by Jack
The News & Review cover story this week details a wheelchair bound woman’s lone struggle to get the City of Chico to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The story sounds reasonable and evokes a lot of sympathy, but only if the details from the other side are omitted.
The author, Melissa Daugherty, laments the tribulations of Ms. Becky Barnes-Boers, but says little about tribulations of the City of Chico over the vast number of tax dollars and man hours already invested in ADA compliance and other projects scheduled for the near future.
Just a side thought, but I think being a crusader for a worthy cause and being a crackpot is sometimes separated by a fine line. If you’re the ONLY one doing all the complaining – all the time, then there’s a fair chance you may have slipped to the wrong side of this line. That’s the issue here, is this story founded on legitimate complaints or not?
My suspicions were alerted because Ms. Barnes-Boers is what you might call a frequent flyer at city hall. Her name is that well known, and to just about everybody at City Hall and even the police.
The N&R article notes, “she has studied the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a federal civil-rights law prohibiting discrimination against the disabled. She has encyclopedic knowledge of it and can recite portions of its text, along with its associated terminology. Barnes-Boers spent years as a legal assistant at a law firm, and there’s an office-like feel to her home, where she keeps countless documents related to the ADA.
For years, she has been meticulously chronicling the multitude of ways in which Chico is out of compliance with the law, reporting them to city officials and others. But for the most part, Barnes-Boers’ says, her complaints have fallen on deaf ears.”
One of those ears belongs to city employee Jessica Henry, who finally had to insist that Barnes-Boers stop calling in her complaints. Barnes-Boers told her to put that in writing and so she did. In a letter dated Oct. 17, 2008, Henry instructed Barnes-Boers to put her accessibility concerns in writing and direct the complaints to her (Henry), with the exception of emergency situations, during which she should call her by telephone, or call Code Enforcement in the event of her absence.
This contact procedure will better enable the City accurately track [sic], process, and respond to your accessibility concerns,” Henry wrote, further, “It needs to be recognized that the City of Chico has been very responsive to your concerns in the past, many times immediately, that were submitted by you in writing and verbally,” she continued… “This has included having the Code Enforcement division investigate and respond to over 80 areas or issues of concern relating to accessibility. Your use of the procedure outlined above will help the City to continue to address your concerns in an effective and timely manner.”
Are you getting the picture here folks?
Melissa Daugherty your article for justice does an injustice, because it does not take into account that municipalities like Chico are trying hard to be ADA compliant, but it’s a tough job and they are still recovering from the Great Recession. Their resources are often stretched to the limit. There’s no doubt the City of Chico is cash strapped and potentially facing millions in deficit and then add to that our recent city layoffs.
Despite this struggle to keep up basic services the City has accomplished quite a bit to be ADA compliant, a noteworthy achievement. However, the N&R doesn’t say much about that part.
The ADA is one of these controversial unfunded mandates forced on us by the federal government and it is incredibly complex and challenging. Arguably, some of the ADA demands seem to run contrary to the public good. For example, one transit authority was being forced to install these strips of hard rubbery bumps on their loading platform, presumably so people will know where the edge is, but that caused a high risk for a slip and fall. So an expensive battle erupted between two government entities.
Look, I’m a reasonable person and like most people, I am very sympathetic to Ms. Barnes-Boers access to our many public services and to any disabled person’s access. But, there’s another side to this story that rarely gets much attention because nobody wants to be seen as taking a position against the handicapped!!! This is a 3rd rail for politicians! So, despite the high costs, despite the regulatory burdens, and despite the shyster attorneys that use the ADA to extract fine money from working people, most of us are loath to complain!
The ADA has certainly done many good things, I acknowledge and applaud this part. However, in the process of doing good, it has also caused some damage… this is the law of unintended consequences and this happens when government paints with an overly broad brush.
As a personal example, I traveled to Fort Lewis, Washington, to see the Army museum, but when I arrived I was told the entire top floor was closed off to the public. When asked why, the curator said it was not wheelchair accessible and according to the ADA law, if the handicapped can’t use it… then we close it. That was the loss of half of the museum. This upper story was dedicated to honoring our fallen heroes and vets from two world wars and the museum didn’t have the money to fix it.
