ADA Issues

Don't open a business if it's not accessible to the disabled. It sucks that you spent all this time on it, but it's not the responsibility of the local government to ensure that your business is ADA compliant.
 
apple0154 said:
I never know who the trolls are. :(

If the issues of ADA are addressed why the problems later? If someone intends to rent a vacant store for a business why are permits issued if the store is not ADA compliant?
Click to expand...

Mojo is a troll. Just ignore him.

This issue with this story which can happen frequently in San Francisco and I'm sure many other cities is you have these old small buildings that were built decades or even centuries ago where the space is so small and expensive that to make them ADA compliant essentially renders them useless for business.

I happen to be lucky enough to have my health now but I'm aware I could walk across the street in a couple of minutes and have that taken away and end up in a wheelchair for the rest of my life so I'm not insensitive to the needs of the handicap. The reality is those I've seen many businesses set up in small shops like this bookstore, 854 sq.ft. I believe the story said, where there is just not room to make it handicap friendly.

I respectfully disagree with DQ when he says it is either equal or nothing because we'd end up shutting down many businesses that way and I don't think that's a benefit to anyone.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no it's not. the idea of creating a small business is to create wealth, correct? so if a small business wants to rip people off, they soon gain a reputation for ripping people off, then no more business. caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

I agree the idea of creating a small business is to create wealth. The problem lies in how they create it.

When one business folds they open another one and, in some cases, our tax dollars are used to support it. Outrageous!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no it's not. the idea of creating a small business is to create wealth, correct? so if a small business wants to rip people off, they soon gain a reputation for ripping people off, then no more business. caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

Caveat emptor isn't actually the law of the land anymore. It's not a rational policy to arbitrarily place all responsibility on the buyer. In some cases there is actually caveat venditor.
 
cawacko said:
Mojo is a troll. Just ignore him.

This issue with this story which can happen frequently in San Francisco and I'm sure many other cities is you have these old small buildings that were built decades or even centuries ago where the space is so small and expensive that to make them ADA compliant essentially renders them useless for business.

I happen to be lucky enough to have my health now but I'm aware I could walk across the street in a couple of minutes and have that taken away and end up in a wheelchair for the rest of my life so I'm not insensitive to the needs of the handicap. The reality is those I've seen many businesses set up in small shops like this bookstore, 854 sq.ft. I believe the story said, where there is just not room to make it handicap friendly.

I respectfully disagree with DQ when he says it is either equal or nothing because we'd end up shutting down many businesses that way and I don't think that's a benefit to anyone.
Click to expand...

We can't just arbitrarily exempt some businesses from ADA because it's sad. If it applies to anyone, it has to apply to everyone to be fair.
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
We can't just arbitrarily exempt some businesses from ADA because it's sad. If it applies to anyone, it has to apply to everyone to be fair.
Click to expand...

Actually read the law and it is referenced within the article. All (or most) buildings were grandfathered in at the time the law was passed. It is when you want to do remodeling to a property that ADA is required.

They didn't pass the law in 1990 and say a building built in 1896 but now be ADA compliant.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no it's not. the idea of creating a small business is to create wealth, correct? so if a small business wants to rip people off, they soon gain a reputation for ripping people off, then no more business. caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

what about con people and fly by night enterprises - caveat emptor?:mad:
 
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
Actually read the law and it is referenced within the article. All (or most) buildings were grandfathered in at the time the law was passed. It is when you want to do remodeling to a property that ADA is required.

They didn't pass the law in 1990 and say a building built in 1896 but now be ADA compliant.
Click to expand...
And then problems are arising from the remodeling requirement. There are buildings in which it is physically impossible to meet ADA requirements and retain enough floor space to keep a decent inventory. That is why the bookshop in the referenced case is going out of business.

ADA is a good, and needed, idea. However, like any "one size fits all" law, making it fit ALL cases with no regard to simple common sense causes problems which should not occur. To take the specified instance, how the HELL is a store with only 856 square feet to work with supposed to comply with ADA aisle width requirements AND have enough book shelves left to provide a decent inventory for customers to peruse? Simple: they cannot. So, otherwise good properties, and good businesses, cannot remodel without ending up going OUT of business. Not exactly thew kind of result we want, no matter how good the idea behind ADA is.

Frankly, considering the area in which this is occurring, when someone goes after an 856 square foot book store, I have a problem believing their motives are anything but taking advantage of a law for their own fiscal benefit to the detriment of others.
 
cawacko said:
Mojo is a troll. Just ignore him.

This issue with this story which can happen frequently in San Francisco and I'm sure many other cities is you have these old small buildings that were built decades or even centuries ago where the space is so small and expensive that to make them ADA compliant essentially renders them useless for business.

I happen to be lucky enough to have my health now but I'm aware I could walk across the street in a couple of minutes and have that taken away and end up in a wheelchair for the rest of my life so I'm not insensitive to the needs of the handicap. The reality is those I've seen many businesses set up in small shops like this bookstore, 854 sq.ft. I believe the story said, where there is just not room to make it handicap friendly.

I respectfully disagree with DQ when he says it is either equal or nothing because we'd end up shutting down many businesses that way and I don't think that's a benefit to anyone.
Click to expand...

true, mojo is another legion troll, which only proves my point that he will never go away....so ignore won't work and this troll actually has some decent comments, 1 out 10, when he is not cutting and pasting the entire internet on the jpp

there was a litigant here in cali - mr. molski - i believe who abused the ada law and sued mom and pop shops across california....and they of course would settle quickly as they could not afford to draw out the legal battle....molski did this solely for money.... amazingly his attorney was never sanctioned, however, molski eventually was adjudicated to be a "vexatious litigant"....what that means is....is that now he has to have prior approval to bring a claim in court

so his days of shaking down mom and pop shops are over, but i see the shake down still continues
 
cawacko said:
Curious where people come down on this issue between small businesses and ADA compliance?



