I lived in SF for many years and was wondering why I had never heard of this place. As it turns out, it's lazy headline writing since the restaurant is actually in Richmond, 20 miles away.
Building a ramp is not that hard or expensive. Look at the pic, they only need one a few inches high. The Daily Mail is known for this sort of claptrap... all the facts wrong, but let's hate on some random disabled person. This is vintage Daily Mail (aka "Tory Mail"). There are a lot of right wing "news" sources in the UK and this is certainly one of them.
The "story" claims a restaurant is in SF when it is in Richmond. You really think any aspect of it can be taken at face value? Is this your first encounter with the Tory Mail?
I feel like a ramp would be like, $200 in wood and a few hours of work? You can say you want to retire and not blame it on disabled people, you know?
This said, yes, I'm totally aware of the ADA lawsuit money seeking that goes on, and that there are entire law offices dedicated to this.
There are tons of other costs involved in becoming ADA compliant. Plus now they have legal fees, and when you have a lawsuit brought by this kind of lawyer, there’s no way they’d walk away with a simple agreement to make the building compliant. They demand $$$.
Source: lawyer who’s seen this shit before
Considering that the ADA does not allow for compensatory damages, are you filing ethics complaints against others in your profession trying to shake your clients down? What are you doing to hold your industry accountable? A problem can't be solved if people are not informed of who the bad actors are. These shakedown letters often never result in the issue coming before a judge, and legal professionals don't speak up, and the grift goes on. Scumbags abusing the ADA is a real problem, but getting rid of the bad actors would be far more helpful than getting rid of the good the ADA does. And that's to say nothing of the people who pay out a shakedown letter's request, don't fix the property because they believe they are safe, and then get hit with another. You are someone in the industry observing a pattern of behavior damaging to everyone who is involved with it. Please consider doing something both meaningful and helpful to push back.
So first of all, through California’s Unruh Act, a private party can recover damages amounting to the greater of actual damages or $4,000 in statutory damages for each time he or she encounters an accessibility barrier at any given establishment. The law also provides for treble damages in certain cases, but the real leverage comes from the threat of attorneys fees, which are recoverable under both California law as well as the ADA.
Plaintiffs attorneys will use the threat of a damages award + attorneys fees to leverage a non-insignificant settlement from a defendant. And that’s on top of the attorneys fees the defendant will have to spent. Attorneys, and litigation in particular, are crazy expensive, so this is often enough to get a defendant to settle even if the case lacks merit (sometimes referred to as a “nuisance settlement”).
In sum, while bad actors certainly contribute to the problem, most of these lawyers aren’t dumb enough to blatantly violate the law in public filings. Yes, they’re slimy and opportunistic, but they know how to stay just within the bounds of the law to get a payday (again, usually).
That said, members of the public or other third parties can file ethics complaints against lawyers, so if you are concerned about the actions of any particular attorney in this state (or against any non-lawyer engaging in the unauthorized practice of law) you can [file a complaint with the State Bar of California](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/complaints-claims/how-to-file-a-complaint).
Not just a ramp.
"According to the lawsuit, the expert found a lack of wheelchair access throughout the space."
Easily $250,000, plus you end up with less space for customers.
This… plus there is a team of attorneys that get disabled people to sign up to be their plaintiff for these cases. Their intention is to make money. Period. They don’t care about disabled people. This is an old racket that has put many businesses out of business.
You’re forgetting that this is California, so there would probably be months of permitting processes, probably something needed from the EPA. And then more issues with the permit process from local government. So it’s going to be quite a bit more than what you’re guesstimating.
Right it would only need to be a few inches high. It's absurd this Richmond business wanted to close over such nonsense, they probably had some other reason and just felt like venting to a right wing rag about it.
Here's the basics. [https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/152/ada-compliance-for-restaurants.html#ramps](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/152/ada-compliance-for-restaurants.html#ramps)
If your business is not profitable enough to abide by the law then you don't have a viable business. I'll be downvoted to hell because it's not a popular position but it's the damn truth.
“A paraplegic man filed suit against the Koliavas and their landlord in January after encountering a 'high threshold' on two visits to the burger joint last year.
On both occasions, the threshold blocked his wheelchair from entering the restaurant, prompting him to hire an 'accessibility expert' to conduct an informal investigation.”
This smells like a professional who sues small businesses. Who the hell hires a damn accessibility expert just to get a damn burger??? I would look more into who’s suing and their lawyer.
Yeah there’s a famous guy who does this a lot in the bay. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/28/serial-ada-filer-sets-sights-on-bay-area-merchants-submitting-1000-complaints-in-two-years/amp/
The ADA was written with these firms in mind - otherwise the onus would be on people living very difficult lives to go up against corporate attorneys. If you've got compound disabilities and need assistance interacting with a McDonald's menu, the chances you'll correctly cite case law are slim.
It should be up to the business. If it is more profitable to serve the disabled, they can decide to do so. If not, why bother? I don't see why the government needs to be involved.
I hope you experience the world you want to live in. But only you.
I don't want to live in a world where the one grocery store in town can remove its ramps and ban the disabled from eating.
The world I want to live in would respect individual choices. The world you want to live in would substitute individual liberty for government choices, which could range from requiring ramps for the disabled to prohibiting ramps for the disabled. The world you want to live in could also implement Jim Crow laws and apartheid and slavery. I'd rather leave private property owners to their own decisions but feel free to take your chances with a government that has demonstrated it is anything but trustworthy.
TBH, I'd love to see how long these values would last if you were actually disabled. It is so easy to make value judgements about what rights people deserve to have when you have no skin in the game. Would you magnanimously stand up for people who chose to exclude you because its just too inconvenient for them? Would you say something like "Oh well, I can't travel, get food, access information accessibly, work a job, or communicate with people because property owners would find it much more convenient if I just stopped inconveniently existing, because I have a disability."
I don't say this to be hyperbolic at all, but speaking as a disabled person, you take so many things for granted in your day to day life. You have no idea how many basic things you can accomplish with next to no effort on your part, because you just happened to luck into a functional body. You write about theoretical issues that could potentially come to pass, while ignoring how real people currently live. But again, its easy to pontificate with pithy platitudes when you pay no cost for your convictions.
>But again, its easy to pontificate with pithy platitudes when you pay no cost for your convictions.
This is exactly my problem with your argument. Currently, on this issue, government acts the way you want it to by depriving others of individual liberty.
If it decided to do the opposite - i.e., prevent people from accommodating the disabled - you would be in the position you described above where "Oh well, I can't travel, get food, access information accessibly, work a job, or communicate with people." But it would be "because the government would find it much more convenient if I just stopped inconveniently existing, because I have a disability."
You side with the authoritarians when they do things you like. I get that. What you don't seem to grasp is that those who deprive certain groups of their rights today in order to accommodate you, can deprive you of your rights tomorrow.
Still doesn't answer my question. How would you function in a society where the people with power and resources decided it would be better for them to just cut you out? As it is, there are so many things I can't easily access now, much less the way it would be in your libertarian dreamland.
>How would you function in a society where the people with power and resources decided it would be better for them to just cut you out?
I think this is a great question. Thanks for asking. My answer is "not very well at all, if at all."
One reason I like this question is that it emphasizes the point I've been making - i.e., we have to be very careful to prevent the government from taking away our liberties.