You probably heard about the little hamburger place in Sacramento that had been around for decades, it was called the Squeeze Inn and for a good reason. It was one of those tiny hole in the wall places constructed 50 years ago and now it had become a landmark known for its great burgers. The inside only had room for 4-5 standing people, so when the heavy hand of the ADA fell on the owners and government regulation demanded wheelchair access, the owner tried to comply. He installed a phone outside for wheelchair orders, simply because there was no room for a wheelchair inside. In the end they were forced out of business and had to pay heavy fines.
Now back to Chico. I serve on a taxpayer oversight committee and we try to keep local governments accountable, responsible and accessible to all. When it comes to the ADA compliance, I honestly can’t fault them. I think they’ve done a wonderful job! This is one area where the City and County (including the B-line buses) have all made tremendous progress and deserves some kudos. They don’t deserve to be raked over the coals because of the complaints by one woman and the N&R seeking a sensational headline story.
It’s a huge challenge to be 100% ADA compliant, ask anyone anywhere in any city, county or state government or even private business. This is a nationwide challenge and will take time and a whole lot of tax money to get there.
The least Ms. Barnes-Boers and the News and Review could do is try to be somewhat understanding of the difficulties we face, like juggling between paying to keep a police officer on the street or tear up the curbs in an older residential area for new curbs that are ADA compliant.
It’s not a perfect world and sometimes tough choices have to be made, but in my opinion our city is doing it’s absolute best to comply with the ADA and we can ask for no more than that.
Dang, another Boer War. Just what the taxpayer does NOT need!
The ADA has turned into another gummit racket for special interests, particularly ambulance chasing lawyers who have now turned into wheelchair chasers who are extorting businesses left and right. What a sad state of affairs.
Joseph, the ADA has been a real costly problem for most folks, a little help for some and big rip scam to be exploited by some lawyers who get to collect the fine money for finding violations. That part is a license to steal…its shameful.
When I was about 32 I dated a fellow who was a Vietnam Vet, he contracted some spinal disease in the jungle, he was paralyzed from thewaste down.
He wsa a total inspiration, he swam, had a rec. room in his house trying to build strength, He drove, had a boat, he was quite active, one day he called me up for dinner, asked where I wanted to go, I told him, he just simply said “I can’t get in there, but I know of another that is just as good,”
He never ever got on the pity pot, He was wonderful.
And there are ADA consultants. They aren’t necessaryily lawyers but they help businesses comply.
Also, whole new bureaucracies have sprouted up or existing bureaucracies have expanded at all levels of government for enforcement.
And of course it’s been a gravy train for lawyers.
And somebody has to pay for it all and that would be consumers and taxpayers. And because this increases cost and throttles productivity it means a drag on economic growth and employment, like most government programs and mandates.
“In the end they were forced out of business and had to pay heavy fines.”
I remember this. This is the same fib you told last time. They were not forced out of business … but it was easier to close that location than deal with the radical. Only I don’t know how radical you’d find it, if it was you in the wheelchair.
But it does sound like Becky needs to develop other interests. The ADA is about making it possible for the disabled to “enter the mainstream” of public life: ride the bus, go to Macy’s, but the law does need to be enforced sensibly, and the disabled do, like the rest of us, still have to accept some life limitations.
I hate them scooter people. Bloody menace, they are!
My daughter has a great attitude and expects to be inconvenienced from time to time. She appreciates efforts when they are reasonably met but thinks that in most cases people just need to use their imaginations to accomplish tasks. (Like, find another burger joint.) The phone order solution was a very nice gesture…forcing him to change locations was ridiculous. Most businesses are accessible these days…old shops and stores should be grandfathered in, at least until they close, and then the building owner or city can decide what to do with the inaccessible space.
One bank here in town had perfectly good access in the back. The ATM was in the front so a handicapped person would have to go through the bank to use it. That wasn’t good enough for one person, probably Becky. The branch was forced to build access in the front (plus put in a special low counter inside).
