bubblesthechimp said:

---

"Nobody (almost nobody) wants to ignore/mistreat the less fortunate.
"
Your condescension is palpable!

---

Sorry you perceive that, it was not what I intended.

I avoid using "nobody", "everyone" and such all inclusive terms. If I had written "Nobody wants to... " I'd've been called out on that. In truth, nobody would admit to such, and I think enough of people to think that only a sociopath would want to mistreat the unfortunate.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I like how he says the lawyer has a disabled person on his payroll that is creating lawsuits, but also says he is a decent person.

lawyers have definitely earned our horrible reputatio and it's amazing how many perpetuate the stereotype.

---

I can promise you that nobody on this board with half a brain would lump you in with the person you are referring to or any of the horrible lawyers out there.

87IE said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I like how he says the lawyer has a disabled person on his payroll that is creating lawsuits, but also says he is a decent person.

lawyers have definitely earned our horrible reputatio and it's amazing how many perpetuate the stereotype.

---

I can promise you that nobody on this board with half a brain would lump you in with the person you are referring to or any of the horrible lawyers out there.

---

So just the liberals then

waitwhat? said:

---

My biggest issue with the ADA is simply that there's no way to read the constitution and find any enumerated power for the federal government to tell local business how to construct their buildings to accommodate disabled people. It's just not there.

The spirit of the ADA is fine, and I wouldn't have an issue with Texas or cities/counties coming up with their own rules.

It just simply isn't a power of the federal government, and because of that it should be opposed. If you really believe it should be a federal law, then write to Congress to write and pass an amendment to grant the feds that power.

Until then, I'm going to oppose the ADA even if it helps some people (at the expense of others).

---

Exactly

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

When I was working outside of Austin, I had every protected class ever created or could be created come into my office. They were 100% trying to get discriminated against. We handled it as professionally as we could. The only shake-down letter we got was related to a person claiming to be both blind and deaf. His attorney claimed that we didn't make the necessary considerations. I guess we were supposed to have brail information available for just this one instance. Our attorney handled it and as far as I know nothing came of it.

The problem with our system is that the individuals and especially the attorneys are the ones seeking compensation. They should have to report it to the local government. They investigate and they should handle whatever the fines or remedies necessary under the law.

---

This outlines the big issue well. Basically legalized shakedowns. Clearly a value destroying process.

Not a surprised that a good chunk of politicians are lawyers and help create laws and regulations that allow for such behavior.

I build apartments. We jump through alot of ADA hoops that never get used

cecil77 said:

---

Unless you've been there (or are there) it's difficult to understand.

And note that you can make a correct comment and still be a dick about it.

And again, I'm for the power of the market. If able bodied people could see through the eyes of the disable and point out to business owners their inaccessibility, the market could improve things in a hurry. MOST owners love business and will do whatever they need to do to accommodated once their shortcomings are pointed out.

The dicks on the other side that attempt to monetize their (and others) disability by ticky tacky ADA litigation are a special kind of evil and actually do much more harm than good for the disables.

---

This is yet another instance where we have an amorphous problem and attempt to correct it with regimented bureaucracy. You said yourself it is difficult to explain unless you have experienced it. I am in complete agreement with that. It is also difficult to understand if you haven't experienced. I think most people recognize a challenge that is hard to define. So our response is to create a bunch of rules on things like ramp width and slope and door width and water fountain height and braille signs and curb paint sidewalk texture and countless other technical pints that are almost impossible to stay on top of.

The frustrating part is that we now see all this abused by people who may not need assistance (handicap hangtag abuse, etc. I don't know how many people I have seen in HEB on electric scooters who probably would have actually benefitted from walking) and abused by ambulance-chasing dirtbags cashing in on the nuances of these rules.

I remember when ADA passed thinking it may be excessive but noble cause by the government. Overall, I think it has been a net positive for the country, but no good government initiative goes un-abused.

Any of y'all ever had an ADA discussion/argument with people regarding a building inside of an industrial plant?

Let me tell ya, those are fun.

