9 ms·

That is exactly my point. She sues, wins and now EVERYONE is forced to comply to a single standard - regardless of the situation. Don't be so naive.

by TKinNC 9y ago

hudibras 9y ago
A single standard that's already required by law. If enough people don't like the law, then they can elect politicians who will change it.
CydeWeys 9y ago
If the city had done a better job of complying with the existing accessibility laws in the first place then she never would have had to resorting to a lawsuit. Hell, if people had done a better job in the first place those laws would not have been necessary at all, and you wouldn't be affected.
s73ver_ 9y ago
So now everyone benefits from accessibility? I'm still not seeing the problem.
- viridian 9y ago
  The problem is that business owners are now required to follow these statutes and pay money even if the labor is 100% a guaranteed waste. Having people perform labor that isn't needed and use resources like concrete just to appease the government is a bad thing.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    I guess I would have to completely disagree with the idea that it's a "complete waste". And I don't consider accessibility a bad thing.
    - viridian 9y ago
      If no one benefits, then it is a complete waste. If I get paid to write code that never gets used, and it takes me a week, it's a waste of hundreds of dollars of labor. The parent thread pointed out that no disabled person would ever use the upgrade as the property was privately held by non disabled persons, so he's required to pay for no reason. That's nonsense. edit: Are you retrofitted your entire house to be fully ADA compliant? If not, why should the parent be required to?
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        Houses are not commercial establishments, and as such are not covered under the ADA. That's the short answer. The parent is creating a commercial establishment.
        TKinNC 9y ago
        This is 100% incorrect. A residential structure can still be required to be ADA compliant dependent on use. Do your research.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        I just did my research: https://adata.org/faq/does-ada-cover-private-apartments-and-private-homes https://adata.org/faq/does-ada-cover-private-apartments-and-... If it's 100% incorrect as you claim, surely you can provide evidence supporting your claim?
        TKinNC 9y ago
        You don't seem to understand the difference between zoning and use because your link proves my exact point. A place zoned residential can fall under ADA compliance if the use is commercial. Exactly as that link states. So the first part of your statement "Houses are not commercial establishments" is correct for zoning classification, but you fail on the second half "as such are not covered under the ADA." - a residence operating as a business can be under ADA. My comment "A residential structure can still be required to be ADA compliant dependent on use." - is 100% correct based on the very evidence you supplied. At this point, why dont you just accept that this is a very complex topic and one that just maybe I've spent more time navigating than you.
carapace 9y ago
I'm sympathetic to your situation, it seems kinda messed up. I think you are exaggerating the issue though. Ideally, an intelligent and flexible application of the ADA rules could be envisioned. (Ideally we would prioritize research into regeneration and fix the real problem.) One of my friends was born quadriplegic and literally cannot live without help. He can't go to the bathroom without help. He can't pick his nose. Traveling around Seattle with him made me realize the fact that accessibility makes us a worthwhile civilization. We care, and spend to show it. Consider: If you spend ten thousand dollars on accessibility for your barn, and no one ever uses it, that's a good thing. Pick your nose and count your blessings.
- TKinNC 9y ago
  I see your point and I do consider myself very fortunate to not have to deal with a life-altering disability on a daily basis, but the problem is - "flexible" and "intelligent" just do not apply when it comes to most govt. regulation.
  - carapace 9y ago
    Well met. I hope I didn't sound like a jerk. As for "flexible" and "intelligent" govt. regulation., I'll admit I chuckled when I typed that in. We'll be regrowing limbs long before that, I'll wager. I'm not sure how to remedy the situation until then. It sucks that you have this extra burden just to use your own barn.

That is exactly my point. She sues, wins and now EVERYONE is forced to comply to a single standard - regardless of the situation. Don't be so naive.

by TKinNC 9y ago

That is exactly my point. She sues, wins and now EVERYONE is forced to comply to a single standard - regardless of the situation. Don't be so naive.

hudibras 9y ago

A single standard that's already required by law. If enough people don't like the law, then they can elect politicians who will change it.

CydeWeys 9y ago

If the city had done a better job of complying with the existing accessibility laws in the first place then she never would have had to resorting to a lawsuit. Hell, if people had done a better job in the first place those laws would not have been necessary at all, and you wouldn't be affected.

s73ver_ 9y ago

So now everyone benefits from accessibility? I'm still not seeing the problem.

viridian 9y ago
The problem is that business owners are now required to follow these statutes and pay money even if the labor is 100% a guaranteed waste. Having people perform labor that isn't needed and use resources like concrete just to appease the government is a bad thing.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I guess I would have to completely disagree with the idea that it's a "complete waste". And I don't consider accessibility a bad thing.
  - viridian 9y ago
    If no one benefits, then it is a complete waste. If I get paid to write code that never gets used, and it takes me a week, it's a waste of hundreds of dollars of labor. The parent thread pointed out that no disabled person would ever use the upgrade as the property was privately held by non disabled persons, so he's required to pay for no reason. That's nonsense. edit: Are you retrofitted your entire house to be fully ADA compliant? If not, why should the parent be required to?
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      Houses are not commercial establishments, and as such are not covered under the ADA. That's the short answer. The parent is creating a commercial establishment.
      - TKinNC 9y ago
        This is 100% incorrect. A residential structure can still be required to be ADA compliant dependent on use. Do your research.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        I just did my research: https://adata.org/faq/does-ada-cover-private-apartments-and-private-homes https://adata.org/faq/does-ada-cover-private-apartments-and-... If it's 100% incorrect as you claim, surely you can provide evidence supporting your claim?
        TKinNC 9y ago
        You don't seem to understand the difference between zoning and use because your link proves my exact point. A place zoned residential can fall under ADA compliance if the use is commercial. Exactly as that link states. So the first part of your statement "Houses are not commercial establishments" is correct for zoning classification, but you fail on the second half "as such are not covered under the ADA." - a residence operating as a business can be under ADA. My comment "A residential structure can still be required to be ADA compliant dependent on use." - is 100% correct based on the very evidence you supplied. At this point, why dont you just accept that this is a very complex topic and one that just maybe I've spent more time navigating than you.

carapace 9y ago

I'm sympathetic to your situation, it seems kinda messed up. I think you are exaggerating the issue though. Ideally, an intelligent and flexible application of the ADA rules could be envisioned. (Ideally we would prioritize research into regeneration and fix the real problem.) One of my friends was born quadriplegic and literally cannot live without help. He can't go to the bathroom without help. He can't pick his nose. Traveling around Seattle with him made me realize the fact that accessibility makes us a worthwhile civilization. We care, and spend to show it. Consider: If you spend ten thousand dollars on accessibility for your barn, and no one ever uses it, that's a good thing. Pick your nose and count your blessings.

TKinNC 9y ago
I see your point and I do consider myself very fortunate to not have to deal with a life-altering disability on a daily basis, but the problem is - "flexible" and "intelligent" just do not apply when it comes to most govt. regulation.
- carapace 9y ago
  Well met. I hope I didn't sound like a jerk. As for "flexible" and "intelligent" govt. regulation., I'll admit I chuckled when I typed that in. We'll be regrowing limbs long before that, I'll wager. I'm not sure how to remedy the situation until then. It sucks that you have this extra burden just to use your own barn.