3 ms·
That's not correct. The ADA requires reasonable accommodation, not accommodation at all costs. So yes, "there simply isn't a wheelchair ramp up to our building"
by genocidicbunny 3y ago
That's not correct. The ADA requires reasonable accommodation, not accommodation at all costs. So yes, "there simply isn't a wheelchair ramp up to our building" is not legitimate, but "there simply isn't a wheelchair ramp up to our building and it would be prohibitively expensive or impossible to change that" does work.
- Dylan16807 3y agoBut if you keep getting new buildings made for you where it would be straightforward to build in but prohibitively expensive after the fact...
- genocidicbunny 3y agoWhich is irrelevant to the discussion for the most part.
- Dylan16807 3y agoIt doesn't seem irrelevant to me. It means there's a broken system and the regulations aren't hitting the right spot. Responsibility is being split in a way that allows the accomodation to never happen.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoIt's irrelevant because it has no relation to what ADA says about accommodations being made. Even if the ADA proscribed that new constructions had to have reasonable accommodations, it wouldn't really change anything about the fact that the ADA doesn't mandate accommodations in all circumstances, reasonable or not.
- Dylan16807 3y agoFailures of the ADA model aren't relevant to the ADA??
- genocidicbunny 3y agoPlease explain how the fact that the ADA only requires reasonable accommodations is a failure of the ADA model? It's just a model. You're talking about it's implementation and practice in the world, I am just correcting a common misconception about what the ADA actually requires as it currently exists.
- Dylan16807 3y agoThe failure is that the accomodations would be reasonable, but the disconnect between builder and buyer lets the bad design get solidified. And someone else already replied saying the ADA forces new buildings to comply. So if we did that with planes in this comparison, new models would fit more people out of the factory. Would have done so for decades.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago> the ADA forces new buildings to comply Again, if reasonable to comply. Say I am building a new building on steep terrain where in order to get a compliant wheelchair ramp in with the maximum allowed grade that it can be, and all the appropriate flat spots for it. Let's say that wheelchair ramp would occupy 3/4ths of the whole property, making it impossible to build a code-compliant building on that property. The only alternative would be to purchase adjacent property but the owners refuse to sell. It can then be argued that making the new building wheelchair accessible is impossible without undue burden on the owner of the property. In fact, this sort of thing is _explicitly_ called out in 28 CFR 35.151: "(i) Full compliance with the requirements of this section is not required where a public entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements. Full compliance will be considered structurally impracticable only in those rare circumstances when the unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features." You also only need to provide accommodations for places the public accesses. A mechanical walkway that is only used by maintenance workers, for example, need not be accessible. Incidentally, airplane cockpits are pretty much a textbook example of 'not public space' and thus are also not subject to accessibility requirements. Point is, the ADA is not as black and white as many perceive it to be.
- bluGill 3y agoThe ADA doesn't allow new buildings to not comply, unless the job itself couldn't be done. Thus the roof can be not accessable, but only maintanence goes there and job has many parts that cannot be done in a wheelchair