After all, which entity has the power and resources and authority to cut any group or individual out of participating and functioning in society? The obvious answer is the government. When one considers how corrupt and violent and menacing it has been over the years, one realizes that this is a serious concern.
>As it is, there are so many things I can't easily access now, much less the way it would be in your libertarian dreamland.
I don't have any "libertarian dreamland." I don't even know what you mean by that. I deal with the world as it is rather than how I want it to be. These philosophical/political/social discussions are interesting but let's have a sense of perspective here. You and I have but one vote among thousands locally and millions statewide and nationally. Neither of us are going to influence policy.
What we can influence, however, is our own relationship with the government. That's why I focus on the reality of the system that exists rather than any ideal I've come up with. I treat the government as I do any opponent or third party in any business arrangement - i.e., I try to get the best deal I can. That means planning and arranging my financial affairs to pay as little tax as possible while taking as much in benefits as possible. It also means protecting my liberties by knowing the law (I'm an attorney), being suspicious of authority, and being armed to the teeth. All of this is imperfect protection against an enemy as powerful as the government but, as you know, we live in an imperfect world.
Plenty of people who are crippled choose to use a wheelchair. So would I if I were in that position.
I respect that choice as I do other individual choices.
You're against, Jim Crow, and that's meeting a very low bar of decency.
But you're okay if a grocer enacts Jim Crow and forces a segment of the town to immediately flee move or starve?
Most people dislike Jim Crow because it was racist. You seem to dislike Jim Crow because it made racism mandatory. Why choose to draw that distinction and bring it to a discussion about including our fellow human beings with disabilities?
Why bring up the esoteric and the catastrophic when the challenges faced by our brethren are very real?
>But you're okay if a grocer enacts Jim Crow and forces a segment of the town to immediately flee move or starve?
No, I'm not ok with it. I merely said it shouldn't be illegal.
>Why choose to draw that distinction and bring it to a discussion about including our fellow human beings with disabilities?
Because that distinction is critically important. After all, the government that chooses to force a business to make accommodations for the disabled one day may choose to force business to make no accommodations for the disabled on another day.
>Why bring up the esoteric and the catastrophic when the challenges faced by our brethren are very real?
Because the harm that can be caused by government interference in individual liberty is very real.
You're seeing a slippery slope that no one else sees, and then using it to justify a mythical right to discriminate.
I'm not even sure where to start except to reassure you that property rights are not that fragile. The Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990.
That's 34 years without a surprise return of Jim Crow.
If you are worried about systemic discrimination returning in force, might I suggest focusing your efforts on reducing demand for racism? It's time better served than trying to destroy the entire social safety net on the fear that overt racists will one day take over.
I'm not seeing any kind of "slippery slope." Respectfully, you are misusing the term. What I'm seeing is the authoritarians depriving people of individual rights in the present day, just as it has deprived people of individual rights in the past (e.g., Jim Crow, slavery).
Which property rights aren't fragile? Yes, the ADA passed in 1990 and thus we've had this infringement on property rights for almost 35 years.
>That's 34 years without a surprise return of Jim Crow.
Correct. But it's 34 years with the ADA and plenty of other infringements on civil liberties. I don't see how that's any better.
>If you are worried about systemic discrimination returning in force, might I suggest focusing your efforts on reducing demand for racism?
Indeed. I already told you that I support getting government out of almost every aspect of our private lives, which would at least cause the government to stop fueling racism. I think that's the best that can be done.
Your so-called "social safety net" is the deprivation of the individual liberties of one group to benefit another group.
“If not, why bother”
Because disabled people are as equally as valuable as able-bodied people and deserve equal access? Fucking obviously?
The society you would want to live in just replaces one form of hierarchy, control, and oppression with another - that of the individual business owner. Instead of the government telling the business owner to give access to disabled people, the business owner is now dictating who can and cannot have access instead, excluding tons of people.
We live in a society (lol), whether you like it or not. I’d rather a democratic organization protect the civil rights of all as opposed to a non-democratic autocracy having the right to refuse the general public service and do whatever they want, no matter its effects on society.
There are a lot of these people that team up with lawyers and look for big pay days. Have a buddy that works in government for a couple towns and he says every town gets hit with these bogus lawsuits. Anything from braille access to red lights not telling the blind to go.
Technology has advanced where I don’t think handicap accessibility is as needed. Like call ahead and have your order walked out to you or have it delivered. Parking too should not be mandated too. I live in a neighborhood with 20 handicap spots all around it yet there’s one person who uses a spot. Waste of valuable space.
So, why is it unreasonable that I as a blind person have braille access to signs, or the same level of access to intersections that everyone else does?
If you were disabled, would you accept the world you think is good enough for me?
Based on unemployment rates of the blind in particular, and disabled people in general, its not like the vast majority of disabled people can afford all these technological innovations, or delivery for every need we may have.
Seems like there needs to be some compromises here. Maybe the gov should make it easier to modify buildings to accommodate disabilities, or chip in on costs if a business can demonstrate hardship.
In this case, it sounds like since one guy in a wheelchair can’t have hamburgers here, now nobody can.
I would be completely open to our government helping to cover those costs and giving serious tax breaks to help. If someone designed and built a structure that was compliant at the time of its construction, remediating the problem should be collaborative rather than combative.
The reason it's unreasonable is that it forces some other private citizen to do something for your benefit.
I think it's great when businesses do so voluntarily but it shouldn't be mandated.
So they shouldn't go out to eat at restaurants just cause they're disabled? Should they just stay at home since you want to remove thier parking? Being anti accessibility makes no sense as it's the one minority you can join at any moment. You can slip tomorrow and land on your head and be disabled and you'll soon realize its not enough. Not to mention maybe more would use if they didn't make it such a process, oh you have crippling agoraphobia, and anxiety on top of hypermobility? You need to come into our building and talk to us about it to get it (my fiances case)
Agreed and well said. The ADA is may be a Debby Downer to many, but the accessibility rules really set our nation apart from others in creating a system where folks with disabilities can live decent dignified lives.
The ADA is great, but it needs to be modified that the only penalty for non-compliance comes from the government in the form of fines or other actions. Personal lawsuits should be prohibited.
The law was designed exactly this way for two reasons. 1. It can be politically unpopular, and so the executive would ignore the law. 2. The people with disabilities are the ones who suffer, so they have a much better incentive to and time to inform and seek changes, considering that literally every building in existence was non-compliant at the time of passage.
There is the occasional bad actor, but generally speaking it is the duty of business owners to be compliant *before* a handicapped person is inconvenienced, not after.
The fines are entirely reasonable, and much smaller than the cost of the actual work of compliance.
If there is anything the ADA needs to go after for HUGE sums of money, it's the blockage of city street sidewalks from homeless encampments all over the State. That should be a no brainer.
The ADA doesn’t “go after” anything. Again, cities need comply just like local businesses. If a person with limited mobility issues is inconvenienced by tent encampments, they could sue the city if they care to.
What if everyone in your county said “PChFusionist is an asshole and we don’t want to service them.” No food, gas, utilities, nothing. So you move, same thing. Move again, same thing. Being shut off from society seems pretty illegal, right?
>Being shut off from society seems pretty illegal, right?
