Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by derekp7 1556 days ago
A guy my Dad knew had a business, and the parking lot could hold about 4 cars (his, and 3 customers), all right in front of the door. He couldn't blacktop the lot, because if he did he'd have to paint a designated accessible-only parking spot, which actually would take up two spots. So he had to leave it as a gravel lot, which made it harder for wheelchair access.

It isn't that he was against accommodations, it just didn't make sense for that location where each spot was right by the door.

3 comments

Accessibility and building regs ironically combined to prevent a bookstore where I used to work from replacing a set of skinny, awkward, inward-opening doors which made the entire store a fire trap.

Why? Because state law required that any part of the building being modified be brought into compliance with modern building code. In this case:

- Replacing the doors with outward-opening doors would mean bringing the doorframe into compliance by widening it

- Widening the doorframe would mean widening the alcove into which it opens, and in a 19th-century masonry mid-rise every wall is structural

- Widening the door also means widening the short (3-4 steps) staircase leading up to it and bringing them into code by making them less steep

- Making the stairs less steep means they are now longer than the alcove and protrude beyond the property line onto the sidewalk

I read years ago that there was a minor industry of lawyers looking at satellite photos to find motels with a swimming pool, and then suing them for the pool not being ADA compliant.

The usual result was the pool got filled in, as it was too expensive to upgrade it.

Who came out ahead? Nobody but the lawyers.

"Actually helping people is bad" is an extremely attractive narrative that sticks very effectively. It is regularly used to resist all manner of useful systems from welfare to charitable giving to accessibility.

"I read years ago that _nonspecific_thing_" should be a red flag for making broad judgements about the merits of accessibility. One story about "welfare queens" poisoned millions of people against anti-poverty measures for generations.

> should be a red flag

I'm sorry I don't have a photographic memory. But hey, a simple google search comes up with:

"In California, serial plaintiffs and their lawyers have found these cookie-cutter lawsuits to be lucrative as plaintiffs can claim statutory damages, compensatory damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees."

https://hotellaw.jmbm.com/ada_defense_lawyer_pool_lift_l.htm...

Think of how much easier this process will be with websites. Just crawl and email legal threats. Lawyers will get paid again. Some tech people might even go along for the ride.
Who did pay those lawyers?
The lawyers settled with the motels for $$$.
I do not live in the USA so I'm woefully ignorant of US legal matters but how does a lawyer, having identified a breach of a federal law, then get a payment from the miscreant ? I mean the only way that comes to mind is to write to the offender saying "You're breaking the law but if you send me a cheque I won't tell anyone". For a lawyer in particular that doesn't strike me as a sustainable business activity !

So there's obviously something I'm missing here ... would you care to explain ?

The lawyer needs to find a person that has suffered as a result in order for the suit to be valid. So they team up with someone who is unable to use the facility as a result of it not being compliant. They sue, and split the money. Often, all that is needed is for the lawyer to demand compensation since it is far easier and cheaper to just offer them a few thousand dollars to settle than it is to hire a lawyer and figure it out in court.

The ADA is interesting because, to my understanding, the law asks for ‘reasonable’ accommodation without defining what that is. So it leaves it to the courts to decide. It is reasonable that new building should be completely wheelchair accessible. But is it reasonable for architecturally or historically significant sites to be modified for wheelchair accessibility? That’s where the lawyers come in.

Punitive damages, I'd think. "you weren't compliant now you have to pay x. Because lawyer y brought the suit, that lawyer gets the money"
The space being wider and the spaces being close to the door are two separate accommodations. Leaving it gravel leaves one solved (distance) and simply avoids the other (width) completely while ignoring that caused a 3rd (gravel if you do manage to get out). The guaranteed width is so there is a standard amount of space to exit the vehicle, see the drawing at https://www.ada.gov/restriping_parking/restriping2015.html

But yes it gets increasingly hard to have a good solution for everyone when there are so few spaces.