Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!360!1.13!Curtis.Oglesby
From: Curtis.Oglesby@p13.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org (Curtis Oglesby)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: ADA
Message-ID: <12207@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jun 90 19:12:37 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Curtis.Oglesby@p13.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:360/1.13 - Augusta Forum, North Augusta SC
Lines: 34
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 8636

 JC>        The average shopper parks in the h/c slot because many
 JC> times it is unused and abused.  Ten percent of the parking spaces
 JC> are set aside for the h/c and less than 1% of the licensed
 JC> drivers are classified as disabled.

I understand your point, Joe, but ten percent?  A bit exaggerated,
don't ya think?

 JC>        When the bill will require a small business employer to
 JC> make $200,000 worth of additional renovations even if he doesn't
 JC> employ the disabled there is going to be loud protests and many
 JC> court battles.

I'm sure that the details can be worked out.  But, if the law is
not implemented carefully, I agree that the kind of backlash that
you've been describing is certainly possible, or even likely.  I'd
expect to see a requirement for a certain level of
accessibility/accomodations in new facilities and then a
requirement for a case-by-case review for existing facilities.
This procedure has been used by the federal government and its
contractors for years.  For example, when I was hired into civil
service by the Army, the building was completely non-accessible.
The necessary accomodations were made for me at that time.  But,
any new facilities that are built are accessible.  It'll work if
pragmatism is the approach.  Of course, public buildings are
another matter.

Curt

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!360!1.13!Curtis.Oglesby
Internet: Curtis.Oglesby@p13.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org