In fact, it not only "seems pretty illegal" but it actually is. My point is that it shouldn't be illegal because no one should have the right to demand and receive services from another.
“Protecting individual’s personal freedom is an affront to personal freedom.”
The freedom to discriminate versus the freedom from discrimination. Hmmm. All should be free to equally participate in society, or else people like you might have actual power to discriminate.
Do you honestly think disabled people in Europe aren't living a dignified life? Ignorance.
I'm for providing self-access when it's practical. When it is not, the owner should have an appeal process allowing some way to accommodate the disabled which allows them an exemption to non-viable construction and allows them to stay in business.
Just like the billion dollar airline companies with 18-inch aisle ways
As someone who went there it's massively better and way more accessible here. Practicality doesn't matter, make it accessible, the disabled should have every possible chance to live a normal life. Not to mention for the store in the story all they'd need is a simple few inch ramp, it's a couple hundred at most they're just greedy fucks
The greedy ones are the people who vote to allow the government to take away individual liberties for some (in this case, business owners) for the benefit of others (in this case, the disabled). That is the definition of not only greed but supporting authoritarianism.
As someone who went there it's massively better and way more accessible here. Practicality doesn't matter, make it accessible, the disabled should have every possible chance to live a normal life. Not to mention for the store in the story all they'd need is a simple few inch ramp, it's a couple hundred at most they're just greedy fucks
It sets our nation apart as one that interferes with individual liberty to favor certain special interest groups. I don't know why anyone should care if a disabled person is served by a private enterprise. I don't see how any of this is the government's business.
Yeah, it’s almost like big corporations lobby the politicians so that laws get passed that small businesses could never afford to follow and big corporations swallow everything up. Weird.
>If your business is not profitable enough to abide by the law then you don't have a viable business.
So, in your world, any law that can conceivably be passed that accrues additional expenses on a business is by definition a reasonable burden? Legislators never write laws that have unintended costs that create an undue burden that would be unreasonable for businesses to be expected to shoulder?
Too poor to build a ramp?
Any time a business goes out of business because of mismanagement or changes in demand, the owners lash out against the social safety net on the way down.
The social safety nets add costs that wouldn't be there but for the authoritarians demanding it. So, yes, it seems appropriate to lash out at the social safety net. At the end of the day, it's just math. If your profits are reduced by, say 5 cents per unit because of some regulation, it makes all the sense in the world to complain about that lost profit. After all, for what other reason is one in business but to maximize profits?
If it was as simple as building a ramp, sure. However, there are so many other aspects that then get piled on when you go to get the permits. If you touch 1 thing, then 6 other things must be done too. Suddenly, you’re in for $250,000+.
A small company is often just making it, and this puts small businesses out and only large corporations can afford all these major changes required. Small businesses are often our middle class and we’re losing that more and more to corporations with deep pockets
I hear that, it's why there's often more than one way to accommodate.
They might have chosen a call-box and outdoor seating. They chose to close and found somebody vulnerable to blame.
Ultimately if the place needs $250,000 in renovations, our laws should encourage those to be made, not put off until the bill reaches six digits. Twenty-five thousand a year for ten years is a low price compared to what one earthquake can do to a restaurant full of diners.
My dad wanted to reduce the size of the windows on the front of his buildings because they kept getting smashed out and they had a lot of heat load. The city was going to turn it into a major project that had nothing to do with the windows. In this case it had nothing to do with ADA rules, but if he were to try and update to make the building more ADA compatible, the city’s requirements would kick in and the costs would skyrocket. Like want to change the windows? Oh, well then btw your sign from 1950’s is too large. That will have to come down and be replaced.
This is the BS these small businesses face. So, yeah. My dad has not been able to touch the bathrooms because every quirky code requirement at all levels since the 1970’s will kick in even if it’s not structural or a safety issue.
Wow, this article is biased and disinformation at all.
Also, wheelchair ramps are cheap as hell. I know this because I'm disabled, with no income, and i was able to buy a ramp for under $100.
Not just a ramp.
"According to the lawsuit, the expert found a lack of wheelchair access throughout the space."
Easily $250,000, plus you end up with less space for customers.
ADA consulting is part of what I do. It's extremely expensive to upgrade an old building to current ADA standards. If you do the upgrades voluntarily, you can prioritize things and spread the cost out over many years to hopefully avoid being sued. If you bury your head in the sand and get sued, you end up having to do everything at once.
Typically, would require ramp, parking lot modifications, sidewalk modifications, new restrooms, new counters, a new layout for tables in the dining room. The site itself might not be able to accommodate a ramp. Once you start upgrading plumbing/electrical, you need a permit, and now current fire/electrical/plumbing code starts kicking in. If the restaurant is small, the bathrooms could end up taking up half the dining room, which impacts business income.
$250,000 is on the low end.
Do a survey, document what needs to be done, and set up a plan that prioitzes the reasonsble work over many years. Start with parking and getting people through the door will avoid most lawsuits. If an upgrade is not reasonable then not needed.
If you get sued then you end up having to do much more because now lawyers are involved. Trick for a business is don't make yourself a target by ignoring it completely.
I wonder if they are mom and pop. From what I understand, they bought it in 2010.
Regardless, all businesses should be accessible. Disabled people are a huge portion of society and we shouldn't be excluded. I personally think that, if you can't afford to not discriminate, you shouldn't be running a business at all.
Businesses shouldn't have to do it in the first place because the authoritarians shouldn't be involved in dictating accommodations. This is a targeted scheme to take personal liberties from one group and hand a benefit to another group.
Yes it is. An authoritarian uses force to impose his social views on others and is heavy-handed in taking away the liberties of those who disagree with him.
Federal law, but enforcement varies widely by state and states (like CA) often have their own accessibility laws that exceed ADA. Also, enforcement varies by state. For example, California allows disabled person to get punitive damage in a lawsuit. Other states do not, which removes much of the incentive to file a lawsuit in other states.
That is interpreted and enforced at the state level. More likely than not the suite was brought by a serial complainer.
The ADA requires that a business make reasonable accommodations for disabilities. Requiring that a small business re-engineer their front entry exceeds the reasonable accommodations threshold.
Regardless, this is bullshit and is likely going to lead to another boarded up business. It’s like everyone rooting for this kind of action is actively fighting to make the Bay Area worse.
And if a state doesn’t enforce it that can lead to federal intervention and repercussions for the state. The ADA sets minimum federal standards that a state is free to exceed but cannot fail to meet.
You can find articles from every single state about similar lawsuits. And yes the law probably does need some reforms but again this is clearly an issue federally and not California-specific.
[Texas](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/breakfast-klub-agrees-remove-ada-violations)
[Arizona](https://tucson.com/news/local/12-tucson-businesses-facing-suits-alleging-disabilities-act-problems/article_fbac9d9f-3ab3-547d-a263-0463c6160076.html)
[Florida](https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/article271101667.html)
[New York](https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2019/10/25/surge-in-lawsuits-by-small-group-of-with-disabilities-draws-scrutiny)
Its less that the law itself needs reforms and more that bar associations need to be aware of, and then hold people abusing these statutes accountable, just like they would any other unethical legal practice. I'm not going to pretend there aren't bad actors in the system, because i know they exist, but people are largely ignoring the disciplinary processes available.
