Posted on 04/03/2017 1:56:33 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The city of Seattle is headed toward a federal court settlement that could cost millions of dollars to make sidewalks and curb ramps moreusable for people with wheelchairs and other mobility issues.
Three men with disabilities sued the city in 2015 to force the city to make upgrades. They alleged the city was violating federal law because many sidewalks didn't have curb ramps that were accessible.
Linda Dardarian, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, told the Times that negotiations were "fruitful and ongoing," and that she hoped for a resolution by this summer.
Seattle has been working to improve sidewalks for people with disabilities even as settlement talks are ongoing.
The city hired a consultant to study more than 28,000 curb ramps in the Seattle. The $666,000 report last year mapped the condition andpresence of curb ramps throughout the city.
Seattle is building 500 to 1,000 curb ramps per year, according to Mike Shaw, the city's department of transportation's ADA coordinator.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Growing up in Long Beach in the late 40s early 50s I remember sidewalk ramps everywhere downtown. Not so much for wheelchairs but for the electric carts that seemed to be used by very old women back then.
Good idea. Will help their budget problems.
To reasonably have enough or to have every single street corner in the city have 4?
Is it like the lbgtqrstblt people and live and let live is not enough but that you have to celebrate and participate in their pervsion?
I don't know.
Don’t worry. Seattle’s new minimum wage law will give the city PLENTY of revenue to pay for the lawsuit.
This is a Pappa Bush legacy.
This law was passed in 1990. Again the lefties are quick to impose on us while they ignore their own laws.
Lots of people besides the handicapped benefit from those ramps.
There are old people who have trouble getting around and ever try to wrestle a stroller up and down curbs constantly?
My father in law owned a lighting showroom in Fort Lauderdale. He built the building in the mid-1970’s.
The “sidewalk” in front of his door was about 4’ wide and basically a ramp in front of the door to his business.
There was a dirtbag “disabled” guy who went around in a wheelchair (which he didn’t need, he could walk). He knew the ASA inside out. He went up and down Federal Highway and entered every business. If they didn’t have the proper ramps and - worse - if their bathroom wasn’t fully ADA compliant, he would sue. The bathroom thing was worse because he played on people’s pity - most of the businesses didn’t have public bathrooms, but when you have a wheelchair bound “customer” saying they REALLY have to go...he repaid their kindness by suing them.
Well, my FIL ended up spending $15,000 to make an ADA compliant ramp, plus another $3,000 to upgrade his front door, $2000 to upgrade his bathroom, $700 to upgrade the door to his bathroom, plus lawyer costs, plus penalties, plus some other that went directly to the wheelchair guy.
I am not a fan of the ADA...
They’re needed, but should the taxpayer be forced to pay for 4 at every place 2 streets meet?
The grocery stores here in the San Fernando Valley ripped out their sloped concrete ramps with roughen surfaces so you do not slip with metal ramps with round bumps that are jarring as you try to roll a shopping cart over them.
I bet that many people trip on those bumps as well.
Someone’s brother-in-law got the contract.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_paving#/media/File:Truncated_domes.jpg
Just about every highway construction project in Pennsylvania includes “ADA compliant curb cuts” even for intersections in the middle of nowhere with no sidewalks.
At least PennDOT inludes that information in the press releases...lets the taxpayers know how their $$ are diverted.
Who then?
So many tax payers benefit from it and may in the future or have in the past even if at the moment we don’t need it. Since it is common use by all tax payers, I don’t see a problem with them paying for it. It’s not like you can charge tools for them.
I don’t see that it should even be an issue in something like new construction or if some street corners need repair anyway. It would cost no extra, or very little extra, to make it a ramp instead of a curb if you’re going to replace it anyways.
When this law came in, the Feds said that the City I live in did not have to upgrade the ramps, sidewalks, or crosswalks unless the adjacent street or the corner sidewalks needed other work. Then the ramps, sidewalks, and crosswalks had to be upgraded to ADA rules.
This lasted about 10-15 years. Then the Feds came in and said the City was not moving fast enough. They made an agreement that the City had to spend at least $20 million dollars per year JUST on upgrading. That was about 15-20 years ago. When I retired from engineering, the program was still going on. And it will probably be going on forever.
I am surprised that it took so long in this case.
The people who live there that are wheelchair bound or use walkers, carts, etc......have curb ramps around their immediate home areas.
Been there, done that.
A buddy of mine had a house with his software business in it back in the 90’s when this thing came out. Just a bunch of coders and what not - they weren’t “open” for business sales or anything like that. But - because they were a business they had to do all of those renovations. What a pain.
The 14th amendment opened a pretty big hole to constitutionally allow the federal government to guarantee “equal protection under the laws”.
While it is over-used, and judges also distort most of the constitution, it is rational to argue that “equal protection” extends to disabled people, and that the federal government has a right to pass a law that puts a burden on every state to provide equal protection to that class of citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