GeorgiAg said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

shack009 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I've defended a dozen of these cases and have two currently. These lawyers have a disabled person or two on the payroll and send them around to businesses to be "inconvenienced." The same lawyer and plaintiff have hit every liquor store in town.

If you fight these cases you lose. This lawyer is pretty decent. He will give you years to comply and won't make you do ridiculous things.

I have a great ADA expert and the lawyer would take anything he said as gospel. It's a scam but it gets things done and doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

---

What an odd post. "It's a scam, but it gets things done" is quite the sentence.

That lawyer is not decent if he has somebody he is sending around to every place in town so that he can sue them.

It doesn't cost taxpayers anything? You doing your defending for free, counselor?

---

A classic case of "it is free" when it is literally not free because it requires someone to pay a COST to comply. That cost either costs the taxpayer (business owner) and likely also the consumers (more taxpayers) in the way of higher cost of goods for the business owner to recoup costs. Or in this case the COST of not having a restaurant people enjoyed.

I am just baffled at how economically illiterate people are to think that because they don't directly experience a transaction the cost = $0 to them.

---

If you don't have ADA lawsuits then you'd have government inspectors/prosecutors on taxpayer dime. This is more efficient. I know it sucks for the business but the alternative is what? A big f you to the disabled?

I agree there are some regulations that are ridiculous. But a handicap ramp isn't one of them. I also represented a disabled lady who broke her ankle trying to exit a bathroom at a Toyota dealership because the door was set with way too forceful of a closing mechanism. What is she supposed to do? Piss herself?

She was disabled because her ex husband shot her in the back.

---

This is just amazing lawyering. "You have to have crazy big government laws so that you have lawsuits instead big government."

JB said:

---

I build apartments. We jump through alot of ADA hoops that never get used

---

Oh you would be dead wrong about that.

Most disabled people I've been in contact with are in apartments due to easier access to public services/neighbors that can help. If you're disabled and single, you're almost certainly in an apartment. Not to mention that it's far cheaper to get an ADA apartment than to renovate a house to make it suitable.

As someone who's disabled myself (not wheelchair) I've used the ADA apartments several times.

I've handled two ADA lawsuits, one on each side. Both for clients I was doing other stuff with and took their cases at the client's insistence. Even tho they knew I knew nothing about the ADA. It's ironic because our office was in an historic building right off the main road in town. Buildings on both sides of the road were right on top of the road because the buildings and the original road were built before cars were a thing. When the road was expanded for cars it left no room for a full sized sidewalk and we just had a big, old brick staircase into the building. We couldn't have accommodated wheelchairs if we tried.

First client was a wheelchair-bound guy who rented an apartment, showed up on moving day, and they put him in a non-compliant apartment. He couldn't even get to the door because there were two steps. Then they tried to sue him for non-payment when he refused to move in. That was a pretty slam dunk case on my end. Their lawyer settled and gave us everything we wanted (our demands were reasonable) pretty quickly when my client rolled into court.

Second was an employee who didn't want to come back to work so he sued saying the office wasn't accessible. We showed his attorney the pictures of their huge ramp out front and how 2/3 parking spaces were reserved for handicapped parking and never heard from the employee or his attorneys again.

aggiejayrod said:

---

First client was a wheelchair-bound guy who rented an apartment, showed up on moving day, and they put him in a non-compliant apartment. He couldn't even get to the door because there were two steps. Then they tried to sue him for non-payment when he refused to move in. That was a pretty slam dunk case on my end. Their lawyer settled and gave us everything we wanted (our demands were reasonable) pretty quickly when my client rolled into court.

---

What is important to notice in this case is that the product that the business was selling: an apartment, wasn't accessible to the individual. That is an obvious good use.

A case where a food joint doesn't make it so you can get to a bar area or even enter the building (as long as an employee is willing to take your order and deliver your food thus the product being sold is still available) is not a terrible use of the law. Especially if the customer only went there for the purpose of finding the issue.

I just changed out 7 doors in a clubhouse I am almost done with because there was only 9" of flat surface at the bottom of the craftsman style doors instead of the required 10". Dumb.

BigRobSA said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

My biggest issue with the ADA is simply that there's no way to read the constitution and find any enumerated power for the federal government to tell local business how to construct their buildings to accommodate disabled people. It's just not there.

