3 ms·

Comparing being in a wheelchair to losing at soccer seems reductive to me. Being in a wheelchair is completely life-changing and having public spaces being acce

by samcal 7y ago

Comparing being in a wheelchair to losing at soccer seems reductive to me. Being in a wheelchair is completely life-changing and having public spaces being accessible is a very good thing for the quality of life of people being in this terrible situation. The ADA has dramatically improved accessibility for those with mobility impairments: " When asked whether access to public facilities had improved, 75 percent or more of respondents in 1994, 1998, and 2000 reported that they had perceived improvement. Not surprisingly, the percentage of people with disabilities going out to restaurants regularly has increased from 34 percent in 1986 to 57 percent in 2004."[0] [0]: https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e_49c8_ad84_404a1b91d7c3.pdf https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e_49c8_ad84_... pg 45

imgabe 7y ago
Having access to facilities is very important, but that is not what was achieved here. Now the facility is gone and nobody can access it. If the goal was to increase access to this facility, it failed miserably.
- sansnomme 7y ago
  Same story with certain college's Moocs. Taken down due to lack of accurate subtitles.
- tehwebguy 7y ago
  It’s not the plaintiff’s fault that the defendant preferred to close up shop vs comply with the law, even if they are the one who pointed it out.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    All the law does is provide a cause to sue. The plaintiff is the one who chose to pursue the case and demand either a crippling settlement or crippling renovation. This was completely the plaintiff's choice. If the position is that pre-ADA inaccessible buildings should just all be razed, well, that's a point of view I guess. But the plaintiff doesn't get to deny their culpability for shutting this place down. They are 100% responsible. But for their lawsuit, the place would still be open. And if their goal was to make the place comply with the law, why did they ask for a $60k settlement? Did they somehow incur $60k in damages because their friend had to go in and pick up the coffee? It seems like if what they wanted was compliance with the law, they would have asked for that or nothing. Unless of course maybe, just maybe an easy payday was the point all along.
  - tarsinge 7y ago
    The defendant is a small business = real humans you can talk to. Maybe they could have explained that they did not have the money yet but could gladly bring coffee outside with more service in the meantime. It's easy to hide being legalism (especially for us engineers who like logical systems) and ignore the human factor and individual moral choices. Yes legally the plaintiff has the right to ruin a small business. But it's not necessary the right choice.
    - altec3 7y ago
      Totally. For example, if your neighbors are having a party that's breaking noise laws, it's always better to go talk to them, then if they are jerks, report them to the police.

by samcal 7y ago

imgabe 7y ago

Having access to facilities is very important, but that is not what was achieved here. Now the facility is gone and nobody can access it. If the goal was to increase access to this facility, it failed miserably.

sansnomme 7y ago
Same story with certain college's Moocs. Taken down due to lack of accurate subtitles.
tehwebguy 7y ago
It’s not the plaintiff’s fault that the defendant preferred to close up shop vs comply with the law, even if they are the one who pointed it out.
- imgabe 7y ago
  All the law does is provide a cause to sue. The plaintiff is the one who chose to pursue the case and demand either a crippling settlement or crippling renovation. This was completely the plaintiff's choice. If the position is that pre-ADA inaccessible buildings should just all be razed, well, that's a point of view I guess. But the plaintiff doesn't get to deny their culpability for shutting this place down. They are 100% responsible. But for their lawsuit, the place would still be open. And if their goal was to make the place comply with the law, why did they ask for a $60k settlement? Did they somehow incur $60k in damages because their friend had to go in and pick up the coffee? It seems like if what they wanted was compliance with the law, they would have asked for that or nothing. Unless of course maybe, just maybe an easy payday was the point all along.
- tarsinge 7y ago
  The defendant is a small business = real humans you can talk to. Maybe they could have explained that they did not have the money yet but could gladly bring coffee outside with more service in the meantime. It's easy to hide being legalism (especially for us engineers who like logical systems) and ignore the human factor and individual moral choices. Yes legally the plaintiff has the right to ruin a small business. But it's not necessary the right choice.
  - altec3 7y ago
    Totally. For example, if your neighbors are having a party that's breaking noise laws, it's always better to go talk to them, then if they are jerks, report them to the police.