Resolved: The Americans with Disabilities Act has done more harm than good.

Great Debates
61

Wrong, in the great majority of cases. From the main ADA Q&A page:

If the business owner has already made reasonable accomodation, it clearly reduces the likelihood that a lawsuit will be brought, or that a complainant in such a lawsuit will prevail.

In most cases, a business owner need only be proactive enough to make his own decisions in order to prevent a faceless “bureaucrat” from making them for him. Only when a complaint has been made and the owner cannot demonstrate that reasonable accomodations have been made does the bureaucracy decide what those accomodations will be.

62

I disagree december. As I posted waaaaaay back on the first page, my office is not accesible. When I was asked for a government contract if I was accesible, my answer was “No. But I have a written agreement w/another agency to allow for provision of services at their accesible site, should the need arise”. At no point was I forced to demonstrate exactly how/why my site was not able to be accesible. Thus, I made the decision.

Now, if I had been, say General Motors, I’d probably been asked. But your concern was for the small businesses where accessibility would be a potentially devestating issue.

And, as more buildings are made accesible (and new construction always is), this will continue to be less and less of an issue.

Apos - you posted on a public board. I answered. thus, it was not necessary that you directed a post at me. While you may wish to debate an esoteric philosophical tangent of this OP, that would be a hijacking of the thread. And, I answered your posting as if you were interested in the reality, which is the intent of this thread (the OP has characterized that the ADA has done more harm than good- IOW is talking about reality, not the philosphy or whatever)

63

Do you have some medical condition we should know about? Really, I’m being serious. How can I help you make linear points. I apologize for going off topic, but if I am going to continue with this discussion and treat you as a rational human being, I would like an explanation.
Okay, the order of events:

08-12-2002 11:17 PM

  • wring posts a message

08-12-2002 11:48 PM

  • Apos says, “wring, perhaps you need to pay more attention to what is actually being discussed next time. …”

08-13-2002 12:02 AM

  • wring says, “Apos??? 'scuse me? You posted that as far as you were concerned …”

08-13-2002 03:11 AM

  • Apos quotes wring’s 12:02 message and says, “Whether it is or isn’t is hardly relevant to the issue of whether it is just in principle, which is what I’ve been here discussing. I haven’t been arguing with you: I don’t even remember addressing myself to you.”

08-13-2002 03:26 AM

  • Pencil Pusher (me) quotes Apos’s 3:11 message and says, “/me glances up a half dozen posts.
    Um, Apos, read the first line of your 11:48 GMT post. 3 1/2 hours is not that long a time.”

08-13-2002 07:43 AM

  • Apos posts the above quoted message. Notice how
    (1) Apos misquotes me, changing 11:48 to 4:48.
    (2) Apos is apparently not sure who he is talking to. He quoted my message, and then uses the term “you,” apparently reffering to wring.
    In the absense of an explanation, I will be forced to assume that discussions with you are pointless and will simply ignore your posts from now on.
64

Careful there with the “ignore” threat. Don’t apologize, take it to the Pit.

65

Rhum Runner, its not a “threat.” My time is better spent doing other things than debating with someone who, for reasons unknown, cannot follow a thread. My post was not meant as insult or an attack. I do not know if he made a non-recurring mistake, or one that will be repeated many times. In the case of the repeating mistake, I would like to know what I can do to reduce the frequency.

66

PP I believe the concern was the use of the word “Ignore”. I took your post to mean that you’d not bother responding if the case were such and such. Not that you’d use the ‘ignore’ function. But since we have that ‘function’ available to us, it’s better to not use the phrase ‘I’ll ignore you in the future’. (since saying some one’s on your ignore list, or asking about who’s on some one’s ignore list can get you banned)

67

The SDMB software supports “ignore lists”?

68

I appreciate the clarification. I actually had no idea that SDMB has an “ignore” function and that discussing such things were bannable. Thanks.

69

for more information, see this thread

70

Sam, the discussion of the Cato findings are hardly ad hominem, for the organization’s manifest agenda is extremely relevant to its findings with respect to the ADA.