My daughter thinks that kind of demand is nuts. She even thinks she should get in line like everyone else when the ladies bathroom is busy and she’s happy to wait when it’s her turn until the handicapped stall opens up. In her opinion most people are very nice to the handicapped and usually will go out of their way to assist her. She is embarrassed by the Becky types and almost feels like she needs to hang a sign on her chair so she won’t be lumped in with them.
Government buildings are one thing but private buildings and business are quite another. These people shouldn’t be able to use their handicap as license to harass and bully private businesses, especially when the buildings were built before the new thinking and laws came into existence.
This type is a little worse than a “crackpot” in my estimation.
Tina, your daughter’s attitude is most appreciated, but I’m not surprised considering her remarkable Mom.
In a way everybody has a some kind of handicap, some handicaps are quite visible and some only on the inside. So we’re are imperfect, and that reality should make us humble, with compassion, we should all extend a helping hand when and where we can, especially to the most disabled among us.
Nobody was born perfect, except one man.
But, what isn’t helpful are these bleeding heart liberals seeking Nirvana thru socialism, forcing poorly crafted regulations upon everyone…tearing down the rich to build up the poor… what a fantasy.
The ADA was signed into law by George H.W. Bush…I don’t really blame him, for one, he didn’t write it, but he sure could have made it less painful.
Anyone who has dealt with a disability or has/had a loved one who does is familiar with two very important terms; reasonable accommodation and readily achievable. Both are explained below from the ADA Govt link and clearly states when physical alterations are required and when they are not. Solutions can be worked out if reasonable minds prevail.
When my oldest son graduated from UC Berkeley the ceremony was held in a theater with a very high stage. They wanted him to sit on the stage with the faculty, etc. instead of with his classmates on the auditorium floor. When it came time to get his diploma he was to move forward get the diploma and move back, while the rest of his class walked up the stairs, across the stage and returned to their seat.
My son didnt want to be on the stage in the hot lights with everyone staring at him. He asked for a simple solution be worked out by taking out two chairs on the aisle of the auditorium floor. When his name was called the presenters went down the stairs and handed him his diploma and posed for the traditional picture taking.
He was happy and so was the college. The only other alternative solutions would have been to have the whole class sit on the stage.
He was also employed by the Berkeley City Council to work with contractors to meet the ADA requirements reporting to the council his recommendations.
That place in Sacramento should not have been forced to close down.
http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Americans with Disabilities Act
Questions and Answers
Public Accommodations:
Q. Are there any limitations on the ADA’s barrier removal requirements for existing facilities?
A. Yes. Barrier removal need be accomplished only when it is “readily achievable” to do so.
Q. What does the term “readily achievable” mean?
A. It means “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.”
Q. What are examples of the types of modifications that would be readily achievable in most cases?
A. Examples include the simple ramping of a few steps, the installation of grab bars where only routine reinforcement of the wall is required, the lowering of telephones, and similar modest adjustments.
Q. Will businesses need to rearrange furniture and display racks?
A. Possibly. For example, restaurants may need to rearrange tables and department stores may need to adjust their layout of racks and shelves in order to permit access to wheelchair users.
Q. Will businesses need to install elevators?
A. Businesses are not required to retrofit their facilities to install elevators unless such installation is readily achievable, which is unlikely in most cases.
Q. When barrier removal is not readily achievable, what kinds of alternative steps are required by the ADA?
A. Alternatives may include such measures as in-store assistance for removing articles from inaccessible shelves, home delivery of groceries, or coming to the door to receive or return dry cleaning.
Q. Must alternative steps be taken without regard to cost?
A. No, only readily achievable alternative steps must be undertaken.
Q. How is “readily achievable” determined in a multisite business?
A. In determining whether an action to make a public accommodation accessible would be “readily achievable,” the overall size of the parent corporation or entity is only one factor to be considered. The ADA also permits consideration of the financial resources of the particular facility or facilities involved and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities to the parent entity.
Q. Who has responsibility for ADA compliance in leased places of public accommodation, the landlord or the tenant?
A. The ADA places the legal obligation to remove barriers or provide auxiliary aids and services on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide by lease who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.