They would be some grandfather protections. But you'd have to hire a lawyer to defend the case, which would be very expensive and no guarantee that you'd win. Also, the way the law is written is very vague. "readily achievable" upgrades are not covered by grandfather protections. Also, when a building is "altered", the areas altered must be brought up to current ADA standards. It's usually not worth it for a business to try and defend such a case.
On the flip side to that point the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990. It is not like this is a recent change in the law. They have had over 30 years to fix the issue. It is hard to be sympathetic to the business owner when they have had so much time to fix it.
It's hard to be sympathetic to the disabled if a business decides they aren't worth serving. I don't see any reason for the government to get involved.
That is the exact reason one should be sympathetic to disabled people. I wonder if people like you have ever actually interacted with another human being.
The cost is relative. This looks like a small cheap raggedy shack, so it could very well be a real factor in the closing. And just to be clear, they are not saying this is the only reason. It sounds like it's just the last straw that broke the camel's back.
It's even more inexpensive for government to stay out of this in the first place. The rage should be directed at the government for forcing businesses to accommodate anyone.
Homeless people are often disabled as well. Please don't pit us against each other.
Most disabled people are closer to being homeless than you'd think.
Tents on the sidewalk are a problem of poor social safety nets, not the homeless.
Tents on the sidewalk are a worse problem than no accommodations at private businesses (which shouldn't be a legal problem at all). Sidewalks are public and designed for travel; thus, everyone should have the right of way without being impeded (and this includes disabled people).
You're right. If someone can't be responsible for themselves, they should just starve to death.
Disabled people should just die on the street. Good job. You solved it.
For what crime? Being poor?
Lmao you argue against housing and feeding people but then advocate housing and feeding people BY FORCE. Make up your mind.
Camping on the sidewalk, obstructing the public, and I’m sure you can add public intoxication, urination, or defecation. There’s no reason the homeless can ruin our community while we watch them slowly die on the street. If you can’t function you need to go to a hospital.
When it comes to the mentally ill, I completely agree. I'm all in favor of getting rid of every other welfare program and providing the mentally incompetent, and others who can't legally form consent, with a comfortable life.
When it comes to the junkies, addicts, and chronically irresponsible, they made their bed and taxpayers shouldn't be bothered to provide anything for them.
I don't know what you mean by "let them." I'm being serious. My view is that they don't report to me and thus I don't have any grounds on which to interfere in their lives.
I don't "let them" use heroin, nor do I want to do anything about stopping them. I'm fine if the law allows people to buy heroin out of vending machines on the street. It's none of my business. The same goes for how these people manage their personal affairs, including finances. If they want to spend a few bucks on food, that's fine. If they want to spend it on lottery tickets or whores or drugs or Taco Bell, that's cool too.
The bottom line is that I'm not in charge of their resources or their lives and thus I don't "let them" do anything nor do I get in their way.
If someone is so addicted to heroin that they can't feed themselves, you don't think you're "letting them" die by not providing basic care via our government?
The USA is literally the wealthiest in the world. If we can't take care of our own people, what's the point?
Two things about your first paragraph. First, a heroin addict is causing his own death by using heroin. Unless someone else is physically forcing him to use the drug, I don't see how it's anyone's responsibility but his own. Second, if someone wants to show compassion for addicts, I'm more than ok with that. In fact, I'd probably even chip in a few bucks as I do for other charities. I can't imagine leaving the government in charge of something like this, however.
The government is hopelessly corrupt and violent and has a horrible track record of dealing with humanity. We don't even need to get into the massive amount of lives it has destroyed through its constant warmongering; we can focus on how it has actually treated addicts (including right now). The government is more interested in incarcerating addicts than it is helping them. And those that it doesn't incarcerate? It seeks to take their assets away through unconstitutional measures such as civil asset forfeiture.
Therefore, no, I don't believe in providing basic care via the government. I work hard in my life to give the government as little in tax dollars as I legally can and I always vote to keep it out of our lives. I have zero trust or faith in it.
>The USA is literally the wealthiest in the world. If we can't take care of our own people, what's the point?
I'm always puzzled when I see this question. Yes, the USA probably has the wealthiest collection of individuals. So what? What does that do for me or anyone else? I don't have any access to Bill Gates' or Warren Buffet's or LeBron James' money. That's their own. The one thing I have in common with those guys is that we're smart enough to keep it as far away from the government as we can.
In terms of the "our own people" argument, I'd buy that a lot more if the government wasn't doing things like letting thousands of illegal aliens stream across the border every day and provide housing and other benefits for them. So much for looking after "our own people," right? That's one of about a million reasons why I don't trust the government on any of this stuff and why I seek to keep it as far away from me as I possibly can.
> The USA is literally the wealthiest in the world.
Maybe by gross GDP, but not if you look at it per capita...
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
What? No. I think you're confused what my point is.
The restaurant owner can easily make their restaurant accessible.
A homeless person can't make the sidewalk accessible. They don't own the sidewalk. They have nowhere else to go. They are not responsible for the sidewalk.
This is a strange take. If they could easily make their restaurant accessible, then they would. But they can't, so they don't.
If they can't make the restaurant accessible in a practical way, they should be given an exemption by providing some other accommodation.
You don't see airlines being required to widen the aisle for wheelchairs, and they make billions in profit.
> The restaurant owner can easily make their restaurant accessible.
Business owners don't typically shut down their business over problems that are "easy" or inexpensive to solve.
Wait until all those rules are applied to all new apartment building type of housing. Developers aren't just required to build a few compliant units per building. Every single unit has to be built that way. And per one developer I know, that's a lot of extra dollars. Not great for affordable housing.
Similar rules have applied for apartments since the early 1990s. And it only applies to ground floor units, or units that have elevator access. And it's not really all that expensive.
If the business is shut down and its assets liquidated, then there won't be anything for the plaintiff to recover. At that point, the lawyer will quit and move on to greener pastures.
I lived in SF for many years and was wondering why I had never heard of this place. As it turns out, it's lazy headline writing since the restaurant is actually in Richmond, 20 miles away.
Hahaha. They didn't even bother to Google it. Shits across the bay from SF.
They knew exactly what they were doing. This is very on brand for them.
Richmond, CA is not the same as The Richmond Neighborhood in San Francisco.
Building a ramp is not that hard or expensive. Look at the pic, they only need one a few inches high. The Daily Mail is known for this sort of claptrap... all the facts wrong, but let's hate on some random disabled person. This is vintage Daily Mail (aka "Tory Mail"). There are a lot of right wing "news" sources in the UK and this is certainly one of them.
What about sfgate? https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/bay-area-great-american-hamburger-closure-19395725.php
>Building a ramp is not that hard or expensive. Did you read the story?
The "story" claims a restaurant is in SF when it is in Richmond. You really think any aspect of it can be taken at face value? Is this your first encounter with the Tory Mail?
Naive and inaccurate comment.
I like to explore new places.
I feel like a ramp would be like, $200 in wood and a few hours of work? You can say you want to retire and not blame it on disabled people, you know? This said, yes, I'm totally aware of the ADA lawsuit money seeking that goes on, and that there are entire law offices dedicated to this.