The spirit of the ADA is fine, and I wouldn't have an issue with Texas or cities/counties coming up with their own rules.

It just simply isn't a power of the federal government, and because of that it should be opposed. If you really believe it should be a federal law, then write to Congress to write and pass an amendment to grant the feds that power.

Until then, I'm going to oppose the ADA even if it helps some people (at the expense of others).

---

Exactly

---

You are confusing the Americans Disabilities Act of 1990 for a building code amendment. It is not, it is about discrimination.

PabloSerna said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

My biggest issue with the ADA is simply that there's no way to read the constitution and find any enumerated power for the federal government to tell local business how to construct their buildings to accommodate disabled people. It's just not there.

The spirit of the ADA is fine, and I wouldn't have an issue with Texas or cities/counties coming up with their own rules.

It just simply isn't a power of the federal government, and because of that it should be opposed. If you really believe it should be a federal law, then write to Congress to write and pass an amendment to grant the feds that power.

Until then, I'm going to oppose the ADA even if it helps some people (at the expense of others).

---

Exactly

---

You are confusing the Americans Disabilities Act of 1990 for a building code amendment. It is not, it is about discrimination.

---

Only in the most extreme stretch of the word "discrimination". The ADA is a very good example of people wanting to do a good thing, but using the point of a gun that is government to attempt to accomplish it. For most things government is the worst possible method.

The free market isn't going to be putting these ramps in place, or making any sort of adjustments on their own. The market is too small to get any sort of return. Hence the need for the government to step in.

So take your pick litigation, or a beefed up inspection process.

Bubblez said:

---

The free market isn't going to be putting these ramps in place, or making any sort of adjustments on their own. The market is too small to get any sort of return. Hence the need for the government to step in.

So take your pick litigation, or a beefed up inspection process.

---

Exactly. The first costs the business. The second costs the business and taxpayers. The ADA plaintiff lawyers will be cost effective and efficient. The government is, well, the government.

Ugh. Funny this thread pops up now. I handled a case two years ago. We settled and the client liquor store agreed to put in a handicap ramp. He had two years to do it and didn't do it. I guess the case is opening back up.

This is the dude I always have to deal with. They tried to sue him in 2019 or so for this. I think they lost.

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/crusade-scam-businesses-fight-back-against-serial-ada-lawsuits/uRpNb8wV4Zxjh3vD1YlBfI/

Quote:

---

Behind the numbers is either an all-out fight for civil rights or an unethical attempt to wring out quick settlements from small businesses who decide it's cheaper and easier to pay Ehrlich than to fight him. A class action lawsuit targeting the firm filed last month in federal court in Atlanta may sort that out.
The lawsuit accuses Ehrlich, a business associate, and several of Ehrlich's more prolific clients of running an organized criminal campaign to squeeze small, largely minority-owned businesses with no real motive to make them more accessible to the disabled.
"Mr Ehrlich is using the system and filing drive-by lawsuits against small business owners who don't have the means to hire lawyers," said Hassan Elkhalil, the Cobb County attorney suing Ehrlich. "They want a quick settlement. They get the settlement and don't even follow up on the violations."

---

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/news/2017/07/14/austin-attorney-suspended--accused-of-filing-frivolous-ada-lawsuits-against-local-businesses

Worse than an ambulance chaser. Glad one got some actual pushback.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

The free market isn't going to be putting these ramps in place, or making any sort of adjustments on their own. The market is too small to get any sort of return. Hence the need for the government to step in.

So take your pick litigation, or a beefed up inspection process.

---

Exactly. The first costs the business. The second costs the business and taxpayers. The ADA plaintiff lawyers will be cost effective and efficient. The government is, well, the government.

---

I don't agree.

Give a business a personal reason to accommodate and most will. The government (most especially at the federal level) does NOT need to step in. It's an educational process.

Bubblez said:

---

The free market isn't going to be putting these ramps in place, or making any sort of adjustments on their own. The market is too small to get any sort of return. Hence the need for the government to step in.

So take your pick litigation, or a beefed up inspection process.