71

Perhaps we should take this to the pit (how does one do that?), or even delete my responses (since I don’t want to hurt the thread).

—Apos - you posted on a public board. I answered.—

But your answer was irrelevant to what I had expressed, whcih is all I was saying. Worse, you acted as if what I was saying was a response or challenge to what you had said, when it was not (and still has little to do with what you posted). You accused me of not reading your cites… when the reality of the law is not the aspect of this that I was discussing.

—thus, it was not necessary that you directed a post at me.—

It is quite relevant, however, that my points did not conflict with or challenge yours, which is exactly what I said.

—While you may wish to debate an esoteric philosophical tangent of this OP, that would be a hijacking of the thread.—

Is it? I was discussing something raised by PP. And I would say that the justice of disability law in imposing responsibilities on various parties is quite directly relevant to discussing what costs are appropriate to consider in the first place. But perhaps others think not. Regardless, that doesn’t justify your complaint that I had erred in not reading or addressing your cites. It’s my fault for being wrong about board decorum on discussion scope.

—And, I answered your posting as if you were interested in the reality, which is the intent of this thread (the OP has characterized that the ADA has done more harm than good- IOW is talking about reality, not the philosphy or whatever)—

Even if I am guilty of hijacking the thread (certainly unintentionally), that still doesn’t justify you pretending I was saying something I was not. Whether bussiness do or don’t bear the costs is not directly relevant to the question of whether or not they should, on which PP and I seem to disagree.

PP:—(1) Apos misquotes me, changing 11:48 to 4:48.—

4:48 is what my clock happens to say (I actually had to figure that out to find which post was being referenced), being that we are posting from different time zones. I’m not sure why I changed it in the quote: I think I had to do the math and used it as scratchpad (pathetic, eh?)
But I think it’s pretty obvious that it’s the same post under discussion.

Likewise, I think it’s a little silly to maintain that: “I haven’t been arguing with you: I don’t even remember addressing myself to you.” applies to the previous post in which I had noted the same thing. I was reffering to wring’s original post to me about not reading his cites, obviously.

And yep: I didn’t look to see who was responding to me: I just assumed it was wring. I apologize for the misunderstanding that apparently caused you about my mental state.

—Do you have some medical condition we should know about?—

I do have a medical condition, actually, but it’s nothing you should know about. It isn’t, however, insanity.

And even if it was, that still wouldn’t make your accusation in this instance any stronger.

—I actually had no idea that SDMB has an “ignore” function and that discussing such things were bannable.—

Me either: though since it’s bannable to mention it, I think we can beg off with justifiable igorance.
:slight_smile:

72

—Do you also find business licensing requirements, fire and health codes and city zoning laws “ridiculous”?—

Some of them I do find ridiculous, others quite justifiable, as with most policies.

But the major thread for most of the uncontroversially legitimate ones is protecting people who enter someones store or buy someones products from being hurt by either. That’s not the same thing as controlling someones choice of who to sell their products to in the first place, and what facilities they must install to attract which customers.

I don’t agree that not selling to certain people hurts those people and should thus be the subject of legislation. I don’t think that’s the way to go about it (tax incentives, on the other hand, are a perfectly good, and very successful, way).

And, to be clear, this is not a “free economics market” position. It is an idea about justice. As an economist, I can think of nothing dumber than discrimination/inaccessability as a policy, or more objectionable. It is no better than putting up barriers to trade in general, and just as objectionable. But, sometimes people should have the right to be stupid, in the name of justice.

73

again, you seem to be arguing about what ‘should’ happen in the US. The OP has made the claim that the ADA has been ineffectual. the question of “should it have been enacted” and ‘should government regulate these things’ is another thread. See “Libertarian” in the search engine.

It is undeniable fact that we regulate all sorts of aspects of business. If a business wants to avail itself of public resources (such as roads, fire, police protection etc.), it has the corresponding obligation to provide it’s goods/services to the public according to the laws.

