Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you disagree with other access mandates for handicap people or just this particular one?
This issue is not based on the answer to your question.
There's a much bigger picture here. Common sense, which I would assume those educated at Harvard, etc...have, dictate that businesses of public pools are run on very tight budgets, and so to require constant, new Regs. that cost so much that the pools will mostly have to shut down is nuts, and bordering on criminal.
Not agreeing or disagreeing on handicap accessible but seeing what they are really doing, and it is immeasurable harm.
I want to jump in here to counter the attacks many here are making against lawyers. It is true that many lawyers see laws such as this as a boon to their business. It is wrong however, to generalize all lawyers as bad because a small minority abuses the letter of the law for profit.
I have a special distaste for the lawyers who, in the name of upholding the ADA, go to small businesses - places where the attorney knows the proprieters of will not be able to afford fighting a tort case in court - finds some violation of the ADA(such as no handicapped restroom) and proceeds to win a judgment in favor of their "client" - shutting down the snall business in the process - since they can't pay the judgment - let alone fight the case or install the bathroom.
The vast majority of lawyers, I believe, are honest, ethical, individuals who will certianly advocate for a client with a legitimate grievance, but who shoud not be lumped in with the "attorneys" who seek out such cases simply to line their pockets.
The lawyers who do defend clients wronged by such laws and do so honestly are not at fault - they are just working in the confines of what the law says. It is the legislators to whom your ire should be addressed if you are upset that people are run out of business by the enforcement of laws like the ADA.
"Last week, news was made as today’s deadline approached for commercial and municipal swimming pool owners to install means, by which disabled swimmers could enter the nation’s swimming pools. Today, this regulation was supposed to go into effect, opening up the owners to $100,000 fines as well as trial lawyer liability. However, thanks to the kindness of the Justice Department, existing pools now have until January 2013 to comply. Purchase and operation of these mechanical arms or “elevators” that lower people into the pool cost northward of $10k."
About that Justice Department "kindness" -- do you think the extension to 2013 has anything to do with 2012 being the summer before the presidential election?
Because who is going to be hurt by yet another regulation from the Obama administration if motels, apartment complexes, campgrounds and town/community pools can't come up with the money needed to comply and have to shut down their pools?
The small businesses will be hurt as people will opt for the places that can afford the apparatus required by the Obama administration regulation.
Poor kids will be hurt especially in the states with long hot summers.
You might even be hurt if you stay at motels or campgrounds.
As the article says, this one isn't going to impact the millionaires.
The Book-Cadillac Hotel here in Detroit has an annual revenue of $10-$20 million dollars. $10,000 for somthing that would benifit the disabled customers of your business, and also relieve the liability that you would occur if the disabled person injured thmselves entering your pool, would be a drop in the bucket.
It would also be a drop in the bucket for most taxpayer-funded pools and waterparks.
Some smaller places who shouldn't have had pools in the first place may have to close them, at least temporarily. I think most people however will live just fine with this regulation and forget about this hysteria. Many of the mainstream places already had the accomodations, the ones who don't but can afford them will add them.
Mom and dad can always turn on the sprinrkler or fill up their own personal pool if the kids want to get wet as wll.
"Last week, news was made as today’s deadline approached for commercial and municipal swimming pool owners to install means, by which disabled swimmers could enter the nation’s swimming pools. Today, this regulation was supposed to go into effect, opening up the owners to $100,000 fines as well as trial lawyer liability. However, thanks to the kindness of the Justice Department, existing pools now have until January 2013 to comply. Purchase and operation of these mechanical arms or “elevators†that lower people into the pool cost northward of $10k."
About that Justice Department "kindness" -- do you think the extension to 2013 has anything to do with 2012 being the summer before the presidential election?
Because who is going to be hurt by yet another regulation from the Obama administration if motels, apartment complexes, campgrounds and town/community pools can't come up with the money needed to comply and have to shut down their pools?
The small businesses will be hurt as people will opt for the places that can afford the apparatus required by the Obama administration regulation.
Poor kids will be hurt especially in the states with long hot summers.
You might even be hurt if you stay at motels or campgrounds.
As the article says, this one isn't going to impact the millionaires.
How much does it cost to pay some kid minimum wage to tip the wheelchair over?
Interesting that many people in this thread seem to think that pool accommodations are only for people in wheelchairs. That is not the case.
Quote:
Just over 6.8 million Americans living outside of institutions use assistive devices to help them with mobility. This group, which amounts to 2.6 percent of the non-institutional population, comprises 1.7 million wheelchair or scooter riders (0.6 percent of the population) and 6.1 million (2.4 percent of the population) users of other mobility devices, such as canes, crutches, and walkers (see Table 1). Canes are by far the most widely used mobility devices: 4.8 million Americans use them, or 70 percent of mobility device users.1 Walker use is reported by 1.8 million persons and crutches are used by 566,000 persons.