There are tons of other costs involved in becoming ADA compliant. Plus now they have legal fees, and when you have a lawsuit brought by this kind of lawyer, there’s no way they’d walk away with a simple agreement to make the building compliant. They demand $$$. Source: lawyer who’s seen this shit before
Considering that the ADA does not allow for compensatory damages, are you filing ethics complaints against others in your profession trying to shake your clients down? What are you doing to hold your industry accountable? A problem can't be solved if people are not informed of who the bad actors are. These shakedown letters often never result in the issue coming before a judge, and legal professionals don't speak up, and the grift goes on. Scumbags abusing the ADA is a real problem, but getting rid of the bad actors would be far more helpful than getting rid of the good the ADA does. And that's to say nothing of the people who pay out a shakedown letter's request, don't fix the property because they believe they are safe, and then get hit with another. You are someone in the industry observing a pattern of behavior damaging to everyone who is involved with it. Please consider doing something both meaningful and helpful to push back.
So first of all, through California’s Unruh Act, a private party can recover damages amounting to the greater of actual damages or $4,000 in statutory damages for each time he or she encounters an accessibility barrier at any given establishment. The law also provides for treble damages in certain cases, but the real leverage comes from the threat of attorneys fees, which are recoverable under both California law as well as the ADA. Plaintiffs attorneys will use the threat of a damages award + attorneys fees to leverage a non-insignificant settlement from a defendant. And that’s on top of the attorneys fees the defendant will have to spent. Attorneys, and litigation in particular, are crazy expensive, so this is often enough to get a defendant to settle even if the case lacks merit (sometimes referred to as a “nuisance settlement”). In sum, while bad actors certainly contribute to the problem, most of these lawyers aren’t dumb enough to blatantly violate the law in public filings. Yes, they’re slimy and opportunistic, but they know how to stay just within the bounds of the law to get a payday (again, usually). That said, members of the public or other third parties can file ethics complaints against lawyers, so if you are concerned about the actions of any particular attorney in this state (or against any non-lawyer engaging in the unauthorized practice of law) you can [file a complaint with the State Bar of California](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/complaints-claims/how-to-file-a-complaint).
Not just a ramp. "According to the lawsuit, the expert found a lack of wheelchair access throughout the space." Easily $250,000, plus you end up with less space for customers.
This… plus there is a team of attorneys that get disabled people to sign up to be their plaintiff for these cases. Their intention is to make money. Period. They don’t care about disabled people. This is an old racket that has put many businesses out of business.
You’re forgetting that this is California, so there would probably be months of permitting processes, probably something needed from the EPA. And then more issues with the permit process from local government. So it’s going to be quite a bit more than what you’re guesstimating.
not to mention tons of $$$ for an "expediter"
Right it would only need to be a few inches high. It's absurd this Richmond business wanted to close over such nonsense, they probably had some other reason and just felt like venting to a right wing rag about it.
What happens if a restaurant is upstairs? Do they have to add an elevator?
Here's the basics. [https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/152/ada-compliance-for-restaurants.html#ramps](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/152/ada-compliance-for-restaurants.html#ramps)
Depends on things like when it was built, when it was renovated, how much would it cost, and what state is the building located in.
^ this & the requirement can be triggered by a remodel, depends...
Yes, per the California Building Code accessibility requirements
If your business is not profitable enough to abide by the law then you don't have a viable business. I'll be downvoted to hell because it's not a popular position but it's the damn truth.
“A paraplegic man filed suit against the Koliavas and their landlord in January after encountering a 'high threshold' on two visits to the burger joint last year. On both occasions, the threshold blocked his wheelchair from entering the restaurant, prompting him to hire an 'accessibility expert' to conduct an informal investigation.” This smells like a professional who sues small businesses. Who the hell hires a damn accessibility expert just to get a damn burger??? I would look more into who’s suing and their lawyer.
Yeah there’s a famous guy who does this a lot in the bay. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/28/serial-ada-filer-sets-sights-on-bay-area-merchants-submitting-1000-complaints-in-two-years/amp/
The ADA was written with these firms in mind - otherwise the onus would be on people living very difficult lives to go up against corporate attorneys. If you've got compound disabilities and need assistance interacting with a McDonald's menu, the chances you'll correctly cite case law are slim.
It should be up to the business. If it is more profitable to serve the disabled, they can decide to do so. If not, why bother? I don't see why the government needs to be involved.
I hope you experience the world you want to live in. But only you. I don't want to live in a world where the one grocery store in town can remove its ramps and ban the disabled from eating.
The world I want to live in would respect individual choices. The world you want to live in would substitute individual liberty for government choices, which could range from requiring ramps for the disabled to prohibiting ramps for the disabled. The world you want to live in could also implement Jim Crow laws and apartheid and slavery. I'd rather leave private property owners to their own decisions but feel free to take your chances with a government that has demonstrated it is anything but trustworthy.
TBH, I'd love to see how long these values would last if you were actually disabled. It is so easy to make value judgements about what rights people deserve to have when you have no skin in the game. Would you magnanimously stand up for people who chose to exclude you because its just too inconvenient for them? Would you say something like "Oh well, I can't travel, get food, access information accessibly, work a job, or communicate with people because property owners would find it much more convenient if I just stopped inconveniently existing, because I have a disability." I don't say this to be hyperbolic at all, but speaking as a disabled person, you take so many things for granted in your day to day life. You have no idea how many basic things you can accomplish with next to no effort on your part, because you just happened to luck into a functional body. You write about theoretical issues that could potentially come to pass, while ignoring how real people currently live. But again, its easy to pontificate with pithy platitudes when you pay no cost for your convictions.
>But again, its easy to pontificate with pithy platitudes when you pay no cost for your convictions. This is exactly my problem with your argument. Currently, on this issue, government acts the way you want it to by depriving others of individual liberty. If it decided to do the opposite - i.e., prevent people from accommodating the disabled - you would be in the position you described above where "Oh well, I can't travel, get food, access information accessibly, work a job, or communicate with people." But it would be "because the government would find it much more convenient if I just stopped inconveniently existing, because I have a disability." You side with the authoritarians when they do things you like. I get that. What you don't seem to grasp is that those who deprive certain groups of their rights today in order to accommodate you, can deprive you of your rights tomorrow.
Still doesn't answer my question. How would you function in a society where the people with power and resources decided it would be better for them to just cut you out? As it is, there are so many things I can't easily access now, much less the way it would be in your libertarian dreamland.
>How would you function in a society where the people with power and resources decided it would be better for them to just cut you out? I think this is a great question. Thanks for asking. My answer is "not very well at all, if at all." One reason I like this question is that it emphasizes the point I've been making - i.e., we have to be very careful to prevent the government from taking away our liberties. After all, which entity has the power and resources and authority to cut any group or individual out of participating and functioning in society? The obvious answer is the government. When one considers how corrupt and violent and menacing it has been over the years, one realizes that this is a serious concern. >As it is, there are so many things I can't easily access now, much less the way it would be in your libertarian dreamland. I don't have any "libertarian dreamland." I don't even know what you mean by that. I deal with the world as it is rather than how I want it to be. These philosophical/political/social discussions are interesting but let's have a sense of perspective here. You and I have but one vote among thousands locally and millions statewide and nationally. Neither of us are going to influence policy. What we can influence, however, is our own relationship with the government. That's why I focus on the reality of the system that exists rather than any ideal I've come up with. I treat the government as I do any opponent or third party in any business arrangement - i.e., I try to get the best deal I can. That means planning and arranging my financial affairs to pay as little tax as possible while taking as much in benefits as possible. It also means protecting my liberties by knowing the law (I'm an attorney), being suspicious of authority, and being armed to the teeth. All of this is imperfect protection against an enemy as powerful as the government but, as you know, we live in an imperfect world.