---

This could also be an instance where a (state/local) tax break for a business to implement ADA measures would be better than a mandate to do it. Provide them an incentive/help to become more disabled friendly and many businesses will choose to, especially since they could wear it as a "badge of honor."

And then allow property owners to still make the choice to not be accessible to everyone if they want to (especially when it just doesn't make sense to them), without penalizing them for it.

shack009 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I've defended a dozen of these cases and have two currently. These lawyers have a disabled person or two on the payroll and send them around to businesses to be "inconvenienced." The same lawyer and plaintiff have hit every liquor store in town.

If you fight these cases you lose. This lawyer is pretty decent. He will give you years to comply and won't make you do ridiculous things.

I have a great ADA expert and the lawyer would take anything he said as gospel. It's a scam but it gets things done and doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

---

What an odd post. "It's a scam, but it gets things done" is quite the sentence.

That lawyer is not decent if he has somebody he is sending around to every place in town so that he can sue them.

It doesn't cost taxpayers anything? You doing your defending for free, counselor?

---

GeorgiAg sounds like an attorney or works in government or is an attorney representing government

Going after small retailers and restaurants is where I think this gets abused.

If you have an employee with a disability that you accommodate, there is an expectation you will get a return on that investment.

On the other hand if you're a small retailer the law says you MUST accommodate regardless of any disabled patrons buy from you or not. The government compels you to make the invest for customers who may or may not buy anything from you.

It is kind of a beat down.

GeorgiAg said:

---

I've defended a dozen of these cases and have two currently. These lawyers have a disabled person or two on the payroll and send them around to businesses to be "inconvenienced." The same lawyer and plaintiff have hit every liquor store in town.

If you fight these cases you lose. This lawyer is pretty decent. He will give you years to comply and won't make you do ridiculous things.

I have a great ADA expert and the lawyer would take anything he said as gospel. It's a scam but it gets things done and doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

---

****, lol. Yeah... that business owner isn't passing those costs to the consumer.

Typical lib reasoning

waitwhat? said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

The free market isn't going to be putting these ramps in place, or making any sort of adjustments on their own. The market is too small to get any sort of return. Hence the need for the government to step in.

So take your pick litigation, or a beefed up inspection process.

---

This could also be an instance where a (state/local) tax break for a business to implement ADA measures would be better than a mandate to do it. Provide them an incentive/help to become more disabled friendly and many businesses will choose to, especially since they could wear it as a "badge of honor."

And then allow property owners to still make the choice to not be accessible to everyone if they want to (especially when it just doesn't make sense to them), without penalizing them for it.

---

Oh wait, that actually makes sense and doesn't allow government types to beat their chests about how compassionate they are.

There is ALWAYS a market/community based solution to societal issues that is superior to a governmentally mandated one.

nm

deddog said:

---

shack009 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I've defended a dozen of these cases and have two currently. These lawyers have a disabled person or two on the payroll and send them around to businesses to be "inconvenienced." The same lawyer and plaintiff have hit every liquor store in town.

If you fight these cases you lose. This lawyer is pretty decent. He will give you years to comply and won't make you do ridiculous things.

I have a great ADA expert and the lawyer would take anything he said as gospel. It's a scam but it gets things done and doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

---

What an odd post. "It's a scam, but it gets things done" is quite the sentence.

That lawyer is not decent if he has somebody he is sending around to every place in town so that he can sue them.

It doesn't cost taxpayers anything? You doing your defending for free, counselor?

---

GeorgiAg sounds like an attorney or works in government or is an attorney representing government

---

I'm representing the businesses. I don't defend for free but I try to save them money by fighting the B.S. claims. I also try to make clear not to fight on issues you will lose in court. Less money for me but better for the client. The case I'm dealing with now we pushed back on the garbage claims and got the plaintiff to cave. For example, my expert wrote:

Quote:

---

The last set of complaints deal with the restroom. The restroom and the accessible route to the restroom are too small for wheelchair access and there is no way too make them larger that is "readily achievable".

Complaint Number b-ii: The restroom lacks an ADA compliant sign.

This complaint has no basis. There is no need for an ADA accessible sign if the restroom is not an accessible restroom and it is not readily achievable to make it so.