S.F. bookshop owner to close over ADA lawsuit


In the latest chapter of a struggle between San Francisco merchants and disabled people suing them for better access, several Richmond District business owners have decided to close or move in the face of lawsuits demanding alterations and monetary damages.

The trend is raising concerns among area shopkeepers, the district's supervisor, Eric Mar, and other city officials.

In the past month, Craig Thomas Yates, who uses a wheelchair, sued three merchants and the landlord of a building at Clement and Arguello streets, arguing that access impediments in the building's retail stores and restaurants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Other small businesses in the area have received similar complaints in recent months.

Lea Dimond, who has owned Thidwick Books in the building since 1999, plans to shut down her store today and try to find a new place rather than fight Yates or significantly alter the configuration of her 865-square-foot shop. She believes she would lose too much inventory to be financially viable if she made the changes necessary to create room for a wheelchair to maneuver.

Motives questioned

Dimond thinks she'll do fine when she finds a new location, but she's frustrated that the city did not warn her of the ADA issues when she received permits for her store. And while she says she and her fellow merchants are in favor of access for all customers, she believes Yates primarily is after money.

She says she tried to make every accommodation for Yates when he came to her shop and later hired an ADA access compliance expert to try to understand whether she could meet the federal requirements.

"Yates is picking off small business owners like grapes on a vine," said Dimond, noting that similar access suits have been settled for tens of thousands of dollars. "This is vexatious litigation, and the city has to be made aware that its commercial landscape is being damaged by this. ... Small businesses are really being hurt."

Yates could not be reached for comment on Thursday.

Tim Thimesch, an attorney representing Yates in his suit against Dimond and a handful of other Richmond District merchants, bristled at the bookstore owner's assertion that Yates is motivated by cash.

"Isn't it cheap and easy to allege that he's doing this for money? And, there's no way to disprove it," Thimesch said. "The real question is whether the businesses are in compliance. If Yates and others didn't seek redress, how would the access problem be resolved?"

Thimesch, who is based in Walnut Creek, said Dimond and other merchants have had plenty of notice that they were out of compliance with access laws - based on letters Yates sent to them - and have done nothing in response. The ADA laws have been around for 20 years, he noted.

Mission District cases

Yates brought a spate of cases against restaurants and small business owners in the Mission District earlier this year, causing some to temporarily close, raising an uproar in the community and garnering attention from city officials.

But Yates is not the only so-called serial litigant suing under the ADA. He and other plaintiffs have partnered with attorneys to target neighborhood business districts with similar claims for years, and the law provides them with a vehicle to do so.

Since the Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990, plaintiffs with disabilities nationwide have filed thousands of lawsuits after discovering that, despite laws dictating access to the same goods and services as the rest of the general public, steps, doors and other architectural barriers still exclude them.

The federal ADA law is enforced through civil lawsuits. When a person with a disability believes he has experienced a lack of access, he has a right to sue. Under California's Unruh Act, a plaintiff also may demand $4,000 per impediment.

A Bay Area attorney who has represented Yates in other cases during the past few years is one of the best known and most controversial ADA accessibility lawyers in California.

Vexatious litigant

Thomas Frankovich, who helped Yates sue a number of Mission District merchants, was the subject of a San Francisco Weekly cover story in 2006, "Wheelchairs of Fortune," for his multimillion-dollar ADA suit business.

That same year, Frankovich was barred from filing cases in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for six months after a judge ruled him a vexatious litigant, a legal term for people not acting in good faith when filing suits. Like Dimond, the Mission District merchants sued by Yates also want the city to do more to inform and help protect them from being targeted for access claims.

A common refrain among the shopkeepers who have been sued is that they believed they had complied with all laws when they obtained city permits and licenses to initially open.

Scott Hauge owns a San Francisco insurance business and is the president of Small Business California, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for small business interests across the state.

Hauge started a program nearly a decade ago to try to help merchants fund ADA corrections on their property. Very few owners decided to make any changes, he said.

"Small businesses can tend to ignore these problems, and then they scream when they get sued," Hauge said.

Mar, the San Francisco supervisor who represents the Richmond District, said he has been getting calls from merchants about ADA litigation since he took office in 2008. The suits have hurt the neighborhood's economy, he said.

Mar said he liked the idea of changing the city business permit process so that it includes information about ADA compliance. He also is encouraging owners who need to make costly alterations to seek help with financing through the city's small business office.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/24/MNI41GV6FB.DTL&tsp=1
Click to expand...

We have an ADA activist that has held the cities and other municipalities hostage to every whimsical lawsuit out there wrt ADA. Not only are there indoor requirements, but there are street and sidewalk requirements as well.

This one man makes it his mission to sue everyone he can and it has gone well beyond his rights as a disabled person and far into the realm of making everyone pay for the car accident (which was HIS fault) that paralyzed him!
 
usaloyal2theend said:
We have an ADA activist that has held the cities and other municipalities hostage to every whimsical lawsuit out there wrt ADA. Not only are there indoor requirements, but there are street and sidewalk requirements as well.

This one man makes it his mission to sue everyone he can and it has gone well beyond his rights as a disabled person and far into the realm of making everyone pay for the car accident (which was HIS fault) that paralyzed him!
Click to expand...

We have to give the guy a little leeway. After all, imagine a life with no lovin'. It brings tears to my eyes. :crybaby:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top