
“Just how far should society in general go in order to cater to a small minority?”
and later in the same post,
“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?”
“Unreasonable” is a place refusing to make changes even if it is financially possible for them do so and the risk of those accomodations hurting a member of the public are small. Show me a valid reason why accomodations cannot be made, and I’ll shut up. As for your NYC bathroom comment…
Was a reason given as to why the bathrooms couldn’t be made accessible? I was not aware of this problem, despite living in the NYC area. Shame on me, I admit. If there was a valid reason (lack of funds or space - although wider stalls don’t need to be that much wider to be accessible) for the lack of accessibility then the protestors were wrong, judging from your info.
I kinda worry, though, that they wanted to change the law to accomodate this one project. The change in the law wouldn’t just affect this one project, it would affect all other access questions in the state. It might make non-compliance much easier.
Incidentally, the discussion with the friend to whom I referred earlier took place in NYC. It springboarded from the fact that the Penn Station bathrooms that are accessible to us are being remodeled. They were already wheelchair accessible, so I dunno what they’re doing. Anyhow, they’re unusable. My friend and I asked around, but it seemed that we couldn’t get to the bathrooms that everyone is directed to use. Perhaps we just didn’t ask people who knew what they were talking about, or perhaps the other bathrooms really were inaccessible. In any case, we really had to pee but had to hold it in for a couple of hours 'til we got home…It’s very difficult to find an accesible bathroom in NYC, believe me.
So, maybe the protestors just had really full bladders. 
december: Minty, [I’m] sure you’d oppose a law providing a big fine for “unreasonably bad behaviour.”
I’m not minty, but it seems to me that the real problem with that example is not the “unreasonably” but the “bad behaviour”. “Bad behaviour” is a very vague concept—much more so than “accomodation for the physically disabled”—and it would probably be much harder to get juries to agree on how to define “bad behaviour” in the first place than to get them to agree on what constitutes “reasonable” levels of any more clearly defined kind of “bad behaviour”. On the other hand, it should be quite possible to enact a fair ordinance against “unreasonable levels of vehicle noise” or something like that, because people tend to agree more or less on what “vehicle noise” is. And similarly, a “reasonable degree of accomodation for the disabled”, while still somewhat indefinite, is nowhere near as impossibly vague as an “unreasonable degree of bad behaviour.” So I think your attempt to draw an analogy between the two concepts fails.
Jodi,
In the interests of clear understanding, I am going to paraphrase your response, so you may correct it if I have it wrong. My impression is as follows: “It is pointless for you (IzzyR) to cite definitions about the origins of the common law. What is relevant is that today the term means that part of the law which is court-made, not just that which arose from ancient customs etc. It was to the modern concept of common law that DSY was referring, and he is correct in that this modern concept does refer to judges having a significant role in shaping the law”. (Again, if this is not your point, feel free to correct. If it is, you might consider writing a bit more succinctly - all this sound and fury in your posts may feel good emotionally, but makes them difficult to digest).
To which my response is:
-
You are probably incorrect in your interpretation of DSY’s words. He was clearly referring to the roots of English jurisprudence, to which my definition was the more relevant. Also from his most recent stab at the subject, in which he decided to ramble a bit about the court system in ye olde England, what with local courts and Kings courts etc.
-
To the extent that the “common law” today does refer to judicial interpretation, than this is the very concept being decried as anti-democratic. So yes, I think a true democracy would have as little “common law” as possible (by today’s definition). To try to show that this is not undemocratic by noting that it has a name “common law” is ridiculous. (This is quite possibly why DSY did not try this approach).
Cosmo can probably understand this better than anyone when I rant about accessibility issues. This just came up, so I’m newly PISSED!:mad:
Allow me to RANT. In the NY/NJ area, especially along the Jersey Shore, it is in many cases easier to get to New York than it is to get to the next town over.
