If it is a publicly funded building or area then making it handicapped accessible is not unreasonable. If it is private property it is unreasonable to force the owner to make accommodations. If the property owner wants to be known as someone who is not accommodating to handicapped persons, and suffer the possible loss of business by the citizenry, that should be their call.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Will, is the the length of the grass fibers used on the course important to wheelchair bound folks who play mini golf?[/quote]
As a person who’s wife is disabled it does make a difference. It can be difficult to move the chair.[/quote]
You’ve encountered tall artificial grass on a putt-putt course? Seriously?[/quote]
Between that and and padding or cushioning underneath it. It feels like your trying to move through quicksand.
But as is the case with anything, if we can’t use that facility we find a different one elsewhere.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
But as is the case with anything, if we can’t use that facility we find a different one elsewhere.[/quote]
We’re in the process of finding a sportsman club with the benches at the indoor range short enough so my BIL can fire comfortably.
The biggest obstacle is the outdoor lanes and the mud.
This is a reasonable conclusion
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
is a business accepting public monies to improve their own station?
In that regard, regulating construction requirements is =, whether it is astro turf or building a sidewalk.
[/quote]
Where as this is what I took acceptation too
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Has anybody here that is against any reasonable accommodation in pubic amenities [/quote]
Which frames the arguments against astroturf regulation falsely.
Sort of like Bam standing in the Rose Garden and saying “those that appose this law just plumb don’t want people to have insurance.” And we both know that is hogwash.
The biggest problem I think someone should have with these kinds of regulations is, why does the government have the time, money or resources to nitpick amusement park design regulations. They should have bigger picture items to worry about. I am hoping this is a local government regulation by the way and not Federal...
I mean I can see how this came about, there is a lot of lobbying to make public facilities, even privately own but open to the public facilities, accessible for any nearly everyone. To do anything less would be to invite discrimination however minor or possibly unintentional. Discrimination in the USA is a huge deal still for historical reasons of which we are all aware. Now because of our incredibly complicated legal system it is sometimes encouraged to over regulate to head off potential law suites over matters of discrimination.
But still, amusement parks are in business of being as accessible as possible. If someone makes a putt putt course with ridiculous hills and deep fake grass they are going to chase away families with less mobile elderly people, lose business and probably not make enough money to make up for all the cash they wasted on super long fake grass. This is a self regulating problem.
As long as our legal system has some recourse to defend individuals who are being intentionally or other-wise harmfully discriminated against by privately own public facilities, then we don’t need the government wasting time creating stringent regulations for something frankly very few people are worried about.
Giving people freedom includes giving people the freedom to hang themselves or their business. We shouldn’t be regulating every pitfall.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If it is a publicly funded building or area then making it handicapped accessible is not unreasonable. If it is private property it is unreasonable to force the owner to make accommodations. If the property owner wants to be known as someone who is not accommodating to handicapped persons, and suffer the possible loss of business by the citizenry, that should be their call. [/quote]
That sounds good, but what if the business doesn’t lose its customers because of its refusal to accommodate the handicapped? Even worse, what if those who want to force the business to accommodate the handicapped don’t stop patronizing the business? How would they know they’re better than others?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Has anybody here that is against any reasonable accommodation in pubic amenities
[/quote]
Are regulations governing the size, slope, and even the length of the grass fibers used on a putt-putt golf course reasonable accommodations?
[/quote]
I don’t know. Is the owner accepting any grants from the federal gov. to develop the business?
Cuz if the owner is, then yeah, that is reasonable.
Don’t like compliance? Don’t accept the money! It’s a lot like that old adage about dancing with the devil.
[/quote]
Read the article. No mention of this regulation being grant specific. It’s simply the law to the best of my knowledge.[/quote]
I did read it. In fact, I’m the only one in this thread that has addressed it as a condition of the ADA.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The ADA does not just apply to government funded projects. It IS the law of the land. Period.
Walmart does not use federal grant money when it builds a new store. Still has to implement ADA standards.[/quote]
How in the hell can you know that?
I guarantee if they are in any way qualified for any money available, they use the fuck out of it at every opportunity.
There is no business too proud to take advantage of every opportunity to grab government cash.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’d be willing to place a wager of a considerable amount with anyone who claims the ADA only applies to federally funded projects. Place your bets now, gentlemen, before (if you are honorable) embarking on a Google voyage.[/quote]
My wife is a retail architect. Trust me, it applies without government funding.