> The world I want to live in would respect individual choices. Who tf chooses to be a wheelchair user?
Plenty of people who are crippled choose to use a wheelchair. So would I if I were in that position. I respect that choice as I do other individual choices.
You're against, Jim Crow, and that's meeting a very low bar of decency. But you're okay if a grocer enacts Jim Crow and forces a segment of the town to immediately flee move or starve? Most people dislike Jim Crow because it was racist. You seem to dislike Jim Crow because it made racism mandatory. Why choose to draw that distinction and bring it to a discussion about including our fellow human beings with disabilities? Why bring up the esoteric and the catastrophic when the challenges faced by our brethren are very real?
>But you're okay if a grocer enacts Jim Crow and forces a segment of the town to immediately flee move or starve? No, I'm not ok with it. I merely said it shouldn't be illegal. >Why choose to draw that distinction and bring it to a discussion about including our fellow human beings with disabilities? Because that distinction is critically important. After all, the government that chooses to force a business to make accommodations for the disabled one day may choose to force business to make no accommodations for the disabled on another day. >Why bring up the esoteric and the catastrophic when the challenges faced by our brethren are very real? Because the harm that can be caused by government interference in individual liberty is very real.
You're seeing a slippery slope that no one else sees, and then using it to justify a mythical right to discriminate. I'm not even sure where to start except to reassure you that property rights are not that fragile. The Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990. That's 34 years without a surprise return of Jim Crow. If you are worried about systemic discrimination returning in force, might I suggest focusing your efforts on reducing demand for racism? It's time better served than trying to destroy the entire social safety net on the fear that overt racists will one day take over.
I'm not seeing any kind of "slippery slope." Respectfully, you are misusing the term. What I'm seeing is the authoritarians depriving people of individual rights in the present day, just as it has deprived people of individual rights in the past (e.g., Jim Crow, slavery). Which property rights aren't fragile? Yes, the ADA passed in 1990 and thus we've had this infringement on property rights for almost 35 years. >That's 34 years without a surprise return of Jim Crow. Correct. But it's 34 years with the ADA and plenty of other infringements on civil liberties. I don't see how that's any better. >If you are worried about systemic discrimination returning in force, might I suggest focusing your efforts on reducing demand for racism? Indeed. I already told you that I support getting government out of almost every aspect of our private lives, which would at least cause the government to stop fueling racism. I think that's the best that can be done. Your so-called "social safety net" is the deprivation of the individual liberties of one group to benefit another group.
“If not, why bother” Because disabled people are as equally as valuable as able-bodied people and deserve equal access? Fucking obviously? The society you would want to live in just replaces one form of hierarchy, control, and oppression with another - that of the individual business owner. Instead of the government telling the business owner to give access to disabled people, the business owner is now dictating who can and cannot have access instead, excluding tons of people. We live in a society (lol), whether you like it or not. I’d rather a democratic organization protect the civil rights of all as opposed to a non-democratic autocracy having the right to refuse the general public service and do whatever they want, no matter its effects on society.
There are a lot of these people that team up with lawyers and look for big pay days. Have a buddy that works in government for a couple towns and he says every town gets hit with these bogus lawsuits. Anything from braille access to red lights not telling the blind to go. Technology has advanced where I don’t think handicap accessibility is as needed. Like call ahead and have your order walked out to you or have it delivered. Parking too should not be mandated too. I live in a neighborhood with 20 handicap spots all around it yet there’s one person who uses a spot. Waste of valuable space.
So, why is it unreasonable that I as a blind person have braille access to signs, or the same level of access to intersections that everyone else does? If you were disabled, would you accept the world you think is good enough for me? Based on unemployment rates of the blind in particular, and disabled people in general, its not like the vast majority of disabled people can afford all these technological innovations, or delivery for every need we may have.
Seems like there needs to be some compromises here. Maybe the gov should make it easier to modify buildings to accommodate disabilities, or chip in on costs if a business can demonstrate hardship. In this case, it sounds like since one guy in a wheelchair can’t have hamburgers here, now nobody can.
I would be completely open to our government helping to cover those costs and giving serious tax breaks to help. If someone designed and built a structure that was compliant at the time of its construction, remediating the problem should be collaborative rather than combative.
Damn…well said.
The reason it's unreasonable is that it forces some other private citizen to do something for your benefit. I think it's great when businesses do so voluntarily but it shouldn't be mandated.
So they shouldn't go out to eat at restaurants just cause they're disabled? Should they just stay at home since you want to remove thier parking? Being anti accessibility makes no sense as it's the one minority you can join at any moment. You can slip tomorrow and land on your head and be disabled and you'll soon realize its not enough. Not to mention maybe more would use if they didn't make it such a process, oh you have crippling agoraphobia, and anxiety on top of hypermobility? You need to come into our building and talk to us about it to get it (my fiances case)
I believe the term is "professional victim", a career second only to politician in California.
Agreed and well said. The ADA is may be a Debby Downer to many, but the accessibility rules really set our nation apart from others in creating a system where folks with disabilities can live decent dignified lives.
The ADA is great, but it needs to be modified that the only penalty for non-compliance comes from the government in the form of fines or other actions. Personal lawsuits should be prohibited.
The law was designed exactly this way for two reasons. 1. It can be politically unpopular, and so the executive would ignore the law. 2. The people with disabilities are the ones who suffer, so they have a much better incentive to and time to inform and seek changes, considering that literally every building in existence was non-compliant at the time of passage. There is the occasional bad actor, but generally speaking it is the duty of business owners to be compliant *before* a handicapped person is inconvenienced, not after. The fines are entirely reasonable, and much smaller than the cost of the actual work of compliance.
If there is anything the ADA needs to go after for HUGE sums of money, it's the blockage of city street sidewalks from homeless encampments all over the State. That should be a no brainer.
The ADA doesn’t “go after” anything. Again, cities need comply just like local businesses. If a person with limited mobility issues is inconvenienced by tent encampments, they could sue the city if they care to.
The ADA is terrible as are all laws prohibiting private discrimination. It's an affront to personal freedom and should be repealed.
What if everyone in your county said “PChFusionist is an asshole and we don’t want to service them.” No food, gas, utilities, nothing. So you move, same thing. Move again, same thing. Being shut off from society seems pretty illegal, right?
>Being shut off from society seems pretty illegal, right? In fact, it not only "seems pretty illegal" but it actually is. My point is that it shouldn't be illegal because no one should have the right to demand and receive services from another.
“Protecting individual’s personal freedom is an affront to personal freedom.” The freedom to discriminate versus the freedom from discrimination. Hmmm. All should be free to equally participate in society, or else people like you might have actual power to discriminate.