Q. What does the ADA require in new construction?
A. The ADA requires that all new construction of places of public accommodation, as well as of “commercial facilities” such as office buildings, be accessible. Elevators are generally not required in facilities under three stories or with fewer than 3,000 square feet per floor, unless the building is a shopping center or mall; the professional office of a health care provider; a terminal, depot, or other public transit station; or an airport passenger terminal.
Q. Is it expensive to make all newly constructed places of public accommodation and commercial facilities accessible?
A. The cost of incorporating accessibility features in new construction is less than one percent of construction costs. This is a small price in relation to the economic benefits to be derived from full accessibility in the future, such as increased employment and consumer spending and decreased welfare dependency.
Q. Must every feature of a new facility be accessible?
A. No, only a specified number of elements such as parking spaces and drinking fountains must be made accessible in order for a facility to be “readily accessible.” Certain nonoccupiable spaces such as elevator pits, elevator penthouses, and piping or equipment catwalks need not be accessible.
Q. What are the ADA requirements for altering facilities?
A. All alterations that could affect the usability of a facility must be made in an accessible manner to the maximum extent feasible. For example, if during renovations a doorway is being relocated, the new doorway must be wide enough to meet the new construction standard for accessibility. When alterations are made to a primary function area, such as the lobby of a bank or the dining area of a cafeteria, an accessible path of travel to the altered area must also be provided. The bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving that area must also be made accessible. These additional accessibility alterations are only required to the extent that the added accessibility costs do not exceed 20% of the cost of the original alteration. Elevators are generally not required in facilities under three stories or with fewer than 3,000 square feet per floor, unless the building is a shopping center or mall; the professional office of a health care provider; a terminal, depot, or other public transit station; or an airport passenger terminal.
Q. What are some of the accommodations applicants and employees may need?
A. Examples of reasonable accommodation include making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by an individual with a disability; restructuring a job; modifying work schedules; acquiring or modifying equipment; providing qualified readers or interpreters; or appropriately modifying examinations, training, or other programs. Reasonable accommodation also may include reassigning a current employee to a vacant position for which the individual is qualified, if the person is unable to do the original job because of a disability even with an accommodation. However, there is no obligation to find a position for an applicant who is not qualified for the position sought. Employers are not required to lower quality or quantity standards as an accommodation; nor are they obligated to provide personal use items such as glasses or hearing aids.
The decision as to the appropriate accommodation must be based on the particular facts of each case. In selecting the particular type of reasonable accommodation to provide, the principal test is that o effectiveness, i.e., whether the accommodation will provide an opportunity for a person with a disability to achieve the same level of performance and to enjoy benefits equal to those of an average, similarly situated person without a disability. However, the accommodation does not have to ensure equal results or provide exactly the same benefits.
Q. When is an employer required to make a reasonable accommodation?
A. An employer is only required to accommodate a “known” disability of a qualified applicant or employee. The requirement generally will be triggered by a request from an individual with a disability, who frequently will be able to suggest an appropriate accommodation. Accommodations must be made on an individual basis, because the nature and extent of a disabling condition and the requirements of a job will vary in each case. If the individual does not request an accommodation, the employer is not obligated to provide one except where an individual’s known disability impairs his/her ability to know of, or effectively communicate a need for, an accommodation that is obvious to the employer. If a person with a disability requests, but cannot suggest, an appropriate accommodation, the employer and the individual should work together to identify one. There are also many public and private resources that can provide assistance without cost.
Employment:
Q. What are the limitations on the obligation to make a reasonable accommodation?
A. The individual with a disability requiring the accommodation must be otherwise qualified, and the disability must be known to the employer. In addition, an employer is not required to make an accommodation if it would impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the employer’s business. “Undue hardship” is defined as an “action requiring significant difficulty or expense” when considered in light of a number of factors. These factors include the nature and cost of the accommodation in relation to the size, resources, nature, and structure of the employer’s operation. Undue hardship is determined on a case-by-case basis. Where the facility making the accommodation is part of a larger entity, the structure and overall resources of the larger organization would be considered, as well as the financial and administrative relationship of the facility to the larger organization. In general, a larger employer with greater resources would be expected to make accommodations requiring greater effort or expense than would be required of a smaller employer with fewer resources.