Yes, it's a game. People do purposely look for infractions and set people up for entrapment for these things just to sue and/or make a name for themselves. It hurts everyone, but until we change the system it's going to keep happening becasue some people can't see the big picture and think only of themselves. The battle cry for many these days seems to be "I don't care.." about anything but their own agenda.
Isn't the entitlement mentality in this country great?
Why should it cost me? I didn't vote for it through the association. Let the government pay for all of the upgrades. Nothing against handicapped people, but if the government wants to overregulate everything, and incur costs on the business, which in turn could force them out of business, then they should pay for it.
What makes the business owner "less" human, with less human rights? i.e the right to choose who to do business with?
Let me ask you ...
If you had a registered sex offender ... pedophile, convicted of a dozen counts of raping little boys .... and he just got out of prison and moved into your neighborhood, and your young son had a little neighborhood lawn mowing business ... would you feel good about the government mandating that your son is required to do business with the pedophile?
Let's say you own a print shop, and your neighbor, an unrepentant skin head, comes in and wants you to make his fliers ... you know, the one's disparaging black people and Jews and spreading hate to which he intended to post all over the community. Would you feel it was your right to not accept his business because you found it too disturbing and against your basic natural instincts and morality to participate in that hate mongering?
You see .... this is not about "reasons" ... this is about rights. There can be very good reasons or bad reasons why someone might refuse to do business with someone else, but the right to choose must be protected.
It's the same principle involved in boycotts, and how public pressure forces some rogue companies to behave more friendly. Just as you the individual have the right to choose not to do business with another person, they have just as much right to choose not to do business with you.
B-b-b-but the customer is always right don't ya know! Bulls***! I work in sales! The customer ain't always right!
"Last week, news was made as today’s deadline approached for commercial and municipal swimming pool owners to install means, by which disabled swimmers could enter the nation’s swimming pools. Today, this regulation was supposed to go into effect, opening up the owners to $100,000 fines as well as trial lawyer liability. However, thanks to the kindness of the Justice Department, existing pools now have until January 2013 to comply. Purchase and operation of these mechanical arms or “elevators” that lower people into the pool cost northward of $10k."
About that Justice Department "kindness" -- do you think the extension to 2013 has anything to do with 2012 being the summer before the presidential election?
Because who is going to be hurt by yet another regulation from the Obama administration if motels, apartment complexes, campgrounds and town/community pools can't come up with the money needed to comply and have to shut down their pools?
The small businesses will be hurt as people will opt for the places that can afford the apparatus required by the Obama administration regulation.
Poor kids will be hurt especially in the states with long hot summers.
You might even be hurt if you stay at motels or campgrounds.
As the article says, this one isn't going to impact the millionaires.
When I was a kid, swimmers in municipal and private pools, were not allowed to go into water that was above their waist, or dive off the boards, unless they showed proof that they had passed a swimming test. You were not allowed to wear swim fins or floatation devices as a substitute for swimming skills.
The life guards are sometimes responsible for 50+ kids in the pool, they need to know that they were not in danger of drowning. So how are they supposed to watch handicapped people who cannot pass the swim test, will they now have to allow flotation devices? How are they supposed to know which people are the handicapped swimmers, when everyone looks pretty much the same in the water? Where do they send their lifeguards to be trained to tend to handicapped swimmers and winches?
What makes the business owner "less" human, with less human rights? i.e the right to choose who to do business with?
Let me ask you ...
If you had a registered sex offender ... pedophile, convicted of a dozen counts of raping little boys .... and he just got out of prison and moved into your neighborhood, and your young son had a little neighborhood lawn mowing business ... would you feel good about the government mandating that your son is required to do business with the pedophile?
Let's say you own a print shop, and your neighbor, an unrepentant skin head, comes in and wants you to make his fliers ... you know, the one's disparaging black people and Jews and spreading hate to which he intended to post all over the community. Would you feel it was your right to not accept his business because you found it too disturbing and against your basic natural instincts and morality to participate in that hate mongering?
You see .... this is not about "reasons" ... this is about rights. There can be very good reasons or bad reasons why someone might refuse to do business with someone else, but the right to choose must be protected.
It's the same principle involved in boycotts, and how public pressure forces some rogue companies to behave more friendly. Just as you the individual have the right to choose not to do business with another person, they have just as much right to choose not to do business with you.
I agree. It's not like you are in the greeting card business, and two customers are requesting that you print the same exact greeting cards, and you refuse one customer's request because of their skin color or religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bulls***! I work in sales! The customer ain't always right!