We regulate all sorts of aspects of businesses. We order businesses to not sell cigs, porn, booze, drug paraphenalia to minors, minors cannot even be in a bar past a certain time, etc. We order them to not deny services/goods to persons based on their ethnicity, color, relgion etc. Some of this derives from public policy (laws regarding minors for example). OTher of it has its basis on equal protection under the law.

Again, you’ve the right to discriminate all you wish in your private world. But once you derive the benefits from teh public, you give up a certain amount of your discretion.

74

Like most regulations

It starts out with noble intentions: Lobbying Congress to require close captioning on all new TV sets. Spread the cost of the technology across every appliance makes it affordable. As per The Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990

Then there’s that need to be even more inclusive: By 2010, 100% of Spanish language programming must be closed captioned. * What about Chinese and Italian broadcasts, why are they exempted?* As mandated by the FCC.

Then it gets a little ballsier: Requiring all public TV’s (in bars, lounges, lobby, etc.) to be equipped with closed caption decoders. Also any portable audio-visual equipment, such as VCR monitors, must have closed caption decoders connected. So what if the owner had 10 TV sets installed in his Sports Bar
two weeks before the law was enacted, make him replace them Is your property in compliance?

Then it goes off on some wild, insane tangent: The “Deaf Culture” movement decries the use of cochlear implants and laments the end of the “birthright of silence” claiming it’s a condition to be celebrated. Movements leaders say, “If science eradicates (deafness), a whole way of life will die.” Find your own cite, they’re all over the web…What’s next, getting legislation passed that bans hearing aids?

IMHO: There’s a difference between integration of the disabled PC[/PC] and being inclusive. When gov’t attempts to force the former via legislation & regulation natural human reactions could lead to a negative backlash.

75

Let me see if I got this straight: The ADA is bad because this “deaf culture” movement exists and might somehow be related to it or to a backlash to it in some vague unexplained way?

76

And there is more. Old time movie actor Cesar Romero travelled around with George helping him win his Senate seat. I’ve always wondered what the temperature of that relationship was after George made his remark.

77

I second that question. JohnBckWLD, I’m kinda getting the “Won’t those freaking disabled people just shut UP, already?” vibe off of you - at least from that one post. I hope I’ve made an error in judgement.

In addition, I’d like to state the following; I think the term “handi-capable” is freaking ridiculous. I, for one, am “disabled” or “handicapped”.

That is all.

78

Discussion of the substance of the report is not ad hominem: Rejecting a report simply because it was authored by the Cato institute is. Especially when that report has every fact footnoted.

Here’s a better example of December’s problem with generalized laws that do not take into account localized factors: Handicapped parking, and curb cut-outs.

I live in Canada, and we have similar laws to the ADA. One in particular mandates that X% of parking stalls in a parking lot must be handicapped-accessible.

I live near a military base. Our neighborhood is probably 80% military. A new grocery store was built a couple of years ago. This grocery store has sixteen handicapped stalls in the front. I have never seen a single car in any of them. I’m not sure there are even 16 handicapped people with cars IN this neighborhood, let alone shopping at the same time. A more reasonable number for handicapped-accessible stalls would be 2 to 4. Maybe. But sorry, it’s a hard and fast rule.

And of course, there are curb cutdowns throughout the entire subdivision, despite my never, ever having seen a wheelchair in the area. I’ve been here ten years.

Being a military area, the people here have generally pretty low incomes. They are not wealthy. And yet, they are paying through their property taxes and higher food prices to maintain handicap facilities they don’t need. Or, if you want to improve social justice, the money taxed to pay for useless accomodation could have been given directly to the people who need it, or their agencies.

79

Sam, are you saying these low income military families are financially strapped due to parking spaces and curb cutouts?
Could you, maybe, produce some cites for the per capita expense of “maintaining” the paint on the parking spaces and keeping the curb cutouts cut out in your community?

80

Come to think of it, I don’t see how the supposed costs of handicapped parking in Canada are relevant to this debate. (Americans with Disabilities Act)
Never mind.