If a particular accommodation would be an undue hardship, the employer must try to identify another accommodation that will not pose such a hardship. Also, if the cost of an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer, the individual with a disability should be given the option of paying that portion of the cost which would constitute an undue hardship or providing the accommodation.
Q. Must an employer modify existing facilities to make them accessible?
A. The employer’s obligation under title I is to provide access for an individual applicant to participate in the job application process, and for an individual employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of his/her job, including access to a building, to the work site, to needed equipment, and to all facilities used by employees. For example, if an employee lounge is located in a place inaccessible to an employee using a wheelchair, the lounge might be modified or relocated, or comparable facilities might be provided in a location that would enable the individual to take a break with co-workers. The employer must provide such access unless it would cause an undue hardship.
Under title I, an employer s not required to make its existing facilities accessible until a particular applicant or employee with a particular disability needs an accommodation, and then the modifications should meet that individual’s work needs. However, employers should consider initiating changes that will provide general accessibility, particularly for job applicants, since it is likely that people with disabilities will be applying for jobs. The employer does not have to make changes to provide access in places or facilities that will not be used by that individual for employment-related activities or benefits.
=1-UOxJ20oVE
Here are the details of my experience with ADA compliance.
1. I owned a building in the San Jose area a few years ago. The building was quite old and an historical landmark for the city. When I moved to Chico I decided it was time to sell it. An offer came in right away from an individual that want to use it as a restaurant location. It would have made a beautiful restaurant but the deal fell through because of the City and ADA issues.
The building was on a corner with the main entrance facing the corner and a side entrance on one of the two adjacent streets. The main entrance had a beautiful elevated porch with 4 steps leading up to the building floor level. The side entrance had a wheel chair ramp leading to the wheel chair accessible door. The side entrance appeared as a second entrance, not as a “back door”. There was a landscaped area in front of the main entrance that the buyer intended to use for outdoor dining. It was accessible directly from the sidewalk. Everything seemed perfect for a restaurant. The indoor dining and the bar were accessible by wheelchair through the second entrance and the outdoor dining was accessible from the sidewalk. Unfortunately the permit was rejected. The city was afraid it would be sued over ADA issues if they granted the permit. When I heard this I went to the city offices to explain that the building was wheelchair accessible. They indicated they were aware of everything I told them. Their explanation for the rejected permit left me with me speechless. They said a wheelchair patron might want to have a drink in the bar and then eat in the outdoor dining area. They argued that the patron would have to exit the indoor dining and bar area by the second entrance and use the side walk to get to the outdoor dining located in front of the main entrance. By doing this the patron was forced to “leave” the premises and reenter at a different location. They had determined that this was discriminatory. The City agent I talked to acknowledged that this was really unreasonable but indicated that the City was terribly afraid of being sued because of previous ADA suits that had occurred.
2. I have another building that had a second story that I intended to remodel. It also was an older building with stairs and no elevator. I was told I would have to spend 20% of my budget to address ADA compliance issues. Putting in an elevator was an expense that was several times the cost of the total remodel. The remodel job did not include the upstairs restrooms but I asked if it was sufficient if I remodeled them to be ADA compliant. To my amazement this was acceptable. According to the ADA law it was acceptable to put in wheelchair accessible restrooms on a second floor with no wheel chair access to the second floor..
Make you own conclusions from these two antidotes. My opinion is the ADA law is definitely flawed. It seems reasonable that new construction should be ADA compliant. This includes any remodeling that affects an area where ADA compliance applies. For example, if someone is remodeling a non ADA compliant restroom or entrance they should have to remodel it to ADA specifications. Requiring 20% of the budget address ADA compliance is arbitrary and wasteful. I am positive that this 20% ADA “old building tax” has prevented many remodels from taking place. I have yet to do the remodel in my building
Let me begin by stating that your failure to use People First Language tells me a lot about your own personal bias against people with disabilities. Ms. Becky Barnes-Boers is not a “wheel-chair bound” woman, she is a woman (and a mom) who uses a wheelchair for mobility. People are not defined by their disability. Are you a glasses-wearing blogger, or a blogger who wears glasses? (Most people wear glasses if they spend any time on a computer.)
