4 ms·
Clearly the ADA lawsuits are weaponized by people looking for quick paydays via settlements, but on the other hand, this building is clearly not accessible, and
by oh_sigh 7y ago
Clearly the ADA lawsuits are weaponized by people looking for quick paydays via settlements, but on the other hand, this building is clearly not accessible, and it isn't just a "small, “technical violation” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner".
I think the real question is - why do purchasers not fold ADA costs into their asking price for old buildings? This building has not been ADA compliant since before the current owner bought it. She(or her agent) should have been aware that they should actually be getting a $100k discount on the building if she needs to install ramps there to make it legal to run a business.
- alistairSH 7y agoYes, but the best (most benefit to society) solution is likely building inspectors verifying compliance when buildings/business change hands. Not plantiffs demanding sums of money to be paid personally that could be put towards the remediation.
- oh_sigh 7y agoI completely agree. The fact that a complainant can demand money to drop the suit on a personal payment seems wrong - I would like to see either reasonable damages(I couldn't enter the coffee shop so my friend had to go in for me - $10 damages), or only allow payoffs to be put into a general ADA fund and not go to enrich the individual.
- ApolloFortyNine 7y agoIt seems to me so few people were affected (there was another branch blocks away that was accessible even) that they were able to go 13 years without a complaint.