Complaint Number b-iii: The restroom door hardware requires twisting of the hand.

People not in a wheelchair might have a problem with this so the hardware should be changed to a lever handle with a pushbutton locking device.

Complaint Number b-iv: Lavatory faucet has handles that require twisting of the hand.

Change the faucet to one that has lever handles.

Complaint Number b-v: The lavatory has exposed pipes that need to be insulated.

This complaint has no basis. This is a requirement for wheelchair patrons, but in this case wheelchairs cannot enter the room so the insulation is not necessary.

Complaint Number b-vi: There are no grab bars on the walls near the toilet.

The bars should be installed because some non-wheelchair persons have hard time getting up and down.

---

This sucks for the business owner, but it is what it is. The idea of a tax incentive is a good idea, but with some people you need the stick, not the carrot.

If you think the ADA shouldn't exist at all, you lack empathy. This is not something the free market will solve. There are not enough handicapped people to move the needle on profit/loss to get this done. It costs businesses money, but if you don't like it, talk to your Congressman.

GeorgiAg said:

---

If you think the ADA shouldn't exist at all, you lack empathy. This is not something the free market will solve. There are not enough handicapped people to move the needle on profit/loss to get this done. It costs businesses money, but if you don't like it, talk to your Congressman.

---

I don't think the ADA should exist at all. If anything, it should be up to the states to handle. And I disagree this is something the free market couldn't solve. For one, you are arbitrarily deciding there's a problem that needs solving. Moreover, to the extent there is a problem, I think you are drastically underestimating the desire of most small businesses to make their customers feel welcome and at ease.

So go ahead . . . tell me I lack empathy. "Empathy" has no place in federal policy and gets us into trouble every damn time.

_mpaul said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

If you think the ADA shouldn't exist at all, you lack empathy. This is not something the free market will solve. There are not enough handicapped people to move the needle on profit/loss to get this done. It costs businesses money, but if you don't like it, talk to your Congressman.

---

I don't think the ADA should exist at all. If anything, it should be up to the states to handle. And I disagree this is something the free market couldn't solve. For one, you are arbitrarily deciding there's a problem that needs solving. Moreover, to the extent there is a problem, I think you are drastically underestimated the desire of most small business to make their customers feel welcome and at ease.

So go ahead . . . tell me I lack empathy. "Empathy" has no place in federal policy and gets us into trouble every damn time.

---

Yup, who get's to hold the stick and decide to use it? You?

_mpaul said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

If you think the ADA shouldn't exist at all, you lack empathy. This is not something the free market will solve. There are not enough handicapped people to move the needle on profit/loss to get this done. It costs businesses money, but if you don't like it, talk to your Congressman.

---

I don't think the ADA should exist at all. If anything, it should be up to the states to handle. And I disagree this is something the free market couldn't solve. For one, you are arbitrarily deciding there's a problem that needs solving. Moreover, to the extent there is a problem, I think you are drastically underestimated the desire of most small business to make their customers feel welcome and at ease.

So go ahead . . . tell me I lack empathy. "Empathy" has no place in federal policy and gets us into trouble every damn time.

---

If you don't pay me a million dollars a year from federal tax dollars to explore Mesopotamian lesbian dance theory then you lack empathy. Don't you understand that I'll never be able to get a job using that degree?

_mpaul said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

If you think the ADA shouldn't exist at all, you lack empathy. This is not something the free market will solve. There are not enough handicapped people to move the needle on profit/loss to get this done. It costs businesses money, but if you don't like it, talk to your Congressman.

---

I don't think the ADA should exist at all. If anything, it should be up to the states to handle. And I disagree this is something the free market couldn't solve. For one, you are arbitrarily deciding there's a problem that needs solving. Moreover, to the extent there is a problem, I think you are drastically underestimated the desire of most small business to make their customers feel welcome and at ease.

So go ahead . . . tell me I lack empathy. "Empathy" has no place in federal policy and gets us into trouble every damn time.

---

The State of Texas has their own Accessibility Standards (which are based on the ADA). Several other states have their own enforceable standards as well.