Critics say disabled access bill is too broad, too weak

Sacramento Bee ^ | 6/9/8 | Marjie Lundstrom

[SmithL]

On one side are disabled Californians, who can't believe businesses still deny them access.

On the other are angry business owners, who loathe the lawsuits spawned by a doorway too narrow, a toilet too high, a ramp too steep.

After years of failed efforts, the Legislature is attempting again to bridge the divide with a proposal to curb lawsuits while improving public access for California's disabled.

Democratic Sen. Ellen Corbett of San Leandro has put together a complex bill she believes both Democrats and Republicans – as well as disabled Californians and business interests – can support.

Critics say the plan is too broad – and so conciliatory it won't accomplish much of anything.

The measure, SB 1608, would not affect a disabled person's ability to sue a business and collect damages, nor would liability be reduced for those businesses with violations.

What the bill would do, among many things, is:

• Require every local building department to have a state-certified inspector, known as a certified access specialist, to review a business owner's building plans at the permit stage.

• Allow a business owner who uses a certified access specialist in good faith – and is sued later – to request a streamlined court procedure in which the judge and parties meet early to see if the matter can be resolved. This does not, however, give the business owner extra time to fix violations without penalty.

• Ensure that architects and building inspectors complete continuing education course work in access requirements.

• Require attorneys who send demand letters to businesses, or file a lawsuit alleging access violations, to also notify the owner of his or her legal rights.

• Create a new California Commission on Disability Access to focus on accessibility issues.

The controversy has intensified...

[SmithL]

- Dan Kysor, California Council of the Blind governmental affairs director, says SB 1608, which is designed to improve access for disabled people while curbing lawsuits, is well-intentioned but "only creates more layers of government."

[John Jorsett]

What’s wrong with the idea of giving a business 90 days to bring itself into compliance before a lawsuit can be filed?

[papasmurf]

I had a fire inspector give me a 24 hour notice. Why?

The fire extinguisher in my kitchen was 2” too high for the Disabilities act. He said a wheel chair bound person wouldn’t be able to reach it.

I asked him how a wheel chair bound person would be able to open the counter gate and get in my kitchen?

There is accommodation, which I absolutely agree with, and then there’s absurdity.

[papasmurf]

From someone who’s been there, done that, there is also the economic impact to consider.

Some older buildings are just not worth the cost of bringing it up to the requirements.

[B Knotts]

I guess ADA hasn’t done enough to harm business. Another layer of lawyer enrichment must be overlaid.

[Wavrnr10]

Because it’s the tree state the Gov. will bow down and give them anything they want.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

I paid about $15K extra for the zero times a handicapped person used the HC restroom in my buildout. At least calculating the rate of return is an easy propostion.

[sportutegrl]

It reads like the lawyers are being left out of the gravy train, somewhat. I think I am going to cry.

[longtermmemmory]

ADA suits are one of the biggest scams in the legal profession.

Essentially the ADA says the plaintiff on a title 2 claim for access can’t recieve any profit from the suit. SOOOOOoooo, there are “experts” who go around “inspecting” deep pocket sites and then report to a straw man plaintiff. (essentially a shell corporation/entity for the expert to bill)

A lawyer files the suit in the name of the straw man plaintiff and demands attorney fees (as provided by the ADA) and expert fees (as provided by the ADA).

The real plaintiff is the expert, who is getting paid.

ONE Milimeter of a valid claim and the court has to award attorney fees. They all tend to settle for nuisance value.

The ADA does not provide “notice to cure/fix” or any warnings NOR does it give any incentive to settle without attorney fees or costs.

[longtermmemmory]

90 day compliance opportunity will reduce the attorneys fees generated by these suits.

Disability suits are about attorney fees period.

[Little Ray]

I used to think “accommodation” was a good idea, until they gave it to the bureaucrats to enforce.
After seeing what the bureaucrats did with it, I came to conclusion that, if the disabled don't like the way a store, business, or employer does things, they should go elsewhere for goods, services or work. Let the market decide.

[papasmurf]

Trust me, I feel ya’. I finally got the big pinch when I went to remod and open another restaurant. A 3000’ suite in a shopping center, never been occupied, but was built 10 years prior.

I said go pound sand, and the City lost a good source of revenue, and employment for 25 people. BTW, I only filled my non management openings from a welfare to work program called GAIN. So, they get to keep more welfare recipients, too.

[BuffaloJack]

Nothing like mor government, is there? /sarc

[papasmurf]

“I think I am going to cry.”

I’ve got a few Onions I can toss your way. LOL

[antiRepublicrat]

Penn & Teller did a BS show on the ADA, including a guy who basically made his living off of suing businesses that he only goes to in order to scope-out victims.