4 ms·

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

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.

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.