Before you lament that the City of Chino is suffering because of her complaints, I challenge you to try to conduct business while using a wheelchair! I work at a major university in Boston, last year I was forced to use a motorized wheelchair for one week. It was an eye-opening experience. It takes a lot of work to get around in a wheelchair. Most of the exterior doors had automatic door openers. But the interior ones did not. Many times I had to call the department secretary to help me with the two interior doors just so I could get into my office.
Going to the grocery store was an ordeal. I tried to only go when absolutely necessary. To go grocery shopping meant I rode my wheelchair over to my car, and then had to take it apart to put it in my car. After I arrived at the grocery store, I had to get the chair out of my car, and put it back together. Once I finished with the grocery shopping, the bag-boy usually (but not always) helped me get the groceries into my car. Then I had to take the chair apart to get it in my car which meant I had needed to buy a few groceries at a time because I had to fit both the chair and food into my car. Once home, I had to get the chair out of the car, and then load the groceries into the basket. It usually took more than one trip to get all the groceries into my home. Without the wheelchair grocery shopping took less than one hour. While using the wheelchair, grocery shopping took at least 3 hours! I count myself lucky that I only needed the wheelchair for one week.
Oh, and by the way, welcome to the new century; one that includes protections against discrimination against a person with a disability. The fact that Ms. Barnes-Boers has repeatedly complained about the failure of Chino to accommodate her disability should be applauded. To answer the question you posed in your title, this makes her a crusader.
The ADA is now 22 years old. How long do you think it should take for a town to become compliant with a federal law? The ADA is no more burdensome that the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Do you believe that we should have waited over 20 years to end racial discrimination?
As the baby-boomers age and retire, they are not the most healthy individuals. Businesses need to recognize that they will attract many more customers by being accessible – and it’s the law!
Do your homework; the majority of employer accommodations cost less than $200 -hardly an “undue hardship”. Towns and municipalities can receive financial assistance to provide accommodations. There are so many different funding assistance programs I find it hard to accept excuses for inaccessibility.
Don’t forget that when people with disabilities live in accessible environments are far more likely to be employed and become taxpayers themselves. Keep people with disabilities from having access and you will continue to pay high taxes because they will be receiving SSI and SSDI payments – which are paid through YOUR taxes. So, would you rather pay for making the community more accessible or pay people with disabilities not to work because they can’t get to work?
Before you cry about the expense of making the world accessible for people with disabilities, consider that you may be only one car-ride away from using a wheelchair yourself. How would you cope?
Dear Dr. Lehmann, People First Language, what’s that? Is this some kind of Ivory Tower code speak for politically correct verbiage?
Next, I can’t believe you read the whole article, otherwise you would not be trying to make the case that I am in any way against people who use wheelchairs. That’s completely off base and totally absurd. If you had taken the time to actually read what was being said you might also have realized this article was about C-h-i-c-o, not Chino.
I bet you really don’t know the first thing about us in C-h-i-c-o, do you? In fact, it looks like you simply made a lot of silly false assumptions based upon your far left bias. I say [far left] because tried to play the race card too ….sorry, but that’s passe’, doesn’t work anymore.
-Jack in CHICO, CA
Jack … really. Chino? This is the substance of your rebuttal? I’m embarrassed.
I like a worthy adversary, and the very shrill irrationality around here is becoming very … worrying. Of course an ADA academic is going to disagree with you. You couldn’t just let her?
Along the same lines, have you heard about Juanita? I feel terribly guilty. I thought she would appreciate some traffic over on Ad Hoc … but she lost her head, rhetorically speaking (she used Burkland and the F-bomb in the same sentence), and some guy complained, and now she’s been banned from Norcal.
I just don’t think it’s right at all. The F-bomb was directed at me, and I’m a tough broad … I can take it. Zed’s been doing much the same; why isn’t he banned?
And I love firing off some blather or other and have you come back with nothing better than … Chino?
Libby why should I let her say something that was not true? Don’t tell me you would just let it slide! Libs if that happened to you – you would be all over them like white on rice!!! lol
This lady totally misconstrued what I said and now you’re doing the same thing. How come? You know I didn’t just come back with its Chico, not CHINO.
