6 ms·

> if a single person on the review board dislikes the project on a whim, it's out. This probably sucks. and secondly, why do you need an elevator for a 2 sto

> if a single person on the review board dislikes the project on a whim, it's out. This probably sucks. and secondly, why do you need an elevator for a 2 story building which will basically be used for a cafe? It's not a freaking life saving emergency service where you need people to provide access to every part of building.

bluGill 6y ago
In my opinion an elevator never counts as a disability device. In case of fire they are not safe to use in general, leaving those who need them trapped. I agree that the disabled need access to everything, I don't have a solution to the problem.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- robofanatic 6y ago
  Well, if we specifically talk about a cafe then I do see that it's problem if the owner can build the cafe only on the second floor. Even in that case it's a simple math to decide if it's worth spending 70K$ and make it accessible to disabled people. It should be left entirely to the owner to decide. City should not force him to install it. And it's entirely the cafe owner's problem not the disabled person's problem unless it's the only coffee shop on the street.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    This is not within the rights of the owner to do. It is illegal for a business to discriminate against disabled people in the US, and this means renovations must reasonably accommodate the disabled. This is not a rule from the city, this is US law.
    - robofanatic 6y ago
      Maybe it's different in different states. I lived in a 3 storey apartment in MA without any elevators. If a person is bound to wheelchairs then there was no way for that person to get into the apartment.
      - bluGill 6y ago
        3 story or less residential apparently doesn't need an elevator.
        robofanatic 6y ago
        That's what I believed till today!
      - kube-system 6y ago
        Federal law is the same in all states. Maybe your apartment building was built before 1991? https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/accessibilityR https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/d...
        robofanatic 6y ago
        Yes, I think it's older than 1991. If its law then I wonder why they did not build ramps to provide entry to at least the first floor. Elevator is definitely out of question without tearing apart the entire building.
        kube-system 6y ago
        If the building was construction prior to 1991, the construction wouldn’t have been subject to ADA requirements because the ADA did not exist then.
        robofanatic 6y ago
        I agree and I am sure the apartment owner makes a hell lot of money than a cafe owner. If they (govt. and apartment owners) really cared about disabled people they could have easily added ramps to the buildings in last 30 years. They are probably just taking advantage of loopholes.

bluGill 6y ago

In my opinion an elevator never counts as a disability device. In case of fire they are not safe to use in general, leaving those who need them trapped. I agree that the disabled need access to everything, I don't have a solution to the problem.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
robofanatic 6y ago
Well, if we specifically talk about a cafe then I do see that it's problem if the owner can build the cafe only on the second floor. Even in that case it's a simple math to decide if it's worth spending 70K$ and make it accessible to disabled people. It should be left entirely to the owner to decide. City should not force him to install it. And it's entirely the cafe owner's problem not the disabled person's problem unless it's the only coffee shop on the street.
- kube-system 6y ago
  This is not within the rights of the owner to do. It is illegal for a business to discriminate against disabled people in the US, and this means renovations must reasonably accommodate the disabled. This is not a rule from the city, this is US law.
  - robofanatic 6y ago
    Maybe it's different in different states. I lived in a 3 storey apartment in MA without any elevators. If a person is bound to wheelchairs then there was no way for that person to get into the apartment.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      3 story or less residential apparently doesn't need an elevator.
      - robofanatic 6y ago
        That's what I believed till today!
    - kube-system 6y ago
      Federal law is the same in all states. Maybe your apartment building was built before 1991? https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/accessibilityR https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/d...
      - robofanatic 6y ago
        Yes, I think it's older than 1991. If its law then I wonder why they did not build ramps to provide entry to at least the first floor. Elevator is definitely out of question without tearing apart the entire building.
        kube-system 6y ago
        If the building was construction prior to 1991, the construction wouldn’t have been subject to ADA requirements because the ADA did not exist then.
        robofanatic 6y ago
        I agree and I am sure the apartment owner makes a hell lot of money than a cafe owner. If they (govt. and apartment owners) really cared about disabled people they could have easily added ramps to the buildings in last 30 years. They are probably just taking advantage of loopholes.