I would be wholly in favor of repealing (or at least seriously limiting) the ADA. Yes, it sucks to be mobility impaired, but we don't need to bring the whole world down to the lowest common denominator.
I have two clubbed feet, and have had serious reconstructive surgery to at least let me walk. I fully expect to be sitting in a wheelchair in about 5 years as my feet, knees, hips and lower back are all slowly degrading into piles of mush and severe pain as the bone breaks down.
As one who lives in pain just to walk, all I can say is: I hope you reap what you sow.
1. https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...
Look, read the law. Its written very clearly. It specifically mentions "reasonable accomodations" both in terms to the disabled and the owner in terms of cost, discrimination, etc.
Just because you say the law is written clearly doesn’t mean the law is clear. In practice, it seems to be so vague and so selectively enforced as to be utterly unpredictable.
Every time I've had a frank, honest discussion with a business owner about accommodations, its been a fight. A very hard one. And I'm lucky to even be able to talk to them -- most folks that are wheelchair bound can't even reasonably do that!
I've not yet sued because I don't have the cash on hand, and by the point it would make it there, the outcome I want is already lost because the business owner is willfully ignorant and indignant toward me in the end.
The last time I had words with someone about accommodations, I was working in Florida at a company that had just purchased a building. That building was under construction, and most of the entrances were closed off save for one. The land owner decided to repaint the lot and "forgot" to put in handicap spaces anywhere in the lot. Naturally, this became a real problem for me, and I brought it up to one of the VPs -- instead of setting up a valet, or marking the spots with temporary signs, or hell, even talking to the land owner about the issue, I was given platitudes and apologies.
This was my place of work. What was I supposed to do, exactly? The only option I had left was to sue, but doing so would have marked me as litigious! In the end I had to leave the company.
The fact that the complaintants in the case you brought up sued most likely means that they had already gone through the negotiations up front. Berkley probably gave them the same kind of reaction of platitudes and apologies that I got from my place of employment because when it comes to making reasonable accommodations, it turns out 99% of humans just don't care because they're not disabled!
Consider the web: there are easy, reasonable changes to markup that can be made to allow blind and colorblind folks to use sites. It usually takes less effort than adding an alt tag. Most devs don't even bother! Why? Because they don't have that problem. This, in a space with no physical form, with no laws enforcing accomodations!
There has to be some kind of forcing function in there. Some kind of way to get people to just fucking listen. Right now, enforcement is up to private citizens that can afford it, but imagine what the costs to both the disabled and the owners would be if it was part of the building codes:
- The disabled would have a much harder route because now the entire city beuracracy is involved, from inspectors to city enforcement, which can lead to institutionalized ignorance and lack of enforcement.
- The owners now have much higher upfront costs to build a place of business because of the extra beuracracy involved (inspections, building code, etc).
Yes, what we have right now is not 100% ideal. Yes, we should probably figure out how to make it work better. But should we repeal it or limit it? Fuck no. Its the only legal tool we have right now, and shitty as some of the outcomes are, half the problem isn't the law or the disabled person using it: its the business owner willfully ignoring the law of the land.
"Reasonable accommodations" means different things to different people. The only solution is for the law to define what is reasonable but that wouldn't have worked politically--set the bar high and people would see it's crazy, set the bar low and the disability advocates would have demanded more. Thus we got a compromise that's basically the worst of both worlds.
There is also the "reasonable person" test which has been the basis for a huge amount of the body of law that we have already.
Please, read the law or the excerpts that have been posted in this comment thread -- it is not an onerous law. The crap the cities and states pile up on top to make things harder (ie: requiring a building to be up to code before allowing an ADA accommodation building permit to be issued) are half the problem. The business owners are the other half for sticking their fingers in their ears.
See also this link and the links embedded regarding "readily achievable": https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12182
Did you read the case? It looks like the university created content that was not accessible but claimed they had followed the law! No wonder they got sued. They were repeatedly and flagrantly _not even following their own compliance guidelines_! For 50000 hours, at $60/hr, that's $3MM...a fraction of what the DoJ investigation would cost them in legal fees alone. And that's retail rates for humans. I'm sure a smart Berkeley grad student could write up a DL model to transcribe at > 90% accuracy.
They are a public institution and using deaf/hard of hearing people's tax dollars without giving them equal access is unconscionable. Not to mention, having a transcript/subtitle benefits everyone (like closed captions in places where you can't blare audio...)
... says the man who isn't disabled.
In all honesty? I'd rather devote the resources to helping disabled people function fully (or near-fully) again. But that in of itself is sort of wishful thinking.
ADA is the lowest common denominator. Its not asking for you to rebuild a whole building -- it asks for reasonable concessions to be made -- and its absolutely amazing how business owners go out of their way to make it harder on themselves and the disabled.
What I don't understand is this "line" that "must be drawn" I've seen from you and others: the point is to negotiate and find a compromise between the disabled and the owner within reasonable limits. The fact that businesses and public institutions are unwilling to play ball and throw their toys out of the pram every time this comes up is amazing and sad that it even comes to that point. Usually because upfront investment in the material/business is smaller and usually beneficial for everyone in the long run!
In TFA, crema bought the location years after ADA was already law. The fact that it became a risk to them now is unsurprising, and the fact that they're closing that location is sad for both parties.
The fact that it's also possibly a predatory lawsuit is also sad, and I hope something that can be rectified -- but I'm also not surprised to hear of such high numbers of lawsuits over the problem, given how old the law is now, and given how many places I have been to in the valley that don't have ramps.
You can probably walk more than 1000 feet without serious pain. I can't, but you can't tell outwardly until I'm sitting on the ground in tears because of the pain.
This line of reasoning is why finding a disabled parking spot when I need one is an act in frustration -- usually because people who don't need it park there because "it'll just be a minute, and there aren't that many handicapped people out there..."
You can walk that extra distance. To me, that extra distance determines whether or not I can finish my day in a little pain, or have to stop early because it hurts too much.
Nobody is arguing for all possible concessions to be made. That's a straw man you created yourself.
It's a false dichotomy to argue that accessible buildings can't be charming. It simply must be taken into account when designing them. It betrays an immense lack of empathy.