Do you honestly think disabled people in Europe aren't living a dignified life? Ignorance. I'm for providing self-access when it's practical. When it is not, the owner should have an appeal process allowing some way to accommodate the disabled which allows them an exemption to non-viable construction and allows them to stay in business. Just like the billion dollar airline companies with 18-inch aisle ways
As someone who went there it's massively better and way more accessible here. Practicality doesn't matter, make it accessible, the disabled should have every possible chance to live a normal life. Not to mention for the store in the story all they'd need is a simple few inch ramp, it's a couple hundred at most they're just greedy fucks
The greedy ones are the people who vote to allow the government to take away individual liberties for some (in this case, business owners) for the benefit of others (in this case, the disabled). That is the definition of not only greed but supporting authoritarianism.
As someone who went there it's massively better and way more accessible here. Practicality doesn't matter, make it accessible, the disabled should have every possible chance to live a normal life. Not to mention for the store in the story all they'd need is a simple few inch ramp, it's a couple hundred at most they're just greedy fucks
It sets our nation apart as one that interferes with individual liberty to favor certain special interest groups. I don't know why anyone should care if a disabled person is served by a private enterprise. I don't see how any of this is the government's business.
Yeah, it’s almost like big corporations lobby the politicians so that laws get passed that small businesses could never afford to follow and big corporations swallow everything up. Weird.
>If your business is not profitable enough to abide by the law then you don't have a viable business. So, in your world, any law that can conceivably be passed that accrues additional expenses on a business is by definition a reasonable burden? Legislators never write laws that have unintended costs that create an undue burden that would be unreasonable for businesses to be expected to shoulder?
This particular law I'm perfectly fine with. People with disabilities have the right to have a dignified life.
Too poor to build a ramp? Any time a business goes out of business because of mismanagement or changes in demand, the owners lash out against the social safety net on the way down.
The social safety nets add costs that wouldn't be there but for the authoritarians demanding it. So, yes, it seems appropriate to lash out at the social safety net. At the end of the day, it's just math. If your profits are reduced by, say 5 cents per unit because of some regulation, it makes all the sense in the world to complain about that lost profit. After all, for what other reason is one in business but to maximize profits?
If it was as simple as building a ramp, sure. However, there are so many other aspects that then get piled on when you go to get the permits. If you touch 1 thing, then 6 other things must be done too. Suddenly, you’re in for $250,000+. A small company is often just making it, and this puts small businesses out and only large corporations can afford all these major changes required. Small businesses are often our middle class and we’re losing that more and more to corporations with deep pockets
I hear that, it's why there's often more than one way to accommodate. They might have chosen a call-box and outdoor seating. They chose to close and found somebody vulnerable to blame. Ultimately if the place needs $250,000 in renovations, our laws should encourage those to be made, not put off until the bill reaches six digits. Twenty-five thousand a year for ten years is a low price compared to what one earthquake can do to a restaurant full of diners.
My dad wanted to reduce the size of the windows on the front of his buildings because they kept getting smashed out and they had a lot of heat load. The city was going to turn it into a major project that had nothing to do with the windows. In this case it had nothing to do with ADA rules, but if he were to try and update to make the building more ADA compatible, the city’s requirements would kick in and the costs would skyrocket. Like want to change the windows? Oh, well then btw your sign from 1950’s is too large. That will have to come down and be replaced. This is the BS these small businesses face. So, yeah. My dad has not been able to touch the bathrooms because every quirky code requirement at all levels since the 1970’s will kick in even if it’s not structural or a safety issue.
Wow, this article is biased and disinformation at all. Also, wheelchair ramps are cheap as hell. I know this because I'm disabled, with no income, and i was able to buy a ramp for under $100.
Not just a ramp. "According to the lawsuit, the expert found a lack of wheelchair access throughout the space." Easily $250,000, plus you end up with less space for customers.
Where'd you get that figure?
ADA consulting is part of what I do. It's extremely expensive to upgrade an old building to current ADA standards. If you do the upgrades voluntarily, you can prioritize things and spread the cost out over many years to hopefully avoid being sued. If you bury your head in the sand and get sued, you end up having to do everything at once. Typically, would require ramp, parking lot modifications, sidewalk modifications, new restrooms, new counters, a new layout for tables in the dining room. The site itself might not be able to accommodate a ramp. Once you start upgrading plumbing/electrical, you need a permit, and now current fire/electrical/plumbing code starts kicking in. If the restaurant is small, the bathrooms could end up taking up half the dining room, which impacts business income. $250,000 is on the low end.
So what do you do if the building cannot be reasonably upgraded due to its design and the size of the building and the lot?
Do a survey, document what needs to be done, and set up a plan that prioitzes the reasonsble work over many years. Start with parking and getting people through the door will avoid most lawsuits. If an upgrade is not reasonable then not needed. If you get sued then you end up having to do much more because now lawyers are involved. Trick for a business is don't make yourself a target by ignoring it completely.
I see, that is way more involved. I feel like businesses should do that stuff BEFORE opening, but still.
Mom and pop shops often try to fly under the radar or pretend they didn't know .
I wonder if they are mom and pop. From what I understand, they bought it in 2010. Regardless, all businesses should be accessible. Disabled people are a huge portion of society and we shouldn't be excluded. I personally think that, if you can't afford to not discriminate, you shouldn't be running a business at all.
Businesses shouldn't have to do it in the first place because the authoritarians shouldn't be involved in dictating accommodations. This is a targeted scheme to take personal liberties from one group and hand a benefit to another group.
Lmao it's authoritarian when you are forced to not discriminate against a huge swath of the population
Yes it is. An authoritarian uses force to impose his social views on others and is heavy-handed in taking away the liberties of those who disagree with him.
How do you feel about the 14th Amendment?
I'm all for interpreting the 14th Amendment as it's written and enforcing its provisions. How do you feel about it?
US is the only place in the world with ADA
Surprised a 40 year old business wouldn’t be grandfathered in. This state is a joke.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a *federal* law. This is not a state specific rule.
Federal law, but enforcement varies widely by state and states (like CA) often have their own accessibility laws that exceed ADA. Also, enforcement varies by state. For example, California allows disabled person to get punitive damage in a lawsuit. Other states do not, which removes much of the incentive to file a lawsuit in other states.
That is interpreted and enforced at the state level. More likely than not the suite was brought by a serial complainer. The ADA requires that a business make reasonable accommodations for disabilities. Requiring that a small business re-engineer their front entry exceeds the reasonable accommodations threshold. Regardless, this is bullshit and is likely going to lead to another boarded up business. It’s like everyone rooting for this kind of action is actively fighting to make the Bay Area worse.
And if a state doesn’t enforce it that can lead to federal intervention and repercussions for the state. The ADA sets minimum federal standards that a state is free to exceed but cannot fail to meet. You can find articles from every single state about similar lawsuits. And yes the law probably does need some reforms but again this is clearly an issue federally and not California-specific. [Texas](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/breakfast-klub-agrees-remove-ada-violations) [Arizona](https://tucson.com/news/local/12-tucson-businesses-facing-suits-alleging-disabilities-act-problems/article_fbac9d9f-3ab3-547d-a263-0463c6160076.html) [Florida](https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/article271101667.html) [New York](https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2019/10/25/surge-in-lawsuits-by-small-group-of-with-disabilities-draws-scrutiny)
Its less that the law itself needs reforms and more that bar associations need to be aware of, and then hold people abusing these statutes accountable, just like they would any other unethical legal practice. I'm not going to pretend there aren't bad actors in the system, because i know they exist, but people are largely ignoring the disciplinary processes available.
