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.
You are correct--nothing is ever fair and equal. The intent is to try to make it as equal and accommodating as it can be so one does not have to become a shut in, which is how it used to before some concessions were made.
While it's a nice attempt to make it fair and equal.. the result is that it makes it so no one else will be able to go swimming in some areas where they can't afford the mandated regulation to make it fair and equal....
While it's a nice attempt to make it fair and equal.. the result is that it makes it so no one else will be able to go swimming in some areas where they can't afford the mandated regulation to make it fair and equal....
My question? Who is paying for it? What about someone who lives in a condo in a private community?
Look, I understand the municipal pool doing this. Its a public pool, the public should be able to enjoy it despite their means of entry.
But commercail pools? Really? If the YMCA wants to bar handicapped people from the pool, then it should be their right to do so. No one is banning anyone, but a private business owner can not always afford to break out the wallet for 50,000 in refurbs because the government says so. Handicapped spaces, ramps, and access should be mandatory for public buildings and facilities. But leave private owners the hell alone.
In many communities, the YMCA has the only pool around. The only possible exception I could see is for apartment complex/HOA pools. Even then, I'm not sure I would support that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modeerf
While it's a nice attempt to make it fair and equal.. the result is that it makes it so no one else will be able to go swimming in some areas where they can't afford the mandated regulation to make it fair and equal....
Sounds like an excuse to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The business owner pays taxes (probably more), then the handicapped person. So does that not entitle them to more input. It does under your thinking.
But that isn't how it works. It should be "my land, my business, my decision". As long as someone isn't breaking the law by dumping oil on their lawn, which hurts their neighbor, then it should be of no one elses business.
I know if I were handicapped, I'd much rather shop at someone who supports me by doing this willingly, then just have access everywhere.
Its not the governments place to mandate what private owners put in their shops. At least not in a free country.
And yes, if a private business owner wants to ban fat people, white people, asian people, blue eyed people, people wearing purple shirts, whatever, it should be their right.
Again, not on public land or buildings, those should be open to anyone. Just private.
I don't think you understand the public accomodations act, Mr. Paul.
Gee, ya think? Can you imagine the outrage of poor communities (a.k.a Obama's committed base) this summer if the municipal pools are closed and the kids without A/C in their homes have nowhere to cool off? Imagine Obama as the Grinch who took away their pools!
Now the question is who with ties to the federal government/Obama administration owns the corporation making the pool-lifts ?
Bingo!
(Access is already available at most pools through a manual type lift that requires assistance of staff; slightly less convenient but very doable.)
"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.
I wonder if this is the reason that I have noticed that more and more HOAs, apartment and condo developments are not installing pools. I thought it might be because of liability but this could be a reason as well. I notice very few new developments have pools these days and some of the older ones have closed their pools and filled them in. They used to be a common thing.
In many communities, the YMCA has the only pool around. The only possible exception I could see is for apartment complex/HOA pools. Even then, I'm not sure I would support that.
Sounds like an excuse to me.
I don't think you understand the public accomodations act, Mr. Paul.
The Y was just an example, and people can live without swimming. Its not a "must do" thing. Going to get your license at the court house is a must do, so accomidations can be made. This is where free enterprise kicks in. A pool won't let some people in, so you open another one that takes that business.
Not an excuse at all, its reality.
While I'm kind of touched you compared me to Ron Paul, I am not a supporter of his for the most part. I do understand the act you are speaking of, but to me its not fair to require public businesses shell out money to allow a very small percentage of people into their business, when in many cases, there was no desire to go there in the first place.
The business owner pays taxes (probably more), then the handicapped person. So does that not entitle them to more input. It does under your thinking.
But that isn't how it works. It should be "my land, my business, my decision". As long as someone isn't breaking the law by dumping oil on their lawn, which hurts their neighbor, then it should be of no one elses business.
I know if I were handicapped, I'd much rather shop at someone who supports me by doing this willingly, then just have access everywhere.
Its not the governments place to mandate what private owners put in their shops. At least not in a free country.
And yes, if a private business owner wants to ban fat people, white people, asian people, blue eyed people, people wearing purple shirts, whatever, it should be their right.
Again, not on public land or buildings, those should be open to anyone. Just private.
This is your opinion but not how the law operates. When you have a private business open to the public then you must abide by the law.
Laurac - why do all you RWNJ'S complain so loudly if the government tries to enforce a federal law? Handicapped persons pay municipal taxes and should have access to municipal facilities. Who knows you might be handicapped some day and appreciate the use of public facilities. I am continuously amazed by your self centered frugality and shortsightedness. You live for the now with no concern for the possibility of future hardship and apparently no empathy for the needs of others. You really represent you political and social compatriots very well. You and they are selfish, careless spoiled children that refuse to ever grow out of you little self centered world. I am very glad I am not you or anything like you.
This is your opinion but not how the law operates. When you have a private business open to the public then you must abide by the law.
I understand the law, but the law can be wrong, and unduely force business owners out of business to allow a few individuals access to a facility they may not have need to get into.
If someone is running a body shop, why should they have wheel chair access? They might serve, what, two, three people with wheel chairs in a year? Thats going to cost them 20,000 dollars to update their facility with bathrooms and wheel chair access?
It doesn't make sense. It would be nice to allow everyone, in every place. But the law of diminishing returns has to come in, somewhere.
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.