Next. We don’t like censorship Libs, you know that too. However, when necessary I have removed some words from some the comments section, like the F-bomb. Yes, the person you mentioned got censored too and I followed up by reminding everyone this is a G rated site and lots of people of all ages read what is said here. In other words…play nice. What else did you want done?
Dr Lehmann writes: “Let me begin by stating that your failure to use People First Language tells me a lot about your own personal bias against people with disabilities.”
Why Jack? She doesn’t know you from Adam! She doesn’t know every person that is handicapped! Is it that some pointy headed well-meaning elitists got together in the lunch room one day and decided what language is acceptable to wheel-chair-bound persons and what is not?
I think the lady presumes a lot.
I saw a woman in a chair with a sign that read, “Don’t blame me”. I asked about it and she told me she was tired of being the reason for all of the ridiculous and expensive edicts that this law has spawned. It is one thing to do what we can to make accommodations for people challenged by their handicaps; it is quite another to force expensive changes that put people out of business or create excessive burdens and hardships.
I think the point of your article was that the law, a well meaning piece of legislation that has changed the way we construct buildings and curbs, is often exploited and misused. These changes are expensive but we have born the burden because it was the right thing to do. But there should be a way to prevent abuse and exploitation of this law. There should be a way to bring common sense to individual cases.
People in chairs don’t suddenly become less human because of their handicaps. They too should be caring and considerate enough to understand, for instance, that the demand on the Squeeze In owner was ridiculous…especially after the owner went out of his way to put the phone in and bring an order out to the street.
Sorry to hear about Juanita. I enjoyed her contributions on PS.
Thank you Tina, you said it right. Nobody in their right mind would be prejudice against anyone with a disability. In my article I note this lady has made it her cause to learn every nuance of the ADA and use it on our City, constantly making complaints to the point of being a real problem, distracting city workers from doing their job. She’s the only one behaving this way and that should be a clue this women has a personal problem. Many others face the same challenges, but they handle it so much differently. What do they know that she doesn’t? It could be they understand that change is happening and it’s moving at the maximum pace money and manpower allows.
One of the big flaws in the ADA came when lawyers were given the right file a complaint and collect the fine money. Maybe a support bar next to a toilet was too low or too high by an inch, out comes the tape measure, away goes the complaint and the next thing the lawyer is being rewarded with the $500 fine paid by the business. A lawyer in Sacramento does nothing but file ADA complaints and he makes his living bringing misery to small businesses just trying to do their best! Several Chico businesses got nailed by the guy, one was a steel mill that had a huge open yard with no formal parking lines because it was paved in gravel, then along comes the shyster and pow! The got a cite and fine and had to put in a concrete parking space in the midst of this huge lot…it made no sense.
Concerning Becky barnes-boer, I have first hand information on who she really is. She Walked… Yes Walked into a local store the other day, where I happened to be shopping. She was Not in a wheel chair. She didnt seem to have any problem walking in the store with her son in tow. She stopped, looked around and within minutes she went to the young girl working in the store and started her yelling and threats of suing! Stating her name and being rude and nasty saying how she could tell that the store was violating ADA regulations for wheelchairs. Once again she was Not in a wheelchair nor did she have any problems walking down the aisles. She treated the young girl working there very mean as she was trying to intimidate her by yelling at her. I was horrified to watch this grown woman act this way towards other human being, especially in front of her young son. In my opinion she is a bully and this is her on-going scam to make money from anyone she can. I took a picture of her standing there and she had no problem standing and walking. If she attempts to sue this store, I will be there to be a witness for the store and show my pictures of her. Shame on her!
Re The Supposed #10 Dr. Ilana Lehmann Who Is Likely A Quack: I have been wheel chair bound and likely will be again. Have you any experience passing through those idiotic rubber bumps on a wheel chair? I think not.
Katy thanks for sharing your experience with us. I hope if anything comes of it you will come back and tell us about it.
And good for you being prepared to stand up as a witness for the store owner! Scammers cost the retailer and the taxpayer.
Retailers are already plagued by theft which pushes retail prices higher.