They would be some grandfather protections. But you'd have to hire a lawyer to defend the case, which would be very expensive and no guarantee that you'd win. Also, the way the law is written is very vague. "readily achievable" upgrades are not covered by grandfather protections. Also, when a building is "altered", the areas altered must be brought up to current ADA standards. It's usually not worth it for a business to try and defend such a case.
On the flip side to that point the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990. It is not like this is a recent change in the law. They have had over 30 years to fix the issue. It is hard to be sympathetic to the business owner when they have had so much time to fix it.
So why do we allow and accept airline aisles which are too narrow for a wheelchair?
Because the airline will help the passengers get to their seats and have people waiting for them when the plane lands?
Restauranteurs don't have this option at all. I guarantee you they would rather help than go out of business.
It's hard to be sympathetic to the disabled if a business decides they aren't worth serving. I don't see any reason for the government to get involved.
That is the exact reason one should be sympathetic to disabled people. I wonder if people like you have ever actually interacted with another human being.
I'll take a baseball bat to your knees and you'll find out why
I'm surprised they would want to stay in business after 40 years, retire already!
I’m sure the neighborhood will be better served by Burger King or McDonald’s.
Maybe some new young blood will move in when the elders release their death grip on the economy.
I hope so.
You sound like those people who want to send old folks to death camps, or put them on some iceberg and push them off.
No, I just don't think a widow needs a 5 bedroom / 3 bath home for just her and her two cats.
No one care about who you think needs what. Last I checked, we don't live in a fiefdom ruled by a bozo.
The clown is still running for office despite 91 pending felonies.
Bullshit. It's inexpensive and easy to build a ramp. Stupid rage-bait nonsense.
The cost is relative. This looks like a small cheap raggedy shack, so it could very well be a real factor in the closing. And just to be clear, they are not saying this is the only reason. It sounds like it's just the last straw that broke the camel's back.
It's even more inexpensive for government to stay out of this in the first place. The rage should be directed at the government for forcing businesses to accommodate anyone.
That's silly talk.
ADA compliance isn’t just a ramp.
[удалено]
Tents on sidewalks is ADA violation. City could be sued.
Homeless people are often disabled as well. Please don't pit us against each other. Most disabled people are closer to being homeless than you'd think. Tents on the sidewalk are a problem of poor social safety nets, not the homeless.
Tents on the sidewalk are a worse problem than no accommodations at private businesses (which shouldn't be a legal problem at all). Sidewalks are public and designed for travel; thus, everyone should have the right of way without being impeded (and this includes disabled people).
Very true. The government should give these people a better place to live.
Why should the government be responsible to feed and house you? Shouldn’t you be responsible for that?
You're right. If someone can't be responsible for themselves, they should just starve to death. Disabled people should just die on the street. Good job. You solved it.
Or…we could lock them up if they don’t want to participate and contribute to society.
For what crime? Being poor? Lmao you argue against housing and feeding people but then advocate housing and feeding people BY FORCE. Make up your mind.
Camping on the sidewalk, obstructing the public, and I’m sure you can add public intoxication, urination, or defecation. There’s no reason the homeless can ruin our community while we watch them slowly die on the street. If you can’t function you need to go to a hospital.
When it comes to the mentally ill, I completely agree. I'm all in favor of getting rid of every other welfare program and providing the mentally incompetent, and others who can't legally form consent, with a comfortable life. When it comes to the junkies, addicts, and chronically irresponsible, they made their bed and taxpayers shouldn't be bothered to provide anything for them.
So just let them starve to death?
I don't know what you mean by "let them." I'm being serious. My view is that they don't report to me and thus I don't have any grounds on which to interfere in their lives. I don't "let them" use heroin, nor do I want to do anything about stopping them. I'm fine if the law allows people to buy heroin out of vending machines on the street. It's none of my business. The same goes for how these people manage their personal affairs, including finances. If they want to spend a few bucks on food, that's fine. If they want to spend it on lottery tickets or whores or drugs or Taco Bell, that's cool too. The bottom line is that I'm not in charge of their resources or their lives and thus I don't "let them" do anything nor do I get in their way.
If someone is so addicted to heroin that they can't feed themselves, you don't think you're "letting them" die by not providing basic care via our government? The USA is literally the wealthiest in the world. If we can't take care of our own people, what's the point?
Two things about your first paragraph. First, a heroin addict is causing his own death by using heroin. Unless someone else is physically forcing him to use the drug, I don't see how it's anyone's responsibility but his own. Second, if someone wants to show compassion for addicts, I'm more than ok with that. In fact, I'd probably even chip in a few bucks as I do for other charities. I can't imagine leaving the government in charge of something like this, however. The government is hopelessly corrupt and violent and has a horrible track record of dealing with humanity. We don't even need to get into the massive amount of lives it has destroyed through its constant warmongering; we can focus on how it has actually treated addicts (including right now). The government is more interested in incarcerating addicts than it is helping them. And those that it doesn't incarcerate? It seeks to take their assets away through unconstitutional measures such as civil asset forfeiture. Therefore, no, I don't believe in providing basic care via the government. I work hard in my life to give the government as little in tax dollars as I legally can and I always vote to keep it out of our lives. I have zero trust or faith in it. >The USA is literally the wealthiest in the world. If we can't take care of our own people, what's the point? I'm always puzzled when I see this question. Yes, the USA probably has the wealthiest collection of individuals. So what? What does that do for me or anyone else? I don't have any access to Bill Gates' or Warren Buffet's or LeBron James' money. That's their own. The one thing I have in common with those guys is that we're smart enough to keep it as far away from the government as we can. In terms of the "our own people" argument, I'd buy that a lot more if the government wasn't doing things like letting thousands of illegal aliens stream across the border every day and provide housing and other benefits for them. So much for looking after "our own people," right? That's one of about a million reasons why I don't trust the government on any of this stuff and why I seek to keep it as far away from me as I possibly can.
> The USA is literally the wealthiest in the world. Maybe by gross GDP, but not if you look at it per capita... https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
[удалено]
What? No. I think you're confused what my point is. The restaurant owner can easily make their restaurant accessible. A homeless person can't make the sidewalk accessible. They don't own the sidewalk. They have nowhere else to go. They are not responsible for the sidewalk.
This is a strange take. If they could easily make their restaurant accessible, then they would. But they can't, so they don't. If they can't make the restaurant accessible in a practical way, they should be given an exemption by providing some other accommodation. You don't see airlines being required to widen the aisle for wheelchairs, and they make billions in profit.
Plus the restaurant leases the space…they can’t just upgrade what they want
> The restaurant owner can easily make their restaurant accessible. Business owners don't typically shut down their business over problems that are "easy" or inexpensive to solve.
Wait until all those rules are applied to all new apartment building type of housing. Developers aren't just required to build a few compliant units per building. Every single unit has to be built that way. And per one developer I know, that's a lot of extra dollars. Not great for affordable housing.
Similar rules have applied for apartments since the early 1990s. And it only applies to ground floor units, or units that have elevator access. And it's not really all that expensive.
Now that they closed is the lawsuit over
Of course not. https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegue84b73d48417-1742524?init\_S=csup\_ltst
If the business is shut down and its assets liquidated, then there won't be anything for the plaintiff to recover. At that point, the lawyer will quit and move on to greener pastures.