But I always found the grant directive a funny argument though. I can guarantee you Walmart pays far more in tax than it gets back from the government. So basically, if the federal government takes 1 million dollars from you, but then gives you 100 dollars of your own money back, BAM, they own you. If a business was a net negative on the taxpayer, I could see the argument, but otherwise it’s pretty ridiculous. The government is using a business’s own money to buy influence over it.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
I was reading a very good book discussing this by Philip K Howard.
– jj[/quote]
What’s the title? If you don’t mind.[/quote]
The title is “The Death of Common Sense”:
and a good intro to his thinking is in his TED lecture:
Enjoy
– jj
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’d be willing to place a wager of a considerable amount with anyone who claims the ADA only applies to federally funded projects. Place your bets now, gentlemen, before (if you are honorable) embarking on a Google voyage.[/quote]
The TV show Bullshit had a segment on this, sort of. A lawyer would take a vacation at some sleepy resort then write to all of the merchants threatening to sue them for non-compliance with the ADA unless they basically paid him protection money. He usually got about $5k - $10k a pop for his weekend of “work”. Believe the ADA applies to everyone and non-compliance is a quick trip to the poor house for any commercial enterprise. Even the threat of a starting a lawsuit sends everyone scurrying to settle out of court then drop money to fix the issue. Anyone who has had dealings with the Justice System harbors no illusion about how they operate or the fact that even talking to them will cost dearly (in lawyer fees, lost time, hiring experts to amend charges or even avoiding them, &c., &c.) I do believe it was Philip K. Howard who had the figure that each billion spent on compliance with regulations (not just the ADA) removes 19,000 jobs. Think about that. So yeah, the government is a leading contributor to un-employment.
– jj
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’d be willing to place a wager of a considerable amount with anyone who claims the ADA only applies to federally funded projects. Place your bets now, gentlemen, before (if you are honorable) embarking on a Google voyage.[/quote]
I couldn’t maintain my honor on this and googled it up. There are some exclusions, but I can’t take the bet.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
When did we lose the sacrosanctity of private property rights? Is equality really equality if forced by the end of a gun barrel?[/quote]
Really , where is the gun barrel ? Basic Straw man
[/quote]
Lol. I forgot you think our government is a benevolent third party incapable of using force to bend its subjects to its will.
[/quote]
No, I know our Gov is quite unkind , I just do not see this mythical gun barrel the so called right is always describing
The real question here is, for what crime are business owners being punished by this? The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlaws involuntary servitude, “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…”
Staying with the theme of the tread. I?m currently researching safety standards and changes needed to qualify my company?s product for sale into Europe. Basically the EN regulations are a complete clusterfuck. The all wise European bureaucrats got together and wrote and passed regulations without really considering the ramifications for certain industries (mine included). So these laws are technically in effect, but compliance is not even technologically possible at this time.
Just doing the calculations for figuring out what parts of the codes even apply is absurd. So, because of the new law, all the producers are going from official certification in accordance with regulated standards to self-certification. Basically, it?s very likely for any company selling there to get sued and loose do to non-compliance with a physically impossible standard.
I?ve also had to deal with moving EPA compliance with engine specifications. The amount of time and money spent to produce a less reliable, less valuable product is astronomical. I?m at least glad that we are off highway. Though tier 4 has completely killed some engine manufacturers, at least in our industry.
I have also delt previously with building kitchen appliances. As an example of regulation there, we were designing a new dish washer and had designed the kill switch in the door to be a low voltage input to our control board. But to get certified, they made us change the circuit to line voltage because of the way some regulation was written. It was still an input to the board and not a direct kill switch, only now you had line voltage in a component people touch and handle. Yes, we had to increase the likelihood of a line voltage shock to the consumer and make it admittedly less safe because of the wording of a regulation.
And don?t even get me started on energy ratings. Let?s just say, they are complete BS. You get good ratings by designing duty cycles and equipment for the test conditions rather than consumer use conditions. For example, if you can time your defrost cycle to not occur during the test, you get a better energy rating, even if that makes the defrost cycle less efficient over all. So, worse performance and more energy wasted for the customer, but a lower energy rating.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
When did we lose the sacrosanctity of private property rights? Is equality really equality if forced by the end of a gun barrel?[/quote]
Really , where is the gun barrel ? Basic Straw man
[/quote]
Lol. I forgot you think our government is a benevolent third party incapable of using force to bend its subjects to its will.
[/quote]
No, I know our Gov is quite unkind , I just do not see this mythical gun barrel the so called right is always describing [/quote]
That’s because they are quite literal, physical guns.
Maybe because …
Somewhere, someone is about to sell a LOT of properly sized artificial grass.
Somewhere, someone is about to tell his constituents that he cares a LOT about the disabled.
Somewhere, someone is about to collect fines from a LOT of golf businesses who failed to comply with the new regulations.