Now, I’m 17. Minus my disabilities, I’m your average geek. Except that, frankly, I want to do stuff with my friends, and I really have gotten tired of begging rides everywhere because I don’t have the eyesight to drive. People have enough to hold over me to get their way, and I’m sick and TIRED of them getting even more leverage.:mad:
Could I take mass transit? Yeah, but it takes an hour to go 5 miles, if its even available. Most of the time here on the Shore, it isn’t. This area was not built for the residents. It was built for the tourists. Damn Bennies.:mad:
Could I take a bike? Sure, if I had the balance to ride one.
Whaddabout WALKING, you say? Oh, that’d be easy. Except for one problem. I have to cross not just 3 very busy thoroughfares, but 2 4-lane highways. Had anyone in this area thought of CROSSWALKS? Nah. Everybody else drives!
Someone gimme a gun with one loaded round and lemme shoot myself if this is how its going to be.
Any suggestions? I’ve kicked the system for 12 years trying to get mobility, but I’m tired of doing all the work. And most of the rest of this damn country is the same way, if you look around.
IZZY –
Okay.
I would note, parenthetically, that you might reasonably talk about the origins of the ]definition (and, yes, the origin is old English common law based on custom), and still take into account the meaning of the phrase today. But I don’t know what you mean by “definitions of the origins.”
This is correct. And this is the point that you did not merely disagree with, but flat out said was wrong. It is not wrong; it is absolutely correct.
I promise you I will give your critique of my posting style the attention it deserves.
I’m not going to respond to this. His meaning seems to me to be clear from his posts. If I have misunderstood it, that is for him to say. It seems to me to be the epitome of pointlessness for two posters to get into a dispute over what a third poster meant.
This, of course, is a different subject. Here you take issue with the modern common law as undemocratic – which, of course, you are perfectly free to do. I took exception to your apparent insistence that the term “common law” meant something it simply does not.
If you wish to debate the place and value of the common law, or whether, and to what extent, it is democratic, maybe we should start another thread about that.
Sorry, that was a bit unclear. I meant the definition that applied to the original common law. As opposed to the body of law known by that term today.
No I did not say this. I was frankly unaware that there were two meanings to the term, and in any event assumed (and still assume) that we were referring to the original usage, which I categorized accurately. It is wrong for you to continue to put meanings into my words that you should by now know were not there.
That’s great. When that happens, we will no doubt see a much better and improved Jodi. It will no doubt be a pleasure to debate with you then.
IZZY –
Funny, that, since you quoted the dictionary definitions yourself.
Why would you assume that? If I use the term “computer,” are you going to assume I mean “one [person] who computes [figures]” – its original meaning – or that I mean the electronic device that is commonly known as a computer? If I say “she is his mistress,” are you going to assume I mean she is his wife (the original meaning) or his paramour (the current meaning)? Why would you assume that if a word commonly means one thing, even if it originally meant another, we must be talking about it’s original meaning and not what it means now? In any event, it has been clear from the beginning of this tangent that you are talking about (or, rather, trying to talk about) the common law as it exists now. Certainly no one has been discussing the state of events prior to the American Revolution. Therefore, the obvious reasonable assumption is that you are giving the word the meaning it enjoys now.
Oh, the irony! You misuse a term. You are called on it – repeatedly. You refuse to admit you are wrong and misused it. It is again explained to you that your use is incorrect. Then you accuse me of putting some “meaning” to your word that “was not there.” As should be blindingly obvious, the person assigning a “meaning” to the phrase that, practically speaking, “is not there,” is you, because you are the one using an at best incomplete and at worst misleading definition. I am afraid that I will insist on “putting meanings to your words that are not there,” if by that you mean pointing out that you are defining a term to mean something it doesn’t generally mean. Otherwise, your posts are confusing and misleading. Why should everyone who reads them have to apply your definition, even if it’s essentially wrong? What if they forget to do so?
I said, “I promise you I will give your critique of my posting style the attention it deserves,” to which you reply:
I assure you it has already happened. I have already given your comments the attention they deserved, just as I promised you I would.
Penta, if they couldn’t afford them why would they want to tour them? UNemployment rate for handicapped is 80%, for the deaf, slightly higher (based on a 80% deaf ssi rate, 1990).